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