Friday, March 09, 2007

Edwards Running Scared?

Edwards bailed on the Democrat presidential candidates debate. Why? Because it was hosted by Fox News...supposedly. What's the real reason? Two scenarios are apparent: Edwards may be pandering to the crowd's pressure to boycott sponsor Fox News because it isn't liberal enough with its coverage, and Edwards may simply be running scared. Based on Edwards Christian-bashing blog team debaucle suggesting his circle of friends is less than mainstream, and the fact that he wasn't the worst debater in the last election, it would seem likely that his reason for bailing on the debate is heavily influenced by the Moveon bunch.


sirocco said...

Edwards is actually a pretty sharp debater.

It's not so much Fox news is "not liberal enough" ... it's the way it intentionaly and consistently slants it's headlines ... running a tagline "Libbey found innocent of lying to the FBI" is just the most recent egregious example.

I mean, really, what's the actual news there -- that Libby was found innocent of one of the counts, or guilty of the other four?

Framer said...

I can play that game too...

Actual Quote:

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq,' the general told reporters in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. 'Military action is necessary to help improve security . . . but it is not sufficient."

MSM headline: "Troops can't win the war"

If FOX news has a bias, it does not exceed that of its competitors. Edwards is straight pandering to here. The proposed solution is to have someone from "Air America" ask questions as well.

"Air America?" Honestly. Edwards is a joke. I would rather see Hilary than Edwards, because Hilary at least has taken a couragous stance at least once in her life. Edwards, not so much. . .

sirocco said...

"Troops insufficient to win the war" probably didn't fit the space, although "Surge can't win the war" probably did, and would have been a better fit for the quote.

I have actually written headlines for newspapers, so I know some of the constraints. In the case I cited, Fox has no such constraint. It was pure spin.

Of course media has bias, much as they try to avoid it. ... Fox's is just worse (or they put the least effort into avoiding it) than most, and their top brass don't particularly try to deny this any more.

No, Edwards has plenty of reasons to skip that debate, although pandering to MoveOn may be among them too.

sirocco said...

Just saw this.

Anonymous said...

Richardson also dropped out of the rightwing freak show. I guess he was also "too scared"...

FOX News has become the Black Knight from 'Monty Python & the Holy Grail' screaming "Come back here you yellow bastards!"

Framer said...

Why show it on FOX when you can put it on CNN and have it seen by dozens of people.

I guess the Democratic party is still going down the road of Hysteria and Hystronics. Congratulations, I guess.

cpmaz said...

Maybe he dropped out because Fox News is to television journalism what Mad Magazine is to print journalism.

The only difference is that when Mad Mag makes someone laugh, it's intentional.

AZAce said...

This is hilarious. Who hosts the show is not why people watch it, but who participates and responds to questions. Whether Fox News, who reports the news, or the New York Times who fabricates it, who cares? Their job here is not to report, but to host. Any candidate who claims it creates a problem is merely using that as a front for their politicizing the issue, like Edwards and Moveon simply trying to make a statement instead of bucking up and giving voters something to base their votes on.

We can argue all day about who is biased and who isn't, but the real issue is why won't Edwards debate his fellow candidates. The answer appears to be he is less concerned about the debate and more concerned about making a statement. It's not like he didn't know that Fox News was hosting the event when he agreed to participate.

sirocco said...

"Whether the New York Times, who reports the news, or the Fox News who fabricates it, who cares?"

Fixed that for you AzAce.

It's not actually the debate (although Fox could, of course, load questions), but the inevitable skewed commentary afterwards which is the problem.

Edwards has already said he'll particpate in at least three other debates in Nevada, so he can't be _that_ concerned about facing his opponents.

AZAce said...

Skewed commentary is pretty much a given after every public debate. If Edwards is concerned about that, he should get out of public office because that will occur no matter who hosts the debate.

And c'mon, it was the NY Times, not Fox, that was caught making up stories, sources, etc. And it wasn't meant to be a partisan statement, just a point that who the host is is immaterial.

sirocco said...


The Times did, in fact, have a reporter several years ago who consistently made up stories.

Once discovered, the times immediately fired that reporter, printed long, front-page articles about every story he did they had found flawed research in, in-depth articles about how things had gone wrong and steps they were taking to make try to prevent such behavior in the future, etc.

Contrast this with, say, Fox News' reaction to the fictional claim it ran last month that Obama's early schooling had been at a conservative Muslim madrassa. Haven't heard so much as an apology for that one, much less in-depth soul-searching as to what they did wrong.

Part of what made the NYT story so specatcularly "newsworthy" was not only the action itself, but that such things happen so rarely (prior to that, the last big scandal I can recall was the made up drug stories in the 80's that initially won a pultizer for the author -- I believe the paper in question was the Washington Times).

Part of what made the Obama story less "newsworthy" was that it happens so much more often with Fox News.

This doesn't even begin to address the inappropriateness of Roger Ailes' remarks on the matter. After those, how can one attempt to justify the Dem's should attend a debate mediated by Fox?