One person pulls out of an interview for very personal reasons and it begins a backlash of political banter. ” who is right or wrong”. that debate can last an eternity and there will always be a new subject to discuss….

That said, I don’t disagree with your other points. The questions you cited that maybe should have been asked seem reasonable, and some degree of probing is always good.

Again, though, consider the contrast. Conservatives are used to probing, even outright attacks, from the leftist media outlets – one of the more extreme examples being Dan Rather’s attempted hit job on G.H.W. Bush which led to the ex-president administering an on-air smackdown. But when Bill Clinton got some mildly probing questions from Chris Wallace (a registered Democrat, by the way), it was an entirely new experience for Clinton, and he (and the entire left) reacted with their usual venom.

Again, my dispute with your stance is that you find it “horrible” when leftist media types are denied the chance to question conservatives, but you’re entirely understanding when the shoe is on the other foot. I’ve yet to hear you explain that inconsistency.

So I’ll back off a little on Brit Hume, he is the best anchor on Fox news, and although I still beleive his debate on his show is heavily skewed(one organization compared to other cable shows as noted by FAIR (which I’m sure is not well respected here), so instead of arguing apples, all night, let’s discuss the substance of the interview.

So, although I had previously seen 5 to 10 mintues sections of the Petraues interview, but I watched the entire hour last night. To have a good interview, you need not ‘attack’ someone, but you do have to probe the information that’s given to you to verify 1) your understanding and 2)it’s credibility. Brit Hume didn’t do that. For example: Croker (Iraq Ambassador) talked about iraqi police and military regiments stepping up, and filling in for armed services, additionally previous insurgents becoming allys.

My question would have been “how do we know we can trust them? What indicates that they won’t take our support, and attack us later?” There are a million other questions that could have been asked, not just the ones I thought of. Unfortunately, not a single follow-up question was given in that section. I think that’s unfortunate. To be fair, it was called a “briefing” and not an interview, however I think Hume should have earned his paycheck by engaging the conversation, (and not being lectured at).

Maybe you’ve heard of this before?

Sure I have. I just think it’s so interesting that ABC, CBS, NBC have been obviously one sided for decades and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. Suddenly, though, Fox decides not to attack President Bush and they are “taking sides” and “right wing propaganda”.
Maybe you’ve heard of that before?

Fox News however, has demonstrated that it has an axe to grind, and although I disagree with the decision not to be there, I understand not wanting to stand in the way of the axe.

I don’t buy that for a minute – you’ve given no evidence to substantiate that claim – but just for a minute, let’s accept that claim.

If Fox News has an axe to grind, then there’s no denying that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, AP, Reuters, etc. each has a virtual hardware store full of axes to grind. Each of those is far less balanced and even-handed in their coverage of the news than is Fox.

So let’s take that scenario to its logical conclusion. No political figure has to appear on a network or before a reporter who isn’t known to be friendly – the Dems’ Fox rule – and let’s apply it.

First, there will be few, if any, televised debates during the 2008 campaign, since no commercial network qualifies. C-SPAN might be the only possibility, and even then the questioners would have to be vetted by both parties in a process that would make the investigations of Supreme Court nominees pale in comparison. You might disagree, but only mildly – I’m sure you’d “understand” and defend the GOP’s view, right?

Second, President Bush should have the right to immediately rescind the press credentials of any network, newspaper, or reporter who he deems to have an “axe to grind”. After all, to use your term, why should he have to stand in the way of the axe? You might disagree, but only mildly – I’m sure you’d “understand” and defend the President’s view, right?

Ridiculous? Of course. But it’s the logical result of the Dems’ argument. The Dems cannot refuse to acknowledge the largest cable news network without granting the GOP the right to use the same standard. Not if they have a shred of intellectual honesty, which isn’t something you should try to “understand”.

It’s significant that when the Dems shrink from appearing before Fox, you disagree but you “understand” them…but if General Petraeus doesn’t offer himself up to the vultures at, say, NBC, that’s “horrible” in your view.

If you and the rest of the left think that if you win the White House next year you’ll be able to pretend that only the hard-left news outlets exist anymore, then you’ve really heeded the final boarding call and pushed back from the gate of reality.

ME’s problem – well, one of them – is in confusing authoritarian regimes such as Pinochet’s with totalitarian regimes such as the various communist flavors. The latter are much worse, and are invariably left-wing. It’s why there’s a natural alliance between say, Hugo Chavez, the islamofascists, and people like ME on the American left.

By the way, ME, when you find someone distributing pro-Pinochet literature, or setting up a pro-Pinochet booth, or prancing around in a Pinochet shirt at a conservative rally, please post a link to the evidence. Just from this past weekend there’s no shortage of your side cozying up to Marxists. Pretending some sort of moral equivalence is comic, and doesn’t help your credibility one bit.

I should add that someone needs to become more educated on Nazi Germany as well, especially when equating those members of the left who involve themselves with Che/Mao/Lenin as “stupid college students.”

Game, set, match. Nice job, GWR.

You see conservatives at rallies holding American flags, while you see people that ME would associate with wearing Che shirts, distributing Mao info, etc, etc.. You don’t have to google much to find it. In fact, in the Bay Area I could probably drive 20 minutes and find someone doing it.

Alchemist, how can you dis Brit Hume? I think he’s cool

Brit Hume has no integrity? Examples? Or do you just hate him because he’s Fox’s lead anchor?

Hume is by far the most mature, and credible, journalist on any news network. Your comments speak volumes about your real level of rationality and petty partisanship, but thanks for the insight into your character, or lack thereof.

I was mixed on the democratic decision to not show up for Fox News. It really depends on who the moderator wouldn’t have been. I understand not trusting the Fox news channel, the same way that I wouldn’t trust the Limbaugh show, or Conservatives don’t trust the Al Franken show.

Fox News however, has demonstrated that it has an axe to grind, and although I disagree with the decision not to be there, I understand not wanting to stand in the way of the axe.

Still, I’m sure together we could a handful of middle of the road, high integrity reporters/interviewers that could ask Petraues some tough questions. Brit Hume is none of those things. Neither is the senate. Capesh?

P.S. Is it me or has someone left the italics on for this post???

I’ve never been a big Walters fan, but she did support Rosie when she was off her rocker, and she is supporting Hasselback’s right to have her own opinions.

Strange..I don’t recall seeing you show up here to characterize the Democrats’ refusal to appear anywhere except on friendly media outlets as “horrible” when that happened. And, as you know, it is still happening. So why the change of heart?

Just curious…

Elizabeth is the one who, as of late, continues
to quip things such as “That is his opinion.” or
“That is how she feels, she has a right.”

Oh, OK…now I get it.

Just two quick questions…

Is acknowledging that someone has an opinion supposed to be “offensive”? Or does that fall into the “dangerous” category?

I already know that saying people have rights is considered offensive and dangerous by the left, since their guiding principle is that we have no rights except as granted by the Almighty…and by that they mean the government, not God.