Why Do Liberals Appear On The O'Reilly Factor?
TAKE YOUR MARBLES
Lefties: Should We Turn Down O'Reilly?
Are so-called "progressives" increasingly afraid to appear on the FOX News Channel's O'Reilly Factor?
Since appearing in the Boston Phoenix nearly a week ago, the Radio Equalizer is baffled as to how this amazing piece, where liberals ponder whether to decline Factor appearances, fell through the cracks. It truly deserves to be highlighted.
While it clearly accuses O'Reilly of unfairness, there's also an admission that because leftists seemingly can't win the debate, perhaps they should take their marbles and go home. Is that the true state of liberalism today?
After years of campus political correctness, where multi-sided discussions have been all but shut down, perhaps this is the unfortunate end result: liberals with lousy debating skills.
As certain as 12 Dunkin' Donuts locations in every New England town, serial FOX-basher David Brock emerges in the middle of Mark Jurkowitz's piece:
While there are at least two quoted liberals who defend appearing on the show, the overall tone remains clear: because you'll get creamed, it's foolish to accept an O'Reilly Factor invitation.
Since it's the same as a wishy-washy young woman with a cheating boyfriend calling Dr. Laura and expecting an easy time, why don't our fellow "progressives" know better? That seems to be the best analogy.
As for Rendall's situation, unless he was given a reason, how does he know why he wasn't brought back on the show? Seven opportunities to appear on national television with a critic and the complaint is that there wasn't an eighth? To the Radio Equalizer, that many visits seems especially open-minded.
By contrast, how often does Al Franken invite any of us onto his radio show?
Perhaps the real problem is the structure of Boston's stuffy, antiquated Old Media, where the weekly "alternative" Phoenix resides in a dark, dingy basement. Like it or not, O'Reilly's show has helped to create the new media as we know it today.
Watched by millions nightly, its aim from day one was to establish Bill as the anti-Larry King, where softball questions and an unprepped host have long made for the very definition of bad television. For some reason, establishment liberal media types still can't figure out why O'Reilly routinely creams his CNN counterpart in the ratings.
To beat FOX at this point, Larry would have to kidnap Elvis from his South American hideaway and haul him into the studio.
It boils down to this: Bill O'Reilly isn't supposed to be nice. Don't take it personally. Quickly getting down to the bottom line, it's about cutting through the crap. That's why they're watching.
Even with those of us on the same side of an issue, he's harsh. Before both of my recent appearances, there have been stern lectures from O'Reilly about having facts straight and staying on-topic.
By design, absolutely nobody gets their rear end kissed on the O'Reilly Factor. That's because the alternative is low-rated, outdated King-style rubbish.
While it does take guts, anyone on the left turning down O'Reilly out of fear is a coward. As even the Phoenix piece admits, that's because his audience comes from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. Why not take the opportunity to possibly win over a few people?
Thanks for your continued support of the Radio Equalizer's work through Amazon orders that begin with clicks on the right-hand side. My top picks appear in the upper corner.
Top O'Reilly photo: Canadian Press, with Letterman: CBS, King with Kagan: David A Lunde for the Radio Equalizer
Lefties: Should We Turn Down O'Reilly?
Are so-called "progressives" increasingly afraid to appear on the FOX News Channel's O'Reilly Factor?
Since appearing in the Boston Phoenix nearly a week ago, the Radio Equalizer is baffled as to how this amazing piece, where liberals ponder whether to decline Factor appearances, fell through the cracks. It truly deserves to be highlighted.
While it clearly accuses O'Reilly of unfairness, there's also an admission that because leftists seemingly can't win the debate, perhaps they should take their marbles and go home. Is that the true state of liberalism today?
After years of campus political correctness, where multi-sided discussions have been all but shut down, perhaps this is the unfortunate end result: liberals with lousy debating skills.
As certain as 12 Dunkin' Donuts locations in every New England town, serial FOX-basher David Brock emerges in the middle of Mark Jurkowitz's piece:
David Brock, president of the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America — which is frequently critical of O’Reilly and gave him its 2004 “Misinformer of the Year” award — says, “I often feel he’s also getting a fair amount of guests who are lured on to that show for a one-time appearance and then get the stuffing beaten out of them.”
Silverglate, a skilled and experienced debater, has made three appearances, once when he took a position similar to that of O’Reilly, once when they partially agreed, and once when they were clearly at odds.
In that latter instance, “it was quite an experience,” he says. “I didn’t get a word in edgewise.... I vowed [that next time] I was going to take a more aggressive approach.” That helps explain his tenacious performance last week.
Lawrence Walters, another free-speech attorney who’s been on the Factor about a half-dozen times, says “the vast majority of the time he’s completely opposed to what I’m saying. He’s in control of the mike. He does a lot of interrupting.”
“A lot of progressives won’t go on his show,” he adds.
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve winced or cringed when I’ve seen people go on there and not do well,” adds Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for the liberal media watchdog FAIR, who had been on the Factor seven times, but says he was never brought back after a contentious 2003 appearance.
While there are at least two quoted liberals who defend appearing on the show, the overall tone remains clear: because you'll get creamed, it's foolish to accept an O'Reilly Factor invitation.
Since it's the same as a wishy-washy young woman with a cheating boyfriend calling Dr. Laura and expecting an easy time, why don't our fellow "progressives" know better? That seems to be the best analogy.
As for Rendall's situation, unless he was given a reason, how does he know why he wasn't brought back on the show? Seven opportunities to appear on national television with a critic and the complaint is that there wasn't an eighth? To the Radio Equalizer, that many visits seems especially open-minded.
By contrast, how often does Al Franken invite any of us onto his radio show?
Perhaps the real problem is the structure of Boston's stuffy, antiquated Old Media, where the weekly "alternative" Phoenix resides in a dark, dingy basement. Like it or not, O'Reilly's show has helped to create the new media as we know it today.
Watched by millions nightly, its aim from day one was to establish Bill as the anti-Larry King, where softball questions and an unprepped host have long made for the very definition of bad television. For some reason, establishment liberal media types still can't figure out why O'Reilly routinely creams his CNN counterpart in the ratings.
To beat FOX at this point, Larry would have to kidnap Elvis from his South American hideaway and haul him into the studio.
It boils down to this: Bill O'Reilly isn't supposed to be nice. Don't take it personally. Quickly getting down to the bottom line, it's about cutting through the crap. That's why they're watching.
Even with those of us on the same side of an issue, he's harsh. Before both of my recent appearances, there have been stern lectures from O'Reilly about having facts straight and staying on-topic.
By design, absolutely nobody gets their rear end kissed on the O'Reilly Factor. That's because the alternative is low-rated, outdated King-style rubbish.
While it does take guts, anyone on the left turning down O'Reilly out of fear is a coward. As even the Phoenix piece admits, that's because his audience comes from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. Why not take the opportunity to possibly win over a few people?
Thanks for your continued support of the Radio Equalizer's work through Amazon orders that begin with clicks on the right-hand side. My top picks appear in the upper corner.
Top O'Reilly photo: Canadian Press, with Letterman: CBS, King with Kagan: David A Lunde for the Radio Equalizer
4 Comments:
Sam Seder:
"I make $850,000.00 annually on AAR plus merchandising!"
Well, now we know who got all the Gloria Wise money...
;-)
By Lokki, at 27 January, 2006 13:25
Wow, Brian. You really don't want to have any semblance of credibility, do you? However, it is obvious you're pining for more Factor appearances.
I mean, c'mon, the day after your appearance you post a dishonest story that improperly inflate o'reilly's supposed debating skills?
What a friggin' joke - but, please, don't stop. I'm getting addicted to your daily dose of rampant stupidity.
Meanwhile, your "welcome" post seems to have been more than a bit superfluous...doesn't seem anyone more is posting in your favor...not that reasonable people should ever do so...
By TJ, at 27 January, 2006 15:10
Nice to see you here, Sam. I love your show and the incredible information you present. I've recorded and clipped the interview with the doctor you did tonight, for my elderly parents who've both being soaked for statin drugs. I finally got my dad off them and on a couple of remedial supplements, and his exhaustion and enervation are much improved.
Maloney, you do shame to a fine clann taking up with that liar and bully O'Reilly. Is mac dalba thú. Cut the malarkey and rid yourself of that racist mad dog Michelle and join the love on the left. Step up, be more than a pretty face. Do the Irish proud.
Oh, and I was going to say, Al has had Byron York on his show, and he tried to be nice, Al did, that is, and York was just after showing his arse. I hear him on Diane Rehm all the time, and he just shills for the administration. To be fair, he was on this morning and was mostly just saying what he thought the Bushies were trying to accomplish with their latest strategies wrt the NSA etc., and didn't try to justify or defend what they were doing. That was quite a departure, he was very clear that he wasn't defending them, although he didn't turn on them either. James Fallows mopped the floor with him, nevertheless.
By Jeany, at 27 January, 2006 22:48
The problem with the article is that liberals don't understand that O'Reilly doesn't interrupt because he's trying to dominate the debate. He interrupts when the guests are going off topic or spouting off talking points. I think the usual Brian-bashing posters and the examples in Michelle Malkin's "Unhinged" clearly display that liberals cannot debate at all. Insults, racism and profanities are not debate.
By Dr. T, at 29 January, 2006 13:47
Post a Comment
<< Home