Who's the worst at Fox "news?"

[Archae]

I mean the absolute worst there?

I just read an essay linked through Media Matters, that says the worst one at Fox is Megyn Kelley.
I agree.

Glenn Beck we know is nuts.

Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity we know are liars and blowhards.

Kelley is touted as a "serious journalist," yet she eagerly pushes the wackiest of the conspiracy theories, and non-stories like the "New Black Panther-Obama" story.

Kelley's catfight with Kirsten Powers showed just how thin-skinned she really is.

[randr]

1. Roger Ales

The chief architect of the fall of the American Dream.
Nixon's Svengali!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. They have so many different varieties of awful that it's hard to point to just one

as being the very worst. But I guess I'd have to give that honor to Beck, since he's really gone off the deep end with his demagoguery and bizarre rantings.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Archae]

8. A little?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Archae]

18. Why do you think Obama is bad for our country's growth?

It was Bush's "Cut taxes to the filthy rich and everyone else gets screwed" that were the cause of the near-depression.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThatPoetGuy]

28. If you give a million dollars to one rich guy,

some of it will be circulated to other Americans. Some might go to jobs, but some might go to move jobs out of the US and into India; it takes money to move business overseas. He might use some of it to invest in his businesses. A lot of it will go to foreign investments, expensive trips to Bhutan, and a house in the south of France.

But if you give a thousand dollars to a thousand poor people, that money will be spent on groceries, restaurants, rent, mortgage, clothing, medical visits, and so on. ALL OF IT will be circulated among Americans. When that money is spent on groceries at an American store, the store won't need to lay off their employees. Their employees will be able to afford to go out to dinner, so the restaurants won't be going out of business. The restaurant owner will be able to pay his chefs, and buy that new grill. The grill manufacturer will be able to pay his engineers and his factory workers. The factory workers will be able to afford gas. The gas station workers will be able to go to the movies. And so on, and so on, and so on.

A lot of that money will eventually wind up in the hands of the rich anyway; that's what money does, it trickles up, not down. When you buy that movie ticket, you're assuring the movie theatre stays in business, which employs its ticket sellers, its concession workers, its ushers and projectionist, but it's also going to the mega-conglomerate that owns the googleplex and to the Hollywood producers who rake in the bucks.

In short, if you love America, if you want Americans to succeed, you'd be smart to favor policies that distribute money among the poor and the middle class, not the rich. Tax cuts for the rich are a stimulus program for foreign countries, not for us.

[Archae]

30. A thousand poor people

Figure though, among those thousand poor people will be some druggies and boozers.

And the money they get will go for buying crack and malt liquor.

Some.

[kcass1954]

33. And the drug dealer and the liquor store will also re-distribute that

money back into the economy.

I don't give a shit if part of those people choose to party with their money.

[ThatPoetGuy]

34. For the economy, buying malt liquor is a good thing.

Money goes to liquor store owners, who then pay their employees. Money goes to distributors, who then pay their drivers. Money goes to manufacturers, who then pay their workers.

My argument is economics-based, not compassion-based. Though I think a compassion-based argument would reach similar conclusions about helping those in need.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThatPoetGuy]

40. So where does the money come from

for those disproportionate tax cuts that conservatives support? You know, the ones that save a few hundred dollars a year for working guys like you and me, and millions for the rich.

You have self-identified as a conservative, which is going to get you banned, unfortunately. I personally support allowing polite conservatives on the site, and banning them only after they've been rude, posted racist screeds, etc.

Every time a conservative politician talks about tax cuts, they're proposing a solution that will hurt the economy. It will hurt jobs prospects, and it will hurt hiring, and it will hurt the competitive edge that conservatives claim is a conservative value. Distribute money among the poor or middle-class, and it will be spent from person to person and person to business is a way that rewards the most competitive businesses, the ones that had the foresight to provide what people need at a place in time.

Distribute money among the rich -- and that's all tax cuts for the rich are -- distribute money among the rich, and you punish enterprising thinkers, small businesses, and competitive entrepreneurs. You send huge fortunes to foreign countries, when that money could have helped Americans prosper. Distributing money among the rich through tax cuts ensures that Americans stick with outdated technology, selling products that are not what people actually need at this point in time.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drm604]

35. If there are no "poor people" with money to spend

then why would a rich person invest his money in production? If there's no demand for products then the rich will have no reason to hire people to make those products. Instead they'll squirrel their money away in ways that don't create jobs.

If, on the other hand, non-rich people do have money to spend then the rich will find the money needed to start producing goods (creating jobs in the process). They'll borrow the money or get it from investors if they don't have it readily available themselves.

If there's demand someone will find a way to meet it regardless of tax rates. If there's no demand then no one is going to invest in production, regardless of tax rates.

You're talking supply side economics which, I'm sorry, doesn't make sense to me. There has to be demand before the wealthy have any incentive to create jobs to try to meet that demand.

Allowing wealthy people to accumulate more money, while everyone else has less, doesn't create jobs.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Archae]

6. Hee hee!

Thanks and welcome to DU.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tsuki]

50. Husband said she sounds exactly like his ex-wife. He calls her the Fishwife. nt

[alp227]

4. Opinion = beck. News = kelly. n/t

[MajorChode]

46. I don't think too many Faux viewers distinguish between the two

[Drix]

5. She is the worst.

The entire mean girl/sorority sister routine is maddening to watch.

[Johonny]

10. judging by what I see on the Daily show

Faux and friends is by far the worst thing ever put on TV. It's like TDS doesn't have to look at other stations everyday another gem. I hope they keep up the good work.

[rpannier]

13. I forgot about those three

I still hate Mort the worst

[rpannier]

12. Bill O' Reilly is light years better than everyone except Shep Smith

And by that I mean, "At least that dwimmit supported Health Care Reform, agreed that the financial disaster was caused by lack of oversight during the Bush Administration and has gone after both Malkin and Coulter calling them out for their stupidity."

It gives you an idea of just how pathetic Faux is, when Bill is the 2nd least objectionable

For me, Juan Williams and Mort Kondracke are the two I find most objectionable

Juan because he acts like Alan Colmes. Always willing to come to the aid of Faux Spews people who make fools out of themselves no matter how vile they are

Kondrake because he's such a worthless F*ck. I can't stand to even look at him. He quit the Democratic Party because of it's support of the 'Gay Agenda'

[lpbk2713]

14. BecKKK can't even keep any advertisers.

That's how bad he is. Yet Faux Snooze keeps him on the air because he's such wonderful hatemonger.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erose999]

24. Hence Beck University, his endorsement deal with Goldline and other cash-grab schemes.

As the pressure gets worse I suspect he will go full on televangelist and just start begging people for money directly. And since his audience LOVES televangelists, they will pay.

Fox is running ads encouraging people to DVR his show because of the early timeslot. For the time being they are having their cake and eating it too because they are getting ratings AND having the less controversial shows that get more advertising $$$ in the better timeslots. Something's gotta give soon though.

[AmericaIsGreat]

15. Glenn Beck, of course

It's not even close.

[Initech]

16. Do I have pick just one?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Archae]

22. It's easier to follow than Free Republic's NON-format.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Don't watch often enough to know

They all suck, as far as I'm concerned.

[SeattleVet]

21. Absolute worst? The Chief Engineer for the network...

for not throwing the switch that cuts everything off, and allowing that crap to go out over the airwaves.

[LatteLibertine]

26. I'd say Beck

because one of these days I think he's going to motivate someone dreadfully unstable to do something violent.

Hannity wins the award for lame and boring though. The guy is nothing but talking points with zero personality.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Common Sense Party]

31. Why, exactly, has a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" such as yourself

joined a progressive message board such as this?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LatteLibertine]

44. I won't deny Rush has talent

and he could take a higher road yet still be successful and entertaining. He reminds me of classic manipulative sociopath.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. Greta Van Succotash

Most days she is rational (while cautiously conservative,) and others she is reading directly from Dianetics or the latest RNC talking points.

[ibegurpard]

36. no idea

I leave the room or change the channel if it's on.
It's a reflex...like breathing.

[OHdem10]

38. Imo, BECK is dangerous.

[Umbral]

39. All the 'News' people that get passed off as the 'Fair and Balanced' portion of the programming.

What utter bullshit.

[Glassunion]

42. The sponsors.

Shamwow!, Snuggie, Nissan, GM, etc... They keep paying for it...

[DFW]

45. We don't get Fox "News" here

Although Germany protects free speech, Nazi-like propaganda is still forbidden here, so a station like Fox
would not last 5 minutes before being shut down.

I don't see any contradiction in a conservative putting down Fox. Right wing extremism has little in common
with true conservatism: no matter how much they might want to stick the label on themselves, the Fox propagandists,
along with their parrot-like mouthpieces on the right side of the aisle in both houses of Congress, have very
little indeed to do with conservatism. They do not advocate fiscal responsibility. They are as free-spending as
any Democrat--just as long as the money goes into the pockets of their supporters or themselves. They are not for
freedom of religion, they are for one religion. They are not for the right to privacy, they are only for their
own right to privacy. They are for the total liberalization of all laws concerning the regulation of firearms.

Fox and today's Republicans? Not a conservative among them. Any labeling of Fox as a conservative channel is a
direct violation of U.S. Truth in Advertising laws.

[JonLP24]

47. Hannity is the worst

IMO.

[Golden Raisin]

48. Rupert Murdoch & Roger Ailes.

The money and the management. They are the behind the scenes power brokers.

[mfcorey1]

49. Bill O'reilly because he really thinks that he is a legitimate journalist. n/t