Our View: O’Reilly’s NYT accusations unfounded



While Bill O’Reilly may be one of cable TV’s most popular and effective commentators on current affairs, his recent comments on the supposed anti-Christian bias the New York Times harbors is both completely fallacious and utterly ridiculous. To even suppose that a distinguished, reputable publication like the New York Times allows the outright bias O’Reilly suggests is extremely brazen and O’Reilly lacks the proof necessary to assert his theory.

The focus of O’Reilly’s attack is the fact that the New York Times objected to publishing the controversial cartoon of the
Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban-containing bomb but at the same time printed a picture of the Virgin Mary carved from feces at a prominent art show in New York.

What O’Reilly fails to notice is when a newspaper publishes a political cartoon it is implied that the majority of the newspaper staff agrees with the message the cartoon sends. The same idea applies to staff editorials.

Not only are the actions taken by the New York Times understandable, they are sound, logical business moves. Surely, even someone like O’Reilly can empathize with that. Were the New York Times to publish this controversial illustration they would not only alienate a proportion of their diverse readership, but they would lose their coveted spot as one of the most respectable, definitive papers of record in the United States.

Even though the New York Times ran a picture of the Virgin Mary carved out of feces, this does not mean they are against Christianity. The carving was a piece from a controversial exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999.

It is the role of the media to make new, interesting and relevant information available to the public and by publishing pictures of the hotly debated, event the New York Times was merely fulfilling its obligation to the people. It would show extreme subjectivity if the New York Times only ran what was perceived as appropriate.

Later in his diatribe, O’Reilly cited an article from the arts/cultural section of the paper that hailed the sacrilegious exhibition as evidence of an anti-Christian bias in the New York Times.

The portion of the paper dedicated to reviewing an art exhibit is almost always a reflection of one person’s opinion. Otherwise it wouldn’t make be an effective critique, it would just be a summary. Most people understand this when they read a review. It also is not a reflection of the beliefs of the entire staff; it was a signed editorial (as opposed to a staff editorial where no one writer is acknowledged as the author).

O’Reilly’s belief that a liberal biased media is unfairly portraying current events is ludicrous. Just because some media outlets are not publishing pieces that favor some beliefs or and policies doesn’t merit the impassioned denunciation of the validity of a medium’s news.

O’Reilly, once considered center-right, is becoming so locked on the goal of furthering a conservative agenda he has acquired tunnel vision and refuses to acknowledge anything that might detract from that.

Just because the New York Times will not publish a political cartoon portraying Muslims as violent lunatics does not mean it’s biased against Christianity. It reflects the paper’s dedication to fairness and objectivity.

Calendar

Display Ads