Why Peter Jennings Hated John Stossel; How to Get Tix For Stossel's New Show


This is the first week for John Stossel's new Fox Business Channel show, which is called…Stossel and is slotted to air on Thursdays at 8p.m. I'm proud to be among the first guests and look below for info on how to get tickets for the program's audience.

But first, some great moments from a Daily Beast interview with "the mustachioed Stossel" whom ABC said in its press release announcing his move to FBC "has engaged and occasionally enraged our audience with thought-provoking questions and analysis."

He enraged not only the audience over the years, but also many at the network—notably the late Peter Jennings, who believed Stossel's brand of libertarian advocacy journalism was a blot on the ABC escutcheon.  Jennings refused even to look at him when they passed in the halls. "Peter felt he was upholding the objectivity of ABC and I was violating that, I was bad for ABC," Stossel tells The Daily Beast in an exclusive interview….

The first [show's main topic] will be…Atlas Shrugged…because I think 50 years ago, Ayn Rand predicted today….Big government, nice-sounding legislation like "The Preservation of Livelihood Law," which mandated that Hank Rearden's production must not be bigger than any other steel mill, to make it a level playing field. It's silly….it's what Wesley Mouch,  the evil bureaucrat in the book, passed.  And what Tim Geithner and what Barney Frank might like to pass….

People acting in their own self-interest is the fuel for all the discovery, innovation, and prosperity that powers the world….Gordon Gekko describes a world the way a socialist bureaucrat sees it: Wealth is a static pie and rich people grab the biggest share. But that's a child's view of the way the world works. I make speeches arguing the opposite. Wealth is created. When entrepreneurs are free to compete, they grow the pie so that everyone's share gets larger….

Drugs, prostitution, steroids for athletes [should all be legal]. If Major League Baseball wants to have a no-steroid rule, fine. But it's none of Congress' business. If we want to have a National Steroid League football games, and they're consenting adults, that's fine. I'm happy if states legislate different limits, 18, 16, 21, different things, but certainly by 21, we should own our own bodies.

Read the whole thing here.

If you want to be part of the studio audience for that show or other tapings, you can email or call 877-369-8587.

The current taping schedule and topics: 

When: Tuesday, December 8th
Topic:  Atlas Shrugged and Its Meaning Today
Where: Fox Studios, 133 West 47th Street
Time: 1:00 p.m.

When: Thursday, December 10th
Topic:  Global Warming and the Environment
Time: 10:00 a.m.

When: Thursday, December 17th
Topic:  Health Care
Time: 10:00 a.m.

NEXT: What India Shouldn't Do at Copenhagen

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 have a comment: Why doesn’t John Stossel get rid of his Harry Reems moustache? Or is he still sticking with his “day job”?

    1. A man with a moustache like that has the ability to shoot orgasm-rays out of his eyes. You don’t cavalierly relinquish powers like that, Alan, you retard.

    2. Because his wife likes moustache rides.

      1. Keep your crude comments for your night out with the boys.

    3. Why should you care? It’s an old gag. Enough.

  2. This might be awesome. I can’t wait for all the “JON STOSSEL HATES TEH CHIRLDREN HE WANTS TO FORCE THEM TO TAKE STEROIDES AND BECOME PROSTITOTUS” that we’ll be hearing.


      Which Caesar’s horse was that?

      1. C’mon, Sug. A ProstiTOTUS is what you get when the Teleprompter of the United States is for sale to the highest bidder.

        1. “And when R C Dean’s heard Obama singing, just singing… his heart grew three sizes that day.”


  3. …because it’s the critics of John Stossel who are the ones that tend to post enraged, illiterate Internet comments.

    You don’t have to be an ideologue of any stripe to recognize that Stossel is an idiot.

    1. Apparently I do, because I don’t.

    2. I can tell you’re an idiot with just your one sentence, so nyahhh!

  4. I don’t think Stossel is an idiot. It takes an idiot to make such a blanket statement about him with no reasoning behind it, though.

  5. Dunno bout y’all, but he looks a little stoned in that picture.
    Note the mildly bloodshot eyes…

  6. Atlas Shrugged is happening today? Well, that explains my recent flight over Colorado, where I accidentally passed through an ill-defined optical portal which took me to a capitalist utopia where captains of industry were secretly flourishing despite lacking any actual people to produce or buy their goods. It all makes sense now. Thanks, John Stossel!

    1. They had a lot of people actually… It wasn’t all captains of industry. Re-read the book (or at least the 200 pages that Dagny is in Galt’s Gulch). From what I gather, it was a pretty sizable settlement. The bigger mystery is how they managed to escape the watchful eyes of the taxman.

  7. Big government, nice-sounding legislation like “The Preservation of Livelihood Law,” which mandated that Hank Rearden’s production must not be bigger than any other steel mill, to make it a level playing field. It’s silly….it’s what Wesley Mouch, the evil bureaucrat in the book, passed. And what Tim Geithner and what Barney Frank might like to pass.

    Come on John, grow a pair. Instead of making something up that Geithner and Frank “might like to pass” (enough weasel words?), why not go with a real example? Something with pizazz, like the PATRIOT Act. Or are you afraid of pissing off conservatives?

    1. Yeah, what he really needs to do is spend his time talking about past administrations and Congress’s. No reason to talk about the people currently in power. Nothing to see there. Maybe he can do a show on Iran Contra or Watergate.

      1. one point John, the PATRIOT act is still relevant.

        anyway Mo, it was a fucking interview. spoken off the top of his head.

        Tell me a little bit about what the show is going to be.

        It will be one subject. The first subject will be maybe Atlas Shrugged or global warming?Atlas Shrugged because I think 50 years ago, Ayn Rand predicted today. It sort of sums up what I’m going to be reporting about.

        Ayn Rand predicted what?

        Big government, nice-sounding legislation like “The Preservation of Livelihood Law,” which mandated that Hank Rearden’s production must not be bigger than any other steel mill, to make it a level playing field. It’s silly.

        i don’t see that as evidence he’s a stooge for “Conservatives”>

      2. The PATRIOT Act was bipartisan, and much (all?) of it is still law today.

        Seems relevant to me.

      3. The PATRIOT Act got repealed? Was I asleep that day?

    2. Are you retarded? He didn’t make that up, it’s an example he drew from “Atlas Shrugged”. What a maroon.

  8. but certainly by 21, we should own our own bodies.

    You’re off by 3 years, John.

    1. Actually he’s off by 21 years. we should own our bodies as soon as we clear the birth canal.

        1. Nope. Before that you need the support of your momma to survive. So she OWNS YOUR ASS!

    2. I’ll drink to that!

  9. “What are they gonna say about him? What are they gonna say? That he was a kind man? That he was a wise man? That he had plans, man? That he had wisdom? Bullshit, man!”

  10. Yes Peter, those unadvertised semi annual specials that aired on a Friday @ 9:00 CST were really undermining your center left pull on the network.

  11. The comments posted in the Daily Beast blog are precious. It is like one should never ever DARE to criticize the gun-vermin-ent, because too many sesibilities are going to be bruised.

    1. South Park had it right. Liberals really do sit around and smell each other’s farts. Not one substantive argument in there. The whole comment section is nothing but invective and bald assertions like “Rand is a terrible writer” and “he belongs at Faux News”.

      1. I took the time to read the comments from that interview as well. Frightening. Unfortunately, if you’re not a devoted liberal, you’re a gun toting, Exxon-stock-owning, abortion oppressing, poor-people-hating, war-mongoring, pollutionist. If you make the case that feel-good homeowner initiative polilcy (left and right) in the name of the social justice, instigated the irresponsible lending/borrowing practices that significantly contributed to inflating the housing bubble, you are just blaming poor people and minorities that bought houses. I’m poor and I rent. Homeownership goes far beyond “qualifying” for a no doc, no downpayment home loan. What the hell is wrong with renting!? If you oppose the Democratic health care legislation, then you are opposed to health care reform. No logic, no reason. I have successfully explained to a very right conservative why the drug war is preposterous, but try explaining the absurdity of Cap and Trade to a liberal. You just can’t. I think far-right wingers are frightening and very threatening to freedom, but far-left liberals just have incurable personality disorders.

        I especially enjoy getting the Rush or Beck card pulled on me when criticizing Obama. It’s insane, really. Like Jack Welch said (paraphrasing): “I can’t even criticize Obama around my trust fund daughters, they don’t want to hear it.” The I-hate-Bush zeitgeist that blossomed leading up to 08, and there’s plenty of fault with Bush to find, screwed this country. Maybe it will wear off and people will wake up and realize having one leader that talked to God is no better than having one who thinks he is one. More importantly, the political nightmares in this country mainly reside in Congress. Hopefully one day presidential influence and significance will rival that of Prince Charles.

        1. I have conversations with right wing law and order types about the drug war all the time. They don’t agree with me. But they do make some good points and listen to my arguement and make rational responses to it. Liberals seem incapable of doing that.

        2. I think far-right wingers are frightening and very threatening to freedom, but far-left liberals just have incurable personality disorders.

          About right. No, dead on.

      2. I like it when lefties say “faux news”. It’s a handy way to spot those I can dismiss out of hand.


    2. This one’s my favorite so far:

      LONG before the internet dealt such a harsh blow to news organizations, there was you and your kind out there intentionally taking your slanted bias and dressing it up as objective news.

      Indeed, because we were all so much better off back when the news was a one-way conduit for information approved for consumption by our benevolent media overlords.

  12. “Peter [Jennings] felt he was upholding the objectivity of ABC”[/blockquote>

    Yes, his bar was set at the level of “do not touch my beloved State and its compassionate efforts to control us.”

  13. But the real question is, could Peter Jennings look at Eleanor Clift?

  14. You’re off by 3 years, John.

    You think the age of majority should be raised to 24? TYRANT!

  15. Nick,
    Will you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE call Stossel out on Open Border Immigration, Drug Prohibition and anything else that will distinguish him from the Moonbat chorus there at FOX.

    PLEASE explain that it is never a good idea to do ‘Obama is bad’ pieces there as no matter how correct and well stated it is, it will be lost in the din. It is simply not possible to make meaningful critiques of health-care or stimulus spending from FOX.

    1. “Drugs, prostitution, steroids for athletes [should all be legal].”

      I don’t know what he thinks about open borders. But, how can Reason call him out on those subjects when he believes exactly what they do?

      1. I mean he should talk only about those issues.

        Talking about the bad things the Democrats are doing is what every whackaloon on FOX does. As long as he’s on that beat, he’s just another wing-nut.

        1. WTF? That is completely stupid. First, why does he owe it to you or anyone else to piss off his audience? Second, since the Democrats are in power I would say talking about the bad things they are doing is a little more urgent that whatever the minority’s percieved sins are.

          You just don’t like him saying bad things about Democrats. But somehow the people who watch Fox are all whackaloons.

          Project much?

          1. You just don’t like him saying bad things about Democrats. But somehow the people who watch Fox are all whackaloons.

            None of this is true. I supported his attack on the left when he was at ABC. I don’t think people who watch Fox are all whackaloons. I think Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity are all whackaloons. And they all hate Obama, anyone sharing the stage with them yapping about the failings of the chosen one, will not be heard.

            1. Bill O’Rielly does not hate Obama. If you watch his show every night, he often agrees with Obama. I have seen him defend Obama countless times. He’s even interviewed Obama. Civilly.
              You really need to stop talking out of your ass.

              1. true enough. a populuist fool like o’reilly actually has plenty of room to like a guy like obama. but, that’s not the CW about “FAUX News” so it doesn’t really matter, does it? people will lump them (FOX personalities) all together, and you just have to accept it. because that’s what everybody says…

                1. but i bet he can spell populist…

              2. I honestly can’t peg O’Reilly as right or left. He just seems to be an all purpose populist crank with a good dose of pompus jackass thrown in.

            2. So you want to leave criticism of Obama exclusively to whackaloons, while Stossel waste his time slamming a party with no power. Stossel is needed to show that whackaloon aren’t the only one’s oppose to Obama.

    2. Warren, agreed. I believe he is for immigration reform.

  16. “Gordon Gekko is a lefty in sheep’s clothing. Sort of like George W. Bush.” –

    yep, he’s definitely a republican hack.


    1. Actually – Gekko’s “greed is good” speech is fantastic… He explains that due to his business acumen, he’s made the shareholders a shitload of money. That’s food on the table for a lot of people. The whole thing is pretty good. But then… You get to the end of the movie, and he gives the *second* speech about how he’s gotten rich by taking from everyone else – completely blasting what he said at the beginning.

      Problem is, Oliver Stone doesn’t realize he’s just contradicted himself in the extreme. In the first speech, everyone benefits. Shareholders, Gekko, and the users of the presumably well-liked paper products that his company made. The world has more paper supplies, available for cheaper than alternatives, and the people producing such things (including stock-owners) have more money. That’s good all around… Unless you’re a guy like Oliver Stone who is incapable of seeing the actual wealth being created and instead view wealth as finite and only something that can be apportioned… That is to say, it’s all good unless you’re retarded.

      1. So long as something is actually produced the “Greed is Good” argument is okay, but what about liquidating productive and profitable companies for extremely short-term gains?

        1. I didn’t realize all value was lost when a profitable company was liquidated. How silly of me. I always thought that the little bits and pieces that were purchased by even more profitable companies were then put to productive use by the purchasing company.

          1. Or the profitable bits were shipped offshore or destroyed for scrap. That might lower their long-term value.

  17. Warren,

    Beck is a comedian, O’Reilly is just an all purpose jerk and Hannity is a moron. I am not sure any of them are loons.

    Stossel is a lot smarter and more interesting than any of the three people you mention. If he were a screamer or had some pre-prepared schtick, I would agree with you. But, his style is a lot different and a lot more thoughful than anyone else. For that reason (because he is such a contrast to everyone else on cable television) he will get heard.

    1. It’s too bad Stossel isn’t objective like Chris, Ed, Keith, and Rachel. Then he would have to devote the majority of his shows to Beck, Oreilly, and Hannity. Oh, and Palin. Fox certainly leans right as a network (shocker), but MSNBC is drunk laying down left.

  18. “Stossel” needs to become slang for something.
    Something dirty.
    Like “Man, that girl was Stossel.”
    or “She Stosselled me.”

    1. Wha to add to the debate.

      brb, From the fart I just left I can tell without a doubt that I gotta push out a wicked Jeff P.

      1. “Jeff” used to be slang for someone unhip to the jive.

        I think “Jeff Pee” would work better: a brief but high-volume urination that comes on without warning.

  19. Wha = Way

  20. Well he’s no Rachel Maddow.

    MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Shows Video of Man Being Teabagged in Gay Bar:…..n-gay-bar/

    1. @ 2:50

  21. If that Jennings stuff is accurate, what a fucking assclown. I have always had people I disagree with at work. I never stopped talking to them or even asking how they were or their families.

  22. I’m not seeing this show in my DVR guide, for either Fox News Channel or Fox Business News. Is Fox Business Channel yet another cable channel, or a typo?

  23. No wonder Jennings is such a douche.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.