Roger Ebert calls out Bill O'Reilly

[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!

Thread locked due to OP failing to add any input regarding the topic.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[OCGuy]

Is there some P&N in here? Analysis?

 

[CallMeJoe]

An interesting read, but the OP lacks commentary

 

[First]

The mouse ananlogy is very apt.

 

[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.

 

[spelletrader]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First of all, I seriously doubt Roger Ebert wrote this.

Here is the link to the source which the OP neglected to post.

 

[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: spelletrader

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First of all, I seriously doubt Roger Ebert wrote this.

Here is the link to the source which the OP neglected to post.

I guess Ebert is a bigger fool than I thought. Obama, king of the liberals, agreed to be interviewed by OReilly - If he was a big of a tool as Ebert says do you think Obama would have agreed to it?

But, it strikes me as someone who is just pissed off that OReilly dared to question the almighty Sun Times.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Ebert says OReilly gets red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him.. Check out THIS clip:

Ebert

 

[racolvin]

O'Reilly is a douchebag and always has been. Not that I particularly like Roger Ebert either but if its a choice of him over Bill-O, I'll take Ebert

 

[First]

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.

You definitely don't watch O'Reilly if you think he doesn't at the very least shout people down and, yes, lose his cool frequently. Common knowledge.

 

[jman19]

Yeah O'Reilly doesn't lose his cool... he just talks over people and threatens to turn of their mics :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: spelletrader

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First of all, I seriously doubt Roger Ebert wrote this.

Here is the link to the source which the OP neglected to post.

FNE is an idiot for alleging Ebert did not write it. It's perfectly consistent with Ebert's previous writings, with which it appears clear FNE is ignorant.

Here is a sample from the night Obama was elected President.

There are others, such as his highly critical commentary on Palin.

FNE is not normally worth any reply, but it can be noted how pathetic his commentary is, such as the old righty fallck of 'jealousy' as a theory.

He and his ilk are incapable of getting the issue, and so they turn to something they can relate to, petty personal snipes. Talk about projecting.

 

[cubby1223]

O'Reilly is just one man with an opinion. It's quite hilarious to see how these so-called "feuds" spread so rapidly across the internet :laugh:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
O'Reilly is just one man with an opinion. It's quite hilarious to see how these so-called "feuds" spread so rapidly across the internet :laugh:

Personally I think they're pretty funny... most of these talking head idiots are good for entertainment but little else. Sadly there are a lot of people who take them seriously

 

[cubby1223]

O'Reilly is actually quite careful with how he presents himself on the air. I don't know exactly what his beef is with the Sun Times, but I'm sure there's some truth behind it. Look, O'Reilly has an army of columnists and bloggers eying his every move, waiting to pounce on any little thing he says. If this is the best they can do against him, O'Reilly seems to be doing a decent job. Hell, MSNBC is primarily a campaign _against_ Fox News, each of their shows runs a segment seemingly every single day on why they think you should not watch Fox News :laugh:

 

[retrospooty]

said one self important douce to another...

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I'm about 100% sure Roger Ebert wrote that. Secondly, O'Reilly loses his cool on a regular basis, there are dozens and dozens of videos about it. Obviously if the paper got very few complaints about the dropping of O'Reilly's column, they mean few complaints as compared to how many they normally get about things, not the sum total of complaints. As for your brilliant idea of comparing a TV network with a newspaper to compare the various success of ideologies, go back to school.

You can't really be dumb enough to believe what you wrote, so why did you write it?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spelletrader

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First of all, I seriously doubt Roger Ebert wrote this.

Here is the link to the source which the OP neglected to post.

FNE is an idiot for alleging Ebert did not write it. It's perfectly consistent with Ebert's previous writings, with which it appears clear FNE is ignorant.

Here is a sample from the night Obama was elected President.

There are others, such as his highly critical commentary on Palin.

FNE is not normally worth any reply, but it can be noted how pathetic his commentary is, such as the old righty fallck of 'jealousy' as a theory.

He and his ilk are incapable of getting the issue, and so they turn to something they can relate to, petty personal snipes. Talk about projecting.

"FNE is an idiot"

"He and his ilk are incapable of getting the issue, and so they turn to something they can relate to, petty personal snipes."

Umm? Pot.. Kettle.. Black?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

I'm about 100% sure Roger Ebert wrote that. Secondly, O'Reilly loses his cool on a regular basis, there are dozens and dozens of videos about it. Obviously if the paper got very few complaints about the dropping of O'Reilly's column, they mean few complaints as compared to how many they normally get about things, not the sum total of complaints. As for your brilliant idea of comparing a TV network with a newspaper to compare the various success of ideologies, go back to school.

You can't really be dumb enough to believe what you wrote, so why did you write it?

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.

 

[db]

Levity? HERE'S levity: Jon Stewart clip (but if you hate America, you won't like it).

 

[Carmen813]

O'Reilly is a hack. His popularity is a testament to the stupidity of the American citizen.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
O'Reilly is a hack. His popularity is a testament to the stupidity of the American citizen.

To be honest I like him more than Olbermann, Beck, Maddow and Hannity.

But that's kind of like saying I prefer acid reflux to diarrhea.

 

[trenchfoot]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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?