'cause I’m *good * enough,
I’m smart enough, and
doggone it, people like me.
just as obvious, I can’t code worth shit.
O’Reilly’s watch must be broken. On the above link for the mp3, I only heard Franken talk for about 18 minutes, not 35, as O’Reilly contended. :dubious:
You know, I noticed that too. The best parts to me are at 18-20 mintues, 30 mintues and from 45 minutes to the end of the recording. In my opinion (which may not be yours, but listen to all 58 minutes before you decide)
O’Reilly: Discredited and Disgraced.
Set, Point, Match: Franken
According to Washington Post’s Lloyd Grove column The Reliable Source:
[Bolding mine]
We? Isn’t O’Reilly being a tad misleading, or engaging in a bit of spin? I can agree that perhaps the basic format and content of the show may not have changed after O’Reilly left, but is not the anchor of the show an integral part of it? Certainly if the producer had left and the show won an award the next year, it would be somewhat disingenuous for the former producer to claim, “Inside Editon won a Polk Award. We did good work.” Wouldn’t the anchor also have some say in what stories are covered or not? According to the above source, the award was for an exposé on insurance-industry exploitation of poor people. Would the exposé have been done had O’Reilly remained, or at least, done at a similar award-winning quality level?
Never much cared for O’Reilly, but would watch occasionally if the topic interested me. Those days are over. He came off like a whining, arrogant asshole, who was ready to take his toys out of the sandbox and go home. I waited for the whole thing to regress into an “I know you are but what am I?” kind of exchange. Molly Ivins should have grabbed both of then by the back of the neck, cracked their skulls together, and said “Grow up!” I like Al Franken, but I agree with Dewey Cheatem Undhow’s contention that Ivins was the most mature one on the panel.
With the Clint Eastwood fantasies, and his comment on The Factor about kicking Franken’s ass in a duel, I’m really starting to wonder if the macho posturing is actually a part of O’Reilly’s psyche instead of just another facade to boost his ratings.
El Gui: If your whole case turns on the use of the pronoun “we,” may I suggest that your case isn’t one worth pursuing? Of all the things to hang around O’Reilly’s neck, this one’s just absurd. O’Reilly critics like to make fun of his former gig at Inside Edition. O’Reilly then basically says “It’s a good show that does good work – here’s proof, they won an award – I’m proud to have worked with the good folks who put it on.” I just don’t see what the big problem is with O’Reilly staking out that position.
I mean, really. Say your local news show wins an award for an investigative piece. Further say the weatherman at your local news show says “we did good work.” Are you gonna criticize him because as a technical matter he didn’t participate in the award-winning story? Good God, how hypertechnical and prissy can you be?
BTW, I’m now pissed at you for making me defend Bill O’Reilly. Personally, I don’t like him or his show. I think he’s a pompous blowhard who thinks cutting off his guests is the height of interviewing. Please don’t put me in this position again.
But, Dewey, pronouns are important. As a lawyer I’m sure you can appreciate the difference between “I killed the bagpipe player” vs. “He killed the bagpipe player.” 
I can tell you that if I had been involved with an organization that won a prestegious award a year after I left it I would never claim that “we” won the award even if I had felt that my tenure there had contributed to the organization’s success. If anyone ever pointed out to me that I had ever said or implied that I was the recipient of such an award I would be quick to acknowledge that while I was not directly involved in winning the award, that I could legitimately claim that I had contributed significantly towards it. O’Reilly did not do that.
You know very well that in your analogy O’Reilly is NOT the weatherman, but an anchor who left the year before. Would it be correct for the former anchor to claim, “We did good work” for an investigative piece done the year AFTER leaving the show?
Is it worthwhile for Franken to focus on this point? Probably not worth too much of his time. However, it is understandable why critics would focus on minor points of spin by O’Reilly, just like focusing on (arguably) minor points of moral lapses by William Bennet.
But I guess since this isn’t great debates, I should not have worded my previous post in the form of logical, rational questions and instead simply reverted to silly name-calling and baseless assumptions? Please. :rolleyes:
Still waiting to hear from the O’Reilly fans who think he’s fair and unbalanced. Step forward, please…
Yeah, but as a lawyer I also understand that most people aren’t meticulously precise in their day-to-day speech. Indeed, part of being a good lawyer is understanding what your client is really trying to say, even if a pure word-by-word parsing means something totally different. In this case, seizing on O’Reilly’s use of “we” is such a nitpicky grammatical quibble that it renders the whole point silly.
I’ll happily grant that O’Reilly should have corrected himself as soon as the error was brought to his attention (indeed, I said as much earlier in this thread). But this just isn’t the damnable offense that Franken apparently thinks it is.
It’s as least as correct as it is for the weatherman. The point being, neither the former anchor nor the weatherman had anything to do with the work that won the award.
I stand by the comment that Connie the CSpan anchor said on Sunday, that the show will rerun on Friday at some point. Still nothing on the CSpan 2 schedule for Friday.
As far as Al Franken calling Ann Coulter a b!tch, this is what happened:
Al Franken states that he and his wife met Ann Coulter once, and they were cordial to her. Ann later said that she was friendly with Al Franken. Al Franken said he should have called her a b!tch so that she could tell that he doesn’t like her.
So technically, he did not call her a b!tch. But he sure implied it.
Note that this parallels exactly the accusations he made about her book. Her book may not say that the New York Times made so very racist comments about Clarence Thomas, but she sure implied it.
:tentatively raises hand:
Although I’m not a fan of O’Reilly, I definitely think he’s unbalanced.
I think Al Franken can be funny when he wants to be, and he deserves kudos for deflating Rush Limbaugh in his book, but let’s face it, he’s a miserable, vindictive SOB. You don’t have to be a political pundit or talking head to get on his shit list. You just have to disagree with anything he says or writes. Christ, he went after Deepak Chopra in RLIABFI for no real reason other than Chopra made a private comment to a mutual friend about Franken’s book.
You don’t have to be a flaming liberal to think that O’Reilly and Coulter are three cans short of a sixpack, but Franken strikes me as a dangerous guy to have as a friend.
Maybe if we took away all their shows, columns and book deals and made them work at fixing cars for a year, they’d be a little more down to earth. A little easier to get along with. A little more . . . I don’t know . . . put-together. Right now, they come off as drunk frat boys. Even Ann Coulter. Especially Ann Coulter.
Dewey, on the “WE” and “THEY” controversy over The Inside Edition’s Polk Award, I was once a soldier in a war that many would think that the US sort of lost. Gulf One and the recently reprised Gulf Almost Two were tremendous wins on the ground for the US Armed Forces. Would it be appropriate for me to say that “We Soldiers” did good work in the last two episodes? Would it be appropriate for me, who had been a civilian for 15 years, to claim to have been awarded a presidential unit citation won by the unit I had been a member of years before but with which I had no connection at the time the award was earned? The answer clearly would be that I was dishonestly claiming glory earned by someone else.
As far as excusing the whole thing as an informality of speech, Friend O’Reilly makes his living with the language and can certainly be regarded as a professional quality word smith. I can’t believe for a minute that this can all be marked down as a mere slip of the tongue, especially since the claim was repeated a number of times.
I checked with my friendly B&N for Frankin’s new book. They (not we) won’t have it until mid-September.
No sin there, if you ask me. Chopra’s a plagiarizing dick in addition to being a bottle of warmed-over smegma for all the pseudo-scientific Ayurvedic “medicine” crap he peddles on a constant basis.
Please. Bill O’Reilly is paid to be a loud, obnoxious, sanctimonious blowhard. He is not paid for the precision with which he uses the English language. Indeed, I daresay anyone who has listened to him speak for any length of time would have to conclude that he is decidedly imprecise in his wordplay.
Hypertechnical parsing is the province of lawyers and press secretaries. I suspect “The Ari Fleischer Factor” wouldn’t get very good ratings.
The simple fact is, context makes what O’Reilly was saying quite clear: namely, Inside Edition is a quality television program that he was proud to be associated with, and that quality is evidenced by its reciept of the Polk award. It is foolish and immature to play “gotcha” by suggesting he meant something more.
This isn’t hypertechnical parsing, Dewey. O’Reilly is in essence lying on his resume, and I don’t believe for a second that his wording isn’t chosen precisely so that he could try to weasel his way out of the lie using precisely the argument you’re giving. It’s hardly uncharacteristic - it’s much the same as his “working class” background in a white collar family, etc. Anyways, spin is all about hypertechnical parsing of ambiguous statements, and Bill’s a master of it. I can’t see any reason to give him a pass on this one, though it’s hardly an aggregious sin. He’s done plenty of other things I despise him for far more.