I wonder if he got fired because he is not a Fox News Democrat. What I mean is he probably didn’t kiss enough CON a$$.

Plus, Dr. Hill does not resemble FOXnews’ core audience…

one of the only true liberals that was/is on fox… never pandering to the “fox news liberal” way of just getting yelled down. hopefully, he will contribute to a real network now.

I never understood why Dr. Hill was on Fox news, the same way I ask myself why they have Geraldo.
Nine out of ten times Hill fast talks his way out of reasonable and logical arguments. His comments on Obama getting the Nobel prize was the one time out of ten when he can actually say something reasonable.
To be honest, as much as I’m not a fan of dr. Hill, I would much rather see Geraldo be fired. It’s good to have an opposing view, but please get someone intelligent and honest, more like Juan Williams, whom I very much respect, even if I disagree with him politically. Fox can do better than Hill.

Makes you wonder if Fox News is gearing up to going fully conservative, kicking all liberals.

There goes that eeeeevil “right-wing media” again!
Somebody call Chomsky!!!

Hill comes across as a typical academic elite; he’s annoying. Will he find comfort over at CNN or MSNBC? Perhaps, even though they already have a ton of ‘his kind’ at each channel.

He did defend cop killers and racists, but the worst part was his aggravating voice. Regardless of what he was saying, I always had to turn him off because I could not stand to listen to it. I am sure CNN or MSNBC will grab him up, or better yet, maybe he can find a position in the Obama administration, he seems to speak their language. .

What is the opposite of an “academic elite?”

An uneducated loser?

I can never understand how one can think calling someone an academic elite is some kind of put down. Seems moronic. I’ll take that ‘kind’ over the alternative every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

So FOX News has fired Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, PhD. And after watching his last exchanges with Bill O’Reilly how can anyone be surprised? O’Reilly asks Hill for his thoughts about President Obama being given the Nobel Peace Prize, and Hill proceeds to see this as an opportunity to express dismay, and even indignation jabbering on for minutes about “how could this happen when there is no peace, and when we ( Americans) are currently waging two wars,,,”quack”,,,,”quack”,,,,,”quack”. All of which provided a perfect opportunity for a “FOX shareholder” to question “how he was hired in the first place?” However, supposedly the “shareholder” was upset because of Hill’s support of “Cop Killers (Abu Jamal name was mentioned), etc. If anyone really believes this is the real reason Hill was fired, please contact me about the new waterfront property I have for sale in LoDo, or lower downtown Denver.

Truth be told mastering the world of “punditry” is not as easy as it seems, especially when you buy into a role you are expected to snap into when you get the call and the red light comes on. Hill’s efforts to “walk between the raindrops” as a pragmatist on FOX have always been suspect. For him to question the logic of president Obama being given the Nobel Peace Prize, when Dr. Desmond Tutu received the award before the end of apartheid was dismantled in South Africa (just one example) showed either his ignorance of history, or his over-reach for consensus with an audience already straining to buy into his quasi-liberal points of view against a fellow African American intellectual. Anyone who reviews the history of Nobel Peace Prize recipients knows the awards are given as much for “promise” as they are for accomplishments. This is just as true for the coveted MacArthur Genius awards. They are awarded not just based on what a recipient has accomplished, but the promise of his or her work or research.

Hill in his efforts to “fit in” to the mold provided by FOX slowly dug his own grave with the same spoon with which he was fed over his tenure with leading questions. Over time the questions obviously stretched his intellectual capacity, and his core beliefs in Afro-centric thought and the successful struggle of his people to mount a successful bid to “help” elect an African American president. Hill, whose self presentation always came off (as Vice-president Biden might say) “sharp, polished, and articulate”, was unfortunately “lukewarm” and we all know what Revelations 3:16 says about “lukewarm” Christians:
“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Hill was “spat out” by Mr. Murdoch in response to his shareholders soon after a six minute exchange with Mr. O’Reilly who slowly and methodically spoon fed Dr. Hill a series of questions regarding his feelings about President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Had Dr. Hill taken the high road and spoke of the promise inherent in the award, instead of responding with an intellectual “knee jerk” designed for his FOX employment obituary he might still be employed at FOX. Fortunately, he is a professor, and from what I hear, a good one. Let’s hope he has the courage to honestly dialogue with his students and colleagues about the risks of being “lukewarm” in the mouth of a beast.

I liked Hill… but rarely agreed. He did have trouble staying on focus… but who doesn’t. Learning his background, however, did bring questions on how valuable his insight really was. Afterall, someone who’s going to defend those whom he apparently defended… well, I don’t know if they’re the best to dispense opinion or advice.

Of course… none of that really matters to the haters. There are three elements in this story, and that’s all they see: “Liberal” “FOX News” “Fired” It doesn’t matter who the person is, what they did, what they said, etc… just another excuse to screech at FOX. *Sigh*

Either they’re lying that FOX “has no liberals,” or complaining that they’re “getting rid of liberals,” or that the liberals they have aren’t “liberal enough.” One contradicts another, contradicts another… but that’s what happens when you’re a FOX hater… the ends justify the means, so an attack on FOX -no matter the truth- is A-Okay.

Dr. Hill came across very badly in most of the slots he was placed in at Fox News. He actually made Al Shapton seem reasonable at time, especially with his support of that nice cop killer hiding in Cuba. There are other blacks, even on the left, who have far more going for them than Dr. Hill. Why not bring on Orlando Patterson or even Louis Gates Jr., rather than the author of “Beats, Rhymes, and Classroom Life: Hip-Hop Pedagogy and the Politics of Identity”. Dr. Hill makes Cornell West seem deep.

Maybe they freed him up so he can get an NFL team…..

I hear alot of lumberjacks, but I don’t see any trees falling.

Dr. Hill liked to talk, but he never said anything.

Wow.. a Columbia University Professor was a liberal for Fox News.. EMPHASIS.

I saw him on Red Eye once and it was nice to see him joke about it.. otherwise.. liberal agenda, no question.

I’m sorry.. I am trying to break my own habits of this.. Dr. Hill is a liberal progressive. Liberating progressivism after all.

Wonderful news. There is no place for his kind of racism and divisiveness on any serious news channel. Let him go where the lunatics hang out – CNN and MSNBC.

ImNotBlue, once again, tries to find a way to rationalize the very “fair and balanced” operation going on at fox news… as if there are SO many liberals to choose from there. His analysis of the story is that the “haters” (are you stealing O’Reilly’s hip vocabulary terms?) only see 3 elements in this story, when the KEY element here is that dr. hill was one of the ONLY real, strong-willed liberals on Fox News who actually stood up for their opinion, rather than just shutting up and taking abuse from the likes of Bill O’Reilly.

I don’t mean to hate on you, INB, but I think you need to learn the distinction between a real liberal (Dr. Hill, Bob Beckel, Colmes), and a “fox news liberal” (Juan Williams, Kirsten powers, Geraldo) who essentially end up agreeing with the host or whomever they are arguing with. Not too long ago, INB was claiming that conservative personalities on MSNBC, particularly Joe Scarborough, are liked by liberals because they are “conservative enough”… and I believe that same day, Joe had just finished an intense grilling of liberal Max Blumenthal on Morning Joe. And if MSNBC is such a “far-left”, liberal network, how would people watching even be able to remotely stand Scarborough?

And nobody has ever said that Fox News “has no liberals”, they simply reiterate the obvious fact that a lot of Fox News’ “liberals” are weak and when the host disagrees with them, they are yelled over, or even ridiculed, and conservatives are able to finish an entire point. Look at poor Alan Colmes… yes, he is a legit liberal, but look at how he gets treated 2 to 1 by O’Reilly and Crowley on “The Factor” every week, and many times, O’Reilly convinces him to agree with whatever he is saying. Why doesn’t he bring Colmes on to have more 1-on-1 debates? Crowley is always there. Look at this past week… O’Reilly is using Colmes’ mere existence at Fox News to try and prove that they are fair. So then, he brings up how fair Greta is and that she is “pro-Obama” (without actual evidence to prove it) who mostly does crime news and when she brings on conservatives (Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, etc.), she lets them babble on and on bashing Obama and never challenges them. Then, he mentions Shepard Smith, who I’ll admit is the only fair anchor on Fox, but lets be real, his existence and his opinions are mostly ignored by Fox News viewers. It’s Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity who are always remembered for what they preach… hence, their much high viewer ship. Also, both of Shep’s programs, which are shown live at 3pm and 7pm est., are the only programs not repeated later in the day while most of the other programs are.

By the way, didn’t Rachel Maddow (while a guest on Meet the Press) bring up Morning Joe in a debate to try and disprove Mike Murphy’s point of MSNBC being liberal? Granted, it doesn’t prove her point (as much as O’Reilly bringing up Colmes does), but when people heard about what Rachel said, they were incensed that she would use it as an example. However, when O’Reilly brings up Colmes being an analyst (with a conservative counterpart on every time), it somehow proves Fox News being fair, but a 3-hour morning show with a conservative host and weak minded liberal (Mika Brzezinski), who has praised Sarah Palin and NY Mayor Bloomberg (longtime Democrat, former Republican, current Independent), doesn’t count? I guess that’s what happens when you ignore some facts while cherry picking others.

Also, how is Fox News “having no liberals” contradictory of the liberals not being “liberal enough” or “getting rid of liberals”? A real contradiction would be stating, for example, that there are no liberals on fox news, and saying in the next breath that there are liberals. However, INB’s example of a contradiction are very similar complaints, as they all criticize the liberals on Fox News.

I liked Hill. I’m very conservative, but have nothing against intelligent people giving their points of view, and Hill is an intelligent man. I can’t even think of a time when I agreed with him, (I only saw him on O’Reilly) and there were many times when I’m left thinking, what has America come to when a complete Marxist is given prime time air in all seriousness? On the other hand, it’s good that leftists feel comfy coming out and that nation wide TV airs them, the rest of us can see what’s been going on for several decades behind closed doors. While most of us were proud of America, despite the fact that we’re not perfect. others were plotting our downfall. The election of Obama has outed so many of these people, that they now think that they’re mainstream. They’re not. Hill is one of many people whom the regular guy now sees on TV and thinks, WTF just happened to my country? Were these people here all along? It’s stuff you used to pass off as conspiracy whackos trying to sell books, but it’s as real as the nose on your face. Yes, I think Fox made a mistake letting him go, he’s a likable guy that people don’t turn off right away, yet remind people why they despise Marxism.

I would have kept him on. He has been so brainwashed, and his views so ridiculuous, it was easy for anyone with half a brain to make him look foolish. He was becoming more prominent because the hosts loving having him on and showing how absurd his views are.

J$P — Hill: Hannity, Beck Oppose Obama Because of Race?
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/bpb277483499.html

lanquihue, if you think Hill’s a marxist you’ve never heard or seen a real marxist in your entire life.

>Hill is one of many people whom the regular guy now sees on TV and thinks, WTF just happened to my country?

When I read comments like yours – labeling everyone to the left of Pinochet as marxist/communist/socialist, it makes me wonder how such a considerable segment of the American population (you included) can be so lacking in basic intelligence and dignity. It’s amazing how many right-wingers just gobble up Beck’s tossed salad like it is complete dogma. It’s going to be absolutely amazing when you learn sooner or later that Beck is pretty much a conspiratorial hack that finds puzzle pieces in cloud formations.

Anthony De Rosa says:
October 16, 2009 at 7:37 pm

What is the opposite of an “academic elite?”

The uncomplicated, easy to understand, answer is common sense.

If Dr. Hill and his compatriots could/would apply their creative imaginations to finding solutions to our nation’s problems at the same level and with the same enthusiasm they do for manufacturing or finding racism we could progress. Their constant clamoring to prove they are victims, racism, and/or varieties of ‘hurt feelings’ are little more than photo copies of the Islamic apologists.

m says:
October 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Why are you trying to blame Glenn Beck as the cause of criticism of the POTUS?

Criticism of Barack, his philosophies, and agendas, began when he announced his candidacy and his biographical data, limited as it is, became known. This was long before Beck left CNN and moved to Fox.

Dr. Hill is a fast talking, arrogant liberal. Fits right in with our current president: attractive, well educated, devoid of common sense.

m: “it makes me wonder how such a considerable segment of the American population (you included) can be so lacking in basic intelligence”

Funny how that works, isn’t it? It’s also sort of wondrous how many people (me included) employ so many people (like you) who think that they’re way smarter than I am.

Per the above – the know-nothing streak in America is ever- widening. One claims to be a “conservative” – by today’s standards, and actually brags about it. The wonders of 20 years RayGun & the Bushdrunks come home to roost! Yup.

Seems like many folks in this thread are confusing misinformation with common sense. Ignoring basic facts and definitions of things like marxism is not a sign of common sense.

Calling someone an academic elite is a lazy way to say I don’t feel like doing the homework to get my facts straight about the subjects I discuss.

The next think Fox should do is:

1. Cut back on 1 of Shep Smith’s shows & give it to Lou Dobbs (when he gets hired)
2. Fire Geraldo
3. Stop inviting Al Sharpton

Becoming an academic elite is a choice for many that cringe at the concept having to function within a society in an effective manner. Academic elitists are the lazy ones in that they prefer to pontificate regarding the superiority of their view point(s) rather than accept the validity of real world facts. Too many academic elitists, whose names may be bracketed by alphabetic prefixes and suffixes, will claim that with their ‘superior’ mental dexterity THEY HAVE DECIDED the earth is flat and no one it allowed to disagree.

Academic elitists envision deserts covered by photovoltaic panels. The supposedly intellectually dysfunctional, and their distasteful reliance on common sense, ask stupid question about how will the panels will be connected to the power grids or what will we use for power when the sun doesn’t shine.

Who needs science when you can just ‘believe’ things based on your gut, right? Education and striving to achieve a high level of skill are poor qualities to people who use academic elite as a pejorative.

When you need medical assistance, how about you ask someone with common sense to perform your procedure instead of one of those ‘academic elites’ in the white coat?

The only thing using that phrase does is devalue the person saying it. You’re basically saying someone is better and smarter than you are. Nobody can make you feel inferior unless you allow them to.

It’s pathetic that people not only want to denigrate the rigorous work performed by academics that improve the lives of the people who mock them, all the while reveling in their ignorance and wearing it as some asinine badge of honor.

Given the alternative I’ll take the person with common sense. He/She is more likely to chose the most practical and effective approach to solving the issue(s) at hand. Academic elites may have a lot of acquired knowledge/information but have never developed techniques to apply their knowledge in useful ways.

Trying to elevate academic elitists to the level of a trained medical doctors and health professionals is a smoke screen. Highly trained medical personal are not academic elitists. They are highly skilled professionals. They can solve real world problems. They can apply their knowledge for the benefit of their fellow citizens. Academic elitists are the kind of people that may buy a box of nails then conclude that 1/2 the nails have the heads on the wrong end.

During my working career in the electronics and information technology industries I worked with many highly trained and degreed individuals. From time to time an academic elitist would show up that would/could not soil his hands by participating in the actual building of the system he designed. These elitists were quickly ‘drummed out of the core’.

Common sense and highly talented academic knowledge are rarely mutually exclusive qualities. Being well educated doesn’t preclude you from also having the ability to apply it. Nearly everyone claims to have “common sense” but few people are as practical and effective as people who spend a majority of their time studying and applying those important principles. Academics is for the most part, the study and application of common and uncommon sense.

Most of the people who use “academic elite” as a pejorative are simply trying to compensate for their own insecurity and inability to apply their self-proclaimed “common sense” to anything that comes close to a valuable contribution to society.

If our society were to subscribe to your line of thinking, without those ‘academic elites’ sharing their acquired knowledge/information with their students, the highly trained medical doctors and health professionals we both hold in such high regard would cease to exist.

Hmmm. It’s November 9th and I’m watching Mark Lamont Hill on O’Reilly. Are you all really certain he was “fired”?

If this whack-job defends Cop Killers, I will no longer watch any show he is on. Are you listening, Bill O’Reilly?

Sunnyr said:
If this whack-job defends Cop Killers, I will no longer watch any show he is on. Are you listening, Bill O’Reilly?

He may be a whack-job for any number of reasons but, defending cop killers isn’t necessarily one of them! There are a lot of law enforcement officers in this country who are dirty and if someone takes them out then I would question the sanity of any person who would deride that act of social justice. With that said, if you knew anything about Daniel Faulkner and his murderer then you would perhaps also know that that murderer deserves to fry and eventually and hopefully they will!

It is blistering obvious that Hill was fired bc he refused to accept being a lapdog for ppl like O’Reilly and Murdoch. Whether you agree with him on any given subject isn’t the point; he was the most interesting talking head on Faux News and firing him was their loss.

this guy never struck me as the sharpest knife in the drawer. in fact, i would wince when i thought of him teaching at columbia university. maybe that’s why he was fired. maybe it had nothing to do with race…….

Morpheus said:
There are a lot of law enforcement officers in this country who are dirty and if someone takes them out then I would question the sanity of any person who would deride that act of social justice.

Spoken like a true anarchist. What say the next time you get ripped off, mugged, or your kid gets molested you look up the local number for MS-13 and report your crime to them.

BUT…to respond more fully to your remark, yes, there are some dirty cops out there. I’ve also asked why that is, and all I can reckon is it’s because cops are selected from the human race–not the angels.

What’s odd here is we are given extremely FEW facts about the exchange between Hill & Horowitz, instead we are given an OLD clip where Hill was speaking more coherently and logically than usual. We are also told that Horowitz called Hill an “affirmative action baby.” OK, that’s not nice, but what did Hill do (if anything) to provoke Horowitz’s ire, and who name-called the other first? Basically, MediaLITE has shown us one side of a coin (the side they want us to see) in an effort to invoke the ire of everyone.

chopper said:
I hear alot of lumberjacks, but I don’t see any trees falling. Dr. Hill liked to talk, but he never said anything.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me, too.

why is this article linked in the banner if it was posted in 2009?