« This Years Model | Main | Wizbang Video Archive »

Who's Looking Out For You?

It sure the f**k isn't loofah boy Bill O'Reily.

In case you'd forgotten O'Reily has consistently defended Dan Rather and thinks the Intenet (and blogs) are dangerous because "there's no control." When he's not thinking about phone sex with his female producers, O'Reily seems to be making demo reels for Les Moonves.

Maybe it's just me, but The Hewitt Factor has a pretty distinctive ring to it...

Johnny Dollar link via InstaPundit.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who's Looking Out For You?:

» Secure Liberty linked with Bloggers On The Take

Comments (14)

- O'Reilly hasen't quite fi... (Below threshold)

- O'Reilly hasen't quite figured out how he can manipulate this "blogger thing" yet so he's poking it with a stick... Also since he came from CBS with an arrow in his ass maybe he's shilling for a nice cushy management job when the FOX gig gets old....Hewitt tried several times to point out that bloggerville is self policing but he didn't seem to "get it"... Also the other night he made some aside about how Rather didn't stick up for him when he got in trouble so maybe he's trying to show everyone how "big" he is about it....Who knows what goes on in the mind of a phonevoyuer....Who wants too....

I have a dilemma on my hand... (Below threshold)
Jim:

I have a dilemma on my hands when it comes to Bill O'Reilly. On the one hand, personally he's been very good to me. I've been on his TV show a few times and appeared on his radio show as well. He's always tried to help me out as far as plugging my book, as well. On the other hand, I stopped watching his TV show and listening to his radio show because of his attacks on "Right-Wingers." The straw that broke the camel's back when he kept criticizing Laura Ingraham for being partisan (which she open admits she is) and he compared Ann Coulter with Michael Moore saying they are both bomb throwers.

He also made statements such as "Kerry would fight terrorism as well as Bush," "Kerry is an honorable man," etc.

The only person O'Reilly is... (Below threshold)
CrankyOldConservative:

The only person O'Reilly is looking out for is O'Reilly and O'Reilly's wallet....he's a fraud. Jim's comments are right on the mark.

I watched the segment with ... (Below threshold)
tongancat:

I watched the segment with Hewitt and came away with a different viewpoint about it than the others commenting here. I felt that O'Reilly, who everyone knows is anti internet/blog/whatever, actually allowed himself to be somewhat persuaded by Hewitt's argument in favor of the blogs. Further, it seemed to me that the reason he hates the blogs is due to the 'left wing' ones, and that he realizes that there are many independent and/or right wing leaning blogs which do not hurl defamatory smut at everyone they disagree with. He did defend Rather to an extent, but only in the area of whether or not Rather intentionally used falsified documents to 'get' Bush. On the other hand, he has made many statements regarding the blatant bias in the MSM. His idea that blogs are dangerous was not fair, however true it may be in certain regards, because he lumped all bloggers into one pile. Everyone who regularly reads Wizband, Instapundit, Powerline, etc. realizes that they are worlds apart from Democratic Underground and Kos!

Tongancat: "Everyone who re... (Below threshold)
Retread:

Tongancat: "Everyone who regularly reads Wizband, Instapundit, Powerline, etc. realizes that they are worlds apart from Democratic Underground and Kos!"

So why doesn't O'Reilly know this? Surely he could have done the little bit of research it would take to be aware of this. Facts getting in the way of his chosen storyline? Seems O'Reilly isn't learning any faster than CBS.

Long time watcher, first ti... (Below threshold)

Long time watcher, first time poster. I watched "The Factor" last night and I too saw the piece in question last night. I know there is a good deal of chatter about how Bill has it all wrong regarding bloggers and that Bill is only looking out for himself and his pocket. Also rgegarding Dan Rather.

Bill will never dog pile on with the rest of the crowd. He certainly gets on people when they screw up, but he seems to always want to give the benefit of the doubt. Bill works hard to keep himself centered and neutral. He prides himself being "switzerland" Not one side or the other, but we all know he leans...a lot most times. He tried to shy away from character digs and slander, reporting on the facts and letting his guests do the rest.

I saw the interview last ni... (Below threshold)
RR:

I saw the interview last night and Bill did seem to be swayed by Hugh's arguments. He does have the red ass about the sex stuff though, and is blaming all supposedly "unregulated" media for burning him. I still like the guy because he was, for along time, the oasis in the pool of left wing crap served up by the big 3 networks. I hope he at some point understands that his franchise is in competition with blogs and that he needs to get on board. All the networks are going to have to change. Geez, if it was me I'd have someone stay on top of all the blogs, follow the hot stories and use their huge resources to expand on the story. That's not really ethical but blogs really are the canary in the mine.

It's no coincidence that O'... (Below threshold)
Drew - Dallas, TX:

It's no coincidence that O'reilly rides the fence constantly because it's about pandering to the largest po$$ible audience. And there's nothing wrong with that, unless you don't want to look like a wuss.

I don't dislike him, particularly, but he's just not appealing because shortly after kissing Mike Wallace's ass, he shrugs off Rush as an "entertainer" and not a valid "source for information". What? I'll accept the entertainer comment, but when he claims to be a valid source of information and people like Rush (i.e. Bill's competition) are not, it's irritating. O'reilly does the same damn thing, but with a lot less personality and balls.

He's afraid to slam the left, and claims to be playing "by the rules". Keep in mind that these are O'reilly's rules, and his only. But I'll give him credit - he has mastered the ability to make buddies of mine who follow him religiously somehow feel less guilty about themselves. Someone told me just yesterday by one of these people that all of the proceeds that O'reilly makes from his books and website go to charity - wha?

He knew that the interview with Hewitt would make every blog on the planet. He also knows that by backing off just slightly from the Blog attacks that he's pursued in the past, essentially calling everything on the Internet a lie, that he wouldn't get blasted for it (as much).

I like how he lovingly refers to forums other than his audience a "defamation pipeline" into middle America. That made me chuckle. Ok Bill, we get it, opinions of real people are dangerous.

I tend to agree with tongac... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I tend to agree with tongacat's perspective and experience.

What I took from that appearance on O'Reilly yesterday by Hugh Hewitt is that O'Reilly continues to press the 'accountability' factor in blogging vs. broadcasting as a genre, as an industry even, and it's a viable and quite significant (and IMPORTANT) question and pursuit (by O'Reilly).

However, as per even the liberal blogs, I'm finding it an ongoing problem that, even among bloggers of the conservative kind (my respects to Hugh Hewitt in that regard), there is a quick dismissal of critical questions raised about bloggers by anyone in "the media" otherwise without regard to the finer issues at hand. Such as were/are O'Reilly's in my listening expereince of what comments by O'Reilly I've heard.

I have differences of opinion and perceptions with O'Reilly much as I do with anyone else but for the most part, he behaves remarkably well while trying to encourage others who appear on his broadcasts to be specific. I'm a conservative in my beliefs and values and even O'Reilly strays from my understanding of some points about religion, but that's to be expected in our human world -- none of us is a carbon copy in intellect to anyone else, so differences of perspective and opinion are to be expected when/if you're interacting with the living, even among a general interest group area of the living, is my point here.

However, I am finding a certain "too consistent" aspect to a shared group of conservative bloggers that defies, to my experience literally and perceptually, and variation of individual opinion.

Meaning, there is more than enough room for O'Reilly's level of critical examination about blogging -- including the higher traffic "conservative" bloggers -- such that when it's denigrated as an issue of interest/examination alone, it makes me then wonder, why the denigration?

I know I'd find these various conservative bloggers far more credible if they appeared a bit more individually constructed. As it is, there is emerging a sorta "conservative" barricade as to what is most popular and what is not, that approaches the Wonkette level of fodder.

Meaning, I think it's time for bloggers to stop hiding behind (which I think some do) the standard of who their friends are and time to start defining themselves as individuals among friends. While I respect and enjoy Hugh Hewitt as a writer and source -- I find his recent book quite valuable and I encourage others to purchase and read it ("Blog..." by Hugh Hewitt) -- I thought his appearance yesterday on O'Reilly was compromised. I got the impression that either he and O'Reilly had exchanged harsh language offcamera or else that Hewitt was appearing with some predisposed assumption that he was there so he shouldn't be questioned. Perhaps O'Reilly took offense at that, if it was so.

Typo/correction to above:</... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Typo/correction to above:

"However, I am finding a certain "too consistent" aspect to a shared group of conservative bloggers that defies, to my experience literally and perceptually, and variation of individual opinion."

SHOULD HAVE READ (TYPO):
"...to my experience literally and perceptually, ANY variation of individual opinion."

As in, I don't see that happening. The higher-end conservative blogs have a too-consistent aspect lately about them that appears to defy the format of blogging. Wonkette and Gizmo and such are revealed to be commercially supported and created sites posing as 'blogs' and so it is beginning to appeal so with a handfull of the more popularly read "conservative' blogs...I'm just saying, it defies accountability on a personal, individual level, at least in appearances, and should be questioned by others, such as were from what I heard yesterday, O'Reilly's line of questioning.

He appeared to me to ask only about "accountability" in what is written on a blog/any blog -- via blogging as a format of media -- that nearly does not exist beyond the "Hi, I'm (a name here/a personality) and therefore, it's my site and I can write whatever I want to."

That, in my experience, was what O'Reilly was posing as to question and it was that, as issue, that Hugh Hewitt appeared to be confounded by. He certainly didn't respond to it with any further information, didn't address that issue but instead appeared confounded by O'Reilly as "other personality" even posing the question.

The internet, again as I've written, isn't a place without accountability. It's just that many seem to try to continue to prove the point of, similar to, "it's my room so if I want black walls and unexplained events in my room, I can do that because it's my room" sorta approach and even among conservative bloggers to a point.

I'm just saying, be free, be free but recognize personal accountability for what you do "in your room." Sometimes the loud music drowns others out, sometimes the smell is overwhelming to the roon adjacent, sometimes the house where you and your buds keep your rooms has a bad reputation...things of that nature. It's a reasonable line of questioning, to ask for accountability in who is paying the bills, what your standard of housekeeping is or is not and why, who owns the cars parked outside, things of that nature.

And, in all due respect to ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, in all due respect to Instapundit, the site is somewhat of a newsreader feed. I mean, it's dedicated and based upon linkage alone. Instapundit has taken that effort to an artform, yes, but it's still a link roundup site, nothing beyond that but done very well (link roundup).

Which DRUDGE does well, too.

The reason O'Reilly disses ... (Below threshold)

The reason O'Reilly disses Rush and Ann and Laura sometimes is so he can say he is "bi partisan." He doesn't want to be considered "rightwing." To me it is obvious when he does this.
Regarding the Dan Rather thing. The only reason he defended him was because of the sex phone thing he had just been through. He hates the blogs because of that as well. Just about every blog I know linked to the filing of the sexual harrasment suit on the web and had lots of funny things to say about "loofas" and the rest. You had to know that drove him insane. This is all imo, of course.

B.O. is the Walmart of the ... (Below threshold)
milo:

B.O. is the Walmart of the "triangulation" method/theory that was perfected by Dick Morris.

The only time B.O. will appear to grow or learn or evolve in his opinion is when he is cornered on camera.

He is and has always been angling to be the next Dan Rather for as long as he has been a journalist.

B.O.'s brass ring is the CBS anchor chair. He will never disagree publicly with anyone from CBS's top brass, and he will never say anything concretely damning - free of weasle words - of anyone at CBS.

Clearly he's not blind to the bling of the numbers that watch third place CBS. FOX is great, but it is still not in CBS's league for viewership.

B.O. will be on CBS within the year.

B.O. stinks.

I'm have been regular watch... (Below threshold)
Pat Adkins:

I'm have been regular watcher of "The O'Reilly Factor", but about every six months, Bill gets WAY too full of himself. Lately, he tells a number of his guests that if they can't get results, "just let me know, and I'll take care of it". My view is that he does not have as much power as he thinks he has. He has a HUGE ego, however. I'm tuning him out for a while.

Watched the Hewitt segment, and came away with impression that O'Reilly feels as threatened by the blogger movement as other MSM's.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright ¬© 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy