# Rachel Maddow vs. Bill O'Reilly **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 23, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745 "2010-07-23T18:12:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/81 "2010-07-27T20:01:04Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > How often do you see Katie Couric engaging in debates with Bill O’Reilly? Fox News is implicitly comparing itself to network news with its “Fair and Balanced” slogan. Yet network news does not debate with Fox News and tries to denigrate it whenever possible. This is because airtime and viewers are valuable and you do not give valuables to your competition. It is not so mysterious, this is the way every media competition works, whether radio, tv, or the internet. O’Reilly know this, even Maddow knows this and yet she pretends that it is not true and her sycophantic followers lap it up. Think for yourselves people. Well, I for one am thinking for myself; that’s why I’m disagreeing with you. I find it bizarre that you are getting so hung up on who deserves to debate whom when the real issue is that of a particular network’s commentators repeatedly hyping fake news stories designed to push a partisan political viewpoint, then reporting on them in their straight news segments as if they were legitimate issues. OTOH, FOX’s lack of journalistic rigor is a legitimate news story in itself and worthy of highlighting. O’Reilly didn’t have to respond at all but chose to do so with his childish “My ratings are higher” claims. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/82 "2010-07-28T18:00:40Z")
The real debate in this thread is Maddow banging her spoon on her high chair about Bill O dissing her ratings instead of responding to her attack on its merits. In this thread I have said unflattering things about Miss Maddow and she has not seen fit to respond. This must mean that she has better things to do than respond to nobodies or she is frightened by my superior intellect and rapier wit. I tend to think her non-response to me means the same as Bill O’s non-response to her, a rational response to relative positions on the pecking order. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/83 "2010-07-28T18:05:05Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The real debate in this thread is Maddow banging her spoon on her high chair about Bill O dissing her ratings instead of responding to her attack on its merits. In this thread I have said unflattering things about Miss Maddow and she has not seen fit to respond. This must mean that she has better things to do than respond to nobodies or she is frightened by my superior intellect and rapier wit. I tend to think her non-response to me means the same as Bill O’s non-response to her, a rational response to relative positions on the pecking order. I will have to admit that Bill O’ _is_ the bigger pecker of the two. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/84 "2010-07-28T18:06:30Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The real debate in this thread is Maddow banging her spoon on her high chair about Bill O dissing her ratings instead of responding to her attack on its merits. In this thread I have said unflattering things about Miss Maddow and she has not seen fit to respond. This must mean that she has better things to do than respond to nobodies or she is frightened by my superior intellect and rapier wit. I tend to think her non-response to me means the same as Bill O’s non-response to her, a rational response to relative positions on the pecking order. It’s hard to tell if you’re really that deluded or really that intellectually dishonest, but every syllable of this “argument” (using the term as liberally as possible) is 100% pure unadulterated nonsense. Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/85 "2010-07-28T18:09:44Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > > [@puddleglum](#): > > > > The real debate in this thread is Maddow banging her spoon on her high chair about Bill O dissing her ratings instead of responding to her attack on its merits. In this thread I have said unflattering things about Miss Maddow and she has not seen fit to respond. This must mean that she has better things to do than respond to nobodies or she is frightened by my superior intellect and rapier wit. I tend to think her non-response to me means the same as Bill O’s non-response to her, a rational response to relative positions on the pecking order. > > It’s hard to tell if you’re really that deluded or really that intellectually dishonest, but every syllable of this “argument” (using the term as liberally as possible) is 100% pure unadulterated nonsense. Pathetic. Considering the over-the-top responses, I’m beginning to suspect that “puddleglum” is really Al Franken. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/86 "2010-07-28T18:13:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > > > > [@puddleglum](#): > > > > > > The real debate in this thread is Maddow banging her spoon on her high chair about Bill O dissing her ratings instead of responding to her attack on its merits. In this thread I have said unflattering things about Miss Maddow and she has not seen fit to respond. This must mean that she has better things to do than respond to nobodies or she is frightened by my superior intellect and rapier wit. I tend to think her non-response to me means the same as Bill O’s non-response to her, a rational response to relative positions on the pecking order. > > > > It’s hard to tell if you’re really that deluded or really that intellectually dishonest, but every syllable of this “argument” (using the term as liberally as possible) is 100% pure unadulterated nonsense. Pathetic. > > Considering the over-the-top responses, I’m beginning to suspect that “puddleglum” is really Al Franken. Without the wit. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/87 "2010-07-28T18:14:43Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The real debate in this thread is Maddow banging her spoon on her high chair about Bill O dissing her ratings instead of responding to her attack on its merits. In this thread I have said unflattering things about Miss Maddow and she has not seen fit to respond. This must mean that she has better things to do than respond to nobodies or she is frightened by my superior intellect and rapier wit. I tend to think her non-response to me means the same as Bill O’s non-response to her, a rational response to relative positions on the pecking order. This is why I had requested the thread to be closed and why I typically don’t participate in Great Debates…not worth the time dealing with, as \*\*AG \*\*says, intellectual dishonesty… ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/88 "2010-07-28T19:55:04Z")
What IS it about politics that just shuts off a person’s Ethical Discussion portion of the brain? I mean, how can a normally rational person start thinking “Aha, if I sidestep the actual topic of discussion and pull out an entirely different pissing contest that I know I can win, then my enemies will suddenly come around to my way of thinking!”? I mean, I’ve caught myself responding with small-mindedness to a topic, but I stop, look at what I’m doing objectively, say “Wow, I’d better watch it or my need to ‘win’ this argument is going to turn me into an ass.” And, IRL, apologize, or here, delete my post before you folks find out how petty I can be. (Unfortunately, religious topics have the same effect. Where the effect is even more ironic: “I’m gonna be a jerk to you to prove God loves you!”) ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/89 "2010-07-28T19:57:41Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > QUOTE]It’s hard to tell if you’re really that deluded or really that intellectually dishonest, but every syllable of this “argument” (using the term as liberally as possible) is 100% pure unadulterated nonsense. Pathetic. You can insult me all you want, Mr. Guy, and you’ll be right that you are bigger for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one understands me at all, except for my mom and my pet rock and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters and that would be the facts, your highness. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/90 "2010-07-28T20:36:31Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > > [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > > > QUOTE]It’s hard to tell if you’re really that deluded or really that intellectually dishonest, but every syllable of this “argument” (using the term as liberally as possible) is 100% pure unadulterated nonsense. Pathetic. > > You can insult me all you want, Mr. Guy, and you’ll be right that you are bigger for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one understands me at all, except for my mom and my pet rock and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters and that would be the facts, your highness. Rachel’s quote is a very good one, except in this case you are wrong on the facts try harder. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/91 "2010-07-29T06:36:21Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > > [@puddleglum](#): > > > > Miss Maddow intentionally misses Bill O’s point. In attacking O’Reilly Maddow is trying to present herself as being on his level. She was hoping to get him into a debate where she could appear as his equal and exagerate her own importance. By responding about ratings, instead of on the issue, O’Reilly shows that he sees what she is trying to do and is above doing it. Eagles don’t hunt flies after all. Maddow and her ilk are having a hard time with Barry O’s presidency and are trying to find a bogeyman to stir up hate against and juice their ratings. Maybe after the elections in November they can find a new politician to hate who will be as good to them as Bush was. > > Wow. And you’re serious. Wow. > > Wow. **Starving Artist** has competition. Not exactly. If **Starving Artist** were to post in regard to this issue (which he has thus far held off doing out of respect for the OP :)), he’d point out that Fox was hardly the only network news outlet to report the Sherrod story as it appeared on Breitbart. And he’d point out that Maddow was, at the very least, incorrect in stating as fact that Fox deliberately designed this story in order to _“make white Americans fear black Americans”_, as the point of the story was to counter the NAACP’s decision to officially label the Tea Party as racist by showing racist attitudes on the part of the NAACP itself. Fear had nothing to do with it, and in my opinion Maddow was engaging in a little dishonest gamesmanship in claiming that it did. Also, **Starvey** doesn’t really phrase things in the same way that **puddlegum** does, nor is he generall inclined to defend Bill O’Reilly or the Fox network as he watches virtually none of either. And while he is at something of a loss to understand the love for Maddow and is inclined to view it primarily as the result of partisanship, he has seen very little of her too. So all in all, neither **puddlegum’s** post nor your interpretation of it are very much like me at all. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/92 "2010-07-29T11:56:47Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > …as the point of the story was to counter the NAACP’s decision to officially label the Tea Party as racist by showing racist attitudes on the part of the NAACP itself. Fair point. While Teabaggers clearly have racism issues coloring (heh) their brand, the NAACP didn’t do itself any favors. And sure Fox can report on that aspect of the story. It doesn’t make O’Reilly any less of a douchebag in his dealings with Maddow. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/93 "2010-07-29T12:28:09Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And he’d point out that Maddow was, at the very least, incorrect in stating as fact that Fox deliberately designed this story in order to _“make white Americans fear black Americans”_, as the point of the story was to counter the NAACP’s decision to officially label the Tea Party as racist by showing racist attitudes on the part of the NAACP itself. Fear had nothing to do with it, and in my opinion Maddow was engaging in a little dishonest gamesmanship in claiming that it did. Actually, fear had _everything_ to do with this strategy if you think it through. Breitbart (and Fox after they were handed the ball) created a misleading video and “news” reports “to counter the NAACP’s decision to officially label [**ELEMENTS OF**] the Tea Party as racist” precisely to inculcate fear into whites that Blacks have a powerful voice, were capable of taking a strong stand, and the NAACP (a Black organization) and others would actually be listened to for the truth of what they were saying about the Tea Party (Smith proved it by his website and interview comments later). Breitbart and the Gang were so desperate to incite white people into believing that they were now being oppressed that they actually used and altered video that, if shown in its entirety and for context, depicted Ms. Sherrod, her audience and the NAACP in general, as displaying what was _the very opposite of racist attitudes_. If that wasn’t fearmongering, I don’t know what is. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745/94 "2010-07-29T17:52:14Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > > [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > > > QUOTE]It’s hard to tell if you’re really that deluded or really that intellectually dishonest, but every syllable of this “argument” (using the term as liberally as possible) is 100% pure unadulterated nonsense. Pathetic. > > You can insult me all you want, Mr. Guy, and you’ll be right that you are bigger for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one understands me at all, except for my mom and my pet rock and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters and that would be the facts, your highness. The facts, eh? You really want to hang your hat on that one? So, here are the facts, specifically alleged by you. As analogies go–\> Bill O’Reilly : Rachel Maddow as Rachel Maddow : puddleglum This is what you claim. And for anyone who is non-deluded or intellectually honest, the fact is that this comparison is indeed pure 100% unadulterated nonsense. And of course, that’s also ignoring the specious straw man (or sorry, “parody”) that your post also represents. Did I say pathetic? I was being too kind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rachel-maddow-vs-bill-oreilly/547745.md?page=4)