Split Thread O'Reilly, Olberman, and other left-vs-right commentators.

[Skeptic Ginger]

O'Reilly is a brilliant debater. Anyone who believes otherwise really hasn't seen him in action. ...

Edit: On topic, I really think the GOP has put another feather in their cap of hypocrisy. After Gore v. Bush, where they argued it was definitely very important to resolve this ASAP, faster, faster, faster, for the good of the nation, we're now left with... um... well, apparently drag it out as long as possible.

On this, I agree. Of course that probably went without saying.

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah, O'Reilly is a Masterdebater for sure.

Just ask the woman he wanted to rub falafel all over in the shower.

 

[GreyICE]

Sorry you disagree, but watch his full shows. Yes, it's easy to disagree with him. He is, after all, frequently blatantly lying. He does a very good job of convincing you that he:

1) Chooses his own course (i.e. is someone worth listening to)

2) That the people he disagrees with are misguided, thinking 'too small' or just off base

3) That their arguments are not coherent, or at least are questionable.

4) That he sincerely feels strong emotions because of their statements.

The fact that I despise the man does not mean I underestimate him. Many have done that, and been viciously mauled on his show. Exactly one person I ever saw gave him the respect he deserved, and that was Glick. Analyzed his patterns, followed his debate style, learned his tricks. And with weeks of analysis, what's the best you can say about his visit? Glick himself said it - he managed to convey some of his points. Not that he won the debate.

Many, many, many people have made the mistake of assuming that because a person appears insane and delusional, they are stupid. Nothing can be further from the truth. Assuming the benevolence of the intelligent is folly. O'Reilly is very smart.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry you disagree, but watch his full shows. ....

Always the assumption is if you don't agree you must not be well informed. I have watched many hours of O'Reilly. I watch Fox News on a regular basis (except when I just totally cannot stand it) to keep up on the madness.

He doesn't debate people as much as he bullies them.

 

[GreyICE]

Always the assumption is if you don't agree you must not be well informed. I have watched many hours of O'Reilly. I watch Fox News on a regular basis (except when I just totally cannot stand it) to keep up on the madness.

He doesn't debate people as much as he bullies them.

That too. I don't particularly like the technique, but he's very, very good at what he does. It's silly not to admit that.

 

[Hutch]

That too. I don't particularly like the technique, but he's very, very good at what he does. It's silly not to admit that.

Although I do not watch Mr. O'Reilly (I have estimated I have 450,000 hours left on this planet and do not wish to use any up on him) I would suggest is a Master Arguer rather than a Debater.

To me, a debater is someone who can spend several minutes making their point with evidence, then listen to a rebuttal from another debater and then be able to rebut those arguments...all without interruption.

I rather think Mr. O'Reilly would fare rather poorly in that format if brought up against a skilled opponent.

IMHO as always.

 

[pgwenthold]

I gotta hand it to OReilly in one respect. He has duped a lot of people into buying his "No Spin Zone" nonsense, which is, of course, really the "No Spin But Mine Zone"

 

[GreyICE]

Although I do not watch Mr. O'Reilly (I have estimated I have 450,000 hours left on this planet and do not wish to use any up on him) I would suggest is a Master Arguer rather than a Debater.

To me, a debater is someone who can spend several minutes making their point with evidence, then listen to a rebuttal from another debater and then be able to rebut those arguments...all without interruption.

I rather think Mr. O'Reilly would fare rather poorly in that format if brought up against a skilled opponent.

IMHO as always.

Possibly. I'd say that the two have become so conflated that it's hard to tell the difference. In any case, most interview formats are not debates, so O'Reilly is going to take apart Olbermann, Stewart, or whoever else tries to argue against him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That too. I don't particularly like the technique, but he's very, very good at what he does. It's silly not to admit that.

Because it's a thread hijack, I've answered this in a PM. If someone starts a new thread or a mod splits this one, I'll post the PM there.

 

[Tricky]

I think I agree that this thread has been hijacked and although I'm one of the hijackers, I'm going to split it.

 

[Tricky]

I've split the discussion of news-channel commentators into its own thread. I'm sure I've inadvertantly moved some comment about the original thread (Franken vs. Coleman) so if you want to repost that to the original thread, I see no problem with that.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[corplinx]

O'Reilly invites opposing points of view. Olbermann, not so much.

O'Reilly does it less and less. Uncle Bill's show from say 2000 was something like this.

1. Have at least one kidnapped or molested kid story
2. Have a story about women in danger
3. Have political stories.

On political stories he would always have someone on to emote both sides of the topic in question.


His modern show is something like this.

1. Have a body language reader on special segment.
2. Have a pop culture quiz.
3. Have a "culture warriors" segment.
4. Have political stories.

So now the show is even more fluff than before. Instead of hitting hot-button contemporary stories about women and children, its wacky guests talking about youtube videos or other nonsense.

And then for political stories, he tends to have just 1 side represented. He will have Dick Morris on for a full block just spouting off whatever he likes for instance. So his show is even less balanced than it used to be. Its less like a news show and more like the 700 Club.

 

[Brainster]

I'm not so sure about that Tricky - Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Cheney, Palin, and Jindal - big jerks.

Olbermann, Mark Morford, Rachel Maddow, Gore, Biden and Corzine--jerks all. Ted Rall, Kos, Helen Thomas, Dan Froomkin, Al Franken and Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[tyr_13]

Olbermann, Mark Morford, Rachel Maddow, Gore, Biden and Corzine--jerks all. Ted Rall, Kos, Helen Thomas, Dan Froomkin, Al Franken and Rosie O'Donnell.

Crossing out all the people who I didn't know who they were exactly. I recognize a lot of the names, but not what stupid thing the were to have said/done or even what their job is.

And IMHO, the only two on that list as 'jerky' as the 'Republican Six' that I actually know enough about are Olbermann and O'Donnell (crazy).

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Olbermann, Mark Morford, Rachel Maddow, Gore, Biden and Corzine--jerks all. Ted Rall, Kos, Helen Thomas, Dan Froomkin, Al Franken and Rosie O'Donnell.

I'm surprised that you and I both forgot this one:

"They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
- Michael Moore describing Al-Queada in Iraq

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it's a thread hijack, I've answered this in a PM. If someone starts a new thread or a mod splits this one, I'll post the PM there.

Here's the PM I didn't post in the Coleman/Franken thread:

Originally Posted by GreyICE
That too. I don't particularly like the technique, but he's very, very good at what he does. It's silly not to admit that.
It depends on your definition of a good debater. It has nothing to do with not admitting something.

He's good at bullying people and cutting off their mikes. He's not good at an intelligent debate actually based on the issues.

And he is a pathological liar. I mean that literally. He makes up stuff like being in the Falklands war when in reality he was a reporter assigned to Argentina and never set foot on the Falklands.

Lying, telling people to shut up, cutting guest's mikes - those are not qualities of a good debater. It's silly not to admit that.

 

[dudalb]

O'Reilly does it less and less. Uncle Bill's show from say 2000 was something like this.

1. Have at least one kidnapped or molested kid story
2. Have a story about women in danger
3. Have political stories.

On political stories he would always have someone on to emote both sides of the topic in question.


His modern show is something like this.

1. Have a body language reader on special segment.
2. Have a pop culture quiz.
3. Have a "culture warriors" segment.
4. Have political stories.

So now the show is even more fluff than before. Instead of hitting hot-button contemporary stories about women and children, its wacky guests talking about youtube videos or other nonsense.

And then for political stories, he tends to have just 1 side represented. He will have Dick Morris on for a full block just spouting off whatever he likes for instance. So his show is even less balanced than it used to be. Its less like a news show and more like the 700 Club.

Correct.
And for all the harsh words between them, Olbermann seems to be swiping more and more form O Reilly's playbook. He has already learned the "invite Opposing viewpoint spokesmen who are weak, and spokesmen supporting your point of view who are well spoken and eloquent" trick by heart.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, all Democrats and left-leaning commentators are right, always.

Currently, the lot of the major commentators on the left are of much better quality than those on the right. I don't believe this is inherent in one's political stand, I think it is just a coincidence of current events, in particular there's Republican money backing anti-science candidates and the Republicans joined with the Evangelicals in an unholy alliance.

The left wing idiots are more second tier: Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes & Alex Jones come to mind. Robert F Kennedy Jr might be more mainstream, it's borderline.

On the right you have all the Religious nutjobs: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (now deceased), John Hagee, James Dobson; you have Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. They get plenty of mainstream news exposure and make money courting ignorance. O'Reilly isn't stupid, but I do believe he demonstrates pathological lying and he's a bully. As I said, the latter qualities detract from any underlying intelligence he might otherwise have.

As for Cheney, Palin and Jindal, the left wing equivalents are weak, but not insane or ignorant. But let's not forget Michelle Bachmann. She as crazy as Katherine Harris.

Olbermann, Maddow, Ed Schultz, Stewart and Colbert are all intelligent and come across as intelligent regardless of what you think of their politics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Olbermann is in the same vein as O'Reilly, neither of which are anywhere as bad as Coulter and Limbaugh. I bet the left does have people as insane, but they aren't as mainstream.

No Olbermann is not the same as O'Reilly. Olbermann has his point of view, but he doesn't lie and isn't a bully.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Question: Do people really listen to what she has to say about politics? Other than the extreme fringe that already thinks the same way?

At most, I used to think she was funny, but I haven't seen her in anything funny in years.

Garafalo is even more second tier than Rhodes, Jones, and Malloy as far as being in the mainstream public eye. I believe she is quite active in the Freedom From Religion organization. I don't hear much of her outside that circle.

I'd like to know what she has said that is crazy or inaccurate though. I'm not familiar with anything that stands out in that respect.

It seems people are trying to equate one's point of view with being crazy and that is not the case. What's crazy is getting facts wrong, being ignorant of science, lying and so on. Just because one is left or right in political stand is not the issue.