Cavuto: Media 'club' bored by budget coverage?

Just call the media a club, and prepared to get "clubbed."

Alan in NYC has this to say about my view the media abhores any member who goes outside its conventional wisdom -- which generally means left is right and right is well...wrong.

"Cavuto, have you ever considered the possibility that the reason why the media doesn't want you in its club is because you're a raving lunatic?"

No, Alan, I actually never thought of that one.

Elaine via AOL -- quote -- "Face it, Neil, you're just upset no one invites you to parties to this day. Once a loser, always a loser. So long, loser."

And so long, Elaine. Enjoy CNN baby.

Anyway, Victor in New Jersey -- quote -- "I actually agree with you...the media should welcome diverse views. Here's where I draw the line -- just not 'your' views."

Well, progress, Victor. Progress.

But in all seriousness, I think my argument stands. I can't stand the way the media club covers, for example, these budget arguments.

Even if you insist the media isn't biased, call them on their, I don't know, sameness.

Because what worries me in covering this budget fight is my fear it's boring the media to tears.

Let's face it, budget issues are not that exciting. Covering non-stop the trial of a woman charged with killing her boyfriend then slitting his throat ear-to-ear -- that's exciting boy. Sick, but exciting.

Her cuts -- man oh man, I've looked at the ratings -- captivating.

Paul Ryan's cuts -- not so captivating.

But Ryan's cuts matter. The fact they're not really cuts, at all, should matter more. Because to hear the media that grudgingly does try to cover these issues, I'll give them some credit. It invariably goes for the blood and guts stuff that's simply nowhere in these issues.

For example, parroting the line that Paul Ryan is killing grandma.

Or falling for the nonsense that sequestration is going to lead to bedlam at the airports. Or eventually Mister Ed on our dinner plates.

It's scary stuff. But it's wrong.

Let's remember what's really going on here, my friends, if we only used a little math here. And we in the media simply did our jobs here.

No one, no one is cutting anything.

The most drastic of all the programs considered still leaves us with trillions more debt a decade from now. It's true. The government still growing, no matter what we do now.

Now, you don't hear that, of course. Because it's just not flashy, or exciting, or bloody.

In an age where news is about going for the jugular -- in the case of a certain young woman's trial, quite literally.

It doesn't sound exciting to say that Paul Ryan is slowing the growth of government.

Now Paul Ryan pushing granny off the cliff, or forcing millions to go on food stamps, or just lately - I just heard this one, it amazed me -- that he's actually killing thousands of seniors? Man oh man, that is ratings gold -- or so they hope.

But that is wrong. And so I know, that, my friends, is the club.

Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a point of view, but there is everything wrong not bringing up all those points of view.

Like it takes two parties to tango, so you can't just blame one leaving us in a tangle.

Or report that one side is stubborn and jeopardizing a deal because it opposes tax hikes, but the other is not when it jeopardizes the same deal because it opposes spending cuts. Goose, gander, you know that whole thing.

Now I know I keep pounding this again and again -- a lot of you, seem to think that it gets old, but the only reason why I do so -- day in and day out -- is to remind everyone that it is through the prism of the media, that we get a sense of what's going on. My fear is what's not going on; what's being reported poorly.

Beware the media that gloms onto the line, "we don't have a problem." At that very moment, take it from this skunk at this picnic, something stinks.

Because when the media's in cahoots with the folks who say "no problem"...problem. Big problem.