I don’t even have to watch his show (though I suppose no one really does), but in the same way you get that urge to jump off tall things, or touch hot stuff, I can’t help but looking at clips.
What I need to know, for my own sanity, is whether any of his colossal audience watches his show for anything other than the amusement factor that accompanies such an immense twat?
For my faith in humanity, I need to know that at least the majority of people would agree that he needs a bullet firmly between his eyes.
Having read about three of O’Reilly’s books, I’ve reached the conclusion that he may emerge on the side of common sense from time to time, but he isn’t especially bright and his inability to control himself emotionally makes him appear even less so.
Further, he operates in a medium (talk radio and cable news punditry), which, by its very nature, dumbs things down for shock value.
Ironically, here’s O’Reilly himself complaining about the hyperbole offered up by “right wing liars” on talk radio
<embed src=“- YouTube” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height=“344”></embed>
Generally speaking, punditry, of the O’Reilly/Beck/Limbaugh/Franken variety, is to information what professional wrestling is to athletics. Some people revel in it, others find it repellent. Either way, it’s really a matter of personal preference what one finds entertaining.
Treating talking heads as legitimate sources of information, however, is akin to treating pro wrestlers as legitimate athletic competitors. It doesn’t matter that an O’Reilly or a Franken may happen to be right from time to time any more than it matters that a John Cena may be in great physical shape. To persuade and entertain (some would say inflame, but I’ll err on the side of neutrality for now) are the goals of punditry rather than to reliably inform; just as selling a gimmick and holding the interest of a crowd are the goals of professional wrestling rather than matching feats of skill and strength.
I think Limbaugh is a total idiot. I think really all talk show people, radio and television, are idiots, so I’m not really biased toward either side. Except Randi Rhodes, because she tells you to do your own research, just don’t take what she says at face value.
Yeah. Al Franken is a comedian, and probably would have been better not entering talk radio. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. I still try to think of him as the person before his Air America days. Because he has a history of being a good comedian, at least I can ignore his douchebaggy radio ways. Rush, though, has been pretty much a slimeball and hypocrite through and through for his entire career. He essentially preys on ignorant people to make his career and, thusly, is really no better than Howard Stern or Olbermann.
I don’t know, my dislike of Olberman’s show stems mostly from the fact that he tries to hard to come across as an intellectual and hamfists pretty much every point he makes. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him consistently and deliberately dishonest (although he’s certainly fudged facts more than once), though.
It’s sincerely bothersome that fake news shows like the Daily Show and the Onion (hell, even the goddamn VIEW) cover current events better than the actual news.