Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly defends lack of coverage of "carnage du jour" by attacking the messenger.

Reported by Chrish - June 13, 2007 -

Rather than report the "carnage du jour", otherwise known as the news from America's war in Iraq, O'Reilly is conducting his own offensive against journalists with whom he disagrees. Yesterday's target of his Talking Point Memo was Mark Jerkowitz, spokesman for the Project for Excellence in Journalism and according to the #1 name-caller, a "FOX hater."

The PEJ just released an analysis of the major news outlets' coverage of various topics. FOX lagged far behind in coverage of the Iraq war but led the way in Anna Nicole Smith coverage. O'Reilly, clearly stung by the truth, did what he does when put on defensive: he attacked.

He claimed the Factor has done "hundreds" of reports on Iraq,

"But we don't do the carnage du jour. We don't highlight every terrorist attack because we learn nothing from that. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. I mean, come on, does another bombing in Tikrit mean anything other than war is hell? No, it does not."

So now reporting to the American people just what is going on in Iraq is helping the terrorists. Is there anything we can do, besides watching the Factor and shopping, that doesn't help the terrorists? Another day, another bombing. Supporting the troops through sheer ignorance and callousness.

He accused his competition of reporting the news from Iraq to further a political agenda, when FOX's lack of coverage exposes their own political agenda to protect the Bush administration:

In my opinion, CNN, and especially MSNBC, delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded.

So their Iraqi coverage is more political than informational, again in my opinion. Could be wrong about CNN. I'm not wrong about the committed left wing crew over at NBC.

So, according to O'Reilly, because the reporting adversely affects people's opinions of Bush politically, the reporting itself is labelled political. It follows that all his segments that (purposely) elicit an emotional response, be it anger, outrage, or righteousness, are crafted to manipulate people emotionally rather than to be informational. As long as we're clear here.

O'Reilly proceeded to "discredit" the in-depth study in typical smearing, empty fashion, telling followers that the spokesman for the Project for Excellence in Journalism used to work for newspapers that O'Reilly labels "far left" and "off the charts left" (aka independent). He claimed to know the spokesman for many years and asserted that the AP report should have identified him as a "FOX hater" and dismissed the whole issue with "so much for excellence in journalism."

He concluded with

"The bottom line is this. We've reported time and again that the war in Iraq is indeed a mess. There's little news value in broadcasting daily bombings. By the way, FOX News continues to crush CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, as the folks know news when they see it."

What is the news value in reporting the daily bickering on The View?

What is the news value in reporting the daily tantrums of Paris Hilton?

What is the news value in reporting what Danny Bonaduce thinks about anything?

What is the news value in reporting on john Edwards' neighbors?

What is the news value in reporting competitors ratings?

What is the news value in reporting your own ratings?

What is the news value in reporting on "culture" trivia?

What is the news value in reporting on one missing white girl?

For him to connect FNC's ratings with their "news" value to viewers is laughable, as is his excuse-making. Emotional, tabloid pap for the couch-bound sells, and FOX has been called out again on their lack of journalistic professionalism.