Bill O'Reilly: Like an Old, Mean, Angry, Lying, Spiteful Boyscout
Okay, I know, I know. I've done O'Reilly to death here, but the letters keep showing up in the paper, and they just get crazier and crazier. This will be my last one though. Probably.
Okay, see? See why I had to do this one? This isn't a letter of support, it's a creed of faith; it's a statement of worship. As far as Debbie is concerned, Bill O'Reilly isn't just a marginally-talented political entertainer with a penchant for manipulating the easily influenced. He's some sort of cross between Edward R. Murrow, John Wayne, and Jesus Christ. Beyond Debbie's obvious tendencies to embrace misinformation, this letter shows a frightening level of celebrity worship. I'm not going to pretend that this phenomenon is unique to the far-right, but it is exploding there. The uproar over the "liberal" press has proven to be nothing more than an advertising campaign for right-wing politainment and bloviating conservatives who care nothing for journalism, but do care about luring as large an audience as possible, focusing especially on those who are least likely to do any fact-checking research. It reminds me of mikey, who plagued my comments pages for a few days. By claiming his opinions were facts, ignoring actual statistical data and hard numbers, and reacting to any attempt to disprove his statements as if they comprised a personal attack against him, mikey was able to avoid taking part in any political debate whatsoever, always bringing the conversation down to the level of opinionated emotionalism. Unlike Bill O'Reilly, however, mikey couldn't hang up on me when I started outmaneuvering him. When finally cornered into defending his positions, he was forced to spout irrational, off-the-charts nonsense. Iraqis found executed in vans were terrorists killed by vigilante Iraqi citizens, according to mikey. Bush's lies over the NIE leaks were a trap he purposefully set for the media, to trick them into attacking him, mikey claimed. He's right, I'm wrong, I was told. Just like Bill O'Reilly, mikey didn't so much engage as he crafted an empty ideological shell. O'Reilly usually avoids being pushed into defending his batshit beliefs by tightly controlling the conversation. Still, he talks so much, the occasional slip in inevitable.
If Bill O'Reilly were just a journalist, there would be no reason for Debbie to write to the paper to defend him, and no reason for "leftists" like Keith Olberman and David Brock to constantly debunk him. Why does Debbie love Bill? Not because Bill is a great journalist. It's because Bill makes Debbie feel good about her antisocial, undefendable opinions. Bill O'Reilly is an easy alternative to critical thinking and self-analysis. That's why she defends him... by defending O'Reilly, Debbie is defending her right to be self-righteous about being an asshole.
Bill O'Reilly is not trustworthy. I have no idea how watching the show gives Debbie insight into the fact-checking done by his staff, outside of claims O'Reilly himself makes, which might, just possibly, be arguably biased. You would think that his crack fact-checkers would have discovered that there is no "Paris Business Review," a periodical that doesn't exist, but which O'Reilly has used to defend his boycott on France. They might have also discovered that the lyrically-changed version of "Silent Night" O'Reilly held up as an example of the "War on Christmas" was actually part of a play that included religious music and is often put on by church groups. Maybe I'm just a 'leftist', but I don't really think the problem lies with O'Reilly's research staff. I think O'Reilly is a fabulist and sensationalist, which explains not only his factual errors, but also Debbie's fanaticism.
Loyal and faithful? Well, to the established far-right, perhaps, but loyalty isn't always a virtue. Stormtroopers were very loyal to Darth Vader, but you didn't cheer for them (actually... maybe you did, Debbie). Trying to claim that Bill is some kind of superjournalist because he defends Jessica's Law is pretty ridiculous, though. Is there an easier, safer stance to take than defending children from sexual predators? Who is AGAINST defending children from sexual predators? That's not brave journalism, it's lazy pandering to the majority of Americans who, not surprisingly, don't support pedophilia.
Friendly, courteous, and kind? That just doesn't hold up.
He doesn't tell people to shut up? This video clip must be a bunch of 'leftist lies' then, huh?
Here are a few choice sound clips of Bill being courteous, respectful, and kind. Except not really.
You can like Bill all you want, but he certainly has proven himself capable of being a jerk. Trying to claim he's never been rude shows that you either ignore the facts or don't understand the commonly accepted definition of 'rude.' I can think of many more suitable role models for interpersonal behavior than Bill O'Reilly. Some of them are in prison.
Cheerful? At times, but even his staunchest supporters don't claim to love him for his sunny disposition. Brave? What has he done that exemplifies bravery? Clean? Well, admittedly, he does seem to have a fascination with sexual encounters in the shower, as evidenced by both his novel and the transcripts of his sexual harassment suit. This might actually make it more difficult to defend his reverence, however. Well, unless O'Reilly never wrote a novel, and was never sued for sexual harassment. Those might just be 'lies' spread by liberal news shows and liberal blog sites. Preach on, Sister Debbie.
To the Editor:
It is apparent that the letterwriter who wrote about Bill O'Reilly, has not gotten his facts before writing in. He probably has never watched his show, and I bet he didn't even go to the Boypower Dinner!
He must be watching the "liberal" news shows, or going to the "liberal" blog Web sites that spread lies about Bill and have never watched his show, and that never tell the truth or both sides of the story.
Bill O'Reilly is: trustworthy -- he has only researched facts on his show (I know, I watch nightly he and his staff have done extensive research before airing any story and reports "both sides" of the story.
Loyal and helpful: has any other news journalist on TV tried to protect our children from sexual predators by urging all states to adopt "Jessica's Law" (if the reader is even aware of the law or Jessica)?
Most news agencies do not even report that kind of news, like exposing judges and making them responsible for their actions in giving sexual predators little or no jail time. Example: The judges in Vermont and Ohio.
Friendly, courteous, and kind: Bill doesn't tell people to "shut up," he tells them to stop "spinning" the facts.
He is also cheerful, brave, clean and reverent.
If we had more people looking out for us in the news world, we all would be better off! We need Bill's column in the Post Standard.
Debbie
Okay, see? See why I had to do this one? This isn't a letter of support, it's a creed of faith; it's a statement of worship. As far as Debbie is concerned, Bill O'Reilly isn't just a marginally-talented political entertainer with a penchant for manipulating the easily influenced. He's some sort of cross between Edward R. Murrow, John Wayne, and Jesus Christ. Beyond Debbie's obvious tendencies to embrace misinformation, this letter shows a frightening level of celebrity worship. I'm not going to pretend that this phenomenon is unique to the far-right, but it is exploding there. The uproar over the "liberal" press has proven to be nothing more than an advertising campaign for right-wing politainment and bloviating conservatives who care nothing for journalism, but do care about luring as large an audience as possible, focusing especially on those who are least likely to do any fact-checking research. It reminds me of mikey, who plagued my comments pages for a few days. By claiming his opinions were facts, ignoring actual statistical data and hard numbers, and reacting to any attempt to disprove his statements as if they comprised a personal attack against him, mikey was able to avoid taking part in any political debate whatsoever, always bringing the conversation down to the level of opinionated emotionalism. Unlike Bill O'Reilly, however, mikey couldn't hang up on me when I started outmaneuvering him. When finally cornered into defending his positions, he was forced to spout irrational, off-the-charts nonsense. Iraqis found executed in vans were terrorists killed by vigilante Iraqi citizens, according to mikey. Bush's lies over the NIE leaks were a trap he purposefully set for the media, to trick them into attacking him, mikey claimed. He's right, I'm wrong, I was told. Just like Bill O'Reilly, mikey didn't so much engage as he crafted an empty ideological shell. O'Reilly usually avoids being pushed into defending his batshit beliefs by tightly controlling the conversation. Still, he talks so much, the occasional slip in inevitable.
If Bill O'Reilly were just a journalist, there would be no reason for Debbie to write to the paper to defend him, and no reason for "leftists" like Keith Olberman and David Brock to constantly debunk him. Why does Debbie love Bill? Not because Bill is a great journalist. It's because Bill makes Debbie feel good about her antisocial, undefendable opinions. Bill O'Reilly is an easy alternative to critical thinking and self-analysis. That's why she defends him... by defending O'Reilly, Debbie is defending her right to be self-righteous about being an asshole.
Bill O'Reilly is not trustworthy. I have no idea how watching the show gives Debbie insight into the fact-checking done by his staff, outside of claims O'Reilly himself makes, which might, just possibly, be arguably biased. You would think that his crack fact-checkers would have discovered that there is no "Paris Business Review," a periodical that doesn't exist, but which O'Reilly has used to defend his boycott on France. They might have also discovered that the lyrically-changed version of "Silent Night" O'Reilly held up as an example of the "War on Christmas" was actually part of a play that included religious music and is often put on by church groups. Maybe I'm just a 'leftist', but I don't really think the problem lies with O'Reilly's research staff. I think O'Reilly is a fabulist and sensationalist, which explains not only his factual errors, but also Debbie's fanaticism.
Loyal and faithful? Well, to the established far-right, perhaps, but loyalty isn't always a virtue. Stormtroopers were very loyal to Darth Vader, but you didn't cheer for them (actually... maybe you did, Debbie). Trying to claim that Bill is some kind of superjournalist because he defends Jessica's Law is pretty ridiculous, though. Is there an easier, safer stance to take than defending children from sexual predators? Who is AGAINST defending children from sexual predators? That's not brave journalism, it's lazy pandering to the majority of Americans who, not surprisingly, don't support pedophilia.
Friendly, courteous, and kind? That just doesn't hold up.
He doesn't tell people to shut up? This video clip must be a bunch of 'leftist lies' then, huh?
Here are a few choice sound clips of Bill being courteous, respectful, and kind. Except not really.
You can like Bill all you want, but he certainly has proven himself capable of being a jerk. Trying to claim he's never been rude shows that you either ignore the facts or don't understand the commonly accepted definition of 'rude.' I can think of many more suitable role models for interpersonal behavior than Bill O'Reilly. Some of them are in prison.
Cheerful? At times, but even his staunchest supporters don't claim to love him for his sunny disposition. Brave? What has he done that exemplifies bravery? Clean? Well, admittedly, he does seem to have a fascination with sexual encounters in the shower, as evidenced by both his novel and the transcripts of his sexual harassment suit. This might actually make it more difficult to defend his reverence, however. Well, unless O'Reilly never wrote a novel, and was never sued for sexual harassment. Those might just be 'lies' spread by liberal news shows and liberal blog sites. Preach on, Sister Debbie.
posted by Zafrod at 12:51 PM
1 Comments:
Eugenics PI:
I'm sorry, but I had to delete your comment. While I certainly welcome constructive comments here, I do ask that all comments be relevant to the topic at hand, and that they consist of more than just links. While Jessica's Law is an important issue, it isn't really relevant to the entry. You are certainly welcome back any time, and invited to voice your comments about the topics raised. Please avoid using comments as plugs for unrelated causes, however.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home