Pop quiz: What do Glenn Beck and Bill Maher have in common? If you answered with, “They’re both blowhards” ... well, sure. But for the purposes of the present conversation, let’s take a look at these two from another angle. What other similarities might they bear? Well, for starters, they both host news-centered cable television programs. More to the point, they’re both famous for their “colorful” approaches to political commentary. And, most recently, they’ve both urged Americans to reject the new swine flu vaccine.

Back story: In the past few weeks, both Maher and Beck have used their shows to come out against the H1N1 inoculation, suggesting that it could pose a greater risk to the American public than the actual virus itself. But why?

Well, as far as Beck is concerned, the government just ain’t to be trusted. You’re better off trying to catch the actual swine flu itself, rather than risk injecting yourself with some sort of nefarious, Obama-mandated, socialist “medicine.” And, while Maher might come from the totally opposite side of the political spectrum, he seems to echo Beck’s distrust of elitist empirical science, even going so far as to suggest that vaccines gave him chronic allergies as a child. (Believe me, I wish I were kidding.)

These (dubious) assertions come in spite of the fact that the Center for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization have all insisted that the vaccine is safe, and have furthermore encouraged — but not mandated — that everyone seek vaccination. Yet, even faced with a litany of testimony from esteemed scientists and doctors, the two hosts remain undeterred in their righteous crusades against flu shots.

So basically, when given the opportunity to share their thoughts on an important public health issue with a national audience, Beck and Maher have chosen to promote a viewpoint most famously advocated by Jenny McCarthy. Well done, gentlemen.

But seriously, what gives?

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: Cable news isn’t real news. And when Glen Beck is telling you that the swine flu vaccine is an evil medical conspiracy, it’s for the same reason Bill Maher says the pharmaceutical companies are trying to take your money and kill you. Both of these guys have crafted very specific public personas, which demand they indulge in exactly this kind of asinine tirade from time to time. They’re demagogues by profession — bitter, partisan invective is the cornerstone of their business plans.

I don’t doubt that there’s a genuine, ideologically motivated reason why these people are saying the things they are. But, at the same time, consider this: Earlier this year, G.E. and News Corp executives decided that the famous on-air feud between Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly was causing collateral damage for their corporations’ other business interests. Therefore, they ordered the two pundits to cease fire at an off-record peace summit moderated by Charlie Rose. (Again, I wish I were kidding.) It turned out that when their pocketbooks were taking a hit, they didn’t give a hoot about ideology or “the good fight,” just the bottom line.

All of this taken together basically indicates one thing: where political theater is concerned, cable news is a poorly written farce. Even when Olbermann and O’Reilly resumed hostilities, it was because news of the détente went public and they risked looking like corporate lackeys. The moral of the story is: As long as there’s more money to be made in antagonistic partisanship than in straight news, bet on it.

The business of journalism is not — nor has it ever been — the business of producing the news. When you count all the dollars and cents, it has always been about advertising. That’s where the majority of revenue comes from, and that’s what ultimately allows the industry to function.

Here’s the interesting part, though: People view news as a commodity — that is, they don’t see a significant difference between a piece of raw information from one media outlet or another. When an entire country is divided between only three competing news broadcasters — as it was until a decade or two ago — that’s not a problem. Back then, the straight news was what you got (more or less, at least). But in the age of the cable box, when there are a dozen different news programs airing at any given time — and competing with hundreds of other channels — the revenue stream begins to dry up. And marketers will tell you, when faced with such a scenario, it’s time to re-brand.

That’s how we’ve end up with jokers like Beck and Maher on television: Faced with an audience that has been fragmented by the cable television landscape, executives made the rational decision to re-brand their news products. Everyone knows the end result — Fox News became the conservative network and MSNBC its liberal counterpart.

A few weeks ago, I argued that free market forces were ruining literacy in America. Much the same argument could be made for politics. Just look what happened to TV news: Network heads, compelled by the disruption of cable and the Internet, decided to scale back the costly enterprise of hard news reporting, and to focus on opinion programming instead.

And now we have two very famous men arguing that American parents should think twice about getting their children vaccinated against a virus which is potentially fatal to children.

It’s certainly shocking, and it grabs your attention, but if it isn’t a deplorable breach of journalistic integrity, then I don’t know what is.

Peter Finocchiaro, a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, is a former Arts and Entertainment Editor of The Sun. He may be reached at pfinocchiaro@cornellsun.com. Everyone Choose Sides appears alternate Tuesdays this semester.