Karl Rove axed from Fox News

Bryan · December 7, 2012

Yes he did have a career with ABC on 20/20 but not expressing the views he holds today. He wasn't always a Libertarian. What other places has a Libertarian had his own show?

Did you ever watch 20/20? Look at the topics he discussed:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/

bleeding heart · December 7, 2012

Yep. So much for Pliny's argument here.

bush_cheney2004 · December 7, 2012

Either way, I am impressed that American news media is so important to Canada and Canadians, regardless of "bias". Karl Rove wil probably survive just fine.

Pliny · December 7, 2012

Did you ever watch 20/20? Look at the topics he discussed:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/

Well, shut my mouth! Good for ABC. I didn't know that. Too bad they didn't support him a little more. He would probably still be there. I guess I can't say the MSM hasn't given Libertarianism zero airtime?

Am I supposed to think it is unbiased now and actually grants validity to different views?

Here is what John says himself about his move:

"In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words 'liberty' and 'limited government.' ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more airtime and a new challenge."

I wonder why MSNBC turned him down?

bleeding heart · December 7, 2012

Well, shut my mouth! Good for ABC. I didn't know that. Too bad they didn't support him a little more. He would probably still be there. I guess I can't say the MSM hasn't given Libertarianism zero airtime?

Am I supposed to think it is unbiased now and actually grants validity to different views?

Here is what John says himself about his move:

"In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words 'liberty' and 'limited government.' ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more airtime and a new challenge."

I wonder why MSNBC turned him down?

Do you suppose FOX News is hoping to give Noam Chomsky his own editorializing program?

Why aren't they?

WIP · December 7, 2012

Karl Rove (pictured) is being removed from Fox News by order or Roger Ailes himself, according to this article.

Rove, as well as hilariously wrong analyst Dick Morris are apparently not to be on TV unless Ailes says so himself. Rove's time at Fox News will no doubt be best remembered for the segment in which he got clowned by Megyn Kelly and the math-nerds from the back room. Dick Morris is the guy who said the election would be a Romney landslide, then admitted on Hannity that he'd just said that to try to boost the Romney campaign.

One assumes that Roger Ailes has come to the conclusion that putting those guys on TV makes the network look like (more of) a joke. After his super-PACs spent $100 million of donor money supporting candidates that all lost, Rove might not be in the super-PAC business for long either.

-k

Somehow I don't think I'd like the taste of Ham Rove. But then again, I never could stand ham anyway! Striking resemblance to Karl anyway.

When I was following the U.S. Election news, there were a lot of stories about the Republican attempts of voter suppression -- some through photo ID laws, some by way of illegal but difficult to prosecute tactics like vote caging, not to mention lots of questions about new voting machines that have no paper trail to verify afterwards. We know from past experience, like Ohio in 2004, that Rove had developed an expertise in fixing election results through selective voter suppression, and my best guess about Rove's strange behaviour on Election Night, was that he was sure the fix was in, and there would not be enough ballots cast in the more Democratic-leaning districts that were returning the results at that time.

It makes no sense that Rove didn't know the polling data, and didn't have a detailed knowledge of the districts in the battleground states. So, I still go with the conclusion that he tried and thought he had fixed an election for another Republican candidate, but this time his, and especially Republican governor's efforts to suppress black and latino votes, just caused too much outrage in those communities, and gave them more resolve to get their votes counted than they otherwise would have been.

Bryan · December 8, 2012

Do you suppose FOX News is hoping to give Noam Chomsky his own editorializing program?

Why aren't they?

That would be awesome!

Moonlight Graham · December 8, 2012

The strange thing is how people seem to believe this BS. Even otherwise really smart people. I was talking to 2 guys that are each leading researchers in fusion energy, truly gifted scientific minds, and yet they bought into the whole Romney landslide thing, cause they heard it on Fox News.

Maybe they believe what they want to.

I knew a guy who was a math whiz, graduated from high school with a 99% average. Then he dropped out of university halfway through to become a priest.

kimmy · December 8, 2012

Either way, I am impressed that American news media is so important to Canada and Canadians, regardless of "bias". Karl Rove wil probably survive just fine.

I'm sure he'll be fine. He was given $400 million in his super-PACs to fight the election, and there seems to be some question as to how much of it was actually spent. Stephen Colbert and his lawyer made a million dollars of unspent super-PAC money vanish into thin air on national TV; I am certain that Karl Rove knows a lawyer who can do the same trick.

BBC news is the Fox News for the left wing (albeit with a lot less theatrics). A news source that is truly neutral will be accused of bias by both sides of the spectrum.

It's a false equivalency to say "well, they're all biased". They might be all biased, but Fox took it to a whole new level by putting active members of the Romney campaign on TV and passing them off as "analysts" or "Fox Contributors".

Dick Morris identified as an "analyst", but he was working for the Romney campaign when he made his "landslide" prediction, and said later that he was trying to boost the campaign when he made that prediction. Other Romney team members who appeared on Fox and were identified as "analysts" or "contributors" were Elaine Chao, John Bolton, Walid Pheres, Dan Snyder, and Jay Sekulow, all active with the Republican campaign. And of course Karl Rove, who was described as an "analyst", rather than "Dude who is spending $400 million to defeat Democrats".

If I am watching CNN and they put Donna Brazile or Ari Fleischer on tv, it says "Democrat Strategist" or "Republican Strategist" under their face while they're talking. There's no attempt to disguise the fact that the person I'm watching is attempting to convey a view that is favorable to their political party. To me, putting members of one party on the TV under the guise of "analysts" to convey their party's point of view is crossing a line.

-k

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2012

....If I am watching CNN and they put Donna Brazile or Ari Fleischer on tv, it says "Democrat Strategist" or "Republican Strategist" under their face while they're talking. There's no attempt to disguise the fact that the person I'm watching is attempting to convey a view that is favorable to their political party. To me, putting members of one party on the TV under the guise of "analysts" to convey their party's point of view is crossing a line.

And yet, you will still keep watching, if not one American network, then several others that do the same thing. I think passing judgement on a foreign news production from Canada is crossing the line. I don't care what the state sponsored CBC does with its own cast of political shills disguised as "analysts"....now why is that? Should I care?

Edited December 8, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

TimG · December 8, 2012

It's a false equivalency to say "well, they're all biased". They might be all biased, but Fox took it to a whole new level by putting active members of the Romney campaign on TV and passing them off as "analysts" or "Fox Contributors".

Bias is not measured by the labels placed on talking heads. Biased is measured by the narratives which are used to present the information. The effect of narratives can be illustrated by the coverage of the recent Nexen decision. On CBC radio the news reporter presented facts that the deal was approved and then let an NDP politician engage in a nonsensical rant about how the government 'rubber stamps' takeovers. No mention was made about how future state owned takeovers were severely restricted. By omitting that fact the CBC created a biased narrative even though the facts presented were correct and the people were properly identified.

In the case of the BBC they had made the statement:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC successfully fought off attempts to use FOI to find out who attended this 'high-level seminar' (a groteque abuse on its own) but a blogger uncovered the list with the wayback machine. The "best scientific experts" were in fact NGOs and green energy lobbyists (only 3 of the 28 were actually scientists). I feel this misreprentation of expertise by the BBC is far worse than your examples from Fox News and there is absolutely no basis for your claim of 'false equivalency'. Edited December 8, 2012 by TimG

dre · December 9, 2012

Bias shows up in the choice of stories and the narrative attached to those stories. It is impossible to avoid since narratives are subjective constructs. People choose media primarily based on whether it provides narratives that re-enforce their existing views.

Fox goes way beyond editorial bias though. They are an actual arm of one political party, that campaigns, fund raises etc.

kimmy · December 9, 2012

Fox goes way beyond editorial bias though. They are an actual arm of one political party, that campaigns, fund raises etc.

Yes, a news network acting as a press agency for one political party, that's normally something we'd associate with places like Pyongyang or Tehran.

People used to accuse the CBC of being a mouthpiece for the Liberal party... in the case of Fox and the Republicans, it's the literal truth.

-k

jbg · December 9, 2012

Yes, a news network acting as a press agency for one political party, that's normally something we'd associate with places like Pyongyang or Tehran.

Trust me, the New York Times and the Toronto Star aren't much better.

GostHacked · December 9, 2012

And yet, you will still keep watching, if not one American network, then several others that do the same thing. I think passing judgement on a foreign news production from Canada is crossing the line. I don't care what the state sponsored CBC does with its own cast of political shills disguised as "analysts"....now why is that? Should I care?

Is that any different from the corporate prestitutes that currently dole out the news through the MSM in the USA? If you want to talk political shills, the USA's MSM is stock full of them. It's a revolving door, between government and the media.

Crossing the line? Please.

Smallc · December 9, 2012

Trust me, the New York Times and the Toronto Star aren't much better.

That's utter tripe.

TimG · December 9, 2012

Fox goes way beyond editorial bias though. They are an actual arm of one political party, that campaigns, fund raises etc.

In a country where there are only two parties any media bias is going to seem like the promotion of a single party. However, it the case of a Fox News it is easy to show that their bias is ideological and not about the GOP if one looks at the treatment of moderate Republicans on the network. If Fox was concerned with promoting the GOP as you claim they would not be trashing moderate Republicans.

jbg · December 9, 2012

Trust me, the New York Times and the Toronto Star aren't much better.

That's utter tripe.

Not really.

The New York Times often makes up motives or dialogue for people who clearly don't talk publicly or explain their reasoning, such as "angered by Israeli building of settlements, a suicide bomber blew himself up at....". Suicide bombers are rarely terribly verbal.

jbg · December 9, 2012

However, it the case of a Fox News it is easy to show that their bias is ideological and not about the GOP if one looks at the treatment of moderate Republicans on the network. If Fox was concerned with promoting the GOP as you claim they would not be trashing moderate Republicans.

I agree. The Fox-ites did a great job of wrecking Romney and changed their tune only when the damage had been done.

bush_cheney2004 · December 9, 2012

Canada's state financed and controlled broadcaster for television, radio, and web consolidates such power far more efficiently than more numerous and diverse "bias" in the USA.

dre · December 10, 2012

In a country where there are only two parties any media bias is going to seem like the promotion of a single party. However, it the case of a Fox News it is easy to show that their bias is ideological and not about the GOP if one looks at the treatment of moderate Republicans on the network. If Fox was concerned with promoting the GOP as you claim they would not be trashing moderate Republicans.

Take a look at campaign donations, and compare networks like CNN to FOX. CNN splits their contributes evenly between both parties fox does not. Then take a look at their campaign to elect republican governors.

Like I said... its true that most news organizations will exhibit some kind of editorial bias, but thats not what fox does. Fox is a part of the republican political machine. Editorial bias and political activism are not the same thing.

TimG · December 10, 2012

Take a look at campaign donations, and compare networks like CNN to FOX. CNN splits their contributes evenly between both parties fox does not. Then take a look at their campaign to elect republican governors.

Like I said: Fox trashes moderate Republicans. This demonstrates that you are wrong. Fox takes an ideological position that puts it at odds with Democrats but that does not make it part of the Republican "machine".

Pliny · December 10, 2012

Yes, a news network acting as a press agency for one political party, that's normally something we'd associate with places like Pyongyang or Tehran.

People used to accuse the CBC of being a mouthpiece for the Liberal party... in the case of Fox and the Republicans, it's the literal truth.

-k

We know Fox acts as a press agency for one political party. The MSM is still in denial it acts as an agency for one political party. There is simply a choice now.

Pliny · December 10, 2012

Like I said: Fox trashes moderate Republicans. This demonstrates that you are wrong. Fox takes an ideological position that puts it at odds with Democrats but that does not make it part of the Republican "machine".

They also limit exposure of the libertarian membership of the party. I think Fox is more a proponent of Conservative ideology than the Republican establishment.

guyser · December 10, 2012

Canada's state financed and controlled broadcaster for television, radio, and web consolidates such power far more efficiently than more numerous and diverse "bias" in the USA.