Factor this, Bill O'Reilly
Justin Dragos
Issue date: 9/2/09 Section: Opinion
I hate Bill O'Reilly. Not because he's belligerent to his guests, or so far to the right he's in danger of falling off the world entirely. The problem with O'Reilly is the same as the problem with his entire posse of "newsmen:" Glen Beck (Fox News), Chris Matthews (MSNBC), Anderson Cooper (CNN) and Ed Schultz (MSNBC) to name a few - all of whom have lengthy programs on 24-hour news networks, but none of whom actually report the news.
Do their shows contain topics from popular headlines? Sure they do. If something important or catastrophic were to happen during their shows, would they cut away to follow it? Probably. The problem with shows such as "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The Ed Schultz Show" is that the hosts aren't news anchors (or in many cases even journalists), they are political commentators. What they're expressing on their shows is opinion, not fact, but what most people know is that they saw it on the news. All of these talk show hosts flagrantly put their own bias on stories, have no particular obligation to report facts they don't like and have plenty of leeway to simply not show other sides of a story. And they have the right to do all of it.
The issue at hand here is misconception, whether anyone turning on the news knows if it's a talk show host they're seeing or a news anchor. That is, unlike this column, these talk shows do not come with a title that says "opinions." Instead, the "news" networks transition seamlessly from headline reporting into shows that may or may not hold true to any of the facts of a story. So when you flip on the TV to see what you've missed in the last few days, you're about as likely to get a steaming pile of O'Reilly's opinion as you are to get headlines, but nothing to tell you the difference between the two.
These talk shows are some of the most popular segments on the news networks on which they air, so clearly people want to watch them. However, the networks need to remember that their primary function as a piece of the news media is to keep people informed, as antiquated as this may sound these days, without bias or opinion being thrown on top of the facts.
If they really want to continue to support these shows, they should either transfer them over to one of their non-news channels or give everyone a nice scrolling banner on the bottom that reads: "This show contains the opinions of Glenn Beck and should not be taken as fact, even as a joke."
Do their shows contain topics from popular headlines? Sure they do. If something important or catastrophic were to happen during their shows, would they cut away to follow it? Probably. The problem with shows such as "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The Ed Schultz Show" is that the hosts aren't news anchors (or in many cases even journalists), they are political commentators. What they're expressing on their shows is opinion, not fact, but what most people know is that they saw it on the news. All of these talk show hosts flagrantly put their own bias on stories, have no particular obligation to report facts they don't like and have plenty of leeway to simply not show other sides of a story. And they have the right to do all of it.
The issue at hand here is misconception, whether anyone turning on the news knows if it's a talk show host they're seeing or a news anchor. That is, unlike this column, these talk shows do not come with a title that says "opinions." Instead, the "news" networks transition seamlessly from headline reporting into shows that may or may not hold true to any of the facts of a story. So when you flip on the TV to see what you've missed in the last few days, you're about as likely to get a steaming pile of O'Reilly's opinion as you are to get headlines, but nothing to tell you the difference between the two.
These talk shows are some of the most popular segments on the news networks on which they air, so clearly people want to watch them. However, the networks need to remember that their primary function as a piece of the news media is to keep people informed, as antiquated as this may sound these days, without bias or opinion being thrown on top of the facts.
If they really want to continue to support these shows, they should either transfer them over to one of their non-news channels or give everyone a nice scrolling banner on the bottom that reads: "This show contains the opinions of Glenn Beck and should not be taken as fact, even as a joke."
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 17
Alberto C Vargas - San Diego Community Issues Examiner
posted 9/02/09 @ 3:34 PM CST
You know...you bring up a good point here. "News" as they once were delivered have fallen into the backdrop of television. Here in San Diego, local news are terrific. (Continued…)
Ryan
posted 9/02/09 @ 7:27 PM CST
Why not also mention far-left extremists like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman in here.
Like it or not, O'Reilly gets ratings and his show has always been one where opinions are given. (Continued…)
Alumni Jim
posted 9/03/09 @ 4:27 PM CST
Unfortunately, most consumers of O'Reilly's product are NOT aware that it's an opinion-based show as opposed to a legitimate news show. Fox News was, after all, the network that was able to hoodwink a lot of people into believing they were "fair and balanced" merely because they said so, and it says "Fox News" at the bottom of the screen, so it MUST be news by that same reasoning. (Continued…)
Prince Hall Mason
posted 9/04/09 @ 9:15 AM CST
I have a lot of respect for some of the conservative base personalities and spokespeople but I call them on the carpet when they are wrong too: I've been in alot of debates in terms of arguing rather or syndicates like Rush Limbaugh were racist and my position is always this, "If you are not racist you could have said it a little different" Perhaps with a little bit more tact and respect. (Continued…)
kathy thompson
posted 9/04/09 @ 4:29 PM CST
prince hall mason, you sound like all the other leftist in this country...you can say anything YOU want,BUT let someone disagree...you call them un american or any other name. (Continued…)
AJD
posted 9/05/09 @ 12:42 AM CST
Ooops...Kathy drank the kool-aid!
I find it funny that anyone that likes anything the democrats do are automatically labeled "leftist" or "socialist. (Continued…)
Nicole
posted 9/05/09 @ 2:08 PM CST
I think this article brings up a point, but unfortunately it does not get to the real source of the problem. It mentions that individuals actually want to watch these shows; and this is true. (Continued…)
Prince Hall Mason
posted 9/05/09 @ 7:27 PM CST
Kathy Thompson you make absolutely no sense!!!!! How do I sound like every other leftist in the country? because I said that there is a proper way to address an issue and then there is a wrong way. (Continued…)
Prince Hall Mason
posted 9/05/09 @ 7:42 PM CST
I understand what you're saying Nicole, you make alot of sense and you're right the media is often not an expression of the true hurts and pain of the people, it is ratings driven, it doesn't represent the will of the people, it thrives on rhetoric and it embraces controversy but here's the real problem (accountability)
We talk about government agencies and the media as if they were inanimate objects sometimes (unmovable things)- and just to validate my real point- take the elections for example if the Republicans had been more accountable for the things that it's candidates were saying they would have had a fighting chance. (Continued…)
Prince Hall Mason
posted 9/05/09 @ 7:50 PM CST
Kathy Kathy Kathy, look into his background for what, because he has had professors, associates, and acquaintances that are of many different political persuasions?
That would also account for every other president of the United States, so I suggest you study your history a little better and before you step unto your high and might hot air balloon let me remind you that George Bush's beloved Carlise group and Oil company has been in bed with the very people that we tell our Americans are the terroist. (Continued…)
Post a Comment