Go Home

John Stossel

21 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (276)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1680)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

This week's edition of the Stossel show on Fox Business News hosted a mock debate on budgets that cut the deficit for the almost the entire hour. Five sets of budgets put out by five different think tanks were the focus. Two supposed liberals (from the Roosevelt Institute and from Demos), two conservatives (from American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation), and one bi-partisan (from BiPartisan Policy Center) (the Center for American Progress would not participate with their new budget because of bias on the show).

The Stossel show also included a panel of Bob Beckel, David Asman and "neutral" Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith. They were asked to question each think tank and then vote for one of them, but the audience would have the deciding vote. Bob Beckel is a longtime "liberal'" on Fox News who believes in the flat tax, and first he apologized to Hillary Doe for putting up with the crowd and then said he was the only liberal on Fox, so he's used to it. After Stossel told him there were others on the network, he said this:

Beckel: I want to congratulate you for putting up with this (audience booing), and with all due respect... being the only liberal at Fox, I can get a pretty thick skin.

Stossel: Well, you're not the only liberal at Fox!

Beckel: There's damn few of us, we all of us can caucus in a phone booth, let me put it that way to you. ...

Alan Colmes is a featured liberal on FNC, but Beckel is right on the overall truth of his claim that the amount of real liberals on Fox can barely fill a phone booth. I wonder how Roger Ailes will take that bit of honesty since it bucks his "fair and balanced" slogan?

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (456)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (988)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

John Stossel went on Bill O'Reilly's show last night to discuss his little weekend shoutfest with the would-be victim of Breitbart's long-running "Pigford" smear, attorney Al Pires.

Stossel concluded of course that their intended pinata had been smashed to pieces at his own hand because he had resorted to personal attacks -- this, from a guy who ran a chryon Pires as a "freeloader" throughout his, and who attacked him personally throughout the segment as a "scam" attorney.

On O'Reilly, it was once again a session smearing Pires as a rich, money-grubbing leech lawyer out to rip people off, even though the closest Breitbart and Co. can get to "proving" this characterization is with an endless string of dubious insinuations. Stossel just made it clear that Pires should creep people out -- but he won't suggest there was anything illegal about what Pires did, nor in fact can he even point to any unethical behavior. This kind of sliming of their targets is itself deeply slimy.

And then, almost comically, Stossel admitted that in fact Pires' case in court was sound, and his legal victory was a matter of simple justice. But then he reverted to his libertarian prism and tried arguing that these farmers shouldn't have been in the position of asking the federal government for a loan in the first place -- because, in Stossel Land, there shouldn't be such programs at all!

O'REILLY: Now, in a situation like this, where you have a class-action suit against the federal government, the federal government usually folds. But in this case, you say there was some evidence they denied loans, legitimate government loans, to people based on the color of their skin?

STOSSEL: Yes -- and this is another reason: why is the government giving out farm loans in the first place? OK? They shouldn't, but they are.

O'REILLY: Well, it's affirmative action, isn't it? I mean, to try to help people in certain areas. That's under that banner.

STOSSEL: It's also farm -- Agriculture Department pork. You should go to a private bank and get a loan. Then if a bank is racist, they lose money to a bank that isn't racist, because they get the good business from the minorities. But -- the government was giving out the money, and some of the loan officers were racist.

Apparently Stossel doesn't believe in the Federal Farm Credit system -- which tells you that he's never been a farmer, either. Nor is he even being logical, since the farm-credit system doesn't cost taxpayers a thing. As the FCA's site explains:

All Government financial assistance was repaid, with interest, by 2005. FCA itself does not receive any Government appropriations; rather, FCA operations are funded through assessments paid by FCS institutions.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (448)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (9170)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

John Stossel devoted his show this past weekend to an attempt to defend his report on "freeloaders" -- which not only was riddled throughout with false "facts," outright falsehoods, gross distortions, and misleading sound bytes, it was nakedly racist in its depiction of minorities who are the beneficiaries of government largesse as cheaters and chiselers.

So who did he invite on to help make this case? Why, Andrew Breitbart -- liar, prevaricator, and misleader extraordinaire -- of course. Breitbart, you see, was Stossel's chief source for the segment on black farmers who are supposedly ripping off the government in the Pigford case -- the non-story that Breitbart has been assiduously, obsessively pursuing as a way of trying to cover his tracks for his grotesque performance in the Shirley Sherrod matter.

He also invited on Al Pires, one of the lead attorneys for those same farmers, to serve as their pinata for the segment. Except it turned out that this pinata had his own big stick -- and went right after Breitbart for the fact that his reportage on the Pigford case has been a wanton exercise in legal (and agricultural ignorance:

PIRES: I don't know who Mr. Breitbart is. He's obviously not a farmer and he's not a journalist -- none of that's even remotely true.

...

Who are you? Making fun of people who have the guts to take cases against the government. You don’t know anything about farming and litigation. You’re some gadfly from Hollywood. I looked you up. You’re some guy who didn’t have a job for ten years.

...

Yeah, I know who you are. You’re some gadfly from Hollywood. You’re the son of a rich family, you never worked for a living in your life. You go around making fun of poor people, you go making fun of Indians and Blacks and Hispanics and women and I’m not putting up with it. I feel bad for you. You’re a sad, sad person. Why don’t you go get a job?

I especially got a kick out of Stossel trying to pretend that no, really, Breitbart is a journalist! Sorry, dude -- you actually have to practice journalism -- which entails a balanced search of facts and truth -- and not thesis-driven propaganda to earn that title.

Mind you, Pires could have been far more effective if he had just started listing the times Breitbart and Co. have been caught deceptively editing videos and lying about their subjects. But that's OK. Sometimes it's satisfying to just see guys like Breitbart get slapped down on every imaginable basis -- and with this particular lying liar, even personal rips like these are fully deserved. Especially when the entire segment is devoted to an ad-hominem smear of their victim as a rich conniver. Can't blame him for tossing the same game back in their faces.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (510)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4374)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

I grew up a few miles north of the Shoshone-Bannock reservation in southern Idaho, and was exposed as a child to the very visceral bigotry against Native Americans that has been part of the landscape in the West for the past 150 years or more. I remember the bar downtown that had a sign in the window: "No Dogs or Drunk Indians Allowed." I heard them cursed and laughed at, watched them being abused, and watched them destroy themselves with alcohol too.

What was really entrenched, though, was the stereotype: Indians were crazy, unpredictable drunks who were lazy and always looking for a handout.

But over the course of my career as a newspaper reporter in the West, I was assigned coverage of tribal affairs on two different reservations (the Sho-Ban in Idaho and the Flatheads in Montana) and spent large sums of time on other reservations near where I worked and lived, including the Blackfeet res in Montana, the Nez Perce and Coeur d'Alenes in Idaho, and more recently, the Makah res in western Washington.

I learned a lot of things doing that work: I learned that treaty rights are irrevocable and supreme law, and whites can only mess with them at their own peril. I learned that no two tribes are alike: some are wealthy, some are not. I also learned that they all deal with powerful social issues arising from their status as the remnants of people who were the victims of a genocidal campaign of extermination, outrageous deceptions, and a ceaseless treatment by their conquerors as subhuman.

Most of all, I learned that the stereotype was a lie: The people who lived on reservations were often deeply impoverished and there was a high alcoholism rate, but they were very hard workers (though I will say they had their own unique work ethic), highly intelligent, with a great deal of pride. Many of them were capable of climbing out of the morass into which they had been thrown -- but not all. Given the conditions into which they have been born -- deep poverty, a forced inability to make a living as tribes did traditionally (through sustenance hunting and gathering), and the ongoing failure of the federal government to make good on its treaty promises to the tribes -- that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Yet this weekend, on John Stossel's Fox News show, there was Stossel, rehabilitating that lie and giving it fresh clothing: The show, titled "Freeloaders," was all about how those chiseling Indians are constantly on the lookout for bigger handouts, and it clearly implied they were lazy bums whose federal dole should be axed.

It was an expansive version of the remarks he made last weekend along these lines, once again claiming that "no group in America has been more helped by the government than the American Indians ... But 200 years later, no group does worse."

As Nicole noted at the time, it was really a profound display of ignorance, and it intensified this week: Stossel -- like his libertarian idol, Rand Paul -- seems to advocate simply tearing up and abrogating those treaties -- as though that were a legal option. (I also enjoyed how he called the people who are demanding the government live up to those treaties "socialists" -- as if "socialism" existed in the period, 1824-1870, that the vast majority of the these treaties, which promised to provide sustenance help from the federal government in perpetuity, were made.)

Stossel, moreover, seems utterly ignorant of the historical reality that European diseases, fueled by white Americans' malign neglect of Native Americans, in the centuries prior to 1800 wiped out over three-quarters of the indigenous population and thus cleared the way for white settlement of the continent. There were, of course, surviving tribes who resisted futilely -- but they were largely rubbed out and forced onto these reservations. They finally agreed to cease hostilities when the government promised to provide for them.

But those promises, especially in the early years after the treaties were signed, were mostly deceptions intended to "control" the Indians, and for decades the government failed to meet the terms of their treaties, often resulting in mass starvation on the reservations -- followed by uprisings that were always violently suppressed. One such incident resulted in the Wounded Knee Massacre at the very Pine Ridge reservation that Stossel holds up for ridicule:

How much "help from the federal government" can one tribe take?

Stossel's account was also riddled with falsehoods in the particulars of the case he held up as an example -- the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, who Stossel claims have actually prospered by virtue of the fact that they do not have full federal recognition.

Continue reading »



John Stossel: Legalize Organ Selling

Stossell-Organs.jpg John Stossel was on----Drum roll please---Cavuto and tells us that organ selling should be legal.

icon Download | play -WMP icon Download | play -QT

Why doesn't he do an undercover 20/20 special where he sells his own kidney in the black market if he's in such support of this? You know--to make a statement.

This guy is as dishonest as they come. See this...and this.

Update: Also who can forget this one...

(h/t accord)



(h/t TPM)

You want proof we're living in Idiocracy? Look no further than Fox & Friends, which I swear kills braincells each and every time I'm masochistic enough to tune in.

Libertarian John Stossel does his best to contribute to the dumbing down of the populace with this little gem. Quick, name the group that has gotten more government handouts than anyone else: Millionaires? Financial institutions? Big Pharma? Big Oil? The Military Industrial Complex? Surely, you jest. No, no, no....according to John Stossel, the group that has gotten more government handouts than anyone are Native Americans with their deficit-busting Bureau of Indian Affairs:

Stossel was on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss some high-paying government jobs recently reported in The Daily Caller. The report found that the "Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs needs someone to run the Facebook page for the Dept. of the Interior and they'll pay up to $115,000 a year." Stossel took that as an opportunity to wonder about the entire concept of a Bureau of Indian Affairs.

"Why is there a Bureau of Indian Affairs?" he said. "There is no Bureau of Puerto Rican Affairs or Black Affairs or Irish Affairs. And no group in America has been more helped by the government than the American Indians, because we have the treaties, we stole their land. But 200 years later, no group does worse."

Established in 1824, Indian Affairs is the oldest bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. Among other responsibilities, the Bureau is charged with "maintaining the federal government-to-government relationship with the federally recognized Indian tribes," according to its website.

What a stunning ignorance of history, economics, the Constitution, Native Americans, tribal sovereignty and let's face it, reality. Maybe that hit Stossel took from that wrestler knocked sense out of him.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (2399)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1915)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

It tells you just how degraded our national discourse has become -- how utterly corrupted by the Fox Propaganda Channel it has been -- that two of its leading anchors can run an entire segment legitimizing a hoax video tape, even though its contents were exposed as a hoax even before they were released. And no one even so much as raises an eyebrow.

That's what happened last night on The O'Reilly Factor, when Bill O'Reilly and Fox's John Stossel devoted an entire segment to attacking Planned Parenthood as "disgusting" for the supposed behavior revealed in another Breitbartesque attack by video hoax on another liberal institution.

O'Reilly and Stossel, however, then use the affair to launch into attacking Planned Parenthood for receiving taxpayer subsidies -- and that really is what they're on about. Interestingly, Stossel uses the logic that because some people see abortion as murder, they are being forced to underwrite murder in their views -- a position O'Reilly ardently adopts as well.

Peculiar that neither of them apply the same logic elsewhere: Many people see killing innocent civilians in the course of a war as murder too -- something our tax dollars likewise heavily underwrite. But you'll never see an O'Reilly segment attacking taxpayer funding for the DoD.

But what's truly disgraceful that they then dismiss the overwhelming fact that Planned Parenthood had already reported these "sex traffickers" to authorities -- thereby exposing the hoax in progress. Here's their release of last week:

Last week, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) alerted federal authorities to a potential multistate sex trafficking ring. Over a five day period, visitors to Planned Parenthood health centers in six states said they were seeking information from Planned Parenthood about health services Planned Parenthood could provide to underage girls who were part of a sex trafficking ring. Subsequent to alerting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Planned Parenthood learned the identify of one of those involved and believes these visits are likely a hoax by opponents of legal abortion seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood, which delivers preventive health care and abortion services to three million women each year.

Media Matters has the full details of the hoax.

Yet, in spite of all this, when Lila Rose and Co. published the video yesterday, it was widely treated through Unsurprisingly, the wingnutosphere ran whole-hog in embracing the video as legitimate, including the fine folks at National Review, RedState and Malkin's Hot Air.

Moreover, as Ned Resnikoff at Media Matters explored in some detail, Rose's video actually pretty clearly demonstrates the falsity of what she claims it shows:

Continue reading »



John Stossel is an ass

Desi subbing for Jesus General, writes a letter to Stossel in response to his "price gouging is good" column...



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1222)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2565)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Bill O'Reilly decided to bring in Fox's newest big-name hire, John Stossel, to help buck up his annual pledge drive in the War on Christmas.

And Stossel -- who is no innocent in the ways of ideological reporting himself -- actually seemed embarrassed by it all -- mainly because O'Reilly was stooping to the lowest reporting methods possible to make his point.

Namely, he was citing as somehow authoritative ("I trust the folks") an online poll from an outfit called "StandForChristmas.com". Stossel briefly mentions that it actually was run by another group, and O'Reilly talks over him and emphasizes that it's "StandForChristmas."

Of course, "StandForChristmas" is actually run by the religious-right cranks at James Dobson's Focus on the Family. So there's an obvious bias built into the poll and its potential viewers in the first place. And then to treat the results of any open online poll as meaningful in any real sense is just palpable nonsense.

Stossel obviously understands this, and mostly tries to work his way around O'Reilly's insistence that the poll means something by just repeating its results.

But the whole thing goes completely off the rails and into another universe when O'Reilly tries to claim that corporate chiefs telling their employees what to say is "just fascist":

O'Reilly: But my point is, that I thought it was fascist -- fascism, which offends a libertarian like you -- for a CEO or a store manager to tell their employees, 'You better not say Merry Christmas' -- even though the reason we're selling stuff is because of Christmas. Isn't that fascism?

Stossel: No, it's ownership. He built the business, if he says, 'Stand on your head and sing when people come in,' you don't have to work there, you can quit, it's his business.

You realize from exchanges like this just how long it's been since Bill O'Reilly has had anything even remotely like a real job. Because in most people's real jobs -- especially in the retail biz -- employees are instructed all the time in exactly the kinds of things they're supposed to say. That's not fascist, it's just business.

Indeed, Bill O'Reilly has himself on numerous occasions demanded that people in various positions be fired for saying things he believes reflect badly on their employers -- remember his attacks on Rosie O'Donnell? Guess that makes him a fascist, by his own definition.

What would Christmas be without a warm cup of Bill O'Reilly hypocrisy?



John Stossel Heading Home Where He Belongs - Fox News!

John Stossel has been masquerading as a journalist at ABC for years. We've documented some of his hackery and whining over time and as I fully expected, he's finally making the jump to crazytown where he belongs -- Fox News:

John Stossel is leaving ABC News for Fox, where he'll host a weekly show on Fox Business and host a series of specials for Fox News.

TVNewser reports that the libertarian "20/20" host is expected to sign a multi-year-deal with Fox, where he'll host a two-hour weekly show on Fox Business and make appearances on Fox News in both the daytime and primetime hours.

Stossel's departure comes on the heels of last week's announcement that Charlie Gibson is retiring from ABC News. Read on...

At least at Fox Business he won't have to worry about ratings or being seen by very many people, but his "specials" for Fox News should fit right in with their low-brow, low-information standards. ABC will be a better network for letting him go.

I have avoided using the above wrestling, smack-down clip in past Stossel posts, but the comparison between Fox News and wrasslin' was too precious to pass up!