From The Nation, "When Stossel's "reporting" becomes too incendiary or opinionated, the network simply flashes the subtitle "Commentary" under his face, as it did during his self-declared proudest achievement, a special on risk titled "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" when he turned to the camera, clenched his lantern jaw and asked, "What if simply having so many regulations kills people?" Two producers working on that special were so disturbed by Stossel's writing and editing, and so frustrated by his unwillingness to air anyone who believed that lowering risk meant reducing injury, that they left ABC halfway through production."
Well, would you rather the responses be split between this post and your first post on this topic or keep all the responses on your first post?
I assumed you'd want all responses about the topic kept neatly on the first post and the only unique part of this post was that you were presenting Mr. Stossel's point of view, labeling them as words of wisdom. Thus, responding specifically to that with a little background both on how others perceived his coverage of this topic and on what some consider to be Mr. Stossel's transition from libertarian consumer advocate journalist to conservative provocateur pundit seemed apropos.
I was unaware you were part of the previous discussion. The anonymous posts I have received this far have been respectful and intelligent, yours included. However, to eliminate further confusion, anonymous comments will not be allowed.
4 comments:
Words of wiki-criticism of John Stossel.
From The Nation, "When Stossel's "reporting" becomes too incendiary or opinionated, the network simply flashes the subtitle "Commentary" under his face, as it did during his self-declared proudest achievement, a special on risk titled "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" when he turned to the camera, clenched his lantern jaw and asked, "What if simply having so many regulations kills people?" Two producers working on that special were so disturbed by Stossel's writing and editing, and so frustrated by his unwillingness to air anyone who believed that lowering risk meant reducing injury, that they left ABC halfway through production."
Lame tactic. Attempt to discredit the speaker without any response to the ideas proposed.
Well, would you rather the responses be split between this post and your first post on this topic or keep all the responses on your first post?
I assumed you'd want all responses about the topic kept neatly on the first post and the only unique part of this post was that you were presenting Mr. Stossel's point of view, labeling them as words of wisdom. Thus, responding specifically to that with a little background both on how others perceived his coverage of this topic and on what some consider to be Mr. Stossel's transition from libertarian consumer advocate journalist to conservative provocateur pundit seemed apropos.
I was unaware you were part of the previous discussion. The anonymous posts I have received this far have been respectful and intelligent, yours included. However, to eliminate further confusion, anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Post a Comment