Archive for October, 2007

O’Reilly sticks it to Sean Penn

Posted on October 2, 2007. Filed under: writing |

So I finally got around to tuning into the O’Reilly radio factor today. His show overlaps with Rush’s in the morning here in Portland and so I decided Rush was just going to have to sit on the bench today and rest ye ol’ jowls.

Doing a little contrasting and comparing…O’Reilly’s show is actually quite different from the solo acts of Rush and Michael Savage. He does represent himself as being “fair and balanced.” Yes, I know you liberals, just bear with me now, and conservatives take heart, I myself am trying to be fair and balanced. While I’m not saying that O’Reilly is actually fair and balanced it is noteworthy that he takes this position because as you know he doesn’t have to. Or at least I don’t think he does working for Fox and such. So he’s got this co-host named E.D. Hill on with him during the last hour of his show I guess to provide comic relief and to add that “liberal” flair in the same manner that Alan Colmes provides the “liberal” viewpoint on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes hour. But really she doesn’t say a lot. She probably is more liberal than O’Reilly but that ain’t saying much. What she does do is laugh and act like a silly intern who’s in love with her boss. (Hmm, sound familiar). Instead of countering O’Reilly with facts she just kind of pleads with him and laughs taking a “well I think I’m right” carefree attitude to the whole thing like she did today when she disagreed with O’Reilly on whether or not Sean Penn was a legitimate or illegitimate dissenter.

So O’Reilly used Bruce Springsteen and Sean Penn to demonstrate the idea of a legitimate and an illegitimate dissenter. According to O’Reilly Bruce is legit and Sean Penn is illegit. Why? What does this all mean? I don’t know. But I do know that Bruce is good because he likes cheeseburgers and the Jersey shore and Sean is bad because his father was a leftist writer, because he makes nice with the likes of Hugo Chavez and maybe even because he has a big nose. Therefore, Penn is bad. The O’Reilly logic further descends into madness. So a legitimate dissenter is a person who loves burgers and America and who is also a person who can back up their dissension with facts. An illegitimate dissenter is a person who doesn’t love burgers or America and can’t back up their statements with facts. The funny thing is that in the clips O’Reilly used neither entertainer could back up their statements with facts. So in that case, wouldn’t they both be illegitimate dissenters? Are you confused yet? I feel like I’m trying to decipher a bad paper from comp 101. Ugh. It is a scary hobby I have, delving into the brains of madmen. I’m left with one question. Is there a difference between legitimate spin and illegitimate spin?

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

O’Reilly sticks it to Sean Penn

Posted on October 2, 2007. Filed under: conservative, entertainment, politics, talk radio |

So I finally got around to tuning into the O’Reilly radio factor today. His show overlaps with Rush’s in the morning here in Portland and so I decided Rush was just going to have to sit on the bench today and give his jowls a rest.

Doing a little contrasting and comparing…O’Reilly’s show is actually quite different from the solo acts of Rush and Michael Savage. He does represent himself as being “fair and balanced.” Yes, I know you liberals-just bear with me now-and conservatives take heart. I myself am trying to be fair and balanced. While I’m not saying that O’Reilly is indeed fair and balanced it is noteworthy that he takes this position because, as you know, he doesn’t have to. Or at least I don’t think he does but he is employed by Fox and such. So he’s got this co-host named E.D. Hill (an attractive female journalist) on with him during the last hour of his show I guess to provide comic relief and to add that “liberal” flair in the same manner that Alan Colmes provides the “liberal” viewpoint on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes hour. But really she doesn’t say a lot. She probably is more liberal than O’Reilly but that ain’t saying much. What she does do is laugh and act like a silly intern who’s in love with her boss. (Hmm, sound familiar). Instead of countering O’Reilly with facts she just kind of pleads with him and laughs taking a “well I think I’m right” carefree attitude to the whole thing like she did today when she disagreed with O’Reilly on whether or not Sean Penn was a legitimate or illegitimate dissenter. Those are his words.  Apparently, a legitimate dissenter according to O’Reilly is a person who uses facts to back up their position.  An illegitimate dissenter is a person who is an America hater and says whatever they feel like.  Okay, so today O’Reilly used Bruce Springsteen and Sean Penn to demonstrate his idea of a legitimate dissenter (Springsteen) and an illegitimate dissenter (Penn).  Now, I could sum up what both these guys said but I’m not going to frankly because I don’t remember and I didn’t write it down (that’s the problem with driving while radio listening).  But basically O’Reilly thinks Springsteen is legit because he doesn’t hate on America like he thinks Sean Penn does.  I mean, come on.  Who is more American than Bruce Springsteen?  O’Reilly just really hates Sean Penn because he’s always griefing on the Bush administration, comes from a long line of leftists, he’s always sticking his big nose in places like the Katrina aftermath, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. and he’s always coming to same conclusion and that is that America is often wrong and screwed up and he’s always very vocal about his opinion like he was just recently on the David Letterman show.  Apparently Penn just made a little visit with Hugo Chavez and so whatever your position on celebs doing politics (I think it’s annoying but inevitable personally) is that Sean Penn is a controversial loudmouth who happens to be liberal and that is why Bill O’Reilly can’t stand him.  And because according to O’Reilly Penn doesn’t back up his statements with facts.

This is a good example of spin on the “No Spin Zone.”  If O’Reilly really tried he could’ve come up with a clip of Sean Penn sounding pretty reasonably fact-based.  Instead, he takes a clip from David Letterman (an entertainment program) that makes Penn sound kind of dumb and uninformed.  So maybe he is, maybe he isn’t.  What’s this whole business of legitimate dissent and illegitimate dissent anyway?  In my view, as long as you have an American birth certificate your dissent is legitimate.  No Spin Zone my ass.  But there I go voicing my opinion.  Oh right.  This is my blog.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...