The missing context for this story is that these programs exist to sell advertising, not to enlighten. The only question that matters about a "feud" is what effect it has on the ratings, and that is barely hinted at here.

An article discussing the ongoing war of words among a group of bellicose pundits whose products are the antithesis of good journalism.

It is frustrating to read a piece by a jounalist in a Corporate Media Property so insensitive to the business of Corporate Media. The players he talks about act out the Corporate agendas and viewpoints of their employers as, one fears, he does. "The violence in Iraq may have been overemphasized at times" is a long disproven and highly misleading politicized talking point. The claim that the media called the Iraq situation correctly is equally ridiculous. How about writing something meaningful, informative, and insightful about the Media?

The only redeeming part of this story is it deflates Bill O'Reilly's monstrous ego just a peg. But for some reason it treats what he has to say as "news" which is somehow related to events actually occuring on the ground. The only thing O'Reilly does is function as a cheerleader for his "amen corner" which has been getting a bit depleted of late.