The Quislings of Fox


Politico's Daniel Libit has an interesting piece on those liberal quislings appearing regularly on Fox News. Some, like former White House counsel Lanny Davis, see Fox as more willing to do battle with ideological opposites; other simply can't turn down an opportunity to reach such a large audience, like Democratic consultant Liz Chadderdon:

"It sucks," says Democratic direct-mail consultant Liz Chadderdon, a regular on the network. "It is very, very tough to be a Democrat on Fox."

During an October 2007 hit on "The Factor," Chadderdon referred to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as "victims." It was a verbal faux pas, and she knew it. But no sooner did she get off the air than she received a death threat — the first of a handful she says she's received after appearing on Bill O'Reilly's Fox show.

More recently, Chadderdon has been invited to talk business with Fox's Neil Cavuto — on the main network and on the two-year-old Fox Business Network — even though she readily admits that she has no background in economics.

"Speaking about those issues is not my forte," said Chadderdon. "And I'm getting the tar kicked out of me."

So why does she keep doing it? For pretty much the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Fox is where the viewers are — No. 1 in the prime-time news ratings and drawing more than twice as many viewers on weeknights as either MSNBC or CNN.

This gets to the heart of an often-repeated complaint of liberal media critics: While Fox might periodically have left-leaning guests, unlike MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, they are typically ideological squishes, embarrassingly outmatched (like Chadderdon, who is clearly unqualified to discuss economic issues), or simply out numbered. There is something to this, of course, though I always bristled at criticism of Alan Colmes as the left's spineless, intellectually timid, Uncle Tom figure. He has always struck me as far smarter and a far more impressive polemicist than Sean Hannity. But the same is obviously true of places like MSNBC, who feature one heterodox Republican (Joe Scarborough) that frequently denounces conservatives as nutters and one Republican (Pat Buchanan) that consistently proves his point.

But it isn't only unknown quantities like Chadderdon willing to swallow their pride appear on the Lord Haw-Haw Traitor Hour. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, who recently told Meet the Press host David Gregory that Fox was quite obviously an arm of the Republican Party, will be promoting his book on the Greta van Susteren this week. From Swampland:

President Barack Obama, whose election campaign is chronicled in Plouffe's book, has cut FOX out of his own recent network news appearances, with White House aides dismissing FOX as an arm of the GOP. (Though a FOX executive dropped in at the West Wing last week to see about ironing some wrinkles out of the relationship.)

Yet, although author Plouffe made an appearance on NBC News' Meet the Press over the weekend, where he spoke of the " some of the irresponsibility coming out of that (FOX) network" and called it a "24-hour propaganda channel" for the McCain campaign, The Swamp has learned that Plouffe stands ready for some book promotion Thursday night on FOX's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.

For whatever complaints that Plouffe has about FOX, it appears, Van Susteren's regular audience of about 2 million viewers— that was her average draw in October—is too much to resist in an inevitable book promotional tour of the networks. The Swamp inquired this morning, and FOX confirmed that Plouffe will be on Thursday night.

NEXT: Tyranny of the Minority

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I always bristled at criticism of Alan Colmes as the left’s spineless, intellectually timid, Uncle Tom figure. He has always struck me as far smarter and a far more impressive polemicist more like a human than Sean Hannity.

    You’re welcome.

    1. If you’ve confused Alan Colmes with a human, you must be using a Braille keyboard.

    2. others simply can’t turn down an opportunity

  2. If you’re going to stand on a street corner and mutter, it might as well be a street corner where people will hear you.

  3. He [Alan Colmes] has always struck me as far smarter and a far more impressive polemicist than Sean Hannity.

    That ain’t sayin’ much – ANYONE can be a better polemicist than Sean Hannity. The guy simply does not know how to debate, his good intentions notwithstanding.

  4. Since we can all concede that I am a great patriot, you must be a socialist or a communist?

    Which one are you?

    Just answer the question!

  5. A lot of the guests I’ve seen on Cavuto aren’t economic or business based. With that said the people you mentioned are probably backups for when they can’t get the first or second choice in a seat. All teh news shows and news networks do it. Such is the curse of a shorter news cycle, greater demand for asses in seats to provide anything even remotely opposite to the view given.

  6. Moynihan can’t hold Buchanan’s intellectual jock strap. Only a “nutter” would think or say otherwise.

    1. I agree that Buchanan is brilliant, and is an extremely articulate anti-semite, which is probably why he is so welcome at MSNBC. They see it as a way to make the right look bad. He is in the same class as the Pat Robertson’s and the Jerry Falwell’s of the world. Whenever the left-wing media wants to make the Religious Right look bad, they interview(ed) those idiots, as they are sure to get a quote about how the gays caused earthquakes somewhere.

      I would disagree with this article’s characterization of Buchanan as a Republican. I don’t think he has called himself that in a while, and as we, and the idiots who couldn’t follow a black line on a ballot, know he ran as something else in 2000.

      1. Didn’t he work for Richard Nixon too?

  7. Kinda curious why you spun the article the way you did.

    These paragraphs seem to have a slightly less Faux News approach to the subject. God forbid they might even be partisan people complementing Fox.

    “They are the most professional network of any I have dealt with,” he said. “If you are a Democrat who wants to deliver mindless talking points on Fox, it’s probably best to go to MSBNC and hope you get a chance to recite them. I think Fox encourages critical views of all sides, asks different kinds of questions and wants to have diversity of view.”

    Beckel believes Fox viewers are more open to the Democratic side of the story than stereotypes might suggest. And indeed, a 2008 Pew Research survey found that while almost half of viewers who regularly watch Fox News identify as Republican or Republican leaning, 39 percent tip Democratic and 12 percent have no stated angle at all.

    I fear you have fallen to the Faux Flu. Even the original article managed at least a slightly less partisan view.

    1. Of course, that quote comes from an employee of Fox. He may be a liberal, but you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

      1. On air talent are contracted and not employees per se. The larger name talent are actually companies contracted by Fox representing individuals. I’ll bet early termination of the contract on Fox’s part probably costs more than enough to feed for a while.

        The lower level contracts are probably pretty loose, but the bigger name contributors I’m gonna bet are pretty tight.

  8. I still can’t figure why they dropped Marc Lamont Hill. Sure, he’s a lefty liberal Commie pinko subversive, but he’s also intelligent, funny and a helluva lot better looking than most Fox news males.

  9. A major network channel with a strong conservative bent will rally a large number of viewers. It’s to be expected. Where else are Republicans going to get their news? If the broadcast world reversed itself, and became a sea of conservatism with an island of liberalism, where would you find all the liberals? That’s right, huddled on the one island.

  10. While Fox might periodically have left-leaning guests, unlike MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, they are typically ideological squishes, embarrassingly outmatched (like Chadderdon, who is clearly unqualified to discuss economic issues), or simply out numbered.

    I’ve always felt this way about CNN, or, for example, The New York Times. Their editorial page has people like David Brooks posing as a conservative on it, along side partisan shrills like Maureen Dowd, who seems to exist merely to make Thomas Friedman look smarter.

    1. David Brooks is leagues above Friedman or Dowd. Dowd is laughable.

      Like him or not Brooks is no “lightweight.”

      1. I’m mind-boggled that you consider Brooks “no lightweight”.

    2. David Brooks poses as a conservative? I thought he always came across as what passes for a moderate among Democrats.

      1. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Brooks is presented as a conservative.

      2. Yeah Prole, he was an editor of the Weekly Standard from its inception, the guy is a “fake” conservative…

        1. Most people that I know on the right consider Brooks a moderate, and that is certainly the case on most of the major right wing blogs. The guy supported Obama for Christ sake.

        2. Everybody knows real conservatives drool over Obama’s pants leg.

      3. Well he is a moderate. He believes that the President was born in Hawaii and doesn’t believe that the Earth is 5000 years old.

        1. I hate to break it to you, but I’ve never met anyone who believes the earth is 5000 years old.

          Since no one has clearly stated where Obama was born, and there is nothing at all wrong with being a skeptic, why the hate?

    3. Don’t forget Bill Kristol is also a resident of the NYT’s opinion writers swamp. That’s the NYT’s idea of balance, I guess: a bunch of die-hard liberals who want to grow government on the one side, and a couple of die-hard neocons* who want to grow government on the other side.

      * I mean this in the sense of the original meaningful definition, not as the epithet that the word has become.

      1. Tulpa, Bill Kristol was dropped from the NY Times’ Op-Ed pages in very public (and snippy) fashion last year. He’s no longer part of their stable.

  11. Actually the best forum for intelligent commentary of all stripes, IMHO, is actually C-SPAN. I’m still amazed that channel even exists. They’ll actually do things like an hour-long panel with academic economists as the guests instead of pundits.

    1. C-Span is awesome.

    2. They’ll actually do things like an hour-long panel with academic economists as the guests instead of pundits.

      But that takes all the “Jerry Springer” out of the debate.

    3. Yeah, I bet they get some awesome ratings too.

      1. If only there were more hot, young, female academic econmists, wiling to show a little cleavage for the sake of their profession.

    4. They had an hour with Bob fuckin’ Higgs! Some of the douchebags who called in made me want to cry for humanity.

  12. If any of the “MSM” networks showed a tenth of the bias regularly demonstrated by Fox conservatives would shit a golden brick. It’s hilarious to suggest that CNN, CBS, etc., have an equivalent bias…Anderson Cooper or Katie Couric are liberals, there is no doubt about this imo, but does anyone seriously contend they are as unobjective as their Fox counterparts (Hannity, O’Reilly, etc)? Come on!

    1. Yes MNG… yes I do.

      1. Then bring it Mr. Pusswillow. I mean really, show your work. Or even your conclusions…

    2. Come on!

      For some reason, I heard this in a GOB voice.

    3. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Hannity and O’Reilly do opinion shows on a cable network. Couric is the anchor of a hard news show on CBS. She’s supposed to be unbiased, at least ostensibly. But she isn’t. Not even close. So the answer to your question is yes.

      1. So you don’t have anything comparable to the right wing bloc every night on Fox? OK, thanks for playing!

        1. I think the comparable opinion hosts you’re looking for would be Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews and, for nostalgia’s sake, Donahue.

          1. So the mainstream media became incorrigibly liberally biased right about the moment MSNBC decided to make its primetime liberal?

            Or haven’t we been hearing about this for decades?

            1. The pretense of objective reporting is primarily a mid-20th century affectation. The press lined up with the “progressives” back when they were still unashamedly demanding mandatory sterilization of the untermenschen, and followed the meddling class from the Republicans to the Democrats as Wilson (the only president who was actually a member of the KKK) laid out his “make the world safe for American Hegemony” plan.

              Most of the press stayed with various flavors of the mercantlist/fascist/pinko power-grubbing scumbags through FDR’s overthrow of the remnants of the constitution, Johnson’s “war on poverty” (which was in fact war on the aspirations of poor people to someday liberate themselves from government dependency), right up through Obama’s rehash of FDR’s Keynesian debacle.


            2. Exactly Tony. Those conservatives have been complaining about MSM liberal bias for years and it obviously wasn’t true

              Dan Rather

      2. Yeah Quibbler and Brit Hume is a model of objective journalism! But again, do the MSM outlets have ANYTHING like the “opinion” prime time bloc? What’s thathey don’t? Oh my! Come again, you’re an idiot? Well, I agree!

        1. MSNBC has tried to knock-off Fox from the lunatic left perspective, but nobody is watching.

          1. People are leaving, not just not watching.

        2. You’re comparing broadcast networks, which have like 2 hours of news content per day, with a 24 hour news channel. Apples and oranges.

          And I note you appear to be avoiding the comparison with MSNBC or CNN, which would be a more valid one.

        3. Yeah Quibbler and Brit Hume is a model of objective journalism!

          He’s actually pretty good. If you don’t think so, maybe you should — as you’re fond of saying — “show your work.”

    4. IMO, Hannity, O’Reilly and Beck are not the counterparts of Cooper and Couric.

      The difference is that Hannity, O’Reilly and Beck don’t represent themselves as unbiased newsreaders. They’re pretty upfront with the fact that their show commentary and opinion. Beck openly admits that he’s a rodeo clown, not a journalist.

      Fox’s newsreaders are the counterparts of Cooper and Couric. They are so bland that I can’t recall any of their names (though the female newsreaders are pretty attractive), but I don’t watch TV for news very much.

      1. They are so bland that I can’t recall any of their names (though the female newsreaders are pretty attractive)


    5. “If”? In what world does it appear that the non-Fox MSM TV shows have less than 1/10 of the bias of Fox.

      MSNBC is arguably more biased than Fox, and the other networks aren’t exactly bastions of unbiased objectivity, either.

      1. er, Prole, English is not your second or third language is it?

        If so I will repeat, can you name ANYTHING like the prime time conservative bloc on Fox?

        You can’t? Yeah, well, I knew it…

        1. Maddow, Olberman, The Ed tard.

          What in the hell is so hard to see the similarity between them and Fox’s prime time? Except for the 3 fold ratings raping.

          1. The really really funny part? The guy that is the most hated and absolutely raping MSNBC ratings isn’t even prime time. A show is doubling or tripling the ratings of prime time shows two hours out of prime time. That is pure rapage in TV land. As in raped with a dull chainsaw.

        2. Just a pet peeve… anybody who uses a word like “prole” (or, the even dumber “sheeple”) and thinks they’re being witty… well… they’re not.

          Anyway, yes, like pointed out below Maddow and Olberman. If we want to go beyond tv, Dowd, Krugman when he writes those red meat articles he loves to (ahem, “traitors to the earth” anybody), and Rich (who recently compared people he disagreed with to Stalinists!). And that’s just at the Times!

          Anyway, whadya’ propose we do about it? Follow Venezuela and enact draconian “media reform?” I mean, really, what’s the point here… it is what it is and I think it’s great that there are stages for crazies and non-crazies on both sides. And if you don’t care for it, it’s okay, because there’s a market for news and opinion and you can choose your sources! Or… and, not to be snide, are we afraid that those dumber than you can’t figure things out themselves and have to be protected against such horrible evils like bias…

    6. Yeah, because comparing opinion journalists like Hannity and O’Reilly to Katie Couric is a valid comparison.

    7. Yeah, let’s compare opinionated commentators to network news anchors. Boy, that’s a valid comparison.

    8. I don’t really watch FOX, but I see media bias CONSTANTLY.

      Just for example, I listened to a long discussion on NPR on Sunday, where the ENTIRE PANEL engaged in pop-psychoanalysis of healthcare reform opponents. There was not one single actual opponent of health care reform involved in the disucssion. It was four people in favor of universal health care sitting around discussing what deep seated psychological reactions must be driving those who disagree with them.

    9. Uhh… MNG?

      Hannity and O’Reilly do opinion shows, so by definition, they cannot be unbiased. Also, they do not claim to be journalists.

      Cooper and Couric are journalists.

    10. I contend they are far more biased and subjective than any of their Fox “counterparts” in every way. Fox is where we might even hear about Green Helmet Man, ACORN child-prostitution scandals, “Reverend” G.D. Wright, and of CAIR’s ties to al-Qaeda. We will never hear of such things from the traitors, terrorist appeasers, and 0bama fellators of CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS.

    11. Hannity and O’Reilly aren’t the counterparts of Cooper or Couric. Hannity and O’Reilly are pundits/talking heads. Cooper and Couric are reporters. Give Cooper or Couric a show where they ramble about their opinions, and you’d see a much different side of them. Ditto O’Reilly or Hannity.

  13. Can anyone name me ANY “MSM” outlet, other than MSNBC which has decided to clone Fox, which has ANYTHING like the prime-time conservative bloc???? It’s not even close imo…

    1. That’s because they’ve divided up their market share of liberals. Add them all up, and they’d probably have more total market share than Fox.

      1. C’mon prole, name ANYTHING like that bloc!

        You intellectual you!

        Oh, you’re not an intellectual? Just a partisan hack with more nuance than usual?

        Oh, I’m sorry…

        1. Why are you so angry, MNG?

        2. MNG,

          Does it need to be as extreme as O’Reilly, Hannity, et al. to constitute liberal bias? Just because Rather, Jennings & Cronkite were more subtle doesn’t mean the bias didn’t exist.

          1. Yeah, Cronkite just refused to cover Ed Clark in 1980. Asked backstage why, he said because Libertarians are “Evil.”

    2. What’s your point? Broadcast networks have only 30 minutes in prime time devoted to news. The only valid comparison is with other cable news channels. You cannot just say that MSNBC doesn’t count because only CNN and MSNBC could possibly have a prime-time “liberal” bloc. MSNBC has it, and nobody watches CNN.

    3. How about ALL of them?

      Of course, they’re failing at it, because Fox gets where it is not by its particular style of presentation, but by telling inconvenient truths.

  14. tenth of the bias regularly demonstrated by Fox conservatives would shit a golden brick

    They do and they have. No, not all of them do all the time. I can never find the quote ’cause it’s such a damned good one, but a study showed that NPR had a lot of conservative listeners. Someone responded “No wonder conservatives are so pissed off”

    Either way, I would generally agree that CBS/CNN are not as biased as Fox… but I don’t watch fox, I only know what liberals say about it. Irony? You decide.

    1. Yes, NPR does have lots of conservative listeners. Because (A) it plays classical music and jazz, and (B) it is often one of the only radio stations in a rural area that you can receive clearly. You can be in remote Nevada and still get NPR, and maybe a country music station.

    2. They do. In rural areas, NPR is often one of the few radio stations available. People in rural areas also tend to have to drive more, and also tend to be more conservative.

  15. I wouldn’t call Juan Williams a “squish”; I find him to be an intelligent and thoughtful liberal. But Warren Ballentine called him a “porch monkey” on O’Reilly, at least by implication (“you can go back to porch, Juan”).

    1. Williams is a heayweight, but for the reasons that make the point here: Williams is no Democratic Party operative. He’s very fair and nuanced. Fox loves to have a fair, nuanced liberal face off against a movement conservative.

      1. MNG
        So let me get this straight – liberals are “fair and nuanced” but conservatives are shrills?

        I am kidding you a little b/c Juan does a pretty good job but you are still way over reaching here.

        1. Scarborough has become a fairly nuanced conservative. Of course he used to be a fire-breather, so perhaps he’s just good at his business. I hear Murdoch is starting to feel like FOX is an albatross these days.

        2. I think MNG’s point is having a fair and nuanced liberal and movement conservatives doesn’t count as balance. That’s pretty much the standard conservative critique of the NYT op-ed pages. You have hard core liberals and the conservative (Douthat and Brooks) are nuanced and balanced.

      2. That’s actually SOP for all the news networks, and it works on both sides. Opinion journalist on one side against party operative on the other. The theory is if you put two opion journalists together they tend to be collegial and not argue hard with each other. The last incarnation of “Crossfire” on CNN was a prime exampl conservative journalaist vs. liberal party operative, with Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak going against James Carville and Paul Begals.

        You have a legitimate complaint that that form of debate generates more heat than light. You do not have a legitimate complaint that Fox only does this or that liberal journos are the only ones victimized by such practices.

  16. I would also add, MNG (and feel free to disagree) that Fox’s bias is more up front (or seems that way to me). Where when another outlet does a story and unquestioningly apes an activist press release, talking points or poorly researched opinion, and hands it to us as ‘straight research news as the gatekeeper of democracy’, that just makes me even madder.

    1. Yeah Paul the newtork who’s motto is “Fair and Balanced” is more upfront about their bias…

      1. Ok, I’ll give you points for pedantry on that. But come on, if NPR reports ‘300,000 jobs created or saved this month‘ one more fucking time…

        1. Wrong person Paul, I am a NPR regular and they give an equal amount of time to Obama critics.

          1. NPR’s all I listen to. I’m not sure I’m hearing the same thing.

          2. MNG – please leave leave your bubble and come join us when you are out.

          3. NPR is neutral like bunnies aren’t cute.

      2. I believe the word we’re looking for is more “obvious” about their bias, not “upfront”.

        1. The word we are looking for is NPR with their foolish devotion to objective journalism wants to balance things out, and does. Fox, no such scruples.

          But hey Prole, you’re welcome to introduce this thing called “evidence” to your rantings.

          1. Come on Prole, certainly you can name an NPR bloc equialent to the prime time conservative talk show bloc Fos has?

            What, you can’t?

            What, you’re a pathetic loser dumbass?

            Oh, OK, it’s going to be allright…I meet lots of people like you…It can be fixed with a little info..

            1. MNG,

              Relax. Have a drink.

              1. I think he’s been watching too much of the Factor. He’s certainly screaming like O’Reilly.

          2. And your evidence that NPR, or any of the other biased outlets want to even things out is? Oh, right. You don’t have any because you are a jackass.

        2. Ehrm, would you settle for blatant?

        3. Murdoch has openly stated the station caries his ideals. Hell the liberal media had a fucking field day the last time he said his media try to influence the world. You don’t get more upfront than the guy running the show saying it.

          Find one other station that has management admitting to any bias at all and I’ll eat my left shoe.

  17. Ain’t freedom of the press great?

    1. +1

  18. Fox was a McCain propaganda arm? What was MSNBC then? Well, I guess if Obama actually sent a tingle up Chris Matthews’s leg, then MSNBC was engaging in honest reporting rather than Obama propaganda.

    1. Chris Matthews, get away from my husband!

  19. Personally, I’d love to see a news network solely dedicated to the extreme fringes of American thought. The top rated program would be made up of some Maoist-Nihilist asshole who would only be slightly less depressed if the entire industrialized world were carpet nuked by some third-world air force tomorrow debating a rambling hardline evangelical Christian that can’t even look at anybody who isn’t white for two seconds without a burning desire to see that person shot, lynched, drawn, and quartered, in no particular order.

    At least, I’d watch it.

    1. I would watch it, too.

    2. That’s a good idea — but it would have to be something along the lines of “Wide World Of Sports” from back in the day, ie, something new every week. You can’t have an Islamic Nihilist on every Tuesday or whatever, that would get boring really fast.

      1. You are right. The network would need to rotate in some “law and order” libertarians, 24DotHeads, tall affirmative action beneficiaries who happen to be communists and animated anarchists.

        1. How about a totalitarian statist advocating mass implantation of remote-control bio-mechanical sphincters versus a manic radical libertine voicing support for public defecation while alternating between fits of giggling and shrieks of terror?

        2. Maybe some neo-Confederate anarcho-capitalists who quote Scripture to justify privatizing the sewers, too.

          1. You can get that kind of thing by listening to C-SPAN’s unscreened call-in shows.

    3. MTV2 already exists, dude.

    4. I’d love to see a news network solely dedicated to the extreme fringes of American thought.

      It’s been tried. Air America went belly up. Turns out that not too many people wanted to listen to a steady stream of “do what I say, you impudent peasants!”


  20. Honestly, the entire pretense of objectivity in journalism has gotten stale and outmoded. It was essentially just a marketing gimick that the yellow journalists used to market their product over their party-affiliated competitors, in any case. Honestly, am I the only person who sees more than a little irony in the fact that many of those (right and left) screaming most loudly for objectivity are so stunningly quick to sing the praises of The Economist (a magazine that it’s almost impossible to draw a distinction between their commentary and news?

  21. Can we at least all agree that Katie Couric is not an opinion journalist like the talking heads found in the FoxNews primetime block?

    1. No. No, we cannot. Katie Couric is very much an opinion journalist, and a whore just like all the others.

  22. One thing I’ve learned recently at the oddly entertaining french web site Vie de merde is that the french represent the sound of a turd plunging into water by the word “plouffe.” Onomatopoeia or something more sinister?

  23. Dem strategist Bob Beckel regularly appears on FOX. You really think he’s a weakling?

    And the reason I watch FOX is because report on all the things the liberal media doesn’t want you to know about. You’re only as good as your information. And if you rely on information brokers like the NYTs and CNN, then you are a fool.

  24. And the reason I watch FOX is because the report on all the things the liberal media doesn’t want you to know about.

    1. You poor deluded fool. We pull the strings at Fox as well.

      Just as we use the liberal media to direct the liberals we use Fox to delude you into thinking there is some alternative. But there is none. You still serve us, no matter whether you march under the Red Banner or the Blue Banner.

      [written from the international media and banking consipracy command bunker]

      1. Where’s this Jewish bankers’ conspiracy bunker that Neo-Nazi Pat Buchanan is always muttering about? I want in!

        1. It exists only in the minds of the Goyim.

  25. MNG, if you think NPR is so unbiased, please tell me what you think of this story:…..&cc=fp

    1. What do you mean? That’s a science-based article showing, via an interview with a real-life academic, that opposition to health care has been based on fear since 1915.

      Are you against science?

      1. “1,000 psychiatrists say Goldwater is insane.”

  26. (Just to be fair, NPR sometimes interviews people who aren’t necessarily sympathetic to their reporters’ world-views. For instance, there is this interview with a black pastor who vehemently criticizes a certain procedure which impacts the black community, and which the folks at NPR tend to support. I omit the name of the procedure lest I offend any delicate sensibilities on this forum.)

    1. Remember this weekend when Max assured us that he was not obsessed with abortion, it was really us? Not him!

      1. I can’t imagine why I would be thinking about abortion at a time when the House leadership won’t even let members vote on an amendment to prevent funding for abortions under the health-care bill.

        MNG is almost as obsessed with abortion is he is with Fox News. Compared to MNG, I’m only mildly interested in abortion. For instance, he introduced abortion into the discussion in a Halloween thread where I had not even mentioned the topic, and of course he took the occasion to project his preoccupation onto me.

        More of MNG’s greatest hits:

        Remember when MNG claimed that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes didn’t care anything about eugenics one way or the other – he was just a humble defender of judicial restraint?

        1. And perhaps you recall the thread when several comments, such as this one and this one, accused prolifers like myself of not being obsessed *enough* with abortion.

          Perhaps MNG should work with other pro-choicers to get their story straight.

          1. The first comment I linked is to ‘Nick:’

            ‘I don’t think pro-lifers are all that serious. If they think every abortion is the same as a murder of a newborn baby, and 3 million baby murders are happening every year right out in the open under the watchful eye of govt and the people, they would be marching in the streets every day, real physical battles would be happening every day everywhere until the “war” to end baby murders was over, and people wouldn’t sleep at night knowing somewhere babies are being killed en masse.

            ‘It just doesn’t happen, because they’re not that serious.

            ‘”I can’t stand by and let babies be mur…ooh, Idol’s on!”‘

            And the other link is to The Angry Optimist:

            ‘if 3 million actual murders, on the level of the Holocaust your compatriots claim it is, then you could do nothing BUT commit acts as the Fetus Liberation Front.

            ‘I’d at least respect you guys for that…if it is a holocaust, you’re justified to use the full range of tactics to stop it, including killing the perpetrators.’

            Thus, prolifers like myself got criticized on this forum because we weren’t as obsessed about abortion as, say, MNG is about Fox news.

            1. Er, so you are obsessed. We got it.

  27. they are typically ideological squishes, embarrassingly outmatched

    Of course they’re outmatched. Lefties aren’t intellectuals, they’re emotionally-driven haters who can only affect sophistication.


  28. Really, I have no interest in talking about certain outlets’ biases. They all operate in a marketplace and you can choose your sources of news and opinion. Unless somebody wants to tell me what ought to be done (an Executive Office of Media Accountability perhaps! You know, to give out seals of approval to the “real news outlets” and take away broadcasting rights from those evil beings who would dare mislead us from the quest for “justice” and “truth!”).

    The tired attacks on Fox News (which will only serve to increase their audience) ring particularly tinny precisely because they’re the same types of tired attacks that have been levied against places like the NY Times for years. Look, EVERYBODY knows that every freaking outlet is biased, everybody spins, everybody has editorial control. Some take it “farther” than others, but who cares. There are SO many places to get your news and opinion and I, for one, am not about to get tied up in declaring that it’s my or (dare I say) the Government’s responsibility to worry that segments of the population supposedly can’t think for themselves and make their own choices, regardless of how much I disagree with them.

    When we talk about objectivity, what we REALLY should be concentrating on is the fact that there are so many different sources of news and opinion (thanks, in large part, to the internet age) from all different perspectives and together they form a sort of wonderful push and pull. That’s what matters, not trying to whine about or even regulate or even ask for self-censorship of any particular source.

  29. MSNBC became a Fox clone in reaction to Fox.

    CNN has nothing like the prime-time Hannity-O’Reilly block (not to mention the crazy weekend blocks). Neither does PBS, NPR, CBS, NBC, etc.,.

    Other than MSNBC, which is a definite reaction to Fox, there is NO equivalent in the “MSM.” People who sell the idea of such equivalence (“well, sure Fox is biased but the left has CNN,CBS, etc.”) are full of shit.

    1. MSNBC became a Fox clone in reaction to Fox.

      And so far it’s really paying off.

    2. MNG, even if you were right what, exactly, do you want to do about it, hmm?

    3. Oh, I see. MSNBC doesn’t count, because if it counted then you’d have to STFU.

      The knock on CNN, NPR, et al is that, while their bias isn’t “in your face” as it is with the Fox News opinion blocks, it’s there. At least when it’s put in the context of an opinion block, you know what you’re getting.

      Then there’s CBS. In addition to Rathergate, CBS regularly manufactures poll numbers to drive their stories. WaPo, Fox News, ABC, etc. all seem to get relatively similar numbers when it comes to big political races. Not exactly the same, but usually close enough that it can be accounted for by the expected margin of error. CBS’ numbers, though, are all over the map. When the internals are released, you find that they’ve oversampled liberals, conservatives, or whomever they have to in order to fit that part of the narrative arc. This practice goes back at least to the Kerry v. Bush campaign.

  30. Also, what, exactly, is so bad about Fox having a bias (even if it wanders into the obscene on occasion)? Did Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette not have a bias? Did all the yellow journalists not have a bias?

    That is something I still do not understand (well, I understand the misguided arguments that we must protect people from themselves, but, that clearly will not cut it here).

  31. For actual instances of (lefty-only, alas) media bias, complete with the transcripts,
    this place is useful:

  32. “While Fox might periodically have left-leaning guests, unlike MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, they are typically ideological squishes, embarrassingly outmatched (like Chadderdon, who is clearly unqualified to discuss economic issues), or simply out numbered.”

    Olberman would be just as outmatched on Fox as any of the liberals who are on Fox.

    All Olberman has is a big mouth.

    He doesn’t have any brains to back it up.

  33. After reading this whole thread, I’m not surprised at the vehemence directed at Fox by MNG, all for the sake of opinion sows, and their time slots. However, I have to say I was a bit shocked at the claim that NPR is unbiased. Admittedly, I haven’t listened in a year or so, but I used to listen a lot. There is no way that a person who peruses a variety of news sources could see NPR as anything but biased. Most subjects that are controversial in other forums, are dealt with as if there is near perfect consensus on. Just based on the language used, the debate is shifted so far to the left that the balance isn’t between two sides, but between extreme left, and not quite so extreme left.

    disclaimer:there always were a few exceptions.

  34. One other comment. In my google reader, I have a number of news sources. I don’t really pay much attention to the source when I choose to click on a story. Often times I already know a fair amount about a story before I read it, and am no longer surprised when I see seeming left bias when I end up at fox. It’s not a constant, and it usually not obvious, but it’s still occasionally there. Usually in the form of leaving out pertinent information to allow the story to mislead.

  35. There’s nothing on NPR remotely like Fox’s prime time block.

    As to what I want to do about Fox’s bias my answer is nothing. This is not Venezula. But look, don’t expect me to not call it what it is or to buy some bullshit equivalency between Fox and other outlets. Yes MSNBC is as biased, but other than that I can’t think of another outlet that is remotely close…

  36. I live in France, and we listen to NPR here, and I can say that it is quite left-biased. THey have bought into the entire global-warming/green meme, and are ready to socialize the entire healthcare business in the US. I know that all of the reporting that they do on nuclear energy, which is my specialty, is biased, when it is not flat-out wrong, and I suspect that everything else, except who won the ball game last night, is biased, as well.

    For example, listen to Diane Rheme(sp?), or the afternoon Talk of the Nation. Even Morning Edition has gone completely green. ATC is on too late for us.

    I think the liberal MSM is going to be quite surprised when global warming is realized to be a hoax, and the green/left decides that they cannot have any media talking about it, and they decide to merge ALL of the MSM into National Public Radio/the Public Broadcasting Network. Afterall, if one provider of healthcare is sufficient, why does the country need more than one provider of news?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.