Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grsz, my post is related to the topic. The OP has criticized Fox talk show hosts of bias, yet ABC has a major news journalist, arguably their top news anchor, actively donating towards Hillary's run for president. How more biased can a TV news channel be?
Wallace is there to try and insert a level of journalistic credibility to the network. The entire network is staffed with partisan hacks, everyone knows that, even the rubes who tune in, and they have to have at least one example of someone who throws out genuinely difficult questions during interviews for the network.
FOX does not do this simply for an appearance of journalistic credibility, they do it because a small segment of their audience wants this, and if they don't provide it, those viewers will look elsewhere for it. To some degree they have to have someone asking genuine questions to their conservative guests to keep their market share what it is, and that person is Wallace.
He is the only guy I care to watch on Fox, as most of the others are partisan hacks. The network is not nearly as bad as MSNBC (which is essentially outrageous comedy), as they do have guys like Wallace and Williams there and do have "opposing" views presented. I am not a fan of ANY television news, but some of it on Fox is okay when you get beyond the Hannity and O'Reilly crap. When I see Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich present thier "expert" opinion, I have developed a conditioned response to vomit blood.
He is a rare journalist these days. I love his reporting and his party affiliation does not concern me since he keeps it separate from his job. If I have to look it up myself then they are not doing their job. I want all sides, and all points of view. The last think I want is to watch a program that I agree with everything said 24/7.
Grsz, my post is related to the topic. The OP has criticized Fox talk show hosts of bias, yet ABC has a major news journalist, arguably their top news anchor, actively donating towards Hillary's run for president. How more biased can a TV news channel be?
No, he didn't. He donated to a charitable foundation. There is legitimate debate about even that donation and the function of that organization, but he didn't donate to a campaign that didn't exist. But that's for another thread that has probably already been beaten to death.
No, he didn't. He donated to a charitable foundation. There is legitimate debate about even that donation and the function of that organization, but he didn't donate to a campaign that didn't exist. But that's for another thread that has probably already been beaten to death.
If you think donating to the foundation is not the same as donating to her campaign you are as gullible as they come.
He is the only guy I care to watch on Fox, as most of the others are partisan hacks. The network is not nearly as bad as MSNBC (which is essentially outrageous comedy), as they do have guys like Wallace and Williams there and do have "opposing" views presented. I am not a fan of ANY television news, but some of it on Fox is okay when you get beyond the Hannity and O'Reilly crap. When I see Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich present thier "expert" opinion, I have developed a conditioned response to vomit blood.
I like Chris Wallace. I understand why conservatives can't tolerate MSNBC, they do have their share of carnival barkers on there as well (Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton, to name two) but Rachel Maddow is not one of them.
She provides a very intellectual, nuanced and in depth analysis of stories she finds meaningful. Granted, it is usually Republicans in the cross hairs, but her reporting is more than a topical examination, she really does do the leg work to get to the bottom of the story.
I also like Lawrence O'Donnell, but that's because I'm a liberal.
The Sunday shows are in a shambles compared to what they were 25 years ago. Back then we had David Brinkley and Tim Russert, who was very good in spite of the fact that he had previously worked as a Democratic political operative. Russert was master of the gotcha trap, and he didn't care whether he caught an R or a D. He was actually fun to watch. Sometimes he generated more heat than light with this approach, however. Brinkley was also excellent.
I consider Faux Noise to be one of the STD's of television.
What are you, 12?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
