Who is threatening a free press again?

[CitizenBBN]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc...-to-reconsider

Sorry, I keep forgetting, lol.

[Doc]

The problem is that Fox won't agree to give the candidates the questions prior to the debate.

[dan_bgblue]

DNC does not want a debate among it's candidates and have them put in a position to debate legitimate issues. They are seeking media outlets that will make sure the "debate" favors their chosen candidate and winds up being a nice pep rally for said candidate.

[ukpumacat]

The problem is that Fox won't agree to give the candidates the questions prior to the debate.

That's been done by both parties for years. Its a well known fact that Fox gave Trump his questions before the Fox debate.

I will say, I think this is a bad move. Its clearly a reaction to them seeing Fox become a "state media" for Trump. But its a poor decision. Chris Wallace is a legitimate journalist (one of the few at Fox). And I think doing this pushes the divide even further.

[ukpumacat]

DNC does not want a debate among it's candidates and have them put in a position to debate legitimate issues. They are seeking media outlets that will make sure the "debate" favors their chosen candidate and winds up being a nice pep rally for said candidate.

I don't agree. Most of the Dems like and respect Chris Wallace (who would do the debate). This is a way to "not reward" Fox for what it sees as them becoming state media for Trump (to a far more extreme degree than the mainstream media which has always leaned left).

[CitizenBBN]

DNC does not want a debate among it's candidates and have them put in a position to debate legitimate issues. They are seeking media outlets that will make sure the "debate" favors their chosen candidate and winds up being a nice pep rally for said candidate.

Exactly.

Like I said, so much for a free press. They think the "Fourth Estate" is there to prop up the Democratic party, not to act as another check and balance on BOTH parties. And by and large they are completely correct.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't agree. Most of the Dems like and respect Chris Wallace (who would do the debate). This is a way to "not reward" Fox for what it sees as them becoming state media for Trump (to a far more extreme degree than the mainstream media which has always leaned left).

No, it's a way to play home games instead of road games.

Everyone knows Fox is the conservative media outlet, and CNN/MSNBC and the networks are equally in the tank for the liberal side. The media is as split as it was in the days of Hearst and Pulitzer, and just like those days the parties are picking their platforms based on that friendly environment.

And the GOP does it too. There's a reason Trump gives live interviews to Fox and not others. It's the same thing, but just don't go claiming Trump is undermining the free press. Both parties are gleefully doing everything they can to fight that proxy battle in the media.

The only difference is the blinders are off again after some decades of the idea of an unbiased press. Now we're back to more 19th century to early 1900s press where papers were either Republican or Democratic down the line.


And I've had this debate for decades, but the networks lean every bit as hard left as Fox does right. No difference.

The reason those on the left don't see it is they are measuring from their side of the field, not from the middle IMO. the networks deal a LOT in selection bias, where they cherry pick the stories to cover, and that's the main part of their bias. There are lots of stories out there that would be pro-conservative (and pro libertarian) but they never ever cover those stories.

[ukpumacat]

Exactly.

Like I said, so much for a free press. They think the "Fourth Estate" is there to prop up the Democratic party, not to act as another check and balance on BOTH parties. And by and large they are completely correct.

Again, I just don't agree. If those three left Fox tomorrow and joined any other network (or started their own) and asked all of the exact same questions...they would allow it. This is to hurt Fox (which it likely won't).
I think its the wrong move...but I don't think it has anything to do with wanting softball questions.

[ukpumacat]

And I've had this debate for decades, but the networks lean every bit as hard left as Fox does right. No difference.

The reason those on the left don't see it is they are measuring from their side of the field, not from the middle IMO.

I just don't agree. I readily admit that most major news networks lean left. MSNBC does so more than CNN. But they certainly both do it.
The difference is this: CNN at least ATTEMPTS to be bipartisan. They have some very good conservative pundits on that I enjoy listening to. I love John Kasich and they just hired him. There were times that network killed Clinton and even times they went at Obama.
MSNBC is sort of becoming the anti-Fox. Meaning, they have seen the way Fox has risen by becoming so explicitly pro-Trump. So they have become just as explicitly anti_trump. And I can't stand watching their network.
CNN is subtle. Its there. But they have on plenty of people who support and defend Trump. And many of their shows regularly challenge liberal and democratic party candidates on all kinds of issues...Chris Cuomo especially.

Btw, on a very related topic...this is a great article on why so many conservative commentators won't go on the other networks. And its not because they are "so liberal". Its because when they do, other conservatives kill them on twitter and dig up dirt about them until they are run off: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...rently-1150548

[Catonahottinroof]

You mean CNN getting debate questions slipped via Donna Brazile to Hillary was an attempt to be bipartisan? Asking for a friend.....

I just don't agree. I readily admit that most major news networks lean left. MSNBC does so more than CNN. But they certainly both do it.
The difference is this: CNN at least ATTEMPTS to be bipartisan. They have some very good conservative pundits on that I enjoy listening to. I love John Kasich and they just hired him. There were times that network killed Clinton and even times they went at Obama.
MSNBC is sort of becoming the anti-Fox. Meaning, they have seen the way Fox has risen by becoming so explicitly pro-Trump. So they have become just as explicitly anti_trump. And I can't stand watching their network.
CNN is subtle. Its there. But they have on plenty of people who support and defend Trump. And many of their shows regularly challenge liberal and democratic party candidates on all kinds of issues...Chris Cuomo especially.

Btw, on a very related topic...this is a great article on why so many conservative commentators won't go on the other networks. And its not because they are "so liberal". Its because when they do, other conservatives kill them on twitter and dig up dirt about them until they are run off: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...rently-1150548

[ukpumacat]

You mean CNN getting debate questions slipped via Donna Brazile to Hillary was an attempt to be bipartisan? Asking for a friend.....

No...just that "CNN" didn't do it. Brazile was a DNC chair that was a commentator on CNN.
If we are trying to find examples of the networks being biased at different times...we will have the longest thread in history. Of course that happens. I posted that above. Just like Trump was leaked questions from Roger Ailes.
CNN fired Brazile over it. And think what you want, but I guarantee you they were pissed behind the scenes.

[Catonahottinroof]

No media is neutral....ever. Whether CNN was aware of it or not, what trust did exist was eroded by what was seen as a mainstream outlet at the time. That is what happens when you hire party insiders of either party...that is where CNN lost their objectivity. I’m not giving FOX a nod either, they are just the same on the other side of the isle.
Media should be no one’s friend. That’s no longer the case however.

[CitizenBBN]

Again, I just don't agree. If those three left Fox tomorrow and joined any other network (or started their own) and asked all of the exact same questions...they would allow it. This is to hurt Fox (which it likely won't).
I think its the wrong move...but I don't think it has anything to do with wanting softball questions.

You may persuade me, b/c certainly based on past performance they have no basis for thinking Wallace et al would be a problem.

So I do agree it is in part to simply be "anti-Fox". Wallace himself said today it was "Fox Derangement Syndrome", and I think there's a lot of truth to that. It's not a strategic decision, it's a gut "we hate Fox b/c Fox loves Trump" kind of decision.

Like you I think it's very poorly thought out. It doesn't "hurt" Fox in any way, and will do nothing to change their reporting. It DOES limit their ability to get their candidates in front of a "red state" audience, which if it's Beto or someone more moderate would maybe even help get them some votes.

But here's my point which I didn't explain well: I do think they want "softball questions" overall, though I agree it's probably not the singular reason for such a decision but just a part of it, but I also think they want people who may "play ball" with their chosen favorites.

That's a bit of a conspiracy theory, and I'm not convinced of it, but given the issues with Sanders in the last race, and this field having about 15 candidates by the time this launches, I'm wondering if they wouldn't like some folks who are willing to let them selectively work with them on questions to make sure a guy like Beto shines and someone in the fringe maybe doesn't.

This goes to my thinking re the lady at CNN who leaked questions. I've heard they didn't want to work with Fox b/c Fox wouldn't submit questions in advance. That may be utter nonsense, I just saw it and have no idea if it's true, but I can see the DNC wanting to at least make sure ALL their candidates have good, polished answers to questions to all look good, and maybe even want some to look even better b/c they can win a general election.

If the last 2 years has taught me nothing else it's that the corruption of our system and the back dealing in Washington is far deeper than even I ever suspected, and I'm a huge cynic on government and all things surrounding it. I would absolutely not put it above any of these folks to have those kinds of considerations on the table. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't.

What we see is a puppet show with really hard to see strings. The politicians, their deep layers of staffs and operatives and party officers, the bureaucrats and the media are all one cozy little family. I get the sense Fox is the bastard at the family reunion, and is being treated that way.

[CitizenBBN]

CNN fired Brazile over it. And think what you want, but I guarantee you they were pissed behind the scenes.

Certainly pissed she got caught.

Given how many of their people go to schools like Duke and UNC their ethics arent' very good on that distinction.

[ukpumacat]

What we see is a puppet show with really hard to see strings. The politicians, their deep layers of staffs and operatives and party officers, the bureaucrats and the media are all one cozy little family. I get the sense Fox is the bastard at the family reunion, and is being treated that way.

That's interesting point in a very distinct way: almost all Democrats believe that has eroded. Meaning, it used to be that there were party elites who smoked cigars and met in a dark room to pick who the nominee would be. They would then throw their support and money behind that candidate, encourage others not to run and basically handpick their chosen one.
No doubt that happened before and no doubt it still does. But it just doesn't have the weight and power it did before.
Obama destroyed that. Hillary was the chosen one. She had their support, the money, etc. But Obama beat her and that group of elites lost their power. Trump did the same thing in this election (and Bernie almost did). They simply just do not have the power they used to. Heck, Bill Clinton even beat the establishment.

The problem with all of that for many Democrats is that they NEED that now more than ever. They need to have a consensus pick (as long as they make the right choice...and Biden is not it). Instead, they have a huge group of candidates and there will be no clear favorite. The primary is likely going to be a bloodbath. And any candidate that comes out of it is likely to be very wounded once they face Trump.
Its great for Democracy. But from a strategic perspective, it takes someone very special to break through the mire and then win the general election.

[CitizenBBN]

The Democrats rigged their system after McGovern, and I don't blame them. They wanted a candidate that could win a general election, and both parties in primaries end up playing too far left or right.

The GOP let the chips fall in 2016 by and large, with obviously very interesting results. The DNC power brokers will want Beto or Biden IMO.

It's true the grip of the parties has been weakened, but not broken. Clinton was the nominee b/c of their power in the party, and access to money. that's why I think Beto will get the nod. Fresh face the money guys will like. They still have great influence, if not as much.

It will be an interesting election. I agree Biden is about the most tired candidate they could find other than maybe asking Carter to enter the race. Sanders won't catch fire again, that match was struck. Pocahontas was out before she started, and her job app proving what she's done sealed it. Harris and Booker are way too far left. It'll be Beto.

BTW I hope it isn't. That's the DNC's best candidate. Hopefully it'll be Pocahontas or someone, that would be a decent shot at a win for Trump and a lot of fun in the debates. Trump could show up in a headdress, man such fun.

But I do think that's got to be a concern among the party leadership, what they can do to keep the bloodbath to a minimum and make sure they get a more generally electable nominee. If they aren't worried they're nuts.

[dan_bgblue]

Media should be no one’s friend. That’s no longer the case howeve

I agree 100%, but would like to add that they should be no one's enemy either.

[ukpumacat]

I’m weird this way but I love this stuff. It’s quite easy for me to put away my political beliefs and leanings and have fun with the strategic side of things.

[dan_bgblue]

Trump could show up in a headdress, man such fun.

He would lose the native American vote, but I would absolutely pay good money to see it.

It would be a great improvement on that weird blond comb over/around thing he has going on.

[CitizenBBN]

Nice article by Tucker Carlson on the double standard, and underscores why I think this is a bald faced attack on freedom of the press that is at least the equal of anything Trump has done.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuck...e-cnn-applauds

His point, and it is a great one, is that Fox defended the rights of the press even when it was Trump tossing Acosta. Yet in this case CNN actually made a statement in SUPPORT of excluding a fellow media member Fox.

If CNN will no longer stand up for freedom of the press when it happens to be a press entity that doesn't agree with them ideologically, but is clearly the press and a media member, then they are basically cheering the end of freedom of the press in this country and are acknowledging they are not a free press themselves and part of the FOurth Estate with a role in checking and balancing the government, but they are simply a PR affiliate of a particular political party.

That's the reason the threat from the Left to freedom is so much greater than anything Trump can do. B/c when the Left does it they are not called out by a chorus of voices in the media or elsewhere, they are cheered. it is readily accepted b/c it helps their side, and thus will end those freedoms b/c they don't want freedom, they want to win no matter the cost, and CNN is right there agreeing with that approach.

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, trump needs to do his DNA and find he's some miniscule percentage of black or native american or whatever, and go with it if the debate is with Pocahontas.

It won't be, she has no chance of winning the Democratic primary. She's the only person in the last 5 years to come off as even more phony than Hillary, and the Democratic voters see it. Silly ads where she acts like she's just hanging out having a beer, all scripted by a Madison Ave. PR firm. lol.

[KeithKSR]

I don't agree. Most of the Dems like and respect Chris Wallace (who would do the debate). This is a way to "not reward" Fox for what it sees as them becoming state media for Trump (to a far more extreme degree than the mainstream media which has always leaned left).

Have you never watched FoxNews? I’m not talking about Hannity, etc., but Wallace, Brett Baier, Martha McCallum, etc. Wallace and Baier have interviewed Trump and are a lot tougher on him than the CNN fluff directed at Dem candidates.

[Doc]

Have you never watched FoxNews? I’m not talking about Hannity, etc., but Wallace, Brett Baier, Martha McCallum, etc. Wallace and Baier have interviewed Trump and are a lot tougher on him than the CNN fluff directed at Dem candidates.

Agree....Fox does not poo poo. Again, not talking Hannity or Carlson. For example, Juan Williams is a regular on "The Five" where he brings the left/liberal/democratic side, and is treated with respect as an equal contributor. Even the most annoying attack dog on Fox (Carlson) gives the left a voice, albeit it one he interrupts ever 5 seconds with the sarcastic laugh. Are they right leaning? No, as they are beyond leaning however its not that they don't attempt to give the other side an opportunity to present their case.

[KeithKSR]

Agree....Fox does not poo poo. Again, not talking Hannity or Carlson. For example, Juan Williams is a regular on "The Five" where he brings the left/liberal/democratic side, and is treated with respect as an equal contributor. Even the most annoying attack dog on Fox (Carlson) gives the left a voice, albeit it one he interrupts ever 5 seconds with the sarcastic laugh. Are they right leaning? No, as they are beyond leaning however its not that they don't attempt to give the other side an opportunity to present their case.

Shepard Smith is pretty vociferous in his disapproval of Trump.

I like Tucker, Hannity and Ingraham; but I know I am going to get a right spectrum view from them.

[CitizenBBN]

Tucker Carlson is great IMO, b/c he has spent his time in the swamp and knows how things really works, and calls it out. Yes he has a right of center view, but most of his focus isn't really on the traditional wedge issues but on how Washington works and the hypocrisy of it.

For example he's spent a lot of time on privacy issues with Google et al. That's a-political IMO, and an issue that should unite left and right. He's done some investigative work on the issue, like how Facebook is tracking GPS even when you turn off tracking.

I listen to Hannity here and there on his radio show when driving, but I take it or leave it depending on the topic. Not big on Ingraham. Don't disagree with her per se, but it's more the core talking point issues.

Carlson gets away from that a lot more, and brings the perspective of a guy who lives and works in that echo chamber and tries to crack the walls.


But the idea Fox isn't a legit news agency worthy of hosting a debate is utter nonsense, and the DNC making these moves and CNN backing them up for their own agenda shows the real threat to the 1st Amendment in this country.

It won't go away b/c of government laws, it will go away b/c those who are the Fourth Estate will simply abdicate their role and responsibility b/c they care more about their side (the Democratic party) winning than providing checks and balances to ALL politicians. It'll go away b/c the very media itself will choose for it to go away in agreement with the DNC, and this is seen in this decision and their reaction.

[ukpumacat]

Agree....Fox does not poo poo. Again, not talking Hannity or Carlson. For example, Juan Williams is a regular on "The Five" where he brings the left/liberal/democratic side, and is treated with respect as an equal contributor. Even the most annoying attack dog on Fox (Carlson) gives the left a voice, albeit it one he interrupts ever 5 seconds with the sarcastic laugh. Are they right leaning? No, as they are beyond leaning however its not that they don't attempt to give the other side an opportunity to present their case.

No, no he is not.
Yes, I watch Fox all the time. And CNN.
I watched Juan Williams last week on the Five in fact. He was attacking Trump about the Cohen thing and the host got so mad he threatened to throw him off the set. Literally that's what he said.

Or the time Hannity allegedly pulled a gun on him (and yes, I know all about Williams tweeted that it was all safe...and don't believe a word of it) after a tense debate on the show.

Or the time that the host told him "he would know where the drugs are coming from because he looks high right now" when Williams was explaining that the majority of drugs comes in at ports of entry and not the border.

These are just 3 I remember off the top of my head.

[Doc]

In the first incident, Williams kept referring to them being in the bunker, a clear reference to Hitler...isnt that what the left does? I think they call it a "dog whistle", right? Or is it only the left that get to determine what is offensive? I guess inferring somebody is a Nazi because the are "in the bunker" should not entice rage because after all any conservative is a racist or Nazi...so I've been told

Both Williams and Hannity rejected the gun incident as reported by CNN (the bastion of fair media.....just ask the Covington kid). Only CNN supports their story. Neither of those involved support it. Hmmmmm...... Pull a gun on me and you can damn well be sure its not swept under the rug.

As for the drug one, I saw that too. It was a nothing. As often as Juan throws out similar comments, no issue with him being called out. But at least he wasn't called a racist. One of his favorite tactics is to imply that...but then he is a liberal and if it is anything you disagree with, it must be due to one dislike for minorities aka racism

[ukpumacat]

I could have said just about anything and there would have been a “reason” or justification for it.
It’s what happens when people are on opposite sides of the political aisle.

I like Juan. He has a way of getting under people’s skin. And he’s funny.

[Doc]

I'm fine with him, and appreciate him offering and being allowed to offer an alternate view. However he isn't the ugly stepchild. The other panelist often disagree, as expected. He is treated as an equal contributor as illustrated by the fact he often is given the lead seat of the discussion. Granted, there are 4 conservatives and one liberal so he is almost always going to be in the minority. But he is treated respectfully. Not everybody is. Guests on Tucker Carlson, for example, are typically not.

[Catonahottinroof]

As am I. Often he provokes thought, for me at least and that is what civil conversation does. It’s becoming a dying thing however.

I'm fine with him, and appreciate him offering and being allowed to offer an alternate view. However he isn't the ugly stepchild. The other panelist often disagree, as expected. He is treated as an equal contributor as illustrated by the fact he often is given the lead seat of the discussion. Granted, there are 4 conservatives and one liberal so he is almost always going to be in the minority. But he is treated respectfully. Not everybody is. Guests on Tucker Carlson, for example, are typically not.