Lemann also talks about Colbert:
Stephen Colbert has obviously made a close study of O’Reilly’s mannerisms and opinions, just as Colbert’s producers have made a close study of the overblown red-white-and-blue swirled graphics that open “The O’Reilly Factor.” (Colbert adds eagles and flags.) But Colbert is too young and too thin to mimic the physical presence of the six-foot-four O’Reilly, and he appears to realize this. So he delivers O’Reilly’s brusque, jabbing hand gestures, and his primary-colored opinions, with a goofy half-smile, as if he were a kid playing dress-up in his dad’s clothes.Why is Lemann disrespecting Colbert? I think it is to make room for his own critique, laid out extensively, in The New Yorker. Would you rather have your O'Reilly filtered through Colbert or Lemann? Or are you hardcore, taking your O'Reilly straight?
पोस्ट्स
११ टिप्पण्या:
I take my O'Reilly shaken...not stirred.
It is baroque in the sense that it has become more about him and an exaggeration of his production conventions, his shtick, than actual news. I started watching him after 9/11 and kept on because he reminds me of all the Irish Catholic wiseacres I grew up with. And he does make fun of himself and his pomposity, much better than Colbert does, so I don't watch Colbert.
But now that the Grand March of History has slowed down, his show wears thin. I love to see him land a good body blow to his cultural arch enemies but this latest sexual/criminal obsession is just too tabloid and I don't watch much.
Paula Zahn on CNN opposite him looks like she's drugged so I work out instead.
I watch O'Reilly every night, and compared to any of the competition, he is "the nuts", as far as I'm concerned.
You may not like his "manliness" (today's new word), but he nails those who deserve it.
How can O'Reilly be baroque? He's a squillionaire.
Ruth Anne, that was great.
I think there are shots I'd need updated before I could watch that asshat.
I guess if all you do is swing a stick around, smacking people, eventually you'll hit someone who deserves it.
You've got a dial? Lucky. I'm stuck with buttons.
ugh, I can't stand Bill O'Reilly.
I can't get into the Colbert Report because the O'Reilly Factor itself seems like such a parody it just seems pointless.
Who the heck is Nicholas Lehman?
O'Reiley is the best. Can dissect poltics better than anyone and may be the smartest on his feet. So, I watch him for that.
Though I don't care for him when he gets on the soapbox re crime and sentences, etc.
Colbert is great too and who cares if it's a play on O'Reilley. Colbert is a friggin genius- he will make America forget who the hell Jon Stewart is. And that is a good thing.
Coco:
My view of Stewart is partly political and maybe meaningful. I think Stewart is a smug elitist who lives in Manhattan and is way over-rated. He seems to get great press just because he hosts the Daily Show and not because of his talent or what he does. I recall watching shows when Colbert was still a regular and thinking Stewart's cast had far more talent than Stewart.
So, bottom line is I don't get his appeal. A great comic mind like old Johnnie Carson lampooned everyone- Stewart regularly fawns over a certain segment of his guests..i.e John Kerry.
I think the news media should consider becoming much more like a blend of Orelly and Colbert- news does not have to be serious. The Rather/anchor model is passe and they don't know it.
What specifically do you like about Stewart?
Coco:
And I forgot to add if the MSM networks had any brains, they would consider a guy like Oreilly to replace Rather.
Cause like I said that old anchor model (faking being straight down the middle) is way broken and decrepit.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा