I know you said she doesn’t have much influence over topics (is that still true when she hosts?), but it’s great to see the Beauchamp story getting this kind of exposure. Like you, I think that story matters, but I’m starting to think it matters most as an exposure of the ways that the media does business, the way that facts that fit the preconceived narrative are precisely the ones that aren’t checked, and the bigger underlying story that the blogosphere’s way of handling errors (other people finding the errors and pointing them out and obligating you to respond) is actually superior to the MSM’s puffed-up but thin “layers of fact checking” that supposedly take place behind those closed doors.

At FNC, I think there’s already an anchor chair pulled out for Michelle; she just won’t sit down.

There must be a nice sense of satisfaction that comes from knowing that the course she has chosen – all those long hours, and putting up with a lot of nonsense as well as verbal/written abuse – has earned her two options, the choice being which is the better one –

Continue with a successful career as a columnist/blogger/book author/TV and radio guest contributor; or become a combination of television journalist/celebrity?

Would that we all could have such decisions to make.

What I suspect Michelle might be missing in the Vick story, however, is that the real story isn’t dogs–it’s the ongoing infiltration of the NFL by practitioners of the gangster “thug life.” Michael Vick might not be a rap star or a gang member, but he’s an active part of the same degenerate counter-culture that spawns both.

I don’t think any of us want an antisocial character like that in a position that aspiring young athletes (or anyone else) will admire.

I like Michelle on the Factor, but I have to say that it was interesting to hear her say, “I don’t have a dog in this fight” while speaking about the Vick case. Not good or bad, but interesting.

I thought it was subtle yet hilarious. And it’s nice to see PETA get a dose of what for on their own hypocritical actions.

I agree, however, that choosing to attack PETA came off as favoring and defending Vick, even though I think a longer segment would have shown Michelle to be more balanced.

locomotivebreath1901 on July 28, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Sorry Loco I didn’t mean to ignore your link, I was composing while you were commenting. From now on I will refresh just before submitting.

scooter, Just click on locomotivebreath1901’s link. Much closer to a sixth grade level direction.

What exactly is the Scott Thomas hub bub. Is what he reported false? Is he just making this up? If so, and I know this may be very difficult, what evidence exist it is not true. I have seen a series of personal attacks on both Scott and TNR but is there evidence of falsehood. I’m not judging or taking any position, I just don’t understand. Someone please explain this to me like I am a sixth grader.
scooter on July 28, 2007 at 1:13 AM

Yes scooter, what Scott Thomas reported was false. Yes he did make up the defaming parts and added them to real situations. There is extensive evidence that his stories were false. Please search this site for the many details and how the diligence of the HA community dug up the facts.

In the six minute segment last night Michelle did exactly the right thing focusing on the facts that the stories were false, who was responsible, and what bias influenced the publication. Pretty impressive effort since her time was so short and the intended audience needs a sixth grade level presentation.

Had Michelle focused on minutiae (such as Humvees having run flat tires) the audience would have gone away with the understanding that American troops may be some kind of monsters, but the details were in dispute. She did good. The focus was left squarely on the guilty party.

For what it’s worth, TNR tried hard to focus the debate on the details and force the offended party to prove a negative.

Give this woman her own show!

scooter on July 28, 2007 at 1:13 AM

An excellent analysis can be found here.

How is Beauchamp pronounced? I mean besides a$$hole. I was under the impression it was pronounced Beechum.

Bill C on July 28, 2007 at 12:55 AM

In Louisiana it would most likely be pronounced;BOshamp.
With a not quite silent ‘P’, and an enunciation on the ‘a’ that I’ve yet to see represented among pronounciation symbols.

It’s my suspicion that Mr. Beauchamp probably changes pronounciation according to what he believes his audience wants to hear.
KindaJust like his blogging.

She has got to get her own show.

Tough choice.

I dont think we would see a smirk more like a snear and looking down his nose at all the unwashed peasants

How is Beauchamp pronounced?

Ever since I saw his ‘before deployment’ pictures wearing those nancy boy stupid thick frame glasses I’ve been pronouncing it ‘boy chump’. Those glasses work ok for women but men…well, let’s just say the statement you’re making is ‘I’m a giant a**clown.’

It seems to me that MM comes across with too much smirky contempt on the factor. She really does us a disservice when she lets her passion overwhelm her craftsmanship.

unamused on July 28, 2007 at 12:01 AM

As Bill O’R. is fond of pointing out, much of the host’s personality tends to be heavily colored by the format. You simply must get a guest to finish up, for example, by the end of their scheduled segment(s), because there is a finite, yet defined amount of material to cover in a limited amount of time. It’s not because the host is necessarily rude or uncouth; they simply tend to come across that way in the course of doing their job.

That having been said, I really believe that as Michelle gets more experience with this format, she will do beter. She doesn’t ever claim for a split-second to be partial, and that is exactly what I like about seeing her on such a show.

Beauchump picture-does he look like Chad Lowe, or is that just me? I just noticed that.

Peta we kill animals because there’s too many. Good thing they don’t care about the human population

D0WNT0WN – “In attempting to state her own personal neutrality with regards to the Mike Vick dog abuse story MM actually said , “Look, I don’t have a dog in this fight.””

You have got to be kidding!

MB4 on July 27, 2007 at 9:25 PM

THIS is the problem today and why the Liberals are able to hijack discourse so easily… An effective pun, such as that, is a sign of an excellent sense of humor and extraordinary intelligence. I’m an avid animal lover (especially dogs and horses) and enjoyed the remark, THOROUGHLY.

As I mentioned on MM.com, these past few 8pm hours on Friday Nights have become “patio events”, the grill going full bore, favorite wine(s), rain or shine! I hope this will be a permanent feature on the Factor just like Friday night’s Special Report with someone sitting in for Brit…

So how about micheal Vick ?