Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyprio
Well, that's what they're there for 'to give an opinion on a topical issue'.
I'll quote you in an email to Bill O'reilly and get back to you with his response.  |
Do that. I'd be interested to read his response. While you're at it, send a copy to Rachael Maddow. As far as I can tell, she's just Bill's liberal equivalent. I suspect, however, that both are well aware of whom they are and the nature of the content they present.
In truth, I have no problem with either one of them. I only have a problem with viewers who listen to/watch either of them and lack the savvy to realize that they are hearing mostly editorial commentary disguised as news. All news outlets, including Fox and MSNBC, and Bill and Rachael in particular, have no choice but to minimally cast bias into their reporting by culling the extent of information they choose to report on any given topic. Fox and MSNBC, along with Al Jazeera, tend to "cull" the facts so that what they report takes on a certain cast.
Unbiased editorial presentations of divergent points of view call for presenting the meritorious aspects of both sides of an argument. None of those organizations do that. Not all organizations can do that. CNN, Reuters, and the PBS Newshour do at least try to do so, albeit with varying degrees of success. Mostly, however, the burden is on us, the general public, to objectively explore issues on our own. Unfortunately, many common citizens lack the skills and/or motivation to do so, instead preferring to find some "credible" organization that's saying what it is they want to hear.
All the best.