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

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: