Elizabeth Warren Talks Rejecting Fox News Town Hall - The View

[BeyondGeography]

[left-of-center2012]

1. Warren did not win over 'The Arizona Princess'

[LiberalLovinLug]

3. I love that shot. That simmering frustration behind the eyes

As Warren clearly and aggressively states how Fox News is racist and promotes lies. Looking Meghan right in the eyes. But because Warren has a clear status as an older statesperson, a guest on the show, and that she says what she says so unapologetically, Meghan must just sit and stew. If it were Joy or anyone else saying that she would have interrupted her and gone on some long angry diatribe and deflection.

[Politicub]

8. If she had a molecule of dignity, she would leave the GOP.

The leader of the Republican party shits on McCain’s name pretty regularly.

There must be a lot of self loathing in that family.

[DesertRat]

9. I think she's conflicted now that she's married to a right winger

[LiberalLovinLug]

2. Its a tough decision. I disagree with her but I appreciate her explaination.

Between as she says, making Fox executives a lot of money for Fox, plus the ability to use those TH as "proof" of how unbiased they are.

and reaching a large audience that may be on the bubble about Trump, but never actually hear the facts, or hear anyone from the other side. And also have built up a charactature of some of the candidates created by Fox News and Donald Trump, and might be surprised, in a good way, to hear someone like Warren speak.


I still think she is wrong about it on balance. 1. Fox News already makes a ton of money. They will continue to. I gather that the income from one of these THs is a drop in the bucket of their yearly earnings. So that angle is feeble, compared to the benefits in my second point. 2. The propaganda angle - that Fox News can use it to "prove" how "fair and balanced" they are? Again quite feeble in that I really don't think too many Democrats will suddenly have an epiphany that...hey...you know what?....Fox News is actually completely balanced. I also don't think too many Fox News fanatics will respect Fox News any more than they do, or ever needed to be convinced how wonderfully unbiased they are.

No, on balance, the benefits of going on Fox News for a TH outweighs the cons by a large margin. Think about it, what do you care more about?....Some Fox News executive getting a bigger bonus at Christmas, or a Democrat squeeking out a win, partly helped by one of these THs where just enough viewers either didn't vote for Trump. or voted Libertarian instead. Or even voted Democratic.

[rogue emissary]

4. What poll or research suggest going on fox increases

a candidate's vote total?

[LiberalLovinLug]

5. The poll of common sense

The greater the exposure of a politicians platform, the more people, of all stripes, know them, the more they can get their platform out, and if its a good one that will help people, and the candidate is given the airtime to explain it, will garner more votes for that politician. Conversely, just to make the point, if a candidate stays home, maybe gives off the occasional tweet, but never even accepts interviews on news networks, will probably not do too well.

Also, especially with Fox News viewers, who only hear third hand descriptions about some Democrats (Pocahontas!) as simply fodder for a laugh, actually being exposed to the actual person and listening to them, might change a few minds. I'm not talking a lot of minds, but we didn't need that many minds more in the last election.

I also think that propaganda argument can be used both ways. Sure Fox News can use it to crow about how "fair and balanced" they are, but if a Democrat does NOT show up, they can also use that to smear Democrats as being afraid to come on to face questions from their viewers.

[rogue emissary]

6. Your poll of common sense should talk to Jeb Bush.

He had wide spread exposure and money still didn't help him win his presidential primary.

Also, John Edwards, Gary Heart, and Howard Dean to name a few more. During each of their races had intense media focus and it didn't help them win.

[LiberalLovinLug]

10. So in your scientific methodology

your deduce that LESS exposure for a candidate trying to convince voters to endorse their vision for the county, is the best route? Interesting theory. Less is more. Okay.

So if Jeb wouldn't have sent out flyers, had town halls, put out billboards and ads, basically been more invisible, he might have won? And saved us from Trump? Why didn't he listen to your theory first! dammit.

[rogue emissary]

11. Nope, just saying more exposure doesn't equal more votes.

Your adding the less exposure frame. I highlighted four candidates that lost yet had a lot of media exposure.

Trump's another perfect example, he had way more free media attention. He still lost to Clinton by close to three million votes.

He was only selected due to a quirk in our arcane election system.

I could easily be wrong but Obama didn't do a Fox Town Hall. Didn't go on Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh's show, Hannity's show. I believe he only did O'Riley's show after he was elected but I could have forget an appearance.

I may not be using science, but you aren't either.

[LiberalLovinLug]

12. This is silly

No one can prove a negative. Or maybe in this case disprove a positive.

Just because a highly exposed candidate did not win, does not negate the power of that exposure. ie. no one knows how much worse they would have done WITHOUT that exposure.

And yes, Trump is a good example. He did not lose (by the rules in place). He won. And he did it partly from all the free media coverage. He was the most covered candidate by a long shot. Free airtime his campaign could only dream about. Do you think he'd have done BETTER if he had not had all that free airtime to blast out his lies? To the Rust Belt for instance, how he was going to bring their jobs back, and how Hillary and her husband killed their jobs with the NAFTA? If less voters heard his fake promises, they'd have voted in even greater numbers for him? Really?

Anyways, this argument is dumb. Its like arguing that advertising does not work, because you are still second in sales in your particular industry. That major companies must be stupid, and are wrong about spending on advertising, and should just save their money. Especially if there is a more successful company they compete with in the same industry. An executive saying..."look X company beat our ass good again last quarter too...it must mean that we should stop all advertising and other types of community exposure to our product!"

[LanternWaste]

13. I think the fundamental point is that there is in fact, a cost-benefit ratio

that should be analyzed in order to illustrate with an objective measure whether an appearance on Fox News benefits a progressive candidate more than it costs them.

Provide those numbers to one side or the other, and your premise then becomes supported by objective numbers. Until then, merely alleging 'any advertising is good advertising' is doing little more than reciting t-shirts and bumper stickers.

[LiberalLovinLug]

14. Ah...so you admit there is a benefit

That was my only point. Why not use any benefit you can?

The "cost-benefit ratio" analysis study would be very complex to do. So many factors, it would almost be impossible I'd think. Because how do you differentiate what percent of a voters convictions were driven by one TV show, a year out?

But I put it to you that if it is established that there is some benefit and the question is only does it "trump" the cost.....then I would say that the benefit wins, no matter how small, because there is no tangible cost.

The cost of watching Fox News making another million to throw on the pile? That is not a cost to Democrats.

The cost of Fox News using it to convince Americans that their network really is "fair and balanced"? And so....what?...a few more people will decide that they should watch Fox News more to get a balanced view? I think by now, Americans that watch news networks are pretty clear about Fox News no matter which side they are on. Besides, again, even if you could classify it as a gain for Fox News, propaganda wise, that is not a "cost" to Democrats or the candidate that comes on.

Please name an actual "cost" that outweighs the benefits of appearing on Fox News and exposing your message to such a wide audience? It sure seemed to give Mayor Pete a bump.

[Politicub]

7. I like how staying off Fox opens the opportunity to remind people

that it’s the main propaganda channel of the Trump Reich.