Oh, It's a "Newscast"

Holy crap, you learn something new every day.

I had an amazing, eye-opening experience yesterday. I had just posted the blog below ("Olbermann = O'Reilly"), and went on to a message board site populated primarily by Keith's sheep. (Heck, at least it's free - I think O'Reilly's sheep actually pay to join his!)

I must admit, I was under the impression that even KO's fans know that his show is opinion. Surely no one honestly thinks it's a "news" show, not even his sheepiest sheep. If Countdown is a "news" show, then so is Rush.

So I posted this sentiment on KO's message board. I figured it might annoy his sheep a little, but I must admit I was surprised at the reaction. Standard shrill denials aside (I expect such behavior from folks like this), Keith's sheep made it quite clear that they believe his show is an objective, daily look at the news.

Really, I'm serious.

So imagine this: When Keith laces each "news story" with an ongoing stream of name-calling, hyperbole, spin and unbridled hatred, his minions believe they're watching nothing more than Walter Cronkite with glasses and more hair. When he punctuates each "news story" with an interview with someone who agrees with his angle completely (he doesn't have the guts to debate with anyone), his sheep are thinking to themselves, "well, yes, this is obviously true"

I'm having fun with this, but I must admit I find it troubling.

While I agree with liberals on roughly half the issues out there, I can also see that the left is becoming so radicalized that reason and common sense are simply no longer allowed by these people. These people are truly on an ideological jihad, and I have no reason to believe this is going to change any time soon. They are shouting down and shutting up all contrary discourse, and their wild-eyed zealotry cannot be reasoned with on any level. I mean this literally - I would have no more confidence in changing the mind of an Al Qaeda terrorist than I would an American far left-winger.

Even when I don't like the Republican candidate (which is often), how am I supposed to support and vote for someone who is supported by these people?

...

Olbermann = O'Reilly

Well, I've had it. Last night was it.

I've watched with some amusement as Olbermann and O'Reilly carried on their silly, self-important slap fight for what seems like decades. But after watching Keith's head nearly explode (again) during his show last night, I need a catharsis. And this blog is where I cathart.

Is that a word?

Anyway, the fact is, Olbermann & O'Reilly are merely opposite sides of the same ridiculous coin. Both spin and fabricate at a furious clip, and both are watched and worshipped by sheep whose minds are as closed as their heroes'.

First, Olbermann, since his stunning bullcrap last night is what finally induced me to vomit this particular blog...

... last night, KO called someone a "right wing water carrier". And you're what, Keith, an "objective journalist"? Are you so far gone that you think you're somewhere in the middle? Holy crap. I don't even know what else to say on that one...

... I'm sure I wasn't dreaming this: MSNBC referring to KO's show as a "newscast." Perhaps I was laboring under the impression that "newscast" inferred some kind of balance, objectivity and reason. My bad. The term "newscast" must now mean "a partisan sheep taking an hour of cable time to rant like an under-medicated lunatic"...

... KO said "Bush lied unintentionally". Keith, doesn't lying imply intent? Does that mean that when you're wrong about something, you're lying, too? Is this a joke? Do you not see the difference between being wrong and lying? Of course not, you don't want to. Not when you can attack someone with whom you disagree.

... KO's record of being afraid to debate anyone on his show continued. Have you noticed that his only guests are people who agree with him? What you afraid of, Keith? Even BILL debates with guests, and he does it every night! Aren't you good enough?

... KO's fixation on BO has long since reached "creepy" levels. KO obviously doesn't understand that he drives viewers to Bill every time he whines. Perhaps KO feels he's elevating himself on the national scene with his bizarre attacks on BO, attaching himself to a bigger star. Hmm. As a matter of fact, this fixation now makes sense.

Olbermann is nothing more than MoveOn.orgTV. He's found his niche, playing to the far-left sheep, and he's running with it. Supply & demand. He's not to be taken seriously, of course, but no sheep are.

As for Mr. O'Reilly...

... there are times his show are simply unwatchable, especially when he launches into his Hannity-like diatribes laced with a disturbing mix of pollyanna and naivete...

... his faux-populist "we're looking out for you" claim has to be one of the funnier lines on television or radio. My guess is that it's his way of saying "...really, I'm not a right wing loon, so I'll occasionally pretend the GOP is pissing me off on something." Right, got it...

... after watching his show for a few years now, I'm still undecided - is his over-the-top pomposity just showbiz like Limbaugh's, or is it an uncontrollable nasty sludge that oozes out of him on a regular basis? My guess is, it's the latter, but either way it simply overpowers whatever "point" he's trying to make...

... another point of curiousity: With his track record, I can't help but think that all the hot babes he has on his show as guest pundits and experts are there for his carnal interests more than for their input and opinions. As creepy as KO's fixation is on O'Reilly, these segments of BO's show are even more creepy.

O'Reilly has done precisely the same thing Olbermann has: He's found his niche, he's identified his sheep, and he feeds them nightly.

Neither man deserves to be taken seriously. But, given their intense hatred for each other, it's absolutely delicious how similar they are.

And that, my friends, is the biggest source of their hatred.

...

The Press is Honest

I began my 20-year career in broadcasting in 1979. I spend most of that time in radio, with a few forays into television. I was more of a radio guy.

During my two decades I was fortunate enough to do everything from hosting entertainment/humor-oriented morning shows to running news departments to hosting talk shows.

Either I'm multi-talented or I just never found something that I enjoyed enough to stick with, take your pick.

However, I'm afraid I don't have much tolerance for those who claim to know how the industry works, when they have never spent a day in the industry. I, for example, would not be much of an authority on the inner workings of the proctology industry.

So, to my point.

Regarding the thesis: "The press is populated by roughly 85% liberals, and they don't go out of their way to hide that fact in their reporting."

I can say this - the press is, indeed, populated by roughly 85% liberals, and their reporting leans decidedly left. I could quote myriad studies that prove this painfully obvious fact, but those who deny it certainly wouldn't admit it -- so I generally don't waste the time.

The fact is, a story can be pushed into an ideological direction in several ways - by adding opinion disguised as fact, by not including opposing facts to balance the story, where the story is placed in the broadcast or the newspaper, and whether it is even covered at all if it does not support a liberal agenda.

With that as a foundation, I'd like to explain it a bit. First of all, most journalists will deny that the press leans left. If they were to do that, it would destroy their credibility, such as it is. But there's much more to it than that.

This is a hypothetical situation, but it is the type of situation that I dealt with many times in my decades in the industry:

A reporter writes and produces a story about how several Iraqi citizens hate America and want our troops to get the hell out of their country. You see them in a group, screaming angrily, holding anti-American signs and making it quite clear they're not happy with us in general.

The story makes no attempt to balance this information with an acknowledgement of all the Iraqis who are happy with us there, thankful that we are changing their country and their lives for the better.

If you were to ask the reporter why they angled the story in such a distorted way, you could very well get a puzzled look, and an answer such as, "well, it's true, we shouldn't be here."

The reporter is being perfectly honest and sincere. His ideology has convinced him that the war is wrong, and that he is simply reporting a fact. He honestly doesn't recognize that his opinion has overwhelmed his ability to see any kind of balance. He is literally reporting what he sees as fact.

And what about the people who feel we should be in Iraq, those who say the surge is working, those who say we should stay and finish the job?

Well, in the eyes of the reporter, these people are simply wrong. Why would the reporter report that it's Monday when it's Thursday? The reporter wants to be accurate, and in his mind, he therefore must report data that supports "the facts".

Do you see the difference between purposely slanting the news and reporting it as fact?

There are many in the press who have been so immersed in their ideology for so long that they simply can no longer few anything else as anything but incorrect.

Additionally, if you were to spend any significant amount of time in the halls of a radio station, television station or newspaper, you would often hear "readers/listeners/viewers are stupid" coming from the mouths of those who provide us with our news. I heard it so many times in my years that I came to view it is normal.

The press looks at the public as naive and under-informed, in general. They feel it is their job to enlighten us to what's really going on. This is not hyperbole on my part, I'm being literal.

Does the press lean left? Of course, obviously. Does it realize it? Perhaps not.

...

ColoradoMacCare

Everyone else has a freaking health care plan, why can't I?


First of all, the "ideas" being offered by both "sides" are a travesty. The Dems are pushing for "free" health care that will be anything but free; it will stifle competition, which will destroy the few efficiencies currently in the system and will significantly hamper innovation through entreprenuerism. Additionally, when health care is "free", I'll invite you to take a visit to any ER or doctor's office waiting room and try to find a seat. Access will immediately be destroyed by demand. Ultimately, and relatively quickly, we will see bureaucratic rationing of our health care. So we'll have reduced access, less innovation, much higher costs through taxes and rationing. Delightful.

I would offer a concrete opinion of the Republican's health care plan, but it's so vague and sloppy as to be unintelligible. If the GOP thinks that tax credits are going to excite and ignite the electorate, they're even more naive than I thought they were. Sheesh, at least the Dems can explain their plan in two words: "Government controlled." How are you going to motivate a person who doesn't pay much in the way of taxes (or no taxes) that tax breaks are the way to go? Is this a joke? If it is, it's not very funny.

So here we go:

Technology - Computers are neat. Turn them on, push a few buttons and stuff shows up on the screen. Every provider, from family doctors to brain surgeons to emergency rooms, should have instant access to my complete health history via centralized medical information banks. Instant access to this information will immediately save time and money, and will significantly reduce the possibility of diagnosis and/or treatment error. No, this won't be easy, nor will it happen tomorrow. But we must have a strategy to (1) keep costs down, (2) keep errors down, and (3) speed up detection and treatment. This is it. Get on it, now.

The Basic Structure - Most people don't know what Medicare Advantage plans are. In short, they are major medical health plans for seniors, with a drug plan built in. Medicare pays insurance companies a certain amount for each enrollee, and the insurance company adminsters the plan. Insurance companies are not allowed to "cherry pick" enrollees, meaning they can't accept just the "healthy" ones. The insurance companies essentially are the enrollee's Medicare plan, the enrollee does not lose it.

On the other hand, these plans are, by far, much richer in benefits than standard Medicare. Why? Because insurance companies are far, far more efficient than the government in administering health care. Obviously. Competition plays a key role, as the insurance companies compete with each other to provide better benefits and better "value added" services, such as health club memberships and dental/vision. Typical office co-pays are $15 or $20. Hospital co-pays may be $600 for the whole visit.

Pete Stark of California has been attacking "Private Fee for Service" Medicare Advantage plans for quite a while. He complains that these highly flexible plans are too expensive, that it's costing Medicare up to 12% more to insure someone on one of these plans. Fine. Let's move towards more managed care on these plans, such as PPO and HMO. The insurance companies are already offering these kinds of plans. They may be able to make the PFFS plans more efficient, anyway. Sit down and shut up, Mr. Stark. Take your socialized medicine and cram it.

Right now, believe it or not - even with the higher-accessing senior population being covered - many of these plans have a zero-dollar premium. And most are under $100 a month. How can this be? Because the government is re-directing Medicare funds to the far more efficient insurance companies. Go figure!

These plans have been wildly successful, the seniors love them. I can hear you thinking, "Why haven't I heard about these plans?" - it's because the press would prefer you didn't. As we know, success in the public sector is bad news for them. Too bad. We model our basic health plan on Medicare Advantage.

Insurance & Drug Companies - I think it's wrong to dictate to companies how much money they're "allowed" to make, but I must admit it - the insurance companies are simply making too much money with Medicare Advantage plans - and that's even covering seniors, who access care much, much more than younger people.

Their profit margins would multiply with the younger, healthier folks on board. So, they have to pony up too. Their plans must be much richer, by lowering co-pays and adding more complete dental and vision benefits. Short-term and long-term disability would be nice, too. Mandatory for all insurance companies, as are no co-pay preventive services from physicals to pap smears to colorectal screenings. Long term care insurance may even fit in there. But, competition, innovation and the free market must be at the heart of this plan if we want to keep costs down and quality up.

Taxes - Before we raise taxes (and we may need to save that for Social Security), let's get some estimates on what my plan would cost above and beyond where we are now. However, with all the money being saved on this plan (by individuals and businesses alike), would an additional two, three, five per cent increase in sales taxes be too much to pay? For me, no. Look at what businesses and individuals would save.

Right now, Medicare Advantage plans are giving excellent coverage for a small price, and they're including preventive care. If we have to add a bit to the tax base to achieve this for all, I'm all for it. But competition must remain.

A Culture of Health - Here's where eyes roll, I know. But it's past time that we deal seriously with the rampant and rising obesity rates in this country. This will be addressed in the health care plans by providing consistent, ongoing preventive care. Perhaps there would be a way to motivate people to access this care.

Real, standardized nutrition and exercise education should be provided in schools (as should fundamental economics, but that's for another column).

This culture should extend to businesses such as restaurants and food suppliers. Not through regulation, but simply through information and education. Let's change the way we look at things.

That's ColoradoMacCare. Access for all, competition, innovation, quality, choice. Elements from both sides of the political spectrum. Based on a successful existing system.

And I'm not holding my breath.

...