If you don't know what show I'm talking about, go here.
Eric Burns hosts this weekly right-leaning critique of the media. Cal Thomas and Jim Pinkerton are the conservatives on the panel. Jane Hall is the moderate. Neal Gabler is the lefty.
I love this show. Lots of insightful commentary. And Gabler is far more more likeable than his leftist predecessor Jeff Cohen of FAIR.
I am interested in the opinions of others who watch this show regularly. Do you love it/hate it? Lemma know...
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ Elliott
Does no one else watch this program? C'mon, people! I require feedback! :-]
2 - BrownBoognish
I like how Fox News is examining bias in the media. Fox news routinely broadcasts the most biased reports out of any of the cable news providers. Every report contains right-wing propaganda.
3 - Al Barger
Oh Boognish, you're just being silly. Fox is closer to neutral than is CNN, Rand knows. They are certainly no worse than the other networks. They report facts. They have conservative analysts and guest. They have liberals and critics of the administration. Everybody gets in the mix.
It seems more like that the pinkos are used to having near total dominance of the public debate, and seem to lose their mind that someone else gets a word in edgewise.
We get the same thing in miniature here at Blogcritics. A couple of the pinkos like to bitch and moan about the supposed right wing dominance here, even though there are plenty of left wing writers slinging their commie claptrap. They just can't stand the competition. It's kind of a Stalinist thing.
Fox News is certainly more open and self-critical than the other networks. Neal Gabler on the Fox News Watch in particular likes to cite the supposed right wing bias of the very network he's working for.
4 - Brown Boognish
Thank you for calling me silly, i actually pride myself on my silliness.
Back to what I was saying though:
The man who Rupert Murdoch hired to get run Fox News is a man Roger Ailes who has invested his entire career into the Republican Party. He helped elect Nixon, Reagean and Bush Sr. He also produced Rush Limbaugh's TV show. Nearly every host of a show on Fox is conservative. Brit Hume is a long time conservative, who contributes to the Weekly Standard. On Brit's nightly news show he has a panel of pundits which are suppose to represent the poltical spectrum. Most commonly on the panel are Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard, Mort Condrake who is centrist, and Mara Liasson from PBR who has been a registered republican and democrat. So basically the panel is two ultra conservatives Hume and Barnes, and two centrists. Sounds fair and balanced to me. Tony Snow was a speach writer for Bush Sr and is a substitute host of the Rush Limbaugh show.The most popular show on fox, The O'Riley Factor is hosted by the lying and conservative Bill ORiley, who despite that he claims he is an independent, he is a registered republican. Thats just the surface of the lies he spreads on a daily basis.
So fox news has a team of conservative "journalists."
5 - Michael Moore (film maker, author, liar)
Anyone who doesn't hate George W Bush's guts and proclaim what a monsterous evil bastard pile of scum he is, is an ULTRA RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA WACKY ATTACKY YAHOO!!!...dammit...
6 - katemc
That is soo true!!!!
7 - Paul
Fox news is for uneducated people. It caters to midwestern/southern people with less than 4 years of college education and the religiously indoctrinated. It is also a platform for bullshit patriots to spew their redneck insecurities.
8 - Al Barger
I used to think that Fox News was a decent place to get the basic news of the day- but then I read Paul's comment above. Seeing his thoughtful critique of the journalistic practices of this organization, I can see I was wrong. I certainly wouldn't want to be a bullshit patriot. Nor would I want to be associating with churchgoing Christians. I'll never watch Fox again.
9 - John Sorenson
The Current major Network news reporting on the "No WMDs in Iraq", sayith the expert, make it sound like a rush to judgement on our President, George W. Bush. Quotes like "The President hyped up reports on WMD intel in Iraq" An outrageous comment. I sense a little biasness by these Networks. What say I about these news agencies? These critic comments, or news agency comments falt the President for some apparent falty past intelligence. We have decades of past WMD intel. More time is needed to sift through intel records so accurate judgements can be made and News agentcies can focus on responsible reporting. OK you Bush bashers, take it easy. I don't want to hear any more quotes like "The President has a lot to answer for." My opinion: The now no WMD in Iraq report may be an accurate assesment, but Sadam did obviously have them before the war!!! Ask the Kerds. To much news on this subject anyway.
John, South Prairie, WA
Dear Bill, Work on your Radio reporting. You don't sound as enthusiastic as you do on the Factor.
10 - John Sorenson
There are Bald Eagles nesting in my back yard. We have a few of them in South Prairie, WA.
11 - drstrangelove
Perhaps, John, we should have sorted out the intel before invading Iraq. The buck should stop with the President-shifting blame makes W look irresponsible or like a liar.
Finally, why don't we drop the "ask the Kurds" nonsense regarding WMDs. When Saddam gassed them, where was the concern from our (Republican) President? Using that episode as a justification for Gulf War 2 is lame.
12 - Jenny Medd
I found this very interesting. As an investigation is being launched against the Bush Whitehouse regarding the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)in Iraq, consider the following quotes from those now calling for the investigation and their supporters:
Seems the Democrats have conveniently forgotten the things they said leading up to our military action in Iraq
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is calculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
13 - Robrob
"Ask the Kurds"???? Please, consider our track record defending the Kurds.
In 1988, Saddam was considered our friend and received NO condemnation when he used gas to kill 5,000 Kurds in Halabja. Who was President in 1988? Even in the 1990s, after rising up at the suggestion of President Bush (I), our country then abandoned the Kurds to slaughter by giving Saddam back his helicopter gunships, which he used to put down their rebellion.
14 - Eddie Lopez
Dear Bill,
My name is Eddie Lopez, and I am a resident of El Paso, Tx. I would like to talk to you about an issue that is a growing concern among single mother families.
My mother has been divorced since 1986, and since then, there has been an ever long battle to get my so called father to pay child support. I think that the issue of dead beat fathers is a problem that concerns most of the single parent mothers in this country.
I was wondering if you could address this topic on one of your shows, and see what the public thiks about it?
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Eddie Lopez
15 - Sandra Smallson
Fox news? The home of that village idiot Bill O'reilly? First, their presenters or reporters or whatever you want to call them, I doubt have any training. They are always yelling. Sometimes they are acting, you think you are watching a soap opera and a really bad one. Then they are biased.
For me, I only switch on when there is an item that is predominantly American News and I know Sky news will not focus on it..I go for my update to Fox..like the school shootings, 9/11 inquiry or Martha Stewart. I never watch any of their shows where they give their opinions. I can barely sustain the will to live when I watch them simply reporting the news.
It's a shame Sky is supposed to be affiliated with Fox, cos Sky news is by far a better News Channel.
16 - Nate
So FOX News is a bit right wing. It is not as though opinion and news have never met before (i.e. CNN and NPR). Though, FOX News is not even comparable to the two said stations.
I am progressively sickened by those who hyperventilate over who is or is not objective. As long as the anchors remain human and humans remain imperfect, a bit of opinion will remain interwoven with the news. Get bored with it. It is your job to double and triple check what is reported. You are not sheep. Though some networks ceaselessly spew ideology, I do not know of one that demands that you abstain from all other media.
Oh, and yes, I am a big fan of FOX News Watch.
17 - Sandra Smallson
Fox news is biased. The news readers are loud. Their reporters are like B rate soapstars. The whole thing is some poor brand of entertainment. Anybody who watches Fox News to get world reporting or even American reporting needs to have their heads examined.
You've got to watch Fox for entertainment. I don't think any self respecting person tunes Fox because that's the best place to find out what's going on in the world. Reporting, employees, content..the whole thing is a mess. They need to transfer those that control Sky News(supposedly their sister network) to America. Definitely more professional reporters and News readers and as balanced as you can get in this day and age.
18 - Mr. Blacksaint
hey! bill how are ya
via-from Jamaica
lets just be thankful ok
because we have lots to be thankfull for say hi to president bush for me
regardless of how maney crits you may have you are still watched
19 - debra pryich
bill orilley is an asshole
20 - Eric Olsen
we'll be sure to tell him, thanks
21 - SFC SKI
I suppose the fact that CNN's Baghdad bureau chief admitted that they glossed over the situation in Iraq due to pressure from Saddam's regime, and more importantly fear that they might be thrown out of Baghdad for telling the truth about conditions in Iraq has no bearing on this argument as to biased or not.
I don't like either Fox or CNN, TV does provide news anymore, I read websites commercial and private for news.
22 - lucky
I love watching fox new because they really tell you what is going on.I was listening to john edwards and he was talking about how the cost of perscription were going up and he said help is on the way.That is right and he is the cause the perscriptions going up because of his friles lawsuits and
23 - Hal Pawluk
Trying to pretend that Fox provides balanced reporting is ridiculous and even Fox disagrees with you.
They themselves admit that they're "conservative" and have explained their "Fair and Balanced" slogan by saying that they provide a balance to all the other liberal media out there, not that they themselves provide unbiased "news."
I do watch Fox reasonably regularly to catch the right-wing spin on what's going on in the world.
I have to admit, though, that O'Reilly is something else. The man is so smug in his ignorance that I've never been able to stick it out through an entire show (my record is 20 minutes and I don't plan to exceed it).
24 - LARRY LAMICA
Hey Bill,
How and when did we ever have a surplus of 5 trillion dollars when
PRESIDENT BUSH got elected and BUSH
spent all of that,Why are we crying over 87 billion to help the war....
Im i wrong for misinterpreting the so called facts of kerry when he said we had a 5 trillion surplus and BUSH spent it plus 87 million
WHATS UP WITH THAT>>>>>>>>
Larry
25 - DICK
"Im i wrong for misinterpreting the so called facts of kerry when he said we had a 5 trillion surplus and BUSH spent it plus 87 million
WHATS UP WITH THAT"
What's up with that?
1. DotCom debacle.
2. 911
....just in case let's tap the back of your head and wake up that little peg-legged hampster that turns the drool-powered water wheel of thought and repeat....
1. DotCom debacle.
2.911
-DICK