This was the most interesting debate Ive seen in awhile. The arguments presented resulted into a standstill. Until O’Reilly publically stated that he would personally vent Stewart for VP.
Here are the video links:
Part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWb-Ygu1VcA&NR=1
Part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmbvZeqScO0
I think that Bill won the debate.
Just to get this clear, what topic are you presenting for debate here in this thread? Are you asking for debate on who was the winner of the O’Reilly-Stewart debate?
Yes, I thought that O’Reilly was the winner of the debate. I was interested to see if any others had a differing opinion.
What were they debating, and how in your opinion did O’Reilly win that debate?
Can we see an unedited tape of this. O’Reilly is famous for taking creative edits to make his positions stronger.
I have to ask the OP: What specific points did O’Reilly make that lead you to rank him as the winner?
I give the edge to Stewart.
Bill O’Reilly weakly attempted to prove that Fox News is not a GOP cheerleader by naming two big time Republicans who didn’t appear on his program (but have appeared on other Fox News programs) which doesn’t prove his point.
I just watched them, and I’m not clear as to what the debate was or how Bill O’Reilly won it.
I did have to love Bill O’Reilly arguing how his show is clearly opinion and easily distinguished from the news content while the “Fox News” logo rotated in the lower left hand corner of the screen.
In my opinion, Jon Stewart won because he was getting a lot of laughs from the room.
When Stewart pointed out that Fox is trying to paint Obama as the second coming of Chairman Mao O’Reilly changed the subject. That was the only real substantive point made in the interview that wasn’t about whether Fox is biased and Stewart didn’t get an answer.
As far as whether Fox is biased, come on. They have 90 seconds of news every hour and the rest is opinion. Even the shows that they claim are news all have handpicked guests, handpicked panels. They carefully control the narrative.
On my card, I have Stewart ahead on points, but I’ll wait 'til the final round.
Well, O’Reilly tried to wave it away by saying that was only two guys on the network, but that one of them was Everyman.
The full segment from last night is here:
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2010/02/03/did-you-watch-jon-stewart-on-the-oreilly-factor/
The interview is so chopped up that it’s hard to really tell anything, but from what I saw, O’Reilly comes off as a blustering, prevaricating tool, dodging points, taking stupid digs at Stewart about stuff like his popularity, taking stupid digs at Stewart’s audience being liberals (like O’Reilly’s audience is composed of thoughtful, analytical independent thinkers), and generally just avoiding any substance. The smug, self-satisfied way he asked “how is Obama doing” just epitomized his idiocy and cluelessness. First of all, that’s a question that’s too open ended to really mean anything. Secondly, he apparently was deluded enough to think that it was a "gotcha’ question for Stewart, indicating that he thinks Fox News’ own attempts to portray Obama’s Presidency as being in political trouble are a reflection of reality that no one else wiill question.
His attempt to claim that Beck is an “everyman” was patently ridiculous. As was his reiteration of his claim to being fair and balanced.
And what was that bullshit with sticking his finger in Stewart’s face? How is it that nobody has punched Bill O’Reilly in his fucking eye socket yet?
Bill won? I do not know how that conclusion could be reached. Stewart came on his show and answered his questions. He went into the belly of the beast . Oriellieys stage ,his audience and his rules. He answered every question clearly . What victory did he achieve?
How odd! The right-wingers think Bill won and the left-wingers think Jon won. Never would’ve thought that would happen.
And then someone smugly tut-tutted about partisan predictability! What a shocking and unprecedented turn of events!
It looks to me like the OP thinks “O’Reilly won,” while the rest of us think it wasn’t a debate in the first place.
Who do you think came off looking better?
Not at all. I was simply noting that “winning” a debate, especially between two politically charged adversaries, is often in the eye of the beholder. Sorry the subtlety escaped you.
It wasn’t a debate, it was an interview.
Who do YOU think came off looking better?
I think they both won. “Hurray, we created some drama! People like drama and will watch both of us! Ratings man ratings! Money money money.”
And yet we poke fun at people who watch professional wrestling.
Then someone used sarcasm to mock another poster. How stunning!