I just posted this to FB and wanted to share it here:
FOX New's bizarre and horribly written statement on Donald Trump (with my commentary)...............
As many of our viewers know, FOX News is hosting a sanctioned debate in Des Moines, Iowa on Thursday night, three days before the first votes of the 2016 election are cast in the Iowa Caucus. Donald Trump is refusing to debate seven of his fellow presidential candidates on stage that night, which is near unprecedented.
This should read “nearly unprecedented”. Unprecedented is an adjective which must be modified by an adverb. How is it possible that a major news organization can issue a statement with such a fifth grade mistake?We’re not sure how Iowans are going to feel about him walking away from them at the last minute,
“Walking away from them at the last minute???” – that certainly is a snide little assertion. but it should be clear to the American public by now that this is rooted in one thing – Megyn Kelly,
Did they just refer to Megyn Kelly as a “thing”? Really? whom he has viciously attacked since August and has now spent four days demanding be removed from the debate stage.
Read that last sentence over 2 or 3 times. That is one awkward, awkward sentence. Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats, including the one leveled by Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski toward Megyn Kelly.
Here they are saying that threats violate all journalistic standards. But the threats they are alleging were not made by a journalist. I think what they mean is that journalists should not give in to threats, but that most definitely is not what they wrote!In a call on Saturday with a FOX News executive, Lewandowski stated that Megyn had a ‘rough couple of days after that last debate’ and he ‘would hate to have her go through that again.’
Now here is hearsay at its finest. Notice the campaign manager is named but “the FOX news executive” is not. Why not? Lewandowski was warned not to level any more threats,
Warned? Was he threatened? What was the warning? but he continued to do so. We can’t give in to terrorizations toward any of our employees.
What was the threat that FOX alleges was made against Megyn Kelly? That she might have to go through the same thing she went through before? It seems that the “threat” was that Trump might say more mean things about her. FOX calls this a “terrorization”, raising it to literal criminality. What an absurd exaggeration! All based on a conversation reported by and characterized by an unnamed person. Wow.Trump is still welcome at Thursday night’s debate and will be treated fairly, just as he has been during his 132 appearances on FOX News & FOX Business, but he can’t dictate the moderators or the questions.
A great, succinct, final paragraph. They saved their best writing till the very end.
Comments
Those dumb right winger!
Of course, we never really new what "blood coming out of her wherever" really meant did we, or did we? I agree.
But today? "If the spell-checker doesn't mind, just go with it." English has devolved to a pathetic, mediocre "globe-ish." I mourn.
To my way of thinking, in a free country, a person has the right to deny being interviewed by a person if they wish.
I could be wrong but I doubt it.
PS - it is well know that politicians (e.g. presidents) have withheld interviews by their surrogates and themselves to networks and interviewers they didn't like.
In a few months if Trump is the Republican candidate debating the Democrat candidate and Fox is hosting a debate, Trump will be first on stage, Megyn will be doing the same "fair and balanced journalistic" treatment of the Democrat that she did to Trump. Trump, who is now tweeting that she is a lightweight journalist (won't call her a Bimbo because that is not PC as if that stopped him before), will then be tweeting calling her the lone voice of courage and reason in the entire media biased against him; his supporters who are now tweeting she is a skank will then be tweeting asking her for a date and the left wingers will be calling her unspeakable things.
It is all just performance art in the theater of the absurd in a nation where hypocrisy is the norm (just go to any baseball game and watch the fans if you think the latter is an overstatement). It is all about us winning against them on any side, nothing else matters.
"I shudder at the thought of the inmates selecting the staff who supervise the asylum."
I'm quite sure in some places in this country and perhaps on a national level; some folks would name this as "voting" for public officials.
Time to hit the pillow at this house.
Put me down in the not interested column. Both Fox News and Trump lack credibility.
>> these Republican debates are the most interesting
not, to me, as actual policy discussion, just insane notions
>> and entertaining in my memory.
true dat
---
Tonight will be comedic. The candidates on stage need to find ways to ridicule DT's absence without seeming to attack someone who's not there to defend himself. Expect to hear phrases like:
"Really wish he were here tonight." (Sure you do)
"I respect Donald's decision not to participate ..."
"Obviously he doesn't view tonight's dialogue with the American people as important ..."
"If this is an indication of how Donald intends to lead ... "
"I won't attack someone who's not here to defend himself." (Yes you will)
If the current politicians suck some of the great candidates on this board should run and lead the way.
If any of the other candidates had a sense of humor and the chutzpah, they would bring an empty chair and have a conversation with the Donald like Clint Eastwood at the convention.
Trump has made a very shrewd and calculated tactical move. He is leading so the debate can only hurt him not help him. His supporters are not going to fault him for snubbing the debate. It takes the wind out of the last chance strategy of his nearest competitor Cruz. No fighter impresses with air boxing. Sparring with the others way down in the polls is a no-win situation for Cruz. But I wouldn't be surprised if his strategy involves making a last minute appearance which would throw off any alternate preparations Cruz may have done.
About disservice to American people, the networks these days give the audience what they want. Politics has become a spectator sport. When is the last time you watched a game on TV to decide which team you should root for or to vote on who is a better team? It is watching to see if your team wins or the team that is playing the team you hate wins. How can giving the people what they want be a disservice to the same people?
@vkt: Exactly. I believe that Trump is the best political actor to come along in a long time, and that he is very skillfully playing the system to the max. I'm guessing that he doesn't believe half of what he says bout anything, but that he is playing to a certain audience that doesn't really understand that. He'd cheerfully bed Megan Kelly tomorrow if he thought that he could gain something from it.
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. is a political columnist for the WSJ, and I have viscerally detested him for years. BUT: yesterday he ran a column titled "Why Vote for Trump?", which I couldn't resist. To my surprise and appreciation, it was the most level-headed exploration of Mr. Trump that I've seen, pointing out his many historical inconsistencies, and asking some very pertinent questions. A good read if you have access to the WSJ.
I've posted this here before:
("Spectator democracy.")
"Unorthodox Trump smashes Fox News influence over rightwing media
His ability to break the network’s grip over conservative punditry has sparked breathless headlines across the web – and rewritten the media landscape"
"Donald Trump would be the first to tell you he’s a man of many accomplishments. Somewhere down that tremendous list is one he probably didn’t predict: breaking the grip of Fox News over conservative media and scattering talking heads, bloggers and politicians across various tribes of pro- and anti-Trump thinking."