January 22, 2004
John Stossel, Secret Agent Man
National Review prints a review of John Stossel's book, Give Me A Break: How I Stopped Caring About Shit Because 20/20 Wouldn't Fire Me If I Kidnapped And Ate Hugh Downs.
Now, I don't particularly care about the review or the book, which, if you replaced references to his "libertarianism" with references to him being an ex-CBS reporter, would simply be a rewrite of Bernie Goldberg's Bias.
But I fail to understand why anyone takes Stossel seriously. For the past half-decade (at the least), he's only done three types of stories:
1.) I'm A Consumer Advocate, But A Bad, Petty One
The last time I saw Stossel pull this one out of the mothballs, he was revealing to us a massive scandal of the liberal Hollywood machine: sometimes, they use good reviews from lesser-known sources in their advertising, because big names didn't like the movie. And they label where the quotes came from!!!
Truly hard-hitting stuff for the embattled consumer.
2.) Stuff Costs Money, And It's Likely Your Fault, Or The Government's, Or Liberal Advocacy Groups'
The vast majority of his forgettable oeurve: there's something that costs more money than it should! You, as the consumer, need to do something to pull this onerous burden off of business! By the way, any critique of anything Stossel is talking about causes cancer. No, seriously. It's like magic. You believe in global warming, organic foods, or mercury consumption causing cancer...and you get cancer!
(FlipYrWhig points out that this is a part of a larger Stosselization of public issues - everything is actually the problem of the people complaining about it. Unfortunately, that's the constant undertone of modern conservatism, so it almost gets lost in the shuffle. Stossel, however, is its modern-day master.)
3.) Baby, I Don't Know What I'm Talking About
This is when Stossel truly shines. The main reason the media is so biased against John Stossel is that most of them are smarter than he is (except, perhaps, 20/20's producer). Stossel is fairly notorious for repeating anything that proves his point, even if it's not factual. FAIR's got a comprehensive archive of Stossel's recent screw-ups, most of which tend to come when he's talking or moving or somehow participating in an activity which could communicate to a viewer or listener any information whatsoever.
Other than those small problems, he's got more integrity than any reporter on TV.
When the SCLM movement gets a beacon like Stossel on its side, it's time for you to figure out that you can watch one of the two remaining shows on broadcast television each Friday night - Dateline NBC (for the newsmagazine fix) or Law & Order: Spinoff Unit (for your fix of murder, rape, or Vince D'Onofrio, depending on what's being rerun).
Posted by Jesse Taylor at January 22, 2004 10:38 AM | TrackBackEvery time I see John Stossel, I want to highjack a 10 megaton bomb and force the world to destroy their televisions.
Oh wait--that was Sideshow Bob, not me. Yeah, I just turn the tv off and read a book.
Posted by: Tlachtga at January 22, 2004 11:03 AMJesse -- You left out what I think is Stossel's most common angle: reactionary wanna-be revisionism.
"But wait a minute -- does food really need to be clean?"
"But wait a minute -- isn't nuclear power clean and safe?"
"But wait a minute -- is racism really wrong?"
"But wait a minute -- do people still find mustaches sexy?"
He did do one half-decent special on the Drug War once. Any media attention to that ridiculousness that isn't the ONDCP and the Partnership telling us that smoking pot will cause us to spoon out our eyes, murder small children, and then promptly explode is good in my book whether or not it's accompanied by a bad handlebar mustache and a propensity for logic that boils down to "I'm right because I'm on TV and you're not."
FlipYrWig is right--Stossel is like the annoying kid who just sits there in class and keeps asking "why?" not because he wants an answer, but because it give him attention. He's the hobgoblin of little minds, consistantly contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
Posted by: Tlachtga at January 22, 2004 11:13 AMWasn't Stossel involved in a textbook scandal a few years ago? A-ha. Here we go:
http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/01_3_stossel.shtml
Now I remember. Stossel's got his own line of textbooks (for more information, there's http://intheclassroom.org/ so your kids can get a full dose of John's "reporting" in their very own classroom!). And they're um... full of his trademark journalism.
Posted by: JetJaguar at January 22, 2004 11:33 AMI mentioned this on another thread, but it appears that Stossel is now moving into out-in-the-open, across-the-board Republican hackery. No more limiting himself to certain pet issues, like the consumer stuff or the anti-PC stuff. No more veneer of principled libertarianism. From now on, he's just going to propagandize the most central parts of the GOP party line. I say this because this Friday he has a new special titled something like "10 Lies You've All Been Led to Believe" and "Lie" #1 is "The rich don't pay their fair share."
Posted by: JP at January 22, 2004 11:46 AMHey, I like Law and Order!
Posted by: merl at January 22, 2004 01:46 PMEh. He's the poor man's Geraldo.
Posted by: emjaybee at January 22, 2004 01:48 PMI'm offended that you think I was insulting Law & Order. ;)
Posted by: jesse at January 22, 2004 04:21 PMI was a geeky enough kid that I enjoyed watching news magazine programs like 20/20 years ago. The irony to me about Stossel is that I recall him being a fairly decent consumer affairs reporter in his early days on that show. His early stuff was, if anything critical of the same organizations, companies, etc. that he now defends.
I remember his report on pro wrestling, in which he argued that not only was it fake, but involved some pretty seamy practices. That was the report in which a wrestler smacked Stossel on the side of the head to demonstrate how "real" wrestling was.
Posted by: Linnaeus at January 22, 2004 05:29 PMI once heard Stossel comment that seatbelts cause accidents because they give you a feeling of invulnerability and made people drive recklessly. I shit you not.
Posted by: pablo at January 22, 2004 09:51 PM