Bill O'Reilly vs. Secular Progressives, Who wins?
My parents have been watching Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News channel for the past few years. O'Reilly is a self described Independent and discusses important news and political topics on his primetime TV show The O'Reilly Factor. Viewers are urged to write to O'Reilly and voice their opinion. Guests vary and range from major political players to journalists or in some cases you might find a regular joe.
O'Reilly uses what he calls the "No Spin Zone" to force guests to answer what he calls the "tough questions." While many people argue whether he asks the hard questions or keeps the playing field equal, it can at least be noted that he does provide interesting commentary and a unique opinion. Recently Mr. O'Reilly has formed an offensive against what he calls the "Secular Progressives." He charges that there are some within what he calls the "Elite Media" (ABC, NBC, CNN, and The New York Times to name a few), that plan to change the landscape of American politics to a more socialist or communist regime.
These claims are based on the theory that the media's bias towards the progressives (liberal or democrat for the most part) is an attempt to change the mind of the American people and push a hardcore socialist or communist agenda. O'Reilly is definately right about one thing. A Pew Research poll has shown that more journalists have a left wing or independent leaning than the American populace and many media corperations report more liberal or progressive stories than traditionalist or republican viewpoints, and sometimes slants its reporting. (http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214.pdf).
Admittedly, some progressives do seek to change America to a socialist or communist nation. This idea is not news however since these forms of government have been around for years. These ideals however have proven destructive again and again however.
That being said I do not believe that traditional America is under assault by a secret group of progressive moneymakers or elite media leaders. I also do not believe that progressive thought is a bad or hurtful thing. America has often seen progressive view as both necessary and good. After all, isn't that what the Founding Fathers did? They provided a catalyst of ideas and intelligence and backed an American revolution. Today progressives want change. That isn't bad, that's American.
Patrick Rizer
I think the reason that journalists often demonstrate a liberal bias in their reporting lies in the fact that they are generally far better informed than the average Republican American on the street.
With too many Republican Americans demonstrating little concern for anything that happens beyond their own state, unless it involved spraying napalm on some bunch of foreigners, in which case they break out the popcorn for a few, it's hardly surprising that any kind of expanded worldview, as demonstrated by say a New York Times journalist, would come across as anything but devilish liberal skullduggery.
The thing is, the more of the world a person sees, and the more they research, the more liberal they will seem when examined by people who don't travel, and have little interest in, or knowledge of the world around them. I think it would be hard for any journalist who does their job properly not to appear to have a liberal bias.
You'd have to be a lizard with a stone heart full of greed not to develop a liberal bias in the face of some of the things these journalists see in their travels and research. Johnny Redneck may only give a flying fuck about his precious economy and those uppity Blacks gettin more rights, but if you dropped him in the deep end of a slum in the Congo for a while, his concerns would probably take on some kind of 'liberal bias'.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.