I'm Moving to Fox News

Why it's time for a change of networks

John Stossel | September 17, 2009

It's time for a change. Next month, I leave ABC News to start a weekly one-hour prime time show with Fox News.

When I announced that on my blog, plenty of viewers said they were happy to have me leave.

"Goodbye. You suck. You have found a much better home for your garbage reporting and backwards politics."

"Congratulations on the move to the network intellectually suited to your quasi-libertarian corporate-apologist hackery!"

Oh well, you can't please everyone. I don't expect that my libertarian beliefs will please everyone at Fox, either.

Years ago, ABC hired me to do consumer reporting. When I wised up, deciding consumer "advocates" usually did more harm than good, that horrified some of my colleagues.

When I did my first TV special, I pointed out that regulation itself, by stifling innovation, can make life less safe. Two producers angrily objected, saying, "No respectable journalist would say that." The senior producer on the program smugly told me, "You just can't say that on network TV."

ABC's (now NBC's) research director, said: "Why do a show on risk assessment? You should do something on diet or breast implants—something we know people will watch."

But give ABC credit. After bitter arguments, it ran the show, titled, "Are We Scaring You to Death?" A news division's vice president said, "I don't agree with you, but it's a valid intellectual argument that deserves to be made."

We were all surprised when 17 million Americans watched. We got 3,000 letters, many from scientists who wrote: "Thank God, somebody's finally saying these things. I can't believe I saw that on network television."

So I kept doing those kinds of reports.

My bosses often disagreed with my point of view, but they usually let me air it.

But it was frustrating. My vision and that of my producers were often not in harmony. Too many stories I thought were important—such as the land theft called eminent domain, or the FDA's endangering people's lives by withholding life-saving drugs—were not aired.

When I pushed, ABC producers often stared at me as if they were thinking, "Why would you want to do that?"

So after 28 years, it's time to move on.

Comments

|9.17.09 @ 12:08PM|#

FOX offered 8 drums of moustache wax and a $19-per-incident bonus for "on-air baffled indignation".

|9.17.09 @ 12:11PM|#

I don't know if Fox would allow it, but I would like to see a critical examination of our world-wide military empire and if it truly serves our interests. You could talk to people like Andrew Bacevich and Bill Lind.

Naga Sadow|9.17.09 @ 12:11PM|#

FrBunny,

I think it was because they wanted him to shave the 'stache. Like Trebek did on Jeopardy.

Mike M.|9.17.09 @ 12:13PM|#

The fact that Stossel was able to survive 28 years in hostile enemy territory is nothing short of remarkable.

In a way it's unfortunate that not as many liberals will get to hear his viewpoint any longer, but Fox will certainly be much friendlier, and after that much time on the front lines he definitely deserves the peace of mind.

Attorney|9.17.09 @ 12:13PM|#

I hope Stossel raises the quality at Fox instead of Fox lowering the quality of Stossel.

Joe M|9.17.09 @ 12:17PM|#

I, for one, welcome our new right wing overlords.

Seriously, Stossel needs to do some hard core pro-capitalism stuff. Interview people from the Mises institute to explain how the financial crisis happened, and how every government policy is only making it work. Get Rand Paul and Peter Schiff on for some extended interviews.

Also, get Radley Balko on to talk about horrible corruption and abuse of power by local authorities. Wily-nily arrests, sentencing, and even killings by the police go under-reported and unpunished.

Focus on those two angles, and I'll be a happy libertarian.

Adlyn|9.17.09 @ 12:17PM|#

This is great, I love John Stossel he turn me to Reason foundation. I don't know if he would ever do this but how about Howard Phillips of the constitutional party and Alan Keyes. They would be great!

Rich|9.17.09 @ 12:18PM|#

I think it was because they wanted him to shave the 'stache.

Give me a break. ;-)

Seriously, carry on, JS!

|9.17.09 @ 12:19PM|#

I think Fox viewers will more receptive, but I'd hope to see something that goes against the ordinary neocon foreign policy that Fox tends to promote through idiots like Sean Hannity. I think if this were presented reasonably and in the context of the constitution, most of the "conservative" audience could be convinced. Also, similar things should be done to go against the grain of the network's self-righteous moralism, also a huge part of Sean Hannity's presentation.

I can't stand Sean Hannity, by the way.

Stretchy|9.17.09 @ 12:19PM|#

Congratulations, the first suggestions that come to mind are:

1. Don't dumb it down. Yes, it's difficult to explain complex ideas but, it's also important to explain complex ideas.

2. Seek out intelligent, well meaning people who disagree. Too much media is, "I believe in A so, to prove I'm right, I'm going to find some doorknob who believes B and make him look like an idiot." Let people see that there are multiple views of an issue and judge yours on it's merits.

3. Go deep. Rather than give 5 minutes to 8 topics each week, give a full 40 to one topic/subject. Important knowledge is hard gained. Don't just say, "I'm for A", explain why and how you came to that decision.

Cal Lipigian|9.17.09 @ 12:19PM|#

Fox will certainly be much friendlier

Only if Stossel takes the easy way. As Sandwich suggests, Stossel has an opportunity to gore a few of FNC's oxen.

Thomas|9.17.09 @ 12:20PM|#

Thank you FrBunny.

Adlyn|9.17.09 @ 12:21PM|#

Joe M,

Love the idea of police killings, why is it that everyone thinks that police can do no wrong? I can't tell you how many times I've been racially profiled for no reason but just being, well just being there.

Stretchy|9.17.09 @ 12:22PM|#

Oh yeah, one other thing, challenge the Fox orthodoxy as much as you challenged the ABC orthodoxy.

|9.17.09 @ 12:22PM|#

how the financial crisis happened, and how every government policy is only making it work.

For the love of God I hope that was a typo. Or you can turn in your decoder ring.

|9.17.09 @ 12:24PM|#

DISLIKE

At Fox, he'll be easier to label as a biased conservative.

mark|9.17.09 @ 12:26PM|#

Congratulations John Stossel!

As many other commenters here have hinted at, you will do well if Fox News viewers are writing in to complain about that darn liberal John Stossel. Good luck!

|9.17.09 @ 12:28PM|#

Definitely do the things that ABC did not let you do.

Do not do what Glenn Beck is doing. I think he has the libertarianism as a religious experience sprinkled with weird connect the dots diagrams of all Obama's past relationships with Marxists covered.

|9.17.09 @ 12:29PM|#

John, I hope you got a pay raise with your move.

I'll leave the topic recommendations to others.

The Extispicator|9.17.09 @ 12:29PM|#

John,

I would like to see more on the broken window fallacty and jobs fallacy as identified by Bastiat. Not just cash for clunkers, but the whole idea that less efficient is better because it makes more jobs.

This really hit me yesterday, when I was at the grocery and a clerk told a lady standing in line with one item, that she could use the empty self-scanners right next to us. She replied, "No thank you. I don't want take part in putting someone out of a job."

If I could have explained the fallacy of her logic in 30 seconds, I would have. Maybe you could do it in one hour.

|9.17.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Hit the War on Drugs hard. That should be good for spinning up Hannity and O'Reilly.

I may now have a reason to watch a cable news channel again.

Attorney|9.17.09 @ 12:32PM|#

I can't stand Sean Hannity, by the way.

How does that guy stay on the air? He has no talent, no brains, and is annoying as hell.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 12:33PM|#

Stossel finally emerges from his racist closet.
[sarcasm/]

Rich|9.17.09 @ 12:34PM|#

empty self-scanners

That term has a certain charm.

$|9.17.09 @ 12:34PM|#

At Fox, he'll be easier to label as a biased conservative.

Because it was just too hard to do before. And that's why it never happened.

Joe M|9.17.09 @ 12:36PM|#

Haha, WORSE not work.

|9.17.09 @ 12:37PM|#

I think he should profile me. A three hour special might be able to cover the subject, if we elide my years as a pit fighter in Macedonia.

hamilton|9.17.09 @ 12:37PM|#

Agree with the idea of doing the entire show on one topic in depth instead of little snippets. Make it intelligent; someone had to decide to own that niche.

Show stupidity on both sides of the aisle and make it clear that you're doing so, so people do not brand it as standard Fox Team Red shit.

I'd really link in-depth discussions on:
- the professional military, versus the Founders' views, and what this has meant in terms of US foregin policy
- Regulation and its effect in the economic crisis
- Safety versus individual freedom at the consumer level - like trans-fat taxes, etc.
- Overuse of authority - especially by the police. This would take balls to do, John.
- Federalism - maybe somethingon what states USED to be able to do and what they CANNOT do now

I think some shows on basic economics theory would be REALLY useful too. Try to remind / teach people about basic laws of economics and how they are applying (or being ignored) now - supply and demand, etc.

Sean W. Malone|9.17.09 @ 12:38PM|#

"2. Seek out intelligent, well meaning people who disagree."

I think this is about the best possible strategy anyone could ever have suggested.

Too much of American intellectual discourse comes down to attacking strawmen - Obama's speech the other day didn't take on any substantive criticisms of health care and instead merely claimed that there would be no "death panels" as if such a reductionist/crude argument against socialized medicine was the best anyone had to offer.

Take on the best and the brightest from the statist opposition. Don't be afraid of serious, in-depth discussions and debates that take ideas seriously.

Oh... And hire me to work in your audio/music dept. ;)

|9.17.09 @ 12:39PM|#

Personally, I think the most important thing libertarians can do to further the cause of freedom is to stop people from looking at everything through a left/right prism. Stossel needs to show Fox News viewers that Democrats and Republicans are just opposite sides of the same Statist coin. If he can do that, rather than focusing on the libertarian ideas that Republicans like (a la Glenn Beck), it would be a boon for libertarianism.

|9.17.09 @ 12:39PM|#

This makes me sad. I've been a fan, and defender, of Stossel. I've always thought the best thing about his reporting is that it was done on ABC, right from the belly of the MSM beast.

On fox, he'll be lined up next to the likes of Beck, Hannity, and O'Reiley. Blech :P If he focuses on anti-left stuff he'll just be another wing-nut. The only way this will work is by focusing on how the right threatens liberty.

Warty|9.17.09 @ 12:40PM|#

SugarFree, what is best in life?

Tom Tobin|9.17.09 @ 12:42PM|#

Since my father watches Fox News, I just hope this show will provide him better (libertarian!) fare than the typical Fox program; it's just as aggravating to see "conservative" positions lumped together there for him as it is to see "liberal" positions together on other networks. If Stossel goes after sacred-cow conservative positions (e.g., anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-drug, anti-science) just as much as liberal ones (e.g., environmentalism, affirmative action, anti-gun, anti-capitalism), I might have to bug him to check it out. :)

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 12:43PM|#

SF,

Why are you re-running Typical Libertarian, the Ayn Rand bathroom episode?

(sorry, posted that on another thread that he appears to have abandoned)

|9.17.09 @ 12:44PM|#

go after all the sacred cows that includes those that are cherished by the right, if they deserve it. Don't find a formula that gets viewers but hamstrings you into becoming just another loudmouth.

I think you have a challenge ahead. I'm no fan of the msm but frankly can't stand OReilly or the others, but I do appreciate Fox News for covering other things ignored by the rest. FN needs a little shaking up.

And please don't be a Libertarian fundamentalist. Their batshit crazy.

|9.17.09 @ 12:45PM|#

"Timon19 | September 17, 2009, 12:32pm | #

Hit the War on Drugs hard. That should be good for spinning up Hannity and O'Reilly."

Throw in the separation of church and state and you might cause them both to hemorrhage internally.

|9.17.09 @ 12:48PM|#

"How does that guy stay on the air? He has no talent, no brains, and is annoying as hell."

It's called the "idiot box" for a reason.

|9.17.09 @ 12:49PM|#

fox news is full of ass-holes. before glenn beck was on fox, he was pretty tame. if stossel goes to fox, great. but only if he doesnt become the rank-in-file fox news dick

|9.17.09 @ 12:49PM|#

A part of me worries, that he is not going to challange conservative orthodoxy. As other have stated, I hope he challanges fox news viewers when it comes to drug policy, foreign policy, social issues,civil liberties, etc.

|9.17.09 @ 12:50PM|#

comments that are a must for stossel.....

war on drugs

education

HEALTHCARE

foreign intervention

these four areas should be addressed fully as soon as possible

chris|9.17.09 @ 12:51PM|#

I would try to get Stefan Molyneux on your show. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but he is certainly a smart guy and is a good test for Libertarians to see if we really want the state running even what we claim to.

|9.17.09 @ 12:51PM|#

Please put up some anti-war segments. There's a lack of opposition to the Afghan War on the mainstream news networks even though the majority of the country is opposed to the war.

Dan|9.17.09 @ 12:52PM|#

I would just urge Stossel to do real, on the ground, jounalistic reporting based on original investigation. It would be way too easy for Stossel to let his show become a megaphone for Washington industry press-release scribes.

If, for instance, you think that universal health insurance is a bad thing because in all the other Western democracies hordes of people are left bleeding and dying in waiting rooms, then actually go up to Canada or over to France or Germany with your cameras and microphones and get footage of the people who are being left to bleed and die because of big nasty Eurosocialist government.

Don't just take the word of some industry pr hack, some think-tank professional nosepicker, or some like-minded pseudo-libertarian blogger with a bad combover. We have plenty of that already on cable news. Document the actual facts that you claim support your libertarian dogmas.

Ugg|9.17.09 @ 12:53PM|#

DCist pushes the smugness envelope -
"D.C. Libertarian Party Tries to Get Back on its Feet", link: http://tinyurl.com/mafsgk

|9.17.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Have Walter Williams on every show. Actually, co-host your show with him.

|9.17.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Attorney said "I hope Stossel raises the quality at Fox...."

What, raise Fox's quality to the level of ABC's Chuckie Gibson's "What's ACORN/who's Van Jones/the NEA is pimping for Obama? Never heard of 'em!" level of awareness?

|9.17.09 @ 12:58PM|#

1. Paramilitary force used by law enforcement and the innocent victims of it.

2. The fed's coercion of the states by withholding the tax money that is rightfully theirs.

3. Unjust sex offender laws.

4. How the Supreme Court is stripping away our constitutional rights - eminent domain, DUI checkpoints, etc.

Neu Mejican|9.17.09 @ 12:59PM|#

I hope Stossel raises the quality at Fox instead of Fox lowering the quality of Stossel.

This would require that he raise the quality of his work above that he has demonstrated at ABC.

So, he should stop with the cherry picking. Invite on intelligent opposition to the view point he is presenting. Be very, very careful of the confirmation bias that regularly creeps into his reporting. And most importantly of all...remove all the straw-men and red-herrings that clutter up every piece I have seen.

End every show with a mustache maintenance debate with Geraldo.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 1:00PM|#

Have Walter Williams on every show. Actually, co-host your show with him.

And get some hotties on there. Investigate how exotic dancers are putting themselves through law school.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 1:01PM|#

End every show with a mustache maintenance debate with Geraldo.

End the first show with a cage death match between Geraldo and a Mossad team.

Mike M.|9.17.09 @ 1:01PM|#

Overuse of authority - especially by the police. This would take balls to do, John.

I agree with this one especially. I would love to see more focus in the media put on things like overzealous prosecutors and the gathering and handling of forensic evidence.

Obey The Fist|9.17.09 @ 1:10PM|#

"What's ACORN/who's Van Jones/the NEA is pimping for Obama? Never heard of 'em!"

My suggestion:
Don't ever elevate the above subjects to the status of Newsworthy. It will be difficult at Fox.

|9.17.09 @ 1:12PM|#

Bad move, John. You stood out at ABC. You're just another right winger in a long list of right wingers at Fox. You don't even have the best mustache at Fox.

Cabeza de Vaca|9.17.09 @ 1:13PM|#

Invite Radley Balko on to talk about the Mississipi Justice system & Steven Hayne.

EJM|9.17.09 @ 1:14PM|#

I think it was because they wanted him to shave the 'stache. Like Trebek did on Jeopardy.

Or, going back to the late '80s and early '90s, compare Bob Goen on the Home Shopping Game (mid-'87) and on Blackout (early '88) to him on daytime WoF (starting in mid-'89) and on the Hollywood Game ('92).

Jason Lewis|9.17.09 @ 1:14PM|#

John Stossel wrote: "Maybe I can even learn something from the hostile comments"

How about addressing the social psychology of how and why people get into such a tizzy over politics (Ideological Teamism)? Include discussion of the irrational thought process when people get emotionally tied to an issue.

|9.17.09 @ 1:19PM|#

"And get some hotties on there. Investigate how exotic dancers are putting themselves through law school."

And have lots of interviews with that coed who helped expose ACORN. Have her dress up in her hooker outfit every time she appears so no one can say you are editing her.

I can't believe the fact that the women involved in the ACORN scam is a megabade Florida coed has not attracted more attention.

|9.17.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Do a show replaying and then discussing excerpts from Milton Friedman. Tom Sowell or Walter Williams or Laffer could join you. Find someone from the Keynesian camp to counter, if you can find someone who doesn't come across like Krugman.

Excerpts could include comments like the one from the Open Mind show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE) in which he said it was a lie to claim that the employer pays half of SS tax.

Friedman was such an avuncular, persuasive guy that it might help the cause considerably.

Thanks and good luck.

Rob Frankel|9.17.09 @ 1:26PM|#

No mystery here. Stossel joins O-Reilly, Beck, Hannity and the rest of the clowns in the FOX echo chamber who talk first and think -- assuming that's even possible -- later.

The last piece in the line-up puzzle is getting Lou Dobbs to slither on over from CNN.

When anyone broadcasts some independent thought the way it was meant to be, let me know, would ya?

Paul|9.17.09 @ 1:27PM|#

All Britney Spears, all the time!

Colonel_Angus|9.17.09 @ 1:29PM|#

Good luck Stossel. Show them what true liberalism is all about. Start jabbing at "conservatives" right away and prove you are not a partisan tool. Don't go easy on the Fox demographic.

Some ideas:
Agricultural subsidies and government-endorsed price fixing, such as sugar and dairy. Take corn down a notch.

Here's an interesting one- The Transportation Enhancement Program is being used to fund transportation museums and bullshit like highway landscaping. Link to grants by state and year:
http://www.enhancements.org/projectlist.asp

The senate voted on an amendment sponsored by Coburn and McCain this week, defeated mostly on party lines.

Amendment No. 2370, as filed, says, "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for...the reduction of vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or the maintenance of habitat connectivity; transportation museums; scenic beautification projects; and pedestrian or bicycle facility projects."

Tman|9.17.09 @ 1:29PM|#

I am kinda torn by this news because on the one hand, having Stossel at ABC was a GOOD thing for liberty lovers in that he was able to fight back on the same network against the tide of nanny-statism scare tactics that ABC used. I can't even begin to imagine what an uphill battle that was, but clearly it's one worth fighting. On the other hand, ABC was obviously trying to hold him back from peeling the paint off the walls of big government and anti-capitalist fear mongering.

I hope that John digs deeper in exposing the lies behind what our government has been promising to do with our tax money. The unsustainable welfare/safety net/entitlement programs are so fiscally upside down that I fear they may eventually bring down our entire economy worse than Fannie and Freddie did. The sooner that more people understand just how irresponsible congress was/is/probably will continue to be in terms of being honest about this fiscal crisis, the sooner we can debate and consider steps to resolve the problems.

Fox RULEZ!|9.17.09 @ 1:31PM|#

Wow, the leftards are out in force today!

How does that guy stay on the air? He has no talent, no brains, and is annoying as hell.

Be that as it may, Sean Hannity has WAY more talent, brains, and viewers than YOU, leftard.

Do not do what Glenn Beck is doing. I think he has the libertarianism as a religious experience sprinkled with weird connect the dots diagrams of all Obama's past relationships with Marxists covered

This method won him a lot of viewers, massive ratings, and Van Jones' scalp. How many scalps have YOU taken lately?

2. Seek out intelligent, well meaning people who disagree.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated in this comments section, there ARE no intelligent, well meaning people who disagree. Just ask any of these posters here whether anyone who disagrees with them is intelligent and/or well meaning.

Gonna miss having a maverick at ABC, Stossel. (Granted, I never watch anything from that station unless I happen to stumble across a video of you on YouTube or something, but still...)

You want to stand out at Fox, try repeating your presentation on cousin marriage being morally and legally acceptable; it makes a great litmus test of people's personalities because it makes a lot of people intuitively nervous, but there isn't really any credible moral or legal argument for its being wrong.

Anomalous|9.17.09 @ 1:34PM|#

Investigate the bogus science behind second-hand smoke scares.

|9.17.09 @ 1:35PM|#

Let's see if he has the balls to take on Republicans. Imperialist pro-torture moralizers are hardly "pro liberty." I'd rather live in a Democratic fantasy socialist state than whatever it is Republicans want.

Neu Mejican|9.17.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Unfortunately, as demonstrated in this comments section, there ARE no intelligent, well meaning people who disagree. Just ask any of these posters here whether anyone who disagrees with them is intelligent and/or well meaning.

I believe many of the people I have disagreements with on this board are both intelligent and well-meaning. Otherwise, I wouldn't comment here. If Stossel wants to be a maverick on cable, creating a platform for intelligent debate (rather than screaming matches) would go a long way towards that end.

I am skeptical that he has the skills, but that should be his aim, methinks.

|9.17.09 @ 1:38PM|#

I'd also like him to explain why "liberty" is what he values most. I'm serious: most libertarians never explain what goods are furthered by such social inventions as "rights" and "liberty" and so on. Are they ends in themselves?

Vogateer|9.17.09 @ 1:39PM|#

Militarization of the police and drug war, have Cheye Calvo on.

Taking on sacred cows of the right is a must.

JB|9.17.09 @ 1:41PM|#

Take the gloves off now, Stossel.

Speak truth to the tyrant Obama with pen and video blazing.

|9.17.09 @ 1:43PM|#

Liberty is not a social invention. It is the natural state of man. Rights (negative rights) are the social contract by which a free man can interact without violence with other free men.

The burden is not to explain why liberty is good, it is on those who say it is bad.

alan|9.17.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Good luck with your new gig, JS.

Too many stories I thought were important-such as the land theft called eminent domain

That kind of amazes me they think of it as a ratings loss issue. I have no doubt I could strike up a conversation with any random guy at the local barber on the subject and have a passionate choral denouncing e. d. within minutes, especially if I mention something local connected to the issue like the new baseball stadium.

|9.17.09 @ 1:46PM|#

"I'm serious: most libertarians never explain what goods are furthered by such social inventions as "rights" and "liberty" and so on. Are they ends in themselves?"


Yes they are because the alternative is allowing some people to make decisions for others, which always ends in disaster.

|9.17.09 @ 1:48PM|#

"Militarization of the police and drug war, have Cheye Calvo on.

Taking on sacred cows of the right is a must."

Maybe this is my Kaylian moment, but I don't know anyone on the right who is not disturbed by the militarization of the drug war. Really I don't. The only people I know who are not disturbed by it are the cops and contractors who are getting either rich or new toys to play with.

Joe M|9.17.09 @ 1:48PM|#

Stossel has never been a screamer. He has always been someone that gets into the trenches and sees what's going on in the real world. I think he'll continue that style.

alan|9.17.09 @ 1:49PM|#

I'd also like him to explain why "liberty" is what he values most. I'm serious: most libertarians never explain what goods are furthered by such social inventions as "rights" and "liberty" and so on. Are they ends in themselves?

What aspect of your life do you enjoy being hampered?

|9.17.09 @ 1:49PM|#

John,

Your gift is a combination of gentleness, confidence and a willingness to hear the other party speak. Stick to those qualities, and you will do well.

Ignore all name-callers. Only engage true thinkers.

Call people out when they dodge legitimate, reasoned questions. Keep after them until they actual deal with the question you ask. Challenge them to use sound logic. Draw pictures, if necessary, to illustrate poor reasoning!

Encourage other closet libertarian/conservatives to come out from the shadows!

Lastly, don't forget to embrace social media! Old media is barely clinging to life.

sully|9.17.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Congratulations!

Please be as much of a thorn to the received wisdom at Fox as you have been at ABC.

One idea would be to take on O'Reilly's mad almost religious belief that oil price markets are manipulated rather than merely near chaotic.

Another, as has been mentioned before, would be to challenge the sometimes reflexive interventionist foreign policy beliefs presented by Hannity and Beck.

Finally, I for one would love to see your take (as you mentioned) on the overall cost benefit impact of the FDA slowness in approving new drugs.

Above all, don't dumb down your presentations. Contrary to the received wisdom at the other networks I suspect, or at least I hope, that Fox viewers are on average more intelligent and educated, at least in practical matters, than those of the other networks, not that that is necessarily saying much.

|9.17.09 @ 1:51PM|#

I agree with Stretchy's remarks.

Keep it deep. Keep it professional. I know that might seem to be hard on Fox, but it will definitely score points with everyone.

If people find out you have been able to do very intellectually sound, non-fearmongering, non-sensational hour-long specials on Fox, people might just switch networks to watch you.

Your depth of content will win you viewers.

Also, Glenn Beck's viewership actually increased when he started doing fact-checking and finding historical background into progressive politics--information actually works!!

Also, as a specific topical issue--I can't think of anybody better to report on the Fed. You are able to creatively explain very complicated issues; I think it's about time people knew how that organization works.

Colonel_Angus|9.17.09 @ 1:53PM|#

One thing not to do... I hope it's not just another talk show where the host sits behind a trendy looking desk and interviews people via video. That's some boring ass shit. There should be little to no studio time.

Twisted Nerve|9.17.09 @ 1:54PM|#

jhn,
You dont see the value of rights and liberty? Really?
In that case I'll take yours.
You better rest up before I come to collect you, its been raining alot lately and the grass is getting tall....

|9.17.09 @ 1:55PM|#

(Our) John,

I don't think it's about people on the right or the left liking the drug war, more that so many of them just really don't give a shit.

If 25% of the ire and hot air generated by tossing out bogus cries of racism at the TEA protests was focused on the real and demonstrated racism of the drug war, something might finally change.

Joe M|9.17.09 @ 1:56PM|#

Just googled this to find out more. All the news articles are saying he's going to do a weekly show on Fox Business, and he'll do occasional specials on Fox News. Some say his weekly show will be two hours long.

Mark|9.17.09 @ 1:56PM|#

You should devote one full episode to just explaining how government is an institution of force. Most liberals do not understand that regulations, taxes, and all their favorite programs exist at the barrel of a gun.

|9.17.09 @ 1:56PM|#

Like some people mentioned, I think hitting the War on Drugs hard is the best thing to do right now for Stossel. Its vulnerable, people have been talking about liberalization (though it wont come easy), and if the average idiot on Fox gets to hear a hard-hitting no-nonsense legalisation argument with relevant stats and videography, it'll be a winner.

JB|9.17.09 @ 1:57PM|#

Stossel, I would like to see you do a broad-ranging story talking about all the various things government is involved in.

There is a high level of distrust in this country that government can be effective and efficient. Those that think it can be effective and efficient should be forced to recognize that the more responsibility you give government, the less efficient it will be.

Government might be able to do 5 things well, but there is no way it can do 500 things well.

It's a point that is rarely raised in the media. Here is the lede: Government, jack of all trades, master of none.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 1:57PM|#

Let's see if he has the balls to take on Republicans. Imperialist pro-torture moralizers are hardly "pro liberty."

Who are you calling a Republican Imperialist? I am pro liberty, let me show you with a good waterboarding.

Brian Lockwood|9.17.09 @ 1:57PM|#

For Episode one, you should focus on intentionally pissing off Fox viewers. Challenge their views on the drug war, prostitution and religious freedom. Rattle some cages and get them really worked up. Then make them love you by pointing out all the stuff wrong with liberals in the next show.

Craig|9.17.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Topics to dig into:

1. How much of the current health care system's problems stem from earlier government involvement in the early 1970s, with the HMO Act, ERISA, etc. Why did doctors once make house calls?

2. Spending on government-run education and how much it went up during the boom years, with what corresponding increase or decrease in quality. Compare and contrast costs per pupil for voluntary (homeschool and parochial school) vs. compulsory education.

3. Natural disaster response effectiveness, pre- and post- FEMA. Are we getting our money's worth from them?

|9.17.09 @ 2:00PM|#

Drug war, drug war, and drug war.

Jump on other social con lies after nailing that one home. Whatever you do, keep fighting your bosses at Fox the same way you did at ABC.

Joe|9.17.09 @ 2:03PM|#

1) The debt
2) Entitlements
3) The Financial Crisis
4) Was Ted Kennedy really that compassionate? Is it compassionate to give away other peoples' money?
5) The federal government as a family business.
6) Was Reagan really that great of a conservative? Sure he talked a good game, but did he really live up to his promises? If so, why not?
7) Was Bill Clinton all that bad? Maybe he governed more conservatively than he talked?
8) A special on creeping of statism. How the incrementalism of government intervention only seems to go in one direction. Is the country moving to the left? Why? Are Republicans truly lovers of liberty and the markets? One could make the case that JFK, a "liberal", was more of an advocate of free-markets than George W. Bush.
9) A real detailed expose on why health care and health insurance is expensive. Go through the history of AMA as a cartel, the wage and price controls of WWII that led to employer-sponsored insurers, state mandates, medicare and medicaid, insurance regulation, the HMO act, etc.
10) Bigotry in America. Are whites racist? Do minorities hate the gays? Are fat people shit upon? You've looked at some of this before, but there might still be more to explore.
11) A regular feature on why the legal profession is out of control would be nice, Talk about type I and type II errors and how the legal profession doesn't even ackowledge the latter.
12) Why are african-americans almost all democrats? Why are Jews? Imagine a roundtable with Walter Williams, JC Watts, Al Sharpton and Rep. Maxine Waters!
13) Thomas Sowell's economic facts and fallacies could make a whole program. Plenty of meaty stuff there (e.g., are women really paid less than men).
14) Why are entertainers predominately liberal? Are they just ignorant (most-likely) or does their artistic get in the way of rational thought? Do most of them not give a fuck, but just want to go along to get along?
15) Michael Moore is one of america's biggest assholes. A one hour special on the Fuckhead from Flint.
16) Is america falling behind the rest of the world in terms of technical (math and science) education? If so, why? Why are our math scores so low? Does this mean trouble for our future?

You bread and butter is attacking convential wisdom and sacred cows. Anything that people are taught in high school or college about history or current events is fertile ground.

A Mouse-tachioed Fellow and De|9.17.09 @ 2:03PM|#

Will there be an episode featuring Bob Barr?

|9.17.09 @ 2:05PM|#

"I don't think it's about people on the right or the left liking the drug war, more that so many of them just really don't give a shit."

A combination of that and not knowing how outragous it really is. If you didn't read Reason, how would you have any idea what is going on with the wrong door drug raids in this country? I have never seen a single story on them anywhere but here.

It really puts lie to the idea that the media gives a shit about minorities. These raids tend to affect minorities more than anyone. And if the major media took it up as a cause, I bet you could put a stop to a lot of what is going one. But, the major media never writes one damn thing about them.

|9.17.09 @ 2:06PM|#

Talk Fox into making your entire show available as a free podcast, downloadable via iTunes.

MSNBC does this with Olbermann, Maddow, and Meet the Press, and in a limited way with Morning Joe.

Craig|9.17.09 @ 2:07PM|#

And if you get a chance, can you punch Carl Cameron when he's not expecting it?

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 2:10PM|#

Will there be an episode featuring Bob Barr?

And Lonewaco!

|9.17.09 @ 2:12PM|#

The Lonewacko Hour would be some made for TV entertainment in a trainwreck sort of way.

Jimbo|9.17.09 @ 2:14PM|#

I agree with the thought that more time on one topic in depth is better than a little time on lots of topics.

I also like the idea of getting truly thoughtful input from all points of views. I don't ever watch cable news because I can't stand people screaming at each other. I'd love to see each commenter put into an isolation booth. If they start screaming, or refusing to honestly debate they would simply be cut out of the debate. They'd be disappeared.

The best thing though would be to have actual experts on the subject being discussed no matter how un-telegenic that they may be. I'd rather listen to an ugly nerd discuss a complex subject than watch some eye candy PR flack recite a list of talking points.

|9.17.09 @ 2:14PM|#

I'd like to see some reporting on the out of control defense industry which is often over-looked, but as I far as I am concerned still counts as big government. I happen to work in this industry for the time being and I can assure the waste is Astronomical. But nobody blinks an eye as they, government and contractor alike, live large off of the tax-payer spigot. This is one area that desperately needs to be explored.

One small example, I was offered a two week trip to San Diego to do essentially nothing. It was the end of the fiscal year and they needed to spend the rest of the contract money to ensure they got the same amount or more the following year. This is a drop in the bucket. More like a single molecule in that drop.

|9.17.09 @ 2:15PM|#

yes devote each show to "1" in depth topic. Go deep and explore ALL sides of it.

First person on I would suggest should be David Walker from the Peterson foundation. You could probably even devote a couple of episdoes to our fiscal problems and the tough choices ahead on SS, Medicare etc.

Hit the drug war hard, and nanny statism hard. You could even do a whole show on how bad "for the children" really is.

Also some stuff about how the regulators are in bed with the regulated, and maybe how important it is to have incentives properly aligned for the free market to work. (IE, if you give someone a bonus every time they make a bullshit suprime loan, guess what they will do? )

Hit education again (I saw your piece on 20/20 on it, it was great)

Again really get in depth, with economics etc. Half the time people don't possess the tools to properly evluate policy. This needs to change if we ever hope to get reform.

Good luck,

|9.17.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Some of the comments here have suggested bringing on Walt Williams and Thomas Sowell as occasional guests...

Thumbs up to that idea.

If you could regularly attract guests of that quality, I might actually start watching television again instead of re-hashed YouTube clips.

slutmonkey|9.17.09 @ 2:16PM|#

I'm with the others here who are sad that fewer liberals will stumble across Stossel's reporting, but also glad that he will (hopefully) have more time and freedom to say what needs to be said on the air.

Best of luck at Fox!

|9.17.09 @ 2:16PM|#

@ Robert, yes that's a good one, we really need to design government policies better, so we don't encourge them to spend irresponsibly.

|9.17.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Maybe a technique to use on the show would be to have two segments: One against the left (you'd better start with the left since you're on Fox), say "hate crime" legislation. Then you do a segment against a flag-burning amendment. Then you explain that both of these (though favorites of the left and right, respectively) are really part of the same statist desire. And maybe as a consequence more Fox viewers start loving hate-crimes legislation. But maybe somebody who sees that one of these is foolish would see that the other must also be foolish.

It would also be interesting to see a pro-hate-crimes-legislation-but-anti-flag-burning-amendment person try to convince his converse of his point of view, and vice-versa. With a Stossel in-between to bring out the statist-vs-liberty spectrum, rather than the left-vs-right spectrum.

I certainly wish Stossel good luck. And while I realize that he'll probably need to pick lefty targets at first in order to get viewers, he'll have to go after the right fairly soon, or I'll count it a failure. I'm sure, like many of us, he's thinking "What's the fun of agreeing with my boss all the time?", so I have high hopes.

Finally, he should have the last minute of every show dedicated to "The Stossel Stash" (or "'Stache"). The Stash is some sort of funny list or factoids or a REASON brickbat; something pleasant to leave people with a good taste.

Obviously there would be a graphic to illustrate the bit, where a cartoon Stossel pulls some dope out of his 'stache and puts it in a bong and takes a hit. Then we see the real Stossel, and he says: "And now, the Stossel Stash: Concerned about rising obesity among children, the British government has started a campaign to encourage children to bicycle to school, even sending cycling champs into schools to talk to students. But the Guardian newspaper reports that at the same time, many schools are discouraging or even banning children from biking to school because of safety concerns. --Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

And that's how he ends every show.

|9.17.09 @ 2:17PM|#

The word hero is overused to the point it has become meaningless. Nevertheless, John Stossel is a hero.

I'm glad he's on Fox. What, exactly, is an ABC? I don't think I get that channel on my TV.

tankrunner1123|9.17.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Stoseel is a great Libertarian voice. I really would love to see him debate the Fox neo-cons on issues of civil liberties, gay marriage, the drug war and prostitution. He'll make their heads explode because they cant rely on their "zomg youz a Kommunist" arguments.

|9.17.09 @ 2:17PM|#

"I'd like to see some reporting on the out of control defense industry which is often over-looked, but as I far as I am concerned still counts as big government."

I don't think that is overlooked. What is totally overlooked are power of police unions and the power of prison guards and the people who get rich building prisons or the "prison industrial complex".

|9.17.09 @ 2:17PM|#

John, how about having an Anarcho-capitalist on the show? The extremist of libertarians.

Then again, maybe people aren't ready for those kind of arguments. That if the market can provide better schools and roads, they can provide better defense and courts.

Anyways, good luck John. I'll be DVRing your show.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 2:20PM|#

The Lonewacko Hour would be some made for TV entertainment in a trainwreck sort of way.

Ouch! "Trainwreck" reminds me of my all time worst dating week ever! And it was only a few months ago. I hope I have crested.

|9.17.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Oh, and maybe one on the problem when we make up "rights" like healthcare etc.

IE, when you have a right to some good or service, it's really just a form of slavery to the provider of the goods and service (or the people required to pay for it)

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 2:22PM|#

Ah, was just chatting about one he could use while in the smoking pit this AM.

How repealing child labor laws will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

|9.17.09 @ 2:23PM|#

Please keep some of your even keel-ness. Glenn Beck was interesting to watch on CNN, but when he moved to Fox News, he became completely unhinged, and I lost all respect for the man. Can you please inject some much needed intellectualism back into the conservative movement? This race to the bottom isn't good for any of us.

Bingo|9.17.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Personally, I would like to see John ask BHO hard-hitting questions about IllegalMexicans and post the videos on YouTube.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 2:30PM|#

Personally, I would like to see John ask BHO hard-hitting questions about IllegalMexicans and post the videos on YouTube.

And the whole BirthCertificate thing.

|9.17.09 @ 2:32PM|#

I don't watch FOX or ABC, so I have no suggestions for your show. But please bring back your blog. I was a regular reader until you let it die after announcing your move to FOX.

Atanarjuat|9.17.09 @ 2:34PM|#

I can't believe the fact that the women involved in the ACORN scam is a megabade Florida coed has not attracted more attention.

pic

Maybe she's not blond or abducted enough.

|9.17.09 @ 2:36PM|#

You could spend weeks or months on the subject of what the constitution says the federal government is supposed to do vs. what the federal government does.

Along the same lines, how can someone claim, on the one hand, to be a constitutional scholar, and on the other, pull all this cash for clunkers, stimulus, health care b.s.?

JB|9.17.09 @ 2:37PM|#

Ouch! "Trainwreck" reminds me of my all time worst dating week ever!

During role-play, did you drunkenly tie her to the train tracks and forget about her?

|9.17.09 @ 2:41PM|#

John should run every story the ABC commissars dismissed as screwy or would not permit to be aired. Especially those stories which would expose the excesses of government.

Atanarjuat|9.17.09 @ 2:42PM|#

As for the new show, I wouldn't mind seeing Drew Carey on or even doing a short segment similar to his reason.tv shows. He came across as a fairly charismatic and sane libertarian, although obviously not a policy specialist, and could inject a bit of humor to capture the Daily Show crowd.

|9.17.09 @ 2:42PM|#

John, keep on goring the oxen of the left and the right. When they squeal you know you're doing good.

That we have someone in the media who has read Hayek, et al is a ray of hope for America. You're a national treasure.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 2:45PM|#

During role-play, did you drunkenly tie her to the train tracks and forget about her?

Sadly, no, but I would feel better about the experience if I had.

John Tagliaferro|9.17.09 @ 2:45PM|#

And I would have my true Libertarian bonafides too, even though she is a redhead.

Carol Gustafson|9.17.09 @ 2:50PM|#

It's GREAT that John is joining Fox. Now if he can just bring Dr. Timothy Johnson with him. Fox needs a conservative right-leaning Christian medical expert/commentator to combat Dr. Sibelius, who will be front and center throughout this administration. I was embarrased for Dr. Johnson when he appeared on that ABC special town hall with Obama.

Benjamin|9.17.09 @ 2:56PM|#

The first show should be about libertarianism itself. Have talked to many people about this I have come to the totally non-scientific conclusion that the majority of people support libertarian ideas. They don't want to be told what to do and how to live by some nosy nanny-state.

I posted this on a different forum a while back..."Wow, its incredible how much people mis-undestand libertarianism.

Modern political libertarianism is old fashioned "Enlightenment Liberalism" updated to take into account modern social, ecominomic and political issues. Libertarianism is defined as "advocating freedom of action and thought." An ideology directly endoursed in America's Declartion of Independence. And while the US had many failings, slavery and limited suffrage, it was essentially the first libertarian nation.

As for today's Libertarianism (keeping in mind that the US has a "weak party system") few of the people running as Libertarians hold true on every Libertarian issue. But over all Libertarians are far more willing to give the individual the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making decisions that impact their life, as opposed to liberal nanny-staters, neo-socialists or family-values bedroom police. Unfortunatly, the uneducated have a biased belief that Libertarianism will bring about some Cyberpunk Corporate Dystopia run by the wealthy or a law-less hedonistic love-fest deserving of god's wrath.

Neither of these are correct as Libertarians are not anarchists nor do they want special treatment for the corporations or the wealthy. This view also ignores the fact that like it or not governments, corporations and even churches are made up of groups of...people, and are just as capable of doing great evil as doing great good."

Regardless, good luck John. I'll be sure to watch.

Merton Sussex|9.17.09 @ 2:57PM|#

"Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."

Thanks for letting us know. News flash (remember "news," Mr. Stossel?): If you admit to bias then you're not a journalist. You're just a pundit. So, you'll fit right in with Beck and Hannity. Enjoy your stay in the abattoir.

Y'know, I'm sure Brian Williams votes, too. But the fact that he makes a little OCD game about his political neutrality to the point that he constantly jokes about it with Jon Stewart means that he can still be taken seriously as a journalist...whereas you cannot. News can never be wholly trusted when it comes from someone with an admitted partisan agenda.

Cronkite wept.

Marc|9.17.09 @ 2:58PM|#

I am disappointed that your show will only be cable. I don't have cable.

|9.17.09 @ 3:00PM|#

Ahh yes it's the lying about your partisan agenda that makes you a real journalist, what bullshit.

Income Tax|9.17.09 @ 3:06PM|#

I've always been a fan of Stossel. I saw him give a talk in Oakland once. Those 10 minute segments on ABC were good but too short. As for all the people who hate him, all he's doing is pointing out that perhaps the government regulation is not working. In the old days, if you criticized the church, you'd be labeled a crazy and possibly even burned at the stake.

John K.|9.17.09 @ 3:06PM|#

I would love to see more reporting and investigation into the philosophical root of the issues of the day. The true questions. Everyone can argue about health care, but the real question is "is health care a right?". And lets see someone look into the question "can a third party candidate win a major race?". Do we really have an exclusive two party system. How about, what was the original intent of America's government run education system? Did the direction and goal of that system change, and when? I'd like to see on the street interviews, or audience interviews, asking things like "have you read the constitution?" or "Have you ever contacted your representatives?". These are things that actually effect peoples lives. These are the questions that no one is asking. Mr. Stossel, you are one of the few reporters that truly and honestly reports what you believe is newsworthy, and I am very glad you will be getting more air time.

nonPaulogist|9.17.09 @ 3:14PM|#

Neither of these are correct as Libertarians are not anarchists

Many of us actually are anarchists. Market anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, agorists. voluntaryists, etc. It's just taking the arguments for limited government to their logical conclusions.

|9.17.09 @ 3:18PM|#

What I want to see from Stossel at Fox is a segment on organic produce where he peddles lies in the air.

Wait, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#Controversies

|9.17.09 @ 3:28PM|#

The Kos trolls are out in force today. You guys are lame. I think Urkobold has a school for internet trolling. You should look into it.

Joe M|9.17.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Drink!

Sixtus|9.17.09 @ 3:34PM|#

ClubMedSux said it well - show people that looking at everything through a left/right prism is really just opposite sides of the same Statist coin. Republicans and Democrats are far more alike than they want to admit.

I hope to see you take on the more 'anti-conservative' views on the militarization and unchecked power of Law Enforcement, prostitution, the Drug War, and things such as rendition, torture and like. While stories on the economy and regulation are important and needed - you will just be lost in the crowd and lumped in the 'crazies' at Fox News. Be completely different than Beck, Hannity and O'Reiley - PPPPLLLLLLEEEAAAASE!

I would love to see guys like folks from Reason such as Balko be a regular guest too!

Mike Laursen|9.17.09 @ 3:35PM|#

I read all of the mean comments on your blog. Inexcusable, but there was one valid point underneath it all. At FOX, you need to establish your credibility by taking on a few conservative sacred cows as well as liberal ones.

|9.17.09 @ 3:37PM|#

I would love to see a breakdown -- or frankly a recurring segment -- that featured the federal budget from any given year lined up with the enumerated powers that are actually in the U.S. Constitution. The government programs that are burying us are nowhere to be found.

Or conversely, try to get a current member of Congress (other than Ron Paul) to list them.

|9.17.09 @ 3:38PM|#

Best of Luck John. I saw you speak at a campus event and the students ate it up - target the young and engage them - make show interactive, take a cue from Current TV - air video submissions from the audience, twitter, etc.

|9.17.09 @ 3:38PM|#

How about addressing the social psychology of how and why people get into such a tizzy over politics (Ideological Teamism)? Include discussion of the irrational thought process when people get emotionally tied to an issue.

Now THAT would be a great episode.
I don't think even social psychologists really understand that one.

The most interesting thing is the way that parties tend to promote dissent outside of their ranks, but suppress dissent within them. Or, if any dissent is allowed, it is carefully kept private, away from enemy ears, and is only permitted between senior "commited members", not rank and file followers.

Mike Laursen|9.17.09 @ 3:38PM|#

Please don't do the studio audience. Studio audience shows are overdone and annoying.

Also, since you have a regularly-scheduled format, you don't have to tie everything up into simple conclusions like you have to do in your specials. You could actually explore questions where you don't know ahead of time what the right answer is, and not have to wrap it all up at the end of each episode.

|9.17.09 @ 3:39PM|#

I would love to see an expose on Police Unions. Go around the country and talk about cops doing outragous things and not being fired because their unions back them up and make it impossible to fire a cop.

tankrunner1123|9.17.09 @ 3:44PM|#

I would love to see an expose on Police Unions. Go around the country and talk about cops doing outragous things and not being fired because their unions back them up and make it impossible to fire a cop.

_____________________________

That and the right wing statists call anyone that questions police practices as criminal supporters and other stuff

Rimfax|9.17.09 @ 3:45PM|#

I'd recommend focusing, not exclusively, on the War on Drugs. That will demonstrate your independence from Fox overlords, but I also consider it the crux issue that underlies the whole parental state concept.

Rimfax|9.17.09 @ 3:45PM|#

...it also pisses off the paleotarians.

Mike Laursen|9.17.09 @ 3:47PM|#

How about addressing the social psychology of how and why people get into such a tizzy over politics (Ideological Teamism)? Include discussion of the irrational thought process when people get emotionally tied to an issue.

Exploring these kind of meta-political topics would be interesting. For an example, America's culture of President worship.

tankrunner1123|9.17.09 @ 3:48PM|#

...it also pisses off the paleotarians.

_______________________

Who came up with that term Paleotarian? All it seems to me is you take Pat Buchanan and just add pro-free trade.

Mike Laursen|9.17.09 @ 3:51PM|#

Lastly, don't forget to embrace social media! Old media is barely clinging to life.

Yes, make sure your show has a strong tie-in with the web. Forums, bonus content, further reading, shows available on Fox website, etc.

|9.17.09 @ 4:09PM|#

a great person(s) to interview would be the guys who run http://badphoenixcops.blogspot.com/ and to take a look a the online game EVE online.

Rick|9.17.09 @ 4:21PM|#

I hope Fox comes through with what I assume is a promise of more control over what John presents and how he presents it.

I'm a big fan of Stossel and love his education stuff. Would like to see more of that and think that is an area where he can have some influence.

I like seeing more libertarian leaning people on Fox, but I worry that this is more of the right wing trying to co-opt the libertarian message once again to get votes. We all know how that turns out when they actually get the power :(

Maybe a show on how the deck is stacked against third parties and the football team mentality of red vs. blue.

The Man|9.17.09 @ 4:24PM|#

I usually don't like to go the ad hominem route but Merton Sussex is a credulous boob or maybe he's part of a vast left wing conspiracy to subvert the libertarians of America. Maybe they're the same thing.

alan|9.17.09 @ 4:28PM|#

News flash (remember "news," Mr. Stossel?)

Cronkite wept.

Did those thoughts really trickle out from your mind? I suppose they would have had to, but there was no irony filter, cliche filter, or any feedback registering a silly alert between their conception and when you wrote them out? You wrote those paragraphs out in an entirely serious manner, in a manner similar to the cognitive dissonance of a religious or cult member who accepts premises that are farcical on their face. The common denominator being a deference to authority that overrides good sense. You need a better religion than the MSM.

eMarkM|9.17.09 @ 4:34PM|#

More of a long-form documentary type show would be great. Not sure if you can make that happen with TV attention spans what they are, but that would be ideal. Something where you can really dig into a particular issue instead of the usual 60 Minutes-style, three segment format. Teaching viewers how to look at an issue from a Libertarianism perspective is going to be difficult to those indoctrinated by our culture into the left/right dichotomy with typical 20m pieces and 5m interviews.

Take on the conservative POV directly. As others have stated, I think this is critically important for you. Or you'll just get labeled as another Fox GOP shill. Well, more than you already are anyways judging by some of those comments on your blog :0

As to topics, I'm sure you'll have no problem coming up with those. But focus on some of the philosophical issues underlying the libertarian POV, esp in early shows. Lay some ground rules for the show's premises.

Sorry to see you leave ABC for a network where you're sure to get lumped in with the Bushcheneyites, no matter how far you distance yourself from them or how elegantly you present libertarian philosophy, but looking forward to catching you on TV every week!

Sean W. Malone|9.17.09 @ 4:49PM|#

Merton Sussex seems to believe that pretending you are unbiased is the same thing as being unbiased, and that it's better not to know, rather than to know exactly where people are coming from up-front and factor the source in to judgment of veracity.

That was one of the most insane ideas to have graced these boards recently.

Much better to pretend that CNN anchors have no agenda at all. That way you know it's true... Or something.

|9.17.09 @ 4:52PM|#

Use your air time to explain what are the political ideas that founded America. Review the Constitution, one piece at a time, bringing in historians to provide the context for its wording and purposes, other academics to bring out the intent of the founders via the Federalist Papers and other contemporary sources. Make it come alive for people, as today's youngsters have no knowledge of American history. My youngest granson, a high school senior, and I were talking about his government class and I realized that he never heard of the Reconstruction period or the military occupation of the southern states that followed the Civil War. History, real stuff not faked "reality" nonsense; discussions of how various nations went from democratic republics to tyrannies including Germany particularly. Political philosophies and their real life consequences. How the U.S. Constitution has been violated and ignored practically since its ratification. How the states' governments need to reminded of the limits on their authority too. Many things. Good luck!

Chad|9.17.09 @ 5:27PM|#

I am really sad to see you move, John. You are now contributing to what I consider one of the great dangers to our democracy - the increased balkanization and insularity of our media sources. You were doing far more good as a square peg at ABC than yet another preacher to the choir at FOX.

|9.17.09 @ 5:37PM|#

John: I suggest interviewing economist Russel Roberts and Arnold Kling on the origins and evolution of the financial crisis. I am exited for your show.


http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/arnold-and-i-talk-about-the-crisis.html

Deidre|9.17.09 @ 5:42PM|#

Glad to see you move. I am hoping that you will introduce some of the Fox News audience to personal freedom...the stuff that Hannity and O'Reilly tend to forget. Having to choose half liberty from each party is frustrating, which is why I officially pulled the trigger (no pun intended) and joined the Libertarian Party--mostly because of principle, not strength of candidates. (Hopefully, that will change.)

Invite Penn Jillette on the show...always entertaining and insightful.

Yo, Mango Punch...I think the mango has fermented. Your comments fit better with those on HuffPo and Kos.

|9.17.09 @ 6:07PM|#

I've always enjoyed your work but have not seen a lot of you lately as I spend more time watching Fox, MSNBC and CNN than the big 3. So, I look forward to seeing your show - don't dumb it down as someone here posted.

Love the comments that its the stash!

MWG|9.17.09 @ 6:13PM|#

"You were doing far more good as a square peg at ABC than yet another preacher to the choir at FOX."

Yea, because he agrees with guy like Hannity and O'Reilly on everything, right?

|9.17.09 @ 6:18PM|#

I agree with Deidre, Penn Jillette is knowledgeable & witty - he would make an excellent guest.

I find it hilarious that the "sheeple" of this country have such a problem with a solitary voice for libertarian ideas - the thousands of overtly liberal "journalists" out there spreading their propaganda doesn't seem to bother them in the least.

Please keep doing what your doing John - the more haters you accumulate just means you're on the right track!

|9.17.09 @ 6:23PM|#

You are one awesome reporter John. And I will lose all respect for you if you dare conform to the idiotic norms of FoxNews. Keep up your libertarianism!

New word: libertarianism

ed|9.17.09 @ 6:28PM|#

I never thought I'd say it, but Fox--Fox!--has become the most reputable cable-news outlet.
By default, or relative restraint and dignity in these hysterically indignant times, they've crushed the shellshocked lefty competition, leaving them wandering about in a daze, screaming "racist!" at anyone who isn't one of them. It's comical and shocking and fascinating.

|9.17.09 @ 7:16PM|#

Dear John,

You do realize that with limited government and tightly controlled spending, the internet would have never been created. It was originally created by DARPA, a government entity.

You are absolutely hilarious, in your opening paragraphs, talking about stifling the creative process.

Well guess what? In a Libertarian paradise government would have been so highly restricted, the scientists that created the beginnings of the internet would have no funding. Brilliant! Really, you are.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is more ironic than Libertarians posting on the INTERNET about how much they hate government overspending. YOU ARE POSTING ON THE RESULT OF GOVERNMENT OVERSPENDING.

Signed,
Logic and Reason

|9.17.09 @ 7:17PM|#

FTA: "I have been one of the few reporters on mainstream network TV who did not hide his political beliefs"

Therein lies the rub: Once you admit that bias dictates what topics you cover (and how you cover them), then you're not longer a journalist - you're a pundit.

Don't let that happen.

Neu Mejican|9.17.09 @ 7:24PM|#

Don't let that happen.

Ummmm... too late?

|9.17.09 @ 7:31PM|#

Unless I don't remember correctly, the DARPA "internet" was conceived and created with a veiw towards a decentralized communications system in the event of a nuclear attack and that's something the Govt should be spending money on.

abc|9.17.09 @ 7:32PM|#

topic: what has the government got to do with marriage, anyway... whether gay or straight.

hmm|9.17.09 @ 7:35PM|#

New at Reason: John Stossel on Why He's Moving to Fox News

He likes getting a pay check, and ABC may not be able to provide such things in the near future?

Just a guess.

Sex Offender Issues|9.17.09 @ 8:09PM|#

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

I think you should discuss the sex offender laws, issues and ways to actually help people instead of demonizing and ostracizing people.

None of the existing laws actually work at preventing crime or protecting anybody, they are simply a placebo to make everyone feel like they are safe and being protected.

I saw your show about "Age of Consent" and thought it was excellent, and would love to see more along those lines.

You need to speak with true experts in the field and all sides, not just one side and from people who claim to be, or want to be experts.

The recidivism of sex offenders, from most studies, show a LOW recidivism rate, lower than any other criminal, except murderers, yet all we hear on the news and general public is the old sound bites echoed over and over, which are lies and disinformation.

You can contact Mary Duvall at http://sosen.us for a good woman who speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Chad|9.17.09 @ 8:10PM|#

MWG | September 17, 2009, 6:13pm | #
"You were doing far more good as a square peg at ABC than yet another preacher to the choir at FOX."

Yea, because he agrees with guy like Hannity and O'Reilly on everything, right?

Not everything, but most things. And guess which ones FOX will pressure him into talking about. Stossel will lurch FOXward, just like O'Rielly and Beck did. Hannity was already there.

Sean W. Malone|9.17.09 @ 8:14PM|#

"Once you admit that bias dictates what topics you cover (and how you cover them), then you're not longer a journalist - you're a pundit an honest human being who deserves more trust for allowing us to evaluate your positions knowing what your biases are from the outset."

FIFY

taltoris|9.17.09 @ 8:22PM|#

Please please please:

Expose the douchebags on the right as well as on the left. Don't be afraid to butt heads with your colleagues on Fox, either. Especially that jerk Glenn Beck.

|9.17.09 @ 8:30PM|#

John Stossel, Andrew Napolitano... Ok, now there are two reasons to watch Fox.

Best of luck, John.

-jcr

|9.17.09 @ 8:32PM|#

You do realize that with limited government and tightly controlled spending, the internet would have never been created.

It does not follow that because a government-funded organization does something, that it would not happen otherwise. There was quite a bit of private work on networking going on at the same time, and one of the standards would have emerged as the lingua franca eventually. TCP/IP happened to win because DARPA gave it a push.

-jcr

|9.17.09 @ 8:33PM|#

In a Libertarian paradise government would have been so highly restricted, the scientists that created the beginnings of the internet would have no funding.

I'm sure it will surprise you to learn that taxes are not the only way to fund research. We got the telephone, the airplane, the telegraph, and the electric light without government sponsorship.

-jcr

Nick|9.17.09 @ 8:34PM|#

A few have already mentioned it but I say do the first show on the huge government program called empire. Let FOX's viewers know they can't claim to support limited government if they support american empire.

And like taltoris said, it would also be nice to see Stossel have a show where he questions Beck, Hannity, etc. on why they supported big gov't until a democrat was in office? Put them in a position where they have to admit they were wrong then or are hypocrites now.

You do realize that with limited government and tightly controlled spending, the internet would have never been created. It was originally created by DARPA, a government entity.

So, are you saying that if the government didn't hire J. C. R. Licklider, Leonard Kleinrock and Larry Roberts who had already been working with the technologies that would evolve into the internet (prior to DARPA), then they would have given up their research and we would never have had the internet?

Let me guess, you were part of the "Gore 2008" movement.

|9.17.09 @ 8:35PM|#

): If you admit to bias then you're not a journalist.

That's an interesting premise. So, hypocrisy is a job requirement for journalism?

-jcr

Mike Laursen|9.17.09 @ 8:37PM|#

You do realize that with limited government and tightly controlled spending, the internet would have never been created. It was originally created by DARPA, a government entity.

We can thank the government for ARPAnet, but it's a huge stretch to equate it to what the Internet has become today. That required the free market.

Mike Laursen|9.17.09 @ 8:40PM|#

I'll add that I was at UCLA at the time ARPAnet was turning into the Internet, and even taking a class from Leonard Kleinrock, the guy who developed the queueing theory behind TCP/IP. Even so, as a lowly undergrad, I was not allowed to touch this Internet. I had to subscribe to a private ISP to get onto it.

|9.17.09 @ 8:52PM|#

John,
I don't *always* agree with you. I consider myself less a modern libertarian and more a classic liberal. I don't agree with ending the war on drugs, legalized prostitution, or federally mandated rights to unfettered abortions or other medical products. If you're looking for a topic that will irritate *me*, I suppose you could start with those.

Your work on ABC was watchable because it was refreshing. Rush Limbaugh used to say "I don't have to provide equal time, I *am* equal time." Well, on ABC you were equal time as well. You provided a perspective that was contrary to the rest of ABC New's lock-step fare; contrary to the rest of the other networks too. You are the proverbial loose cannon.

I'm glad to see you on Fox News. I used to say that Fox News was essential to getting more than one side of a story. But in the last few months it has become essential to getting ANY side of some stories. Your detractors are right. You'll fit in just great at the only channel left willing to talk about anything and willing to welcome any voice that can hold an audience.

|9.17.09 @ 9:22PM|#

Congrats John. In my opinion, the more airtime you get, the better. I whole-heartedly second the recommendation for getting Stefan Molyneux as a guest. He is by far the most valuable asset the anti-statist movement has ever had and would definitely push a lot of people outside of their comfort zone in examining their political beliefs.

I also think that you have a great opportunity to take on some of the right-wing sacred cows like immigration, the drug war, and "tough on crime" legislation.

POllyatomic|9.17.09 @ 9:52PM|#

Since its fox news, you should make reports on stuff that would piss off your new higher-ups, such as federal drug raids or the PATRIOT act, or even wartime corruption. If you're not making the media establishment mad ( and there really is just one) you aint doing your job

BlueBook|9.17.09 @ 10:31PM|#

My only suggestion would be to do a guest spot on Red Eye. I think Bill Schulz has a soft spot for the big 'staches (Geraldo, Bolton, etc).

|9.17.09 @ 10:44PM|#

Looking forward to your show. Many good ideas here, but learning the basics of liberty stands out as a good one. I can just hear you in that easy style of yours wondering "what has happened to us..."?

Christopher Monnier|9.17.09 @ 10:55PM|#

Stossel should hiit social freedoms (War on Drugs, civil liberties, police brutality, abuse of authority, zoning abuse, etc.) hard to immediately take the wind out of critics who are eager to dismiss him as a conservative. And please book libertarian blog stars such as Radley Balko (especially), Will Wilkinson, Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, Megan McArdle, Julian Sanchez, Tyler Cowen, Other George Mason professors, etc.

I would also LOVE to see the inconsistencies of conservativism and "liberalism" exposed and picked apart.

alan|9.17.09 @ 11:05PM|#

You do realize that with limited government and tightly controlled spending, the internet would have never been created. It was originally created by DARPA, a government entity.

Pretty silly argument. The development of the internet was never that big of a deal as a technical matter compared to the end user devices that it would lead to communication between. It required a great multitude of man hours to develop, without a doubt, but to say that private interest alone could not have accomplished this without government intervention is ludicrous give the vast potential of profitability. No, what stifled communication technology innovation was the monopoly your beloved government gave to Ma Bell and other similar arrangements to defense contractors, academia and just plain crony rent seekers. What is the point of investing in a technology in a field that you by law are not allowed to enter? The break up of Ma Bell, a court action to correct a previous government action, is what precipitated the communications revolution.

Everything you wrote was smug nonsense.

Some Guy|9.17.09 @ 11:31PM|#

Just please don't turn into a joke like Glenn Beck.

Mike|9.17.09 @ 11:39PM|#

- How the two parties stack the deck against the third parties. Most people have no clue that the reason third parties are so far behind isn't because of lack of effort. They're forced to spend huge amounts just to get on the ballot, are kept out of debates, etc.. all due to rules implemented by the two parties.

- A serious look at how votes and ballots are handled in the US. I was floored when I saw what went on in the NH primaries... and then disgusted that nothing became of it.

- Investigation into polling. Polls shift public opinion.. who decides which way that opinion is shifted?

- Don't just complain about the two parties. Get some third party candidates on your show, talk about them, etc. Give them a chance.

- Why did more registered voters stay home on election day 2008 than voted for McCain? What would happen if just half of those people showed up and voted for third party candidates? Why didn't they?

|9.17.09 @ 11:45PM|#

I hope it works out well for you John, but you realize the tough road you're on - you are CONSISTENT. Neither political party likes consistency....which would make an excellent story:
The Conservative Right wants to ban porn, obscenity, and anything they find offensive, but get pissed when the Left wants to ban Huck Finn, prayer in school, and upholds political correctness. So both sides want to ban some form of freedom of speech, and softening the censorship up by claiming, the Right: We need to "protect the children from offensive material," and the Left wants to censor conservative ideas as politically incorrect, and also to "protect the children."

So, sadly, Fox News may ban YOU from reporting stories that THEY don't agree with.

Here are some ideas:
-"Protecting the children." Used to squash so much liberty. Don't we live in an ADULT world, and shouldn't children spend their childhoods getting ready for it, instead of creating babies of all us adults?

-Political correctness, and how it prevents menaingful debates, like race, the battle of the sexes, etc. How it uses FEAR to prevent people from acting normally, like complimenting a woman on her dress....the few women who actually wear dresses in today's world...

-The banning of speech on both sides of the aisle, left and right.

Good Luck with your show, and ignore the critics - everyone I know, Left and Right, religious and athiest, college educated and high school drop outs, loves your news segments!!!
You get people thinking.....maybe you should just start your own news channel!
TLNN - The Libertarian News Network, or RNN, Reason News Network.......

|9.17.09 @ 11:52PM|#

Your greatest value is spurring new thinking in millions of good Joe's and Jane's who have grown up needing to believe that self interest is bad, erego capitalism hurts people. Please continue doing that.

Also, I hope you start your show with direct challenges to neo-conservative guests to explain how government can be the devil here but the savior overseas with nation-building, etc. Fox is the perfect place to challenge the beliefs of conservatives.

|9.18.09 @ 12:04AM|#

Please bring in Tom Woods and others to explain why we need to drive a stake through the heart of the Federal Reserve Bank, burn it, scatter the ashes to the four winds, and salt the ground upon which those ashes happen to fall, lest they sprout again. Well, you get the drift. :)

|9.18.09 @ 12:07AM|#

I don't think it's a good idea, John. You'll lose the most important part of your audience: those who need to hear these ideas, and aren't likely to, elsewhere.

Fox news has earned its reputation as a venue for angry shouting matches--exactly what America needs less of. Because FN folks occasionally support libertarian-ish ideas, your association with the outfit may also increase the frequency with which libertarians (including you) are written off by the unfamiliar as part of the boorish right FN represents.

If you are committed to the move, though, then I wish you luck in raising the tone of the place a notch or two.

Jonas|9.18.09 @ 12:24AM|#

Well, I imagine Mr. Stossel isn't likely to get to my puny little comment down here among all these posts, but topic suggestion for the show is:

Stupid-ass ballot access laws and other restraints on having actually "free" elections.

I mean, elections DO seem to be rigged in favor of Ds and Rs right? And within those parties, in favor of establishment candidates? I'm not the only one who feels this way, I imagine, but for some reason most voters don't seem to get it.

Mike Laursen|9.18.09 @ 12:27AM|#

I think it's going to matter less and less whether you are on ABC or Fox or self-producing. For more and more people, especially anybody under thirty, all that matters is that they can watch your videos on the web, link to them, and comment on them.

Whatever you do, don't kowtow to Fox management. If you get fired or have to leave Fox because they won't let you run stories critical of conservativism, in the long run, you'll gain massive cred and audience. You'd be a hero to many people if you can say you had to leave ABC because you pissed off liberals and Fox because you pissed off conservatives.

Jonas|9.18.09 @ 12:28AM|#

I see Mike a little earlier mentioned ballot access laws...

I also like his idea of featuring third-party spokesmen or candidates sometimes. And not just from the Libertarian Party or like-minded folk. I'm not opposed to crazy left-wingers who aren't Democrats getting some air time even if I disagree with them.

|9.18.09 @ 12:38AM|#

John,

You need to do everything that no one else is doing:

1) Get some legitimate generals/ military officials / CIA personnel to talk about our 'empire.' I think it's remarkably indicative that Ron Paul received more donations from military personnel than any other candidate, right and left. The military isn't adequately represented in our two political parties. There are plenty of generals (and other officers) out there whom retired at the beginning of the Iraq War-- they understood the futility of our actions and how they were politically motivated but still no one talks to these guys.

2) Talk about INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY more and what that really means.... don't focus on economic individual liberty all of the time. Show how it all relates to every aspect of our lives... talk about civil rights (liberties)... I know plenty of minorities (of all types: race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) whom want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, but don't necessarily want a huge gov.'t. Discuss it intellectually

3) Here's where you can have a complete monopoly: talk about the misinformation of our history books in our schools (especially as it relates to events of today). Do investigative work to show the obvious: comprehensive education (comprehensive truths) are an oxymoron of terms.

4) Be an advocate of the largest minority: the individual. Talk about things like illegal immigrants and how we wouldn't be complaining about them if we didn't have a welfare system to stratify our society... how 'secure' borders can never be attained and is only one-directional as it relates to government and our liberties. Talk about the consumer in all fields: education, healthcare, legal fields, and the distortions government makes.

Above all else, maintain a logical, consistent approach in your arguments especially as they apply to the rule of law, and, as a libertarian, as it relates to the theory of non-aggression.

Art-P.O.G.|9.18.09 @ 1:40AM|#

Since I don't think anyone else said it:

I want to break free
I want to break free
I want to break free from your lies
You're so self satisfied
I don't neeeeed

But seriously, you should plug Hugh Akston's "Typical Libertarian".

Alan|9.18.09 @ 3:11AM|#

Book Penn Jillette! I love his show on Showtime, Penn and Teller: BS! I'd love to hear his thoughts on many issues, such as healthcare (and why it shouldn't be in the hands of employers).

Me|9.18.09 @ 3:39AM|#

Good luck, Mr. Stossel, and thank you for the explanation. While I dislike Fox News, I understand the move and would have made the same decision if I were in a similar situation. My only request is that you please give Ron Paul some much-needed airtime.

Alexandra|9.18.09 @ 5:22AM|#

I'd like to see him do something on Global Warming. He could get John Coleman, delve into the amount of money that stands to be made with this theory and in short have a great time while educating people.

Art-P.O.G.|9.18.09 @ 5:56AM|#

Oops, I attributed "Typical Libertarian" to the wrong person. SugarFree gets the credit. I blame filters for blocking my view of the internet at times.

|9.18.09 @ 8:18AM|#

Just keep writing John. Television is for boobs.

|9.18.09 @ 8:59AM|#

What I want to know is where John stood on in regard to the Ron Paul interview never being aired on TV. We all know why it wasn't aired (during the campaign season). Did John even try to take a stand about it? Did he concur? I have generally like Stossel and would like to believe that he was not complicit in the decision to single out Ron Paul as the candidate interview that would not be aired.

invalidname|9.18.09 @ 9:16AM|#

John--

It can't have been easy being a lone libertarian within ABC News. I worked for four years at CNN Headline News in the 90s, and remember being accused of being a pickup-drivin', gun totin' militia yahoo (hardly: I had a Ford Probe and sucked at riflery at summer camp) because I generally disparaged government action to my colleagues. In another incident, when I complained that constantly re-running file video of the ValueJet crash every time we had a story about the company implied that they had unsafe practices, when the crash was ultimately determined to be cargo improperly packed by a shipper, the reply from a senior producer was "yeah, but they treat their employees really badly." So yeah, I get that mainstream journalism is a tough place to believe in freedom.

Still, I think you're too good for Fox News. Their newsgathering facilities seem vaporous at best, and their opinion is not pro-freedom, but rather a rabid sort of nationalism. Their relentless Bush-era pimping of war without purpose, victory, or end did nothing to advance the cause of freedom, and ranting Jesus jihadis like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly do much to set it back.

Good luck, John. You're still going to need it.

Jeff|9.18.09 @ 11:23AM|#

Spend plenty of time distancing yourself from the neocons. Religion, war, drugs, how Fox hurt Ron Paul's campaign, etc. Show everyone the absurd and contradictory ideas most republicans are spouting about liberty. An unbiased show on the tea party would be great! I'd love to see tea party members talking about all of the talk show hosts that they hate (from both sides). The tea party is not something the Republicans manufactured, and hopefully they'll never gain control of it.

|9.18.09 @ 12:04PM|#

Perhaps one of things Stossel could improve upon is his constant questioning of how things are and instead, explain(from his viewpoint)the reasoning for why they are that way and WHY that reasoning is wrong. So much of his reporting is just raising "questions" that aren't really questions. Two of his favorite questions "But why....." and "But is that....." neither of which he ever answers(most of the time). Also his mention of of the FDA holding back drugs is laughable. If anything too often drugs hit the markets without the proper testing, falsified reporting and what is called outcome based testing. And comparing us to Europe is a red herring at best. Citizens in almost all European countries have little recourse for any suffering caused by a drug. Filing suit in Europe is a difficult and often barred effort. Mr. Stossel, perhaps with your libertarian views you could explain that. Also, while explaining that, be sure to point out the fact that in Europe Pharma's reporting protocols are incredibly lax. That's why it's misleading to tell the American public "they've been using it for years in Europe without any problems". YOU WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING OF THE PROBLEMS BECAUSE THAT IS CONSIDERED PROPRIETARY INFORMATION IN EUROPE. Do some research in the legal and ethical aspects of what you question before you trot out your pat simplistic libertarian take on things.

Mike Laursen|9.18.09 @ 1:28PM|#

how Fox hurt Ron Paul's campaign

Umm, let's try not to get Stossel fired before he's even sat through the company values videos on his first day.

|9.18.09 @ 3:15PM|#

fox news is officially not all bad. now, i just hope you'll start reporting on gay marriage, oppression of atheists, ending the drug war, legalizing prostitution, etc. so your bosses there get mad at you, too!

Pigatron|9.18.09 @ 4:13PM|#

Mention, quote from, and possibly play a clip of Milton Friedman in every episode.

kolmogorov |9.18.09 @ 5:44PM|#

Air-time does not equal impact.

While it might be good for him personally, he's going to lose the audience that most needs to hear what he has to say. So far as Big Government Liberals are concerned, he will just have vanished. Half of my liberal friends have even deleted Fox News from their remote.
Now he's just going to be preaching to the choir. While he will no doubt hear a lot more "Amen!" and "Preach on Brother Stossell", no one will become enlightened by that.

Maybe he'll come out against the drug war, maybe he'll make some kind of stand for limits on government authority to imprison people indefinitely on the mere executive suspicion of connection with terrorism, maybe he'll not bang the drums for every war that we could possible get involved in. Maybe he'll take a stand on these and other things that will be a slap in the face to the conservative authoritarians who make up some of Fox News Viewers. If he sticks to his standard economic-libertarian fare, though and dodges the broader ideas of freedom, his impact on the world will be trending sharply towards zero.

Alan|9.18.09 @ 8:55PM|#

Attorney wrote:

"I hope Stossel raises the quality at Fox instead of Fox lowering the quality of Stossel."

I second that. I'm also concerned that with the balkanization of news sources, this move will decrease further the number of people who get a chance to see a dissenting opinion.

That said, best of luck. Yours has been one of the very few sane voices in the mainstream media.

|9.18.09 @ 9:04PM|#

ZZzZZzzzzzzzzz

Mr Stossel I cannot ever take you seriously after reading your hackjob on Canada's health care.

The only way I want to see you on tv again would be as follows, a follow up interview with this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

|9.18.09 @ 9:48PM|#

Hi John! I wish you all the best at FOX. I will be watching you. If you read this blogg, can you focus on your stories like the Canadian Health Care show that the "other" network did not want to show. Can you travel to Europe and ask ordinary people how they deal with their public healthcare system since in most cases were socialised after WWII. Greece is a great example of how the system "really" works. It is so corrupt!And Alex Giannoulis can take you to his village. That will be great!
Happy Rosh Hassanah!

|9.18.09 @ 10:38PM|#

I'm not sure if anyone has already mentioned this - but I would love to have a real, intellectual debate about the economics of the health care plans under consideration. Not this bs about death panels and abortion funding, but a real analysis about insurance company competition (does it exist or not? how do state laws play a role?) and the effects of forcing people to buy insurance when they choose not to have it. Looking forward to seeing your new show!

|9.19.09 @ 12:36AM|#

"Have Walter Williams on every show. Actually, co-host your show with him."





I second that!!!

|9.19.09 @ 7:19AM|#

Not sure where else to post this, but the RSS feed for John on Reason.com seems to be broken. I get a feed code error about an invalid character in the XML somewhere.

Jeremy|9.19.09 @ 10:46AM|#

The downside to this move is revealed by the liberal quoted in the article:

"You are intelectually (sic) dishonest and a hack. I'm glad I won't stumble upon your sloppy one sided reporting ever again."

By moving to FOX, Mr. Stossel will now be in danger of preaching to the choir. I would hope that Mr. Stossel will continue to be annoy both his manangement and his viewers. When a reporter challenges pre-held assumptions of his audience, right or wrong, it causes people to think and re-evaluate those assumptions.

Being on FOX news will make life easier, no doubt. Hopefully, we will see shows that not only confirm what many FOX News viewers already know, but challenge some of the things that they think they know.

tomllewis|9.19.09 @ 10:10PM|#

Glad you're moving.

I hope you'll do stories/interviews on Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson.

|9.20.09 @ 8:15AM|#

Take your first swing at something the right adores: the war on drugs, nation-building, christian supremacy, abortion. Establish that you're not a right-wing hack and I'll watch it like it's the Superbowl.

wayne|9.20.09 @ 7:34PM|#

How about doing a show that explains the corrosive, corrupting influence of the forfeiture laws: local police get to keep a substantial portion of what they seize from citizens, this gives them a tremendous incentive to become armed robbers. The proof of this outcome is amply demonstrated by literally hundreds of bungled SWAT-style raids. Balko can provide you with a database of incidents big enough to keep you busy for years.

|9.20.09 @ 11:07PM|#

Here's a suggestion for topic: How about exposing the lie of "second hand smoke danger". You can start with the statement "there is no risk-free level of second hand smoke", how this statement is a scientific impossibility and how this statement only exists on Surgeon General Carmona's press release for the 2006 SG report but is NOT stated or even arrived at in any shape or form in the actual report itself (god forbid anyone actually read it) and how local and state governments throughout the world have used this lie to ban a legal activity in privately owned businesses, near private businesses and, in some places in California, in people's homes.

Then you can expand on this topic by examining tobacco controls efforts to destroy tobacco users by, for example, persuading companies to fire anyone who uses these products, even on their own time, and exposing the sheer amount of money tobacco control spends on their efforts and earns for their efforts from big pharma - who are looking to expand the market for their stop smoking drugs.

Of course, Fox news also makes a lot of money from big pharma sponsors, so you might have trouble breaking this story there too.

Tim|9.21.09 @ 2:52AM|#

John, you often challenge regulation as holding back innovation in the name of opposing government intervention when in fact it seems like the only victims you could be defending are major corporations even if you don't say so outright. And these big corps benefit greatly from government tax breaks (which would be great if it wasn't that only them that were eligible), subsidies and in fact regulatory capture. They are in no way an example of the free market. You play right into their hands by supporting the arguments they use to insure regulation actually protects and supports their power and holds back real innovation in smaller companies. It is why people, often libertarians, get mad at you and why frankly you are called a corporate shill. I would do stories on regulation that is clearly benefiting small innovative companies. I would do stories on how subsidies, tax breaks and regulatory capture benefits corporations. I would start with defense companies, oil and nuclear energy companies, and agriculture companies. You've done stories that helped with their PR and hurt small companies, how about you show how they thrive on government intervention and really do something to help if you aren't the phony people accuse you of being.

ktc2|9.21.09 @ 11:52AM|#

Something on this would be fantastic:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/there-is-fury-and-and-sadness-inside.html

Did you know that your child is more likely to be branded a sex offender for life for consentual teenage experimenting than to actually be the victim of a sex offender?

|9.21.09 @ 9:35PM|#

Anyone interested (including Mr. Stossel) should read a book by Bob Altemeyer called "The Authoritarians". It is kind of difficult to find, but cheap. Mr. Altemeyer did experiments with college students proving that the vast majority of people will do whatever they think their peers approve of, regardless of how it may ultimately harm all of them. This is how government has become the leviathan it has: Most people think it's cool to use everyone else's money to pay for their favorite government projects. If you found 1984 scary, just wait until you read this.

Tostitos|9.22.09 @ 6:03PM|#

God dammit, this ruins your legitimacy in a way. People tend to write off Fox News as a bunch of batshit lunatics, and now the second anybody finds out the guy I'm talking about is from big bad Fox News nobody will take you or me seriously.

Tim Cavanaugh|9.22.09 @ 6:14PM|#

The fact that Stossel was able to survive 28 years in hostile enemy territory is nothing short of remarkable.

Though I think the biases and dishonesty of the MSM are even deeper and less curable than critics know, Stossel's long tenure shows that it is possible to survive in that environment. The unconscious biases are what make the MSM so dull and predictable (which for my money is their real sin), but they do make an effort to avoid conscious suppression of opposing views.

|9.25.09 @ 1:20AM|#

Hi John,

As topics go, you could consider
-damage done: money, markets, and the federal reserve
-eminent domain
-the cult over the president (what we've done to our constitution)
-bail-outs and similar incentive programs and how these harm the free market
-why the government needs to let go of schools and health care
-US as world police and why such policies of intervention are destructive

that's it for starters

|9.25.09 @ 1:35AM|#

You should definitely co-host with Walter Williams and other GMU faculty.

Paul|10.2.09 @ 6:00AM|#

John, show people what being a libertarian really means! A few years back no one had any idea, now they just think we're nuts. We need a role model in the mainstream - someone who is calm, reasonable, principled, fair, and informed. You!

Show how both political parties have gone very wrong. Show what the Fed is doing and how they force average Americans to be speculators just to try to maintain their wealth. Show what wealth is. Explain how the invisible had works. Show the fantastic advancements this country has achieved, and show why. Show how government meddling has ruined the economy, and how the free market has not been allowed to function for generations. Debunk the myths and lies. Tell about Reason and Mises. Promote the classic literature (I'm just now reading Economics in One Lesson, written before I was born, and astoundingly relevant today)

Bring on smart, funny people - PJ O'Rourke, Penn Teller, Nick Gillespie, more.

I can't wait!

Paul|10.2.09 @ 6:11AM|#

To all who think Fox News viewers don't need to hear John: I couldn't disagree more! There is a two party system in the US - you won't see a libertarian in the White House in your lifetime. The way to get libertarian ideas implemented is to get Republicans to embrace them (again). The Democrats are completely beyond hope. Really.