Comments on: The O'Reilly Factor

By: bryan

bryan — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:20:55 +0000

this reminds me of the measured words of a mr. joe m. richardson about the whole soldiers questioning rummy about having to scrounge for metal, quote found here http://arkhangel.blogs.com/counterpoint/2004/12/ours_not_to_ask.html
: "The duped soldier should be put at the very front of the action, no armor. The cooperating sergeant's career should be over and maybe become MIA. Pitts and all his cronies should be executed as traitors. We are fighting a war, the debate is over, you�re either for us or against us, there is no middle ground. I say start executing the leftists in our country, soon"

in other words, a proud supporter of the administration arguing for killing their own soldiers.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:11:29 +0000

The issue really comes down to O'Reilly's definition of win. Saying that you are for winning the war on terrorism and in Afghanistan is the priority and that Iraq is a distraction that dilutes that objective. Clearly Bill could not disagree with winning those wars.

Next time you whould go on Laura Ingraham instead. Though a conservative she has enough concerns about the war in Iraq to have a more intelligent discussion.

By: Jason W

Jason W — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:53:47 +0000

I have always looked to your writings and ideas as a source of reason... Once again your views are very reasonable and similar to my own... Does that make me anti-american, I think not. I think we can all agree that we support our loved ones who are about to leave to go overseas and those who are there fighting. It is just a wish of mine that Bush will take another spill of his bike, resulting in a good hard clock to the head, and realize that this war will not be won... And bring our people home... Is it not more Un American for people in the US to want there troops to remain in a foreign nation fighting a War based on Lies? People may say you are Un-American and I say they are wrong.

Why not bring "Rummy" on the factor with the "You go with the Army you have" and his "Machine to sign the letters to loved ones of those who died in this Iraq." Is that not about as Un-American as one can get???

By: Ron Avitzur

Ron Avitzur — Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:49:16 +0000

The hate mail, sadly, is predictable. When I shut down my business in month in solidarity with those protesting the war at the very beginning I was amazed at the level of vitriol in some of the responses.

By: Private

Private — Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:43:19 +0000

It is not possible to win on the O'Reilly show. It is pre-recorded. And even if you do score points that make it to the air, O'Reilly will just vilify you later and misstate your arguments.

O'Reilly really is a first class jerk and a proven liar. No respectable organization would let him stay on the air.

By: ir0b0t

ir0b0t — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:15:55 +0000

I think you're a good example that we all need to think about following. Its hard to imagine a less hospitable and less rational spot to stand up and defend an unpopular yet vitally important principle no matter how many kooks threaten you. Too few people have the nerve to stand up like you did on that awful television show.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:29:24 +0000

I would like to vigorously disagree with blr in favor of Scott Lawrence who in many ways was more elegantly repeating what I was trying to say above. blr's view is essentially defeatist - and besides, I would call what O'Reilly was doing far less enforcing taboos in the advancement of "Absolute Truth" as, in Scott's words, "an ambush" (by changing the framing of the question.)

There IS a possibility for real issues to surface on these kind of shows, though it is slim, and usually not with great depth, and when it does happen it shows the weakness of the meduim for handling genuine debate (I give you Jon Stewart on Crossfire as Fig. A). The problem is that real conversation is more complex and time-intensive than these shows allow time for. I'm hesitant to demonize the people running these shows - and the people who watch them - because it's not productive (sees a class of people as beyond hope in some sense) and it's rather condescending for the same reasons.

It's not that O'Reilly is "not about creating a cozy discursive space for his guests" (blr's words) it's that "shout shows on radio and TV are utterly worthless for adding anything of substance" (Scott's words) - which I argue is a problem with the medium far more than a problem with the people. O'Reilly is the master of a flawed medium.

By: pwp

pwp — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:57:44 +0000

Vietnam is a communist state.

Nuff said about Les' view of the value of a democratic republic.

So is China, and it is widely considered the biggest future market for our corporations' products, and a huge influence on world economy.

'nuff said about Alan's view of defining the entirity of a country (or any group of people) by one trite description.

By: Precision Blogger

Precision Blogger — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:58:20 +0000

LL,
The comments you got put you in good company, and this is a long tradition. The good news is that super-loyal non-thinking Americans aren't much nastier than they were fifty years ago.

In the fifties, the actress Larraine Day raised a question on her TV show: was it really a good idea to play the national anthem before a baseball game? Was it respectful, considering that most fans did not hear it out, but started yelling and whistling before it was over? She printed some typical responses (much like yours) in her book about the baseball Giants. The one I remember is: "You're dirty and you're a red."

Forget dialog...

- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

By: Scott Lawrence

Scott Lawrence — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:56:26 +0000

I'll give you credit for having the guts to go on O'Reilly's show. But by accepting his narrower framing, it seems to me that you walked willingly into an ambush. Had the topic remained "is dissent disloyal?", there was a chance (however slim) that a half-decent debate might break out. But with the topic change, that slim chance became no chance.

These shout shows on radio and TV are utterly worthless for adding anything of substance to the discourse on issues of the day. They just reinforce the tightly-held beliefs of whoever watches them. From the shows I've seen and heard, they seem to be designed expressly for that purpose--to generate heat instead of light. In order for your ideas and knowledge to get a fair hearing, print, the Web (including blogs like this) and/or a forum like C-SPAN would be far better.