O’Reilly is also a man who lies or distorts truth constantly on his program, is a thin skinned narcissist (the phrasing in his suit against Franken was almost psychotic), has a background on TV tabloids and a high profile sexual harassment lawsuit involving things he wanted to do with a falafel. I think this more than his popularity might be why he’s a target.
I didn’t see it myself, only read about it second-hand on the boards here. She was pimping Garfield at the time, is all I remember with any certainty. I think he actually insulted the movie, and Hewitt took it somewhat personally.
A loofah sponge, wasn’t it? Falafel is food.
He meant loofah, he said falafel.
[quote]
Can’t argue with that, especially the “thin skinned narcissist” part. Man, that guy will do 2 weeks worth of programs on a person if that person says somthing negative about him. I’m exagerating, of course, but he bits back fast, and he hits back hard, with a significantly disproportionate response.
So, you dont mind a little distortion of the truth, as long as it bolsters your argument?
I don’t exactly how “high profile” it was, but certainly you’re not arguing that O’Reilly wasn’t a “target” of the left long before those charges were brought against him. Charges, btw, which were never substantiated. We do have the woman’s deposition, but that’s just her side of the story. I’ve never seen (or heard) excerpts from the actual tapes in question. If we’re being objective, we have to say that we don’t know what went on between the O’Reilly and “that woman”.
Inside Edition is widely considered to be a television tabloid program, in the mold of A Current Affair and Hard Copy.
So? By claiming his background was “in tabloid TV”, that distorts the truth in exactly the way O’Reilly does-- selecting only those facts that support the cause. No claim was made that O’Reilly “only worked in tabloid TV”, but that’s the impression given. O’Reilly is wrong when he does this, and any poster here is wrong when he or she does it, too.
We also have to note that he almost immediately paid up, big-time, to settle the case, without ever denying anything she said or even publicly commenting on it. Especially given his penchant for claiming to be the target of smears, expressed quite loudly at that, “if we’re being objective, we have to say that we” do *too * know, both beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond the extent any of us really want to know, what happened.
Have fun. Not work-safe.
Excerpts from transcripts are in the court documents in the Smoking Gun link that was provided to you before your posted claim to objectivity.
Which means next to nothing.
And like I said, this is her side of the story. O’Reilly never gave his side of the story, and we don’t have access the actual tapes, so no, we don’t know much at all other than that allegations were made. The woman was paid off, but it’s certainly possible that that was just the easiest route to take. Perhaps O’Reilly said some or all of what was claimed, but in the context of joking around on the phone. I’m sure many of my phone calls could be recorded, edited, and used as “proof” that I’ve sexaully harrassed someone as well.
POSTED BY John Mace to prove O’Reilly’s background isn’t tabloid]
Follow that link and you get this:
Follow those links and you find
and
And these are YOUR links that YOU used to impugn MY honesty. (From the producer of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon comes Freaking Loony, Stupid Schmendrick: the John Mace Story in Aromavision.)
Your hands are waving so madly, I can feel a breeze all the way over here. :rolleyes: You always do have more than the usual difficulty in recognizing when you’re wrong, don’t you?
Now do yourself a huge favor, go back and *read * the links you’ve been provided before you say one more word about what is or isn’t in them. Sheesh.
Frankly, I never understood why Stewart chose Tucker Carlson to attack for the pernicious phenomenon of cable news shout-fests. TC seems pretty harmless to me, sometimes stupid, but generally good-natured, more or less fair, and occaisionally witty. He seemed like the conservative talker Stewart would most get along with. Certainly he’s not as bad as O’Reilly, Hannity and [sub]Colmes[/sub], or Chris Mathews.
Then… you are clearly dumber than shit. The reason O’Reily is disliked is because he’s a bombastic raving nutjob. He’s not some polite martyr unfairly impugned for his unpopular views. Have you ever sat down and LISTENED to this guy?
Well, that segment does sound like it was probably pretty funny.
But it will take much more than that to convince me that the show was funnier when Kilborn hosted it. The only place i’ve ever seen Craig Kilborn is on his late-night talk show, where he was about the unfunniest person i’ve ever seen on television. Not only, that, he was, in my opinion, completely untalented and undeserving of having a show of his own, even one that ran after midnight. I literally could not bear to watch the guy.
I guess i’ll have to try and track down some of his Daily Show work and see if he lost his talent all of a sudden, or if you and i just have a different idea of what constitutes funny.
I’ve gotta say, the few times I’ve seen Bill O’Reilly I absolutely hated the guy. He came across as someone who makes wild claims and accusations, then shouts down anyone who disagrees with him. I hate people like that. I also find them completely non-entertaining. I prefer wit and humor to bombast, whether I generally agree with the person or not.
That’s also why I like Jon Stewart. He’s got tremendous wit, an awesome sense of timing, and is willing to mix the serious with the funny. He shows that you can be passionate about your politics without losing your sense of humor. I like Steven Colbert, too. Those two shows are the best comedy shows on TV.
I haven’t been watching Kilborn on his new Late Show gig, but you’re probably right. The thing is, it’s not really fair to compare the two. Stewart is really funny on the Daily Show, but that might not translate if he were transplanted onto one of the late shows either.
Kilborn’s strength on the Daily Show was that he was kind of a combination of what is right now’s Daily Show with Stewart, and the Colbert Report. He was constantly inflating himself for the cameras in a masterful spoof of a typical TV anchorman.
:rolleyes:
Something like ten times as many people watch O’Reilly than the other shows in it’s timeslot. Are these people all dumber than shit?
This simply isn’t true. He’s on the air one hour a day on TV and three hours a day on the radio. Only a couple times a month some of the most alarming things that he says are taken without context and posted on the numerous left wing sites devoted to attacking him. After years they start to add up. This kind of treatment would make anybody look like a nutjob. One could probably do the same thing with any of us with large posting histories, if one were so inclined.
Yes, but it’s clear that you haven’t.
Are you “dumber than shit” or just a liar? Could be both, based on your history.The top 20 shows in the Nielsen ratings shows O’Reilly dropping to around a 2.0 rating, with NCIS and Cold Case *each * around 10.0.
You should know by now you can’t post nonsense here and expect not to be called on it. But, hell, it works for O’Reilly - what’s he got that you don’t, besides a “dumber than shit” audience?
Obviously I meant his competition: other cable news shows in his timeslot. I don’t know why I bother to respond to you.