America What Is Wrong With You?

[gumboot]

So, last night my girlfriend was trawling YouTube watching hilarious videos, and ended up watching some political clips from various American channels. You might wonder how that came about. Well it went like this:

failblog videos...
...reporter fail...
...news presenter mistakes...
...news presenters getting angry...
...Bill O'Rielly getting angry...
...Bill O'Rielly gets owned by kid...
...Bill O'Rielly on Letterman...
...Top 10 Bush Moments by Letterman...
...Is Bush An Idiot?...
...Bush Makes a Fool Of Himself...

And so on...

It was, once again, brought strangely into focus, who bizarre and polarised US politics appears, to me. First we watched a clip of O'Reilly getting "owned" by a high school kid, and the kid thoroughly made a fool out of that Fox TV jackass.

So then we watched O'Reilly get "owned" by an Iraq War Veteran... except that's not what really happened. O'Reilly asked a perfectly valid question, and the veteran did wiggle around and refuse to answer it.

Then came the Letterman clip, which we were told by the heading involved more O'Reilly ownage, yet in which O'Reilly came off sounding intelligent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable, and Letterman came off sounding like an idiot.

Then there was the "is Bush an idiot?" clip in which some commentators made some interesting points about Bush either way, while O'Reilly came across as an embarrassing bush apologist and extremist.

Lastly there was "Bush makes a fool of himself" in which Bush was interviewed by some reporter while strolling along a street. Rather than come across as an idiot, Bush came across as an intelligent, logical, modest, sensible man, with a good sense of humour and a firm understanding and awareness of the realities of being President and of criticism and so forth. As my girlfriend said "that's the most intelligent I have ever seen him".

What I find so odd about this is, based on these videos and clips, these US pundits appear incapable of distinguishing when the "other side" looks good, and when they don't. Is the polarisation of US politics so great that everyone has become an extremist, incapable to actually recognising the arguments of the other side, locked in some sort of endless quest for one-upmanship over the "enemy"?

Do these shows actually reflect America? Do Democrats watch a US veteran wiggle away from answering a question, and nod their heads and go "Yeah, O'Reilly, he pwned you! Hah hah!".

Do Republicans watch O'Reilly get obliterated by a high school kid and think "Who is this punk, yeah put him in his place, Bill!"?

Or is it just that the American media has boarded the shuttle USS Lunius and blasted off into the nether reaches of deep space, leaving us sane people to gaze up in bemused wonder?

Do most Americans, in fact, like me, watch these shows and shake their heads at the gaping chasm between what is actually happening, and what others think is happening on the TV in front of them?

 

[Texas]

You will find very lirrle support for O'rieilly among conservatives.

 

[Region Rat]

So, last night my girlfriend was trawling YouTube watching hilarious videos, and ended up watching some political clips from various American channels. You might wonder how that came about. Well it went like this:

failblog videos...
...reporter fail...
...news presenter mistakes...
...news presenters getting angry...
...Bill O'Rielly getting angry...
...Bill O'Rielly gets owned by kid...
...Bill O'Rielly on Letterman...
...Top 10 Bush Moments by Letterman...
...Is Bush An Idiot?...
...Bush Makes a Fool Of Himself...

And so on...

It was, once again, brought strangely into focus, who bizarre and polarised US politics appears, to me. First we watched a clip of O'Reilly getting "owned" by a high school kid, and the kid thoroughly made a fool out of that Fox TV jackass.

So then we watched O'Reilly get "owned" by an Iraq War Veteran... except that's not what really happened. O'Reilly asked a perfectly valid question, and the veteran did wiggle around and refuse to answer it.

Then came the Letterman clip, which we were told by the heading involved more O'Reilly ownage, yet in which O'Reilly came off sounding intelligent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable, and Letterman came off sounding like an idiot.

Then there was the "is Bush an idiot?" clip in which some commentators made some interesting points about Bush either way, while O'Reilly came across as an embarrassing bush apologist and extremist.

Lastly there was "Bush makes a fool of himself" in which Bush was interviewed by some reporter while strolling along a street. Rather than come across as an idiot, Bush came across as an intelligent, logical, modest, sensible man, with a good sense of humour and a firm understanding and awareness of the realities of being President and of criticism and so forth. As my girlfriend said "that's the most intelligent I have ever seen him".

What I find so odd about this is, based on these videos and clips, these US pundits appear incapable of distinguishing when the "other side" looks good, and when they don't. Is the polarisation of US politics so great that everyone has become an extremist, incapable to actually recognising the arguments of the other side, locked in some sort of endless quest for one-upmanship over the "enemy"?

Do these shows actually reflect America? Do Democrats watch a US veteran wiggle away from answering a question, and nod their heads and go "Yeah, O'Reilly, he pwned you! Hah hah!".

Do Republicans watch O'Reilly get obliterated by a high school kid and think "Who is this punk, yeah put him in his place, Bill!"?

Or is it just that the American media has boarded the shuttle USS Lunius and blasted off into the nether reaches of deep space, leaving us sane people to gaze up in bemused wonder?

Do most Americans, in fact, like me, watch these shows and shake their heads at the gaping chasm between what is actually happening, and what others think is happening on the TV in front of them?

Yes?

 

[Policenaut]

It is actually that polarized. It's a stream of crap coming from these idiots each night on every channel. It makes me want to reach out and choke some of these "commentators" and "pundits". But I still watch a decent amount of it just to keep myself abreast of how insane everyone is. Of all the people at night I think the least biased one is probably Campbell Brown though she still has gaggles of idiot pundits there to make themselves and their representative parties look like giant tools.

 

[Thunder]

what...electing Obama wasn't enough? what do we have to do now....give back the Louisiana Purchase?

=)

 

[gumboot]

You will find very lirrle support for O'rieilly among conservatives.

Okay but here's what I'm talking about. If a liberal or a conservative watches O'Reilly's appearance on Letterman, do they agree with the attitudes of the anonymous YouTube member that O'Reilly is being made to be a fool, or like me, are they able to see that in that specific instance, against all likelihood, O'Reilly comes across as intelligent, worldly, and reasoned, and Letterman comes across as a shallow fool?

If O'Reilly or anyone else is to be dismissed, they should be dismissed on the grounds of their arguments, not the fact that they're a hard-line conservative. And when they make valid and reasoned arguments (heck, even Hitler did some good things!) those points should be acknowledged.

Instead these shows suggest to me that the battle lines of "intelligent" and "stupid" are drawn based on political alignment, not the quality of the argument.

 

[Policenaut]

Pretty much. If you are a R you agree with almost anything another R says and likewise for Ds. And if someone from the other side makes a good point they are wrong, period. If you are not aligned with any party it is pretty much impossible to find someone to agree with on television. Beck and Dobbs claim to be independent or libertarian but they are both usually insane windbags as well.

 

[Texas]

Okay but here's what I'm talking about. If a liberal or a conservative watches O'Reilly's appearance on Letterman, do they agree with the attitudes of the anonymous YouTube member that O'Reilly is being made to be a fool, or like me, are they able to see that in that specific instance, against all likelihood, O'Reilly comes across as intelligent, worldly, and reasoned, and Letterman comes across as a shallow fool?

If O'Reilly or anyone else is to be dismissed, they should be dismissed on the grounds of their arguments, not the fact that they're a hard-line conservative. And when they make valid and reasoned arguments (heck, even Hitler did some good things!) those points should be acknowledged.

Instead these shows suggest to me that the battle lines of "intelligent" and "stupid" are drawn based on political alignment, not the quality of the argument.

The awful truth is that this country is extremely polarized to the extent of danger. I know that sounds like hyperbole but I truly believe it will take very little to spark real organised violence on both sides.

 

[tomwaits]

So, last night my girlfriend was trawling YouTube

There's yer problem.

 

[gumboot]

There's yer problem.

The clips were taken from mainstream US media; NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, and so forth. So are you saying, in answer to the OP, that you watch clips from various channels and can agree with good points from any channel, while disagreeing with bad points? Or do you think there are channels and commentators that simply never make good points?

 

[tomwaits]

The clips were taken from mainstream US media; NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, and so forth. So are you saying, in answer to the OP, that you watch clips from various channels and can agree with good points from any channel, while disagreeing with bad points? Or do you think there are channels and commentators that simply never make good points?

I'm a little confused about what point you are trying to make. The clips were from mainstream US media. However, the comments about the clips you were upset about came from youtube. As a general rule, I don't use youtube to gauge public opinion.

In answer to your questions, I don't usually watch punditry, except for maybe the Daily Show (and yes I do consider Jon Stewart a pundit, despite his claims to the contrary). I read the news and this forum and try to form my own opinions. There doesn't seem to be much point in watching a guy yell about the "War against the middle class" or "The worst person in the world". Of course, Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann do make good points sometimes, but they are not objective and I can't really trust that.

So yes, I think I can watch clips from various channels and judge accordingly without having to be some kind of cheerleader for whatever side I'm for.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I would not take You Tube or almost anything on the internet as a good cross section of America.

 

[DavidJames]

Four things which may help you understand

People will believe what they want to believe.
People will interpret what they hear through through the filter of their own biases
If you say enough things you will eventually say something that someone can use to make you look like an idiot.
To many people have to much time on their hands.

Lather, rinse, repeat

 

[Slayhamlet]

There's yer problem.

Yep. Consider that most of the commenters who viewed the video probably typed "O'Reilly" and "owned" into the search box. Self-perpetuating opinion. You see the same thing with Truther videos.

 

[gumboot]

I'm a little confused about what point you are trying to make. The clips were from mainstream US media. However, the comments about the clips you were upset about came from youtube. As a general rule, I don't use youtube to gauge public opinion.

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm asking a question. Dismissing the OP as "well you were on YouTube" is not helpful. I know I was on YouTube. I'm well aware that YouTube is a poor place to gauge public opinion. Hence why I created this thread.

In answer to your questions, I don't usually watch punditry, except for maybe the Daily Show (and yes I do consider Jon Stewart a pundit, despite his claims to the contrary). I read the news and this forum and try to form my own opinions. There doesn't seem to be much point in watching a guy yell about the "War against the middle class" or "The worst person in the world". Of course, Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann do make good points sometimes, but they are not objective and I can't really trust that.

So yes, I think I can watch clips from various channels and judge accordingly without having to be some kind of cheerleader for whatever side I'm for.

Thanks for your answer. An obvious point here is there's a mix of "news" and "political commentary" on the media, and other shows that almost give the appearance of satire. I get the impression that the news channels are dominated by these sorts of "pundit" shows. Is that correct?

When I watch clips from Bill O'Reilly, I see a guy bringing on guests that either agree with him, or guests from him to be rude and obnoxious too. I don't see much in the way of a forum for reasoned debate.

This contrasts, say, with the BBC where I've seen quite a few "roundtable discussion" style programs where numerous guests of different views come together to discuss a topic, and the presenter takes a neutral moderator style role.

So I suppose a further question to ask is what place those types of discussion programs have in US media. Do channels like CNN, Fox, NBC and so forth also have those panel discussion style shows, or do they tend towards inflammatory sound bytes and a charismatic presenter talking to one or two guests via a satellite link?

 

[gumboot]

By the way, no I'm not just talking about comments on YouTube here. I'm talking about things like how presenters and live audiences react to what's being said on the shows. When O'Reilly makes a valid and reasoned point on Lettermanto which Letterman essentially responds by calling him stupid, and the audience break into loud applause and cheering, is that reflective of Americans?

 

[tomwaits]

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm asking a question. Dismissing the OP as "well you were on YouTube" is not helpful. I know I was on YouTube. I'm well aware that YouTube is a poor place to gauge public opinion. Hence why I created this thread.

ok, nevermind.

Thanks for your answer. An obvious point here is there's a mix of "news" and "political commentary" on the media, and other shows that almost give the appearance of satire. I get the impression that the news channels are dominated by these sorts of "pundit" shows. Is that correct?

Well, define "dominated". Percentage-wise, pundits represent a small portion of the time on news channels. However, popular ones like O'Reilly get the most ratings. But if you were to watch a sample of Fox News, you would find that it is just news.

When I watch clips from Bill O'Reilly, I see a guy bringing on guests that either agree with him, or guests from him to be rude and obnoxious too. I don't see much in the way of a forum for reasoned debate.

Some people don't want reasoned debate. They prefer a circus, because they find it more interesting. Some people only want to hear things they agree with.

This contrasts, say, with the BBC where I've seen quite a few "roundtable discussion" style programs where numerous guests of different views come together to discuss a topic, and the presenter takes a neutral moderator style role.

Oh, they do this all the time. It just doesn't often go to youtube unless something rediculous happens. It wouldn't be a very interesting video if all it was was a moderator and two economists talking about the current crisis.

Personally, I like BBC because it is far more global than US media. Even the "World" section of CNN is mainly world news that is related to the US in some way.

So I suppose a further question to ask is what place those types of discussion programs have in US media. Do channels like CNN, Fox, NBC and so forth also have those panel discussion style shows, or do they tend towards inflammatory sound bytes and a charismatic presenter talking to one or two guests via a satellite link?

Simple answer is that they do both.

 

[Puppycow]

Republicans PWNED!!!

 

[Texas]

By the way, no I'm not just talking about comments on YouTube here. I'm talking about things like how presenters and live audiences react to what's being said on the shows. When O'Reilly makes a valid and reasoned point on Lettermanto which Letterman essentially responds by calling him stupid, and the audience break into loud applause and cheering, is that reflective of Americans?

It is reflective of the left's view of anything or anyone associated with Fox news or Rush Limbaugh. It is the same way the right reacts to anything said by Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann. Neither side has any interest in giving quarter to the other side and many pundits have become rich by exploiting the anger of both sides..

 

[Policenaut]

Again YES! People are dumb and surprisingly close-minded when it comes to politics. Also these channels are only populated with this crap at night usually starting around 5pm. There are also some morning shows that have equal amounts of idiocy on as well but they are mostly fine from 9-5. After that "hard news" is few and far between throughout cable news channels. Although even through the day there will be pundits on every channel that the anchors have to ask stupid questions to with predictable answers. They are predictable because: 1)Every channel always has regulars so you know their opinion 2)They have a little D or R next to their name 3)They are from a partisan newspaper or blog. Just thinking about it gets my blood boiling.