Mediaboss Marketing

Fox News Channel said it would count on a larger group of anchors to boost one of its top shows, The Five, as it enjoys a new levels of viewership.

Jeanine Pirro, the firebrand former prosecutor who has held forth on Fox News Saturday-night schedule for a decade, will fill one of two empty seats at the networks late-afternoon mainstay, with a trio Harold Ford Jr., Geraldo Rivera and Jessica Tarlov rotating as the programs voice from the left. Those three have been filling in since the resident liberal of The Five, Juan Williams, parted ways with the show last May. Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino and Jesse Watters have carried on the interim. Pirro will give up the regular Saturday-night show she has hosted for a decade.

The Five has in recent months done something unusual. More than a decade into its tenure on the Fox Corp.-backed outlet, it has seen a surge in audience an atypical trend for a program that doesnt air in primetime. In the fourth quarter of 2021, the program won more viewers overall across all cable-news offerings.

As such, tinkering with it is not something to be done lightly. The Five has served as a template for a range of programs across the Fox News schedule, including the new late-night round-table program Gutfeld, the daytime staple Outnumbered, and two weekend programs, The Big Saturday Show and The Big Sunday Show. In executives view, The Five serves as sort of family-dinner table where people can argue over topics without walking away angry. Its a great show for us, and its a great show for America, actually, Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott told Variety in a 2019 interview. She was involved in the shows creation and choosing its original lineup, which has featured Gutfeld and Perino since its debut.

Whether the addition of Pirro, a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of former President Trump who has been prone to dramatic commentary on her own program, tilts that balance remains to be seen.

Pirros move to the weekday show is emblematic of Fox News current strategy of placing decidedly right-leaning opinion host in many of its top slots. On Monday, Fox News put Watters in its 7 p.m. hour, ensuring the networks schedule between 7 p.m. and midnight is stocked with pundits who espouse conservative sometimes even more rightward viewpoints.

Pirro is nothing if not colorful. Before joining Fox News, she was the host of a syndicated court program from Warner Brothers that relied on her three terms as Westchester County District Attorney. In 2019, Pirro did not appear on her show for a handful of weeks after making pointed remarks about U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, a Muslim lawmaker, suggesting she was more tied to Muslim law than the U.S. Constitution. Even so, she has a long track record in Republican circles in New York, elected elected as the first woman to serve as a Westchester County Court judge, and appointed by then-Governor George Pataki to chair the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board in 1997.

Although Fox News tilts decidedly right, the networks executives have long maintained The Five will not work without a liberal counterpoint. Fox has had a right-and-left format on its air since 1996, when Sean Hannity used to spar in primetime with liberal foil, Alan B. Colmes. The Five has kept the concept on air.

Harold Ford, Jr. a former Democratic U.S. Representative from Tennessee, will be one of those offering a leftward viewpoint. Ford, a one-time regular at NBC News and MSNBCs Morning Joe, is an executive vice chairman of PNC Banks corporate and institutional banking business. Jessica Tarlov, a Fox News contributor since 2017, is vice president of research and consumer insight for Bustle Digital Group and a former Democratic pollster who will also appear regularly on the show. Geraldo Rivera, a longtime Fox News presence and correspondent-at-large, has politics that are less easy to pin down, but will also fill the shows roster of leftward points of view.

Original post:
Fox News Fills Out The Five With Jeanine Pirro, Trio of Liberals - Variety

Rarely do you see a court case with a title as tasty as the one thats coming on Feb. 1 in federal district court right here in Manhattan: Grab your popcorn for Palin v. New York Times.

Unlike, say, Batman v. Commissioner (1950, federal tax court), however, this one is about exactly who you think its about. Fun!

But this trial is not only entertaining, it will address an important principle: you dont get to make up nasty stuff about somebody you dont like and print it anyway. Reminding us that there is punishment in store for those who do this could move us a half-a-baby-step closer to restoring civility in the discourse.

After a madman shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Arizona in 2011, when Sarah Palin was the most despised woman in America on the left because of her merciless and effective put-downs of Barack Obama three years earlier, lefty pundits were desperate to find some way, however far-fetched, to link the shooting to her. They tried to make a banquet out of a crumb: they discovered Palins PAC had put out a map about defeating Obamacare that was illustrated with crosshairs to identify congressional districts as potential pickups for the GOP. Target, campaign, crosshairs and the like are long-standing military metaphors used in election battles. (Battles. Theres another one.) Nobody goes, Aaaaaugh, youre trying to get me killed! when a press release mentions that this or that incumbent is being targeted.

Did Giffords shooter ever see this map? No, not that we know of. Moreover, he had no clear political views. Instead, he simply harbored an obsessive hate for Giffords specifically, which was documented back to three years before the maps existence. Three days after the shooting, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, The charge that Palins map had anything to do with the shooting is bogus.

Yet six years later, after a far-left Bernie Sanders-loving terrorist shot and nearly killed Republican Congressman Steve Scalise on a Virginia baseball field, the Times tried to change the subject back to the Giffords shooting to deflect blame from the left. Its unsigned editorial of June 14, 2017, stated that in the Giffords attack, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palins political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts and claimed that the Scalise shooting showed no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack.

Awful stuff, and completely untrue, as the Times acknowledged in a corrective note: In fact, no such link was established. Much less a direct or clear one. The whole Palin link was simply made up because the left hates her, and the Times editorial board stepped in a mess out on Bullspit Boulevard.

Ill sue you for libel, you ink-stained bastard! is the kind of idle threat heard by every reporter six times a day before lunch. No, you probably wont! And if you do, I like my chances. American libel law strongly favors the press rather than the people we write about, and for excellent reason. Opinions, even extremely nasty ones, are protected. Hurrah! What a dim, gray, Soviet-scented discourse wed have in this country if it were otherwise. Also, the media can be forgiven for honest mistakes. Believe it or not, Were too dumb to know what we said was false is a legit defense.

Its pretty hard to lose a libel case, but the Times has put itself in a dicey spot. The Times smeared Palin, plain and simple. They thought theyd get away with it because Palin is a public figure, and the national press has been unloading on her since the day John McCain picked her to be his running mate. But Palins lawyers are the ones who trounced Gawker so badly in the Hulk Hogan case that the site went under.

If I were the Times, Id be looking forward to this trial about as much as you would spending winter in Juneau.

Go here to see the original:
Why Sarah Palin has a case against the lying liberals at New York Times - New York Post

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have dealt with extreme weather this past year. From the extreme heat, catastrophic fires and floods in British Columbia, tornadoes in Ontario, and more floods in Atlantic Canada, people have lost their homes and even their lives as a result.

There is also a high financial cost. Last year alone, Canadians had $2.1 billion in insured losses. But many Canadians cannot access disaster insurance and small communities cannot afford the rebuilding costs under present cost-sharing models.

It's clear that these extreme weather events are not going away. In addition to having a strong plan to fight climate change, the federal government needs to invest in improved infrastructure and preventative action to help stop catastrophic natural disasters. This should include fully funding the FireSmart program, increased floodplain mapping and updating important infrastructure around communities and along the nations highways.

The Liberals cannot wait for disasters to happen before reacting, they need a proactive approach. New Democrats will continue to push for the government to invest in infrastructure upgrades and urgent action on the climate crisis before these disasters occur.

Read the original here:
Liberals need to invest in emergency preparedness with more extreme climate events on the horizon - ndp.ca

Liberals making up voting rules as they go

Your favorite football is tied in the fourth quarter, poised for a big upset of the home team.

Suddenly the officials announce a rule change. Your team will get the ball on their own 5-yard line, with only one chance to score from there. The home team will get the ball on your teams 2-yard line, with 10 chances to score.

Not fair, you yell.

Favorite baseball team is poised to win the World Series, tied in Game 7 in the ninth inning. Suddenly, umpires announce that your team will get one out in their last at bat, while the other team will get 10 outs in their last at bat. Not fair.

Favorite basketball team is close to winning the final NCAA game, when the officials stop the game with five minutes to play, and wheel out new baskets. Your teams will be slightly larger than the ball, while the other teams will be the size of a large trash container. Not fair.

Sound ridiculous? Cant change the rules of these games anytime you feel like it?

No kidding, but isnt this exactly what liberal Democrats are trying to do with their filibuster rule changes and laws to totally turn voting regulations topsy turvy? Why not?

They do believe the constitution is a liquid document, to be bent, re-configured and interpreted any way that fits their agendas.

Joe Maschue

Altoona

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Originally posted here:
Letter to the editor: Liberals making up voting rules as they go - Altoona Mirror

OTTAWA According to a new report from Oxfam, the worlds ten richest men have seen their wealth double during the pandemic while most of the worlds population saw their incomes reduce. In Canada this same pattern exists with the top 100 CEOs incomes rising since March 2020. While the Liberals continue to let the ultra-rich get away with not paying their fair share, New Democrats are committed to making sure the wealthiest among us contribute fairly to the pandemic recovery.

Canadians are bearing the brunt of soaring inequality while the Liberals help the rich get richer, said the NDPs Critic for Tax Fairness and Inequality, Niki Ashton. The Liberals had an opportunity during the fall economic update to stop pandemic profiteering, make the ultra-rich pay their fair share and close tax havens and loopholes. Instead, they chose to protect the profits of the ultra-wealthy while everyday Canadians struggle.

In the six years Justin Trudeau has been Prime Minister, the super-rich have only gotten richer while everyday Canadians are finding it harder to get by. The Liberals gave away millions in subsidies to big corporations with no strings attached while cutting pandemic benefits for people who needed them as COVID-19 cases spread through the country. With inflation rising and the cost of everyday essentials like rent and food going up, everyday Canadians need a government that is there for them.

The recovery from this pandemic is going to cost us, but it should be paid for by those who profited off of this pandemic, not Canadian families who have been struggling, said the NDPs Critic for Finance, Daniel Blaikie. Its time the Liberals stood up for everyday Canadians instead of protecting their rich friends.

New Democrats are committed to giving Canadians the help they need to make ends meet and making sure ultra-rich and big corporations pay their fair share for the pandemic recovery.

See the article here:
Under the Liberals, wealth inequality is growing - ndp.ca