What to expect from Fox Business Network
October 12, 2007 10:16 am ET
The Fox Business Network will launch in 30 million homes on October 15. According to Multichannel News, Neil Cavuto, the managing editor and senior vice president of business news for Fox News Channel and host of Your World, will "oversee content and business coverage" on the new channel. Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of News Corp., which owns Fox News, reportedly said that the Fox Business channel would be "more business friendly than CNBC." Fox News chairman and chief executive Roger Ailes said, according to The New York Times: "Many times I've seen things on CNBC where they are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be." TV Week recently reported that the anchor lineup of the Fox Business Network will include: Forbes on Fox host David Asman, Fox News business contributor Stuart Varney, Bulls & Bears host Brenda Buttner, Cashin' In host Terry Keenan, and business news correspondent Dagen McDowell.
As Media Matters for America documents below, if these anchors' reporting on Fox News is any indication, viewers can expect from the Fox Business Network team: rampant falsehoods, statements praising the Bush administration, suggestive questioning, scantily clad women, and celebrities discussing the news of the day.
Cavuto
Cavuto has been the host of Your World, Fox News' "daytime financial program," since July 1996. He has since become the managing editor and senior vice president of business news for the channel. Cavuto's purported business coverage has included the following:
- On January 16, Cavuto asked if The New York Times is "in mourning again" as a result of the hanging deaths of Saddam Hussein's half brother and another Saddam deputy, or as Cavuto put it, "because murderers in Iraq face justice."
- On November 16, 2006, Cavuto endorsed then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who was seeking Senate confirmation after ascending to the position in March 2005 via a recess appointment. Cavuto stated that the low probability of the Senate confirming Bolton was "not right" and twice asked if "there [is] another way around" the Senate's confirmation process, wondering whether there was "an alternative way of paying" Bolton's salary or giving him "a different title." Cavuto also praised Bolton, saying that he has done "a pretty fine job" as ambassador.
- On October 20, 2006, Cavuto failed to challenge then-White House press secretary Tony Snow's false claim that "since the president cut taxes in 2003, the Dow Jones is up 60 percent. The Nasdaq is up 80 percent." In fact, even without adjusting for inflation, the Dow Jones industrial average and Nasdaq Composite index had grown at nowhere near the rate that Snow alleged after Bush's second major round of tax cuts in 2003. Moreover, when adjusted for inflation, the value of both stock indices had decreased since President Bush's first major tax cut package in June 2001.
- On October 17, 2006, during a discussion of President Bush's "likability," Cavuto falsely claimed: "I think most Americans, when they're polled on the likability of this president, he polls highly in that regard. It's just on the issues like the war and concerns about the economy ... that's what gets it -- it's not his personality." In fact, polling at the time indicated that in addition to his poor job approval ratings, Bush also polled poorly on "likability."
- Discussing the balance between civil liberties and security on August 22, 2006, Cavuto suggested that the British have "been pragmatic" in their efforts to combat terrorism, adding that they have enacted some counterterrorism laws that would be unconstitutional in the United States because the British "have a tradition of wanting to live."
- Referring to the National Security Agency's (NSA) just-exposed program to collect the phone call records of millions of Americans, Cavuto declared on May 11, 2006: "Yes, it is not great to necessarily hear they're collecting our phone records, but it's a heck of a lot better than collecting our remains."
- During a March 23, 2006, interview with Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY), Cavuto asked: "[I]f Jesus were to come back today, would he like Republicans or Democrats more?" Lewis replied: "Jesus is neither Republican or Democrat, or for that matter, any particular national creed. God loves all people."
On-screen question marks
On-screen graphics featuring a statement followed by a question mark are a fixture on Your World. Following are examples of Your World using such graphics to suggest a position:
- During an August 13 discussion of White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove's resignation, on-screen text read: "Karl Rove leaving: A loss for Wall Street?" Cavuto posed this question to his guests, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes and Fox News director of business news Alexis Glick, and, indeed, Cavuto, Barnes, and Glick all agreed that Rove's departure from the White House would be a "loss for Wall Street."
- A January 17 segment on global warming featured on-screen text that read: "Global Warming?" and "Nation in a Deep Freeze: What Global Warming?" Cavuto began the segment by noting freezing temperatures in Texas, Arizona, and California and asking if these temperatures were "[p]roof that all this hype over global warming could be just that -- hype?"
- On August 16, 2006, Cavuto introduced a segment on media coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict by asking, "[I]s the liberal media fueling terror?" Throughout the segment, on-screen text read: "Is the liberal media helping to fuel terror?"
- During an August 14, 2006, segment on which U.S. president has had the most effective Mideast policy, the on-screen text read: "The #1 President On Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?"
- Cavuto ended the May 22, 2006, edition of Your World with the following teaser for the next day's program: "Are Democratic leaders who criticize the war in Iraq actually aiding the terrorists? Why Nevada Senator John Ensign [R] says, 'You bet they are.' " An on-screen graphic read, "Dems helping the enemy?"
Foxy News
Another Your World staple is frequent video of scantily clad women:
- On May 4, 2006, Cavuto interviewed Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and Playboy model Kara Monaco, who had just been named the 2006 Playmate of the Year. In introducing the segment, Cavuto offered a pre-emptive defense of the interview -- presumably to those who would question its suitability for a "financial program" -- saying: "[T]his really is a big, big business story. The winner becomes the new face of Playboy, itself an empire, for the next year, representing the company around the world and schmoozing with powerful business titans." The ensuing interview, however, was light on business discussion but featured plenty of scantily clad and nude (though obscured) footage of Monaco.
- Just before adult film actress Mary Carey was to attend a March 16, 2006, fundraising dinner given by the National Republican Congressional Committee, Cavuto interviewed Carey about her professed intention to run for California governor for a second time in the upcoming election. But before hosting Carey on Your World, Cavuto teased the interview with video footage of Carey dressed in a French maid's uniform performing a pole dance. Over video footage of Carey pole-dancing, Cavuto informed viewers, "Her political platform included taxing breast implants and making lap dances tax deductible. But before you laugh at porn star Mary Carey, remember this: She placed 10th of 135 candidates running for California governor. Wait 'til you hear what she's up to now."
- A Media Matters review of Fox News programs from December 5-15, 2005, found at least eight different segments featuring photographs or video footage of nude or nearly nude women, as well as discussions on news programs of "hot" videos, and an item on provocative attire in the workplace. Your World featured six of the eight segments.
Asman
The editions of Your World guest-hosted by Asman have also featured leading questions:
- On December 21, 2006, during Asman's interview with Michael Farr, president of the investment firm Farr, Miller & Washington, about the positive effects of mild winters on the economy, an on-screen graphic read: " 'Global Warming': Great for Business & Economy?" Asman led into the interview by saying, "[M]y next guest says if what's happening in New York is global warming, he's all for it." Farr responded, "Well, now, hang on, David. First of all, global warming is a very serious issue, and it could have devastating effects. That we are having a milder winter is a really good thing for the economy, and milder winters are always pretty good." Farr later added, "Global warming is not a good thing. Global warming is a tremendously bad thing."
- On April 10, 2006, during a discussion of nationwide protests of proposed immigration legislation, Asman wondered: "With so many illegals hitting the streets, is this the perfect time to round up these lawbreakers and ship them out?" As Asman spoke, the on-screen text read "Round 'Em Up?" Throughout the following segment, the on-screen text read: "Perfect Chance to Arrest Illegal Immigrants?"
- A February 23, 2006, segment on escalating sectarian violence in Iraq featured on-screen text that read: " 'Upside' To Civil War?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"
And scantily clad women:
- In a May 12, 2006, Your World segment titled "Porn to Run," Asman interviewed Steven Hirsch, co-founder and CEO of Vivid Entertainment Group, about the business of Internet pornography. Throughout the interview, the broadcast was split-screened with footage from adult movies produced by Vivid Entertainment; the clips aired during the interview featured scantily clad women pole-dancing and stripping in front of men. Hirsch has made several appearances on Your World to discuss the sex industry.
- On February 23, 2006, Asman interviewed Anna Benson, proprietor of Anna Benson Enterprises, a website that features a photo gallery of Benson in provocative poses and that also links to a poker website with which she is affiliated. During a portion of the interview devoted to Benson's negative views on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and filmmaker Michael Moore, Asman aired some of the site's photographs and observed, "There's some pictures of you in some very, ah, wonderful poses."
Varney, Buttner, Keenan, and McDowell
While guest-hosting or appearing on Your World, Varney, Buttner, Keenan, and McDowell have advanced their own falsehoods and distortions, and have commonly expressed conservative or pro-Bush administration viewpoints:
Varney
- On December 29, 2006, Varney asked: "If and when Saddam [Hussein] is put to death, will The New York Times be in mourning about it?" Varney was discussing a December 29, 2006, New York Times editorial that said Saddam's trial was "flawed, politicized and divisive" and that executing him will not "automatically create a new and better Iraq." Subsequently, on January 1, Varney claimed that "it appears the paper of record is" mourning Saddam's death because "[t]oday's headline call[ed] the hanging 'a rush job.' " Varney then asked: "So, is the Times now an advocate for the Iraqi dictator?"
- During a January 2, 2006, discussion about what he dubbed "Hollywood Bush-bashing," Varney said, "[T]here has got to be a lot of people like me who will not go to see people who insulted my president in the year '04 and that election. I cannot divorce their talent from their political views."
Buttner
- During a September 12, 2006, panel discussion of how the recent attack on the U.S. Embassy in Syria would affect the stock market, Buttner asserted that "Wall Street is very insular" and "the market's going to go down" if a terror attack occurs in the United States. Buttner then claimed: "Thank God and thank President Bush it hasn't happened here yet," adding that "they've [terrorists] been trying and President Bush has been trying to stop them despite the opposition of some very misled people."
- While interviewing right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on August 24, 2006, Buttner invited Coulter to elaborate on the "great job" she had done, in her most recent column, of bashing Democrats for not supporting the Bush administration's fight against terrorism.
Keenan
- On May 29, Keenan pushed a misleading comparison between the national box office earnings over Memorial Day weekend of two recent blockbusters -- X-Men: The Last Stand and The Da Vinci Code -- and those received during the limited release of An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary on former Vice President Al Gore's campaign to raise worldwide awareness of global warming. Keenan noted that X-Men is "expected to earn more than $120 million ... as The Da Vinci Code fell to fourth place." She then added: "Al Gore's global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth? Well, it earned less than half a million dollars during its quote, 'limited release.' " But Keenan neglected to mention that An Inconvenient Truth's "limited release" consisted of only four theaters nationwide, while the most recent installment of the X-Men series and The Da Vinci Code were shown on 3,690 and 3,754 theater screens respectively. Gore's documentary reportedly earned nearly three times more money per theatre screen than X-Men and more than eight times more per theatre screen than The Da Vinci Code over the three-day holiday weekend.
- Introducing a May 29, 2006, debate on the significance of riots that occurred in Kabul, Afghanistan, following a fatal accident involving a U.S. military truck, Keenan asked if the riots were the work of "a small group of troublemakers" or whether "the Afghan people [are] simply ungrateful?" During the segment, on-screen text read "Afghan Ingrates?" and "Is Afghanistan being Ungrateful Towards America?"
- On July 15, 2004, Keenan responded to a question from Cavuto about Wall Street's "consensus view" on whether Vice President Dick Cheney should stay on the Republican ticket, by asserting that Wall Street would "be happy to have Martha Stewart on the [GOP] ticket if it meant John Kerry wasn't gonna become the next president, because, I mean, this Kerry-Edwards ticket is the most liberal ticket since ... McGovern ran in 1972."
McDowell
- On August 29, McDowell falsely claimed that Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "rack[ed] up another endorsement today, this one coming straight from Cuba's Fidel Castro," referring to an August 28 column by Castro in the Cuban newspaper Granma. In fact, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama; to the contrary, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Do not forget that allthough it may not happen, Don Imus had lunch with Roger Ailes a few weeks to discuss his being simulcast on the new FOX Business Network. If that were to happen any possible credibilty this network may be looking for would be right out the door.
Sorry, I meant to add this link
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=193162
It's already out the door Doris...
Media Matters has devastated them before they've even started.
Media Matters questioning anybodys credibility is truly the pot calling the kettle black
How so? Let me guess first before you answer though...
MMFA was "wrong" about Rush right?
Ooh, wait, David Brock was a liar before coming and starting MMFA, and he is still one now?
No, no, let me think here. MMFA takes things out of context right?
And of course, the biggest reason is that MMFA is a "Soros" funded organization.
DId I get your reasons correct?
Of course this is where I ask you for proof of MMFA's credibility problem, as you stated.
Just watch Paul Waldman's appearance on Tucker from Wednesday 10/3 - "Hello Pot - this is Kettle - you're black". A credibility disaster for MMFA.
I saw that interview.
Carlson was his usual blockhead self writing off MMFA as a partisan Democratic site.
Well yes - but Waldman did himself admit "We are a progressive site - we monitor mainstream and conservative media". So the partiasn thing is self admitted.
It was Waldman's inability to deal with Carlson's questons that sealed his fate.
Uh.. duh.
The About Us page says they're partisan. This page is dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation, since it is conservative misinformation that dominates the airwaves and cable networks and newspapers and magazines, etc.
So they're honest about their mission... which makes them.. untrustworthy because they're... honest? Got it.
Go back an reread my previous post in response to Johnny - you obviously missed something.
Hey Guys:
Can we please stick to the TOPIC of this thread.? It's about Fox Business Channel, not your ruminations on George Soros, MMFA credibility, or anything else.
Why, oh why, does MMFA allow flamers and trolls to destroy these threads from the beginning?
Back to subject: Wall Street Journal + Fox Business Channel = a disaster for American business.
"...but Waldman did himself admit ‘We are a progressive site - we monitor mainstream and conservative media’. So the partiasn (sic) thing is self admitted."
What on earth are you talking about?!?!? Are you new to MMFA? Waldman’s statement was no "admission," it’s part of MMFA’s mission statement (see "Who We Are" — click "About Us" at top). It’s no secret; it’s never been a secret. Inform yourself for once — read it!!
I read the transcript of Carlson’s so-called interview with Mr. Waldman (at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21132630/) and listened to the audio. JOHNNY_NYC8351 is right, "Carlson was his usual blockhead self…." (I'd add caustic to that description.) With his habitual interruptions, Carlson squelched any possible response from Mr. Waldman, and all you heard was Carlson’s self-serving, preconceived notions and groundless bias against MMFA. Your reference to the interview proves nothing — answer Magnolialover’s questions.
I did. Don't read the transcript - find the link and watch the clip.
If you find that credible - best of luck in life.
Good luck yourself. You are entitled to your opinion, Tucker.
Deal with what questions that sealed his fate?
And Tucker said, "Then why should I listen to anything you say?" That's an indication that he's a far-right, red-kool-aid drinking ideologue, not open to reason (and a self-absorbed,pudding-faced, super-annuated, snot-nosed kid). Outside of that he's charming.
Go far enough to the left, and you'll find his mirror image. Kool-aid comes in both red and blue. On either side, when you have people who think alike reinforcing each other, with no dissent/heresy/"treason", you're headed toward tyranny and atrocity.
Fox News chairman and chief executive Roger Ailes said, according to The">[link to www.nytimes.com] New York Times: "Many times I've seen things on CNBC where they are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be."
I didn't even know they should be friendly to corporations and profits. Yay America!
Finally ! A voice for corporations and those that love them. This may just fill that void in our media.
Comforting the comfortable...that's the new Republican motto.
That's Ailes philosophy in nutshell.
ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN weren't "friendly" to Republicans so Fox News was created to fill the void.
CNBC isn't as "friendly" to business and profits as it should be so Fox Business Channel is starting up.
The idea of a news organization needing to be "friendly" to a particular point of view is exactly what disqualifies the Fox channels from being legitimate objective news sources.
Exactly! If you start out with a goal to "be friendly" to anybody, by definition, you're not fair and balanced.
A business news show should be favorable to a business if they do something right/smart/ethical/innovative, etc. That same show should be unfavorable to a business if they blunder/cheat/put out an unsafe product/misrepresent earnings/exploit their workers, etc.
It's not about being "friendly" or "unfriendly" to anybody. Legitimate coverage is CONDITIONAL UPON PERFORMANCE.
An entire channel full of Cavuto style "business" news?
In a bull market, Republicans be praised for their brilliant governance that got us there.
In a bear market, bring on the Hooters girls!!!!!!!
"Republicans be praised for their brilliant governance that got us there" -- regardless of how much time elapses between the republicans losing power and the start of the bull market.
I guess promoting Christofascist political propaganda AND Pro-Corporate-Social-Darwinist propaganda is just too much for one network to handle.
Another example of how FOX is going to report what they want the people to see now instead of the GOP, they have the Corporate elite behind the machine also. Oh how scary.
The corporate elite are already part of the machine - please don't let anyone fool you into believing otherwise. It's just going to be far more obvious and disgusting with FBN.
I predict. You heard it here first!! This is the begining of a new political party. Call it what you will, but the mindset that goverment should serve trans national corporations is well and truly ingrained in a large block of people and they are ready for a new party.
Any predictions as to how many minutes until we see "Fox has the right to put whatever they want on the air", followed by "Why is Media Matters putting whatever they want on their web site?"?
Adding to the above, I think this is a very insightful and informative Media Matters post. Rather than only reacting to conservative misinformation, they are drawing upon their vast archives to ask a qualified question:
"As Media Matters for America documents ... if these anchors' reporting on Fox News is any indication" then here's what we might expect.
Who knows? Maybe this will be a very fair-minded network with a kaleidoscope of views.
All indicators are that it won't be.
"All indicators are that it won't be."
To use a business term:
read the prospectus.
Looks like seven minutes, Dave.
Actually 7 minutes, 3 seconds.
No-even less than that: 6 min., 57 sec. My error.
Since you've got your timers handy, why not check out how long it took to get an MMFA "defender of all" call constructive criticism of any topic thread an "attack".
You slam an entire network before they utter their first words, and you slap a poster who dares to question a topic thread here.......tsk, tsk, liberal tolerance - myth or legend?
Touched a nerve.
I'm sorry to hear that - soothe your nerves, they will be fine.
And another.
you and others on here can make this out to be attacking an entire network before they "utter their first words". but the fact is, the words of those who will be on this network have already been uttered many times before. mmfa pointing out those words is entirely fair and is in no way different from their mission statement.
Gotta be careful with that, man. They're even more touchy about their nerves than they are their bigoted pundits.
I'm sure the owners of this site would love constructive criticism.
Why don't you email it to them and let the rest of us discuss the issues at hand.
Please enlighten me. Just how is parroting one poster after another, or bashing the conservative media goon highlighted, and mindlessly rubberstamping every item here actually "discussing" it?
One-sidedness does nothing for your stimulation, but if your fragile arguments can't handle much more, then your post makes perfect sense.
I don't really recall anybody asking you to parrot, bash or mindlessly rubber stamp anything here.
However you seem to question why almost every item is posted here by MMFA and the owners of the site could probably answer your questions than any of us.
Parroting.. bashing.. one-sidedness.. mindless.. rubberstamping.. fragile..
Sounds like someone may be a little bit touchy about being surrounded by people who just happen to not agree with him. No! Not Tommy - c'est impossible! He is the beacon of open-mindedness, and certainly every WITH post is made constructively, and with our best interests in mind.
FOX Business Network= Big Business Propaganda.
I find this a very odd posting for MMFA.
They've moved beyond just reporting to editorializing:
As Media Matters for America documents below, if these anchors' reporting on Fox News is any indication, viewers can expect from the Fox Business Network team: rampant falsehoods, statements praising the Bush administration, suggestive questioning, scantily clad women, and celebrities discussing the news of the day.
While MMFA may end up being correct on what to expect, this does appear to reach beyond their so-called mission statement. After all, The Fox Business Network won't even be up & running till October 15th.
It seems this new network is geared towards CEO's, Board of Directors, & shareholders ;-)
I won't be watching, I let my Financial Advisor handle all that stuff. He's a Democrat BTW, once worked for Gary Hart & has won umpteen awards here in Massachusetts. I trust his judgement & information more than I do CNBC or would from any fledgling network like FOX Business.
Hey we now have hundreds of networks, ESPN for sports, Comedy Network for comedy, Religious networks for a variety of religions, etc. Hey wasn't Al Gore gonna start a Liberal/Progressive network at one time? I'm sure that would have had it's own special interest agenda as well.
Here's a great idea: Don't think you'll like it. Then don't watch it.
I won't be watching, I let my Financial Advisor handle all that stuff. He's a Democrat BTW, once worked for Gary Hart & has won umpteen awards here in Massachusetts. I trust his judgement & information more than I do CNBC or would from any fledgling network like FOX Business.
Jeter sorry off topic but you brought up a name in Gary Hart one of my favorite political figures. How America could use him today.
JLyons,
I've always liked & respected Gary Hart, still do. He wrote some really insightful columns about foreign policy that I wish folks had paid attention to.
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
I'd say this posting falls well within the definition of analyzing conservative misinformation therefore its covered by MMFA's mission statement.
an·a·lyze [an-l-ahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -lyzed, -lyz·ing. 1. to separate (a material or abstract entity) into constituent parts or elements; determine the elements or essential features of (opposed to synthesize): to analyze an argument. 2. to examine critically, so as to bring out the essential elements or give the essence of: to analyze a poem. 3. to examine carefully and in detail so as to identify causes, key factors, possible results, etc. 4. to subject to mathematical, chemical, grammatical, etc., analysis. 5. to psychoanalyze: a patient who has been analyzed by two therapists.
Wow! (please take off your bold!)
So, let's change the name to MTFA - Media Therapists for America.
MMFA is just fine and analysis is well within the mission statement.
They are analyzing empty air space for the moment. And they are editorializing as a op-ed columnist would. I found that odd, considering their argument when attacked by Rush, Billy, etc is to claim they only report facts.
Not exactly.
The question is "What will Fox Business Network look like?".
They are analyzing the performance of Fox News to try to answer that question.
I'm looking forward to MMFA's analysis of what the Wall Street Journal will look like under Murdoch's ownership also.
Another words putting the cart before the horse.
I still say this is an op-ed piece. MMFA claims not to do that.
I think you have a point. I care about as much for pre-emptive posts as I do for pre-emptive invasions.
"They've (MMFA) moved beyond just reporting to editorializing..."
Golly-gee...! I'd complain to someone if I were you. You need to contact Rush or Billo about this ASAP. ;>)
Thanks, MMFA, for reminding us what Cavuto is all about...right wing editorializing.
I've got Rush on the line right now. He's pretty upset, say MMFA are a bunch of phonies ;-)
Wait till I tell Billy, he'll probably pop a vain :-O
Jeter1: "[T}his does appear to reach beyond their so-called mission statement."
Jeter2: "Here's a great idea: Don't think you'll like it. Then don't [read] it."
Aw my little pearl Clams objects once again to any criticism directed at MMFA. Well hun, Brock allows for that, even though it seems to get your panties in a twist.
Here's a tissue. Now stop sobbing...
Well, that's an interesting reaction, considering that I did nothing but quote your own words back to you. Apparently you fail to see your hypocrisy here. Instead of addressing the substance of MMFA's article, you attacked them for writing it in the first place. You object to their "editorializing," and yet you don't see any contradiction in dragging out the old saw, "If you don't like it, don't watch it." And then I'm accused of "getting my panties in a twist"?
Jeter, I read here daily but don't post much... I enjoy your comments most days, but today you seem to be taking the "Tommy" role of "Why Is This Here?" and then namecalling people who question you on it. You are better than that. This is a great MMFA article and when Fox Business comes on the air, we can compare the reality to the prediction. Nothing wrong with that.
I believe Jeter's point, and it's a good one, is let them breathe their first breath before preemptively striking them down, that would seem only fair, would it not?
But why bother, even before their first sign-on they are crap to most of you...done deal.
There's Tommy. That was quick.
It is not Cavuto's first day on the air. We all know what he is about based on years of history, as shown in the article. If he is the face of the channel, then analyzing his past is reasonable. There's no reason to think he is going to be a different person just because the logo over his shoulder is different.
Exactly. If John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly announced that they were going to co-host a show on race relations, we already have more than enough to go on in order to hazard an educated guess about that show's content.
chrisgodawgs,
First of all I did not ask Why Is This Here? I simply made the observation that I found this an odd posting. Had a Liberal poster made that comment Clams wouldn't have said a word...he would have clammed up ;-)
I have spent the better amount of my time here being quite reasonable & polite. I disliked the name-calling here & said so many times. However, having been on the receiving end of so many attacks has finally convinced me that my civil manner was wasted on most.
As Solon often says, Dems have stood back & taken attack after attack without response & now they are fighting back.
Well Chris, so am I.
Jeter, I said that you are respectful most of the time (I actually said, "you are better than that"). So I agree that you are usually respectful on this site. But to say that you did not question why this article is here is silly. You said it was "odd" because it "appear(s) to reach beyond their so-called mission statement." ie, it does not belong here.
Pearl, I didn't attack anybody. I said I found it an ODD posting.
Where do you get attack from that?
Maybe if you ever stop re-writing my posts to fit your arguments I'll stop calling you a girl.
OK, change "attack" to"criticize" if makes you happier, but it still doesn't change my point one bit.
And just what was your point?
That instead of writing that I found this posting odd, I should just shut up cause it bothers you?
Go take a dip in the ocean & cool off.
I thought my point was fairly obvious. Instead of addressing the article's actual content, you brought up MMFA's mission statement (gee, we've never seen that before) and questioned the editorial nature of the article. And then you hypocritically scolded anyone who may object to the idea of a Cavuto business channel by saying, "If you think you won't like it, then don't watch it."
How can you address the article's content when nothing has aired on the channel MMFA is preemptively bashing? That is absurd. You can put out your conjecture, but that is all it is - there is nothing to criticize, yet - be sure, MMFA and you will have plenty you don't like.
So Jeter's point is right on target, too bad you won't take off your partisan blinding hatred for anything Fox and admit it,
"How can you address the article's content when nothing has aired on the channel MMFA is preemptively bashing? "
Once again, the far right insists giving examples of their behavior is "bashing."
And don't worry, you won't have to watch it. You sit tight and MMFA will cover it accurately and fairly so it will conform to your already preconceived opinions. They will do all the legwork for you, life is good........
Another example of the far right being unable to discuss issues rather than trying to make everything personal.
What content?
It's editorializing, speculating, guessing about empty air space.
And that my dear Pearl was my point.
Yours seems to be that I'm not allowed to question or comment this posting as odd.
And quite frankly, if you don't think you'll like Fox Business News then by all means don't watch it. How do you get scolding out of that? Once again you just make it up as you go.
Why is something so simple so complex for you?
J,
It is complex for many. For they just cannot get their hands around a topic's placement and its validity being questioned here.....so they always ask "Why not discuss the content?".
That would be like two fashion critics discussing why someone arrives at a black tie party in overalls - one accurately questions why they would show up dressed like that, while the other keeps asking "But what do you think of the content of the overalls?"
Someday they will get it........
This is funny.
The far right insists on telling MMFA how to run their site.
I understand derailing a discussion about a post's contents is to their benefit and just another version of "blame the messenger" but it does get old after awhile.
Oh, why don't you just post the bold faced mission statement again so we can all be reminded of what it is........and then accompany it with Merriam Webster's definitions of what the words within it mean. That was so helpful.
It didn't seem too helpful.
You still refuse to recognize it as analysis.
The dictionary didn't help him with the definition of the word "ironic" - how do you expect it to help him with the concept of "analysis"?
Silly Jeter, To raise any question whatsoever regarding any topic posted here by the powers that be is considered an attack!! There is no place for any of that among the patron saints of MMFA - their stauch defenders.
I think MMFA can take the criticism since they have a comments section, apparently some here feel MMFA's thread topics are too fragile to withstand these "attacks".
Tommy,
Let's face it, the bobbleheads don't like dissenting opinions. To question anything means you're attacking it.
Time to go re-read Coulter's book How To Talk To A Liberal If You Must ;-)
Dissenting opinions are fine.
However giving "why is this here" as many permutations as the eskimos have names for snow gets old.
If you have a problem with the site's content why don't you email its owners?
The other posters have given you their opinion on "why is this here" many, many times.
I didn't ask WHY IS THIS HERE?
I wrote I found this posting ODD.
It was an opinion, not me asking why it was here.
Geez...
Yes, odd because you think it goes beyond MMFA's mission statement.
That's just another permutation of "why is this here."
No John-Boy sometimes ODD is just ODD.
For instance I think you're odd, but I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be here.
The incoherence and lack of inner logic of your argument is starting to show:
You believe its odd but it belongs here?
Then why is it odd?
Because, as you stated, you think it goes beyond the mission statement.
Do posts outside the mission statement belong here?
Take the questions one at a time
Don't let your head explode.
Why don't we discuss whether being friendly to business and profits is really an objective way to report the news.
That's not speculation.
That is Roger Ailes point of view
That's pretty funny, Jeter,as you completely re-wrote the earlier post. You also used the term "troll" and contradicted yourself with your comments about Soros.
Beach I usually get your humor, but you've lost me this time :-O
Damn, I was hoping you'd point out that I was wrong on every pont, had nothing to back it up, and that I am, in fact, as Anotheramerican has stated, a troll.
Then I was going to concede defeat, and apologize for questioning you. I was going to admit total defeat.
Then, I was going to say;
¡¡ Feliz Cumpleaños, Jeter ¡¡ Traeme mas te helado, chingamadre ¡¡¡
Have a great one, tip one back for me, and any other sons of Brian Boru you might meet around Beantown. ;0)
P.S. Does the name Freud ring any bells? I don't know what the deal is with you and Tommy constantly calling me all sorts of feminine pet names--not to mention imagining me in panties--but it's beyond embarrassing.
If you see yourself as a seafood entree then which one of us really needs Freud? :)
No, it's not odd.
MMFA has done preemptive strikes before, this is no different:
Glenn Beck
The Path to 9/11
Tucker Carlson
"The #1 President On Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?"
My personal favorite in the realm of the surreal. It's similar to saying John Gotti was an effective crime fighter. Ever wonder why FOX viewers are so divorced from reality?
I found that amusing as well. I think it more likely that future historians will come to the opposite conclusion.
The reason anybody watches a business channel is not to be reassured, but to get the unvarnished truth about whether a stock is going to go up or down or how the bond market is moving or whether that lawsuit is going to damage company X. Money rests on this: if there's even the faintest hint that Fox is glossing over bad news or cheerleading a company, their audience will vanish, even if they are as politically conservative as the channel. Because gaebage is garbage. That's why there's a huge gulf between the reportage st the Wall Dtreet Journal and the edittorial page.
I think that's a valid point. However, Cavuto seems to have no problem mixing politics with finance on his current show. Will it be any different on the new network?
Doubtful, FOX always tends to make everything political.
My thought also P. Maybe this is for all of Dellberts pointy haired bosses. In this case one more source of business idiocy won't change the situations much. Bet they get some bitchen graphics.
PBG,
Great points. It's one thing to falsely promote a political party. It's another to falsely promote stocks and companies on which people are looking to invest actual cash. If a network is going to intentionally "be friendly" to corporations, it is not doing anybody any favors. Who wants to base their investment decisions on happy talk about these companies? Gimme the unvarnished truth, whether it hurts the company or not, so I know where to put my money . That is just too much for Fox to do, isn't it?
Except it's been shown that these types of shows/programs don't always offer the truth.
You may remember this...
“What startled me was the clarity of the evidence,” says Spitzer. “That the investment banks and Merrill Lynch, in particular, knew that it was giving a 'strong buy' to stocks when its own analysts said, 'This stock is a dog. It's not worth it. It's going south.' But they continued to push the stock.”
Just an observation:
This topic tells us more about what we can expect from MMFA than it says about the new Fox Business Network. The left/libs simply cannot accept the fact that they do not control all of the media. That is why the Democrat Party, HRC, and George Soros funded groups (MMFA for one) are trying to use the "Fairness Doctrine" and smear campaigns to get Rush, et al, off the air and crush the opposition through government thuggery.
Prediction: It will not work, MMFA. And you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media.
FNC is number one, and I predict that FBN will be number one for business information.
Keep repeating the talking points, and maybe, just maybe someday they'll be true.
Soros doesn't fund MMFA. I do for one, I made a donation last year.
Fairness Doctrine won't take anyone off of the air, and aside from that fact, there isn't ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT talking about bringing it back into being. Not one. No pending legislation, nope, doesn't exist. For some reason being fair is the boogeyman of the right wingers on the radio. But again, never you mind that there isn't anyone actually pushing for this. Keep spitting out the false information about how if it were to come back into being, it was take right wing radio off of the air. It wouldn't. So get over it already.
Oh, and one more thing.
When repeating someone's words, you know, verbatim, this is not called "smearing". What Rush does daily on his show is smearing, you know making accusations, and throwing out "information" that is inaccurate and inflammatory, but again, repeating someone's words verbatim is NOT smearing.
Since MMFA started their campaign to "disappear" Rush from the radio airwaves, how many stations have dropped The EIB program?
Answer: zip, zero, nada!
This is a question I always ask my good, good liberal friends -
Which was a bigger disappointment to you personally - (a) the "Fitz-mas" fizzle over the so-called "Plame affair", or (b) the lack of interest in the phony controversy with Rush Limbaugh?
Why do you think we were disappointed over these things?
I was disappointed.
In the Plame case, disappointed in our media and legal system, and their inability to take on the corrupt Bush administration.
In the Rush case (The "phony" case, that's the one that we asked Billybob & his friends to explain how it was phony for about a week, and none of them could come up with an answer), I was disappointed in the small but noisy group of my fellow Americans who make up the dittohead audience.Maybe not so much disappointed as embarrased that my country produces people that weak and gullible.
I don't know which was more disappointing, but I do wonder why Billybob seems to get off on being such a disappointment.
Oops, and one last thing that I forgot to add.
It's the Democratic party. You sound even more ignorant when you keep saying the "Democrat" party, when you and I, and everyone else in the world knows that it is NOT the democrat party, but the Democratic party. Again, you're repeating what you hear on the radio from your pals Boortz, Limbaugh, et all, and it just makes you sound ignorant. Stop it.
"Prediction: It will not work, MMFA. And you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media."
Dear George (aka "soros"), HRC (aka Media Matters "Founder") & the Democrat(sic) Party:
You cannot dominate the media with all that money that you're not giving us.
So please stop. Cuz Rush listeners, like Billy Bob for instance, sez it's a waste of time.
And in turn, we will stop recording Rush et al's own words and playing them back to the non-wingnut world, because that is "smearing" them.
"... you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media."
By the way:
I find it uproariously hilarious to see the above right-wingnut comment on a thread that is about that ultra-liberal Rupert Murdoch using his money to get his hands on yet another media outlet.
And you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media.
Yet Rupert Murdoch is doing exactly that: Buying up total domination of the media so he can imprint his right-tilted viewpoint. How many newspapers and tv networks does Soros own compared to Murdoch? BillyBob? How many?
Fox Business News will soon eclipse the liberal CNBC because it will have the credibility that Media Matters claims it will not have.
How is CNBC liberal? I'll be waiting for your "examples" of this with links and things like that. I'm pretty sure that a vast majority of people don't even know that CNBC exists.
Again, examples of the "liberal bias" of CNBC please. And I'll be surprised if you can even come up with one.
One recent example was having the liberal Chris Matthews moderate the GOP debate.
CNBC promised viewers a debate on economic issues, yet the liberal Matthews used the opportunity to push his liberal agenda. http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/206
"the liberal Chris Matthews"
You are so right! Just type "Chris Matthews" into that search window at the upper right and the dozens and dozens of examples will underscore your point about the very, very liberal, left-wing Matthews.
Kozakid, here's a little unsolicited advice that may help you.
Read the "mediamatters" item , especially the section about "bias".
Understand that labeling somebody with a particular political type and using that label to presume bias is no match for actually demonstrating bias in that person.
Look at the Newsbusters link you provided, and note that there is no "quote" from Mathews longer than one word.
Look at Mediamatters items, and notice the comprehensive nature of the transcripts and videos.
If you still don't understand which side is more credible, take a nap, then repeat.
"Fox Business News will soon eclipse the liberal CNBC because it will have the credibility that Media Matters claims it will not have."
I did not know that FBN was going to replace Asman, Varney, Buttner, Keenan, McDowell and Cavuto with credible people.
Credibility is like virginity. You don't get it back. Murdoch blew his years ago when he had his Times of London publish the "Hitler Diaries" as genuine. When it blew up in his face he said, "Fox it," (well, close) "we're in the entertainment business."
Murdoch and Ailes (a propogandist rather than entertainer) are both quoted as describing CNBC as not "business friendly" enough. Forget the fact that only a Robber Baron or sycophant could think that. If you call yourself a "news" channel, you should be fact friendly, no more no less.
Sure, it will buy the credibility it cannot earn on its own, Murdoch will make sure of that, and the right-wing lapdogs that worship the almighty buck will be happy to buy in to that farce.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Q: The best predictor of future behavior?
A: past behavior
chharris7416
Actually, that's a good point -
MMFA PAST: smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear
MMFA FUTURE: smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear
Please join me in flagging this as spam.
I've never flagged anybody, and consider Billybob entertaining as long as he's trying to cobble together thoughts, but this new trick is just sad (he did a similar repeating thing with "cackle" somewhere else.)
I wish there was an alternative to flagging somebody completely, say, giving them a 20 word limit, or blocking endless copy & paste reruns.If forced to come up with original ideas, some of them might decide to just go out and play in the street.
Even a cursory review of your posts reveals a strong predilection for your calling everyone a "troll" or a "spammer". You would have a little bit more credibility if you would be just a little bit more reluctant to flame against everyone you disagree with.
Remember the boy who cried wolf!
Hope that helps!
Was this cursory inspection the same type of effort you put into vetting The Federalist Society?
Performance art can be interesting, but I confess your "smear" work gives very little to the veiwer. You're a Post Modernistic Artist then?
I've heard many of the works of this school need an interpreter to tell the buyer what they actually bought. You might consider hiring someone to do this, else we might have to critique it and I'm sure some of the plethera of sublties embedded therein will escape us.
Chow! Unless you've already eaten.
"Even a cursory review of your posts reveals a strong predilection for your calling everyone a "troll" or a "spammer"."
THAT IS A LIE AND YOU KNOW IT.
IF YOUR "REVIEW" WAS MORE THAN JUST CURSORY AND INCLUDED THE OVER TWO YEARS THAT I HAVE FREQUENTED THIS SITE, YOU WOULD FIND THAT I HAVE NO PREDILECTION FOR CALLING PEOPLE NAMES IN THIS FORUM.
I RARELY RESORT TO SUCH BEHAVIOR AND I ONLY USE THOSE TERMS WHEN THEY ARE COMPLETELY APT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IT WAS.
YOUR ACCUSATION OF A "STRONG PREDILICTION" IS FALSE AND THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN PROVE IT.
I hope THAT helps.
All the people who are interested in Fox are watching it already. They might make some dent in CNBC, but so what. Neither will have large audience, and neither will dent the ratings king: PBS The Nightly Business Report. Check it out.
How about if just choose not to watch? If enough people do that, it will go away on its own.
Many people, unfortunately, do not make informed decisions.
I choose not to shop at Wal Mart because I chose to get informed. I chose to learn about how Wal Mart treats its vendors. I learned about what Wal Mart did to American companies like Rubbermaid and Vlassic. I learned how Wal Mart uses the end of the aisle to reel you in, only to charge you the same price as other retailers. I learned the truth behind the way Wal Mart "provides" health care coverage for its employees.
In order for people to make a conscious decision on whether or not to partake in something, they need information upon which to base that decision.
Peat90210,
So those who don't know all that crap about the evile Wal-Mart and an evile Fox business channel, can they get a V-chip to stop Fox from ever showing up on their boob-tube? Will they flock now to K-Mart because of all the goodness and good will found there? Will they even care?
Peatmoss, face it, people who look at a business channel or show are wanting information to help them with business decisions. If the channel helps they will watch it, if it doesn't give them a product they need, they won't.
BillyBob, you think to post others' words is a smear? Interesting. What do you call ad hominem attacks lacking any factual arguments, Peabody worthy jurnalism?
ok, i'll buy into the scantily clad women (hey, i'm a guy!), but i am a bit confused on what constitutes "business friendly" news? silly me, i always thought the news was the news, period. anything else is just opinion.
I'm wondering if this might be like infomercials. Coming up with wonderful, potentially lifechanging investments, for all you, retired, and or, hopeful idiots.
I'll be interested in seeing threads on this fauxbud. I can already envision Tommy posting on one, but I'm not eating so its ok.
Fox 20 Boston, the fake news story about cornering a Harvard medical professor who also worked for Colgate toothpaste. That's what I expect from Fox Network--more misrepresentation.
The geniuses in Boston for Fox 20 thought they could pin the rap for fluoropoisoning on a responsible toothpaste manufacturer who clearly places warning labels on each tube and the box it comes in. The bums said nothing about fluoropoison in public drinking water.