The blogosphere has been masticating last week's "showdown" between Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman, with most of the attention focusing on Letterman's statement that about 60 percent of what O'Reilly says is "crap."
Most observers see this statement as a putdown, but I see it as a pretty accurate assessment and as fairly high praise. Few broadcast pundits manage to hit the coveted 40 percent standard of non-crap. Limbaugh runs in the 75-80 percent crap range, and Hannity has bursts of up to 90 percent crap. On many days, Michael Savage never dips below 100 percent crap. I don't listen to the liberal pundits, but anecdotal evidence suggests they don't score much better.
How many bloggers manage to keep the level of crap below 60 percent, especially when comments are unmoderated? Black Jack has made comments on this blog that have been up to 175 percent crap, a percentage obtainable only by writing comments so bad that they actually multiply in toxicity upon prolonged exposure.
Under Sturgeon's Law, 90 percent of everything is crap. Even if one applies Sturgeon's Law to Stugeon's Law, then the percentage of non-crap in the world can rarely exceed the low 20s. O'Reilly beats the average because he is thoroughly nonpartisan, occasionally funny and actually willing on occasion to change his mind in the face of contrary evidence.
On the other hand, he also is remarkably thin-skinned for a guy in his position, and he has a wildly exaggerated sense of his own importance (a common enough failing) and journalistic acumen. Letterman may be giving him a bit more credit than he deserves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
At last! Someone has done a systematic content analyis on newspapers.
David:
I think the key issue was Letterman stating that he arrived at the "60% crap" factor by reading what others had to say about O'Reilly. Unfortunately, this is all-too-typical of a certain segment of society that refuses to apply logic and truth to just about everyting.
http://spunandspinning.blogspot.com/2006/01/hey-crisp-you-need-vacation.html
Come on and get some truth David.
David:
Who was it at the Billings Gazette that got arrested for a “prolonged exposure” awhile back? I can’t remember his name. Does he still work there?
But hey thanks for ranking me above all the TV shows you watch. I don’t watch it myself, but I know journalists spend most of their time watching TV, so I take your word on it.
I’ll be commenting on your latest “torture” post tonight or tomorrow—just trying to boost my score over 200 percent.
Getting back to O'Reilly/Letterman. As I mentioned above Letterman admitted that he had not actually seen O'Reilly's show, but had formed his opinion by reading what others had to say. (Hey, Letterman, I haven't seen your show, but Leno says it sucks!) It's unfortunate that entertainment icons such as Letterman spout far too many opinions that have little or no considered thought behind them.
Letterman chastised Bill O for not being sympathetic to Cindy Sheehan. Bill corrected Dave that he only had a problem with Sheehan's anti-war efforts being aggressively co-opted by the radical left.
Dave became visibly upset as his audience turned on him and applauded many of O'Reilly's statements. It's interesting to note that NPR aired this heated interchange editing out all applause after O'Reilly's statements, but leaving in any applause for Dave's vapid utterances. But we all know that NPR isn't biased, right?
In a larger context, one man's "crap factor" is another man's "O'Reilly Factor."
With such a dismal rating of nearly all news commentary personalities on the left and right, I wonder who David Crisp considers to have a low crap factor? And what criteria is involved in reaching these decisions?
I never watch either one of them.
David, I've been trying to wrap my head around the "thoroughly nonpartisan" comment, and I just can't do it. Were you being ironic or something?
I mean, we are talking about the same Bill O'Reilly who praises Reagan and Bush Jr. for their wonderful economic policies and derides Clinton for his, right? We're talking about the same Bill O'Reilly who spouts off about activist judges and the "biased media," yes? We're talking about the same Bill O'Reilly who predictably parrots conservative talking points like he receives memos directly from Rove?
I mean, do you think him "thoroughly nonpartisan" just because he repeatedly says he's a "registered independent" and "not a conservative?" I really don't get it. His biases are a matter of public record. Do you just discount all the rhetoric because he's a registered independent, or what?
I've watched O'Reilly nightly for years and can't count the times he's unleashed on Bush for border control policies, war strategies, etc. Anyone that consistently watches him knows that he really is a non-partisan "watchdog". His passion, insight and humor are refreshing. Remarkably, among the media elite he actually admits to and apologizes for mistakes.
I don't always agree with his observations, but name me anyone in the media that judiciously spanks both the left and right any given evening.
Topic like this make me wonder why there isn't a conservative blog in Billings, so I started one.
It's called DOWNTOWN BILLINGS, and is at
www.downtownbillings.blogspot.com
David,
O'Reilly is conservative, no doubt about it, but he isn't consistently pro-Republican in the sense that Hannity and Limbaugh are. He opposes the death penalty, for instance, and he appears to be pro-choice, although he seems to think that abortion is morally wrong. He's consistently more favorable toward the environment than Republicans. He's very much a fiscal and social conservative, but he doesn't follow the party line. That's what I mean by nonpartisan.
Eric,
Good for you. I'll add it to my blogroll as soon as I get time.
James J.,
You're right, and one mistake people consistently make about O'Reilly is lumping him in with the Limbaugh-Hannity crowd without ever really listening to him. He can be arrogant and annoying, but he also can be funny and self-deprecating, and he is definitely his own man.
O’Reilly’s all right, especially after he’s had a few. Of course, he says he doesn’t drink, but all Irishmen say that.
But he has several problems that I’ve noticed.
O’Reilly tends to harp and whine and get fixated on some subjects. For example, the Natalee Holloway story. Give it a week and forget it! (O’Reilly might have got stuck on that one because Greta “The Face” Van Susteren beat him in the viewer polls a couple times while covering the story.) Another example would be all these phony “sex abuse” cases. O’Reilly demands the most absurd punishments for so-called sex offenders. It’s like he can’t stop himself. Maybe he was a choirboy once. Who knows.
O’Reilly thinks he has more power over people than he actually does, which causes him to start all these mini-crusades. Then nobody shows up, so he drops the subject and moves on to the next one. The truth is, no other cable TV news show comes close to him in the ratings, but that doesn’t give him godlike powers over the masses. Besides, the liberal media has been whipping up the masses with so many ridiculous fears for so many years people have hysteria fatigue.
O’Reilly doesn’t know squat about business. Usually, he avoids talking about business, but when he does, he really puts his foot in his mouth and comes across as a typically brain-dead leveler. For example, during last fall’s price run-up in energy, he declared all the major oil companies should donate 20% of their profits to the Katrina “victims.” Every economist he interviewed ripped him apart, and he was deluged with e-mails about his stupidity.
O’Reilly is afraid of the extreme right wing and won’t put any of them on his show. He’s always going on about the extreme left wing and very often trots out some lunatic lefty for an interview to prove his point, but I’ve never seen him give any air time to a real whacko righty. I think that’s because O’Reilly knows he's often characterized as being far right and is afraid to confirm that characterization in his choice of guests. On the other hand, like Geraldo Rivera, maybe O’Reilly is just afraid of getting his nose rearranged.
PS: David Letterman’s just a clown. No comment is necessary.
The O'Reilly argument is fatuous ... the best news show on TV is Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central. "Daily Show" viewers know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey. (Pop quiz)
Dannagal Young, a senior research analyst at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said "Daily Show" viewers came out on top "even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age and gender are taken into consideration."
He was reporting the results of a quiz was given to 19,013 adults between July 15 and September 19.
Says Stewart, everyone should watch FOX News - as every country needs its own Al Jazeera. For myself, I get all the news I need from The Daily Show.
Nope, I'm not buying. "Thoroughly nonpartisan" is incorrect. It isn't even a stretch. Just wrong.
O'Reilly is definitely conservative on most issues. He's liberal on a few others. So what. So am I. Let the first of you whom is not partisan in some way speak up now.
He is a right wing biased liar, period.
David,
I'm using "partisan" in the sense of "a person who takes the part of or strongly supports one side, party or person" (Webster's New World College Dictionary). Which side, party or person does O'Reilly strongly support (other than O'Reilly)?
Which side, party or person does O'Reilly strongly support
The Republican Party, David. Bill O'Reilly strongly favors Republicans. That he sometimes criticizes them does not negate his strong favor. That Limbaugh and Hannity could be described as "rabidly partisan" does not clear Bill of all ties to partisanship.
I have a lot of disdain for many Democrats and the Democratic Party, and often criticize them. That is not the overall tone of my own rhetoric, nor does it reflect my voting patterns, which are strongly Democratic. Perhaps I am not rabidly partisan, but neither am I "thoroughly nonpartisan."
I stand by my comments.
Hmm, your front page has counted my comment from this morning to create the total of 19, but the comments page consistently says 18. Oh, well. I responded. Don't remember the words. Don't feel the need to have a last word, but I did respond.
O'Reilly's attempts to grab the middle might be a manifestation of his vanity. Does anyone doubt that his first impulse is to back Bush, his war, his tax cuts, his attacks on the environment, his all-powerful executive? O'Reilly of the "middle" reminds me of all the journalists and pundits who recently called Ariel Sharon a moderate - I suppose on some planet somewhere that is true. Not this one.
Most radio punditry is vapid crap as is most blogging. It has the substance of a dry phart. To analyze it you only have to sniff the breaking wind. Then move away from it quickly.
Agreed, Jim, but I wouldn't restrict that analysis to radio and internet.
Television broadcast punditry reeks every bit as much as radio, or worse. So does most of the punditry in print journalism, though some columnists obviously merit more attention than others, much like what one finds on the internet.
It's difficult to list redeeming qualities of television that aren't greatly overshadowed by negatives. One could never watch another minute of television, and only end up happier, better informed and socially well adjusted.
What are these blogs all about anyway? I was surfing looking for as seen tv foam when I ended up here. Back to the relentless searching for as seen tv foam.
Post a Comment