June 20, 2007

Richard Roeper Wants Scooter Libby Pardoned!

Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Film,Politics — acepundit @ 2:12 pm

His readers must be shocked. How could liberal pop-columnist and movie critic Richard Roeper call for the presidential pardon of Scooter Libby? It’s true, the Chicago Sun-Times, the newspaper for which Roeper writes, officially stated its position in an eye-opening column last Monday.

To be fair, it was actually conservative columnist Robert Novak who called for the pardon in his June 11th column, but doesn’t one person’s opinion on a topic become that company’s official position? It does according Roeper’s school of thought.

Over the last several years liberals have made it a sport to hysterically attack Fox News so they don’t have to explain why it’s the highest rated and most-watched cable news network. It’s just easier to denounce it as a propaganda outfit…a very, very successful propaganda outfit.

Faithfully doing his part, Roper titled his most recent column, “Fox’s slant on Moore enough to make you ill” but points to an entirely different culprit:

To the surprise of no one, Fox News has been attacking Moore’s latest (documentary).

Last Sunday night, Sean Hannity sounded as if he was ready to hand Moore a blindfold and a cigarette.

Is Roeper talking about Sean Hannity or Fox News here? I’m confused because I just read Fox’s review of the supposedly “brilliant and uplifting” documentary and I’m having trouble finding all the attacks. Nowhere in the review does it indicate that Fox movie-critic Roger Friedman is ready to give Moore “a blindfold and a cigarette.” If anything Friedman is looking to give Moore an Oscar statue.

By making Sean Hannity the official spokesperson for Fox News, Roeper made about as much sense as I did when I wrote that he was calling for the pardon of Scooter Libby based on a Robert Novak column.

So blinded and disgruntled liberals are by their hatred for a news network that is infinitely better and more popular than anything their media personalities have ever been able to create that they stubbornly refuse to accept Fox’s reaching hand.

I’m still amazed by how stupid the Democratic presidential hopefuls were when they refused to appear in a debate sponsored by Fox News and potentially tap into a voter pool that could easily determine the outcome of the next election.

Sure, they won’t get their ideas out to the independents who watch Fox News (or the part of its audience that justifies Roger Friedman’s paycheck), but at least they pleased the Keith Olbermann fan club and nuts who were going to vote for them anyway and haven’t put a Democrat in the Whitehouse since they kept Bill Clinton in 1996 with less than 50% of the popular vote.

It was the last time a Democrat won, and right when Fox News was in its infancy. Is it powerful enough to shape elections? Who knows, but the Left is certainly doing themselves no favors by refusing to work with a machine that isn’t going away anytime soon, no matter how many Roeper columns are written to denounce it.



  1. I’m not sure why the Dems refused to appear on Fox, and I think you make a good point there. Whatever issues they would have with Fox’s politics should be outweighed by the opportunity to reach that demographic you’re referring to.

    As far as the accusation of ‘propaganda’ goes, I’d have to say that that word probably gets thrown around too much. Heck, a commercial is propaganda. But for a news channel, its hard to ignore their extremely high percentage of opinion vs. objective news.

    Comment by ChenZhen — June 20, 2007 @ 3:19 pm | Reply

  2. Fox News is not the demographic population for Democrats and it would be an utter waste of time and money, just as it would be a waste of time for a Jewish Liberal to appear on a David Duke or Rush talk show or for Howard Stern to sit down with George W Bush.

    Comment by Chance — June 20, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  3. Chance was right, ChenZhen. It would be political suicide for any democrat to appear on a debate aired on Fox. Imagine wearing a Yankees hat and taking a seat at Fenway Park to watch a Red Sox game. Fox News is twenty-four hours of editorials.

    Comment by Stryker — June 21, 2007 @ 12:33 am | Reply

  4. Richard Roeper responded (how’s that for alliteration) earlier this evening by-email. I’ll post some of it tomorrow with further commentary.

    Comment by acepundit — June 21, 2007 @ 12:34 am | Reply

  5. Well I think it also creates the impression that they are afraid of Fox or something.

    Comment by ChenZhen — June 21, 2007 @ 1:13 am | Reply

  6. […] — acepundit @ 2:39 pm Yesterday Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper replied to my criticism of his column that implied Fox News has been “slanting” coverage of Michael […]

    Pingback by Richard Roeper Responds to my Criticism « — June 21, 2007 @ 2:39 pm | Reply

  7. It also creates the impression that FOX isn’t a credible news source.

    Comment by Stryker — June 25, 2007 @ 12:49 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: