BILL O’REILLY
At the time of the 2000 election debacle, “venting” to O’Reilly via e-mail was the only legal outlet for my fury at what was happening. Bitch-slapping Al Gore and his entire team would not have been ladylike and having a screaming hissy-fit in front of the local election boards in West Palm Beach or Miami-Dade would probably not have accomplished anything positive (although I still think I would have enjoyed it). I think I actually HAD e-mail at home on dial-up, but certainly I had never heard of a blog.
I watched him nightly and was completely charmed by his puckish wit, his obvious intelligence and, naturally, his stated concurrence in my strongly held opinions.
Six years later, I seldom watch him and I have been analyzing how and why my attitudes toward him have changed so drastically.
1. Mr. “O” has become unbelievably pompous and his head has swelled to the point that I think it is going to explode.
2. O’Reilly’s rudeness to his guests, even those with whom one would think he basically agrees, is most annoying. Does he think we are interested in a monologue for 1 hour nightly? He isn’t THAT erudite!
3. He isn’t the only one of his kind out there any more and the others that are out there are more enjoyable and less arrogant.
4. I find his references to “the folks” to be both annoying and condescending. Tip to O’Reilly: Quite a large number of “the folks” are better educated and more intelligent than you are. And what you call “bloviating” is nothing more than correspondence from loyal viewers who are offering you their opinion – opinions which could easily be more germane and well-reasoned than your own.
5. Increasingly, he tips over into being just as “fair and balanced” as the rest of the mainstream media – in other words, not at all!
6. While I can understand in some ways his reluctant enjoyment of such liberal humbugs as Al Sharpton, he treats Sharpton with a great deal of undeserved tolerance, while reserving or eliminating the same respect and tolerance for a Michelle Malkin or a Laura Ingraham. His treatment of Ann Coulter has been downright nasty at times. Apparently Ms. Coulter poses a threat to his perceived preeminence as a “fair and balanced” pundit while Ms. Coulter’s intelligence clearly outstrips that of Mr. O’Reilly.
7. His preparation seems sloppy. I have tried very diligently to watch all the segments with Ann Coulter, and it has been obvious to me that he is interviewing Ms. Coulter based on the reading of – perhaps – one chapter or only part of a chapter in her latest book. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
So, Mr. O’Reilly, for this viewer at least, your fifteen minutes of fame has expired, primarily at your own hand.
You’re just another cynical television hack these days!
At the time of the 2000 election debacle, “venting” to O’Reilly via e-mail was the only legal outlet for my fury at what was happening. Bitch-slapping Al Gore and his entire team would not have been ladylike and having a screaming hissy-fit in front of the local election boards in West Palm Beach or Miami-Dade would probably not have accomplished anything positive (although I still think I would have enjoyed it). I think I actually HAD e-mail at home on dial-up, but certainly I had never heard of a blog.
I watched him nightly and was completely charmed by his puckish wit, his obvious intelligence and, naturally, his stated concurrence in my strongly held opinions.
Six years later, I seldom watch him and I have been analyzing how and why my attitudes toward him have changed so drastically.
1. Mr. “O” has become unbelievably pompous and his head has swelled to the point that I think it is going to explode.
2. O’Reilly’s rudeness to his guests, even those with whom one would think he basically agrees, is most annoying. Does he think we are interested in a monologue for 1 hour nightly? He isn’t THAT erudite!
3. He isn’t the only one of his kind out there any more and the others that are out there are more enjoyable and less arrogant.
4. I find his references to “the folks” to be both annoying and condescending. Tip to O’Reilly: Quite a large number of “the folks” are better educated and more intelligent than you are. And what you call “bloviating” is nothing more than correspondence from loyal viewers who are offering you their opinion – opinions which could easily be more germane and well-reasoned than your own.
5. Increasingly, he tips over into being just as “fair and balanced” as the rest of the mainstream media – in other words, not at all!
6. While I can understand in some ways his reluctant enjoyment of such liberal humbugs as Al Sharpton, he treats Sharpton with a great deal of undeserved tolerance, while reserving or eliminating the same respect and tolerance for a Michelle Malkin or a Laura Ingraham. His treatment of Ann Coulter has been downright nasty at times. Apparently Ms. Coulter poses a threat to his perceived preeminence as a “fair and balanced” pundit while Ms. Coulter’s intelligence clearly outstrips that of Mr. O’Reilly.
7. His preparation seems sloppy. I have tried very diligently to watch all the segments with Ann Coulter, and it has been obvious to me that he is interviewing Ms. Coulter based on the reading of – perhaps – one chapter or only part of a chapter in her latest book. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
So, Mr. O’Reilly, for this viewer at least, your fifteen minutes of fame has expired, primarily at your own hand.
You’re just another cynical television hack these days!
3 comments:
Well said. :) The arrogance starts here!
For sure!
Once again you have said what I feel, and said it the way I wish I could have! Bill has overstayed his 15 min.
Post a Comment