Do you like Fox News?

[Pilgrim]

I'll tell you what, their female on air talent look the best!

[Bent Radar]

I'll tell you what, their female on air talent look the best!

Pilgrim, you meant to say that they're "foxy," right?

[Pilgrim]

Well played sir.

[rogue06]

Oh, but hiring Stephanopolis or Carville or any of the other liberal shills is acceptable? She's just par for the course.

But there is a difference. Fox hired Palin to provide commentary whereas ABC hired George Stephanopoulos as a news anchor.

And let's put this hiring in some perspective.

Back in may of 1997 several leading journalists indignantly denounced CBS’s decision to hire Republican Congresswoman Susan Molinari to co-host a new Saturday morning show that would have little if any political content.

“It’s kind of an insult to journalism,” grumbled Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz.

“I think it’s disturbing,” declared NPR’s Mara Liasson.

Meanwhile Nina Totenberg of NPR and ABC raged: “This really makes me want to puke.”

The New York Times headlined an editorial: “The GOP News from CBS.”

CNN’s “Inside Politics” ran a story, “Crossfire” devoted a show to it and it was a topic on both “Capital Gang” and “Late Edition” as well.

MSNBC’s “The News with Brian Williams conducted an interview segment and both “Fox News Sunday” and “Inside Washington” devoted a segment to the subject.

Molinari was off the show within a year, but if her very presence symbolized the breakdown of the wall between partisan politics and journalism, why weren’t these very same purists concerned when Bill Clinton’s political advisor/spin doctor George Stephanopoulos first joined, then quickly took over, “This Week” on ABC despite having zero experience as a journalist? Molinari’s show avoided politics whereas Stephanopoulos was hired to talk about politics and was hyper-fast-tracked into the anchor position.

What a difference a political affiliation makes.

And Stephanopolis has had his own moments of "incompetence."

While on “Imus in the Morning” in 2003 Stephanopoulos defended a claim by Democratic presidential candidate, former Senator Carol Moseley Braun, that President Bush stole the 2000 election, saying it was “a reasonable inference” based on the evidence. Stephanopoulos insisted that Bush didn’t really win the state of Florida legitimately. “I believe that Al Gore got more votes in, obviously the popular vote,” he asserted, “and if you count all the votes in the state of Florida, Al Gore would have had more.”

Stephanopoulos has been pushing this claim for years now saying things like “There is no question, or very little question, that Al Gore won the votes cast in the state of Florida,” and “If this race is counted fairly, Al Gore won.” Apparently to Stephanopoulos, if Bush won, it couldn’t be fair.

Even when Imus pointed out that numerous sympathetic media organizations failed to turn up a Gore win in recount after recount, Stephanopoulos refused to be confused by the facts and defiantly dismissed it.

[shunyadragon]

Meaning that they don't treat everything with a liberal slant, like you're used to.

Unwarranted assumptions.

Oh, but hiring Stephanopolis or Carville or any of the other liberal shills is acceptable? She's just par for the course.

Playing the three stooges with flying pigs, Duck, Bob and Weave.

rogue put better perspective on the nature of who is hired for what. A news anchor simple reads the news.

You did not respond to the problem of hiring Sarah Palin.

[themuzicman]

Playing the three stooges with flying pigs, Duck, Bob and Weave.

rogue put better perspective on the nature of who is hired for what. A news anchor simple reads the news.

You did not respond to the problem of hiring Sarah Palin.

I'm saying that there isn't a problem with hiring Sarah Palin. It is something invented by the left, who come off looking highly hypocritical after accepting these other VERY POLITICAL people in similar or even more "news centric" position.

Palin is a commentator. She comments on things from her POV. Just like Carville did for CNN. If you didn't condemn CNN for hiring Carville, then you're a hypocrite for critisizing Fox for hiring Palin.

Stephanopolis, OTOH, is a much BIGGER problem than Palin, as he had ZERO experience, and was clearly put into place to further the liberal agenda, even as he destroyed what was left of the credibility of "This Week" from when it was hosted by Brinkley. He wasn't merely a commentator, but rather the host of a show, in charge of what direction each show took.

So, when I see you condemn ABC and CNN (and all the other liberal news outlets) for hiring liberal politicians as commentators and other TV personalities, then we can talk.

But for now, you just have egg on your face.

(No, I didn't critisize CNN for hiring Carville. Everyone knew what he was, just as we know what Palin is.)

[rogue06]

rogue put better perspective on the nature of who is hired for what. A news anchor simple reads the news.

Well with a political commentator you should expect a biased opinion being presented whereas with a news anchor you should expect unbiased presentation of the news.

And an anchor usually has a lot more control over the program than just being a news reader. Powerful ones like Dan Rather could spike stories and keep them from being shown (IIRC that's what he did with the Gary Condit/Chandra Levy stories in the summer of 2001)

And George Stephanopoulos is not just the anchor and host of "This Week" but it's Senior Producer as well. This means he pretty much has control over what stories are covered, how they're covered, who covers them and when they are shown. The only thing he doesn't control what others may say about the topics he's selected in the discussion segments. Yet even here he has some control by choosing how they're framed/spun and who responds and in what order.

[Ladybug823]

Personally I like them. Mostly because they are the news source that when I check up on what they are saying it tends to be true and doesn't have the liberal spin of the others. Not to mention I tend to agree with them. So in answer to your question... Yeah I like fox news

[rogue06]

Welcome to tweb ladybug

[Soyeong]

The history of the FOX treating different subjects and some of the associated programming makes them questionable as far as reliability.

I think something like CNN repeating several times that Republicans wanted to increase deficit spending because they didn't want to raise taxes is much worse of a lie than this ever was. And even if you don't believe it was an accident, at least Fox apologized for it. Though Obama's blatant dishonesty has them all beat by far.

[JimL]

The problem with Fox is not that they are biased, they are obviously biased, they are conservative talking heads, the problem is that they are propagandists, they lie and manipulate the facts time and time again.

[rogue06]

The problem with Fox is not that they are biased, they are obviously biased, they are conservative talking heads, the problem is that they are propagandists, they lie and manipulate the facts time and time again.

Ra^thergate. Do I really need say more?

[themuzicman]

The problem with Fox is not that they are biased, they are obviously biased, they are conservative talking heads, the problem is that they are propagandists, they lie and manipulate the facts time and time again.

So, they're just like all the liberal news outlets, except that they're conservative? Why is this a problem now, and it wasn't for the last 40 years?

[lao tzu]

Liberal, socialist, commie = anything to the left of Genghis Khan.

</PSA for TWeb newbs>

[rogue06]

So, they're just like all the liberal news outlets, except that they're conservative? Why is this a problem now, and it wasn't for the last 40 years?

Don't you know that the role of the media is to act as a filter that allows only liberal-approved Politically Correct information to be passed on to the unwashed masses out in fly-over country?

Back in 2002 New York Times columnist Paul Krugman complained about how, “Talk radio and Fox News let the hard right gets its message out to its supporters.” Excuse me. Let? “Let” the message get out? It appears that to Krugman the purpose of the news is to screen the public from exposure to conservative opinion.

Similarly, John Nichols of “The Nation,” has expressed concern that Fox News Channel “limits” and “narrows political discourse” by presenting conservative viewpoints. Unfortunately Nichols never explained how decades of one-sided liberal TV news represented political diversity, and how a conservative alternative marks a narrowing in the spectrum of opinion.