What the hell, Fox News?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sexiest_hero**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110505/ap_on_el_ge/ap_gop_debate_media_access

WASHINGTON – News agencies, including The Associated Press, are protesting limits placed on media coverage of a Republican presidential debate by its organizers.

Fox News Channel and the South Carolina Republican Party are co-sponsoring the first GOP debate of the 2012 presidential race on Thursday. But the sponsors are barring still photographers from entering the hall in Greenville, S.C., during the debate.

That is a change from past debates, when Fox permitted still photographers greater access. Both AP and Reuters photographers were permitted extensive access to the January 2008 GOP primary debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., including multiple photographers from each agency allowed in during large parts of the debate, said J. David Ake, the AP's assistant chief of bureau/photos.

"The opening stages of an event as important as the presidential selection process should be as accessible as possible to all forms of journalism. These candidates want to lead the country. The country has a right to see them from various angles, not only where the TV cameras are positioned," said Michael Oreskes, the AP's senior managing editor.

Fox has informed the AP and Reuters that it will only allow one still photographer into the debate at the start when candidates shake hands, and that the photographer must leave when the debate begins. It also wants the single photographer to distribute the photos to all other media organizations.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

The AP is evaluating its coverage plans in light of the restrictions. That is similar to the position AP has taken when organizers have tried to restrict access to other news events, including the Cannes Film Festival.

Reuters has taken a similar position, telling Fox and the South Carolina Republican Party that it will not accept such coverage restrictions.

South Carolina Republican Party Executive Director Joel Sawyer said there have been restrictions on photography in the past and said the event would be seen by many people even without still photographers present.

Archive photos show photographers from both agencies were allowed in during extensive parts of the 2008 debate, Ake said.

Cherie Grzech, Fox director of politics, said: "AP will be allowed access before and after the debate if they are interested."

The lead-off debate of the Republican presidential race is slated for Thursday night in Greenville, S.C., even though the GOP field is far from set. Roughly a dozen Republicans are considering running for president or have taken initial steps toward full-fledged campaigns.

But only five will participate in the Thursday night debate: former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and pizza magnate Herman Cain.

They are the only candidates who met the sponsors' criteria to participate: forming a presidential exploratory committee, filing state GOP paperwork and paying $25,000 to get on the primary ballot.

I'm almost ok with Fox, a "unbiased" news outlet sponsoring a republican debate. gaking off media outlets other than their own sickens me. By the way what's the deal with the 25k needed to get on the republican debate?

**Frazzled**

So? Who cares?
Whats wrong with Fox sponsoring a debate. CNN does. In the more polite version of my Wife's favorite phrase. What exactly is the &(%&ing deal anyway?

**sexiest_hero**

The banning of the media. Like I said I don't care about them sponsoring the debate. Just banning other media outlets from it.

**Frazzled**

Again, so? Its their debate. Watch it on the TV.
Seriously, this is like #7,2987,297 on the list of items to be concerned about.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Again, so? Its their debate. Watch it on the TV.
Seriously, this is like #7,2987,297 on the list of items to be concerned about.

If that's the case, and it is, then where does that place being concerned about people who are concerned about it?

**warpcrafter**

Frazzled wrote:Again, so? Its their debate. Watch it on the TV.
Seriously, this is like #7,2987,297 on the list of items to be concerned about.

Right on!!! The mainstream media is nothing but lies and propaganda after all. Anybody who still believes their vote counts should be neutered.

**Frazzled**

warpcrafter wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Again, so? Its their debate. Watch it on the TV.
Seriously, this is like #7,2987,297 on the list of items to be concerned about.

Right on!!! The mainstream media is nothing but lies and propaganda after all. Anybody who still believes their vote counts should be neutered.

Mentioning of the term neuter makes Team Weinie nervous.

**dogma**

warpcrafter wrote:
Right on!!! The mainstream media is nothing but lies and propaganda after all. Anybody who still believes their vote counts should be neutered.

What basis do you have to dispute them?

**thedude**

I dont think media outlets should sponser presidential debates at all but they all do and as mentioned above in the grand scheme of things its really not that big of a deal.

It does make me uncomfortable that during a presidential debate the coverage would be limited even if the only reason was that the sponsering media outlet wanted to monopolize coverage. For anything else, I would say more power to the sponser, its their prerogative. However, I agree with the AP's perspective that the country has a rigth to see the potential canididates from all potential angles.

Then there is the more worriesome aspect. Fox news does not have the best track record when it comes to fair and balanced coverage particularly with Ron Paul.

Case in point, when Ron Paul won the CPAC presidential straw poll in 2011, the Fox coverage of the event showed a room booing at Ron Paul as he was named the winner and the commentator made the remark something to the effect "looks like people are not happy about that".

The reality was that the room cheered and started chanting his name when he was named as the real footage showed later.

Fox news had shown a previous years results which apparently was primarily Mitt Romney supporters.

Ignoring the debate whether Fox did this on purpose or it was a simple mistake, the fact is it happened.

When media outlets report, the public forms opinions. Limited or tunnell vision due to lack of coverage is a bad idea regardless of the circumstances, but I would say I especially disagree with it in the case of debates between potential candidates for president.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-running-old-cpac-footage-after-ron-pauls-straw/

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Oh, Fox news. At it again, I see.
Well, let's be honest, nobody was expecting ol' Fox to play by the book, were they?

**SilverMK2**

Does it really matter if coverage is limited? Isn't American politics pretty much just "BLAME THE OTHER SIDE!" and "LOOK AT ALL THE BAD THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT ME!"?

**thedude**

SilverMK2 wrote:Does it really matter if coverage is limited? Isn't American politics pretty much just "BLAME THE OTHER SIDE!" and "LOOK AT ALL THE BAD THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT ME!"?

It is, but I dont know if I'm ready to accept the warm comfort of complacency when I view something is wrong just yet.

**Warlord Gazghkull Thraka**

Get over it. Fox News are just some internet Trolls who got there own TV show. They will always troll on something and take it out of context.

**ShumaGorath**

Warlord Gazghkull Thraka wrote:Get over it. Fox News are just some internet Trolls who got there own TV show. They will always troll on something and take it out of context.

And they'll be the most popular news channel in north america the whole time.

**warpcrafter**

dogma wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
Right on!!! The mainstream media is nothing but lies and propaganda after all. Anybody who still believes their vote counts should be neutered.

What basis do you have to dispute them?

They ignore the really important stories in favor of fluff pieces, they accept lies as truth and they stopped attempting investigative journalism years ago in favor of simply repeating whatever pablum AP and Rueters (Which is owned by AP, fancy that....) pumps out. Do a modicum of research in the real world and the alternative media and you will have your eyes opened.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

SilverMK2 wrote:Does it really matter if coverage is limited? Isn't American politics pretty much just "BLAME THE OTHER SIDE!" and "LOOK AT ALL THE BAD THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT ME!"?

No, your thinking Canada

**Ma55ter_fett**

Maybe it’s because I’ve had a long day, all of which was spent standing on my poor feets, but I find myself unable to give a damn honestly.

I accept the fact that a lot of things are going to be said at that debate that will inflame my liberal sensibilities and if someone is going to air the whole “political nut on a soapbox convention” it may as well be fox news. And if fox news is going to report on it they may as well have this broad do the reporting.

(I do not like this woman)

If they put all those things that I despise in one place I can hurry up and get my hating over with in one sitting instead of three.

Also I don't know how they many people they really expect will tune in to watch a bunch of white dudes and “not dudes with lady parts” compete to see who can be the most XTREME!!!111!1111!11!!!! republican.

**LordofHats**

So what. The AP should sponsor a debate and ban anyone who isn't a still photographer. After all. Still photography is the best way to translate debates to the public at large, not them silly motion pictures

**dogma**

warpcrafter wrote:
They ignore the really important stories in favor of fluff pieces, they accept lies as truth and they stopped attempting investigative journalism years ago in favor of simply repeating whatever pablum AP and Rueters (Which is owned by AP, fancy that....) pumps out. Do a modicum of research in the real world and the alternative media and you will have your eyes opened.

I imagine I've done a lot more research into this than you have, but that's beside the point.

What you've done here is indicate that the media doesn't report on stories that you consider to be important, but that other people evidently find to be worth watching for one reason or another. That isn't even a remotely decent reason to presume that these sources report fraudulent election results.

Really I think the issue here is that you've chosen to believe what emerges from a particular corner of the population and simply associated that with skepticism and hidden truth, rather than actually approaching it from a position of skepticism This is not an uncommon method of engaging with the world amongst conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists, or philosophical absolutists (objectivists in particular are infamous for such behavior).

**Bromsy**

I say we all use this as a reason to do stuff and say things!

**sebster**

It's fine for FOX to be hosting the debate. They shouldn't be restricting access to still photographers, but it isn't an issue caused by FOX rightwing bias. It's just a dollars thing, they want the papers to have to buy their still pictures of the candidates, or their screencaps, and not AP shots.

Which is all kinds of jerkiness, but at this point we really shouldn't be that surprised that a Murdoch owned media company is acting jerky.

**Orlanth**

Frazzled wrote: In the more polite version of my Wife's favorite phrase. What exactly is the &(%&ing deal anyway?

Its the wife, so a % always comes into it somewhere.

Happy post payday negotiations Frazzie.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

(I do not like this woman)

I think she looks interesting enough. Is it something she said?

**warpcrafter**

dogma wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
They ignore the really important stories in favor of fluff pieces, they accept lies as truth and they stopped attempting investigative journalism years ago in favor of simply repeating whatever pablum AP and Rueters (Which is owned by AP, fancy that....) pumps out. Do a modicum of research in the real world and the alternative media and you will have your eyes opened.

I imagine I've done a lot more research into this than you have, but that's beside the point.

What you've done here is indicate that the media doesn't report on stories that you consider to be important, but that other people evidently find to be worth watching for one reason or another. That isn't even a remotely decent reason to presume that these sources report fraudulent election results.

Really I think the issue here is that you've chosen to believe what emerges from a particular corner of the population and simply associated that with skepticism and hidden truth, rather than actually approaching it from a position of skepticism This is not an uncommon method of engaging with the world amongst conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists, or philosophical absolutists (objectivists in particular are infamous for such behavior).

You believe what you believe and say what you say because you've been programmed to do so. You don't know what real skepticism is. Insulting me will not make me go away, because I no longer live a life based on fear.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:So what. The AP should sponsor a debate and ban anyone who isn't a still photographer. After all. Still photography is the best way to translate debates to the public at large, not them silly motion pictures

Remember, Nixon won the

ing debate!!! to radio listeners

**Emperors Faithful**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Would.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh right, something about banning media? Yeah that's, like, totally not on.

**dogma**

warpcrafter wrote:
You believe what you believe and say what you say because you've been programmed to do so.

But, of course, you haven't.

Never has that been more appropriate.

warpcrafter wrote:
You don't know what real skepticism is.

Of course I do, I'm a golden philosopher king! Haven't you read The Republic?

warpcrafter wrote:
Insulting me will not make me go away, because I no longer live a life based on fear.

So what you're sayign is that no matter the evidence that I present to you, you will not revisit your own convictions?

Right, skeptic my ass.

**djphranq**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

MRrrooowwrrr she's Hawt!!! Fox did what in the where now? *drinks beer* *scratches crotch*

**DickBandit**

I watch HLN in the morning when I'm eating breakfast at the cafeteria. Why? Robin Meade.

You know what, Robin? If you really support the troops do us a favor and give the news butt ass- fething naked!!

What does this have to do with Fox News? Absolutely nothing. Except Tonya Reiman needs to evaluate my fething body language. *pant pant pant* WOOF WOOF!!!

**djphranq**

+1 for Robin Meade

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Again, so? Its their debate. Watch it on the TV.

I like to watch new stations. So why on earth would I want to watch Fox?