The point is, this is all a facade. They have Bernie on so let's let them out the naughty corner and then they go back to their misinformation campaign then stop for two hours and have Buttigieg on then go back to their misinformation. As Smurfquake pointed on they will immediately go back to who they were 2 minutes before and after the town hall. So you legitimize them for an effort that barely moves the needle, well done. And it is not about Tlaib being a big girl, you forget that people have attempted to kill Dem pols right? When one of Omar or Tlaib gets shot, I don't want to hear anyone wondering how this happened.
Well, if you're going to boycott any media outlets that misinform, you're going to have a tough time running a campaign. Maybe you'll go on NPR and that's it. This logic is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. If you have a problem with Fox's information filter, you should be ecstatic to go on there and set the record straight. That's exactly how you break the echo chamber. You go in there and persuade their viewers. This constant us vs. them mentality just reinforces the echo chambers. But to each his own. I think this issue highlights one of the big divides on the left. Some voters are looking for ideological candidates who can channel the hatred of the "other team". Other voters are looking for transcendent candidates who can rise above the ideological virtue signaling.
Oh get off your cross. Don't act like there's no left wing media that is solely in the business of manufacturing hate, anger and outrage. If you're so worried about political violence, are you going to hold the left wing media accountable for the Scalise shooting? Are you going to hold them accountable for the attacks on police in Dallas and Louisiana? Are you going to hold them accountable for the harassment and death threats towards those Catholic School kids? Are you going to hold them accountable for Antifa? This has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. If this was about misinforming the public, you'd have to boycott dozens of other media outlets too. And also this has nothing to do with "legitimizing". I've watched Dems on Fox and they were not muzzled by the network. You're free to go on there and bash Fox News if that's how you want to spend your 60 minutes. How does that legitimize the network?
It kinda sounds like you forget that people have also attempted to kill Republican politicians. When looking at the history of successful and attempted assassinations on US politicians it’s very clear that NO politician is immune from the threat. Crazy is gonna crazy.
Sure, but they still have intra-network "wars" But in a "fight" between Fox news journalist vs their pundits, the pundits will win 100% of the time (they are the ones that get the ratings). https://www.thedailybeast.com/laura...-news-show-bashes-her-colleague-chris-wallace https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...low-fox-news-host-wallace-over-mueller-letter
The last President that got shot was a republican, people forget that (unless I am forgetting a more recent event?). Now the shooter was some crazy dude wanting to impress a lefty actress, but hey it counts.
Emerson poll exposing all the joke polls that have Biden with a billion point lead.. https://emersonpolling.reportablene...ack-in-the-lead-for-the-democratic-nomination
That's not why she's not going on Fox. She's not going on Fox because the whole enterprise undermines democracy, and she is in favor of democracy.
A single poll isn't exactly indicative of the race's current state. Also, as we get further away from Biden's official announcement, it's only natural for the race to close at some point as the announcement bump wears off and the media gets the opportunity to fling crap at the wall to see what sticks.
The bolded part sounds a lot like Mitt Romney telling a bunch of republicans that they should write off 47% of the electorate because they are hopeless. I don't think it should be an either-or proposition. Both can be done, and if by going on a Fox town hall you are able to get a few people you had not in the bag already to go your way, then it is well worth your time. Of course this does not mean any and all Fox programs should be legitimized, but there are a few serious hosts there than are worth talking to.
Can you elaborate? That's not how I recall his comment. My recollection is that he was talking about people who don't pay income taxes.
This is Romney's quote: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. … These are people who pay no income tax. … and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” And this is Smurfquake's: "I have this wacky theory that there's no reaching their viewers - they're not going to vote Democratic under any circumstances, because as soon as the town hall is over, one of their entertainers is going to come on and remind you about how awful Democrats are, and oh my god look over there it's brown people in a caravan". I was drawing the parallel that both quotes advocate for ignoring a big chunk of people based on their perceived (or real) characteristics. YMMV though.
Was Romney incorrect? Was there anything the Republicans could have done to get the vote of those 47% or whatever whom he characterized as moochers? We can argue about the numbers, or the validity of Romney's characterization, but the reality in 2012 was that President Obama was popular and was likely to be re-elected by a strong base of Democratic support. In 2016, the Republicans didn't bother trying to win over those people. They picked a guy who excited the racists and white supremacists, and got them to come out and vote when maybe they weren't coming out for Romney or McCain. They implemented voter ID laws in some key states (e.g. Wisconsin) which served to depress the Democratic base. And yes, some Democrats didn't come out in 2016 because they weren't as excited about Hillary as they were about Obama four years earlier. In other words, Republicans didn't become successful in 2016 by reaching out across the aisle. They doubled down, excited their base and depressed the opposing base. Elizabeth Warren talking about Fox News as a propaganda arm of the Republican party is similar in nature - my wacky theory is that she will get more net votes by exciting the Democratic base than by reaching out to Fox News watching Republicans.
Yeah, I don't disagree with your theory, she (or any candidate, really) will no doubt get far better mileage from exciting the base. My quibble is with the position of saying that is all that can or should be done and there is nothing to be gained from trying to reach voters that are not predispositioned to vote for you already.
Yes!!! Among that 47% is retirees who don't have investment income large enough to make them subject to income taxes...which is almost all retirees. And we know that Trump ran better the older the age bracket.
I have hated Fox News ever since they turned dear old dad into a guy who shouted angrily at the television. Klobuchar did a Fox News town hall the other day and I watched because I wanted to know if there was feasible non-crazy option to Joe Biden. Airwaves are airwaves and you get your message out where ever you can.
I haven't forgotten but the increase in right wing domestic terrorism and the Coast Guard guy, pipe bomber and etc, shows the messaging is much different. Things for a lack of words have gotten much darker. So just going on FOX is gonna do it. One scientific fact is gonna have people believing that climate change is real? Never not let it be said that you aren't a dreamer. In the last couple of years, we have clearly had more attacks directed at minorities and Muslims since 2015. I am actually going with Biden because I believe a return to normalcy is gonna be needed for the masses before we push further left. I just support the movement to cripple Fox and make them play a little fair. I would like the new president to bring back the Fairness Doctrine
Oh dear. It's just a freaking town hall. Nobody's asking her to endorse Hannity. You would think that a televised town hall actually improves our democracy, but YMMV.
Fortunately, there's no left-wing media source that's remotely approaches the level of social and political damage of Fox News. I wouldn't support candidates boycotting Fox if it was merely a partisan or ideologically biased news outlet - even one with a hard-right perspective. But Fox News isn't that, currently. It's primarly a toxic mix of state propaganda, racial demagoguery, conspiracy theory peddling, and scams targeting the elderly. There's a case to be made that going on Fox can be a useful way to bring a fresh perspective to people who have become accustomed to getting their news from that source - but who could benefit from other perspectives, and who might be persuaded if those perspectives were presented in a sympathetic and credible way. There's also a case to be made against doing anything to financially benefit, or bolter the perceived legitimacy of, a disreputable and deeply harmful organization. I wouldn't fault a Democratic candidate for taking either stance.