John Gibson takes the lead.
I really have a hard time figuring out who is the worse human being: Bill O’Reilly or John Gibson. Well, today John Gibson has taken the lead.
His column is entitled: Why Joran van der Sloot Is a Free Man. Joran is the kid who was a suspect in the disappearance case of Natalee Holloway. Completely disregarding the fact that Gibson presupposes Joran’s guilt, the reasoning for why he is a free man is the real killer.
Wait for it… wait for it some more… it’s because in the Netherlands a man joined a civil union with two women! Yup, that’s the reason why Joran is a free man and not rotting behind bars.
posted by hrun @ 9:43 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I agree that Gibson is a faith-based political hack with blinders on, you didn't really fairly characterize hius reasoning. let me do so: Rather than saying that the marriage of three people CAUSED Joran to be free, he said the same system which allowed the three-way marriage allowed joran to be free. He correcly notes that joran would not have been allowed to run free in America.
His point is that the Dutch system is bad, and he is relly offering these two things as evidence. You and i might not see these things as evidence.
Now, about O'Reilly. i would be interested in what you really think about him. I happen to have him on every night--it's convenient, although i often miss portions. I have a good idea of his strengths and weaknesses. There is much i don't like about his presentation, and, i'm guessing from his persona on the show, the man.
But as i go around the net, I have noticed that many people hate O'Reilly, give reasons for that hatred, and seem never to have watched more than a couple of minutes of his show! He's been called a conservative, a shill for the Bush administration, and worse. of course, you know that these two things aren't true.
So, tell me just what you find so rotten about o'Reilly and his show, and i will then tell you what i find less than stellar about O'Reilly and his show. Fair?
I'll bite.
I dislike O'Reilly because he misrepresents himself so often. He describes himself as a self-made man, when in fact he's a child of privilege who's parents paid his way through school. He says he was always an independent, when in fact he was always a registered Republican. He says he's won awards in journalism (the Peabody) that he never recieved.
Basically he's chronically dishonest. The man will say anything. That's my reason for disliking and distrusting him. His politics ((paraphrased) "What happened to the poor people in NO should serve as a warning to other under-achievers.") are really pathetically bratty in this context.
Interesting.
1) I've never heard him use the term "self made man," but i suppose he might have. To me, the term does not imply that no one ever contributed to your upbringing or your schooling, but that you made your way up with hard work. I can't speak as to whether O'Reilly actually worked hard in his ldesser jpobs as a reporter, but he likes the image.
2) I have heard him say that he IS an independent, and he is. Geesh, when Russert asked him to name some "bad guys" that he thinks "the folks" need protection from, he named Jesse jackson and the Bush administration! Fact is, I'm a registered Republican becaue it is one of the two parties with primaries in my state, and it is the one with the most loonies. Doesn't make me a Republican.
3) I saw the awards thing when first aired, the correction the next show, and the repeat of the gaff about 10 times. The point is that he wasn't saying that HE won the award, but rather that the SHOW won the award, after the guest made a snide comment about the show. (Can't remember what it was, but is was one of those tabloid shows like "Hard Copy." On the next show, he noted that he was mistaken and that the show won a Polk, not a Peabody. this one has been way overblown.
the Kinsley flap o the first item is instructive. He actually DID live in levittown, according to deeds that were dug up on his parents' house. however, the section was known by another name. What was interesting is that despite making levittown an issue, he then tried to claim that he wasn't middle class! his father was an accountant.
But here is the thing, hrun, none of this bothers me in the least, in the sense that i would quit watchng him. in fact, i wouldn't care if Andy Rooney beat his wife, I'd still watch him.. I was asking more about his on screen stuff.
To me, when he lets himself be, he is a great interviewer. His shows with Sharptonm, for instance, are almost always great.
What bugs me about him is that he sometimes lets his own views and anger get in the way. Sometimes this is honest, as all those times when he mentioned Cheney refusing to divulge what was discussed at the famous energy meeting, and the veins would pop out on his neck. (He had a similar response discussing Tenant's not being fired.) other times, he shows hiumself to be an irish ragiholic, one who uses cold rage to take control. i know that one from experience. It gets in the way of his interviewing.
Finally, one must recognize that no matter who deep a thinker he could be, his very method condemns him to shallowness. One should never turn in to hear what O'Reilly says, but rather for what O'Reilly elicits from his guests.
btw, O'Reilly got my "spin of the yer" award two years running with the same idioc y, that Christmas is a secular hooliday (becausae Grant, I think, declared it anational holiday) and therefore, manger scenees are secular symbols.
Recently, O'Reilly has been saying that the court decision to allow publication of the other abu Ghraib pictures is wrong because Americans will die if they are published. Of course, no court decision should be influenced by the results of it. He is sounding like those liberal idiots who argue that "if Roe v Wade is overturned, women will die from back alley abortions." I'd love to tell him that his is the same kind of idiocy.
hrun, O'Reilly has a certain image of himself, and i am sure he believes it. he is not alone in this, not even among TV commentators. To me, that is so minor that it can be of interest only to those who wish to dismiss or hate him for other reasons, usually, some mistaken view of what he thinks, when he does.
Among the successful commentators, O'Reilly, inmy experience, is the one most likely to admit when he is wrong, to change his opinion on matters, and to actually follow up when guests tell him he is wrong. (For instance, he claimed that jane Fonda was passed some letters by POWs in Vietnam, which she never delivered. The guest suggested that this was a myth, and that he should check Scopes. He did, and sdaid "I was wrong" on the next show.)
By contrast, Chris Matthews, a person I DO watch every night, has continued to say that "they told us it was all about WMD," "Saddam was behind 911," and "the threat was imminent." All of these are lies, and after an email exchange on the subject, I know that matthews knows that they are lies. (He answered on the site, and gave some lame excuse that although it is true that these things are inaccurate, that's the way people felt. I did notice that for a while after this exchange, he did say these things less.)
Should i stop watching matthews because he is a liar? After all, he's not lying about his own persona, he's lying about something substantive, the news.
Nope. i watch matthews because of his interviewing style, and what he gets from his guests. sometimes he can be brilliant, as when, before the war, and on the college tour, he would ask how many people suypported the war, by applause, and then ask how many of those planned to enlist in the military.
Or when he showed mark Green to be a dishonest hackk the other day.
oops, just noticed that it was you, ras.
Averroes, I don't have much time at the moment. Therefor, just real quick, the problem I have with O'Reilly is the same reason I admire him: that he is an extremely skilled Demagogue.
I often cringe at the use of phrases like: 'Now everybody knows that ...' or 'Everybody agrees that ...' which is usually followed by something that most certainly not everybody knows or agrees on. The use of this kind of rhetoric is coupled with the use of non-sequiturs or false facts to support his thesis. The continued use of logical fallacies to support his case (i.e. XYZ won't debate me on my show, therefore XYZ is aftraid, which means that XYZ can't support their case, therfore I am correct.)
So, that's what I find less than stellar about Bill and his show. But, I do understand what he is: he is an entertainer who sells himself as a persona and of course who sells ad-space on Fox News. And he does both extremely effectively.
Gotta comment, hope you will too.
"I often cringe at the use of phrases like: 'Now everybody knows that ...' or 'Everybody agrees that ...' which is usually followed by something that most certainly not everybody knows or agrees on."
These don't get past my filter. Sp far as i know, these are used by 95% of the people debating on television--"everone knows that Delay is a crook."
"The use of this kind of rhetoric is coupled with the use of non-sequiturs"
The addition of "non-sequitors" also doesn't serve to distinguish him form any one else. haven't we heard many times this week that the bush administration is in ethical trouble "as evidenced by Tom Delay getting indicted?" Like, WHAAAH?
"or false facts to support his thesis."
I have never heard him use a false fact that he hasn't corrected, even going so far as to go to Snopes when it was suggested to him by a guest.
"The continued use of logical fallacies to support his case (i.e. XYZ won't debate me on my show, therefore XYZ is aftraid, which means that XYZ can't support their case, therfore I am correct.)
"
I must have missed that one entirely. I HAVE heard him say that someone is afraid to come on the show, and that they are "hiding under their desk." He often then turns to a guest and says, "so Mr. ABC has agreed to come in and try to make their case."
"I do understand what he is: he is an entertainer who sells himself as a persona"
But he is not nearly so good at it as, say, Chris Matthews. In fact, i can't think of anyone in the news biz to whom this doesn't apply. Why hold it against someone who isn't even in the top 100 for persona and entertainment? He's Bill O'Reilly, not Wolf Blitzer!
San Diego is having a Hot Rod Halloween on Sunday, October 30. If you love chicago auto show special then you will want to be there! All kinds of chicago auto show special will be in attendance. For more information go to chicago auto show special
See Ya There!!
Nice site. Check mine out if you can. investing for kid
Post a Comment
<< Home