Media

Breaking: John Stossel Isn't That Kind of Journalist

|

Peppy, annoying, unfunny MSNBC host Rachel Maddow continues her strange jihad against Americans For Prosperity (she is obsessed with the laissez-faire Bilderbergers who fund the group), this time denouncing Reason columnist and former 20/20 host John Stossel for fronting "anti-health reform rallies" while simultaneously working at the Fox Business Channel (his opposition to "reform," of course, is Maddow's loaded word, and one which she uses about 300 times in this two minute segment). And while such activities are not illegal, says Maddow, publicly taking a position in the health debate is "not what's called news in this country."

Well, no it isn't. But this is either a deeply lazy or deeply dishonest conflation of the type of opinion journalism practiced by people like Stossel—or Maddow—and that of, say, the New York Times. In her attempt to prove a grand conspiracy—David Koch, AFP, a mystery donor, Fox Business—Maddow overlooks the fact that Stossel hasn't, for as long as I can recall, been a straight newsman, but a mustachioed libertarian who writes a syndicated column (of opinion!), pitches free market solutions in classrooms, and provides his I-hate-reform-and-poor-people opinions for a hefty speaking fee:

Update: A former Stossel employee mails: "Maybe I'm a tad sensitive when it comes to my former boss, but as long as I've know him, it's been Stossel's policy to donate his hefty speaking fees to charity."

Advertisement

NEXT: No Thanks, Net Nannies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That’s what I love about the Free Market. It gives you a choice of annoying and unfunny television personalities to hate.

  2. “It’s not what’s called “news” in this country”. 😀

  3. Doo Lobbs, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are pretty much unwatchable, and Limbaugh’s pretty much unlistenable.

    1. Limaugh, unlistenable? Its not like he stammers. Its not like he is plagued by aposiopesis. Its not like he is not entertaining.

      Compare his communication skills with those of Obama. One has a propensity to stammer and employ nauseating fillers like ah…ah….ah…. and you know.. ah…you know. The guy that is smooth does not have an Ivy education-heck he is not even a college graduate. One guy focuses on his race-the other does not.

  4. I don’t get the appeal of Maddow. It must be the smirking.

    1. OMG! She’s a lesbian! And so hawt!

      1. That’s about the only possible reason, so it must be her pussymunching ways. Against my better judgment I went ahead and watched her, makes you want to throw shit at the computer screen in about 12 sec.

      2. hawt? She looks like Wesley Crusher, and not the good looking one on big bang last week.

      3. My eyes!

        http://nymag.com/news/media/51822/index2.html

        All I can say is they scrubbed her up good for MSNBC based on that old pic of her and her squeeze.

        1. I nearly spit my coffee at that one!
          The first time I saw her show, I thought it was a REALLY bad take-off on the Daily Show, but then I realized that she is “supposed” to be taken seriously!

        2. That’s a man baby. No way is that a woman.

        3. It’s a man, man!

    2. I don’t get the appeal of Maddow.

      What appeal? I think that Red Eye is pulling more viewers at 3:00 A.M. than Maddow is getting in prime time.

      1. Well any appeal would be the typical lily white urban liberal echo chamber types.

        1. She had some appeal when Bush was still in power….but she’s got a bigger mancrush on Obama than Chris Matthews.

          Its been kind of sad to see her turn into just another frothing partisan hack.

          Ever since she got caught up in the health insurance derangement syndrome she’s been pretty much unwatchable, because that’s all she’s had to talk about for MONTHS.

      2. LOL – it’s a matter of quality. Red Eye is a funny show with interesting guests – luckily on the West Coast it’s on at midnight, so I can watch at least some of it. MadCow’s show is kind of like a far left version of Hannity’s show. I dislike both of these folks, frankly. Neither of them are very bright, and whats worse, they aren’t interesting. Love him or hate him, at least Glenn Beck holds my interest……

  5. If you can’t counter the massage, smear the messenger.

    FTR, change ? reform.

    1. J sub, your massages sound dangerous. And messy.

      1. He’s a Navy guy. What do you expect? They do everything… ahem…. wet.

        1. Including your sister. She get’s extremely wet. 😉

          1. Whaddya got in trade?

  6. Does Ray-Ray think if she says “dangers of government-forced health reform” like a pirate, it becomes less true? More funny? Talking like a pirate has its place, but doing so does not constitute making a salient point.

    1. Yeah, she might as well break out costumes, props and skits.

      1. My bad, that’s not what we call news in this country.

        1. Sounds more like what we call demonstrations in this country.

  7. My health is pretty good right now. I don’t think I want it reformed.

  8. Is it just me, or are the only people who seem to find this “so-and-so is/isn’t a real journalist” stuff interesting other journalists and quasi-journalists?

    1. No, you’re right. I think it would be funny as hell if half the news cycle were eventually taken up with news about other journalists and news agencies.

      1. Yeah. Who gives a shit? Somebody either writes well, makes sense, and is trustworthy, or s/he doesn’t/isn’t. I don’t care if s/he’s labeled a journalist, entertainer, blogger, or nutjob.

          1. +1, and I’m a journalist/writer for a living.

    2. Nah, I’m always up to watch a good, bitchy cat-fight, even when I don’t know the personalities involved.

  9. I guess I give Reason a pass on this sort of thing because I don’t watch any of the news networks more than about 30 minutes a month.

    1. I am in more or less the same position. Reason is the only reason I know anything about what is on cable news. I probably haven’t seen 30 minutes of it in the past year.

    2. Same here. Life’s too short for that kind of pain. I give cable news exactly 0 minutes of my life every month. It’s wonderful.

      1. I don’t even have a TV, look at me! I wonder how many people get their TV news in meta ways. I wouldn’t know who Keith Olberman was if he came up to me and slapped me with a tax summons.

        1. You are the WORST PERSON ON THE PLANET!!1!!1!

  10. That bitch is pure man repellent. Straight man repellent anyway. I need to use the eye-wash now.

  11. Did anybody ever see Maddow on Tucker’s old show? I always felt she was pretty respectable back then(even if I disagreed with her). Makes me wonder if getting your own show just turns off any self-censoring or if the network higher ups simply encouraged her to start talking like a dogmatic asshole.

    1. Good question…

    2. Me too. I miss the olden days.

      1. well, what gets eyes? being like that. ask glenn beck and his pile of money what being a clown does for your media career.

        1. Funny like a clown? Do I amuse you?!

    3. yeah, i used to like that show and her on it. tucker and her had a interesting dynamic in that they seemed to like each other but were so different…pretty soon after she got her own show she became sooo annoying. i think jon stewart has influenced everybody into making exaggerated faces and smirking.

    4. It’s a result of the guys running G.E., they consciously decided a while back to go in the direction of appealing to the Nutroots-type loony left.

      Chris Matthews, while always liberal-leaning, also used to be a pretty straightforward news analyst, and they’ve made him into a nut as well.

    5. With Olbermann as a mentor, she had to turn out this way.
      I assume her core audience has some S&M issues.

    6. I think it had everything to do with who was in power at the time.

      She had some cogent points to make about Bush’s abuses of power. Obama’s abuses of power just make her feel all tingly.

    7. Carlson and Maddow used to have good, nuanced debates. Neither of them seemed overly partisan, and Maddow seemed respectable even when I disagreed with her. Yeah, that show had to go.

  12. …a mustachioed libertarian who writes a syndicated column (of opinion!)…

    …which is reprinted on–WND! Bwahahahaha!!!

    (I really hope that it wasn’t his idea.)

  13. hefty speaking free

    I think you mean fee there.

    1. Unless you were going Asian accent, then my bad.

    2. 30-50 Large? Definitely not free.

  14. I’m so tired of the media abusing words the way they do. It ain’t reform. And the opposition to the bills isn’t anti-reform. It’s opposition to the government taking yet more (and perhaps total) control of healthcare.

    Everyone on both sides of this debate knows it–why can’t the media just put it out there? Oh, because if they said it, then a large number of people would rise up in opposition.

    That’s the Fourth Estate’s role, right? To distort the truth and to help the government do it, too? Or am I confused?

  15. I’m pretty sure the difference is that Maddow isn’t getting paid to shill for fake grass roots events. Understand now?

    1. You mean she does it for free? How does that make it better?

      1. What fake grass roots event is Maddow doing for free?

        Moron.

        1. Uh, have you watched her show in the past 8 months?

          All she’s talked about is how the masses are clamoring for Obamacare, and that anybody who shows up at an opposition rally is a paid shill.

          1. Except a clear majority does want the public option, and these events ARE hosted by conservative organizations and publicized on FOX.

            Truth hurts, don’t it?

            1. Actually the last poll had the public option at 48%-42%, which is hardly a “clear majority”. No matter how many times you tell yourselves that everyone in the country wants universal health care, it simply isn’t true.

              1. http://media3.washingtonpost.c…..000148.gif

                And the public option is hardly universal health care. Dumbass.

                1. According to Michael Moore it, apparantly is.

                  Also …
                  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123…..tails.aspx

                  My bad … it was 50%-46%

            2. A clear majority wants the public option only when you cherry pick the polls.

              Let me let you in on a little secret: “So far, spending in favor of Democratic reform plans ($17.4 million) has dwarfed spending on outright opposition ($8.1 million), according to CMAG”

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..9080403704

              So who exactly is representing the “moneyed interests” again? Maddow, who works for a subsidiary of GE, a major manufacturer of medical equipment, is not exactly an impartial bystander.

              Oh, and look: Max Baucus’ chief of staff just went to work for GE Healthcare as its chief lobbyist!
              http://www.washingtonexaminer……58727.html

              So what’s that truth you were talking about, again?

              1. First MM = idiot. He thinks democracy is an economic systme. Nuff said.

                Secondly, I’m going to consider any politician who supports this plan to have been bought off by special “monied” interests (whatever that meants.)

            3. Uh, I’m sure the polls would show that a “clear majority” want $1M dollars checks cut in their name, a free home and car, as well.

              That doesn’t make it a good or sound idea.

    2. Nah, she’s just getting paid to shill for the brain-dead, cradle-to-grave welfare-queen, nanny state mentality that’s ruining this country.

      1. No, what’s ruining this country are people who have to believe the worst about other people in order to justify their sad-ass ideology.

        1. Oh, so you’re referring to the progressives who think that the government has to steal the money from your pocket to make you help the poor. I understand now what you mean by “people who have to believe the worst about other people in order to justify their sad-ass ideology”. Thanks for the clarification.

          1. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            1. Check and mate. Well done, Rimfax!

              1. Holy Christ, you’re all stupid. Yiiiikes.

                1. Let me help you out here:

                  Which is a more misanthropic worldview:

                  Strong governments are needed to prevent people from making poor choices for themselves, and to provide for people who would otherwise be destitute because of the lack of caring of their fellow human beings.

                  Or…

                  Individuals are the best equipped to make decisions about their own lives and they should be free to make the choices that they wish, and nobody should be compelled to engage in interactions that they do not wish to.

                  Which of those would constitute “believ[ing] the worst about other people in order to justify their sad-ass ideology”?

        2. Right, you mean like believing that Stossel is a paid shill for fake-gassroots rallies.

          Case closed.

        3. Oh, you mean liberals, who can’t seem to believe that we the people could take care of ourselves by saving for medical care or retirement?

  16. Wow. LiberTARDian sucks even by the low standards for trolls around here. Fuck off, dipshit.

    1. Speaking of which, did anon-guy finally get the banhammer? Because I’d take anon-guy over about 80% of H&R trolls, historically speaking.

    2. If I’m a troll, what does that make someone who replies to them with “fuck off, dipshit”?

      1. A responsible commenter, dipshit.

        1. Good to know, fuckface.

          1. I get it now. The “Tard” in LiberTardian is a commentary on yourself. Its like performance art. I get it.

  17. Naw, Art, he made a couple appearances earlier today, then wandered off to get smacked up in some dingy alley.

    1. Ah, that’s our anon-guy!

  18. Ignore Edward/Morris/Lefiti/LiberTARDian

  19. “Maybe I’m a tad sensitive when it comes to my former boss, but as long as I’ve know him, it’s been Stossel’s policy to donate his hefty speaking fees to charity.”

    On a libertarian website, that’s not considered a point in Stossel’s favor.

    Keep your earnings, John! Selfishness is a virtue!

    1. *Sigh* Thanks a lot, Ayn Rand.

    2. Keep your earnings, John! Selfishness is a virtue!

      If that’s the case, maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea then to refer to them as “earnings”.

    3. On a libertarian website, that’s not considered a point in Stossel’s favor.

      Your understanding of Libertarianism runs deep.

      1. I’m pretty sure Abdul’s being facetious.

    4. Hey, with a mustache like that, do you really need money anymore?

    5. No, dumbass. Most libertarians would agree generosity with your own money is a virtue. Generosity with your neighbor’s money is what they object to.

    6. You confusing Objectivism (a personal ethos that promotes selfishness), with Libertarianism (a political philosophy that promotes individual liberty).

      Objectivists are usually libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists.

      For one thing, there are christian libertarians and pagan libertarians, which objectivists would despise both of.

      1. Art-POG nalied it. I’m joking about the impressions others have about libertarians.

        But i think we can all agree, if someone’s willing to pay John big money for speech, there’s nothing wrong with him keeping it, or buying arabian stallions with it, or swimming in a Scrooge McDuck vault.

  20. As Art pointed out, Abdul was almost certainly being sarcastic, pointing out those who conflate Objectivism with libertarianism.

    1. I actually feel guilty for not ending my previous comment with a “;)”. (I knew that he wasn’t being serious, but I was in too much of a hurry, so….)

  21. …for fronting “anti-health reform rallies” while simultaneously working at the Fox Business Channel…

    She is actually criticizing Stossel’s outspoken efforts to reform the beleaguered anti-health movement.

  22. Is Moynihan Reason’s biggest whore?

    1. Is Ray Butlers Reason’s biggest troll?

    2. Wait, Moynihan is your mom? I thought he was a guy.

  23. I’ve always thought Katie Couric and Rachel Maddow should co-host a “news” show. The lightweight combination of peppy and perky vs. peppy and mind-numbingly obnoxious could be the type of trainwreck people actually tune in to watch.

    1. Plus, they might kiss!

      1. Lesbian kisses aren’t hot if one of them looks like a dude.

  24. Rachel Maddow having a news show only proves it isn’t professional sports that have overly diluted the talent pool in pursuit of expansion.

  25. You’ve got to love how the lion’s share of comments here are about Rachel’s looks or sexual orientation.

    This place might as well be Free Republic.

    1. phooey: not a single person has mentioned dhimmitude.

    2. Yes….it’s so wonderful that you are here to elevate the conversation!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.