Colmes sold his soul for a hefty paycheck. He wasn't the first, he won't be the last. I begrudge him nothing, but why is this even worth talking about? Doesn't seem to me to be much gray area on this topic.

it's not.

Why would there need to be?
Network TV is driven by ratings.
Fox News has a very large niche market of conservative viewers that dont like the liberal bias of CNN or network news.. so they turn into Fox News to watch Hannity, O'Reilly, Oliver North, etc...

By bringing on more outspoken liberals like Alan Colmes, they'd probably anger their existing conservative viewer base, and have very little chance of expanding their viewership--since liberals arent going to tune into Fox News no matter what.

Its all about the advertising dollar, and what gets ratings.

Fox News has consistently beaten CNN for seemingly forever now. Why would they want to change their formula?

Have you noticed that Fox News also tends to only hire attractive female anchors. Its the same principle.

Its all about ratings.

Like Hannity, Ann Coulter makes a lot of outrageous statements to get attention and sell more books (in Hannity's case, gain more viewers). Unlike Hannity, I don't think that Coulter believes in half of the stuff that comes out of her mouth. As much as I dislike Ann Coulter, I admire her for being a great businesswoman.

--Not meant to be taken literally.

Also, I don't think anyone should take the marketing slogans of cable stations too seriously. In many ways, I find FNC's "fair and balanced" tag to be amusing. After years of hearing the network news divisions insisting they were even handed, it's almost as if the conservative powers to be at FNC are saying "oh yeah, we got your fair and balanced right here".

I didn't rip O'Reilly or Shepherd Smith, as I think they don't always preach the right-wing agenda. My big issue is that Hannity and Colmes is supposed to be a debate show, but it is a pathetic excuse for it. Crossfire wasn't built for one-sided debate.

CNN has never been anywhere as liberal as Fox News is conservative. I don't knock the marketing of Fox News. It serves its niche. My shot was aimed at Colmes.

Re-read the freaking post. I never posed Please Explain on Fox News. I get it. It's not generally for me, but I get it works for others. I just don't understand the continued presence of Colmes. I can tell you that I wouldn't want to watch some pathetic conservative debating some ultra-strident liberal. Please Explain to me watchers of Hannity and Colmes why this one-sided fight is fun for you.

Who is the conservative version of Colmes on these so-called liberal news networks?
George Will, Scarborough, Carlson are all top-notch minds, and I agree with them on more stuff than some of you might guess.

Why does Fox news put him on? In the echo chamber that is Fox news, occasionally you need to have someone presenting the opposite viewpoint in order to shoot it down. Basically, Colmes is the guy throwing clay pigeons in the air. You can't shoot skeet without him, but he doesn't really add much to the experience.

Also, I think it is a little bit extreme to say Colmes has sold his "soul for a buck." What is so wrong about what he does? He plays the role of the liberal voice in an otherwise sea of conservatism. Anyone filling such a role would come out looking weak. What exactly is your problem with Colmes anyway? That he isn't as loud and obnoxious as Hannity or that he isn't as liberal as you are? Alan Colmes has had a long career in New York radio. He is also one of the few who has managed to do so without crafting an in your face, I know everything style. It seems to me as if he should be commended for his style, not ridiculed and denied the opportunity to make a good living. Also, I sincerely believe that a lot of the criticism Colmes receives stems from his, how shall I say this, less than camera friendly appearance.

I think a good parallel for Colmes is David Gergen. For years, Gergen was put forth as the "right wing" balance on several outlets, most notably McNeil & Lehrer. Well, Gergen was far from right wing and very soft spoken in his debating style. As a result, more animated liberals always seemed to trump him.

Finally, while your original post did focus on Colmes, you did mention the following, which clearly opens the discussion up to FNC in general:

"Colmes is proof that when it comes to ideas, Fox News has protectionist policies set-up against liberal views and doesn't hire people on the basis of who is best for the job."

I don't watch Crossfire OR Hannity&Colmes, but:
Were they? Carville and Begala are both pretty big deals with the Democratic party, whereas the biggest name I can even remember from the right is Pat Buchanan, who is a racist anti-globalization holocaust denier and third party presidential candidate taking votes away from the Republican party.

I like the Alan Colmes - David Gergen comparison. So as someone who grew up watching the McNeil Lehrer News Hour, should I have watched pro-wrestling instead?

News flash: The people who watch FNC do so because they want to see the news reported from a conservative perspective.

These people were simply tired of 30+ years of news reported from a liberal/progressive perspective. NYT, WaPo, LA Times, NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN et al.

The eternal fallacy of news organizations is "objectivity." An objective reporter/editor/group/newsroom does not exist. Human beings are not objective.

The high concentration of one political persuasion in the MSM exacerbates this...it's not a liberal conspiracy, it's groupthink.

Maybe my brain is mush, but I don't recall a lack of coverage from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN regarding Monica Lewinsky due to their alledged 'bias'; Clinton got roasted from all sides. Fox News, on the other hand, can't even call a Civil War a F***ing Civil War due to their overt complete bias.

I agree that, "The eternal fallacy of news organizations is "objectivity." An objective reporter/editor/group/newsroom does not exist. Human beings are not objective."...the difference between FOX and the Rest is that NBC/ABC/CBS at least try to arrive at objectivity---they helped torpedo Dean, they air stories about Hilary's embarrassing War Vote. FOX News basically starts by declaring, "Trying's hard, we won't even make an attempt at objectivity."

The other three are accused of bias---with very little evidence---while FOX news is a de facto Apparatchik of the GOP.

A network that was working from a true conservative perspective wouldn't remain silent while the financial future of the nation has been compromised by the reckless spending of this administration. Conservatism is more than waging war on the weak and defenseless, it calls for economic sanity and responsibility: one day some party should try it.

Then the MSM has a conservative bias.

Priceless. To paraphrase the UNCF, logical coherence is a terrible thing to waste.

The problem here is that you assume that this MUST be a liberal bias rather than a combination of conservative and liberal bias. One of the great whiners of all time, Bernard Goldberg, was working in 'the belly of the MSM beast' for years and I imagine that he wrote stories a tad differently than othe reporters would----he certainly makes no effort to hide his bias these days.

Bottom line: the MSM certainly 'suffers' from the small unintentional biases of its reporters---who are trying to be objective, trying to be fair and balanced, trying to be ethical. Most of these outlets, conscious of the perception of bias go out of their way to adjust for it, to the point where they probably are more conservative than liberal. On the other hand, FOX News makes no effort to be an impartial observer actively spinning the news to suit the administration. If you love Fox News you must have loved Pravda.

LOL..

That adjustment must have bypassed Dan Rather. He of the "I fabricated an entire story on the President of the US, and in so doing..ruined my entire career".

OK, that's one....any more?

How many FOX memos have been released in the last year that illustrate their bias?

So those are your two examples of objective reporting?

NBC/ABC/CBS are not leftist, they're arriving at objectivity by torpedoing the candidacy of Dean, who would have gone down almost as bad as McGovern, in favor of a more electable Democratic nominee who had a decent chance of beating Bush?
And did they torpedo Dean or simply cover Dean torpedoing himself? It was all over television live when it happened and this is the age of instant internet news, it's not like NBC/ABC/CBS had to do anything to stop the story (and I'm not saying they would have if they could).

And airing stories about "Hillary's embarrassing war vote"? You mean embarrassing in that she voted in favor of the war, right? So now bashing a vote in favor of the war is how those networks show themselves to be objective and not leftist?

But arguing over anecdotal evidence and a few examples seems pretty pointless.
Aren't there politically neutral media watchdog groups and academics that do actual studies on political bias on the various networks?

THAT is the single best thing anyone has said so far.

Whatever the MSM's sinister reason for reporting the news about Dean at least they were reporting it, Fox on the other hand ignores the quagmire in Iraq on a daily basis.

I don't think that anyone thinks that FOX is really neutral here, but I don't think they are the 'other side of the coin' either. Fox is playing under a different set of rules, not just slanting things a different way.

If you dont like their news or Alan Colmes, then simply dont watch.

Most of Scott's "explain" topics are interesting, but this one was pretty pointless and weak.

While I don't care for how Fox does most of their news, I do watch some of their weekend shows. I also have defended O'Reilly here before, as I agree with him on certain things. Hell, I even defended the guy in the above piece.

What this piece was focused on was why would anyone want to watch ALan Colmes. I would much rather watch 2 conservatives talk like Fox's Beltway Boys than watch a 1-sided beating night after night.

The Gergen thing doesn't work, because he never was paired with someone as strident in their views as Hannity. You don't have to explain to me Hannity's appeal, as if you are just interested in hearing the ultra-right view on something, he's your guy.

FWIW, go ahead and read up on actual peer-reviewed media studies. You'll be shocked--SHOCKED!--by the results. The short version? FNC isn't that biased. They play closer to center than almost every other news source. I'd cite authors, but I'm not at work right now. And this isn't the usual MediaMatters or Brent Bozell "study." The hard facts are out there. But I know you're part of the "reality-based community," which consists of plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and saying, "Na-na-na-na-na," ad nauseum.

The funniest part about people getting pissed off about FNC and its bias is when liberals go into this big St Vitus dance about its existence. They are so threatened by an alternative to the MSM's narrative. Yep, FNC is alternative. Look around--what do conservatives have: FNC, National Review, and a few think tanks. What do liberals have: WAPO, NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, most dailies in the country, all of higher education (with very few exceptions), etc. Look, liberals, you won. You control most of the institutions. So kwitcherbitchin' already. You're beginning to sound like Will, who pansily took his blog and went home after the last election b/c he couldn't stand that his boy, the Plutocrat Swiftie, didn't win. Waaaah!

Disclosure: I do think FNC is biased. SFW.

JGPyke- I was always a consistent voice here knocking Kerry, before and after the election. While he was pretty dismal, the inteptitude of Dubya, Cheney, etc. makes it hard for me to understand how you could knock anyone who supported Kerry.

Characterizing me as a liberal simply isn't correct...sure I have some positions that would be classified as 'liberal', but I have nearly as many that are 'conservative'.

For example, I'm a huge fan of fiscal responsibilty in government. Unfortunately neither party has much going on in this arena. The GOP claims this territory as their own, but everytime a GOP president is in office the budget balloons and the national debt expands rapidly (at least all of the GOP presidents since Eisenhower) please explain that disconnect. The Democrats may 'tax and spend', but the GOP justs 'Spends'---leaving the bill for the next generation.

I don't care that FNC exists, just that calling it a news organization is silly. It is a media outlet that has declared itself an advocate of one point of view. Not everything it broadcasts is a pack of lies or distortion, but not everything in Pravda was either. It is what it is, but even the choir gets tired of being preached to eventually.

On a final note, I think we'll all be happy after the next election----the 'boy blunder' will be out of office and the GOP will be out of the executive branch as well as the legislative. Which will thrill those of us who like "plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and saying, "Na-na-na-na-na," ad nauseum."

Happily this should, actually, thrill those of you not inhabiting the 'reality-based' world as well since the right's congenital persecution complex will have some basis in reality for a change.

So Mort Kondracke from Roll Call, who very publicly supported Kerry over Bush in the 04 election, is a conservative.

On this blog, anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez is a "conservative."

But the har-dee-har "Faux News" meme is a lazy, tired, and trite one, and I just can't understand all the fuss. It's one channel. Get over it, liberals: you won. You have Hollywood, higher ed, almost all of print media, 99% of TV news, NPR, PBS, etc. Can't you just gloat like the winners you are? Heck, add up all the viewers for FNC for ALL of their programs in one evening, and they still don't draw what one network broadcast news draws. FNC is little more than a blip, in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe a great candidate for "please explain" is Air America. Well, it's all but gone now, but I just didn't get it. Conservatives/populists/blowhards like Rush and Hannity take one measly hill, and the left goes nuts. I never understood, "We need a liberal answer to Rush!" AM Radio? C'mon, you can do much better--and already have. You own, OWN, every mass communication medium and yet you soil yourselves that an alternative voice has dared takeover AM, of all things?

Really, I'm far from a "Hannity Junior." I do absolutely listen to viewpoints that aren't like mine. I just don't give credence to guys who say rot like, "The other three are accused of bias---with very little evidence---while FOX news is a de facto Apparatchik of the GOP." That's far more closed-minded than anything I've written (or you, Scott).

"Really, I'm far from a "Hannity Junior." I do absolutely listen to viewpoints that aren't like mine. I just don't give credence to guys who say rot like, "The other three are accused of bias---with very little evidence---while FOX news is a de facto Apparatchik of the GOP." That's far more closed-minded than anything I've written (or you, Scott)."

So, We've won in Iraq, Dick Cheney is really Mr. Rogers and GW Bush is an uber-genius a la Reagan in the SNL skit years ago?? Where is the bias in the NBC news?? They dare to call a f**up a f**up??

Telling the truth is bias?

Fox news on the other hand, makes shit up about Barack Obama being educated in a 'Madrassa' and once caught in their lie, tell another one implicating a Hilary Clinton operative as their source. News Channel?? No.

High Comedy?? Yes.

My comparison of FNC to Pravda still seems apt. Has FNC ever criticized the president or the VP...sure, maybe they might have suggested that Cheney should have told someone within 24 hours that he shot aomeone in the face, but that's a pretty rare occurance.

The 'liberal' MSM had a field day during Lewinsky-gate---they reported that stuff 24-7. Fox can't even admit that Iraq 'isn't quite going as expected'.

I'm not closed-minded, In fact I'm in the GOP sweet spot---white, married, have kids, suburban, 100k+ income...OK, I'm not a god-guy---other than that I'm a typical republican. Over the years I've just grown tired of the overwhelming hypocrisy of GOP members who rail against two-three billion spent on some program for the poor only to see them turn around and blow ten times that amount every year on some missle program that doesn't work. I quit. The seething hatred of the right turned me off; attendees at the CPAC convention laugh while some hideous pundit slags a Dem candidate with a homosexual slur and wear confederate flag pins. This should bother you.

I'm sick of the GOP's War on the Weak.

I'm bothered by the hypocrisy on the left as well. I don't think much of Al Sharpton, Michael Moore is a buffoon and Hilary would be an awful, awful presidential candidate, but they never quite approach the scale of nastiness on the right. Bill Clinton's mendacity over a stained blue dress didn't hurt a soul (outside of Hillary and Chelsea) while GWB's lack of integrity has cost thousands of lives. How can a sane person equate the two?

Anyone want to talk some baseball?

http://www.jibjab.com/jokebox/jokebox/jibjab/id/541345/jokeid/122868

"I would much rather watch 2 conservatives talk like Fox's Beltway Boys than watch a 1-sided beating night after night."

So Mort Kondracke from Roll Call, who very publicly supported Kerry over Bush in the 04 election, is a conservative.

Thank you for better informing me. Since I never got an answer to Please Explain Alan Colmes, I can at least say I gained some insight on Mort Kondracke. Not on the top of my list of people I wanted to know more about, but knowledge is power, right?

I don't mind Colmes the way you don't mind Kondracke. He is a batting practice pitcher, nothing more, nothing less. You say yourself that "the conservative movement's most affable punching bag," but what is wrong with this? And do you really think that a, say, Al Franken or Bill Maher or whomever you think is the "best for the job" would take a paycheck from "head devil Roger Ailes"?

This is why I ask conservatives. Why not enjoy a fair fight?

O'Reilly and Olbermann do similar shows, just from different viewpoints. I love Olbermann. O'Reilly has his bullshit causes like Culture Warrior, etc., but I can watch him and feel like he is an independent thinker. Hannity is right down the line on almost every republican talking point and Colmes sits across from him looking like Spock, but without the Vulcan logic.

Actually, 2 guys who used to be on Fox News during the weekend, Neil Gabler and Jeff Cohen, would serve as a decent opposing view to Hannity.

BTW, a public employee caught committing adultery while in the workplace--and then being caught lying under oath about it--that's news. There's pretty much no way around that one. I'm not saying anything about its value or impeachableness (sic), just its newsworthiness.

--Camile Paglia (Salon, "Hillary vs. Obama: It's a drawl!" March 14, 2007)

Yeah, BTW, American troops stuck in the middle of a Civil War is news too, but Fox news doesn't think so.

(banging head against wall)