• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News pulls Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum off the air …

Personally, no, I wouldn't hire anybody who was possibly running for president in an upcoming election because as a news agency, I wouldn't want to appear biased.

What is your statute of limitations? How long before an election should FOX avoid having someone on the payroll if they 'might' run for President? 1 year? 2? 4? Never? Be specific.
 
I have a funny feeling nothing short of hiring Olbremann and turning the News Room over to the NY Times would raise Fox's credibility with you.
Why would I want to see Olbermann associated with a news agency? He was with MSNBC and I made it clear that I see MSNBC in the same light as I see Fox, only they lean left.

What you are MAD about isn't "Fox News' credibility, it's pretty clear you just don't like the network. What has you upset is that these politicians were given public visibility via their work with Fox News.
Do you really think you need to keep reminding me that you don't understand what I'm talking about? I get that, you can stop now.

Let's just cut the bull eh? I've already decimated every point you've made.
Wow. I'm impressed. I've never had my opinion decimated by an endless stream of non-sequiturs before. Kudos to you and your delusional brain that sees victories where none exist.

Let's get down to brass tacks. By working with Fox, Palin, Huckabee, Newt... are able to "stay in the public discourse", and that irks you.
This is where your position gets derailed. Those people could have remained embedded in "public discourse" without joining a purported news agency. Once again, you demonstrate you really have no idea at all what I'm talking about as I don't care if they're in the public daily. Palin has (or had) her own reality TV show, I couldn't care less. If you knew what I was talking about, you would have realized my problem is with Fox no longer even attempting to conceal its bias by hiring potential presidential candidates. Regretably, you don't; probably never will.

I was using SIMILAR situations because you are being dishonest as hell.
That's funny. You probably really do believe the examples you cited were similar.

Class dismissed!
(that means I'm through schooling you, feel free however to rant on, who'll listen to you now?)
Impressive. Educated by someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. Who knew such things were even possible?
 
That's pretty unfair. Just because the men may decide to run for president they are kicking them off the air? What if they eventually change their minds and decides not to run?

They should have let both of them stay on.

They didnt fire them, they are suspended while running for president. It just means they will not get a paycheck from fox.

As you’ve probably heard by now, Fox News has suspended the contracts of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum for sixty days. They will have to tell Fox News within sixty days whether they intend to run for the presidency or their contracts will be terminated.

Contracts for Governor Palin and Mike Huckabee were not among the contracts suspended. Huckabee’s contract was not suspended because his “present intention is to sell books.” Governor Palin’s contract was not suspended because “he hasn’t yet shown a serious intention to form an exploratory committee.”


They can not work for Fox also because it would be like they were being endorsed by them. (BY receiving money)
Fox News suspends Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
OK< Which presidential candidates did Fox News hire? The fact is they didn't hire any.
All 4 were likely. All 4 were considering the option but it was too soon to declare their candidacy.

You seemed to have missed the news that as soon as there was a possibility that these people were likely candidates, they were dismissed.
They were likely candidates when they were hired. They were dismissed when they became serious candidates.

By the ratings and the fact that several of their commentators are possible presidential candidates. There is simply no comparison.
I don't see the ratings as telling that at all. For one, Conservatives seem to gravitate towards 1 network, Fox, more than any other; whereas Liberals tend to be more diverse, gravitating towards ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. For another, there are roughly twice as many people in this country who identify themselves as Conservative as they do Liberal. And finally, while Fox easily beats its cable competators, it pales in comparison to network news. I do not see that as an indicator that they are better.
 
what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

FOX is not a credible news agency, because people who contribute on air run for President? I hope you hole ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. all to that standard.
Ok, so far we have one example (CNN hired Buchanan). But the format was different and less biased. What examples do you have of other news agencies hiring likely presidential candidates?
 
Personally, no, I wouldn't hire anybody who was possibly running for president in an upcoming election because as a news agency, I wouldn't want to appear biased. Someone earlier mentioned CNN hiring Pat Buchanan. That, I believe, is almost as wrong as what Fox is doing now. The only difference being that at least CNN hired him in a format which pitted left against right, so it's hard to find bias when both sides are presented in the same show; it was still wrong for the same inherent reason, but not as blatantly biased as Fox is being about it.


Oh? How did I do that?
Well I don't think Fox news is trying to cover up any bias, nor are any of the other cable media, so I'm not so sure why you're against it. Although, un-biased media would be nice, it's just as equal if you have both sides on the air, as we do today.
 
Ok, so far we have one example (CNN hired Buchanan). But the format was different and less biased. What examples do you have of other news agencies hiring likely presidential candidates?

I did not say others did or did not hire possible Presidential candidates. I said I hope you whine and complain when they do, or you risk being labeled a hypocrite.
 
I did not say others did or did not hire possible Presidential candidates. I said I hope you whine and complain when they do, or you risk being labeled a hypocrite.
If others engaged in that practice, yes, I hold them to the same standard as Fox. Am I to take your reply as you have no examples to cite?
 
Well I don't think Fox news is trying to cover up any bias, nor are any of the other cable media, so I'm not so sure why you're against it. Although, un-biased media would be nice, it's just as equal if you have both sides on the air, as we do today.
I asked you for examples of other media bias. What do you see?
 
All 4 were likely. All 4 were considering the option but it was too soon to declare their candidacy.

OK, so there is no problem there then.

They were likely candidates when they were hired. They were dismissed when they became serious candidates.

Then there iis no problem there either.

I don't see the ratings as telling that at all. For one, Conservatives seem to gravitate towards 1 network, Fox, more than any other; whereas Liberals tend to be more diverse, gravitating towards ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. For another, there are roughly twice as many people in this country who identify themselves as Conservative as they do Liberal. And finally, while Fox easily beats its cable competators, it pales in comparison to network news. I do not see that as an indicator that they are better.

When they have several commentators who are possible Presidential candidates, while the others have none, I think that speaks well of their professionalism and credibility. It is the most serious news network available.
 
When they have several commentators who are possible Presidential candidates, while the others have none, I think that speaks well of their professionalism and credibility.
Ok, so you prefer biased news. I do not.
 
First, you have to demonstrate you understand what I'm talking about.

Figured folks.

You think it's wrong for Fox to hire people that might at some point be presidential candidates, as this skews the "message" in favor of the GOP thus in your view making Fox the propaganda arm of the GOP vice a News Organization. I have stated this in different terms, showed it's not unusual and mocked you for it. Now you run and hide when asked to provide "credible news sources"

Twist away my little friend, you are beaten, when will you realize it?
 
This should be good:

Name your news sources.

Sorry I missed that. But there does seem to be some interest in finding a completely reliable and unbiased news source.

I probably won't be familiar with it.
 
Good for you.

Now which news organization do you feel is most free from bias? Who do you trust to bring you the straight goods?
I find ABC most centered.
 
I find ABC most centered.

I am a fan of the Lehrer News Hour. The news portion is pretty well presented, the people they bring in to discuss issues tend to be polite and intelligent even if they disagree with each other, which is a nice change of pace.
 
I find ABC most centered.

ABC?

Okay folks, I think this ends the discussion quite well don't you?

Sheik, thank you for the reply, we shall let this stand as evidence of what this thread REALLY was all about. Just as I stated it was.
 
Twist away my little friend, you are beaten, when will you realize it?
Like I said, I'm impressed with someone who has no idea what I'm talking about but actually thinks he's defeated me in debate. Maybe if you say that another thousand times, it will be one of those things that if repeated enough, convinces a few people that it's true? Just a suggestion, mind you.
 
Sorry I missed that. But there does seem to be some interest in finding a completely reliable and unbiased news source.

I probably won't be familiar with it.
I'm sure every news agency has isolated incidents of bias. With Fox, it's systemic.
 
Back
Top Bottom