Indiana Student Newspaper Honors Freedom Of The Press

Posted by on January 23, 2008 at 12:53 pm. NO Comments :

The Indiana Daily Student, a newspaper run by students at Indiana University, has taken a stand on press freedom that the professionals ought to take note of.

When Bush’s former deputy national security adviser, Meghan O’Sullivan, came to speak for the school’s Student Alliance for National Security (SANS), she insisted that the speech be off-the-record. This would not be out of character for an operative from the secrecy-obsessed Bush White House. O’Sullivan was also a top aide to Paul Bremer who led Iraq’s Coalition Provisional Government after the fall of Saddam. So O’Sullivan was a key architect of the administration’s disastrously failed policy in Iraq every step of the way.

Concerns were raised about O’Sullivan’s insistence that the lecture be kept private because it was to be given to a group of 70 students in a public hall and was paid for with university funds. That makes it a little difficult to assert that there was plausible anxiety that classified information would be revealed if the press were allowed to report on it.

To it’s credit, the Indiana Daily Student declined to agree to O’Sullivan’s off-the-record demands. Shortly thereafter, O’Sullivan canceled the event saying that she had become “sick to her stomach.” However, she appeared later the same evening at a private dinner with members of SANS. Her speedy recovery notwithstanding, she still refused to repay the fee she received for the lecture she never gave.

The Indiana Daily Student deserves to be congratulated for their adherence to journalistic ethics. It’s too bad that their elders in corporate media have let their idealism lapse so badly.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Oliver Stone Channels Frank Capra For Bush Pic

Posted by on January 23, 2008 at 3:10 am. NO Comments :

Oliver Stone, the director of JFK and Nixon, is setting his sights on another president. He has begun work on a film chronicling the life and times of George W. Bush.

Bush the Movie

Variety reports that Stone is “not looking to make an anti-Bush polemic.” Too bad. Although any attempt to portray Bush honestly will look like a smackdown anyway. Stone is quoted in the article as saying…

“I have empathy for Bush as a human being, much the same as I did for Castro, Nixon, Jim Morrison, Jim Garrison and Alexander the Great […] I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It’s like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I’ll also cover the demons in his private life […] It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president”

It’s certainly an intriguing story: An alcoholic bum is chosen by God to lead a nation into war, financial ruin and international ill repute. It has Capra written all over it. In fact if you look at Capra’s body of work you can almost find the Bush story already therein:

Bush the Movie

Another Head Rolls At The Los Angeles Times

Posted by on January 21, 2008 at 5:34 pm. 1 Comments :

The Los Angeles Times is about to get its fourth editor in less than three years. News has leaked from the Times’ newsroom that editor James O’Shea has been sacked for the same reason three of his predecessors were ushered out. O’Shea, who was air-dropped in from the Chicago hive to replace Dean Baquet, was cut for his unwillingness to implement further cuts to the paper’s budget. Publisher David Hiller, another Chicago transplant has been having trouble finding pigeons to carry out his executions.

After three departures that hinged on an editor’s perception that the paper’s viability would suffer under the the publisher’s proposed budget, you might think that someone in the executive suite would set down his martini long enough to become curious as to why all of these editors would prefer to be fired than to go along with draconian cuts.

While each of the former editors had persuasive arguments for retaining, or even expanding, the newsroom’s budget, O’Shea may have had an even better case. He was looking forward to a year that included a presidential campaign as well as the Olympics. That seems like an inopportune time to be pinching pennies. At the time that Baquet was jettisoned, I criticized the move and mocked O’Shea as another corporate ringer brought in to wield the ax. Imagine my surprise to read O’Shea’s farewell message that included this choice morsel:

“Journalists and not accountants should seize responsibility for the financial health of our newspapers so journalists can make decisions about the size of our staffs and how much news remains in our papers and web sites […] When this industry stops relying so much on cuts and starts investing in Journalism, it will prosper because it will be serving the best interests of our readers.”

These actions on the part of the Times’ parent company, Tribune, are neo-Nixonian in that they emulate the famous Saturday Night Massacre. That was the affair where Nixon had to keep firing Justice Department chiefs until he found one that would carry out his order to whack independent counsel Archibald Cox (Robert Bork turned out to be the willing trigger man). Tribune has had to keep fishing for an editor to do their dirty work. O’Shea was their golden boy who was editing the Chicago Tribune before taking the assignment in L. A. But editors here are apparently as expendable as starlets. Now another has fallen, but not nearly as far as the quality and credibility of the Times.


MLK: Every Creative Means Of Protest Possible

Posted by on January 21, 2008 at 2:56 am. NO Comments :

Today as we celebrate the memory and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., millions of Americans will reflect on the impact his life had. That impact, for many, is very personal. There is much for which to be grateful in the gifts of hope and justice that he left behind. For me there was a speech that was particularly transforming. It was his public entry into the anti-war movement, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. As a twelve year old peace activist and an aspiring artist, one sentence stood out and helped to shape the next 40 years of my life:

“We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.”

That’s one of the first recollections I have of perceiving art as an act of conscience and rebellion. Prior to that I drew a lot of superheroes and hot rods (I was twelve, after all). I had become radicalized, and I knew that at least part of my work had to be devoted to making a better world. A couple of years ago, as a blogger, I put down some of my thoughts and frustrations in this regard.

Art InsurgencyIn Creativism – The Rise Of The Art Insurgency, I presented the case for employing the arts in social movements. My intent was to inspire an uprising of artists to fight back against an ever more repressive culture. Virtually all of the political dialog in this country is limited to politicians and pundits and a media so shallow that a gnat couldn’t bathe in it. Creativity in support of social change was once not a particularly odd concept, but with the rise of right-wing neo-Dark Agists badgering artists to “shut up and sing,” it has become a more hostile endeavor. Artists, however, are not surrendering ground and art lovers should not either. Solidarity with creatives is paramount for progress. They are the emotive flank of our army.

The value of art in movement building stems from the uniquely personal relationship that binds us to works of insight and honesty. Speeches and op/eds will never evoke the intimacy of artistic expression. That’s why, despite protestations of the Cultural Imperialists, artists remain relevant and influential. At it’s best, art inspires, motivates and unites. It’s even better when it incites and provokes.

There is irony in the fact that complaints come from conservative repressives when it is mainly conservatives that blur the lines between creative and public aspirations. While there are many liberal artists that express political views, they rarely run for office. Unlike conservative gate crashers like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, George Murphy, etc. Still it’s conservatives who complain that liberal artists are crossing the line and, with an Olympian feat of denial, they never harbor similar complaints toward their own kind. Sean Penn, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are interlopers who should know their place. But Chuck Norris, Dennis Miller and Charlton Heston are patriots and public policy experts whose input is invaluable. As I wrote in Creativism…

“The time has come to restore the dignity of creativism. We must beat back the repressive forces that would prefer the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. We must recognize the power that speaking the truth brings to our world and ourselves. We must support our creative advocates.”

To that I would add that we must persist in producing thoughtful, provocative work that leads us to a world with more liberty, more peace, more justice, and fuller hearts and bellies. We must confront the censors and the bullies who fear our voices and would silence them. And we must seek new and aggressive forms of distribution that spreads our messages from the Internet to the Interstate and beyond. As the activist/artist Vladimir Mayakovsky said:

“Art must not be concentrated in dead shrines called museums. It must be spread everywhere…on the streets, in the trams, factories, workshops, and in the workers homes.”

And as Dr. King declared, we, as artists, must be prepared to match actions with words and use our talents to manifest a world that reflects our dreams.


Dishonesty In Politics And In Media by Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on January 21, 2008 at 12:22 am. 2 Comments :

No one can compound stupidity like The Fester, Bill O’Reilly. Last week he assailed John Edwards for his remarks about homeless veterans. O’Reilly, without making any attempt to ascertain the facts, claimed that Edwards “had no clue” and that, if there were any homeless vets, there weren’t very many.

The proof of the veteran’s plight was so easily attainable that O’Reilly had to concede that the problem did indeed exist. But being O’Reilly, that didn’t mean conceding that he was wrong or apologizing. To the contrary, after embarrassing himself with comments that he admits are immature, he demanded an apology from Edwards, the guy whos was right in the first place. His reasoning was based on an element of the debate that he had to invent.

O’Reilly: “Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it’s not because of the economy. It’s mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about.”

However, Edwards never claimed that the economy was to blame. He only raised the issue of homeless vets to bring attention to the situation and to assert that America can do better. He was looking for solutions, not blame. But even O’Reilly’s made-up excuse exposes his dishonesty and/or stupidity. First of all, if government can do so little about addiction and mental illness, why do they invest so much in programs for precisely that? Secondly, according to experts, mental illness is only one of the contributors to homelessness:

“Mental illness, financial troubles and difficulty in finding affordable housing are generally accepted as the three primary causes of homelessness among veterans, and in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the first has raised particular concern.

Iraq veterans are less likely to have substance abuse problems but more likely to suffer mental illness, particularly post-traumatic stress, according to the Veterans Administration. And that stress by itself can trigger substance abuse. “

So O’Reilly was wrong about the problem’s severity, he was wrong about Edwards’ positions, and he was wrong about the causes. And sadly, O’Reilly seems only to be concerned about veterans if they are having financial difficulties. If the problem is psychological or drug related, then to Hell with them. But even on the financial front O’Reilly can’t help but deceive and distort. He claims that amongst those living below the poverty line…

“Ninety-seven percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.”

That nonsense was lifted from the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector who for years has been peddling the notion that America’s poor are living large on the taxpayer’s dime. O’Reilly and Rector are using faulty analysis and outright falsehoods to attempt to reincarnate Ronald Reagan’s fictional welfare queens. On August 27, 2007 Rector wrote an article that included the statistics above and arrived at this conclusion:

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.”

Rector has been shoveling this garbage for some time and he even plagiarizes himself because the exact same paragraph appears in a nearly identical article he wrote for the Heritage Foundation three years earlier on September 15, 2004. But Rector has bigger problems than self-plagiarism or propagandistic redundancy. His analysis must be purposely deceitful, as it is so far off from even the sources he cites. The tip off was the 97% of the poor who supposedly have a color TV. In fact, that is the percentage of ALL Americans with a TV (does anyone have a black and white TV?).

The statement that “the typical American defined as poor by the government has…” all of the items Rector lists is profoundly ignorant. The survey says only that these items are owned in these percentages, not that all of the poor own all of the items. So some may have a car, and others may have an air conditioner, etc.

The actual stats, according to the Department of Energy study Rector himself footnoted, are 40% have a color TV, 32% a VCR/DVD player, 27% an air conditioner, 27% a car or truck, 26 percent cable or satellite TV, and 13% own their home. That’s a long ways from the lies O’Reilly and Rector are spewing.

On some level though, you have to admire O’Reilly for having the audacity to be so monumentally wrong and still maintain his air of pompous superiority. His ability to acknowledge that Edwards was right but that he, O’Reilly, wasn’t wrong is classically egomaniacal. And using this occasion to expand on his lies about homeless vets and the poor overall perfectly embodies the meaning of the title of his screed: Dishonesty In Politics And In Media by Bill O’Reilly.


Jon Stewart: Scaring Conservatives With Comedy

Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm. NO Comments :

The conservative thought model is dominated by confrontation. Rightists are obsessed with hostile imagery. Their loins tingle when one of their heroes utters threatening bromides from the safety of their TV studio. That’s why people like Bill O’Reilly are revered for being bullies. It’s why Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz get respect for their proposals to bomb Iraq or Iran or whatever imagined enemy is presently being demonized. It’s the reason that Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee are cheered in debates for alluding to Iranians encountering virgins at the gates of Hell.

Conservatives love their wars and they love to pretend that they would all perform like Rambos were they to meet some vile terrorist in a dark alley. What’s more, they love to bash liberals as weak and insufficiently dedicated to the cause of eradicating the vermin encroaching on our otherwise tranquil paradise.

After 9/11 the cry arose that anything you do that is contrary to the rightist stance on national security means that “the terrorists will win.” Now that catch-phrase has been adapted for the media. Today, anyone who doesn’t kow-tow to propagandists in the press are pansies who would shrink from their duty to defend their country. What we have now is the equivalent of the old schoolyard taunt that my patriotic daddy can beat up your Islamo-fascist daddy. Some recent examples follow:

“The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda.”
…Roger Ailes, Chairman, Fox News.

“If The Times can’t take an argument with Kristol, how can it face down Al Qaeda?”
…John Gibson, Fox News Host.

Notorious wankmeister Jonah Goldberg was a guest on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a couple of days ago. The fearsome Stewart has apparently frightened some conservative warriors, because now they are complaining about the encounter and questioning whether any of their ilk should venture into Stewart’s lair considering the enormity of the risk. The National Review’s Mark R. Levin puts it this way:

“You have to make a calculation when you go on shows hosted by liberals like Jon Stewart. They are not going to allow you to actually discuss your book. Their audiences are prepped to laugh at whatever the host says and react negatively to whatever the author says. And when their writers aren’t striking, the host is armed with a bunch of jokes to mock the author. So, you have to weigh that against a couple of mentions of the book, and whether the entire enterprise is worth it.”

Oh my heavens! The audience is “prepped” to “laugh.” What dastardly evil could justify that kind of behavior during a comedy program? Levin’s colleague at the magazine, Kathryn Jean Lopez, is also afraid:

“Stewart generally winds up trying to make a joke out of you or your issues, or is just downright unfair. The best shows involve some sort of smart give and take. The Daily Show isn’t generally conducive to such a thing. You’re either in downright hostile territory, or you’re pretending to be something you aren’t – a comedian. It’s just not worth it.”

The bravado of the right seems to be showing some wear around the edges. What became of their zeal to cast Liberals into the pits of Hades? Where is that gung-ho bearing that inspired such feats of daring as shoving a candidate’s aide so that you can beg him to come on your TV show? It seems to me that the only real question here is:

“If you can’t face Jon Stewart, how could you possibly face Al Qaeda?”
…News Corpse, Far-left Internet Smear Merchant

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Today’s The Day John Edwards Grabs The Gold

Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1:01 am. 10 Comments :

A little less than a week ago, it occurred to me that something was wrong. Something was wrong with the veneration of pundits best known for their failure to deduce anything correctly. Something was wrong with the media deciding who is a viable candidate and when an election is over. Something was wrong with voters being treated like afterthoughts whose participation was merely incidental. And consequent to these observations, it also occurred to me that there was something wrong with the fact that Ron Paul held the record for the most money raised in one day.

I concluded that one way to stuff the spin of the know-nothing punditocracy back down their arrogant throats was to demonstrate the narrowness of their vision. They needed to be knocked down a peg or two by circumstances over which they had no control. I knew that if the people stepped up to thumb their noses at the press, the press would have to pay attention. And since their noses were already so firmly planted in the back end of the horse race schema, a competition for cash was just the ticket. I thought that if Ron Paul could raise six million dollars in one day, John Edwards ought to be able to raise seven.

Despite his relative success and obvious contributions, John Edwards was being edited out of the electoral picture by a pack of myopic politicos. He had beaten Hillary Clinton in Iowa and finished in double digits in New Hampshire. The popularity of his platform was forcing his opponents to adjust their own positions to be more in line with his. With a base of support from progressive Democrats that went back to his campaign in 2004, Edwards had a realistic opportunity to compete in the upper tier of candidates. But the media wouldn’t let him. Edwards himself has taken note this orchestrated media blackout. They marginalized him; they disparaged him; they mocked him. And through it all, he continued to garner support and respect. So they had to resort to ignoring him.

nullThe Project for Excellence in Journalism recently completed a study of the amount of time the media allotted to the presidential candidates. Edwards came in last amongst the Democrats, and next to last amongst all major candidates. The survey was conducted in the days following the Iowa primary in which he finished a surprise second. But that apparently wasn’t enough to persuade editors that Edwards deserved to be covered.

So I wrote a little diary that I posted at DailyKos proposing a grassroots effort to help Edwards set a new fundraising record. In all truth, it was more of an academic suggestion to ponder the possibilities of such an endeavor. Possibilities, being what they are, exceeded my wildest expectations.

The proposal picked up steam at DailyKos getting elevated to its “Recommended List.” This was followed by a steady stream of follow-up diaries by other authors acting on their own initiative. Then it began to spread to other blogs. At the Democratic Underground I found multiple instances of the proposal. Some added creative touches to expand on the theme. One member pledged to donate an amount equal to the number of recommendations the posting received (it was over 300 last I checked). I saw postings on the Edwards Blog site. I saw comments at various news sites, including one at Fox News.

I have no idea what will happen today. I have no clue how much the campaign will raise. If they break the record the media will have to take notice. But no matter the final tally, this has been an exhilarating experience. I have had so many well wishers and expressions of support. Literally hundreds of blog commenters pledged to contribute. And that is only those in the small bloggerhood in which I reside.

People are also becoming more aware of the toxic influence of a media that seeks to shape the news rather than report it. When Edwards talks about the harm being done to our country by greedy corporations he knows that chief amongst the members of that club are the giant media conglomerates. So regardless of how this unfolds, we must continue to fight for reform. Because if we don’t succeed in reining in the power of these monopolies they will forever dictate to us how we should feel, what we should buy, who we should hate, and what our choices are in our formerly free democracy.


Bill O’Reilly’s Homeless Helpline

Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm. NO Comments :

In his speech thanking supporters for a second place finish in Iowa, John Edwards raised a sensitive subject that is rarely discussed in contemporary politics.

“…tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We’re better than this.”

The next day, Bill O’Reilly mocked Edwards saying:

“As for John Edwards…good grief… this guy as no clue […] The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy’s brain.”

What a callous dismissal of the plight of citizens who deserve something more for their sacrifices. Homelessness amongst veterans is not an emerging crisis that might have caught O’Reilly by surprise. It is an enduring and heartbreaking reality that is well documented. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans was founded 18 years ago to seek solutions and promote awareness of the problem. The National Alliance to End Homelessness released a study last year on Ending Homelessness Among Veterans. Among their findings:

  • In 2006, approximately 195,827 veterans were homeless on a given night-an increase of 0.8 percent from 194,254 in 2005. More veterans experience homeless over the course of the year. We estimate that 336,627 were homeless in 2006.
  • Veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people. They represent roughly 26 percent of homeless people, but only 11 percent of the civilian population 18 years and older. This is true despite the fact that veterans are better educated, more likely to be employed, and have a lower poverty rate than the general population.

But O’Reilly, not content to be merely an ignorant and insensitive jerk, he expands on his dearth of compassion a week later by sarcastically designating himself as a lifeline for troubled vets, saying:

“They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK. So if you know where there is a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”

I imagine that O’Reilly would respond to the situation exactly as he says. He would send Stuttering Jesse Watters, or some other Fox Security goons, to forcefully remove any recalcitrant bridge squatters from the area, making sure that nobody blocked the shot of his ambush camera crew.

I say we call him on his offer and direct as many homeless vets as we can to The Fester and to Fox News and see what they do. I expect they will find the problem a bit more complex than presumed by their small-minded preconceptions. While O’Reilly doesn’t believe the problem exists, to the extent that it might, he believes he can resolve it by himself. I would like nothing better than to see this problem show up on his doorstep and watch him squirm.

This is the same guy who fashions himself an advocate for children and writes books on the subject, but claims that kidnap victims prefer life with their captors rather than with their parents. This the same guy who complains that not enough celebrities visit the troops in war zones, even though many have gone multiple times to entertain them. O’Reilly only seems to go when he has a new book to promote.

This is a man who says that John Edwards is a phony and who disputes the all too sad reality that many veterans and their families are struggling through. Yet he also seeks to fortify his dimwitted position by saying that…

“My determination is based upon what is real and what is hype. I believe John Edwards is hype.”

This is a man who raises hypocrisy to a new level. Let’s show him what is real and what is hype. There are thousands of pictures of homeless vets online – Flickr, Google Images, etc. Find one and send it to O’Reilly with a request that he make good on his pledge.

O’Reilly’s email: oreilly@foxnews.com

[Update] Edwards responds to O’Reilly:

“And the fact that this talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, is willing to speak out that blatantly, when he has no idea what he’s talking about, is an example of how America doesn’t understand the problem, doesn’t understand how serious this issue is.”


Favorite TV Personalities of 2007

Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 7:15 pm. NO Comments :

Harris Interactive has just released their survey of America’s Favorite TV Personalities. The list was topped by Ellen DeGeneres in a surprise win over Oprah Winfrey. The remainder of list contains some characters who are familiar faces in the news media.

1 Ellen DeGeneres
2 Oprah Winfrey
3 Jay Leno
4 Hugh Laurie
5 Jon Stewart
*6 Stephen Colbert
*6 David Letterman
8 Bill O’Reilly
*9 Homer Simpson
*9 Ray Romano
* = Tie

I am happy to congratulate Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on their honors.

As for O’Reilly, I would just like to note a few salient facts. First of all, he dropped 5 places this year, from #3 to #8. That may be partly because his fan base is dying off. The evidence of that is illustrated by his support amongst those over 62 for whom he was the #1 choice. It’s also notable that O’Reilly finished just one spot above Homer Simpson (D’oh!), who is making his first appearance in the top 10. My money says Simpson overtakes O’Reilly next year (Woo hoo!)


Bully Bill O’Reilly’s Contact Journalism

Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm. NO Comments :

“I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down […] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed…I would.”

Bill O’Reilly directed that threat toward figures in the press whom he considered his enemies. In light of the obvious hostile intent O’Reilly harbors, the statements in his recent column sound even more ominous:

“There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.”

The chance of that increases the more O’Reilly is involved. By now most people have heard about O’Reilly’s assault on an aide to Barack Obama at a recent campaign event. O’Reilly’s column goes on to say…

“Knowing that partisan hostility is boiling over in America, the Secret Service is tense because the candidates are exposed when they campaign in public. Hatred is definitely in the air and the media is partially to blame.”

The Secret Service has cause to be tense with boorish media demagogues like O’Reilly fomenting partisan hostility and hatred. And yes, he is partially to blame.

But the column sinks even deeper into disinformation as O’Reilly seeks to exalt himself and his delusional view of the world. He brags about the success of Fox News as if that’s an affirmation of their credibility. Quality is not measured by sales receipts. If that were true, then McDonald’s serves the highest quality food in America. But that doesn’t stop O’Reilly from making misleading statements such as his inane analysis of GE’s stock price:

“General Electric, which owns NBC, has seen its stock price remain stagnant for the past six years, a humbling fact for the corporate giant.”

First of all, NBC represents about 10% of GE’s revenue, and that includes properties like Universal’s movies and theme parks that have nothing to do with television or news. So the suggestion that NBC is responsible for GE’s fiscal woes is ridiculous. Secondly, O’Reilly arbitrarily picks a six year time frame for his analysis. Obviously he did this to manufacture the results he desired. 2002 was the year of the first Bush recession and GE, along with just about every other stock, declined significantly. Had O’Reilly used a five year span, he would have had to report a 40% increase in GE’s stock. Would NBC get the credit for that?

O’Reilly spends much of the rest of the column making excuses for Fox News’ failure to garner respect as a news provider. He laments the disinclination that some Democrats have to appear on Fox or participate in their debates (note: the more he complains about this, the more proof that it is working). He heaps the majority of the blame for this on the all-powerful Internet lefties:

“The reason the Democratic candidates boycotted Fox News was that the far-left Internet crazies told them to do it. Websites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters, which spit out anti-conservative hatred every day, made it clear to the Democrats that anyone dealing with Fox would be punished. The creepy radical-left organization MoveOn, which raises serious money for liberal candidates, seconded the motion.”

Isn’t it quaint how O’Reilly condemns hatred by calling those with whom he disagrees “crazies” and “creepy” and characterizes them as spitting radicals? However, I would agree with the warning that “anyone dealing with Fox would be punished.” By Fox! Any Democrat appearing on Fox News can expect to be treated with disrespect and disdain. Sometimes not until after they have left the studio so that they cannot respond (note to Dems: Stay the HELL off of Fox News).

O’Reilly is still tormented with the affair in New Hampshire where, in defense of the Constitution, he had to “remove” an Obama staffer. Only now he is complaining that nobody is on his side:

“In the subsequent coverage of the story, not one media outlet criticized the Obama staffer, not one.”

Presumably that includes conservative media outlets like the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, etc. It never occurs to O’Reilly that if no one else sees the incident as he does, perhaps he is the one who is not seeing it correctly. But asking O’Reilly to see things from a perspective other than from his natural state of egomaniacal paranoia may be expecting too much. The results from a poll on his own website asking whether he was right to shove Obama’s aide were 57% Yes / 43% No. That wasn’t good enough for O’Reilly who dismissed the results as having been tainted by (again) thousands of far-left loons who were “instructed” to vote “No.” And if the research by NewsHounds is accurate, the loons received their instructions from ME! Tremble in awe of my omnipotence, I command thee.

It is mind-boggling how a man so filled with rage and hate can ascribe these traits so cavalierly to others; how a man so predisposed to lying can accuse others of it so blindly; how a such a partisan ideologue can complain about the partisanship of others. He seems to have no self-awareness whatsoever, save for self-importance. In some respects, his conjured up enemies and his overtly threatening tone make him an easy target for ridicule. On the other hand, it’s hard to find humor knowing how potentially dangerous he can be. I hope he gets the help for which he is so clearly crying out. Maybe a room next to Britney’s at the asylum (humor…I found some).