Saturday
Oct252014
How Is Gene Simmons An Ebola Expert?
Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 12:01AM Fox News is a legit network with a pile of resources. So imagine my confusion when someone on the Fox assignment desk booked Gene Simmons to comment on Ebola in America. I just don't get it. I'm clearly not shocked in Gene's position (hint: blame Obama) but still... find a politician to say it. Fox has access to just about every current and former Republican in the House and Senate. Statements about travel bans have more credibility from an elected official versus a member of KISS but hey, that's just me.
Reader Comments (39)
Funny, one time, and one time only, I brought my wife to an event at my grad school where the student and teaching body are mostly liberal leaning democrats. On the way home, my wife said, "it took every ounce of my body not to say anything to those people". I quipped, "outside of grad school, I feel like that almost every day of my life".
Their ratings are so high because willfully ignorant consumers tend to gather at a single trough to drink the same Kool-Aid. Their core audience, old white people, will never accept a diversified America and are perfectly satisfied with being told repeated lies.
The polls are skewed. The birth certificate is fake. Voter fraud is real. Fast and Furious. Benghazi-gate. Romney will win by a landslide.
How can anyone take this crap seriously?
You are a complete fucking idiot!
I could care less what views you espouse or what shows you watch on TV. With but one caveat: I have the right to challenge you on the former and question you on the latter, even if I should respect you in equal measure. The Voltaire adage holds up pretty well when it comes to most things relating to speech.
True, though, it is a difficult slog maintaining that position in a world of either/or realities. It would be very strange to suggest you like The Drudge Report and Fox, a range rather than a fixed compass point. That you could take a dose of Colbert and a dash of O'Reilly and come away from both entertained and, perhaps and less so, informed.
Here, though, is a bit of a blender on all sides of the aisles (not just two, paradoxically, mind you), a melding together rather than a parsing out of a couple of distinct points. My point?
_Out#_ is a panel show that doesn't purport to be unbiased or even for that matter strictly news-related. It is closer to _Red Eye_ on the same station or _Good Morning America_ on one of the musty basic cable stations. If it slants in the direction of its handlers, that would apply to almost any show on any station. If purported news shows tip into bathos, well, that is another issue.
But here is my issue: Simmons is on the show promoting his book. He is asked questions. He answers them. This is one clip out of a longer segment.
If you disagree with him, fine. I often do. If you dislike Fox, fine. Not much of a fan myself (then again, I don't just watch what I like or listen to the music of people whose opinions line up with my own). Telescopes work in BOC-land and in astrological feats of prowess, but are rather treacherous when it is time to come up for air and engage people on a one-for-one basis. You tend to run into the foot you end up placing in your mouth.
Cherry-picking to score a point, or ripping out context to create one, does not an argument make. All sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this tactic. And none should be held more or less responsible when they take this approach (search "Gene Simmons Ebola" and see how the liberal wing makes hay out of this specific section of the longer segment).
When _Fox_ (or _CNN_, or _MSNBC_, or _Al Jazerra_, or whatever) is the only source of news, the level of the debate skews one way. But _Out#_ never purported to be the evening news, just as the evening news never should aspire to being _The Daily Show_.
Simmons is a public figure, entitled to and sought out for his views on a myriad of issues that go far beyond music. Question his opinion (which is different from challenging the forum in which he speaks). Challenge his viewpoint (which is different from questioning the venue that sought him out in the first place). But don't slam him for offering up his two cents.
When having an opinion, even an unpopular one, is verboten, the marketplace suffers. Thankfully, your right to disagree with me is equal to my right to do the same. And we can learn from those with whom we disagree.
One of the greatest things I have seen, in this context and as an exception in a sense to my bloated scribbling, actually occurred on _The Daily Show_. Search out Stewart's interviews with Huckabee several years back. Those two agree on close to nothing. Their backgrounds and viewpoints couldn't be more markedly different. Yet they were able to exchange ideas, critique each others opinions . . . and, yes, even make the whole process entertaining. What is sad is that it is the exception and not the rule.
I apologize for launching a digression.
trust me. I would love to stop. But your nonsense ( specifically in this thread) - gets me thinking and thus, invigorated.
Id stop more for the cheap seats, than for him, metalboy and Crawford combined.
Brian...well, people like you and your elk, keep me motivated.