A former Bush administration official featured in Glenn Beck's elaborate Egypt conspiracy theory has called the Fox host's comments "absurd."
In 2008, while serving as an Under Secretary of State, James K. Glassman helped create the Alliance for Youth Movements, a non-profit organization "that aims to support and sustain campaigns for nonviolent social change that harness 21st century tools to safeguard human rights, promote good governance and foster civic engagement."
On his Monday show, Beck suggested that AYM was tied to violent Islamic extremism and that the State Department was aiding groups that want to use the Egyptian protests to create an Islamic "caliphate."
Reached for comment Tuesday, Glassman told Media Matters that he had reviewed video of portions of Beck's show as well as related material on Beck's website.
Glassman called Beck's theory "literally absurd," adding that "it was like the world turned upside down."
"The work we were doing was to advance the cause of anti-violence and freedom, and if we played any small role in events in Egypt, that advances those causes," said Glassman. "I would think that Glenn Beck would stand for those goals."
Glassman is currently executive director of the George W. Bush Institute at the Bush Presidential Library in Dallas. Before joining the State Department, he served as a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Watch video of Beck's Monday show:
Attorney Thomas Clare, representing Shirley Sherrod, released the following statement on her behalf today:
Former USDA Official Shirley Sherrod Sues Blogger Andrew Breitbart for Defamation
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 14, 2011 - Former USDA Official Shirley Sherrod has filed a lawsuit against blogger Andrew Breitbart, producer Larry O'Connor and an unknown "John Doe" defendant for defamation, false light and infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit, filed February 11 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleges that these individuals authored and posted a series of defamatory statements on Mr. Breitbart's BigGovernment.com website regarding Mrs.Sherrod. These statements, together with highly edited video clips of a 2009 speech given by Mrs. Sherrod, falsely portrayed her as "racially discriminat[ing]" against a white farmer and managing her federal duties at the USDA "through the prism of race and class distinctions." In reality, Mrs. Sherrod's speech was describing events that occurred more than twenty years before she held her federal position and, in fact, was encouraging people not to discriminate on the basis of race. The patently false statements about her immediately went viral on the Internet, igniting a national media firestorm, costing Mrs. Sherrod her federal position, and severely damaging her reputation earned over decades by helping rural farmers.
"This lawsuit is not about politics or race," Mrs. Sherrod said of the lawsuit. "It is not about Right versus Left, the NAACP, or the Tea Party. It is about how quickly, in today's internet media environment, a person's good name can become 'collateral damage' in an overheated political debate. I strongly believe in a free press and a full discussion of public issues, but not in deliberate distortions of the truth. Mr. Breitbart has never apologized for what he did to me and continues -- to this day -- to make the same slurs about my character.
I am issuing this statement because I know there may be intense media interest in this case. But I do not intend at this time to discuss the lawsuit further, and I hope members of the media will respect that decision."
Blogger Andrew Breitbart has been sued by former U.S. Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod who contends her reputation was damaged by Breitbart's posting last year of an edited video.
The New York Times reports today Breitbart was served with the lawsuit at CPAC Saturday. Sherrod contends in the suit that a video clip he posted last year "has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work."
Breitbart, who first posted the clip on July 19, 2010, at his BigGovernment.com site, had been under scrutiny after it was revealed the clip misrepresented Sherrod's message during a speech in March 2010 before a group of NAACP members.
Fox then posted an online article reporting on the clip, linking to Breitbart's video. Breitbart did not seek comment from Sherrod prior to his report; Fox News also gave no indication that they had done so. She was forced to resign later that day.
Breitbart has recently claimed that Sherrod was not fired because of his video but because of her part in the 11-year-old Pigford case, in which black farmers sued for discrimination against the Agriculture Department.
He stated such a claim again on Thursday in an interview with Media Matters, in which he admitted he had no proof of the assertion, revealing it was a theory.
Breitbart responded to Sherrod's lawsuit Saturday with an online statement that said, in part:
I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.
Sherrod could not immediately be reached for comment Sunday.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum suggested yesterday that he wouldn't have to give up his current Fox News employment if he wanted to participate in the network's upcoming presidential primary debate, so long as he hasn't officially declared his candidacy.
"I don't think you have to be a candidate to be a part of the debate, at least that's my understanding," Santorum said when asked by Media Matters at CPAC if Fox should require contributors to terminate their Fox employment before participating in the May 5 South Carolina debate.
Santorum, a Fox News contributor who's testing the waters for a presidential run, added that he doesn't think it's a conflict of interest to be a part of the Fox debate. Watch:
Rush Limbaugh's dismissive comments about detained New York Times reporters in Cairo have drawn sharp criticism from several veteran war correspondents - including a longtime Times war reporter - as well as those who monitor journalist safety overseas.
Limbaugh said on his Feb. 3 show about two New York Times reporters being detained:
Ladies and gentlemen, it is being breathlessly reported that the Egyptian army -- Snerdley, have you heard this? The Egyptian army is rounding up foreign journalists. I mean, even two New YorkTimes reporters were detained. Now, this is supposed to make us feel what, exactly? How we supposed to feel? Are we supposed to feel outrage over it? I don't feel any outrage over it. Are we supposed to feel anger? I don't feel any anger over this. Do we feel happy? Well -- uh -- do we feel kind of going like, "neh-neh-neh-neh"? I'm sure that your emotions are running the gamut when you hear that two New York Times reporters have been detained along with other journalists in Egypt. Remember now, we're supporting the people who are doing this.
Later in the same show, upon hearing about Fox News crew members and others being beaten and hospitalized, he contended that his previous comments were a joke:
Also, according to Mediaite, Fox News' Greg Palkot and crew have been severely beaten and are now hospitalized in Cairo. Now we were kidding before about The New York Times, of course. This kind of stuff is terrible. We wouldn't wish this kind of thing even on reporters. But it's -- it's serious. And you know, Anderson Cooper got beat upside the head 10 times when he was there. Still feeling it -- still feel sorry about -- reporters all think that the protestors ought to welcome them, they're on the same side.
Still, several leaders of the international journalism community contend the comments are unfair and even harmful to American safety overseas, as well as reporters' ability to gather news.
John Burns, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for The New York Times based in London, covered the Iraq War from 2003 to 2007.
After reviewing the comments made by Limbaugh, Burns stated in an e-mail that his remarks, "inevitably play into a wider climate of disdain for the media that has been building in some quarters in the United States for some years now, and that is something to worry about, whether your politics are of the left, the right, or the centre.
"The fact that the Fox News crew were among those attacked in Cairo suggests powerfully that thuggery against the media is a universal threat, just as encouraging hostility for the press at home ultimately threatens the very basis of press freedom, for all."
Dion Nissenbaum, a Kabul correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers who was himself detained by Palestinian forces in The Gaza Strip in 2005, also questioned Limbaugh's motives.
"I can't quite fathom why Rush Limbaugh would be gleeful about the crackdown on reporting. International reporters are risking their lives to report on this pivotal chapter in Egyptian history," he stated. "Without having these folks on the ground, without having these people risking their lives to write, photograph and document the volatile events, Americans would be at a serious disadvantage as we all try to make sense of what is unfolding in Egypt."
Kelly Kennedy, USA Today military writer and president of Military Reporters and Editors, the top military reporting association, added:
"It's horrifying to wish harm on any American -- or any person -- who is expressing one of our cherished freedoms. In this case, the reporters in Cairo help us, as a country, understand a situation that directly affects us, and they're doing it at great risk to themselves. We should support them. To laugh as the government harms and silences journalists, even as hundreds of thousands of Egyptians protest their inability to govern themselves, makes no sense.
"It was brave for them to go out into the streets even after hearing what had happened to their colleagues. And now the wires are silent? And there are journalists with injuries? How is this something to joke about? We should be proud, even if you don't always agree with what they report."
Clothilde Le Coz, director of Reporters Without Borders' Washington, D.C., office, called Limbaugh's comments rude and disrespectful.
"How did he know about the fact that reporters were attacked? It is rude and disrespectful to say that. How did he know reporters were attacked and one got stabbed? How did he know about this? Because there are reporters," she told Media Matters. "When you don't care about them, you don't care about how the information can come to your country."
"Saying that he doesn't care, when you say that it is because you don't know what is going on. It might seem very, very small compared to the 300 people who are dead there. It is small, but it is also The New York Times. That is someone who can get the word out."
Mike Francis, a military reporter at The Oregonian in Portland and a MRE board member, echoed that view.
"Presumably, Rush gets his news from people who are risking their necks to bring it to him, whether they're employed by Fox News or The New York Times," Francis said. "No matter what he thinks of the way news stories are written or edited, he, of all people, should value what reporters do, because he needs their work. Alternatively, he could take his microphone to Cairo and tell it the way he sees it."
Sig Christensen, military affairs writer for the San Antonio Express-News has served more than a dozen reporting stints in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.
"Rush foams at the mouth over the possibility of the Fairness Act being reinstated but feels no apparent outrage over the treatment of journalists who are risking their lives to inform the world about a critical development in U.S. foreign policy," Christensen e-mailed after hearing the Limbaugh comments.
"Anyone who is part of the American media ought to hope that we receive more information, not less, and support the journalists now there."
John Yemma, editor of The Christian Science Monitor, which has several reporters and photographers in Cairo, added:
"Mr. Limbaugh is, as he often says, an 'entertainer.' Our reporters and those of other news organizations in Egypt are doing serious and dangerous work to tell this dramatic story. Thoughtful people know the difference."
Then there is Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who noted simply: "These comments are so stupid and ill-informed, they don't require comment from me to point it out."
A California state senator who criticized Rush Limbaugh's mocking of Chinese culture last week has received two more threatening faxes, according to his chief of staff.
Adam Keigwin, chief of staff to Sen. Leland Yee, said the threats came via fax over the weekend, adding to previous threats that are being investigated. He also said that the senator has "received hundreds of calls and e-mails that support the comments [Limbaugh] made."
"There have been two more threats since Friday," Keigwin said late Monday. "One came late Friday and one came over the weekend, our fax machine shows 4 p.m. on Sunday."
On Jan. 19, Limbaugh used Chinese President Hu Jintao's state visit as an opportunity to mock Chinese language and culture.
Yee, chair of the California Senate's Select Committee on Asian Pacific Islander Affairs, responded to Limbaugh's broadcast by calling for an apology, saying that Limbaugh's "classless act is an insult to over 3,000 years of cultural history, and is a slap in the face to the millions of Chinese Americans who have struggled in this country and to a people who constitute one-quarter of the world's population."
On his show the following day, Limbaugh dismissed Yee's criticisms, rejecting the idea that he could have "blown up" 3,000 years of Chinese history "in 18 seconds, right here on the EIB network."
Last week, Yee reported receiving numerous racially charged death threats, including one fax addressed to "Fish Head Leeland Yee" that stated in part: "Rush Limbaugh will kick your Ch*nk ass and expose you for the fool you are."
Keigwin said the latest faxes are similar to two faxes his office received last year - one of which included crosshairs - after Yee sought to have information disclosed regarding Sarah Palin's appearance at a California State University campus.
"We have since received two more similar to that," Keigwin said of the latest faxes. "But one of them includes this crosshairs graphic."
California Highway Patrol, which is investigating the incidents, has asked Yee not to release the images. Keigwin said the U.S. Secret Service is also investigating.
Yee launched an online petition drive last week asking advertisers to drop Limbaugh's radio show.
Keigwin said the petition has received 12,000 names.
Keigwin said the continued negative reaction to Yee's criticism surprised him, given that Limbaugh's broadcast was so offensive and clearly prejudicial.
"I always knew he was pretty popular, I didn't realize that people would support his commentary so much," Keigwin said. "To make the sort of comments he has made and that the comments would be supported and reiterated. Fortunately we received a lot of positive comments, but we have received hundreds of calls and e-mails that support the comments he made. That is surprising that they continue to use that sort of commentary, as if that is acceptable in 2011."
Keigwin added, "It emboldens individuals to take it a step further, 'Hey, our hero Rush Limbaugh is saying it, it must be right, it must be true.' Limbaugh did not threaten Sen. Yee's life, but a supporter of his did. They feel emboldened by his commentary."
Yee, contacted late Monday, added:
"We have received threats in the past, but we take things a lot more serious because of the shooting in Arizona." Asked about Limbaugh, he said: "He is extremely hurtful to our country because we are moving into a different era, with globalization. We can't see ourselves as just Americans anymore."
In the wake of the Arizona shooting, experts on media and societal response to rhetoric say it is important to remember the impact violent and extreme commentary can have.
Although it is unclear what motivated alleged gunman Jared Loughner prior to the Jan. 8 shootings in Tucson, observers warned that violent media rhetoric has the potential to lead to very real violent results.
Nathaniel Cordova, associate professor in rhetoric and media studies, at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, said the impact of harsh language in the media is clear:
"Violent rhetoric from the media has a powerful effect, it sets a tone, sets an agenda. Discourse does not have to directly say, 'Let's do this to harm this' it just has to set an agenda to frame issues in a way that legitimizes a certain course of action," he said. "Fox News has been particularly horrible at this, they have been for a long time peddling a cultural war and they rely on pushing that political discourse."
Media Matters has reported on several recent instances in which violent acts or threatened actions were linked, in some way, to angry media messages.
*Alleged gunman Byron Williams admitted last fall he had been influenced by a Glenn Beck program when he set out to attack members of the Tides Foundation in San Francisco and got into a gun fight with police.
Three psychiatrists who spoke with Media Matters after viewing a clip of Beck's program that Williams had said he viewed prior to the shooting voiced concern that it could have a negative effect on viewers.
"I could imagine that for a section of the population looking for a consensus to confirm their own suspicions of government in general, this is good fodder for them," Psychiatrist Steven Levine of Princeton, N.J., said at the time. "Because of his style, for those who are less inclined to be naturally skeptical, who are looking for someone to support their views, it adds fuel to the fire."
*Charles Wilson, who was convicted in October after threatening Sen. Patty Murray, was "under the spell that Glenn Beck cast," according to a relative.
*Gregory Lee Giusti was sentenced to a year and nine months in federal prison in December for threatening to destroy former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home if she voted in support of health care reform.
His mother told a San Francisco television station that Fox News was a factor in his actions: "Greg has -- frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas and that are not consistent with myself or the rest of the family and -- which gets him into problems. And apparently I would say this must be another one that somehow he's gotten onto either by -- I'd say Fox News or all of those that are really radical, and he -- that's where he comes from."
"There is plenty of reason why our politicians and media do our nation a disservice with ugly rhetoric," said Joel Dvoskin, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona college of medicine, later adding, "What is on television influences behavior."
In a recent Q&A for the American Psychological Association on the Arizona shooting, he had also said: "There is a great deal of research suggesting that the media people consume influences their behavior, including violence and aggression." Asked about this statement, he confirmed it, but added: "The saturation publicity and the dramatized national coverage across all media of these events increases the likelihood of these events, generally."
Martin Medhurst, distinguished professor of rhetoric and communication at Baylor University, said such rhetoric can affect those who are mentally imbalanced:
"It creates a climate, a rhetorical climate that may be more conducive to people who are not able to balance messages that they hear. The mind of a disturbed person, anything can affect it. They react differently to all messages."
Robert M. Entman, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, said the danger of harsh rhetoric becomes worse when other news outlets give Fox News credibility after it offers such comments.
"Obviously Fox and Limbaugh, etc., are acting irresponsibly," he said. "But when the other media treat Fox News as the right-wing equivalent of MSNBC, and therefore as a legitimate journalistic organization, they are encouraging Fox and legitimizing Fox and even legitimizing Fox in the eyes of some of these crazy people."
Douglas Kellner, a professor in the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies at UCLA and the author of several studies on media's impact on society, cited the use by some media commentators of firearms imagery, such as Sarah Palin's infamous map marked with crosshairs and her instructions to "RELOAD!"
"There is no question that these violent gun metaphors can trigger violent episodes, it is basically a command and enticement to act," he told Media Matters.
"People like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin thrive in this kind of atmosphere because they are [portrayed as] victims and the people they appeal to see themselves as being victims," said Andrew Rojecki, professor of communication at the University of Illinois, Chicago and author of several media behavior studies. "People are angry and scared and very insecure about the country's economic position and their future."
One of the victims of the Arizona shooting today criticized the violent rhetoric employed by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Fox News.
Eric Fuller, a 63-year-old Navy veteran who was shot in the knee and received fragments in the back last Saturday, said the rhetoric of Sarah Palin and others can impact "demented" people like suspect Jared Loughner.
Fuller, who said he has been interviewed by several national news outlets, added he would not appear on Fox News if they sought him, predicting it "might develop into a screaming session." He added: "I don't like what they're selling."
In a phone interview from his Tucson home Friday, Fuller spoke about the shooting, saying he had appeared at the event as a supporter of Giffords and had worked for her campaign last year.
Fuller went on to harshly criticize Palin:
"Sarah Palin doesn't bother to learn the spelling of repudiate and tosses out 'blood libel' like it was a jar of peanut butter, but does she know anything? Probably about as much as (former Giffords opponent) Jesse Kelly."
Asked if he thought Palin or other media commentators had an impact on the shooting, he said:
"Definitely. Let's say through some fluke Jared Loughner never ever heard of Sarah Palin or [Glenn] Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and the rest of the crime syndicate, and dreamed it all up on his own, that he'd go over there and wack her.
"There are still plenty of demented people that are in need of a good spanking who are out there and plenty of access with the gun shops to assault weapons thanks to the son of privilege letting that expire. There is the matter of the media attention to it. It is going to make this even more desirable yet.
"If you are going to scream hatred and preach hatred, you're going to sow it after a while if you've got a soap box like they've got. We've got a surplus of demented dingbats, wackos."
Fuller went on to criticize national media outlets that allow violent rhetoric on the air: "I would put Sarah Palin in first place there. I think, really, she should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials. That map I saw that she published on the Internet had crosshairs on it and one of them was meant for Gabrielle Giffords.
"This woman is a spotless, purest, sweetest lamb in the world, gunned down ... The only word I could think of is outraged."
Fuller, who said he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, is a disabled U.S. Navy veteran.
He said he drove himself to the hospital after the shooting and has been visited by numerous reporters and news outlets at his home:
"I've gone through at least a dozen video sessions. I've got ABC, CBS and NBC and The New York Times and the New York Post." He also spoke with Democracy Now.
Asked if he had been approached by Fox News, he said, "No, I haven't, come to think of it."
Fuller said he would likely decline to appear on Fox:
"I am afraid that might develop into a screaming session because I think they promote the war, I think I ought to pass on that, talking to Fox, I don't like what they're selling.
"I would stand up and just scream 'whores' at them, with my leg bleeding, and shock and with the congress lady laying on the pavement after having a slug pass through her head.
"I know they're just going to attack, they would probably attack me. They'll distort. Particularly Miss Blood Libel herself. The spoiled princess party. I am willing to take them on. I want to call them out and see if they have a peep to say."
Someone has engaged in an organized effort to smear the reputation and credibility of Jane Mayer, a prize-winning journalist at The New Yorker, according to a New York Post reporter's published accounts and his subsequent statements to Media Matters.
Last week, the New York Post's Keith Kelly reported that The Daily Caller, a right-wing news site run by Tucker Carlson, had spent "several weeks" pursuing false allegations that Mayer had committed plagiarism in at least two articles. One of the allegations involved Mayer's landmark expose about Charles and David Koch -- billionaire brothers who have funded conservative organizations tied to the Tea Party movement.
Kelly tells Media Matters that the plagiarism charges were also pitched to the Post, apparently by a different source than the one that tipped off the Daily Caller. The Post investigated and ultimately reported that the allegations were untrue.
After first saying that the plagiarism story would result in an "extensive piece," The Daily Caller ultimately told both Kelly and The New Yorker that the article had been spiked.
Kelly has reported that "the person or persons behind the allegations remains a shadowy mystery," and both Carlson and Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong have declined to identify the original source of the smear.
The Daily Caller has significant ties to the Koch brothers and to the business they run: Koch Industries.
Foster Friess, a billionaire Republican donor who reportedly put up $3 million to help launch The Daily Caller, participated last summer in a secret strategy meeting in Aspen intended to help the conservative movement combat the "threats" posed by the Obama administration. The event, which included a lecture by Glenn Beck, was organized by Koch Industries and attended by the Koch brothers.
Anchorman John Roberts' decision to jump from CNN to Fox News has some media observers and critics wondering if he will be able to keep his straight news approach to reporting or be forced to "drink the Kool-Aid" or become "Foxified," as some have put it.
CNN and Fox announced earlier this week that Roberts, recently removed from CNN's morning show, would become an Atlanta-based reporter for Fox News. CNN has said it was in discussions with Roberts to work out of Atlanta, as he had wished, but the Fox deal ended such discussions.
What will the move mean for Roberts and Fox?
"Fox has a well-established framework and everyone who joins Fox becomes a part of that framework," said Eric Deggans, media critic for The St. Petersburg Times. "The question I always have is how much of the Fox Kool-Aid are they going to drink? I think much of that depends on how much of a life do they want to have outside of the Fox life?
"Bill Hemmer is very much a part of that process," he said, citing another former CNN person who has risen to prominence at Fox. "Then you look at some of their reporters. Wendell Goler plays it as down the middle as someone at Fox can do. It is hard for someone to be a high-profile anchor at Fox and not be complicit in the way the channel leans to the right. I assume when anyone high-profile like John Roberts agrees to go work for them, they have already done that deal with the devil in their head.
"Fox's branding and framework and process is so strong that everyone who appears on Fox is subservient to it in one way or another. How do they want to fit into that formula and how far are they willing to do? I think there are very few people who join that operation in a high-profile way who then can leave and be considered a more traditional, down the middle reporter. Even some of the people who are more independent like Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith have still kind of been co-opted in ways that they do have to prove that they are separate from that."
Roberts declined comment to Media Matters, referring request to CNN and Fox.
Joanne Ostrow, Denver Post TV critic, said Roberts needs to be watched to know for sure.
"I don't know what his personal politics are, or his motivation for going there," she said. "You have to wonder if he's somehow content to go along with the regime over there. It helps Fox to have more of these recognized names that come from more mainstream networks.
"He is supposed to be Mr. Journalism. I want to wait and see. I don't know his motivation or his personal politics. It will be interesting if we say a month from now 'yeah, he is drinking the Kool-Aid.'
"They have gone after some good folks, but I don't know if they share their political agenda."
Hub Brown, associate professor in broadcast and digital journalism at The Newhouse School at Syracuse University, said he fears for the future for Roberts.
"He has a great reputation and he is a great professional and I do fear for the future for him a little bit because I have not seen too many people who have gone to Fox and not have had to sort of march to the Fox tune," Brown said. "To his great credit, Shepard Smith has been able to avoid doing that. If he can be in the kind of mold of Shepard Smith that probably helps him and it helps Fox.
"If he becomes a typical Fox anchor, that credibility will go away. Their entire line-up, they basically editorialize from the news desk 24/7. There is no one who can be an objective viewer of news and not see that. It will be interesting to see."
Gail Shister, a former longtime TV critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer and currently at TVNewser.com, said it is up to Roberts.
"I think Fox has made some impressive hires lately, I don't think it will hurt him. I think it is a great get for Fox," she said. "It will not hurt him as long as he does straight reporting."
Robert Bianco of USA Today, meanwhile, said Fox's history with former CNN people does not bode well for Roberts.
"If they have hired him to be a journalist and bolster their journalism credential, than that is a good sign," Bianco said. "If he has gone there for the freedom to express his political opinions, whatever they are, as many reporters seem to do, than that is not a good sign. That has certainly been the pattern, but I would not want to guess that that is what he intends to do.
"I have no problem with any of Fox's talk shows, I think that is where opinion belongs. I do disagree when they insert opinion in what is supposed to be a news show. We have to wait and see if he behaves like a journalist on these shows or like a masked commentator."
Al Tompkins, a Poynter Institute senior faculty member in broadcasting, pointed out that Fox taking another CNN person as it continues to criticize CNN is a bit hypocritical.
"That does force you to wonder how Fox keeps hammering away at CNN, then hiring away some of CNN's higher profile folks," he said. "What they are saying is that it is something about the culture of CNN more than the individual. Fox definitely has a way of being and the people who go there tend to adapt to that way of being pretty quickly.
"It has a much clearer conservative attitude, much more likely to be critical of the administration, not just the administrations actions, but the administration more generally."
He then used the term, Foxified, describing it as: "a much sharper tone and I think it would be right to call it a conservative tone. These folks who have made the move adapt to that voice pretty quickly."
"Others I think have found their Fox voice - there is a pretty discernible difference between a Fox voice and a CNN voice. I would describe the difference as Fox is more conservative, more Republican. I would describe the CNN voice as more neutral. If you go to Fox, you go there knowing that the tone of your reporting will be different than the tone of your reporting at CNN, mostly.
"Fox has more of a Republican and conservative voice and most people seem to adapt to that. The anchors seem to be the ones who set the tone. The anchors have such a larger role.
"He will have to show himself to be valuable to Fox viewers. He'll cover things that they care about in a way that makes sense to them. The tone you sense of Fox is more anchor induced than reporter induced."