« Franken Beats Rubber-Stamp Republican Coleman Like a Drum | Main | Bush White House Can't Handle Freedom »

Another Fox Debate Cancelled

The September 23rd Democratic debate sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute has been cancelled. Clinton and Obama's camp had previously indicated that they would not participate.

CBC chairman U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote that the "overwhelming number of party presidential debates has created a scheduling challenge. Revisiting the CBC Institute's debate schedule will allow the time necessary to complete all debate logistics in an effective manner."

Rescheduling is pointless. Obama recently announced that he was not going to accept any more debate invitations beyond those already scheduled, and Clinton and Edwards will both turn down any debates scheduled by Fox.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann recently criticized the suggestion that Democrats boycott Fox News debates, stating "I don't know if I would have advised (the candidates) to avoid free television time, whether it's on Fox or Al Jazeera." CBS's Public Eye weighed in as well:

America's media landscape is already polarized enough. Partisans listen to their own radio shows, watch their own media outlets and generally seek out information that reinforces their political leanings. The Democratic presidential candidates are missing out on an opportunity to get their message out, confront the channel they view as a foe, and define themselves in their own words, rather than letting themselves be defined by what they see as Fox's mischaracterizations.

I disagree. Fox News is not a legitimate news organization, and it practices a unique mix of tabloid journalism combined with outright propagandizing. Appearing in a debate on Fox lends legitimacy to an organization that doesn't deserve it.

Being straight with the American people is a quality that's been lacking in the White House for sometime now, and any candidate who pretends that Fox News is actually a legitimate, bona fide news outlet -- just to get free face time on television -- is stooping too low.

It's refreshing to see candidates who are standing on principals. Saying "No!" to Fox News is the right answer.

Here's a YouTube video from an ordinary citizen who caught Fox in a lie back in 2006. There are hundreds of examples of Fox News pulling stunts like this all over the internet, as the screen captures above illustrate as well.

Removing the coaching changed the context entirely. Appearing on a Fox News debate is tantamount to endorsing that kind of of gutter journalism.

More Faux News Follies:

  • Newshounds - "We watch Fox News so you don't have to."

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.9/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.9/5 (15 votes cast)


Comments (23)

U.P. Man:

So, Fox edited the Colbert report for time and this proves that they aren't a news organization.

The Democrat contenders are cowards and those of you who defend them for not debating on Fox are hypocrits.

But you know that Lee don't you?

Did the Congressman say what Fox said he said?

This wasn't fake but true.

Lee Ward:

Yeah, a 24 hour news channel is always short on time, and editing the story to completely change the context was just something they had to do...

Obviously UP is a Fox News viewer who consumes the kool-aid on a regular basis.

First, Fox calls this "a Stephen Colbert interview" when it wasn't anything of the sort - it was comedy schtick.

Second, notice the care with which Fox edited out the coaching portion -- so that the laughter was seamless and their editing hack job wasn't obvious.

Fox New is nothing more than lying liars who lie for a living.

BfC:

I watch the YouTube version--and it actually makes the congress critter look even worse--The Congressman new exactly where Mr. Colbert was heading and worked hard to parrot Mr. Colbert's prompting which was intended to produce a clean copy for Fox News or whomever else.

At least Fox News showed the prompting leading up to the parroting... Want to talk about CNN and Eason Jordan running propaganda for a dictator for years so that they could keep their desk in Baghdad as a competitive advantage in the "news game"?

http://www.argushamilton.com/susan/cnn.htm

" Two days after the fall of Baghdad, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan confessed in a New York Times editorial that he concealed knowledge of the vicious and brutal tactics of Saddam Hussein's regime in order to protect CNN's Baghdad bureau and the Iraqi employees on the bureau's staff.

Now it can be told, he wrote, that an Iraqi cameraman was beaten and tortured with electricity in a basement for weeks, that a Kuwaiti woman who phoned CNN was beaten daily for months while her father was forced to watch, and that she was later returned to her family as a heap of bloody body parts stuffed in a plastic bag.

Now it can be told, he wrote, how the regime kept its employees in line, that an aide to Saddam's son had his front teeth ripped out with pliers and a high official in the information ministry was missing all his fingernails.

Now it can be told, he wrote, that CNN reporters were threatened, that Iraqi employees vanished, that whispered stories of unspeakable torture were punctuated by assassinations.

CNN concealed all this for a dozen years."

There is a huge difference between editing for time and "punch" and "editing for dictators"...

One, you may not like, the other is inhumane... I leave it to the reader to determine which is which in my examples.

Lee Ward:

"At least Fox News showed the prompting leading up to the parroting..."

No, they didn't. they called it an interview and completely remove the prompting and the comedy aspects that preceded Wexler's comments.

And your second lie, that it was edited for time, is pure Bullshit as well. Where did you see a statement from Fox that the context removal was necessary for "time"? Can you provide a link or a quote? Of course you can't -- you pulled it out of your ass.

Fox New is a 24 hour news channel - and the needed to remove 20 seconds of this Colbert clip for time? Bullshit.

Third, Eason's anctics are well-documented, and totally irrelevant to this post on Fox News' treatment of politicians vis a vis the debates.

That's three strikes -- good job, Repubbie!

BfC:

00:57 Colbert: "Let's have some fun. Let's say some things that would really lose the election for you were contested--but remember, you are not contested and there is no way you can lose."

01:07 Congressman: "Right"

01:08 Colbert: "I enjoy cocaine because (presents hands to elicit a response)..."
01:10 Congressman: I enjoy cocaine because it is a fun thing to do"

around 2:54, the congressman asks "this would loose me the election?"

And some give an take that this would lose him the election... and he starts I love cocaine because... and starts laughing.... Mr. Colbert stops him and tells the Congressman that laughing will cause "people to think it is a joke"...

Now, the Colbert Report may or may not have done a cut here... the Congressman seems to say the next statement fragment at 03:04 "...because it is a fun thing to do"... from thoughts in his own mine--and this part was not parroted from a line feed by Mr. Colbert...

03:12; Congressman: "because it is a fun thing to do"...

Cut (or politically inspired edit to Congressman stating he enjoys cocaine because... And I guess you point here is because the rest of the response appears to be the Congressman ad libbing the reason he enjoys cocaine instead of parroting the rest of Mr. Colbert's line...

So, your concern is that they called it an interview from the "Comedy Channel" (or whatever that cable channel is called) and you could not see their actions (and here the canned laughter) in the Fox edit so that people would not know that this was a joke??? Boy, I guess you are really comedy impaired.

So, I was exactly correct in the first clip that Fox did not edit out any parroting and that, from the Colbert Report, it appears that the Congressman added the part of why he enjoys cocaine by himself.

I am not going to bother with researching the second clip--this stuff is just so inane.

But, by anyone else's definition, Fox did show the "host" feeding the first 1/2 of the line, and the Congressman, apparently, adding the second part of the line (joke, whatever) by his own volition.

So, Mr. Ward, your comment:

"No, they didn't. they called it an interview and completely remove the prompting and the comedy aspects that preceded Wexler's comments."

Is wrong--they removed some of the prompting and laughter--but certainly not all of it, and they showed all of Mr. Colbert's supplied lines that the congressman was parroting. And, Fox did not pass this off as a serious statement of policy or personal choice.

Second, if you want to get into splitting words... I made a typo in my previous post. I typed "new" instead of "knew".

You also mentioned that I said "...your second lie, that it was edited for time...". I did not. I first said that Mr. Colbert worked with the congressman for clean copy. That Fox edited out other material for time is obvious... Or is the Colbert Report much shorter than I would think it is? (I don't get Comedy Central or Fox News).

What do you think "editing" means? They did not cobble multiple clips together or cut words to make the congressman say exactly opposite of what he said (which has been done by other news networks--by the way)... It started as a comedy bit, and ended as a comedy bit.

Editing--may not agree with it all of the time, but the president gives a 1 hour speech and I hear 5-10 words on the news. Hello? Editing! Ever here the term "sound bites"... Hint... the entire news business runs on "sound bites". There have been clips of hard news segments where the host is prompting for responses and re-asking questions until they get a clean cut that they (host and/or interviewee) like best.

There is also the "fair use" portion of copyright. Could the slice have been longer--probably. Did it change what the congressman said? No. Did it change the situational dynamics... Possibly. But all of that is viewpoint dependent. You think it makes the Congressman look better with the full clip (if it is a full Colbert Reports clip--don't know, do we--does Comedy Central/Colbert report run a warning that they may edit for content and time too?). I, personally, think it makes the congressman look more like a tool of the media.

And, sorry, CNN's choice of editing for content is about 1,000,000x worse than Fox's edit with this Congressman (Saddam is guesstimated to have resulted in the death of about 1 million Muslims in his region of the world--for which CNN admitted they covered up). Fox may have killed one congressman's carrier (although, I doubt it).

And, Mr. Ward, your last mistake? Assuming that I am a "Repubbie"... Never have been, and if things go the way they continue, never will

Enough for now.

Lee Ward:

The Fox News anchor responds at the end of their clip with "I know, we couldn't believe it either!" -- but what makes it "unbelievable" is the removal of the context which eliminated the coaching and the drawing out by Colbert as he is telling Wexler what to say.

You repeat again that you believe they chopped out the context, which resulted in the complete distortion of the "interview" which really wasn't an interview, for time, and yet you provide no quote or link where Fox News claims that to be reason behind their chop job.

"There is also the "fair use" portion of copyright. Could the slice have been longer--probably. Did it change what the congressman said No."

It changed why he said it, which is the whole reason and thrust behind this Fox News smear. It becomes "unbelievable" because Fox took out the truth.

I included a few additional examples of Fox News lies and distortions with the graphics which they aired just before 2006 election during the Foley scandal. The graphic which appeared over Foley identifying him as Democrat aired during the Bill O'Reilly show...

Twice.

I guess there wasn't "time" to fix it after the first airing.

Damn, that whole "time" aspect sure does vex the nice folks at Faux.

Thanks for being our latest contestant on "Defend the Liars", Bfc. Your consolation prize will be mailed to you - allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.

marc:

Lee:

Second, notice the care with which Fox edited out the coaching portion -- so that the laughter was seamless and their editing hack job wasn't obvious.

So what are you saying Lee? That the original "unedited" version that aired on the Comedy Channel contained the coaching?

In order for your charge, and that of the lunatic that posted the Utube vid, to be remotely true the original had to have been aired inclusive of the coaching.

Is that your contention Lee?

That the Comedy Channel, and Colbert, aired that piece with coaching and in the process took away any possibility of the piece containing any comedic value.

And BTW... nice pic of Foley.

But I have to ask... of the millions of captions that have been used on Fox News in the last 10 years (out of which are probably tens of thousands on U.S. politicians) how many have had incorrect party affiliation in the graphic?

Of course along with that you would also have proof the Foley error was done on purpose.

What do you possess Lee, a Fox memo saying the graphics dept should mislabel any and all Reps as Dems if the story is of Rep malfeasance or corruption?

P.S. Monday evening CNN featured in their bottom of the screen crawl the following: "MOTOGP: NASCAR race at MIS postponed for second day." ?It took the network over three hours to correct the error.

Even the most casual sports fan would know MOTOGP is motorcycle racing and NASCAR isn't.

So Lee does that make CNN an illegitimate "news organization, and it practices a unique mix of tabloid journalism."

Or CNN, like Fox, has some underpaid underling in the graphics dept that makes honest mistakes on occasion. Mistakes that far more often than not are just spelling errors and not related to your delusional "party affiliation conspiracy.

marc:

BTW, as much as it would feed your most cherished desires the most you'll see in the Foley case is his lost job. (which is a good thing for the sleezbag.)

But your dearest wish, a frog march, ain't gonna happen.

U.P. Man:

Actually, I don't have much time to watch television. I'd rather spend it with family doing more important stuff.

How many times did Fox air this report? Was it in a half hour news show?

Also, wasn't you Lee who in the not to distant past show only part of a segment that made a Republican look bad? Then claimed something about not wanting to infringe on copyrighted material?

bryanD:

The article and comments are interesting but the fact is Fox News is going BESERK at being shut out of their "cut" of the Democratic debate roulette.

Meanwhile, Murdoch is starting to cattle-prod Ailes to puff Hillary by leaving her be!

It's obvious on the radio side anyway, weary Bush infotainment drones ordered to clear the decks of all Obamas and Edwardses while granting Hillary a foreign policy "maturity" pass. _GRAVITAS_ Queen Hillary, indeed!

Measuring Fox News' political triangulation toward the new and ascendant Ra will be the sideshow of the season. I predict.


marc:

UP Man:

How many times did Fox air this report? Was it in a half hour news show?

It was at the very end of the Special Report. And it points out how ludicrous and absurd both the Utube video is and those that believe its some sort of indictment on Fox.

EVERYDAY Special Report features some comical snippet from one of the late night talk shows or Comedy Central, it's MEANT to be comedy. But loonbats fail to grasp that simple concept.

Also, wasn't you Lee who in the not to distant past show only part of a segment that made a Republican look bad? Then claimed something about not wanting to infringe on copyrighted material?

No Lee STOLE an entire copyrighted magazine article vice offering excerpts as he should have.

It was another Blue "author" who comically offered the excuse that Lee didn't republish anything illegally.

Lee Ward:

btw Marc - you were warned about your trolling over on the Blue Sea Change comment thread. This little shit-fest of yours here makes it Warning Number Two now. You have the manners of a 12 year old. Behave yourself, and stay on topic.

No, the Foley ID wasn't at the very end of a special report, The lying graphic aired three times in two different segments of O'Reilly's crap show. Lying about it is sooo Republican.

That's right -- it aired three times, and they had several chances to correct it and didn't. I bet they were laughing hysterically in the Faux News control room. Now That's Journalistic Integrity -- of the middle-school variety.

The saddest part is that the more uninformed conservative morons who watch Faux News wouldn't know the difference, and are programmed to be believe any crap that passes over the Faux airwaves.

I wonder how many of them saw this graphic and then threw their beer cans at the TV, cursing "the Mainstream Media for lying to them and telling them Foley was Republican when he was a gal-danged Dem-O-Krat all along! Sheeeat. Honey! Get me another beer- and kids -- I told you to keep that pig OUTSIDE of the house after dinner!"

I love it when the rubes from Wizbang come over and spread their fertilizer.

And now the the dishonest ones in the crowd suggest it was on purpose and meant as comedy? lol - now THAT's funny.

BryanD -- makes sense on the Queen Hill meme. If the right truly believes Hilllary is beatable (as they keep repeating) and that she will motivate the base-heads into getting off their white flabby asses and getting to the voting booths, then Fox will focus their attacks on Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Haircut Boy, and give Hill a pass.

I hope the SuperGore is doing his jumping jacks and shadow boxing... although Barack HUSSEIN Obama is picking up points in my book these days...

U.P. Man:

Lee, I'll type slowly.

I asked about the COLBERT REPORT and Marc responded to it.

Oh, that's right you just make stuff up.

The Foley graphic was played 3 whole times? Wow, that's really bad, not like Dan Rather report fake but accurately ?

Lee Ward:

Oh, I see you were being off-topic and irrelevant as usual, UP Man - and I know you type slowly. I bet there are many things you do slowly.

And the examples of Faux's phoniness are well documented. Yes, the Foley ID graphic aired three times -- at least two times more than it would have aired had Fox any integrity.

and I don't see Dan Rather hosting any debates, do you? Rather's actions don't justify Fox's actions.

And you won't see Democrats debating on Fox News --ever. It's all downhill for Fox from here on out.

U.P. Man:

Yes, it is a sad day when one party can't handle a news show.

I pointed to Dan Rather to show your stupidity.

Fox show with a bad graphic probably an error, should have been corrected, but still an error.

Dan Rather, blatant LIE, but they are still a legitimate news organization to you.

Lee the hypocrite.

Truth hurts doesn't it Lee

U.P. Man:

Lee, the only time I go off-topic is because you are unable to defend your position.

Or won't answer a simple question.

Would you say, CNN left leaning is well documented?

What about ABC, CBS, NBC and CNBC isn't their left leaning well documented?

Lee Ward:

"I pointed to Dan Rather to show your stupidity.

And I will point to your remark and the rest of your attacks here and elsewhere to show you and the other trolls from Wizbang how to get yourself banned from the Wizbang Blue comment threads.

Buh bye!

marc:

LEE:

btw Marc - you were warned about your trolling over on the Blue Sea Change comment thread. This little shit-fest of yours here makes it Warning Number Two now. You have the manners of a 12 year old. Behave yourself, and stay on topic.

No, the Foley ID wasn't at the very end of a special report, The lying graphic aired three times in two different segments of O'Reilly's crap show. Lying about it is sooo Republican.


Oooooo! I'm scared, I've been warned! It's my "little Shit-fest" (BTW isn't that banning material for sone other than you?) and you can't comprehend I very plainly answered a question posed by U.P Man.

And then... THEN you accuse U.P. Mn of being "off topic" when THE topic is dictated by the very video you have posted.

Maybe you missed the title at the top, it says "The Colbert Report."

And I will point to remark and the rest of your attacks here and elsewhere to show you and the other trolls from Wizbang how to get yourself banned from the Wizbang Blue comment threads.

So now it's "attacks" that bring out your banning hammer... moved the goalposts from the use of "bad words."

Why am I not surprised.

And BTW, what of that Fox News memo that details how they purposefully label Reps as Dems when they do something wrong?

Do you misplace it?

Ban me LEE, go ahead this page is already screen caped for future use and I would suggest you look for "anonymizer." Once you find it you'll learn, I presume, anyone at anytime can bypass a blogs banning system.

Se ya

Lee Ward:

"Ban me LEE, go ahead"

Done.

"I would suggest you look for "anonymizer." Once you find it you'll learn, I presume, anyone at anytime can bypass a blogs banning system."

Your threat to circumvent the ban is noted.


U.P. Man:

banned? how typical of the free speech of the left

Baggi:

If I were Lee I would have banned them too. They made him look silly and rediculous for calling Fox News not a news organization.

They clearly showed that Fox News did nothing wrong and presented that clip as a comedy clip at the end of Brit Humes Special Report. If you ever watch the show he always has a funny little clip in the last 30 seconds or so of the show, usually from Comedy Central or from Jay Leno, etc.

But, Lee and other Democrats are afraid of Fox News because it is fair and balanced. Which is really good for Republicans. We get to show folks on CNN, MSNBC and Fox what we stand for. Democrats are restricted to 1/3rd the audience.

Lee Ward:

Yeah, Fox thinks it's funny when they label Foley a Democrat, or call a comedy schtick "an interview" and express SHOCK! at the comments -- which they've taken out of context by editing.

YUCK, YUCK, look at the dummocrats! -- and then conservatives wonder why the Democrats refuse to appear on Fox.

And as I said above, there are lots and lots of examples of Fox News' bias. Greenwald's documentary OUTFOXED does a great job of exposing the lies and hypocrisy of Faux News. It's about two hours long, and has memos, clips, interviews etc...

As I recall, Obama actually began refusing to speak to Fox reporters after they launched the smear campaign hatchet job back in May.

And you've seen an example of this same mentality here. The trolls from Wizbang show up and attack me rather than address the topic at hand.

And there are lots of debates that the Democrats are participating in, and everyone who wants to see a Democratic debate will get a chance to do despite the cancelled Faux debates. Baggi's suggestion that the Democrats are losing an important audience by not appearing on Fox is BS.

but who am I to talk - I'm just a guy who, according to Baggi, is afraid of Fox News. Interesting that Baggi would have that viewpoint, that people are or could be afraid of the media, even one as transparently biased as Fox. I think that speaks to his/her inner workings more than mine...

Baggi sez: "They made him look silly and rediculous.."(sic).

bottom line -- you can't write stuff this funny...

SCSIwuzzy:

The irony of Lee banning someone for being off topic...
BTW, no subscribe option or voting options over here on Blue these days?


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.