They are simply terrified of this outlet...the single news organization that employs an EVEN number of conservative and liberal contributers.
Edwards has just cancelled his appearance on a Dem debate co-hosted by Fox...does anyone else notice the concentrated effort to diminish this outlet by referring to it as 'biased' etc.
Funny how it is always labeled '...Fox, the CONSERVATIVE news channel' in the mainstream media, but extreme left-leaning orgs like MSNBC are never referred to as 'the liberal news channel'.
What is so striking is that libs (in their usual 'enlightened ' way)
are threatened by the ONE outlet that gives this administration a fair shake, that they are compelled to try to silence it.
Proving yet again that liberals are crusaders for free speech and the open exchange of ideas...as long as you think and say exactly what they want you to.
2007-03-08 01:43:52 · 20 answers · asked by Garrett S 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am laughing at this question and I will tell you why.
Fox News wanted to have each presidential candidate on their channel. Each was going to have their own time to make their own points uninterrupted. I mean this is what we have all been wanting right? To hear each candidate in his or her own words without being talked over by someone who doesn't agree with them. Am I not right?
Anyway, this isn't going to happen because some Democratic candidates said no they didn't think it could be fair.
Want to know what I think? I think that if this did happen and all candidates got equal time to speak their minds on one network (Fox) then they couldn't make the argument that Fox News isn't "Fair and Balanced" anymore.
2007-03-08 01:57:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I doubt if they are afraid of it. They just want it erased much like they want with talk radio. This is standard liberal fair. Remember for a great many liberals (not all), it is only free speech if they agree with what is being said. Otherwise it's hate speech or fascist propaganda. Be aware though that the same can be said of conservatives who seem to believe all other media is purely liberal and agenda driven. The fact is that media is no longer about absolute truth. It's about getting the highest ratings possible. In order to get a picture of what is going on in this day and age you must turn to a variety of sources and try to discard the purely partisan crap on both sides.
2007-03-08 01:55:40 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
One thing I have noticed over the years is that the libs literally hate anything that does not adhere to their ethics or lack of. We have "tolerated" liberal CNN (Communist News Network) for so many years and all of the liberal media outlets. They were fine until a different voice came along. Any views that are not like theirs, they hate and want to stifle. They seem to be tolerant toward criminals, murderers, baby killers, terrorists and basically everything immoral and unethical, but they are completely intolerant of someone else's views. Hypocrisy at it's best. Pacifism and political correctness will get us all killed. They are at war with conservatives, not who or what they should be at war with. Their priorities are kind of backwards.
where are the Zel Millers!!!!!! Now that is a democrat that I like!
2007-03-08 01:57:38 · answer #3 · answered by patrioticpeladac 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Actually, Fox does NOT employ an equal number of conservative and liberal contributors. I've watched "Fox News Sunday" a few times, and I've noticed that most of the roundtable consists of conservative commentators. I've also watched "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press" a number of times, and I've noticed that Bob Schieffer and Tim Russert ask both liberal and conservative guests equally pointed questions and give both of them equal air time. Also, Schieffer and Russert don't display a preference for either side. By the way, why is it that Fox has bombastic conservative commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity but milquetoast liberal commentators like Alan Colmes? It's obvious that Fox wants the conservatives to have more of a voice on their network.
2007-03-08 01:52:29 · answer #4 · answered by tangerine 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If you want to watch a channel that gives the admininstration a " fair shake," watch Cnn's Lou Dobbs
No one is afraid of Fox, but I'd rather know the truth. For example, how much has fox reported on agents Ramos and Compean and why the president refuses to look at this case.
2007-03-08 01:49:56 · answer #5 · answered by gizmo 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It doesn't scare us we just think it's a shame that Faux completely dupes it's viewers into thinking they're getting real information, I especially liked Sean Hannity using former Marine & GAY PORN STAR Matt Sanchez to attack liberals, I thought Gay Porn Stars were the enemy or is it cool to use them when it suits you're purposes, and why the heck is Dick "I like prositute toes" Morris giving opinion, the guy hasn't been right ONCE in the last 2 years, and as far as balanced Alan Colmes is a step stool and he's the ONLY so called liberal voice on the station
2007-03-08 01:49:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I never laughed so hard...I watched it last night for the first time in awhile, and I can't believe you cons think it is anything other than a joke! I mean, War on Easter? With a red 'X' through the bunny, and a headline stating that Easter and bunnies have no connection? Oh oh, and then...using several puns to deliver the story? ooo, oooo, and then the in your face graphics flying right out of the screen? I felt like I was in a blue light special at K Mart! It is endlessly hilarious that you guys think this is news...I mean they can't even take themsleves seriously! I guess the fear is that many americans will take this crap seriously, and then be extremely underinformed of the REAL news. But besides that, it was frigging hilarious.
2007-03-08 01:52:35 · answer #7 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Because it's been proven that people who use Fox News as their main or only source of news end up with wildly inaccurate views of reality, for starters.
And oh yeah, how are we trying to silence it, even if we had the means? Why do you cons take any disagreement or dissent as a deadly threat to your existence?
2007-03-08 01:50:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I can't be afraid of something irrelevant.
Who cares about Fox, when the BBC, Reuters, and other news organizations are on the cutting edge of reporting.
Rupert Murdoch wasn't even born here.
2007-03-08 01:50:38 · answer #9 · answered by Truth 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Nope...not afraid...it's just that's it's kind of a joke. Everything from the reporting to the production of it is...well..really pretty poor. It's like watching some public access channel. Not good.
2007-03-08 01:49:32 · answer #10 · answered by beeze 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋