Fox Hired Another Democrat. Don’t Bet on a Similar Hire by MS-NBC.
After reading the news that the Fox News Channel has hired yet another prominent Democratic pundit, I can’t help but wonder when we will see a corresponding announcement from MS-NBC or ABC News or NBC News.
When will one of the networks that indisputably lean to the political left hire a couple big-name conservative pundits? Fox seems to be holding up the “fair and balanced” banner when it comes to their guests. When will the other networks follow suit?
(via memeorandum)
Other Posts of Interest:
- Did Rush Call for Riots in Denver? Uhh….No.
- Guess What Causes Global Warming Now?
- This, Folks, is How You Write a Smear into a News Article.
Category: Oh, THAT liberal media.
Never! They will never follow suite because they are "neutral" and in the "center". Supposedly fair & balanced already. Fox News has the nerve to actually allow just a few conservatives on their network, and for every one they allow, they have to add 10 professing democrat/liberals in order to provide "balance".
Or. Lori and Jimmie, could the existence of an entire morning show hosted by a Republican and the presence of Uber-mensch Pat Buchanan on every show (except, blessedly, Countdown) be evidence Republicans exist on MSNBC?
Besides Penn fits the Fox bill, as he's a liar and Fox only hires liars: Dick morris, Ollie North, Sean Hannity, Mark Furman, the list goes on and on forever. If you once publicly embarrassed yourself, were caught with a whore, lost a can't lose election (and I'm looking at you Penn and Beckel), or perjured yourself, then Roger Ailes happy wondermart has a job for you.
Jeez, Ollie and Mark Furman on the same network? I didn't think it could get more sleazy, byt Rog will always find a way.
timb – If Joe Scarborough has a conservative bone in his body, it broke a long time ago. He's settled in nice and comfy there.
And Pat Buchanan represents the racist, isolationist contingent. You can't possibly think that someone who recentlyw rote a book in full-throated condemnation of Winston Churchill is a fair representative of the Republican Party, now can you?
So how about someone who was conservative, say, a week ago and who is actually relevant to any current political conversation. Is Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani, for instance, not available at all?
As for your middle paragraph, well, I can't take you seriously if your best defense is "they're all lying". At least try to be intellectually honest on the subject.
Maybe you should find wikipedia instead of Protein Wisdom
As for Scarborough, as a viewer of the show (something you are not), let me re-assure you, he says stupid conservative stuff all the time. Just today it was mocking Obama's "community organizer" thing. He did it enough to earn a note of condemnation on Media matters (and if they're criticizing you, then you must be a conservative). Or, you can go to HBO's website and watch him on Bill Maher's show (from earlier this spring), when he took on Maher and the panel and was lustily booed by the studio audience for spouting right wing slogans.
Just do a little homework on the names above: Morris, prostitute; Furman, perjury; North, convicted felon; Hannity….do I really have to go into his lies? Just yesterday he had a doctored Bill Clinton clip, whcih was about Nelson Mandela and Hannity edited it and claimed it was about McCain.
It's not my job to do that research. You start your own blog and do it yourself.
I'm busy enough doing stuff that's important to me and, believe me, shrieking about Fox News is hardly one of them. Though I'll make you a deal. You pay me a hundred bucks and I'll deliver a post wherein I tell the world about the horrible pasts of Fox News guests. Deal? But until you're a paying customer, and I agree to the deal, you don't get to dictate my content.
Also, you didn't actually answer my questions. I'll assume it's because you have no pat answer.
Guiliani works for Fox and Fred has appeared on various networks. The existence of an entire morning show, hosted by a Republican and Alan Greenspan's wife (Andrea Mitchell) featuring a ten minute discussion this morn of why Obama just doesn't seem patriotic, hardly seems like 24 hour propaganda to me.
Then again, it was a blessed change from the constant Wesley Clark and Rev. Wright stories they did.
So, research means knowing more than the team name your media character plays for? At first, I objected to your obvious ober-looking of the tools who work for Fox. It never occurred to me that you REALLY didn't know who these people are.
Dick Morris — fired from the Clinton White House when he admitted to be serviced by a prostitute while speaking to the President. Also, creator of Jesse Helms famous "white hands" ad.
Ollie North — convicted of obstruction of justice, theft of US govt resources, and lying to Congress. Conviction overturned after he appealed, claiming prosecutors used evidence seized after he was granted immunity to testify to Congress. Read that again, he was guilty. I think you law and order types call that a "technicality".
Here's a brilliant summation from his wiki: "…with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony"
Mark Penn — http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/spin-… Here's one of many Mark's lies. The last six months were full of stories about him lying and his hypocrisy. Add to liar and hypocrite, that the man lost an primary that should have NEVER been lost. Hillary should have squashed Obama on Super Tuesday and, if she had, then she would the nominee.
Mark Furman was an officer whose perjury helped OJ Simpson beat the rap. During cross-examination, Fuhrman, when asked by defense attorney F. Lee Bailey whether he had used the word "nigger," said he hadn't used the word in ten years. The defense produced four witnesses…[whose] testimony eventually resulted in a perjury conviction [for Furman]. Again: wikipedia
Only a conservative blogger would need evidence that Sean Hannity lies…
As for the last mention in my "paragraph." Bob Beckel was the head of the Dukakis campaign, which in the late summer of '88 had a twenty point lead over Bush, before losing…somehow.
In reading that list, it's obvious most of those people are liars (two are convicted perjurers, for God's sake), but I guess the best argument against them (or hiring Fred Thompson) is they are incompetent boobs. North bungles the release of the hostages held in Lebanon. Furman's lies made it difficult to convict an obvious murderer. Hannity couldn't stop the Democratic victory in 2006 or beat McCain in the primary. Morris got fired for being a "john" and a liar. And, Penn and Beckel masterminded the losing of elections that just should not have been lost.
Fox News = hiring incompetence
Good news for the Bush administration, many of them are eminently qualified to work for Fox beginning in February of 2009.
So, I did your research for you.
timb,
You have missed the point entirely. No one here ever claimed that Fox doesn't have a bunch of scoundrels working for them. Lord knows they are overloaded with them….and they have just added one more.
All that was mentioned was the lack of similar hiring of opposing views on the other networks. You're attacks on the people at Fox is completely ridiculous. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows about Mark Furman's past, as well as Oliver North's and Dick Morris's. These are not secrets for crying out loud. None of them are ever presented as un-biased panelists either. And Furman is not there giving anyone “the news” so I'm not even sure why you are breaking out into the vapors over him. He only comments about on-going crime investigations, and while those may qualify as current events or interesting stories…they do not qualify as “need to know” news.
If you don't like Fox News (and I gather you don't), by all means you can change your channel over to MSNBC. Obviously that is where you feel comfortable…so it shouldn't surprise you that conservatives would not find much useful content there.
Oh, and you forgot to mention Geraldo and Al Capone's empty vault….
Actually, Lori, Jimmie feigned ignorance (see above), so enlightened him. I listen to daily Hannity and lurk at PW. I also watch "Morning Joe" and Countdown, so i think I get a representative sampling of politics. Jimmie said MSNBC wouldn't hire cons and I pointed out to him that they do.
As for reporters, I assume you know the bias of Major Garrett and Brit Hume.
As for other, more interesting things, Jimmie, here's a link to a 12 minute dissection of Obama "losing his glow" on today's Morning Joe. As entire conservative panel (Ford, Jr is the head of the DLC) questioning David Gregory about how terrible Obama looks…man, that MSNBC is just in the tank for Obama:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/11/david-gr…
timb, I didn't ignore it. I simply do not care. You chose to ignore my point, which is that no network but Fox hires a notable person to a notable position who doesn't hold their ideological views. Joe Scarborough is just like Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs – a populist who is as likely to savage a conservative as a progressive depending on which way the polls are blowing.
That makes for good, entertaining television.
But when it comes to providing ideological and serious balance, Fox comes closer than anyone else. That's not an opinion, it's the result of a couple recent studies by groups that are not considered tools of the Chimpy McBushHitlerburton machine.
My point still stands unrefuted by you. You've nibbled around the edges but have yet to prove your point, whatever that might be.
Umm…yes, and Morton Kondracke, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Laura Ingrham, Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and any of the other conservatives that they have on as hosts or guests. That's why we watch it. Which is what makes your breathless caterwauling about them so silly. WE KNOW Fox lets real conservatives on their channel. But they "balance" it out with nimrods from the left pretty regularly. No one is claiming that the people on Fox are un-biased individuals. That's why there is a difference between them and everybody else. The other channels' news people claim to be completely un-biased and neutral in their own opinions. I do not care a wit who these other stations put on the air, my only beef is they are not honest about their opinions or from which philosophy they are derived, they tend to call their opinions "facts", and deny, deny, deny that they have a dog in the race. And further more, their choice of which stories to cover & which stories to cover up shows their bias but is much harder for the average news consumer to discern what is really going on. That is their most monumental crime in my opinion.
I think the MSM's coverage of Iraq is a wonderful recent example of that.
As for Brit Hume, he is, by a study done at George Mason University, the host of the most balanced news broadcast on television.
Bias is not always in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes it's right there in a scholarly paper.