Analyzing O’Reilly…
The New Yorker’s Nicholas Lehman dissects Bill O’Reilly and his show. It’s a must read, even if you don’t agree with all its conclusions…(via Romenesko)
During what you could call Bill O’Reilly’s classical period, the first few years of “The O’Reilly Factor”—which débuted in 1996, at the same time as Fox News—O’Reilly seemed to be a recognizable member of the conservative-talk-show-host species, like his Fox stablemate Sean Hannity, or like Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC. He attacked Bill Clinton and Al Gore relentlessly; the Monica Lewinsky scandal was his signature subject. Now, ten years later, O’Reilly has become baroque, and “The O’Reilly Factor” is a complex affair, dense with self-references, obsessions, and elaborations, even though it still delivers a satisfying punch.
“Satisfying punch?” THAT is VERY dabatable!
Comment by Roger C. — March 20, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Once again I’m commenting before I’ve read the whole article, because this one’s just WAY TOO MUCH to take all at once. I’ve only gotten through the first few paragraphs, and so far, it seems that it’s just going to be a vehicle by which the author can get Keith Olbermann’s name out there, resurrect O’Reilly’s debacle with Andrea Makris and accuse O’Reilly of getting into a feud with Olbermann, Franken and Letterman.
I do believe O’Reilly has gone after Franken quite frequently (by just using the name “Stuart Smalley”, no less), but he has only addressed Olbermann’s attacks about two or three times (vs. the 70+ attacks Olbermann has launched against O’Reilly). In the media’s view, somehow 70 vs. 3 seems to be an equal obsession by both parties. Yeah, right.
And the Letterman dust-up was just one segment on one program. O’Reilly was clearly set up, and Letterman, inviting a guy on his program just to slam his every word, came out looking like a jerk. This made O’Reilly look classy by default! But again, the author of the article would have us believe that it was a real bloodbath, resulting in an ongoing feud, not just the one incident on one program.
And BTW, I wish I could have defended myself the other day when Spud called me a hypocrite. But after three attempts, my message could did not get posted. (Can you check this out Spud? It was on the thread where the media slammed CNN. Thank you.)
Comment by Missy — March 20, 2006 @ 11:17 am
Missy, I think it may have helped if you’d actually bothered to read the whole thing first? The article is actually quite balanced and he only makes passing references to Olbermann, Letterman and Mackris (well-known incidents, therefore it would’ve looked pretty stupid if the author had left them out). There are no accusations, just an acknowledgement that O’Reilly looks for, and gets confrontation. It also ends by saying that he is probably the most influential figure in cable TV, so go figure.
Comment by Mr A — March 20, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
“Once again I’m commenting before I’ve read the whole article”
You realize that by admitting this you undercut whatever you have to say about the article…
Comment by Spud — March 20, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
An article entitled “Analyzing O’Reilly” should not be so heavy on the Keith Olbermann references in the first few paragraphs. You’d think the author would write about O’Reilly first, and then work his way into Olbermann et al, if necessary.
I am sure I’m not the only reader who decided (wrongly so, apparently) that the article was just going to be a big bash against O’Reilly, based on the first few paragraphs. I thought I’d be reading about O’Reilly and that I would not have to endure seeing Olbermann’s name tagging along, once again. But it was not to be.
I’ll try not to be so reactive in the future.
Comment by Missy — March 20, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
This is a stunning commentary.
Comment by Cara — March 20, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
>>>> says Nicholas Lemann. “O’Reilly is not only bigger than these people; he’s usually also smarter, handsomer, better spoken, better groomed, and more sophisticated.”
Comment by Penny — March 20, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
“An article entitled “Analyzing O’Reilly” should not be so heavy on the Keith Olbermann references in the first few paragraphs.”
The article is not titled Analyzing O’Reilly. My blog entry is titled that.
Comment by Spud — March 20, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
BO needs ANALyzing.
Comment by Me — March 20, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
O’Reilly is an embarrassment to broadcasting, always has been, always will be.
Comment by museglet — March 21, 2006 @ 5:28 am
Mr A, you wrote: “Mackris (well-known incidents, therefore it would’ve looked pretty stupid if the author had left them out).” It’s not an incident; it’s an accusation. We have no idea it happened or not. Please don’t treat accusation as fact like Olbermann.
Comment by Gabe — March 21, 2006 @ 9:19 am
I meant ‘incident’ in terms of something that happened and was well known. I didn’t mean to imply that it was anymore than an accusation - sorry if it reads that way.
Comment by Mr A — March 21, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
O’Reilly has a powerful personality, no doubt about it.
But the way it seems to me is that he is not going anywhere; his ratings are just too strong.
Comment by Skippy — March 21, 2006 @ 5:46 pm