For years, I have lamented the weekly appearance of Bill O’Reilly’s column in my local newspaper, the Reading Eagle. But as Bill helps lead the far-right fringe in their march off the cliff of political relevance, his columns have become so deranged and desperate that they certainly qualify as unintentional comedy and self-parody. This almost makes them fun to read, and certainly makes them much more amusing to ridicule!
Two weeks ago, Bill's column presented the predictable tea-party rant about how government had become too big, too controlling, and too involved in American’s every-day business. In the following week’s column, O’Reilly completely contradicts himself by calling for more government intervention to stem our country’s moral decline. He calls for our smaller, cheaper government to focus on arresting and incarcerating substance abusers, going after teen "sexters" with the full force of our legal system, and in general, setting government to the task of pulling up people’s pants to make society safe for decent folks like Bill-O.
So what kind of absurdity did Bill O'Bullshit dredge up this week?
Clearly, today’s column entitled "The End of Times?" takes the cupcake for absurd cherry-picking of facts to support a highly specious conclusion. Fortunately, in a cruel stroke of irony, the AP published an article on the same day that really blows our favorite blowhards’s argument right out of the water! Even the casual reader of our right-leaning paper had to have noticed the obvious fallacy presented by "Fair and Balanced" Bill.
O’Reilly’s thesis for "The End of Times?" refers to the allegedly left-leaning New York Times, and he tries to blame The Times' problems on their perceived political slant:
Why read an ideologically crazed paper when you can acquire a variety of information on your PC? But other papers are not suffering nearly as much as the Times, so there must be more to this.
O’Reilly at least admits there must be more to the story. The AP article entitled "US newspaper circulation sees steeper decline", which was also printed in today’s paper, clarifies exactly what that "more" is. While the average decline in circulation was 7.1 percent, the "ideologically crazed" New York Times saw a drop of only 3.6 percent – but here’s the real kicker:
Other newspapers in the top 25 had daily circulation declines ranging from less than one-tenth of 1 percent at the Chicago Sun-Times to a drop of 20.6 percent at the New York Post.
The New York Post led the declines among the nation’s top 25 newspapers? The Post is hardly left-leaning, in fact, it is owned by O’Reilly’s Fox News puppet-master Rupert Murdoch! How does O’Reilly explain this apparent paradox?
That unfair and unbalanced approach has alienated a large number of readers and advertisers. According to a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 46% of Americans define themselves as conservative. Just 34% say they are liberal. In this very intense marketplace, insulting half the country on a daily basis may not be a great business plan.
Doh! That doesn’t explain the Post’s precipitous decline in circulation – that’s what O’Reilly claims lead to the Times' better-than-average performance. As for Bill's explanation of why the New York Post led the pack in loss of readership?
O’Reilly is conspicuously silent on that subject. Perhaps he feels inclined to protect the interests of his News Corp boss? The people who believe that this type of chicanery represents "fair and balanced" must also believe that Mountain Dew is "healthy and nutritious"! As luck would have it, the AP article showed Bill O’Reilly for the transparent shill he has always been.
I plan on pointing out this blatant disregard for the facts to the editors and readers of my local rag. Perhaps the reason that the New York Post suffered the largest circulation decline among the top-25 papers has to do with the dreck that right-leaning columnists like O'Reilly dish out? If O’Reilly’s misleading column appears in your paper, I suggest that you point out his blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Even his most adoring fans will have a hard time spinning this as anything but Bill O’Bullshit at his finest. Of course I’m assuming that facts and logic actually matter to them, which may be a stretch. They clearly mean nothing to Bill O’Reilly!