Hello:

Every time I turn to my favorite network, and they put Mark Fuhrman on as an "expert", I want to throw something at the TV... When I see a black man on the same panel as Fuhrman, I want to throttle him.

Now, I LOVE FOX News, but Mark Fuhrman is no expert. He's the SINGLE reason OJ was acquitted for the murder of his wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman.. Right wingers like to blame the black community, but it's clear that Fuhrman was the reason. He was the LEAD detective in the case... He was caught LYING on the witness stand. Once he was caught LYING, nothing he said could be believed... And, a MURDERER went free.

Fuhrman is a disgrace. He's a proven LIAR. He's a RACIST lowlife. And, he's an expert on FOX.

Can somebody explain that to me?

excon

I think Fox News is for entertainment purposes only. That's what I've been told here, what with so many "opinion" segments.

I couldn't care less what Furhman has to say, but no one can say with any grain of truth that Fox News does not consistently present multiple points of view, unlike MSNC which leans so far to the left the right side of my screen raises 3 inches just passing by on on-screen the guide.

Just for you NK:


“There are two parts to all news channels,” Ailes said. “One is the news — that’s Shep Smith, Bret Baier, what we do during the daytime. Every channel also does talk shows, opinion shows. You have to separate those in your mind because they are different.”

“Rachel Maddow has a talk show, Sean Hannity has a talk show. They have different points of view,” Ailes explained. “The only difference between Fox and the shows on CNN and MSNBC is we invite liberals to participate constantly.”

“Geraldine Ferraro was a contributor to Fox News for 10 years. [We have] Bob Beckel, Juan Williams. Dennis Kucinich is a frequent guest on Fox News.”

Ailes described a programming philosophy that distinguishes his network from its competitors — one that revolves around news judgment, not with whether something is news or not.

“When Abu Ghraib happened during the Bush administration, we carried that — full pictures, full board — 17 times,” he said. “Now, The New York Times had it, I believe, 44 times, on their front page. When I went to an editorial meeting one morning and said to the head of our news division, ‘Why aren’t we doing Abu Ghraib today?’ He said, ‘there’s no news.’

“I said, ‘well the Times has got it on their front page,’ and he said, ‘that’s because it’s a political agenda for the Times. For us, we’re waiting for more news. Every time there’s news, we put it up full screen and lead the news shows with it.’ It’s just a different philosophy. Don’t cover it up, but don’t push it if there’s no news.”

Read more: Ailes slams Fox critics, defends press freedom at Ohio forum | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/ailes-slams-fox-critics-defends-press-freedom-at-ohio-forum/#ixzz1vhxvu6wM)


There are no better news guys out there than Bret Baier and Shephard Smith, and I doubt anyone at MSNBC would allow a conservative to guest host their show as O'Reilly does on a regular basis with Juan Williams. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Hello Steve:

All the other stuff you brought up is what you call straw men... I know you LIKE FOX. I like Shep and Brett too. But, this isn't about them. It's about Mark Fuhrman, a RACIST, LYING, DISGRACED cop, and WHY FOX adores him.

It's true. MSNBC is liberal, but they don't put on confirmed LIARS as experts.. In fact, I don't think MSNBC has any felons who have their own shows, like Liddy and Ollie. Not only does FOX adore LYING cops, it LOVES excons too. Maybe I can get a job over there.

But, back to Mark Fuhrman. Should HE be considered an EXPERT and put on TV??

excon

I can't explain why any of the crooks and liars are on TV. Eliot Spitzer got a gig on CNN hosting a show until it was canceled and then went to work for the Goracle after another liar, Olbermann, was fired for the umpteenth time. But I addressed your concern off the bat, I said I don't care what Fuhrman has to say, but I don't automatically disqualify someone because they're ex-convicts. Hint, hint.

The rest wasn't a straw man, it was for NK's benefit.

Is he an expert ? Maybe the Moxley family can answer that question.

Is he an expert ?Hello Tom:

He MIGHT be an expert. He's ALSO a LYING, RACIST cop. I'll bet they could find OTHER experts that aren't LYING, RACIST cops. But, they chose THIS one. Why?

excon

Got me . Why does MSNBC give a show to a lying racist like Al Sharpton ?

It's not really "they," it's pretty much Hannity. Why don't you ask him?

Twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/seanhannity)
Email (http://www.hannity.com/contact)
Call his show: 800-941-7326 3-6 PM ET

In matters such as these, we should have opinions from racists on both sides. Fuhrman and Sharpton. That's fair and balanced.

In matters such as these, we should have opinions from racists on both sides. Fuhrman and Sharpton. That's fair and balanced.

I like it.

In matters such as these, we should have opinions from racists on both sides. Fuhrman and Sharpton. That's fair and balanced.Hello mag:

It may be that Sharpton is a racist. But Fuhrman is a racist AND a proven liar..

Two to one is only fair and balanced at FOX News. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Sharpton is a liar, too.

1lNWY6zgxho

In fact, I believe his rise to prominence was based on lies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations).

Sharpton is a liar, too.Hello again, Steve:

Let me see. You think Sharpton being cross examined by a right wing loon on HIS TV show, equates to Furhman being cross examined on the WITNESS STAND by real LAWYERS, after having SWORN an oath to God that he's going to tell the truth, and then lies and lies, and lies, and then lies again.

You guys are bonkers.

excon

Oh, so if they aren't officially found to be lies in a court of law they aren't really lies. Gotcha.

Oh, so if they aren't officially found to be lies in a court of law they aren't really lies. Gotcha.Hello again, steve:

Let me see... O'Reilly SAYS there's no tape. YOU believe him. That's your case. That doesn't mean Sharpton lied. It means you BELIEVE he lied... That ain't a lie. It's a right wing fantasy.

Fuhrman, on the other hand was PROVEN, over and over and over AGAIN to be a liar.. That AIN'T a fantasy. It's REAL life. You oughta join it sometime.

excon

Hello again, steve:

Lemme see... O'Reilly SAYS there's no tape. YOU believe him. That's your case. That doesn't mean Sharpton lied. It means you BELIEVE he lied... That ain't a lie. It's a right wing fantasy.

Fuhrman, on the other hand was PROVEN, over and over and over AGAIN to be a liar.. That AIN'T a fantasy. It's REAL life. You oughta join it sometime.

excon

Where's the tape?

Where's the tape?Hello again, Steve:

You PROVE my point.. You BELIEVE there's no tape. I'm not going to TRY to convince you that there IS a tape. You'll BELIEVE what you want to believe anyway, and I ain't going to change it...

But, NOBODY believes that Fuhrman ISN'T a LIAR and a RACIST scumbag. I don't have to convince you. Even you, a FOX News viewer, knows that to be a FACT.

You do know what a FACT is, as opposed to rank SPECULATION?? One is hysteria. One is REAL.. They're NOT fair and balanced, no matter HOW many times you hear it...

excon

Hello again:

Here's the new thing (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/30/fox_ads_phony_footage/?source=newsletter) from FOX. A news organization producing an attack ad. I wonder, do you think it's fair and balanced??

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

I wonder if that rises to the level of Dan Rather faking news with forgeries to influence the election.

I wonder if that rises to the level of Dan Rather faking news with forgeries to influence the election.Hello again, tom:

I wonder if they'll get fired and disgraced like Dan Rather?

excon

Hello again:

Here's the new thing (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/30/fox_ads_phony_footage/?source=newsletter) from FOX. A news organization producing an attack ad. I wonder, do you think it's fair and balanced???

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

No sir, FNC should not be publishing political ads, and as your link notes an update was posted by a Fox VP that the spot "was not authorized at the senior executive level of the network.” Evn though Fox and Friends is not a news show per se, the ad was not a good call.

Honest enough for you?

Hello again, tom:

I wonder if they'll get fired and disgraced like Dan Rather?

excon

Possible... I've never watched Fox and Fiends . What do they do ? Another group discussion show ?

No sir, FNC should not be publishing political ads, and as your link notes an update was posted by a Fox VP that the spot "was not authorized at the senior executive level of the network.” Evn though Fox and Friends is not a news show per se, the ad was not a good call.

Honest enough for you?


So we can take this to mean "the spot" was not authorized but the ad and its content was authorized at the executive level?

TUt

So we can take this to mean "the spot" was not authorized but the ad and its content was authorized at the executive level?

TUt

I don't think so. The point here is "the package" (their words) was pulled, and conservatives such myself have said it wasn't a good idea.

Ed Morrisey at Hot Air said (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/30/video-foxs-four-years-of-hope-and-change/), "Should a news organization produce and publish attack ads like this? I know the initial response will be that other news organizations offer biased perspectives and hagiographies of Obama that go well beyond a single video … and that response is entirely valid. However, we usually criticize that kind of behavior with other news organizations, too. If anyone wanted to look for evidence that the overall Fox News organization intends to campaign against Obama rather than cover the campaign, this video would be difficult to refute as evidence for that claim.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that outside groups and the Romney campaign shouldn’t consider producing something like this on their own. It makes a pretty powerful argument against another four years of Barack Obama, but that shouldn’t be the job of news-reporting organizations, even when we like the message...

One last point: Several people in the comments argue that F&F is an opinion show, and that this is therefore fair game. That would certainly be true if they wanted to play ads run by other organizations as part of their commentary. My point is that this ad was produced by Fox News itself, and it’s clearly intended to campaign against Obama. That’s the problem with this video, and I think it was ill-advised by Fox to have produced and published it. If CBS News produced a four-minute video extolling all of Obama’s accomplishments, or a four-minute video with this dramatic music and animation ripping Romney for his years in Massachusetts and at Bain Capital, we’d be screaming our heads off, and rightly so.”

I won't hold my breath for liberals to be as fair and honest about the media carrying Obama's water during this campaign as we've been about this.

I don't think so. The point here is "the package" (their words) was pulled, and conservatives such myself have said it wasn't a good idea.


Do you mean the package wasn't a good idea or that pulling it wasn't a good idea?

The Morrisey take on the issue seems quite reasonable to me.

Tut