2009.10.27
Would a real journalist do this?
And would a real news-gathering organization let him? John Stossel, a former reporter for ABC News, made his name as an environmental contrarian, attempting to debunk claims of public health dangers from toxic hazards such as dioxin.He's always been a questionable journalist, quick to depend almost solely on biased sources with clear interests in obfuscation.
Then he moved to Fox News, and shed all pretense of objectivity. According to Talking Points Memo, Stossel is participating in anti-health care reform rallies. You'd think Fox might frown on one of its reporters - as opposed to one of its opinionators - inserting himself into a story in such a way. But Fox hasn't even responded to TPM's requests for comment.
RSS feed 
Is Dan talking about "questionable journalists" with a straight face after this parade of partisan endorsements?
Comment by Suzie — October 27, 2009 @ 9:25 am
It is an old Liberal tactic. Attack the messenger instead of the message. Clinton used on on Starr, trying to paint Clinton as the "victim".
The sad thing is, I think the RTEB actually believes it is objectively making all of these endorsements despite the eveidence to the contrary (numbers alone).
Like the 10-18 editorial on endorsements. I think that was more to convince the RTEB than it was the readers....
Comment by Bob H — October 27, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Suzie, you still don't understand do you? Reporters are supposed to be as objective as humanly possible when writing or broadcasting. Of course they're human, so bias creeps in. Columnists and editorial writers (you know, those folks who do the endorsements) are paid to have an opinion.
Stoessel tries to cast himself as a reporter -- NOT as a columnist or commentator -- yet he's always been blatantly biased. Don't try to claim you're a reporter when you aren't. The RTEB members do NOT claim to be reporters. That's not their role.
Comment by gdad — October 27, 2009 @ 10:00 am
"Is Dan talking about "questionable journalists" with a straight face after this parade of partisan endorsements?"
BTW, have you seen the parade of partisan endorsements by the RTD? I assume you're equally outraged at them because they never endorse anything other than Republicans, right?
Comment by gdad — October 27, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Depends on who one calls a 'real journalist'.
Back in 2001, when he was still the anchor for CBS News, Rather headlined a Travis County (TX) Democratic fundraiser. The $1,000/plate dinner raised over $20,000 for the Travis County Democratic Party.
It was in WaPo at the time. Any chance the RT reprinted The Post's story?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34557-2001Apr3
Comment by Mike — October 27, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Finally, a serious journalist. I think Stossel is pro-gun rights as well. We need to increase the ranks of moderate journalists instead of the constant left-wing extremist voices we hear today.
Comment by Jim — October 27, 2009 @ 10:08 am
By the way Suzie, have yo ever voted for or even considered the positions of a Democrat as viable? From reading your comments, I don't believe a Democrat could say cut taxes to zero, give the gas and coal companies omnipotent power, and shut down the federal gov't except for the military and make you vote for them.
The RTEB has consistently made its views known concerning transportation, energy, and other issues. They would be most hypocritical to endorse candidates that do not support their positions on the issues. It is most unfortunate that the Republican Party forces all its nominees to pledge to support the Party Line and not one will stand on their own or has a different view. It is unforunate that not one has a position that co-incides with the position the RTEB has taken over the past several years. If you want the RTEB to support your candidate, nominate someone who supports at least some of their views.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 10:17 am
I wouldn't call Stossel a journalist. A partisan commentator is more like it.
Comment by gdad — October 27, 2009 @ 10:38 am
gdad,
I'll try to explain this one more time.
My problem with the RTEB is the said explicitly that partisanship is not their guiding principle, and they're mysteriously sticking to that statement even though all evidence shows otherwise.
And even though they are admittedly biased, which I understand, it is the RTEB's responsibility to provide rational reasons for their support for a candidate and to be consistent in those reasons. The RTEB doesn't apply criticism consistently. For example, a month or two ago, they lavished praise on Tim Kaine for "holding the line" on tax increases. This, after several years of absolutely pounding the GOP on it's "intransigence" on tax hikes. Then, giving Kaine credit for that is beyond ludicrous. Or they let Jim Webb's sexist writings in the past go, while refusing to dismiss Bob McDonnell's alleged sexist writings of yore.
Finally, is their childish insistence that unless a candidate talks to them, they cannot possibly be the better choice for governing. That makes no sense. That sometimes forces them to endorse a clearly overmatched Democrat on the basis of the nebulous "temperament", and of course ideology. It causes them to pick a 27-year-old novice like Sam Rasoul over the experienced and universally esteemed Bob Goodlatte.
All I'm asking is: be biased, but make it look like that bias is logically arrived at; don't change your professed core values according to the party of the candidate; and don't pretend to be fair when you aren't.
Comment by Suzie — October 27, 2009 @ 10:59 am
#8,
Would you call Dan Radmacher a journalist? Christian Trejbal? Luanne T?
How about Cal Thomas? Pat Buchanan? Baye Buchanan?
Just curious as to what one side considers "journalist".
Comment by Bob H — October 27, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Richard #7
By the way Suzie, have yo ever voted for or even considered the positions of a Democrat as viable? From reading your comments, I don't believe a Democrat could say cut taxes to zero, give the gas and coal companies omnipotent power, and shut down the federal gov't except for the military and make you vote for them.
Yes I have. When Virgil Goode was a Democrat, I would have gladly supported him if I had lived in his district. Conservatism is the guiding principle for me.
Comment by Suzie — October 27, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Suzie,
Partisanship is not our guiding principle. Ideology - in the sense of favoring candidates who, jeepers, tend to agree with us on most issues - certainly is. But it is not our sole principle. If so, as I have said before, we would have endorsed Lacey Putney's Democratic opponent, we never would have endorsed David Nutter or Bob Goodlatte or Morgan Griffith or any of the many Republicans we have endorsed over the years.
By the way, Goodlatte has never refused an interview with us.
As for your example regarding Tim Kaine, we praised him for holding the line on taxes while facing severe budget constraints during the midst of a severe recession. Republicans these days won't raise taxes in a recession. They won't raise taxes when times are good. They simply won't raise taxes - even with a demonstrable and critical need like transportation looming above them.
That's irresponsible, and we will not support that with an endorsement if there is a credible opponent with a more open mind.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 27, 2009 @ 11:06 am
#9,
Why would any republican candidate even waste their time sitting down with the RTEB when they could be out on the campaign trail drumming up votes? I mean the democratic endorsement would be a foregone conclusion and any information provided would be used to favor the opponent and the large part of it ignored and only a snippet used.
The RTEB has never admitted LIBERAL bias. They have labeled it progressive and then profferred that the 2 words were interchangeable (check your dictionaries, they are not). But clearly they expect, at best, the readers to connect the dots to progressive to liberal to the RTEB. Clearly they are not going to use the word LIBERAL to describe their views and are quite averse to it.
In the end, the RTEB has accomplished exactly what it set out to not do: render its endorsements as completely meaningless because they are so blatantly partisan. They hoped that "endorsements matter" (see 10-18 editorial on that). Maybe they do but the RTEB endorsement does not.
The amusing aspect is that the criticism that the RTEB lays at the door or Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck is that it has no creedence because of its source. I would offer the RTEB endorsements are no different. The difference between the 2 is at least Hannity, et al, admit their conservative bias. The RTEB is stll trying to capitalize on non existent gullibility of the readers in their endorsements.
Comment by Bob H — October 27, 2009 @ 11:14 am
#12,
1)You have NEVER endorsed Goodlatte over a democrat.
2) In this election you have not endorsed any republican over a democrat. Lacey Putney is an independent. (not for statewide office that is).
It is ALL about ideology in 2009. By your own numbers, you have endorsed only 3 republicans over democrats since 2005. The numbers are staggering. I am not sure Limbaugh supports republicans as much as the RTEB does democrats.
Comment by Bob H — October 27, 2009 @ 11:19 am
The biggest issue your region faces is NOT transportation, it's jobs. And the last thing VA needs is a public transit system that cannot pay for itself and relies on government subsidies. Taxes are too high already. If you want to fund tranportation, then make cuts elsewhere to pay for it.
Comment by Jim — October 27, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Republican candidates sit down with us all the time because they understand the role of the press, including its opinion function. Because they know we do endorse Republicans if we believe they are the better candidate. Because if they win they want us to understand their viewpoint, even if we disagree.
They know our editorial page leans liberal (happy, Bob?). But representatives like Bob Goodlatte and delegates like David Nutter know that won't stop us from endorsing them if we believe they're the best option on the ballot - they know that because we've done it. And they know that sitting down with us gives us a better appreciation of where they're coming from, which will help inform our opinion down the road.
If our endorsements don't matter, Bob, why do you spend so much time going on and on about them?
As I said in the column about endorsements, "Whether or not you agree with the conclusion of the endorsements, I hope you find the information presented in them valuable in your own decision-making process."
You obviously don't, Bob. And that's fine. Others do.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 27, 2009 @ 11:25 am
#2,Why don't you folks from the GOP side of things just come out and say it fixed network is the face of the GOP, no matter what, right or wrong, and be done with it? After hearing from John Stossel for a few years it is no wonder he went to the mother load of the GOP propaganda , i.e. fixed news.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 11:26 am
#15 Jim, how is fixing roads and providing pulic transporation not jobs? Providing infastructure provides lot's of jobs, like military spending, it is labor intenisve. Unlike military spending, it also enables industries to transport their materials to save money, it protects citizen lives, it saves the environment, and it promotes new business in the US for US citizens.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 11:42 am
@14...Bob H...
Limbaugh supports that which only serves Limbaugh.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 11:55 am
"Or they let Jim Webb's sexist writings in the past go, while refusing to dismiss Bob McDonnell's alleged sexist writings of yore."
Jim Webb's "sexist" writings were pure fiction. McDonnell's writings were his true beliefs, beliefs that he pursued to one degree or another while in the GA. Seems there's a slight difference there.
"Finally, is their childish insistence that unless a candidate talks to them, they cannot possibly be the better choice for governing. "
I'd say that the candidate who refuses to sit down with the board is the one who's being childish. Is that candidate going to refuse to sit down with people he or she disagrees with once in office?
Comment by gdad — October 27, 2009 @ 11:59 am
"The biggest issue your region faces is NOT transportation, it's jobs. And the last thing VA needs is a public transit system that cannot pay for itself and relies on government subsidies. Taxes are too high already. If you want to fund tranportation, then make cuts elsewhere to pay for it."
Pays for itself, Jim? So are you proposing letting the roads crumble if they don't pay for themselves? Are proposing toll booths? Oh wait, we already have a different user fee -- what some call the gas tax.
Transportation or road construction provides jobs. The trucks that travel our roads provide jobs. The goods they carry provide jobs. Letting infrastructure crumble COSTS jobs. Bad or crowded roads cost YOU money because of lost time, extra gas used and damage to your vehicle.
Comment by gdad — October 27, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
To answer your question Dan:
I enjoy the entertainment of the RTEB trying to lend credibility to its endorsements when the litmus test is obviously "are you a democrat".
The reason any conservative sits down with the RTEB speaks to their professionalism and courteousness.
BTW, "leaning liberal"? 100% endorsements of democrats over republicans in all statewide races endorsed? That ain't leaning mon frere'. If that was a tree it would be on the ground. Maybe it already is....
Comment by Bob H — October 27, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Journalism is dead. We saw its painful demise over the last 8 years and it's final throes last fall.
I LOVE how liberals deride Fox News as biased, yet never blink at the mention of MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.
It's ONE cable news network...DOMINATING the rest...but, it's still just ONE.
And it's raised the hackles of liberals everywhere.
Why, you might ask...because they don't want ANY opposing opinion.
If you want to argue that Fox is biased, fine, but acknowledge the same with MSNBC, NBC, and CBS. And also acknowledge that Fox is outnumbered about 10 to 1...and still dominates the rest.
Comment by T Witten — October 27, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Gdad,
You don't know what you are talking about.
Webb's sexist writing had to do with how he viewed women could not serve as combat commanders. That they were unfit for it.
And he never truly rescinded those views either. But, that is another fish for another day to fry. He is the Senator for the next few years and there is an election closer than that ahead....
Comment by Bob H — October 27, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
"I'd say that the candidate who refuses to sit down with the board is the one who's being childish. Is that candidate going to refuse to sit down with people he or she disagrees with once in office?"
gdad care to amuse us with that argument towards Obama and the situation he's created with Fox?
Comment by Uptheriver — October 27, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Uptheriver, I'd say that Obama should sit down with Fox. There. Amused?
Comment by gdad — October 27, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
"Webb's sexist writing had to do with how he viewed women could not serve as combat commanders. That they were unfit for it."
A view that was almost universally shared at the time and that is still the predominant view among conservatives. If you were to poll "conservatives," I'd bet a large percentage would agree with Webb. I disagree with that view myself.
Comment by gdad — October 27, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
I agree. Fox had Bill Clinton in and we know how that turned out. Obama should certainly present his views to Fox.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
@ Jill Hudson #17
"#2,Why don't you folks from the GOP side of things just come out and say it fixed network is the face of the GOP, no matter what, right or wrong, and be done with it? After hearing from John Stossel for a few years it is no wonder he went to the mother load of the GOP propaganda , i.e. fixed news."
Stossel only recently went to 'fixed news'. He spend decades with ABC. Sorry if you don't agree with his participation in the political process, but it's hard to take the complaints seriously when there wasn't an outcry when major network anchors, like Rather, actively campaigned for one party over another.
You're entitled to your opinion, but let's not pretend that Fox is any different than other news nets.
Comment by Mike — October 27, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
23 I don't mind Fox being bias. I just mind the quotes and espousing that what is said on Fox is the gospel. MSNBC is certainly biased in their format and presentation and are proud of it.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks Obama and his administration are childish.
Comment by Uptheriver — October 27, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
#29 Point made to a certain point. But for Fixed network to use words like balance is to redefine that word and make it into something from a fictional story, which fixed network is good at.Fixed network is effectively a conservative political organization and not a legitimate news outlet.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Like any anyone granting an interview,you have to weigh the positives and negative for appearing in from of a reporter. You do not know what will be asked and you also must consider how your answer will be construed, taken out of context, oor just spliced and sound bited to mean something different. I assume Republicans did not talk to the RTEB as they felt they had more to lose than gain and I'm sure Obama feels the same about Fox.
That is intelligent thinking and decision making. Would I rather see him duke it out, sure, I would bet on him winning the battle, but does he need it, probably not.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
@32 no its not
Comment by pammala — October 27, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
#23. You are absolutely correct. No such thing as journalists anymore.
Obama and his administration do not like dissent. The news media today, except for Fox News, is just about like having state-run media. Go along with whatever Obama says and never question him.
Take, for example, this "newspaper"s concerns about the deficit and jobs under the Bush administration. That concern has disappeared, even though Obama has record deficits, and an ever-increasing jobless rate. This newspaper never criticizes the fact that Obama is too busy playing golf or campaigning for the Olympics, or going after Fox News, rather than paying attention to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This newspaper called President Bush arrogant, and look at who we have now.
Even after miserable leadership by Obama and the democratic Congress, this paper still endorses nothing but democrats. They try to summarize why they endorse these democrats in several paragraphs, but it really is a waste of paper. Just admit that you endorse candidates because of their party and be done with it, instead of trying to BS your way through it.
Finally, I don't blame any Republican who refuses to sit down with the RTEB. It's a waste of their time. The RT will not endorse them, and newspapers are quickly becoming a non-entity in these times.
Comment by Ralso — October 27, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
@33 Completely understood. However, all he would have to do is tell the truth and his objectives. Same as the others. Give the information you deem credible and not make excuses.
Sometimes its what you don't say that will hurt you.
Comment by Uptheriver — October 27, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Far more people pick Fox News Channel for their news source than the other run-of-the-mill liberal outlets. These people represent all demos, politically. Many Democrats watch Fox.
As with most things in our free market society, the PEOPLE decide who wins and who LOSES. FOX wins. MSNBC/CNN loses.
How is Air America doing these days?
Comment by T Witten — October 27, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
@37....T Witten
A lot of people pick Fox for their opinion...not their news. FOX doesn't report news, they promote opinion as do MSNBC, and CNN.
I still think it's funny to hear people talk about the power of FOX, but when you think about it, there are more of the other kind of opinion outlets than there are FOX type outlets...3 to 1...or maybe 4 to 1?
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Ok , I get it Fixed network is the only "real" news out there with neat links to Fixed nation where you can become a teabagger your self. And find how the government is trying to take away your guns and religion and forcing you into re-education camps and having death panels. Ah, I see but real?
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
By the way...
T Witten...you might want to take a look at News Corp 2009 Annual Report. The red ink isn't too pretty.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
#18 and #21
Who says spending on transportation will give you the greatest return on your investment? Where's your cost-benefit analysis rather than a few stories? How do you know incenting businesses by lowering taxes to come to Roanoke's technology park isn't the best use of those dollars?
I'm sure Microsoft was a good investment at one point, but you can't pay any price for it without assessing the costs. Same with transportation, we'd like good roads, but we can't pay any price for them. If you want more spending on one service, then cut spending on another to pay for it rather than perpetually increasing our taxes.
Comment by Jim — October 27, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Hey gdad and Richard, you know that job where the men are working in the middle of the night with jackhammers? I'll let you have that job. I'm sure that pays very handsomely and will solve our unemployment and economic issues.
Comment by Jim — October 27, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Ralso, it was only a couple months ago Fox criticized Obama for trying to do too much, now you say he is doing too little, make up your mind.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Jim, we have tried lowing taxes and even giving companies money to come to Roanoke, did not happen because you can't get your product or people in and out. We are out of the mainstream here, limited property, limited transportation, limited people. Our only hope at any cost is to make a transportation and communication system that is viable for greater commerce. The, cost, I don't care ablut the cost because to cost of not doing it is devastation for the Roanoke Valley. Transpotation and communication has historically established every major city in the US and World for that matter. Can it save Roanoke, well it certainly built roanoke and with any luck will once again help us compete. Otherwise kick back and watch our jobs continue to go elsewhere.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Jim, i am not sure what you mean about jackhammers in the middle of the night. if you mean construction workers, I have had that job and enjoyed it very much in my younger days. Unfortunately the only jobs like that now are because of Obama's stimulus package. Most all other construction stopped with Bush's recession. But I am quite happy with my own business right now thank you.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
"Bush's recession" -
Riiiiight, Bush told you to live beyond your means, and that your union wages and benefits would go up FOREVER. The businesses Roanoke needs are info / tech based. That would eliminate the need to transport a lot of product. The whole tech revolution should change the bad physical position that has historically plagued rural areas like southwest VA. Honestly, the region is still beautiful compared to much of the rest of the country precisely because it hasn't turned into an Atlanta or DC. I hope it never becomes a place of massive growth, but it could develop smartly.
Comment by Jim — October 27, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
yes with public transpotation it might. But everyone want high tech and to get it you have to attract the industry
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Dan #12
"Ideology - in the sense of favoring candidates who, jeepers, tend to agree with us on most issues - certainly is. But it is not our sole principle.
Dan,
This is the second time we've discussed this. For some reason you have trouble remembering what you said. In your column two Sundays ago, you said pure ideology isn't your guiding principle . You didn't say pure ideology isn't your sole principle. Nobody said it's your sole principle. But it clearly is your main criterion. How else could you explain your Rasoul endorsement?
All you have to do is apologize for the wording in your column if it wasn't what you meant.
Comment by Suzie — October 27, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
We have gone over this, Suzie, but I believe you're the one having difficulty remembering what was said.
In my column, I wrote: "pure ideology doesn't guide our endorsement process." Which is true. I also wrote: "If our decision is based only on ideological preference, we'll let you know. If it's based on questions of competence, we'll make sure that's clear, too." And I believe our endorsements lived up to that promise in such cases.
Again, since you didn't seem to listen the first time, if pure ideology guided our process, we would not have endorsed Lacey Putney. We never would have endorsed Morgan Griffith or David Nutter. Since we did endorse Putney, and have endorsed both Griffith and Nutter in the past, though we could not bring ourselves to do so this time in light of their ongoing intransigence in the transportation debate, your premise has been refuted - and I have nothing to apologize for.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 27, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
How else could you explain your Rasoul endorsement?
Umm, the best man for the job?
Comment by Art Hill — October 27, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Dan,
LOL. You still can't get it right. But I will try one more time.
If something guides your endorsement process, it doesn't mean it's the only factor involved in your decision; it just means it is, generally speaking, the principle means by which you make a decision. It doesn't mean there can't be exceptions, like a Lacey Putney.
OK. You said flat out ideology doesn't guide your process. This means ideology is generally NOT one of the lead factors in determining your endorsement. That is obviously false, based on your endorsements.
I appreciate your backtracking, but if you wanted to portray your revised position accurately, you should have said "Pure ideology isn't the only criterion in our endorsement process".
Comment by Suzie — October 27, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
No, Suzie. I said PURE ideology doesn't guide our process, meaning that ideology alone is not the sole guide.
Of course ideology drives the process. Why would we endorse people who do not agree with us on most issues? Except in unusual circumstances, that would be silly. Would you endorse someone with a worldview completely opposed to your own?
The point is that we are willing to step outside our ideology when the circumstances warrant, as in the case of Lacey Putney, or even Morgan Griffith and David Nutter in previous elections.
Unlike, say, the blind ideologues such as Sarah Palin asking New York voters to vote for a conservative candidate who doesn't have a clue about local issues.
I have done no backtracking here.
But you might want to consider it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 27, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Then you wrote the sentence incorrectly. You should have said, "Ideology isn't purely the guide of our process." That's somewhat awkward, but it conveys the meaning you now claim to have intended.
Anyway, I accept your backtracking absent an apology.
Comment by Suzie — October 27, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Thanks, Suzie. But if I want lessons in writing awkwardly, I'll ask.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 27, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Classy guy.
Comment by T Witten — October 28, 2009 @ 9:18 am