Who drank the red Kool-Aid?

I was sitting in a medical waiting room the other day, held captive by the creeping minutes and Fox News on an elevated flat-screen TV.

The long wait I expected (it was, after all, a waiting room) but after about 20 minutes of Fox, I found myself ready to break that TV screen into tiny shards of whatever it’s made out of. I didn’t, of course, because I knew the cost would be added to my bill.

Let me toss out a list of disclaimers before I get started on my rant.

1. I don’t disagree, by any means, with everything the Fox commentators have to say.

2. Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, etc. have the right to their opinions.

3. Keeping the current administration honest — and pointing out its mistakes — follows an American tradition that goes back to George Washington, and thank God it still exists.

4. I know that there are other networks that insert their opinions into their newscasts, subtly or not-so-subtly.

So what’s my problem with Fox? I’m glad you asked.

I’ve worked in journalism for more than 30 years now, and have always been taught that news and opinion were like dogs and cats — they can co-exist in the same house, but they are two very different animals.

This, to me, is a theoretical and typical news story:

“The Obama administration today introduced the latest initiative in its plan to bail out America’s beleaguered banks. The plan, developed by Obama economic advisor Lawrence Summers, will (do whatever it will do).

“Reaction on Wall Street and in Congress was mixed. (Add quotes and details).”

If the Foxes don’t like this plan, it seems to me, the logical and ethical thing to do is let Hannity or O’Reilly or Beck spout off about it in another program, labeled as an editorial.

That’s what we do in newspapers, but that’s not what I saw the other afternoon.

For one thing, the network often inserted little scraps of opinions into its headlines. Like (and I could be paraphrasing slightly):

“Obama thinks the economy needs more government spending. Does it?”

And ...

“Will U.S. appear soft by not attacking pirates?”

These are fine headlines for an opinion piece, but they served as the lead-in to news stories.

Meanwhile, while most other networks tend to bring in talking heads to discuss both sides of a news story, Fox on several occasions while I was watching opted for a single talking head, sometimes one of its own editorial commentators.

Watching a TV network similarly skewed in the “liberal” direction would make me just as uncomfortable. Honest. For example, I’ll point to a popular Internet site called “Alternet” that offers news and opinion that is relentless in its flogging of Republicans and conservatives and seldom concedes that anyone right of center could possibly have a valid point, a good idea, or a clean motive.

Sure, it’s easy to say that “everyone knows” where Fox and Alternet are coming from, but that isn’t necessarily the case. Fox slips its audience the conservative Kool-Aid with so much skill — not to mention flash and pizzazz — that it is easy for longtime watchers to incorporate it into their world view. (And yes, there is liberal Kool-Aid, as well).

This is not to say, obviously, that Fox colors every story. But Foxes like Hannity and Beck have painted themselves into an ideological corner that demands that they look at an issue a certain way. To credit Barack Obama or the Democrats with doing anything right (no pun intended) would be, somehow, a betrayal of their world view.

Yet the fascinating thing about news — including political news — is that it’s so unpredictable. It doesn’t always lend itself to being sorted automatically into one basket or another.

The Fox commentators are, in their own way, entertaining. I just hate it when they feed the cats and dogs from the same bowl.