Bill O'Reilly on Oprah - this was rich. He was there to promote his book which claims there is a culture war in the U.S. between "traditionalists" and "secular-progressives". He insisted to Oprah that you are either one or the other, and cannot have attributes of both (i.e., you either love America or you hate it). He then states that "traditionalists" outnumber "S.P.'s" 3-to-1 in "the latest polls" but claims that the secular-progressive viewpoint is more prominent because:
1. S.P.'s have access to unlimited money from George Soros (and "others", none of which he names).
2. The media is sympathetic to their cause.
3. The entertainment industry is sympathetic to their cause.
I'd like to take a brief moment to counter these claims, because it's very easy to do. First, I doubt that the "secular-progressive" cause has the combined monetary and political resources of GE-Universal, Viacom, News Corp., and Disney-Time Warner - the owners and operators of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. The media has no reason to back a seclar-progressive agenda - even if reporters, producers, etc. are liberals themselves, large corporations are footing the bill, and so what O'Reilly identifies as a "secular-progressive" media is, in fact, a corporate media, which stands to profit from anything but a severe liberal bias in the news.
The entertainment myth is easy to debunk. Liberal celebrities are popular guests on news shows because they have a strong ideology without the necessary research or facts to back it up. They are celebrities, after all, and not politicians. So they can be booked to espouse a certain cause, made to look silly, and everyone wins.
True liberal voices have never been heard in the media. Not on Crossfire, not on Hannity and Colmes, Mork and Mindy, or Ebert and Roeper. One time, Jon Stewart went on Crossfire to raise a true progressive voice. He killed the show.
I'm not taking sides with any secular-progressive agenda, real or imagined. I'm just saying that there is no liberal bias in the news media, or rather that it is significantly overblown to pander to conservatives and thus boost ratings. Further proof can be found in the pages of this book.
1. S.P.'s have access to unlimited money from George Soros (and "others", none of which he names).
2. The media is sympathetic to their cause.
3. The entertainment industry is sympathetic to their cause.
I'd like to take a brief moment to counter these claims, because it's very easy to do. First, I doubt that the "secular-progressive" cause has the combined monetary and political resources of GE-Universal, Viacom, News Corp., and Disney-Time Warner - the owners and operators of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. The media has no reason to back a seclar-progressive agenda - even if reporters, producers, etc. are liberals themselves, large corporations are footing the bill, and so what O'Reilly identifies as a "secular-progressive" media is, in fact, a corporate media, which stands to profit from anything but a severe liberal bias in the news.
The entertainment myth is easy to debunk. Liberal celebrities are popular guests on news shows because they have a strong ideology without the necessary research or facts to back it up. They are celebrities, after all, and not politicians. So they can be booked to espouse a certain cause, made to look silly, and everyone wins.
True liberal voices have never been heard in the media. Not on Crossfire, not on Hannity and Colmes, Mork and Mindy, or Ebert and Roeper. One time, Jon Stewart went on Crossfire to raise a true progressive voice. He killed the show.
I'm not taking sides with any secular-progressive agenda, real or imagined. I'm just saying that there is no liberal bias in the news media, or rather that it is significantly overblown to pander to conservatives and thus boost ratings. Further proof can be found in the pages of this book.
#
posted by Brandon at 4:18 PM
2 comments Home
