digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org —

Fox News Host Refuses To Talk About Russia-Georgia War

thinkprogress.org — Yesterday, Russia launched a major military offensive against Georgia, which Georgia has called “a state of war.” Nearly two thousand people have died and the conflict risks sparking a wider war. Also yesterday, former senator John Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair in 2006. Fox has decided that Edwards story needs more attention.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Rizoh, on 08/10/2008, -29/+210Don't blame Jarrett, he was only adhering to Fox's policy of disseminating White House talking points.
    • greenm1981, on 08/10/2008, -2/+53I still blame Jarrett.
    • joshuagor44, on 08/10/2008, -17/+1why
    • JettaMan, on 08/10/2008, -33/+5Why would anyone blame Jarrett??? The story they are talking about in this segment is John Edwards, yet this slimy bitch keeps trying to pull NATO and Georgia into the conversation. She has what is called a *transparent agenda*.Well, as she noted Fox did cover that story earlier and likely will continue covering it when appropriate. It's retarded the way she keeps pulling Georgia out of thin air each time like a broken record - totally transparent propaganda. Obviously she's trying to push the Georgia thing to pull America into yet another war! It is a civil war, not for Americans to rush into and act as the wise judge of all things. Let those Eastern European countries sort it out. They know the issues better than Americans or Western Europeans/Asians for that matter.
      • FreddieD, on 08/10/2008, -1/+19Dude, you don't get it.

        Nobody is lobbying to have anybody go to war with anybody. The point here is that the Georgian/Russian conflict is (and should be) far more news worthy than a senator who admits boinking someone that isn't his wife.

        Take a close look at these people for a moment:
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26090865/displaymode/1 ...
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26090865/displaymode/1 ...

        That man holding his dead relative and that elderly lady with her blood all over her face mean a lot more to me than whatever any senators not named Obama or McCain are doing right now.
      • haydesigner, on 08/10/2008, -2/+14@JettaMan: "It is a civil war"

        Wow, are you serious? If so, you are grossly uninformed, which shows why it is so important for Fox News to explain ***** to moronic viewers like you.

        This is not a civil war. This is not North vs. South. This is not Texas vs. Oklahoma.

        Georgia has been its OWN country since *1991*.
        But apparently that is too small and subtle a distinction for you.
      • nblsavage, on 08/10/2008, -1/+6Let me guess, you're going to somehow blame "socialists" for the conflict right?
    • muhadeeb, on 08/10/2008, -6/+2Yeah, Jarret is still a minor league news"player" since being aquired. A normal fill-in for their top notch reporters. Although he had a bright moment interviewing muslim men for Megyn Kelly's piece on "Honor Killings"
    • identifiedlogo, on 08/10/2008, -0/+4that was painful to watch
      • largesandwich, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1I agree. It was like a conversation mash-up.
    • dagnome1984, on 08/10/2008, -0/+5Americans involved in the attacks?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcv-ynUDYHc

      Some of the attackers had American emblems.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLFWxGXGCBg



    • mvlazysusan, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1the reason you don't know who fired the first shot
      PROPAGANDA
      COME ON THEN
      tell me who fired the first shot
      eather get it right and be on my side
      or be one of those (mad cow) sponge brains
  • barcelona10, on 08/10/2008, -16/+204amazing, simply amazing. No offense but why wouldn't you want to talk about the Russia/Georgia war if you were a news anchor? In what world is John Edwards more important?
    • FizixMan, on 08/10/2008, -4/+104What? There's a world outside the United States?
      • norman619, on 08/10/2008, -33/+4There's also a world in the US outside the one you seem to cling to where people actually think for themselves and don't need a news network to tell them how to think. Not that world isn't well populated but it's there.
      • migshark, on 08/10/2008, -2/+47I live in Australia, and until recently I thought we were just a state of your's. Imagine my astonishment when I found we were a completely different bunch of white, condescending freeloaders.
      • daines88, on 08/10/2008, -0/+14@norman... What?!?! There's a thing called sarcasm??
      • boydrew, on 08/10/2008, -2/+14We're talking about Georgia, our state right? I feel its about time their state militia engaged the Russians in some hand to hand combat......
      • armakaryk, on 08/10/2008, -1/+6"What do we care we live in the united states!" "the united states is part of the world, fry" "wow things have changed."
    • flogistan, on 08/10/2008, -4/+25In the world where the government is telling the news man what to do. It gets more painful to watch every day.
      • norman619, on 08/10/2008, -11/+4Nope. News networks are about ratings like any other network. I'm pretty sure the ratings have shown them that their viewers want tabloid BS gossip instead of substance and real news. Remember how much coverage they all gave Britney Spears and Lohan over the other real news? It was maddening. This is not about FOX News but about how news in general is disseminated here in the US. Something most diggers here refuse to accept. They rather pretend there is some evil conspiracy in which FOX News and the evil Bush are working in concert to keep the American people in the dark.
      • pintomp3, on 08/10/2008, -0/+9no one is denying that most of our news is about infotainment than information. that's why news doesn't work as a for-profit operation. but if you don't think fox news isn't slanted you are delusional. anything rupert murdoch owns is this way. just look at the new york post:

        http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/surrender-monk ...
      • shady8x, on 08/10/2008, -0/+6Still aren't Republicans supposed to be jumping all over the war story and how Mccain would be the best military leader???

        Seems a bit odd that Fox would be giving it little coverage...
    • bestsoccerdog, on 08/10/2008, -16/+2First question: When it's a segment on JOHN EDWARDS

      Second question: 99.9% of America's world.
      • EarlOfLade, on 08/10/2008, -4/+7I'll answer you with: "What? Learn to write complete sentences with punctuation and we might be able to answer you."
    • theOster, on 08/10/2008, -6/+1at least Fox isn't as bad as Google (strictly in terms of the Georgia-Russia thing. i'm really a google whore and dont like fox news at all):
      http://valleywag.com/5034988/google-news-informs-u ...
    • JettaMan, on 08/10/2008, -12/+11This article shows me why Digg users are idiots. She could be saying "Why are you talking about Edwards? You need to talk about Nukes. Or the Olympics. Or whale hunting." Or some other pet agenda. The fact is this short segment is reporting on Edwards. Get over it! That's how news works. You can't talk about every issue at the same time otherwise it is confusing. News stories are presented in *segments*. The Georgia thing, as she mentioned, was discussed in a previous segment and will continue to be in future segments. She must work for Edwards, trying to say "Look over here! Don't look at Edwards cheating on his sick wife!"
      • Frozo, on 08/10/2008, -6/+7I'm no Fox News fan, but I totally agree. And as I just mentioned in another post... this is what happens when you blur the line between broadcast news and a news "magazine." It's in the *****, folks.
      • licnyc, on 08/10/2008, -1/+2Its not a question of one news story or the other, its a question of which story fox news thinks is worthy of "more" coverage. Typical maneuver to paint the issue black or white and over simplify the facts. As usual, I suspect, you are wrong. Your comment shows why you should stick to other sites rather then digg if you hate it so much. Aren't you in fact an idiotic digg user- I mean you went through all the trouble to register and even comment on this article. This is what makes you a hypocrite. /mission accomplished.
      • harmil, on 08/11/2008, -1/+2You didn't read the article, clearly. This was an interview in which the interviewee attempted to point out that real news (not pet agendas, but the *outbreak of war*) was being eclipsed by this tabloid story about a politician's affair. The interviewee was ignored, and further points about the affair were made rather than about the absurdity of covering it to the exclusion of all else. That's just bad journalism. When you're interviewing someone and they make a good point that's on-topic you follow up on it, you don't ignore it pointedly.

      • JettaMan, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1Nah, he did the right thing by ignoring her broken-record comments. She was trying to push a pet agenda that had nothing to do with the segment they were currently covering. I would do the same thing if some slimy political operative tried the same maneuver.
    • denizen42, on 08/10/2008, -2/+7Fox is simply on the axis of greed,
      engaged in the war on truth.
      • Brad324, on 08/10/2008, -0/+3How about the war on Fox. It makes you think... a few centuries ago, a good old fashioned attack on a propoganda machine like Fox News would be a heroic revolution... now it would just be a terrorist attack. The government has no fear of its citizens anymore.
    • Lisamac86, on 08/12/2008, -0/+0What else is to be expected? Fox news is for partisan assholes.
  • socivitus, on 08/10/2008, -14/+243Why discuss the world's problems when you can make the democrats look like sinning devils?
    • Emelius, on 08/10/2008, -3/+19I LIKE YOUR RHETORIC
    • rotundo, on 08/10/2008, -13/+4Worth noting that they are, in fact, sinning devils. As are all of us.
    • Godin7654, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Greatest. Comment. Ever. *golf claps*
  • chicofaraby, on 08/10/2008, -12/+151It's very important that a former Senator and former presidential candidate had sex.
    • boydrew, on 08/10/2008, -21/+6While I agree that the Georgia-Russia conflict is very much more important, the affair of John Edwards is nothing to be deemed unimportant. It characterizes the impact that power has on a public figure in a means to corrupt him. Maybe I'm being to melodramatic about it, but it really is something that I feel is a warning of the pressures of power and influence.
      • rotundo, on 08/10/2008, -8/+2No idea why you're getting dugg down -- that's the first time I've heard anything smart about the Edwards affair yet. There's nothing surprising at all about a man in power having an affair. The fact that people are surprised shows they haven't learned the simple lesson yet: power corrupts.

        Also worth noting that Edwards may still be a decent guy. Imagine that your favorite politician suddenly came out admitting an affair -- doesn't mean all the good they had done is suddenly invalid.
      • Spire3660, on 08/10/2008, -6/+1NO its doesnt undo 'all the good' a person has done, but it can CERTAINLY shed new light on that person's character and recolor their past in a new way that may not be as rosy as you once thought. Also, dont have favorite politician's, it jsut makes you look naive. ALL politicians are evil, with only themselves at heart, it is a job requirement. No one becomes a member of the Congress by being true to principals.
      • Gerz1219, on 08/10/2008, -0/+12You know what else is a warning of the pressures of power and influence? When a resurgent dead empire becomes so confident of the world's apathy that it invades a sovereign nation, sparking a regional conflict that could shift the balance of power in the east.

        Or when a former presidential candidate who holds no office admits to having put his penis in another woman's vagina two years ago. I suppose that's important too.
      • oilcan, on 08/10/2008, -1/+5that's fine and all, but why wouldn't you have McCain's ass held to the flame for his well documented affair he had on his previous, also sickening, wife? You know, the one he abandoned altogether for someone much richer and healthier? You do know about that, don't you? Isn't it interesting how McCain gets a free pass on this issue, and Edwards, who is no longer even in the running for the presidency, is catching hell all of a sudden?
      • maxgoedjen, on 08/10/2008, -0/+4Politicians being corrupt isn't exactly breaking news at this point, or at least it shouldn't be.
    • Darksider, on 08/10/2008, -1/+15What really scares me is that people are going to start viewing the National Enquirer as a legitimate news source.
    • corneliusJones, on 08/10/2008, -2/+9Who need the Daily Show when you've got Fox News?
      • fireashes, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Daily show shows how absurd the news is.
        Fox News shows how absurd(est) it is .
    • JamesMonet, on 08/10/2008, -0/+8Wow. Another human being had an affair. Big news. Oh, and he lied about it! For shame. Granted, if you make a commitment, it's best to remain true to it, but this idea that politicians are above the human experience - successes and failures - is a complete joke. Unfortunately, the Edwards' cheating "scandal" is getting more attention than death and destruction.
    • personalj, on 08/10/2008, -2/+3The thing is, it's starting to look like he laundered campaign contributions to pay the girl to keep quiet.
      • JamesMonet, on 08/10/2008, -0/+7If that's the case, he should be held accountable for it. No doubt.

        But at the end of the day, there are more important matters to discuss than who Edwards had sex with. One thing is certain: the Republicans are much better at making a huge deal out of small crap and making the bigger issues seem nothing more than noteworthy. How quickly everyone has forgotten about recent Republican sexual transgressions (if that's what they are)!

        Stop talking about who plugged who - or at the very least, mention it and move on to more important topics.
      • caferrell, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2That's why its a big deal when politicians are unfaithful. Its a big deal because they will go to any lengths to cover it up.
    • saisumimen, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Remember when Ann Coulter called him a "*****"? At least we now know that wasn't true ;p
  • IamZed, on 08/10/2008, -10/+80They just haven't been told what opinion to pretend to have yet. As soon as they do, it'll be terrorism not to share it.
  • dopre, on 08/10/2008, -26/+22And?
    What would you expect from FUX.
  • Branchex, on 08/10/2008, -9/+31Erbe noted when asked about Edwards. Jarrett, however, completely ignored Erbe’s comment on Georgia and continued to talk about Edwards, offering praise for the National Enquirer.

    Of course, bad sources of journalism need to stick together. All Fox wanted to talk about was a possible dream come true that could of happened for the Republicans rather then the real world.
  • iancgi, on 08/10/2008, -6/+25Its a stage show people.
    • UnnamedHarald, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2And so many continue to line up for the show.
  • AndrewDB, on 08/10/2008, -14/+71unFair and Biased.

    Would you expect any less?

    • jetboyterp, on 08/10/2008, -21/+14Yeah, go watch Keith Olberdouche...now THAT'S unbiased reporting!
      • AndrewDB, on 08/10/2008, -10/+11At least they present both the republican AND democratic views..

        Yes, I won't disagree with you that MSNBC leans on it's left wing, but Faux News is so right winged, it doesn't have a left wing.

        It's like a handicapped chicken trying desperately to fly in a den full of foxes.
      • jetboyterp, on 08/10/2008, -16/+5@AndrewDB

        Please...can you or anyone show me a couple of examples of FOX News bias?
      • flashback99, on 08/10/2008, -3/+13@jetboy

        Um, duh.. there was whole movie made about it called Outfoxed:

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743 ...
      • bagelmaster, on 08/10/2008, -4/+9jetboy, watch ONE episode of the O'reilly Factor.
      • erasedgod, on 08/10/2008, -5/+1http://www.newshounds.us/
      • birch25, on 08/10/2008, -2/+5jetboy, i'm a hard liberal but i watch fox news occasionally to get mad at the anchors. what i've noticed is that they have guests from all political parties, but the hosts uniformly yell at and cut off the liberal guests. a few days ago i saw hannity and anne coulter talking energy and they (very seriously) were saying flat out that obama's entire energy plan is to have people inflate their tires properly (coulter's said by that same tolken her solution for our "non-existent" health care problem is eating an apple a day).

        i know msnbc leans left most of the time, but i know that. it amazes me that people actually believe fox news is unbiased. clearly fox has a near monopoly on the lowest common denominator viewer.
      • jetboyterp, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1@flashback99...

        Outfoxed...THAT's your proof of bias? Outfoxed has been debunked. The people they interviewed claimed to work for FOX News, when in reality, they worked for a local FOX affiliate...NOT FOX News. Try again.

        @bagelmaster...

        Since when is O'Reilly Factor...FOX News? Watch one episode of Countdown w/Olbermann...

        @birch25...

        Obama's energy plan IS to inflate tires. And tax oil companies. He's against drilling. Show me some proof that liberals are cut off more. Not for nothing, but the liberals are most likely, by far, to evade direct questions and try to spin around them.
  • Lynx55, on 08/10/2008, -10/+39Fox isn't even 'news'...why bother even discussing whatever they talk about? I simply dismiss them. The Edwards thing is just what they love...they will beat that story to death, and then they will make up stuff to keep it going!
    • AchaIemoipas, on 08/10/2008, -0/+6Yeah now they'll do some in-depth investigative reporting to tell us what positions they used, how many times they had sex, where, if they used protection or not, and then interview every other family member for comments.
    • norman619, on 08/10/2008, -10/+7Yes because FOX News is the only news network that ignores real news in favor of tabloid gossip crap....

      Wake the hell up. They are all like this.
      • Ravatar, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1BBC isn't. Reuters isn't. Just all these ***** news aggregators are.
      • Caffeinate, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1I'm beginning to have my doubts about Reuters. The pictures they published for the Georgia incident look doctored. The same corpse appears in two different places in the rubble, once face up and another time face down, but with spotless clothes and hair. The same "mourner" appears twice in different clothes. The area is reduced to rubble, but fresh bread is sitting out, and nearly all of the shots of soldiers contain the same three soldiers.

        Nobody is even remotely dirty, but there is dirt and rubble all around. It is *way* too fishy to be real. Go look at them for yourself - it is pretty glaringly obvious. I noticed it this morning before even seeing the people posting about it.
    • imnojezus, on 08/10/2008, -1/+5It's important to discuss them because there are a lot of people out there who faithfully consume Fox's brand of news (and that of the rest of the main stream, for that matter). You can ignore it all you want, but as long as so many people take what's being reported as the gospel truth, someone with some sense of logic needs to keep an eye on Fox and call them on their *****.
    • fedja, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1You dismiss em, but your neighbor loves it
  • PropaneTosser, on 08/10/2008, -7/+23Sex takes precedence over important global matters, duh.
  • dxgg, on 08/10/2008, -5/+91Perhaps they'll split the difference and say that Russia is at war with John Edwards.
    Either that, or that John Edwards had sex with nearly two thousand people.
    • nodong, on 08/10/2008, -1/+15Johnathan Edwards had sex with nearly two thousand dead people.
      • FC3SCorey, on 08/10/2008, -2/+0You're cold, damn cold.

        At least those Cadavers don't speak up though eh? Saves him allot of headaches.
      • XenoSNK, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1Wouldn't expect much less from the biggest douche in the universe.
      • wampalord, on 08/11/2008, -1/+0You dumbass, that's John Edwards the phony-psychic, not the senator.
  • NightVortez, on 08/10/2008, -11/+4I'd rather them not discuss it at all then spread more propaganda on the situation.
  • ChuckDees, on 08/10/2008, -6/+22There really is little difference between say a show like TMZ and Fox News.
    Both are just gossip rags. One for shallow celeb junkies and the other for shallow political junkies.
    • maxgoedjen, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1Though actually, the celebrity gossip rags seem a bit fairer. The both exalt the celebrities and bitch them out when they do something bad. It's really depressing when crap like this does better reporting than Fox News.
  • jetboyterp, on 08/10/2008, -35/+30More stupid FOX News derangement...This segment was ABOUT Edwards and his affair. It's not like FOX News hasn't reported on the Russia/Georgia conflict. Heck, just go to the FOX News website for a slew of articles and video about it.

    The Edwards story was reported everywhere...not just FOX. Of course, this was after the liberal MSM embargoed the story for as long as it could, until Silky Pony finally admitted it.

    If Edwards were Republican, you diggerals would be digging a bucket full of "Another Republican has an affair and lies!" posts.
    • iPirate, on 08/10/2008, -11/+26Of course we would be digging stories if John Edwards was a Republican. We would be extremely surprised that he was with a woman instead of a man.
    • eryximachus, on 08/10/2008, -10/+22Best post on this story.

      The intellectual dishonesty of digg readers is astounding. I truly hope this not reflective of the electorate at large. When the truth is a secondary consideration in political discourse, rational debate is no longer possible.
    • talonstriker, on 08/10/2008, -14/+3If Edwards were Republican, you diggerals would be digging a bucket full of "Another Republican has an affair and lies!" posts.

      Thats because it would be utter hypocrisy as the republicans use morality and family values as their stumping points.
      The rest of your points are solid however.
      • Bkaufman, on 08/10/2008, -0/+7John Edwards continually talked about family values and his emphasis on his marriage during his presidential campaign. I guess only conservatives are hypocrites though.
    • theOster, on 08/10/2008, -5/+7no no, you're not doing it properly...you should be attacking fox, er i mean faux.

      god it was painful typing "faux". how do you people do it?
    • Enigmocracy, on 08/10/2008, -3/+9Digg users are not an entity. They are different. You can not generalize the group.
      • jetboyterp, on 08/10/2008, -6/+9Are you actually suggesting the vast majority of diggers aren't left-leaning, anti-Bush, anti-FOX News liberals?
      • DrunKao, on 08/10/2008, -2/+3Does it make more sense to you to be pro-Bush as opposed to anti-Bush? In what world do you live in where the Bush Presidency has been anything but a bad thing for the US and the world?
      • motivatedmama, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1Just the rational ones who take an active informed interest instead of a media fed one.
    • smotpoker1, on 08/10/2008, -1/+2Not really what's to talk about it just isn't important .
      He simply has no power.
    • Skywise, on 08/10/2008, -4/+13RRRRR ZOMBIE LIBERALS HATE FAUX NEWS RRRRR MAKIMAKI GAVE SHOUT RRRRR MUST DIGG THINKPROGRESS WHICH TALKS ABOUT FAUX NEWS INSTEAD OF RUSSIAN CONFLICT RRRRRRR THINKPROGRESS STATES TRUTH RRRRRR FAUX NEWS IS PROPAGANDA RRRRR
  • TinternAbbot, on 08/10/2008, -12/+5This is a duplicate of every "Faux News Sux" article. Fox News sucks. It is a worthless news source. We know. Let's stop losing sleep over it.
    • Typhoon2009, on 08/10/2008, -4/+2I must be one of the few diggers who doesn't mind them. I've watched a couple of times; they're alright as long as you stick to just the plain old news segments and not things like the O'Reilly factor. Other than that, I do think CNN has a better look to it, but in the end all major news outlets care more about stupid ***** rather than international matters that could become very real for the US...
  • chester27, on 08/10/2008, -2/+362000 dead versus our own obsession with the passing of Bernie Mac?
    • Spire3660, on 08/10/2008, -5/+1Seriously, what the hell am i supposed to do about 2000 dead in Georgia????
      • ChefAnubis, on 08/10/2008, -3/+3learn from it, thats what this life is for.
      • HOTM, on 08/10/2008, -1/+6What are you supposed to do about a dead Bernie Mac or a cheating John Edwards?
    • krnldmp, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2Who's obsession?
  • macweirdo42, on 08/10/2008, -13/+24You can't blame them - the average Fox News viewer would probably get bored and flip over to Nascar if they sat around talking about things that actually mattered.
    • motivatedmama, on 08/10/2008, -1/+2Factual reporting of global affairs: Error! Does not compute.
  • bestsoccerdog, on 08/10/2008, -8/+19Honestly, which do you think is more important to the American people? Every news station talks about Edwards. That's ALL CNN was talking about for hours! They do whatever brings in the ratings. Digg just singles out Fox News.
    • EarlOfLade, on 08/10/2008, -3/+8Let's compare:
      1. Edwards affair:
      No effect on the US economy nor on the social structure of USA, nobody will be laid off, no crimes were committed.

      2. Russian attack on Georgia
      May result in USA being dragged into a regional war which will cost YOU, yes, YOU, thousands of dollars and even your life.

      You tell me what is more important and why!
      • bestsoccerdog, on 08/10/2008, -1/+6I wasn't asking which was more important, I was asking which is more important to the public. To me, the war is more important, but to 99.9% of the US, scandals and news about celebrities are. You're a great example of the average liberal, they stray away from the question and answer a totally unrelated one.
      • BowieX, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2LOL, "dragged into"
    • neilapril, on 08/10/2008, -4/+5Every news outlet, not just fox you liberal dorks.

      Why would you care about the war in Georgia? You have already demostrated that liberials don't care and will run from any war.
  • SRSco, on 08/10/2008, -32/+45Oh shut up. This was a segment on John Edwards. Fox has done plenty of coverage on the Russian-Georgian conflict. The anchor wanted to talk about John Edwards and the guest kept changing the subject. In fact, the conflict is the top headline on their website.

    Look: I can't stand Fox News, but honestly, you people just looooove to do your anti-Fox news circle jerk. Your criticisms of Fox News are VERY biased and stupid. Get real.
    • dlmaher, on 08/10/2008, -8/+8Yes the guest wanted to talk about Georgia, but I think more to the point she wanted to talk about the tabloidization of the news. Edwards is a private citizen at this point, he had clearly shot his bolt already in national politics and there seem to be no complicating issues to the affair, no perjury or anything. It is a five minute story. Her point was that wanting to talk about Edwards with a war going on is inane.
      • SRSco, on 08/10/2008, -4/+6Politicians don't turn into "private citizens" overnight. Edwards is still a very public citizen. His name was still being floated as a possible VP, for crying out loud. He lied about this time and time again. It doesn't matter if he's not guilty of perjury, he's a liar, and was considered for President. This is news. This isn't tabloid material.
      • motivatedmama, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1To put it in the larger context for clarity:

        Clinton was technically impeached for infidelity and then lying.

        Bush and Cheney are still in power.

        Bias?
    • bigdsinferno, on 08/10/2008, -1/+24The interesting thing is that, on Friday, I had been watching MSNBC when this whole Edwards thing broke out. I couldn't wait to see the propoganda Fox News was spewing. So, I went there and Fox was talking about the Russian war. In fact, the only news station that wasn't talking about Edwards. I'm sure they've made up for it since, but I can tell you that in three hours of MSNBC coverage, all they talked about was Edwards, not a war in Georgia. It's hypocritical to just point out Fox for their crap coverage and not hold the other media just as responsible.
      • motivatedmama, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1It's all crap to be taken with a grain of salt. If everyone chucked their TVs out the window this nation would be much better off.

        Crack a book once in awhile.
  • ABadPerson, on 08/10/2008, -7/+6sickening
  • TremorX, on 08/10/2008, -16/+62A huge chunk of Fox's tard audience lives in the US state of Georgia so they're just worried that those idiots will get confused and think they're at war with Russia and start shooting anyone with a beard. As a resident, I can say earnestly that the likelihood of this happening is pretty high.
  • p51d007, on 08/10/2008, -16/+6Like I would believe anything from a website with the words THINK & PROGRESS in them.
    Liberals don't THINK, they REACT. One reason why we have a representative REPUBLIC & not a DEMOCRACY. Thank you founding fathers for looking far enough ahead and seeing that MOB RULE won't work.
    • Gutterpunk, on 08/10/2008, -1/+3So you saw reports about Georgia on Fox News then?
      • CourtesyFlush, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2So, you're actually making comments based on what you're told instead of what you've seen?
    • talonstriker, on 08/10/2008, -0/+3Are you really attempting to affiliate a party's name to forms of governments? Thats the silliest thing I've ever seen.
      If anything, republicans are more "democratic" than the democrats as their political beleifs advocate a smaller government and give more responsibility to individuals (although in real life it seems as though they're pulling for a theocracy).
  • greenm1981, on 08/10/2008, -9/+11The FCC should strip them of their license to operate as a news channel. Let them continue to broadcast under some other brand like Fox Entertainment, etc. However, they should not be allowed to operate under the false banner of news on OUR PUBLIC frequency ranges.
    • DaDrake, on 08/10/2008, -2/+7Why are you being dugg up? You are obviously as intelligent as a brain dead chimp. The story is about FOX NEWS.... which is broadcasted on CABLE TELEVISION.... which the FCC HAS NO CONTROL OVER.

      I sure hope you understand that.
      • billbuckner, on 08/10/2008, -1/+2finally someone gets it.
      • SwedishNinja, on 08/10/2008, -1/+4Not to mention it is blatantly anti first Amendment. Sure, Fox News talking about Bernie Mac instead of Georgia IS *****, but it doesn't mean that they should lose their brodcasting license because they chose too. This isn't the 1960s any more with only the 4 major networks, there are literally HUNDREDS of news sources now where you can go to learn about the invasion of South Ossetia. Just because one channel chooses not to talk about it is no reason to get all butthurt about it. If you don't like Fox News, THEN DON'T WATCH IT! There's no reason to make a blog post complaining about it.
      • greenm1981, on 08/10/2008, -0/+4What are you talking about? The FCC certainly DOES have jurisdiction over cable television. I suggest you do your research before making such a challenge... you could have saved yourself some embarrassment.
        http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
    • blapierre, on 08/10/2008, -1/+2"license to operate as a news channel"

      What the *****?
  • 2clone, on 08/10/2008, -4/+11I can't believe people still watch fox new for the news.
  • rjwusa, on 08/10/2008, -23/+4John Edwards and the democrats are a more serious threat to national security than is the Russian/Georgian conflict. Besides, the Russian/Georgian conflict is none of our business, and G.W. Bush has no reason to comment upon it from the Olympics. He should mind his own business.
  • sigg14, on 08/10/2008, -1/+13the "news" has become entertainment over information
    • XZanatos, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1The news is just another TV show, get used to it.
  • FREETHINKER2008, on 08/10/2008, -1/+57Even CNN was reporting more on the Edwards story, than the Russian/Georgia war. These corporate news channels have become nothing more than the E channel. They all suck. Wolf Blitzer said " John Edwards has admitted to having an affair". He said this exact same statement about 30 times in a 1 hour broadcast. WTF
    • fudged71, on 08/10/2008, -2/+3I am from Canada, and I was recently in Mexico. Nothing good on television except for... Fox... BBC... and CNN. I spent quite a bit of time (while sunburnt, of course) watching each of these channels, so that I could clearly see the bias that there was. I was quite satisfied by CNN, because it did give quite a bit of international coverage. The BBC did a lot of coverage in places that you would NEVER hear of on Fox news. And then there was.. well... Fox. At the time I was there, it was the earthquake in L.A., so that was really interesting to see the differences. BBC would give a small mention once and a while, barely talking about it. CNN did substantially more, tossing up maps of the area, and interviewing specialists, etc. Fox news, on the other hand, spent their entire time talking about it, just about the entire day. They would go on to the streets to interview people. "what did it feel like?" "an earthquake." It was the most pathetic excuse of a news station I had ever seen. Oh, and they called up an earthquake researcher at a university to ask why the magnitude got decreased to 5.4, and they wanted to know why the researcher LIED before that it was 5.8 !!!!! I feel so bad for every respectable person that gets interviewed on that station. It is sickening. It was a note-worthy event. No injuries, and barely any damages, all in a ***** huge city. It is non-news. Spent a couple minutes on it, and move on. Holy crap. I am so glad we don't get reporting like that up here
    • tulizx, on 08/10/2008, -1/+4Fox is doing a better job reporting about the Russian-Georgia War, I was disappointed whit CNN, but did you see any major media criticizing them? No.
      Liberal media is no different from Fox News.
      • krnldmp, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1In other words, there is no Liberal media. There is only one media and its not on your side.
  • xbt7v, on 08/10/2008, -1/+4Thank the lord for good, honest and impartial news broadcasting
  • bclinton, on 08/10/2008, -2/+14Hmmm, thats funny - I watched it yesterday and today and I saw numerous stories on it. You sure you didnt mistake MTV Cribs for Fox News?
  • neozeed, on 08/10/2008, -2/+11American media cannot talk about this because of two simple reasons:

    All media owned in Georgia is controlled by Rupert Murdock.
    People are so stupid, they will assume Atlanta was invaded by the "soviet union".

    This story will never see the light of day. Now the next flareup in the Ukraine can get some traction.
    • Enigmocracy, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1It's all the commies' fault.
    • thetechkid, on 08/10/2008, -2/+2HUUUURRRRRR DUUUUUURRRR THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!
    • Caffeinate, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Hmmm, if all media in Georgia is controlled by Rupert Murdock, that explains why the pictures look doctored. Go look for yourself - the same mourners appear in two different outfits, a spotlessly clean corpse appears in two different places, once face up, once face down. Nobody is dusty in a destoyed area, in the picture of the injured kid he has a completely bored look on his face instead of being in pain or shock (and he has clean hair and clothes too except for blood on his jeans leg).

      There is a story about it floating around on Digg.
  • jbenson2, on 08/10/2008, -17/+5And what did our Presidential candidates say about the war?

    McCain's statement:
    "Today news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave."

    The O-man's original statement:
    "I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a written statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."

    After Obama heard McCain's comments, Barack changed his tune to:
    "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire," Obama said in a statement.

    "Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

    Here are some great comments from Ed Morrissey on hotair.com

    "McCain obviously took time to determine first that Russia had indeed attacked Georgia before demanding restraint from the victim. It's apparent that McCain has a better grasp of the situation and understood its ramifications as events unfolded. Obama issued a boilerplate statement that generically demanded that everyone start getting along, and had to modify his stance as his 300 foreign-policy advisers had a chance to tutor him on the conflict."

    "I'd rather vote for the man who gets it right and has spent years studying foreign affairs, warfare, and American strategic needs than the man who makes it up as he goes along. McCain is right; this was a 3 AM moment, and Obama proved himself unprepared and unsuited to answer the call."
    • neozeed, on 08/10/2008, -2/+5bla bla bla, diebold will vote for you at any rate.

      Enjoy the fact your "candidates" enjoy 1.8% popular support at best.
    • Peekman, on 08/10/2008, -1/+5wth who got the story right?

      Who is right in this conflict?... from what i've read both the Georgians and Russians are in the wrong. Peace should be the only side taken as demonstrated by Obama's first comment.

      I just hope the Russians don't shoot at the American planes airlifting the 2000 Georgian soldiers home from Iraq :-S
      • senatorpjt, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2From what I've read the Georgians are far more in the wrong than the Russians. They basically started the war when they killed 1300 civilians in South Ossetia. While it's recognized as part of Georgia, the Georgian government has no control over it. South Ossetia doesn't want to be part of Georgia, and the people there apparently want to be a part of Russia.
    • talonstriker, on 08/10/2008, -2/+4" Barack changed his tune to: "
      I don't see any changing of tune.
    • Enigmocracy, on 08/10/2008, -2/+5[Citation Needed]
    • dagnome1984, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1Well if the American backed Georgian forces didn't start ***** Russia would have done nothing.

  • leladax, on 08/10/2008, -6/+21a) Georgia started the conflict in the short term and in the Olympics at that
    b) The civilian casualties are predominately South Ossetian

    So stuff all this ***** about "Russia attacking".
    • neozeed, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Don't let the facts get in the way of a good ***** story....

      It's funny how so many people dropped the ball on that minor detail.
    • Caffeinate, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1And the pictures on Reuters look faked, too.
  • diablo75, on 08/10/2008, -0/+9This kind of reminds me of the way the media turned their heads to John Mark Karr during the Lebanon/Israel cease fire in 2006....
  • MJG2007, on 08/10/2008, -7/+16Fox News. Leading the pack in dumbing down the nation for nearly 2 decades.
  • StinkyPete312, on 08/10/2008, -10/+5Here's an idea...start your own cable company and you can talk about whatever the hell you want to.
    • FREETHINKER2008, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2Sorry, I don't have 50 billion dollars.
  • Engine24, on 08/10/2008, -3/+1Wow, everyones going to war, not good.
    • muhadeeb, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1People!!!! , take a look at a documentary by Orson Welles called "The Man Who Saw Tommorrow" in it you might find some of the predictions by Nostradamus intriguing. Allusions to Iran (Turban) using missles and nukes with Russia's(Bear) help.
      • Hangly, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Everyone from turkey to India wears turbans.

        And "the bear" could just as easily be California.
  • skews13, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1this isn't a war where george bush needs defending.
  • charlie55, on 08/10/2008, -4/+13pretty sure you guys would rather talk about fox news than any war.
  • rock774, on 08/10/2008, -3/+2I listen to talk radio
  • pigfister, on 08/10/2008, -15/+35Sorry who attacked who exactly?

    buried for pro western propaganda from a american puppet country georgia.

    Russia-Georgia conflict: it's about oil...again! (by Latuff)
    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406294.html

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/08/406301. ...

    US puppy Georgia provokes war with Russia
    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/405920.html

    condy with agressor in Tblisi "warns Russia" (BBC)

    The neoconservative President of Georgia, Michael Sakaashvilli, started a full scale attack on the separatist russian minority province South Ossetia. The Ossetian capital is besieged right now. Air strikes are done. Russian peace keepers were killed, as well as many civilians.

    Georgia is a close ally of the US and major player in Zbigniew Brzezinskis wet dream "the grand chessboard". It is part of the US strategy to weaken Russia by provoking conflicts on its boarders.
    What the US seem to forget: all good chess players are russian....

    A few hours ago Russia was officially asked by South Ossetia and Abchasia for military protection, russian troops are already heading towards Georgia and Ossetia. No doubt: Georgia will loose this "game".

    The question is: why did Georgia start this war? There´s no doubt Saakashvilli won´t do any step without the order and knowledge of Washington. Why going into war with Russia?

    Is there perhaps a major US plan - may be a war against Iran? Forcing Russia to focus on "its" problems, instead of mixing in into the Iran thing? Attacking Iran while China ist the host of the Olympic Games? So that China will be kind of bound...?

    Speculations... But, the questions remain...


    youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reuhlteq0VM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guZQfn_hlLM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBZXTZkOd_w
    • rex84, on 08/10/2008, -5/+5Isn't Zbigniew Brzezinski one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? That's not change you can believe in.
    • Spoomeister, on 08/10/2008, -4/+3"What the US seem to forget: all good chess players are russian...."

      Bobby Fischer wasn't Russian, Kasparov (while russian) opposes Putin, and Deep Blue was built by Americans.
    • OropheR, on 08/10/2008, -2/+4Separatists armed by Russian were regularly shelling Georgian villages with mortar or snipering Georgians in their fields. Something bigger must have triggered the beginning of the Georgian attack.
    • SwedishNinja, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1You had me until the Latuff comic.
    • thealsir, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1Comment buried. This is not about oil. The pipeline doesn't go through Georgia.
      • Hangly, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3Many pipelines to the Caspian Sea oil fields do indeed go through Georgia.
      • Caffeinate, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Not to mention the pictures from the supposed Georgia warzone look faked - the same mourner wearing two different outfits, a corpse appearing face up in one area, face up in another, both times with spotless clothes and hair despite being in a rubble-filled area, etc.
  • keebs673, on 08/10/2008, -5/+0The picture you picked has nothing to do with this story. Nice Digging. Bury.
  • Mateo2, on 08/10/2008, -4/+1Ratings dictate what gets talked about, not what some self-important snob believes is more "important". Blame your neighbors for caring more about affairs than wars in countries they've never heard of. Better yet, blame yourself for caring more about what your political opponents talk about than what you yourself say is more important.
  • AllThatJazz, on 08/10/2008, -3/+10"Russia launched a major military offensive against Georgia"
    what a dush, Georgia went against russian minorities and peacekeeping units in first place.
    Seems they trying to define who will be the good and the bad in the next big war.
    But i know who will be the ugly; all those dead bodies for sure...
    • emkaysmith, on 08/10/2008, -3/+1Ossetia, whether you like it or not, is part of Georgia. What are Russian "peacekeeping" units doing in another sovereign country in the first place? Maybe California could request peacekeeping units from the European Union to protect them against the U.S. federal government.
      • AllThatJazz, on 08/10/2008, -0/+3Ossetia is whatever Ossetians want their country to be and they have been "defacto" independent from Georgia some time now.
        Something like Kosovo but without have been American's bitches ;)
      • beartamer, on 08/10/2008, -0/+3>> What are Russian "peacekeeping" units doing in another sovereign country in the first place?
        They were put here legitimly by Russian-Ossetian-Georgian treaty signed at 1994 when first conflict took place (then it was just Georgian-Ossetian without so much Russia intervention).
        Their mission was to protect Ossetians from Georgians and vica-versa.
  • SilentSpyder, on 08/10/2008, -1/+20I do hate this and Fox is the worst but the other news channels are similar. In fact, and I will get buried even though it's the truth. I flipped to CNN to see if I could hear more about the Russia war and they were talking about Edwards, I switched to MSNBC and they too were talking about Edwards. Finally I went to Fox and they were covering the war. I still prefer BBC overall. They lead with the war and got to Edwards around 3 stories in and when they did it was only for about a minute.
    • emkaysmith, on 08/10/2008, -0/+3I listen to "Morning Edition" on NPR in the morning, and then stream the BBC online while I'm working at home. The Beeb even has much better coverage of American politics than any U.S. network. I haven't watched TV news in maybe five years. And I don't turn on FOX at all except for "Bones" and "House."
    • Izult, on 08/10/2008, -0/+3It's the same on CBS, NBC, ABC there's been minimal mention about the Russia/Georgia thing and most of the coverage has been devoted to the edwards thing.
    • eggballs, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1Shows how independent they are.
    • dagnome1984, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1They all suck. I never watch television any more.
  • tangi2, on 08/10/2008, -8/+7I don't have the stomach for FUX - If you want news AND to be entertained by witty commentary, watch John Stewart. A far better fake news.
    • battleangel7, on 08/10/2008, -1/+2FUX.
      WOW.
      You are a funny guy.

      Moron.
  • dogson, on 08/10/2008, -0/+9buried as inaccurate. if you want the real story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm
  • bluesman3535, on 08/10/2008, -9/+2Putin and Medvedev look more like Hitler every day lately, the main difference is the energy strategy, not a racial one.
    • trollick, on 08/10/2008, -1/+4And you look more clueless every day making comments like that.
  • JedicodeWarrior, on 08/10/2008, -4/+7Another glaring example of why Faux News should be eradicated!
  • iakovos87, on 08/10/2008, -2/+38I'm sorry, but if you are going to blame Fox for this, you might as well include CNN and MSNBC in the bunch as well. I watched all three on Friday when both stories broke and everyone was talking about Edwards and no one was talking about Georgia.
    • spurtle, on 08/10/2008, -1/+6That's the liberal media for you. Oh wait...
    • iakovos87, on 08/10/2008, -0/+7I'm not so sure if the media can be branded as liberal or conservative. I think that sensationalism has taken control of both sides. Essentially, all of the major news networks on cable have become television tabloids. It's the curse of 24 hour news.
    • flahavin, on 08/10/2008, -0/+6Exactly...People blame FOX news for covering/not covering one story, but if you bother to check CNN and MSNBC, all three of them cover the same *****. If Paris Hilton released another video on funnyordie.com, all three of them would cover that instead of Russia/Georgia.
    • RabidAngel, on 08/10/2008, -0/+5I hate them all equallly.
    • Hangly, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1How exactly are CNN, FOX and MSNBC not tabloids?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
  •  

    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.