UPDATE: Politico's Smith claimed "cowards" line "was tongue in cheek" -- but few readers seemed to get joke
Politico senior political writer Ben Smith posted an update to his April 9 Politico.com weblog entry, claiming that he was being "tongue in cheek" when he asserted, as Media Matters for America noted, that Fox News can "confirm to its viewers that Democrats are ... cowards" after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) declined to participate in a presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.
Smith wrote:
UPDATE: I've gotten some emails wondering whether the "confirm" line above was tongue in cheek. Um, yes. This is a win for Fox in the sense that it gives the channel more fodder for its base, not in the sense that (did people really read it this way?) that it confirms the ultimate and essential truth that all Democrats are cowards. (Do I need to flag that as a joke too?)
However, it would appear that several readers did, in fact, interpret his entry as "confirm[ing] the ultimate and essential truth that all Democrats are cowards," judging from the comments they posted in response to Smith's weblog post.
For example, reader "jonsey" opined:
Liberals will only appear on venues where their scripts are accepted beforehand. No hard questions, nonsensical anwsers [sic] abound. Hillary screens all of her appearances to be rid of any free-thinkers that might ask her a question that cannot be answered by her BS cliche-speak. Cowards -- all of them. No wonder Al-Queda [sic] and the rest of th [sic] jihadists vote Democrat!
An anonymous reader commented:
See? A woman can be just as cowarldy [sic] as a man! I am woman, hear me ROAR!!! Thank you, Madam Hillary....
Reader "Shanester" similarly chimed in:
If she can't go on (or take on) Fox News. How will she ever take on Iran or terrorist organizations? Answer: She can't. Coward.
Although I believe the Democrats are making a big mistake by ignoring FOX, its not being a "Coward" . It is just caving into extreme people who despite the audience FOX has seem to want to make a political statement.
Fox is a sham - equivalent to Pravda - a source of disinformation and propaganda. They do not deserve recognition as a legitimate news source, because they are not. No amount of complaining by right-wing partisan hacks should sway the substance (or location) of real debate.
Just to play Devils Advocate does that mean that FOX should be disbanded? Should the FOX Network also cease to exist?
If congress doesn't bring back the fairness doctrine, then yes, disband Fox. They have no right making baseless assertions and then allowing them to go unchallenged.
I would agree with you, but would also want MSNBC banned.
I'll go so far as to say ban any newschannel that operates as described.
As long as MSNBC has Imus on the air, and Chris Matthews than yes they are doing that.
People, get ready, there's a new day a-comin' . . .
and it's name is MORA
Solves the problem by breaking up the Corporate Media Oligopoly - whether you like that with Fairness Doctrine, or without!
just... beautiful! Thanks for the link!
Now that's censorship, front and center.......at least you're honest about it.
It's just too bad that when you can't compete in the marketplace, you resort to trying to get something banned.
Tommy - your point about 'competition' (which we hear all too often by many who frequent this site)... still evades the real issue. That is, what should be considered a legitimate 'news' source? Personally, I believe there should be standards of accountability (i.e. if you call yourself 'fair and balanced', 'news', etc... you should then cite sources and be responsible with the information you disseminate).
If not, then FOX should have the same disclaimer we see before any episode of SouthPark.
You act like poor old Fox would lose their right to free speech, with that censorship talk.
Television is a product that is being sold. And we don't allow misrepresentation in any other products. That's illegal. Why should it be different for this one, especially for a vendor whose product is (supposedly) information?
You make a great point, neondesert. Not everything is a free speech issue. That would be akin to Pepsi claiming their product cures cancer. It would be insane for Pepsi to assert that preventing them from making this claim violates their right to free speech. Even if it were a free speech issue, corporations are not people in the constitutional sense, meaning they are not guaranteed the same rights as citizens. There's absolutely no possible way that a debate held on Fox News could be presented without a conservative spin, although we know they would have us believe everything is "Fair and Balanced." If Fox just came out and told the truth, that this debate would be a Dem-bashing orgy, no one would have a problem with Fox's credibility. It's when they start to pretend they aren't run by politically-driven, arch neo-conservatives that they cease to be legitamate.
It's funny how Faux News and it's viewers believe that every other media outlet has a liberal bias. It's especially funny given that Fox itself has been deliberately brash about it's own conservative bias. As a general rule, if you're the only one that's right, in your own little world, then you're probably wrong.
I have to applaud Tommy for his resiliency. It would be one thing if he were right on occasion, but to continue to mix it up in the lion's den while being consistently wrong shows some guts, I guess.
Dorris - Again, FOX should be allowed to play their little games, act hauty and pompous... whatever. It is tantamount to cheesy entertainment... But, do they deserve to be treated like a legitimate news source? A part of legitimate debate where lives and dollars count? As in science, there are rules that should be followed - i.e. make assertions based upon fact, report the truth, etc. If one fails to follow the 'scientific method' you will be laughed out of any hall where you attempt to present results based upon false data. Period.
Without adhering to some modicum of profesionallism and/or ethics/morality -- which they do not... FOX deserves little attention. And, that goes for MOST (if not all) of the cable 'news' outlets. It is entertainment disguised as 'news'. FOX has shiny graphics and loudmouthed anchors. But, that's no reason to offer them a say in, well... anything.
They aren't ignoring Fox. They're actively rejecting them.
Again not supporting FOX, just making the point of the audience they have. Also is MSNBC Legitimate? Even though since 1996 they have simulcast a racist , bigot who spews the most vile hate on main stream media television. No one seems to be saying we wont go on MSNBC unless they fire Imus.
As of now msnbc is no longer simulcasting the show. I do think the difference btw the two is the context of the network. Fox context is not fair and balanced and they claim to be that. I don't think of them as legitmate at all. Especially when my fave BOR does a series of shows on the blowhards in the industry that should not have airtime. That is his term by the way. That to me demonstrates how wacky they are.
MSNBC has some questionable shows and when they step over the line it is our responsibility to let them know that is not acceptable. Remember we do have some say in this.
So, if the Dems won't face "FOX", how can they face the terrorists?
Do these rightwing nutjobs REALLY mean to equate FOX with hostile and dangerous terrorists? As much a threat?
Terrorists can be faced and defeated, using smart and precision military strikes. If FOX could be addressed the same way, I'm sure the Dems might reconsider.
Alas, FOX faces no possibility of any peril in this situation ... which makes THEM the cowards.
Well Tex we could always take out Fox"News" with "using smart and precision military strikes" too, just like the terrorists.
Maybe a few fly overs by the air force will scare BOR enough he would tell the truth?
I for one am glad they said no to Fox. I do not have cable TV. I won't be able to see the debates unless they are broadcast at the sports bar I go to to watch Monday Night Football.
And now I know that the right wing talking points are still working on the soft brained "dittoheads" around the country. Yes, because taking on terrorists and debating are the same thing. Jeesh. Will these folks ever actually learn to think for themselves? Sadly, I think not.
i have the perfect illustration of your point. i went to the politico/smith link to check out the comments and found this in a comment posted at 535pm today: "btw, clinton was in office when the following bombing occured and he didn't actively search out those responsible/try to bring them to justice even after osama bin ladin took credit: bombing of the world trade center [1993]. bombing of the uss cole [2000]...". in fact, the 9-11 commission [page 71-72] said this of the 93 bombing: "president bill clinton ordered his national security council to coordinate the response. government agencies swung into action to find the culprits....the fbi and the justice dept. did excellent work investigating the bombing....as a result of the investigations and arrests, the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals". and the cole only came at the very end of clinton's presidency and the al-qaida connection was not discovered until he was leaving. but what was the response by bush? condi rice to the 9-11 commission on 4-8-04: "i do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the cole...". here's the kicker. the blogger who posted this false propaganda gave his handle as "a moment of realization". the sooner he "realizes" he's a right wing talking point parrot, the better off we all will be.
"Liberals will only appear on venues where their scripts are accepted beforehand. No hard questions, nonsensical anwsers [sic] abound. Hillary screens all of her appearances to be rid of any free-thinkers that might ask her a question that cannot be answered by her BS cliche-speak. Cowards -- all of them. No wonder Al-Queda [sic] and the rest of th [sic] jihadists vote Democrat!"
Funny. I seem to remember George W. Bush only letting people into his campaign events who would toss softball questions at him, no challenging questions, and in some cases just fawning praise over him during his campaign in 2000, and even more so in 2004. Talk about absence of free thinkers and all.
I am willing to bet that the person who posted the above quote can't tell us when was the last time Hillary went into an event where free and open questions weren't allowed. I wonder if the same person could tell us when was the last time Bush allowed free and open questions that he actually answered.
And I was also not aware that members of Al Qaeda could vote in the US and all.
When was the last time Hillary went into an event where free and open questions were allowed?
When was the last time President Bush went into an event where free and open questions were allowed?
When has Bush ever gone into an event where free and open questions were allowed?
Wasn't that the intake interview for the Nat Guard? (We know it wasn't the exit interview!)
I got an email this morning from MoveOn in which they provide a link to transcripts and audio of a town hall meeting where Hillary was a participant. So to answer your question of when was the last time Hillary went into an event where free and open questions were allowed: last night.
http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/iraq/report_back.html?id=10183-3692951-1i_Cvn&t=4
Sorry - while I was smugly watching "Crossing Jordan", already knowing the answer, you were diligently posting that answer. Then I jumped right back to the comment, and smugly posted it.
Then I read yours.
Wasn't that somewhat the point of the MoveOn Town Hall, April 10?
Magnolia, why even bother pointing that out at this point? The right-wingers have proven time and time again to be incapable of understanding both irony and hyposcrisy. How many times do you have to point out what should be obvious to a rational person?
It was words from mouth, Smithy... I can now confirm you are are a lying neocon nobody...
It's funny how irony escapes people. This guy called Dems cowards and when called on it... he's all. 'Oh, I was only joking.' I guess he only plays a tough guy on the internet.
Ceazy Annie defense- it was just a joke
Crazy Annie defense- it was just a joke
Yes, it needs to be flagged as a joke, because I can't see it. Where is the joke?
If it needs to be explained, at best, it wasn't funny. At worst, it wasn't a joke. I think this was the latter, and the writer is running for cover.
I love it when someone calls you a nasty name, then tries to buy off the schmuck tag by saying, "you didn't know I was only kidding?" I wonder when the last time Ben Smith was on the Imus show?
Fox has demonstrated for years they're only interested in one predetermined story line for any 'debate' or 'interview' and the White House has followed suit. Case in point during the 2004 election from my ancestral home: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1015-06.htm You gotta' love a President that squashes citizens trying to use the First Amendment.
Tongue in cheek or up Roive's ass?
"Tongue in Cheek" is the ultimate, cowardly comment. Have the balls to stand behind what you said or don't say it.
Benny is a disgrace on so many levels. How many stories did they get wrong in one week alone?
Two points. A) Hillary is not a liberal. B) Democrats still refuse to stand up to the neo-cons....but that's not from cowardice, that's from collaboration.
Why on earth would any Democrats want to bother with Fox? The Fox viewers aren't going to vote for them anyway, so what would be the point?
That would be like going on a show sponsored by the Enquirer.
No, wait, I don't want to insult the Enquirer. They actually have some real stories, and don't slant things for political reasons.
More like foot in mouth, or head up a--!