Fox bias - Ron Paul on Kennedy (11/19) - Reminded of past bias incident!

[Valli6]

Ron Paul was on Kennedy’s show Thursday, but mainly this post is to note the media’s increasing bias and to mention an astonishing bias incident from the past.

Kennedy’s most recent interview with Ron Paul (11/19/15)

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...like-in-paris/

My first point:
Has anyone else noticed how Kennedy’s show has changed? I don’t mean just the format, which was altered some time ago. (I really preferred the original format with Kmele Foster and Matt Welch. It had much better guests and discussions.)

Over the last few weeks (maybe a month or so?), they have really been forcing the show to conform more to standard neoconnery! She keeps having Gregg Gutfeid as a guest - He’s that annoying neocon who keeps pretending he’s “libertarian”. He seems to be on at least once a week now. (He’s hawking another book.)

She also keeps having guests like (if memory serves) Jamie Weinstein and/or Ben Shapiro. (To be honest, I mix these 2 guys up since they both express the exact same views.)

And this week, she actually had McCain’s bubble-headed, basketball-implanted daughter as a guest! WTF?!

She’s been avoiding mentioning Rand Paul. Last week she seemed to acquiesced that since he’s “low” in the polls, they wouldn’t bother to talk about him.

Come to think of it, recently there were even one or two unexplained instances of the show not airing.

Even in this interview with Ron Paul, she never mentions Rand’s name, just says “your son”. And suddenly, it’s not enough that Ron Paul is the only one that’s been right, she pushes for a soundbite solution.

My second point is to remind everyone of how things went with Judge Napolitano’s show, Freedom Watch, prior to the 2012 elections. This show also aired on the Fox Business channel, and (I think) in the same time slot.

What really sticks out in my mind, is the time Ron Paul was going to be interviewed and just when he was supposed to be on - the show just went off the air! It was absolutely unbelievable! I hope everyone remembers and/or knows that, rather than allowing Ron Paul to be heard, they actually chose to show dead air for at least 15 or 20 minutes - or was it the rest of the show? All you saw onscreen was a promo photo and no dialogue! There was NEVER any explanation for it and the judge never said a word about it (probably something in his contract).

I can’t quite remember what stage of the election it was when this happened, but I think it may’ve been around the Iowa straw poll or caucus?

Anyway - I still find that so incredible, I thought we needed to remember the lengths they will go to!

[Feelgood]

Yeah like we really need to be reminded of the corruption of this government.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is this the interview?



I have never considered Kennedy to be anything other than a beltway libertarian, probably with neoconservative leanings. Not a regular viewer, but just based on randomly catching episodes over time.

[Brian4Liberty]

Wow. Bet that's the last time Ron does an interview with Kennedy. She was almost berating him the entire time.

[Occam's Banana]

Just take a deep breath and step away from the tee-vee ...

[Valli6]

I've been watching Kennedy's show a couple times a week since it went on the air.

If I remember correctly, her show first aired, soon after the 2012 election was over. Similarly, Glenn Beck's show started when the 2008 election was over - the Judge's too (I think). I guess Kennedy's time at Fox busness is coming to an end.

I used to find her show mostly good, only occasionally irksome - but lately neocon-speak is heard more often and mostly goes unrefuted - too much like Foxnews channel. I mean - Greg Gutless? Meghan McCain?! My feeling is that Kennedy has been told to change her attitude if she wants to remain on the air.

I had almost completely forgotten about the way Judge Napolitano's foxbusiness show became different as the 2012 primaries got nearer, but the attitude towards Ron Paul during this interview was so different from Kennedy's usual treatment of him, that it all came back to me.

Recollecting how they went off the air that time just floored me all over again. It makes me wonder just how far they will go this time, and if re-examining that incident, can give us any sort of "predictability" about it. If anyone has a link to that thread(s) please post.

[Krugminator2]

I am exactly the kind of Reason/Cato/Squish libertarian that should love her. Yet, I think she is almost unwatchable. And I don't get why she badgers Ron Paul. This is not new. I would have much rather seen Matt Welch get a show than her.

[KingNothing]

Her question is entirely fair. He didn't really answer it, he just repeated that we inspire violence, which is true, but it does nothing to mitigate the threat posed by the people who are already radicalized.

The issue is ridiculously complicated. I can't imagine that we will ever resolve it until we scale down our interventionist policies while simultaneously killing everyone who wants to kill us and shutting down on means by which they are funded. This issue, more than any other issue, is why I would never wish the office of the presidency on anyone. There is no short term solution, and there is no way to avoid bloodshed.

[angelatc]

Her question is entirely fair. He didn't really answer it, he just repeated that we inspire violence, which is true, but it does nothing to mitigate the threat posed by the people who are already radicalized.

The issue is ridiculously complicated. I can't imagine that we will ever resolve it until we scale down our interventionist policies while simultaneously killing everyone who wants to kill us and shutting down on means by which they are funded. This issue, more than any other issue, is why I would never wish the office of the presidency on anyone. There is no short term solution, and there is no way to avoid bloodshed.

I agree. I thought that she asked a legitimate question, and I think she's right to ask it.

[Peace&Freedom]

Kennedy's question is not fair, as it presumes a legitimacy for the "radical threat" that was in fact manufactured by covert ops. It also ignored both general history (there have always been radicalized extremists, religious or secular, so why is this spate of violence happening now?) and track record of recent history (14 years of intense military action from invasions to bombings, occupations, drone assassinations, endless engagements, etc have done absolutely nothing to "mitigate" or "defeat" the radicals, but only increased their activity and numbers).

The question also presumes terrorism is a foreign policy question, not a local criminal matter, as it used to be treated and categorized as. Why doesn't she ask about at least the possibility of the US ending the false flags, or for it to stop trying to dominate every hemisphere, and re-classifying terror as a crime, instead of as a signal that we need more war? How about discussing the role (and the wider existence of) state-sponsored terror by the West, and how ending it (stop illegally invading and bombing one Mideast country after another) can mitigate the violence?

In that context, pressuring somebody about initiating more force does not frame the issue accurately or fairly, especially since a libertarian is supposed to be raising that context, not raising neocon spin phrases that obscure it. What a libertarian should be raising, in addition to non-intervention, are points about noting the tactics used by the War party to frame the discussion entirely in intervening terms of "what should we be doing," "why aren't we leading," and other more-militarism directions.

Why can't the words "state sponsored terror, like illegal, unauthorized bombing of a country for months or years, which has killed far more civilians, may be worse than violence committed by terrorist cells" come off of Kennedy's lips? Kennedy is part of the same strategy FOX tried and failed with Beck---start a "libertarian" show right after an election cycle ends, build up a liberty audience's trust for three years, then try to steer it into the neocon orbit at crunch time (the primary race). This shows the network is STILL at it, and still cannot be trusted.

“Want to stop terrorism?” Ron Paul had it right: get out of Muslim countries. Stop bombing. Stop installing dictators. Stop stealing. Stop intervening. Stop killing.”---Lew Rockwell

[Brian4Liberty]

Her question is entirely fair.

First question from Kennedy: "Do you think that somehow we caused these terrorist attacks in Paris?"

That is more an accusation than an unbiased, neutral question.

Second question, after some babble about Fraud and the intellectual curiosity that is "blowback", is "my challenge to you is, instead of just putting it in the blowback category, I might disagree with you on the percentage of the blowback cause, what do we do now?"

Once again, not an unbiased or neutral question. "What can and should we do now?" Is valid, but it's the wording and accusing tone that is not impartial or fair.

It only gets worse from there. It's a Kennedy editorial and cross examination, not an interview. And near the end she tries to rudely cut him off.