• 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

Daily Show - O' Reilly - waste of time

D

doc9464

Guest
Of course Bill O'Reilly couldn't come on and do half as well as Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum was a more interesting guest...never thought I would say that.
Bernard Goldberg was more interesting.....even with the dumb book.....

Usually when a conservative guest decides to come on,there is usually a lot of fun or at least a good dialogue between Jon and the guest. O'Reilly offered the big 0 - oh well, i should have known better. O'Reilly needs some help for that ego or whatever is going on in that head of his.....wow what a sucky 10 mins.
 
I'm going to focus on the substance of the interviews here, so this doesn't get moved over to Off The Air, though I'm afraid the thread will turn to politics anyway.

> Of course Bill O'Reilly couldn't come on and do half as well
> as Rick Santorum.
>
> Rick Santorum was a more interesting guest...never thought I
> would say that.
> Bernard Goldberg was more interesting.....even with the dumb
> book.....

I thought Goldberg was a terrible interview on Jon Stewart's part. Stewart criticizes other cable news interviewers for interrupting guests and focusing the interview on the host rather than the guest. Yet these are the exact tactics Stewart used against Goldberg. Goldberg was never even given a chance to defend his position.

In general Stewart is a pretty good interviewer though, giving both friend and foe a chance to explain their position, while interjecting some laughs. The Santorum interview was good, respectful but challenging. You know many in the audience just wanted Stewart to go for Santorum's jugular. Stewart was smart for resisting that temptation.

> Usually when a conservative guest decides to come on,there
> is usually a lot of fun or at least a good dialogue between
> Jon and the guest. O'Reilly offered the big 0 - oh well, i
> should have known better. O'Reilly needs some help for that
> ego or whatever is going on in that head of his.....wow what
> a sucky 10 mins.

I thought it was entertaining, just because I was really interested in how O'Reilly would react to being in such unfriendly territory. However, he really gave Stewart nothing to work with. Stewart may have jumped into criticism too quickly, but O'Reilly was being so confrontational that I don't think there was any way Stewart would have gotten a real interview out of him.
 
> I'm going to focus on the substance of the interviews here,
> so this doesn't get moved over to Off The Air, though I'm
> afraid the thread will turn to politics anyway.

This post only mentions the entertainment of O'Reilly not his political views.
He wasn't really political...he was just being a horses a$$ with his arrogance.
>
> I thought Goldberg was a terrible interview on Jon Stewart's
> part. Stewart criticizes other cable news interviewers for
> interrupting guests and focusing the interview on the host
> rather than the guest. Yet these are the exact tactics
> Stewart used against Goldberg. Goldberg was never even
> given a chance to defend his position.

not true, goldberg wasn't interrupted so that he couldn't share his thoughts. He couldn't deal with Jon asking him about why target peoople in his book that don't have any power versus dealing with people who did. Goldberg got plenty of time and plenty of chances to explain his bad premise for his book. He looked stupid because Jon evicerated him without being mean to him. It was entertaining .

> In general Stewart is a pretty good interviewer though,
> giving both friend and foe a chance to explain their
> position, while interjecting some laughs. The Santorum
> interview was good, respectful but challenging. You know
> many in the audience just wanted Stewart to go for
> Santorum's jugular. Stewart was smart for resisting that
> temptation.

No he wasn't being "smart" using your limited definition. It wasn't necessary to do it because Santorum stuck to his guns and explained himself. He answered Jon's questions....deal with the humor and people who didn't like him at all....and it was a real exchange of ideas. they agreed to disagree...and the interview was not mean spirited...at all.


> I thought it was entertaining, just because I was really
> interested in how O'Reilly would react to being in such
> unfriendly territory. However, he really gave Stewart
> nothing to work with. Stewart may have jumped into
> criticism too quickly, but O'Reilly was being so
> confrontational that I don't think there was any way Stewart
> would have gotten a real interview out of him.

Bill acted very similar to another interview he gave on NPR that he walked out of. He came in belligerent and waited for his opportunity to "create an incident". Terri Gross gave him the opportunity because she asked him tough questions he didn't want to answer. I think he was trying to do the same here. Jon didn't give him a "walk out" opportunity.....but Jon had to ask him about why he seemed so angry right from square one....there was nothing to work with because O'Reilly wasnt on to share or have fun....it was pretty obvious to all i think. He treid to call Steven Colbert "French" because everybody knows that he is one of the main sources for the parody in the show...but Jon didn't let that become the "walk out" moment either.

Id really like to see Hannity show up...along with Rush....It wont happen. Hannity might one day...but the chances are tiny. Rush will never be ready for Stewart....so i dont think that will ever happen.
 
> I thought Goldberg was a terrible interview on Jon Stewart's
> part. Stewart criticizes other cable news interviewers for
> interrupting guests and focusing the interview on the host
> rather than the guest. Yet these are the exact tactics
> Stewart used against Goldberg. Goldberg was never even
> given a chance to defend his position.

Perhaps there were time constraints or Goldberg gave long winded answers. I didn't see it, but Stewart tries to be polite to everyone.

> In general Stewart is a pretty good interviewer though,
> giving both friend and foe a chance to explain their
> position, while interjecting some laughs. The Santorum
> interview was good, respectful but challenging. You know
> many in the audience just wanted Stewart to go for
> Santorum's jugular. Stewart was smart for resisting that
> temptation.

Stewart is very deferential and subtle to the guests he has lampooned on the show. I think we saw that with O'Reilly as Stewart sort of played along with the French bashing (Steven Colbert has a new show and O'Reilly wanted to make an issue of his "Frenchness.")

> I thought it was entertaining, just because I was really
> interested in how O'Reilly would react to being in such
> unfriendly territory. However, he really gave Stewart
> nothing to work with. Stewart may have jumped into
> criticism too quickly, but O'Reilly was being so
> confrontational that I don't think there was any way Stewart
> would have gotten a real interview out of him.

Stewart isn't the place to go for hard-hitting gotcha interviews, so I never expect much from that kind of encounter. But O'Reilly is definitely an agenda-grabber, so an interviewer has to hold on to the reigns very tightly if he/she wants to keep to the topics they are interested in. O'Reilly will hijack an interview and apparently is imposing to a lot of people.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom