May 14, 2008
What Was Fox Thinking? … AGAIN (Peter Fenn)
As I sat over at XM’s POTUS channel going over the election results last night, I couldn’t help but stare at the bank of television sets.
There was CNN, carrying Hillary Clinton’s West Virginia speech live … and MSNBC and C-SPAN doing the same. From start to finish, the cable channels were all tuned in to her speech.
And what about Fox? Funny — the “UnFair and Out-of-Balance” channel was the only one not to carry audio of the Clinton speech. The “We Distort, You Decide” network was content with Dick Morris doing the talking, with a visual of Clinton giving her speech. Maybe he was channeling her … what do you think?
It is unbelievable to me that Sean Hannity and Morris would do their Frick and Frack routine and ignore her speech. This is the ultimate in slash-and-burn TV. Fair and balanced — you have got to be kidding me. But why the surprise? After all, it is Fox.
Journalism be damned.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 7 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
But what was the point? All of them believe that Hillary has lost, so what was Fox trying to accomplish?
Comment by Igor R. — May 14, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
I got a good one this morning on Morning Joe on MSNBC they were commenting on how Clinton's pandering on the gas tax holiday was such a failure and just as David Gregory says, it was clear that the voters saw through it, a graphic appears that shows 63% of West Virginia voters said it was a good idea.
I love talking heads.
Comment by Chuck R — May 14, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Why are thoroughly discredited political strategists such as Dick Morris and Karl Rove given ANY air-time, credence or legitimacy whatsoever?
Comment by KingCranky — May 14, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
One channel out of four had different coverage and that's a problem? Only a liberal would perceive that as a problem. We need different coverage, we should have and demand differing views. The three channels you mentioned that were featuring a wall to wall speech by her all have the same talking heads over and over and offer no differing points of view. It appears that diversity is only important as a talking point to liberals. They certainly don't believe in it when it comes to news coverage. Oh that evil Fox News, how dare they do something different. WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! DIFFERENCE CAN'T BE TOLERATED! At least by the liberals.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 15, 2008 @ 8:41 am
Why are thoroughly discredited political strategists such as Dick Morris and Karl Rove given ANY air-time, credence or legitimacy whatsoever?
Comment by KingCranky — May 14, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
To balance out thoroughly discredited political strategist Lanny Davis?
Comment by james d granata — May 15, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Give discredit where discredit is due.
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Probably the most comical and controversial moment of the night was when MSNBC kept flashing the Nebraska Primary totals which showed Hillary had erased a 35% caucus victory to only 2% points.
The pundits literally shouted at the graphics person to take that graphic down. It was as if the graphics person was a Hillary supporter sending out an SOS.
Mission accomplished, we now see that Barack Obama cheated in the caucus state votes, Washington State and Nebraska, by having both a primary and a caucus, clearly show this.
So does Barack's 11 highest winning percentages all being in caucus states, a mathematical improbablity in the millions to one.
Comment by Alessandro Machi — May 17, 2008 @ 12:51 am