Peas in a pod…
TVNewser notes that Keith Olbermann added a laugh track to some Brit Hume comments about John Murtha from Sunday’s Fox News Sunday because of the laugh track which was used on FNC’s The 1/2 Hour News Hour. Though TVN writes the thing up with a blog header that makes it sound like this was an MSNBC decision and not something cooked up internally at Countdown; “MSNBC Adds Laugh Track To Fox News”.
Meanwhile over on FNC during the same hour, demonstrating that he’s more than capable of following the Olbermann playbook, Bill O’Reilly launched attack number 20-something on NBC News and its liberal bent. Last night’s victims; Chip Reid for calling Mitt Romney a flip flopper for Romney flipping positions 180 degrees on a whole mess of subjects between when he was first elected Governer and now when he’s running to the right to run for President; something that most political writers have noted and the Romney camp is scared to death over being labeled and not without good reason (see Kerry, John; Iraq Vote).
O’Reilly said Reid had Ana Marie Cox on as a guest and that this was important because apparently she’s a former editor of a Marxist publication or something (O’Reilly didn’t bother mentioning that she now works for Time Magazine and used to run Wonkette). Also cited was MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer for a “softball interview” with one of the bloggers John Edwards fired. The clip played seemed to come from the tail end of the interview and was probably the worst (or best) possible example to use to make O’Reilly’s point. O’Reilly also called Jeff Zucker a committed leftist without presenting evidence. Listening to O’Reilly speak with a high pitched girly voice was nearly worth having to sit through the segment. Nearly, but not quite. I did think for a split second about YouTubing O’Reilly’s girly voice however. But it was late (I caught the replay) and I was tired. Maybe someone else will post it.
I wasn’t going to write up what O’Reilly did last night because it just contributes an air of legitimacy to his ridiculous attacks. But then I read what Olbermann did and I had a “moment of clarity”. It’s become readily apparent to me that FNC’s and MSNBC’s two biggest stars also happen to be their two biggest children…
It’s become readily apparent to me that FNC’s and MSNBC’s two biggest stars also happen to be their two biggest children…
Filed under: Cable News, MSNBC, FOX News Channel - Spud
While it’s hard to argue with that point, when you listen to the clip that Olbermann inserted the laugh track on, it’s easy to see why. Fox News is a joke. The swift-boating of John Murtha continues by Brit Hume just unleashing a vicious attack on him questioning his mental state. Murtha has a plan that is going to help bring about a close to the debacle in Iraq. It’s one that does, in fact, support the troops by ensuring they are properly trained, rested between tours and properly equipped. It’s easy to see why Brit Hume would be against something like that. This plan actually does protect the troops instead of just paying lip service to them.
O’Reilly’s attack, on the other hand, as you point out, was completely without merit and in Mitt Romney’s case, absolutely outrageous considering how Kerry was labeled by the channel. There was hardly a day during the ‘04 election that the graphic ‘Flip-Flopper?’ didn’t appear on the screen anytime Kerry did.
O’Reilly is starting to lose it and is becoming a parody of himself. It’s quite funny.
Comment by Shaun — February 20, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Im saying. How long and BO keep his ‘nbc leans left’ whining? Hey BO GET OVER IT! What are you shooting for, the firing of everyone at nbc? Why anyone watches BO is beyond me. BO, look out for us and take yourself off the air!
Comment by Big Dave — February 20, 2007 @ 11:34 am
The stars must of been aligned last night! I was actually watching KO when this Brit Hume laugh track action was going on…..And this was some funny stuff! Brit Hume is always getting defended on here, but that fact is, he’s no different than KO when it comes to expressing personal opinion. However, at least KO is “right on” about this shameful war started on faulty intelligence and defended by partisan hacks too stupid to stop lying.
Comment by Terance — February 20, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Spud,
Actually, O’reilly did point out the fact that Ana Marie Cox currently works for time. However, how does that change the fact that she worked for a marxist publication? I know you hate O’reilly but get your facts straight. Additionally, if you bothered to read the transcript from the cnn interview you’d understand that the clip O’reilly played wasn’t the only material to choose from. Regarding the “softball interview”, what if the blogger had disrepected muslims or blacks or poor people, etc? Do you honestly think she’d have received a softball interview? I didn’t think so. You lefties are so hypocritical.
How about the glorified infatuatiion the MSM showed when Obama announced his candidacy???? Of course right out of the box, the leftist media begins it’s hit job on Mitt Romney. Wow. Y’all must be very “blissful”.
Comment by Itsme — February 20, 2007 @ 11:39 am
I can’t believe how transparently liberal Spud has become.
Comment by Jim — February 20, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Actually, O’reilly did point out the fact that Ana Marie Cox currently works for time. However, how does that change the fact that she worked for a marxist publication?
It does in as much as she was brought on not because she used to work for a Marxist organization but because she works for Time and ran Wonkette.
But as to not noting that O’Reilly said she worked for Time, I’ll defer to you. As I said, I wasn’t planning on writing about this until I saw Olbermann’s stunt. Normally I got through these segments via Tivo. This morning I had to do it from memory because there was no Tivo.
I know you hate O’reilly but get your facts straight.
Just because I criticize him for substituting a bunch of unrelated debatable incidents for conclusive proof going to intent that NBC News has gone left and that this is all because he can’t deal with Olbermann when he should just be quiet and ignore the guy does not mean I hate Bill O’Reilly. It means I call BS when I see it.
I can’t believe how transparently liberal Spud has become.
And of course since I am so transparently liberal it makes perfect sense for me to attack Olbermann and O’Reilly at the same time. Pull your head out…
Comment by Spud — February 20, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
“Brit Hume is always getting defended on here, but that fact is, he’s no different than KO when it comes to expressing personal opinion. However, at least KO is “right on” about this shameful war started on faulty intelligence and defended by partisan hacks too stupid to stop lying.”
Ever clueless Terance. KO does a “hard news” program (his claim) and is “non partisan” (again, his claim). Last time I checked, that doesn’t call for commentary on your show. Brite Hume was on a bloody PANEL for the sake of DEBATE and DISCUSSION. He doesn’t stick his opinion and use vitriol at every moment possible unlike your hero. What is so complicated here? Are you really that ignorant?
Comment by Edward Schatz — February 20, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Hume doesn’t use vitriol but he certainly does state his opinion when he on Fox News Sunday. I’ve seen him destroy the milquetoast Juan Williams countless times.
I don’t see how anyone can argue that Olbermann’s show is non-partisan now. Not after the Special Comments. If the only thing Olbermann points to to show balance is what happened back in 98 with Lewinski…well that was 9 years ago.
Comment by Spud — February 20, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
I can’t believe how transparently liberal Spud has become.
Comment by Jim — February 20, 2007 @ 11:52 am
And so it begins… How long before people start demanding equal criticism of KO on this site (even though KO is criticized just as much)?
Comment by Shaun — February 20, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
I can’t believe how transparently liberal Shaun has become.
Comment by Jim — February 20, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Spud, my point was that Hume’s opinion is perfectly legitimate on a panel. That’s the purpose of it. He doesn’t do it on his show (occasionally it slips through but he’s good 95% of the time). If KO wants to be part of panel and state whatever he wants, go ahead.
Comment by Edward Schatz — February 20, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Edward Schatz, somehow I’m not shocked at the typical talking points you spout in a pro-FNC fashion day after day. I don’t have any “heroes” and if I did it certainly wouldn’t be KO who hides in a studio.
Comment by Terance — February 20, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
I have a “FAR RIGHT” brother and a “FAR LEFT” brother — I love them both — I stay in the middle and referee. FOX news is conservative they admit it — NBC is liberal they do not admit it — MSNBC has moved “FARTHER RIGHT” they do not admit it. It is good to get both sides as long as they are honest.
It is important that we know “ALL” we can about “ALL” of the 50 people running for PRESIDENT. If someone changes a position on a topic “I WANT TO KNOW”. This is not democrat or republican it is “WE NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE”.
Comment by Aunt Mary — February 20, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
I missed this part of O’Reilly’s show last night. Was he commenting on the media coverage of Romney’s changes of positions vs. how the media covered Democrats when they changed positions on issues? I guess I’m not clear on what his point was and didn’t see any transcript on the web site.
Comment by Scott — February 20, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Terance, somehow I’m not shocked that you didn’t respond to a single point I made other than stating KO is not your hero. My apologies. You’re just a big fan.
Comment by Edward Schatz — February 20, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
What marxist publication did Cox write for? Was this before or after Wonkette? (If before Wonkette, I propose that the Wonkette gig ritually cleansed her.)
Comment by Arthur — February 20, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Arthur: Bad Subjects: Political Education for Everyday Life. I’ve never heard of it myself.
Comment by Edward Schatz — February 20, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
#2 Big Dave — “BO, look out for us…” — WHO is “US” do you work for MSNBC?
Comment by Aunt Mary — February 20, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Terance,
Perhaps you should research what a “discussion panel” is versus what a “news anchor” is. Hume participates in both and leans right during his commentary segments (the panel on Sundays & the Grapevine segments on his own show) and does the straight news otherwise, as opposed to Olbermann’s FAR left schtick that it taken straight from the blue blogs.
Really, Edward has been trying to inform you guys of the distinction (which the rest of the world already knows about) & if it hasn’t sunk in by now, perhaps you are the problem.
Comment by RW — February 20, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
RW, Brit Hume leans right, eh? He is just as much of a partisan HACK as KO except they play for different teams. I don’t care what “hat” Brit Hume has on at the moment of his extreme right wing bias episodes. The fact remains, he can’t control his political leanings and deserves to be fired at once!
Comment by Terance — February 20, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Let’s not forget that Brit Hume was also the best political reporter in the business when he worked for ABC. He was honored by the Clinton White House for his excellence.
And Spud, I’m not sure what you mean with the “milquetoast Juan Williams” comment. Williams and Hume mix it up quite often and Juan handles his end of the debate quite well. I don’t recall Brit ever “destroying” him, although the arguments sometimes get heated.
Off-the-air, they are very good friends.
Comment by bigred — February 20, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I can’t believe how transparently liberal Shaun has become.
Comment by Jim — February 20, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Just catching on to that now genius?
Comment by Shaun — February 20, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
You Have to watch what you say around Shaun and his band of flunkies.He could be keeping a file on what you say, just look at some of the post over the weekend he let us all see just how good he can recall what you said 5 or 6 yrs ago .Yes! He is just a transparent liberal with a good filing system.
Comment by mike — February 20, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
And this would be reason number 1 and 2 why I don’t watch either O’Reilly or Olbermann. They are both insults to journalism.
Comment by Alison — February 20, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Why should Hume “be fired at once” Terance? Because he said something during an opinion-based discussion that doesn’t mesh with your liberal point of view?
The fact is, whether you agree with Murtha’s plan or not, it was a really, really stupid move on his part to announce it before the house voted on the Iraq resolution. That’s why there were a lot fewer Republicans who agreed to the resolution than were expected. They didn’t want to be in any way attached to Murtha’s plan. It probably hurt the Dems in the senate as well.
Murtha has a history of dumb comments.
Comment by bigred — February 20, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Bigred, I’m an Independent and think both parties are full of crooks & pedophiles. So, if you want to call that liberal, fine with me. I need to clarify the “firing post”. Hume needs to be “relived of duty” for the 6pm show. If FNC wants to keep him around to be a partisan contributor (they do need some fresh faces) that would be fine with me!
Comment by Terance — February 20, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
And Spud, I’m not sure what you mean with the “milquetoast Juan Williams” comment. Williams and Hume mix it up quite often and Juan handles his end of the debate quite well. I don’t recall Brit ever “destroying” him, although the arguments sometimes get heated.
What I mean is Williams regularly regurgitates Democratic talking points instead of making passionate principled defences. Talking Points can usually be easily beaten down and Humes is very good at that. Consequently, Williams puts out a talking point and Hume destroys it. I just don’t understand it because Williams is on NPR which suggests he has a brain but it seems like the brain is put in park frequently when he goes on FNS. Talking points are a poor substitute for original thought. Fred Barnes is the conservative equivilant of Williams; another talking point spouter that I usually know what he’s going to say before he says it. I can’t do that with Hume. Sure he’s conservative but he’s unpredictable in how he goes about approaching giving opinions.
Comment by Spud — February 20, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Spud I agree 100% . This is becoming a broken record.
Let’s start a pool to see how long before the American
public gets sick of both of them. Apparently the adults
have left the building.
Comment by future tv mogul — February 20, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
If you are pointing out stuff about Romney, that in your opinion he’s a flip-flopper … how come you didn’t point out that what Hume said about Murtha was accurate? (That Murtha has made stunningly naive and ignorant comments on topics he should know better.)
Comment by John — February 20, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
I did not see the Chip Reid segment, but if he directly used the term “flip-floppper” to describe Romney, perhaps he should’ve used a better term. He very well knows that “flip-flopper” has a negative connotation, and instead, in the interest of being completely impartial, should’ve stated that Romney “changed his opinions” on certain issues.
However, Reid is a reporter, and there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with what he said. The fact remains that Romney has changed his opinions on abortion. However, flip-flopper connotes that Romney has done it intentionally for political purposes, rather than simply changing his mind.
Comment by The Voice of Reason — February 20, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
My comment was to Spud. He clearly has a hard left bent, but to his credit seems aware of it and tries to compensate. Where he fails is where he slams Romney, but fails to point out the laughtrack Olbermann did was frankly unjustified. “If” Olbermann was a real journalist he’d have analyzed what Hume said and debunked it if possible. I suspect he knew Hume was right, so instead of debunking something that cannot be debunked, he tried to delegitimize Hume’s blunt statement with a laughtrack. That’s not journalism. That’s just cheap. And Spud, if he were down the middle, would have pointed that out.
John
Comment by John — February 20, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
John: Agree about Murtha. In fact, today the Washington Post is highly critical of him.
Terance: “Extreme right,”"partisan HACK?”
Hardly.
If anything Brit Hume leans to the right and on “Special Report” the only bias you might find are in the items covered in the Grapevine segment. Recently Hume was very complimentary of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a very partisan liberal Democrat.
Spud: Although I am conservative, IMO Juan Williams does more than spout Democratic talking points. His latest book (about race) offers proof that Juan is his own man.
Comment by Ira — February 20, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
If you are pointing out stuff about Romney, that in your opinion he’s a flip-flopper … how come you didn’t point out that what Hume said about Murtha was accurate? (That Murtha has made stunningly naive and ignorant comments on topics he should know better.)
Comment by John — February 20, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
How easy it is to pick apart this argument…
1)To go from being pro-choice to pro-life makes one a flip-flopper. You could argue his position evolved, but since you right-wingers refused to concede that Kerry’s position on Iraq (and the majority of the country’s for that matter) could evolve in spite of no WMD, this makes Romney a FLIP-FLOPPER. This is a fact. If you take opposite positions on the same issue when politically convenient, you are, in fact, a flip-flopper.
2) Regarding Hume’s statements on Murtha: These are Hume’s OPINIONS (outrageous ones at that). They are not fact and cannot be labeled as such. For every person that agrees with you there would be AT LEAST one person that would completely disagree. See the difference between fact and opinion there John. No one outside of you and your right-wing friends believes anything that comes out of the mouths of your propaganda network.
3) As for the Washington Times, oops I meant Post, they have taken some very interesting positions in the past month or two. They are cozying up to your side for some reason. They are almost schizophrenic in their views lately. Dana Priest did some excellent reporting on the Walter Reed Medical Center (which was a non-partisan hard-hitting piece that damaged the right further), but then they go and claim that charges should be brought against Patrick Fitzgerald & Joe Wilson for their roles in the Libby trial (!!!). I’m sorry if this trial taught us one thing, it showed the lengths that Cheney would go to so that he could protect his baby, the Iraq debacle and all the lies used to justify it. Then there was the example of them criticizing the Dems for running the House under the rules that were in place under the Republican congress. Taking up right-wing talking points and ignoring the fact that the minority party has been completely marginalized in the house for the past 6 years. And of course, the Murtha criticism. Like I said, they seem to be cozying up to your side for whatever reason.
Comment by Shaun — February 20, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
I saw O’Reilly last night, and so many people here are missing the point. What Chip Reed said was fine, but only if there was some balance to it. Chip went down the laundry list of why Romney is bad, WITHIN MOMENTS OF HIS ANNOUNCEMENT, with no statement about why he’s good. Did he do the same with any of the other candidates? Why didn’t they have someone to say what Romney’s positives are? Why was the first thing he said Romney had going against him was that he’s a Mormon?
As for his complaints about the softball interview…. EVEN KIRSTEN POWERS SAID IT WAS POOR! Now I can’t comment too much, because I didn’t see the actual MSNBC interview, but when you have the liberal on set agreeing that it was a “softball interview” I feel pretty good that it isn’t “Bill Spin.”
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 20, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
I like the milder description of Mitt Romney by the editor of the Red State blog - “Multiple Choice Romney”.
See here
And someone find old transcripts or footage of the “balanced” reports done by Fox News with regards to Kerry’s “flip-flopping”. I guaranteed we will be laughing out our asses at the hypocrisy.
Comment by elmonica — February 20, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
Comment by Itsme said “Of course right out of the box, the leftist media begins it’s hit job on Mitt Romney.”
Perhaps you should get your own facts straight before you go off on others such as Spud, Itsme. It’s not just a hit job on Romney by the liberals. Conservatives like Tony Perkins (President of the Family Research Council), Paul Weyrich (founder of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation), conservative sites such as MichNews.com, RedState, The Conservative Voice, and Rightmarch.com (a prolife PAC) have called Romney’s changes flip-flops and have criticized him over it. Conservative KS Senator Brownback has said, “Mitt Romney’s flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush.”
I just saw FNC’s conservative John Gibson conduct a softball interview with a Romney spokesman. Maybe that will balance things out for you with regards to the leftist media hit job that you claim is happening.
I didn’t see The Factor last night so maybe someone can clarify. What was it about Chip Reid’s flip-flop comments that O’Reilly didn’t like? It’s been pointed out by conservatives all over the place that Romney has flip-flopped on some major issues…not just liberals or NBC. Is it, as the Voice of Reason said, because Reid is a reporter and should be more impartial? Because if that is the reason O’Reilly brought Reid up, then O’Reilly should look to his own network. Carl Cameron, a FNC reporter, also used the flip-flop tag when he covered John Kerry and I don’t recall O’Reilly criticizing him for that.
Terance makes a point that I think is worthy. Perhaps it would be better for Hume’s professional credibility if he would choose to either offer his personal opinions on panel discussions at FOX News Sunday or do Special Report (without the right leaning grapevine segments). He’s the DC bureau chief for news content and his appearances on the panel seem rather at odds with someone who is responsible for news content.
Spud pretty much sums it for me up with “FNC’s and MSNBC’s two biggest stars also happen to be their two biggest children…”. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Comment by STP — February 20, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
I always love how the same people who think that FNC is the devil because of how it covers the news, use FNC to justify bad behavior. If FNC does it… it’s bad. If MSNBC does it, it’s okay because FNC did too… and they’re worse for it.
And that’s hypocrisy.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 20, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
KO is at it again tonight with the Fox News laugh track thing. It’s old now.
Comment by Goldfish — February 20, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
STP, so I guess no reporter/anchor should ever be involved in panel/opinion discussions, right?
I guess we should then fire most of the top reporters on NBC, since they appear on Chris Matthews roundtable show frequently.
NPR reporters… Juan Williams and Mara Liasson give opinions on FOX. They need to go too.
Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw held a joint panel discussion when they were all still the main anchors. Should they have been dismissed?
I see nothing wrong with Hume being a host during the week and a commentator on the Sunday show. He knows Washington politics as good as anyone and I like to hear knowledgable opinions on subjects.
BTW, for all those calling him a partisan hack.. yes, he leans to the right on many issues, but that hardly makes him a cheerleader for Bush, or a basher of the Dems. When Joe Biden made his stupid comment about Obama a few weeks back, Hume praised Biden’s character and supported the stance that Biden meant no ill will toward Obama. A partisan hack certainly would not have done that.
Comment by bigred — February 21, 2007 @ 2:33 am
This nonsense was old and tired a long time ago. Can’t both networks and staffs of these shows come up with something innovative and new? It reflects badly on everyone involved. Now tell me, was Edward R. Murrow fixated on verbally trashing his competition night after night?
Comment by Char — February 21, 2007 @ 7:19 am
Bigred, Brit Hume isn’t a “partisan hack” like say..Hannity or Coulter. But, he is definitely on the roster of the right wing hacks. Btw, Juan Williams in scared to speak his mind to Brit Hume. Which perfectly explains why he is so weak on FNC/FNS. Its called job security.
Comment by Terance — February 21, 2007 @ 7:41 am
Jeez, Terance, are you TRYING to rid yourself of any credibility whatsoever? Do you realize that you’re doing little other than parroting the Greenwald-far-left talking points? Why not go all the way and go ahead and call Williams a handkerchief head, since that’s basically what you’re doing?
——
Folks, as in the past when the network news anchors stated their opinions, when something is labeled “commentary” it’s just that. When KO does one of his special comments, he’s no longer acting as anchor. The problem is when the rest of his show is the same thing & he denies that he’s political (and the media goes, “oh, okay, he’s not political”). When reporters are on a discussion panel, the public realizes that they’re giving OPINIONS. When they’re giving a report, the public realizes that they’re acting as REPORTERS. When they’re giving commentary under the guise of a report, that’s when the cries of “bias” come into play, and there is precious little of that in Hume’s reporting career (which is why there is nothing more than childish rants in response to being reminded of that).
Comment by RW — February 21, 2007 @ 9:58 am
RW, no I didn’t realize that. I have NO IDEA who or what “Greenwald-far-left talking points” refer to. And I don’t care enough to google it. Sorry, I don’t follow any sort of “protocol” from the right or left. I choose to make my mind up on a “per incident” basis. So, attempting to align me with one party or the other is simply futile.
Comment by Terance — February 21, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Also, I didn’t know what this “handkerchief head” thing was either. From what I saw on the Time website, I’d never use that type of language.
Comment by Terance — February 21, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Yeah, but you’re sure that Juan Williams is “scared”. You just…….know it, enough to posit it as a rational deduction on your part.
Is that how you normally “make up your mind”, by assuming the absolute worst of anyone who says something you disagree with. Why, is it so out of the realm of reality that Juan Williams may, perhaps, simply have a different opinion than you (try to consider it as a possibility) rather than being “scared” to speak up to whitey?
Comment by RW — February 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am
RW, I hate to throw a “wrench in your spokes” but I’m white. And I really don’t have a horse in this race. So, see you on another thread!
Comment by Terance — February 21, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Bigred,
Using O’Reilly’s logic with regards to his Reid comments, the answer to your question would be right. But I don’t personally agree with O’Reilly on this matter. It doesn’t bother me when I see reporters/anchors involved in discussions. I don’t know the specifics said by the main anchors you listed but I don’t have problems if they held a panel discussion. That’s no different than when Hume holds panel discussions on Special Report. The main point of my response is that O’Reilly is calling out another network’s reporter for something his own network’s reporter does too.
I finally found the YouTube clip of O’Reilly’s comments concerning Reid. He had problems with Reid’s objectivity since he is a reporter who covers congress and no voice from the other side was presented. He also said, “I don’t care whether one of their analysts say it, Kirsten, one of their analyst can call him a flip-flopper all day long. This is a correspondent” and “If a FOX News correspondent did this, he’s be chastened.”
Carl Cameron, a FNC correspondent, has done this. Is O’Reilly going to chastise Cameron? Cameron said this on Hume’s Special Report and there was no voice who countered Cameron’s flip-flop comment. I assuming O’Reilly is mad about this too? Scarborough even highlighted another example of Cameron using flip-flop on last night’s show.
My wondering about Hume giving his personal opinion isn’t because he has been a reporter or is currently an anchor. It’s about Hume’s being FNC’s DC “managing editor and responsible for overseeing news content” fitting in with his giving personal opinions on FOX News Sunday. That description in quotes is taken from his FNC bio. It’s not really that huge a deal. I was mostly just wondering out loud.
One other interesting thing O’Reilly said in this same clip is that “Zucker is a committed leftist and he has ordered his people to do it. We know that.” He was meaning that Zucker has ordered NBC’s employess to take the network to the left. How does O’Reilly “know that”? Does he have documentation of this? Dan Rather claimed FNC gets talking points from the White House and when O’Reilly asked to see the evidence, Rather said he’s come on The Factor and explain. So far Rather and his evidence have been no-shows. Unless O’Reilly provides proof of his claim against Zucker, he’s acting in a manner much like Rather whom he criticized.
Comment by STP — February 21, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Your skin color matters not, Terence. That you’re continually undressed intellectually & instead divert or run is the topic….you can’t back up your assertions. Perhaps you could consider that in the future before making them?
STP,
Good question (at the end).
Comment by RW — February 21, 2007 @ 12:51 pm