DNC Bars Fox News from Covering 2020 Democratic Primaries
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Democratic National Committee – the same party that has been crowing nonstop for two years alleging that President Donald J. Trump is a threat to the First Amendment and the rights of reporters – will exclude Fox News from covering its 2020 primary debates.
“In a statement Wednesday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited a story in the New Yorker magazine this week that detailed how Fox has promoted President Trump’s agenda. The article, titled ‘ The Making of the Fox News White House ,’ suggested that the news network had become a ‘propaganda, vehicle for Trump,” Washington Post reported Wednesday.
Perhaps the Democrats have not been paying attention, but Fox News is a relatively neutered network in terms of its support for Trump. Most of their programming actually features borderline #NeverTrump basket cases who associate more with the political class than Trump’s base. But that’s neither here nor there. The Democrats have a decided to bar a news network from covering the news. So much for that First Amendment.
“I believe that a key pathway to victory is to continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters,” Perez told Washington Post . “That is why I have made it a priority to talk to a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News. Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates.”
How very Stalin-esque of the DNC. It won’t even risk the possibility of its primary audience hearing anything but leftist mainstream press propaganda during the primary debates.
According to the report, there will be 12 primary debates to help Democrats whittle down to one of nearly 15 candidates for the presidency. So far, contracts have been awarded for the first two debates – one to NBC, and the other to CNN – both safely within the realm of leftist propaganda, and outside the realm of reality.
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
......Perez released the following statement about the subject:
What Perez didn't anticipate, however, was how President Donald Trump would react to the news. Trump took to Twitter to remind Perez of one thing: in order for a general election debate to take place, the president has to be on stage. And he's refusing to cooperate as long as Fox News is left out of the picture:
Democrats just blocked @ FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!
Fox News remains hopeful that the DNC will eventually come around.
“We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism from moderating a Democratic presidential debate. They’re the best debate team in the business....
Democratic candidates seem to need shelter from real questions. Isn't it strange how candidate Trump wasn't afraid to go anywhere. He was almost a regular feature on "Morning Joe"
And lied his ass off every time.
Sounds like a "sweeping generalization!"
Have you got the proof for that one?
The left attacking the President with proof? Hasn’t yet happened.
Who needs proof? If Trump's mouth is open, he is lying. It's pathological with him.
For real? After CNN gave questions to Hillary Clinton in advance, the Democrats are going to claim Fox can't host a fair debate?
I can't say I've really seen any of those people be particularly supportive of Trump.
The DNC simply has an infantile obsession with the Fox News Channel. It’s the one TV NEWS source they don’t have control over.
CNN did NOT give Clinton a question in advance. Donna Brazil did and she called Clinton. Fox News CEO Roger Ailes tipped off Trump about a question when Trump called Ailes.
BTW, when was the last time that Fox hosted a DNC debate?
Notice how they don't care that Trump got tipped off .... it only matters if it's the other side, to them.
Well, your link says that Ailes MAY have tipped off Trump, not that he did. Fox News, as expected, denied it and even Megyn Kelly stated that Ailes did not oversee her preperations for the debate and that she and others wrote their own questions. So no direct link there.
And later in the article, there's a curious case of timing. If Ailes gave Trump advance knowledge about the question then why after the debate was there a feud between Trump and Fox ?
The confrontation, reports The New Yorker's Jane Meyer, helped "shape Trump's image as shamelessly unsinkable. It also kicked off a feud between Trump and Fox, in which Trump briefly boycotted the channel, hurting its ratings and forcing Ailes to grovel."
Can't say this didn't happen but your link does not show any proof beyond a couple of "unnamed" sources and provides some information that doesn't line up to me.
Maybe Trump thought that his whining would get Fox NOT to ask the question...
THEN Trump saw the coverage of the question and answer and hit the roof.
Better than failing to have one.
That's true. They gave her questions (plural). And when they got caught, they fired their scapegoat. Plausible deniability you know.
That's speculation.
Link?
No more than your comment...
Brazile: Leaking town hall topics to Clinton campaign 'mistake I will forever regret'
Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign
Donna Brazile is totally not sorry for leaking CNN debate questions to Hillary Clinton
Topics. Questions. You can tell they're plural because they end in s. Also, if you read, you'll see it was more than just one debate.
You made a claim. Prove it or shut it. You asked for a link from me. I gave you three. You make claims with no proof.
I asked you for a link supporting your claim that Brazile gave Clinton questions for the DEBATE. You linked articles that state that she admitted to giving Clinton questions for a TOWN HALL.
Here is the quote that they cite from Brazile:
Try harder.
So did you and it was just as speculative.
Get over yourself.
I address the quality of your links above.
Hello, XD - It's so easy to debunk left wing lies. Bravo!
The first one is the SAME one that Tacos! posted and I quoted.
FAIL.
The second one has Carlson saying this right at the beginning:
Guess you just read the headline...
Another FAIL.
Can't read the third one since it's behind a pay wall but based on the content of your first two I presume it's another fail.
Actually, it looks like getting sycophants to drink the kool aid is what's easy.
How is posting an incoherent truncated block quote relevant XD?
I'm not PAYING to read an 3rd FAILED article.
Face it, your attempt to defend Tacos! posit was as much a failure as his was.
But hey, it impressed the peanut gallery...
Yes. In addition to debates. Consider it a bonus. Debates and Town Halls. Once again you ignore relevant evidence. Read all the links, not just the headlines you think work for you. Even better, do a little easy research yourself. There is a lot out there about this.
Meanwhile, you still can't prove what you said about Trump.
So, it's your position that it's just fine as long it's only a town hall? How does that make it ok?
Actually, you do fail to have one. First off, for those that are attempting to claim Donna Brazille did not give the Clinton campaign debate questions ahead of time; maybe you will believe her when she says " I did it ". Straight answer to a straight question. You cannot deny it any further .
Secondly, for those claiming that T-Rump got questions ahead of time: There are rumors reported, but no one has come forward as an eyewitness nor has anyone admitted to providing him with questions ahead of time. Hearsay is inadmissible in court for a reason. Anyone can claim to have heard something from someone who says they saw something. Anyone in that chain can be lying. But just so you know--my unnamed sources tell me that someone you worked with said that you all are actually Greys disguised as human.
I trust my unnamed sources as far as I trust yours.
It doesn’t. A town hall is simply a debate format in this context and is no excuse or rationalization.
Neither of your first 2 articles say that she admitted to giving Clinton question for 'debates'. You are misrepresenting the articles. Why?
At least I posted an article that ACTUALLY says what I said it says.
Bullshit Xx. It's a totally different format and most of the questions are from the audience to only ONE of the candidates.
No
It is my position that if you are going to make an allegation about what someone did or said you should make them ACCURATELY and be able to prove THAT allegation.
"Well she didn't do what I alleged but she did do this." doesn't cut it.
I never said it was.
But did Wally?
She did give Clinton a debate question too.
but can you imagine being so desperate To defend your party’s cheating that you would embarass yourself by trying to argue there is a substantive difference between the two?
[deleted]
You can NOT be serious! The title of the second article is literally that.
Donna Brazile Finally Admits She Shared Debate Questions With Clinton Campaign
What would you say is the difference between a debate and a town hall?
When they don't have an argument and can't admit they were wrong, it's all that's left, I guess.
I KNOW what the headline says Tacos!, rags like that Washington Examiner are known for their headlines saying one thing and their articles saying another.
It seems that both you and XD just read headlines...
I quoted what she ACTUALLY said.
You first insisted that it was questions for a debate and then stated that it was both debates AND town halls.
That is FALSE.
It is my position that if you are going to make an allegation about what someone did or said you should make them ACCURATELY and be able to prove THAT allegation.
"Well she didn't do what I alleged but she did do this." doesn't cut it.
Indeed it is.
Again, what's the difference?
Gee Tacos!, you tell me. You clearly insisted that there was a distinction:
If there was no difference between town halls and debates, they wouldn't be 'in additions to' anything, would they Tacos!?
If there was no difference, you wouldn't have said Debates AND Town Halls, right Tacos!?
So that begs the question, Why are you asking ME what the difference is when you MUST have had an understanding of that difference before you made that statement?
Oh I gotta hear this.
How is the DNC denying Fox's speech?
Oh come on, there's more to the 1st amendment than just speech. Case in point, the whole uproar when the White House tried to pull the credentials from Jim Acosta, it was pushed hard that it was a 1st amendment issue. Freedom of the press....
The WH is owned by the people.
Trump can't take something of value away from CNN without due process.
Do you think that it's a violation of the 1st Amendment for Fox to have exclusive interviews with Trump?
The DNC is a PRIVATE corporation.
Fox is free to cover the DNC debates, they're just not being given a chance to bid for a contract to HOST one.
None whatsoever....that’s all.
Because @.2.2.11 you said Town Hall did not qualify as an example of a debate. Your complaint reads as follows:
The only distinction with the Town Hall setting is that audience members ask questions. Often the moderator will ask questions, too, usually in the form of follow ups. Either way, there is still back and forth between the candidates and the questions are supposed to be a surprise to the candidates.
In fact, in actual practice, the two are both considered to be debates, with the term "town hall" only introducing a variation in debate format. Basically, "town hall" is an adjective describing a debate. For example,
Town Hall Format Brings Different Dynamics to Second 2016 Debate
Who won the town hall debate?
Celebrate the cringeworthiness of the town hall debate
5 ways town hall debates can go very, very wrong
So, a "town hall" IS a debate, and whether it's a moderator asking questions in a debate or audience members asking the questions, the problem is the same - it's cheating to give a candidate topics or questions in advance if they're supposed to be a secret.
And maybe you can now stop deflecting. But I consider that unlikely to happen. You'll defend your heroes no matter what.
I haven't looked up party affiliations for Baier and MacCallum, but Wallace is a registered Democrat.
I don't watch the news channels that much, but I have seen the people at Fox be plenty critical of Trump and actions taken by his administration. Bret Baier in particular is pretty much just "doing the news" - old school style.
Fox was busted for doing the same thing for Trump, what's your point?
Evidence? I mean something besides "he said she said" that is...
Have you tried reading that article? It's pretty weak stuff compared to what we have with Brazile and CNN.
So, a couple of unnamed people have a belief. No evidence. No observation. No experience. No proof. A belief. Where did it come from?
So both the source and the source of the source remain unidentified. This is so lame, even the person who wrote the article isn't ready to lay her reputation on the table over it.
Yeah, no kidding!
Must I repeat myself...
Is it hypocrisy or getting even?
Just another person/entity put on the Tolerant Liberals "LIST" of "Shun-ables !
Translation: Candidates will be asked only softball questions.
The seeder MAGA did copy the headline from the source site, a far right fantasyland called Big League Politics, but that doesn't make the headline any more accurate than if he made it up himself.
DNC Bars Fox News from Covering 2020 Democratic Primaries
The DNC did not bar Fox News from covering the Democratic primaries. That is a simple lie.
The DNC said that they will not have Fox News serve as a host for one of the debates. Fox can cover the primaries and debates all they want, and can show clips of them and the after debate "spin" as much as they want. What they will not be doing is having their news personalities serving as network moderators for a debate.
We really need to have these lie filled seeds monitored and perhaps removed when they are so false and inaccurate.
you mean the site that broke both the gov. Northam photo scandal and their Lt. Gov. being sexually abusive to women story? Sounds credible to me.
The article you seeded is a lie. The DNC did not bar Fox News from covering the Democratic primaries.
We all know that the DNC censored Fox News from hosting any of their so called debates which is what this seed is about. Quit playing ridiculous word games as everyone else knows what we are talking about here. It seems that Trump may not participate in the general election debates if the debate commission does not include Fox News persons as part of the moderating panels in some of them.
From the subtitle of the seed - "Fox won’t be covering any of the 12 Democratic Party primary debates."
and the first paragraph of the seeded article.
Totally false statements. Fox will not be hosting any of the debates. They can cover them the same as any other network covers a debate on a competitors network.
That's not playing ridiculous word games, that is an accurate summation of the ridiculous seed.
furthermore,
Trump isn't running in the DNC primary. No worries, Mr. Trump. You aren't invited.
No, he’s saying that because of this that there won’t be any general election debates without Fox News being included. Asto the primary debates, he could hold live rallies and campaign events opposite of each democrat debate for Fox to cover. Then we could check the ratings.
Trump has zero to do with DNC primary debates and the article has ZERO to do with National election debates which the DNC cannot control.
Capiche?
He's actually done that before to Republican debates, remember?
Is it illegal?
Apparently not. Since Trump has already done so.
That you and John don’t like the seed is proof positive that the seed is right on.
typical "progressive" BS.
And again to you, sir.
Trump isn't running in the DNC primary, so his input is moot.
And it turns out that there is no unity among democrats on this issue and that the DNC Chair made his decision based on a lie, the New Yorker article that has since been completely debunked. Now they will have to reconsider or double down on their bs 💩.
Still voting up your own BS 💩 ?
The DNC has every right to choose who covers their primaries, just as the RNC chose to cancel a GOP debate on NBC in 2015.
Get over it already.
We did it in response to what the DNC did to Fox. And we’ll do it to both CNN and NBC the next time we have primary debates. As to if I vote up my seeds and posts or not, what concern is it of yours? Inquiring minds want to know.
You capiche and get over it yourself.
Please link where it was completely or even partially debunked?
Or is that a lie?
Is this the same "We" that said they were going to keep the government shut down until Trump gets his wall money?
Looks like "They" of the "We" aren't listening to " You"
See the link provided at 8.1.11. All the proof you need.
I read the whole article. What does it have to do with Ailes giving Trump the questions before the debate?
I even looked again.
The DNC is correct. FOX is carrying Trumps water and cannot be trusted as journalists.
Last time they gave him the questions before the debate. They've become his hiring pool. (Probably because anyone with education and ethics won't go near him for a job)
Who is "we" and what did you do?
Are you implying that because the RNC (that would be 'you') canceled a G OP debate on NBC 4 years ago , that
that was retaliation for a decision that wasn't made by Perez until this week?
By the way, the DNC has favored ABC, CBS and NBC since the first debate of any kind in 1956, but regular debates did not start until 1972.
Fox apparently didn't get to host the DNC primaries in 2016 either.
In fact I cannot find where Fox has ever hosted a televised debate for the DNC.
Nor in 2012 or 2008.
So why the feigned outrage?
Just more fake 💩 ?
Meh, its still a free country ..... mostly. The DNC is free to make that decision. And we are free to judge that decision for what it is. The truly cogent question people should be asking themselves is WHY they did it.
Its pretty clear to me. Fox doesn't automatically tilt towards their liberal bias like other networks and therefore its tougher for the DNC to control the narrative with Fox.
Its really not that hard to see for eyes that are fully open and willingly to see it for what it is.
Something best suggested in a mirror.
Yep, that was part of the point.
One should stop spending so much time looking at them-self in the mirror.
It really limits the view
Tunnel vision is not a view...
But that is all that you get with CNN, MSNBC, etc. pure preaching to the choir. Echo chamber anyone?
Says the person that seeds from sources with less credibility than Alex Jones.
The real question appears to be, why would they if they have not (apparently) in the past?
Fox is only 22 years old, so they have only had the opportunity in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 & 2016 so far.
I don't think cable was ever considered by the DNC in the early days of Fox.
The info is readily available on line ( although in different formats for each election season) that Fox did not host a debate in 2016, 2012 or 2008
Why Fox would want to host a debate is a much less interesting question than why the DNC doesn't want them to. After all, Fox is a network media outlet. Doing such things is clearly within their business model.
It’s because the DNC clearly does not want to appeal for votes from Fox News viewers. That’s the real bottom line.
this will only produce an even more batshit crazy socialist/communist leftwing candidate.
problem? I don't see a problem
Over 12 last i counted with a dozen or so more considering a run.
I'm pre-ordering bulk popcorn. Going to need a lot or corn to watch this clown car of Democrat Primary.
I can hardly wait ......