Bob Novak, a newspaper columnist better known for his second job as a talking head on several CNN shout shows, has held his last day in a 25-year career on CNN. He had been on long-term suspension since the summer when he stormed off the set after uttering a swear word on live TV in an argument with the equally volatile James Carville.
Novak will be joining FOX News as a contributor.
Novak had also become known in the last couple years for being the newspaper columnist who printed in his column the name of the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the covert CIA agent that has led to a special investigation and an indictment of the vice president's chief of staff.
While Novak has maintained a near silence on the matter over the last two years, he said recently that the president should break his silence on the matter -- he believes the president knows who the source is who told Novak about Wilson's wife being a CIA agent.
CNN showed Wolf Blitzer this afternoon reminiscing with Novak, plying Novak for some details about the still unnamed sources involving the CIA agent, and generally feeling upbeat. There was just an allusion to the August incident with Carville. There was no mention of Novak's new job at FOX.
FOX is really a better place for Novak, anyway. He just ruffled the feathers of all the CNN folks, people who are generally reasonable and who try to see both sides of an issue whether they themselves are conservative or liberal. Novak could be relied on to recite the Righty political talking points and to carry plenty of water for the Bush Administration. I'm sure the Rightys will take care of Novak -- and it starts with finding him a nice spot at their media outlet, FOX News.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
CNN - Way left.
NBC/CBS - Moderate Left.
PBS - WAY left.
Fox - Maybe slightly to the right.
(The previous post was mine, but I deleted it because of a typographical error. A corrected version appears below.)
You're as much of a blind water-toter as Novak.
None of these networks EXCEPT "Faux" News has an ideology, certainly not PBS!
Logie, what makes your assertion that Fox "has an ideology" and CNN/NBC/CBS/PBS are neutral any more legitimate and accurate than Adam's assessment? This seems like an issue of pure opinion, nothing more. Therefore, the "blind water-toter" seems a little out-of-line.
I feel I am a fair person. I can spot when someone is presenting something form just one side. In the news media, much of the criticism comes from two main criteris: the stories selected for coverage and the questions/guests used to advance a story.
PBS is about the least partisan outlet one can find. Some object that a media outlet that is essentially government-sponsored should be in the business of, on occasion, broadcasting the news that may be unflattering to the government itself. CNN and MSNBC both have a balance, I think, of sources and patronizing shows. CNN has its superconservatives (Novak, Bay Buchanan, and Lou Dobbs). Sometimes these people, such as Dobbs, chip in their own opinionated quips on an issue after a guest has left or at the end of a segment. Tom Brokaw never did that, and neither does Wolf Blitzer. MSNBC has some "personality-driven" shows as well, notably Keith Olberman, but that is clearly labeled as such (and KO is an equal-opportunity offender, kind of a news network attempt at the "Daily Show").
FOX, on the other hand, often immediately takes the conservative administration's side, and its liberals brought in to have "balance" are often mocked (Alan Colmes) or are so weak (Juan Williams) that they seem to just be straw men there to allow the conservative position to be stronger.
And, Anonymous, don't accuse me of having a pure opinion without also taking Adam to task. I doubt he watches as many news shows as I do and has thought as much about this as me. Plus, my comments are clearly my opinion -- it's my blog.
-- L.
PBS has gotten better. Whenever I watch CNN (which has more democrats than republicans) I always see the 2 on 1 (2 liberals, 1 conservative debating). It's always giving the liberals a stronger hand and better talking points.
Hannity and Colmes (1 conservative, 1 liberal). They share air time and keep things equal when debating a guest. They both bring up pretty bland, easy, talking points for both sides as well.
Bill O'reilly definitley leans to the right (although I disagree with some of his stuff), but he has excellent guests and never uses cheap shots. It may seem that way, but he's just a great speaker and he always lets his guests finish speaking. I remember when him and Paul Krugman were debating on Tim Russert's exclusive interview and Krugman literally shaking near the end.
Logie, I appreciate your explanation. The only reason I didn't "take Adam to task" was that you called him a "blind water-toter" without any evidence supporting your opinion, whereas he simply stated his opinion without any sort of personal attack.
It's your blog, and you have every right to your opinion, but it just doesn't seem necessary to call someone "blind" when they don't see things your way, especially in the absence of hard evidence.
"Ooh, go Anonymous! You just got served, Aimone. ;) "
Or as we say in the gaming community
"You just got pwned!!11"
Ummmm yeah. OK.
-- L.
Apparently, not many people--except Loganite--actually watch much of any of these channels. Bill O'Reilly "always lets his guests finish speaking" and "never uses cheap shots." Puh-lease! Watch the show. He's worse than any other.
If you watch Hannity and Colmes are not equal by any measure. A suave, strong voiced, good looking conservative versus a geeky, scrawny, soft-speaking liberal. Plus, Hannity almost always ends a discussion or interview with a parting shot and a sign-off editorialized comment.
I prefer the moderate CNN and occasionally the mainly centrist MSNBC any day.
I didn't see Loganite get "owned" or "served." I think some of you need to read some actual studies of the media and the leanings of the networks as entire entities rather than by a single program. Only FOX is known to send memos to anchors and pseudo-journalists detailing what buzz-words to use and how to spin a story.
Loganite agrees with you on this issue, pezz, so CLEARLY he's the only one who ever watches any of those channels, right? That sure is one convincing argument you make.
Pezz, given the fact that your evidence, like Adam's, is purely anecdotal, I don't see how you can jump to the conclusion that no one except for Loganite ever watches the news. Present some hard facts if you want to prove your point. Otherwise, your opinion is no more valid than Adam's or anyone else's.
I'm not saying there isn't any evidence out there, pezz. I just think you should keep from flaunting your superior knowledge of the news until you can actually back it up.
Adam never accused either of you of not watching the news or being blind. He simply stated an opinion. Keep that in mind before you try to point out the fact that I'm defending him instead of asking him for evidence as well (although if he'd like to present any himself, it could be interesting).
Basically, Pezz, I think you'd be well-served to read those earlier comments from anonymous to Loganite. They seem to apply to you as well.
Here's one, Roy:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/
Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct0
3_rpt.pdf
This was a fairly popular study from two years ago in regards to the Iraq War and FOX News. It details the misconceptions FOX News presented its viewers, in part by using editorials as news with a conservative slant. I believe the film "Outfoxed" also cited this study.
This study was quoted quite often because of the distance the researchers maintained. They also revealed the misconceptions presented (toting the administration line) by CBS and ABC. NBC and CNN remained fairly middle of the road along with print sources while NPR and PBS were viewed as the most factually informative (and not carrying the party line).
As study by Fair. org (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) conlcuded in their survey of the media in general that "The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content." This again gives credence to the previous comment of some channels not labeling their "news" and "commentary" and expecting the public to determine this on their own.
Communications Research (an academic publication) also stated that the public is reacting to "increasing news coverage of liberal bias media claims, which have been increasingly emanating from Republican Party candidates and officials."
Editor & Publisher determined that "Fox News Channel was the most one-sided of all major news outlets."
Another great read from FAIR (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067) details the FOX bias. Since Brit Hume is often seen as having the most "balanced" (pun intended) show on FOX, this article focuses in part on his show and reveals that that his most frequent guests, no matter what they declare, happen to be conservative. This article also goes into what I said earlier about Hannity and Colmes.
Al Franken (I know, he's a far left liberal) counted the number of words Hannity and Colmes actually speak on their show and revealed that Hannity spoke almost twice as often and long during the show, not to mention Hannity being called in to comment on other shows (TV and radio) while Colmes does not receive this treatment and voice.
Another FAIR article (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070) details O'Reilly's background and tendencies on his show.
Granted, not all of these articles come from academic studies, but academic studies are also often attacked as liberal leaning academics trying to spout their agendas.
Roy,
Adam also CLEARLY carries the far right conservative line. He absolutely buys the "Fair and balanced" slogan of FOX and sees it as the beacon on the hill for news reporting. Merely labeling a speaker on a news channel a liberal, moderate, or conservative does not mean they are (Miller of Georgia being an easy example).
If you read his posts, Roy, he would obviously see FOX as "maybe slightly to the right" because he has extremely conservative views. Right or wrong, he will pull many issues back to immigration and supporting the war (not to mention that shooting--I forget the type--issue he mentions often). Being far from the center will make even the most centrist views seem liberally slanted.
I would bet that most of the major networks lean slightly left on social issues but decidely right on economic and foreign affairs issues. I have no study for this one except my own experience listening to the talking heads and reading news articles. I often hear people decry the Wenatchee World as a leftist paper and have to chuckle; they just are just much more conservative than the World.
You can have www.fair.org, Al Franken, and outfoxed.
I'll take www.mediaresearch.org
Outfoxed is a terrible movie. It's credibility is nothing more than Bowling for Columbines completely butchered and misleading speech by Charleton Heston.
"Why don't you just shut up about your sex life?" --Bill O'reilly
"Why don't you just shut up---" --Bill O'reilly on Outfoxed.
I agree that the interview with Heston was cheap and sad, but much of what he showed on film (recruiter tactics, families hit by the war, meeting with Congressmen, and so on) is dead on target.
How many times does O'Reilly tell guests to "shut up"? Numerous times, as evidenced by numerous sources including Outfoxed.
More of O'Reilly's objectivity:
"Now for the top story tonight: Is Al Gore running for president on a quasi-socialistic platform--in this case, socialism being defined as work and production being supervised by the government?"
“If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” Has he? Oh, yes. An off-hand apology during Good Morning America right before he continued to tow the Bush Administration line.
"You can always move to Cuba, where everybody is the same, and everyone is poor. You can always go there. They would love to have you, Ms. Ireland." Ms. Ireland was the former NOW President.
"The National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject Intelligent Design and don’t want to mention it in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." Sound objective to you?
About Muslim women: "..the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries."
"You know what’s really frightening? You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it’s true. You’ve got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote." –to "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart. Almost as scary as the uneducated he sways with his "fair and balanced" reporting of the news.
About the late Pope in 2003: "I have never liked this pope. I have always felt he was an autocrat who had no vision about how people live in the real world." This year he attacked the NY Times for the same type of statements.
P.S. "Nearly every story on Fox's O'Reilly Factor (97%) contained O'Reilly's opinions, even his quick news briefs. CNN's Larry King was nearly the reverse, with only 2% of segments including his opinions. And despite to his reputation for dominating the guests, Chris Matthews on Hardball offered his opinion just 24% of the time." (from the Project For Excellence in Journalism at Columbia University)
See, isn't this a little more fun now? Thanks guys. That's some interesting reading.
O'reilly is a political analyst that leans to the right? Is he not supposed to give his opinions? Is anyone here surprised? Any reason why is show is so popular? Yeah, people like to watch him and they agree with him. How did he "attack" the NY Times anyway? Did the Times dislike the pope for the same reasons as Bill?
I assume you're refering to Fahrenheit 9/11 and not Bowling for Columbine? I'm not going to get into Moore right now because he's way too easy and I'm sure a lot of devout liberals have a problem with his tactics.
Based on my peers who watch the daily show, his comment is dead on. Before I was even interested in politics I didn't find Stewart funny either.
"Now for the top story tonight: Is Al Gore running for president on a quasi-socialistic platform--in this case, socialism being defined as work and production being supervised by the government?"
--How is that any different than CNN's
"Is lying about a war an impeachable offense?"
...which automatically implies that Bush did lie without even detailing what is literally considered a lie.
Bush's deceptions and faux intelligence briefings become all the more apparent with each day. Only an apologist wouldn't admit it.
Post a Comment