FoxNews test of objectivity – replace “Obama” with “Reagan”

F air and balanced huh?  A lot of you don’t know this, but the only reason Obama ordered the bin Laden hit was to garner political capital.  Oh yeah, political capital that was actually stolen from the years and years of groundwork GW Bush did in…Iraq.  Listen, I know a lot about not being objective.  I’ve been married for a number of years now, and I fully realize that on many occasions I have failed to give my wife the same benefit of the doubt that I would give any other human being in identical circumstances.  If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s because you have had a recent head injury and can’t remember your own name.  Everyone does things like getting pissed because your spouse feels the need to get the f-ing mail rather than focusing on the simple task of unlocking the goddamed door so I can go in and go to sleep. 

Now at first glance, FoxNews’ treatment of Obama regarding the bin Laden hit appears to be merely a matter of angle rather than pure, unadulterated bias.  While it seems that the rest of the universe is happily reporting that Obama has managed to do something good by ordering what was a seriously risky political and military operation that directly resulted in the killing of the number one terrorist on the planet, FoxNews seems to be focusing on the real heart of the issue.  That would be the following three points:

1.  The only reason Obama ordered this hit is because 2012 is an election year and he’s hoping to buy his way out of the fallout from  the national debt and healthcare.

Hmm.  Interesting idea.  Completely stupid, but interesting nonetheless.  Apparently the US has been able to take him out since the day of Obama’s inauguration, but the political timing wasn’t quite right.  That’s so detestibly idiotic that every time I try to express myself verbally I end up having to hit something just to complete the argument.

2.  Obama didn’t do s-t.  Bush and Cheney did.

Whatever.  Apparently all that work in Iraq was just laying the foundation for operations in…Afghanistan…where we launched the strike from in the first place.  Besides, which president was jacking up the terror alert every time gas went over $3 a gallon.

3.  Obama was wrong about Guantanamo Bay because we waterboarded people to get the intel about the courier who led us to bin Laden’s compound.

Right.  That’s why it’s closed, right?  Wait, no it isn’t.  And secondly, anyone who makes that argument is openly saying there are tangible benefits to torturing people.  Why don’t we cut the crap and call in the hard, pipe-hitting {n’s} to come back here with a blow torch and a pair of pliers and  get medieval on some terrorist asses?  Or how about your ass the next time you get drunk and end up in the tank.  Or your son or daughter when they don’t pay their taxes on time?  Don’t be a dick.  This does not justify torture, even if you kinda want it to, Jesus Freak.         

Now stop and ask yourselves if you honestly think FoxNews would pursue that line of reasoning against any Republican, even if the writing was on the wall.  OF COURSE NOT.  So as a result of this, I’ve figured out the perfect technique to determining if FoxNews is writing biased, partisan schlock.  It’s very simple.  All you have to do is take every reference to “Obama”, replace it with “Reagan”, and see if you can picture an article written with similar tone and wording written about someone FoxNews glorifies.  Then ask yourself the question, “Do you think FoxNews would every publish that, even if it were demonstrably true?” 

  Let’s try it out.  Here’s a recent article about how Obama is going to use killing bin Laden to win the 2012 election.   Here’s an excerpt from the meat of the article.  I’ll leave it up to your judgement:

Reagan’s Big Bet on Ground Zero Speech

Bush has a strong defense for declining. He has kept a low profile since leaving office and largely limited his public events to a promotional tour for his memoir and charity events for wounded soldiers. But by not attending, Bush denies Reagan the chance to associate himself with Bush’s iconic status in the days and months after the attack.

Had Bush been on stage when Reagan took his bow for ordering the strike against bin Laden, it would have allowed Reagan the chance to say that he had finally fulfilled Bush’s promise made to firefighters sorting through the burning rubble that “the whole world will hear you.”

Early polls show that while Americans overwhelmingly approve of Reagan’s decision to neutralize bin Laden, the president hasn’t yet received the kind of bounce that Bush did after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003. In fact, so far there hasn’t been any appreciable bounce at all except in one poll taken for the Washington Post.

What’s up? Is it the economy? Has it taken a few days for people to credit Reagan for ordering the strike? Are complaints about the dignified Islamic burial for the butcher of 9/11 holding people back? Is it not real until people see the pictures?

The establishment press is already creating massive and likely impossible expectations for Reagan post-killing. Stories have suggested that the killing on bin Laden will make Reagan invincible in 2012, silence critics of his foreign policy and even help revive the economy.

Reagan will be freighted with those expectations when he heads to Ground Zero on Thursday and as he he works through a round of post-kill appearances, including an interview with his preferred TV outlet, “60 Minutes.”

Having Bush there would have helped Reagan show himself, in the words of one Democratic strategist turned TV host, as “master and commander.” But Reagan, who likes the chance to makes high-stakes speeches, will be swinging for the rhetorical fences anyway.

With the economy in peril, gasoline at $4 and rising and tough foreign policy choices ahead in Libya and Afghanistan, Reagan needs to quickly amass some political capital from the killing of bin Laden. And he needs to do it before the moment is ruined by Democrats and Republicans already in a bitter fight over terror policies — harsh interrogation, detainment, etc. — and to what degree Bush-era decisions led to bin Laden’s elimination.


Well, you tell me.  Do you think FoxNews would publish that?  Yeah.  Didn’t think so.  Assholes.


Ben Tomkins is a violinist, teacher, journalist and critically acclaimed composer currently living in Denver, Colorado. He hates stupidity and generally believes that the volume of one’s voice is inversely proportional to one’s knowledge of an issue. Reach Ben Tomkins at

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Got an Opinion?


We are interested to hear what you think.  Please send us a message. [contact-form 4 “Opinion”]  

Springfield’s hidden gem


Referred to as an American Folk Art site, I didn’t know what I expected on my journey to Springfield’s Hartman […]

Debate 7/17: Flag on the Play


Q: Should persons with certain known behavioral tendencies such as suicide or violence be prohibited from owning guns? Legislatures across […]

Conspiracy Theorist 7/17: Hooray for Domino’s

Year after year, the same roads are torn up and road crews patch them. But they never really repair them. […]

On Your Marc 7/17: Good any day

First, a funny story. Larry Lee, the big tackle from Roth High School, for a number of reasons decided he […]

The Cult, Stone Temple Pilots, and Bush at Rose

CULT 2016 Tim Cadiente-2

“Rock and roll never forgets,” the classic rock song goes, and Billy Duffy, guitarist and founding member of the British […]