If there is one thing that Bill O’Reilly (and the rest of the Fox News gang) has going for him, it’s that he doesn’t have to try very hard to slip bullshit past his viewers. They are unlikely to catch even the most obvious examples unless he deliberately points it out.
Case in point, O’Reilly went to great lengths to respond to criticism of one of his questions to President Obama during the Superbowl interview. The question he asked the President was:
“Does it disturb you that so many people hate you? It’s a serious question. They hate you.”
O’Reilly was incensed that anyone would have the effrontery to disparage his inquiry or his fairness. And he was certain that he could vanquish his critics with evidence that he asked the exact same question of former President George Bush:
“The people in the press hated you. A lot of them. Why?”
Of course, to an observer with a functioning brain stem, the questions were not really all that similar. First of all, Obama was faced with a question that presumed that he was hated by the American people. Bush was only asked to answer for why some reporters may have disliked him. That’s a profound difference. Secondly, O’Reilly’s tone toward Obama was accusatory as he demanded that the President explain why he was so damned unlikeable. But his demeanor toward Bush was one of sympathy and wonder as he sought grasp how anyone could think a negative thought about this good man.
What’s most interesting about this is that O’Reilly played both questions on his program tonight to defend himself against criticisms from Nancy Pelosi and others. He was actually convinced that this evidence would exonerate him. He put on his smarmiest expression and asserted in classic passive-aggressive tones that his critics were just manufacturing controversy and trying to make him, “your humble servant,” look bad. And, no doubt, his viewers ate it up.
And for that Bill O’Reilly must be grateful every day that his audience is so intellectually vacant that they can’t tell when he is being dishonest or disingenuous. It is a special gift that he has earned over years of deceiving the public and nurturing ignorance.
Since this has become a tradition that the President do an interview with the network broadcasting the super bowl, Obama had to do it, but he should have at least insisted that he be interviewed by someone resembling a journalist on this network, i.e. Chris Wallace or someone like that. Eventhough Wallace could and probably would have been just as rude and disrespectful.
Appreciate the attempt but no, Obama did NOT have to do an interview with Fox News. Fox News and Fox Broadcasting are two different networks owned by one parent company. If CBS or NBC were broadcasting the Super Bowl they would air the interview on those networks, even though they both have satellite cable networks.
Also, if Obama insisted on his interviewer it would have been a nightmare of accusations. Only republicans can pick and chose their Fox News interviewers.
Hey, c’mon, if it weren’t for O’Reilly, the Daily Show would only be 5 minutes long and only on once a month!
Jon Stewart could do a two hour show nightly on the inanity and insanity of Glenn Beck alone. He could add an hour on the lies and careful editing by Hannity, and an additional 30 minutes on Michele Bachmann’s incoherent ramblings.
“…it’s a good thing…”
It’s a good thing that the vast majority of people just ignore Mark’s insults and infantile comments about FNC.
Speaking of infantile comments…
Mark, does it make you feel better to call people idiots? I know you believe in your own superiority, which makes you a perfect lib in that you think you know better than everyone else as to what to think or how to act. You act like Big Brother the way you police everyone’s speech and thoughts that are shared in public.
Yes, I do feel better calling idiots idiots. What would you call call people who continue to listen to O’Reilly even after he makes idiotic statements like the one above about having asked Obama and Bush the same question?
Your remarks about being superior or perfect are pathetic attempts to change the subject because you can’t simply respond to the obvious points I am making. That doesn’t make me superior, it just means I’m more likely to debate on substance. I can’t help it that you chose to ignore the topic and attack me instead.
And for someone who comes here and posts his opinion often and without restriction, you know very well that I do not police anyone’s speech. Big Brother? C’mon. Don’t be an idiot.
They are not idiots. The statements that Bill O’Reilly said are true. Both presidents are hated by the extremists. In fact, Michelle Obama was asked on ABC News about people hating her husband.
I hate to say this, but you’re aligning yourself with the idiots. Read the questions again. This isn’t about anyone hating anyone. It’s about O’Reilly pretending he asked the same question to both. He didn’t. And his idiot viewers don’t know the difference.
And even O’Reilly didn’t say that “extremists” hated either of them. It was Americans (to Obama) and the press (to Bush).
No matter how many times you call O’Reilly’s viewers idiots, they still aren’t idiots.
Fox News viewers are consistently shown to be the most misinformed of all news viewers when it comes to current events and history.
Either they are idiots or they are being constantly misinformed.