Well, no. The point of a Democratic candidate debate is to help potential Democratic primary voters differentiate the candidates.

Ha ha ha ha!

If its a propaganda effort, no news outlet should air it.

ha ha.. ha... ha? Oh god you're being serious.

Come on James, you didn't get into politics yesterday. Candidates have no trouble showing how the others are "different" in campaign ads, they don't needs debates for that. Debates, like recent Presidential press conferences and SOTU addresses are nothing but policy propaganda. You know that, I know that, everyone who reads your site knows that, why pretend otherwise?

Now I respect you James, and will usually give you the benefit of the doubt, but until someone produces some reference to MSNBC, CNN, or C-SPAN airing something damaging to Republicans while hosting a Republican debate, your claim that Fox News isn't a special case is just you saying something you believe to be true.

Well, no. The point of a Democratic candidate debate is to help potential Democratic primary voters differentiate the candidates. If it's a propaganda effort, no news outlet should air it.

I don't have access to a transcript of anchor and panel comments from the most recent Republican debates (which would have been, what, 2000?), let alone with the chiron graphics annotated. Given a tape of one of those from any of the major commercial networks (ie, not CPAN) you'd see the same kind of thing. The examples provided above just demonstrate the pervasiveness of it.

I'm not saying that Fox News shouldn't make stories like this, I don't think the Democrats should not hold debates on Fox News simply because the have and will continue to run stories that are damaging to the Democratic party. But the whole point of a Democratic debate is to highlight the Democratic candidates, you don't want them to be undermined by the very people who are hosting it directly afterward, or possibly even in the very middle of it.

In the spirit of bipartisan comity (Or is that comedy? I can never remember.) I hereby call for all future debates to be hosted exclusively on Outside The Beltway. It’s the least I can do for the good of the Republic.

For a nominal fee of course!

I didn't say it wouldn't be time-consuming, just that examples of this low magnitude abound. The on-screen chirons aren't part of transcripts, anyway.

The Dan Rather "in her opinion" monologue when Harris read off the legally binding results of the Florida vote count in 2000 is an obvious example that comes to mind.

Newsbusters has tons of examples. These just from the last three days:

• CNN Reporter: Blacks Don’t Vote Republican Because of ‘Perception of Racism’
• Schieffer Once Again Raises Specter of Vietnam: 'Declare Victory and Leave'
• Media Fuss Over 'Income Gap' and 'Out of Control' Pay
• CNN's Soledad O'Brien Endorses Conspiracy Theorist's Film
• GMA Anchor Slams Insurance Industry Profits; Highlights Calls for More Regulation

I think some of these show legitimate bias and others are more dubious. Still, most are at least as "outrageous" as the suggestion that Democrats were portraying a bleak portrait of life in America. And, certainly, those with differing viewpoints would view this coverage as slanted.

Fox News is a special case, simply because they admit to a bias.

One could argue that admitting to a bias is preferable to having one and pretending otherwise.

But, this whole episode is just another example of the left demanding ideological purity. First among their representatives, buy now they are going to target other venues they deem inapproriate as well. Television stations that liberals deem inappropriate (or dangerous) for Americans to watch are targeted for censure, and radio hosts that do not have the appropriate viewpoints are assaulted under the banner of the "Fairness Doctrine."

Only "partisan Republican propaganda outlets."

And if the debate should be, as they suggest, "just streamed on the Internet," does that not deny access to the debate to those who don't have Internet access?

You know, the very people the Left claims to care so much about, the poor?

Until some other cable news or broadcast news network chooses to pull a similar stunt I think its quite proper and reasonable to treat Fox News as something unique and reprehensible - to be avoided whenever possible.

Put differently, the difference between Fox News and other news networks is similar to the difference between an umpire who is known to gamble and one that is not. Both may make questionable calls, but we justifiably will be more suspicious of the gambler.

While Dr. Joyner is correct that if one is disposed to, one can read bias into any network's debate reporting, Fox News is a special case, simply because they admit to a bias. That makes their reporting especially - and justifiably - suspect, and I think may make them unfit to host a debate.

More importantly, though, it wouldnt be hard to go through transcripts of Republican debates on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, or elsewhere that had unflattering language used against conservatives

Then by all means, since it would be so easy, lets get those examples up.