• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NPR interview with O'Rielly-

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Anyone catch this interview on fresh air today? O'Rielly got pissed and ended the interview (apparently deemed yesterday's "most ridiculous thingamabob").

I don't know if it's just me, but O'Rielly seems like a bit of a dick sometimes. He seems to have a lot of valid points, but I loathe the whole polarization thing he likes to do.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
You can hear it at Bill O'Reilly's website. I have been listening to it for the last 30 minutes.

I generally like O'Reilly, but he really is blowing smoke on this one. The lady who probably is a liberal is doing to him what he does to liberals. If he can't take it then he's a baby. She didn't ambush him, she didn't hammer him, she just challenged him on his views. He handled himself quite well until the end when he just lost it.

Al Franken has totally blown his mind. He needs to get over it.

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
82
91
well the thing is these charges have been hanging in the air for a while now, did he really expect people to ignore them? plus his pattern of behavior, his self righteousness, his hipocrisy in bullying others in ways he objects to himself, he's begging for it.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: friedpie
You can hear it at Bill O'Reilly's website. I have been listening to it for the last 30 minutes.

I generally like O'Reilly, but he really is blowing smoke on this one. The lady who probably is a liberal is doing to him what he does to liberals. If he can't take it then he's a baby. She didn't ambush him, she didn't hammer him, she just challenged him on his views. He handled himself quite well until the end when he just lost it.

Al Franken has totally blown his mind. He needs to get over it.
yeah, i think you are right. i dont really like him. i think he is arrogant and obnoxious, but ive not been exposed to him for very long. i like watching his interviews...but he really does treat those he disagrees with much more harshly than those people he doesnt. besides, he admits to going on to NPR with a defensive attitude and then starts throwing a fit. i dont understand how franken mangled bill! he is a comedian!
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm still waiting to see how this was a "hatchet job".
personally i think it's entirely obvious from the very start of it. i guess it's all how you look at it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
3
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm still waiting to see how this was a "hatchet job".
personally i think it's entirely obvious from the very start of it. i guess it's all how you look at it.
I agree with Lucky.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,929
3,735
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm still waiting to see how this was a "hatchet job".
personally i think it's entirely obvious from the very start of it. i guess it's all how you look at it.
I agree with Lucky.
More like how ignorantly you look at it. If you had listened to Terry Gross interviews for years and years you might just have heard an other interview with a hot head. She always asks well researched and topical questions. She's a master at interview but definitely geared for people with a brain. O'Rielly obviously has prejudged the situation. He was indignant that she said she had had a different interview with Frankin as if her only job should have been to expose Frankin as some kind of fraud. No, her job is to provide an in depth and interesting interview. Her thing is human interest not partisan politics. Frankin has a life aside from O'Rielly. His book was about many other things. People imagine they are the center of the world because they have huge sore toes they leave out in the aisle.

 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm still waiting to see how this was a "hatchet job".
personally i think it's entirely obvious from the very start of it. i guess it's all how you look at it.
I agree with Lucky.
More like how ignorantly you look at it. If you had listened to Terry Gross interviews for years and years you might just have heard an other interview with a hot head. She always asks well researched and topical questions. She's a master at interview but definitely geared for people with a brain. O'Rielly obviously has prejudged the situation. He was indignant that she said she had had a different interview with Frankin as if her only job should have been to expose Frankin as some kind of fraud. No, her job is to provide an in depth and interesting interview. Her thing is human interest not partisan politics. Frankin has a life aside from O'Rielly. His book was about many other things. People imagine they are the center of the world because they have huge sore toes they leave out in the aisle.
OMG, did you turn off the babble generator to make this post? This is probably one a dozen posts where I think the real moon shines through instead of the pseudo moon that trolls the forum trying to incite people. Nice post, I agree completely.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,929
3,735
126
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm still waiting to see how this was a "hatchet job".
personally i think it's entirely obvious from the very start of it. i guess it's all how you look at it.
I agree with Lucky.
More like how ignorantly you look at it. If you had listened to Terry Gross interviews for years and years you might just have heard an other interview with a hot head. She always asks well researched and topical questions. She's a master at interview but definitely geared for people with a brain. O'Rielly obviously has prejudged the situation. He was indignant that she said she had had a different interview with Frankin as if her only job should have been to expose Frankin as some kind of fraud. No, her job is to provide an in depth and interesting interview. Her thing is human interest not partisan politics. Frankin has a life aside from O'Rielly. His book was about many other things. People imagine they are the center of the world because they have huge sore toes they leave out in the aisle.
OMG, did you turn off the babble generator to make this post? This is probably one a dozen posts where I think the real moon shines through instead of the pseudo moon that trolls the forum trying to incite people. Nice post, I agree completely.
You weren't incited because you agree. But my job isn't to incite. I just walk where there are sore toes. :D The point isn't getting people to react, it's getting them to ask why. But I'm glad you liked my post. :D Somebody else will show you how lousy it is. :D

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
No, her job is to provide an in depth and interesting interview. Her thing is human interest not partisan politics.

She was successful at that for about 14 minutes, from 18:30 to about 32:00. Before and after she was biased and malicious in her questions.


Frankin has a life aside from O'Rielly. His book was about many other things. People imagine they are the center of the world because they have huge sore toes they leave out in the aisle.

Is that to imply that O'reilly's book centers around frankin? Why, when the two are linked so closely and especially with the recent lawsuit controversy, would you treat them so differently?

 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
683
0
0
Really? Then you must be even newer to this particular forum than I am :D.

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Jesus Christ, I've never heard someone so full of himself.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
the last thing to consider is when he says the interview ran 50 minutes....she did not contradict him. yet it's only 40 minutes long. earlier i remarked of an odd edit around the 31:30 mark where it seemed like she cut part of the interview out, i wonder if thats the case and if so what.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,285
3
81
I read his short interview in Time. I think it's all a put-on, at least he comes off that way.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
82
91
well to twist the truth as they whores do, you have to know the truth. so of course its a put on. its no wonder limbaugh had to drown his self hatred in pills every day, having to lie continuously while pretending to be a moral beacon has gotta wear on anyones psych.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
from what bill has said, he went into the interview very defensivly. and i dont understand why, on his show, he attacks ALL npr for an interview with one woman on one show...i dont think blanco and blanco really give a damn about o'reilly.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I'm a huge NPR fan but Terry Gross doesn't exactly float my PBS boat. Regardless, the portions of the interview aired on O'Reilly's crappy show make him sound like a prick. Terry Gross is mild-mannered (read: polite) so I think she had no idea how to deal with him when he started to rant. Curiously, O'Reilly said he was less than eager to go onto Fresh Air but he somehow had detailed knowledge of the tone/content of Franken's Fresh Air interview. O'Reilly going to be Franken's beotch for the rest of his life.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
ok i found the transcript to that "bumper sticker" review. clearly, orielly was correct but was unable to express himself very well. reflects very badly on the interviewer.

BOOK OF THE TIMES | 'DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY?'
Man With a Mission: Regime Change
By JANET MASLIN

Published: October 6, 2003

In his latest book, Michael Moore reveals the identity of his favorite political candidate: someone who bracingly advocates "a free country, a safe country, a peaceful country that genuinely shares its riches with the less fortunate around the world, a country that believes in everyone getting a fair shake, and where fear is seen as the only thing we need to fear." Oh, wait a minute ? he's talking about himself.

When "we, the people" enters the vocabulary of someone who likes to give marching orders, watch out. Our self-appointed spokesman may have an agenda of his own. At the end of "Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore almost ruined an otherwise terrific documentary by grandstanding with Charlton Heston and a photograph of a dead child. As someone with a penchant for demagoguery, someone who thinks that the present political structure needs "to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control," Mr. Moore plays to the camera even when he's doing it on the page.

Mr. Moore's previous book, "Stupid White Men," was such a hit that it was last year's best-selling nonfiction book. It was in its 52nd printing when he completed the very timely "Dude, Where's My Country?," a book eager to mention its author's accomplishments. Mr. Moore's antiwar outcry at this year's Academy Awards presentation is also immortalized, supposedly mentioned to him by a great-granddaughter named Anne Coulter Moore: "Mom said you were once famous for a few minutes for yelling about something during one of the oil wars. Now all we have is this old photo of you with your mouth open and pointing at something." That sounds about right.

"Dude, Where's My Country?" includes one chapter in which Mr. Moore adopts the voice of God ? only playfully, of course. In another chapter he invites you, the reader, to join what he calls Mike's Militia. And then he gives out instructions, "as your commander in chief." The smart, subversive sense of humor that brings one million visitors a day (another number trumpeted here) to Mr. Moore's Web site (where they can relive his speeches and take more of his instructions) is seriously strained by the burden of so much self-promotion.

When "Stupid White Men" appeared, its brand of name-calling was more of a novelty on the best-seller list. Now it is luxuriantly in flower. Mr. Moore will no doubt share a readership with Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" (which is funnier), Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose's "Bushwhacked" (which is better informed) and Joe Conason's "Big Lies" (also better informed), if not with Bill O'Reilly's "Who's Looking Out for You?" (politically opposite, but no less self-serving). But Mr. Moore, through real conviction along with showboating personality, does make himself the most galvanizing and accessible of the lot.

With any such book, you ? or "the American people," as Mr. Moore repeatedly speechifies it ? can expect a certain amount of over-the-top invective. As he draws on earlier books, notably Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil," to identify connections between the Bush family and Saudi Arabian royalty, Mr. Moore exhorts: "George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops?"

But at the same time Mr. Moore is rounding off sums of Saudi money to the nearest trillion, he is being more precise in other areas. For instance, he identifies such members of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq as Palau, a group of North Pacific islands, with a population smaller than the audience at many rock concerts. Palau has "yummy tapioca and succulent coconut but, unfortunately, no troops."

This isn't new information, but it is deployed effectively here. So is a demonstration of how unreadable the text of the U.S.A. Patriot Act is, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Service has a specific form for tax refunds of $1 million or more. (It is reprinted here.) And so is Mr. Moore's digging into underpublicized news events like a Taliban visit to Texas, for oil-related reasons, in 1997. He wonders why 20-year-old video images of Donald Rumsfeld embracing Saddam Hussein have been broadcast only by Oprah Winfrey. She, incidentally, is his draft pick for president in 2004 ? though he also sees Wesley Clark "or any one of the Dixie Chicks" as possibilities.

"Dude, Where's My Country?" is much sharper about election strategy than it is about uncovering the Bush administration's transgressions. One chapter here, entitled "Bush Removal and Other Spring Cleaning Chores," presents ways for Mike's Militia to get out the vote. ("We've got the people on our side.") However outnumbered the left may feel ("go crawl into that phone booth with the Noam Chomsky fan club, you miserable loser!"), Mr. Moore devotes a chapter to arguing that American voters are more liberal than they know.

In "How to Talk to Your Conservative Brother-in-Law," Mr. Moore has some specific hints. He recommends agreeing that men and women are different, that animals don't have rights, that granola is fattening and that a little sunlight is actually good for your health. "We have a namby-pamby way of saying things," he writes, along with "a hoity-toity view of religion." He asks readers to recognize that "this arrogance is a big reason the lower classes will always side with the Republicans."

Mr. Moore has marshaled all of his impassioned, populist bluster to effecting that change. That makes "Dude, Where's My Country?" a bumper sticker that doubles as a book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



moore IS blurbing this for his book.
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm still waiting to see how this was a "hatchet job".
personally i think it's entirely obvious from the very start of it. i guess it's all how you look at it.
I agree with Lucky.
More like how ignorantly you look at it. If you had listened to Terry Gross interviews for years and years you might just have heard an other interview with a hot head. She always asks well researched and topical questions. She's a master at interview but definitely geared for people with a brain. O'Rielly obviously has prejudged the situation. He was indignant that she said she had had a different interview with Frankin as if her only job should have been to expose Frankin as some kind of fraud. No, her job is to provide an in depth and interesting interview. Her thing is human interest not partisan politics. Frankin has a life aside from O'Rielly. His book was about many other things. People imagine they are the center of the world because they have huge sore toes they leave out in the aisle.
well said. I thought it was silly for O'Rielly to get in such a huff because she treated him differently than Frankin. She's not hosting a debate, she's interviewing people. O'Rielly is naturally a confrontational person as he said, so she kind of went with the flow. Again, I do agree with a lot of the points he has expounded, but his attitude is rather abrassive for a person who's only pursuing truth. yuck.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,929
3,735
126
ok i found the transcript to that "bumper sticker" review. clearly, orielly was correct but was unable to express himself very well. reflects very badly on the interviewer.
What a crock. It confirms everything she said, and clearly indicates why O'Rielly backed down and said he could be wrong. He knew it was a mixed review just as she said.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
she said it was a negative review! Put down the pipe and re-read it! There may be one or two negative comments but undeniably as a whole it is a positive review, which is what oreilly claimed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY