Did I just answer my own question?
A rep from FNC, which, by the way, is not running the Bush interview until another day[they actually did run it at 11 pm Monday], said it offered the interview to the broadcast network, which jumped at the chance.
Fox sources tell a different tale, one in which brass from News Corp. — which owns Fox and FNC — place a call to the suits at the broadcast network and remind them that News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch signs all their checks and that he wants them to to find room on their schedule somewhere — they didn't say whether he specified prime time — to let Bush do some on-air spinning on the eve of his address to the U.N. General Assembly.
So fans of "Performing As . . ." will have to wait until 9 p.m. Monday to see the new episode, while fans of Fox's Monday "put out or get out" reality series "Paradise Island" will have to wait until the next night for two back-to-back episodes.
Article comments
1 - Doc
It most definitely was a love letter from Fox to Bush. Hume couldn't help but pitch lines about those Dems turning on Bush in such a just war that's going fabulously.
And why didn't Hume ask WHY Bush doesn't read *any* newspapers or watch *any* TV news, read the net and instead just rely on others to tell him what's important?
Whatever you think about him, that's rather shocking.
2 - Chris Arabia
It was the Felony not Fellatio.
I've always wanted to write a header (oops) like that.
Curious--did you lodge similar complaints every time an interviewer, such as Larry King, gave a pass to someone you liked?
I think it sucks, but it is not a partisan problem. Stepping outside the system, there is a serious lack of accountability on both sides.
I also find it disturbing the extent to which people demonize and hate fox news. Where's the post claiming that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch were the "3 bums" in dallas on 11/22/63. Where are the posts blasting the other networks for being full of liberals?
By the way, printing long excerpts from opinion pieces is nice and all, but I am more interested in what you think, supported by whatever your reasons are, not the similar opinions of some WaPo person.
When Democrats constantly try to compare every policy disagreement or allegedly crappy interview to Lewinsky, they are kind of implying that they have yet to sufficiently defend that.
I think the Dems blew it (sorry) because they'd have the WH and possibly senate now had they told clinton to go, but nobody can say that the Dems didnt vigorously defend clinton. not to mention i think a no felonies rule would be a good standard.
By the way, it was the felony, not the fellatio.
I think we could all agree that we've had enough BJ-WH imagery, okay?
Lafayette, we are here!
3 - Natalie Davis
While I agree that softballs are thrown from both sides of the aisle, I have to laugh when someone says media coverage skews toward the left. Many if not most lefty journos are scared shitless of the right and appear to slant their coverage so as to avoid that criticism (which still comes, despite their efforts). In fact, most mainstream media outlets often seem as if they're serving as Bush's propaganda brigade.
In terms of comparing the White House to various sex acts, that will continue -- at least in terms of the squatter's administration -- for as long as he continues screwing (sans lube and flowers the next day, natch) the rank-and-file American.
4 - Chris Arabia
"squatter's administration." Yawn.
Gore lost. He was unlucky.
I am one of the few people who actually bothered to read the FLORIDA supreme court's decision (of 12/8). They were pretty transparently making it up as they went, overruling Dems and Repubs who had integrity and sidestepping clear statutes and language.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision can be criticized, but the true goal was to stop a lawless theft in Florida.
We'll never know who got more votes (when the margin of difference is so much smaller than the margin of error, there's no way to tell), but at least we know got a 50-50 flip of the coin result instead of one manufactured by dirty hands.
That sucks for Gore, but the fairest count was the original mandated recount.
The rest was all partisan bickering.
This thing about the journalistic left being so afraid of the right is laughable, both if it's true and if it isn't true. Dan Rather, Bushtool. Hee hee.
5 - Kel
Bottom line is the the President -- no matter which party he belongs to -- gets to dictate the parameters of sitdown interviews when in office. That means softball questions from friendly interviewers. Deal with it. Clinton set up the same types of interviews. Recall him and Hillary sitting on the loveseat together. Shutter.
6 - Steve Rhodes
Yes, I complain about any patty-cake interviewer whether it be Larry King, Jim Lehrer (who was way too soft in his oval office interview with Clinton) or Hume.
A good example of how it should be done was when Ted Koppel was interviewing Rice last week. She brought up the gassing of the Kurds. Koppel asked didn't the Reagan-Bush administration block a congressional resolution condemning Iraq at the time?
The reason people criticize Fox News is because there is a lot to criticize. If a partisan news channel from the left existed, it would also get a lot of flak (and no, it isn't - welcoming Torrie Clark with open arms -CNN).
The reason I quoted de Moraes at length (besides being a damn good reporter - it wasn't an opinion piece) was because Murdoch ordered Fox to give Bush an infomercial. Which disproves the theory that Rupert is only in it for the money since the interview came in 5th in the ratings and Fox was behind UPN and the WB for the night.
Also when I first started posting, Eric would sometimes insert longer quotes from articles.
7 - Eric Olsen
No problem with quoting at some length as far as I'm concerned: give people all they need here and the option to follow the link to get more.