To all those liberals who ignore or otherwise disparage the Fox News Channel for being a right-wing channel unworthy of any respect, I would simply ask them why, if this were true (it isn't), Fox goes out of its way to hire liberal commentators to balance their admittedly right-wing ones? Case in point: Alan Colmes, co-host of the popular nightly "Hannity & Colmes" show. This guy is extreme left-wing, although pretty coherent. I disagree with 90% of what comes out of his mouth, but at least what comes out is worth hearing.
Another case in point: Geraldo Rivera. This guy has been widely considered just a fool for almost as long as I can remember, but now he's really being perceived as a left-wing bomb-thrower, as well. When I was a kid, his reputation was as this great investigative journalist. It was because of this reputation that everyone paid attention when he found Al Capone's personal safe and opened it on live television. This was a big drama at the time (I want to say early 80's), yet the safe contained -- absolutely nothing. Geraldo was disgraced and his detractors still cite this television moment when they insult the guy. The safe became Geraldo's Chappaquidick; something people mention whenever the guy starts getting some good press.
Lately, though, he has been very vocal in his support of amnesty for illegal aliens, and equally vocal in his disdain for those who oppose such things. In the process, he has proven conservatives' point (for the millionth time) that liberals are rarely thoughtful about their positions, and immature in their debates with conservatives. Their "arguments" are post-modern "stories" designed to evoke certain emotions rather than make a logical point. Their methods are rarely to debate an idea, but to demonize its messenger(s). These arguments frequently also involve lying when describing the conservative opposition in order to create a straw man to tear down. Everywhere you turn in the liberal world, you find this to be the case.
With Geraldo in particular, the guy who Fox has put out there the last several years as a serious journalist has really started to get "unhinged", to use a term Michelle Malkin coined a few years ago to describe out-of-control fanatical liberals. Michelle posted on her blog this morning an excerpt from a Boston Globe piece on Geraldo, in which he comments about her specifically. I have read of him doing this several times in the past few weeks. The rhetoric has been getting worse. Keep in mind this is a colleague, as Michelle frequently appears and guest-hosts on Fox for Bill O'Reilly. Here is what he says in the article:
“Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my
life,” he says. “She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out
neighbors, and we should be deporting people."
“It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York,” Rivera sneers. “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”
Now I don't care whether you're conservative or liberal or whatever. This kind of vitriol is totally inappropriate, especially for a colleague. It's unprofessional, to start with. Can you imagine saying this about someone you worked with? Secondly, his description of Michelle's beliefs is over-simplified and, as usual, designed to make people despise her. Thirdly, this ridiculous comment about spitting on her is juvenile at best. That a 64-year-old man would make such a comment about someone other than perhaps a Nazi or serial murderer, on the record in a newspaper, is just despicable. Why we pay attention to this guy is beyond me.
Hard-core liberals are slippery. They argue on emotion, rarely facts, and personally attack the people who disagree with them in order to make them stop commenting. This is what makes them so aggravating, because they are often able to get traction in public debates using such ridiculous tactics. People like Geraldo should not be listened-to. They should be ignored and other, thoughtful people should be found to make better arguments in a more civil discourse.
Posts
|