Just give me five minutes alone....with Bill O'Reilly
A national Brit newspaper called The Independent ran an article about the Al Franken being sued by Fox TV story on Friday (been covered in another topic I know). I was staggered by the anecdote about apparently veracity-challenged ultra-rightwing pundit Bill O'Reilly and the son the WTC victim....(see the fourth and fifth paragraphs from the end). God, what this victim's son did off-camera? If some puffed-up schoolyard weasel like that insulted me and my dead father on national TV, then attempted to ruthlessly exploit my dead Dad to score political points whilst simultaneously engaging in the exquisite hypocrisy of accusing me of trying to do so.........
I could not be held morally accountable for my actions... Thank god we don't have taste-free political freakshows like that on British TV. (I'm not trying to be patronising - we just don't. There's plenty of other trash though, don't get me wrong on that!)
On a lighter note, this article on a similar topic, from another national Brit newspaper (the writer is the papers' US-based film correspondent), is worth a read
I could not be held morally accountable for my actions... Thank god we don't have taste-free political freakshows like that on British TV. (I'm not trying to be patronising - we just don't. There's plenty of other trash though, don't get me wrong on that!)On a lighter note, this article on a similar topic, from another national Brit newspaper (the writer is the papers' US-based film correspondent), is worth a read
Comments
One one side, I really DO agree with a lot that he has to say. His thoughts and observations on things are often right on point and he brings up a lot of angles of issues that aren't commonly seen.
On the other side, he really needs to back off sometimes. I know why a lot of people won't go on his show. It's not because they aren't willing to answer the tough questions. It's because they can't get a word in edgewise! He asks them a question and as soon as they start answering, he cuts them off and starts spewing his thoughts all over the place.
If he wants them to answer the tough questions, he needs to actually let them answer the tough questions.
But keep spreading the love, Bill!
Originally posted by CosmoNut
On the other side, he really needs to back off sometimes. I know why a lot of people won't go on his show. It's not because they aren't willing to answer the tough questions. It's because they can't get a word in edgewise! He asks them a question and as soon as they start answering, he cuts them off and starts spewing his thoughts all over the place.
ever seen MadTV's take on Mr. O'Reilly? funny stuff.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
If he wants them to answer the tough questions, he needs to actually let them answer the tough questions.
...but to be fair, a lot of times a tough question is asked, the guest responds with a boilerplate answer to an entirely different question, to avoid answering the actual question. That's when O'Reilly resorts to running them down with his own dialogue. It's his show, and he certainly isn't going to grant the podium to someone who only wants to fill the air with a conversation that is entirely beside the one that was started originally. Might as well fill that air time with his own words.
I'm not trying to defend everything he says, but I think this notion should be acknowledged to be fair. I've never seen the opposite scenario happen before, but maybe if the guest simply acknowledges that they have "gotten stuck" with their position and admits it, that would compel O'Reilly to give them some slack and actually let them get a few words out. Otherwise, it just gives OR free permission to gun them down until they hit the ground as a smoldering lump. So what this comes down to is you have to acknowledge OR's points first, and then work from there to explain why you feel the way you do wrt his points. Otherwise, you will simply be going head-to-head with him, and you will surely lose (because it is his show, afterall).
For those who don't know, Wally George was a pundant who had a show in southern california on a uhf channel. It never went national, but he in my mind kind of pioneered dumb ass politcal tv. Not even so much as whether his views were agreeable or not, its just he and his rancid ilk spew their foul words like it was the word of God himself.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
My thoughts on Bill O'Reilly are a double-edged sword.
One one side, I really DO agree with a lot that he has to say. His thoughts and observations on things are often right on point and he brings up a lot of angles of issues that aren't commonly seen.
You surely can't believe it was okay to treat the son of the WTC victim like that?
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
You surely can't believe it was okay to treat the son of the WTC victim like that?
Have you read the transcript or just someone's interpretation of what happened?
O'Reilly
I would say if anything OReilly let him express whatever view he wanted. It was only when the kid wouldn't debate the actual signing of a document that claims the United States government acts in a terroristic manner.
Reading the transcript it just sounds like Oreilly ended the interview before he said something truly mean to the kid and disrespected his father who, while he disagreed with him, he didn't want to ridicule as he is dead.
We have folks like this in these forums. They bring up all these past conspiracy threories that go back for decades and yet they don't want you to discuss Clinton. Likewise their theories assume the person is supremely evil and inept, yet manages to fool 95% of everyone everywhere.
I have read that transcript and I don't think most other mainstream shows would have even put the guy on no matter what he signed. They wouldn't have aired the interview even if they privately agreed with it. O'Reilly did and to me, the only thing he is guilty of is endeding the interview before he did something disrespectful to the kid or the name of the kid's father.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Have you read the transcript or just someone's interpretation of what happened?
O'Reilly
I would say if anything OReilly let him express whatever view he wanted. It was only when the kid wouldn't debate the actual signing of a document that claims the United States government acts in a terroristic manner.
Reading the transcript it just sounds like Oreilly ended the interview before he said something truly mean to the kid and disrespected his father who, while he disagreed with him, he didn't want to ridicule as he is dead.
We have folks like this in these forums. They bring up all these past conspiracy threories that go back for decades and yet they don't want you to discuss Clinton. Likewise their theories assume the person is supremely evil and inept, yet manages to full 95% of everyone everywhere.
I have read that transcript and I don't think most other mainstream shows would have even put the guy on no matter what he signed. They wouldn't have aired the interview even if they privately agreed with it. O'Reilly did and to me, the only thing he is guilty of is endeding the interview before he did something disrespectful to the kid or the name of the kid's father.
Nick
Of course you don't see anything wrong with it.
Originally posted by trumptman
I have read that transcript and I don't think most other mainstream shows would have even put the guy on no matter what he signed. They wouldn't have aired the interview even if they privately agreed with it. O'Reilly did and to me, the only thing he is guilty of is endeding the interview before he did something disrespectful to the kid or the name of the kid's father.
Were the father still alive he'd probably be offended by O'Reilly telling his son what the father would believe.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Of course you don't see anything wrong with it.
Why don't you quote the offensive part seeing as I already provided you with the transcript.
I know that would require more than a one sentence sarcastic comment, but you might be capable of pulling it off.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Why don't you quote the offensive part seeing as I already provided you with the transcript.
O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --
I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think
your father would be approving of this.
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
On a lighter note, this article on a similar topic, from another national Brit newspaper (the writer is the papers' US-based film correspondent), is worth a read
Anyone read this one?
Originally posted by trumptman
Have you read the transcript or just someone's interpretation of what happened?
O'Reilly
If this is anyway near a true transcript of the show I really don´t know why you use any energy in discussing it. It looks like the Benny Hill show of politics.
I have the outmost respect for Pat Buchanan and his argumentation in Crossfire and I guess I am just as far away from his views as I am from O´Reillys so its not because of his political views.
Its simply garbage TV and any discussion whether he is respectful for this or that person is missing the point, which is that garbage TV is beneath any normal judgement because its garbage Tv
Originally posted by Anders
Its simply garbage TV and any discussion whether he is respectful for this or that person is missing the point, which is that garbage TV is beneath any normal judgement because its garbage Tv
"You haven't proven it's "garbage TV." Tell me where and when you have proven your assertion. Just a bunch of illogical liberal venom.
I would suspect as much from liberals.
*haughty, singular laugh in a room of not amused onlookers*"
Originally posted by bunge
O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --
I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think
your father would be approving of this.
I do see how this could be offensive. However I also don't consider it beyond reason to say that someone killing you might change your views about them.
So perhaps it is in poor taste. However being the only 9/11 family member to sign a petition advocating that the U.S. is a terrorist nation could also be seen in poor taste.
If you read my posts, I never have said O'Reilly acted perfectly. In fact I said it appeared he basically ended the interview to avoid being excessively rude to the guy and the memory of his father. I'm not even above saying he started down that path and basically ended the interview when he felt he was losing control of his temper.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
he basically ended the interview to avoid being excessively rude to the guy and the memory of his father. I'm not even above saying he started down that path and basically ended the interview when he felt he was losing control of his temper.
Nick
"Get out of my studio before I tear you to ****ing pieces!"
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
On a lighter note, this article on a similar topic, from another national Brit newspaper (the writer is the papers' US-based film correspondent), is worth a read
The world definitely needs more articles on with the words "empurpled" and "hard-on" in the first sentence