digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at newshounds.us

Fox News Did Not Air John Edwards' Speech Endorsing OBAMA.

newshounds.us — CNN did. MSNBC did. Fox didn't. Fox - the place for politics and your place to go for politics and "America's Election Headquarters" didn't cover it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pissinguparope, on 05/15/2008, -15/+3So Frickin what. Is life going to come to a end.
    • dleesgeetar, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3its funny because its not true! sarcasm! =) think i've been watching too much Family Guy :)
    • DeathJux, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I'm pretty sure you can apply "So Frickin what" to just about any story on Digg. That's not the point.

      Perspective: get some.
  • MadKennyP, on 05/15/2008, -4/+18Maybe, instead, they showed video of Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "*****." That's more Fox News' method.

    Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2007, Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘*****,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5The mind boggling (and scary) part is that she has an audience.
  • sneakeykop, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10GOP = Deadman Walking
  • Ridgeliner7, on 05/16/2008, -5/+5I watched the speech by Obama introducing Edwards, and Edwards speech endorsing Obama on Fox, so this item is untrue. Fox did not broadcast Edwards speech completely, but cut in and out, and I might add, as an Obama supporter, clearly shown here on Digg, fairly. This piece is 100% ***** hate. I urge you guys to do what Senator Obama asks, and stop with this old-politics hate.
    • SheilaNoya, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8I was channel surfing while this was on too. Fox News only covered Obama's intro and the beginning of Edward's speech, then they cut to a commercial. When they returned, it was Brit Hume doing other news stories. I checked back several times but I never saw them cover any more of Edward's 20 minute speech. If you say they cut in & out, then I won't argue with you, but they certainly didn't cover the entire speech like the other networks did.

      CNN & MSNBC covered the entire speech live. However, it pissed me off that as soon as Obama took the stage again (after Edward's was done), the news pundits started talking over him, yet still broadcast the images of Obama talking.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Because a story can only be covered in a 20 minute time span.
        /sarcasm
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/16/2008, -14/+5People who watch Fox News are Anti-American and hate our troops because they refuse to enlighten themselves.
    • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3What is it called when someone tries to pretend they are of a certain creed just to make those people look bad?
    • masterspeaks, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Not sure, but it is a pretty lame troll. Most people with a functioning brain do not make broad generalizations of an entire group. That is the disgusting G.O.P strategy of claiming people with different views are unpatriotic. Be the bigger man/woman and don't sink yourself to their level.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Woahh, irony alert: "Most people with a functioning brain do not make broad generalizations of an entire group. That is the disgusting G.O.P strategy of claiming people with different views are unpatriotic."
    • masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Am I the only one who sees the irony of molais's comment?
  • Gemfinder, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4Not true. They showed some of it but cut in over it with a commercial. CNN let him talk all the way through and as soon as Barack took the mike, cut away and started spinning over his words.
  • Ridgeliner7, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3The same ***** comments were made by Clinton supporters against Fox, when they cut Hillary off one night to broadcast, entirely, one of Obama's victory speeches. The MINDLESS Fox News bashing, in light of the fact that both Clinton and Obama have stated, so many times that no one could have missed it, that Fox is among the fairer of the MSM's, is tiresome, and only comes from Kos-addicts and those who blindly follow Neocon turned liberal, Huffington. I still remember that mindless woman stumping for her then husband for the United States Senate, and she was as fascist as they come.....lol.
    • brycelb, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1She sure was and is. I don't think people outside of CA know much about her.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"Fox is among the fairer of the MSM's"

      Absolutely not. You may be right that the Fox bashing gets out of hand sometimes, but Fox is without a doubt a channel with an extreme conservative bias. They play host to conservative blowhards like O'Reilly and have played endlessly into the Bush administration agenda over the past seven years wilfully.

      Evil? Perhaps not, but "fair and balanced" they are not. Hell, their own admitted premise is that they exist to counter-act the (imaginary) liberal MSM.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3So what, assuming this is true? CNN and MSNBC don't cover UN fraud and corruption. There are a lot of examples of story selection from the mass media outlets. MSNBC doesn't cover anything but what Oreily is up to and why conservatives are douche bags when Olbermann is on. CNN doesn't cover anything but human waste when Nancy Grace is on, same goes for Fox when Greta or Geraldo is on. Get over it. It takes many sources to hear all the news. The only thing that comes even close to doing it all is The Economist.

    Wow, just noticed, we get tons of time to go back and edit now.
    • tcbishop12, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1You raise some valid points. I think what we all hope for is a more factually based balanced approach to news reporting and coverage that does not spring from a semi-hidden (or blatant) agenda, a reporting that adheres to some sense of the underlying old-school values and principles of rigorous journalistic integrity.

      In an ideal world perhaps.

      Journalists and reporters are always going to report from the basis of their viewpoints and perceptions, and cannot do otherwise. But it would be refreshing to redirect our aim at an unbiased, straightforward and truthful exposition of the facts.
  • brokenspatula, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1LOLS, more fox news hates
  • jkahrs595, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I was lucky enough to be in Grand Rapids, MI to go and see Obama speak. I was pleasantly surprised with him and Edward's ability to pump up a crowd. To us in the crowd, it was just a rumor that Edwards was going to be there. I am thankful I was a part of history, to see the beginning of the end of Hillrod. Fox News just wasn't as pumped as I was, I guess.
  • jmpeagle, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2they have a different demographic base...who cares?
  • buffyangel108, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Wait, wait, wait... Fox News is pro-Republican?!?!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.