There is no getting around the fact that Bill O’Reilly must be one smart guy. Just ask him. He is a Harvard graduate with a couple of Masters Degrees, plus extensive training in the art of assholism (I know there’s no such word, but in explaining the use of the word, “refudiate,” Sarah Palin assured fans that it is okay to make up words because William Shakespeare made up words. And speaking of masterful writers, I made up assholism in my masterpiece, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger. Indeed, I’m adding another contribution to literature by composing long parenthetical digressions).

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/19/sarah-palin-refudiate/ 

Getting back to Bill O’Reilly finally, I am fascinated by his remarks regarding the influence and impact of Fox “News” on television viewers—more influential he claims than other networks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/bill-oreilly-fox-news-bet_n_652477.html

O’Reilly is correct in believing that the Republican propaganda network gives viewers the news they want to hear, which is basically what he is saying. However, the comment makes me wonder if he really received a Masters in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University. After all, O’Reilly once falsely claimed that he was awarded a Peabody. If he’s telling the truth about his Masters, I want be recommending the journalism school to fledgling reporters. The role of news is to report the truth and give people information they need to know. My old employer, CNN, at least tries. But Fox fails miserably as a legitimate news organization. The network so slanted to the right that discerning truth is a formidable test for viewers—even if they cared.

I concede that Fox “News” has considerable influence on its viewers. On a regular basis, I encounter Fox folks who take the attitude of “Don’t confuse me with facts.” Some are simply too lazy to think for themselves. Others are angry, unhappy people facing economic setbacks and other difficulties they don’t understand. O’Reilly and his right-wing comrades provide viewers targets to assign blame. Primarily Democrats. 

But lets face it, monkeys in a room filled with typewriters (are any left?) will compose one word that is comprehensible. And even though God may punish me for this, I’m going to give Fox ”News,” Bill O’Reilly and Megyn (this is hard to spit out) Kelly an A+ for criticizing Bob Scheiffer, the CBS host of Face the Nation. Crazy Megyn’s point……

Attorney General Eric Holder sit downs with CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer for a half hour, a one-on-one interview. And not one question about the now-infamous New Black Panther voter intimidation case….

I’m telling you one of two things happened. You tell me if I’m wrong. Number one, Schieffer doesn’t care about the story and just decided to punt on it, even though you can find facts about it on CBS.com. So, the Web site over there is doing its job, but Schieffer apparently isn’t interested in the story. Or, number two, the DOJ sent guidelines for this interview and told him you can’t ask about that.

In reality, the Black Panther case is a non-story stemming from a decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to drop a civil case regarding allegations of voter harrassment at precincts in Philadelphia during the November, 2008 Presidential election. Critics of Eric Holder—wing-nuts mostly—have accused the Attorney General of showing favoritism in cases involving African Americans. In this instance, there is no monetary value in pursuing a case against individuals without assets.

The so-called scandal has been conjured by Megyn Kelly and other Fox loonies. But it received enough publicity to a warrant question by Scheiffer during Holder’s appearance on the Sunday program. In an interview with Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, Scheiffer pleaded ignorance. The veteran CBS newsman said he had been on vacation and was unaware of the Holder “scandal.” Shame on Scheiffer. Unless he was trapped in the remote jungles of Borneo fighting for his life against headhunters, he must have been in contact with the rest of the world. Most reporters maintain a casual interest in public affairs while on vacation. And besides, news shows like Face the Nation employ producers and researchers to provide questions and background. So O’Reilly wins one.

Let me tally the scorecard. He is correct that Fox distorts the news to fit an audience, wrong to suggest this is good journalism, right that Fox has influence on its viewers, wrong in believing they have good sense, correct in saying Scheiffer screwed-up, and wrong in considering the Black Panther case worthy of Scheiffer’s attention. According to my Tuscaloosa High School math skills, O’Reilly has three rights and three wrongs. That comes out to 50 percent—a miserable grade.

Hey, Bill. How the hell did you ever get into Harvard? On an assholism scholarship?  

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.

I resisted the temptation of titling this post, ”A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss.” But I am still using the trite phrase because it’s true. The magazine has been around for more than four decades. And the article that resulted in yesterday’s resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as commander of troops in Afghanistan is not the first time Rolling Stone has caused Washington heads to roll—or at least flinch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/23/AR2010062305371.html?wpisrc=nl_headline

Although most of Rolling Stone’s readership is less than half my age, I used the magazine as a background reference many times in gathering information for investigative stories I tackled. Indeed, an article printed a few years ago in the publication is part of the material I’ve accumulated in connection with a possible book length investigation I am working on(the topic to be revealed in the future).

The downside of Rolling Stone is it reminds me of my age. Lady Gaga graces the cover of the same issue that has created the McChrystal furor. I know she is a performer, but ignorant of what she performs. I’m still in the age of early rock and roll. More traumatic in making me aware of age is the fact that my only encounter with one of the magazine’s star writers occured when he was eight years old. Matt Taibbi’es father, Mike, is an old friend and former colleague in the late 1970’s when I headed the investigative unit at Boston’s ABC affiliate. Mike is currently an NBC correspondent.

One of the memories Mike and I share is a puzzling invitation extended to us and our wives for a party at the home of a top station executive—a Harvard graduate, who was the quintessential preppie. I describe the invitations as puzzling because we were the only station peons invited. Believing it would be a casual get together, we dressed for such an occasion. Instead, it was a formal dinner party of Boston blue-bloods, complete with designated seating. Mike, our wives and I squirmed uncomfortably while listening to conversations about who should be appointed to the Board of Trustees of Wellesly College and other subjects in which our give-a-shit factor was infinitesimal. I told Mike afterwards that I was tempted to ask the matrons on either side of me, “Ladies, do you fart after eating pork’n beans?”

Anyway, back to Rolling Stone. As stated in the Howard Kurtz article I cited earlier in this missive, the success of the magazine’s in-depth reporting is the freedom given writers with respect to length and language. Matt Taibbi, for example, sprinkles his story with the “F” word and other obscenities—presumably to emphasize points for his under-30 readership. Certainly, the women at the aforementioned dinner party would find such language offensive. Then again, I’m jumping to a conclusion. New Yorker, the magazine of sophisticated society, periodically carries episodes in its Shouts & Murmurs section, titled The Cursing Mommy—the most obscene and funniest feature I can recall reading in the publication.

Language aside, Rolling Stone articles are important because they are well-researched and give context to issues. The publisher has been a strong supporter of President Obama, as well as a campaign contributor. Yet, the magazine does not spare him from scrutiny. Taibbi has done some of the best reporting in exposing the duplicity and missteps of the Obama administration. Fortunately, he and other Rolling Stone writers have a venue to fulfill the obligation of journalists in an era of superficiality.

With the exception of the PBS Frontline documentary series, television has pretty much abandoned that obligation. As much as I like to brag about my awards and success as an investigative reporter, I know that I was only as good as my employers commitment to in-depth journalism. In Baton Rouge, particularly, I was given the kind of freedom that astonished television reporters throughout the country. One-hour investigative documentaries without commercial interruption were unheard of in TV broadcasting.

At the beginning of my ten years as CNN’s Senior Investigative Correspondent, I was optimistic that I would receive the same kind of commitment in a national forum. That’s why I took another network job after spending seven years in muckraking paradise. But it was not to be. I was an old guy in an environment that gradually began targeting a young audience. Not too successfully, if current ratings are any measure. In the wake of General McChrystal’s resignation, I find it ironic that young guys are now influencing an older generation.

Maybe it’s time for all of us AARP dudes to learn about Lady Gaga.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.