For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Sarah Palin and Rand Paul were Judge Napolitano's guests on Saturday's "Freedom Watch" on FBN. First part below (relevant section at 5:20), rest available here:
Fox Business Network
By Jeff Poor | September 14, 2010 | 4:29 PM EDT
This could confirm what many suspected all along - the corporate heads at General Electric (NYSE:GE) would try to use their media holdings to portray President Barack Obama and his administration in a positive light in order to gain a corporate advantage.
That's how former CNBC reporter and current Fox Business Network senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino explains it in his forthcoming book, "Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street."
According to Gasparino, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had "helped his company feast off of the subsidies of Obamanomics," including the green energy initiatives and health care reform. And although Immelt is a registered Republican, Gasparino detailed how Immelt would walk around his company's headquarters saying "we're all Democrats" now at the prospect of government checks going to GE. But later, Gasparino explained how Immelt would use his authority to manipulate the editorial coverage of on Obama for that reason:
By Jeff Poor | September 13, 2010 | 6:24 PM EDT
You can agree or disagree about former Speak of the House Newt Gingrich's view on the Ground Zero mosque, but is it fair to vilify him with a false characterization of his views?
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter had a peculiar take on Gingrich's point of view during a Sept. 13 appearance on Fox Business Network's "Imus in the Morning." He expressed his frustrations with the attacks on Islam, as it pertains to public discourse with not only the Ground Zero mosque, but also the idea of people burning Qurans, which has garnered a fair amount of attention from the left-of-center media.
"[I]t's insane," Alter said. "And what are we supposed to have, a war with a billion people? So, this is out of control. And, it's kicked off something pretty ugly."
By Tom Blumer | August 11, 2010 | 3:29 PM EDT 
Earlier today, NB's Lachlan Markey covered Bill O'Reilly's interview with the Fox Business Channel's Charles Gasparino.
In that interview, Gasparino confirmed what the New York Post reported in April of last year, namely that "GE Execs Encouraged CNBC Staff to Go Easy on Obama."
The suits at GE, including Chairman Jeff Inmelt, had a clear motivation for encouraging their reporters to lighten up, namely that "General Electric at the time was hoping to profit handsomely from policies that would benefit a few companies, including GE, at the expense of the majority of the economy"-- specifically cap and trade.
But speaking of motivation: What about former CNBCer Gasparino's?
The easy answer would be that sometime in the past two years he has seen the light and realizes his past reporting at CNBC was lacking in fairness and balance. Despite his move to Fox, there's reason to doubt that.
By Matt Robare | August 3, 2010 | 6:30 PM EDT 
It seems that not even the truth can possibly overturn the narrative that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have brought transparency to Washington.
It seems that not even the truth can possibly overturn the narrative that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have brought transparency to Washington.Last Wednesday I wrote about how the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill Obama signed into law last month contains a provision exempting the Securities and Exchange Commission from Freedom of Information Act requests. Such an exemption would surely have been grounds for a media outcry during the Bush administration, yet apart from The Wall Street Journal and CNN, only blogs have been following the developments. The latter opted simply to parrot the administration's claims without challenge.
Other media ouetlets, such as National Public Radio and MSNBC, completely ignored the controversy, in stark contrast to their extensive coverage of the Bush administration's attempts to curtail the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. NPR's Don Gonyea said "When conflicts arise over what should or should not be open, the administration does not hesitate to invoke the memory of 9/11. And while it's true that 9/11 changed the security landscape, it's also true that the administration was tightening the control of information much earlier . . ."
By Jeff Poor | July 8, 2010 | 4:49 PM EDT
per·ni·cious \pər-'ni-shəs\ adj.: highly injurious or destructive : deadly
Sounds like a pretty harsh word to describe something, right? So whatever the word pernicious is describing must be pretty bad.
But leave it to The New York Times editorial board to throw this lingo around like it's no big deal. In a July 8 over-the-top editorial, the Times ripped the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law over its constitutionality.
"The Obama administration has not always been completely clear about its immigration agenda, but it was forthright Tuesday when it challenged the pernicious Arizona law that allows the police to question the immigration status of people they detain for local violations," the editorial said. "Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy, the government said in its lawsuit against the state, and ‘Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.'"
Video Below Fold
By NB Staff | June 30, 2010 | 11:11 AM EDT
"Has the mainstream media -- which turns left -- have they abandoned the president on his economic policies?" Stuart Varney asked NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell in a brief interview held shortly after 10 a.m. today.
The Media Research Center founder answered in the affirmative, noting that staunch liberals in the mainstream media think Obama is too conservative on his spending plans:
BRENT BOZELL: It's the columnists, particularly for the New York Times. It's the four horsemen of the apocalypse from the Times. It's Paul Krugman, it's Frank Rich, it's Maureen Dowd, it's that crowd, they are out to get Obama now. Not from the right, from the left.
STUART VARNEY: Yeah. I mean Bob Herbert, I think it was just yesterday, talking about the failure of the president's policy. Missed opportunity. He wants another trillion dollar stimulus program. So does Paul Krugman.
To watch the full interview, click the play button on the embedded video above at right.
By Jeff Poor | June 10, 2010 | 5:21 PM EDT
We all know the BP oil spill is a huge mess. It's going to be costly to clean up - but just how much? And while some outspoken critics are calling for BP to eliminate its dividend, they probably aren't realizing the residual effects.
On the June 10 broadcast of Fox Business Network's "Bulls & Bears," Fadel Gheit, a senior analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., offered a huge estimate. But, he explained what is done is done and that going after BP with harsh penalties, as in elimination of the BP stock dividend, now will hurt a lot of American retirees.
"Couple of things - I mean, it is water under the bridge, it is over and you will have to live with it," Gheit said. "BP will have to live with it. We have to remember one thing -- BP bought 10 years ago, Amoco, Arco, a very large American corporation with a lot of people working for BP today. And the retirees are pensioners from the Amoco and Arco days. So by cutting the dividend we're penalizing completely innocent people that worked very hard for many years. And now, the dividend is the way they support themselves. So, I don't understand."
By Jeff Poor | June 8, 2010 | 6:13 PM EDT
There are a lot of people angry at BP for causing huge damage to the Gulf of Mexico. As a way to vent some of this emotion, some are volunteering their help to clean up where the oil has washed ashore. Others are petitioning lawmakers to clamp down on oil companies to ensure this doesn't happen again. However, there's one option that has proved to be pointless according to Penn Jillette, half of the famed Vegas duo Penn & Teller.
On the June 8 broadcast of the Fox Business Network's "Imus in the Morning," Jillette said the first thing that amazed him about the entire oil spill catastrophe was the notion of a Facebook group geared toward boycotting BP.
"Well, you know, I don't know there's many different takes to take on it," Jillette said. "I mean, it's just a horrible disaster and a catastrophe. What amazes me about it is on Facebook, they just, they put this thing up, you know, ‘Boycott BP.'"
By Noel Sheppard | April 28, 2010 | 2:32 AM EDT 
Helen Thomas on Tuesday not only admitted that she was a liberal, but also claimed she's as far left as you can go.
Chatting with some of the folks from the Fox Business Channel, the long-time member of the Washington Press Corps also said Barack Obama ISN'T a liberal: "Not in my book."
Thomas also felt the President isn't beating up enough on corporate America: "Poor American business, what the hell have they done to us now? The whole country's in shambles."
When asked about the current divisions in the nation, she blamed it all on Republicans (video and partial transcript follow with commentary):
By Anthony Kang | April 16, 2010 | 5:26 PM EDT
Another devastating intended/unintended consequence of the Obama administration's major government expansion: charity organizations (already in deep struggle to weather current economic conditions) will likely experience additional major decline in contributions.
On the April 16 broadcast of Fox Business Network's "Varney & Co.," Rick Dunham, CEO of fundraising consultant Dunham & Company, weighed in on the new budget proposal that would scale back charitable deductions for families making over $250,000.
"Do you think you're going to take a really big hit in terms of lower donations to charities? How big a hit?" host Stuart Varney asked.
"Well the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University did a study last year to look at the impact of the rise in the marginal tax rate and the capping of charitable deductions at 28-percent and they believe that it'll be about almost a $4 billion hit based on 2006 dollars," Dunham said. "So we're probably looking at about a $5 billion hit."
Stuart Varney Asks: Has Europe's 'Paganism' and Secular Culture Led Directly to its Economic Decline?
By Anthony Kang | April 16, 2010 | 4:17 PM EDT It is virtually impossible to separate economics from politics, and politics from a society's culture - but is economics inherently intertwined with religion as well?
Fox Business Network (FBN) anchor Stuart Varney thinks so. On FBN's April 14 broadcast of "Varney & Co." Father Jonathan Morris joined the show's panel and explored the question.
"Do you think that Europe's paganism - it's turn away from Christianity - has anything to do with Europe's economic decline?" Varney bluntly asked the priest. "Can you link this secularism - what I call ‘paganism' in Europe- directly to economic decline?"
"Certainly Europe is much more secular than the United States, and all of a sudden you lose hope," Morrison said. "If you lose hope in what life is all about, you're not going to work very hard. On the other hand, if you have hope that what I'm doing today matters tomorrow - and I'm building a life and I'm building my family and we're going places - and there's something beyond this life? You're going to be hopeful, you're going to make money - you're going to build the culture of life and goodness."