Was it a mistake to say we pulled out of the Fox debate because of a joke...

instead of because Fox is not a legitimate news organization? Every news story now says the debate was cancelled because of an objection to Ailes's joke about Obama, which, if I understand correctly, was the reason given by Reid and the Nevada Party. Vile though the joke was (and I'm an Obama supporter), wouldn't it have been better to make the point that Fox is not a news organization but a vehicle for propaganda, and should not be moderating any political debate? Wasn't the nature of Fox "News" the objection to its sponsorship to begin with?

Were Reid and the Nevada Party caught, because they supported Fox's sponsoring the debate? Were they fearful of Ailes's implication that Dems couldn't stand up to tough questioning, a typical Fox/Ailes manufactured propagandist charge? Will people half paying attention ask themselves, can't Dems take a joke? And would they see us as standing up for a principle, and maybe learn something, if we'd hit Fox broadside for the fraud they are?

I hope not one Dem shows up on their programming.

call it a "joke".

That's what it was, it wasn't intended to be funny, the jokiness is merely cover for the snarkiness.

what it was, but I'm wondering about how the story is perceived by others. (Although I'm not sure it receieved that much press attention.)

That is the reason to pull out. Because they are not a legitimate news organization and have no credibility in the truth and integrity department. Why on earth would they not say that?

And no respectable politician should ever appear on that network. Especially not any Dems. Boycott Fox!

to open eyes about Fox News, similar to the way I think people are waking up now to Coulter.

Bill Clinton.

:rofl:

Obama wasn't even talking to Fox (meaning he wasn't going to participate either) and the netroots element was spiralling out of control (in their view) in favor of boycotting the event. Then comes Ailes' joke, and they have the perfect pretext to pull the plug. Give them credit for knowing when to pounce.

So, yes, it was wrong, and so was the idea of a Fox debate in the first place. But, in this case, two wrongs wound up making a right.

noone at fox is interested in a democratic debate.

The truth is, Fox News can "report" whatever they want. And when it works for us, we'll deal with them on our terms. But this campaign is about responsibility and accountability, and we need to send the message to Fox that if they want to be the corporate mouthpiece of the Republican Party more than they want to be an impartial news outlet, they shouldn't expect Democrats to play along.

As for Ailes' 'tough questioning,' I speculated as to what shape that questioning would take:

Add to that Roger Ailes' comments last week (Bill Clinton 'jokes,' Obama-as-terrorist 'joke'), and it's obvious that if this debate had actually taken place, there's no way in hell that any of them would have gotten a fair shake. The more likely outcome would have been along these lines - Obama being asked to 'react' to stories about his middle name (with said middle name included in the question), Hillary Clinton receiving questions about her husband and maybe a reference to that old chestnut, 'two for one' with Bill, Edwards being grilled about his house and Amanda Marcotte. Any question about Iraq would have wound its way around to some version of 'cut and run,' all would face questions about their connections with the 'angry Left Blogosphere' and demands to 'disavow' the 'extreme' netroots.

http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20070310163514393

That 'debate' would have been no more than a trap. The NV Dems needed a way out and they pointed to Ailes' comments - but Edwards nailed it way before they found the excuse they needed.

- as

to any Democratic candidate. But it was Reid and the party's response that was given as the reason in the MSM.

in the way eyes are opening about Coulter. When I've asked at a restaurant, for example, for the TV to be changed from Fox, waitresses look at me mystified. They have no idea why I have such an odd request; they have no idea what I'm talking about.

Who runs all these news outlets? Corporations. They serve the shareholders, and the shareholders do not equal the people at large. These corporations exist, first and foremost, to make a profit.

Sometimes the truth is not profitable. Sometimes the truth is downright unprofitable to the shareholders. This is probably why they would rather cover Anna Nicole Smith, a big ratings getter, than cover something "boring" like a failing public education system or collapsing inner-city neighborhoods.

it as a joke. The Obama-Osama switch is getting tiresome. Ailes's reference was a subtle attack on Obama and we threw it back in his face. Good for us.

the grassroots democrat campaign to dump fox news that started before the joke. we cost fox news increased ad revenue and prestige which is something they can never recover. what ever the motives and all the implications one thing is clear-we beat fox news and that`s why they are pissed

And it felt wonderful to hear that the debate was canceled, but the best part is my daughter seeing that if enough of us stand up we can make a difference.

Fox is not a legitimate news agency but a propaganda machine, and the so-called joke is plain evidence of that fact. Besides, it was way past time for Dems to quit taking Fox's crap like it was something that mattered.

and he reiterated that on his website.