Last night happened to be another of the rare occasions when I catch part of the O'Reilly Factor. I don't know why I continue to torture myself by listening to him, but it turns out he was going to have Rudy Giuliani on, so I thought it would be good to at least listen to what he had to say.  Dan Ra^ther came on right after Giuliani, and I was out of there as soon as he came on though.  I like Rudy a lot, and would like to see a presidential run by him... though he seems to be off to a slow start if he is serious about it.  However, given the way he was talking last night, you know he's at least thinking about it.

However, before either of his two guests were on, Bill had his Talking Points segment:

The Internet has drastically changed the way news reaches the public, but our leaders have not figured that out yet. When something happens, word almost instantaneously reaches millions of people and the event is defined by bloggers, many of whom have an agenda.

So misinformation and false analysis is instantly out there and sometimes widely accepted by Americans getting their information from machines.
...
Unless you watch cable news or read a good newspaper, and those are rare, you'll have a hard time figuring out this dangerous and complicated world.

Bill has had it out against blogging for quite a while, and it's really not surprising. Fox News has billed itself as a new media outlet for some time now.  They've tried to market themselves as fighting against the mainstream media with their "fair and balanced" reporting (as if somehow they're not part of the mainstream media itself).  Bloggers often times encroach on that space, and so he feels the need to bash his competition, which is all he was doing with his talking points.

What I find fascinating is that he's painted all bloggers as somehow being against the war in Iraq, and providing misinformation.  The reality of course is quite the opposite.  While there are many bloggers out there who do just that... the best reporting on the Iraq war is also being done by bloggers, not organizations like Fox News.  Fox News is no better than the NY Times in this respect.  Both of those news outlets concentrate solely on the casualty count, and the latest IED explosions.  The only difference between the two is that the Times concentrates on why we should leave because the war is being lost, while Fox News says we should stay despite the danger.

But anyone who has spent any time in the blogosphere at all will tell you that it's bloggers who are reporting on the good news in Iraq, and doing more than concentrating on the body count.  All you have to do is spend some time at blogs like Iraq The Model or Michael Totten to see what's really going on there.  Both do absolutely excellent reporting from the Middle East.  You should be reading both regularly Bill, as they will be just the eye openers that you need.

Blogging is just like the mainstream media.  Bloggers have an agenda just like the NY Times, or that guest last night whom you praised so much Dan Ra^ther, and even you.  Speaking of which, I find it rather coincidental that you took the time to bash bloggers on the very show where you had Dan Ra^ther on, whose credibility was destroyed by bloggers.

It is well worth the time to investigate blogging, and find out who the good ones are, and who the bad ones are... just as you suggest people need to do with the mainstream media.