Keeping Fox News ‘in the freezer’

January 31, 2007

I’ve often thought there should be some kind of consequence for Fox News’ more ridiculous behavior. Apparently, I’m not the only one.

These are chilly days on Capitol Hill … and on the campaign trail for Fox News journalists — at least when they’re anywhere near Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Sources tell The Sleuth that the Obama camp has “frozen out” Fox News reporters and producers in the wake of the network’s major screw-up in running with the erroneous Obama-the-jihadist story reported by Insight magazine.

“I’m still in the freezer,” one Fox journalist said, noting that the people at Fox “suffering the most did nothing wrong.” (It was “Fox and Friends” host Steve Doocy who aired the Insight magazine piece, which reported that operatives connected to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) found out that Obama, as a child, was educated at a Muslim madrassah in Indonesia.)

Another Fox journalist called the network’s airing of the story “unfortunate” for the network’s journalists who have to cover Obama and who are being adversely affected despite not being involved in the incident.

It’s difficult to feel sorry for Fox News’ team. Whether the individual correspondent assigned to Obama’s campaign was directly responsible for the bogus madrassa story or not, it’s still Fox News. What are the chances that the reporting on his campaign will be fair? And if those chances are small, why give the network precious time?

It may seem petty to punish the network, but I like this approach. Indeed, if Fox News is basically an ideological tabloid, along the lines of the National Enquirer, why play along and treat it as a legitimate news source? Why not punish irresponsible conduct?

The WaPo’s Mary Ann Akers noted the risks involved with this strategy.

One source familiar with the dynamic between Fox and Obama, who asked not to be named, said Obama and his staff are in for a rude awakening if they think they can write off Fox News. If a candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like Fox to reach out to all those voters in the red and purple states, the source said.

I don’t think so. Fox News’ audience is basically looking for Republican talking points in video form. To be sure, it’s a large audience, which is why so many high-profile political figures, from both sides of the aisle, have been anxious to appear on the network. But to think that this is an effective way of appealing to red- and purple-state voters seems silly. Voters who are open to voting for a Democratic candidate aren’t going to rely on Fox News as a news outlet in the first place.

A Fox News spokesperson told the Post that it’s in Obama’s interest to change his mind. In reference to Obama’s campaign advisor, Robert Gibbs, the FNC media flack said, “[P]erhaps Mr. Gibbs should reconsider that ill-advised strategy given his candidate is trailing by 20 points in the polls.”

Who’s willing to make the argument that the most effective and efficient way for Obama to close the gap is to spend more time on Fox News?

No one who isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Republican kool-aid drinker and a moron to boot (is that an oxycontinmoron?) watches the Fox Propaganda Channel. For Democrats to avoid Fox (and de-certify their reporters to cover events) is merely to recognize reality.

  • Akers sounds a trifle worried. If candidates start holding news gathering agencies responsible for the accuracy of their reporting, reporters might get stuck with actually doing some research. They might actually need to do something besides echoing nonsense. Gasp! News instead of propaganda? Gasp!

  • One thing I’ve noticed about Fox News- Sometimes they try so hard to portray Dems as lefty radicals that they actually give more air-time to real leftists than the other networks do. Don’t ask me to give an example right now, but it’s something I’ve noticed. Whereas CNN and MSNBC might be more inclined to cover DLC approved Dems like Hillary, Fox news might actually put Al Sharpton or Ralph Nadar on.

    But don’t get me wrong. Fox News is still retarded and evil.

  • …if Fox News is basically an ideological tabloid, along the lines of the National Enquirer, why play along and treat it as a legitimate news source? Why not punish irresponsible conduct?

    Fair enough. Will all due sympathy to the hapless reporter, Obama’s leeriness of FOX personnel is justified. Since Doocy, Gibson and the rest have not, so far as I know, seen any consequences from their misbehavior, Obama has every reason to believe that FOX views them as model employees. And why would he want anyone else that FOX employs to be near his person?

    Besides, do FOX reporters now see being kept out of Obama’s presence as punishment?? That’s progress, I suppose. The real punishment, though, is for the guy assigned to the Joe Biden beat. Ugh.

  • My impression is that Fox News acts like Lucy Van Pelt inviting Charlie Brown to kick the football whenever they have a leading Democrat on. It doesn’t seem that Obama has anything to gain by subjecting himself to their treatment, and his firm stand on this gives me greater respect for him.

    This is a simple case of “turnaround is fair play”. The right-wing idiots seek out friendly interviewers and limit access to those who prove less-than-friendly (c.f. Helen Thomas). All Obama is doing is seeking a fair interview; Fox News has proven they are unable or unwilling to provide that.

    Democrats with backbone. . .hmmm, more of this please!

  • Farinata, The NYT is as “fair and balanced” as FOX News. Just ask Duke’s lacrosse players!

  • For Obama to give Fox News(right wing propaganda and smear) ANY access is like giving a known meth head and thief access to ones home. People who watch Fox have already made up thier minds so why waste time with them? Screw them.

  • I’ve been waiting for the Dems to wake up about FOX “news.”
    And I seem to be impressed with each move made by Senator Obama.

  • It’s a simple fact: Fox News needs Sen. Obama more than Obama needs Fox News. And that goes for every Democrat.

  • Obama could challenge Chuck Norris to a one on one no holds barred fight on live TV. The winner would then fight Lord Han to shut down his opium network…

    In all seriousness, good for Obama.

    Can anyone explain how Chuck Norris ended up as Inanity’s guest host???

    Chuck? Norris?? Interviewer???

  • We all need to help push the “Fox is propaganda” meme. People are starting to get it. I regularly comment on Fox news whenever I see it, and it really works. People are usually glad to change the channel.

    Here’s a bumpersticker idea or three:

    Fox “News” rooted for the Iraq war.
    And here we go again with Iran.

    or maybe

    Fox “News” = Bush propaganda

    or maybe

    Fox (heart) Bush (tie them to Mr 30%)

  • “I guess the GOP should do the same with the NYT! ” #2

    Well JRSjr try to draw the fine distinction between the NYT and FOX. The Newspaper of Record versus GOP propaganda with no level of journalistic standards what-so-ever.

    Do you have any insight as to why it is that Cheney and Rice etc. always run first, if not exclusively, to FOX when itis time to talk to the media?

  • If I was working for FOX right now, I’d be dusting off the ol’ resume, and reading the job ads. A major political contender effectively “freezing them out” can have devastating consequences—on the network. Other political figures might get the same idea, and follow suit. The occasional business leader would do the same thing—and the tidal wave in the marketplace would grow to tsunamic proportions. Major advertisers would start to see FOX as “poison,” and they’d take their big advertising accounts elsewhere.

    The world turned ever on and on before there was a FOX news—and it’ll keep right on turning, after FOX is lo-oooong gone….

  • Agreed. Good for Obama. Fox AND Fox News know what they need to do: apologize, repeatedly, on air for their mistake, and enough times so that their thick-headed audience clearly understands the report was false AND that Fox mucked-up big time.

    This same tactic should be taken to any media outlet that does crap like this, or the false stories about Kerry or Clinton. It can also carry over to shows like Meet the Press, which have now clearly been shown to be pawns/dupes of the right and which continue to unfairly underrepresent the Dems and their viewpoints.

  • “Still” in the “freezer”? Geez, it’s been *days* since the network, with complete irresponsibility tried AGAIN to link him to extremist Muslims. And I must have missed the part where they apologized in public for their false and misleading reporting.

    As busy as Senator Obama is, what’s so surprising that he’s not making time for the same network that has convincingly demonstrated they’re not going to cover him at all fairly? Or apologize when they repeat demonstrably untrue things about him.

    He doesn’t need to make this about their coverage of Dems in general, and yet it gets the point across to both sides that a Dem does not need Fox News. It’s freakin’ brilliant if you ask me.

  • Fox has no desire to portray the Democrats fairly and I’m glad to see Barack see the minefield they are laying for him. Does it really matter to Fox that they are “frozen out?” Not really. They will tell the story as they want to, all facts being damned. They just get to whine and play the victim about how Barack won’t let them do a hatchet job on him.

    The Bush Administration since its inception has frozen out and denied media outlets who are far more legitimate than Fox. Just ask Helen Thomas. Quit whining Rupert. This is the way the Republicans have layed out the playing field. Get used to the cold shoulder until you straighten up your act.

  • MNP, I’m not arguing FOX is not slanted to the right, it certainly is.

    My only point is if the Dems are going to stiff arm FOX, then the GOP could look to stiff arm the list of left leaning news orgs, which the NYT tops.

    This new practice of pols black balling news organizations could quickly become tit for tat, which is a very slippery slope. Instead of practicing in depth journalism, news orgs might then perfect the art of “ass kissing” in the hopes of locking up pols for interviews, etc.

    PS The NYT WAS “The Newspaper of Record” until its news desk followed the same route as it editorial pages. There is no longer a distiction between the two!

  • I have said this a million times, Fox is not news and for the life of me I can never figure out why high profile Dems go on the show, like Clinton.

    When people ask why the do not go on Fox, the person should just say, “I do not consider Fox News a legitimate news source.” Then, if pressed, toss out the good stuff like Obama’s school and other such bones.

    JRS, we could only hope the GOP would avoid all ‘liberal’ media, but they can’t because it’s all liberal, right. Let us have our liberal media and the GOP can have the only balance media, Fox News. Deal ??

  • Fox News is just a way to get people to do rotten things and break the rules and feel like it’s ok. Like if someone were to have people pose as liberals and leave comments at liberal blogs that are really verbose, crazy, or sound like they’re rooting for the terrorists. Then the Republicans can show it to other Republicans to try to make them think that liberals are as bad as they’ve told them they are.

    Oh shit! Republicans suck.

  • JRS, there’s a great deal of distance between “ass kissing” and “not reporting untrue gossip as truth, then not apologizing for it and then whining that the candidate is at fault”

    I’m somewhat in agreement with you that there’s danger if politicians pick and choose their news outlets based on ideology. But if you think that the Dems are starting something here, you are mistaken. As Petorado mentioned, Helen Thomas would be an obvious example. I do not believe you can point to something similar, that she reported something that was *untrue* and potentially damaging to the president, so Bush does not have the equivalent cause to boycott her.

    And there’s no indication that Obama is *permanently* boycotting FNC. I suspect this is a brushback pitch.

    I also disagree with your *equating* NYT with FNC. Though I don’t disagree that their viewpoint skews left of most other news outlets (though in my opinon, not to the left of the American electorate).

  • “we could only hope the GOP would avoid all ‘liberal’ med but they can’t because it’s all liberal, right?”

    I didn’t say that, just called out the NYT… I bet could call as many or more bones on the NYT as you can on FOX! (Including a couple NYT reporters who were fired because they just made news up…)

    At least FOX cited Insight as the source of the Obama “story” — which everyone knows is right-wing media source, so could easily make a judgement on the story’s validity.)

  • JRS, your argument is sound, but it operates on the assumption that the NYT is as left as Fox is right. Once you measure the degree of slant, then your argument doesn’t hold water.

    Call back when the NYT’s has a lefty equal to “Enemies of the State”.

    Call back when Bush, Cheney, and Condi give numerous interviews to the NYT’s. Come to think of it, the major GOP players have already snubbed the Times.

  • But if you think that the Dems are starting something here…

    Never said that either… I think it’s rediculous, that Bush & Co pick FOX first for interviews, etc.

  • We all need to help push the “Fox is propaganda” meme.
    [Racerx]

    Just keep quoting Dr. Rice: “I love my FOX guys.”

    As for the “reporters”: Tough shit. I feel about as sorry for them as I would feel for a man who studies to be a doctor and then takes a job with the CIA making sure extradited prisoners don’t cack during their “questioning sessions.”

    Don’t like being treated like you work for a bunch of hacks with all the ethical standards of roadkill? Ask your employers to stop being a bunch of hacks or get another job.

  • A) I can’t believe that you used “FOX News” and “journalist” in the same sentence.

    B) I don’t believe that a dearth of Obama news on FOX will seriously deter either of the FOX viewers who plan to vote for him.

  • the right wing’s behaviour has introduced some new words recently

    “swiftboating”

    “the cavuto”

    and now….

    “Fauxbama”

  • tAiO got to at least part of my point: if these reporters are so concerned about being innocent bystanders, what have they done to create social stigma or pressure within Faux News on the nutjobs like Doocy, Gibson, Hannity, etc? If you want to be seen as a serious person, don’t work for the circus. I have no sympathy for anyone who takes their check from Ailes. If ever there was a textbook case of lying down with the dogs and having waived the right to complain about waking with fleas, these reporters are it.

  • perhaps if there are any real journalist at fox (yeah i know, a stupid thought) like the (possibly) hapless reporter mentioned above, they could start screaming loudly at their bosses to get their shit together. yeah right, like that will happen. never mind……

  • “I’m still in the freezer,” one Fox journalist said, noting that the people at Fox “suffering the most did nothing wrong.”

    Gee! Poor thing! Anyone who gets hired by Fox knows very well that he/she is supposed to carry water for right-wingers and to smear everyone else. I don’t have any sympathy for his “plight”

    Good for Obama for freezing Fox out. None of the people who watch Fox on a regular basis would ever vote for a Democrat anyway — and a black one to boot. No loss for Obama there.

    I am glad that Fox is being called on its vicious smear on Obama. I hope this is the beginning of a trend.

  • He should be freezing them out also because of all the times they called him “Osama”. Often enough to suggest mischief more than mistake.

  • Note that not one of those poor, victimized Fox News reporters mentioned even once feeling regret for the lies and smears directed at Obama by the company they work for. Their pity is directed only at themselves, which as tAiO, Zeitgeist and others have mentioned is totally bogus.

    If they don’t like the consequences of what their company does, either change it from within or get another job. If they don’t, they’re as much responsible for what happens as anyone else.

  • Farinata, The NYT is as “fair and balanced” as FOX News. Just ask Duke’s lacrosse players!

    Are the Duke lacrosse players members of the GOP? Please explain how your comparison actually fits into what we are talking about.

  • Never said that either… I think it’s rediculous, that Bush & Co pick FOX first for interviews, etc.
    Comment by JRS Jr

    rediculous?

  • Quote:
    “No one who isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Republican kool-aid drinker and a moron to boot (is that an oxycontinmoron?) watches the Fox Propaganda Channel. For Democrats to avoid Fox (and de-certify their reporters to cover events) is merely to recognize reality.”

    Must be quite a few “kool-aid drinking morons” since fox has TRIPLE the number of CNN’s viewers.

    I agree that this story was irresponsible, but Obama should demand equal time to debunk it rather than shunning them like a two-year-old.

    That source is right; Obama needs Fox if he’s going to do anything in the general election. He doesn’t need to whitewash his message for them, but he does need to articulate his views to their largest-in-class audience. Taking a combative posture is just downright stupid. They’ve admitted their mistake. Move on, or Hillary will just roll over you that much faster.

  • Screw Fox and screw the GOP (I believe in kicking them while they’re down). I heartily applaud the Obama camp and hope all Congressional Democrats and Democratic candidates will follow their lead.

  • To JRS Jr.,

    It’s delightful when your own statements prove your opponent’s point. Yes, the NYT did fire reporters for “making stuff up” Has FOX fired anyone over the “Madrassa” story?

    James

  • If a candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like Fox to reach out to all those voters in the red and purple states, the source said. Mary Ann Akers WaPo

    I’ve got news for you Ms. Akers, this statement is BULLSHIT. If it comes down to Mr. Obama needing votes for a presidential election, the states that are going to vote for him are in the more civilized parts of the country (the northeast, California and some western states that are skewing more and more Democratic). Fox News doesn’t hold much sway in these parts of the country like it does with the rubes in the south and the Evangelical Taliban in the midwest. It’s kind of funny though the madrassa statement spewed from the mouth of Steve “the douchebag” Doocy whose literary credentials is some piece of dreck he wrote titled Mr. and Mrs. Happy. WTF? If this dickhead didn’t work for Fox News, he’d be the weather guy for some public access station in the middle of fucking nowhere Ohio.

  • Quote:

    “No one who isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Republican kool-aid drinker and a moron to boot (is that an oxycontinmoron?) watches the Fox Propaganda Channel. For Democrats to avoid Fox (and de-certify their reporters to cover events) is merely to recognize reality.”

    Must be a lot of those kool-aid drinkers out there, since Fox has triple the ratings of their nearest competitor. If he were smart, he’d take advantage of their contrition by going on and getting some good press.

    The source quoted is right; Obama needs Fox if he wants to do anything in the general election. He doesn’t have to kowtow to them, but he would benefit from explaining his positions to their largest-in-class audience. Otherwise, Hillary will just roll over him all the faster. You don’t see her shunning the country’s most influential cable news network.

  • JRS Jr.,

    …news orgs might then perfect…

    *might then*?! as if they don’t already.

    And if you think the NYT treats the GOP like Fox treats the Dems, then how do you explain Judith Miller?

  • Around here, they’re starting to drop like sickened flies, as the fetid stench of false pulchritude and blatant nepotism play out their last retarded act to a crowd that is visibly beginning to thin and throw licorice candies at the stage. The evil white poodle of doom continues to loiter in the parking lot of our discontent. Some say his name is Yorick, to which I slyly reply, “Ah, Yorick! I knew him Horatio! Many was the time he bore (and bored) me on his lumpen and flea-ridden back!” which totally confuses everybody. But I have bigger lunkers to skin and fry. The dull now sharpened arrow of pain and despair, waylaid and delivered at the end of the random female bumper weighs heavily upon my stress level and systolic blood pressure as the ominous clouds of elective back surgery are no longer a distant fuzzy specter but a menacing boogey man, passing the kidney stone of corporeal dread until all hope for simple resolution gives up the ghost and faces the dreaded noise of certain permanent malfunction in regards to a continuing subsistence without twinge or tweak of physical trepidation.

  • I think Akers is wrong. There are few people watching Faux that are genuinely open to Obama or any Democratic candidate. Democratic candidates on Faux are there as the joke, the target, the object of derision. Faux has no interest in the truth regarding Democratic candidates (unless it is bad and they can use it to play into their narrative) so why should Democratic candidates let Faux into their campaigns?

  • “Has FOX fired anyone over the “Madrassa” story…”

    FOX cited the source of the story (for all the world to see), so they did not manufacture it. Sure they looked like a bunch of parrots, but much different than making stuff up.

  • Faux News viewers are meatheads. Obama “needs” them like he needs a hole in his head. As to the specious claim that this built-in audience is somehow critical to success in the general election, consider the fact that any one of the news programs on the over-the-air major networks has an audience 3 to 4 times larger than anything the Faux network can produce. The Faux audience is small compared to ABC/NBC/CBS on any given night. And that’s taking into account the reduced viewership of the major networks.

    Sorry, Faux-heads, your numbers don’t add up.

  • scott: “Fox has triple the ratings of their nearest competitor”

    Huh ?? No way. I can’t find the ratings numbers, but since you made the claim, let’s see the cheese.

    But don’t you think it’s getting Obama a lot of good press by snubbing Fox, PLUS, if they are beating everyone by 3 fold, that might give some other outlets a little more incentive to give him lots of ink or airtime ?

  • I once spent 6 months in Australia and was shocked that on the news they just reported what happened. Sure you can still have all kinds of slants to the left or right, but it wasn’t so blatantly obvious. Seems that what is most important is not deciding who is more slanted to the left or right and who is more slanted than whom, but rather, who tells the truth (or as much of it as possible)? Shouldn’t our media respect us as thinking human-beings who can draw our own conclusions? Shouldn’t we have an outlet that we can trust to ask hard-hitting questions of both sides and therefore get at the root of problems/platforms/agendas, etc–or at least mention them in straightforward language? I’m all for denouncing Fox, but also feeling put-out by not finding a balanced media outlet that covers more than cats trapped in garages or other stories a la Harry Smith. Similar to pt #34, if we don’t try to fight the problem, then we’re part of it. Especially as consumers in this country–each show we watch, reporter we read, dollar we spend is consent. We vote with each of our actions and need to demand (at the minimum) pieces that are researched, reports that are intelligent, and reporters who are concerned with a more platonic Truth.

  • I rather like the idea of Republicans refusing to talk to the New York Times. That would probably both improve the New York Times and raise the level of political discourse in this country.

  • “Are the Duke lacrosse players members of the GOP? Please explain how your comparison actually fits into what we are talking about.”

    Ni-Fuck is a Democrat. The NYT supported his witch hunt.

  • FOX cited the source of the story (for all the world to see), so they did not manufacture it. Sure they looked like a bunch of parrots, but much different than making stuff up.

    Nope, in fact for any sort of news agency (especially one that styles itself Fair and Balanced) what they did is worse.

    1. Reporters have a duty to double check stories, especially ones that cite a bunch of “un-named” sources. FOX didn’t.
    2. There isn’t a byline on the original story. Again, any quasi-decent news outlet would have dropped it like rotten meat. FOX didn’t.
    3. In addition to failing to do 1 & 2 they kept repeating the story after it was debunked by CNN.

    It isn’t a case of “parrotting,” because they were misled by another source. It’s a case of ignoring the fact the story was hinky in the first place so they could repeat it; not trying to find out if the story was true so they can repeat it and ignoring reports that showed it wasn’t true so they could keep squawking. Willful ignorance – It’ll get you in trouble.

  • Orange, so tell me what the difference is with the NYT and its front page Duke story, (which clearly wasn’t double checked)? Hell, common sense wasn’t even used when it was written given the myraid missing facts, Ni-Fuck’s political agenda and the case’s inconsistencies — clearly this story had political undertones.

    I’m just making the point many a new outlet falls into the same trap, suporting its political leanings, even the Grey Old Lady herself — so get over the FOX thing. In fact, shouldn’t you be more critical of the actual source than harping on Fox?

  • JRS Jr- What’s with harping on the Duke story? In the pieces I have seen, the NYT has pretty much taken the AP’s lede, nothing more. So there is prosecutorial misconduct- you can’t blame that on the NYT. And, if you stay with the AP release, then you have to blame a heck of a lot more papers than the NYT for publishing the story…

    But that’s besides the point. Faux news has well-earned a reputation of being a mouthpiece of the Reichwing (heck, they are proud of it- see Cheney’s news-channel preference for when he stays places). So I don’t see any reason for a Democrat to talk to their reporters after they tried to smear him (and, for what it’s worth, just the fact that Faux is concerned by this development is cheery enough news).

    And, for that matter, since the GOP says that the media is run by liberals, I sincerely HOPE that they boycott every news outlet (except, of course, Faux). That would nicely marginalize them, without us ever having to lift a finger. Oh, they won’t do that? Well, there goes their, and your, argument!

  • Fox News lost nearly 30% of its audience in the last year. Most of them went to MSNBC. Saying that Fox outscores CNN is a distinction without meaning, since their combined audience is nothing compared to the Big Three (ABC, NBC, CBS).

    Fox News has never been anything but a propaganda outlet. Their internal memos come right out and say so, for pity’s sake.

    One problem with being a propaganda outlet is, the reporting doesn’t match what the real world is doing. If you’re a wingnut, that’s just fine, since you’re not interested in the real world anyway. But wingnuts aren’t a growing demographic, to put it mildly.

    As people start to think about 2008, most of them are going to be looking for politicians who can get out of the hole Bush has dug. They’re not going to want to be interested in a “news” organization that’s still carrying water for the Worst Administration Ever, still cheerleading for the Worst Foreign Policy Ever, and still treating anyone outside the asylum like a traitor.

    The only people who will still be watching Fox News are the wingnuts. Since the wingnuts will never ever vote for any Democrat, much less a black moderately liberal Democrat, Obama loses nothing by boycotting Fox. Instead, he gets a lot of credit for doing so from people who would vote for him, given any reason to do so.

  • ““I’m still in the freezer, one Fox journalist said”

    Since this Fox journalist has so much time on his hands, maybe he should consider doing a few segments on the slander of Obama and Clinton that was broadcast on Fox. Maybe an investigative series. That should keep him busy.

  • So the GOP is going to quit talking to the news? Hey, now that could be a time saver! It’s not as if the public believes them anymore. I won’t have to wade through all the GOP propaganda just scan the results of the various GOP indictments, trials, investigations and police reports.

    GOOD IDEA!

    It will leave Fox Noise Churn with very little to report.

  • Obama needs Fox if he wants to do anything in the general election. He doesn’t have to kowtow to them, but he would benefit from explaining his positions to their largest-in-class audience. Otherwise, Hillary will just roll over him all the faster.

    Let’s start with your obvious non-sequitor: The value of Fox to Sen. Obama “in the general election” will in no way influence whether “Hillary will just roll over him,” inasmuch as they will be opponents in the primaries and not the general election.

    As to whether Sen. Obama “would benefit from explaining his positions” to Fox viewers: he will have plenty of opportunities to do so via other news outlets. People who rely exclusively on Fox for their news are not a target demographic worth a moment of the candidate’s time. People who are truly open to hearing a Democratic candidate’s positions will be equally willing to change the channel in order to do so.

  • “the NYT has pretty much taken the AP’s lede”

    Just like FOX took Insight’s “lede”?

    My point is news orgs all have their leanings, and certainly all make their mistakes… so just get over this instance with FOX, please!

  • BTW, Cheney already has “frozen” out the NYT from his plane, he just uses them when he want to get out information.

    And comparing the Duke story to the madrassa story is insane. The Duke guys were accused and all sorts of information was coming out about what happened. That in itself was news. I remember reading in the VERY conservative OC Register about the case including damning evidence about the boys. It all appears to have gone down the drain…and the prosecutor is in trouble it appears. I rarely check the district attorneys political leanings when finding out about prosecutions, especially in criminal cases.

    The madrassa story was a complete stretch …including that the information came from Hillary’s camp. How do you justify that smear? It was complete BS form start to finish, the “source” now being Obama’s bio. about attending a Muslim school when he was little.

    Good for you Obama, I know a number of FOX viewers, not a one of them would ever vote for.

  • RIGHT ON OBAMA!!!

    The fact that Obama has the balls to do this is more evidence that he is Presidential material.

    Its high time Democrats stopped letting right-wing bullies like Fox kick sand in their eyes and start kicking back hard. From now on it should be an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. All the other Democrats should emulate Obama’s strategy and refuse to appear on FOX programs and refuse to give FOX reporters interviews.

  • Friends don’t let friends appear on FOX!!

    And the same thing goes for CNN’s FOX immitatior Glen Beck!

    • Comments are closed.