The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-06-2003, 12:17 PM
Nobody Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Bill O'Reilly slowly going off the deep end?(very mild rant)

When I first started watching the O'Reilly factor, I really got into it. I enjoyed the fact that he didn't ask softball questions, and he did one thing that I never saw any interviewer done before, repeat a question of the interviewee dodged it. I think I'll have to explain this one. I had seen other interviewers before interview important people, like high level government officials and so on. And there are plenty of times I'd see a question asked, and the interviewee would give a responce that had nothing to do with the question. The interviewer would just nod their head, agree, and move on. If an interviewee does this with Bill, he'll stop them, and ask the question again, demanding an answer. I found this refreshing.

However, I noticed that, just like DR. Laura, his, I'll be tough when I have to, approach became more and more of a, I'm going to be tough on just about everybody, approach. Watching him, I see parallels between his behavior, and what drove me away from DR. Laura. With DR. Laura she seemed to slowly burn out, and after a while it seems like her show was like:
DR Laura "Hello Caller, you're on the air, what's your problem?"
Caller "Yes, hi DR. Laura, how are doing?"
DR Laura "I'm doing fine, but what that have to do with your call? If you have a point, please make it!"

And I'm noticing with Bill too that he's gotten to the point, that it doesn't take much to rattle him up, or piss him off. For instance, just, yesterday, or the day before, I forget exactly, he was interviewing Laura Ingraham about her new book "Shut up and sing..." (and for those of you who don't know who she is, she's a syndicated conservative talk show host (and no, not the same as DR. Laura :P)) Anyway, you know what his biggest complaint was? In the book, she refereed to former secretary of state Madeline Albright as Madeline Halfbright. Ha, ha, she changed Al to Half, no big deal, right? Wrong! It irritated the hell out of Bill. In fact, I think he said that it offended him, because people like Laura and himself are supposed to be better than the "hate merchants", and name calling is wrong, unless you use generic terms like "pinhead" then it's OK. He then spent the rest of the interview trying to convence her how she had done a bad thing by calling Albright, Halfbright. So, in other words, before calling somebody a name, I guess you should check with Bill to see which ones he approves of?

So anyway, is bill just going to keep getting worse until he burns out? Can a person so easily annoyed really be a happy person? I don't think that his progressively more and more pissy attitude is for TV only, because in his interview with Rosie O'Donnell a while ago, when talking about being sued by her magazine, bill mentioned one the complaints is that from time to time, when in meetings, she'd yell at and swear at her employees. She more or less defended this as a common business practice, and got Bill to admit that at times he does the same. So I don't think what you see on TV is an act, I think that's how he really is, and I find that kind of sad. I kind of pity him because I'm at the rate he's going, he is going, I can easily see him crashing and burning. Then again, he may not.

But anyway, what do you think? Is he slowly going over the edge?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-06-2003, 12:28 PM
lissener lissener is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
So easily annoyed? What about so thoroughly and blithely dishonest?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-06-2003, 12:40 PM
wring wring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Re: Bill O'Reilly slowly going off the deep end?

I was nowhere near him when it happened, really! I've got proof!!! I've got witnesses, I din't do it!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-06-2003, 12:54 PM
Nobody Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by lissener
So easily annoyed? What about so thoroughly and blithely dishonest?
Proof? Cite? Evidence?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-06-2003, 12:56 PM
Nobody Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Re: Re: Bill O'Reilly slowly going off the deep end?

Quote:
Originally posted by wring
I was nowhere near him when it happened, really! I've got proof!!! I've got witnesses, I din't do it!
Now now, save it for the judge
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-06-2003, 01:33 PM
musicguy musicguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: California
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally posted by Joel
Proof? Cite? Evidence?
Well, Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them", might be an interesting read for you. He mentions that Bill was quite dishonest about being an independent, when he was actually a registered Republican. Then there was the time that he told everyone that he had won a prestigious Peabody award for his work on "Inside Edition". It wasn't a Peabody though, it was a Polk award, and they won it after he left the show. Proof is provided in the book, including a picture of the voter registration card that he filled out.

Those are only two examples. The man is a liar.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-06-2003, 01:53 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,250
The best TV interviewer on political issues right now is Tim Russert, hands down. He is proof that a journalist can ask tough questions, point out dodges, without being a prick. Which makes the likes of Bill O'Reilly even more intolerable.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-06-2003, 02:45 PM
Short Short is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
I had a (poorly formatted) post a few weeks ago on some of Bill O'Reilly's "conservative" rantings (don't conservatives find this insulting?). I specifically avoided his numerous lies in that post, but it does indicate Bill went off the deep end some time ago.

But of course, his conservatism also subtends* a lie, since he claims to be a moderate.

Remember when Bill got into an argument with a constitutional law lawyer (Volokh) about the wording of the first amendment? Yep, Bill was wrong.

Remember when Bill told his guest (Bennis, of the Institute for Policy Studies) that the US "give[s] away far and away more tax money to foreign countries." When Bennis corrected him, pointing that per capita contributions were lower than any EU nation, he told her she was wrong. She wasn't.

Remember when he cut off the mike of Jeremy Glick, whose father died on 9/11? Yeah, damn unpatriotic bastard; he disagreed with O'Reilly. When confronted with facts about why Glick opposed the war, Bill said "I'm not going to debate this with you," and "I don't want to debate world politics with you," and finally "shut up."

Of course, who can forget that "58% of single mothers are on welfare?" The next day he said that 52% of welfare recipiants were single (yes, he reversed the stat and changed the number), and following that the number changed again. He was, every time, wrong.

O'Reilly doesn't let facts get in the way of his view. If reality doesn't fit his view, reality is wrong. He is a liar.

*And another mathematical term is corrupted by politics.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-06-2003, 02:49 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Slowly?!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-06-2003, 02:53 PM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Bill went off the deep end years ago. Anyone who would make death threats to his "guests" needs to be fitted for a jacket whose sleeves tie in the back.

A second on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, which has numerous documented examples of Bill's bullshit (off the top of my head, Bill claimed that Senator Hillary Clinton didn't visit any surviving families after the 9/11 NYC attack, even though she attended two funerals and eleven services in that period). There's also The O'Really? Factor, in case Franken's book left you wanting more.
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-06-2003, 03:07 PM
kp_72110 kp_72110 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AR
Posts: 222
Actually he seems of late to be trying to prove he isn't a "conservative", he's an independent (dependent?). ok, Bill. If you say so.

I know a lot of people on this board think Fox News is not exactly honest and that it panders to the right. I can't disagree that it slants, however a lot of newscasts do slant. I happen to believe it is a good news sourse. But then again, I listen to NPR so what do I know?

I also like Chris Matthews because he too is tough. Bill is tough but it's too bad he is also obnoxious. Ratings are not only your friend, Bill. But also your enemy (best? worst?). Honest? As always, we'll let the viewers decide!

My only point, I suppose, is that I wish people on both sides would just sit down and honestly listen to the other side and then decide both are full of shit. There is a good middle ground.

Walk towards the grey area. It isn't mediocrity.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-06-2003, 03:08 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Ravenman, I agree with you that Tim Russert sets the standard for political interviewers. Can you imagine his leaving a Fresh Aire radio interview with Terry Gross?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-06-2003, 04:03 PM
Coldfire Coldfire is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Near Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 15,973
I've never seen an O'Reilly show, since they're not aired here. Still, I read the pit threads devoted to him with interest, and I can't help but come to the conclusion that this man is an utter buffoon. I decided to check out the FOX website for his show, and came across a rather interesting transcript in which Bill O'Reilly and a guest compare sexual education in the US to the approach in Europe.

It's un-fucking-believable. I'll quote some highlights, just for laughs:
Quote:
But here -- here's the discussion, and here's -- you just heard the sound bites that I got. These kids -- I spent, you know, a couple of days with them, 12 to 15, and they all have condoms given to them by their parents, all right. They all are conversant in every sexual thing you can imagine.

Their childhoods are gone. I mean they don't have a childhood anymore. They're into the sex deal at 12 and with their parents' blessing. I don't think our society here in America for a variety of reasons wants that. Am I wrong?
Yes, Bill, you're wrong. I'd say getting pregnant at 15 would constitute the end of childhood more than carrying a condom in your wallet does. You fucking idiot.
Quote:
O'REILLY: But the Europeans say, look, you Americans are failing your children.

PINSKY: We're too uptight. That we're too uptight about. That's what they say.

O'REILLY: Yes. Well, I -- who cares about that? I mean, you know, you go over there. They can do whatever they want. We're the most effective society on the face of the earth and the most productive. So they can say whatever they want.
God bless America! Who cares if teen pregnancies occur four times as often in the US than they do in France and Sweden! They're not the mighty US of A, so they can't possibly be right about something. Duh!
Quote:
PINSKY: But let me tell you something that the Europeans do that we don't do, is they base their public policy on research and not ideology, and if our desire is really to help young people, why don't we just look at the research and apply what works? Very simple.

O'REILLY: I'll tell you why. Oh, I'll tell you why. Because what works in one area doesn't work in another. One of the things that the Europeans have is a homogeneous society, OK. They don't have the diversity that we have here.
The fuck? Yeah, we're all white middle class socialist factory workers over here, Bill. No diversity whatsoever.

Furthermore, what does this have to do with the effectiveness of sexual education? Kids will try to fuck each other, whether they're poor, rich, black, or white.
Quote:
O'REILLY: There's a lot of fractured families over there, and there are a lot of libertine families. There are guys running around in France. I mean, if you don't have a mistress, you're a wuss. I mean come on. You know what the deal is over there.
Oh, great. The Great Myth of the Promiscuous French rears its head again. Does anyone want to talk about the difference in divorce rates, or are we going to take the claim that having a mistress is somehow widely accepted in France for granted? Yeesh.

And this is the most succesful TV show on American television, right?

WHY?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-06-2003, 04:25 PM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Because this country is being overrun by stupid people who love this shit?

(Quick, clone Cecil!)
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-06-2003, 04:34 PM
HumanStromboli HumanStromboli is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Coldfire
And this is the most succesful TV show on American television, right?
Well no, it's really not. Nowhere near. It is the most successful show among a (relatively) tiny cable niche.

(My apologies if you are instead mocking a grandiose O'Reilly claim, and I got whooshed.)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-06-2003, 05:07 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 36,165
Quote:
Originally posted by musicguy
Well, Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them", might be an interesting read for you. He mentions that Bill was quite dishonest about being an independent, when he was actually a registered Republican. Then there was the time that he told everyone that he had won a prestigious Peabody award for his work on "Inside Edition". It wasn't a Peabody though, it was a Polk award, and they won it after he left the show. Proof is provided in the book, including a picture of the voter registration card that he filled out.

Those are only two examples. The man is a liar.
In fairness, the Peabody/Polk thing is a little more complicated than that. He confused the names of the two awards, which is understandable, and he never claimed the show won the awards because of his work there. Someone had challenged his credentials as a journalist by calling his old show, Inside Edition, "tabloid journalism," and O'Reilly justly responded by pointing out it had won journalism awards. (The Polk not, apparently, being that much of a step down from the Peabody.) The lying didn't start until a reporter brought up the inaccuracies, at which point O'Reilly went on the offensive, denying that he had ever said the show had won a Peabody, and then later denying that he had ever denied the show had won a Peabody. He could simply have avoided the whole thing by acknowledging that he mispoke originally, but O'Reilly seems to be pathologically terrified of ever being wrong about anything.

However, this is not the only O'Reilly lie Al Franken documented, and O'Reilly isn't even the worst offender in the book.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-06-2003, 05:49 PM
Short Short is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
There's also The O'Really? Factor, in case Franken's book left you wanting more.
I've not read it, but I think you mean The Oh Really? Factor and not The O'Reilly Factor.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-06-2003, 07:04 PM
Beagle Beagle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
O'Reilly is a drug Nazi. YEARS ago,* I wrote him with the stats on drinking deaths versus marijuana deaths. It makes him angry, not reasonable. Which sounds like I agree with the OP. He really thinks that he, alone, is right -- on everything. He's obviously wrong about any social issue, bats .1000. I only surf in on the way elsewhere now.

[aside] OTOH, our culture is a lot more diverse than Yurp if you are using race as the criterion. Maybe it's where you happen to be sitting. Amsterdam is very diverse. That's not representative of Europe as a whole, although that is changing if considering trends. Orlando is very diverse. That is representative of Florida as a whole. It's representative of the nation as a whole also, especially considering macrotrends, but moreso.[/a]

What that has to do with using research as a public policy tool has me scratching my head, still. After considering whether it was even worth trying to salvage one stupid irrelevant point made by O'Reilly. Still scratching. He went to an Ivy League school, correct? He's just wrong in so many ways.

For one thing, state and federal governments do use research to determine what works. Often redundant to start with. Then they do more research. More. Sometimes they follow that research. Sometimes the program is cancelled, resurrected, changed, cancelled, resurrected. It's politics. Ideology does not enter the picture in European decision-making? That's laugable on its face.

*Seriously, don't watch. If you are yelling at the TV, that's not healthy. Don't let him trap you with his abrasive wiles. Based on the number of pit threads, there are plenty of willing flies for the O'Reilly spider. If you already have cable, and you do, what's your excuse? blipverts, subliminal ads (WATCH O'REILLY, SUFFERING IS ENJOYMENT) -- fnord.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-06-2003, 10:41 PM
amarone amarone is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,516
Quote:
Originally posted by Beagle
[aside] OTOH, our culture is a lot more diverse than Yurp if you are using race as the criterion.
Why should we use race as the criterion for culture? Why not use culture as the criterion for culture?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-06-2003, 11:18 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
It's a bit of a shame, because O'Reilly has what it takes to make a good politcal analysis show-- he's bright, quick on his feet, and a good speaker. The problem I see is that he's just too full of himself, and he wants everything to be a spectacle. I saw a tape of him talking to Harvard students awhile back and he was sharp, funny, very well received. None of the sensationalistic crap he gets into on his FOX show.

And I agree on the Tim Russert endorsment. I've also gotten to like Chris Matthews quite a bit. He, too, makes interviewees back up their statements with facts.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-06-2003, 11:36 PM
kniz kniz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by musicguy
Well, Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them", might be an interesting read for you. He mentions that Bill was quite dishonest about being an independent, when he was actually a registered Republican.
I claim to be an independent, but I am registered as a Democrat. Does that make me a liar and a radical liberal? I think not. It is the only way I can vote in the primaries, except registering as a Republican. which would then make me a liar and a radical conservative. Maybe I should do what so many people do and not vote.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-06-2003, 11:52 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
knoz:

O'Reilly specifically claimed that he was not registered with either party and that he was a registered independent. He made this claim multiple times. He lied multiple times.

He also claims that he was "stunned" to find out the he had registered as a Republican and that he had no memory of doing it.

Yeah, right.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-07-2003, 01:49 AM
butter pie butter pie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
O'Reilly is a drug Nazi. YEARS ago,* I wrote him with the stats on drinking deaths versus marijuana deaths. It makes him angry, not reasonable. Which sounds like I agree with the OP. He really thinks that he, alone, is right -- on everything. He's obviously wrong about any social issue, bats .1000. I only surf in on the way elsewhere now.
I have heard him make anti-mj statements on air, and also make the circular argument "it ruins lives because you get locked up, etc, so you shouldn't do it, because it could get you in jail and ruin your life." Basically it's bad because it's illegal, and illegal because it's bad.

If I remember in the Terri Gross interview, which I heard, he plainly says he's always been for the decriminalization or whatever of marijuana, a complete flip-flop of his views I've heard him spout on his TV show numerous times.

The man is truly nuts, you can tell just watching him.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-07-2003, 02:28 AM
Coldfire Coldfire is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Near Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 15,973
Quote:
Originally posted by Beagle
[aside] OTOH, our culture is a lot more diverse than Yurp if you are using race as the criterion. Maybe it's where you happen to be sitting. Amsterdam is very diverse. That's not representative of Europe as a whole, although that is changing if considering trends. Orlando is very diverse. That is representative of Florida as a whole. It's representative of the nation as a whole also, especially considering macrotrends, but moreso.[/a]
I must disagree with this, at least on principle in this debate. All European countries have, because of colonial histories and more recent labour immigrant histories, considerable "non-native" populations. And they don't all live in the bigger cities. Sure, it's true that the big cities show more diversity than the small towns, but that's no different than the US: is it easier to find a good Thai restaurant in NYC, or in Assboink, TN?
Whether or not the US is more diverse or not: that may very well be, in hard figures. But in my personal experience, it certainly isn't "a lot more diverse" as you say, and European societies sure as HELL aren't "homogenous" by any stretch of the imagination, as O'Reilly claims.
Quote:
For one thing, state and federal governments do use research to determine what works. Often redundant to start with. Then they do more research. More. Sometimes they follow that research. Sometimes the program is cancelled, resurrected, changed, cancelled, resurrected. It's politics. Ideology does not enter the picture in European decision-making? That's laugable on its face.
Of course. There are vast differences between sex ed in the US and in Europe, and I personally happen to think the "European" way (simplifying as that statement is, as there is a lot of variety within Europe as well) of educating children, rather than keeping them ignorant with abstinence as their only tool (and yes, I realise that's a bit of a generalisation), is plain better, and more effective (well, that last part is pretty much proven by the statistics). Others may disagree, and that's fine. We both agree that O'Reilly (and in this case, his guest) deliberately polarises the issue by creating this black-and-white scenario where no policy in the US is backed up by research, and all European policy is conveived without any ideological influence whatsoever. It's a nice radical standpoint to base a debate on I'm sure, but it's simply untrue.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-07-2003, 02:28 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
jinwicked:

I've heard O'Reilly discuss drugs on his show, and recall several instances where he clearly distinguished between pot and "hard" drugs in terms of ciriminalization. He has absolutely said, paraphrasing, "I have no problem with people smoking pot in the privacy if their homes".

I don't have a cite, just my memory. At any rate, I belive you are mistaken on this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-07-2003, 02:58 AM
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by kniz
I claim to be an independent, but I am registered as a Democrat. Does that make me a liar and a radical liberal? I think not. It is the only way I can vote in the primaries, except registering as a Republican. which would then make me a liar and a radical conservative. Maybe I should do what so many people do and not vote.
Franken also pointed out that O'Reilly lies about where he was born.

As if we cared about whether he was born in a blue collor town or an afluent town.....
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-07-2003, 03:08 AM
Blassie Blassie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Just remember, approximately 3x as many people watch WWE Monday Night Raw as watch O'Really.

I would no more base my vote and/or belief on what O'Really says than I would on what Triple H says.

As I read once, "Bill, your show is slipping."
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-07-2003, 04:27 AM
butter pie butter pie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by John Mace
jinwicked:

I've heard O'Reilly discuss drugs on his show, and recall several instances where he clearly distinguished between pot and "hard" drugs in terms of ciriminalization. He has absolutely said, paraphrasing, "I have no problem with people smoking pot in the privacy if their homes".

I don't have a cite, just my memory. At any rate, I belive you are mistaken on this issue.
Then perhaps my memory is prior to him making those statements, because I quite distinctly remember the letter he read on air was written regarding the private use of marijuana, and I think he even drudged up the old "gateway drug" argument. I remember this because I got in a very long involved argument with my dad afterwards about how mj is not a "gateway drug" and that it actually does less harm than alcohol in the grand scheme of things -- all of that was in response to Bill's comments on the air. Granted, that was at least three years ago, but I remember it quite distinctly.

Regarding Bill vs. Al Franken and his new book... (I just remembered I did this):

http://crap.jinwicked.com/images/comics/20031102.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-07-2003, 04:32 AM
butter pie butter pie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Yes, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December... and each seperate dying ember wrought its gho....... oh, sorry. It's late.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-07-2003, 04:46 AM
TwistofFate TwistofFate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
blassie (Classie freddie reference?)

At least the WWE does more to encourage people to vote, as opposed to idiots like O'Reilly who would turn people off politics.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-07-2003, 06:10 AM
Coldfire Coldfire is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Near Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 15,973
Well, yeah. But do we really want people voting for Jesse Ventura?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-07-2003, 07:13 AM
lno lno is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In the state of denial
Posts: 4,827
Well, yeah. If they hadn't in 1998, then Norm Coleman would have won the governorship of Minnesota and wouldn't have stood for Senator in 2002, and though another candidate would certainly have replaced him, it's possible that Mondale would have won and the precarious balance of power in the Senate would have shifted.

And, of course, it's possible that monkeys may fly out of my ass.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-07-2003, 08:53 AM
II Gyan II II Gyan II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I also remember O'Reilly for decriminalization of pot. I saw it within the last week, while flipping channels.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-07-2003, 09:06 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Coldfire
Well, yeah. But do we really want people voting for Jesse Ventura?
Let me tell you, seeing the Election Victory party with the Governor-Elect partying in a Jimi Hendrix T-shirt, a porno-pink feather boa and a multicolored headband was almost worth it.

Keep in mind, the State of Minnesota was founded by a coalition of people with a native distrust of governance, and especially power concentrated in an executive. The Gov. of Minn. has the irrevocable power to sign the proclamation declaring the Rutabaga Festival ( don't ask) open, and thats about it.

He's likable enough, for a lout. Still a lout.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-07-2003, 09:08 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
God! That's it! Why didn't I think of it before?!

Jesse Ventura vs Bill O'Reilly, Steel Cage Death Match!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-07-2003, 09:20 AM
Beagle Beagle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
I'll pursue this one irrelevant point to the bitter end.

Maybe it's my neighborhood, or my whole state, but I'm right.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-07-2003, 09:42 AM
Beagle Beagle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
US pop stats, available by race, 2000. I'm against keeping statistics by race unless it's a write-in ballot. We have the whole Hispanic/Latino race/ethnicity/culture controversy here in Florida. There is a whole article on that particular issue.

Right now I look like a tank driver in NA -- for either side -- circa 1942, don't ask me. Me "cracker."

OTOH, some people swear keeping racial data is useful for a number of things, including public health. It does make it hard to find firm numbers for Europe, France in particular. The demographics of Europe and the US are in a state of flux. We could argue trends, when I already conceded that O'Reilly is a knob.

...if you use race as the criterion... O'Reilly is still a knob.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-07-2003, 10:09 AM
evilskippy evilskippy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by elucidator
God! That's it! Why didn't I think of it before?!

Jesse Ventura vs Bill O'Reilly, Steel Cage Death Match!
THAT is worth the price of the ticket!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-07-2003, 11:28 AM
Slacker Slacker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
I'm glad old Bill's around if only for the fact that he gets Al Franken on such a roll. I'm looking forward to Al's next book, which he mentioned in "Lies" would be called I Fucking Hate Those Right-Wing Motherfuckers!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-07-2003, 11:52 AM
Zoltarb Zoltarb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
As I recall, they've had pretend political debates on Raw, and I remember, although they end in fistfights(duh) they still backed up what they said with quotes and stats.
Come on, O'Reilly. If a scripted fighting show holds itself to higher standards, something's wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-07-2003, 12:00 PM
BJMoose BJMoose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
I'm so confused. I linked out to look at jinwicked's cartoon (good), and when I came back O'Lielly had been hijacked by Ventura.

My reax to the OP: Most interviewers do do a piss-poor job of following up interviewees' statements. I often suspect the recent history of the republic would be quite different if only Jim Lehrer had asked the obvious follow-up to Clinton's infamous "There is no relationship. . ."

His reaction to the Madeleine Albright/Halfbright joke makes no sense at all, unless someone has recently slipped a dose of civility in his salt peter (or does Bill have the hots for Madeleine?). Heck, it's not even original. Harry Truman found cause to refer to Sen. William Fulbright as "Sen. Halfbright."

Will he self-destruct? Probably. I won't be watching, though, having been taught not to gawk at the misfortunes of others. Also, I find I no longer have the stomach for the whole Shouting Heads genre. Hadn't even heard of Hannity and Colmes (er, sorry: Hannity and Colmes) until I read Franken's book. Watched 'em for a few minutes one day. Only lingering perception: they looked like a couple of badly-cosmetized corpses. . .
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-07-2003, 12:19 PM
Short Short is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Harry Truman found cause to refer to Sen. William Fulbright as "Sen. Halfbright."
I propose the "Halfbright" scholarship, for students who achieve mediocrity and preserve the status quo.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-07-2003, 12:21 PM
kniz kniz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
knoz
  • WTF? is that supposed to be cute or what?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-07-2003, 12:23 PM
litost litost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Coldfire hit the nail on the fucking head. I mean, read that transcript... I think we are needlessly caught up in the question:
"Does Bill O' Reilly lie?". Sure, there is some documentation for that, but he can always call them "honest mistakes" and there ends the matter. The bigger problem with O' Reilly is the mindless mis-interpretation of facts, the non-sequiturs, the logical fallacies and the meaningless generalizations, name-calling what-have-you. He is neither sincere nor thoughtful with his news analysis. I too wonder why he is successful and though I realize his audience isn't as big as it seems, it does bother me.

Does it genuinely qualify as entertainment? Do people watch it for sheer entertainment value? I don't know.

(A while back, someone on this board was asking people to prove Rush Limbaugh lies.... again, I think it is about lies as much as it is about wilful distortion of facts to suit a pre-determined ideology-based conclusion)

The only good thing about BOR, as John Mace pointed out, is he does not back away from something a guest might have said during the interview. But, that has ended up like a "garland in a monkey's hand" (as a proverb goes)... misused and abused.

I like Chris Mathews too.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-07-2003, 01:52 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally posted by kniz
  • WTF? is that supposed to be cute or what?
No, just a typo. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-07-2003, 03:54 PM
litost litost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Is knoz offensive?

Enquiring minds...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-07-2003, 04:05 PM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by litost
Sure, there is some documentation for that, but he can always call them "honest mistakes" and there ends the matter.
Don't forget the "corrections" that (a) don't correct the error and (b) are still wrong, as demonstrated here by Ann Coulter. anwhile, the dittoheads keep squawking that there's a "liberal media" that's trying to feed them bullshit...

Quote:
Does it genuinely qualify as entertainment? Do people watch it for sheer entertainment value? I don't know.
Not to put a fine point on it, but they watch because they're idiots. O'Reilly et al are dispensing political porn -- simple-minded answers that reinforce the feel-good their audience. America good, non-Christians evil, yadda yadda yadda.

Hey, people have every right to watch whatever political porn they like; just don't let them vote on those arguments.
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-07-2003, 07:55 PM
Beagle Beagle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Dale Earnhardt?

OK, as outside the box as I think -- sometimes outside the wrapping paper or ribbons even -- it's hard for me to get mad at the NYT for whatever coverage they gave Dale Earnhardt's death. Maybe someone more NASCAR savvy than myself -- I live 30 miles from Daytona -- can clue me in.

Ann Coulter in a domanatrix outfit, that's what we all really imagine isn't it?

Anyway...

I get mad at the recent BS claims by the NYT that defending the truth in the Duranty case is, itself, Stalinism. First of all, that creates an enless Stalinist loop. Nature and logic cannot permit that. Second, their guy Duranty was a lying commie bastard that defended a mass murderer. CNN kissed Saddam's ass. There, I feel better now.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-07-2003, 10:12 PM
Beagle Beagle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
My bad. Stock car racing was dealt a major blow when Maureen Dowd invoked "Wal-Mart." There is some dispute over the actual date of publication. If that ever makes sense to me, I'm shooting myself. I prefer to watch Formula 1 on Speedvision. I swear, I'm not with the terrorists!

She likes liberals to "dumbly blink" before she puts little clips on their naughty bits.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-08-2003, 09:40 AM
ammo52 ammo52 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
A couple weeks back, one of the birthday presents I bought my wife was O'Reilly's new book, " Who's Looking Out for You?" She likes the guy, and watches the Factor all the time, while I don't care much for him. She read the book, liked it, and, as I feared, asked me to read it.

Hoo boy.

My first disappointment was that the book seems literally written at about the 7th grade level. I wasn't expecting it to draw comparisons to the writings of George Will, but for Christ's sake, it is sophmoric in its approach. I would've expected someone actually writing a book instead of a more "disposable" newspaper column to take the time to formulate more compelling and eloquent arguments, but not Ol' Bill.

The second bummer is the absolutely arrogant tone that fairly leaks off the pages, from cover to cover. I've never seen a writer more proud of less insightful analysis than O'Reilly shows in this book. Time and time again he makes it clear that everyone in America is blind to the "problem" except himself.

His "conclusions" are among the most unsupported I've ever seen an author attempt. He leaps to them at every turn, offering little or no roadmap to lead us to a similar conclusion. His arguments don't run much deeper than, "On such and such a date, an illegal Mexican immigrant killed a man in Arizona. This proves conclusively that our borders are a porous sieve through which an endless stream of vicious murderers stroll, while lawmakers look the other way. Are THEY looking out for you? Doesn't sound like it to THIS humble reporter."

As soon as I picked it up, I wondered if it would turn out that (gasp!) NO ONE is "Looking out for us." I'll be god-damned if that didn't turn out to be precisely the case.

I rather appreciate the way he refuses to let guests on his show dodge a question-- too many interviewers just move on to the next one and give a free pass-- but he shouldn't be allowed to fucking write books.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.