Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Fox?

"weak sisters"? careful there Mr. Ridley or the PC Police might charge you with sexism. They might be as harsh on you as some of the rainbow fascists who jumped all over Jam Donaldson because he was having a little too much fun with something that they'd rather not exist. Kinda like the dynamic between the "far left," Sen. Feingold and Fox News, come to think of it.

Sent by John R. Otten | 8:30 PM ET | 08-01-2007

One of the things that makes this country great is the ability to have a healthy discussion among different parties. We might disagree on each other's philosophy but we don't have to be disagreeable.

Granted, Fox News is no where close to a favorite of mine but I was glad to see former President Bill Clinton have the audacity to be interviewed on the network late last year. Also, it made for riveting TV the way he handled Chris Wallace. So all the props to Clinton for doing that and the same should go to Sen. Feingold.

Sent by Moji | 9:48 AM ET | 08-02-2007

That last commenter mentioned the Clinton interview...the problem with that was, when Clinton got justifiably angry after Chris Wallace distorted his record and the Republican response to his actions in Somalia, mainstream media outlets reported that Clinton had had a "meltdown," as if being angry for a good reason means you're insane (that's always the right-wing slant against Democrats...hence the overplay of the Dean scream. Republicans are always portrayed as sensible and wise, no matter how insane or uninformed their actions may really be.)

Yes Olbermann and Matthews (who admires Ann Coulter and espouses many conservative positions, so I don't know why you're equating him with Olbermann) are opinionators, but that is the nature of their programs. Same with Scarborough. It's fine to have slanted commentary if you acknowledge that that's what it is. The problem with Fox is that their "straight" news programming is seriously slanted right, which they continue to deny. They are not fair and balanced, nor do they make any attempt to be, even when they have liberals on as guests. Their questioning of liberals is more aggressive and incredulous and dismissive than their questioning of conservatives, who even before the boycott made up a disproportionately large segment of their guest list. Brit Hume, a blatantly partisan hack, should not be a news anchor. Objective news programs do not have their correspondents refer to John Kerry as a flip-flopper every chance they get. If Fox just admitted its bias, fine, let Dems go in and confront that bias out in the open. But while they continue to pretend to have any tendency toward fairness, that dishonesty should not be rewarded by prominent liberals who could state their case elsewhere.

Sent by Brooklyn Dude | 7:39 PM ET | 08-05-2007

Fox News is still an oxymoron.

Sent by Thomas | 6:03 PM ET | 08-08-2007

"weak sisters"...let's see, what about "weak brothers"...or, to play on a current advertising promo, "cavemen?" Considering our culture, I'm expect "cavewomen" will be the next in line for dissing.

Sent by Betty Francis | 1:41 PM ET | 08-16-2007

You're missing the point, as usual. Nobody's afraid of "the Foxlight". People are merely waking up to the fact that Fox News needs to be seen for what it is, and should not be buttressed or legitimized by Democratic leaders. Why you feel the need to mewl like this I cannot understand.

Sent by David Baerwald | 8:49 AM ET | 08-17-2007

for a dem to appear on fox gives un-deserved credibility to their dishonest claim to be 'fair and balanced'. it also provides them with a wealth of material to unfairly edit to an even more extreme than usual degree, because they 'own' it.
any dem who appears on fox thereforeand thereby loads his enemy's weapon.
they really should not be allowed to continue to claim that they are fair and balanced. the claim is obviously false. a dem appearing on their channel gives them more power to continue telling this lie.

Sent by L Joseph Connaughton | 6:32 PM ET | 08-22-2007