John Stossel is once again being a git, a snot, and pushing his agenda and views on the public and not making a news report, and doing it with condescending comments that belittle his viewers.
Tonight ABC aired his latest special called "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" in which myths or common beliefs are “debunked,” like elephants being fearful of mice or that red cars get pulled over more often than cars not painted red. That’s all nice, but most of his top ten myths were beliefs held by those who oppose his libertarian views or more to the point, the left leaning ideology, and he promotes his own views surreptitiously.
The show ended up by saying that we have infinite amounts of oil but offers no information on pollution, global warming, or whether we should give polar bears swimming lessons. According to him, price gouging during disasters like Katrina is A-okay and the moral thing to do. Secondhand smoke isn’t all that harmful; it’s just scientists with religious-like zeal running a crusade against smoking. And there’s more, and he does make some good arguments.
But despite all that, in the end what I found offensive and insulting wasn’t his obvious agenda (as most of his reports are just that). It is that this 20/20 episode was a one-hour infomercial to promote his new book of the same name. That is cheap and should insult anyone with an average IQ. You watch TV for certain content but instead it’s a commercial ad parading as news content.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Damn, wish I had known about this in advance. Since I don't share this author's fear of hard truth I always find Stossel enlightening.
Dave
2 - JELIEL³
Dave by saying that Stossel is enlightening you're not helping yourself here ;-)
Infinite amount of oil... yes hard truth, because the earth is infinite. You do know what infinite means right? ENDLESS? INEXHAUSTIBLE?
But you missed the whole point of the article which is that Stossel pimped his book by disguising an infomercial as a news show.
Journalism is dead...
3 - Mark Saleski
what, you mean like when stossel lies about testing of organic foods?
conservative is fine. lying is not.
4 - Al Barger
Thank Rand for John Stossel. He's one of the few properly critical journalists on any broadcast network. Jeliel's squealing like a stuck pig, so it sounds like Stossel did a good job of skewering some sacred liberal moo-moo cows.
Hint: Calling him names does not constitute evidence that he's wrong.
Also, Stossel certainly does have a point of view. It's not like Dan "Memogate" Rather does not have an agenda- it's that you don't LIKE Stossel's viewpoint. But he's honest in stating his beliefs, and expects to have to support his outlook with actual facts and evidence. Then viewers can make up their own minds whether to agree with him or not.
And why is it illegitimate that he would write a book and also make a tv show based on the same material? Multi-media, BAD!
5 - JELIEL³
Al you're attempts at provocation are infantile
6 - Dave Nalle
It's not like Stossel hid the fact that he's promoting the book. A whole section of the show is basically about the book. Stossel is certainly scrupulously honest.
BTW, for those who missed the show like I did many of the segments are excerpted on the 20/20 Website.
Dave
7 - RogerMDillon
All TV is promotion of some kind.
The show didn't look that expensive to make, so I can understand 20/20 going ahead with it. It is a business after all.
Why would you link to so many of his books if you don't like the guy?
8 - Mark Saleski
Stossel is certainly scrupulously honest.
right. just google stossel and organic for a nice dose of "honesty". if a liberal broadcaster had pulled some crap like that (and i'm sure it's happened more than once) there'd be screams for his dismissal.
9 - Al Barger
Jeliel, calling Stossel names is not a refutation of his arguments, and calling me "infantile" is not an answer to mine.
Monsieur Saleski, I find it unlikely that Stossel would lie or be dishonest- that would be precisely contrary to everything I know about him. On the other hand, I've never seen whatever piece it is on organic foods that you're referring to. Perhaps you could write up a story on this, quoting specific things Stossel said and showing precisely where you think he was dishonest.
10 - sal m
stossel has been attacked because during his segment where he was debunking the organic myth, he said that during his investigation found no evidence of pesticide residue on the samples of conventional produce, when the lab tested for bacterial residue.
stossel and his producer apparently thought their lab tested for pesticide when it tested for bacteria. someone obviously goofed up, but in light of the other "mistakes" made by members of the MSM, this is a fart in a hurricane.
the pro-organic movement got on this case and made a big stink. stossel was disciplined by abc and that was that.
11 - blurp
Jeliel's squealing like a stuck pig, so it sounds like Stossel did a good job of skewering some sacred liberal moo-moo cows.
Funny thing is, Stossel is doing exactly what a real liberal should do: he's questioning "common knowledge".
Most people today that call themselves "liberal" are merely leftists.
12 - Al Barger
Yes Blurp, thank you. The word "liberal" here was lazy usage on my part. It would have been better for me to say "sacred socialist moo-moo cows" or something like that.
13 - Sean
How is Stossel surreptitious in promoting his views? He is up front about his views. You may disagree with him, and he has made mistakes, but he is not sneaky.
14 - JELIEL³
Al, read my comment again, I didn't call you infantile.
15 - JELIEL³
Sean, because he never expresses his opinions directly, he does it by proxy through those he "interviews" and playing all innocent and wide-eyed and then all of a sudden (midway through) we get the publicity for his book.
16 - Ty
I watched this episode (because I saw 20/20 in the on screen guide and read the info to find out what it was), and I've seen previous similar Stossel.
I don't always agree with the guy, but I like these kinds of shows. I wish more journalists had these kinds of shows.
The central point of the show (At least several myths) was that people act and react due to irrational thinking, especially irrational fears.
And isn't it true that if price gouging did not occur, supply would run out quickly because people would buy much more than they need (which is what Stossel was saying about people waiting in line after Katrina).
Imagine if a gas station lowered its price for a day to 50 cents a gallon. Wouldn't many people go bezerk and not only fill up their cars, but go out and get HUGE tanks and fill them up with gas, thus depriving others who just need to fill up their car now and that's it? Wouldn't people literally kill other people just to get to a pump?
Besides, most people bitch about so called price gouging with gasoline, but the truth of the matter is they couldn't do it if we weren't so reliant on automobiles. If we learn to use alternate forms of transportation, nobody will be able to gouge (because demand will go down).
17 - Mark Saleski
al, life is to short to be wasting time writing up something that will be summarily shot down as this, that, or the other.
this particular issue has been written about extensively. if you'd like to cling to the notion that stossel is nothing but honest, i'd ignore the material (besides, we all know it was probably written by hippies and other granola types).
18 - Mark Saleski
...life it too short...
dangit, need more coffee when i do something like that.
19 - Dave Sparling
Liberals often accuse the right for not emough" critical thinking". Seems as if you are skewering Stossel for challenging some long held beliefs...
20 - JELIEL³
I'm skewering him for being a git, acting like he's all suprised about his findings when those findings represent his agenda. I'm skewering him for passing a one hour book plug as journalistic integrity.
Besides it's a well known fact that if needed Stossel will use inexistant research to make his argument.
21 - sr
Now im really confused. I thought John Tonsil is an ear, nose and throat specialist. "Duh".
22 - ss
I think Stossel makes some good points. The one (a few months back) about western countries not allowing African nations to spend aid money on DDT to fight malaria being wrong made sense to me. Pesticide can't be good for you, but compared to a malaria epidemic...
On the other hand, and this one goes back a few years, I remember him 'debunking' the 'myth' that plutonium was dangerous with the claim that that the radiation from plutonium won't even penetrate your skin. True enough, but if you inhale or ingest dust with a tiny spec of plutonium in it, your chances of reaching old age have just diminished.
So you have to remeber, Stossel often starts with a an isolated fact that seems defy common knowledge, then gathers other facts to back that arguement, ignoring those that don't. What he's offering is infotainment.
By the way...
Setting political views aside, and just looking at the method, how is what Stossel does all that diferent from what Michael Moore does?
23 - JELIEL³
Setting political views aside, and just looking at the method, how is what Stossel does all that diferent from what Michael Moore does?
I'd have to watch 911 again or another one of his works and check out the proof to properly answer that question.
But if one does it, it doesn't give the right for all to do it. Integrity isn't balanced against others. You either practice it or you do not.
24 - Dave Nalle
There's a huge difference between Stossel and Moore. Stossel is pretty much all facts, while Moore deals more in suggestion, interpretation and conspiracy spinning.
Dave
25 - ss
I'd have to agree Stossel is pretty much conspiracy theory free, and Moore is, well... Not.
But how is gathering a limited set of facts to support your arguement, and ignoring those that don't, really all that different from dealing in interpretation and suggestion?