Is Jon Stewart actually defending Bill O'Reilly?
Jon Stewart is not furious about Bill O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 possible embellishment of his reporting exploits. The soon-to-be-ex host of 鈥淭he Daily Show鈥� made that clear on Tuesday night鈥檚 show.
This does not mean Mr. Stewart believes Mr. O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 gripping stories 鈥� facing grave danger in Argentina after the Falklands War, dragging a bleeding cameraman away from a policeman鈥檚 rifle, reporting from a 鈥渨ar zone,鈥� and so on. Au contraire.
Instead Stewart basically said that anyone who鈥檚 watched O鈥橰eilly over the years should not be surprised that a dash of exaggeration might find its way into his on-camera appearances. After all, O鈥橰eilly is the sort of person who labels his show the 鈥淣o-Spin Zone鈥� and then sometimes engages in partisan twirling.
That鈥檚 Stewart鈥檚 view, anyway.
鈥淢isrepresenting the zone he is in is kind of his hook,鈥� said Stewart in a 鈥�
So the O鈥橰eilly uproar is much ado about nothing much, an outrage generator that might best be ignored, said Stewart. Too much excitement over O鈥橰eilly, Brian Williams, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald and their puffery and misstatements might be counterproductive. We鈥檒l be emotionally exhausted when something really outrageous comes along 鈥� like allegations that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has exaggerated the Iranian nuclear threat.
鈥淲orld outrage supplies are finite and if we spend so much of it on fairly inconsequential status embellishments, our anger tanks could be empty when we need them most,鈥� Stewart concluded.
What Stewart didn鈥檛 say, but might have, is that it鈥檚 also counterproductive to get upset about a situation that isn鈥檛 going to change.
O鈥橰eilly is not going anywhere. In that sense his situation is fundamentally different than that of NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who is on a potentially career-killing six month leave.
O鈥橰eilly is a pundit, not a straight news reporter. Fox News seems to be standing behind him. Perhaps they鈥檙e just happy about the ratings 鈥� the war zone controversy has generated 鈥渉uge numbers鈥� for "The O鈥橰eilly Factor" in recent days, .
Maybe he did exaggerate the nature of the Argentine riot in which he was caught, his defenders might say. It was indeed dangerous, but so far there鈥檚 no evidence that a number of participants were shot dead by police, as O鈥橰eilly has claimed.
But O鈥橰eilly has successfully politicized the debate over his actions, pointing out that his primary attacker, the magazine Mother Jones, leans left.
鈥淭he truth is, it鈥檚 a good bet that few of O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 fans care what he did or didn鈥檛 do in Argentina in the early 1980s. His credibility with the audience is based not on his war reporting, but on his willingness to go to war against the enemy: liberals. This week, Mother Jones has made O鈥橰eilly鈥檚 job easy,鈥� , author of a biography of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, in New York Magazine.
