FAIR Debate: Worried About Fox -- What CAN We Do?

Fox can't seem to leave their "Fair & Balanced" shennanigans at the door, even for something as deadly serious as a Presidential debate.

I'm worried that too many people have come to not only accept and expect media distortion as something unavoidable, but seemingly defend it as some sort of sacrosanct right of the "free" press. It's like if you question media bias you are told, "Fox is a private corporation, they can do what they want." or "Duh. Everyone knows Fox is entertainment."

PROBLEM.
This is a Presidential debate.
It's not editorial, or in-depth journalism, or some sort of special report ... this is supposed to be a forum for open expression and argument of ideas.

Why are we willing to accept a news channels REPEATED condesending laughter towards or sidlining of a candidate? The few questions Ron Paul did get (and i believe he got THREE in the last Fox debate) were intended as setups. He got NO question in the lightning round while EVERY other candidate did ... he got one question at the end of it ... "Will you support the Republican nominee in 2008" ?!?!?!

What the fuck?

Can we have some sort of rally or campaign for debate fairness?
I almost feel like at this point in history the debate should become sort of protected event that invovles regulation ... and i think it would be really great if, just like the government mandates public TV access to the states, it should also mandate a PUBLIC DEBATE FORUM for the candidates ... force them to appear on unsponsored televison ...

Here is an example of how the media has a conflict of interest in running a debate.

The MSNBC debate was on the domestic economy. One of the big issues in this debate turned out to be autoworkers, and union labor, and the car industry. There were some pretty heady discussions about this. Here is the post debate interview with Ron Paul .... what's that in the background? A CHRYSLER banner! ! !

So we are supposed to expect frank honest questions posed without favortism to all candidates equally on a debate that is concerend with, of concern to, AND sponsored by a large American auto maker?

I dunno.
That may have played a bening impact on the decision making in that case, but it is an obvious example of POSSIBLE conflict.

ANYWAY

My question is SHOULD WE BE DOING SOMETHING about what has been observed to be blatant mistreatment of Ron Paul specificaly by Fox news ... and should this issue be taken up in earnest?

I think it warrants some consideration, because it really hampers the campaign to have commentators constatly laughing at your candidate, and not allowing him sufficient time to argue a position.

IMHO it is a horrible crime that FOX somehow managed to snag not one but 3 damn debates!

UGH!

No doubt Fox stinks. First they had candidates laughing at RP after ignoring him for the first half of the first debate. When that didn't work, they got the Florida GOP to load the audience with neocons - and I expect the same thing for the Iowa debate if RP gets invited.

HOWEVER, RP has come out top in each of these Fox debates. He wins the Fox poll and ronpaul2008 website traffic goes through the roof. No matter what they try, it backfires, so I'm not too worried.

You can't silence the message of freedom. Even if Fox finds some way to prevent RP from being in the Dec. 4th debate, that will backfire as we will use that to our advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tmg19103

No doubt Fox stinks. First they had candidates laughing at RP after ignoring him for the first half of the first debate. When that didn't work, they got the Florida GOP to load the audience with neocons - and I expect the same thing for the Iowa debate if RP gets invited.

HOWEVER, RP has come out top in each of these Fox debates. He wins the Fox poll and ronpaul2008 website traffic goes through the roof. No matter what they try, it backfires, so I'm not too worried.

You can't silence the message of freedom. Even if Fox finds some way to prevent RP from being in the Dec. 4th debate, that will backfire as we will use that to our advantage.

---

I AM worried.
:(

While people already "on the level" can see through the bullshit and maniupulation and focus on the overwhelming truth of a candidates message, MANY PEOPLE CAN NOT.

There is a HUGE segment of society that is wired by the tube to be disturbingly succeptable to suggestion and manipulation. These people will pick up on the context ("That guy isn't around much, he must not be important."), connotations (lots of condescending tone during questions like "are you in the wrong party?" "do you take your marching orders from al quaeda" etc) , and blatant gimmicks (the planted boos and open mic laughter) ...

I say over 40% (if not WAY more) of the population is so succeptable to this kind of manipulation that it is ALL they take away from the debates.

They walk away wondering about the nutjob who the moderator couldn't even take seriously, and who was so "crazy" in his views that he made the commentator laugh to no end. They come away wondering about this strange man who, during his one chance to speak, went crazy about Iran hating us because we .... something something 1953 medling something ... does he hate America .... blah .... that is all they hear!

The debate has been framed for them in such away that it matters not what Ron Paul says, they just hear the ventings of some madman who is clearly not worthy of presidency, because he is not even worthy of respect from a Fox news moderator.

:(

THIS IS A PROBLEM!

Quote:

---

THIS IS A PROBLEM!

---

What do you recommend as the solution?

.

Did a lot of people take a "Worry Pill" today?


.

bleh. stay calm, that's the solution.

dr. paul's been doing a great job on that and i'm sure faux's
researchers (do they have people for that) have taken note, so he may
have to try and stay on guard, be prepared to assert his control; in other
words, turning questions/accusations around.

If he can manage to ask the announcers, one or all of the candidates, and the
home audience one question every time he gets a chance to speak, then his numbers
will blast through the roof immediately. Resistance, on the part of fox, will be futile.
The audience is already on the look out for their bullying tactics.

Fox is out to serve its viewing demographics, give them what they want. They're not out there to provide a medium for informative, objective discourse. They fill a niche that left-leaning news pubs (CNN) don't.

What they do works because it IS biased. Unfortunately, ppl don't care for information--they want emotion. The best thing you can do, and encourage others to do, is not watch Fox. I mean you have left-wing ppl who despise Fox, yet can't resist watching it. So what they end up doing is perpetuating and encouraging Fox to keep putting out their biased garbage, because they're adding to the viewership. If they get viewers, their strategy works. If they don't get viewers, it doesn't.

I think RP actually prefers unfair playing fields.
True integrity only shines though when push comes to shove.
All the other candidates are plastic and those who aren't zombies realize this.
If the American public cannot see who's real and who's a talking head, then this country simply is not ready for a Ron Paul Administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greendiseaser

Fox can't seem to leave their "Fair & Balanced" shennanigans at the door, even for something as deadly serious as a Presidential debate.

---

It's: "especially" for something as serious as a presidential debate.

First: hi.

Second: expect an imminent lesson about growing up and stuff, by "people who know".

Three: Don't worry about it. The other 90% can see straight, regardless.

My personal view is that the 'fair & balanced' media will very soon run into a quagmire of their own making. As the primaries approach, they will have to adjust the "public" polling numbers to what will be verifyable on voting day, else the whole credibility of the 'science' is shot. We already see a jump. A jump that would have been more credible if it would have been predictive of Nov. 5th instead of reactive. Polling is after all about predicting an outcome. Looks like they were despearately hoping that the bomb would bomb. It didn't...

Anyways, back to adjusting. Those stadily adjusting higher numbers will force them to not only include Ron Paul in the debates, but place him closer to the lights on stage. Or, lose all pretense and exclude him alltogether, which would not be the worst thing from the revolution dynamics point of view. That's when we should and surely will raise one hell of a stink.

We'll see soon enough. In the mean time, they do excellent work for us:D

I wish ron paul if he wins can he close down fox news? :p

closeing it down because it was agaisnt the people and the news network was for the bush gov?

Quote:

---

They walk away wondering about the nutjob who the moderator couldn't even take seriously, and who was so "crazy" in his views that he made the commentator laugh to no end. They come away wondering about this strange man who, during his one chance to speak, went crazy about Iran hating us because we .... something something 1953 medling something ...

---

What I saw from only a few sentences something I've never seen in a politician before, total honesty, straight answers and more I can't put into words. I was totally committed after just that one remark to Guiliani early on, everything I read then just surprised me more with his depth, knowledge and integrity.

Ok... I think the sad truth is, that aside from the staged audience and the Luntzification, during the actual debate, Ron Paul probably got some of the fairest debate questions on 10/21 than he did during most of the debates. Six questions, only two of them related to foreign policy, and for once, he finally got not one, but two questions on healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Give me liberty

I wish ron paul if he wins can he close down fox news? :p

---

That's the neat thing about honest government; he won't have to close it down. What's masquerading as news will die as we know it, once the regulations - promoting the very thing they pretend to protect aginst - are eliminated. A monopoly licensed to lie (according to the courts) and allowed to collect, count and announce the votes, no less.

Of course they fight Paul. Their very reason for existance is threatened. Who would pay for the mega-budgets if they can no longer deliver the desired outcomes to the 'investors'.

give fox a dose of old fashioned methods of dealing with TRAITORS....maybe tar and feather there vehicles. There's nothing like a good lynch mob to scare murdoch and the CFR elite.

take out much of their infrastructure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greendiseaser

Fox can't seem to leave their "Fair & Balanced" shennanigans at the door, even for something as deadly serious as a Presidential debate.

I'm worried that too many people have come to not only accept and expect media distortion as something unavoidable, but seemingly defend it as some sort of sacrosanct right of the "free" press. It's like if you question media bias you are told, "Fox is a private corporation, they can do what they want." or "Duh. Everyone knows Fox is entertainment."

PROBLEM.
This is a Presidential debate.
It's not editorial, or in-depth journalism, or some sort of special report ... this is supposed to be a forum for open expression and argument of ideas.

Why are we willing to accept a news channels REPEATED condesending laughter towards or sidlining of a candidate? The few questions Ron Paul did get (and i believe he got THREE in the last Fox debate) were intended as setups. He got NO question in the lightning round while EVERY other candidate did ... he got one question at the end of it ... "Will you support the Republican nominee in 2008" ?!?!?!

What the fuck?

Can we have some sort of rally or campaign for debate fairness?
I almost feel like at this point in history the debate should become sort of protected event that invovles regulation ... and i think it would be really great if, just like the government mandates public TV access to the states, it should also mandate a PUBLIC DEBATE FORUM for the candidates ... force them to appear on unsponsored televison ...

Here is an example of how the media has a conflict of interest in running a debate.

The MSNBC debate was on the domestic economy. One of the big issues in this debate turned out to be autoworkers, and union labor, and the car industry. There were some pretty heady discussions about this. Here is the post debate interview with Ron Paul .... what's that in the background? A CHRYSLER banner! ! !

So we are supposed to expect frank honest questions posed without favortism to all candidates equally on a debate that is concerend with, of concern to, AND sponsored by a large American auto maker?

I dunno.
That may have played a bening impact on the decision making in that case, but it is an obvious example of POSSIBLE conflict.

ANYWAY

My question is SHOULD WE BE DOING SOMETHING about what has been observed to be blatant mistreatment of Ron Paul specificaly by Fox news ... and should this issue be taken up in earnest?

I think it warrants some consideration, because it really hampers the campaign to have commentators constatly laughing at your candidate, and not allowing him sufficient time to argue a position.

IMHO it is a horrible crime that FOX somehow managed to snag not one but 3 damn debates!

UGH!

---

Any way any of us can get in as supporters for the other candidates? This may require a covert operation....cue the Mission Impossible theme music...could we possibly get ALL the tickets for the entire audience? It would be worth a token contribution to what ever campaign just to get ahold of those tickets.

we need some "Charlie's Angels" involved in this, some people that no one would ever suspect or raise any question. We cannot afford to look any different than any of the other political supporters - we do not want anyone to be able to spot a Ron Paul supporter from a mile away like they do now (right now we are the only ones having any FUN in this campaign - everyone else is crying in their beers! :D)

I distinctly remember that guy in the undercover video telling the camera man not to show any of Ron Paul's Supporters - don't you? Well then lets make it hard for them to spot us , we will look like Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public and they will not have a clue which way to turn the cameras. Also do not use intelligent phrases or try to score any political points by droping words like "Consititutional Rights" or anything like that. If anything just grunt and belch and say you are undecided.

I KNOW we can beat them at their own game, we just have to come up with a plan...

everybody THINK! Use those phenomonal mental powers of yours and lets hatch a FOX Plot. Nothing illegal or violent mind you - but lets out-fox Fox!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ladyliberty

Any way any of us can get in as supporters for the other candidates? This may require a covert operation....cue the Mission Impossible theme music...could we possibly get ALL the tickets for the entire audience? It would be worth a token contribution to what ever campaign just to get ahold of those tickets.

we need some "Charlie's Angels" involved in this, some people that no one would ever suspect or raise any question. We cannot afford to look any different than any of the other political supporters - we do not want anyone to be able to spot a Ron Paul supporter from a mile away like they do now (right now we are the only ones having any FUN in this campaign - everyone else is crying in their beers! :D)

I distinctly remember that guy in the undercover video telling the camera man not to show any of Ron Paul's Supporters - don't you? Well then lets make it hard for them to spot us , we will look like Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public and they will not have a clue which way to turn the cameras. Also do not use intelligent phrases or try to score any political points by droping words like "Consititutional Rights" or anything like that. If anything just grunt and belch and say you are undecided.

I KNOW we can beat them at their own game, we just have to come up with a plan...

everybody THINK! Use those phenomonal mental powers of yours and lets hatch a FOX Plot. Nothing illegal or violent mind you - but lets out-fox Fox!

---

Lol, i love this idea.
However, i believe that video shows Ron's wife saying that THEY couldn't even get tickets to get in! That Fox had the whole audience stacked.

:( :( :(

FREE country my arse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greendiseaser

Lol, i love this idea.
However, i believe that video shows Ron's wife saying that THEY couldn't even get tickets to get in! That Fox had the whole audience stacked.

---

Wasn't that in Florida where Mrs. Carol said they couldn't get tickets? Also, I'll about bet that in IA, the tickets will be going or will have already gone to the Republican Party faithful (who are more likely to be Romney, Huckabee or Thompson supporters).

What we need is some gimicky thing that we can all do to draw attention to the fact that the debates are such a farce. Unfortunately the MSM will definately not report on whatever we do so the task is rather difficult.

Why doesn't everyone always get ultra concerned about Fox. They are a non-factor. They haven't hurt Paul in the past and they won't hurt him in the future. It's a wasted effort.

Stop worrying. People know what they are up to. Their tactics only backfire and bring more supporters on board. I am actually hoping he is excluded from the Fox debate, because the backlash and press it will get on other networks would give him much more publicity.

Let them do what they want...they can't win.

I've played and replayed every single debate question and Dr. Paul's response several times. Only after doing this did my support of Dr. Paul actually increase. Dr. Paul is a very intelligent and well-researched individual, and these qualities are clearly reflected in all of Dr. Paul's responses. While Wendell Goler and Brit Hume can limit the number of questions, "randomly" place his podium to the end of the line, and toss out divisive questions, Dr. Paul does not waver in his ability to communicate our message of freedom.

I say at this point do nothing. Wait for updates from Don. If in a worst case we learn that RP will be excluded, then and only then we find out who the TV sponsers for the debate are (prior to the debate), and in no uncertain terms let them know that is unacceptable!

Hit them were it hurts. In the pocket!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Give me liberty

I wish ron paul if he wins can he close down fox news? :p

closeing it down because it was agaisnt the people and the news network was for the bush gov?

---

so maybe he will close it down,lol. I think they got poor psyops recruits there though, most idiots can see right thru it.

Go in acting like a supporter of someone else to make sure they arent going anti-paul, then whip out a folded ron paul sign from under your jacket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ConstitutionGal

Wasn't that in Florida where Mrs. Carol said they couldn't get tickets? Also, I'll about bet that in IA, the tickets will be going or will have already gone to the Republican Party faithful (who are more likely to be Romney, Huckabee or Thompson supporters).

---

I wonder if there is any way to find out who has those tickets - maybe they would be willing to sell them to us? I would certainly help tp buy them out if I could. Maybe we could all chip-in some money to purchase those tickets?

I know this is a long-shot idea but just imagine the looks on their faces when they realized the have been out-Foxed by us! heh.heh.heh.

Hannity will be fit to be tied! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visual

Go in acting like a supporter of someone else to make sure they arent going anti-paul, then whip out a folded ron paul sign from under your jacket.

---

exactamundo! this is what I had in mind - the perfect storm of publicity!

What I would do if I were anywhere near the debate is this: Go in being a "vocal Rudy Giuliani supporter". I'd even memorize his positions on a few issues. Then after I take my seat I'd be in the front row, cheering on Ron Paul!

How would I accomplish this? Go around contacting each campaign trying to get a ticket in. But of course I'd to to the Fox favorite Rudy first.

You know, I wrote to Chris Matthews before the debate he hosted asking that he please treat all the candidates fairly and give them all a chance to answer the questions (I wrote not as a Ron Paul supporter, just as a concerned citizen) and you can see how much good that did. They don't care what we think.

Minimize the damage. Sign up at Frank Luntz site to be in a focus group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James R

What I would do if I were anywhere near the debate is this: Go in being a "vocal Rudy Giuliani supporter". I'd even memorize his positions on a few issues. Then after I take my seat I'd be in the front row, cheering on Ron Paul!

How would I accomplish this? Go around contacting each campaign trying to get a ticket in.

---

YES! EXACTLY SO!! Let Faux go ahead and think they have stacked their audience like they did here in Florida - and then WHAMMO!