Sunday, March 23, 2008
A Scoundrel, By His Own Definition
Let's see if I've gotten this straight, Bill. A spate of unsavory individuals post some nasty comments....and, from this, you feel the need to tar the entire Huffington Post, Hitleresque in its proportions? Dude! It's a frigging open-forum, for Christ (unlike the Fox news web-site, which apparently prescreens all comments....and still some virulent ones appear)!! Some of this lunacy is bound to get through. It's like, why don't you just admit it, Billy-Boy. You don't like the site because it's liberal - purely and simply. I mean, come on, I'm right, right? State the frigging obvious and be done with it already. Damn it all!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
"...the entire Huffington Post, Hitleresque in its proportions..."
The Hitleresque comment may offend, but that's how pundits speak these days: it's meant to call attention to a certain double standard; in other words, O'Reilly's sort of right, but for the wrong reasons. HuffPo does not exactly promote liberty and justice for all. It promotes liberty and justice for....Tinseltown.
HP features heavily- moderated boards, mostly ID politics-based writing, a sort of liberal "moralism", a great deal of celebrity hype, and the typical breezy blog-propaganda of Airheadiana and others. Some of the HuffPo scribes may entertain on occasion (tho' a cheesy "tischesprache" appears as well), but HuffPo doesn't feature much in the way of fact-based, unemotional analysis of politics (then neither does the average daily newspaper). One might term HuffPo part of....the Simulacra.
HuffPoSpeak follows a certain code, one might say. I would not call it fascist; though it perhaps has fascist elements (many fascists loved aristocratic trappings, and even Kultur). Really it's more akin to like soviet style journalism: Hollywood pravda, online. It's all about image and vilifying the right (and that's the usual mockery of rural America, the south, McCain, Hillary, etc.). The numerous shortcomings of Obama are rarely mentioned however. BO's like been granted access to the "A-list" parties of Bel Aire and Westside El Lay, so everything's cool.
(scuzi hasty editing)
The Huffington Post is clearly partisan. No argument there. I just think that it's still possible to make a political point without the type of preposterous hyperbole that O'Reilly engages in. I reference George Will, Jeff Greenfield, David Brooks, David Broder, etc.. I know, I know, cable news, it's different. Still, though....
I agree for most part, and am hardly stumping for Fox, but prime-time and op-ed columns (or blogs) are obviously different kettles of fish. Will's writing actually seems nearly liberal these days.
O'Reilly and Fox have become a sort of a popular backlash to the big corporate networks. Of course CBS/Viacom or MSNBC, ABC etc are not models of democratic media either. While I find much of Fox's programming offensive (that is when I have time every few weeks to watch some Teevee), I don't get real excited with the usual BS and feel-good PC stuff of the major networks or cable. Viacom execs for example are every bit as sinister as Fox/murdoch. It's all fairly orwellian really: "This war has been brought to you by CBS."
I have observed that whenever there is whining about a "double standard", it ussually originates from persons of conservative leanings. An actor in Hollywood can express his political views but when this happens, it is cited as proof that the media is a lapdog for "Tinseltown."
Blogs by their nature tend to be very partisian so yes, the writing is not always squeeky clean. Does this warrant such sensational tags as "breezy blog propaganda?" In my opinion, no. The respondent may have his own axe to grind here...
Blogs serve a community of shared beliefs...News orgs are not suppose to operate in the same matter. Fox News writes the news to fit the aganda and yet they claim to be fair and balanced...in other words, "fact based, unemotional analysis" of the news. Hardly. These charlatans insinuate things constantly either subtly through their main anchors, or not so subtly, via their guest pundits. The respondent may be offended by the mockery of the south, rural america etc...mmm. If I voice my dissent, Fox proclaims rather loudly, I am un-american, a kool-aid drinker, a tree hugger, a wild eyed Bolshelvik who wants destroy Capitalism, a left wing bomb thrower etc, etc...The respondent has his points, but i can't swallow this whole. MK
Let's put it this way: O'Reilly and Fox play for keepsies, just like CBSABCNBC have for years. HuffPo does as well. There are various media factions, and political factions struggling for power, sort of like MLB. Some people like the Dodgers, or Fox, McCain, or GOP, what have you. Others prefer the Giants, CBS, Dems, Obama, etc. Similarly, there are humans who respect the catholics, and others who don't, or who respect protestants, muslims, jews, etc.
There is not, however, some overarching realm of Justice that any faction can claim a monopoly on. That's RealPolitik, if not Darwin. (those who differ might offer their counterargument or proof of some platonic or theological Justice-idea which is binding on all human action)
What, pray-tell, have I wrought here? Good discussion, men.
Wait a minute. Isn't that what O'Reilly constantly tries to do; stake claim to an overarching realm of justice? I don't know, maybe it's just me.
Sure, O'Reilly does suggest he's the agent of morality and Truth itself. I never said I approved of his ideology or his hyperbolic approach across the board. Yet regulars at DailyKOS, or HuffPo, or TPM, and countless other faux-muckraker sites do the same, more or less, they just don't have as much exposure (some might--like Arianna, or her comrades in the Bel Aire Red mafia, or the sentimentalists who run TPM, leftist journalist hacks like Hersh or Krugman, etc.).
It's quite obvious that O'Reilly causes a stir: I believe that is not only because of the content of his shows (or columns), but because he represents something the corporate liberal media disapproves of. It's not only that Kossacks say he is wrong (but generally Kossacks don't even do that much, but instead put him in a dress on D-KOS, that Chevron-sponsored funzone), or made some factual error: they hate him for what he is.
I would agree that we should point out any and all presumed "bad-facts" of Fox news people, or any writers or journalists or pundites. Non-liberals should do the same when criticizing the Kossack herd. But that's just the tip of the iceberg: Kossacks and their ilk, in KGB fashion, simply don't care for non-partay members. O'Reilly then according to the KOS comrades, errors because he's not a hipster or gangsta.
You see this with the visual spam and BS on KOS: why argue or point out Cheney's specific failings or crimes when you can simply run his face through some cheesy graphics app, make him look like Hermann Goering-on-acid, and post it? That's how the left operates now, I believe.
There's a lot of garbage all over the place. I totally agree with you. My main problem with O'Reilly (well, in addition to the fact that he lies, exaggerates, misrepresents, etc.) is that he claims to be even-handed. Clearly, he isn't.
Post a Comment