Krugman vs. O'Reilly

Wow.

O'Reilly is such a gargantuan asshole.

He doesn't have a strong case on the merits, so he starts shouting and making wild comparisons.

Media Matters is a "left wing hate group" in the sense that the Ku Klux Klan is a "right wing hate group". What an appalling prick.

Krugman should have said: ther is nothing left-wing-hate group about Media Matters . . . I want you to show me how that site is anything other than a site tthat points out the false claims in the right-wing media . . . using their own words.

The problem is is that if you are inclined to like the kind of beligerant Morton Downy Jr style that O'Rielly takes when he is flustered than he wins . . . and, with the increasingly limited options as far as analysis is concerend these days, his style becomes more palatable and mainstream everyday; more people 'like' his style . . . so, as is true more and more these days, sound bite and rant win over thoughtful rebuff

So, even if it sounded to you that Krugman clearly came off better in that he was not rash and belligerent and didn't fly off the handle, to people who are swayed only by sledge hammers, O'Reilly came off the victor and the 'left-wing hate groups' are crawling in the wood-work like the Communists of old.

Unfortunately, short of a moderator willing to use physical force, I don't think there is anyway at all to pin a guy like O'Reilly down on his absurd bullshit.

Krugman, at one point, says (in re Media Matters) "what have they said that's untrue?", to which O'Reilly replies, shouting "Do your own research! Do your own research!" and then sneers, "Media Matters!" as if he were saying "child molesters".

Krugman could persist, saying "I want you to show me where Media Matters is inaccurate or hateful. One example" and O"Reilly would just keep yelling insults and being outraged. He simply can't afford to have a real discussion that he isn't in control of because his whole persona of being "reasonable" and "insightful" is based on outrageous contempt for facts and holding the kill switch on his guest's mic. Every time he steps out of his little play pen he comes off as the pompous, dim-witted blow hard he is.

I think the only thing that would have worked would have been for Krugman to just stand up and club the little shit to death. Then he could dust off his hands, turn to the camera, and say: "Ku Klux Klan my ass!"

Speaking of Media Matters:

Duncan B. Black holds a PhD in economics from Brown University. He has held teaching and research positions at the London School of Economics; the Université catholique de Louvain; the University of California, Irvine; and, recently, Bryn Mawr College. He also has been involved with grassroots political activism. Black is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America.

Jesus. That's Atrios!

they replayed it last night on CNBC. man, o'reilly comes across as the biggest pricks on the planet. he offered up no substance that i can see what so ever. the only thing he was successful in doing was shout over krugman whenever the guy tried to make a point. "why don't you do your own research", "why don't you do your own research!". i can't convince people with my sound reasoning and sharp wit, (probably because it doesn't exist) so i'll just be louder than everyone in the room. shut the fvck up already you pompous asshole. only on fox could this guy find any meaningful employment.

Is it just me who thought both guys came off as perfectly unlikable? O'Reilly was stupid enough to fall into Spastic Boy role as a counterpoint to Krugman's smug holier-than-thou persona.

Having said that, O'Reilly certainly has some choice silly things to yell -- the whole allusion to label Krugman as a socialist was rather absurd. Krugman had a few small shots at O'Reilly (at his show) and matched his tone in a series of short exchanges, and he did seem to split hairs on a couple points, but played out like it was scripted or something -- not really, but the demeanor of both men was no surprise to anyone. Krugman has a clear advantage being an economist by profession that O'Reilly can't possibly match, and O'Reilly had a legit point, albeit poorly presented let's say, about Krugman' knowledge of O'Reilly stance on issues when he clearly doesn't really watch or listen or read O'Reilly's stuff. O'Reilly also has a personal beef with the NYT because they haven't reviewed his books (which is a little weird considering their best-seller status), and I think those sort of personal agendas drive his attitude a lot, and his attitude towards Krugman a lot. I'm not sure what O'Reilly thinks about how the NYT operates when he identified a "Krugman" department there that has a political bias, not so much that there isn't a political bias, just that Krugman isn't likely at the center of it, being an Op-ed columnist and not an editor.

Here's a transcript, though IIRC, I think it still has some holes in the dialog. Anyway, it was entertaining. I was a little suprised Russert let them go at it like he did.

(edit: Ha! I just Googled that transcript result, didn't even look at the source! I'll see if I can find a less biased one.)

edit 2: here's another transcript, that reads a tad more like I remember it.

Well, the problem is that that is the only thing that seems to get O'Reilly up in arms. His entire bit is based on his ability to get his guest/opponent upset and agitated. That's when he calms down, occasionally yells at his opponent, and continues to keep them stewing while he gets to pretend to take the high road.


One of the things that Krugman is reeeealllly good at is bringing in quotes to skewer his opponents with. Didn't he do that to Rumsfeld a while back? Anyway. The dumbest thing O'Reilly bellowed was that whole "do your own research, pal," which indicates that he doesn't know anything about how to do research.

Aside: This is my favorite moment on the Factor ever. Better than Glick. BO had the chair of the English dept at UNC-Chapel Hill on to discuss their reading of a book on the Koran after 9/11. BO tries and tries and tries to get a rise out of him, but Kirkpatrick simply crosses his legs and slips into "dealing with crazy freshman" mode. Here's my favorite bit from the interview:


Heh.

I finally saw the interview rerun while I was at the gym. I'll say one thing, that was one of the most intense workouts of my life. I'm watching the TV while I'm on a cross-training machine, just getting more and more pissed, and I look down and my heart rate is like 185. I've got so much adrenaline that I feel like like could tear the machine apart with my bare hands.

I noticed a few things about O'Reilly's rhetorical style. For one, he likes simple minded hyperbole, as in "You're the most biased guy in the world" and "They are least fair web site in the world" and "this is the biggest left wing hate group there is".

Secondly, when really up against an unassailably true thing that contradicts his line of bullshit, he says "Fine, fine. If you want to believe that you go right ahead" (with "withering" condescension of course).

He comes right out of the gate rude and attacking, as if the interviewee were already understood to be beneath contempt, using verbal cues like calling Mr. Krugman "Krugman", using a weary "all right, more of the same, the fact of the matter is" as a segue into personal invective as he raises his voice and adopts a sneeringly dismissive tone.

It then occurred to me that all this outrageousness wasn't supposed to make sense or "win" the argument in the way you or I would mean.

It's only intended to play to O'Reilly's audience, comprised of people who enjoy seeing Paul Krugman shouted at. It doesn't really matter if they know who Paul Krugman is, it's enough to know that he is part of the hated "elites" that the various right wing news screamers have taught their audiences are responsible for all of America's ills. From O'Reilly's perspective, he could just stand up and say "You are a communist asshole, sir, and a traitor to boot, and were it up to me you would be put against a wall and shot", and walk out, and he would have won, in the sense his viewer-ship would be delighted.

I've dropped in on a couple of right wing chat boards and the perspective there is that O'Reilly really "gave it" to Krugman, that it was great to see Krugman brought down a notch from his high horse, and that he had no good response to O'Reilly's devastating "critique".

So, like most of the carnival barkers on the right, it's just more theater tailored to a demographic. Something like the WWWF, but with one critical difference: the opponent thinks it's for real.

I am still amazed at leftists who are too stupid to realize that there is no point in going on his show.

As a conservative, and soon to be Bush voter, I wholeheartedly agree.

[edit - *snip*]
Sorry, misread something above.

I have to say, I love watching O'Reilly go off like that.

The thing is, the man is right. Here is a summary of today's headlines on Media Matters:

"On Hardball, lies new and old from John O'Neill

FOX's Garrett distorted support for Kerry among veterans who served with him
More lies, smears and distortions: Limbaugh rushed to defense of Swift Boat Vets
Buchanan parroted Kerry-bashing veteran O'Neill's discredited claim about co-author
Un-political O'Neill has made nearly $15,000 in contributions to federal races -- all Republican"


NOT LEFT WING? NOT LEFT WING?

The real liberal bias in the media is found when liberal ideas and statements are not LABELED as such. I cannot believe that some here can look at that web site and actually conclude that it's "not left wing".

Summary: Intelligent people are liberals who can discern for themselves. Stupid people are conservatives who cannot think. I believe that's what you're saying. It doesn't matter how much of smug, self-important, leftist bastard Krugman is...O'Reilly is right wing and simple minded!

Apparently.

That web site does not pretend to be unbiased . . . its main purpose is to expose the supposedly 'unbiased entertainment' and 'talk' shows and 'news' for what theey are . . . . ad it comes from someone who knows about the ways in which the right distorts things because he himself did it. . . . and no, he didn't merely change sides . . . it isn't just about two equal and opposing sides, he decided that lying was wrong.

Opinion.


Opinion, but being on the short list every year for the nobel in economics might tend to make you feel like you do something important.


Liberal. There's a difference between leftists and liberals.


If you mean his parentage is questionable, then you'll need to back it up. Otherwise, this is opinion.


BO is right wing. He seems to me to be reductive in his thinking, which I suppose it like being simple-minded.

But this is a discussion about, among other things, facts. The fact of the matter is that BO said the things that PK said he did. And when BO didn't like having his own words used to skewer him, he got all in a huff about how MM is liberal.

But that doesn't make it false.

And o'reilly tried BS when talking about how many times he told guests to shut up and he was deceptive about fox's ratings during the DNC.

O'Reilly is a bully and an idiot. Krugman's biggest display of foolishness was agreeing to go on the air with an emotional basketcase.

While I agree with you about BO, I disagree with the idea that right-thinking liberals ought to avoid these shows. I think it's important to liberals to hit back HARD when it comes to people like BO. I think liberals ought to be doing everything they can to expose BO and his ilk for what they are and to not back down. To avoid the shows is to admit defeat, I think.

Cheers
Scott

Second thought: I don't understand why we send academics and intellectuals to deal with entertainers. Why not the talent from AAR? Didn't Franken debate someone like BO a while back and completely kick ass and take names?

Hmmmm....

Maybe Lewis Black is available.

O'Reilly has also been consistently critical of Bush. Oh, don't get me wrong, I do think he's a bit unhinged. I've seen him be both fair and unfair.

Unless you want to call Fox a right wing hate group, you can't call this web site a left wing hate group. Duh. of course they are left wing. That wasn't the point. O'moron said it was a LEFT WING HATE GROUP and likened them to the left wing equivalent of THE KKK.

He is unfair when he criticizes Bush, I assume.

That's right, because I'm a non-thinking Bush lover. Where's my bud light, Ma?

Thanks for confirming it. And for providing this wonderful quote for the more quote happy of the posters here.

The truth hurts doesn't it?