To listen to an audio of this article and find other articles by this author, visit: theinspiringrevolutionsblog.blogspot.com The Robot Bill O’Reilly, A Second Coming Written on July 8, 2008 The Robot Bill O’Reilly strikes again. Before moving forward with his second coming, let me say that, in this second article on this topic, my intention is not to harp on some point but rather to elaborate on it. It is to use the examples that Bill O’Reilly provides to illuminate patterns that we can learn from as they relate to how our words reflect our hypocrisies and to bring to light the inner conflicts that we must resolve in order to resolve our outer conflicts. On two separate shows where O’Reilly was debating people who (as he might put it) were “left-leaning” in their political views, he repeatedly said to them, “Do your own research” (and in one show, also called what someone was saying “propaganda,” a term that simply relates to “propagating,” or “spreading” a set of ideas, which is something that O’Reilly clearly attempts to do just by the nature of having a TV talk show.) One of the shows was a “Meet the Press” episode where Tim Russert was interviewing him and economist Paul Krugman, and the other show was “The O’Reilly Factor,” where O’Reilly was interviewing political commentators Paul Begala and James Carville. O’Reilly’s demanding statement of “do your own research” is both hypocritical and impossible, and what we as viewers can learn from it is a recognition and understanding that quite often the demands we try to make of others are the very suggestions that we ourselves must be listening to. First, let’s understand the inherent impossibility of his demand. The idea that anchors, reporters, and commentators should do their own research seems like a valuable demand. But the sheer amount of facts that are part of any issue (and that’s just one issue) would make it impossible for any single person to research all the facts themselves. You therefore need various sources so that you can build a more comprehensive picture of the situation. Just think of how the internet often functions. In many ways, it is a collection of information gatherers who research the topics they enjoy and then post it for others so that they don’t have to do all the research themselves. Now, two clear issues then surface about this information gathering method. One is the accuracy of the information, and the other is how the personal biases of the information provider can often tag along with the information. Admittedly both of these issues relate to each other because a person with a bias, especially a strong one, will often find and deliver information that reinforces their bias. That’s where critical thinking comes in. You see, it’s impossible to research all the information yourself, but you can still ask important questions about the information you receive. First, are they providing clear and comprehensive evidence to back up their information? Second, are they taking any point of view on what this information means without any clear evidence or indisputable logic to back it up? In other words, do they offer opinions and interpretations that can be questioned? Just because you get information from other sources does not mean you can’t question the information you get. So the demand O’Reilly dishes out is not really a constructive answer to the information that he is presented. If he wants to evaluate the accuracy of the information or the structure of the logic, then that would be a valuable way of putting it to the test – instead of simply dismissing it with an impossible request that he himself does not abide by. O’Reilly clearly does not do all of his own research on every facet of every topic. He relies on other sources and internal reporters. Case in point… When Scott McClellan was on “The O’Reilly Factor,” O’Reilly took issue with McClellan’s assertion in his book that the media also got caught up in the emotional build-up to the war without the proper questioning and exploring of whether there was adequate substance to the argument for doing so. O’Reilly mentioned three intelligence agencies that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and questioned McClellan on whether he (O’Reilly) was not supposed to “believe” them. The answer to that question, based on O’Reilly’s own “do-your-own-research” demands, would be “no.” No, we should not “believe” other people or agencies simply because they say something and simply because we “believe” they have credibility. “Belief” is not “fact.” That is the reason why we say in the legal system that people are “innocent until proven guilty.” There were no concrete facts to support the argument for war. The only evidence was an informant who spoke of the acquisition of yellowcake. Now, while this act itself, even if true, could have prompted many more questions regarding whether it justified war, simply having an informant would never hold up in a court of law. And yet, in this case, when it came to a decision that didn’t just have to do with a few people (which most court cases do), but rather a decision that would affect hundreds of millions (and really the whole global world), a simple informant was enough “research” and evidence to take a position and an action. If O’Reilly held himself to the same standard that he attempts to hold others to on the “other” side, then he certainly would not promote war simply from something that he had to “believe.” In this way, O’Reilly’s demand of others is a demand that he himself must listen to in his own work and in support of his own political ideas, positions, and recommendations. That is what “fair and balanced” actually means. It is where you not only get information from other sources, you get it from both sides and you critically analyze, without subjective bias, not what you “believe” to be accurate, but what is adequately proven to be accurate. It is then that we often see that neither side is “right” nor “wrong.” They explain different parts of our nation’s problems and recommend different parts of the ultimate solution as well. Be wary of the repeated mantras of the media’s biased anchors. They exist on all “sides” of the political spectrum, and the shows that repeat them are more accurately described as TV “personality” talk shows, not “news” shows. Use your logic and seek adequate evidence before you develop your own perspectives (or take on the perspectives of media personalities). To learn more about the trends of our constantly changing global world, purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php To buy a physical copy (which is currently on sale) of The Makings of a President, click the link below: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php To find out how to get your free eBook copy of The Makings of a President, click the link below: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/president To begin applying these ideas to your own life, answer the questions below: - Where in your life do you accept positions because they benefit your interests or principles, without doing adequate research on its truth? - Where in your life do you accept positions without being willing to really delve into the “other side” of the argument and objectively and openly analyzing their ideas, facts, and views? - Where in your life do you attempt to “propagate,” or spread, your ideas and positions without having done “fair and balanced” research – in an open manner? - How does it feel to know that you engage in “propaganda?” Have you ever accused, in a defeating way, someone else of engaging in propaganda? - What phrases, demands, and suggestions do you constantly repeat in your debates or discussions with other people? How do those comments apply to you, your life, and what you need to learn? - If you had an open mind that sought truth without personal bias, whose ideas would you need to look into, accept, and embrace? What prevents you from doing so? And how can you do so now?