TV news wars

Bill O'Reilly's a TV personality you either love or hate. For all the outlandish things he's said -- most of it much worse than Rosie -- he hasn't drawn a lot of publicity. That changed, when yesterday's outburst drew the anger of media giants CNN and NBC.

On a radio show, O'Reilly -- bunching CNN and MSNBC in the left-wing caboodle -- said:

"On [O'Reilly Factor], I don't do a lot of Iraq reporting because we don‘t know what's happening. We can't find out. So I'm taking an argument that CNN and MSNBC are actually helping the terrorists by reporting useless explosions. Do you care if another bomb went off in Tikrit? Does it mean anything? No! It doesn't mean anything."

(This was in response to a study that cited Fox News doing the least Iraq coverage.)

He argued CNN and MSNBC delighted in showing bombs blast in Iraq. By showing that, they are discrediting Bush and helping the left-wing cause, he said.

Those accusations pissed off MSNBC . As a response, Dan Abrams, MSNBC's chief, interviewed a panel of network bitches and one dissenting media expert, Bob Kohn.

In a shocking reversal, Kohn made Abrams his bitch, slapping his butt at will and ripping MSNBC's fraudulent standards of claiming to be "unbiased." Abrams has no business in TV journalism, I've always maintained that, and this confirmed it.

MSNBC providing balanced coverage in Iraq and not discrediting Bush is BS, Kohn told Abrams. MSNBC openly discredits Bush, and their negative Iraq stories outnumbers their positive stories, Kohn said. That smells of bias, he said.

MSNBC atleast covered the war, Abrams debated back. He questioned O'Reilly and Fox News' patriotism and commitment to America by not covering the war.

And Kohn started his bashing right there.

KOHN: This is like McCarthyism. You know...

ABRAMS: How‘s that?

KOHN: Because you guys complain that your patriotism was being questioned when you guys spoke out against the war. Now you‘re questioning this [O'Reilly's] dedication...to the troops. I think you're taking this out of context. He was definitely making a point here about the journalism that's going on here.

And...

ABRAMS: As the person who runs the network, Bob, are you accusing me of telling people to cover the story a way that embarrasses the administration?

KOHN: You're not a news reporter, you're an analyst, OK? [There's a difference between reporters and analysts. Reporters don't make decisions sitting on desks or sofas, analysts do.]

ABRAMS: Right, and I also run MSNBC. [That's why Abrams sucks, and why MSNBC has been faltering. Abrams shifting his weight means he has no argue or response left.]

KOHN: We have numbers that say NBC is biased, OK?

ABRAMS: ...There is great pride in the way we have covered ... the story. There is no shame ...that MSNBC has ended up covering ... the most important story facing Americans today.

KOHN: But don't claim to be objective!

--

Abrams assumed O'Reilly was in an "indefensible" position, but Kohn turned the table and embarassed MSNBC. Assuming O'Reilly in a weak position before the segment shows "biased" coverage. Every good reporter knows not to assume that before covering a story.

That's a small sampler of why Abrams is a failure. Let's hope he doesn't garbage MSNBC completely. He hasn't done anything to improve MSNBC, while Fox News, as trashy as it is, improves and continues to innovate with experiments like "Red Eye."

Back to O'Reilly, I don't like or hate the guy. He's successful because he is a showman, and he draws attention with whatever he says. Like Rosie. Can you do that?