So, one of the amusing things that happened during the Republican debates that you might have missed (I certainly didn't see it posted here anyway); for those of us outside the US who still wanted to watch the debate, fortunately Sky News was broadcasting the entire thing live on their youtube channel.
...Or they were, until the stream got taken down due to a copyright claim by Fox. For those of you playing along at home, Sky and Fox are all under the same roof, business wise, owned as they are by Murdoch. So, they had a copyright claim filed against their own company, to stop them broadcasting their own content. The kind of ineptitude that boggles the mind, yet once you realise Fox is involved doesn't seem at all improbable; and yet some will still happily portray them here as a valid source.It's not just "some here" thinks so. Their competition, and several leftys here, praised them for their tough questions at the debate.
If you can tell me two better newsman in the US than Brett Naier and Chris Wallace, I am all ears.
Mr. Obama, and virtually all the top Democrats go there to be interviewed so they feel it is "valid source."
You seem to conflate some mix up between Sky and Fox to try and make some larger, bogus point that Fox isn't valid.
Liberals in the US aren't pissed because they feel Fox has no validity, quite the contrary, they are obsessed with Fox because they do.
-- Modified on 8/11/2015 1:17:28 PM