Mud Wrestling: Ann Coulter v. Janeane Garofalo On Fox!

I missed it. Bill O'Reilly was interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air" and the Spinster hung up on her before the end of the interview because he didn't like her confrontational (?) questions. The Spinster can dish it out, but he can't take it. Incendiary debate is the style of the early 21^st century. If this be (fair & balanced) flaming, so be it.

[x The New Republic]
Outfoxed
by Michelle Cottle

The new year is upon us. And you know what that means: dozens upon dozens of 2003-in-review lists aimed at reminding us of all the best/worst/most-talked-about people, events, and trends that we just spent the last twelve months surviving. From getting SARS to getting "Punk'd," from Arnold's swearing-in to Jacko's sleepovers, every buzz-generating moment has been summarized and bundled for our reflection, often to deliciously surreal effect: When else could J Lo and Saddam find themselves featured in the same People cover package?

Among the more entertaining political trends noted is the rise of the liberal-hate phenomenon. After a long, wearying stretch of demonization and evisceration by mad-dog conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, the political left has at last unleashed its own breed of attack pundit. Angry, bile-spewing lefties like Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo are working furiously to level the playing field, penning books and filling the airwaves with the kind of frothing rants that would make Rush Limbaugh proud.

Predictably, this development has been met with hand wringing by the mainstream media, which fear further debasement of political debate. "[T]he new leftist screeds seem to solidify a rising political culture of incivility and overstatement," sighs The New York Times Magazine. Time concurs: [T]hese broadsides make politics less about issues than tactics. They're long on ad hominem and short on substance. They're less interested in convincing anyone ... than in whipping up their own berserkers." And while admitting personal glee over right-wing bullies getting their comeuppance, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman bemoans "the rant" as "a driving force in the polarization of politics. We don't do ambivalence anymore. Nuance be damned. The middle ground is mush for wimps."

Poppycock. I for one happen to think this liberal-hate phenomenon is great news. Not, as conservatives would contend, because the mainstream media is awash with liberal bias and itching to see the likes of O'Reilly driven from our exalted ranks. But because what the O'Reillys and Coulters and Sean Hannitys do has never been about journalism or serious political commentary. It's always been about demagoguery and show business. Problem is, the lack of a countervailing pack of wingnut showmen on the left has, until now, allowed the O'Reillys and Hannitys to spend their days posing as the conservative equivalent of left-leaning journalists like Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Clarence Page, etc.--that is, media folk who may have a political bias, but who aren't primarily bomb-lobbers and whose on-air debating technique is constrained by the occasional concern for facts or balance or nuance.

Moreover, in those instances in which the mainstream media has bothered to criticize a conservative raver, the resulting squabble has simply elevated said raver's journalistic stature. O'Reilly is arguably the king of plumping up his rep by painting himself as a scrappy, no-spin Everyman serially attacked by liberal, elitist, envious media giants like CNN or The New York Times or NPR. Most recently, O'Reilly put himself at the center of a mini-scandal that erupted when he hung up in the middle of an interview with Terry Gross. Every time O'Reilly can point to some perceived assault by mainstream journalists, he draws a parallel--at least in the minds of Fox viewers--between what he does and what those journalists do.

More and more, however, O'Reilly is finding himself linked with a new, less exalted arch-nemesis: former "Saturday Night Live" comic Al Franken. Their best-selling books are reviewed together. The media gleefully report on their public squabbles--such as the fracas at this year's Book Expo, when Franken accused O'Reilly of inflating his journalistic credentials, prompting O'Reilly to call Franken an idiot and to tell him to "shut up." O'Reilly slaps at Franken on air and in print. Franken returns the favor. And Fox's recent, pathetic attempt to sue Franken for including the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his most recent book--coupled with widespread rumors that O'Reilly was the driving force behind the suit--has further cemented the two men together in the public imagination.

It's not that Franken and Company balance the punditry scales by being as shrill and combative as Hannity or O'Reilly. It's that they help with a basic redefinition of what Hannity and O'Reilly really are. To be seen publicly mud wrestling with an "SNL" alum rather than, say, NPR or the Gray Lady, puts O'Reilly in precisely the proper perspective. Perhaps the only thing more helpful would be an actual mud-wrestling match between Ann Coulter and Janeane Garofalo--televised on Fox, naturally. Sure, it might add to the atmosphere of political incivility in this country. But at least it would be an honest portrayal of the brand of "political debate" that flame-throwing conservative showmen have been engaging in for years now.

Michelle Cottle is a senior editor at TNR.

Copyright © 2003, The New Republic