My Thanks to Bill O'Reilly

In the wake of the earthquake-induced crisis in Japan, O'Reilly let Ann Coulter demonstrate her willingness to talk about radiation and nuclear fallout - she has no apparent understanding of the risks inherent in either - thus further clarifying for his audience that Ms. Coulter is more interested in sensationalism for the sake of ratings and readers than she is in reality. (At least, reality as most people understand it.)

“There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says is actually good for you and actually reduces cancer,” she told a very skeptical O’Reilly, citing her latest column on her website as filled with evidence of this being true.

From Ann Coulter On The O’Reilly Factor: ‘Radiation Is Actually Good For You’

Parts of the plume of radioactive ash may hit parts of the U.S. west coast very soon, and naturally enough concern and interest are running high. O'Reilly, who is not averse to taking provocative stands for the sake of exploring an issue himself, was earnest in trying to get her to back off, making references to sunbathing, and yet Ms. Coulter remained firm and basically said "it's the media's fault" (evidently she's not part of the media despite how she earns her living) for not covering the positive health benefits of radiation.

I'd love to see her sources if it didn't mean giving her even more time to mislead the public. I admit I understand that anybody who worries about the impact of energy production on climate has to at least give a nod to the nuclear industry in terms of greenhouse gas production -- but the argument against it has always been the risks from radiation, both at the plant and wherever the waste is stored. I'm a proponent of lower-risk solutions, which largely means wind, solar, geo-thermal, and so on, so I suppose you should consider my take on this might be less-than-perfectly objective.

Still, I'm up front about where I stand; unlike Ms. Coulter I'm admitting my personal ideology may temper my view. No pundit or journalist can be utterly objective, but when their income clearly benefits from sensationalism you have to be very, very careful to examine and think critically to sort what's truthful versus what's possibly self-serving, ratings-chasing nonsense.

“There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says is actually good for you and actually reduces cancer...”

Ann Coulter On "The O’Reilly Factor"

Bill O'Reilly has just exposed a flagrant example of the ratings-chasing behavior that undermines access to reliable, trusted information. Unfortunately, it's hard to point such behaviors out without shedding even more attention on the culprit(s).

Thomas Hayes is a Irish-American Entrepreneur-Journalist, and former Congressional Campaign Manager; he's a follow-the-money communications strategist-consultant, photo-videographer, over-hyphenated union-supporter, and computer-geek (recovering) who writes on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

You can follow Tom as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Tom Hayes: Fox organizes and promotes protests against U.S. gov't

That's not reporting the news.

It may be what you like; it's certainly not illegal. It is not, however, what news organizations do, as Rachel Maddow explains eloquently in the short video below:

Rupert Murdoch's Fox wants to re-shape the American Dream, perhaps, but they don't want to report on it. What they want, clearly, is ratings - followed closely by profits. Fox network is a business; it's their right.

But that's not reporting the news.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Tom Hayes: Do we have a right to truth?

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which we often describe as the right of the "Freedom of Speech" which also prohibits interference in religion or the media is being abused in pursuit of corporate profits. Remember how the Bill of Rights starts?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Sounds good, right? We can't know exactly what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we do know that misinformation distorts debates and delays progress. I've come across a story that explains a lot of the shameless prevarication we've seen from the Fox network over the past 6 years or so.

In brief, back in February 2003 a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

"The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law..."

Never, ever doubt that a commercial media outlet is driven by profit.

In Florida, the Court held that a threat by Jane Akre (part of a Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay) to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation."

The decision reversed an earlier judgment against Fox.

We can't know what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights but it seems unlikely that their intent was to protect the right to profit from untruths. They went so far as to include the oft-overlooked 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Of course, that raises the sticky question, "Do we have a right to the truth?" Apparently the Court in Florida feels Murdoch's right to profit from capitalism as he operates the Fox network is more fundamental - the Florida appeals court found in favor of corporate bottom lines even at the expense of accurate information. It might be worth exploring how they feel about "creative accounting." After all, they found that profit trumps truth.

Read more about this dangerous and disgraceful interpretation; if you share my indignation, spread the word.


Thomas Hayes is a political analyst, journalist, and entrepreneur who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics including economics, politics, culture, and community.

Tom Hayes - Obama's Denmark trip is much bigger than Chicago

We've embarked on a "War on Terrorism" that doesn't have fronts on a map, or massed armies. Fighting to win means engaging in ways that win the hearts and minds of people half-way 'round the world from us, people who listen to neither Jon Stewart nor the Fox network to inform their opinions of the USA.

Foreign policy:
more than insuring oil supplies and limiting nuclear proliferation.

All our military strength and intelligence gathering wasn't enough to stop the terrorist attacks in 2001.

"It's easy to assume the Obamas connections to Chicago are driving their interest, but the reality is they're using that obvious familiarity to the advantage of our entire country in this case.

Plain and simply, this is a great chance to put our American principles on display, and it's just a fortunate coincidence that the President and First Lady have personal ties to the only U.S. city in the running for the 2016 games."

The reason Tokyo, Rio, and Madrid are still in the hunt for the summer Olympic bid for that year is that world opinion matters, and hosting the Olympic games boosts any country's image.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Read more...