Mass Approval

I just love the way that O'Reilly asks these rhetorical (well, at least to him, they're rhetorical)/self-congratulatory type questions. Take, for example, one recent episode. In responding to the criticism that Fox has garnered for hiring Sarah Palin, O'Reilly asked his guest (a sympathetic one, naturally) this little gem, "If the people over there (i.e., at MSNBC and CNN) are so intelligent, then why are their ratings (the holy-grail, according to O'Reilly) so pathetic?" And, yes, me-buckos, the fact that he always seems to have that smug little countenance, too. It was in fact Mr. O'Reilly, in a nut-shell...............................................................................................As to how I would have answered that particular question, I guess the main thing would have been to question the very premise of it. This, in that, yes, I would have pointed out to this "fellow" the meaninglessness of these ratings - IN GENERAL. Sylvester Stallone was a much bigger box-office draw than, say, Jeremy Irons. Does that mean Mr. Stallone was a better actor than Irons? Of course it doesn't! And what about Madonna? She's sold more records than Joni Mitchell and Tammy Wynette combined. Does that mean that SHE'S better? I'm thinking no. And, yes, me-buckos, the same thing goes for journalism, too. The fact that people watch O'Reilly's show more that they do Campbell Brown's - it means nothing! - well, other than the fact that O'Reilly is catering to folks, serving up to these folks as much of that red meat as possible. It has absolutely nothing to do with honesty/integrity - zilch!