You have heard the promo from Fox News: Fair and balanced. I have told you previsouly that I actually think Fox is fairly balanced (especailly in comparison with everyone else), but NOT "fair". I bet yu thought Fox would never ADMIT I was righ about that? Think again. Fox did admit it TODAY (Monday).
Don't ever doubt me on this. I have criticized Cavuto before ("Your World on Fox). He is not bad on pure economics, but on anyting else he is TERRIBLE (a disgreace). I saw his interview with Newt Gingrich, and it amounted to about the worst interview I have ever seen on televisioin.
Yes, I have told you, correctly, that Newt Gingrich will never be President. I told you that years ago--as far back as 2008, and multiple times since. Further, I have said I would not vote for Newt Gingrich for President, even against Barach Obama. That said, I am FAIR. Fox is NOT, and Cavuto ADMITTED it!!!!
At least five times-it seemed like more--in abut a 15 minute interview, Cavuto started off questions with "it may not be fair, but...." Oh the wording may have slightly varied. Sometimes it was: "It may be unfair, but...." What folowed th "but"? You know that.
Yes, Gingrich was DESPERATELY trying to tell me--futitilely, it is true--why he would make a good President. You know. Gingrich was trying to talk abut UNIMPORTANT things like JOBS and the ECONOMY, and what Obama is doing wrong and what Gingrich woud do bettter. Cavuto, of course, could see that. But ALL Cavuto was interested in was the resignations of all of those staffers, and whether it dooms Gingrich's campaign. Okay. ONE question. That is alll the slack I give. This story on the rsignation of Gingich staff is now TOW WEEKS old, or more. Enough, already. What does it have to do with whether Gingrich should be President? Even it has some SMALL, tangential relevance, the public already KNOWS all it needs to know on the subject. I will say that Gingrich soldiered on. Question after question came his way on the subject of how "it may be unfair, but..."--followed by a question again trying to suggestg that Gingrich has no business even tryig to go on. Time after time, Gingrich would respond by referring to Ronald Reeagan, and how his staffers had quit in 19810, and then TRY to talk about a substantive reason people should consider him for President. Cavuto kept IGNRING the answers, and going back to the same subject again. Cavuto simply would NOT let Gingrich talk about real issues. ALL Cavuto would let Gingrich talk about was what CAVUTO said was the UNFAIR OBSESSION with Gingrich's staff problems. It was only in the last two minutes that Gingrich got any FAIR questions at all.
No, that is not all. Cavuto SANK himself as a "journalist" FOREVER, in my discerning eyes. Cavuto is not worth watching--now or ever, on anything. Why do I come to this conclusion? On more than one occasion, Cavuto brougt up GINGRICH'S WIFE--obviusly suggeting the wife is behind all of Gingrich's trubles.
Now readers of this blog know that it is people like Cavuto--despicable human beings trying to be UNFAIR--who have forced me out of the closet as aFEMINIST (think of yourself being called a NAZI, by YOU, to realize the devastating effect this has on my self-image). Yes, what RELEVANCE does it have whether Gingrich's wife has a big influence on his campaign. Abigail Adams had a BIG influece on John Adams. So what? You can argue it was mainly for the good, although Abigail was accused of being behind the infamous "Alien and Sedition Acts". In this day and age Cavuto is saying that we need to be CRITICALLY examining the role a wife is playing in a political campaign? When the candidate takes full responsibility? Iam OFFENDED on behalf of wives and women I have yet AGAIN been driven out of the closet to admit I am a closet feminist. Cavuto, for that alone you are gong to be condemned to HELL, if Hell exists.
Nope. Not done. Then came the beginnig of the "O'Reilly Factor", with Juan Williams (antoher partisan political hack, although he does better as host than as guest). standing in for O'Reilly. Brit Hume was a guest. Now Brit Hume is the man I respect MOST in modern "journalism" (admittedly, not saying much). Therefore, it pains me to say that Brit Hume seeems to have been consciouslyl a part of the "cricle the wagons" defense of Chris Wallace (see previous article early today on Mark Davis, and the next article to bel posted on this blog). Williams asked Hume about Michele Bachmann, and guess what the disgracefu answer was?
Yep. You guessed it. It was Hume channeling his inner Cavuto, and his inner Chris Wallace. At least TWWO times, Hume said that it MAY BE UNFAIR, but Bahmann is gong to face a Plain-type DEMONIZATION from the mainstream media, and that made it unlikely that she could beat Barack Obama. Hume emphasized that the mainstream media would UNFAIRLY pick at every mistake Bachmann makes, and blow up each such mistake. Now you would THINK that Fox would do its best to MKE UP for this 'unfairness", at least to the extent of being scupulously fair themselves? Not on your life. Not this UNFAIR version of Vox News that is evolving. Nope. Rather, Hume proceeded to cite a Wallace-type EXAMPLE of tghe "unfair blowing up of small gaffes" that Bachmann will face. The more I think about it, the more I believe this was a dEFNESE of Chris Wallace, without ever having the guts to mention his name. I am ashamed for Brin Hume. He used to be better than that. Oh? The smear? The unfair smear? Evidently Bachmann has said more than once that John Wayne "came from" Waterloo, Iowa, where Bachmann was born. It evidently turns ut that John Wayne actually lived a whole 150 miles away, and that only his father and mother had lived in Waterloo for a short time. I know. I did not believe it either? Birt, you have the NERVE to talk about 'unfairnesss", and then give THAT stoury as an example of how petty YOU can be--saying all of the time that it is not YOU who would be so unfair as to blow up a story liek that.
When will I call for a BOYCOTT of Fox News? I am gald you asked me that. SOON. Yes, I have about had it with the smiling HYPOCRITES of Fox News, making money off of being "fair" to conservatives while ADMITTING it is being just as UNFAIR as the maninstream media. In fact, what were Birt Hume, Chris Wallace and Cavuto all telling you? They were telling you that they felt they had NO CHOICE but to follow the mainstrream media UNFAIR narrative. Why is that? I NOW what it is for Chris Wallace, and other at Fox. They want ACCEPTANCE in those mainstream media circles, and that means adopting the mainstream media nrrative in questioning. Cavuto, I think, is jut an indiot accepting that he is not a good interviewer--meaning he falls back on the mainstream media narrative as an a "guideline' on how to do an interview--asking what they would ask, although even MORE STAUPIDLY. As stated, I believe Brit Hume is just trying to cover for Chris Wallace.
So mcuh for "ari and balanced". Fox News contains some of the most UNFAIR peope in media. "Soon" (that call for boycottt) is comging closer. As it is, I suggest you do what I do. SURF Fox, CNN and even MSNBC to get a sense of the NARRATIVE out there. Take everything you hear--including on Fox--with a barrel of salt. Then read this blog for the truth. Or surf elsewhere on the net. Check in on Rush Limbaugh. Check out Drudgee. No, you don't NEED Fox. You don't NEED CNN. You definitely don't need YAHOO (boycott Yahoo)/AP "News". If you look at a variety, however, you can figure out what is going on (so long as you don't make the mistake of BELIEVING what you see and hear). Oh, you can believe ME, if you can get past the typpos. I have been right so often, it is beeginning to get a little boring. It is about time I was proven wrong on something, to add a little spice. To my recollection (admittedly a little biased), I have not been roven wrong for at least TWO YEARS.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).