John Stossel, the ABC anchor known for his libertarian bent, is moving to the Fox
Business Network to host a weekly prime-time program. He will also make
regular appearances on the Fox News Channel.
…Mr. Stossel will start work in October, and his weekly program,
named “Stossel,” will begin sometime in the fourth quarter. Fox said
“Stossel” would include news segments and conversations about
“libertarian issues in the United States and abroad,” including
free-market economics and civil liberties.
In a post on his ABC
blog, Mr. Stossel said he wanted to “dig into the meaning of the words
‘liberty’ and ‘limited government’ ” on the program.
“ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more air time and a new challenge,” he added.
The story is here. I thank Yana for the pointer.
It would be amusing if he went to PBS instead.
Great, now Glenn Beck has a fellow lunatic to play patty-cake with.
What was the new challenge?
Anyone who promotes liberty is a lunatic.
Come on, by now we all know the state and its philosopher kings can take good care of us. Good, heck, the best care of us.
Now go back to sleeeeeeeeppppppp……..
Awesome. Stossel will fit compliment Fox nicely, and do what they intended Glen Beck to do before he turned into a wild man.
Journalistic assortative mating. Snore.
define “unsustainable degrees of so called “] liberty “.
“Limited government” is an oxymoron. A government is a criminal gang. What is a “limited” criminal gang?
Give me a break!! Stossel simply comes off as an arrogant jerk. He does libertarians a disservice, just like Ayn Rand did libertarians a disservice. How come proponents of the free-market don’t understand marketing any better?
I like this move by Stossel. Maybe he can call use his platform to call out conservatives on their inconsistencies.
Nobody watches Fox business. So if you postulate that it’s good for libertarians that Stossel has a broad voice, then this is not good for libertarians.
Maybe the idea is to give people a reason to watch Fox business.
One time someone asked him how he gets away with his spiel and he said that Barbara Walters is a lot smarter than he and they don’t agree on much, but she asks him questions and he was thankful to have such leeway with her. That doesn’t sound arrogant to me. Sometimes we libertarians know the other guy is smarter, but we just know we still have better models. I think people on The Left (and Right) substitute consensus for uncertainty. So long as everyone is wrong in the same direction there is safety in numbers.
If you think the terror alert color code was a great idea, I can see how Stossel might seem arrogant when he points out such nonsense. That’s what he does, point out silliness, and I think he’s hilarious. And he is extremely popular, maybe the most popular libertarian there is among non-libertarians. Maybe he is doing something right. Stossel didn’t say anything about libertarianism needing a bigger stage, he alluded to more journalistic freedom for himself.
I think the people that need to pay attention to Stossel are exactly the people who watch Fox. Stossel and Judge Napolitano under the same roof could eat the neocons’ lunch. I agree with Vehical Driver that for whatever reason, The Left is a lost cause. That is why this is a big improvement.
You don’t know what you are talking about. In Canada, private care is illegal for any procedure covered by the government (i.e. you can get insurance to cover dental, prescription drugs, etc… but it is ILLEGAL to seek private treatment or purchase private insurance for any conventional medical treatment). People in Canada have to travel to the United States if they want private health care.
So, what’s going to happen to a country that drives one part of the population into the “No New Taxes” corner when we have a budget that, even under full employment levels, would not have balanced because we gave too much to the wealthy in tax cuts. What happens to a country that cannot do both tax increases and budget cuts. And, then, we have cheerleaders who lead the willing ignorant.
student,
But you wrote, “Even in the UK, which is far more socialized than Canada,” implying that Canada is less restrictive of private health care than the UK. Given the severe restrictions that Canada imposes on access to private health care, it seems there is good reason to fear even “less socialized” health care systems like Canada’s. And surely you’re aware of the argument that the public option is a trojan horse for single-payer. The government will use its size and power to undercut private insurers, gradually forcing them out of business until the public “option” is the only real option.
if government taxes away your means to buy care and then takes away treatment options that could save your life as they “manage” your care, where does that leave you?
however, if you choose your own insurance and they deny coverage for a procedure, this is because of the contract that you signed. And if it isn’t, then you can sue them to enforce the contract.
So I don’t see how an insurance company is forcing death upon you the way government would be.
The term “death panel” may be overly dramatic, but somebody is going to make decisions to deny care to people who would otherwise have had the means if government is not successful in taking over.
I don’t think a move to Fox will help Stossel’s credibility and it will certainly make it harder for mainstream viewers to get an alternative to the typical network parroting of everything put out by the government.
On Canada people should keep this in mind:
“In a 4-3 decision, the panel of seven justices said banning private insurance for a list of services ranging from MRI tests to cataract surgery was unconstitutional under the Quebec Charter of Rights, given that the public system has failed to guarantee patients access to those services in a timely way.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html
Lee A. Arnold,
We already have socialized medicine or a government take over medicine in the U.S.
Obama wants to turn public health care into the same sort of monopoly that public education has.
Right now, in the U.S., it is still technically legal to go to a private school… however, since private schools must compete with institutions that are essentially free (ignoring taxes), and people who go to private schools essentially pay twice (taxes for public schools and tuition for private schools), only a handful of particularly wealthy or dedicated people can afford to send their children to private school.
For the public option to function, the vast majority of people will have to be part of the public option. The working class and middle class, who now have private insurance, will be forced into the public option. The corporate CEOs, the movie stars and millionaire musicians, and powerful political leaders who support Obama will most definitely be able to get excellent private care… in the same way Obama opposes privatizing education, but sends his own kids to an expensive private school.
*doesn’t
Hey John Stossel i think it was a very good opportunity for you, i seen you sometimes in ABC and if you want to jump to Fox Business then it is a great but if you are working in ABC and you are familiar with them then its a good job, you dont have leave it for some more money.. I know FOX offers you more then ABC but ABC is good for you because you are good familiar with ABC & the ABC employees…
man the quality of the discussion always goes way down around here on any post that the usual crowd can use as an excuse for political propaganda wars
It’s too bad the non-Fox media can’t find room for one or two powerful voices that are different from the rest of the clones. If I were Stossel, I’d want to stay at ABC. But I can only imagine how poorly he must have been treated – paycheck excepted – by the people there. Good luck John.
Comments on this entry are closed.