I like Shep. He'll do more to change Fox hearts and minds that all the Maddows, Colberts and Olbermann's put together.

I like him too--but I wish he was in the position to tell both sides in the first place. I'm betting there is a large set of Fox viewers for whom his apology just tastes like aluminum foil.

Thanks for pointing this out, Paul. There so much preaching to the choir out there that a little bomb like this might actually cause some people to think. That's my biggest problem with Keith O.: who's he trying to whip up? Me?

There is no better evening news anchor than Shep Smith. Not one.

Shep can preach to me any ol time.

I can still see him pounding his fist on the table and saying that the U.S. should not torture!

That Shep. What a Guy. Can't you just see him now down at the park handing out candy to all the kids?

Fox is a joke. What I'm amazed by is that now that the jig is up, and the whole Reaganite/NeoCon scam has been revealed for what it always was, that the peoples still tune in in droves every day to watch this crap. Lambs to0 the gawdam slaughter, man.

I sometimes wonder what it's like to be Mr. Smith. Does he see himself as the lone voice of reason around him? Does he think he's being kept around just so FOX can claim they're "fair and balanced" the way the keep some figurehead liberal around?

It must be such a frustrating place to work at - and maybe that's what makes him shine just a little brighter among the burnt out mental bulbs around him.

I tend not to watch FoxNews very often, but when I have seen Shep Smith on there, he is usually balanced and critical of both the left and the right.

Danya,

It won't taste like foil to a lot of Fox viewers because they really wouldn't understand why interviewing only one candidate is inappropriate for a news organization.

Thanks for pointing this out. I've seen him take a stand for what is right on more than one occasion. I always wonder - what is he doing there? But, I guess, we're lucky he is. It must be pretty difficult for him to see the bias of an entire network. You could tell how frustrated he was during the election. We need more of him - and not just at Fox.

I don't watch FIXED Noise so I'll have to take your word for it.

I've always wondered how the lone voice of reason stayed on Fox News.

It's a sad state of affairs when journalists like Shepard Smith are considered heroic because they're actually doing their jobs.

Smith would have no control over that. If ANY news organization requests interviews with both candidates and one refuses to be interviewed, that candidate shouldn't be allowed to control the others message. Smith was WAY out of line on this one and he should be apologizing for implying that Fox didn't do it's job.

You are funny. The White House declares war on Fox, every other dem in the country hates Fox and there is not one shred of info available to discredit the idea that maybe Corzine doesn't want to be on Fox news and you actually want to use this as evidence that FNC is wrong. If you can't see this you are stupid, biased and intellectually dishonest.

Hey White House! Do an interview with Shep!

Why has it become so fashionable to slam Keith Olberman. He says what he thinks, identifies his commentary as "commentary," has a sense of humor and a point of view. So what? I take Olberman with a grain of salt, appreciate his humor, and look forward to his special comments. He has more intellectual prowess than all the Fox pundits combined.

Yeah, he is a good guy. Hope they don't fire him.

I very, very seldom watch any news. I'll check out the locals for weather and morning traffic, but have not trusted networks for a long time, and CNN's gone the way of Fox, pandering with sensationalism. Even Olbermann has begun to get on my nerves, whereas he used to entertain while shiving the opposition.

So I can't say I watch this Shep person, but I've been directed to him during the seminal moments cited above, and I do like and respect his demeanor and content. If they're ever to get me and many I know back (television "news"), they need Muscular Journalism Activists. Period.

Shep is wasted on Fox. The problem with that network is not that they are conservative, but that they are pretending to be a serious news organisation while they spew propaganda. The only thing Shep achieves when he goes rogue is to give the network a figleaf of credibility which they can hide behind when they are criticised.

When you're surrounded by clowns and liers, it makes little difference that you try to stay honest. At best, no one will notice you. At worst, you legitimise your no-good colleagues. Shep Smith's integrity should push him towards the exit.

and Jackster, you're right! The WH would do well do give Shep exclusive interviews with whomever, whenever, regularly. Not necessarily the President, at least not often. But everyone else! It would be perfect!

Integrity is so underrated. The thing is that everyone messes up, but not everyone earnestly apologizes for it. Thanks for this post with a mind and a conscience.

I like the "If I had had control there, it wouldnt have happened."
Pretty ballsy - or maybe just what a journalist should be. Whichever, thanks for highlighting this Paul.

Philos777 wrote: "You are funny. The White House declares war on Fox, every other dem in the country hates Fox and there is not one shred of info available to discredit the idea that maybe Corzine doesn't want to be on Fox news and you actually want to use this as evidence that FNC is wrong. If you can't see this you are stupid, biased and intellectually dishonest."

And you are rude.

And also ignorant of the way news programs like this work.

I don't know. This felt a little set up to me. But I'm no expert on Fox.

By the way Levinson that rude poster above is the textbook illustration of why Smith's minuscule and occasional submissions of sensibility to the network mean exactly jack and squat as far as shaking up any viewer's sense of the world is concerned.

There are two things that are fundamentally and undeniably true about the cultural wing that gets its news from FNC and only FNC: they love their own with a fiery passion, and they'll drop their own in an instant at the first sign of any deviation from the dogma.

The fact that you bring up Smith as some sort of example of FNC's redeemability seems to me to be pretty clearly an illustration of YOUR ignorance about how the network functions. He is one tick in a very tiny checklist that the executives can point to when attempting to confirm their reporting impartiality, and the fact that you've bought the argument hook line and sinker only shows how easy it is defend the tallest mountain of idiocy with the smallest rock of token intelligence, even to supposedly reasonable people.

Perhaps if you had some numbers to illustrate that any of the 30-50% who loved Joe the Plumber, supported the Bush Administration regardless of their crimes against the country, or really give a damn whether or not FNC interviews the Democratic candidate had their minds changed by Smith you'd have a sturdier leg to stand on. But we all know that's patently untrue.

Stephen Ashley wrote: "By the way Levinson that rude poster above is the textbook illustration of why Smith's minuscule and occasional submissions of sensibility to the network mean exactly jack and squat as far as shaking up any viewer's sense of the world is concerned."

And you took an extensive survey of Fox viewers? Or did you just come upon that knowledge via some internal vision?

It seems odd for you to produce such a snippy response when we live in a world where 50%+ of the country consistent polls as doubting Obama's United States residency, and the same 30-40% represented by the GOP faithful still loves Bush, still loves Joe The Plumber, and still considers Fox News to be a balanced news source.

But I'll take your diversionary nonanswer as a sign that you don't, in fact, have any factual basis to counter what every poll for the last 15 years has been saying, rendering your assertion that Smith is an example of some sort of stealth counterprogramming within FNC perfectly invalid.

And you are rude.

And also ignorant of the way news programs like this work.

Paul, Are you f _ _ ing kidding me? Are you out of your mind? Are you that ignorant? Do you really think that every single news organization, whether a news network or a newspaper, wouldn’t want the scoop interview with both candidates. BUT, if one refuses to answer or accommodate the numerous requests, (as Obama did for months with O’Reilly) that organization has a responsibility to its viewers and/or readers to provide the interview with the only available candidate. Period.

One of the privileges that all media provide is a voice to the people from the candidates. For a candidate to refuse to speak with, boycott or ignore a particular major media outlet is 1st, just plain stupid besides being wrong. Smith was just plain wrong for his comment and Shannon Bream didn’t even have to redeemed herself by mentioning that there were numerous requests in to Corzine. But she did.

Your cynical perspective is juvenile. For you to say that I am “ignorant of the way news programs like this work” exposes your silly one sided perspective. Pray tell….how do they work? If you are going to spew some twisted conspiracy theory about planning to avoid Corzine you are dumber than you look.

Your assessment of my rudeness is spot on. I can be nice when warranted, but it will be hard for you to decide to see past your self deception.

Stephen Ashley - Really? Then cite one poll you've come across that shows that the views of Fox viewers can never be changed.

Philos: Here's what you can expect from me regarding your questions: Nothing substantive, until you apologize for your rudeness.

I believe in maximum freedom of expression, by the way, so I'm not likely to remove your rude comments. But nor do I intend to respond to any questions you may ask of me - other than pointing out your lack of courteous discourse.

Are you kidding me? You're ridiculous. A poll proving FOX viewers can't have their opinions changed? What an absurd strawman. How about you address my actual point, and provide polls that show Shep Smith's bursts of reason HAVE resulted in shifts of opinion.

Lord knows why you're constantly featured on the front page, as far as logical, fact based reason goes you're pretty slim on the pickins.

Stop dancing around the point and show me the polls where the GOP base has shown significant movement on any of the three issues you directly pointed out in your article. Unless you're trying to pretend that even though Smith has been with the network since the beginning, we're still "waiting" to watch that shift of opinion happen.

It's simple, Levinson. You insinuated that Smith serves as an example of a FNC anchor who might sway his viewers to reconsider the Fact Based world. I pointed out that during the 12 years of his tenure on that network the GOP base has become more didactic, blindly committed to its myths, and more eager to embrace its most extremist voices than has ever been the case.

You apparently have no response to refute that, so I rest my case.

Smith is gay.

He gets outed in the documentary "Outrage."
That FOX keeps him on provides them with a fig leaf of "fairness."

Hi Paul. Interesting that you're being attacked by both the right and left over this post. I'll keep in nice and civil. Your admiration for Smith's actions begs the question: What is a news organization to do if they are unable to secure an interview with one of two candidates for Governor? Do you feel its responsible to simply black list the other candidate who IS willing to be interviewed?

Michigander -

Yes, I too find it very interesting that I'm being attacked by both left and right. I'd say it shows the tendency of people to resort to nastiness, whatever their political views, when they don't have much logic and evidence on their side.

But in response to your reasonable question: If a news organization is repeatedly unable to secure an interview with one of two or more candidates, they should run the interview(s) they have, along with a story reporting and investigating why they were unable to secure the missing interview.

The problem with the Bream piece is that she didn't do this. And her embarrassed response to Smith didn't give us any details as to why the request for a Corzine interview was rebuffed, who on his staff rebuffed it, etc.

Stephen Ashley wrote: "Lord knows why you're constantly featured on the front page..."

Probably for the same reason I have 15 books and hundreds of articles and stories published. I have something of interest to say, and manage to say without being rude.

You apparently have some work to do on the second, and I can't say about the first.

I notice you still can't admit that you don't have a defense to the fact that you're wrong.

Though the fact that all you can do is sniff about rude people and rattle off your B-list resume nearly every single time you're confronted in one of your comment threads is hilariously illustrative of the sort of intellectual rigor you apparently subscribe to.

It's really a simple query. Show me the numbers behind your assertion that Smith is changing the minds of Fox's constituency. If you've got the facts to back up your fluffy reasoning it shouldn't be hard at all. If you don't, I suppose taking diversionary umbrage again should about do the trick.

Ok. I see where you're coming from. Your edited clip doesn't make it clear where the interview was held. Apparently Christie was there and decided to go on camera. I'm just trying to figure out Smith's 'problem' with the interview. If Corzine wasn't there, why was he giving her static about it? And what pray tell would he have done so differently? You bring up a very reasonable sounding solution to the situation, but it does fail to take into context that many liberal democrats simply refuse to allow Fox access. As I recall, the Dem candidates boycotted one of the Dem contender debates in Nevada because Fox was co-sponsoring it. And are we certain that the reporter hadn't at some point previous reported, as you suggest, that attempts to get an interview with Corzine had gone unanswered. Maybe I'm grasping at straws here, but I just don't 'get' Shep's beef of how he would have done it better. It sounds like he had a chip on his shoulder.

Stephen - you've now crossed the line into packaging your questions with verbiage too rude for me to respond to - see what I said to Philos above for further details.

Michigander - I agree with you 100% that Democrats refusing to go on Fox is a problem - and, by the way, I strongly disagree with that strategy. I've been on Fox a dozen or more times - here's a clip of me vs. O'Reilly from a few years ago - and I think it's valuable to get your points across to the opposition.

But back to Smith: he was shining a spotlight on what looked to be very unbalanced coverage. That's a good thing. If it turns out that Fox did nothing wrong in this case - that they made a good faith attempt to get an interview with Corzine - then that's important to know, too.

Right, so you're going with taking diversionary umbrage.

By the way when you're going to flail wildly for some sort of high road rather than admit that you've been caught in an inconsistency you'd do better not to respond to a perfectly reasonable comment with snide insults, as you did to my original contribution to this discussion.

Let's not pretend you were ever interested in actually answering the question, here.

Hint to CNN Hire Shep away where he can do some realy good. He's wasted at Fox and provides them with a thin patina of credibility.

Mr. Levinson, you are so right. Shepard Smith is a class act. He is an alumni of the University of Mississippi school of journalism and he is a true journalist. He also shows compassion when appropriate.

poorsinner wrote: "I 'm sure you're a liberal professor fixated on the bias of Fox News, but what you extrapolate from 39 seconds of youtube amazes me.

Liberals giving advice to Fox News. Lots of Laughs!"

Laugh and be amazed all you like, but my advice still holds.

And, by the way, although I am professor, what gives you the impression I'm a liberal? If you did a little research, rather than just talking, you'd notice that I'm a progressive libertarian, with positions that differ and agree with both liberals and conservatives.

For example, I'm strongly in favor of major health care reform (a liberal position), and also in favor of the FCC being abolished as an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment (generally a more conservative position). See I'm A Progressive Libertarian for details.

Thanks, Karolyn - and, thanks, too, Caroline, Tim4change, and just about everyone else who has commented here. One of the problems with the few rude commenters is that they tend to get most of my attention.

Paul, After reviewing my comments because of your refusal to engage me, I realize that I came off a little strong. For that I will say, I am sorry you were offended.

But, I will not apologize for the level of my rudeness. It is in direct proportion to the absurdity of your premise.

My silly comment on how dumb you look was unnecessary and I apologize for that.

Now, please, please, please tell me that you really don't believe that the interview with Chris Christy was part of some conspiracy to only interview him and not Corzine, or that you really, really believe that FNC had anything to do with Corzine not being interviewed.

Or, that Smith was correct in making his comment considering these facts. I really, really, really want to know how a professor thinks "news programs like this work".

Please!!!!!!!!

I like Shep, too, but I agree with Philos777: Shep shouldn't apologize for Fox's "lack of balance" when Corzine can't be bothered with an interview (after multiple requests for one).

Philos and Kentippo: What I think happened is this: Bream's segment was not properly prepared and vetted. If it's true that Corzine repeatedly refused to be interviewed, then that should have been part of Bream's segment, before Smith had to ask her where the Corzine interview was.

Because - and this is to Philos - that's the way the professional news operations, including Fox, work. You don't just run an unbalanced segment and leave it to the anchor to ask what's going on. In the case of covering political campaigns, you make every effort to get both candidates, and if one refuses, you make that part of your upfront story.

I already said this in reply to Michigader's questions here.

And while we're talking about professional conduct - Philos, I accepted your weak apology enough to give you this answer. But you're still being rude. Learn to disagree with people and posts with civility, otherwise you're not likely to get much more response from me.

Paul, It seems to me that you are avoiding the truth and reality of how news in the field and on the fly works. I can fully understand that it should have been a part of an upfront explanation in a sit down interview situation. But a man on the street interview where a reporter is standing live, in which I am sure Christy spoke with more than one media source, you take what you can get and explain it just like it happened.

I can appreciate your perspective, since you are a liberal/progressive, to see this in that particular light, but that is an indictment to you and the failure of your critical thinking. I find your criticism to be extreme and biased. (That’s why I was so rude) I feel like you may have fallen into the habit of engaging in a scorched earth politics. A win at any cost and in every battle.

I know, I know, it seemed like I was the one who drew 1st blood, but there is a perspective that you may not be seeing.

This seems, in my opinion, to be a case where Smith would have liked to have been made aware of the details regarding the type of interview, setting, etc, and since he wasn't, he was caught off guard and was attempting to make sure he wasn't perceived as unfair and imbalanced. That in and of itself isn't an indictment from Smith to FNC, although it could be seen as such, nor is it an indictment of Breem, who is doing her job professionally and doing an on location field interview of an available candidate.

I stand by my opinion that you are using a very, very insignificant situation to try to support a hollow argument, thus the "scorched earth" politics.

Here are the facts. TODAY, Oct 30, 2009 - The Pew Research Center, a non-partisan think tank released this:

"Among regular Fox News Channel viewers, 39% identified as Republican, 33% as Democrats and 22% as independents. Among regular CNN viewers, 51% identified as Democrats, 23% were independents and just 18% were Republicans. In short, Democrats comprise a larger share of the Fox News audience than Republicans do of CNN's audience."

Read the whole article and you will find that the network the left loves to hate, is still the network they watch most to get truly informed with the most unbiased news. Those on the left who choose to only hear their side of things, watch NBC, MSNBC or CNN. These are facts.

You might choose to hate the opinion programs on FNC like Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly, but the news presented is the most informative, fair and balanced in the industry.

I would encourage you to read the whole article as it has some interesting observations.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1395/partisanship-fox-news-and--other-cable-news-audiences

I included a link to another Pew study that confirms that MSNBC was extremely biased towards Obama during the election. Go figure???

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/11/pew-research-center-confirms-media-bias.html

P.S. I told you I could be nice tomorrow. Have you worked on that self deception thing yet??? Peace

Fox News announces that an opposing side refused to appear so frequently that it's practically a default setting. I really don't think it's necessary to repeat the caveat ad nauseum. And with the exception of thin-skinned Obama apologists, most liberals happily appear, aware as they are that they are thereby reaching a wider and more diverse audience than when they appear on the sound-of-one-hand-clapping shows on CNN or CNBC.

On a more substantive level, it should be obvious to any thinking being that Shannon Bream is much too beautiful to do anything wrong. Apparently Chris and Steve don't appreciate female beauty anymore than they recognize rational discourse.

Rated.