Yahoo! News, a darling little organization that is fast becoming the industry leader in biased journalism, has reprinted an article from the Christian Science Monitor concerning an on air feud between Bill O’Reilly and Alan Combs discussing budget cuts particularly if Obama ever made proposals for cuts—Combs says he had which compelled O’Reilly to call Combs a liar.
The point of the article was to suggest that Fox News may have been practicing unethical journalism by staging the exchange, hence the word in the title “preplanned” followed by an obligatory question mark as a show of objectivity. Peter Grier, the author, coyly levels the charge by not doing so:
This does not mean we’re charging journalistic impropriety. O’Reilly is a seasoned pro whose show is the engine that drives Fox ratings. He’s apologized for the personal attack, saying he wished he hadn’t used the word “liar.”
But we’re wondering whether he and his producers had planned an amped-up discussion of the fiscal subject and things just went a little too far.
Certainly they “planned” the discussion, that’s the point of having a show and every discussion is going to have the potential of being “amped-up”. But if it goes “too far” and as a result there is widespread interest, does that mean it’s staged? I guess if they planned “amped-up” as the motive for the discussion then it could be a valid point (maybe) but the sequester debate is the most important political topic, are we supposed to think it was selected for the purpose of maximum amperage?
And so Grier can’t reeeally say it was unethical but you really have to wonder why sooooo many people watch O’Reilly who gets two to three times the ratings of any Liberal program. Something must not be above board; Grier’s not really saying there is but...he is.
O’Reilly is a “moralist” when it comes to US debt, Grier states, because “he says” it will “debase the currency” and “crush the US economy”. Whether or not O’Reilly is correct about his concerns is a practical argument in economics with a semblance of cause leading to an effect. How does make him a “moralist”? How about a person pointing out that massive debt could lead to unwanted consequences ie: realist?
And in a bit of newsflash Grier explains how another Liberal on Fox News, Kristen Powers, pointed out “to O’Reilly’s face” that he is “100% wrong” and that Obama did propose cuts in the budget. Where? In Social Security and Medicare that's where, so there O’Reilly you’re wrong, you’re the liar along with the rest of your right wing network.
Now, is it possible that Liberals are reading the Monitor article seething with hatred over Fox News completely overlooking that Obama had proposed cuts in Social Security and Medicare--to which those heartless Republicans turned down? Imagine if George Bush closed tours to the White House for school children because he didn’t get his way by taking from the elderly and the poor? Where are the moralist when you need them?
Comments