It's a small thing, but worth noting because it goes against a stereotype. On Wednesday night, Tony Snow on Fox News interviewed Cholene Espinoza, former Air Force pilot and military correspondent for Talk Radio News Service, about her efforts to help those in rural Mississippi devasted by Hurricane Katrina, the subject of her new book. Espinoza said, rightly, that individuals need to personally take action instead of expecting the government to do it all. She also noted she had gone to the hurricane-ravaged areas with "my partner, Ellen Ratner."
As it turns out, Ratner is a sometimes commentator for Fox News, which is no doubt why Espinoza's efforts and book got the producers' attention (journalists often get their friends and relations into stories).
What's worth noting? That nobody at Fox seems to care that these
women are in a committed relationship. And that's what goes against
the stereotype.
17 Comments for “Fair and Balanced, This Time.”
posted by J.P. on
Bravo to Espinoza and Ratner, and not just for their efforts with hurricane victims but for being upfront about themselves in a conservative venue (where, in fact, many guests are anti-gay).
It does so much more to bring the message to the right, just by being honest, than all the shouting and hollering done by those on the left.
And Bravo to IGF’s John Corvino for his debates with conservatives. Why is it only little IGF (and a few others, like Soulforce) that are doing this? Where are the overpaid staffs at HRC and NGLTF and GLAAD and WDOMONESLSR….? Preaching to the choir and socializing exclusively with their lefty buddies!
posted by Ed Brown on
It is certainly great that people are willing to dig in their heals in help out, when the Bush Administration bungled the recovery efforts.
It does so much more to bring the message to the right, just by being honest, than all the shouting and hollering done by those on the left.
And Bravo to IGF’s John Corvino for his debates with conservatives. Why is it only little IGF (and a few others, like Soulforce) that are doing this? Where are the overpaid staffs at HRC and NGLTF and GLAAD and WDOMONESLSR….? Preaching to the choir and socializing exclusively with their lefty buddies!
posted by raj on
Regarding the post, I’m not sure that I would read as much into the author’s appearance on Snow’s show as Miller apparently does. Talk shows such as Snow’s are constantly in search of material to put on the air, and publishers are more than willing to accommodate them. Particularly if the company controlling the broadcasters also control the publishers. (I don’t know if that was the case here, but it certainly is with other programs.
Also, I’m not sure that I would put much stock in Espinoza’s acknowledging her “partner.” “Partner” is a relatively ambiguous term.
posted by Bobby on
“Fair and Balanced, This Time.” What kind of bull is this? Fox is almost always fair and balanced, I can’t believe how far left Miller is drifting. That was an inflamatory headline, shame on you!
posted by raj on
Fox News is about as balanced as a see-saw with a sumo wrestler on one end and a baby on the other.
posted by Bobby on
NL, your comments remind of of that headline from The Guardian, “how can 65 million Americans be so dumb” after Bush got elected.
I think I’ll stick with the fair and balanced network. At least they don’t call Americans dumb.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
your comments remind of of that headline from The Guardian”
I don’t see how you can equate a statement accusing 65 million people of stupidity to a statement which ridicules the 300,000 or so FOX News viewers who claim their network is “fair and balanced.”
Your tactic a bit like calling Harry Browne (RIP) “nonpartisan” or Iraq II a “just and well-executed war.”
posted by Bobby on
Fox News is the highest rated cable news station. O’reilly alone gets 3,000,000 viewers every night. That’s why MSNBC and CNN hate his guts so much.
Your comment shows disdain just like the headline from The Guardian. It is the nature of liberals to hate those who disagree with them.
posted by Avee on
J.P. asks, “Why is it only little IGF (and a few others, like Soulforce) that are doing this? Where are the overpaid staffs at HRC and NGLTF and GLAAD and WDOMONESLSR….?
J.P., that’s because HRC, NGLTF, GLAAD and the rest of the alphabet-soup mob refuse to engage with conservatives as a matter of principal. They’re quick to unleash their press release denunciations and sometimes to stage protests, but they think debating with “the enemy” isn’t dignified (but actually, I suspect, they’re just too lazy and intellectually inept).
posted by Northeastern Libertarian on
“It is the nature of liberals to hate those who disagree with them.”
As I’ve pointed out multiple times, Bobby, not everyone who disagrees with you is a “liberal.”
Although it’s increasingly clear that most people who disagree with you tend to be correct.
“Fox News is the highest rated cable news station. O’reilly alone gets 3,000,000 viewers every night.”
3 million viewers — that’s what, perhaps 2% to 3% of those of legal voting age?
If I recall, conservative nut-jobs such as yourself were highly dismissive of the Libertarian Party when it grabbed over 5% of the vote in elections like the Massachusetts Senate race. You must be reading The Guardian!
You cannot even keep your own rhetoric straight. But Republican apologists such as yourself, with their generous doses of over-the-top rhetoric and eye-dropper full of empirical analysis, are also renowned for that with large parts of the public.
One day, you’ll learn to think for yourself, and you’ll blush with embarrassment remembering these days!
posted by Northeastern Libertarian on
“engage with conservatives as a matter of principal. They’re quick to unleash their press release denunciations”
While I agree that NEVER debating social conservatives is a bad idea, I also take issue with the idea that conservatives should ALWAYS be debated.
Should Jews or blacks itch for a debate with the KKK at every opportunity, or simply point out what nut jobs they are?
posted by Bobby on
So now you’re comparing us to the KKK? How nice.
posted by raj on
So now you’re comparing us to the KKK? How nice.
Sigh.
No, he’s likening us to Jews and blacks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
3 million viewers — that’s what, perhaps 2% to 3% of those of legal voting age?
If I recall, conservative nut-jobs such as yourself were highly dismissive of the Libertarian Party when it grabbed over 5% of the vote in elections like the Massachusetts Senate race.
How many eligible voters does 5% of the Massachusetts Senate race represent?
If the population of Massachusetts is 6.5 million and 75% of the population are of voting age, that represents a total of 4.875 million potential voters.
Assuming a generous turnout of 50% for the Senate race in question, that would result in a total of 2.5 million potential voters.
Libertarians got 5% of that, or 125,000 votes.
Compare that to O’Reilly’s estimated number of 3 million voters, or more likely, 3 million households per evening.
In short, O’Reilly gets 24 times the attention and response that the Libertarians do.
With you as an example, NL, that’s not terribly surprising.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks North Dallas Thirty, you’re always great with facts! Keep up the good work.
posted by Northeastern Libertarian on
Absolute numbers don’t matter in politics, only percentages do.
What’s ironic is that the same wing-nut conservatives who talk about their 3 million FOX News viewers (yet ignore what a vanishingly small proportion of the electorate 3 million people is) will regularly attack the so-called “out of the mainstream” Libertarian Party, which every major election cycle gets millions of votes across the country.
You can’t have it both ways. Either millions of people deserve respect and inclusion in the system, or percentages are the only thing that matter.
I know logic is a very difficult thing for the contemporary neo-conservative movement, with its odd hybrid of militarist and socialist underpinnings, but you’re going to activate your brain around these parts, NDT.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So comparing the Libertarian vote in a single office race in Massachusetts to a national audience for a cable talk show is “rational?”
And from whom did that comparison first come?
3 million viewers — that’s what, perhaps 2% to 3% of those of legal voting age?
If I recall, conservative nut-jobs such as yourself were highly dismissive of the Libertarian Party when it grabbed over 5% of the vote in elections like the Massachusetts Senate race.
Feel free to call it an irrational comparison; you were the one who made it in the first place.