May 29, 2008

"That's a stain that will never go away!"

O'Reilly getting really mad.


Alan said...

Maybe that's why I like watching MSNBC more than FNC. :)

Freeman Hunt said...

He has a point. But I'm not sure that MSNBC viewers care about that sort of stain; they might even like it.

SteveR said...

I'm guessing that's not really why Alan, but if you say so.:) He's just baiting KO to name him worst person in the world for the 500th time, in case we didn't know that.

AJ Lynch said...

I wonder if his campaign is depressing GE's stock price? If so, this could be a good time to buy some.

I made a bundle on French (freedom) Fries when he started a boycott of that product.

Middle Class Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Middle Class Guy said...

He could substitute CBS and ABC for NBC and say the same thing. These so called media and journalist organizations are corrupt, dishonest, and venal. They have no ethics or morals. They are agenda driven and they try to shove their agenda down the public’s throats. They have sunken to the lowest level. If they sunk any lower they could be joined with the New York Times.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Totally agree with him on that one.

Padre Steve said...

I have to agree with O'Reilly on this one. But, I think it goes beyond NBC. I think the media in general has to be more honest about their bias. Thanks for posting this! God bless! Padre Steve

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Loofahs are quite effective in stain removal.

XWL said...

Ruth Anne, sure you didn't mean one of these?

Used to enjoy Olbermann when he was a local sports anchor in Los Angeles, and his time at ESPN was pretty good, but he burned bridges, pissed off people and left a wake of pettiness and bitterness at every assignment.

O'Reilly may be a jerk, and a blowhard, but he's a lot more honest in his jerkiness than Olbermann. Olbermann is a jerk, and an ass. Also, O'Reilly can be pretty entertaining, whereas unless you're drinking from the same batch of Kool-Aid (and even if you agree with him, judging from his ratings), Olbermann's act gets old very quick.

UWS guy said...

I agree with O'Reilly, but I don't think that it's important. Russert is bigger than his bosses, I'm sure he did what he wanted to do...what ever it is that he did...which I confess to not knowing (being 'in the tank' for Obama on an interview on the Today Show?)

So, I agree that MSNBC is a partisan...but if Newspapers can declare for a candidate (as most newspapers do...) Why can't a cable news organization?

UWS guy said...

Walter Cronkite ooogah boogha!

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

Yep, O'Reilly's right on this one.

They say that David Gregory has been the guy behind getting Olbermann fired, or at least to separate NBC from MSNBC in the minds of viewers.

It's a developing issue, so I'll keep tabs on this for a blogpost.


garage mahal said...

O'Reilly is helping McCain court Hillary's supporters, especially women. Smart move.

No one documents MSNBC better than the hilarious Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler with today's takedown no exception.

vbspurs said...

Oh, also, pretty effective one-two whammy from O'Reilly and Murdoch today.

Rupert Murdoch was at the "D" conference, and asked many questions.

- He's really big on Obama, using that interminably stupid phrase "rock star" about him. He called McCain "unpredictable", but not in a good way.

Turns out he was the person most responsible for the Post's endorsement of Obama over Hillary.

- And then a reporter questioned him about O'Reilly and FNC:

Murdoch staunchly defended the Fox News Channel’s “Fair and Balanced” motto as accurate, adding that even Bill O’Reilly “gives both sides all the time” — a remark that prompted laughs from the audience.

So why aren’t there more liberal voices on Fox News, Kara Swisher asked? Murdoch replied that he would hire a liberal voice if he could find one that was strong enough.

“Would you hire Keith Olbermann?” Swisher asked.

Murdoch’s response: “No, I fired him five years ago… He’s crazy.”



vbspurs said...

So, I agree that MSNBC is a partisan...but if Newspapers can declare for a candidate (as most newspapers do...) Why can't a cable news organization?

Because they have a self-imposed "journalistic neutrality" in America.

In reality, there is not, and never has been any such thing, unless one considers (and there are people who do) that a liberal voice is a more neutral voice, by definition.

That newspapers endorse certain candidates over others is all very well since they are local newspapers, with exceptions here and there.

They have can endorse candidates who may vary politically, given expertise or differing positions. IOW, they sometimes can choose a more conservative candidate for local elections, than a liberal one, and vice-versa.

But since cable channels and network news are by force, not local but national, it's trickier.

It's better for them to continue this charade that they are neutral.


Palladian said...

If anything makes me likely to reject someone or something it's when they're described as a "rock star".

What a repulsive and tiresome phrase, especially when it's used to describe a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

We need less "rock stars" and more rocks.

Verso said...

That's what Fathead O'Reilly sounds like every night, practically every minute. The man is an unhinged wingnut and a lunatic. He actually seemed pretty calm in that segment. If he could maintain such equanimity for a straight week, I'd actually start to think he was recovering from his years of derangement.

I do love watching him, though; I hope he stays insane for the rest of his career. It's just too fun watching a madman on the tube every night.

Chip Ahoy said...

I like seeing the veins in people's necks bulge and pulsate purple. I hope to see one pop wide open one day. That'll be cool.

Chip Ahoy said...

Observing O'Reilly come unglued like that forced me to eat a plate of de Cecco no. 12 con spinaci with meatballs made with carrot, to restore a sense of balance and tranquility.

chuck b. said...

I watched it the volume muted (because i deeply do not care about absolutely anything he has to say) and found that thoroughly smirk-worthy. The woman's expression goes from amusement to dread over the course of two minutes and I like the way her head moves when the cameras's on her and she's trying to make her point. O'Reilly reminds me of my racist grandmother (may she rest in peace) on one of her drunken tirades about the Jews.

michael farris said...

I don't know why exactly, but I find O'Reilly's anger to be one of the funniest spectacles on the face of the planet.

ron st.amant said...

I don't know why exactly, but I find O'Reilly's anger to be one of the funniest spectacles on the face of the planet.

As do I Michael....for me though it is on the off chance his head actually explodes on camera

hdhouse said...

"I wouldn't work for any network that is in the tank for..."

after O-Really? said that I couldn't stop laughing and missed the rest.

O-Really and Goldberg....the right wing bastion of truth, justice and phone sex. gotta love the humor.

vbspurs said...

OT: RIP Harvey Korman.

A very undervalued comedian and a perfect foil for Carol Burnett. They say it comes in threes...Martin, Pollack, Korman.


vbspurs said...

O'Reilly reminds me of my racist grandmother (may she rest in peace) on one of her drunken tirades about the Jews.

Fortunately, like many right-wingers who are pro-Israeli, you'll have nothing to fear regarding that with O'Reilly.

It wasn't your point, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

There's anger, especially when done for ratings. And then there's the really nasty, indefensible stuff.

Father Martin Fox said...

O'Reilly isn't especially "right wing." Of course, it all depends on what you mean by that.

I think it would be more apt to call him a mixture of "reactionary," which is what he does in relation to the left, to other media outlets -- and, well, to be nice, let's say "populist" -- insofar as he likes to offer himself as the tribune of the people on things like secularizing Christmas and denouncing Big Oil.

I joke about preferring Fox "to keep it in the family," but the truth is, I consider Fox, in relation to the alternatives, to be the least contemptuous of what matters to me.

Cedarford said...

Palladian said...
If anything makes me likely to reject someone or something it's when they're described as a "rock star".
What a repulsive and tiresome phrase, especially when it's used to describe a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Amen. Another stupid, repulsive phrase the media cannot resist is "Comeback Kid", as applied ceaselessly to any 60 or 70 year old candidate that comes back in polls or primaries.

Add in the trait where anyone in government employ that, preferably wearing a uniform, is paid to provide security to others at a risk level above office work but below being a miner or commercial fisherman - is accorded "Hero!!" status by the media. Which then Fascistically lectures the public that "their government heroes" must be worshipped and their every wish and whim be submitted to by the general public.

Add in the Cult of Victimhood - and the media bending over backwards to make the argument that all policy and payouts should be dictated in the aftermath of a war or fatal event by "The Victim's Families". Who are of course presumed to have total moral superiority over the rest of us and perfect judgment to make demands we must comply with - in how society best reacts to such events...

JDAXC said...

I agree with him on this one, and don't forget that he has the #1 a mile. Obviously someone is watching.

Richard Fagin said...

It's fun to watch the MSM savage Hillary if only to finally, finally, finally get the point across that the MSM are brutally unfair to candidates they don't like. They've done the same to every single Republican at least since Eisenhower, you know, the "amiable dunce", "warmonger" or "doesn't care about working class people" routine.

In a sense Sen. Clinton is doing the country a great service by sticking it out. She is bringing out in the open how dishonest the MSM really are.

Pogo said...

It's one thing for the editorial page of a newspaper to declare support for a candidate, and quite another for the entire paper to slant all of its articles (criminey, yes, even the sports and comics at times) portside, and devote its existence to getting Democrats elected.

In Minnesota, the Mpls Star Tribune's fortunes have been in serious decline (layoffs, etc.) for the precise reason that they are known as the Red Star or the Star and Sickle due to their leaning left of Carter. In a wan attempt to stem the bleeding, they recently hired a conservative columnist and you would have thought they'd brought in Jeffrey Dahmer by the reactions of their own staff.

The MSM has done this since about 1960; just read some old WFBuckley articles for proof that plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. I used to, last of all, actually trust Russert. No more. He's just another PR flak shilling for his product. Why should I watch that?

I can barely watch Fox because it is so juvenile most of the time. Thank God for Brit Hume. O'Reilly is a terrible interviewer. His show is his thought stream, punctuatued by a still picture of aguest who isn't allowed to complete a full sentence. O'Reilly's right, but so was Sen. Joe McCarthy, a man of similar mien, and therefore wrong in that no one needs to watch him shout like a barroom drunk until people say Yes, Bill, you're right. He's got paid people to continually stroke his ego; if he wants to pay me, I'll help. Otherwise ick.

My sources:
mutiple newspapers online
news aggregators

Who needs Katie Couric and her colonoscopies?

knoxwhirled said...

It's been said plenty of times about this election, but I'll say it again anyway -- Democrats who are HIllary supporters are getting a taste of what it's like to be a conservative: your candidate is constantly being either trashed or ignored by the MSM, while his/her opponent is glorified.

In this case, I actually think the MSM might have handicapped Obama by not challenging him enough. If and when he ever starts getting tough questions, I can't help but think he's going to have a hard time of it.

Theo Boehm said...

I can barely watch Fox because it is so juvenile most of the time. Thank God for Brit Hume.

Amen, Pogo, amen. And the same for the rest of the paragraph.

It's interesting that both O'Reilly and Olbermann were on local Boston TV (WCVB Ch.5, arguably the best local TV station in the country) for relatively brief stints in the early '80's. They were much better than they've become.

Olbermann did a comedy sports reporter routine that, while funny to some, did not go down well with actual sports fans, who rightly thought he was mocking them and their pastime.

O'Reilly did commentary and background pieces, and, while something of a jerk, he was more in the mold of Mike Barnacle than the parody of himself he has become.

They were both, to me at least, reasonaly good and quite watchable. Some things, such as Cremona violins and certain red wines, improve with age. Egomaniacal jerks on television definitely have not.

MadisonMan said...

Victoria: he was a favorite. Because of scenes like this.

George said...

Diana Christensen: Hi. I'm Diana Christensen, a racist lackey of the imperialist ruling circles.

Laureen Hobbs: I'm Laureen Hobbs, a badass commie nigger.

Diana Christensen: Sounds like the basis of a firm friendship.

Diana Christensen: I'm interested in doing a weekly dramatic series based on the Ecumenical Liberation Army. The way I see the series is: Each week we open with an authentic act of political terrorism taken on the spot, in the actual moment. Then we go to the drama behind the opening film footage. That's your job, Ms. Hobbs. You've got to get the Ecumenicals to bring in that film footage for us. The network can't deal with them directly; they are, after all, wanted criminals.

We passed Howard Beale and Laureen Hobbs years ago.

Simon said...

Palladian said...
"We need [fewer] 'rock stars' and more rocks."

Great way to look at it.

Pogo said...

Forrest Gump: Sometimes, I guess there's just not enough rocks.

Zeb Quinn said...

... I actually think the MSM might have handicapped Obama by not challenging him enough. If and when he ever starts getting tough questions, I can't help but think he's going to have a hard time of it.

This is really the essence of what Bill Clinton has been trying to say about Obama and his campaign, however inartfully.

As for O'Reilly, his overinflated ego is really what draws people in. The secret to his success. True, it's not for everybody, it's great theater for many.

Roger J. said...

Fox has really great info babes--and the other networks arent far behind. Back in the old days we got Eric Severeid and Dan Schorr; at least now we get to watch some great info babes: all collagened, lifted, separated, tucked, and lip gloss for days--I love the new MSM.

George said...

Severeid's farewell essay. What dignity.

"As one of "Murrow's Boys" during World War II, Sevareid "scooped the world" with his broadcast of the news of the French surrender in l940, joined Murrow in covering "The Battle of Britain," was lost briefly after parachuting into the Burmese Jungle when his plane developed engine trouble while covering the Burmese-China theater; he reported on Tito's partisans; and he landed with the first wave of American troops in Southern France, accompanying them all the way to Germany."

What, uh, exactly has O'Reilly reported on?

Roger J. said...

George: I suppose I should have made the sarcasm tag explicit; sorry you didnt get it.

vet66 said...

I always find it amusing when so many people take issue with the presenter and not the facts being presented.

You may disagree with the way O'Reilly presents the material but why do you ignore the message? Hillary has finally accepted that the vast right-wing conspiracy she and Bill railed about was actually a vast left-wing conspiracy that chose race over gender in backing Obama.

Marshall McLuhan would have a field day discussing how the left has infiltrated the major media: hollywood, print, and cable/satellite. The rich lefties assuage their guilt ridden success by throwing money at and saying "Amen" to everything angry blacks whine about. They compound the problem by trotting out their one-trick-pony, Obama, led around the ring by his trainer Michelle.

The world will be safer with more reliance on O'Reilly's passion for facts than Obama's style over reason. I doubt if Shakespeare would mind if we substituted stain for spot:

Lady McBeth, "out damn'd stain..."

Chuck Adkins said...

I linked this video, I posted on my Blog, as well.

Okay, as a former Left of Center, CNN watching, Person. Who is now a Libertarian/Constitutionalist, please allow me to offer a sobering response to this idiots accusations, please.


MSNBC is no more in the tank, than any other network, When Hillary was ahead in this race, they rooted for her, Obama is a ahead, and that's who they are covering, plain and damn simple.

Bill Orally is just pissed off, because Faux Noise won't have Hillary to carve on in the General election. Well, cry me a damn river Bill Boy.

Because I for one, am happy as god damned HELL that the feckless BITCH is out of this race! You see, I have not forgotten the WACO Tragedy, (Remember that?) I haven't forgotten about Monica, I haven't forgotten about White Water, I haven't forgotten about Vince Foster. I haven't forgotten about how Bill Clinton LIED to the American people!

So, I for one, say good riddance to the woman!

I think Bill O needs to acts his change, instead of his incredible small penis size... Just ask Andrea Mackris.

Chuck Adkins said...

wow, typos up the wazoo, but I think you all got my point... I hope.

vet66 said...

Thanks Chuck, you made my case. Are you a member of the Trinity Church in Chicago? With language like that you could be a preacher there.

Pogo said...

Faux Noise
–adjective; meaning 'artificial' or 'imitation' news station, combined with "white noise", a steady, unvarying drone used to mask or obliterate unwanted points of view.

- when encountered, indicates one need read no further, a useful marker that permits readers to no longer waste any time with that author, as it betrays an insurmountable and sophomoric bias.

integrity said...

Poor Annie Althouse,

You are wrong about virtually everything, must be tough. Hope all your personal and intellectual corruption eats you alive from the inside.


garage mahal said...

Chuck Adkins said...
I linked this video, I posted on my Blog, as well.

No link!? You tease!

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I simply can't wait to hear your riveting and timely theories on Vince Foster, and your probing analysis about Bill Clinton's Penis as a WMD.

Chip Ahoy said...

It seemed contrived. What he was talking about wasn't all that angry-worthy. Com'on. Shilling for their employers? Toeing the corporate line? Bandwagoning it? Pleasing their boss? Fitting in? It's how you get ahead in this country, generally. McClallan knows this, acted intuitively, did so when he was spokesman for the WH, then facilely changed course with no apparent sense of ethic whatever to do it again in a perceived new environment. Whatever works. He might not get a job with the MSN but his book is selling briskly.

This episode makes me mindful of a management job I once held. The employees under my supervision must have sensed I valued honesty because they admitted to something really stupid that had serious regional effect. When I reported the circumstance as we understood it to my boss, together we took it to her boss. At that level we were instructed to lie, because admitting the truth to district heads was just too embarrassing. I had a problem with this. The truth flowed upward all the way to the top where it was promptly wrenched into lie. Shortly after I found another job. And that hurt my career progression immeasurably, so I can't really recommend it. The lesson for me was; sometimes you just have to bite it. Either that, or abandon the whole job thing altogether and just do your own thing. It's a drag being beholden to a company.

Chip Ahoy said...

I agree with all your comments 98%.

Zeb Quinn said...

You may disagree with the way O'Reilly presents the material but why do you ignore the message?

Some O'Reilly haters hate him for what he says. Others hate him for the way he says it, and many of these never get to or bother with the substance because they are simply unable to see past the form. You yourself mentioned McLuhan. The medium IS the message.

Triangle Man said...

vet66: O'Reilly's manner of communication will influence opinions about the credibility of his information. Bluster is going to win him points with some people and lose points with others. I don't see why this should be surprising.

Palladian said...

"Less" has been used in the sense of "fewer" since the time of
King Alfred the Great in the Ninth century, and is still common in that
sense, especially informally in the U.S.

In other words, I don't need a copy editor, Simon.

Pogo said...

Regardless, I still think sometimes there's just not enough rocks.

Roman said...

O'Reilly has a point on this, and has made some strong points on other things. I don't care for his brand of pseudo-populism. He seems to take various positions, so as not to be branded left or right.

rcocean said...

Reilly's anger "contrived"? Chip didn't you watch him explode when someone told him to just "play it out"?

The man is full of Righteous wrath.

Trooper York said...

Fiver: What’s all that shouting coming out of the cottage?
Hazel: Is it dangerous?
Bigwig: No it is a machine that the woman looks at sometimes. There is a picture of a man with a red face who is yelling very loud.
Fiver: That’s not exactly danger, it's... oh, I don't know. Something oppressive... like thunder.
Hazel: Well I think that woman who owns the garden has a guest.
Fiver: Yes it was a chubby brown-haired woman with a cookbook, a big sauce pan and one of those terrorist handkerchiefs.
Hazel: Really, I wonder what she wants?
Bigwig: I heard her talking. I think her name is Stew.
(Watership Down, 1972)

matthew said...

Wait. Conservatives are now concerned, actually outraged, that people are attacking a Clinton in a non-even handed manner?

I'm so confused...

John Stodder said...

What MSNBC and to a lesser degree NBC is doing is just as smart as what Murdoch and Ailes did in setting up Fox News: Target a definable audience. Neither one will admit openly to editorial bias, but their denials are not meant to be taken seriously. Liberals have a lot of disposable income. NBC is happy to be seen by them as "our" network.

O'Reilly ought to look in the mirror. The same dynamic that got him his show is the strategy behind NBC's shift away from pretending to be objective. Instead of complaining about Tim Russert, he should go on a college tour with him, along the lines of the famous G. Gordon Liddy/Timothy Leary show.

Chuck Adkins said...

"No link!? You tease!"

my blog is linked in my profile.