It's the right thing to do. Fox isn't a legitimate news source. The make things up and bend the truth repeatedly and intentionally. Look at these screen captures from Fox. They are lies.

Obama and Edwards would validate Fox by participating in the debate.

In order... he was aquitted of lying to the FBI; he was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts, but no crime was ever proven because we still don't know if the female's status was secret; how is the phrase "hunting accident controversy; how is VP... feeling?" a lie? A question, by definition, is not a lie; it's a non-scientific poll, where's your proof of lying; and again; another question; Iraq less violent than DC was a study based on the entire country vs DC-- and it is more peaceful, although Bagdad is less peaceful than DC; another question; ooooh, a mistype, I'm so worried; a statement by a fellow; and two more questions.

You really need to figure out what "lie" means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

Foxfier:

You really need to figure out what "lie" means.

Hardly. You need to re-read the page you own linked to:

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;

Foxfier: he was aquitted of lying to the FBI; he was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts

That's trying to convey a false impression all right. The big news was not that Libby was found "not guilty" of one crime, but that he was found guilty of four.

but no crime was ever proven because we still don't know if the female's status was secret

Libby was convicted of perjury actually. Anyway, Plame was covert all right. Henry Waxman vetted some questions with the director of the CIA in preparation for a congressional hearing, and he accepted the statement that she was covert.

how is the phrase "hunting accident controversy; how is VP... feeling?" a lie?

It promotes a false sense that Cheney's feelings are the important thing, not the fact that he shot someone or the health of the victim.

A question, by definition, is not a lie

Wrong, see the definition of 'lie' to which you linked but didn't read or couldn't understand.

"Civil War in Iraq: Made up by the Media?" is an attempt to convey a false impression, so yes it is a lie, at least how I was raised.

I notice that you didn't address the fact that Fox called Mark Foley a Democrat. Do you consider that a lie or not?

You tried to refute an artificially narrow version of my argument, namely that Fox didn't strictly speaking lie. You failed even to do that.

Fox isn't a legitimate news source.

Does this mean a democrat president would pull the press credentials for Fox in the Whitehouse press pool?

Either the candidates don't want to answer tough questions on camera or they don't want to answer tough questions on a network with such a large viewing audience.
For being such a crummy network they sure kick butt in the ratings...odd that.

Lex, I've heard you and countless other liberals claim that Fox News isn't a "legitimate" news source, but merely repeating that canard in your echo chamber doesn't make it true. By what objective measure do you make that claim?

Certainly, screen captures taken out of context do not show truth, as I can produce similar captures from any news outlet that shows bias or inaccurate reporting equaling or surpassing that of those chosen. What your carefully chosen link shows is simply a cherry-picked selection of images, sans context, that shows what you desire to be "true enough" to support your contention.

The simple fact of the matter is that Fox News is a legitimate news source by any objective measure, and one that the Groseclose/Milyo study, A Measure of Media Bias found to be one of the most objective in their news reporting.

Unlike CNN, Fox News has never covered up torture for more than a decade to maintain a field office inside a brutal dictatorship, nor have they run terrorist propaganda as news. Unlike CBS, they have never tried to peddle fake documents in a failed attempt to influence an election. Unlike the Associated Press, they have never used faked sources (Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX, aka "Jamil Hussein." Heard from him since we "outed" him? didn't think so.), nor bluntly lied about a general said to support their case as did Steven R. Hurst's January article that was directly disputed by the General himself. I can go on and on, if you so desire, but I don't think you will.

Obama, Hillary, and Edwards don't validate Fox News; their huge viewership does that. What they did validate is that the screaming radicals of the far left end of the Democratic party scares them far more does than does the Congressional Black Caucus Institute (Democrats all), the group actually holding the debate on Fox.

Why do Democrats hate black people, Lex? I jest, of course.

No, what pulling out of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute/Fox News debate shows is that these Democrat presidential candidates aren't concerned over bias or "legitimacy" that a debate would bring to a very legitimate (and very successful) news source, but instead, betrays a pandering fear of nutroots radicals.

It shows that they are easily cowed by their fringe supporters, and provides us with a glimpse into their mettle. Candidates who are so easily influenced and bullied by a such a sizable minority of their constituency stand little chance of developing a spine once elected. What Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have shown is that they are easily influenced followers, and not leaders.

We need leaders in this country, regardless of political party, and the three Democratic front-runners are showing they are incapable of leadership, a fact only born out by their undistinguished voting records as senators. I thought and still think the other Democrats running have no chance of winning, but at least they do occasionally show signs of character, values, and leadership, even if I disagree with those values and where they would lead.

Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have only shown they will pander to any group that they think will provide them with a temporary advantage. That isn't leadership, and the moderates who typically decide Presidential elections will notice the craven triangulation toward the radical base, and hopefully they will remember it when the successful candidate angles for the middle after winning the primary, leaving a shrieking, wailing wall of netroots,quivering in rage at being "betrayed."

They shouldn't be surprised, nor upset (though they will be). They'll only be getting precisely what they ordered.

Nice rebuttal CY. Much better than what I was thinkin'.

Bob,

I agree with everything you said except that Fox News ratings are anything but huge. It's number one in cable news, but miniscule compared to the networks.

Ratings for everyone are slipping, even Fox News, but even Bill O'Reilly, Fox's rating champ, still draws only about 2.5 million viewers compared to networks' 20 million. And when you look at the demographics, all broadcast news skews heavily to people over 54. Not exactly prime ad markets.

Aside from that, I agree the candidates should man up and show up.

CY:

By what objective measure do you make that claim?

See here for one such study: "Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

Certainly, screen captures taken out of context do not show truth,

Pshaw. There is no context in which Libby's "not guilty" or Mark Foley is a Democrat or etc.

as I can produce similar captures from any news outlet that shows bias or inaccurate reporting equaling or surpassing that of those chosen.

First, you admitted that Fox is biased. Second, I don't believe you can produce such captures. Go ahead and do it then. Don't bring up the doctored photos of Lebanon. That was a the work on one photographer.

What your carefully chosen link shows is simply a cherry-picked selection of images, sans context

Again, these are intentional lies no matter the context. How is it cherry picking to assemble a pack of lies?

one that the Groseclose/Milyo study, A Measure of Media Bias found to be one of the most objective in their news reporting.

I looked this over, and it seems to cover just one show on Fox, a 24 hour network.

CNN ... covered up torture for more than a decade to maintain a field office inside a brutal dictatorship

That's terrible if it's true. I won't defend CNN.

Nor have [CNN] run terrorist propaganda as news.

Baloney. Give me one example. CNN Time Warner is a huge corporation who has every interest to support the powers that be in the US, and zero reasons to embrace jihad.

Unlike CBS, they have never tried to peddle fake documents in a failed attempt to influence an election.

That was embarassing. I don't care for CBS much either. However, like the AP doctored photos, this is an error clearly traceable to one man, not the entire network.

I followed you link regarding Jamil Hussein. It's Pajamas Media quoting... you. What more need be said?

Obama, Hillary, and Edwards don't validate Fox News;

Sure they would if they appeared on it.

their huge viewership does that.

Not really. Nearly half of the people in the US don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't make it false.

what pulling out of the ... debate shows is that these Democrat presidential candidates aren't concerned over bias or "legitimacy"... but instead betrays a pandering fear of nutroots radicals.

You called Fox viewers nutroots radicals. And why would they be scared? 50% of US citizens identify as Dems now, as opposed to 35% that identify as Repubs. Are they afraid of pro-abortion, incestuous Giuliani? Straight Talk McCain? Waffles Romney? Come on.

It shows that they are easily cowed by their fringe supporters, and provides us with a glimpse into their mettle. Candidates who are so easily influenced and bullied by a such a sizable minority of their constituency stand little chance of developing a spine once elected. What Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have shown is that they are easily influenced followers, and not leaders.

What drivel.

Appearing on a news network endorses that network. You're just pretending like you don't understand this.

David T: This is a network which called Mark Foley a Democrat after he was determined to be a sex predator. It announced "Libby found not guilty." Do you deny that the Dem nominees would validate Fox by debating on it? Why not have the debate on a more neutral network? I don't understand your reasoning.

Lex,

They should show up for much the same reasons I come here.

1. It's an opportunity to address issues with people you wouldn't reach otherwise.

2. Unless Fox is given edit control, each candidate's words will be theirs, in their entirety.

3. We shouldn't pick and choose what is safe, like Dick Cheney who is reduced to going on Limbaugh's show because he knows he'll get pitched softballs.

4. These candidatews want to be president of all Americans, even those who think Fox News is real news.

5. This makes the candidates look weak and petty, like Bush did with his cleansed town hall meetings. It wasn't right for our CINC to look so cowardly, and it's not right for any future CINC to appear the same.

He can't handle being in front of a reporter but still wants the job as president?

That certainly fills me with confidence.

Lex, I'm somewhat depressed but not surprised by your avoidance of reality.

The PIPA-sponsored link you cite is a press release of a push poll that addresses three specific questions asked in 2003. This study was so biased itself that PIPA was forced to issue the following statement:

"The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions."

Ouch.

Libby's "not Guilty and Foley's "Democrat" labeling lasted precisely how long, Lex? Minutes on both counts. These are mistakes, not biases. You don't see me hammering other networks for similar mistakes in this thread, because all of them have made them. If you want them however, you can look at the CNN video where they flashed an "X" over VP Cheney's face, which later led to a CNN staffer being fired. These are mistakes, not biases. Of course, if you want biases, we've got that covered as well. And don't forget excuse-making for terrorists.

You don't believe other networks are guilty of biased reporting?

The November 2006 Hurriyah massacre-that-wasn't is a prime example. AP claimed that 4 mosques were "burned and blew up," yet one of their own reporters (Sally Busbee) stated the only damage at one of these mosques was a broken window, and another, where AP claimed 18 people died in an "inferno", was never burned at all. We have pictures taken during a worship service from inside that mosque the next day showing no fire damage at all.

Of the 24 people AP claimed died, they have been unable to produce a single body, or relative claiming that someone died, and the Washington Post and NY Times both provided conflicting accounts. That you would rather believe the AP's clearly bogus account of events that day and the validity of the source AP called Jamil Hussein is your issue, not mine. I obtained a direct quote from the general himself stating AP made up the facts Steven R. Hurst attributed to him. I'm sorry I have to quote myself on this, but I did take the lead in this story, and AP, to this very day, refuses to address the General's statement. They did completely change their policies on how they use sources after I embarrassed them. I'll take that as an admission of guilt, and you will never hear from Jamil Hussein again as a result.

And Lex, if you think the doctored of photos of Lebanon can be attributed to one photographer, you're simply daft.

Adnan Hajj faked two photos, but literally dozens of staged photos were also detected, from the BBC placing a boy's life at risk to pose him beside a live bomb, to photographers exploiting the wounded, Hezbollah members directing the media in multiple takes of the dead, moving debris to stage other photos with the dead, moving objects to create scenes to photograph. These are just some of the "fauxtography" examples I came across; the number of faked or staged photos runs literally into the dozens, and no less than CNN pretty boy Anderson Cooper admitted to how carefully stage-managed the war Hezbollah allowed them to show really was.

And yes, CNN's own Eason Jordan admitted that they covered up Saddam's savagery from 1990-2003 to maintain a news bureau in Baghdad. That didn’t get him fired. Twice claiming that the U.S. military was targeting journalists—another un-supported, biased pronouncement—eventually led to him being pressured out of his job (as a side note, I get along with Eason rather well in our email correspondence, and hope he has learned from the past).

And Lex, CNN did run an insurgent propaganda video as a news story. I'd add that the insurgents delivered the propaganda video to CNN via Michael Ware. Perhaps you've heard of him.

By the way, I see that as two links to CNN reporters serving up propaganda as news, if you, like most rational people, find the link above to Jamie McIntyre's attempt to save face for the technical weapons incompetence of terrorist leader Zarqawi is propaganda. At least these guys weren't captured with al Qaeda terrorists with bomb residue on their hands like AP's Pulitzer-prize winner, Bilal Hussein. He’s still in an Iraqi jail, where he belongs.

You're also dishonest when you try to pin Rathergate on Rather alone. Mary Mapes was behind it and was also fired, and as for Rather himself, he still maintains the lie to be "absolutely true."

Nor did I call Fox viewers "nutroots radicals." I don' t know if you simply have comprehension problems or if you are just being dishonest, but I was clearing stating that Obama/Edwards/Clinton were afraid of upsetting the "nutroots," which everyone in the political blogosphere knows are far left liberals they are pandering to by dropping out of the debate. I was not referring to Fox viewers, at all.

50% of Americans may call themselves Democrats, but only 15%-20% of the electorate identify as liberals.

Appearing on a news network does not endorse that network... frankly, that is just stupid. That is a very new invention of liberals seeking to constrain "acceptable" behavior. Well, it isn’t that new. Stalin would certainly approve.

The PIPA-sponsored link you cite is a press release of a push poll that addresses three specific questions asked in 2003. This study was so biased itself that PIPA was forced to issue the following statement...

The Wikipedia page you linked admits to controversy. If PIPA ever had this disclaimer on their website, it's not there now. Anyway, it's just disclaimer. The numbers speak for themselves: Fox viewers are indeed more likely to believe things that are wrong about Iraq.

Libby's "not Guilty and Foley's "Democrat" labeling lasted precisely how long, Lex? Minutes on both counts. These are mistakes, not biases.

I say you're making that up. Show me the retractions. This would be incompetence if it were accidental.

You don't believe other networks are guilty of biased reporting?

I didn't say that. However, lots of what you see as bias is actually mainstream. For instance in another thread you just complained that it's biased to disclose body counts. Most of us regard that as crucial.

I did take the lead in this [Jamil Hussein] story

That's one way to describe it anyway.

The examples of photo bias you submitted are not pro-terrorist bias, they are biased towards generating buzz. That's bad, but not pro-jihad.

The CNN video you linked to in no way promotes terrorism. There is no way anyone is going to watch that and sympathize with the jihadists. You're being paranoid. It's important to see the other side in a debate. Presenting the other side is not evidence of terrorist sympathies.

Of the 24 people AP claimed died...

Look, even if AP intentionally exaggerated the body count, you shouldn't infer that the AP is pro-terrorist. They're just trying to make a buck. Why on earth would any sane person in the US be pro-jihadist, much less a huge corporation. Jihadists want to kill or convert us. You are on a nonstop witch hunt for liberalism and terrorist sympathizers.

Okay, Mary Mapes and Dan Rather. What, now it's a conspiracy?

Appearing on a news network does not endorse that network... frankly, that is just stupid.

Sure it does. If Bush granted an interview to Alternet, it would legitimize Alternet. There's nothing debatable about this.

Find me one Stalin fan.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;

Which means that you must prove that they give a faulse impression. Or you are the liar.

Foxfier: Fox called Republican sex predator Mark Foley a Democrat. Does that give a faulse impression or not?

Given the fact that Democrats re-elect confessed sex offenders like Gerry Studds, I'd say not.

Whoot, a mistype. Like I said and you ignored-- twice now? I am *so* worried about the morality of that.

That reminds me, perjury is the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.
No crime proven-- and the very existance of the crime removed from consideration-- and you've got a straw house.

By your definition, there aren't any legit news outlets, as they've all had mistypes.

Seeing as you're obcessed with it.... a few moments of google brought me this:
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/theres_no_conspiracy_behind_an.php
Hey! The screen said D, the actual SPEACH said Republican. Mebbie you should have the sound on for those screen shots....
Or is Fox News ritually unclean?