[Previous entry: "Harry Potter and the Dumbing Down of America"] [Next entry: "Guilty Nerd Pleasures"]

I've been watching the O'Reilly Factor recently (when I need a good laugh) and his recent pastime has been to chide media sources for what he perceives to be "Anti-Americanism." His targets are the usual "liberal media" sources, The New York Times, BCC, Der Speigel, etc. His complaint against the NYT, for instance, is a semantic one. A recent article referred to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi as a "Jordanian fighter," more likely than not for any other reason than for jouralistic flow. Yet, O'Reilly took to the air, stating the New York Times is "sanitizing terrorism" for not stating explicitly and redundantly that Zarqawi is a "terrorist."

I know that the vast majority of O'Reilly's followers need things explicitly spelled out to them (c-a-t . . . "cat"), but I do not see how this stylisitic criticism amounts to Anti-Americanism. Nor, for instance, when the BBC refers to the suspects involved in the London attacks (accurately, no less) as "bombers."

I wonder if there really is such an orchestrated effort to "sanitize terror," or if O'Reilly has sunk to the point of wrapping himself in the flag such that he can then grandstand against anyone who might disagree with him; or, perhaps, he's a paranoid old fool.

Perhaps O'Reilly might be more comfortable with the monosyllabic "bad man" as a definite description of anyone who might commit acts of terror.