Fox News Kicks Karl Rove And Dick Morris To The Curb, But What About…?

New York Magazine is reporting that changes are afoot at Fox News following their pitifully inept coverage of the presidential campaign. Fox spent most of the year polishing the bubble within which their viewers, and even many of their favored candidates, resided. They were so averse to reality that they refused to report the results of polls that didn’t support their fantasy worldview, even when those polls were conducted by Fox News.

Fox Blocked - Rove Morris

The anchors and other spokespersons for the channel worked overtime on behalf of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. They were unambiguously biased, which led to some rather embarrassing analyses and predictions. Most notable among these gaffes were the relentlessly anti-Obama/pro-Romney observations of Karl Rove and Dick Morris. And surprisingly, there are consequences for being so reliably wrong. According to Gabriel Sherman at NYMag:

“[Fox News CEO Roger] Ailes has issued a new directive to his staff: He wants the faces associated with the election off the air — for now. For Karl Rove and Dick Morris — a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox’s anti-Obama campaign — Ailes’s orders mean new rules. Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking Rove or Morris.”

Well, that’s the least they can do – literally. While benching Rove and Morris makes perfect sense considering how dreadful their service to the network was, it doesn’t begin to address the problems at Fox. Bill Shine confirmed that the memo was authentic and that its purpose was to convey the message that “the election’s over.” If so, why is Fox continuing to feature a roster lousy with players who were every bit as disastrous as Rove and Morris.

Sarah Palin is a fixture on the network despite her nonsensical fear mongering about the creeping socialism of Obama and the Democratic Party. Mike Huckebee retains his Fox program even though he was an unrepentant supporter of Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin. Both were prolific fundraisers for a raft GOP candidates who mostly lost.

Then there is John Bolton, Laura Ingram, Tucker Carlson, Monica Crowley, Bill Kristol, Michelle Malkin, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, Greg Gutfeld, the entire cast of Fox & Friends, and Fox’s own GOP Carnival Barker, Sean Hannity. How can Fox maintain seriously that they want to move on past the election when their schedule is littered with the same political hacks who played starring roles in the biggest flop of the season?

The answer is that they have no intention of moving on. The wrist-slapping of Rove and Morris will be short-lived and the familiar partisanship at Fox will continue unabated. If anything, the month that has transpired since election day already proves that Fox is still in campaign mode with their attacks on Susan Rice, their sensationalizing of the so-called “Fiscal Cliff,” and any number of other trumped up scandals.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. There has been no mention of their sidelining the Billionaire Birther, Donald Trump. So don’t expect to see much change at Fox, other than a bit of window dressing that will all come down when the weather clears.


15 thoughts on “Fox News Kicks Karl Rove And Dick Morris To The Curb, But What About…?

  1. It appears you want FOX to become MSNBC. Perhaps Sean Hannity could be traded for Rachel Maddow or Rev. Al Sharpton.

    • Maddow’s program is meticulous about presenting factual data – with a point of view, yes, but factual. How can you compare that to the lies and phony scandals that Hannity spews on a nightly basis? I don’t want Fox to become MSNBC. I just want them to be honest.

    • no, it certainly doesn’t appear anything remotely like that. But it does appear you’ve got a vested interest in pretending that was Mark’s implication.

  2. It appears as if you would like FOX’s entire lineup to be replaced, implying that their commentary is devoid of facts, albeit with a different point of view. I think it’s a stretch.

    The same could be said of MSNBC in support of POTUS as you stated about FOX and Mitt Romney. The network was clearly in the tank for Pres. Obama, and it’s difficult to think this was not a strategy from its top management.

    I agree FOX was a Romney supporter. You should also agree that MSNBC, among others, supported the President.

    • Pay attention, John. I am not disputing that MSNBC is partisan. I’ve said this repeatedly. But Fox is not merely partisan, they are dishonest. Get it? They LIE! This web site is bursting with examples. How many times do I need to make this point?

  3. You can continue your crusade as you wish. If you, too, weren’t partisan, you might find plenty of MSNBC dishonesty to blog about. I can’t believe that you, in your quest for truth, have found absolutely nothing dishonest or untruthful that MSNBC has broadcast. That, Mark, is the point I have tried to make again and again.

    • Actually, I have not seen any patterns of dishonesty in the coverage on MSNBC – as I have seen and documented on Fox. You are speculating that MSNBC is dishonest, but you offer no proof.

      The difference between you and me is the same as between Fox and MSNBC. You make unsupported allegations with no factual basis. I document what I say and provide proof.

  4. Of course you don’t see any patterns of dishonesty, Mark. It’s called a blind spot. The difference between you and me is that you have made it your life’s work to report the truth about FOX News. I am a more casual observer. I find it incomprehensible that you find no opportunity to criticize MSNBC and others for their shortcomings. In the meantime, Ed Schultz and friends huddle with the President to figure out how best to get out his message to the masses. As a political/media blogger, I would think you might find that very disturbing.

    You’re right that I don’t have a bunch of examples for you, but that’s not because they don’t exist; it’s because I don’t collect these things as you do. But I will work on that.

    • I never said that I don’t have anything to criticize MSNBC about. I do and have done so. However, your condescending bullshit about my having a blind spot is not only wrong, it reveals that you have no substantive response, so you attack me. It isn’t my fault that you come here unprepared to support what you say.

  5. My initial comment as well as the rest didn’t require specific examples. In fact, you concur that MSNBC is partisan (or some might say biased), and that is the only point I have been trying to make.

    I look forward to your criticism and comments, then on the MSNBC/POTUS strategy meetings.

    • No. Reread your first comment. There’s no deleting it either.

      • “It appears you want FOX to become MSNBC. Perhaps Sean Hannity could be traded for Rachel Maddow or Rev. Al Sharpton.”

        Daphne, I’m not somebody who makes a comment and then deletes it to avoid scrutiny. What is your problem with my first comment? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, but I’ll take your comment above in conjunction with this one. My initial comment was intended to be sarcastic. My apologies for not adequately presenting it as such.

        I have no vested interest; just throwing my two cents into the discussion. I comment now and then on Mark’s posts. I agree with some of what he has to say about FOX, and I disagree with some.

        When I comment, he usually responds, we go back and forth a couple of times, and then we go on with our lives. As a blogger, I suspect Mark likes getting comments whether they agree with him or not.

        • The problem here is that you fail to see why your comparison between pundits that appear on both networks is invalid as far as honesty goes since that is truly the only issue up for debate here.

          As Mark has already pointed out, partisanship is a not an issue under discussion here, no one is trying to deny that MSNBC ISN’T partisan. What the issue is here is about honesty and unproven allegations. The pundits from Fox that you mention in your first post have repeatedly been shown to be guilty of it whereas those from MSNBC that you’ve put forward as their metaphorical equals have not. That pretty much puts your attempt at comparison under the spotlight of ridicule.

    • They are partisan, no one admits otherwise here.

      So what’s your point again?

Comments are closed.