I don’t know anything about this feud, but that is damn funny.
Not at all. If the audio and the transcript shows him being cut off in mid-sentence, then it is most likely that some audio was cut off.
As an aside, cutting callers off used to be a semi-common occurrence on “The Don & Mike Show” (a radio show originating in Northern Virginia and nationally syndicated). The show usually operates on a 20-30 second delay. At least once a week, a caller would begin saying something inflammatory (curse words, personal information, etc). The radio station would then hit the “dump button” which would drop the last 9-10 seconds that the delay had built up, and the next thing listeners would hear would be Don & Mike speaking mid-sentence about what had just happened. Sometimes they would offer an explanation such as “We had to dump that guy because he said a curse word”. Then they would have to wait for the delay to build up again before they could take more calls.
There’s a difference between ‘cut off’ and ‘edited out.’
Occam’s razor suggests that if Bill O’Reilly cut off the caller in mid-sentence by pressing the ‘drop’ button, then what was broadcast was essentially the way things really transpired.
If someone edited out something the caller said, the director would have to, within seconds, cut out the offending part and probably go live. There would be a noticeable ‘jump’ there.
I haven’t heard the audio, so I can’t say which happened, but if there was no jump, I would figure Bill dropped the call right at ‘Olberman,’ and would put the onus of proof on somebody suggesting that wasn’t the case.
What was broadcast was exactly what transpired, that is not up for debate. What is debatable is did the call end after the word Olberman was said, or were the possibly intervening inflammatory comments cut off by the delay being utilized?
I have listened to the tape. After the caller mentions Olberman’s show, the next audio that is heard is O’Reilly immediately responding with a “buh” sound, then with “There you go, Mike” followed by the rest of the clip. O’Reilly would have to be super fast on the trigger to cut him off at the mere mention of Olberman’s name. The most likely explanation (IMHO) is that the caller said something after mentioning Olberman that warranted the call to be cut off and to utilize the delay to skip forward about 9-10 seconds. O’Reilly could know when the delay would end and when he could begin speaking and be heard by his audience.
Also, O’Reilly’s co-host mentions that maybe the caller is from the mothership, leading credence to the notion that the caller said something about a mothership. Also, it is unlikely that O’Reilly would not drop a call merely for mentioning Olberman, as he goes on to say that he said something untoward or obscene (which mentioning Olberman is neither). The most likely scenario is that after mentioning Olberman, the caller made an inflammatory comment, which O’Reilly subsequently dumped.
I refer the right honourable gentleman to my previous statement in Post No. 58.
I blogged about this on Monday. This is a fine example of “in a perfect world” legislation that the Right seems to love these days. In a perfect world, abstinance-only sex education would work, and no one would ever get abortions. And all we have to do is make it illegal, without considering why people get abortions in the first place, and everything will be perfect forever.
What I want to know is whether these politicians are stupid, or lazy (or both).
Whoops! I had two threads open, and replied in the wrong on.
In this thread I was going to mention O’Reilly’s fun quote here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185676,00.html
He’s lamenting the fact that Brokeback Mountain “humanizes” homosexuals. That’s good news for Ricky Santorum at least. If they’re human after all, maybe we won’t have to worry about them having relations with dogs. 
Ok, here we go again… 
How do you read that he’s “lamenting” the fact that BBM humanizes gays? I read as O’Reilly just stating that as a fact, without placing any value judgement on it.
O’Reilly goes on tirades from time to time about “the gay agenda” of Hollywood, but I’ve not seen him try to de-humanize gays. I happened to see the segment you are referencing, and it was an fairly positive interview with a gay actor (Tab Hunter) who went thru his whole film career in the closet. If he wanted to dehumanize gays, the interview would’ve been about why Hunter didn’t stay in the closet or seek psychiatric help to becoe straight or something along those lines.
Ok, maybe “lamenting” is editorializing it somewhat, but doesn’t the mere fact that he made the statement inserting a value judgement in the conversation? Did “The Longest Yard” humanize football players? “Walk The Line” humanize musicians? The usage in this situation strikes me as more than a little condescending.
“Lamenting” is beside the point. The point is why would you need to “humanize” a person? A dog or a cat or an inanimate object can be “humanized”, but to say that a movie “humanizes” gays implies that gays are not human in the first place. What are the inhuman aspects of gay people that the movie “humanizes”?
Maybe. But football players aren’t generally dehumanized, so no one needs to humanize them. Gays, regrettably, have been dehumanized. Let’s also not forget that this line was a lead-in to an interview about gays being shunned not that long ago in Hollywood.
Since you admit to editorializing somewhat, though, you’ve addressed my point.
If he did that, he’d have used up his delay buffer and gone live, leaving himself wide open for any old thing the next caller might care to spring on him. That’s hardly a prudent thing to do when he’s under siege by the evil minions of He Who Must Not Be Named.
Not necessarily. As mentioned earlier, this is a semi-common occurrence on the “Don & Mike Show”. Whenever the delay is utilized, Don and Mike have to wait until the delay builds up before they can take calls again. I would assume Bill O’Reilly would also need to wait until a sufficient delay was built up before continuing to take calls.
Here’s a real beaut from that interview:
He procedes to actua;;y try to argue this point- that for some reason he thinks a gay actor would be capable or portraying a heterosexual.
Hey, Bill…have you ever heard of Rock Hudson? Carey Grant? Errol Flynn? Tom Cruise? There’s a list a mile long.
O’Reilly has made his loathing of gay people abundantly clear over the years. I remember him righteously declaring that the author of Corpus Christi was going to go to Hell for writing a play about a gay Jesus. I’m not embellishing or exaggerating. He actually said that.
Let’s try that sentence again. He proceedsto actually try to argue that point - that th for some reason he thinks a gay actor would NOT be capable or portraying a heterosexual.
You didn’t read the article. He was arguing that “Hollywood” wouldn’t cast an openly gay man as the lead in a role that had a romantic realtionship with a woman. Specifically he was talking about a romantic comedy with Jennifer Aniston.
His point was to specifically compare the situation today with Rock Hudson’s day-- he was not an opennly gay man. He’s saying he doesn’t think Hollywood has changed to that extent.
He wasn’t saying a gay guy couldn’t do it, as in physically cound’t do it. He’s saying audiences wouldn’t accept it, and so “Hollywood” won’t risk it.
Last time I checked, Cary Grant was possibly bisexual. Not gay.
Man, am I out of the loop. I didn’t even know this was in question!
I don’t know if I agree with O’Reilly or not-- ie, that Hollywood still won’t cast an openly gay man in a lead, heterosexual role. But all the big-name leading men I can think of have pretty public heterosexual relationships as part of their off-screen personas. Have there been any openly gay actors portraying decidely heterosexual men in the movies lately? Is the American audience ready for that yet?
There was that awful Madonna movie with her and Guy Ritche screwing on a beach for 3 hours. Or something. Whoever it was was outwardly gay.
I don’t know, first we’d need a list of gay male actors.
The British actor Sir Derek Jacobi comes to mind. He has played a number of heterosexual roles, though admittedly I didn’t spot any blockbusters in the IMDB list. Ok, he was in Gladiator, but not as the lead.