Roger Ebert calls out Bill O'Reilly

[Mani]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Phokus
Just some levity for the rather drab P&N forum... talk about a burn :laugh:

Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse

By Roger Ebert /

To: Bill O'Reilly
From: Roger Ebert

Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your "Hall of Shame." To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.

Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.

I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that "very few" readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, "many more complained about Nancy." I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that "wow" was "mom" spelled upside-down.

Your column ran in our paper while it was owned by the right-wing polemicists Conrad Black (Baron Black of Coldharbour) and David Radler. We dropped it to save a little money after they looted the paper of millions. Now you call for an advertising boycott. It is unusual to observe a journalist cheering for a newspaper to fail. At present the Sun-Times has no bank debt, but labors under the weight of millions of dollars in tax penalties incurred by Lord Black, who is serving an eight-year stretch for mail fraud and obstruction of justice. We also had to pay for his legal expenses.

There is a major difference between Conrad Black and you: Lord Black is a much better writer and thinker, and authored a respected biography about Roosevelt, who we were founded to defend. That newspapers continue to run your column is a mystery to me, since it is composed of knee-jerk frothings and ravings. If I were an editor searching for a conservative, I wouldn't choose a mad dog. My recommendation: The admirable Charles Krauthammer.

Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?

That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!

Wow,
that is definitely the best proverbial bitchslap of 2009

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I didn't believe Ebert wrote it because I had no idea he was such a hack.. and the original poster didn't provide a link.. It struck me as one of those chain letters that go around who are attributed to someone who never actually wrote it.

That being said, he apparently did write it. It strikes me as something someone would write on an internet forum like this. Not something that a prominent entertainer would write.

As for my comparison - I think its valid. Ebert is a contributing member to a failing newspaper. But he blames management. Couldn't be that people don't want to read his political BS? Must be the evil management.. not the content! Bill on the other hand has been #1 in his timeslot for 100 months straight.. he destroys all other networks. I guess we could compare Eberts TV ratings to OReilly? Which one do you think has more viewers? Not an apples to apples comparison of course. I think Ebert is just pissed that OReilly who is extremely successful at what he does is ripping him.. nothing more, nothing less.. Welcome to the real world where you are free to say what you want, but you better be prepared for the consequences.

You realize that most newspapers, including the conservative Chicago Tribune in the exact same city are also failing right? The conservative New York Post? Losing money hand over fist. The arch conservative Washington Times? Hemorrhaging money. Nearly every newpaper in the country, liberal and conservative, is facing declining revenues and financial troubles.

On the TV side, MSNBC, a channel with a clear liberal slant has seen its ratings increase hugely over the last few years, now in some cases beating centrist network CNN... and a large percentage of this ratings increase is DIRECTLY related to the massive ratings increase that their liberal commentary shows have gotten.

So, to recap we have newspapers of all types failing and a news network that has deliberately shifted its strategy towards catering to liberals doing fabulously well, and your idea was to compare a newspaper with a TV network and declare that ideology was the determining factor in why one failed and the other succeeds.

Still think your point is valid?

Yes. But I don't see what continuing to debate it will get us. I still think Ebert is just doing the same thing he acuses OReilly of doing. Frothing at the mouth.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Yes. But I don't see what continuing to debate it will get us. I still think Ebert is just doing the same thing he acuses OReilly of doing. Frothing at the mouth.

Really?..... Really? You still think your point is valid after that? I just told you that nearly every newspaper is having trouble, regardless of ideology. I then showed you how a fellow TV network to Fox has seen their ratings dramatically rise after becoming MORE liberal, not less.

If you accept these facts (and they are facts), then how can you possibly continue to cling to the idea that ideology was the determining factor in this case? Are you saying you don't accept these facts? If not, please provide evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, your conclusions appear to be insane.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
To the worshipers of O'Reilly, he brings them insidiously tainted words of comfort and regularly confirms their suspicions about the commies coming to take over America, and about the terrorists hiding under their beds and in their closets. He is an emotional outlet for those who can turn to no one else to find the fear and loathing they crave for. He feeds their hate. He feeds their anger. He feeds them bowls-full of agenda driven insecurity and then feeds them agenda driven medicinal lies to make them feel secure.

He is Stephen King personified as an on-air authority on all that ails us as a Nation.

He, like Limbaugh and Coulter, are no different than your average street corner drug dealer. What they sell is the chronically addicting fear, hatred and insecurity to those ignorant enough to be seduced by them.

To have anyone calling these fear and hate mongers out is doing a great service to our Nation.

This is the problem. If you've ever watched O'Reilly for longer than the 2 second clips Jon Stewart cuts apart, you'd realize that he is not even close to the likes of Limbaugh & Coulter (Coulter is a self admitted satirist, she never makes herself out to be a voice for the people)...

Ignorance runs rampant.

Grow up. :roll:

I don't have to apologize for anyone, but the sheer ignorance around here is mind-boggling.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I then showed you how a fellow TV network to Fox has seen their ratings dramatically rise after becoming MORE liberal, not less.

When a station has 1 viewer then improves to 2, that's a whopping 100% increase! Okay, MSNBC isn't *that* bad, but they are still less than half the viewers of Fox. The point is that percentages are *half* the facts, not the *complete* facts. :roll:

http://www.tvweek.com/news/200...down_fox_msnbc_gro.php

For the total day, Fox News led with 1.2 million viewers, followed by CNN with 740,000 and MSNBC with 473,000. All three networks saw increases for total viewership for the day over the first quarter of 2008, with Fox News up 26%, CNN up 17% and MSNBC up 20%.
...
In all of cable, Fox News finished the quarter as the second-most-watched network in primetime, behind only USA Network. CNN ranked 17th, MSNBC placed 24th and HLN, CNN?s sister news channel, came in 30th. For the total programming day, Fox News was 5th, CNN was 14th and MSNBC was 28th.

Yeah, MSNBC is amazingly great... :laugh:

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Yes. But I don't see what continuing to debate it will get us. I still think Ebert is just doing the same thing he acuses OReilly of doing. Frothing at the mouth.

Really?..... Really? You still think your point is valid after that? I just told you that nearly every newspaper is having trouble, regardless of ideology. I then showed you how a fellow TV network to Fox has seen their ratings dramatically rise after becoming MORE liberal, not less.

If you accept these facts (and they are facts), then how can you possibly continue to cling to the idea that ideology was the determining factor in this case? Are you saying you don't accept these facts? If not, please provide evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, your conclusions appear to be insane.

I'm not sure why you continue to want to argue this point. MSNBC's ratings are still nowhere near that of Fox News. Surely if their strategy was so strong in appealing to liberal viewers - they would have more than 1/3 of the viewers as Fox? I bet if MSNBC went hard right, their viewership would increase 2x overnight. But again, I really don't give a fuck.. believe what you want.. I'm saying Ebert is pissed that OReilly is a lot more successful than he is.

 

[UberNeuman]

eskimospy, do you ever feel like you're just pissing down a well?:laugh:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First of all, I seriously doubt Roger Ebert wrote this. Second, its clear he doesn't even watch OReilly because I rarely see him lose his cool.. he interviewed OBAMA and didn't 'turn red and start screaming'. But thats typical for a liberal who doesn't actually watch him. I don't expect him to be honest.

Third, part of the reason why nobody complained about them dropping OReilly from the paper is that the paper probably has very few actual subscribers anymore, and probably a very small percentage of them are conservative because the paper has driven most of them away. Is it a coincidence that Fox News who caters to conservatives is massively successful and a paper who caters to liberals is a failure? OReilly is way more successful and influential than Ebert is.. IF he actually wrote this, it seems like someone is a bit jealous of OReilly's success.

But, this will probably be locked soon for lack of comment by the OP.

are you the mouse that called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection! ????

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Yes. But I don't see what continuing to debate it will get us. I still think Ebert is just doing the same thing he acuses OReilly of doing. Frothing at the mouth.

Really?..... Really? You still think your point is valid after that? I just told you that nearly every newspaper is having trouble, regardless of ideology. I then showed you how a fellow TV network to Fox has seen their ratings dramatically rise after becoming MORE liberal, not less.

If you accept these facts (and they are facts), then how can you possibly continue to cling to the idea that ideology was the determining factor in this case? Are you saying you don't accept these facts? If not, please provide evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, your conclusions appear to be insane.

I'm not sure why you continue to want to argue this point. MSNBC's ratings are still nowhere near that of Fox News. Surely if their strategy was so strong in appealing to liberal viewers - they would have more than 1/3 of the viewers as Fox? I bet if MSNBC went hard right, their viewership would increase 2x overnight. But again, I really don't give a fuck.. believe what you want.. I'm saying Ebert is pissed that OReilly is a lot more successful than he is.

You're just going to have to come to terms that this whole posting thing isn't for you.