The Five to become permanent…

In a move that confirms just how far cable news has sunk; where opinion trumps news value, where anything apparently goes (except a 7 second delay of course),  where it’s never a fair fight between conservatives and liberals…it’s embarrassingly one sided even by FNC standards…Deadline.com’s Nellie Andreeva writes that FNC is going to make The Five permanent. God help us all…

Advertisement

32 Responses to “The Five to become permanent…”

  1. claudiva33 Says:

    Bob Bechel equals 4 liberals.

  2. Spud has said so much, so briefly, so thoroughly, that there is little more to say. Except that it’s Red Eye without the humor or intellectual honesty. :-P

  3. “it’s never a fair fight between conservatives and liberals…it’s embarrassingly one sided even by FNC standards…”

    It is not one-sided. It may be lopsided, but it’s hardly the only cable news program to be lopsided, and certainly not the worst offender in that respect. Thanks for the CHEAP SHOT!

  4. icemannyr Says:

    Most of The Five is negative stores related to the president.
    Eric Bolling already does that on his FBN show.
    If you are going to be Fair and Balanced then make it 2 conservatives vs 2 liberals with a neutral host.
    FNC can’t complain about the bias of the media then do the same thing.

  5. imnotblue Says:

    ^ So only networks… or more appropriately, people who work for networks… that have a 100% perfect record of unbaised or 100% balanced programming, can complain about media bias?

    Really?

    In that case, I’d think that EVERY network would/should stop complaining.

  6. missy5537 Says:

    Thank God MSNBC never engages in such one sided programming!!!!!

  7. I wish Kirsten Powers and a few other left-of-center women appeared on the show. Ellis Henican would be another good left-wing panelist.

    They honestly should also find a way to have guests on, or at least mix up the panel a bit more. After a while I get tired of hearing from the same people.

  8. More lefty ladies I’d like to see on The Five: Leslie Marshall, Susan Estrich, Ellen Ratner, Lis Wiehl, Jehmu Greene.

  9. imnotblue Says:

    Yuck… no Susan Estrich. She’s got on vocal chord, and that one’s failing too.

  10. Ok, maybe on her. But FNC could at least have a second liberal on the panel.

    I wonder about Gutfeld. Is he still going to appear on every show? What does this mean for Red Eye?

  11. imnotblue Says:

    I’ll agree that the show should be more balanced, or would be more enjoyable if it was more balanced.

    But Susan would make me turn the channel right away.

  12. NOT her. Not sure what I meant by “on her.”

  13. Thank God MSNBC never engages in such one sided programming!!!!!

    You know what 4 on 1 The Five reminds me of most? MSNBC’s all pundit election night coverage.

    …Now THAT’S a cheap shot Dr. Dollar…

  14. Somebody must like the lopside shows on FNC and MSNBC, but to me they are all unmatchable.

  15. It kind of makes you long for the days of Hannity and Colmes, even as lopsided that show was, but at least it was 1 on 1, or an interesting mix depending upon the guest. It’s just, it’s echo chamber television and the FNC set, especially those who want Beck in that spot still, likely love. “The liberal is wrong, watch those four people say what we’re thinking. They’re right.”

    Are the other networks guilty of this? Sure, at times. But it’s usually much less confrontational, much more balanced most of the time, and they don’t rally cry “Fair & Balanced” guys.

    As for adding people, what’s Colmes up to during the day? If Powers isn’t too busy at, I think the Post, she should pop on to be a second hand to Beckle.

  16. Oh and to those out there who want to point out uneven programming on other channels….none of those channels claim to be “Fair and Balanced” ad nauseam…

    But what I object to most is the fact that The View has come to FNC, only in a much more potent manner. I hate The View. I hate The Talk. But they’re on broadcast TV so I never get to trash them here.

  17. mlong5000 Says:

    SO theres one show where the Conservatives outnumber the Liberals….about damn time because it’s almost always the other way around even when its just a show with the Host and a Conservative and Liberal guest it’s 2 against 1 because the Host is almost always a Liberal too.

  18. missy5537 Says:

    Sorry Chris. NOTHING makes me long for the days of Alan Colmes. The few minutes he appears on O’Reilly each week are more than enough.

  19. “Let’s watch four people scream SOCIALIST! while Bob grumbles.” It was mildly entertaining for two weeks..now it’s like watching the exact same show every day. It’s awful.

  20. Alan Colmes is a mercy-book. There’s plenty of liberals around there that are at least as bearable as Beckel. Fox is well on it’s way to curing me of complaining about bias on other networks. News-presentation is one thing, but every other damn thing is ridiculous.

  21. Hopefully since it is a permanent show they can refine it a bit. They can get a better balance of commentators, more rotation of the hosts, more analysis, less regurgitated talking points (better chairs?) to make it a better show.

  22. As long as Andrea Tantoros is there wirth that “wasn’t I clever with my pedestrian liberal dig?” attitude, the show will be hopeless.

  23. imnotblue Says:

    ^ I feel the same way about Maddow. Except it’s her show… and “smug” only begins to describe her.

  24. Yeah, Rachel can be smug, but she forms well-thought-out narratives. Andrea traffics in stock phrases, and presents them as original thoughts. It strikes me as vaguely insulting.

  25. Maddow is arrogant, but she knows her stuff (more or less). Tantaros may say talking points but they are well explained talking points so I have no issue with her. My problem is with Guilfoyle (can you say airhead?) and Bolling (don’t get me started).

    Right now the show is in this constant limbo of entertaining/informative. I would like it to be more informative with ACTUAL analysis (like a hour long panel segment of Special Report or FNS) and have Greg in there for some lighthearted banter.

    Oh, and we need some hierarchy on the show. There has to be The Person that can subtly moderate the debates on the show. Once that happens the Five should be a good program.

  26. SO theres one show where the Conservatives outnumber the Liberals…

    Actually it’s not about the ratio as much as it is about the tone. You put up four conservative researchers against one liberal researcher…and you’ll get a thoughtful policy discussion…albeit a bit un-even. But you put on four blowhards up against one blowhard and you get nothing but blowhards. You don’t get policy discussion and a search for a greater truth. You get finger pointing, straw men, snide remarks, and blame gaming. The public deserves better…especially from a news network.

  27. imnotblue Says:

    I will agree with that, Joe. Maddow’s thoughts are well-thought-out-narratives.

    She spends a lot of time thinking about how she can spin things negative for Republicans, defend Liberals, and get away with being as intellectually dishonest as she can be, without people finally calling her on it.

    See her foolish (and untrue) commentary on the difference between FNC and MSNBC in terms of “political fundraising,” which ignored members of her staff, misstated the actions of FNC hosts, and remains uncorrected.

  28. – it’s about the tone –

    That’s all cable-news-discussion is, anymore. Yip and Yap. Whoever gets the last word, wins. It isn’t exactly a new development, it’s just that Fox seems to expand it to ever more hours, with an ever-greater imbalance of opinions. It’s beyond tiresome.

  29. Well, the public will show support by either watching or not watching THE FIVE. Thus far ratings have been pretty good I understand. FNC is after all a business, not a public service enterprise. “News program” NIGHTLINE now rules the network 11:30 PM slot, They did so not by emulating C-SPAN, which the public deserved, but People Magazine, which apparently it wanted.

  30. “See her foolish (and untrue) commentary on the difference between FNC and MSNBC…”

    Words of wisdom from INB. Maddow’s soliloquies on this subject were not just inaccurate and untrue, they were flat out lies. They had to be, unless one posits that she is utterly unaware of what airs on her own channel…and on her own program.

    With this kind of fatuous propaganda as her resume, her credibility is roughly equal to the square root of zero.

  31. They did so not by emulating C-SPAN, which the public deserved, but People Magazine, which apparently it wanted.

    Exactly. Which is why news as a ratings business has very little to do with news as a public service. “Give the people what they want” is not a journalistic value. Welcome to “Network”.

  32. Mr. $, lying as part of an agenda seems always forgiven by the backers. Ken Burns “Prohibition” gave an extreme but characteristic example in the first episode. Schools were bullied into using textbooks teaching the dangers of alcohol. Included was the “fact” drinking could lead to spontaneous combustion with the inebriated bursting into a blue flame. All for the cause, of course. The more noble the cause, the more excusable to lie.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers