How the iPod killed democracy
June 06, 20067 comments
Bill O'Reilly is apparently pissed off at the iPod generation as he calls it for devaluing his investments into Napster and Microsoft:
Research shows that news consumption amongst Americans under the age of 50 is drastically declining. TV news ratings skew old, and newspaper circulation is generally plummeting. One explanation is that Americans can now get the news online. Okay, fine. But those internet headlines barely skim the surface of complicated matters, and many websites have absolutely no editorial standards. They print rank propaganda and libel all day long.
This coming from a man whose show, last I checked, is defined by literal talking points and practically screaming over his "guests." I seem to recall that talking points are commonly used as a form of "rank propaganda" by master propagandist as a way to summarize points down to where most people don't have to think about them.
I may just be a little too skeptical for my own good, but I would hazard to guess the O'Reilly is just pissed off over the idea that he might be subjected to a little fact-checking a la Dan Rather. Can't have any competition, now can we, Billy? Free speech is just such a threat to civil society when it is not being exercised by the corporate media. Clearly, we need "truth in blogging" regulations.
Categories:
Gee, MikeT - I don't own an iPod. But if it would REALLY help "kill democracy" (demonocracy, correctly spelled ;)
...I'd go buy one tonite.
Well we can trust everything that comes out of the "No Spin Zone," so go out and buy one for the entire family!
O'Reilly is a fraud...no spin, my ass...MikeT, surprised you didn't engage in the omnidigerent discussion over on VP, as I believe you are a professed Calvanist, no?
To be quite honest, I don't know where I stand these days. I see a lot of evidence for both sides, which is why I straddle the border between wesleyan-arminianism and calvinism. I think that God is quite willing to withold his grace from people so that they cannot see the truth until a certain point. That's what happened to me.
I think there is indeed something more to the ingnorance of most people than merely being unwilling to see what's truly there. A lot of people genuinely are in the dark and can't see the truth even if you prove it to them. There is a spiritual barrier between them and the gospel.
As Vox said once, I think that once we start seeing the world as it realy is, it will start to see a lot stranger. Time is no small part of that. I'd be willing to wager that when it's all said and done, time will be the weirdest part for us to grok.
All I know is that I don't know how God's grace works, how He chooses to give it. God is quite clear that it is unmerited, but I have wrestled with the question of "what is merit?" Election is a process, voluntary or not, and I do believe that God saves us from ourselves. Suddenly the light goes on and we see the truth before us.
Re: O'Reilly, it's interesting that he vehemently attacks the internet, implying that most of the info obtainable there is unmitigated garbage, while simultaneously running a comprehensive website which rakes in cash.
And that would probably be why he made a point near the top of Vox's media whores list. He's a blatant fraud. For such a man of the people, he sure has a funny way of showing that he supports things that empower the public instead of elites.
Did you ever listen to O'Reilly when Dan Rather went through his escapades?
Bill defended him like they were brothers.
Makes you wonder...