Third Party & Independents Archives

Richard Roeper Wants Scooter Libby Pardoned!

His readers must be shocked. How could liberal pop-columnist and movie critic Richard Roeper call for the presidential pardon of Scooter Libby? It’s true, the Chicago Sun-Times, the newspaper for which Roeper writes, officially stated its position in an eye-opening column last Monday.

To be fair, it was actually conservative columnist Robert Novak who called for the pardon in his June 11th column, but doesn’t one person’s opinion on a topic become that company’s official position? It does according Roeper’s school of thought.

Over the last several years liberals have made it a sport to hysterically attack Fox News so they don't have to explain why it‘s the highest rated and most-watched cable news network. It's just easier to denounce it as a propaganda outfit...a very, very successful propaganda outfit.

Faithfully doing his part, Roper titled his most recent column, "Fox's slant on Moore enough to make you ill" but points to an entirely different culprit:

To the surprise of no one, Fox News has been attacking Moore's latest (documentary).

Last Sunday night, Sean Hannity sounded as if he was ready to hand Moore a blindfold and a cigarette.

Is Roeper talking about Sean Hannity or Fox News here? I’m confused because I just read Fox's review of the supposedly "brilliant and uplifting" documentary and I'm having trouble finding all the attacks. Nowhere in the review does it indicate that Fox movie-critic Roger Friedman is ready to give Moore "a blindfold and a cigarette." If anything Friedman is looking to give Moore an Oscar statue.

By making Sean Hannity the official spokesperson for Fox News, Roeper made about as much sense as I did when I wrote that he was calling for the pardon of Scooter Libby based on a Robert Novak column.

So blinded and disgruntled liberals are by their hatred for a news network that is infinitely better and more popular than anything their media personalities have ever been able to create that they stubbornly refuse to accept Fox's reaching hand.

I’m still amazed by how stupid the Democratic presidential hopefuls were when they refused to appear in a debate sponsored by Fox News and potentially tap into a voter pool that could easily determine the outcome of the next election.

Sure, they won't get their ideas out to the independents who watch Fox News (or the part of its audience that justifies Roger Friedman's paycheck), but at least they pleased the Keith Olbermann fan club and MoveOn.org nuts who were going to vote for them anyway and haven't put a Democrat in the Whitehouse since they kept Bill Clinton in 1996 with less than 50% of the popular vote.

It was the last time a Democrat won, and right when Fox News was in its infancy. Is it powerful enough to shape elections? Who knows, but the Left is certainly doing themselves no favors by refusing to work with a machine that isn't going away anytime soon, no matter how many Roeper columns are written to denounce it.

Posted by Scottie at June 20, 2007 3:17 PM
Comments
Comment #223572

Scottie, not that I really care because I stopped watching television news years ago (the format is not conducive to a genuine examination of the issues), but I’m not certain I follow your argument. What does popularity have to do with quality?

Posted by: Gerrold at June 20, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #223573

How about the Dems have a debate on Fox, and the Republicans let Dan Rather be the moderator for theirs?

I find it hard to believe that the Democrats’ winning in 2008 depends on debating on a specific news network, especially one that is so hostile to them. You are making this argument on the Internet, so you are surely aware of the vast variety of news sources available. Someone who relies on Faux for ALL of their news is not going to vote Democratic.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 20, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #223580

FOXNews is run by the man who ran the campaign of the current President’s father. It runs mostly Republican/Conservative pundits on it’s schedule, and its Anchors regularly make particularly far-right commentary on the issues.

It’s higher ratings come from people watching its opinion/commentary shows. Those ratings, though, are not the last word. CNN has greater cumulative ratings- that is, people simply tuning in, then tuning out, which is reasonable considering that people watch the news to check up on matters, not necessarily to watch the whole Newscast.

FOXNews, if it quit airing the quite biased commentary of its Republican Pundits, would likely lose quite a bit of their audience.

Additionally, Roger Friedman’s review does not mean that everybody on FOX takes that view, especially Sean Hannity. One review does not a reputation disprove.

Democratic Candidates would not be acting in their own best interests if they subjected themselves to ambush by people who have so overtly bashed them and ambushed them in the past. That’s the nature of the market. Nobody has to show up for a debate on a newschannel whose entire raison d’etre is to propagandize against them.

Moreover, given the FOXNews audience, what would be the point? The only people who really take the station seriously are hardline Republicans, who would probably be difficult to please about even the best Democratic performance. We’d rather appeal to the moderates, and we find plenty where we look, thank you very much.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #223593

Scottie, You cant be serious when you recommend to the dem hopefuls that they “debate” on Faux. First of all Faux wouldnt know a debate if it bit them. Second if you think these little coffee clatches the dems and repubs have had then you need to look up debate in the dictionary.
Third, seeing it is just the primaries why would the dems go to the repub propaganda outlet to gain votes? Are you thinking the repubs would all jump up and switch parties to vote in the primaries? You must be a Faux viewer with that kind of thinking.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 20, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #223608

Steven,

I think you better look up the Fox News demographic- more democrats and independents together watch fox news than republicans. Let alone “Hardline Republicans”.

Woody,

I don’t think you will find too many republicans with a fear of facing dan rather.


Just keep hating fox news, just keep calling names (faux news)

Cant hurt us tougher than that.

Posted by: scottie1321 at June 20, 2007 11:46 PM
Comment #223609
Over the last several years liberals have made it a sport to hysterically attack Fox News so they don’t have to explain why it‘s the highest rated and most-watched cable news network.

The reason for Fox’s success has more to do with principles of consumer economics other than its relative quality compared to other news outlets.

Take this example: We know that Coke sells more cans of soda overall than Pepsi. But if you line up ten soda machines in a row, with nine up them selling only Coke, the one that sells Pepsi will be the best performer. That doesn’t mean, however, that more cans of Pepsi are being sold overall.

That’s the simple secret of Fox’s success. Their competitors all offer the same product in a crowded marketplace, but they offer something different (for which there is a demand).

To go back to the soda machine analogy, Fox’s real stroke of genius is that they’re also selling Coke in their machine. They have a number of liberal voices on their network—probably more liberals than all of the conservatives on all of the other cable and broadcast networks combined.

It’s very interesting, isn’t it, that many of the liberals who complain about Fox are so knowledgeable about their programming. Fox is predominantly conservative, but unlike their competitors, they include the occasional alternate point of view. The left finds this intolerable, since they seem to think it’s their right to have the entire media shilling for them. But despite the fact that they find it intolerable, they’re tuning in. Why that should be is the more interesting question.


Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 20, 2007 11:57 PM
Comment #223618
How about the Dems have a debate on Fox, and the Republicans let Dan Rather be the moderator for theirs?

Didn’t they let Chris Matthews moderate one of their debates recently? Seriously, that is like having Neal Cavuto moderating a democratic debate, isn’t it?

What’s the big scare the democrats have of people who are critical of them? Do they only want to air their views to people who already agree with them in principle?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 21, 2007 4:23 AM
Comment #223619

REMEMBER WHEN?….

We were discussing if the new “Air America would make it as the far left does not like discussion, they like instruction?

We were discussing stories about how “Air America” was having trouble getting ratings?

We were discussing stories about how “Air America” was having trouble losing markets?

Whether or not the reports were real or spin that “Air America” was having financial trouble?

The news came out that yes “There is a Bankruptcy”?

Remember Air America?

Posted by: scottie1321 at June 21, 2007 6:09 AM
Comment #223620

and Rhinehold thank you!

yes I remember when Chris Matthews gave McCain twice as much debate time as Guilliani and gave Romney twice as much time as McCain.

Posted by: scottie1321 at June 21, 2007 6:15 AM
Comment #223624

Anyone who debates whether or not Fox is biased has either 1)never watched Fox, or 2) only watches Fox. Every once in a while, I will watch the LOCAL Fox news broadcasts, and it blows my mind how different it is. I’m not just talking political slant here, I mean that every aspect, from choice of lead stories to anchor ethnicities to background graphics to musical scoring, everything is slightly off kilter from other stations. Everything is slightly, or sometimes not so slightly, tilted toward the right. Let’s put it this way: my in-laws (as hillbilly a bunch as you will ever meet…. I really think my wife was adopted) only watch Fox, and they still think that the Clintons committed murders to cover up the Whitewater scandal, they still think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11, and they still believe that WMDs were found in Iraq.

BTW scottie, yes I remember AirAmerica…. still listen to it too.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at June 21, 2007 8:30 AM
Comment #223628

Scottie,

What make you think I “hate” Fox? I just said that they were hostile to the Dems, a fact that anyone whose head isn’t up their rear would have to acknowledge. Accuse me of “hating” them is just a way to avoid the substance of my argument.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 21, 2007 8:58 AM
Comment #223629

Scottie,

I don’t see what your point is about Air America. No, it has not been a smashing success. So what?

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 21, 2007 9:01 AM
Comment #223642

Woody

just curious, can you name any liberal talk shows that have been a smashing success, other than those on NPR which gets gov’t funding, or that are not broadcast from a college campus. in other words stood on thier own by being able to sell advertising spots.

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2007 11:54 AM
Comment #223644

Woody,

You say:
What make you think I “hate” Fox? I just said that they were hostile to the Dems, a fact that anyone whose head isn’t up their rear would have to acknowledge. Accuse me of “hating” them is just a way to avoid the substance of my argument

I don’t expect you to see the point. Actually I expect you won’t. (Faux news)(Hostile to the dems)
But those who don’t lean so far left that they are lying down will most likely better understand.But I will give one point for you.

Because you far lefties spent every post defending air America’s success and many many many of you denying at all times that there was a free market problem(ratings and profit) with the format.

sorry, I don’t generally use the “head up their rear” tone in my writing but for context to woodys posts I thought it to be funny.(at least to me!).

Posted by: scottie1321 at June 21, 2007 12:31 PM
Post a comment