“We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever,” the Kennedy family said in a statement. “He loved this country and devoted his life to serving it.”
At a time like this, our thoughts are with the Kennedy family and we wish them peace and the consolation of having known and loved one of the great statesmen of our time.
However, as a site that observes and documents the media, I cannot let it go unnoticed that both CNN and MSNBC broke into their regular programming with news of Sen. Kennedy’s passing, and continued broadcasting commentary and condolences uninterrupted. When Fox News eventually reported the news, they quickly returned to the reruns of Greta Van Susteren and Glenn Beck. Thereafter they would intersperse brief updates, always resuming their scheduled programs.
It is no secret that I am an ardent critic of Fox News, but even I would not have predicted this demonstration of disrespect and journalistic lack of judgment. Fox News gave more consideration to the passing of Michael Jackson than they are now giving to Sen. Kennedy. That is a sad way to live up to a reputation of political prejudice.
I know, the question of Glenn Beck’s sanity was settled long ago. But what is happening now is more than just a question of sanity. Beck seems to be losing what remains of his cognitive ability. On his radio program today, Beck staged a little play as a retort to a Jon Stewart segment that demonstrated Beck’s hypocrisy with regard to health care.
In this video Stewart plays clips of Beck repeatedly asserting that health care in the U.S. is the best in the world. Then he plays a clip wherein Beck trashes American health care as a nightmare. It’s pretty routine Stewart brilliance, but Beck takes exception on his radio show.
At the outset, Beck has his second banana, Pat, question Beck as to how he could both praise and disparage America’s health care system. Beck responds by saying…
“So to a 45 year old man with a wife, four kids, who have dealt with the medical system hundreds of times in their lives, your main argument to debunk the quality of our entire healthcare system is to bring up my one bad experience?”
Clearly Beck’s rebuttal is that the health care system is nearly perfect. He asserts that he’s had a lifetime of exposure to a system that has only failed him or his family on a single occasion. Then Pat, surprisingly, nails Beck with the “nightmare” quote that confirms that Beck was talking about the whole system, not a single, exceptional incident. Beck’s response to this was…
“The idea of being drugged and cut open to avoid dying of, you know, something else, then waking only to deal with paperwork and recovery is a nightmare, but like our legal system, or our political system, it’s the worst system in the world… except for all of the others.”
So in the course of a minute or two, Beck has asserted that our health care system is nearly perfect and rarely has any problems, and that it is riddled with problems but they aren’t as bad as every other country’s problems. He even explicitly says that our system is “far from perfect.” Which one is it, Glenn? Do we have a system that in 45 years made a single mistake? Or one that is far from perfect?
After this cognitive disconnect, Beck has the gall to say that Stewart “doesn’t bother trying to make sense of his arguments.” Well, that’s something Beck should know about. But it gets even curiouser. The subject changes to Beck’s upcoming book, “Arguing with Idiots” (something else Beck should know about). Beck declares that it is “the best book we’ve ever done.” Mighty high praise from a guy who seconds later can’t remember the name of the book and has to ask his radio sidekick. Shortly thereafter, Beck forgets the name of the 2nd Amendment expert that he quoted in the book. And then he can’t recall when the book is being released.
But what’s really funny is that Beck claims that he wrote this book for the youth, high school and college students who he says are riddled with ADD. Plus, he has an even larger purpose for the book:
“We’re trying to have we’re trying to make this interactive so when you’ve read the book and then you’re standing there and you’re at a town hall meeting and they’re like, yeah, well, healthcare… you just dial some digits and the arguments will come right to you because you’ll read it if you don’t take it with you all the time, you’ll read it and you’ll be like, oh, my gosh, I’ve got to remember that. So we’re trying to give you a way where you can just dial digits and they will be e mailed to you instantly to give you some of the arguments.”
You see? It is his way of funneling talking points to his town hall proxies. He even admits that his goal is to give his disciples a litany of arguments that they can deny came from him:
“Everything is footnoted in this thing so you can go to the original source and find out exactly, that way your kid doesn’t have to say, ‘I learned that from Glenn Beck” and immediately be discredited.’
At least he is self-aware enough to recognize that any data attributed to him lacks credibility. But there is still cause for concern when this guy can’t remember pertinent things about his brand new book or form a coherent argument detailing his own health care experience. And he apparently believes that his audience has the same cognitive deficiencies, which resulted in his writing this book for them. It’s pretty sad when you think about it.
On day two of Glenn Beck’s week long special “The New Republic,” Beck extends his diatribe against the Obama czars. On the first day he focused extensively on Van Jones, who was a co-founder of Color of Change, the group spearheading the Beck advertiser boycott (coincidence?). Today Beck sought to lengthen the list of Communist subversives that he imagines are squirreled away in the dark recesses of the government.
Just like old Joe McCarthy, Beck has in his hands a list of names. A list that he impugns as commie traitors. A list that he implies is evidence that President Obama himself is a commie traitor. The list: Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Ezekiel Emmanuel, Jeff Jones, are all respected professionals and public servants. Add to these persons the organizations at whom Beck is pointing his finger of righteousness: ACORN, SEIU, the Apollo Alliance, AFL-CIO, and any environmental group he can find. Yet Beck has no problem slandering these groups and people. At long last, Glenn, have you no decency?
Beck appears to have single-handedly reanimated the defunct red-baiting era of McCarthy with a new twist. He has no official power to investigate or punish his targets, but he has a bigger megaphone than McCarthy could have ever dreamed. And while McCarthy sought to remove the alleged fiends from government employment, Beck seeks to tie them to the President and whip up a holy fury against him that can only lead to a violent overthrow. Beck doesn’t even offer any other alternative to what he insists is a committed cabal intent on subverting our nation’s most sacred values. To the people who believe what Beck says, where is the line over which they would not cross to forestall the destruction of everything they hold dear?
It’s too bad that McCarthy didn’t have a funny mustache or some other distinctive characteristic that we could draw onto Beck to drive home the similarity. This week’s series of programs is establishing Beck as the foremost McCarthy impressionist since McCarthy himself.
A couple weeks ago, Glenn Beck demonstrated the severity of his cognitive deformity by asserting that he didn’t think Barack Obama is a racist, just that he has a deep seated hatred for white people. Uh huh.
Subsequently, an activist group called Color of Change initiated an advertiser boycott of Beck’s program. The campaign has been wildly successful with three dozen advertisers now declining to buy time on Beck’s show. The remaining list of advertisers reads like a telemarketing wasteland.
In the wake of the boycott, Beck disappeared from the air for a week. There has been some dispute as to whether it was a forced time-out imposed by his bosses at Fox News, but regardless, he returned to work today.
He began his program by beseeching his audience to call all of their friends and tell them to tune in. He told them this would be an important show, an important week, and they should watch closely and even take notes. (Seeing as how this is Beck’s audience, they might want to have someone help them them with that last part). He even announced that on Friday he would have a “plan of action.” Then Beck proceeded to do virtually the same show he has been doing for months. It was his standard formula of innuendo, fear-mongering, and delusional paranoia. At one point he even wondered aloud why he is the only one who is aware of the looming menace.
“Many people will ask you, ‘Well, if these things are so true, why is that only Glenn Beck is saying them?’ Believe me, I have asked myself that question many, many nights. Usually about 2:00am when I couldn’t sleep. Why is no one else asking these questions?”
He might just as well have been asking “Why do only I hear these voices?” It’s a question that only his psychiatrist can answer. Beck doesn’t bother to provide an answer himself, he just leaps into the glassy-eyed speculation that has become his stock in trade. And while the bulk of the show was standard Beck fare, there was a particularly notable segment that consumed a significant portion of the program. It was his way of responding to the boycott without ever acknowledging that it was taking place.
The way Beck does this is to take on the scourge of Obama’s czars, a subject he has fulminated over before. And the first czar to be slandered by Beck is Van Jones, Obama’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Jones also happens to be the founder of Color of Change, although he has had no active role in the group for two years and was not involved in the advertiser boycott. However, it would be naive to assume that it was merely a coincidence that Beck chose Jones as his target on his first day back from an allegedly forced vacation that was partly attributable to the group Jones had founded.
This is typical of the Fox News tactical response to those they perceive as enemies. When Keith Olbermann goes after Bill O’Reilly, O’Reilly escalates the attack to NBC and GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt. So when Color of Change reacts to Beck’s overt racism with a boycott, Beck escalates his response to the President of the United States. Without even mentioning the growing boycott, Beck strikes back by attacking Jones and the White House.
This is the Fox News version of a “scorched earth” strategy. The problem is that Beck’s violence-ridden rhetoric is likely to produce some actual scorching. Perhaps a better analogy is that of Jonestown. Beck presents himself in much the same manner as the murderously manic Rev. Jim. Like Jim Jones, Beck regards himself as a lonely visionary and the target of unseen foes. And he ministers to a dangerously suggestible flock in whom he stirs ever increasing trepidation. Let’s just hope that reason prevails before tragedy ensues.
Last week Bill O’Reilly spent several minutes gushing about himself and his ratings. This is a regular feature on “The Narcissist Factor” wherein he boasts about the huge pool of lemmings that are transfixed by his megalomaniacal visage. On this occasion he offered up an explanation for his popularity amongst the brain-dead demographic:
“Well, a major reason is the health care debate. While the other network news broadcasts downplay the dissent and promote the government takeover of the health care industry, FOX News highlights the intense debate. When we cover the town hall meetings, we don’t describe the protesters as loons.”
Oh Really? O’Reilly’s self-righteous homage to his fairness and/or balance rings somewhat hollow when his actual record of name-calling is examined. The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart touched on it briefly, airing a video of O’Reilly calling some protesters loons. Then a smug O’Reilly struck back asserting that Stewart had unfairly taken him out of context. O’Reilly’s rebuttal was actually wide of the mark, but even if we give him the benefit of a doubt, if O’Reilly wants to represent himself as someone who has never unfairly characterized political opponents as loons, he is going to have to deal with more than just Stewart’s single example, he is going to have to face up to this (partial) collection of his childish loon-acy:
The Far-Left Loons / She’s a loon / I know a loon when I see one / these far-left loons / and he is a loon / there are enough loony judges / if you’re a far-left loon / some kind of loon / these loons get completely out of control / about 4000 loons are roaming / obviously a loon / A left-wing loon / a loon catcher / the loon who wrote that / Some loons / he’s a certified loon / protesters as loons / because loons control / because those loons / and their loony parents / you’re a loon / left-wing loons / attacks by far-left loons / radical left wing loon / Hey, you loons / some loons want / get the loons / anti-American loons / Enter far-left loon / number two, you’re a loon / you’d think the far-left loons / Far-left loons continue / some left-wing loons / The loony Web sites / Far-left loon Katrina van den Heuvel / radical loons are still / I believe Wright is a loon / many far-left loons hate / opposing the loons / allowed loons to post / Far-left loons may / with the loons / far left loon Nickie Think [sic] / far-left loons who believe / dishonest loon like that / far-left loons are furious / bother the loony left / John Edwards is a loon / hear some loon say / put loons on / some progressive loons / One loon opined / another far-left loon / is he a loon or what / encouraged the loons / these loons step up / the Kos loons / dangerous loons / some loons are even supporting / far-left loons gleefully / the far left loons who put / politicians who are far-left loons / the loons from Barack Obama’s past / You sound like a raving loon / far-left loons and America haters / far-left loons are – vile people / San Francisco loons / That’s the far left loons / the far left loons demean / some loons decided / their loony commentators / far-left loons have denigrated / postings by loons / duke it out with this loon / Left-wing loons desperately want / If far-left loons gain power / the same loons back again / funneling money to left-wing loons / their parents are loons / derailed by some loony guy / a complete loon / pieces on those loons / far-left loons are targeting broadcasters / the loons who spit / Moore and his loony philosophy / Enough loons running around / far left loons are running wild / they’re just left-wing loons / biggest left-wing loon conference / Say the loons in Sacramento / hundreds of loons are on the streets / certifiable left-wing loon / We don’t need loony ideologues / all of these far-left loons / far-left loons like Franken / outnumbered by far-left loons / the lefty loony agenda / the goal of those loons / some of it is just loony
Yes, there are 99 of them. I had to stop somewhere. I’d love to see O’Reilly try to justify his habit of demeaning those with whom he disagrees by calling them names. The documentation above proves that it is not the rare moment of excitement that draws O’Reilly to sink to these tactics. It is a core element of his behavior, one which he repeats incessantly. What’s more, his disparagement is ALWAYS directed at liberals. There was not a single instance of him referring to a “right-wing loon” or a “far-right loon” when searched in Google. Despite his disingenuous claims of neutrality, his words belie a record of bias that is indisputable.
One has to wonder how O’Reilly jumped to the conclusion that his ratings benefited from him not calling town hall protesters, with whom he agreed, loons. He certainly called everybody else loons. And he has called protesters much worse when he disagreed with them. In December of 2005, he had this to say about anti-war protesters, including peace activists from World Can’t Wait:
“…early in Hitler’s rise to power, Nazi brown shirts did the same thing that World Can’t Way [sic] and other radical extremists are doing now, disrupting speeches, denying opposing points of view […] ‘Talking Points’ respects honestly held views, including those held by Communists, socialists, and other radicals. This is America. They have a right to believe what they want to believe. They don’t have the right to infringe on the rights of others by trying to stop them from speaking. And they don’t have the right to spread malicious propaganda unchallenged.”
From O’Reilly’s perspective, anti-war protesters were monstrous traitors for engaging in activities that disrupted speeches and denied opposing points of view. But when town hall tea baggers do it they are patriotic icons of free expression. But the most ironic of O’Reilly’s assertions is his professed opposition to spreading malicious propaganda. Of course, if he truly believed that he wouldn’t work for Fox News.
“O’Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.”
The study proved that O’Reilly is a textbook propagandist who “consistently paints certain people and groups as villains.”
The newspaper industry’s woes are nothing new. They have been suffering declining revenues in both subscriptions and advertising for a couple of years. Some portion of that decline is attributable to the economy, but there is no question that the Internet has had an impact as well.
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of news behemoth News Corporation, has been grumbling about what he regards as theft of his content for some time. Earlier this month he addressed a shareholder’s meeting and announced that News Corp would soon be charging for all of its Internet news properties. That, in my opinion, would fail to produce the results Murdoch desires. There is an abundance of news available online for free and there is little evidence that people would pay for access to Fox News or the New York Post.
Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Murdoch is seeking to assemble the most powerful families in the news business to create a syndicate that would extort money from the news consuming public:
“As newspapers across the country struggle with declining readership and advertising revenue, News Corp. executives have been meeting in recent weeks with publishers about forming a consortium that would charge for news distributed online and on portable devices — and potentially stem the rising tide of red ink.”
The participating companies include the New York Times, Washington Post, Hearst Corp. and Tribune Co. With a roster like that it is difficult to imagine that they could get very far without being questioned by the Justice Department. The appearance of collusion and anti-trust activity could not be more conspicuous. There is no plausible justification for these enterprises to collectively plot a pay scheme for their individual services. It is blatantly anti-competitive and disadvantageous to consumers.
In the end, Murdoch’s proposals would not even resolve the problems the industry is facing. Any revenue that would be generated in this fashion would be a tiny percentage of the earnings these companies produce. And if they are presently losing customers who are willing to pay for subscriptions, what makes them think that these same customers would pay for the same product online?
The prospective members of Murdoch’s cartel should think long and hard about whether his counsel has any value. His own business just reported a loss of $3.4 billion. He personally was forced to take a 28% pay cut. His stewardship of MySpace is notable for his having turned it into a has-been, anti-social network that has been eclipsed by Facebook and Twitter. The New York Post has lost about $50 million annually for the past ten years. His track record on the Internet is abysmal. He is yesterday’s baron of dead-tree media whose only success has been with a cable “news” network that traffics in sensationalism and propaganda. Is this really someone whose advice should be taken seriously?
To sum up, Murdoch has a record of incompetence with regard to new media. The online pay model has failed spectacularly in all but a few non-representative cases. There is little money to be made by charging online news consumers. The availability of free news online is not only not receding, it is advancing. When the residue of the old world media is cleared from the landscape, and the economy regains some stability and vibrancy, then advertising will resume its customary place for funding news services online just like it has on every other platform it has ever employed.
The last thing the industry needs is to listen to a washed up, ink stained, relic who advocates strong-arming newspapers and consumers into an unlawful strategy that is bound to fail.
In response to an announcement from McDonald’s that they are launching a new web site to serve the African American community, Fox Nation members donned their white sheets and expressed how they truly feel. The spark that fueled this barrage of hate was 365Black.com, a site about which McDonalds says:
At McDonald’s, we believe that African-American culture and achievement should be celebrated 365 days a year – not just during Black History Month. That’s the idea behind 365Black.com. It’s a place where you can learn more about education, employment, career advancement and entrepreneurship opportunities, and meet real people whose lives have been touched by McDonald’s.
That is the outrageous affront to morality that produced these comments at Fox Nation:
Navy(Retired): What do you expect, that’s all that works there Annabell: Most of the time..they can’t even count the change. It’s sad too.
Lone Star: Next thing you know Ronald will have a doooo rag on and a large watch around his neck on a big gold blingy chain
Out of the Blue: can you get waffles and a 40 oz with a chicken sandwich now?
You can get a nappy meal to.
Paul: Maybe McDonalds could next open an illegal Mexican branch so they would all feel at home since they act like it’s theirs anyway.
noblinkster: Hey, maybe they will have watermelon on their summer menu!! Mike S: Crack pipes in Happy meals for the black kids
Kenyan Chronicles: Check out their CEO–(black)—– He gave $30,000 to odumbo’s election —-How much of that came from YOUR wallet?………Enjoy those big-macs!
Captain Obvious: They want separation? Then let them TRY to survive without the “evil” white man!
Nicotinegun: Let McDonalds do what they want. If they want to pander let the ones they pander to pay them for food. Don’t go their. Personally, I would like to see a national boycott on any place that has Spanish on their walls, telephones, products, etc. That would be great.
JPT: Since over 40% of blacks are obese, Micky D’s is trying to capitalize . teddy69: yeah, and the other 60% are flat worthless!
teddy69: i’m sure our founding fathers never intended our country to get this messed up! you remember the movie “Planet of The Apes”???
FoxNewsAddict: I will be boycotting McD’s until it puts up a WHITE360 website!!!!
SandraR: This is the most racist contrivance I have ever seen in my life. This stupidity needs litigation RASISUM extraordinaire.
kcchiefsfan: I am so pissed off!!! I left them my feedback and ask them when were we going to have a “White McDonalds” website for us white folks too! OMG and leave it to McDonalds!!! I’ve seen everything now! Isn’t that what Popeyes Chicken is for???
Talk about showing your true colors. At least we know where they stand.
Addendum: It just occurred to me that McDonalds is a significant advertiser on Fox News as well as other Murdoch properties. For example: Fox, McDonald’s ink blockbuster deal. Does McDonalds know about the hate speech that their business partner is engaging in against them?
Gawker took the plunge and watched Glenn Beck yesterday to see what advertisers remain after more than twenty …um… thirty …er… forty have abandoned the program due to Beck’s offensive rhetoric. It is a list that says much about him and his disciples. Here it is with my own comments attached:
Extenze penis-enhancing pills – To make sure that blood isn’t flowing into his viewers brains.
Inogen One portable oxygen concentrator – To make sure they stay conscious while being disinformed.
Brez anti-snoring nose inserts – In the event his viewers pass out, like his guests do.
Egg Genie microwave egg cooker – So they have something to suck on.
The Jewelry Exchange – Because watching Fox Business Network has left them destitute.
SmartForLife diet cookies – Just look at what they’ve done for Rush Limbaugh.
The Mesothelioma Hotline – Those right-wingers are all over tort reform.
Jupiter Jack phone device – Note to Beck viewers: No, this does not let you call Jupiter.
Rosetta Stone language training – To learn to bash immigrants in their native tongue.
The Speed Channel – What Beck’s viewers watch when they can’t get the Meth Channel.
Oreck vacuum cleaners – Apply to frontal cortex and set to maximum.
FreeScore.com credit report service – This is the scam that Ben Stein was peddling.
That’s a nice group of low-rent advertisers. Contrary to the claims by Fox News flacks that they have not lost revenue due to the advertiser boycott, it is plain that the companies above are not paying the same fees that Procter & Gamble or GEICO did. And their consolation that the show has increased its ratings is rather hollow when higher ratings doesn’t mean more revenue.
Six years ago the Program on International Policy Attitudes published a study that showed that Fox viewers are far more likely to believe things that are demonstrably false, than are viewers of other networks. It’s still true.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf) featured on the Rachel Maddow Show (video below) included questions centered on the recent health care debate. What made this poll unique was that four of the questions sought to ascertain whether the respondents believed statements that were known to be untrue. Here are the results broken out by which news sources the respondents favored:
On Health Care Reform, Those Who Believe That It Will…
MSNBC/CNN Viewers
Fox News Viewers
Give Coverage To Illegal Immigrants:
41%
72%
Lead To A Government Takeover:
39%
79%
Pay For Abortions:
40%
69%
Stop Care To The Elderly:
30%
75%
Let me repeat: These are statements that are known to be untrue, yet Fox News viewers believe them in overwhelming numbers. It’s bad enough that approximately 40% of MSNBC/CNN viewers believe these myths, but clearly Fox is producing an audience of vastly misinformed, cultural illiterates.
The problem with having a national news organization that is polluting the population with lies about critical public issues is that it makes democracy impossible. And that, of course, may be the goal of Fox and its corporate overseers. Democracy is such a messy affair, what with all the people voting and stuff. If your objective is to manipulate government, you can’t get very far if voters are actually familiar with the issues and are capable of making sound judgments. So Fox News found it necessary to invent a platform of fake agendas to create fear and then purposefully indoctrinate their predominantly Republican and southern viewers to believe in them.
They have enjoyed a fair measure of success in the past couple of weeks as raucous town hall meetings and shrill political disputes have dominated news coverage. There have been episodes of chaos and hostility erupting in what used to be neighborly community gatherings. Television pundits are peddling insane conspiracies that link shadowy cabals to absurd plots with tentacles reaching into evil government agencies. And weirdos with weapons are showing up at presidential events to wander around menacing peaceful demonstrators and anxious Secret Service agents.
It is vitally important that sanity and honesty be restored to public discourse. As people become more aware of truthful representations of the issues, the tide could rapidly turn back to permit a rational debate to take place. The results of this poll could go a long way toward persuading people that they have been the victims of a deliberate con job. That can only occur if this poll is distributed broadly enough to be seen by a substantial portion of the electorate, including those who watch Fox News. Of course, Fox itself would never broadcast these results, so it’s up to us to be the distributors of the truth; to pass this information along; and to expose Fox as the perpetrators of hoaxes that they are.
Fox News viewers are being led around like Ritalin-sodden sheep. There is a case to made that they would be outraged at being so brazenly mislead – if they only knew. Data like this makes it difficult to pretend that Fox News respects its audience. This is the sort of evidence that could cause many FoxPods to revolt and free themselves. We need to help them see the light. Let’s just hope that it isn’t too late.
Update: The Pew Research Center confirms the delusional state of Republicans and Fox News viewers. Their survey reports that a plurality of 47% of Republicans believe in “death panels” compared to 20% of Democrats and 28% of Independents. Likewise, 45% of Fox News viewers believe this myth as opposed to 27% of MSNBC viewers and 26% of CNN’s.
I know, the headline is redundant. What’s more, this list is far from comprehensive. It is just intended to spotlight a few recent examples. I couldn’t possibly keep up with them all.
For the last Week, Major Garrett has been making it abundantly clear that he is a moron. He doesn’t seem to understand how the Internet works and he thinks that emails received by some Fox News viewers is a more important issue than health care or Afghanistan or Iran or anything else on the nation’s agenda.
Now a Fox colleague has joined him and may have surpassed his idiocy. Bill Sammon, VP and Washington managing editor, appeared this morning and was interviewed by anchor Trace Gallagher (who delivers every report as if you are a kindergartner – which may be appropriate for Fox viewers). In his attempt to prolong the manufactured pseudo-scandal over emails, Sammon explained that the White House improperly collected email data (it did not) and that it should not be retained. He then went on to speculate that the administration might destroy the alleged data and that, if they did, they would be in violation of the Presidential Records Act. So Sammon was criticizing the White House for both keeping the data and not keeping the data (he later acknowledged this paradox, but the damage he intended was done). It’s the perfect Fox News perspective. No matter what the President does, it’s wrong.
Perennial Fox News idiot, Bill O’Reilly had this to say yesterday on the President’s health care proposal:
“‘Talking Points’ watched President Obama in Colorado on Saturday, and once again I had no idea what the president was talking about. He went on and on about all kinds of stuff that seemingly only he understands. It’s kind of like a poltergeist. He can see it; nobody else can.”
“So here’s the deal. If President Obama wants more fairness in the health care industry, he has to come up with five bullet points that even I can understand. Five things that clearly tell us what Obamacare would do.”
First of all, isn’t it cute that O’Reilly refers to himself as “Talking Points,” some kind of disembodied concept that watched the President? But more to the point, he admitted that he is an idiot who has “no idea what the president was talking about.” I suppose we should respect his honesty for confessing to his inferior comprehension skills. But he goes on to complain that Obama’s plan isn’t simple enough for him and that it should have five bullet points to make it understandable to someone of his deficient mental capacity. Unfortunately, the White House ignored O’Reilly’s advice and published eight bullet points:
Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
Invest in prevention and wellness
Improve patient safety and quality of care
Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
Those three extra bullet points may be too much for Mr. “Talking Points” to grasp. It was also too difficult for him to even find this list of the President’s objectives (it took me about ten seconds. I searched Google for “White House” and “healthcare” and clicked on the first link). So O’Reilly is essentially asking for an explanation that he can understand, which is already available, but he still can’t understand it. Another perfect Fox News perspective.
They have enjoyed a fair measure of success in the past couple of weeks as raucous town hall meetings and shrill political disputes have dominated news coverage. There have been episodes of chaos and hostility erupting in what used to be neighborly community gatherings. Television pundits are 
I know, the headline is redundant. What’s more, this list is far from comprehensive. It is just intended to spotlight a few recent examples. I couldn’t possibly keep up with them all.