My analogy to watching Bill O'Reilly has prompted one reader to dare me to post the following YouTube from Austin Powers 3 - AS
That may be right. It is not that Bill stinks, it is that he stinks so good. His book has been on the NYT bestseller list for 5 months, a nontrivial feat, with the only solace being that his audience is the Lawrence Welk generation. (And no, I'm not going to make any jokes about his "cow emissions" footprint.)
'CHEAP' NEWS AND OPINION / OPINION-ENTERTAINMENT
Once in a blue moon, I read sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com, not for the sentiment but to keep an idea of what is on the agenda. But, I wish there were someone who was deconstructing Fox "News" more rigorously.
MEDIA LITERACY BEING TESTED
For any student of media literacy, watching the "No Spin Zone" (a.k.a. the spinout zone) would be an education, almost full and complete. This is no penny ante outfit. My estimation is that these guys know exactly what they are doing - and they are so skilled at it by now, they can do it effortlessly.
Here is a partial deconstruction of one, small segment.
A New Ward Churchill
In a segment today, O'Reilly comes out against a professor who he labels as "anti-American".
CONTEXT IS KING - BEYOND THE WRITTEN PAGE
He starts the segment by interviewing Ward Churchill's lawyer, invited onto the show, setting up the context in which he wants to indict the new guy. Mostly before we even hear what the new guy has done, this context sets up the question, "Is this guy the next Ward Churchill?". Later in the segment, O'Reilly drops the sly, indirect approach in favor of being blatant: he suggests to Churchill's lawyer that he "might have a new client", as the closing to his virtuoso performance.
INDUCTIVE FALLACY AND LACK OF 'BALANCE'
He offers up proof that the professor is anti-American, by repeating 2 or 3 things that the professor has said, such as terming "homicide-bombers" "martyrs", suggesting that the West has to repent for ills done to Islam or some such, and for calling President Bush something or other. In a short segment, he doesn't have time to provide any details or give the accused a chance to explain the comments. In other words, he just assumes that there is no acceptable explanation or important context. In other words, he deliberately leaves the "balanced" part out of "fair and balanced", in order to get his brand of inquisition, NOT reporting, up and running. Still, he has time to stick the word "seditious" (or "sedition") in the reporting, as a possibility, and raise the specter of incitement, although he provides no evidence of even the potential of that linkage from these comments (for all the viewers know, at this point, it might have been three people in a seminar who heard the phrase about Islam's ills or some wonkers reading a scholarly journal).
PROPPING UP AN 'EMOTIONAL HOOK' - SAVE THE CHILDREN!
Next, he has to find an aggrieved party, a viewpoint that allows him to portray himself as an old-fashioned hero, a warrior, not fighting for himself. He cannot condemn free speech ("I make a living myself under the first Amendment, so" ...mumble, mumble), so he insinuates that the professor is summarily (a) "irresponsible" to the point that he cannot be "trusted" in the classroom and (b) holding "power" over kids who may love their country. [Afterall, Anita Bryant was all about the kids, too. Either he knows his history, his demographic, or has figured it out by trial-and-error, that, if his issues cannot stand or motivate on their merits, then casting them as defense of the innocent is an easy way to stir up the emotions, the outrage - afterall, without the innocent, this story would be about just another guy who may have wrongfully criticized the government, of which there are ... millions?.] Of course, he is insulated from decisive criticism on whether he actually, consciously goes looking for an aggrieved party, since it would be almost impossible to show that he might have ulterior or dual motives - he'd simply say, "Sir, that's not true. I love 'the kids', truly, etc."
CITIZENS ON PATROL - GETTING PEOPLE FIRED [FOR GOD AND COUNTRY?]
Last, perhaps learning from prior excesses (if one believes the fact-set in the Wikipedia article about Ward Churchill), he doesn't suggest that the professor be fired (or to write letters), but he does avidly report the fact that he has tenure and so cannot be fired. It sets up an unspoken implication that, in other contexts, he could be fired, which is the propagandist way of saying something without saying it, yes?
Of course, the lawyer tells O'Reilly that there is no proof that the professor's comments are anything but his own or that he is, in fact, abusing his authority in the classroom, marking down the so-called "love America" students in favor of hate America students. Surprisingly, O'Reilly doesn't go silent - he insinuates his charges - "irresponsible" and "can he be trusted" with the kids. (This just sets up the stage for the story to continue, IMO, as the search beings for disgruntled students - and, presumably the "Liberal" administrators who were indifferent to them!)
WE'RE HONEST, HONESTLY
Most remarkably, for O'Reilly's letters segment just afterwards, a reader writes in that the prosecutors discussed in a previous O'Reilly-mentioned case were corrupt and not to be believed. Emphatically, O'Reilly replies, if there is no evidence that the prosecutors were corrupt, then the reader has just slandered them (cf. segment "Border Patrol Trial Tainted" Feb 28th). He seems to not understand that the core of his charges against the professor, as he's laid them out, namely abuse of power in the classroom, are wholly unsubstantiated - just inferred, so far. By the standard he himself applies to his questioning reader, O'Reilly just "slandered" someone.
MORE BACKGROUND:
On his webiste, O'Reilly writes (March 1 airdate):
Professor under fire for anti-Americanism
Guest: Attorney David Lane
We'll tell you about a professor at Kent State University under fire for
making allegedly anti-American statements. "
What is missing that he doesn't say who this professor is under fire by - alleged by whom, since to leave it out suggests that there might be a broad ranging inquiry going on by someone with authority to level "allegations".
I quickly did a news search, and so far, I haven't found any news organizations who have picked up a story on it. All I can tell so far is that there were a series of unsubstantiated accusations on jihadi watch dot com on Feb 28th. Townhall.com picked it up on the 29th and, today, Match 1st, the University has looked into the allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated.
sullylink
