• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Boy, is O'Reilly one sick puppy!

N

nwebster

Guest
Interesting article from The New Yorker - yes, The New Yorker - posted on the
MediaChannel.org website ("Fear Factor" by Nicholas Lemann).

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/3736

A few highlights:

* Failed CBS News reporter (he never made correspondent) Bill O'Reilly got bumped off the Falkland Islands War coverage by (pause) Bob Schieffer. He wrote a revenge fantasy novel in which a young journalist is forced out of a big network and kills all the people who screwed him. (Memo: Hire some extra rent-a-cops at West 57th.) He hates Schieffer. Maloney hates Rather. No wonder these guys are buddies.

* The basis of O'Reilly's show is his feuds with everybody else. No, it's not just Air America. Bill hates everybody.

* The basis of his political position is class warfare. This apparently goes back to the Vassar girls with whom he could not get to first base in college.

There's more, much more. Including O'Reilly's method of attacking those he considers enemies (of himself, of the USA or - most likely - both); methods familiar to Nixon, McCarthy and certain people who frequent this board and have a good deal in common with O'Reilly despite obvious ideological differences.

You got to read this one.

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/3736
 
Trying not to say anything bad about the Irish...<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>
 
> You got to read this one.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!
 
The funniest bit:

<blockquote>During this period of forced inaction [ca. 1983], he later wrote, “on a visit to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, I stumbled upon an amazing story. The tiny fishing village of Provincetown had become a gay mecca!” </blockquote>

What's so "amazing" in 1983 about P-town being a gay mecca?

It just goes to show that Ted Baxter has been out of touch with reality his whole life.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
Apparently Mr. Morgan's attention span did not allow him to read such a truthful, well-researched piece. Clearly, the writer is extremely media-saavy and does a great job of ripping apart the phony "underdog" status that OReilly (and the rest of FNC) still sells with great success to the frightening, dumbest segment of the news/talk audience that "only watches Fox 'cause only THEY tell the truth."


> > You got to read this one.
>
BOOOOOOOOO> OOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!
>
 
O'Reilly is boring

Everything about this thread bores me except my ongoing fascination with the way O'Reilly and the FNC have this ability to get so many people's shorts in a knot.

Criticizing O'Reilly is like criticizing Dan Rather. They are both such obvious Bozos, one wonders what sport there is in going on and on about them.

> Apparently Mr. Morgan's attention span did not allow him to
> read such a truthful, well-researched piece. Clearly, the
> writer is extremely media-saavy and does a great job of
> ripping apart the phony "underdog" status that OReilly (and
> the rest of FNC) still sells with great success to the
> frightening, dumbest segment of the news/talk audience that
> "only watches Fox 'cause only THEY tell the truth."
>
>
> > > You got to read this one.
> >
> BOOOOOOOOO>
> OOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!
>
> >
> <P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
Re: O'Reilly is boring

>
> Criticizing O'Reilly is like criticizing Dan Rather. They
> are both such obvious Bozos, one wonders what sport there is
> in going on and on about them.
>
You apparently have not met either man. I have worked with Rather and he has always been a gentleman I wish I could say the same for Mr. O.
 
Re: O'Reilly is boring

> You apparently have not met either man. I have worked with
> Rather and he has always been a gentleman I wish I could say
> the same for Mr. O.

No, I don't know either man. I was making a professional assessment based on public comments I've heard them both make, not a personal assesment based on how much of a gentleman either of them is, or isn't.

(And what WAS the frequency anyway?)

<P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
Bill found that going au natural works for him. I don't think it's an act per se. I just for sorry for people who have to be around him, because he's natually obnoxious. OK,the reason I don't listen is not because of what he's saying, it's more about the lame way he says it....OK!
>
 
Re: O'Reilly is boring

>
> No, I don't know either man. I was making a professional
> assessment based on public comments I've heard them both
> make, not a personal assesment based on how much of a
> gentleman either of them is, or isn't.
>
> (And what WAS the frequency anyway?)


Sometimes judging and individual based on "public" comments can lead to misunderstanding based on how those comments are edited or taken out of context. As to the frequency, the man who attacked Rather and asked that fabled question was eventually caught and prosecuted. Maybe knowing that, Rather appears less quirky and in this case more the victim of an unstable person.
 
Re: O'Reilly is boring

> Sometimes judging and individual based on "public" comments can lead to
> misunderstanding based on how those comments are edited or taken out of context.

Every public person who says something dumb uses the "out of context" excuse. There are some statement so dumb that no context will salvage it.

Would you have it that no one criticize a public figure they have not met?


> As to the frequency, the man
> who attacked Rather and asked that fabled question was
> eventually caught and prosecuted. Maybe knowing that, Rather
> appears less quirky and in this case more the victim of an
> unstable person.

That was a joke. <P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
Re: O'Reilly is boring

> > Sometimes judging and individual based on "public"
> comments can lead to
> > misunderstanding based on how those comments are edited or
> taken out of context.
>
> Every public person who says something dumb uses the "out of
> context" excuse. There are some statement so dumb that no
> context will salvage it.
>
> Would you have it that no one criticize a public figure they
> have not met?
>


You can make whatever critisizm you wish, but when someone is able to couter that critisizm you should also be willing to accept the fact that you may be operating under false information.
>
> > As to the frequency, the man
> > who attacked Rather and asked that fabled question was
> > eventually caught and prosecuted. Maybe knowing that,
> Rather
> > appears less quirky and in this case more the victim of an
>
> > unstable person.
>
> That was a joke.


Sorry, I guess it went over my head.
>
 
Re: O'Reilly is boring

> You can make whatever (sic) critisizm you wish, but when someone
> is able to couter that (sic) critisizm you should also be willing
> to accept the fact that you may be operating under false
> information.

I'm willing to consider that possibility. I'm also willing to consider that a person that knows or met someone might not be objective.<P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom