Find Reviews by Make:
I will be appearing on Fox New Channel’s Fox and Friends program tomorrow at 8:40 am Eastern (5:40 Pacific) to discuss my latest NY Times Op-Ed, the auto bailout, and Detroit’s fuel economy issues. And if none of that interests you, be sure to tune in anyway for a chance to see what TTAC’s Editor-in-Chief looks like just moments after rolling out of bed.
37 Comments on “Catch Ed Niedermeyer On Fox And Friends...”
Read all comments
Faux, errr, no thanks. Let’s hope they don’t ask something tabloid like; why do you hate America? Good luck Ed.
Ed’s op-ed went over well in the NYT’s letters column today
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/l20detroit.html?ref=opinion
I knew this site was going to hell. The bitter anti-union commentaries make sense now. Are you working for Rupert Murdock? Yet?
Easy there, fella. It’s only Fox and Friends he’s going on. If Ed goes on Hannity or Beck, then maybe there might be a problem. Fox and Friends is just morning blather.
This should cheer you up:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Fox+%26+Friends
It’s all the times that F&F has been featured on the Daily Show. Ed’s probably going on F&F so he can be half asleep and still run intellectual rings around the hosts. I know I wouldn’t want to deal with the Today Show or GMA when I’ve just rolled out of bed.
I thought this episode in particular was pretty sweet:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-november-18-2010-philip-k–howard
Maybe you get a chance to mingle with all the republican presidential candidates they’ve gathered around there…Shame none of them are true libertarians though.
Good luck, Ed. Be aware that the topics for this mornings show are “The Mainstream Media’s Worst Moments of 2010” and “Are You Ready to Adopt a “Penguin” for the Holidays?”
Please don’t go anywhere near Glen Beck; we love you too damn much!
Speaking of Fox News, I see the word ‘libertarian’ being thrown around quite a bit on this site and, like ‘socialist,’ I’m still not sure what people mean by these terms. These terms are used so ‘liberally’ (excuse the pun) and in so many contexts that I’m simply not sure what people actually mean when they use them (and I’m not targeting anyone in particular here, it’s just a general observation). I have a reasonable understanding of the philosophical history of these terms, but they seem to be used primarily these days as normative labels (good guy, bad guy) rather than clearly understood concepts. I will only add that if there’s anything at all to the old saying that ‘no man is an island,’ then the atomistic, ‘lone wolf’ conception of individuals that passes for much so-called ‘libertarianism’ these days is in need of some serious critical reflection.
Best of luck on the Fox show.
The only reason I see for Fawkes wanting Ed to appear is his anti-bailout stance.
If Julian Assange really wanted to do service to the world, he’d expose Rupert Murdoch for the two-faced SOB that he is, playing us for fools, and making tons of cash all the while.
Oh, and Fawkes is anti-EV, anti tax credit (and of course) anti-French.
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/12/19/fox-news-attacks-first-nissan-leaf-owner-engages-hate/
Then again who really does like the French except the French themselves, ay?
*It’s ok, I’m Dutch myself so stereotypes between our countries go back and forth in good fun*
You looked good, a bit nervous though.
Thanks. I used to get incredibly nervous about just posting a story to TTAC… time and practice are the only ways to build up a comfort level to any kind of media exposure. This is one of the reasons I’m willing to appear on almost any kind of outlet or show: practice, practice, practice.
critique on the column from Jalopnik
http://jalopnik.com/5714625/what-the-new-york-times-op+ed-page-doesnt-know-about-cars
My counterpoint to Jalopnik’s critique can be found here:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/on-detroits-guzzling-ways/
Is this The Truth About Morning TV Chat Shows?
seekrit message to shaker – Murdock wants to make money? You mean unlike the noble fellows who provide the public service news presentations of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc, etc? I did not know that.
Ed – you need to punch it up. None of the morning shows is going to give you a chance at more than a couple of good sentences. They program for the attention span of mayflies.
Faux News? The unofficial propaganda arm for the Republican party? A recent study found that people who watched Faux had more misconceptions about recent events than those who watched any other national news source. The more you watch, the dumber you get!
If I were a practicing journalist I’d stay away from Faux, but I also get that an important part of TTAC’s readership base matches this network’s viewer psychographics.
Yeah, they got to catapult the propaganda:
http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=15039
The study found that those who watched Fox News daily, regardless of their political affiliation, were “significantly” more likely than non-viewers to falsely believe the following:
Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
The economy is getting worse (26 points)
Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
Thanks to all for the feedback. I agree that morning shows are not usually the best place to engage in the kind of complex issues that TTAC tends to discuss, but at this point I’m happy to appear just about anywhere in order to promote what were doing here. Luckily, there are more media appearances in my future that should give me a little more scope for nuance (in fact, one planned appearance is with the outlet that I consider the “Anti-Fox”… stay tuned for more on that).
In any case, appearing on a given network is in no way an endorsement of that network’s perceived biases or agenda… I approach television as way to publicize the opinions and conversations we host here at TTAC.
“I approach television as way to publicize the opinions and conversations we host here at TTAC.”
I think it would be hilarious to post some of the avatars and the screen names associated with them! Besides the topics discussed and the contributors, that’s what attracted me to TTAC – the stunning variety and allowing sometimes quite lengthy responses which reflect, for the most part the intelligence of the commentors, especially since my knowledge of the industry and its associated politics is scanty. I do offer the (dubious) benefit of my years and the experiences I enjoyed!
Go for it, Ed! This is the best car site on the web, bottom line.
I can’t wait to watch the intellectual lashings the folks at Fox get :)
Sorry, Ed, but allowing FNC to use you for 3 minutes (or less) of a 5-minute anti-Obama segment should be beneath your dignity. No mention (AFAIK) that the auto bailout was started under the Bush Admin.
FNC really stinks.
Yes, and ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNBC, MSNBC, The Daily Show, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and The View are such paragons of balanced reporting and journalistic integrity.
At least you went on a network that people actually watch, Edward. Good for you.
One lousy network that might represent the other side or another view and the supposedly “open minded” can’t stand the idea there might be another opinion out there besides what the establishment media decides is the “right” one.
Your intolerance is showing folks.
I wasn’t going to comment, but I must. I don’t watch the network news at all, don’t understand or agree with what they deem as “news”. The morning chat shows are unwatchable.
The Daily Show and Olbermann don’t “make stuff up” outright or by innuendo. Nor do they play fast and loose with facts as Faux is proven to time and again. Like Michael Moore (I can hear the groans) they typically crush the opposition and expose hypocisy by their targets own words. Mighty satisfying.
And let’s stop the MSNBC, FOX comparison. You may get 3 hours a day of “liberal” talk on MSNBC, while FOX is a 24/7 propaganda machine designed by their every utterance to delegitimize this President and his party.
And because something is popular, doesn’t make it correct or even good. As someone once said, you’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Ed, how about a link of your appearance today?
The Daily Show is comedy. Hearing the Daily Show labelled as “biased” by the more hysterical members of the right-wing media would be akin to the Wall St. Journal complaining about liberal bias at The Onion.
That is to say, by acknowledging Stewart et al as legitimate opponents you’re bringing yourself down.
Ed, how about a link of your appearance today?
Not likely… it was a very brief appearance, and of very little consequence. Don’t worry though, there will be other opportunities to see me struggling with the medium.
It’s over already? I didn’t realize that “tomorrow” was today.
Anyone defending MSNBC should watch their coverage of the election results last month. They had a panel of subversive communists with nothing approaching moderation, let alone multiple view points. Fox may not seem fair and balanced to the mentally unbalanced, but there is no denying that they had qualified liberals on all of their panels discussing the election in addition to conservatives and a moderator.
+1 DweezilSFV
…and not only that, but Fox News understands the difference between news and opinion, as compared to the other outlets you mentioned which seem unable to distinguish between news and Democratic Party talking points.
Fox News understands the difference between news and opinion
I couldn’t let this one go. No news organization is truly good at separating propaganda and news (NPR/PBS/BBC aren’t perfect, but are better by a wide margin, the mainstream private media is wholly poor) but Fox is by far one of the worst.
Newsmedia is, by and large, entertainment salted with the interest of the controlling entity. That means that regardless of the channel you tune to, you’re getting the worst of corporatism and populism.
NPR/PBS/BBC aren’t perfect, but are better by a wide margin, the mainstream private media is wholly poor
Would that be the same BBC that had to admit that its coverage of the Middle East was biased against Israel?
Would that be the same NPR one of whose reporters insisted to me that the “government controlled the media” in the United States as much as the Chinese government does in China?
This was three years ago. I got her to agree that she worked for a left wing news agency that received some level of government funding and that there was a conservative, George W. Bush (actually kind of RINOish squishy on budgetary matters and the growth of the Fed gov’t continued unabated in his administration, though that growth has skyrocketed along with the hundreds of new regulations foisted on people by Obama’s team) in the White House. Still, she insisted that the government here controls the media, though her own personal situation proves exactly the opposite.
See what I mean about cognitive dissonance?
BTW, since you mentioned PBS, is there a more amateurish operation going? Sure, it’s great that their stations run all those cool music shows during pledge drives (I wish I had recorded the times when Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul & Mary, who is originally from Detroit, has been on doing the pledge interruptions, so I could show you the times he alluded to PBS’ liberal political tilt with codewords), but they recently played a historic meeting between Stevie Ray Vaughn and one of his idols, one of the three kings, Albert King. Every two songs they interrupted with pledge begging. Fully 33% of the broadcast was pledge begging, by a station manager who was speaking off the cuff, and a volunteer who didn’t know nuthin’ ’bout the blues. It was so amateurish as to be cringeworthy. Also, how many times in 10 minutes do they have to repeat what premiums are available for what level “gift”? I thought the folks who watch PBS are smart.
Ronnie, you’ll note I said “they’re not perfect”.
What they are is a) better, and b) given much more independence from their parents than the corporate media is. You and I, of course, disagree on corporatism’s virtues.
Good luck Ed. Just remember: you’re much better than they are.
David,
My experience with people working tv news on the national level is that they’re people like you and me. Some are smart and know what they’re talking about and some are chuckleheads, just like everyone else. I try not to underestimate people. Sure, some act like stars, but then so do Dutch Mandell and Keith Crain when they’re walking around the NAIAS like pashas.
At the Chevy Volt press event a few weeks ago I wanted to ask Bob Lutz a couple of questions about Lotus and I waited while Phil LeBeau of CNBC did a live interview with Lutz. After the segment was over I made a point of telling LeBeau that I thought that CNBC’s recent special on Ford was well done and unlike most major network looks at the auto industry it actually taught me new things. He knew exactly what I was talking about and took it as a compliment that someone who specializes in cars thought they did a good job. He was genuinely gracious.
In a town where the car biz is a good chunk of the local news, WDIV’s Rob Meloni does a pretty good job on the auto industry within the constraints of local tv news. He makes an effort to understand what’s going on and it shows.
Mary Conway of WXYZ-TV and I think one of the cable networks also does solid coverage of auto related stuff. She’s an old school reporter and I’ve watched her work at press events and she’s clearly serious about her job.
So not everyone who does tv news is an idiot.
Frankly, I think CNN has a couple of anchors that make anyone on Fox look like Einstein by comparison. Speaking of smart Jews, btw, is there anyone on CNN or MSNBC that is Charles Krauthammer’s intellectual peer?
Someone as smart as Dr. Krauthammer (he headed a psychiatry department before he went into punditry) on Fox must make some progressive heads explode in cognitive dissonance. Smart conservatives like the good doctor and the late Mr. Buckley must really confuse those who conflate political ideology with intelligence.
Anytime one thinks that they are smart, they should recognize that humanity’s worst ideas have generally been crafted by smart folks.
I understand the progressives’ ire at Fox, after all, it’s the only major news agency in the US that doesn’t reliably tilt left so it must upset some folks who live in the progressive bubble. Even the Wall Street Journal’s news department tilts left. Still, the let-me-pretend-how-clever-I-am-when-I-make-a-trite-hackneyed-pun-out-of-Fox’s-name routine is getting tiresome.
Like Christopher Hitchens (a man of the left, may God grant him a full recovery) said about “Bush is an idiot” jokes, “Faux News” is the kind of joke that people who aren’t deep thinkers make. Well, actually Hitchens used the word “stupid” but I don’t want to call any TTAC readers stupid.
Yeah, we get it, liberals think they’re not just our moral superiors, they think they’re smarter and more beautiful as well.
Jalopnik says that Ed’s a Tom Friedman clone. On the other hand, some folks assume that because Ed takes an interview request from the tv news network with the highest ratings (an appearance that could help publicize this site) he must be an extreme right winger. Both of those views can’t be correct and in fact neither is.
Ronnie: everyone knows what Faux is and does. No one respects them beyond recognizing the size of their audience. Proven to be misinformed, as they may be.
CNN has their own problems but at least deceiving their audience isn’t one of them and yes they have some anchors who are clearly reading and not at all in the moment.
Krauthammer is smart? I would happily deconstuct any of his arguments for you. Sometimes for kicks, I’ll tune to Faux to see how long it takes to correct the broadcast. A matter of minutes ususlly. How do you stand all that speculation? “If Obama does this, then THAT is going to happen and the sky will fall!”
There, I just programmed another day at Faux. Hitchens is not a credilble man, and please refrain from calling Faux a news agency…they’re not. They have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar way too frequently.
Good luck!
The right wing media is certainly deceptive on many issues. the left wing media is much less so, but not immune. The NYT editorial page is absolutely full of ordure when it comes to facts about immigration. A couple of their reporters are also substantially biased. NPR and its affiliates are similarly problematic on this issue. I suspect that bias combined with closed mindedness afflicts most H. sapiens.