Rusted Sky

The Edwards campaign's made a conscious attempt to discredit itself. Buying into the fiction that Fox is a biased news service (where I find them to be unbiased, asking difficult questions of both left and right candidates) they've decided they're not going to be put in a position where they can't control the questioning.

Join the Campaign to Change America / John Edwards '08 Blog

You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada -- and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking backat John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

The Edwards campaign blogger is really sounding like a little kid throwing a tantrum when told they DON'T get to control everything, so they stomp out of the room.

If this is indicative of their thinking, I sure don't want them to get into power. How long would it be before they shut down everything they don't like?

Some of the comments are interesting - it seems people don't much agree with the stance...

John Edwards decision to pull out of a debate because it was sponsered by Fox News is both disturbing and sets a poor precedent. While one can legitimately debate the bias of Fox News (and CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS), Fox News is within the mainstream of political thought in this country. If Mr. Edwards can't deal with that concept then he probably isn't a suitable candidate for the Democratic Party.

Finally this action will just give the Republicans excuses to duck out of debates where they believe that the sponsor might be biased slightly against them in the future.

I would urge Mr. Edwards to reconsider his position on this topic.

Mark E. Lago Vista, TX

by mandms
on 3/10/2007 at 10:04 AM EST

That is what is absurd about this. You nailed it. Fox is within the mainstream of poitical thought. Though I agree that they are more balanced - I still take all I hear with a grain of salt. If one thinks Fox or anyone else is lying...go find the truth. It is out there but often not on the mainstream media. The North American Union is an example of a topic that Fox won't touch. It may be the conservative topic of the century - but it would split them from that mainstream if they did. Yes Fox is more conservative than the rest but only by a few degrees - not 180. Even if they were the official Republican party mouthpiece, the two parties aren't 180 degrees apart. The exception is the war. Republicans mostly insist on winning while democrats mostly just want to get out. Leaving equals defeat.

by buffmonsterdog
on 3/10/2007 at 10:16 AM EST

From reading most of these comments I get the impression that Edwards supporters think only people who agree with them should be allowed time on media outlets, that it is awful that Ailes owns Fox News but fine when Turner owned CNN, etc.. You aren't for "fair and balanced"; you're for stifling free exchange of ideas.

by independent

Free exchange of ideas? Yeah - they're all for that as long as it's the CORRECT ideas. And since Fox won't unquestioningly sign off on the agenda, well...

It's gonna be a hell of a long political season. Is this the first of many tantrums from the Democratic Party? And what does it tell you about their reaction to any opposition IF elected?

More and more I'm getting less and less inclined to think of any democrat as a viable political candidate... and I'm getting less and less inclined to think of the Democratic Party as viable.

J,