Bill O'Reilly, making his point and exclaiming it, too.
In the debate over civil debate, Roger Ebert offers a critique of Bill O'Reilly that refrains from name-calling and other polarizing language, eloquently and patiently modeling the the way he believes that political arguments should be conducted, "with sincere debate and friendly persuasion." A persuasive piece of persuasion. Your thoughts?
Ebert's column, while a more judicious look at O'Reilly's behavior, is still in the category of "What is WITH this guy, and how much can we think about his personal responsibility for the actions of his listeners?" OK as far as that goes, but I think a more useful way to dig beyond BO's rants is to probe into the now-mainstream institutions that support these guys: 1. Who advertises on Fox News? We need a major campaign to associate them with supporting terrorist ideology and to get them to pull their advertising. The old white people who listen to Fox can't be the hottest advertising market anyway. 2. Why can't we run a fantastic PR campaign to get the rest of the country to call Fox something like Shlock News instead of Fox News. 3. It would be really great if some of the hip young TV shows on Fox looked to jump to another network unless Fox dumps the irresponsible and dangerous "news" programming. We are living with proto-fascist media programming and it's being brought to us by people who manage to keep a respectable cultural profile. THAT is the problem.— drogow
Comment removed.- Bless Roger Ebert, but let's face reality: O'Reilly is implacable, delusional, terminally single-minded and narcissistic. And also inpenetrable. (He's hardly "impotent," TSR.) Nothing will get through. He won't be convinced or converted - not that he should be. Although I seriously doubt that he genuinely believes half the garbaqge he spews. It's a profitable act, that's all. Anyway, all that this adds up to is yet more free PR for O'Reilly. (Remember that adage? - "There's no such thing as bad publicity.") Like Palin, he should be ignored. But the media find both too colorful to dismiss and are too impatient and lazy to move on to worthwhile stories and people. I wish Roger had weighed in on Eddie Murphy's problem instead.— Pash
- Comment removed.
- This is still America, and everyone has the right to free speech. I can't stand O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity or the rest of their ilk, so I exercise my right to change the channel. Mr. Ebert needs to stick to film commentary, plain and simple.— chazzbo
- It's a shame that this analysis has to come from a film critic. Where's the rest of the "liberal" media?— abramorama
The review and reviewer lose credibility with me when he starts referencing things like "swing and sway with Sammy Kaye", Ed Sullivan's monotone announcing style, etc. as a barometer of when times, journalism and the media were better/more ethical. The world has changed: variety shows (like Ed Sullivan) have disappeared and been replaced by reality shows. Like it or not, ranting media personalities (personalities, not journalists) draw ratings today. Bill O'Reilly's comments are despised by some and Keith Olbermann's continuing rants against the Bush adminstration which left office in early 2009 are despised by others, but, neither is boring, and I don't see that either any danger in either one expressing their opinion. So, goodnight Mr. Ebert and goodnight Mrs. Kalabash, wherever you are.— wfs0868
7 comments
- VIEWED
- Commented
Playing at a theater near you
Be the first in line! Find local theaters, view listings and purchase tickets.
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
Partners:
Local Services:
