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. . .
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.
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… :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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. :eek: I swear, I’m not with the terrorists!
She likes liberals to “dumbly blink” before she puts little clips on their naughty bits.
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.
People should not buy his books. If O’Reilly is persuasive to many people due to his mere abrasive intrusiveness, too many journalists are kissing accessass or really do have another agenda.
IMO, not a journalist, just argue the opposite of whatever your guest thinks until they make a good case or cry like babies. Is that so hard?
Ask tough questions. Bring in different consultants and experts. Stop rotating the same people like a baseball lineup. There are other parties that could be allowed to speak occasionally (Green, Libertarian, whatever) Stop covering the celebrity news. Cover Afghanistan and Iraq in detail, every day. By the way, mass US TV media, you mostly suck.
Fire: Begala and Carville. Please. The nervous applause for Begala in the prebiased crowds are embarrassing. They are lauging at you. OK, if you fire Begala, you can keep Carville.
Ever been to CNN Center? Groups of public school teachers might tend to clap for Ds. Then you have the “away games” at colleges.
Don’t get me wrong, a conservative can slip through security – as tight as it is. Fire Begala, please. Hire Hitchens and give him a bottle of booze. Let him ramble for two hours.
Fire Begala, please. Hire Hitchens and give him a bottle of booze. Let him ramble for two hours.