Prosecute the torture.

March 13, 2007

Preemptive Red Meat for Fred Honsberger

Fred Honsberger mentioned me and this blog on the air yesterday (thanks, Fred!).

Here's the story.

He'd been arguing with callers over the "stop light cameras" program described by Councilman Bill Peduto proposed legislation. Strangely enough, even though Peduto's a Democrat and Fred's (obviously) a Republican, Fred likes the idea.

Yea, yea. I know - shocking to me, too.

Anyway, I e-mailed in a thought as to why so many people are giving my friend Fred such a hard time with this. Here's what I wrote: Americans don't like being told what to do. It's against our national character.

Fred read the e-mail over the air, mentioned this blog a few times (Hey, Fred! How's about showing us some real love and posting the URL here?) and then went on to say that he'd been thinking of tossing me some "red meat" over the Democrats backing out of a debate hosted by Fox.

I thought I'd get the facts out BEFORE Fred starts spinning. Here's the AP:

The Nevada Democratic Party on Friday canceled an August presidential debate in Reno that was to be co-hosted by Fox News, citing comments Thursday by the network's chairman. Liberal activists and bloggers had been protesting the debate plans, calling the channel biased.

Roger Ailes, Fox News' chief executive, was at a broadcasters' event to receive a 1st Amendment award when he joked in a speech, according to a Fox transcript: "It is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' " Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) is running for president; Pervez Musharraf is Pakistan's president.

His comments "in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far," wrote Nevada Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a letter sent Friday to Fox News. "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments."

Of course, the spin from the right is about anything other than Ailes' stupid joke and the quality of news reporting from Fox.

MoveOn.org Civic Action, a network of liberal activists, had called on the state Democratic Party to drop partnership with Fox, which the group calls "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party."

Fox News Vice President David Rhodes said the party's decision Friday showed that the online group owned the Democratic Party in Nevada.

Which is, of course, why the group that "owns" the Democratic Party in Nevada had to wait until the President of the Fox "News" network had to put his foot in his mouth before being able to cancel the debate. If they "owned" the Party in Nevada, why was the debate scheduled to begin with?

The real reason, and this is obvious, that the Fox "News" Channel is part of the Republican Party/Conservative Movement/White House echo chamber. It's a place where few Democrats (besides the currently Independent Joe Lieberman, of course) can even hope to get a fair shake.

Why would any candidate want to particiapte in such an obviously slanted venue? This is the same "fair and balanced" network that inviariably tilts the coverage away from the Democratic party.

Take a look. The OPJ has already blogged on this first screen shot.

Not much of a mystery to me.

1 comment:

SirFuller said...

But the question is ... can a republican or conservative independent get a fair shake on other media outlets?

NBC, CBS (especially "60 Minutes"), PBS and NPR - I'm not so sure.

If the candidates truly believe in their platform, there is no reason they should hide from their own beliefs. Sometimes you need to stand up and tell others how it is no matter what news source you're on.

I just can't see it being a good thing to blacklist a very popular news channel.