Fox News Versus Clinton/Obama - Fox Wins

Looking at this board with the following topics:

1. Who mostly determines the price of a gallon of gasoline in America?
2. MORE IMPORTANT than the steel-cage knife fight...
3. Michelle, the bitter First Lady
4. A group attack flame bait. I had no idea that such power could be had.
5. Hillary's Guidelines
6. If you hate Hillary... it's probably for all the wrong reasons
7. Has anyone else notice that "$30.00/month" is the new talking point with the Hillbots?
8. Keith Olbermann Isn't O'Reilly, He Just Plays Him on MSNBC
9. So Sam Nunn is being seriously considere for Obama's VP
10. Don't look now folks but a sex scandal erupting in Ohio could have

You wonder whether we really are in any position to criticize Fox News's failure to cover the issues when we ourselves simply spout off campaign talking points. Tonight, on Fox News, they spent about 20 minutes on Ayers, 10 minutes on Wright, and the rest on Baracks failure to appeal to "working class whites." The piece de resistance was Oliver North beating up on Combs with a picture of Ayers standing on the American flag.

Now, the naivette of Clinton supporters is that Fox would be giving Hillarya free pass if she were leading Obama. If Hillary was ahead, then replace Ayers with Marc Rich, and the roles would be reversed.

Of course, in that one hour Fox news program the night before the election, there was barely a mention of the Economy, the Iraq war, or Healthcare. Zip. So, millions of North Carolina and Indiana citizens who rely on Fox News may very well base their decision on Ayers and Wright. Hillary fans may celebrate, but assuming Hillary were to capture the Democratic nomination, what defense would she have when Fox news, which has a strong following among working class whites, begins hour long news programs directed towards attacking her?

You read this forum, with the numerous news stories cut and pasted without comment, which dwell on superfluous bs, and you wonder whether we as Democrats are really in a position to criticize Fox News.

THAT'S WHAT POLITICIANS DO

But not by much based on the most recent threads:

1. BREAKING: Hillary Surrogate Goes Off on Obama Surrogate!
2. What I can buy for $36.80
3. I Am Elite. I Am Not Elite. Which One Is It?
4. Here on DU Obama is already the nominee, will Obama be able to unite the party tonight?
5. Shocking revelation: the netroots doesn't represent the entire Democratic electorate.
6. Hillary and Role Reversal
7. Fail
8. Hillary backs off on gas tax break
9. Remember when I used to defend Hillary?
10. Whaah, waaah, waaah.

At least the gas tax is an actual proposal, and 2 out of 10 of the most recent threads pertain to it. The rest bear no relationship to (1) the war, (2) the economy, or (3) the environment. The $36.80 thread also does not mention that there is no assurance that this will actually be passed on to consumers by the oil companies.

Fox News, of course, spent most of a one hour news show last night displaying a photo of Ayers standing on an American flag, so perhaps Americans really don't care about (1) the war, (2) the economy, or (3) the environment. If it was Clinton leading, then Fox News would be spending one hour on snipers and Marc Rich.

In the end, Fox News wins as "Democrats" simply parrot the most recent talking points, which make no mention of: (1) the war, (2) the economy, or (3) the environment.

Is not the same as a message board where people come to rant. Apples and oranges.

Go to general discussion and LBN if you want more substance. DU is not just GD-P

"Is not the same as a message board where people come to rant. Apples and oranges."

If Fox News and DU are so different, why are the takes so similar? Is it really and apple to oranges comparison? Also, shouldn't there be more substantive discussion on the primary board regarding why the selection of each candidate is relevant to the voters in each state. I can understand some discussion regarding peripheral issues, but 9 out of 10 posts on this board is regarding Fox News stuff.

There are three big areas of concern: (1) the War, (2) the economy and (3) the enviroment. Doesn't the results of the primary campaign and general election directly effect these three areas, and should the impact of each candidate's proposals be the primary basis for a person to vote?

In 2000, many voters complained that there was not much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, as the campaign centered on Gore's appearances at a Buddist temple and related junk.

There are substantive differences even between Obama and Clinton, such as whether nuclear enargy would be a part of their respective energy policies. That seems significant to me, but instead I have to dive through each of their campaign sites to locate this difference.

But Fox claims objectivity (and apparently the Clinton campaign agrees)....I don't think you will find DUers claiming the same. We are honest about our biases....and this is primary season...the very worst of times for petty fighting around here. Most of us know that it comes with the territory and know that it is futile to try to control others.

As for your admonition of this community for what is chooses to fight about (because the threads you see are heavily weighted towards flame wars by nature of "kicking"), no one forced you to come here for "news", but once here, you see what is discussed. So choose to be here or don't.

Trying to badger this community for not discussing what you wish to talk about is the very definition of a Sissyphean effort. Like I said...other forums on this site are more substantive right now.

For the record, I am not against nuclear energy...provided it is done with a great deal of safety redundancy and proper waste management is implemented. We have worked ourselves too much into a corner for us to pass up on nuclear at this point...the return on the investment is very high, and we just do not have enough solar, wind, geothermal alternatives right now to make up for the hole fossil fuels would leave behind. Any alternative energy plan will have to be be multi-pronged by necessity.

What worries me is that DU is the choir, and Obama and Clinton supporters are preaching to the same choir. Nonetheless, despite having an audience that is pre-disposed towards both candidates, the posters on this board end up making the same sort of ad hominem attacks that fill the Fox News airwaves. Are people just venting or are the folks who are posting actually tryng to engage in any type of dialogue.

As a Democrat, the shrill nature of many of these posts worries me, because it makes me wonder how susceptible are normal folks to these types of campaigns. My take is that Fox News is going 24/7 with the focus on Wright, because it believes that such race baiting is effective. Of course, if Hillary was leading, Fox would be engaging in similar attacks on her.

What I wonder is whether it is still possible for Americans to make an informed choice on a candidate, since the mainstream media and even these internet forums are dominated by debates on side issues? I raised the nuclear example, because it was really difficult to find a discussion of each candidate's proposals. Indeed, it is the exception, rather than the norm to get a substantive story on the relationship between the policies a candidate endorses, and the issues facing most Americans. Most election coverage on TV consists entirely of pundits sitting around a table interpreting poll results.

It would be similar to trying to be an investor in a company who wants to look at the financials of the companies he is trying to invest in. However, instead of getting any analysis of the financials of the company, all the investor can find are technical analysts who spend time interpreting charts. These charts, of course, say nothing about the type of the business the company is engaged in or the company's financial situation.

I think voters are in the same predicament, since election coverage is now heavily tilted towards graph analysis, rather than a discussion of the differences between the candidates, particularly betweem McCain and Clinton/Obama.

The media has too much control over our electoral process, and it is reflected everywhere you look. Most Americans cannot shake the frame that envelopes their thinking. In fact, many are not even aware the frame is there.

You will find members here who are more amenable to a substantive discussion, but like I said, GD-P may not have a high concentration of it at this time, and the threads at the top are flame-wars, typically. These threads feature the same dozen or so DUers that seemed to be entertained taking vapid pot-shots at each other. Leave them to it.

I find myself spending time here trying to stop erroneous memes from taking root, mostly. Lots of lead trial balloons get vetted in a blog grind like this place.