Why hasn’t he been fired?
Because, according to the Left, he’s “on the right side of history.”
Because he did right by ABC.
Don Imus,Jimmy the Greek,and Hank Williams Jr. wonder about that,too.....
Ross ain’t the one, or the only one...
ABC should be fired.
Because when he spews BS, rumors, and made-up nonsense it's a good thing.
What makes it a good thing is that he's advancing the suicidal agenda of the elites.
The new media and the blogosphere, on the other hand, is not pushing the state-owned media agenda, and - therefore - is a bad thing.
Under the Rather Rules of Journalism, he should be promoted, not fired.
He hasn’t been fired because they agree with his initial statement and believe it whole heartedly.
ABC News was just so DAMNED eager to tie the patriots of the "Tea Party" to an insane act of mass-murder, that Ross and Stephanopolous just couldn't stop themselves when they did a Google search and found a Jim Holmes on a Tea Party list.
Their wet dream is to connect "Tea Party" and "terrorist" as a permanent meme in the MSM. Turnabout is fair play. Please share this photo on FB and Twitter, and include "Brian Ross, the convicted child molester" and "tea party" in the accompanying text, so that the picture will be linked on Google to Brian Ross forever. This smarmy prick and ABC "news" deserve it, in spades.
This guy belongs on MSNBC. That’s how they roll.
Because it’s going to take some innocent person becoming the target of a revenge killing to force the media’s hand on this.
On that same show Huckabee hit on a great idea. Every time a crime is committed by anyone named Brian Ross it should be suggested that his network news was involved in the crime.
If you fired one you'd have to fire most (90%?) of them! That's why.
Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator by Ryan Holiday.
New book describes how mainstream media employees ("reporters") get their day-to-day stories. I fell asleep before the interview really got going but what I heard made a lot of sense.
Media employees are highly interdependent. Day-to-day stories are generated from within the tight-knit community; to wit, "reporters" do "investigations" mainly by scanning the MSM's favorite internet blogs. Not surprising that such places include mediamatters, dailykos, and ultra liberal celebs on social groups. BTW, celebs hire people to do their tweeting, and stuff.
(I complained to the TV networks back in the 1960's this is nothing new.)
From the article: “P.P.S. I get irked whenever anybody refers to the big networks and newspapers as the “mainstream press.” That’s a horribly misguided term, considering how far left they are. The Tea Party is much closer to the mainstream than those clowns. That’s why they should be called the ‘establishment press.’”
He makes a good point, though I don’t think “establishment press” is the right alternative. It would be helpful to have a term that clearly identifies the source as left-wing, and that often distorts facts to serve an unstated agenda.
Certainly, ABC and MSNBC should no longer be considered “mainstream” and “establishment” is too kind. Maybe just start referring to them as the “Ross Media” and the point will be made, plus Ross’s contribution to the effort will never be forgotten.
E.g., “ABC and other similar Ross Media outlets continue to pursue the Bain Capital story while ignoring the deteriorating employment situation.”
“MSNBC, considered a typical Ross Media news source, continues to hire commentators with questionable backgrounds such as....”
“You get your news from Jon Stewart? Even though he’s an acknowledged member of the Ross Media? Interesting.”
Or, from our perspective, “Here’s another misleading story making the rounds of the Ross Media today.”
I can see where an annual “Ross Award” could be a much-awaited announcement, along the lines of WI Senator Proxmire’s old Golden Fleece Award for the dumbest DC spending program of the year. Though perhaps it would be better to give one monthly, or weekly? Certainly there’s no lack of worthy recipients.
I've taken it to mean not that they supposedly represent the middle, but that what they report floods into the mainstream of society. In other words, you have to go out of your way to avoid the mainstream press, whereas the opposite is true for non-mainstream media.
Personally I am partial to the term "left-controlled media" or even "democrat-controlled media". No room for misinterpretation there.
I sent ABC an e-mail complaint about Brian Ross. They replied that I should complain to my local ABC affiliate. My local ABC affiliate did not hire Brian Ross.