OK, for future reference, every time you say “rabid estrogen-fueled pinhead” you mean “liberal woman”. Gotcha.
Love Rachel.
O’Reilly is a flake.
So, riddle me this: does “smarter” and “more honest” and “less ignorant” really just mean that you agree with her and disagree with O’Reilly? Or do you have some sort of objective evidence of those comparisons in a non-partisan sense?..TRM (who apologizes if this is bordering on political debate in the wrong forum, but it is kind of an inevitable evolution of the thread)
Do their respective educational backgrounds count?
Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar, received her B.A. from Stanford University and has a doctorate in political science from Oxford.
O’Reilly has a B.A. in history from Marist College, an M.A. in broadcast journalism from Boston University and a a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
I’d say that Maddow trounces O’Reilly there.
As far as honesty, there has to be some independent source that logs the things each TV news commentator says and whether or not each statement is objectively true, and what their truth ratio is.
My gut feeling is that O’Reilly is not going to come out ahead in that area. He is miles ahead of most of the rest of the on-air personalities at Fox, but he’s the best of a dishonest lot.
I suppose you can debate smarter. I for one don’t think there is much argument and favor Maddow over O’Reilly heavily but sure it’s a subjective possition.
More honest. I don’t think there is any question O’Reilly has been caught in lies many times. There are multiple instances of him on air saying things that are untrue. The same can’t be said for Rachel Maddow her honesty has remained intact she has a long record of truthful reporting. Feel free to google ‘Bill O’Reilly’ lies vs ‘Rachel Maddow lies’
On the front of ignorance again I guess you can debate that as well but on raw educational accomplishment Maddow’s doctorate in Political philosophy would put her well ahead of Mr O’Reilly. If you were to quiz each of them on anything in the field of political commentary I’d be willing to bet Rachel would mop the floor with him.
All that said Bill has nothing to gain in a head to head competition with Rachel and stands to lose, looking like a fool. He’s already pulling in money hand over fist from people who will believe anything he says. He can barely hold his own against a comedian like John Stewart. Putting himself against an actual scholar like Rachel is just a bad move.
Unfortunately we’ll probably never see a debate between the two but us liberals can dream. Those dreams include Rachel stomping Bill’s ego into the floor.
Does education count, you ask? You tell me.
I have a Ph.D. from Northwestern. If you can’t equal that, will you admit that I’m smarter than you are?..TRM (who is really starting to feel guilty discussing this stuff in the wrong forum)
Are either of us TV pundits?
If that ever happened, Bill-O would probably answer a few mild inquiries before accusing the debate’s format of being biased and stomping off the set “in protest” like he did when Terry Gross interviewed him. He when spend the next few editions of his show condemning the debate as being rigged in Maddow’s favor and how it’s further proof of the overweening liberal slant of the MSM. Of course, his fan base will eat it up and never waiver in their belief that Bill-O is always right.
No, you are demonstrating a willingness to do the same thing that O’Reilly did - and gaffa, you should see that you are, too.
-
The Right-wing twit (not all right-wingers are twits) edited the Sherrod clip - specifically and intentionally to falsely contrive a point and inflame his base blog readers.
-
Fox picked it up, DID NOT RESEARCH IT (or seem to care to) and blew the horn louder, shame on them
-
The White House acted based on the story as manipulated by Twit Man and trumpeted by Fox - shame on the White House
-
Maddow, amongst others - ACTUALLY RESEARCHED THE SITUATION and called it for actually what it was, and called Twit Man and Fox, including O’Reilly, on the carpet
-
O’Reilly kinda apologized, but not in any way for his shoddy lack of research and with a huge dollop of condescension about his ratings are higher, Madam - shame on him
-
Maddow pointed out that integrity and credibility matter more than popularity.
What does any of that have to do with either’s level of education?
I don’t care how smart O’Reilly is or is not - I care the he knowingly, consciously chose to jump on the momentum of the Sherrod snafu because he could, regardless of its accuracy.
**WordMan **- who doesn’t see how whipping out one’s resume matters here - honesty and integrity don’t require a degree.
[I am heretofore no longer using the quote function if it’s going to force multiquotes.]
Tim:Is your Ph.D. in something relevant to the subject at hand? In this context, smarter means about political issues, and education in those issues is definitely a plus. It doesn’t mean she’s necessarily more knowledgeable, but it puts it into O’Reilly’s ballpark (or that of those on his side) to find something else that indicates he has the same level of knowledge.
Did you have any objective evidence that Maddow is a “pinhead” ie “stupid” or were you just making a partisan point?
Isn’t “pinhead” the generic term for anyone who dares to disagree with O’Reilly?
No, that’s the far left.
Drop the “l” and I think you will be more accurate.
I think its more than a bit unfortunate if the real story, FOX’s ongoing and relentless misrepresentations of the facts to suit its political narrative, once again gets lost among the natural tendency to form sides and yell "Maddow (or O’Reilly)!!! Fuck Yeah!!!
I for one have no clue what point TRM thinks he is making here. I really don’t give a rat’s ass whether one of these parties is supposedly ‘smarter’ or ‘better educated’ than the other. Regarding the Sherrod non-story, what were the actual facts, and who made the better effort to ascertain them?
Good journalists question things when they are handed prepackaged stories, and make a minimal effort to determine whether the material they are discussing is factual. Did O’Reilly, or FOX in general, make this minimal effort regarding the Sherrod story? When caught out in his (to be charitable) complete disinterest in fact-checking a story that seemed to fit his narrative, did O’Reilly really own up or did he try to turn it into yet another politically-motivated smear of the administration?
For me, the key clip of this whole mess is not the one presented by the OP, but this one, from Maddow’s Tuesday night program:
Folks, this is how one presents a logical argument. O’Reilly, not so much.
I’d be glad to judge it on a case by case basis. In this particualr case Maddow covers the story more honestly and makes some pretty valid points about honesty in journalism. ORiely counters with “My ratings are better” Maddow points out that that wasn’t the subject she was discussing, does a great job of acknowledging Bill’s better ratings and showing the relevancy of ratings to the real issue.
In general I can respect any commentator liberal or conservative who demonstrates a certain dedication to the truth. Present facts and then analyze away from your own viewpiont. While ORiely isn’t as bad as other Fox commentators he has a history of incidents where he skews the truth and doesn’t bother to correct it.
Maddow IMO, has more dedication to researching the facts in the stories she presents. IQ points aside, professional integrity matters.
**WordMan **spelled out the issue word for word, but **Tim **won’t respond because there is no appropriate response other than “You’re right; I’m wrong,” and… well… yeah, good luck with that.
Wrong, MeanOldLady; Tim will respond. I have not taken a side in this argument. I am merely pointing out the lame practice of claiming someone is smarter than someone else just because you agree with them. Claiming your opponents are stupid is a lazy way to make a point. And dangerous, too, as anyone who ever lost an election to George W. Bush found out.
Isn’t it possible that Rachel really is smarter than Bill? Just because someone agrees with Rachel and disagrees with Bill doesn’t mean their judgement that Rachel is smarter than Bill is invalid. I don’t watch those kind of shows very often, but she does seem very intelligent and capable of carrying a train of thought, while Bill seems to rely on bluster and insults. Obviously this is a judgement call, what else could it be?
I agree with you that comparing academic records is meaningless. One of the smarter and better informed people I know is a high-school dropout with a GED.
and claiming someone is a “liberal pinhead” that O Reilly will easily "“handle” isn’t?