Why in Gods name would a news organization hire Mark Fhurman [sp] to talk about police procedures and gathering evidence? Couldn't they find anybody else? They seem to rely on people of questionable backgrounds. For instance, Oliver North.

I thought Fuhrman was a scumbag during the O.J. trial.  I still believe that, but he does offer some professional insights that are pretty educational/entertaining.

Oliver North is a patriot and a legitimate American hero.  I have heard him speak live and look forward to his TV appearances.

FOX News proved it's class when it became known that they purposely withheld information about the M.D. sniper's written message so as not to potentially botch the ongoing investigation.  They get very high marks in my book.  Besides that, they have the finest reporterettes in the business.

Mark Fhurman from everything I can tell is a first class detective who was smeared by the OJ defense team.

He has been very successful since he left the LAPD writing a couple of books one of which was one of the prime factors in the conviction of Michael Skakel for the murder of Martha Moxley. The Skakel family wealth and Kennedy power kept Michael Skakel out of jail for 25 years. Fhurman is in large part responsible for forcing the reopening of the case and putting Skakel in prison.

I would say Fox has some class unlike some people.

I liked Fox News when they began, but I think they have been on a steady downhill slide, and now rank below CNN in my book.  They are now all about sensationalism and don't give a damn about the truth.

Oliver North and Mark Fhurman are what you would consider right of center, and I have heard them interviewed and North's radio show, they are stand up people.  They have been demonized by the press.

Say what you will, but their top on my list!

Have you noticed that while all the others have been blasting the evil gun Fox put it in the background.

Fox News has been broadcasting just as much, if not more false B.S. as all of the other networks.  Showing stories of some Idiot shooting an M-4 with the stock completely colapsed at pumpkins, and telling us that the horribly powerfull .223 blows out an exit hole 10-20 times as large as the entrance hole!  Although we know that in most if not all of the shootings there was no exit at all!!  Then the keep repeating Mooses line about having the weapon off of the street, like thats the most important thing!  I lost about 50% of my respect for Fox when they hired Heraldo.

If werent for Fuhrnman that little Kennedy bastard would have gotten away with murder
He is a gun advocate and conservative...seems like a pretty good guy and 2nd ammendment advocate..now living in Montana or Idaho..

Fox News has been broadcasting just as much, if not more false B.S. as all of the other networks.  Showing stories of some Idiot shooting an M-4 with the stock completely colapsed at pumpkins, and telling us that the horribly powerfull .223 blows out an exit hole 10-20 times as large as the entrance hole!  Although we know that in most if not all of the shootings there was no exit at all!!  Then the keep repeating Mooses line about having the weapon off of the street, like thats the most important thing!  I lost about 50% of my respect for Fox when the day they hired Heraldo.

That's not the point (with either Ollie or Fuhrman), public perception of an individual
is important if you want to appear credible or unbiased in your reporting. It doesn't matter if the perception is valid or legitimate or not; once the damage is done, it's done. Ollie and Fuhrman both have questionable backgrounds that would qualify them as someone not to be trusted or beilved... might as well throw in G. Gordan Liddy, also.

OK let me get this right if you are unfairly smeared by someone so that your “public perception” is tainted using some unknown standard so that it “appears” ……..

I think we need to look at facts and what is real and forget about perceived “perception” and “appearances”. This is the usually logic and double standard that is applied to conservatives. Conservatives have to resign because of the “appearance of impropriety” (for example John Tower and Clarence Thomas) and Democrats get away with murder (for example Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy).

Aces-and-Eights,
I am a member of the public and I don't think Col. North has anything questionable in his background.  I respect him immensely for what he did to free American hostages and his credibility with me is second-to-none.  I suspect alot of other people feel the same or he wouldn't be prominent in the media.
Glad you mentioned Liddy--I had almost forgot about him.  He is another fine example of a man who does what needs to be done--political fallout be damned.  A tip of the hat to GGL.

What's your standard? Show me someone from the other side of the political spectrum who's not tainted in some fashion, real or perceived. Is there no room for redemption, or is a person once deemed "questionable" (whatever that means) forever so?

It's in the eye of the beholder.

Yep, they're doin' their bestto catch up to cnn. MSNBC beats 'em both though...
If ya want unbiased coverage, get it at ARFCOM!   [:D]

I have to disagree; illegal wiretaps and break-ins are never justified. And these crimes weren't even committed under the pretense of "National security" or for the general welfare of the American public... it was for political gain. Gordo and his cronies are just another example of Government agents thinking they're above the law. What makes Ruby Ridge, Waco, Eilian Gonzalez so different than Watergate?

No disagreement there, but since when have "facts" mattered to anyone? And it's something that will never change.

Public perception is important in choosing whom state's your case. Doesn't matter if that perception is flawed, inaccurate or misrepresented. The public doesn't care; once you're fucked you're fucked as far as they're concerned. Doesn't make it right or fair, but that's the reality of it.


True; both Clinton and Kennedy aren't the best examples for the left to trot out for sound bytes. But, at least Clinton and Kennedy are more current (whom under the age 30 remembers Ollie North?) and their status goes more beyond their 15 minutes of fame or notoriety just because they happened to be at the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time. My opinion of Ollie is kind of split; he did what he thought was best for the country and took the fall for it, yet he also strikes me as the kind of person that would blindly follow orders without question or hesitation.

Fuhrman OTOH is an ass. His actions were a big reason for OJ's getting off. I have little doubt that OJ is guilty, just as I have little doubt that Fuhrman "planted" the glove at OJ's house.
This is the United States; you just don't do that kind of thing to make a case stick.  

Anyhow, what I was trying to get at in my original post was that wouldn't it better serve gun owners (Republican) interests if the person speaking was less controversial? A person that the Liberals can't point at and dismiss as bing tainted?

Any news organization that employs Laurie Dhue is OK in my book!  [sex]

Bulls**t I want you to tell what actions of Fuhrman are responsible for getting OJ off. OJ got off because that jury was not going to convict him under any circumstances and that was the judge and prosecutors fault for allowing it to happen. There is no evidence that Fuhrman planted anything and your supposition is not proof of anything.

And I guarantee you the vast majority of people do not believe that Fuhrman planted anything at the OJ’s. Mark Fuhrman does not have anything to apologize for and should not act like he has.

Planting the glove. Of course I have no proof of that, neither does anyone else. Only one person can answer that and he's not talking. Are you suggesting that this sort of thing never happens? (experienced officer knows the person is guilty but needs to solidfy the case). And in the LA PD of all places?

I agree that that's quite possibly true, but Fuhrmans testimoney was the nail in the coffin and he gave the jury the excuse they needed. He handed them the less than "reasonable doubt" they needed to aquit.

By your logic, there's no real evidence that OJ committed the murder either. Whatever evidence there is is circumstantial; and the validity of that was defused by his defense team.
No eyewitnesses', video tape, confession, etc. Yet, the majority of people (as I do) belive OJ's guilty.

"Guarantee"? Can you cite your "supposition"?

So OJ is guilty of one thing and Fuhrman is not. It's only "supposition", right?

The point I was making was, there are any number of police officers, retired, etc., that Fox could have hired to interview about police procedures and gathering evidence but they elected to hire Mark Fuhrman. What was Fox trying to accomplish by hiring this guy?
And Ollie North? This guy GAVE arms to our mortal enemy on orders from a president who said "we will never negotiate with terrorists". For Christsakes, this guy is suppose to be a friggin Marine! What happened to his oath? Isn't there any other people out there that Fox could have hired that have better reputations?

It's like getting Tonya Harding's opinion on figure skating or Joey Buttafucco's insight on marriage infidelity.