|

On-air interview doesn’t last long when the guest disses Fox News Channel for its bias

I don’t know exactly what Fox News anchor Jon Scott expected to get from his interview with national security journalist Tom Ricks, but he got more than he bargained for.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUz3pIPmTY[/youtube]

Share:

28 Comments

  1. What a hoot for the fair and balanced channel and how gratifying to see an expert rub mush in their faces.

  2. I’m going to make sure I purchase Mr. Rick’s book. I loved how he set the record straight. Fox is a joke and a survey revealed its viewers are the least informed.

  3. Brian Opsahl

    After 2 weeks of lying to its viewers about the election, I would think Americans are starting to smell the rat in the room….Good post Pat..!!

  4. As biased as FOX the same can be said about your cute little network MSNBC three fold. Let’s never forget Lawerence O’Donell fist fight challenge to Mitt’s son. To quote Chris Matthews, “We have our knives out.”

  5. Brian Opsahl

    There is a hugh differance between lying about the news and just reporting what is Factuall…Fox will try and make news NOT report it as it’s presented in facts. MSNBC is biased thats for sure but they don’t lie to it’s viewers if they did I would be saying the same thing that i’m saying about Fox….Haven’t you noticed how this Benghazi thing absolutly has to be a cover-up by fox even though they have no idea what actully did happen…yet

    How about the day after Thanksgiving when they reported over and over all day how Obama was taking GOD out of Thanksgiving …..really now only really dumb people would buy that crap, but right after they aired that day…here it comes with idiots claiming that …you guessed it….Obama is taking God out of the Holidays…brainwashed idiots

  6. I’d be careful about calling anyone an idiot Brian.

    I would also google “MSNBC lies”. I don’t expect you to read all 20 million hits, but I think you get the idea.

  7. Luke Fredrickson

    Yeah, Brian, because if you google something and it has a lot of hits that makes it true. Don’t be an idiot.

    For instance, I googled “Medical Lies” – 9 million hits.

    “FOX lies” – 103 million.

    “Limbaugh pederasty” – 2 million.

    I think you get the idea.

  8. Brian, If you only find fault in FOX, you may find yourself in the same company of those you condemn as “brainwashed idiots”.

  9. So let me get this straight Luke, are you agreeing with me that MSNBC is a bunch of left wing liars?

    Or are you saying that MSNBC is a truth telling machine and that there is no such thing as a medical lie, Fox is an outlet of truth and that Limbaugh is a saint?

  10. Luke Fredrickson

    No doc, I’m saying it is ludicrous (even idiotic, perhaps?) to argue a position on the basis that google will produce millions of hits on the topic.

    To borrow your phrase of choice, google hits = squirrel.

    Now do you get the idea?

  11. Ah but it isn’t a squirrel. It’s the heart of the issue.

    Patty and his Applesauce cheerleaders love to talk about the biased news outlet that is Fox News but then cheer for their left wing heroes at MSNBC….who are even worse than their competitors on the right.

    I guess you could make the argument that nobody is watching MSNBC anyway, but that is a separate topic.

  12. Luke Fredrickson

    And doc, if you are sincere in believing “that MSNBC is a bunch of left wing liars”, perhaps you would speak up in favor – as I do – of an FCC rule to require holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that is honest, equitable and balanced?

    Each one of your 20 million hits would become the evidence needed to punish MSNBC for dishonest broadcasting, and to shut them down if it persisted.

    Or are you too wedded to the Republic Party’s far more odious propoganda machine at Fox?

    Before you couch your reply in a spurious recital of our freedom of speech, remember that every right has limits. The SCOTUS has repeatedly validated such rules as long as they have the “net effect of enhancing, rather than reducing, speech”.

  13. I am not wedded to either of those channels. I rarely watch either although to be honest I have watched MSNBC far more often than I watch Fox News.

    Having worked intimately with government regulatory bodies and their arbitary enforcement of rules I would never advocate a rule such as you propsosed. The news outlets (with the exception of NPR and PBS) are all businesses that require viewership to stay viable. If they present views that are too biased (or absolutely false) their ratings and therefore viability will eventually be impacted.

    Fox News viewership is small, MSNBC much smaller still. I have a hard time explaining CNN’s low viewership. Wolf is annoying, but I have always like Anderson Cooper.

  14. Luke Fredrickson

    “If they present views that are too biased (or absolutely false) their ratings and therefore viability will eventually be impacted.”

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    I think you know this to be empirically quite untrue. Shock broadcasting is the equivalent of junk food…appealing to our baser tastes and certainly profitable to sell, but dangerously unhealthy in the long run.

  15. Brian Opsahl

    What about the ELECTION lies guys…Fox was relentless about how right they were and how wrong everybody else was…..turns out the truth was told ….just NOT by your Fox and friends….and what lies from MSNBC are we talking about…no web sites either…?

  16. Well then Luke, I guess you would advocate for controlling all broadcast content then. Who really believes that half of the crap on TV has any redeeming value at all?

    We should broadcast only fact checked content of value (we can get some cultural board to determine what is actually valuable).

    Classical music and art, live performance, history and nature shows and the like. Forget raunchy comedy, fantasy and science fiction,and please get rid of all reality programming.

    That’s a good plan right?

  17. Luke Fredrickson

    “Well then Luke, I guess you would advocate for controlling all broadcast content then.”

    > Who said that? I said “controversial issues of public importance” i.e. news shows. Editorial commentary is of course allowed to be biased but not always in the same direction.

  18. Since Fox was hit with a truth bomb we can now look forward to several makeup interviews with losing veeps Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan. Part of their balanced approach.

  19. Craig KNAUSS

    ” If they present views that are too biased (or absolutely false) their ratings and therefore viability will eventually be impacted.”

    Wow. I don’t know if I should laugh at how stupid that sounds or cry at how gullible doc is. If bias and truthfulness had ANYTHING to do with ratings, etc. then maybe doc could explain the 20 million listeners the right always claims for Rush Limbaugh. Rush is the epitome of bias and false statements. And others, like Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, etc., aren’t too far behind. The fact is that it’s “the bigger the liar, the bigger the audience”.

  20. Yes Craig, but you assume (as many liberals do) that all of his listeners (or Fox viewers) don’t realize truth or lack thereof when they hear it. I give them more credit than that. I certainly know when MSNBC is lying or when they are presenting a more balanced approach and the same is true of Fox or NPR for that matter.

    Luke,

    You don’t think a sitcom that features a gay couple or a drama that talks about teen abortion is addressing controversial issues of public importance? Please.

  21. By the way Craig, I dont’ know whether to laugh or to cry at how extreme my liberal buddies sound on this topic.

    You can’t censor free speech. Not in this country now, hopefully never. You can merely present your contrary opinion in any one of a hundred other public outlets and let people make up their minds.

  22. Luke Fredrickson

    Luke,

    You don’t think a sitcom that features a gay couple or a drama that talks about teen abortion is addressing controversial issues of public importance? Please.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Only in Kansas. The times they are a’ changin’, exdoc…

    BTW, there is a ton of court precedent on this matter, re: the Fairness Doctrine.

  23. Luke Fredrickson

    “You can’t censor free speech. Not in this country now…”

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Your guy Pauly voted for the Patriot Act and forget to tell you what was in it?

  24. Luke Fredrickson

    For the record, there is plenty of government censorship of public airwaves today, doc.

    Too much nudity or any of Carlin’s 7 infamous words gets you an FCC fine. Yet expecting truthful reporting about a president’s heritage is just not worth the hassle when you’ve got so many nipples to blur out…

  25. Brian Opsahl

    @doc: you admitt Fox lies to its viewers and proclaim that its viewers are smart enough to figure it out….Really…then why do you and your republican friends continue to repeat those very same lies that you say your ilk say that your smarter than that…? dosen’t jive because that would, you…by your own addmission, that your NOT smart enough to FIGURE it out !!
    If your telling me that msnbc is lying about something you will have to give me some details…? Please…!! otherwise your throwing crap at a fan…

  26. I would never throw crap at a fan. Too big of a mess.

  27. Brian Opsahl

    Thats not how Fox operates…and the supposed msnbc lies..? Doc
    Doc, also one thing bothering me….? If you admitt about Fox lying to its viewers….and your a Doctor….who I would reguard as having very high intellagence…why would even watch something that has alot of trouble with the truth. I don’t understand that…?

  28. Craig KNAUSS

    Learn to read, doc. I never said one thing about censorship. You stated that anyone who deliberately disseminated false information would lose watchers/listeners and their ratings would fall. That’s total BS and the rating prove it. And maybe you should learn a little about slander and liable. Those are NOT protected by free speech.

    Journalists are obligated to present the truth as best they can. It’s call “journalist integrity”. That’s why Rush Limbaugh has stated repeatedly that he is an “entertainer” and not a journalist. He is not subject to journalistic standards, and it shows.

    BTW, I’m not a liberal. I’m middle of the road. You’re just too far right to figure it out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>