Saturday, October 25, 2003
Gross and O'Reilly
I don't claim to know Terry Gross's politics nor am I content to say that simply because she is on NPR she is a Lefty. But I do think she has received some unfair criticism over the Bill O'Reilly segment. She was doing her job as she sees it, which is very much the point of her job. A slightly different take on what Barb Walters does.
O'Reilly is a factually-challenged, self promoter- face the facts. When the likes of he and Rush are challenged on their veracity, not far underneath their explanations comes the excuse that they are just entertainers. It just seems really lame for them to expect to be accorded some great intellectual gravitas when even they will cop a plea on intellectual honesty.
O'R has made great fodder out of his interactions with Al Franken. Why was it inappropriate then to question him on the points raised in Franken's book? Try to imagine any performance-artist appearing in any venue who would not be questioned about their performance.
NPR's ombudsman, Dvorkin, doesn't think that this is the way the debate between these cultural/political differences should take place. O'R is "on" all the time. Every appearance, speech, interview or what have you is an opportunity to showcase the O'R phenom. His walk-out during the interview just happened to coincide with the time Gross's interviews usually terminate. Not likely that this was just a coincidence. He's been in the business for a while and knows the in's and out's. The "empty-chair" part of the segment was a justfiable response to a discussion ending bit of theatrics.
Gross has a point, O'R got nothing less than what he dishes out on an almost daily basis. Not once did she use the future Fox trademarked "shut-up". He's definately crying victim for effect.
So, given that O'R is not inclined to discuss these intellectual matters in any productive way and that all any venue represents is merely an opportunity for self-promotion, what was Gross to do? Once again, you don't bring an incisive rhetorical knife to a scatter-gun fight.
¶ 10/25/2003 03:18:00 PM
O'Reilly is a factually-challenged, self promoter- face the facts. When the likes of he and Rush are challenged on their veracity, not far underneath their explanations comes the excuse that they are just entertainers. It just seems really lame for them to expect to be accorded some great intellectual gravitas when even they will cop a plea on intellectual honesty.
O'R has made great fodder out of his interactions with Al Franken. Why was it inappropriate then to question him on the points raised in Franken's book? Try to imagine any performance-artist appearing in any venue who would not be questioned about their performance.
NPR's ombudsman, Dvorkin, doesn't think that this is the way the debate between these cultural/political differences should take place. O'R is "on" all the time. Every appearance, speech, interview or what have you is an opportunity to showcase the O'R phenom. His walk-out during the interview just happened to coincide with the time Gross's interviews usually terminate. Not likely that this was just a coincidence. He's been in the business for a while and knows the in's and out's. The "empty-chair" part of the segment was a justfiable response to a discussion ending bit of theatrics.
Gross has a point, O'R got nothing less than what he dishes out on an almost daily basis. Not once did she use the future Fox trademarked "shut-up". He's definately crying victim for effect.
So, given that O'R is not inclined to discuss these intellectual matters in any productive way and that all any venue represents is merely an opportunity for self-promotion, what was Gross to do? Once again, you don't bring an incisive rhetorical knife to a scatter-gun fight.
¶ 10/25/2003 03:18:00 PM
