Bumped and promoted. Originally posted 2010-11-27 15:56:25 -0500. -- GH

Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and other “news” anchors at Fox “news” have been reporting that Obama’s recent trip to Asia cost the American tax-payer $200 Million a day. This figure was total bullshit. The cost of the trip was far, far less than Bill O’Reilly had reported on Fox “news”

When called on it, Bill O'Reilly goes through some impressive linguistic gymnastics to try and make it sound like (even though the $200 million figure was total bullshit) that Fox "new" didn't tell any lies when they claimed Obama's trip was costing the American tax-payer $200 Million a day.

He claims that even though this $200 Million figure was reported repeatedly on Fox "news" that Fox "news" didn't report it!


Despite the murkiness and evasiveness of Bill O’Reilly’s defense, he seems to be claiming that because the original figure of $200 Million a day came from some person in India (and not a Fox "news" employee) that Fox "news" can't be responsible for spreading bad information. It's that guy in India who’s responsible for spreading bad information.

So, Fox “news” never does any fact checking?


What about news shows on other channels? Does Bill O’Reilly think that ABC, CNN and other networks should use the same standards as Fox “news” channel and never do any fact checking?

What if a reporter for CNN were to meet a patron in a bar and that patron claimed that Bill O’Reilly had raped his granddaughter?

Would it be acceptable for CNN to do a news story on how Bill O’Reilly had raped somebody’s granddaughter?

Using Bill O’Reilly’s own logic it wouldn’t reflect poorly on CNN and no employee of CNN should get in any trouble since the story didn’t come from anybody at CNN, but rather some patron in some bar.

And just like Bill O’Reilly had no problem with the lack of fact checking at Fox “news”, presumably O’Reilly would have no problem with a lack of fact-checking at CNN.

In a very related development, Fox “news” took a satirical story from the Onion about President Obama and they posted it on their website as a news story.

Fox’s aversion to fact-checking is apparently so strong that they’ll even accept a newspaper that’s famous for making up humorous fictions as a source and present their stories as “news”.

Another argument O’Reilly made in his defense of Fox “news” was that Sean Hannity is not an actual journalist and his job is to report his opinion and not to report the news.


And exactly how are the people who watch the Fox News Channel supposed to know what Sean Hannity isn’t a journalist and that he’s not actually reporting the news?

When Sean Hannity is on the air, it doesn’t say “Opinion piece” down at the bottom of the screen, it says “Fox News Channel”.

It also says “Fox News Channel” during the commercial break and (I believe) at the beginning and end of Sean Hannity’s show.

So, how are people supposed to know that Sean is giving his personal opinion and not actual news?

And typically aren’t even opinion pieces supposed to be researched before they’re released to the public? I mean . . . informed opinion is one thing, but uninformed opinion? What’s that worth?

Why is Sean Hannity being paid for uninformed opinion?

And why does it say “Fox News Channel” at the bottom of the screen if Sean Hannity doesn’t actually report any news?

At any rate, after much consideration on the matter, I’ve decided that Fox “news” channel should change their slogan from “Fair and Balanced” to “Because Real Men Don’t Do Fact-Checking”.

It seems more appropriate to the way they do business over there.

No votes yet


"...informed opinion is one thing, but uninformed opinion? What’s that worth?"