A Blog Around The Clock : Why, oh why, have a FoxNews-hosted Democratic debate?

Search

Profile

My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. As well as writing this blog, I am also the Online Discussion Expert for PLoS. This is a personal blog and opinions within it in no way reflect the policies of PLoS. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com

Join us at ScienceOnline'09

Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:

Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

My Old Stuff

Make Me Happy

Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!

Make Me Solvent

I Support

Bloggie Stuff

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

« NC Blogging: No Blogger MeetUp today | Main | My picks from ScienceDaily »

Why, oh why, have a FoxNews-hosted Democratic debate?

Category: Politics
Posted on: March 7, 2007 8:39 AM, by Coturnix

At least Edwards refuses to participate. Let's hope that all the other candidates also decide to refuse to participate in that charade.

Comments

Maybe its because Fox News has more regular viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined?

Posted by: Deep Thought | March 7, 2007 8:56 AM

CNN and NMSNBC are only marginally better - they are all shills for the GOP, just that Fox is much more blatant about it. And why are Fox ratings tanking over the past year or so compared to the others? Why is O'Reilly falling while Olberman rising month after month? Is it because people are finally waking up and realizing they've been duped?

I say - one debate: PBS only.

Posted by: coturnix | March 7, 2007 9:03 AM

There is talk of an e-debate, streamed on various web sites only.

Posted by: Robert P. | March 7, 2007 9:30 AM

Yup. I heard of that - tree or four different online entities jockeying for position to get it - why not have them all host one. Why not 3-4 e-debates?

Posted by: coturnix | March 7, 2007 9:34 AM

So.... In your world, who *isn't* a chill for the GOP? I mean, CNN (the station founded by a guy who gave billions to the UN and liberal causes) is called a Liberal shill by Republicans, and you call it a GOP shill. Which is it?

And as for the edebate - if it happens it will be an unmitigated disaster in the greater election. While there are more and more homes with internet access, even broadband, use online political wonks are a thin crowd. You think CNN, ABC, or the New York Times is going to give *favorable* reviews to an edebate when there will be a vast majority of Americans who didn't see it and it is an encroachment on their cash flow? Not gonna' happen. The MSM will, at best, spin it for their preferred candidates and, at worse, use it to make Democrats look elitist.

Posted by: Deep Thought | March 7, 2007 9:59 AM

I agree, Coturnix. Fox News is absurdly, comically, outrageously biased. And, no, CNN is not a liberal shill. They haved been trying to position themselves as Fox Junior because of the success of blatantly-conservative "news" media. Unfortunately for all of them, it's getting harder and harder to put a positive spin on the doings of the republican party. Did you see the news crawl on Fox saying that Scooter Libby had been acquited of lying to the FBI? That's sure the lede, given his conviction on the other charges and the potential 25-year sentence for those convictions.

Posted by: Mark | March 7, 2007 1:03 PM

I assume that Barack Obama wouldn't be planning to participate in a FauxNews hosted event either, so the candidates participating would be kind of restricted. Hillary, perhaps, since she's taken Faux money.

Posted by: whig | March 7, 2007 10:12 PM