The column began by thoroughly misrepresenting the philosophy of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. While any free-thinking observer of the press would keep a watchful eye on the media and retain their right to criticize it, O'Reilly flatly states that Jefferson "didn't much like the press." However, the truth is that Jefferson regarded the press as an essential component of a free society. He said:

"...were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

With that disinformational kickoff, O'Reilly set about to discredit a poll by the New York Times that found that a majority of Americans would prefer healthcare reform that covers everyone, even if it means paying more in taxes. Never mind that most polls reveal the same preference, O'Reilly's only real purpose was to dispute the validity of a poll with which he disagreed.

The gist of O'Reilly's complaint was that the Times oversampled Obama voters, producing a skewed result. The problem with his typically shallow analysis is that 50% of Republicans in the poll expressed the same preference as Democrats. What's more, as a pollster testing the mood of the nation, the goal is not to balance respondents by political affiliation. The goal is to have a representative sample of the public at large. By that standard, the sampling of the Times poll was accurate.

Nevertheless, O'Reilly can't contain his disdain for anyone who disagrees with him. His outrage is so intense that it led him to say this:

"The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The Times has an ombudsman, but he's a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does."

Stop the presses! You mean to say that a newspaper can do whatever it wants? How the heck did that happen? Why isn't here an outside agency that has power over these papers? No wonder O'Reilly is tee'd off. He would be much happier if journalists all had to have their work approved by editorial boards that could certify the conservative purity of the message before being disseminated to the people. You know, like the way Fox News does it.

This is a man whose daily delusions can't be summed up simply by describing them as paranoid. A new word must be coined to encompass the naked madness he embodies (Paranoxious?). His perception of enemies lurking in every shadow is enough to warrant institutionalization. Yet, instead, this is a man who has his own TV show and millions of viewers to whom he can peddle dangerous ideas like "outside agencies" that have power over the press.

This isn't the first time that O'Reilly has expressed a desire to control the press. He frequently rails against it and ferociously attacks it. It is nearly impossible to go a day without hearing him besmirch the media as a bastion of hate that poses a very real risk to society:

"Knowing that partisan hostility is boiling over in America, the Secret Service is tense because the candidates are exposed when they campaign in public. Hatred is definitely in the air and the media is partially to blame."

You have to give O'Reilly credit for his superhuman capacity for denial, in that he doesn't recognize himself in that statement. He even refutes it entirely in his recent defense of his provocative comments regarding the murdered doctor, George Tiller. In that case it is not, to him, the least bit inflammatory to refer to someone as a "baby killer" who "has blood on his hands".

This is also a man who has a severe fear and hatred of the media - that's right - the media that he works so hard to demolish despite his prominent role in it. Take, for example, this brazen threat to journalists everywhere:

"[T]here is a huge problem in this country and I'm going to attack that problem. I'm going to attack it. These people aren't getting away with this. I'm going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I'm coming after you...I'm going to hunt you down [...] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed...I would."

That's what we're up against. That's the sort of mindless hostility that is being spread throughout the mediasphere. And it isn't just O'Reilly. It is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. It would be tempting to ask what can be done about these freaks. But that would just be adopting their response that promotes censorship and suppression. The real question is how do we educate the people who watch and listen to this garbage? How do we replace those sensationalistic rantings with honest and deliberative discourse? And how do we do it before it erupts into (more) violence?

That's a difficult assignment, as snarling shoutfests seem to make for more popular viewing than rational dialogue. But it's an assignment that we need to complete for the sake of our country, if not for our mental health.