Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Actor Mike Farrell Takes on Dayside Hosts

Reported by Janie - December 13, 2005

Yesterday (12/12) the hosts of Dayside Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy, interviewed actor Mike Farrell about the then impending execution of Crips founder Stanley Tookie Williams. When Farrell proved to be a very intelligent, well-spoken man with a valid point, Juliet Huddy resorted to screaming like a three year old.

JH: "You think Tookie Williams should be given clemency, correct? "

MF: "That is correct."

JH: " Why?"

MF: "Because I don't believe anybody should be killed by the state – 1. 2, because there is serious doubt to whether he committed the crime for which he will be executed tonight, unless the Governor intervenes, and because his work in prison has been greatly beneficial to young people in the disadvantaged areas, who look up to him as a man who had the experience they had, and has recognized the wrong-headedness of his actions in the past and has repudiated them and is serving as an example of the way they can live their lives."

MJ: "Mike, I just, for some reason for me, and I've said this over and over, it just seems like two separate issues to me, one his a punishment for a crime, what difference does it make what you do, all the good behavior, and I hope that he has redeemed himself, and all that. It just seems like two different issues.

MF: "Does it? Redeem of course, arguably a religious term, and from what I understand redeem doesn't mean you have to count what you have done in the future as opposed to what you've done in the past, you're either redeemed or you're not. But, as regards his having committed a crime, if he committed the crime, about which there is question, I believe he should remain behind bars for the rest of his life, as I should be the ultimate sanction in a civilized country, like the United States claims to be."

JH: "You say that you believe in this case because you do believe he has changed his ways and what he's doing is a good thing. We've got Lora Owens on in just a few minutes, she's the mother of Albert Lewis, who was killed by Tookie Williams years ago. She says that she has spoken with the spokesman for San Quentin, Vernell Crittenden, we also had Crittenden on our show, and he says he deals with Tookie Williams on a regular basis and this man has not changed."

Comment: Before Farrell even got a chance to take on Huddy, she proved her own ignorance by not knowing the facts in the case. Laura Owens is the step-mother, not the mother of the victim, and the victim's name was not Albert Lewis, it was Albert Owens, Lewis was his middle name. If you're going to argue a case, shouldn't you know the basic facts, such as their names and relationships?

MF: "Yes, I understand that, I notice you used the old Fox "some say" ploy..."

MJ: "Every network does that."

MF: "Well, not every network does it."

JH: "Well, I'm not going to go through every person that says, I actually did back it up by saying it was Crittenden that did say that, so.."

MF: "Yes you did, yes you did."

JH: "I actually did it back then too."

Comment: Farrell was a bit of the mark here. For once, Huddy actually didn't use the "some people say" ploy (although it was great to see Farrell get that out there to Fox's viewers), but Farrell admitted that he was wrong and Huddy had to continue to play martyr even after his admission. This is the point where Huddy began to become upset and started throwing temper tantrums.

Temper Tantrum 1:

MF: "If I may respond, Mr. Crittenden has been repudiated by both the LADA, the LA Police Department and an internal investigation at San Quentin. So, Mr. Crittenden is wrong, and the..."

JH: "So the man that deals with him everyday is wrong?"

MF: "Yes."

JH: "Ok, so you're calling him a liar."

MF: "He is wrong."

JH: "Ok."

Comment: So saying that someone is wrong automatically means you're calling them a liar?

MF: "I'm saying he's wrong. And I'm saying that you're accepting what he's saying, without checking with the people that double-checked what he said, is inappropriate."

Comment: Farrell is absolutely correct here, and sums up beautifully the tactic that Dayside uses. Listen to one source that says what you want them to say, and completely ignore anything that might go against their argument, or simply take people at their word without doing any research. Huddy admitted to that herself a few months ago in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when she said: "you are supposed to be able to rely on your local officials to give you the credible information", so rather than do her job and research, she merely takes people that SHE finds to be credible at their word.

JH: "It's ok with you that Tookie Williams has not come out and said I am taking myself out of the gang world, I'm going to tell you all about the people that are still committing crimes, still running out there on the streets, you have no problem with this person?"

MF: " What Mr. Crittenden has said is that he has not been willing to be de-briefed. What de-briefing means is for Tookie Williams to go back over the 25 years he's been out of the gang, and talk about crimes he knows were committed 25 years or so ago, and make himself in his view a snitch, which is exactly the name that has been applied to the people that have put him where he is today. So no..."

Temper Tantrum 2:

JH: "I'd rather be a snitch than a..."

MJ: "Mike, have you met with Tookie Williams?"

MF: "Yes, I have."

MJ: "And he has de-briefed you, that's why you feel so strongly about this?"

MF: "It's not a question of having him de-brief me on this case, I've read the transcripts, I've talked to his lawyers, I know what the questions were that were raised at the trial that have not been recognized as I well understand by the majority of the justices on the Appellate court."

MJ: "What do you think is going to happen here?"

MF: "Well, I think it's very clear what's going to happen. The Governor has not responded to the clemency plea in the 96 hours, he has let the man sit there and worry."

MJ: "I'm a little surprised by that too. I mean, make the decision earlier in the weekend."

Temper Tantrum 3:

JH: (Screaming) "He's a murderer! The man is a murderer!"

MF: "So you say."

JH: "He was convicted by a jury of his peers!"

MF: "You know what? There are a 122 people convicted in the United States by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death who are now walking free because it turns out they were not guilty."

JH: "There doesn't seem to be any question that this man is a murderer."

Comment: There obviously isn't any question to Huddy, because she didn't bother to do any of her own research on the topic and is saying only what she is told to say. If she had bothered to do her job as a journalist, she would have seen that there were many questions in the case that were left unanswered. (You can read up on the questions in the case here.) Farrell had the perfect response for Huddy's willful ignorance:

MF: " Well, there is a significant question, not in your mind obviously, but that doesn't make YOU right! The point is that there was a jury that heard certain evidence, but the jury did not hear other evidence. They did not know that the people that were testifying inculpate Stanley Williams were being rewarded for the testimony they were given. You know, there are issues with these cases that go beyond the obvious, and it would be, probably a good idea for people who present themselves as telling the truth, to look beyond the obvious."

Comment: While the case is now moot, Huddy continued to show that she is not a journalist in any sense of the word. Nor is she fair and balanced, when she won't open her mind to evidence that is staring her right in the face. Farrell hit the nail on the head when he said it would be "a good idea for people who present themselves as telling the truth, to look beyond the obvious". That applies to everyone at Fox News.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.