Dan Barker Pwns Fox News Anchor

Indeed, VERY refreshing! Somebody should show this clip to Sarah Palin, Billy O, and every other neocon moron who thinks this is a Christian nation.

It’s very easy to own (in fact, PWN) somebody on this issue with pure facts. And that is a wonderful thing.

Yeah, the host’s questions were typical FN talking points. However unlike most presenters on this channel (eg Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham) he at least accepted the correction on the constitution and let Dan answer the question uninterrupted.

I object to dissing Mother Goose!

Thanks for posting.

The FN talking points varied between useful (asking him to make a distinction between this and Christmas) and completely biased journalism tactics (asking him why people would want to “take away” comfort during hard times), but the main reason the Fox guy “lost” is because unlike so many others, he didn’t resort to constant interrupting, shouting, or outright refusal to accept correction.

I hope he gets snapped up by a better network, because his attitude as an interviewer was pretty ideal, IMO, even though his talking points weren’t.

Face it, no matter how many times sensible, rational people ‘destroy’ talking points like this, they persist.

Why?

Because they’ve made a choice to be ignorant. Because they’ve wrapped themselves in a warm, fuzzy, God-blanky, and it’s the evil atheists who want to rip that blanket away and send them out into the cold and dark.

There’s a reason FOX News has its audience. They cater to ignorance, and they know it. But it fills Rupert Murdoch’s pockets, so they don’t care.

I heart Dan Barker. That was really nice to watch. I hope there are many more moments like that on National TV. 🙂

I would have missed this as I don’t watch Fox News because it agitates me. Thank you for sharing!

Bob is right. That’s what we’re up against: willful ignorance. And therein lies the problem.

I recently had an e-mail exchange with a co-worker’s husband in which I made the very same point. (I made the mistake of giving them my e-mail address and shortly thereafter they sent me–amongst less-infuriating articles–one of those chain e-mails bemoaning the state of the world and how it all comes down to “taking prayer out of schools” and blaming them-there godless heathen atheists.

guess we wont see him back on fox…lol….priceless!

Go Dan Barker! That totally rocked my socks. Facts trump willful stupidity every single time.

That anchor broke the first Fox News rule:

Never allow the guest to complete a thought unless you know they’re going to expound a right-wing talking point.

That was his mistake.

@Chad: FWIW, Hemant’s not the first person I’ve heard say, “Don’t ask questions you don’t know the answer to,” or something similar. It’s a rule of thumb used quite a bit among lawyers when examining witnesses for example.

In the case of a journalist, of course, it only really applies if you’re trying to push a false belief; otherwise, a journalist would want to find the truth.

That was a thing of beauty. Thanks for sharing!

Hope he learned his lesson — don’t ask questions you don’t know the answer to — especially when your guest is an expert on the topic.

I disagree. I thought he did a wonderful job, albeit I didn’t really like his talking points. This is quite probably the first Fox News clip I’ve ever seen that didn’t make me want to slap someone because they were continually interrupting the speaker. Also, as a journalist, shouldn’t you ask precisely the questions you don’t know the answer to?

Never mind all that if you meant “don’t ask questions you don’t know the answer to if you’re trying to push your own agenda,” but in that case I suggest you alter that phrasing somewhat.

@alise:

I’m surprised that not only did the host call the organization Freedom FOR Religion at the beginning (fixed at the end), but the text on the screen said the same.

Well, technically isn’t it kind of the same thing? I know, the FFRF is trying to advocate no government sponsorship of any particular religion, but at the same time, doesn’t that also guarantee that religion freedoms are maintained?

It’s not so bad a mistake, and I’m glad he fixed it at the end, but I could see a talking point coming from that same mistake.

Fox made the mistake of not having a second

wingnut on to split up the interview.

When their “Little Bo Priest” is there

it’s 2 against 1. (Fox’s favorite odds)

“Well, technically isn’t it kind of the same thing? I know, the FFRF is trying to advocate no government sponsorship of any particular religion, but at the same time, doesn’t that also guarantee that religion freedoms are maintained?”

Changing the name to For implies that they’re a religious organization and it’s like they’re trying to cover up that the FFRF is an atheist organization.

I haven’t been able to watch the clip yet, but man I love Dan Barker in debates…he’s great at tearing apart their points. I’m reading his book “Godless” right now, and I’m learning so many great responses to those silly talking points people like to use. He must have an amazing memory because he’s got a stock answer to pretty much anything.

It’s funny because I listen to the FFRF’s podcast, and him and Annie Laurie Gaylor seem so cuddly and unintimidating on there, but they’re both really strong and unrelenting in debates.

As an irrelevant aside:

Am I the only one who refuses to use ‘pwned’?

Just because some snot nosed geek somewhere made a typo by hitting the ‘p’ instead of the ‘o’ when chatting to someone online, and was too much of a wuss to admit they (gasp) made a mistake, doesn’t mean I’m going to use their made up word! :p

I listened to Dan at the Global Atheist Convention, wonderful speaker, genuine.

Go, Dan, go! Terrific! I would not want to go up against Dan in any kind of debate. It’d be an uneven match. I’m largely glad he speaks my views so much better than I would.

Atom Jack, thanks. I too was wondering what the hell pwned was.