90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Fox, MSNBC And The Roger Ailes Story

Gabriel Sherman on Fox News mastermind Roger Ailes and our polarized American media, from Fox to MSNBC.

In this Sept. 29, 2006 file photo, Fox News CEO Roger Ailes poses at Fox News in New York. Propelled by Ailes' "fair and balanced" branding, Fox has targeted viewers who believe the other cable-news networks, and maybe even the media overall, display a liberal tilt from which Fox News delivers them with unvarnished truth. (AP)

In this Sept. 29, 2006 file photo, Fox News CEO Roger Ailes poses at Fox News in New York. Propelled by Ailes’ “fair and balanced” branding, Fox has targeted viewers who believe the other cable-news networks, and maybe even the media overall, display a liberal tilt from which Fox News delivers them with unvarnished truth. (AP)

Gabriel Sherman’s big new biography of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes is making buzz all over right now.  Fox is buzzing mad.  Charging a smear.  Sherman says he’s nailed the man and his conservative cable news network.  Ailes as controlling, angry, fear-mongering, manipulative.  His creation, Fox, as having divided the country.  Of course, Fox isn’t alone on the field of politically-charged cable news.  There’s MSNBC, doing its thing round the clock. This hour On Point:  Gabriel Sherman and more on Fox News, its mastermind Roger Ailes, MSNBC, and our polarized cable news universe.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Gabriel Sherman, contributing editor at New York Magazine. Author of “The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News — And Divided A Country.” (@gabrielsherman)

Kelefa Sanneh, staff writer for the New Yorker.

From Tom’s Reading List

The New Republic: Roger Ailes Is Not That Powerful — “It is to Sherman’s credit that he both elicits sympathy for Ailes, and quickly dispels any hope that Ailes’s story is an uplifting one. This book is not about overcoming one’s odds, and rising above pettiness. No, pretty soon young Roger is off working for The Mike Douglas Show and then Richard Nixon, who had a similarly rough upbringing, and who happened to have all the qualities that Ailes would eventually develop: pettiness, self-pity, and paranoia.”

Slate: The Troublemaker — “Sherman’s story is most vivid when it quotes Ailes himself. But, in a fairly underhanded way, only at the end does Sherman reveal that Ailes refused to talk to him. The book is, in effect, a compilation of Ailes’ memorable public barbs and bon mots. These are often presented as direct quotes, creating a puzzling effect: You want more, but the author, with only his Ailes bits and bobs, can’t give it.”

The New Yorker: Twenty Four Hour Party People – “The decisions that Maddow makes go a long way toward defining what MSNBC is, too. Phil Griffin, the president, calls Maddow “our quarterback,” the person who sets the tone for the network. A few years ago, MSNBC had a different quarterback: Keith Olbermann, a former ESPN anchor who rose to fame during the Bush years, delivering urbane, fuguelike denunciations of a President who was sometimes known, on his show, as “you, sir.” Olbermann and MSNBC agreed to a no-fault divorce in early 2011, and Griffin has spent the past two and a half years reinventing the network in Maddow’s image. At almost any time of the day, you can turn it on and encounter someone whose liberalism is earnest, upbeat, and perhaps a little wonky.”

Cable News And Cultural Diversity

Bryan Monroe, Washington editor of opinion and commentary for CNN. (@BryanMonroeCNN)

Read An Excerpt Of “The Loudest Voice In The Room” By Gabriel Sherman

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Fiscally_Responsible

    Fox News and other conservatively leaning media outlets are really a reaction and are successful due to the perception by many people that the mainstream media is liberally biased and superficial in its reporting. Bias is demonstrated as much by what is not reported (stories that are skipped, investigations such as the then pending Obamacare fiasco BEFORE it was passed) as well by the tone/questions asked/etc. of those stories that are reported. A good example was Candy Crowley (I believe that is her name) asking some unemployed person how they could ever support a Republican that wants to restrict social programs, or something to that effect. The underlying assumption is that the government is supposed to be big and fix everything and anyone who believes that government is wasteful and inefficient and should be limited in size is an idiot. She could have asked the question in different way, such as “how can you support a president whose record on creating of private sector jobs by getting big government out of the way is so poor?” Many other examples could be cited. And the fact that so many people watch various Fox News programs demonstrates that there is a large audience (not a fringe audience) that believes that they are not getting the full story based on mainstream media.

    • jefe68

      Meh.

    • Leonard Bast

      That explains your apparent liking for what I assume you would deem “socialist” public radio (you must like it, since you’re always here): it helps to enhance your innate need to cast yourself and your fellow conservatives as the victims of a powerful liberal establishment (which exists, of course, only in your own simple mind).

    • 1Brett1

      Fox News is successful because they pander to middle-aged white men.

      The Fox News ratings only proves that there are more old white Republican guys watching Fox News than there are liberals watching MSNBC.

      • HonestDebate1

        Bizarre.

        • 1Brett1

          Bizarre that you are blind to the way they pander to their targeted audience. And by “bizarre” I mean typical/predictable…

          • HonestDebate1

            Okey dokey.

          • 1Brett1

            In what way do they pander to their audience? Be specific, please.

          • HonestDebate1

            They give both sides to those who seek it. There is no such balance on MSNBC, NPR or CNN. They have a conservative host (Hannity) who does a commentary show. I am not aware of another conservative commentary show on any of the other networks. They pander to the youth with zany graphics and social media. And on and on. All networks pander for ratings but that doesn’t mean truth has to take back seat. And it is just bizarre as hell to conclude middle-aged white men are monolithic in thought and further imply no other demographic agrees. It’s just weird.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, both sides: the wonderful, refreshing, superior conservative view and the horrible liberal view that is destroying this country…

            Middle-aged white men who are conservative do think monolithically, though.

            Are you saying liberal lesbians agree with FoxNews?

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s the point Brett, it’s plum stupid to say any demographic agrees with anything. How do you agree with Foxnews? That’s not an issue.

            Why wouldn’t someone who happened to be a lesbian liberal find something to agree with? It’s nuts.

            You are assigning thoughts based on sexual orientation and race. Do you realize how intolerant you are being? Blacks, whites, gays and straights of all ages are equally capable of forming their own thoughts. Really they are.

          • keltcrusader

            half-naked, bubble-headed blonds who have opinions that match exactly what their handlers tell them to say? Of course, this is just a guess on my part.

      • Ray in VT

        Older, less educated and lower earning white people may be a bit more accurate.

      • TFRX

        Middle aged? For once, you’re wrong.

        The average Fox News viewer is so old that their aging, the natural getting older process, can no longer be measured because ratings agencies don’t deliniate between people that far along.

        It’s like going to the produce section, putting thirty pounds on a ten pound food scale, and when the needle is pinned at the absolute maxiumum, adding another ten pounds: They literally can’t measure the difference.

        • 1Brett1

          Hey, it’s my first time being wrong, cut me some slack! ;-)

    • nj_v2

      Translation: “Somebody (I’m not really sure who it was) said something (I’m not sure exactly what) that confirms my warped and misconstrued preconceptions about the “liberal” corporate media.

      Just the kind on incisive, thoughtful commentary i’ve come to expect from the forum’s conservo posse.

  • Acnestes

    “We distort, you deride.”

    • Fiscally_Responsible

      You can be a smart alec if you want. I have stated facts below in terms of the mainstream media not reporting stories that cast a negative light on Democrats/proponents of big government or on such things as what actually takes place physically during a partial birth abortion (crushing the skull), what are the negative effects of engaging in physical relationships outside of a heterosexual marital relationship, etc.

      • jefe68

        Meh again.

      • lobstahbisque

        Ya really want someone to describe the positive effects of such sexual practices? I can!!!That is, for the sake of being fair and balanced, which no doubt you are. First you need a good lube, like astroglide, and some condoms, AND….

      • 1Brett1

        There has never been an abortion in a heterosexual marital relationship? Whew, talk about naive…

      • Inis_Magrath

        There is an enormous distinction between “not reporting stories” and intentionally reporting outright distortions and lies like Fox News does.

      • jimino

        Do you think Ailes engaged in “physical relationships outside of a heterosexual marital relationship” between any of his three marriages?

        Would it change your view of him if he did?

        • TFRX

          I don’t know if Ailes did that, but (as we hear on his channel every day) it is irresponsible not to speculate as such. That’d be cheating the viewers if we didn’t wonder, out loud on the air, that Roger Ailes played gay between his marriages.

          • sickofthechit

            What about the bestiality?

          • Ray in VT

            What? Did he hookup with some pig with lipstick on it or something?

          • sickofthechit

            I can now say I read that somewhere, Thank you!

          • TFRX

            Heeheehee. Good job, sir.

            (I take your post as a comment on how the right’s fascination with abhorring the gays gets so charged up that they always go to “beastiality” with it.)

          • hennorama

            TFRX — to be fair, the phrasing of “physical relationships outside of a heterosexual marital relationship,” also allows for the possibility of heterosexual, NON-marital “physical relationships.”

  • JGC

    A comment from paul52 on a New York magazine thread:

    Is there a cure for what Ailes us?

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    I would be curious as to whether news organizations such as mainstream outlets, NPR, etc. have ever taken a poll on where their employees stand on numerous political/social issues. My guess is that it is overwhelmingly liberal. My guess is also that they don’t want to know because they know what the ramifications are in terms of what and how they report. It is only human nature that whatever bias we have comes out in terms of what stories are reported or considered important or newsworthy as well as how the stories are reported. The way in which everyone filters what they perceive through their senses is biased by their view of things. That is basic human nature. And if organizations such as NPR employ liberals in overwhelming numbers, then their reporting will also reflect a liberal bias.

    • jefe68

      You don’t have listen if it insults your regressive right wing sensibility. It’s that easy.

      • 1Brett1

        For someone who has an obvious disdain for NPR, you wonder why he is here all day, every day?!

        • jefe68

          Maybe it’s because he’s lonely and deep down inside he wants to be loved… even if it’s only by liberals, progressives and socialist.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            … or possibly several/all of the “conservative” posters are on Mr Ailes payroll? They (Fox) do employ people to do exactly this.

          • HonestDebate1

            There used to be a group posting here called the Significant Figgers. It was a concerted effort by liberals and I think they were paid. Grady Lee Howard was a part of them, some are still here.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue’ defense?

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t get it. I abhor the notion of excusing bad behavior by citing more bad behavior. I did not do that. I am saying this blog has a history that doesn’t fit your fantasy accusations. You don’t have to believe me, fine, but I gave you more than a fantasy accusation. I can name names if you like.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Fox is paying people to spike the conversation all over the Internet. Someone else doing it too doesn’t make it okay.

        • jimino

          It’s almost enough to make one conclude that commenters with complimentary descriptive handles that in no way reflect the positions they advocate are being paid or otherwise assigned to come here and comment.

    • 1Brett1

      It’s obvious you can’t stay on topic.

      • HonestDebate1

        Off topic.

    • TFRX

      And their bosses run them like democracies?

      First a story gets shot down. Then reporters know what’s good for them and stop suggesting stories that publishers don’t like.

      Really, your “curiosity” is too lazy and predictable by half.

    • DeJay79

      I am an independent centrist that believes in the good and bad of both conservatism and liberalism, I say this so that you know where I am coming from with my following comment:

      Why is it that when conservatives hear an unbiased and well informed middle position they are very quick to label it as “Liberal”. Looking at both sides I just don’t feel that same reaction from Liberals when given a middle position or even a well thought out conservative seem to be much more willing to listen and consider its merits.

      I have watched FOX and MSNBC don’t listen to either. The biased is so obvious that it makes me sick.
      NPR, I Feel is one of the best at keeping personal opinion out of their coverage.

      If anything I wish Tom would be quicker to call out people stating falsities on his show from both sides but he does a great job at letting both sides talk their talking points and letting the audience decide what sounds right and wrong.

    • hennorama

      Fiscally_Responsible — if you truly are “curious,” perhaps you might do some investigating rather than simply writing “My guess is …”

  • HonestDebate1

    “While we have not read the book, the only reality here is that Gabe was not provided any direct access to Roger Ailes and the book was never fact-checked with Fox News.”

    • Leonard Bast

      “Fact checked with Fox News.” The most hilarious line I’ve read in many a year.

      • TFRX

        “Fox News: We report, but you should really check that out somewhere else.”

        (h/t the best media crits in the biz)

      • sickofthechit

        Maybe he meant Faux-checked.

    • 1Brett1

      You are reporting only one side of this, the Fox News/Roger Ailes side, “honest” debater.

      • HonestDebate1

        It would seem to me that if the book was unauthorized and never fact-checked with Fox then it is Mr. Sherman who is reporting only one side. BTW, I’m not a reporter.

        • 1Brett1

          I was using “reporting” in the general sense of the word and you know that. You gave a quote, which was reporting what Fox News said. You don’t have to be a professional reporter to “report” something, and you know that too, but do pettily pick apart my reply…

          The “one side” I was referring to (and you know this to) is whether Ailes was given access to meet with the author about the book and its content, which he was.

          Sherman repeatedly sent word to Ailes that he was open to meeting with Ailes and was willing to keep Ailes apprised of what he was writing. Ailes refused all requests and then turned around and said he was not given access, which is a lie, typical of how Ailes skews the truth. I guess you think the author is lying and Ailes is telling the truth?

          • HonestDebate1

            I am just competing my soon to be released biography of you. I’ll need to see your books, interview your family and talk to your enemies. Can I have access?

          • 1Brett1

            Hehe…no, but I promise I won’t later lie and tell the public that you denied ME access; I’ll tell the truth and say I denied YOU access.

            What the writer offered was to show Ailes what he was working on and whom he was interviewing. You are setting up a false and imaginary scenario in your comment…so much for your “honest” “debate” once again.

          • 1Brett1

            Sherman didn’t ask for Ailes’s “books,” or [to] “interview [Ailes's] family,” or to ask to speak to Ailes’s “enemies.”

          • HonestDebate1

            It went right over your head.

          • 1Brett1

            How so?

        • sickofthechit

          Has Ailes filed a slander or libel suit?

          • HonestDebate1

            Not to my knowledge, I don’t think he’s all that intimidated.

    • jimino

      So you’re saying I should discount Gary Wills’ “Lincoln at Gettysburg” because he didn’t get the chance to speak to Honest Abe?

      And “fact checking with Fox News” has to be one of the top oxymorons of all time.

      • HonestDebate1

        Actually I didn’t say anything, I just quotes the statement from Fox.

  • 1Brett1

    One of the things I found interesting is that Ailes is a big fan of Leni Riefenstahl, the Nazi propaganda film maker.

    Gabriel Sherman repeatedly reached out to Ailes, to allow access to him, to keep Ailes abreast of how the book was progressing and what Sherman was specifically going to cover in the book, to which Ailes repeatedly refused. What Ailes wanted was a finished manuscript to mark through and rewrite, which is not how it works and Ailes knows that. Ailes has lied and said he was refused access.

    • Inis_Magrath

      Ailes lied? I’m shocked! Shocked!

    • OnPointComments

      If an author who had written a hit piece about you asked for interviews for his second endeavor, would you agree to the interview?

      From the New York Times:

      “Mr. Sherman leaves out part of this story. He had recently written quite a nasty May 2011 article about Mr. Ailes and Fox News in New York Magazine. The tone was much harsher than that of this tepid book. The illustration with the piece depicted Mr. Ailes covered in smoke after a cigar had exploded in his face. The implication was that his election coverage had flamed out, and that his career was just about over. Understandably, Mr. Ailes complained that Mr. Sherman just didn’t get him.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/books/the-loudest-voice-in-the-room-is-a-look-at-roger-ailes.html?_r=0

      • 1Brett1

        “… would you agree to the interview?”

        For one thing, Sherman offered Ailes more than an “interview.” He offered access to being apprised of what was being written and in knowing whom Sherman was interviewing.

        To answer your question: yes, I would agree to being made privy of what was going on in the the writing of the book. I also certainly wouldn’t refuse access that the writer offered then tell the public that the writer refused access, that’s for sure.

    • William

      You can tell a lot about a person by the people he hangs out with.

      • 1Brett1

        You are getting lazy; you’re not even trying to get in a coherent liberal jab anymore…what are you trying to infer from my comment; you know, the one for which replied? You comment amounts to a non-sequitur.

  • John Cedar

    “Propelled by “fair and balanced” branding”? Um, no…they were propelled by their content.

    They are giving the rooster credit for the sunrise here.
    A time line:
    CNN proved that 24hr news could make an eccentric libiot into a billionaire.
    Rush proved that the “makers” had an appetite for news without the librul slant.
    MSNBC was no more a factor, than the band you never heard of is is a factor on today’s hit song.
    And so a vacuum was filled by Fox.

    Funny they call our American media “polarized” like its some sort of pejorative. I guess they think it is sad that we don’t live in the days of Lincoln when newspaper editors could be arrested for their commentary. (by his generals of course, as Lincoln would never resort to such totalitarian tactic).

    • Ray in VT

      I think that Rush proved that one could reel in a lot of listeners with some fact-challenged blathering that played to peoples’ prejudices.

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s a case that cannot be logically made.

        • Ray in VT

          Polar vortex is a supposed liberal hoax. ‘Nuff said.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alrighty then.

          • Ray in VT

            Well, it was “proven” to have never been mentioned in the news until only just recently, so there’s that.

          • HonestDebate1

            No it wasn’t, where’d you get that?

            But there was a huge spike in news coverage, OP even did a show. I think someone found a reference from 1974 but it was in the context of global cooling. Go figure.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that someone tried to tell me that that was the case according to Google News.

            I don’t recall that 1974 article dealing with “global cooling”, which wasn’t really a thing anyways, nor did a 1986 article from the Toronto Star or Al Roker’s college textbook. But, how could those things exist, seeing as how libruls just made it up a few weeks ago?

          • HonestDebate1

            Sounds like some one of impeccable integrity who said something quite different than your above claim.

          • Ray in VT

            I seem to recall someone who claims to be an honest debater make that claim, as well as one of his favorite media personalities. It sounds to me as though both don’t check for facts before opening their mouths or using their keyboards. It’s like claiming that Romney never said anything about Jeep moving all production to China. Completely dishonest.

          • HonestDebate1

            You’re lying Ray and you know it. I was completely above board and made my excellent point. I never claimed what you imply I claimed. Never.

          • Ray in VT

            Your “excellent point” was based upon the sort of nonsense that I would not expect a decently educated middle schooler to make. 189 million “news” stories from the last month and zero ever before. Great point.

          • HonestDebate1

            that wasn’t my point at all. Never mind, go back to sleep.

          • Labropotes

            Let’s slap an aggressive tax on temperature extremes, at least in VT. If such a tax pushes extreme weather into more weather-friendly states like NH, so be it.

      • William

        He would not last this long if he was not telling the truth with most of his comments.

        • Ray in VT

          Yeah, right. The IHR has existed for decades and it is totally full of b.s. A site that Rush gets his “satire” likes recommends it, though.

          • William

            Rush is an interesting case study for people in the news business or just talk radio. Certainly, he has people that copied him, but they can’t draw the same numbers. Liberals tried their various Liberal talk show hots but most if not all failed.

          • Ray in VT

            Maybe liberals don’t just want to be spoon fed a bunch of tripe, for instance claiming that there’s no science behind the NFL concussion issue.

          • William

            Tripe of opposition opinions?

          • Ray in VT

            Tripe of conspiracy nonsense and partisan red meat.

          • Labropotes

            Ray, do you believe that progressives are better educated, more moral people?

          • Ray in VT

            Than Rush listeners? Regarding the former, I think that it is likely, based upon this information http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/.

            As to the latter, I don’t know if any group, in general, can often legitimately claim much moral high ground. I think one can find that just about every group has its share of cads and charlatans.

          • Labropotes

            Frequently while listening to VPR I experience disappointment at the narrow-mindedness and unthinking groupishness of NPR’s news organization just as I do on the very few occasions I’ve heard Rush.

        • jefe68

          I disagree, it’s about audience and ad sales,period. Limbaugh feeds to into enough of a demographic the keep his show going. Which says a lot about the kind of people who are listening to this mans garbage.

          • William

            Some 20 million people, not just in the USA, across the world, different age groups, gender, race, so he would never last without telling the truth. It is interesting the people that don’t listen to him say he puts out garbage, but how would they know?

          • Ray in VT

            I see that his syndicator claims something close to that number, others appear quite skeptical of that. His audience appears skewed older, male, less educated and predominantly white.

          • HonestDebate1
          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, because that totally disproves demographic data and research. Those poor kids. Just imagine the poor history that they will have to later unlearn because of El Rushbo.

          • HonestDebate1

            Disproves what? You pulled your demographics out of …. thin air.

            The book is a big hit.

          • Ray in VT

            No, I did not. I used these sources:

            http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

            and

            https://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com

            It’s not like I’m making a claim based upon something from the guy’s own site. I’m not inclined to pull a bunch of bull out of my rear and claim that it is fact.

            Sales and audience shares are not an indication of quality. Rush proves that repeatedly.

          • HonestDebate1

            I said thin air but I’ll amend now that you have put up links that disprove your own allegation. Thanks.

          • Ray in VT

            Perhaps you think so, but your issues with reading and comprehension are well noted.

          • HonestDebate1

            Well then you tell me, you said his audience appears skewed older, male, less educated and predominantly white.

            Less educated? Your link says otherwise.

            No College 66
            College 122
            Grad School 142

            Predominately white? Your link says otherwise:

            Caucasian 122
            Everyone else 182

          • Ray in VT

            51% over 50. Average 43%. Under 30? Rush 14. Average 23. Check out where he stands among those outlets with people with college degrees. My points are valid. Check out the composition on the second link. One shows 89% white. The other shows 93% white. Whatever “segment” is, it is not linked to “composition” in any meaningful way. You seem to be assuming that those numbers are people counts, while I do not see anything that lists them as such.

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t dispute the ages. You are wrong about less educated and the audience being predominately white. Of course you have yet to realize the one link is talking web traffic not radio listeners. Whatever dude.

          • Ray in VT

            I realize many things, as I tend to read what I link to first. Considering that 80% of Rush’s audience have been polled as self described conservatives, and given the ethnic composition of the American right, those numbers don’t stack up well for El Rushbo, plus he doesn’t exactly pull in the college grads. But those things don’t fit what you “know” (i.e. believe) to be true, so feel free to just dismiss them.

          • jefe68

            Oh you’re being racist….
            (sarcasm)

          • HonestDebate1

            Tom Ashbrook would kill for Rush’s numbers

          • Ray in VT

            But think to the depths to which he would have to descend in order to get them. It probably isn’t worth his integrity.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Rush hires voice actors to call in – are they counting those as separate listeners?

          • HonestDebate1

            You’re thinking of Ed Shultz, Rush has never down that. For years and years he always put liberals to the front of the line but they are just too nasty and vitriolic.

            http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/ed-shultz-hired-callers-to-radio-show/

          • Ray in VT

            Why? Because they dared to challenge the true beliefs of El Rushbo?

          • HonestDebate1

            To expose them.

          • Ray in VT

            They dared to expose the lies that he puts out every day? Good for them.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Again, the ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue’ defense?

          • jefe68

            I don’t think he gives a hoot.

          • William

            The market would have crushed him if he was a liar. It is plain to see because the same market has crushed the old newspaper industry, CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN, MSNBC are all toast. Once there was an alternative people quit listening to what they considered lies.

          • jefe68

            Oh please, are you really that naive about Limbaugh’s show?

          • HonestDebate1

            He created the demographic as well as the entire resurgence of the AM dial.

    • HonestDebate1

      And the only way they can explain it is to say all those gazillion viewers are stupid and white.

  • Markus6

    Few things I hate more than Fox and MSNBC and NBC and all the rest who claim objectivity, but lean strongly one way or another. Advocacy and simplistic binary thinking have replaced news so much that far too many people have dug into their ideological camps and rarely see the other side. This forum is a good example.

    I’ve largely given up on news programs (even this one) and listen to science podcasts instead of radio, and sports on TV.

  • OnPointComments

    From the New York Times:

    “Tucked away at the end of Gabriel Sherman’s disingenuous Roger Ailes biography, there is a note on sources that should have opened the book. Mr. Sherman has done a lot of interviewing, but there are so many citations of “author interview with a person familiar with the matter” that “The Loudest Voice in the Room” may set a record for blind items and the untrustworthiness they engender [according to Slate, more than 400 unnamed sources]. It would have helped to know right from the get-go why Mr. Sherman found this kind of journalism necessary.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/books/the-loudest-voice-in-the-room-is-a-look-at-roger-ailes.html?_r=0

    • nj_v2

      Rock and movie critic and pedestrian writer Janet Maslin talking about quality journalism. That’s rich.

  • James

    Partisan pissing contest here folks

  • HonestDebate1

    One claim that is often made is that MSNBC is just the mirror image of Fox from the left. That’s crazy. You won’t see the vile things being said and the constant refrain of forced apologies at Fox.

    • Ray in VT

      Yeah, they stick by the outrageous stuff that they spew.

      Won’t see the vile things being said? How about the networks seeming love of guests who regularly deride gays and lesbians or its current “crisis”, namely transgender people and how they’re destroying society or something.

    • 1Brett1

      No, you don’t generally see off-handed remarks on FoxNews by commentators on a panel show (has anyone ever apologized for their comments on that FoxNews panel show at 5pm?), remarks that get an immediate apology on MSNBC…what you do see on FoxNews, though, are carefully scripted, highly-produced, slick, propagandist segments that never get an apology or retraction; in fact, if there is any criticism coming from outside of FoxNews, they double down on their approach.

      • HonestDebate1

        Yes, Bob Beckell has apologized a few times.

        • 1Brett1

          DISQUS

          • HonestDebate1

            I read that before you deleted it. It wasn’t a Disqus issue.

          • 1Brett1

            It was a comment of mine posted twice (Disqus didn’t show the first one; so, yes, it was a Disqus fail.) Got any other non-issues you wish to exaggerate today?

          • HonestDebate1

            It said I should be able to find at least 3 Beckell apologies but I had just posted 4so you removed it. Liar.

          • 1Brett1

            Liar.

          • HonestDebate1

            You know in your heart, now think about what you’ve done.

        • 1Brett1

          What, specifically, did Beckell (a Democrat) apologize for and when? I remember one time; there may be more (“a few times”). He’s just there to be the token liberal, anyway. Do you think he’s not a set up for “the dumb liberal,” a tactic historically used at FoxNews? Are you naive, or are you just taken in by the FoxNews propaganda machine? Also, which FoxNews conservative pundits have apologized for anything?

          Besides, I thought you won’t see apologies at FoxNews? Or, are you saying the idea of “generally” is okay, as in it is okay for you to make a general comment but not I?

          In another recent forum, You said you thought Melissa Harris-Perry’s apology was sincere, now you are saying all MSNBC’s apologies are “constant” and “forced”? …Nice straw man, there, “honest” one.

  • lobstahbisque

    The righties’ responses are curiously muted today. Perhaps because they know there’s a target squarely in the middle of their collective backs, and there’s nowhere to hide.

  • HonestDebate1
  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    MSNBC is not equal but opposite to Fox. This is a false equivalency.

    I’m not saying that MSNBC is not biased – in fact they admit they are. Fox claims to be unbiased – but in fact their raison d’être is to insert bias into the “news” they “report”.

    More importantly: Fox has demonstrably lied and misled, many times. I don’t think that MSNBC has done this.

  • Joachim110

    Fixnews is the cause for vile and hateful reporting (if one can call it this ) and the polarization of our politics.

  • OnPointComments

    Love it or hate it? It appears “love it” wins the race.

    FOX NEWS REMAINS RATINGS CHAMP AS 2013 COMES TO CLOSE
    http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/fox-news-remains-ratings-dynamo-as-2013-comes-to-close-1200964903/

    “Fox News Channel maintained its grip on the cable-news network ratings prize in 2013, drawing more viewers than the combined averages of CNN, MSNBC and HLN.

    “According to Nielsen data through Dec. 8…
    Fox News Channel averaged 1.774 million viewers in primetime…followed by
    MSNBC with 645,000 viewers
    CNN with 578,000
    HLN with 403,000

    “According to Nielsen, [The 9 p.m. program, anchored by Megyn Kelly] “Kelly File” lured an average of 2,495,000 viewers in that time period, compared with an average of 454,000 for CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live,” 914,000 for MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” and 259,000 for HLN’s “Dr. Drew…”
    http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/in-cable-news-wars-megyn-kelly-trumping-9pm-competitors-1200913702/

    • hennorama

      OPC — out of curiosity, what do TV ratings have to do with facts and reality?

      • Ray in VT

        Maybe people are really interested to know about the fact that Santa was a white guy.

        • hennorama

          Ray in VT — as indicated previously, Ms. Kelly’s silly claims seemed as though she believed her audience was limited to her own three children.

          If you view them in that light … well, they’re still silly, but are more understandable.

        • HonestDebate1

          Is Santa black?

          • Ray in VT

            Saint Nicholas was from the Eastern Mediterranean. White in the sense of northern or western European he was not.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ll take that as a no.

          • Ray in VT

            I believe that the claim was that he was a white guy, you know, like white ‘Merican Jesus.

          • HonestDebate1

            Who says “merican”?

          • Ray in VT

            People who complain about the gub’ment stealin’ their rats, among others. You should really listen to how people speak.

      • OnPointComments

        TV ratings are facts, and the ratings reflect the reality of which cable news channel the majority of cable news viewers prefers, irrespective of Mr. Sherman’s “dour and grudging account” of Mr. Ailes.

        • hennorama

          OPC — Mr. Sherman clearly acknowledges the success of Mr. Ailes and his creation.

          Do you think that Fox’s ratings prove that they report only facts and reality?

          Do you think that Fox’s ratings prove that Fox’s conservative viewpoint is superior to other viewpoints?

          And if sheer numbers are your measurement, what do the results of the last two Presidential elections demonstrate?

          • HonestDebate1

            It proves they are trusted to report the news.

          • Salvor Hardin

            They are trusted to report the news from a reliably Republican and conservative viewpoint whatever that may be at the time. The audience for even their “news” programs is a fraction of the major networks. The majority of their high ratings is for their opinion programs.

          • HonestDebate1

            If you say it then it must be true. How often do you watch?

          • Salvor Hardin

            Thank you for the honest debate.

          • HonestDebate1

            It was a simple question.

        • jefe68

          Oh the inanity.

      • jefe68

        Zero.

  • nlpnt

    Let’s not have a false equivalence between Fox and MSNBC – Fox is the innovator and instigator of politically slanted cable news, MSNBC had been flailing to find a niche since it was started, basically stumbled into counterprogramming Fox, and maintains higher journalistic standards.

  • John_in_VT

    Bumper sticker: Fox – it’s what Ailes the American news media.

  • hellokitty0580

    Fox News is divisive and vitriolic. They don’t report they news, they report spin that instills fear in mainstream America in our time of transition and change. I don’t think Fox News is doing anything good for our country and they’re certainly not presenting the facts.

    News outlets like PBS, VOA, and NPR are the counterpoints to Fox News.

  • Coastghost

    “Public-source reporting”: intrepid journalism!

  • John_in_VT

    Fox is the direct reason that Stephen Colbert coined the term ‘truthiness.’ Fox taps into middle America’s feeling that society is spinning away from them – that something is wrong. The ‘War On Christmas’ is a perfect example of this.

  • dt03044

    What I’ve noticed about Fox programming is the extent to which it appeals to the emotions; namely, fear, anger, and jealousy. “Obama is a socialist”, “the poor are takers who don’t want to work” etc. It is easy to manipulate viewers by scaring them, or making them angry. Accuracy and facts are certainly less important to Fox than the feelings of its viewers. It is very effective.

  • Jostrenz

    Neither Fox nor MSNBC are journalism. It’s pure propaganda with an agenda. It’s not “all the news that’x fit to print” but “all the slant which is fit to sell”. I prefer the viewpoint of MSNBC, but journalism?

  • John_in_VT

    The decline of television news started with ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ that decided to compete with ‘Today’ using ‘info-tainment.’ they got high ratings and Today decided to follow suit. These days all television news is just animated versions of “People” magazine.

  • Neil

    Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC…alll are Corporate owned and are advertising driven. We do not get any relevant news that would be critical of say big pharma, oil and gas industries, etc. Those who buy the ads, control the news…

  • William

    The old media was not much better.

  • http://www.littletheatre1.com/ cpcooks

    I’ve always wondered why, when Fox says something that is a total lie and harmful to whoever they’re talking about, why they aren’t sued for libel? Wouldn’t this get them to change their behavior or are their pockets so deep it doesn’t matter?

    • HonestDebate1

      They would be if they lied.

      • Labropotes

        Also malice must be proven, which is very difficult.

        • HonestDebate1

          But it’s easy to allege.

  • John_in_VT

    Having an ideological viewpoint in news reporting is as old as the republic itself. Up until the 1950′s most cities in the US had both a Republican leaning and a Democratic leaning paper. IF you were NYC you also had Zionist and Communist papers.

    • jefe68

      William F Buckley had a show on PBS called Firing Line that ran until 1999. In 1969 he debated Noam Chomsky and it is an interesting if not informative piece of TV.
      You never see Noam Chomsky on TV at all anymore let alone debating someone on the right.

  • hennorama

    No doubt Mr. Sherman covers some of the following in his book. Apologies if he does, and if this is repetitive.

    Fox News’ slogan, “We report, you decide,” is an example of the way one can feed slanted programming to an audience that doesn’t want to believe they are being fed slanted programming.

    The slogan allows the viewer to delude themselves into the belief that THEY are determining that Fox programming is accurate, truthful, honest, etc.

    Fox News reinforces this with “Fair & Balance,” and “The Most Trusted Name In News.”

    This repetition over and over and over again allows the viewer to think better of themselves, that they are smart and justified in watching and believing.

    Perfect as propaganda goes.

    Visually, Fox News is dark and foreboding, using lots of red, (which stimulates anger and hostility), and black (to project power and authority, and symbolizing evil, according to some). The combination tends to make one anxious. They constantly have yellow NEWS ALERT popups, even in the absence of actual news. Yellow is an attention grabber, and tends to speed metabolism.

    Fox also uses the scrolling “ticker” at the bottom of their screens. Their screen borders are usually black and red.

    All in all, this tends to leave one anxious, excited, and angry.

    MSNBC is the opposite. Their sets tend to use lighter and brighter colors, such as blue and white. Blue is thought of as tranquil and calming. White is perceived to be neutral and innocent. [MSNBC uses] the scrolling “ticker” at the bottom of their screens [only during the morning and daytime broadcasts], and their screen borders tend to be blue and white.

    This tends to leave one calm and perhaps thoughtful as well.

    They’re both manipulating you, simply by their choices and uses of color. Check it out the next time you watch either network. Watch one for a bit, note how you feel, then switch to the other. I find it quite jarring, especially when going from MSNBC to Fox.

    • OnPointComments

      I just turned to MSNBC, and it’s got the ticker at the bottom of the screen.

      • hennorama

        OPC — thank you for the correction.

        That is a recent development, and shame on me for not double-checking.

        [PS] the ticker is seen only during the morning and daytime broadcasts. Appropriate edits will be made to my original post.

  • Joady

    This fellow from the New Yorker is discrediting that magazine. Does he truly believe that it is a matter of opinion that Fox news intentionally misleads, or reports non-facts as truth? I could name several examples from this month alone. The real genius of Roger Ailes is in rendering the concept of fact-checking as meaningless, at least in America.

  • hennorama

    Interesting that the young man who “loves Fox News” feels a need to speak so loudly to communicate his opinions.

    • William

      He did not insult anyone though…unlike the Liberal caller from WI who used the slur “rednecks”….

      • hennorama

        William — thank you for your response.

        You do realize that many people self-identify as “rednecks” and enjoy the term, do you not?

        • HonestDebate1

          And many blacks refer to themselves as ni@@as. What’s your point?

          • JGC

            That reminds me: Have a thoughtful Martin Luther King Day, everybody!

          • hennorama

            JGC — thanks, and “Oh, the inhumanity and near-profanity …”

            [PS] I was completely unsurprised that the individual to whom you replied would “go there,” but was surprised that it took him so long (39 minutes) to do so.

          • JGC

            I know my mother would blow a gasket if anyone referred to her as a.”redneck”.

          • hennorama

            JGC — TY for your response.

            I agree with your prior comment that the use of the word “redneck” would be offensive to some people.

            However, William inaccurately wrote that the caller “used the slur ‘rednecks’.”

            In fact, the caller said she “moved from the very progressive town of Madison, Wisconsin out into the very redneck, rural part of Wisconsin. And you can look this up — it’s like red and blue.”

            That’s a bit removed from referring to an individual as a “redneck.”

            In this case, “it’s in the ear of the listener.”

          • 1Brett1

            Come on hennorama, rednecks were enslaved, persecuted and otherwise institutionally discriminated against for hundreds of years in this country…no, wait….

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — still trying to figure out what “blacks”and “niNJas” have to do with each other.

          • HonestDebate1

            So it’s about revenge? Can’t we just judge people by the content of their character?

          • 1Brett1

            That’s weird. Your reply almost seems Freudian in nature. No, “redneck” just isn’t in the same category as the n-word and all that it represents.

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t say it was, in fact they are in different worlds.

          • 1Brett1

            hennorama, I’d feel better if you had come up with a more euphemistic term for ‘redneck.’ Mmm…maybe something like “white-country-people-who-wear-hunting-camo-drive-old-Ford/Chevy-pick-ups-and-want-to-kick-the-asses-of-those-who-disagree-with-them.” …That needs work, I know, but it’s still in the brain-storming stage.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — given that I did not bring up the topic, I feel no need to refine the term.

            Plus, the caller said “redneck, rural part of Wisconsin,” which one might punctuate as “redneck/rural part …,” and which is in line with the dictionary definition of the term “redneck.”

          • 1Brett1

            I am not inclined to use any term that intends to serve as a characterization for a whole group of people; HOWEVER, I think it is nonsense to make the false equivalence between “redneck” and the n-word, which has sort of been my point (albeit infused with a lot of humor) regarding this thread.

            (You are correct in that the caller was referring to a rural part of Wisconsin.)

            William, I think, started this thread and was just trying to make some hay out of a comment that a “liberal caller” made…

            As far as the thread itself, I did think it was telling that HonestDebate1 not only seemed to be overly sensitive to the term “redneck” but tried so hard to reassure JGC that his comment using the n-word was merely to condemn your comment.

            I also found it interesting that some of the same neocon suspects on this forum who’ve regularly bemoaned how PC society has become have also rushed to condemn an On Point caller who used the phrase “redneck.” I feel it is that old, feigned, righteous indignation that neocons are so good at displaying at work.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — TY for your continued response.

            You’re preaching to the humor infusing choir. (Still wondering what “blacks” and “niNJas” have to do with each other)

            I started this whole thing with a remark about the loudness of the young man who said he “loves Fox News,” then William set us off on the long, strange trip we’ve been on.

            As to the-moniker-that-will-never-be-typed, the phrases “true colors,” and “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” come to mind.

            Thanks again, and keep on truckin’!

          • HonestDebate1

            What if he had said the ghetto part of Boston? Any problems?

          • 1Brett1

            If the person had used the word “ghetto” in relation to a black middle or upper middle-class neighborhood, it would have been offensive–more importantly, inaccurate. If the neighborhood were a bunch of run-down tenement buildings made up of poor people, then “ghetto” would be appropriate.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — P.S.: “redneck” is unusual in that it has no anagrams, and anagrams would be my first method of choice in refining a word.

            How about “rosy-naped rose-colored glass wearers with roscoes on their hips who enjoy the lyric “rosin up your bow” and who are living as if it was still the 1950s”?

          • HonestDebate1

            You are the one condoning insulting language not me. I just illustrated your absurdity with absurdity.

          • 1Brett1

            Ooh, you’ve gotten all PC on us…over “redneck” at that. Touch a nerve?

          • HonestDebate1

            I expressed outrage over Rachel Jentil’s testimony and her use of racial slurs. You condoned it. I’m consistent, you, not so much.

            But I’ve been meaning to ask you, I could wait because I know it’s coming, about your penchant for replying to me in a mocking redneck written dialect. You know how you do, you aren’t the only one. I don’t talk like that BTW. It seems to me you are trying to insult me by assigning poor language skills to me. I do think any adult should be able to speak proper english but I am confused by your tactic. Do you expect adults to speak proper english and deride them if they can’t? That does’t seem to be your position with blacks, why? Do you think they are inferior and should be held to a lower standard? Clear it up for me.

          • 1Brett1

            What are you ranting about now?

          • HonestDebate1

            Kind of stuck, aren’t you? You made your bed.

          • 1Brett1

            Sure, there’s no condoning of insulting language on your part…considering your comment in reply that used the n-word, you were just being offensive to prove a point; sure, let’s go with that.

          • HonestDebate1

            I just thought Henny’s comment was way off base with an offensive analogy. IMHO it was disingenuous and frankly stupid.

          • JGC

            I personally would not use either term, knowing they would be offensive to some (if not all).

            An old slur by Quebec francophones about anglos is to call them “tête carré” (squarehead), which I have no idea why or how that came to be the ultimate insult…

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t use them either.

            I think William’s point was valid.

          • JGC

            I know that.

            About William – he upvoted the racist screed that came out of Mares above. William has a very selective point of view.

          • HonestDebate1

            We all have selective points of view. I think Hennorama illustrated that point well with her reply.

          • HonestDebate1

            I hesitate to say this because it’s off topic and I don’t really like to pick fights with you. But I did not read the comment by Mares until you mentioned it. When I did, I bit buy tongue but now see you have replied.

            I don’t see a shred of racism in the comment. I don’t really approve of the vitriolic tenor but to each his own. But racism? I don’t see it. I see the frustration of the blaming of racism where it’s not an issue and the advocation for diversity by skin color at the expense of diversity of thought. To my way of thinking that notion is insulting to minorities big time. Let’s judge by the content of character.

            Obama is blaming his low approval ratings on racism. He is saying honor MLK by signing up for Obamacare. Race has nothing to do with either and I’m pretty sick of the constant effort to make everything about race.

            Finally, regarding up/down votes, I once quoted MLK and he got several down votes but I did not blame racism. I blamed ideology.

          • JGC

            To be fair, I was not familiar with the Mares brand, so I looked at the history, and did not like what I saw there, not at all. A parade of hate and mockery for every person under the sun, (although by strange coincidence, Mares takes exception to people being called “rednecks”!) Just an absolutely vile and unredeeming history, so my reply was to that in its totality.

            This topic today has nothing to do with Obama. It is about the legacy of Roger Ailes and his Fox News – the original author of how to divide and conquer the American public, and to which one has to say, Mission Accomplished.

          • HonestDebate1

            I did not look at the history, I read the comment. I did not see racism and I did not see a reference to rednecks.

          • 1Brett1

            You’re slipping…you didn’t say anything about people of color being given a pass or that liberal policies have enslaved blacks, and you didn’t throw up a video of some black person being drunk, smoking crack, stealing a flat-screen TV, or committing violence against a white person?!?! Are you sure you are HonestDebate1?!?!

            Oh, yeah, and using the term ‘redneck’ is EXACTLY like using the n-word! NOT!

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s sick.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — what’s all this fuss about niNJas?

        • William

          She used it as a slur against them which diminished the value of the rest of what she said.

          • hennorama

            William — this is what “Chris from Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin” said:

            “I moved from the very progressive town of Madison, Wisconsin, out into the very redneck, rural part of Wisconsin. And you can look this up — it’s like red and blue.”

            Whether this was a “slur,” or an apt description may simply be in the eye of the beholder.

            Perhaps we should call it “inelegantly stated.”

      • hennorama

        William — the caller said she moved from a “progressive” area to a “redneck” area of the state. Whether “redneck” was intended as a “slur” is difficult to discern from her categorizations.

        Part of her point was her observation that some people in what she described as the “redneck” area were not open to alternative points of view.

        [PS] No doubt some would say the same thing about those in the “progressive” area.

  • Charles

    FOX certainly misleads its viewers on the material covered but how can anyone think that NPR, MSNBC, and any of the others don’t do the same thing and usually by far more subtle methods.?

  • Scott B

    Polls showed that the Fox audience were even more uninformed about news and facts than people that didn’t listen to any media news. NPR had the most informed audience, with viewers of The Daily Show (self-dscribed “fake news”) coming in second most informed, ahead of even real news outlets.

  • Lars Grant-West

    In a country where propaganda isn’t required learning for kids in school (it’s not in the U.S., but is in Canada), these kinds of entertainment are extremely polarizing, and ultimately detrimental to our socety

  • sickofthechit

    One of the most damning things I heard on Ailes was I believe on The Daily Show where they had actual recording of the first President Bush out hunting on his birthday with his son during one of the son’s presidential campaigns. Bush senior thought he was talking to Ailes so he was thanking him for running some story that had helped the campaign and daddy bush started out with “Is that our man Ailes?” No campaign should think of the head of a network as “…their man”. charles a. bowsher

  • Bill Blask

    It’s not politics when a lie is packaged as the truth. It is a lie. Packaging the lie as the truth is persuasion and perhaps dissuasion. Using that purposefully packaged lie as truth for political purposes is politics. And using politics as the only interpretation of any and all opinions is itself persuasion that the only interpretation can be in political terms.

  • DeJay79

    If viewers want unbiased news of the facts without being told how to feel about it, then watch News Hour on PBS.

    But it requires the viewer to be thoughtful and develop their own opinion and even more difficultly maybe challenge their own preconceived notions.

  • OnPointComments

    From Slate:
    “The Loudest Voice in the Room is a dour and grudging account…But, in a fairly underhanded way, only at the end does Sherman reveal that Ailes refused to talk to him…Sherman is not a very good writer…It’s a cacophony of resentment and inevitable distortion—with more than 400 unnamed sources by my count. But it is not just that Sherman is telling the story wrong. He is telling the wrong story…”
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/books/2014/01/roger_ailes_biography_the_loudest_voice_in_the_room_by_gabriel_sherman_reviewed.single.html

    • sickofthechit

      Is there really 400 different sources or is he protecting their identities by not connecting any of their comments together?

  • sickofthechit

    I challenge all FAUX viewers to watch The Daily Show and the Colbert Report to get a real taste of facts and news for once. charles a, bowsher

    • HonestDebate1

      They’re comedy shows.

  • Coastghost

    Journalism and journalists can thank TELEVISION for its skillful blend of “news reporting” and entertainment values. (Just as print journalists commonly rely on fictional technique for their “narrative reporting”, so TV journalism consists of all kinds of clever film editing and narrative techniques borrowed liberally from Hollywood.)
    If Americans ever become displeased with their television news choices, they can always stop watching.

    • margbi

      Neil Postman covered this first in “Amusing Ourselves to Death” wherein he proposes that analytical discussion is impossible when everything is reduced to entertainment. Talk about bread and circuses.

  • Scott B

    I can only watch Fox for so long before my college courses in critical reasoning (formal logic) start throwing red flags right and left in protest. That’s usually about 5 to 10 minutes, unless it’s Hannity, Kelly, or O’reily, then it’s about 2 minutes before all logic goes out the window .

  • JGC

    “We’re under attack! We’re under attack! Quick, get Doocy on the couch! O’Reilly to the mic! Kelly, hike your skirt! Hannity, meet me in my underground panic room! Susteren! SUSTEREN! Comb that hair and apply your holographic lipstick, stat!”

  • ABDaigle

    I no longer listen to any of the major networks, and rarely CNN. The only truly reliable source for factual news is public television and radio, and I enjoy hearing both sides of the issue. Thank you to PBS, NPR and BBC!

    • mjhoop

      When I listen to BBC, I learn what’s happening in America. Straight out. No agenda, No spin. NPR is veering so far right it’s painful to hear. If I watched tv news, i might have and opinion on PBS, but a pox on tv.

      • PoliticsWatcher

        The News Hour is good.

  • sickofthechit

    Trouble with digital is how do you and I know we are reading the same story? As much hacking and manipulation as is going on it is easy to imagine that the text of the newspaper or magazine story I read online is not reliably accurate. Subscribe to your local newspaper, read hard copy as much as possible. charles a. bowsher

  • RB

    Fox is conservative, MSNBC is progressive the diffreence is how many times have you seen Rachael Maddow or Lawrence O’Donnald retract things the’ve said vs Fox who is always making things up and having to retract or apoligise for them. There are always truth being quoted on MSNBC and then discussed or commented from a non-radical right position.

  • geraldfnord

    So Fox gets slapped for promoting racism and (to paraphrase?) ‘…a low-level employee took the blame’…no surprise, in Roger Ailes’ America, for all his proclaimed populism, the Little People are there precisely for servicing the Worthy, whether it were the work they’d never deign to do or any blame they might accrue.

    He says that he supports ‘property rights’, but property has no rights, there are only rights for persons (real and artificial) who hold property, and the more property the more rights. For him, as many, ‘property rights’ absolutism is a screen for backing the absolute rule of those with the overwhelming portion of the property, with no other power-centres to compete (the State and the popular will it can embody are delegitimised—why listen to people too stupid or immoral to be rich?—the churches are generally wiling to accede to Mammon, if only in accommodation if not if fealty, and Art and Literature are judged by their Market performance save by a mocked and marginalised few).

    I don’t doubt that he does believe that he loves the Common Man, but I think it plain that he bears toward His People the contempt that any flim-flammer feels for his marks

    • sickofthechit

      Just like Rupert did with the phone tapping scandal in England,

      • geraldfnord

        You dare question the love of the common man a knight’s son learned at Oxford?

  • Dennis J. Gianatassio

    I don’t really watch FOX News and I disagree with their biases
    but NPR could also benefit from self-examination. I suggest
    that you re-evaluate your support for abortion and homosexual behavior. With all due respect, you are wrong on these issues.
    I also would truly appreciate a much more fair and balanced view
    of my Catholic faith. Sincerely yours in Christ –
    Dennis J. Gianatassio

    • jefe68

      With all due respect Catholic doctrine is not how a secular society works in general and in the specific to NPR, well they are not Catholic Papal Radio.

    • Labropotes

      While I would pick other examples of NPR’s unexamined assumptions, I strongly agree with your comment.

      • Dennis J. Gianatassio

        Thank you & God bless!!!

  • HonestDebate1

    The opening excerpt points out that Ailes has a wide swath of the Republican establishment on his payroll as if to imply he doesn’t have a wide swath of the Democrat establishment on his payroll too.

    • Ray in VT

      How many former Democratic Presidential candidates are employed, either currently or in the recent past, by Fox, and how does that compare to those from the GOP?

      • HonestDebate1

        I don’t know, Denis Kucinich and Wesley Clark come to mind off the top of my head. Did Evan Bayh run? Does Geraldine Ferraro count?

        • Ray in VT

          Sure. How about recent events? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/fox-news-has-nearly-all-p_n_740070.html Four top potential candidates all on Fox payroll, and one of the ones from 2008 still has a show there, right? Plus Herman Cain.

          • HonestDebate1

            Palin was never a Presidential Candidate, you need better sources. If you want to count veeps Ferraro offsets her. Balance. Santorum was not a candidate when he joined Fox and he didn’t last long. Ditto Newt. But there is Al Sharpton at MSNBC. You’re not making sense. There are many Democrats on the Fox payroll and even if you want to narrow the field to former Presidential Candidates there are just as many Dems.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, sure. There’s just as many Democrats on Fox. Sure. I also said “recent events”, and sure, Palin doesn’t fit the presidential candidate mold, but she does fit the mold of former or failed GOP candidates getting gigs at Fox. How long did it take for Alan West to get a job? I bet that he got the job offer long before he conceded to his opponent.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea, except I listed them, they are current and met your criteria. Did they not? You’re not helping yourself here. Do you want to look at Republican vs. Democrat failed candidates working at CNN, NPR, MSNBC or anywhere? I’ll tell you what, I dare you. Show me one other network that has the balance I documented for you at Fox.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that a comprehensive look would be interesting. I do wonder if anyone has done one, and I’m not inclined to think that Fox is balanced in that regard as compared to others. Now, as for current, you listed Geraldine Ferraro. She’s current? You know that she’s dead, right?

            By my criteria, current or recently employed, you listed three, as Bayh did not run in the primaries. I gave you four, as Palin never got into the ring. Now, as for your claim about the GOP establishment being equally well represented, how about Karl Rove and Dana Perino? I don’t think that the lineup of Fox News regulars who are either Democrats or liberals stack up at all against those who are either Republicans or conservatives. Fair and balanced Fox is not.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — the date referenced in the excerpt above is December 7, 2011, not the present.

            As to the present:

            Dennis Kucinich joined the network in 2013.

            Evan Bayh and General Clark are not listed in the “On Air Personalities” section of foxnews.com.

            And of course, as you indicated, Geraldine Ferraro passed away nearly three years ago.

            Source:
            http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/dennis-kucinich/bio/#s=a-d

          • HonestDebate1

            I considered 3 years ago to be recent history as Ray indicated. I was a big fan of hers, and yes, I know she died.

          • Ray in VT

            So you want to knock out Palin but include Ferraro. When did the latter run for president, or do different standards apply for Democrats if it helps you to build and argument?

          • HonestDebate1

            I asked you if she counted. If you’ll tell me where the goal post are I’ll answer your question. Is it recent history? Is is failed Presidential candidates? Is it failed Veeps. Is it the establishment? Fox beats them all regarding balance. Deny it.

          • Ray in VT

            You can’t be serious.

            You said establishment, so we can go with that. I said recent failed presidential candidates. 4-2 Republicans to Democrats.

          • HonestDebate1

            “The opening excerpt points out that Ailes has a wide swath of the Republican establishment on his payroll as if to imply he doesn’t have a wide swath of the Democrat establishment on his payroll too.”

            If you wanted to go with that you did not need to mention failed Presidential bids. But YOU did. Now tell me the 4 you refer to. Are you including Palin again? You said 4 right? Newt works for CNN right? Sharpton works for MSNBC right? Santorum never worked for Fox as a former Presidential candidate, right? Huckabee is the only one on Fox… Republican that is but they still have Clark and Kucinich on the left. Or do you want to talk about the establishment left like Susan Estrich, Joe Trippi, James Carville, Bob Beckell and Evan Bayh (Henn lied to you about that and refuses to correct the error)? Or the left wing pundits like Alan Combs, Kirsten Powers, Tamer Holder, Greta, Shepherd Smith, Lis Whiel, Juan Williams and Mara Liaison?

            You are making no sense at all.

          • Ray in VT

            I mentioned that specific case because it merely shows how high profile Republicans are all over Fox. 4, count ‘em 4, Republicans who ran failed presidential bids during the past two cycles have been employed by Fox. You don’t get to define my terms.

            You gave me what, half a dozen Democrats. How about the 30 who were out pounding the pavement in 2012 for the GOP, including the likes of Rove and Bolton. Those 30 don’t count, though, right, because they were listed by people you don’t like.

            So, Hennorama is getting your lie double standard. She’s liberal (I presume), so she must lie, unlike true conservatives, who never lie, no matter what they say.

            Greta, Shepard Smith and Juan Williams are left wing? Only if one considers right-wing nuts like Allen West to be moderate or something.

          • HonestDebate1

            Name the 4.

          • Ray in VT

            Newt, Rick, Huckabee, Cain.

          • HonestDebate1

            Does Cain work for Fox? Either way Santorum and Newt never worked for Fox as former presidential candidates, or did you mov the goal posts again. Do you have a list of every former Democrat Presidential candidate that ever worked for any other network?

            You cannot give me half the evidence of balance I gave you from any other network. Not even a quarter.

          • Ray in VT

            You don’t get to define my terms, just like you don’t get to tell the dictionary how to define a term. I’m not moving the goals posts. I’m saying that you can’t move them on me.

            From the last two cycles I only see one that I recognize as working for a network. Maybe there are others.

            “Evidence”, as in listing a few liberals (and some supposed ones) versus a much longer list of former GOP operatives and former office holders. You did, though, try to explain away a list of such people by attacking the source. Typical.

          • HonestDebate1

            So now it’s the last two cycles? Who are you talking about? Al Sharpton at MSNBC? Or Kucinich at Fox?

            I started a thread with a simple comment and you’ve gone around the world.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — thanks for the mention.

            As you may know, my policy is to not respond directly to this individual, despite the repeated baiting, nonsensical remarks, and what might be described as stalking behavior. It is definitely not always easy to do so, as you might imagine.

            What I find curious about several of his recent responses to me, and comments to others about me, is that he makes accusations of lying about what is more accurately described as inadvertent error. It’s quite clear from both the number and speed of these accusations that he is an avid reader of my comments, despite what he perceives as the “lies” contained in them. Somewhat odd, that.

            However, he has indeed helpfully pointed out more than one error, all of which have been corrected via editing and postscripting.

            It’s also rather curious that given my track record of both admitting and correcting errors, that these repeated accusations of lying would continue.

            And of course, these accusations are made with none of his beloved requisite intent in evidence.

            My apologies for hijacking your merry discourse, and thanks for your forbearance.

          • Ray in VT

            You are most welcome for the mention, hennorama. I suspect that you, as I speculated, have fallen into the category person for whom any mistake is a lie, which stands in direct contrast to the outrage expressed when some are accused of lying, where I think that there is clearly evidence to support such a charge. I say wear the “lib” label with pride.

          • HonestDebate1

            A mistake is not a lie, I’ve said it a thousand times. The difference is the intent to deceive. I’ve said it a thousand times. I can’t imagine your mindset that must assume you are making a valid point with such absolute disregard for what I have repeated over and over and over again. You are really going out of your way to avoid any semblance of honesty.

          • Ray in VT

            Trying to pick and choose which dictionary definitions are valid and which dictionaries should be thrown out certainly is an avoidance of any semblance of honesty in my book. It’s funny how, despite your claim, you often claim that people with whom you disagree are lying, despite the fact that you do not show an intent. Nice double standard.

            I stand by the valid definitions that do not require an intent to deceive for a statement to be a lie, as I don’t think, and the dictionary backs me on this, that just believing and repeating something that is false makes one honest. A person who lies to oneself or one who is a blind ideologue who chooses to ignore facts or evidence that do not fit with their beliefs is still a liar if they are spreading an untruth. The people in the Flat Earth Society are lying, despite how firmly they may believe that the Earth is flat. Someone saying that Romney never told people that Jeep was going to move all Jeep production to China is also lying, no matter how much one believes it, as readily available evidence to the contrary flatly proves these things.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s clear who picks and chooses definitions, it’s clear what the dictionaries say. If you want to go with “anything misleading” fine, stupid as hell and meaningless but fine. You have yet to put the rubber to the road in the context of Obama. Are you saying he was never misleading. That’s a valid definition of lie because it’s in a dictionary, right? If you want to believe, contrary to the vast vast preponderance of definitions and ALL the dictionaries, that intent is not necessary then fine. But don’t tell me I’m the one who is cherry picking. No one has backed you up on this. Many here have used the lack of intent to deceive to defend Obama. You won’t even do that, you just hide behind semantics. You don’t need dictionary to know what a lie (noun) is or when someone is lying (verb). And you are still to this day describing the noun:

            “I stand by the valid definitions that do not require an intent to deceive for a statement to be a lie”.

            Here’s a clue Sherlock, I don’t dispute that but you do need an intent to deceive to lie. you’re all over the park playing hide and seek with the issues at hand. It’s stupid.

            You wrote: “It’s funny how, despite your claim, you often claim that people with whom you disagree are lying, despite the fact that you do not show an intent. Nice double standard.”

            BS!! I do no such thing. I don’t throw the word lie around lightly. If i say someone is lying I can make the case and it has zero zip nada to do with whether I disagree with them.

          • Ray in VT

            “But you do need an intent to deceive to lie” That is a lie based upon several valid dictionary definitions. Why do you insist upon pushing a lie?

            “The issue is and has always been whether Bush or Obama intended to deceive not what dictionaries say.” Funny, you always claim that Bush didn’t intend to deceive and therefore didn’t lie, but you label Obama as a liar constantly, despite not showing intent. Just more partisan double standards.

            “If I say someone is lying I can make the case and it has zero zip nada
            to do with whether I disagree with them. It has to do with intentional
            efforts to deceive.” Horse flop. I don’t think that you could treat members of the two parties to the same standard if you tried, and I don’t even think that you do try.

          • HonestDebate1

            “That is A lie…”

            A verb is an action word. A noun is a person place or thing. I know what a lie is. It’s a noun. Your claim is Bush lied (verb). I know, it’s hard.

            I have given plenty of evidence regarding Obama’s intent to deceive. He knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He knew premiums would go up. He knew people could;t keep their plans. He knew Obamacare was not deficit neutral. He knows there are 9 million less available jobs under his watch and hid behind the U-3 rate. He knew he wouldn’t close Gitmo . And on and on, Everybody new. If you didn’t then I suggest listening to Rush and watching Fox.

          • Ray in VT

            I have provided definitions for both nouns and verbs, but keep on pretending that those definitions don’t exist. It makes you look so credible.

            None of those things prove and intent to deceive. For instance, please tell me how anyone “knew” that Benghazi was a terrorist attack when reports from the ground that night indicated a protest.

            You are judging after the fact and assigning intent without any actual proof. Interesting that you don’t use the same standard for Bush. Using your Obama standard, then Bush knew that his fiscal policies would produce massive deficits. He knew that all of his WMD stuff was bogus. Please tell me why those were not lies.

            If I wanted to lower my IQ, then I certainly would listen to Rush and the uneducated anti-intellectual sycophants who hang on his every word and will pick up on moronic conspiracy theories like his polar vortex nonsense.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — starting where you ended: if the choices are limited to liberal and conservative, then liberal it is. However, when I took the test someone posted the other day, my responses put me nearly exactly in the center, confirming my self-identification as a moderate.

            Of course, politics has become so skewed that many view moderates as liberals.

            As to the bizzaro world of the individual who claims to have “outed that lie,” his small mind cannot entertain reality, which is that I read an outrageous comment from a newbie, was going to fire off an emotional reply, thought better of it, then clicked the handy minus sign in order to help put the comment out of mind. Upon returning to the forum, I read the replies to the newbie, and responded to one of them.

            But I digress, again.

            Enjoy your battles, and apologies for my digression.

          • Ray in VT

            What was the test? I don’t think that I saw that post, but I have seen a few others on the web.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — the test was just a few questions, and it was so quick that the source escapes me. There definitely are others in the ether.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that one of the ones that I looked at was done by Esquire and maybe NBC, and it had quite a few questions and broke the results into 6 or 7 groups.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s a hoot! I knew I was under your skin and you could not keep quiet. I didn’t know the disingenuous story you would concoct, but I knew you read my comment and I knew you could do it.

            As to your unattributed edit, your OCD self could not help but to also change the “are” to “is” outside of the brackets. The edit necessitated it.

            And BTW, don’t give me so much credit, my mind is much smaller than you think.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes I read your comments as well as most all comments just like you read mine. And don’t bother saying you click the minus sign, I’ve already outed that lie above. I am very comfortable with my comments pointing out your disingenuousness and letting anyone reading decide for themselves. If you can’t or won’t refute it then all the better.]

            You wrote: “However, he has indeed helpfully pointed out more than one error, all of which have been corrected via editing and post scripting.”

            Post scripting? I see now you edited the comment without acknowledgment of the edit. That is so lame dude.

          • HonestDebate1

            I would have said she just made a mistake about Evan Bayh but she refuses to correct it so I say it’s a lie. Click her link, he’s right there. Conservatives lie all the time, why are you so contentious? I never said anything of the sort. It’s ridiculous.

            Yes Greta, Shep and Juan are Democrats. Greta and Shep play it down the middle because they (Shep in particular) are more news than opinion. Juan Williams is a screaming far left liberal. I have no idea how you can dispute that.

            Give me the media Matters breakdown of other networks and Democrat operative and I’ll be happy to comment but that’s just further and further form my original point. There is a wide swath of establishment Democrats working art Fox. You cannot, have not and will not make the case that there is a wide swath of the Republican establishment working at other networks. Until then your selective outrage over Fox rings hollow.

          • Ray in VT

            Funny, I seem to recall you standing by just about every lie that Bush told.

            I looked for references to party affiliations for the three that you mentioned, but I didn’t find anything concrete. Maybe I just wasn’t looking in the right place. Just because Juan supports things like the Voting Rights Act doesn’t make him a “screaming far left liberal”. Perhaps the fact that you stand in a place on the political spectrum that considers something as thoroughly uncontroversial as the minimum wage to be an outrage colors your perspective on such people. What makes Shep a Democrat? That he thinks that people fighting gay marriage are holding onto the past and fighting a losing battle?

            Media Matters covers other networks when it feels that they show conservative bias. It’s just that Fox is the prime offender when pushing partisan positions or the sort of social policy positions on things like homosexuality that are not at all borne out by research. I think that your claim of “wide swath” is severely limited, especially when compared to the GOP partisans that that network employs. It is neither fair or balanced.

            There do seem to be a number of top GOP campaign strategists working at CNN.

          • HonestDebate1

            Bush again? I told you why I don’t think he and all those Democrats in1998 lied. You don’t have to agree and you don’t have to reciprocate regarding Obama’s lies. I never said Republicans never lie. That’s just an absurd bastardization. Just get over it Bush is gone.

            What makes Shep a Democrat is his voter registration. And have you ever seen Juan Williams go on a rant? He’s screams liberal dogma at the top of his lungs. He’s liberal on Obamacare, minimum wage, AGW, abortion, immigration, taxes, bashing the rich, he says there is a Republican war on women, the whole nine. How much do you actually know about his positions? You said he was not left wing, based on what?

            Media Matters is tax exempt and partisan. It does not investigate liberal bias at all. They do nothing but brainwash those easily led into believing they can’t think for themselves and therefore should just read what they say about what Conservatives think.

          • Ray in VT

            Media Matters just seeks to expose the lies underlying so much of the conservative media, which has managed to so thoroughly inundate the minds of its true believer viewers that many couldn’t believe that their guy was going down in defeat in 2012, because the polls must be lying, just like the labor reports and the scientific community and anyone else who presents facts contrary to dittohead dogma.

            Do you have evidence that Smith is a registered Democrat? Again, I have not found conclusive evidence, and many sources claim that he is a registered Republican. I rarely listen to anyone’s rants, so I have not heard Juan Williams rant about anything. What is his “liberal” position on the minimum wage? That he thinks that there should be one or that it should have buying power similar to what it has had historically. If so, then those are hardly “liberal” positions, given the broad public support for the minimum wage and raising it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Evan Bayh is listed, please correct your error to Ray. Wesley Clark joined as a Fox News Contributor after his failed Presidential campaign. Ray specified “employed by” not “on the air”. He was on with Megyn just the other night.

          • Ray in VT

            But he didn’t run for president, so he didn’t fit the more narrowed scope than you originally referenced (establishment). My main point was that just about every person seeking the GOP nomination in 2012 has within the past few years been on the Fox payroll.

          • HonestDebate1

            Why haven’t you corrected your error?

          • HonestDebate1

            The Presidential Candidates are current, you’re moving the goal post. Now you want to talk about the establishment? So you mention Rove and Perino, we’ll leave Beckell out (Mondale), how about Joe Trippi and James Carville? Balance.

            Where are Axelrod and Gibbs working and who are their Conservative counterparts on those networks?

            But thanks for admitting you have no idea.

          • Ray in VT

            Oh, it was me that brought up the “establishment”. You might want to check your own comment for that one. How about the people listed here? http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/01/report-30-fox-news-hosts-and-contributors-who-a/191014 Go ahead pooh-pooh that it is Media Matters. You’re good for that. Perhaps you should have kept that last $20 that you sent to your hero Newt and bought a clue.

          • HonestDebate1

            I made my comment and you replied: “How many former Democratic Presidential candidates are employed, either currently or in the recent past, by Fox, and how does that compare to those from the GOP?”

            I answered and THEN YOU moved the goal post. You had to because your argument did not hold up. And you then ignored the balance to Rove and Perino I cited. And now you give me a MM piece that list no Democrats when there are hand and they list no other network. And no comment on Sharpton’s show or Axelrod and Gibbs at MSNBC.

            So yes, go back and read my original comment. It is unassailable.

            Complete fail.

          • Ray in VT

            You’re correct, you’re line of argument is a complete fail. 4 Republican contenders to 2 Democrats. Very balanced. Which of those two Democrats has his own big time Faux News show all to himself? Is it Clark or Kucinich?

            I only returned to your original point. You seem to be the one that it is pinballing all over the place. Please provide me with a list of all of the former Democratic officials and such that work at Fox. Can you get as high as Media Matters. Way to attack the source. Very dishonest debating of you.

            I made no claims about MSNBC, although if I had to pick a show to watch, I’d probably go with the Rhodes Scholar over Hannity, although perhaps Alexrod’s counterpart is Michael Steele or Joe Scarborough. Way to pinball, though. You’ve got a losing argument, so just try to change the subject. Maybe we can talk about the “epidemic” of black on white violence as documented by the New Century Foundation.

          • HonestDebate1

            4 Republican contenders? Are you back to saying Palin ran for Pres or are you denying Newt and Santorum were fired when they declared? What’s the matter with Huckabee’s show? It’s very balanced. The two Democrats actually ran.

            Do you have a problem with George Stephanoploous at ABC? Or Sharpton’s show? Did you have a problem with Algore and Current? Next thing you’ll be telling me NPR is more balanced than Rush.

            And just so we’re clear, are you claiming MSNBC is as balanced as Fox? Seriously? Check Media Matters for a breakdown of Democrat fundraisers on their payroll. The do critique the entire media right? I don;t see how you can expect a piece as one-sided as that to be indicative of squat.

            And also are you claiming MM should not have listed any Democrats on the Fox payroll? Or any other networks? Really?

            And now you want to pinball to the epidemic of racial hatred by blacks? Aren’t you embarrassed?

          • Ray in VT

            Nope. Not counting Palin. Check what I said. There are four there without her.

            I don’t have a problem with people as long as they do good work, but Fox shows its colors with its pushing of anti-Obama conspiracy theories and its “experts” who push their anti-gay positions and beliefs. NPR is far more balanced than Rush. They do actual news, as opposed to pushing partisan creeds, as seems to be Rush’s forte.

            I have not made any claims about MSNBC or Media Matters. I don’t think that either of them go by the motto of “Fair and Balanced” while pushing partisan positions. So, to be clear, you’re pooh-poohing Media Matters’ list by attacking the source and not the content. How very honestdebate1 of you.

            I would only be embarrassed if I posted the sort of nonsense that you do. Bringing up one’s noted and well established difficulties with facts and reality, as well as the bogus sources that one cites, is merely used as a public service to those newbies here who may not want to take months to see the entirety of your sketchy positions and sources of information.

      • pete18

        How many Republicans are on MSNBC? I don’t know the answer, just askin’.

        • Ray in VT

          It looks like a couple. I don’t know either. I don’t watch MSNBC or much else of cable news.

          • HonestDebate1

            So what makes you so sure about Fox?

          • HonestDebate1

            A couple? Two? Wow, impressive.

          • Ray in VT

            I know. One would think that Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock or what’s her face “I’m not a witch” from Delaware would take them up on an offer.

          • HonestDebate1

            I have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Potter

    That’s a shudderingly horrible story that Ailes tells about the way his father taught him never to trust anyone ( not even his own father!).

    At the same time Ailes’ Fox implores the viewer to trust them.

    • hennorama

      Potter — actually, Fox News sloganeering allows the viewer to delude themselves into the belief that THEY are determining that Fox programming is accurate, truthful, honest, trustworthy, etc.

      Fox News reinforces this with “Fair & Balance,” and “The Most Trusted Name In News,” and crowing about the ratings of their programming. The implicit message is “If so many people watch, we must be right, and YOU’RE smart because you watch.

      This repetition over and over and over again allows the viewer to think better of themselves, that they are smart and justified in watching and believing.

      Perfect as propaganda goes.

      • Potter

        The guest was right. people don’t want the truth or to be informed, they just want to feel as though they have the truth and are informed.

        This makes me ask how our education system has failed such that people swallow so easily what they are fed- and worse, they go for this junk food.

        The PBS Newshour is not perfect but it is so much more nourishing.

    • JGC

      How can a father let his hemophiliac son injure himself to prove some stupid point?

      This is probably the only good thing I can salvage from Ailes’ miserable and angry life: in spite of having such a failure of a father, he himself seems to try to be a good one to his own child. (Although to be raised in an atmosphere of hate and paranoia is another form of abuse, I guess.)

      • PoliticsWatcher

        Leaving his children a country run by the worst kind of Republicican is hardly a gift.

  • JGC

    I wonder how, as a hemophiliac, Ailes was able to escape the complications caused by HIV- and Hepatitis-C-contaminated blood products in pre-1986. Approximately half of the hemophiliacs at the time were infected; many died.

    • hennorama

      JGC — is there any indication that he needed transfusions, or if he had transfusions, that he escaped such complications?

      It’s clear from the excerpt above that Mr. Ailes’ hemophilia has impacted his health:

      “At the prescribed time, Ailes hobbled with Zachary to the rope line to see the president. At seventy- one, his body was failing him. The proximate problem was arthritis, but it was his hemophilia that had accelerated
      it. He had suffered from the debilitating condition since he was a little boy. Over time, the disease caused blood to pool in his knees, hips, and ankles. Though the swelling ravaged his joints, he was stoic about the problem— on occasion he’d sit through a meeting, his shoe filling up with blood from a cut. His pain became a kind of badge. “The difference between pros and amateurs is that pros play hurt,” he once said. Ailes displayed a certain fatalism, perhaps a result of his medical history. A couple of weeks before his thirtieth birthday, he told a reporter, “Most people think I’ll be dead before I’m 35.”

      • JGC

        I don’t see anything in detail about Ailes’ hemophilia. There are different degrees of hemophilia, depending upon the amount of natural clotting factor a person has. Still, anyone who had the disease at the time (late70s up through late 80s) had to have the worry about HIV infection in the forefront of their minds. The artificial factor VIII product was only available in the early 90s — One of my elementary school classmates had hemophilia, and I saw he died in 1992 (although I don’t know the primary cause, the time frame is correct). I just had to wonder…That Ailes is one lucky SOB at the end of the day.

        • hennorama

          JGC — luck, if it exists, certainly doesn’t hurt one’s health. Regardless, Mr. Ailes has been very skillful in his chosen pursuits.

          Speaking of Mr. Ailes and his health, one wonders what the succession plan is at Fox News. In the same way, the network must be concerned that their viewers are “aging out.”

          • JGC

            I was also thinking who could follow Ailes. Thank God, he is one of a kind.

          • hennorama

            JGC – Mr. Ailes health issues are a legitimate business risk concern, as he clearly is the heart of the organization.

            Perhaps the plan is simply to give everyone a WWRD (What Would Roger Do?) wristband.

            Seriously though, they need to think about the issue.

          • JGC

            Has the great chessmaster Murdoch thought about it? Then again, he is 82 years, much older than Ailes (though perhaps in better health). Maybe Lachlan Murdoch will eventually have his day after all.

          • hennorama

            JGC — as I don’t own any individual shares of FOX or NWS, I don’t pay close attention to their succession planning. Their SEC filings likely contain some mention of succession risks.

            There is no doubt that Mr. Murdoch has given the topic considerable thought, however.

  • 1Brett1

    So, Ailes characterizes himself as a “contrarian”? That’s like three notches below an ideologue, in terms of intellectual honesty. An ideologue at least believes in something, as opposed to a devil’s advocate dressed up as head of a news organization.

    • HonestDebate1

      That’s my criticism of Fox, they pit ideological pit bulls against each other and scream it out. It get’s hard to listen to. There is nowhere else on the dial that the liberal ideology is more staunchly defended. There is nowhere on the dial where Conservatives are bashed and ridiculed more. The inverse is also true to the consternation of the ideologues.

      • 1Brett1

        Yes, of course, FoxNews staunchly defends liberalism, and bashes and ridicules conservatism…how laughable.

        Figures you’d still be using a “dial” TV…

        • HonestDebate1

          It’s absolutely true, it goes both ways. How would you know?

          • 1Brett1

            You said in the past that you don’t watch FoxNews; now you are intimating that you do…spin that dial and give whatever opinion better supports your comment of the moment?

            Based on your above characterization of FoxNews, I’d say that you don’t watch FoxNews.

          • HonestDebate1

            I watch Fox news, what are you talking about? When did I say that? I didn’t.

            I don’t think you do because your characterization is an absurd caricature.

          • 1Brett1

            When did I “absurd[ly]” characterize FoxNews? And, what did I say? You, on the other hand, characterized the network in your comment above: “[about FoxNews] There is nowhere else on the dial that the liberal ideology is more staunchly defended. There is nowhere on the dial where Conservatives are bashed and ridiculed more.” Now, that is an ABSURD characterization of FoxNews.

          • HonestDebate1

            “Fox News is successful because they pander to middle-aged white men.

            The Fox News ratings only proves that there are more old white Republican guys watching Fox News than there are liberals watching MSNBC.”

            Are you really disputing liberal views are defended and Conservative views are slammed on Fox news? Seriously? That is a caricature completely disconnected with reality.

          • Salvor Hardin

            Well Honest this is one of your posts which now seems a bit misleading based on what you just said:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/01/10/christie-bridgegate-polar-vortex-iraq#comment-1197975790

            @HonestDebate1:disqus “Dude, I haven’t seen Fox news and their coverage despite your certain belief I have.”

            When I saw that I also thought you were claiming you were not a Fox News watcher as well.

          • 1Brett1

            Thanks, Salvor Hardin.

          • HonestDebate1

            Really? You took that to mean I don’t watch Fox? Seriously?

            Lame.

          • 1Brett1

            No, you made some similar comment months ago…I’ll have to look for it…Like I said, you say one thing when it supports a point and the opposite when it supports another point.

          • HonestDebate1

            I deny the charge.

          • jefe68

            He’s hoping people wont notice.

          • HonestDebate1

            Okay, you got me, I hate Fox and never ever watch.

          • Salvor Hardin

            I don’t think we seriously believed you weren’t a devoted Fox viewer because you and Fox news are true soul mates. It was just a continuation of your misleading posts.

          • HonestDebate1

            Salvor, the debate is devolving and I’d rather it not. I get a little testy when it gets personal and it always does. There is no need. I have strong opinions and I will back them up, you don’t have to agree but insinuating I’m being purposely misleading is way off base.

            All I can tell you is you don’t know what I think and your premise is backwards. If you’ll scroll up you will see my criticisms of Fox. I don’t like Hannity, I think O’Reilly is a fraud and Shep gets on my nerves. I’m not even all that crazy about Kelly. I like Special Report and I think Fox News Sunday is the best Sunday show, I used to like Meet the Press when Russert was alive and I really liked This week when David Brinkley was alive. I get my news from a wide variety of sources both left and right. Do you?

            I do not watch Fox news for the commentary, I think they’re by far the most balanced with the news division. They cut Republicans zero slack at all but somehow there is a conventional wisdom they do from people who don’t watch. I don’t know if you saw any of the Republican debates on Fox but they were brutal, in particular 2008 and Wendell Goler. Compare that to Candy Crawley inserting herself to cover for Obama and later admitting she was wrong.

          • HonestDebate1

            How does that in anyway translate to I don’t watch Fox? I didn’t hear the OP show on Iran. Did I just say I don’t listen to On Point? No, I listen regularly. I really don’t get your point at all.

            I did not see the Fox coverage you assigned to me.

          • Salvor Hardin

            The comment was not on Iran it had to do with the fact that the on the first day of the Christie Bridge story Fox was a national joke because they were the only network to completely ignore the story. They told their viewers literally to “Google it” if they wanted to know anything about it.

            And that was kind of the point. You couldn’t get any coverage of the GW Bridge story the first day on Fox because there wasn’t any. They hadn’t received their orders as how to proceed from Ailes so they pretended it didn’t exist.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s just silly. I was making an analogy with the Iran show, I didn’t hear it that doesn’t mean I don’t listen to On Point. I did not hear the Christie coverage on Fox but that doesn’t mean I said I don’t watch Fox. I was busy and didn’t see much of any news at that time and you accused me of getting my views from Fox. It was out of thin air. Add to that the story was a big fat nothing to me. I hate it for the bridge crossers but it was a local story that was long over with and had zero national impact. I also have no dog in the hunt, I’m agnostic on Christie. I just don’t care that much about it.

            Do you really want to exchange evidence of networks getting marching orders? Really? You have nothing on Fox but I can give you chapter and verse about Democrat marching orders. You really don’t want to go there, be careful when you make flip accusations you have no idea about.

    • PoliticsWatcher

      He meant contrary to the truth. The rest of the media kept reporting truth, and he saw a market for comfortable lies.

      He won.

  • JGC

    I report, YOU decide! From M312 at Media Matters:

    “Fox News’ entire reason for being is to give ancient wingnuts feelings below the waist.”

  • bfryer

    Ailes and his minions are brilliant cynics who exploit the feelings of bitterness that the working class has — thanks to downsizing, outsourcing and the plutocracy of Fox’s corporate advertisers — and give them easy, fake targets to blame to deflect their feelings of pain and insecurity. And Fox is laughing all the way to the bank.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Facts do not have a point of view. And facts are verifiable. So saying that Fox is lying is not a point of view.

    • Ray in VT

      But Neil, all that they have to do is believe the things that they say that are verifiably untrue, and then they can claim to be honest.

      • brettearle

        I’ve been off line working on that assignment–that you may, or may not, remember–from a couple weeks back…..

        [Much to the delight of my detractors, I am currently only showing up now and then.]

        In any case, maybe this is intuitively obvious; but I am of the opinion that the Right is often skeptical of Global Warming [and what factors are behind it, if indeed any of the Right will concede that it does exist] because of the following:

        They don’t want to believe that the concept of Big-Business Industry [which major economic sphere strongly supports the Right's political ethic] is partially–and perhaps noticeably– responsible for it.

        Reminds me, a bit, of the Tobacco CEOs….

        • Ray in VT

          I read a piece a few weeks ago that essentially made that very same argument. This was one piece that I read, although it wasn’t the one that I was thinking of:

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climage-change

          This may have been the one:

          http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-libertarians-deny-climate-change.html

        • HonestDebate1

          But you need to acknowledge the other side. No one wants a dirty planet. Blaming industry is meaningless. The solar industry? The Tofu industry? Or the flavor of the day, the coal industry? There are practical considerations namely, if we put the coal industry out of business (an Obama promise) we can’t survive, ditto fossil fuels.

          The UN says we need to cut world GDP by 4% because of AGW, imagine the suffering. The UN’s climate chief says the best way to fight global warming is communism. You really need to realize the bigger agenda and put it in perspective.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Exactly. Like the fact that there has been no warming since 1998. Another inconvenient truth.

      From Nature:

      “Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled. For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.”

      http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        No matter how many times you might repeat it, it is still not true. The climate has been warming – the oceans have been warming, and so have the land temperatures.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w5D7P2qbKCs

        http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2374

        http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/escalator.gif

        • HonestDebate1

          You are invested in the notion with the CarBEN EV5. In a way I respect your putting your money where your mouth is.

          Germany just bailed out on there energy pipe dreams because people are paying out the wazoo for energy. You’ve got a tough sell on your hands.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            It is a bit premature to be making proclamations, I think? Scotland is moving to 100% renewable energy, and Norway, and Costa Rica, and others. Iowa is up over 20%, and they’ve only just started.

            I ask you this: could we harvest ice now, like it was done in the last couple of centuries?

            Anthropogenic climate change is a real as you and I. The sooner we all acknowledge this fact, the better for all of us.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am all for renewable energy. I believe man can and may have an impact on climate. But you guys have over-reached big time. Crying wolf is a horrible tactic.

          • HonestDebate1

            No one want to engage in the arena of honest debate. The only way the weather deniers have an argument is to reframe my (and others who agree) position to the point of absurdity. When I state a simple belief that goes counter to what they say I believe then, silence.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Natural variation is also as real as you or I. The sooner you acknowledge it the better you will sleep at night.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
        • OnPointComments

          MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:

          I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

          Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

          Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.

          As someone else noted, “The ocean ate my global warming” doesn’t work without any proof whatsoever.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Dr. Richard Lindzen is an outlier and he is wrong. In the past year, there were over 2,200 scientific papers on the climate, and only 1 was counter to anthropomorphic climate change.

            Glacier National Park used to have 150 glaciers – now it has 25. What will we call it when there are no glaciers there?

            Worldwide, a huge preponderance of glaciers are shrinking very quickly. Ocean levels are rising, and the ocean is becoming more acidic.

      • PoliticsWatcher

        There has been warming, just not in the little slice you cited.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          17 years is a scientific significant interval according to climategate scientist, Dr. Ben Santer. At least that is what he published in 2007.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Gee, 4 down votes against the scientific climate record. Deniers or actively routing for catastrophic warming? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • jefe68

    “fascist parrots who spew the leftist line”…
    You might want to edit that to read “socialist” instead of ”fascist.”

    Thanks for yet another right wing diatribe about NPR.

  • jefe68

    Had to post this again as it is right on topic…

  • jefe68

    Disgus is acting up… sigh.

    • Mike

      Your post is not showing up…

    • jefe68

      And this as well:

      • harverdphd

        your hectoring today is in vain – people will vote with their viewing and dollars

        • hennorama

          And voters will vote with their votes, despite Mr. AIles’ aims.

          • HonestDebate1

            And many will vote based on the media’s most excellent effort to be uncurious about Al Qaeda being decimated, a nonexistent video protest in Benghazi, the absolute idiocy of the notion insurance premiums would go down with Obamacare, or that you could keep your plan, or that the declining U-3 unemployment rate is good news and on and on.

            The media is complicit in this disaster we are living and some (like you) are cheering as the country goes down the toilet. Ailes is a breath of fresh air.

          • Salvor Hardin

            Honest you have certainly missed your calling. You should be a Fox News reporter because you have the entire program down pat. They wouldn’t even have to write the copy for you since you are the essence of Fox News.

            Fox News, all news, all Republican, all the time.

          • HonestDebate1

            What did I get wrong?

          • Salvor Hardin

            The topic is the Republican bias of Fox News and complete lack of objective coverage. So you gave a long litany of Tea Party specific viewpoints and you feel this is totally compatible with Fox News coverage. My point is that every post of yours simply confirms the books thesis that Fox News operates as the news division of the Republican Party.

            I find no better confirmation of Sherman’s book than you.

          • HonestDebate1

            The topic is Roger Ailes. My comment was about the rest of the media and the narrative they impose on those who hold ideology above truth. The Tea Partiers have nothing to do with anything. Their issues are smaller government, less debt and more freedom. They take no position on foreign policy or any of the rest of my litany which any network should report. Why didn’t the mainstream media question Obama’s claim about premiums going down or keeping your plan? Right wing radio did, pundits on Fox news did. They were right which tells me the MSM did not do it’s job.

        • pete18

          It’s only because FOX News so dominates the ratings that people like jefe are so troubled by it.

          • hennorama

            pete18 — I seriously doubt that, since it’s not the ratings and commercial success of Fox News Channel that many find to be troubling.

          • pete18

            If FOX had ratings like MSNBC, liberals wouldn’t complain about it because it wouldn’t be a threat to their world view or the previous dominance of left wing bias in the realm of television. It’s the same reason they attack the Tea Party, they are a threat to their view of how the world works.

          • hennorama

            pete18 — your response is appreciated.

            The objections to the Fox News Channel have nothing to do with ratings or commercial success, and if you can find any liberal(s) who say that FNC’s ratings are “a threat to their world view or the previous dominance of left wing bias in the realm of television,” please identify them.

            I’ll politely ignore your linkage of FNC and the TPM in this discussion.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            Read this board, including your own comments.

          • pete18

            Their ratings aren’t what they object to but they are the reason why liberals bring up their objections.

            “and if you can find any liberal(s) who say that FNC’s ratings are “a
            threat to their world view or the previous dominance of left wing bias
            in the realm of television,” please identify them.”

            They would never admit to such a thing but it’s an easy connection to observe based on what liberals say and do in response to FOX.

          • hennorama

            pete18 — got it.

            Your conclusion is based not on evidence, but on … your conclusion.

          • pete18

            My conclusion is based on the astute observations of the frenzied and disproportional responses that
            a large number of liberals have in reaction to FOX news, which has risen in concert with their ratings surge over the years.

            Obviously not as scientific as your “Fox confuses their viewers” observation but I don’t have time for your type of in-depth research.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am amazed at how often liberals invoke the Fox monster out of the blue. Fox won’t be cited or even mentioned but when the libs have no argument they just bash Fox and it’s viewers. It’s bizarre,

          • hennorama

            pete18 – TYFYR.

            Let me see if I understand you correctly. It is your belief that, in your words,

            1. “It’s only because FOX News so dominates the ratings that people like jefe are so troubled by it.”
            2. ”If FOX had ratings like MSNBC, liberals wouldn’t complain about it because it wouldn’t be a threat to their world view or the previous dominance of left wing bias in the realm of television.”
            3. “Their ratings aren’t what they object to but they are the reason why liberals bring up their objections.”
            4. There are “frenzied and disproportional responses that a large number of liberals have in reaction to FOX news, which has risen in concert with their ratings surge over the years.”

            So, you believe that it’s NOT the ratings that “liberals” and “people like jefe” are “troubled by” and “object to.”

            I agree.

            But if it’s not the ratings that are troubling and objectionable, then what is it exactly?

            Your main point seems to be that you feel that “liberals” and “people like jefe,” voice their objections to FNC solely because of an increase in ratings.

            As if “liberals” and “people like jefe” have been thinking “I’m troubled and concerned about FNC’s conservative bias, laughable “Fair and Balance” slogan, etc., and I object to these things, but I’ll keep quiet until their ratings improve, and they become a threat to my world view.”

            As if.

          • pete18

            “As if “liberals” and “people like jefe” have been thinking “I’m troubled
            and concerned about FNC’s conservative bias, laughable “Fair and
            Balance” slogan, etc., and I object to these things, but I’ll keep quiet
            until their ratings improve, and they become a threat to my world
            view.’”

            No, liberals and people like jefe wouldn’t have even noticed or cared about FOX news if they didn’t have high ratings and influence over the news narrative.

            If liberals and people like jefe had been concerned about the laughable and obvious liberal bias that had dominated the print, and television media for decades before FOX News made an appearance to offer some balance, then maybe their “purity” of concerns over the problems of media bias would have merit.

            Liberals who complain about FOX
            are not driven by a concern for objective media coverage, they are concerned that an alternative network, which has
            a right of center slant, but is certainly no more biased than NBC, CBS, ABC and MSNBC, to name just a few, has gained such a huge viewership and influence.

          • hennorama

            pete18 — thanks again for your response.

            If what you have written was true, then “liberals” and “people like jefe” wouldn’t have voiced any objections or concerns about FNC when the channel first aired, or when its ratings were lower, or had declined, and when FNC “didn’t have high ratings and influence over the news narrative.”

            Right?

            But since many “liberals” and “people like jefe” have found aspects of FNC’s content, programming, and practices troubling and objectionable from the very start, that disproves your thesis.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • pete18

            I don’t think there was much left wing complaining about FOX in the beginning.
            Can you provide evidence to show otherwise?

          • hennorama

            pete18 – thank you for your response, and conceding that there was criticism of FNC from the start.

            You asked for evidence. It’s rather tedious to search for information from way back when, so to speak, especially on such a broad topic as the Fox News Channel, but it’s clear that even before the launch of FNC, there were questions about bias.

            Reports of the launch of the Fox News Channel questioned whether or not it would have a conservative bias. Allegations of bias in journalism is considered to be criticism, and since these are from the so-called “mainstream media,” and you have stated your opinion about an “obvious liberal bias that had dominated the print, and television media for decades before FOX News,” you must therefore consider these sources to be “liberal”:

            NY Times article, “At the new Fox News Channel, the buzzword is fairness, separating news from bias.” Excerpt:

            “Will FNC be a vehicle for expressing Mr. Murdoch’s conservative political opinions?

            “Many journalists believe Mr. Murdoch wants to offer a conservative alternative to what he views as liberal bias among traditional news purveyors. Reinforcing their belief is the fact that the new network’s chairman and chief executive is Roger Ailes, the well-known former Republican political strategist.

            “While Mr. Murdoch concedes that he sees a liberal bias in television news, and cites opinion polls showing that many Americans agree with him, he stops just short of championing an explicitly conservative alternative. He says he wants his network to label analysis and opinion to clearly distinguish it from news, and to be ”fair and balanced” in reporting.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/07/business/at-the-new-fox-news-channel-the-buzzword-is-fairness-separating-news-from-bias.html

            PBS NewsHour analysis from Oct. 8, 1996, “24 Hour News Channels: Too Much News?” Excerpt:

            “ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: There has been some speculation in the press that Fox News Channel will reflect the conservative political views of its owner, Rupert Murdoch, who has called CNN “too liberal.” But Fox executives insist the channel will be [fair] and balanced.”

            And

            “ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ken Auletta, you heard Roger Ailes say that Fox will try to be fair, and you heard Rupert Murdoch say that too. Rupert Murdoch does own a wide range of media. What do you think the chances are that Fox will be fair and unbiased?

            “MR. AULETTA: Well, it depends on which model you use. If you use the model of say the New York Post or the, or the Sun in London and some of those Australian newspapers, you’d have to say that he will use them as partisan platforms. If, on the other hand, you use the example of, of the national newspaper in Australia, which he started, which is very fair-minded, or The Times of London, you’d have to say that he is capable of presenting fair and balanced news. But, in general, Mr. Murdoch’s record in this regard is not encouraging. On the other hand, he has vowed, as has Mr. Ailes, that they will do different this time, and the proof will be in the [pudding].”

            http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec96/news_10-08.html

            N.Y. Daily News article, “FOX HUNTS TV NEWS NICHE WITH CHANNEL DEBUT TODAY.” Excerpt:

            “Media analysts speculate that FNC’s programing will mirror the conservative bent of Murdoch, the Australian-turned-U.S.-citizen who is head of Fox parent News Corp.”

            http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/fox-hunts-tv-news-niche-channel-debut-today-article-1.742177#ixzz2r9zDaKEa

            And of course, there are myriad later references to criticism and conservative bias, and Fox’s denials. A select few:

            July 2001: “The Most Biased Name in News Fox News Channel’s extraordinary right-wing tilt” http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-most-biased-name-in-news/

            July 2004: “The news: A nation divided” FTA: “Its slogan notwithstanding, Fox News is the most blatantly biased major American news organization since the era of yellow journalism.”
            http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/07/entertainment/et-rutten7

            September 2004: “Fox newspeople say allegations of bias unfounded”
            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-01-fox-news_x.htm

            October 2004: “News Corp denies Fox News bias”
            http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/26/1098667750250.html

            May 2005: “Fox News Admits Bias! Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak its name.”
            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/05/fox_news_admits_bias.html

            October 2006: Roger Ailes denies promoting conservative views:
            “We’re not promoting the conservative point of view, we’re merely giving them equal time and access.”
            http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b77af92-548c-11db-901f-0000779e2340.html#axzz2r9FEgjSK

            Then we have the 2004 documentary film “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”:

            “This Fox hunt is direct and effective”
            http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2004/09/17/this_fox_hunt_is_direct_and_effective/

            “Tilting at the Right, Leaning to the Left Robert Greenwald’s ‘Outfoxed’ Has Its Own Slant on Balance”
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41604-2004Jul10.html

            And who could forget the 2003 book “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” by now-Senator Al Franken?

            Thanks again for your response, and your concession.

  • Mike

    FOX News confuses many people. FN has news and commentary. Their news is simple the news, it is “Fair and Balanced” “We report, You decide” is true of their news. Now commentary is a different point – Hanity and Bill O’Reilly are commentaries NOT news. They don’t pretend their commentary is news.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      It appears that many of the critical “experts” opining about Fox News don’t actually watch but instead derive their expertise about FN from Media Matters and other left-wing bloviators.

    • hennorama

      Mike — I agree that “FOX News confuses many people,” specifically, their viewers.

      • Mike

        …not the educated and common sense based ones ones, perhaps the elitist, progressive minded folks who don’t live in the paradigm of “normal” my find it over their head.

    • PoliticsWatcher

      ” They don’t pretend their commentary is news.”

      Sure they do. Says “news” right on there.

      • Mike

        The name of the network is “Fox News”. The Sean Hannity and O’Reilly don’t call their shows news. Goodness, talk about a review lesson…

  • JGC

    ^ Mares: Kard Karrying Kulture Warrior of le Klan Nouveau. Has that fresh and superior feeling because black employer is “confused” about vocabulary with more than one syllable.

    Thanks for reminding me again, on Martin Luther King Day, that we are in fact living in a post-racial paradise.

    • 1Brett1

      I was going to reply to Mares, but I couldn’t have put it better than you have here.

      • hennorama

        Ditto. But ultimately, based on the tenor of this and other comments this individual has made, and my struggle to stay within the bounds of decorous remarks, I was once again glad for the handy [Collapse] minus sign.

        • HonestDebate1

          If you clicked the collapse sign then you would not have seen Brett’s comment much less replied to it. But you did. Why are you being disingenuous?

          • 1Brett1

            …AND, speaking of dive-bombing in on conversations to go out of one’s way to leave a steaming pile of screed…

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree but she didn’t have to lie about the minus sign.

          • 1Brett1

            No, I was speaking of your insinuating yourself into this just to blast hennorama; that was the “steaming pile of screed.” You know that, though. Your cheap tactics are just that.

          • HonestDebate1

            What in Mares’ comment did Henny respond to? And do you consider a lie to be a steaming pile of screed? I do but that’s just me.

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 — thanks for the mention.

            It is my policy to not respond directly to this individual, despite the repeated baiting and nonsensical remarks.

            It’s not easy to hold to this policy, as you might imagine.

            Thanks again for the mention.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t blame you, there is no response that looks good for you. You’re busted.

      • JGC

        Mares has an amazing incoherent history of a rant, running from homophobia to anti-semitism to “idiot” Latinos to demands to act Christian and show some compassion. And worst of all: I suspect Mares dive-bombs in on conversations, leaves a steaming pile of screed, and doesn’t even make a donation to the local NPR station: MOOCHER!

  • OnPointComments

    What a brilliant marketing ploy by Gabriel Sherman. He taps into the one of the most prominent dementias of liberals, their paranoid fixation on Fox News, which virtually guarantees book sales to all who wish that 100% of news reporting came from the left-wing echo chamber. If Sherman had inserted some fabrications about the Koch brothers into his book, his readers would likely experience euphoria while reading his “dour and grudging,” “disingenuous,” “underhanded,” anonymously-sourced tome. [the quotes are from reviews by the New York Times and Slate].

    • lobstahbisque

      Benghazi

  • Cacimo

    O”Reilly points out the failure of any major network to cover a story of international importance because it reflects poorly on the Obama administration and Sherman perceives that as a problem with FOX. WOW, with minds like that on MSNBC it is very understandable why their ratings are in the sewer.

    • HonestDebate1

      So much of the bias is in what they don’t report.

  • mjhoop

    Sometime after Roger Ailes is dead, the country, thanks to him, will become a dictatorship, supported by the misbegotten masses of Fox viewers who believe every lie and misrepresentation they have been fed,
    It won’t be an accident, but a well-thought out plan. Though i expect Ailes hopes it happens while he is here to see it happen, but as long as it happens, is all he cares about.
    It will be no different than it was in the past, when Communists took over so many countries under the USSR flag.
    It will be brutal and hateful, with neighbors attacking non-believer neighbors, and the rules favoring a small minority of infuentials. Anyone who disagrees with the new rulers will be targeted by the non-thinking Fox Party members, now arming themselves for the coming purification of the nation.

    • brettearle

      Don’t know if your comments are sincere or a satire.

      But I appreciate your thoughts as a satire.

      While it may be true that an expectation of influencing the thoughts of others, via Media, has a fascist feel to it, I don’t think that the Right are the only villains.

      I simply believe that the Right is much more guilty of it, than MSM.

      I might go so far as to say that the Right’s propaganda cult is often well-oiled and far superior to the Left Wing’s arsenal.

      Although, given Obama’s 2012 campaign, one could say that the Left is catching up.

      But, it seems to me, that we are fairly far away from a Fascist state.

  • HonestDebate1

    You would think Obama could end this pronto and put Fox in their place. All he has to do is sit for an interview and confront them with all the alleged lies. But he runs.

    • brettearle

      Did you ever see Bush II on MSNBC?

      • HonestDebate1

        I’m sure I did.

    • TFRX

      There’s no point in President Obama sitting for a Foxie. One hour of that, then endless days for all the Foxfkers to selectively edit, distort, and fabricate shat about Obama’s words and video.

      When something is started to not be a news organization, guess what? It doesn’t end up a news organization.

      Your faux polite concerns are duly noted.

      • HonestDebate1

        He won’t sit for anyone.

    • Duras

      O’Reilly interviewed him before the Superbowl a couple of years ago.

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s right, he did.

      • pennyroyal

        O’Reilly is all about emotional tantrum and silencing dissenting speakers before they can get a word in edge wise. Manipulative little despot.

        • brettearle

          And yet people like him.

          It’s nuts.

          I think I know why they like him [and it has less to do with his political beliefs, than you might think].

  • Cacimo

    LOL. Sherman claims he is not ideological. Sounds like a whole lot of jealousy.

    • PoliticsWatcher

      The conservative media have trained you well. You now reject anything not consistent with their narrative.

      • HonestDebate1

        Obama has you right where he wants you.

  • PoliticsWatcher

    Ailes had daddy issues. Why am I not in the least bit surprised?

  • PoliticsWatcher

    And the right blathers on about how the left is so “divisive”.

    Whatever the right accuses the left of, you can bet it’s what the right has been doing. Psychological projection.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Like the actress that kicked out of the production due to the leftist haters. The racist comments against her were particularly disturbing. No tolerance for any opposing views on the left.

      Where was her union representation?

      http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/18/actress-out-of-san-francisco-production-after-endorsing-tea-party-candidate/

      • OnPointComments

        In the words of William F. Buckley: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

        • brettearle

          “Liberals and Right Wingers claim to want to give a hearing to other views.

          “But it is the True Right Winger who is shocked and offended to discover that their claims of anti-global warming are backed up by the possibility of biased research methods….

          “And these Right Wingers are even further shocked to realize that these biased research methods might just be as biased as those research methods utilized by the global warming claimants.”

          Imagine that.

      • jimino

        Are you claiming she has a “right” to the job? In your ideal “right to work” environment one can be fired for any reason not currently prohibited by discrimination laws, which I expect you would prefer be done away with too.

  • OnPointComments

    My quick perusal of the comments showed at least 8 times commenters said Fox lies, yet not one of the commenters gives examples of the lies.

    • ThenAsFarce

      Here’s one, frequently heard on FOX news: “The jury is still out on climate science.”

      • OnPointComments

        MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:

        I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

        ‘In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about’

        • Don_B1

          Dr. Richard Lindzen is a well-known outlier, one of the 3% of climate scientists who maintain a retreating front against acknowledging the truth of the future devastation of this planet for human civilization if “business as usual” practices in generating energy from fossil fuels continues.

          He is just like those who maintain that cigarettes do not cause cancer. Try reading the Surgeon General’s recent report detailing the documented consequences of smoking, which are causing about 50% more in health costs than previously acknowledged.

          The same, or worse, will be found true for climate change effects.

          But ostriches who generate the false memes that you like to promote here have their heads in the sand and will be truly burned by their willful ignorance.

          • pete18

            “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”


            Leo Tolstoy,

            A Confession

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you very much.

          • pennyroyal

            they are on a par with the creationists and the updated version, Intelligent Design

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Dr. Judith Curry , Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, at a congressional hearing last week:

        ‘The science of climate change is not settled, and evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries

        With the 15+ year hiatus in global warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability

        The IPCC AR5 and SREX find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans, and weather extremes in the U.S. were generally worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s than in recent decades.”

        http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/16/senate-epw-hearing-on-the-presidents-climate-action-plan/#more-14335

        You should read up on the scientific method instead of relying on propagandists. I suggest you start with Dr. Richard Feynman’s excellent essay on cargo cult science.

        http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

        • ThenAsFarce

          You found one! That’s very FOX News of you. So you might be interested to know that in a recent review of the nearly 2,300 peer reviewed articles on the subject published in scientific journals over the course of 2013, only one — one — article dissents from the view that global warming is man-made.

          http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change

          This is in keeping with NASA’s findings that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is influencing global warming.

          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1

          It’s difficult, of course, for Feynman to weigh in on advances in climate science since 1988, since that’s the year he died. Stephen Hawking, however, is unambiguous about the human activities causing climate change, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

          So I’ll just repeat my original point above. One lie promulgated by FOX News: “The jury is still out on climate science.”

          • HonestDebate1

            97% of “climate scientist” do not agree. Those numbers are bogus, look at their methodology.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Actually, it is about 99.99% vs 0.01%.

          • HonestDebate1

            Okay, but will you agree that we should define what they are agreeing on? I’d agree with the notion that man might have an influence on the weather. Is that enough? Or do I have to agree that man is destroying the planet, a 4% cut in world GDP is a must and Communism is our best hope?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            It is worse than just bad weather. And since we are going to run out of fossil fuels anyway – that is the definition of finite, we get two huge benefits from switching to renewable energy.

            Renewable energy will last as long as the sun – about another 5 Billion years. Everything on earth is solar powered, and we just need to transition and fit in.

            GDP is a terrible measure of success.

            It counts pollution and chemical spills and crime and storm losses the same as it does actual useful things like food production. Plus, we are polluting and extracting and diminishing the land and water and air that we are utterly dependent on for our lives.

          • HonestDebate1

            We have plenty of oil to get us by until the technology catches up.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We do not have time to waste. Tar sands bitumen and deep water drilling and Arctic drilling – where warming makes it possible to drill – ALL prove that we have passed peak oil.

            Renewable energy can provide more than enough energy. Climate change is already affecting us badly, and we are about 30-40 years behind in the warming – since carbon dioxide is leading the warming this time.

            Our children will curse us.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
          • HonestDebate1

            Do you have a graph that goes back 650 billion years?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            There are graphs that go back farther than that. Understanding the climate back then points to big problems in our future. Carbon dioxide has not been as high as it is now for a very long time (close to a million years), and humans have never had to face what is coming.

          • HonestDebate1

            As you know temperature rises before CO2 levels not after. And we also know that the current CO2 levels have not resulted in the circumstances that were supposed to take place by now. But I’m dying to know, how on God’s green earth were CO2 levels so high a million years ago before the Tea Party? Also, do you think the Dinosaurs knew what was coming after hundred million years of rule? I wonder if they used hair spray.

            Either way I think we can agree 50 or a 100 years is nothing.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            When temperature leads carbon dioxide, other things are causing climate change. When the earth’s orbit changed, the increased temperature then caused the ocean to release carbon dioxide, which then caused yet more warming.

            That was then – this is now: we humans are burning fossil fuels, which is increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the air, which is adding heat to the climate – which is melting ice and causing the temperatures to start to rise.

            Now, carbon dioxide is leading the temperature. And when the ocean gets too warm to hold the carbon dioxide it has been absorbing (which is what is making it more acidic) – it will then release it (like it did in the past) and this will lead to yet more warming.

          • HonestDebate1

            I understand the feedback affect but temperature has always increased first. Warmer air holds more CO2.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            You are not correct – carbon dioxide does not always trail warming. Volcanic activity in the past, when the various continents were “zooming” around the world released carbon dioxide and then this caused warming. When what is now India was still in the southern hemisphere and was moving north toward what is now Asia released enough carbon dioxide to put the level up to about 1,000ppm. There was no ice anywhere, and sea levels were 100′s of feet higher than they are now.

            Then, warming trailed carbon dioxide. So you are wrong on that point.

            I think you are conflating how water behaves – colder water holds more gases in solution than warmer water, and how a gas works. Either way, more carbon dioxide in the air means more heat is retained and that means warmer temperatures.

            We had the perfect “Goldilocks’ balance of carbon dioxide ~170-270ppm that went on for ~650,000 years. Then we humans started burning fossil fuels and we have raised it to 400ppm+ and we have done so in the relative blink of an eye.

            We have passed 350ppm, so the Arctic looks to be doomed. If we pass ~450ppm, then probably Antarctica is doomed, too.

            This will change the gravitational pull of the southern hemisphere – which is why the earth is sorta’ pear shaped.

            http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9428163

            You should look into this science thing a little more I think?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        The Fox modus operandi is to have representatives from both sides present their views like this segment with two peer reviewed scientists — Dr. Gavin Schmidt and Dr. Roy Spenser.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw

        Seems better than the piece Scott Pelley did a few years ago on 60 Minutes when he only included alarmist scientists. When questioned on why he didn’t interview any scientists that are considered “skeptical” he compared those scientists to holocaust deniers. An arrogant position for a so called journalist to make himself an arbiter of ‘settled science’ especially in a nascent field like climate science that relies on predictive models instead of the classical scientific method of hypothesis and experimental proof.

        • Fredlinskip

          Actually if 97% of scientists believe man-influenced climate change is occurring. then a “fair and balanced” debate would be to sit 97 scientists down on one side and the 3 on the other:
          Then you would allow each scientist equal time.

      • OnPointComments

        There’s only one side in the global warming debate that wants to ban any dissenting opinions. The global warmmongers use phrases like “the science is settled” — no, it’s not — and retaliate against anyone who dares to question their flawed theories and methods. The warmmonger scientists seek funding from the government and those that want a predetermined outcome, then unsurprisingly report the predetermined outcome, which results in more funding. When their flawed predictions prove wrong, they concoct further unsupported theories (the oceans ate my climate change) as an excuse for their failing.

      • HonestDebate1

        I remember a guest on On Point saying the same thing.

  • longfeather

    The divisive hate speech of Limbaugh and others has an upsetting effect on soldiers coming back from Afghanistan. The Bosnian conflict, the one that haunts my loved one, was set off by racist radio shows that started in the 80′s. I hate to overhear that hate speech when I have my car windows down. I think of Bosnia. I can tell you some of these hate speech types are unwelcome in Europe.

    • hennorama

      longfeather — sorry for your troubles.

      One vital aspect of freedom of speech is that we suffer fools. A few we choose to suffer silently but not gladly. Others we suffer gladly but not silently.

      No doubt you could find a way to express your concerns about Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk in other, more direct ways if you chose to do so (e.g., comments on his website, contacting his advertisers, etc. There are organizations that already do this, BTW.)

      One thing about your comment that you may not be aware of: you used the word “hate” as an expression of your own feelings. That might be worth a second thought.

      Again, sorry for your troubles.

      • longfeather

        Thank you for your sympathy. However, while there is reaction to ‘content’ there is also reaction to ‘delivery’. One can be telling a kid, dog or adult everything they would love to hear, but if one were yelling it, the visceral response to the nervous system is the same, constriction, and wanting to get away. I recommend you try this with your own loved ones and you will find the tuning level at which this form of speech effects them. Maybe you would choose to live near screaming neighbors and rejoice in the free speech. The European don’t like anything that will wake the baby, or disturb the peace. I am concerned about those running around screaming at one another. It doesn’t help the thought processes. I love individuals to have the freedom to think in quietude.

        • hennorama

          longfeather — thank you for your response.

          I agree with the spirit of your comments, but simply point out that freedom of speech requires tolerance for viewpoints with which we disagree, however objectionable they may be.

          As to the actual volume of the sound, that is a different matter, as it may rise to the level of public or private nuisance, for which there are legal remedies.

          Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

          • longfeather

            Insight into PTSD , and response of those who have experienced or witnessed abuse will tell you the those who have experienced such domination or trauma, have to either freeze or leave. Legal remedies do not prevent suffering ‘in the moment.’ I do not want to keep the AC on in my car to experience the ‘free to be me’ radio stations of others. I’ll take the boom boxes any day over the self righteous bumperstickers and talk radio personalities.

          • hennorama

            longfeather — PTSD is another matter altogether, and I hope you and your loved one find some relief.

            As we seem to be talking past rather than to each other, I’ll leave you with a simple “Best wishes.”

          • pennyroyal

            read Common Shock by Kaethe Weingarten. This kind of daily trauma makes us numb, vicious people who think that ‘empathy’ (compassion) is the most useless emotion.

        • HonestDebate1

          I don’t necessarily disagree in theory with everything you wrote. I hate to get personal, I really do. I can’t help it. How in the world can you appreciate sympathy? It’s the most useless and unproductive emotion in the universe.

          • longfeather

            Just bein’ polite, just like all the soldiers respond with a nod to those civilians who perfunctorily say, “I thank you for your service.” and carry on with their obliviousness and the soldier’s know it.

            When someone tries to explain the details of the first amendment and free speech…well, they think you are uneducated or something, I guess. . Whatcha goin’ to do I listen to this music video of the Tams here in Florida singing “Laugh it off” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rucZVd_b5JU

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea, I may have read too much into it. IMO empathy is where it’s at.

            You bring back memories with the Tams video. I’ve shared the stage with them many times and knew Joe Pope well. They were always fun.

  • ThenAsFarce

    I happened to be reading Orwell’s “Looking Back on the Spanish War” precisely when the sound clip of Roger Ailes saying “The last time two men agreed on something it was Hitler and Stalin” was played. I lowered my eyes and read on the page Orwell’s lines about facts under totalitarianism: “It is just this common basis of agreement… that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘science.’ There is only ‘German science,’ ‘Jewish science,’ etc.” Maybe Ailes should read this essay. He certainly understands this aspect of fascism, just not in the way he thinks he does.

  • Duras

    Before an event happens, Reality sits back and thinks about how it will make the event fair and balanced. Objectivity is a thing of the past, and any journalism rooted in objective and verifiable facts is the real enemy.

  • Sy2502

    It’s ironic how one biased side points the finger to the other biased side. A comedic version of the pot and the kettle. In fact, every popular news outlet is completely and unashamedly biased. Of course each side likes to point out that the other side is WAY more biased than them. Which is of course nonsense.

  • SBreyak

    2 questions I felt this show didn’t address:

    Though I got that Ailes is smart and has successfully brought to the US this political polarization on cable TV, (1) to what end is he smart? Smart in his implementation of a plan or smart in what he’s brought to life? Though I know how I feel, I felt those discussing the issue were very careful to tiptoe around this. And related to this, (2) is this polarization that Ailes dreamed of and fueled good for democracy? As mentioned on the show, it does put people into camps and (in my own interpretation) rallies the troops, but is this what a healthy democracy should be? Politics as a competitive sport?

    • HonestDebate1

      I think those are good questions but IMO there are a few separate issues. There is politics, there is an informed populace and there is journalism which is the conduit between the two. The people are best served and better informed if the press has an adversarial relationship with politicians. They should be skeptical and question everything while remaining apolitical

  • HonestDebate1

    Megyn Kelly just cut to Janice Dean at the end of her show for weather update but Ms. Dean was making a snow angel in a foot and a half of snow. That’s good TV right there.

    • jefe68

      For 5 year olds.

      • HonestDebate1

        … and me.

  • ExcellentNews

    This show further demonstrates how 99% of the population has fallen for the tricks of Roger Ailes and his billionaire pals. Fox has DEFINED the mainstream media as “liberal”, and this is an essential part of their business strategy. The fact is that CNN, MSNBC, PBS…etc are NOT liberal. They are rather centrist networks that still use objective analysis as the basis for their operations. If you want to hear the liberal counterpart to Fox, you need to listen to Pacifica and similar networks.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 17, 2014
Students cheer and wave as President Barack Obama, not pictured, exits the podium after speaking at the University at Buffalo, in Buffalo, N.Y., Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, beginning his two day bus tour speaking about college financial aid.  (AP)

The inside dope on college financial aid. The way it really works, who gets what, and how.

Apr 17, 2014
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men burn leavened items in final preparation for the Passover holiday in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish town of Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv, Israel, Monday, April 14, 2014. Jews are forbidden to eat leavened foodstuffs during the Passover holiday that celebrates the biblical story of the Israelites' escape from slavery and exodus from Egypt. (AP)

In the week of Passover and anti-Semitic gunfire, we look at the history of the Jews with acclaimed historian Simon Schama. Plus, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church today.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 16, 2014
Harvard Business School is one of the top-ranked MBA programs in the country. Our guest today suggests those kinds of degrees aren't necessary for business success. (HBS / Facebook)

Humorist and longtime Fortune columnist Stanley Bing says, “forget the MBA.” He’s got the low-down on what you really need to master in business. Plus: the sky-high state of executive salaries.

 
Apr 16, 2014
A woman walks past a CVS store window in Foxborough, Mass., Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. The nation’s major drugstore chains are opening more in-store clinics in response to the massive U.S. health care overhaul, which is expected to add about 25 million newly insured people who will need medical care and prescriptions, as well as offering more services as a way to boost revenue in the face of competition from stores like Safeway and Wal-Mart. (AP)

Retailers from Walgreens to Wal-Mart to CVS are looking to turn into health care outlets. It’s convenient. Is it good medicine? Plus: using tech to disrupt the healthcare market.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
How Boston Is Getting Ready For the 2014 Boston Marathon
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

Boston Globe metro reporter Maria Cramer explains how the 2014 Boston Marathon will be different than races in the past.

More »
Comment
 
WBUR’s David Boeri: ‘There’s Still Much We Don’t Know’
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

WBUR’s senior reporter David Boeri details the ongoing investigation into the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing perpetrators.

More »
Comment
 
Remembering The Boston Marathon Bombing, One Year Later
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

One year after the Boston Marathon Bombing, we look back at our own coverage of the attacks and the community’s response from April 2013.

More »
Comment