Not by me. I attack it because of its sleaze, lack of balance, and intellectual dishonesty. CNN is far from perfect, but it makes a much better effort to be fair and balanced. Even NPR, which has a fairly strong liberal bias, is far superior to Fox. (I rarely watch the traditional “big three” TV networks, so perhaps this is skewing my assessment, but I often hear conservatives claim that CNN is left-wing, and they certainly say this about NPR, so I think I can make a fair judgment based on comparison of these three. If you want an example of a respectable news source that generally “leans right”–though like Fox, it does so less on moral issues than on economic and power-oriented ones–I’d give you U.S. News and World Report.)
Certainly I’m biased in the sense that I’m most conservative on the issues that secular media sources are least likely to be conservative on (abortion, sexual morality, homeschooling) and least so on the issues that these media are most conservative on (issues having to do with capitalism, nationalism, and the use of force). To me even CNN is biased in a “conservative” direction on immigration, for instance, or on the war in Iraq.
To the secular progressives that is the unforgivable sin of politics, leaning right!
I’m not a secular progressive (I’m certainly not secular and I consider the concept of “progress” to be a silly superstition except in the context of Catholic Christianity), so this is really irrelevant.
O’Reilly therefore is attacked as being uncharitable, but have you read the vitriol coming from S.P’s?
The fair comparison is between O’Reilly and other people with high profiles in “major news networks,” not between O’Reilly and some wacko liberal blogger out there. Lou Dobbs is an example of a vitriolic secular commentator, but he is sometimes vitriolic in “liberal” ways and more often in “conservative” ones (for instance, his most anti-Catholic comments have been directed against Archbishop Mahoney and his stance on immigration).
How about the S-P Human Rights Commissions who prosecute Christians for holding Christian views on sexuality and forcing them to renounce their faith, such as Steven Boisson an evangelical pastor from Alberta? Even a Bishop is gagged and forced to spent thousands to defend himself for quoting the Catechism on homosexuality (Bishop Fred Henry of Alberta).
I’m aware that the Canadian context (and the European context) is very different. In the U.S., claims of “persecution of Christians” are usually overblown and taken completely out of context. Conservative Christians have a great deal of power in the U.S. (though probably still not proportional to their numbers), and it’s time they recognized the fact instead of playing the “perpetual victim” card. Christians ought to listen to Wiccans or atheists, for instance, and their stories of what it’s like to be open about one’s beliefs in an average American public high school. The perception of secularists and neo-pagans is that most American schools (like American society in general) are dominated by Christians, and that if you are up front about being anything else you face very serious social consequences. (Just go look at the threads on this forum posted by Catholics who think that they should break off friendships with Wiccans. Then imagine what it would be like to be a Wiccan surrounded by people who thought they shouldn’t be your friends because of your religious beliefs. How many Christians actually face this?) No doubt these claims too are overblown. But Christians need to be fair instead of assuming privilege and wailing whenever we don’t get it.
These are the ones O’Reilly wants to hold accountable. He has no problem with conservatives or liberals…it’s the radical LEFT he takes issue with because they get all the media attention and viciously attack ad hominem anyone who would dare lean right in their presence.
Definitions like “radical left” or “radical right” are relative. Everyone wants to define their opponents as “radicals” and themselves as centrists. These labels are meaningless. The absolutes are truth and justice and goodness, not “right” and “left.”