In his column at Reason, John Stossel writes, “Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine”:
The long list of bad results that have emerged from well-intended regulation ought to dim reporters’ enthusiasm. But it hasn’t.
I admit that my guiding political and economic philosophy—libertarianism—now shapes my reporting, in this way: It prompts me to ask questions that others don’t ask.
I don’t claim to be the expert. But some of my colleagues who write about business know nothing about economics. Many are comically hostile to profit—they dismiss it as “greed” (although they bargain for the highest salaries possible).
On my former ABC blog, some people called me a biased “conservative.”
“Your (sic) a shill anyways John. dont (sic) let the door hit you in the you know what.”
I’m surprised that the self-described enemies of intolerance can’t tolerate even one MSM reporter who doesn’t share their statist premises. The interventionist state has been the status quo for generations, so I must be something other than “conservative.” “Liberal” is what my philosophy used to be called. It’s the statists who are the reactionaries.
Not all the blog comments were hostile:
“Congratulations. The mind boggles at the thought of giving free reign on air to someone who actually understands economics.”
“Stossel challenges conventional wisdom, so I hope Fox lets him do that.”
I assume Fox will. My points of view on things like immigration, nation-building, and the war on drugs differ from those of many at Fox, but libertarians like Judge Andrew Napolitano still seem to thrive there. The alleged “conservatives” are pretty tolerant.
I think they’ll tolerate me. See you there next month.
Meanwhile, John Ziegler writes, “I Can See Insanity From My Newsroom”; if this blogpost is true, [UPDATE: the key word being “if”] one critic of NBC can see antisemitism from a network staffer right in his inbox.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member