TheAgitator.com
John Stossel’s New Show Debuts Tonight
Thursday, December 10th, 2009Friend of TheAgitator.com and libertarian newsman (in order of importance, of course) John Stossel’s new show on the Fox Business Channel premieres tonight at 8pm. Be sure to watch, or set your DVR accordingly.
Stossel was kind enough to do a live chat with you, Agitator readers, last June.
Groan- Stossel is an irrational media whore who specializes in pandering to the LCD through half-truths, misinformation and name-calling. Next time you see something by John Stossel, try and actually follow the logic. You will find it non-existent.
At #1
I think that describes pretty much everything I’ve ever seen in cable news world.
I’ll always remember Stossel being interviewed on Air America (rip) and the hosts went off about how gay marriage should be legal, its none of the government’s business etc. But then these same people wanted to ban McDonalds food because its fattening. Stossel cooly replies “Well remember the government that’s big enough to tell you what you can eat is big enough to tell you with whom you can sleep.” There was nothing but stunned silence by the interviewers.
Ditto commenter #1.
I find fascinating that I agree with Stossel on most issues, but I can´t stand to see him on television.
it was dry. and probably boring, but to say that he perpetuates lies or half truths is a bit much. and when is persuasion pandering? i makes no attempt to hide his motives and he’s willing to engage all sides.
i hope he gets better. he is at least a reasonable person.
When is he going to do a show about police abuse of photographers in the USA and UK?
I guess I’ll be in the minority, but I thought it was great and I thought the selection of guests was an excellent start to kick off the show. In particular, the guy from Cato was quite effective in responding to the audience questions and made a good case for coping with the consequences of global warming rather than trying to prevent it.
Luckily, the show caters to only a tiny sliver of the population and is on a network with practically no credibility. Heaven forbid that it should catch on and people start taking it seriously. Just remember: The only reason they let us live is because no one listens to us.
That guy from Cato better watch his back. He is to the environmental movement what an abortion doctor is to the religious right.
Have to disagree with poster #1 – perhaps I have not seen enough to know exactly where that accusation would come from, but being a fan of his for a while and reading his books, he has seemed fairly rational and straight forward to me.
Unfortunately my cheap ass does not pay for the outrageous cable package that incldues Fox Bus News… so don’t get to watch it anyway.
I find it funny Radley how you hate Glenn Beck and love this guy when they both say almost the exact same libertarian message (and Beck gets a much bigger audience than Stossel ever had). One is a bit of a goofball and one is pretty dry, but the message is largely the same … and Stossel actually likes Beck ….. where’s the disconnect?
I hope his show does well too but now that he’s part of ‘Faux’ News, I imagine that the people that really need to see his show never will … at least on ABC, an occasional liberal might have stumbled onto a small government message.
There is no comparison between Beck and Stossel. Stossel is libertarian in principle. Beck is libertarian when it’s convenient.
Stossel is not a “newsman”, he’s a pundit/ideologue, not to different from Olbermann, Maddow, Beck, and Hannity. Name one “story” he’s broken as a “newsman”.
On a side note I am constantly reminded of his 20/20 report on Tourette’s syndrome, where the interviewee kept yelling out “Fossil Stossel”.
James D, I’d say that there are plenty of people who ‘need to see’ Stossel’s show that watch Fox News. There are enough ‘we need more government’ folks on there, they just want it to do different stuff than the MSNBC crowd.
Yeah, like it or not, even ABC has more credibility and a broader appeal than Fox, although my knowledge of Fox comes almost entirely their main news channel. I had never watched FBN before this, so I have no idea if it attracts a wider audience or not.
From a purely selfish point of view, I’m glad Stossel is going to get more air time than he did on 20/20 since there is precious little programming directed toward a libertarian audience.
That is the most infuriating aspect of the mainstream parties. Their stand on any issue is based solely on their collective prejudices.
For liberals: government=good, corporations=bad, poor people=good, rich people=bad, nature=good, industry=bad, etc
For conservatives: religion=good, secularism=bad, corporate subsidies=good, personal subsidies (welfare)=bad, patriotism=good, anti-war protests=bad, etc.
The problem is that their positions, when viewed as a whole, are inconsistent with each other in principle. Free speech is good in support of our causes, but not yours. Government regulation is good when it helps our supporters, but bad when it helps your supporters. Government handouts are good for our pet industries, but bad when they go to your pet industries.
This self-serving hypocrisy is so blindingly obvious that it’s hard to imagine that anyone could not be repulsed by it and yet 90 percent of the voting public gladly aligns itself with one party or the other.
It seems like just to live in a world like that one would need plenty of drugs (of course, both parties are against drugs).
Best Moustache Ever.
Comparing Stossel to Beck is like comparing your wife to a crack whore. Sex is involved with both, but Beck is the crack whore in this equation. Plus Beck has never refuted that he killed a girl in the 90′s.
Eh? Is this the “more popular = right” argument? IMHO, “bigger audience” means “more pandering to the detriment of logic”.
Glenn Beck is nothing like John Stossel. Though I might disagree with John Stossel, I can disagree with him. With Beck I have no idea what he believes. I can’t disagree with scared and crying. I can disagree and engage and even find compromise with deregulation and smaller government.
Maybe Stossel will find an audience and move the conversation away from the crazy and towards a worldview I can engage with and respect.
A lot of comments … but as usual with the haters, I bet many of you have never watched more than a 2 minute youtube clip of the show “OMG, ignore all the good stuff from his show – he can’t spell oligarchy … what an idiot” … and where is this ‘he killed someone’ story coming from? You don’t think that would be all over every other news station if it were true? Anyone who doesn’t work for Fox News hates Glenn Beck.
“IMHO, “bigger audience” means “more pandering to the detriment of logic”.”
Of course, which is why ALL TV news and our politicians are all about popularity …. I never said Beck was a ‘great libertarian’ or what everyone should strive for. All I have ever said is that compared to ever other show watched by a large audience, he’s the most libertarian. I agree with many of you that Stossel is much better … but the fact is he is too dry for many people and will probably never be even close to as popular (popular = ratings and more viewers … not ‘better’).
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-06/fitting-in-at-fox/
I can’t believe anyone takes this guy seriously.
Um, Chuchundra …. what’s wrong with what you quoted?
Sometimes I almost wish John Stossel had raped and killed a young girl in 1990.
I agree, Chuchundra, what is mistaken in his quote?
Um, Chuchundra …. what’s wrong with what you quoted?
Well, … this for starters: “Friend of TheAgitator.com and libertarian newsman…”
“Libertarian” – maybe. “Newsman” – LOL!!!
So his first show would be about a 50 year old book that predicted something someone might “like” to do.
Umm… what!?
There are thousands of injustices happening everyday. Injustices a libertarian “newsman” could really sink his teeth into. Balko here does a great job bringing these things to attention. Stossel, with access to more resources and a bigger audience, could do the same thing with great effect.
Instead, he wants to talk about what Barney Frank might “like” to do. That’s ridiculous.
John Stossel is the “idiot’s guide to libertarianism.” He talks to his audience as though they were children. Makes ridiculous and insultingly simplistic analogies that make no sense. And makes more than enough mistakes to give easy ammunition to those who oppose his ideology.
IOW… He stinks.
Sorry.
Cheers.
First, the idea that our current, corporate-run, America is anything like the Marxist dystopia portrayed in Atlas Shrugged is just silly. To the extent that Rand predicted anything, she predicted the outrage expressed by the corporate class to any manner of intrusion into their business. Even if their irrational and irresponsible business practices nearly cratered the entire world economy.
Second, and more to the point, in what libertarian fever dream have Barney Frank or Tim Geitner ever expressed any desire for the type of top down, command and control, economic measures beloved by Rand straw man villain Wesley Mouch? Seriously, Geitner was Chairman of the NY Fed, not a position generally given to communist agitators and Frank is easily one of the most libertarian members of the house.
Stossel is either a moron, a nut or an opportunist pandering to what he perceives as a lucrative political niche. Either way, he’s not someone to be taken seriously.
Second, and more to the point, in what libertarian fever dream have Barney Frank or Tim Geitner ever expressed any desire for the type of top down, command and control, economic measures beloved by Rand straw man villain Wesley Mouch?
You mean other than having the government take a controlling stake in the country’s largest insurance company, its largest automaker, pushing legislation that would move 1/5 of the U.S. economy into the public sector, forcing banks to take bailout money that lets government dictate executive salaries and lending practices (whether they needed the money or not), and pushing a bill that would allow the government to take over corporations it deems have gotten “too big to fail,” even if they’re in no danger of failing?
Other than that, yeah, total fever dream!
RB’s post #26 is beside the point and fails to contradict what Chuchundra actually wrote. I think Chuchundra’s right: Geithner’s entire life entails serving as a minor but important cog in the US capatilist machine, and Frank has evinced no desire to institute a command and control economy, or sought to pass any bills which would do such. AIG and GM went into receivership secondary to their own mismanagement, among other causes, but nefarious desires from Frank or Geitner had nothing to do with it. For both companies the reins are generally quite loose, as near as I can tell. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the supreme utility and moral benevolence of current executive compensation mechanisms.
As would most others, I think the AIG and GM ‘prop-ups’ were engineered more to save the system than convert the US ecomony to some collectivist dystopia (contra Rand). I might have preferred to see all the major Wall Street Banks and brokerage operations collapse, but that’s because I’d like to see their political power destroyed. Would that be worth the widespread economic suffering which could result? I don’t know, I’m just prejudiced.
Well, yes, it’s ‘capitalist’ and ‘economy.’ My bad.
Harry makes my point very well — and in a less inflammatory way than I would have. The only thing I’d add is that the failure of AIG could have caused a partial or even total collapse of the world financial system as we know it. While at first blush some of you might be going “fuck yea, screw the bankers”, it’s not primarily the bankers who would have suffered. We could have easily seen widespread economic disruptions that made the Great Depression of the 30′s look like a bad hair day, widespread fuel shortages, food riots, fun stuff like that.
More to my original point, Stossel is buffoon. Think of all the excellent work Radley has done on this blog with regards to privacy, civil liberties, criminal justice and the drug war. These are all important topics that could use more exposure in the mainstream media.
So what does Stossel kick off his new “libertarian” show with? Looney nonsense about global warming. Well done there, John. Way to play to that Faux News base. I expect hard-hitting shows on illegal immigration and Obama’s birth certificate to follow on soon.
Way to play to that Faux News base. I expect hard-hitting shows on illegal immigration and Obama’s birth certificate to follow on soon.
Given that Stossel is pro-immigration and not prone to conspiracy theories, I’ll wager with you on that if you like.
And Stossel has done specials on the drug war, police misconduct, and other criminal justice issues.
The problem with Stossel is that he is a intellectual lightweight. ;-)
I don´t have FBN, but I find the business shows at Fox News terrible.
I don’t think he’s an intellectual lightweight, but I think he does target an audience that is not as sophisticated as we’re used to when we discuss the same topics. I’m often disappointed with that approach as well. He’s not the only one who does it. Judge Andrew Napolitano is also supportive of much of the libertarian philosophy, but he too tends to address an entry-level audience. I don’t think that has to do with a lack of intellect so much as catering to the folks they’re trying to connect with.
It’s hard enough to make a living targeting the tiny percentage of libertarian-leaning mainstreamers out there without constricting the market even further by focusing on the fraction of libertarians who want to chew on the more challenging philosophical gristle.