I’m not going to say that O’Reilly deserves respect, but I think that his bluster, etc. is his intelligence in action. The dude knows what sells. He’s making a mint off of being a jackass. Nobody even expects him to have a reasonable arguement. All he has to do is yell.
Nope, I’m not jealous in the least.
He is able to use his bullying tactics often on his own show, but I was surprised and puzzled that Tim Russert allowed it to continue as long as it did on this interview. O’Reilly was definitely the Alpha dog even though I am not in agreement with his views or techniques.
But compare that to his interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air on NPR (National Public Radio.) He didn’t seem to be able to handle her calmness and level-headnedness. He freaked and left the interview.
Her interview with him is available for your listening pleasure over the internet, although I don’t have a link.
I think you’ve got a point - he’s smart enough to know that assholery sells.
But, as the wingers keep on trying to tell us, character counts. (Funny how it only ‘counts’ to them when you’ve done something demonstrating how much you lack it, if you’re a librul.) And making money by being as close as TV will let you come to being a thug, demonstrates a deep willingness to put money ahead of decency.
What a jerk. But as the expression goes, time wounds all heels.
I’m not sure I understand the purpose of the ‘entertainer’ meme (which has been applied to a number of media figures who are actively political in their ‘entertaining’, beginning with Rush Limbaugh). I mean, sure they’re entertainers, but they’re also ideologues, and you can be both at once, with one in service to the other. Hell, I definitely tried to be an entertainer when I could, when I was teaching mathematics. It didn’t make me any less a math professor.
Moore, Limbaugh, O’Reilly - they’re all pushing a message, and they’re being ‘entertaining’ in order to keep their audience listening. But the message is the thing, and they aren’t people who are primarily entertainers, who are only acting out a political POV because it sells.
And whether or not that’s the case, I think it’s reasonable to ask of all of them - just like Airman Doors’ thread did about Moore - whether they’re honest, whether they’re fair, whether they’re civil. You know how we used to be told, “It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”? Would be nice if the grownups on TV would occasionally give little kids a reason to believe that we adults weren’t feeding them a line of BS.
Actually, Maddox pretty much told O’Reilly off:
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly
I suppose it isn’t quite in line with the OP since Maddox wasn’t interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, but at least it matches the sentiment.
I’ll tell ya what…O’Reilly knows better than to pull that shit on Michael Moore!Krugman pussied out, he tired to regain his composure, but just collapsed. I was embarassed and thinkin’ … What a fuckin’ fiasco! If you look at Russerts face, it looks like he was having an ethical dilemma as to whether he should moderate or go for ratings! Motherfucker!
What political denomination does Krugman belong to?
He seems pretty moderate…makes you wonder how extreme right O’Reilly is?
Hmmm…
By the way, interesting little tidbit I got off another board…O’Reilly berated some adults for smoking a doobie at a 21st. Century Door’s concert that he went to last year.
C’mon Bill, It’s a Door’s concert! FerCS!
Well, it goes to the point of this thread, which is why someone doesn’t tell him to shut up. It’s simple: his bombastic attitude gets ratings. If he was meek and mild, he’d end up on some PBS show and no one would watch him. There are dozens of talk show hosts out there-- enough to suit anyone’s prefernce. If you don’t like O’Reilly, turn to anther station.
He’s the broadcast media equivalent of a troll.
And who owns the other station?
I suppose it depends on who you ask. Krugman is an economics professor with a very solid professional reputation among his professional colleagues. He won the John Clark Bates medal a few years back, which is awarded to the most promising economist under 40. He has taught on the faculties of MIT, Stanford and (now) Princeton. He stepped towards prominence with his “accessible” writings, books like “The Age of Diminished Expectations,” “Peddling Prosperity,” and columns in various magazines, some of which have been collected in “The Accidental Theorist,” and “Pop Internationalism.” He’s been writing a regular column in the New York Times for a few years now. He admits to being a liberal, in the sense that he believes in a society that uses revenues collected from taxes to aid society’s poorest members. However, he has views that would probably place him to the right of people like, say, Michael Moore - he is a staunch free trader, critical of attempts to force Third World countries to adopt First World wage and environmental standards, and has advocated market solutions to problems like pollution. So, looking over his whole history, he would probably be viewed as a moderate liberal.
However, to the Fox News crowd, even a moderate liberal is basically a raving Communist in a sport coat. Krugman has been pretty consistent about attacking the Bush II Administration’s economic policies, an extension of his numerous critiques of supply-side economics. He’s also extended himself into criticisms of Iraq policy and domestic security - issues on which he does not have any particular expertise. However, because he is a staunch critic of the Bush administration with a column in the Newspaper of Record/ Leader of the Liberal Media Cabal, he basically has a target on his back as far as the propaganda arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are concerned.
Awww - just watch the show, he’s good for both sides of the fences, and does a GREAT job of pissing off all the people who think that if you have even one coat thread hangin over the fence on any issue, youre a dirty rat bastard piece of shit commie.
Yea he’s a slimeball when you HATE him for having a voiced, strong opinion that differs from yours, but when he rants on something YOU agree with, he’ll give you a raging “right on brotha” hard on in the 3rd degree.
I personally enjoy his shows, and hearing him go apeshit - even when i dont totally agree with him - but then again, it’s only good watching for the non-bigot.
so if you’re anything like that, and cant respect other opinions without hating someone over them - (not saying you ARE like that) i wouldnt advise indulging in his shows, until you need a quick “piss me off good so i can beat my ex’s new boyfriends ass”. cause boy can he inflame a political hemmeroid @ light speed (<~ never had one, can’t spell it)
my cheers to bill.
and to all who hate him.
this world would be a damn boring place if we were all the same mind.
Actually, if I found ole Bill on my side, I’d take a good hard look at my side much in the way I do every time Michael Moore gets his dander up and spouts off.
As I said, the guy has found a great con. He takes an arguement, dumbs it down to it’s most simplistic, objectionable point, rails against it, and yells “shut up” to anyone that disagrees no matter how much sense they make or how many facts they have. If they really hit hard, he dismisses it as “spin.”
He may be a smart man, but he’s not the kind of person I want anywhere near my side.
Yea i dont much dig those details either.
Like i said, i don’t agree with everything he takes on, or want him on “my side” per say - he does have some interesting, valid moments - as well as not so great moments - but i do enjoy watching the shows. I’m sure i’ll catch some hell for this - but he did an interview with Jenna Jameson a while back that was VERY interesting to watch. I certainly would have never expected to come away from that having the kind of respect i did for her as a person (not as a porn queen) And he walked away from that one with a few bruises.
You nailed it! Liberal!
I hate Bill O’Reilly. I hate him more than the stinky toe jams under my big toenail.
He is an egotistical and close-minded oaf. He gets worse as time goes by. Ever since the boycott of Pepsi because of Ludicris (sp?) he’s gotten exponentially worse. His only concern is for his own image, he cares not for other people’s feelings or rights!
My best example if the Jeremy Glick interview. It is clear from watching the clip or reading the transcript that he had no intention of interviewing Glick. He did not want to learn his feelings or opinions. O’Reilly only wanted to berate Glick.
What a shame
What a shameless bastard.
Anyone have a link to a transcript for when Michael Moore was on? I wanted to see it but never got the chance.
Nevermind I found it but in case anyone else wants to look at it:
Well, with regard to the O’Reilly-Moore “debate,” I don’t think either of them did a particularly good job.
Last night I listened to the O’Reilly’s appearance on NPR from last October and I have to say, he was a first class ass. From the very beginning he was defensive and curt and at several points essentially said “if you disagree with me you’re crazy.” He ultimately walked out after accusing Gross of a smear job. Sorry Bill, but I listened to the whole thing, and “you’re crazy.”
But that’s his whole rap. He’ll call people nuts or refuse to accept anything they say as more than just “their opinion” (regardless of the facts they bring along) and if he’s backed into a corner, he pouts and runs away. A classic bully.
You forget, he would never ever call for a boycott, and you’re a commie for saying so.