September 10, 2008

The fine art of moral equivalency



"If you were watching Sean Hannity consistently..."

Huh? Is that Obama telling us that he watches Sean Hannity more than Bill O'Reilly does? I don't doubt it.

At least Obama tried to explain (away) his associations with Reverend Wright et al.

He was unconvincing, yet refreshingly candid.

5 comments:

Chris said...

Bill O'Reilly is not a journalist and there was no reason for Obama to go on that show. But he did it anyway. Now it's time for McCain to go on Olbermann and get called a socialist.

Kent said...

Chris has lost his mind. He's blind as a bat. He's turned into a crazy, unobjective partisan. A hack. I still love him, but he's crazy. He's drunk. I wish I was drunk right now.

To compare O'Reilly with Keith Olbermann is like comparing an apple to a burrito. There are no similarities.

The first difference is that O'Reilly treats his guests with respect. He might ask them tough questions and tell them where he thinks they are wrong or why he disagrees with them.

Olbermann slimes people on his show. He propagates lies about people on his show.

Chris is also wrong (as he is about 95% of the time) to say that 'there was no reason for Obama to go on' O'Reilly.

Why? For one, because he said he would. O'Reilly has been running of clip of Obama promising to come on the show for months.

Another great reason to do the show is that it gets HUGE ratings. A shitload of people WATCH O'Reilly. A shitload of Democrats and moderate Democrats watch Fox News.

This was the first time that I've ever seen Obama challenged on anything during this entire campaign. Gibson and Stephy gave him a couple of whacks about taxes in a debate back in March or April, but before O'Reilly, Obama's gotten a pass from the press on everything.

I thought Obama came off really well on O'Reilly, which is actually the hallmark of a really good interview.

So, those are few of the reason's why Obama was smart to do O'Reilly.

Now, I don't like telling people that they are stupid, but, really Jaz, if the shoe fits...

Chris said...

Kent, I'm still waiting on your one economic indicator that is stronger under Bush than Clinton. Just one, remember.

Jaz, did you see my links where O'Reilly calls himself a journalist?

Jaz said...

So far I've head Mike Wallace say, "The concept was simple enough: bring the Op-Ed page to television. The O’Reilly Factor is all about opinions: O'Reilly's opinions."

I don't think anyone confuses O'Reilly for a straight journalist.

Acting as though O'Reilly is marching around constantly claiming that he is a 100 percent objective journalist is a straw man argument.

Who in your mind, is a journalist anyway?

Katie Couric and Walter Cronkite?

Chris said...

If you watch the video it has Wallace asking him to describe his profession and O'Reilly says, "I'm a journalist." I don't know if it can get any more blunt than that. Then the other link has a transcript from O'Reilly's radio show where he again calls himself a journalist.

"You know what I think. I tell you what I think. I don't need to wear a lapel. I don't need to do that." And I don't do it because I am a journalist. I am. And I don't think I should have any insignias on. I don't wear a Nike cap. You know, I'm not -- I'm in that business."

There's no such thing as a straight journalist or a half journalist. It's like saying a woman is a little bit pregnant. No, you are either pregnant or you're not. You are either a journalist or you're not. And despite what Bill O'Reilly and his viewers think, he is not a journalist.

O'Reilly is indeed marching around acting like an objective journalist. He claims it all the time.

In my mind I think Cronkite was a top class journalist. I also think Ted Koppell has been very good. As well as Thomas Friedman and the late Peter Jennings. And no I don't consider Olbermann a journalist at all.