Trump threatens to block networks from hosting debates after Dems reject Fox

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432961-trump-threatens-to-block-networks-from-hosting-debates-after-dems

SAD

Fox News basically disqualified themselves when they got up on stage and shilled for Trump at one of his rallies.

If he's too chicken to attend a debate on a real news network then that will hurt him at the polls.

Maybe they should hand him the questions before the debate.

@n64dd: Yep, may as well keep up traditions.

This is fine. He's just fighting back against fake news and defending the purveyors of truth.

Donna Brazile handed debate questions to Hillary Clinton. We can't pretend only Fox News would be guilty of showing bias towards specific candidates.

Democrats get a tissue and stop crying.

But then again who wouldn´t want to ban a network who doesn´t give you the questions in advance so you can prepare your statements.

Trump is a such a corrupt wannabe dictator.

Eh? how did you come to that conclusion?

Also despite the thread title, Trump has not done anything so far, it´s the Democrats who are banning a news media outlet from their debates. So what does that make them?

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-roger-ailes-trump-megyn-kelly-questions-2019-3

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes tipped off Trump about a 2016 debate question, report claims — the same thing he attacked Hillary Clinton and CNN for

@Serraph105: Yep.

@zaryia: I never said Fox was innocent. Pointing that stuff out doesn't cancel out Brazille's actions and if anything it shows that they need to find a neutral source not related to any of the MSM networks.

Trouble is there aren't any real news networks in the US. Most of them tend to be more political activists then news worthy institutions. Fox is clearly awful, but CNN has gone off the rails as well. I'd almost like to see the BBC or Al-Jazeera host the debates because I think they would be far more impartial then the tabloid quality news networks in the US. Or Maybe NPR, they have their biases but I still think there reporting is fairly high quality.

Oh god, the election campaign for 2020 has already sort of started and I am already sick and tired of it. God help us all.

If it were up to me, it wouldn't start until three months before the election. Each [and every] candidate would get:

• One 30-minute prime time slot per month on a national network channel to discuss their platform, answer questions, etc.
• 10 million dollars and a bus to tour the country and speak...that's it.
• Three 30-second ads per day on a national network/local news affiliate (free)
• An appropriate allowance to run a website

All paid for by taxpayers, and only taxpayers. We elect people to serve us, it's only right we pay to be informed by them and give them a chance to run. No special interests, no lobbyists, no private money, no gifts. Every candidate would be watched like a hawk, and any violation results in instant disqualification.

*Concerning debates:

• There would be only two debates; one initial debate at the start of the cycle, and a second debate two weeks before election.
• Candidates would not be in the same room; no more drama, theatrics, and bad manners. It would be a constructive debate.
• If it was not their turn to speak, they would be muted
• Speaking time would be extended slightly
• Questions would be formed by a combination of the general public and political professionals (lawyers, professors, etc)

I like that idea, but the problem is BBC and Al Jazeera are not available to everyone, even with cable packages. My folks have all these great channels--network news, cooking channel, HBO, and so forth--in their cable package but no BBC or Al Jazeera. Which sucks because I enjoy watching TV when I go to visit them and discussing the issues (I don't have cable myself). Would love to watch BBC and Al Jazeera, sort of discovered those channels while travelling, fell in love with them.

NPR would be great but, again, NPR seems very very left leaning for the most part (though I think progress, logic, and realism are naturally "left-leaning" in this climate).

@sonicare: Hmm, that's an interesting idea actually. BBC are pretty biased themselves, it's just not as blatant of course.

For something like hosting another country's leadership debate though, they would prob be a decent choice.

@mrbojangles25: If you want to advocate publicly financed campaigns (and only publicly financed), I'll be right there with you

@mandzilla: What’s a ‘real news network’ even mean anymore?

@Sevenizz: One that at least tries to report the news, basically more coverage and less opinion oriented talk show stuff.

@mandzilla: Do they exist?

@Sevenizz: Well there's no perfect network of course, all have varying levels of bias. Some of the better ones (in my opinion) are Euronews and Al Jazeera. BBC aren't too bad international-wise, but if you live in the UK you do notice that they aren't 100% impartial.

American politics are so partisan though, and that's evident in the news networks also - MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, Breitbart etc.

See Trump? This is the opposite party playing your game. But don't worry, Fox will have sympathizers in that party I'm sure. Just check with a former Milwaukee sheriff, Hawaii congresswoman running for president ENSURING you win again, and your son-in-law.

@mandzilla: I dunno man, the BBC was caught recently trying to stage a Tommy Robinson sex assault against him.

Al Jezera - aren’t they pro terrorists?

@Sevenizz: Is that the Panorama documentary?

Like Reuters?

@horgen: Yeah, Reuters is a good example.

Mostly I see other networks just publishing something Reuters first published. Never cared much about going to the source and see what is actually reported.

@mandzilla: Correct.

@Sevenizz: Ah okay, I haven't seen that but I didn't say the BBC were perfect. I'd say they were very biased in their coverage of the Scottish independence campaign for example, and I'm not even Scottish.

@horgen: It's closer to actual impartiality than most networks.

This is a good argument. I don't think banning news media is necessarily a good way to go about things... I would sooner drag Fox to court.

I guess I could argue news media is no longer about the news. Since it's increasingly more about political interests and spinning narratives and not about the actual events that happen? But that is happening on the entire political spectrum, so I don't think I can even defend that argument in favor of Democrats.

@mrbojangles25: I would 1000000% support your idea of a one-time limited fund (or limitation on funds) that every candidate gets to self-promote. No lobbying, no deals behind closed doors. Just straight up one sum of money that gets traced, and all their expenses get checked.