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.)
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,” she told a very skeptical O’Reilly, citing her latest column on her website as filled with evidence of this being true.
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...”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).
Ann Coulter On "The O’Reilly Factor"
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've probably seen recent stories that over 40% of Republicans -- or an even higher fraction of Tea Partiers -- think the current President wasn’t born in this country. You may also have heard Rush Limbaugh talking about what the people surveyed think in dramatic (or even bombastic) terms. It's spin.
"No single step would revitalize our fearful national spirit than a new era of civic republicanism.
