Image courtesy of Kevin Trotman under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
I don’t like attacking others, especially other commentators. And yes, I’m quite aware of O’Reilly’s predictable response: This guy’s not a commentator! He can correctly go further: He’s not even a journalist! And he would be right on both counts. But I seek to be neither! I have found the need to write and to express myself precisely because of the lack of opposing viewpoints allowed by the journalists and commentators of the mainstream, establishment, corporate media that O’Reilly has been part of for so long. Is it his position that the “American” press is “fair and balanced?” Isn’t that why he joined FOXNews? Isn’t that why we have a FOXNews? And isn’t that cable venture’s slogan, “Fair and balanced reporting?”
I do attack politicians, however, and do so aggressively when they ruthlessly, sneakily, and smirkingly steal our freedoms, earnings and property, and abuse the public trust. That is the guiding principle of a free and independent press. And freedom of the press can indeed generate “gossip and sensation” columnists such as Walter Winchell, Victor Riesel and even Matt Drudge.
I do not appreciate having to fill the void of incompetence created by pompous, arrogant, know-it-all pontificating journalistic wise asses like Bill O’Reilly, Maureen Dowd, and the NewarkStar-Ledger’s John McLaughlin. I’m sorry; I just can’t deal with smartass journalistic opiners who think they deserve monopoly status for their views just because they have a large printing press [or a TV show] where they give themselves unlimited license to criticize others. But what is most obnoxious about them is when they professionally abuse this license to attack others for trying to do the same, or for just offering a different point of view.
Certainly, there is something to be said for the “professional” achievement of such media personalities. But why must they attack others for their views? Don’t get me wrong; our nation thrives on a diversity of opinions and interpretations. But what blows my mind is when opposing viewpoints turn nasty, especially when those opposing viewpoints are based upon either a total absence of verifiable facts, or upon pure falsehoods and fraud.
O’Reilly has been especially nasty. He has put down such journalistic professionals as Steven Greenhut, a senior editorial writer and columnist for the Orange County Register whom he chose to lambaste on the air. His base vulgarity while interviewing Neal Boortz, a radio talk show personality and columnist, had to be bleeped out. And a very knowledgeable and dedicated Congressman, the only one in fact that openly and aggressively supports our Constitution, and one that is a medical doctor, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, was shouted down by O’Reilly and not even allowed to speak. Add to this O’Reilly’s contempt for contemporaries in “conservative” journalistic commentary, namely Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge, both dismissed by O’Reilly as not rising to his superior level of journalism.
O’Reilly has targeted anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, whether they be libertarian or conservative, because in his view, only he can articulate accurately any given news event or public policy. In his view, virtually everyone else who commands any respectable level of public attention is fair game for his brand of nastiness.
It was, therefore, almost humorous to hear him lamenting the factual inaccuracies offered by the likes of a Matt Drudge, offering that “inaccurate” and “unregulated and unfiltered” sources of information on the Internet are dangerous because they can give people the wrong information. A co-“journalist,” a Liz Trotta, another graduate of the “professional” journalism over at CBS, heartily agreed. She asserted that the Internet news and opinion sites, like the one you are now reading, “need to be regulated.” Obviously, only qualified, professional, authorized journalists like O’Reilly and Trotta should be permitted to opine and report, lest the public receives false and inflammatory information.
I couldn’t believe I was viewing this judicious tripe! Wasn’t it O’Reilly who just incorrectly compared “assault rifles” to “bazookas?” Did he give Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America even a chance to speak? How easy was it to get the real facts here? I have preceded this essay with two prior ones that did just that! And that’s why, Mr. O’Reilly, I’m a pro and you’re not!
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”