three different people on the john gibson show are currently referring to people who don't like president bush as 'idiots.'

among them were the dixie chicks, sean penn, the makers of the new movie showing bush getting assasinated, and oliver stone.

Well that's a "news analysis" show, rife with editorial comment.

I suppose in general, that's the problem with foxnews; many people are incapable of telling the difference between "news" and "news analysis".

i have no problem with that. however, my point is how dumb you sound when you have 2 other people on your show supporting your view and you call people idiots for their views.

and i think the problem with fox news is that many of the people on the channel are incapable of not analyzing and editorializing.

So I would assume you would find "Scarborough Country" on MSNBC to be equally at fault for having this discussion -

scarborough's show is pretty awful.

Yes.

c_b, do you know where FOX gets its "liberal" guests from? Is there like a talent pool of idiots who spout the most ridiculous left-wing stereotypical nonsense in a gleeful manner that they use over and over again, or are they really Republican actors who go on TV and toss strawman softballs to the right-wingers to knock out of the park? I mean I know they got Colmes because he like to take right-wing cock up his ass on TV, but I hardly ever see a liberal I don't want to smack on that station.

Wesley Clark and Geraldine Ferraro come off the top of my head.

As liberals who aren't idiots? Well, I mean they do have to have some legitimate political figures on their shows or people would think they were bushleague. I'm talking about the guests on the shows, some chick who wrote a book, some guy who wrote an article, some lunatic who escaped from a sanitarium. You know, the average liberal on FoxNews.

Ah, I misread your post.

Yep, no doubt that pundits of both stripes will try to go on in exchange for hawking their book.

i would bet that fox is making money somehow off anyone on there hawking a book. either from the news corp. owning mcgraw hill or by ads on the web site...it's there.

ferraro and clark are examples of fox contributors, who are regulars on the channel. clark's interesting because he's outspoken and speaks outside of fox of dissenting views.

to address dave's point, i really don't know where they actually get their liberal guests. i wish i did. however, a few things have become clear to me:

-- fox is consistent. they'll have the same guests on all the time. if you've been on and are willing to again, they'll have you.
-- it seems to be about ratings; why else does neil cavuto -- on a business show -- have on victoria's secret models? or have gene simmons or wayne newton talking foreign policy? ratings. why may explain why the prototypical people are on. they draw entertaining debate, and that means ratings. fox is on top and doesn't want to fall.
-- even a smart, articulate liberal that makes good points gets dragged down into the mud. you end up making your good point and having sean hannity blast you for hating america. where do you go from there?
-- who the hell wants to come on the fox news channel?

My basic solution is that I don't watch any of this garbage. No one should.

thanks, LF! that's gonna be my new screensaver!