a brief look at the bottom of the barrel

In the universe of the ersatz, there is no more representative profession than journalism, whose exponents contrive to sanctify their virtually universal ignorance as neutrality, objectivity, or in Foxspeak, fairness. And in the world of ersatz journalism, there is no more archetypal figure than Bill O'Reilly, who lacks the phony gravitas of a Ted Koppel, the pseudo-intelligence of a Lesley Stahl, the lame wit of a Rush Limbaugh, the blow dried vacuity of a Brian Williams, or even the mock-earnestness of a Wolf Blitzer. What O'Reilly does affect as a kind of zirconium surrogate for such empty respectability is chutzpah, which he has coming out of the kazoo (wherever that happens to be). Tonight he put on a special display of that chutpah as only, I would venture to say, O'Reilly can do it. He ripped the "radical left wing publication, The New Yorker," for slandering him. What had the perniciously elite magazine done? Had it the bad grace to insist, correctly, that more intelligence resides in its worst cartoon than in the entire O'Reilly archive? No, it reported that O'Reilly had accused the pro-immigration marchers of intimidation. Scoffing, O'Reilly then ran the offending clip, in which he actually said, "these marchers are intimidating our politicians from doing the right thing." That's right he had the nerve to proclaim as "ridiculous" the translation from the gerund to the noun form. It doesn't get ballsier than that: to refute the charge against him, he quotes himself to the very effect on which the charge is based. For O'Reilly, journalism is like Texas hold 'em. It doesn't matter if you've got the cards (the truth in this case); all that matters is that you bluff as aggressively and consistently as possible. He is the Phil Ivy of his profession--except, you know, that Ivy is kind of cool and O'Reilly's a perfect wanker.