“Stark justice” demands a judge recuse himself, all because Donald Trump said his “Mexican heritage” is a conflict? How about some “stark journalism,” for a change?
—
Ah, Bill O’Reilly.
I confess to never being a fan. Maybe that’s relevant, but probably not.
You are of another time, a different generation, where smug self-satisfaction and wholesale confidence in one’s opinions of politics and oneself is not a deal breaker.
I get it.
Different vibes for different times. Plus, my grandparents were pretty great (though they may or may not have had the taste for Talking Points Memo… I think Grandpa especially may have found your program off-putting).
But if many of that generation find no fault in your show style and delivery, then surely something of merit must reside there.
Yet, Bill, I think we’ve come to a crossroads, a fork where, if I had ever watched your show, I would simply have to stop. Thankfully, I’ve never been a regular viewer. That’s good for me, since the requisite pain of losing a beloved program is not a factor. But it’s good for you too! There will be no perceptible ding to your ratings.
You see, I am a seeker of Win-Wins. I harbor no ill will towards individuals.
But I harbor plenty of something akin towards idiotic thinking patterns and bigotry.
Here’s what happened Monday night:
A controversy erupted over the weekend surrounding Trump’s statements that the judge in his current fraud case (about now-defunct Trump University) is “proud” of his “Mexican heritage.” Initially, Trump had just called him a “Mexican,” despite the fact that Judge Curiel was born in Indiana, an American state, just in case anyone needs that spelled out for them.
On Monday evening’s broadcast of The O’Reilly Factor, Fox news anchor Bill then argued that Judge Curiel should indeed recuse himself.
Verbatim: “Not because he did anything wrong. He didn’t. But to eliminate any doubt as to the motivation in court rulings. There are plenty of federal judges that could immediately step in. It is valid that some may see any recusal as caving to intimidation. But stark justice in a case this important, trumps — pardon the pun — any theoretical argument.”
Translation: Trump can raise a public hell over a judge’s ethnicity, despite there being no evidence that Judge Curiel’s cultural heritage is impacting his views. Then, because Trump has said it on the TVs and Interwebs, the judge must necessarily remove himself. Because Trump said so.
This is a banana republic. This is how it begins.
Which is the most fitting term for it, because the media over at Fox News do indeed appear to have gone bananas.
The fact that Bill O’Reilly is saying this kind of nonsense with a straight face indicates how little value many media players have for “principle” and “no spin.” About as much as the “Establishment” politicians they so enjoy railing against.
A few final thoughts:
The best tweet I saw following the O’Reilly segment came from @dandrezner:
WTF does “stark justice” mean? pic.twitter.com/5MXl7c1Xif
— (((Daniel Drezner))) (@dandrezner) June 7, 2016
I don’t have an answer, but I do think that if Bill wants us to demand “stark justice” in the form of judges removing themselves from trials involving celebrities who make racist comments about them, then “stark journalism” certainly demands O’Reilly stop commenting on his “good friend” Donald Trump.
They’ve been palling around together.
For years.
But to be fair, I would also say this: ABC should remove George Stephanopoulos from serious coverage of Hillary Clinton. The two of them have been pals for years, also, and a bit of stink wafted up early last year, when it was revealed that Stephanopoulos himself had donated to the Clinton Foundation.
How can he cover her fairly?
Answer: Not sure.
But this pattern of Media + Politicians = Big Corrupt Bed is deeply troubling. Such a Media/Political Complex is precisely what leads to Banana Republics. Only usually, the government has forcibly taken over media stations.
In today’s “America First” version, news personalities willingly give up their integrity.
Welcome to Bill O’Reilly’s faux democracy, everyone.
Photo: Getty Images
What about the press giving Bush, Jr., a free pass on going to war with Iraq? http://documentarystorm.com/bill-moyers-journal-buying-the-war/
I don’t buy into the hate. As soon as you play that game you act just as bullish and then confirment bias seems to kick in or something and you lose the ability or maybe willingness to view switch..Maher is sometimes funny I think… I dont have his channel or whatever.
As President Reagan used to say, “There you go again….” Lol! Why pick on Bill O’Reilly? I mean “the media” ratings are even lower than Congress! The problem is a lack of real journalistic standards. What today that passes as journalism is simply very very low quality entertainment. A lot of it does comes from the personal bias built into the writer’s point of view. A Bill O’Reilly makes no qualms about his stance. The problem is that people such as Lester Holt, George S., all of CNN, and others are all Hillary Clinton supporters and seek to hide it.… Read more »
Trump is a fool with no equal, yet I remain confounded by the sheer lack of self-awareness of those who confront his ramblings with equally foolish ramblings. Let’s take a look at the following from Sonia Sotomayor: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0 “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”… … Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or… Read more »
The ‘parallels’ you cite are purely coincidental. Justice Sotomayor’s remarks are in the context of modern legal philosophy. One currently very prevalent school of thought holds that that the 19th and 20th century emphasis on ‘objective’ legal analysis was flawed in that what was actually being presented was analysis riddled with unacknowledged biases. These biases went unacknowledged in part because judges tended to share most prominent demographic signifiers. There was a lack of plurality and diversity on the bench, so a single perspective was presented as the ‘objective’ point of view. What Justice Sotomayor, and many current legal philosophers, are… Read more »
It’s not a coincidence at all – Trump is making the exact same point that underpins both – humans have cognitive biases. The difference is that his phrasing is dumb and frazzled. It’s why we sometimes move trial venues, don’t fully trust alibis from close relatives, excuse jurors and don’t allow victims to set criminal sentences. Trump’s rationale for his accusation is that he wants to build a wall and that the judge possesses a cultural bias against his building of the wall. You’re the one speculating on his intent when there is enough evidence to not have to do… Read more »
The wall…. haha why not a moat… gat dayam…