Bill O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins on 'The Magic of Reality'

[웃 910]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgNFJEx3XGc&feature=feedu

[웃 910]

[scandal 951]

I don't watch cable news, I don't listen to shows like this.

Just spending 4 minutes listening to this clip I'm reminded why I dislike people like O'Reilly so much.

It's not that I disagree with him. It's not that he's a conservative or an evangelical or anything like that.

I'm fine with him holding very different views than mine. It's his arrogance, his snide superiority, his presuming that he knows more about the topic than the guest he's interviewing. He's mean and nasty. Who wants to listen to someone being rude and mean and mocking? What's the fun in that?

A journalistic interview, at its basic level, should involve a journalist who has prepared by researching the subject and who then asks questions of the interviewee that elicit new information. The journalist should demonstrate common decency and politeness, should not interrupt an answer to a question that s/he just asked, and allow the interviewee to explain his point of view. Otherwise, what's the point?

Here's an interview Terry Gross did of Richard Dawkins a few years ago on Fresh Air. She's a class act, and knows how to interview her guest properly. You'll actually learn something about the subject when listening to her interviews.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871

[웃 910]

  On 10/8/2011 at 4:13 AM, scandal said:

I don't watch cable news, I don't listen to shows like this.

Just spending 4 minutes listening to this clip I'm reminded why I dislike people like O'Reilly so much.

It's not that I disagree with him. It's not that he's a conservative or an evangelical or anything like that.

I'm fine with him holding very different views than mine. It's his arrogance, his snide superiority, his presuming that he knows more about the topic than the guest he's interviewing. He's mean and nasty. Who wants to listen to someone being rude and mean and mocking? What's the fun in that?

A journalistic interview, at its basic level, should involve a journalist who has prepared by researching the subject and who then asks questions of the interviewee that elicit new information. The journalist should demonstrate common decency and politeness, should not interrupt an answer to a question that s/he just asked, and allow the interviewee to explain his point of view. Otherwise, what's the point?

Here's an interview Terry Gross did of Richard Dawkins a few years ago on Fresh Air. She's a class act, and knows how to interview her guest properly. You'll actually learn something about the subject when listening to her interviews.

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=9180871

It was a terrible interview. Bill usually isn't that bad. I watch him once in a blue moon.

Glad I seen the video though cause I ordered his book.

[Ban Hammer 13,735]

  On 10/8/2011 at 4:13 AM, scandal said:

It's his arrogance, his snide superiority, his presuming that he knows more about the topic than the guest he's interviewing. He's mean and nasty. Who wants to listen to someone being rude and mean and mocking? What's the fun in that?

yeah! if one wanted that, there's always vj p&r!

[scandal 951]

  On 10/8/2011 at 2:11 PM, charles! said:

yeah! if one wanted that, there's always vj p&r!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

  On 10/8/2011 at 4:13 AM, scandal said:

I don't watch cable news, I don't listen to shows like this.

Just spending 4 minutes listening to this clip I'm reminded why I dislike people like O'Reilly so much.

It's not that I disagree with him. It's not that he's a conservative or an evangelical or anything like that.

I'm fine with him holding very different views than mine. It's his arrogance, his snide superiority, his presuming that he knows more about the topic than the guest he's interviewing. He's mean and nasty. Who wants to listen to someone being rude and mean and mocking? What's the fun in that?

A journalistic interview, at its basic level, should involve a journalist who has prepared by researching the subject and who then asks questions of the interviewee that elicit new information. The journalist should demonstrate common decency and politeness, should not interrupt an answer to a question that s/he just asked, and allow the interviewee to explain his point of view. Otherwise, what's the point?

Here's an interview Terry Gross did of Richard Dawkins a few years ago on Fresh Air. She's a class act, and knows how to interview her guest properly. You'll actually learn something about the subject when listening to her interviews.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871

O'Reilly is an egomaniac arsehole

[Golden Gate 530]

Terry Gross is one smart lady. Like her a lot.

[faust-yusov 103]

O'Reilly really is terrific entertainment. Who else in the mainstream media can consistently talk like a 4-year-old and get away with it?

"The Judeo-Christian philosophy isn't a myth, it's reality."

"How can it possibly help to postulate a divine intelligence to explain something complicated like that?"

"Here's how it can help. If you believe in the teachings of Jesus, or Buddah, or something like that, who wants people to be peaceful and to love each other, that is a good thing."

"I don't believe a meteor crashed into earth and... made everything happen."

[scandal 951]

  On 10/9/2011 at 10:09 PM, faust-yusov said:

O'Reilly really is terrific entertainment. Who else in the mainstream media can consistently talk like a 4-year-old and get away with it?

"The Judeo-Christian philosophy isn't a myth, it's reality."

"How can it possibly help to postulate a divine intelligence to explain something complicated like that?"

"Here's how it can help. If you believe in the teachings of Jesus, or Buddah, or something like that, who wants people to be peaceful and to love each other, that is a good thing."

"I don't believe a meteor crashed into earth and... made everything happen."

I don't find that entertaining at all.

When I want to watch grown men playing games, I vastly prefer the NFL.

[faust-yusov 103]

Well, no - I'm not exactly wont to TiVo "The Factor" in place of genuinely entertaining programming either.

My point was rather that he's far too absurd, tangential and inarticulate - far too conspicuously "marketed" - to be taken any more seriously than the cast of 'Jersey Shore', and ought to be regarded as such (as is somewhat evident from the posture and half-smirk Dawkins adopts for the duration of the interview).

Edited October 9, 2011 by faust-yusov

[Danno 1,228]

  On 10/9/2011 at 10:38 PM, faust-yusov said:

Well, no - I'm not exactly wont to TiVo "The Factor" in place of genuinely entertaining programming either.

My point was rather that he's far too absurd, tangential and inarticulate - far too conspicuously "marketed" - to be taken any more seriously than the cast of 'Jersey Shore', and ought to be regarded as such (as is somewhat evident from the posture and half-smirk Dawkins adopts for the duration of the interview).

It could be you're taking TV a little too serious.

Job #1 is to sell soap,

Who sells more than him?

Not many.

[scandal 951]

  On 10/10/2011 at 2:53 AM, Danno said:

It could be you're taking TV a little too serious.

Job #1 is to sell soap,

Who sells more than him?

Not many.

Job #1 of commercial TV is to sell soap.

Which is why I prefer this.

[웃 910]

  On 10/10/2011 at 2:58 AM, scandal said:

Job #1 of commercial TV is to sell soap.

Which is why I prefer this.

Pictured from left to right: Socialist 1, Socialist 2, Socialist 3, Socialist 4, Socialist 5, Socialist 6

[scandal 951]

  On 10/10/2011 at 3:00 AM, Lord Infamous said:

Pictured from left to right: Socialist 1, Socialist 2, Socialist 3, Socialist 4, Socialist 5, Socialist 6

I like Gwen Ifill. She's not quite a MILF, but she does it for me. Definitely hotter than Margaret Warner or Judy Woodruff.