Ailes Changes His Tune On Debates
An alert reader pointed us to a August 25, 1988 Washington Post article about VP George H.W. Bush's refusal to agree to a pre-9/20 debate with Michael Dukakis. Bush adviser Roger Ailes demurs:
"I don't know that we need to do more than one. There's no reason to think we'd need more than one. That's a negotiating item." He added: "We're not anxious to debate at this point. We intend to debate, but we're not going to let anybody stampede us into a debate."
Last night, at the RTNDF dinner, Ailes made it clear that his views have ... evolved.
I feel compelled, however -- on a serious note -- to say a few words. We're headed into covering a tough political season and all of us will be called upon to do our best and be fair. Recently pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage.
And:
Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists. And any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters
John Edwards is skipping a debate -- one of more than a dozen -- arguably a little less fundamental to our deliberate democracy. And the threat here is that Fox News will somehow treat Edwards differently if he refuses to appear at their debate. Doesn't that reinforce the reasons why Edwards (spurred by Nevada grassroots Dems, MoveOn and Kos) is dubious?
.
Come on. Does anyone really think FOX would treat the Dems with ANY respect during the debates. I can just hear the post debate analysis from Hannity, Angle, Oreilly, Gibson, Hume, Beltway Bows, Fox and Friends now. 85% of Fox's broadcast is pro Republican. Of course the Dems are wary. I would be too.
Fox News held a debate along with the Congressional Black Caucus for the Democratic nomination back in 2004. None of the Dems complained then, and I think Edwards even attended. Sounds like Edwards is just pandering to the liberal base. Trying to make-up for booting your anti-christian bloggers, John? Thought so.
Ailes statement is a joke. He says, "and any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters".. oh really? When would Fox's so called journalist start asking some "real" questions? Have they every asked one to Bush/Cheney? How about asking Mitt Romney about all his flip-flops? How about asking Rudy about his marriages and about how why firefighters are wrong? How about asking their own buddy Newt about why he was against Clinton's escapade while he himself was sleeping with someone other than his own wife at the very same time.
And one question to all others.. how many republican candidates will appear for any debate thats sponsored by Air America?
Good for John Edwards.
Remember, Fox News was happy to air the bogus story about Barack Obama supposedly attending a Madrassa Muslim school when he was young, without even bothering to check with the Obama campaign first in order to actually get the facts. That demonstrates quite clearly that Fox isn't interested in even the most basic journalism, just Republican propaganda. Fox News also put Ann Coulter right on the air after her despicable, hateful slur at a conservative conference recently. Apparently Fox News is fine with giving a podium to proven bigots and letting them try to "rehabilitate" their image once again.
Other Democrats should follow Edwards' lead and reject this Fox News debate in Nevada. Even Hillary Clinton, who benefited from a fund-raiser held by Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, should decline to attend. Democrats should not help Fox News appear to be a legitimate news organization when it obviously is something very different.
Adam, you are wrong; there were huge numbers of complaints about how Fox conducted that 2004 debate. Their banners called it "Democrat Debate" (using "Democrat" incorrectly as an adjective, instead of "Democratic", and then pronouncing it "DemocRAT", is an old Republican tactic. The cut before the debate was even over to Bill Bennett's commentary, and their panel of "experts" was stacked with Republican operatives.
It is precisely because of how Fox conducted that debate that most grass roots Democrats say "never again".
Matt - Air America is not a news network (not even a pretent one), its a radio network, which no one listens to. DUH!
Question to you Matt: If Fox News was good enough in 2004 for the Dems to debate, why not 2008?
The Dems look like they are pandering to the looney left, or just a bunch of cowards. Chris Wallace is SO SCARY!! BOO!!! Run away libbies, run away.
I think the important point to remember here is that Fox News is not just biased -- I don't think anyone disputes that at this point. Worse, they are dishonest and would not hesitate to present things from the debate out of context or edited in such a way to make the Dems look as bad as possible. Their behavior with the fake Obama madrassa story is all the proof we need that they are more interested in smearing than informing. Good for the Dems for pulling out of this nonsense.
Joe, I'm sure the lefties that run the Dem Party complained about the '04 Fox Debate since they complain about everything they cannot control. I was referring to the candidates themselves. Which of those made complaints? How many refused to participate? Name them.