Why don't Democrats want to meet with available news and talk programs?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_Ditches_CBCFox_Debate.html

John Edwards decided not to do this debate as well.

Makes sense to not be part of a DNC-sanctioned debate if the heavy hitters aren't going to be either.

They are obviously afraid of hard and probing questions.

They prefer Larry King's softballs.

Herb

Personally, I much prefer "hard and probing" over "softballs" any day.

"They are obviously afraid of hard and probing questions."

Like what? What hard and probing question would CBC/Fox ask that another wouldn't? What issues are the candidates keeping from getting out in the open that Fox, alone, would expose?

Name one.

How do I know? That's what questions are for.

There aren't any. It just get's old to hear " Oh, you don't want to play with us? You must be AFRAID of the TRUTH! "

When it's actually looking like it's more something akin to " You guys aren't fair or balanced. You positioned yourself accordingly and alienated a large enough part of the population that I don't want to be associated with you, Fox."

Nothing wrong with having your cake AND eating it too - but not everyone is just going to serve it to you. Fox has a reputation. Not one of being hard - but unfair. And in all honesty, it's not like they are going to let Bill O Reilly start editorializing on anyone's ass. But if Fox is going to play their particular brand of hardball outside of the political debate venue issue ( and come on, we know that is - " Conservatives have " Right " on their side " ) then this is the repercussion of that.

There are legitimate reasons to not want to be associated with Fox - and there are legitimate reasons why someone WOULD want to be associated with them. But those poeple are different.

But it's not out of fear of their questions.

>>>"There aren't any."

That's certainly very refreshing. I assume your private source is reliable.

CJ, can you name one thing Fox has every broadcast that was not accurate?

Maybe. But before I even try, what would that prove?

>>>"But before I even try, what would that prove?"

Not much.

I suspect you know little about Fox, probably never watch it. I suspect you're just regurgitating what you've heard from the defeat and surrender crowd.

Fox is a marginal source of infotainment. If the Democratic Party does not want to talk to them, it is within their rights. Since news figures provide them with "product" they will have to go back to their usual source to make up the difference. That big pile of manure next to the barn will provide them with plenty to talk about. It always does.

"CJ, can you name one thing Fox has every broadcast that was not accurate?"

previously posted in this forum was a link to a study that indicated more FOX news viewers believe there were WMDs found in Iraq than any of the other network news by a long shot.

Either FOX viewer are just plain dumb or FOX's slanting of the news over time lead viewers to eventually believe in something that did not actually occur.

">>>"But before I even try, what would that prove?"

Not much.

I suspect you know little about Fox, probably never watch it. I suspect you're just regurgitating what you've heard from the defeat and surrender crowd."

Well at least explain how Fox's accuracy ratio has anything to do with my belief that there are reasons beyond " Fearing the questions they may ask " as the reason given to not enable them further.

( And for the record, you suspect incorrectly. I watch it and have formed my own opinion without influence, I think. It's hard to tell which came first. Yet I still watch it. )

FOX has been very aggressive at marginalizing Democratic members of our government.

This is why nobody, from the party, wants to engage in the debates. FOX is not "fair and balanced", and they need to own up to that.

They are also not "news you can trust" either, by definition.

I've actually watched a fair amount of FOX news programming over the years. It's bias is up, front and center. This alone is not worth snubbing the debates, but the ongoing attempts at marginalization, aggressive and confusing mix of fact and opinion, combined with an array of ambigious stratgists (WTF is a strategist?) make for an information source that's not in the best interests of Democratic people in general.

So then we are left with, "why bother?". Exactly the question Obama asked after they hammered him an assload of times. He and Edwards have both arrived at the conclusion it is better to ignore them to empower them.

"CJ, can you name one thing Fox has every broadcast that was not accurate?"

Every broadcast... not accurate. That's an amusing Freudian slip.

I haven't watched a lot of news-station coverage since they dropped CBC Newsworld from the lineup (and Headline News racheted it's content level down several notches and started running that irritating bitch Nancy Grace, etc) but *each* and *every* time I chance to view Fox News, it's bias drips from every sentence and Chyron banner.

For example(speaking of Chyrons)... EVERY time Fox runs a banner that implies a non-truth in the form of a question, THAT is bias. They do it constantly.

You all have solidified my resolve to not watch TV news period. No cable, no crap.

Jim Lehrer on PBS might be as unbiased as they come.

Skep...You nailed me there. If I do watch any TV it's usually PBS and Jim Lehrer. I thought he was the best moderator during the Presidential debates.

When Jim delivers the news you can almost sense he doesn't care for the camera on him so he delivers it a no-nonsense fashion seemingly just to get it over with. This is in contrast to most network anchors vying to get your attention and subsequently, ratings.