Politics and Religion

An even more interesting set of groups . . . .
ed2000 31 Reviews 1701 reads
posted

Is the potential groupings of the various media outlets and pundits after the prime time debate of 10, regarding their critique of the FOX moderator panel. It's complicated a bit because of Trump. Well, actually it might be almost entirely DUE to Trump.  

Most of the Left media praised Fox for a great event, I guess for being Fair and Balanced? But more likely for going after all the candidates. Those in the Right media that thought their guy (or guys) got gored too much said Fox (directed by Ailes) was only in it for the ratings. Indeed FOX has been crowing incessantly about the huge 24 million turn out. Kelly, Baier and Wallace got criticized from a variety of sources ranging from Limbaugh to Levine to Savage. Another group of Right media and Right pundits were mainly interested in how Trump was treated, mostly thinking (or hoping) he'd be on the downslope now. The top of that group have declared Trump is now toast. Another part of that group claims it was Ailes' primary goal to bring Trump down. Analysis of the moderators time showed they talked about 1/3rd of the time. Too much some said, but it seemed required in part to phrase the questions in a "harder hitting" manner. Every candidate got a question that was based on a foundation of each one's perceived weakness.  So then that generates a group of Right media and pundits claiming to be tired of the Republicans asked to essentially justify themselves. It is true that the general media treats Democrats easier on this topic but for me that’s exactly WHY it was good for FOX to be tough. Isn’t the purpose to weed out those who “can’t stand the heat in the kitchen?” Rpublicans that are now critical of FOX should be thanking FOX, regardless their motives. It will be interesting to see if CNN in the next debate will follow FOX’s lead or even try to one up them.  Not to worry though. All this will get balanced out in the Democrat primary debates. Anybody have a schedule on those yet?


-- Modified on 8/8/2015 4:52:57 PM

I thought Fox did a fantastic job, with one exception, which I will get to. They played the night "old school" as Kronkite might have done.  

These are people on stage, that want to pick SCOTUS judges, possess the nuclear suit case and affect the US economy so tough, hard hitting questions should be the norm, not the exception, by all MSM, but sadly, it has deteriorated over the last 20 years or so.

The debate really separated Fox "News" from the Fox News Channel. Baier and Wallace are superb newsmen. Kelly is more in limbo as she is an opinion host but a sharp, witty and highly intelligent persona who clearly has some left leaning positions (gay marriage, I think she thinks abortion should be legal with some restrictions, etc)

If there was a favoritism to the GOP in the debate from Fox, I didn't see it and CNN didn't see it either.

The one critisism I think that has merit is the Trump "raise your hand in the air" if you won't rule out a third party run question. Of course the topic is legitimate, and something I pointed out pre-debate that I felt was the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

BUT...Fox asked that question to the group,  already knowing the answer going in, and it appeared to do so to embarrass Trump, leaving him with the only hand raised on the set. You could even hear an unease in Baiers voice as he promised this would be the only "raise your hand" type question.  

Fox knew only Trump would raise his hand, and that singling out of him, especially at the top of the broadcast, seemed petty and vindictive. It is not Fox's job to embarrass Trump or to try and drive him from the race.

It would have been much more professional, imo, had Fox, at a later point in the night, near the end, asked Trump directly about his third party candidacy comment and whether he stands by it or not.  

The question is legitimate, and furthermore HAD to be asked, but to do so in the manner that they did it, made it appear to me at least, like they were going the extra mile to destroy him. They didn't need to do so, and again, that is not their job.

Trump can self immolate with the best of them. Just stick a mic in his face. Let him hang himself. No need for Fox to put the noose around his neck too.  

Just my 2 cents, Ed.

-- Modified on 8/8/2015 7:03:44 PM

...to drive him from the race.  Fox News was conceived by Roger Ailes in 1970 when he was working for the Nixon Administration.  He was all gung ho for "A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News."  He even wanted to run the project.  He eventually put the plan in place with one small change - today it's called Fox News.

Ailes and the GOP don't want Trump to be the nominee but it was dumb for Fox to be so transparent in trying to take Trump down - he will do that to himself in no time.  Fox being so hard on Trump will give him the excuse he needs to run as a third party candidate.

Posted By: BigPapasan
...to drive him from the race.  Fox News was conceived by Roger Ailes in 1970 when he was working for the Nixon Administration.  He was all gung ho for "A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News."  He even wanted to run the project.  He eventually put the plan in place with one small change - today it's called Fox News.  
   
 Ailes and the GOP don't want Trump to be the nominee but it was dumb for Fox to be so transparent in trying to take Trump down - he will do that to himself in no time.  Fox being so hard on Trump will give him the excuse he needs to run as a third party candidate.

I think Ailes "managed" it just right, don't cha think?

followme320 reads

Yep just like the backstabber, behind the times, out of date and not relevant.

 
Thank yo

If one were to look back at CNN's handling of the 2012 Republican debates - I simply can't forget what a self-promoting circus CNN made of it. Jon Stewart made mince meat of Wolf Blitzer and Company for all the flashy graphics, and can anypne forget how it was almost a full 20 minutes into the broadcast before the first question was even asked.

As much as I abhor Roger Ailes and the Bluster of Bullshit Mountain, I am just as repulsed by CNN's flash splash and dash for cash approach.

Posted By: ed2000
It will be interesting to see if CNN in the next debate will follow FOX’s lead or even try to one up them.  Not to worry though. All this will get balanced out in the Democrat primary debates. Anybody have a schedule on those yet?
Here's the tentative schedule for the DEM debate series as it now stands... but for the moment, they don't know who to invite to debate Hillary... and we probably won't know until after the Iowa caucus if there is anyone else from the DEM's who can challenge Hillary. But wouldn't it be just the most fun to have "the Hillary" debate "the Donald"? I would pony up real money to see that one.

 
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
CNN Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Nevada
Sponsors: CNN, Nevada Democratic Party
Candidates: TBD

Saturday, November 14, 2015
CBS News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Sponsors: CBS News, KCCI, The Des Moines Register
Candidates: TBD

Saturday, December 19, 2015
ABC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Sponsors: ABC News, WMUR
Candidates: TBD

2016
Sunday, January 17, 2016
NBC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Sponsors: NBC, Congressional Black Caucus Institute
Candidates: TBD

February or March, 2016
Univision Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Miami, Florida
Sponsors: Univision, The Washington Post
Candidates: TBD

February or March, 2016
PBS Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: PBS
Candidates: TBD

on how completely unprofessional their questions were. It was almost like being in a room full of gossiping women. “Jeb Bush said such and such about you Mr. Trump. How do you feel about that?” “Sen. Paul, Gov Christie said such and such about you. What’s your response?” “ Gov Christie, is Gov Huckabee lying?”

        And the professional low of the evening - Megan Kelly reminding Trump that he had once said he would like to see a girl get down on her knees.

        Were there any tough questions about policy?  They let the candidates say “I’m going to repeal Obamacare” and “revoke the Iran agreement” without asking what they would do instead.  They let Carson blabber about his ridiculous “tithing” tax system without any of usual flat tax questions –“are you saying no deductions at all?” No real questions on immigration except Wallace’s attempt to trap Trump in his lie about Mexico having sent the bad guys up here.  But that tells us nothing of policy.

         I thought the debate was more like a low rated reality show than professional reporters moderating a presidential debate. I predict the next more reasoned wave of media criticism will point this out rather than simplistically say "Fox was tough on the Republicans."

       Watch Reliable sources on CNN tomorrow

Timbow416 reads

line back to Kelly would have been yea it was a Playboy model , google it. :D I want to see Webb debate Hillary.

-- Modified on 8/8/2015 1:02:37 PM

You can't bitch about Fox limiting the number of debaters then complain that the potential nominees don't go in depth with policy details! Can you imagine 17 peeps up there?  

They would had time to say their name and Megyn Kelly would have interrupted after the 13th intro and said "Thank you and good night from Cleveland!" LOL

With the number of people that were on stage, and the fact there was only 2 hours, NOT counting commercial breaks, limited any serious detailed exchange, debate and dialogue.

I am not saying that none of your points are valid, and of course they could have done a better job, but come on, they are being widely praised by the center/left media and with good reason.  

When do you ever see competitors compliment each other? Ever see Pepsi tell Coke they did a great job with their Super Bowl ad? LOL

All things considered, they did a very admirable job. You could have thrown them a prop or two, mixed in with some constructive criticism.

-- Modified on 8/9/2015 12:49:51 AM

Since you almost totally agreed with him. LOL  

My major point was to show the wide diversity of opinions regarding the moderators.  

Watch Buzz Feed on FOX on Sunday afternoon.  Kelly is supposed to be on, fielding criticism.

GaGambler370 reads

but rarely for more than about five minutes in a row. Listening to Michael Savage is like spending all day reading Laffy's posts, just with the opposite POV. I don't think I have ever listened to anyone so in love with himself.

I actually thought that as a whole the mods did a good job and didn't just throw up a bunch of softball questions. The candidates are going to get "hard questions" from the other side eventually if they last that long that is, we might as well start thinning the herd now.

followme309 reads

You have never listened to anyone so in love with himself.  

You've never listened to trump, and obama, not to mention most of the lefties here.

Thank you  
2015 = 28

Posted By: GaGambler
Listening to Michael Savage is like spending all day reading Laffy's posts, just with the opposite POV. I don't think I have ever listened to anyone so in love with himself.
I rarely catch Savage except when I'm driving around Chicago. As I listened to him Friday evening during one of his rants I could not help thinking I was listening to Laffy,

Savage was all over Kelly's ass (not a bad place to be) Friday, calling her Mayhem Kelly he hated her questions and knew that Roger Ailes forced every question down her throat. (He probably has nothing else worth putting there). Savage was brutal.

I was amazed how so many people Left and Right were on both sides of the moderator's ratings.

And then I saw this:

 

-- Modified on 8/9/2015 1:23:52 PM

from further participation in the debates bc, inter alia, she targeted Trump with personal questions rather than political ones.
 

Posted By: ed2000
Since you almost totally agreed with him. LOL  
   
 My major point was to show the wide diversity of opinions regarding the moderators.  
   
 Watch Buzz Feed on FOX on Sunday afternoon.  Kelly is supposed to be on, fielding criticism.

I would guess (or hope) Howard Kurtz is going to discuss their performance (at least a little).

Register Now!