I still don't see any justification for O'Reilly behaving the way he did.
First, is it really unfair for Gross to ask him a lot of questions about the whole Al Franken affiar? I mean, Franken's book was first, the fued was clearly omnipresent in most people's minds, and even the conservatives here would have to expect a good measure of dialogue about it.
Second, this "liberal media" scapegoat is really being beaten to death. Just who the hell is free to challenge him? The moment you do *bang* you're a member of the liberal media.
Third, I find it fascinating to analyze the rhetoric. Tell me if I got this wrong...
1. O'Reilly defends inside edition by saying it won not one, but two Peabodies.
2. Franken calls him on it. Literally calls him, that is, but instead of retracting it himself first, he tells Franken to attack him.
3. Franken attacks
4. O'Reilly corrects himself then plays the victim by seizing on some journalists use of a royal "they" in reporting Bill's fault as if he had claimed to win a peabody himself.
5. O'Reilly runs with the victim angle, constantly pointing out the fact that he never claimed HE had won the peabody (true, he didn't, he claimed Inside Edition won two), thus turning a defense into an offense. - Friggin Brillant tactics!
#4 I'm a bit fuzzy on. I would guess that somewhere someone did make the mistake (or liable if you prefer) of characterizing O'Reilly as claiming a peabody win. But still, the manuevering is amazing. I don't think his rhetoric worked well for him on Fresh Air or any of his Franken encounters, however.
This is what I'm talking about. We're TWENTY MINUTES into the interview before TG refers to the book.
No, that's at least the fourth or fifth time TG refers to the book. That's why I wrote everything out- so you couldn't get away with crap like that. Granted, it's the first question about the book's contents- which she spent the next TWENTY MINUTES talking about or expounding on. (well, asking questions of course- o'reilly did all the talking- which is what an interview should be)
I'm sorry, Scott, but this wasn't your interview. TG is very professional- she was far fairer than Bill O'Reilly is on his show. She gave him all the time in the world to respond without cutting him off . She gave him a chance to respond to his critics and called him on his contradictions or false statements. Dude, what's the matter here?
This is what I'm talking about. We're TWENTY MINUTES into the interview before TG refers to the book.
Actually, she advertises it for him a few times right at the beginning, but doesn't ask him a direct question about it until then.
But, so what? I'm sure his book is of some interest to listeners, but it doesn't have to be the only or even the primary topic of the interview, does it? I don't know, maybe that's what the show does - talk to people about their books. If that's the case, then I think you have a point, but as far as I know, that's not the case, and they talk about a wide range of subjects during the interviews.
It seemed to me that she spent a lot of time softballing him, and when she did get supposedly tough on him, it was really just presenting controversies about him and letting him respond to them. She certainly didn't interrupt him or tell him to shut up or advocate her opinion like, well, like he does on his show.
I just love this conservative whining victim culture. They're all so oppressed by the likes of Terry Gross.
BTW last night I was watching The Factor and he had a congressman on and both of them were advocating that public funding be taken away from NPR.
If you've seen any Radio or TV interviews with Al Franken... generally AT LEAST the first 3rd of the interview is about Him and Bill O"Reilly and the lawsuit... he wouild get kinda bored talking about it too...
And on Fresh Air... she asked a bunch of questions about his tactics and the "savin' it" letter... so he could defend himself... also asks him about his politics...
Al is a bit less controversial than Bill too... Bill should expect tougher questions... as should Micheal Moore... Ann Coulter... Janeane Garafolo...
No, that's at least the fourth or fifth time TG refers to the book. That's why I wrote everything out- so you couldn't get away with crap like that. Granted, it's the first question about the book's contents- which she spent the next TWENTY MINUTES talking about or expounding on. (well, asking questions of course- o'reilly did all the talking- which is what an interview should be)
I'm sorry, Scott, but this wasn't your interview. TG is very professional- she was far fairer than Bill O'Reilly is on his show. She gave him all the time in the world to respond without cutting him off . She gave him a chance to respond to his critics and called him on his contradictions or false statements. Dude, what's the matter here?
Dude, I am a flag-waving, card carrying, died in the wool LEFTY. Please don't misunderstand that or make the wrong assumptions about my motives. I am also a pretty good fan of TG and FA, although I think she's a little wimpy most of the time. But hey, that's ok. The discussions are usually interesting, nonetheless.
But she comes out, right out of the gate, guns blazing about the lawsuit. My problem isn't that this is a poor topic or an uninteresting one. It's that I really wanted an interview with him more like her interview with Franken. I wanted to know about the damned BOOK. That's why he's on there, after all. Sure, she'd need to talk about some of the lawsuit stuff.
But look at this:
First question:
2:10: Ref to Franken's appearance on the show. Question: "Are you sorry you sued him?"
O'Reilly says he didn't know anything about it.
2:36: Question: You sure you didn't talk FOX into it?
O'Reilly explains that he couldn't show damages.
3:24: Franken/O'Reilly blow up with quotes from Franken. Q: Is F. being fair when he calls you a bully?
O'Reilly gives "the usual propaganda" line. Lays out the victim line about defamation.
5:00: The Glick interview. Good question: "How much of that is theatre and showmanship." TG admits she has only read the bit from Harper's (not that it makes all that much difference. O'Reilly went bat-shit in that interview. I have an audio copy of it if anyone's interested).
BO responds that none of it is showmanship. Claims it's all taken out of context (again, not that it matters). Makes claims about how his show is good stuff.
7:55: Reference to book as tag. Then TG goes into BO's attack of the Times reviewer. Quotes BO: Character assassins. The Times and personal attacks. Culture war. Q: "You're calling her a character assassin who was loosed on you by the times. But this was just a book review of Al Franken's book..." The question is obviously headed towards something like "How on earth could you say something like that?!?!"
BO interrupts: "No it wasn't. It was much more than that." BO complains that the reviewer printed Franken's allegations as "fact." Calls it dishonest.
10:40: TG reads some of the review.
11:20 (BO sighs. He's getting unhappy).
11:36: You're accusing her of slander/character assassination.
12:30: Q: "You might accuse her of writing an unresearched book review. But instead you're accusing her of character assassination and doing the Times's bidding. So I wonder why you'd say that since you're opposed to character defamation?" Good question.
BO starting to get upset. Refers to TG as "Madam."
14:15: BO remarks that the Times has never reviewed any of his books. General liberal propaganda.
14:40 TG points out that the Times reviewed Moore mixed. BO disagrees. BO suggests that he'll re-read the review and reconsider. "Could be wrong"
16:16 Tag for book.
16:20 TG: Q. about talk shows polarizing American politics. (good question)
Where is the damned book?! Why bother with any of this? (Although I like the last question I listed).
My real problem with all of this, though, is that she seems to have wanted to shoot a little of O'Reilly's technique back at him. She clearly wants to see if she can get him a little hot.
That lowers the quality of the show, IMO.
It is, you should note, O'Reilly who keeps trying to pull the questions/answers back to his book. But we're 20 minutes in before she lets go of the O'Reilly controversy du jour and gets to the book.
Now, I'm perfectly fine with someone pulling O'Reilly on the carpet for his antics. But I don't want it on Fresh Air. Was she fairer than BO is on his show? Sure. You'd have to, I don't know, beat someone over the head with Anne Coulter to be less fair than BO is. But again, I wanted a discussion of the book. This was a discussion of HIM. And I could care less about HIM.
He's controversial... she's asking him about the controversial things he says on his show. He's obviously not used to people questioning anything he says. She's not even telling him the things he says are wrong... she's just asking him to back it up.
She asked him questions that I thought were rather soft-ball, but NPR listeners (who had previously only heard Al Frankens version) would want asked, then actually allowed him to answer without constant interruptions.
This woman is a pussycat, and BO'R is just a pussy.
I'm going to link to some really hard radio interviewing (not 'shut uppery' but really trying to get someone pinned down).
Hehehehehe ... you have to listen to this. The BBC's Today Programme smacking the sh it out of the leader of the oppsosition: shouting and the whole bit.
To make it work, paste this into RealPlayer (a link doesn't work).
You seriously need to hear the interview; I'm not kidding. Little Red Broomrider went up against the Big Bad Wolf and got her butt mauled. Her voice was cracking under O'Reilly's Righteous Rebuttal to her non-book oriented interview.
Have a little problem with ladies do we, Aries? "Little Red Broomrider"? "Butt mauled"?
All O'Reilly did was raise his voice, drone on with his usual "anybody that can't see the rightousness of me is pinko dupe" act. If that's a maulling then every dreary thug with an axe to grind is a rhetorical genius. The man is one of the most intellectually dishonest pundits I have ever heard. He makes Rush look like Aristotle. It seems very obvious to me, at least, that he is driven be some very profound feelings of inadequacy (maybe rooted in the "par-for-the course" beatings his father administered). Why else his obsession with what anybody says about him, his need to control every exchange, the pointless and dishonest and disengenious emphasis on his "truthfulness" and "balance"?
Think about it-- does Terry Gross go on NPR and denounce her guests that cross her? Feel the need to belittle anyone who criticizes her? Oh, that's right, because of the liberal media nobody ever says boo to Terry but they're always ganging up on Bill. Everybody always is mean to Bill. The man is beligerent child masquerading as a crusader.
Comments
Yell! Lie! Deceive! Lie some more!
Its ALLLLLLLLLLLLL about book sales. Just look at how many clucks buy ann "liar" coulter's books.
There is a sucker born every minute. Unfortunately they all watch Faux News...
First, is it really unfair for Gross to ask him a lot of questions about the whole Al Franken affiar? I mean, Franken's book was first, the fued was clearly omnipresent in most people's minds, and even the conservatives here would have to expect a good measure of dialogue about it.
Second, this "liberal media" scapegoat is really being beaten to death. Just who the hell is free to challenge him? The moment you do *bang* you're a member of the liberal media.
Third, I find it fascinating to analyze the rhetoric. Tell me if I got this wrong...
1. O'Reilly defends inside edition by saying it won not one, but two Peabodies.
2. Franken calls him on it. Literally calls him, that is, but instead of retracting it himself first, he tells Franken to attack him.
3. Franken attacks
4. O'Reilly corrects himself then plays the victim by seizing on some journalists use of a royal "they" in reporting Bill's fault as if he had claimed to win a peabody himself.
5. O'Reilly runs with the victim angle, constantly pointing out the fact that he never claimed HE had won the peabody (true, he didn't, he claimed Inside Edition won two), thus turning a defense into an offense. - Friggin Brillant tactics!
#4 I'm a bit fuzzy on. I would guess that somewhere someone did make the mistake (or liable if you prefer) of characterizing O'Reilly as claiming a peabody win. But still, the manuevering is amazing. I don't think his rhetoric worked well for him on Fresh Air or any of his Franken encounters, however.
Sixth Question[/u]: 19:20
Book-cited question about O'Reilly's political views
This is what I'm talking about. We're TWENTY MINUTES into the interview before TG refers to the book.
Originally posted by midwinter
This is what I'm talking about. We're TWENTY MINUTES into the interview before TG refers to the book.
No, that's at least the fourth or fifth time TG refers to the book. That's why I wrote everything out- so you couldn't get away with crap like that. Granted, it's the first question about the book's contents- which she spent the next TWENTY MINUTES talking about or expounding on. (well, asking questions of course- o'reilly did all the talking- which is what an interview should be)
I'm sorry, Scott, but this wasn't your interview. TG is very professional- she was far fairer than Bill O'Reilly is on his show. She gave him all the time in the world to respond without cutting him off . She gave him a chance to respond to his critics and called him on his contradictions or false statements. Dude, what's the matter here?
Originally posted by midwinter
This is what I'm talking about. We're TWENTY MINUTES into the interview before TG refers to the book.
Actually, she advertises it for him a few times right at the beginning, but doesn't ask him a direct question about it until then.
But, so what? I'm sure his book is of some interest to listeners, but it doesn't have to be the only or even the primary topic of the interview, does it? I don't know, maybe that's what the show does - talk to people about their books. If that's the case, then I think you have a point, but as far as I know, that's not the case, and they talk about a wide range of subjects during the interviews.
It seemed to me that she spent a lot of time softballing him, and when she did get supposedly tough on him, it was really just presenting controversies about him and letting him respond to them. She certainly didn't interrupt him or tell him to shut up or advocate her opinion like, well, like he does on his show.
I just love this conservative whining victim culture. They're all so oppressed by the likes of Terry Gross.
BTW last night I was watching The Factor and he had a congressman on and both of them were advocating that public funding be taken away from NPR.
And on Fresh Air... she asked a bunch of questions about his tactics and the "savin' it" letter... so he could defend himself... also asks him about his politics...
Al is a bit less controversial than Bill too... Bill should expect tougher questions... as should Micheal Moore... Ann Coulter... Janeane Garafolo...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No, that's at least the fourth or fifth time TG refers to the book. That's why I wrote everything out- so you couldn't get away with crap like that. Granted, it's the first question about the book's contents- which she spent the next TWENTY MINUTES talking about or expounding on. (well, asking questions of course- o'reilly did all the talking- which is what an interview should be)
I'm sorry, Scott, but this wasn't your interview. TG is very professional- she was far fairer than Bill O'Reilly is on his show. She gave him all the time in the world to respond without cutting him off . She gave him a chance to respond to his critics and called him on his contradictions or false statements. Dude, what's the matter here?
Dude, I am a flag-waving, card carrying, died in the wool LEFTY. Please don't misunderstand that or make the wrong assumptions about my motives. I am also a pretty good fan of TG and FA, although I think she's a little wimpy most of the time. But hey, that's ok. The discussions are usually interesting, nonetheless.
But she comes out, right out of the gate, guns blazing about the lawsuit. My problem isn't that this is a poor topic or an uninteresting one. It's that I really wanted an interview with him more like her interview with Franken. I wanted to know about the damned BOOK. That's why he's on there, after all. Sure, she'd need to talk about some of the lawsuit stuff.
But look at this:
First question:
2:10: Ref to Franken's appearance on the show. Question: "Are you sorry you sued him?"
O'Reilly says he didn't know anything about it.
2:36: Question: You sure you didn't talk FOX into it?
O'Reilly explains that he couldn't show damages.
3:24: Franken/O'Reilly blow up with quotes from Franken. Q: Is F. being fair when he calls you a bully?
O'Reilly gives "the usual propaganda" line. Lays out the victim line about defamation.
5:00: The Glick interview. Good question: "How much of that is theatre and showmanship." TG admits she has only read the bit from Harper's (not that it makes all that much difference. O'Reilly went bat-shit in that interview. I have an audio copy of it if anyone's interested).
BO responds that none of it is showmanship. Claims it's all taken out of context (again, not that it matters). Makes claims about how his show is good stuff.
7:55: Reference to book as tag. Then TG goes into BO's attack of the Times reviewer. Quotes BO: Character assassins. The Times and personal attacks. Culture war. Q: "You're calling her a character assassin who was loosed on you by the times. But this was just a book review of Al Franken's book..." The question is obviously headed towards something like "How on earth could you say something like that?!?!"
BO interrupts: "No it wasn't. It was much more than that." BO complains that the reviewer printed Franken's allegations as "fact." Calls it dishonest.
10:40: TG reads some of the review.
11:20 (BO sighs. He's getting unhappy).
11:36: You're accusing her of slander/character assassination.
12:30: Q: "You might accuse her of writing an unresearched book review. But instead you're accusing her of character assassination and doing the Times's bidding. So I wonder why you'd say that since you're opposed to character defamation?" Good question.
BO starting to get upset. Refers to TG as "Madam."
14:15: BO remarks that the Times has never reviewed any of his books. General liberal propaganda.
14:40 TG points out that the Times reviewed Moore mixed. BO disagrees. BO suggests that he'll re-read the review and reconsider. "Could be wrong"
16:16 Tag for book.
16:20 TG: Q. about talk shows polarizing American politics. (good question)
Where is the damned book?! Why bother with any of this? (Although I like the last question I listed).
My real problem with all of this, though, is that she seems to have wanted to shoot a little of O'Reilly's technique back at him. She clearly wants to see if she can get him a little hot.
That lowers the quality of the show, IMO.
It is, you should note, O'Reilly who keeps trying to pull the questions/answers back to his book. But we're 20 minutes in before she lets go of the O'Reilly controversy du jour and gets to the book.
Now, I'm perfectly fine with someone pulling O'Reilly on the carpet for his antics. But I don't want it on Fresh Air. Was she fairer than BO is on his show? Sure. You'd have to, I don't know, beat someone over the head with Anne Coulter to be less fair than BO is. But again, I wanted a discussion of the book. This was a discussion of HIM. And I could care less about HIM.
Cheers
Scott
How DARE she.
He's a baby.
Originally posted by BRussell
midwinter's a righty, midwinter's a righty, nyah nyah.
Them's fighting words, bucko!
She's clearly EVIL!
I'm going to link to some really hard radio interviewing (not 'shut uppery' but really trying to get someone pinned down).
Hehehehehe ... you have to listen to this. The BBC's Today Programme smacking the sh it out of the leader of the oppsosition: shouting and the whole bit.
To make it work, paste this into RealPlayer (a link doesn't work).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/rpms/today2.rpm
Listen from 1930.
Now THAT'S hard interviewing, and real politicians too.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
You seriously need to hear the interview; I'm not kidding. Little Red Broomrider went up against the Big Bad Wolf and got her butt mauled. Her voice was cracking under O'Reilly's Righteous Rebuttal to her non-book oriented interview.
Have a little problem with ladies do we, Aries? "Little Red Broomrider"? "Butt mauled"?
All O'Reilly did was raise his voice, drone on with his usual "anybody that can't see the rightousness of me is pinko dupe" act. If that's a maulling then every dreary thug with an axe to grind is a rhetorical genius. The man is one of the most intellectually dishonest pundits I have ever heard. He makes Rush look like Aristotle. It seems very obvious to me, at least, that he is driven be some very profound feelings of inadequacy (maybe rooted in the "par-for-the course" beatings his father administered). Why else his obsession with what anybody says about him, his need to control every exchange, the pointless and dishonest and disengenious emphasis on his "truthfulness" and "balance"?
Think about it-- does Terry Gross go on NPR and denounce her guests that cross her? Feel the need to belittle anyone who criticizes her? Oh, that's right, because of the liberal media nobody ever says boo to Terry but they're always ganging up on Bill. Everybody always is mean to Bill. The man is beligerent child masquerading as a crusader.