or perchance, Marty Feldman
dyslexia wrote:I prefer to think of meself as a Val Kilmer ilk.
There shall be a rumbling, the matchless ground-trembling love/violence of me--and my Val pirate--
Yes.
This is a good day.
See how quickly that happened?
Sex with a pirate. Makes everything better.
Lash wrote:She is a liberal wiht an axe to grind--and if she were a pundit, that would be fine.
She's not.
She is supposed to be a straight news interviewer--but she has the ability to choose varied subjects.
I have listened to her extensively, during my commutes over the past year--and I generally think she's great at what she does.
Yes. And did you notice how articulate she is? (If you found her interviewing style biased, you must have listened to a very different interview than I have.)
OK-- I think it would be neat to explicate the thing. I'll bring it. I always take away something of value from your opinions.
Oh, the part before the paranthesis was simply a quip on the offense you take when someone praises a black person as "articulate". I thought this was a nice opprortunity to call a white person articulate.
As for the part in the parenthesis, I find it hard to explain since a negative usually cannot be explained. Unlike yourself, I simply didn't find Gross's way of conducting the interview especially biased.
I try to be tolerant of southern people, I am usually able to forgive them.
Yes, Sturgis, i would recommend that method.
I read the Ombudsman's opinion, i simply dismiss it because i think it is conditioned by the fear of a hostile, Republican-dominated Congress with a death grip on the purse-strings of publicly-funded broadcasting. And, as i have pointed out, i don't look to others to form my opinion for me.
Gross was not able to pin Franken down and make him look like a fool because Franken has his ducks in a row. He has accused O'Reilly of lying. He can demonstrate the basis for each of his accusations.
O'Reilly, by contrast, cannot refute Franken's charges, and is too eaten up by his neurotic obsessions to just admit he either made mistakes, or lied, and move past it. He came to the interview sullen and looking for a fight--and wonder of wonder, he found one. Did he expect that as a public figure, he would not be asked about the most sensational aspect of his public career at that time? So, the right is here saying either that he deserves to be protected from the consequences of his own indiscretions, or that he is so stupid that he was not prepared to be questioned about the storm raging about him at the time. Either way, it just looks like more rightwingnut horsie poop to me.
Set--
I've been listening to it for the last 26 minutes. "Pin him down..."??? She talks and giggles with him like an adoring, gushing fan. Not a single challenging question. She is like a paid questioner, posing pre-arranged questions to enable him to say exactly what he wants, with a supporting response and demeanor from his questioner.
Franken did do well. He does seem convincing about what appears to be lies by O'Reilly--but Gross doesn't say--as she does with others--that her own private research supports or belies Franken's accusations. She merely laughs like the fan she is.
Franken and O'Reilly aren't the issue. HER UNFAIR treatment of one over the other due to her own partisan politics--is.
She doesn't challenge ONE of his comments--even politely.
Thomas--
I wondered about the "articulate". The Negroes and I appreciate your mention of the articulate honkey.
<lol>
Anyway--I'm listening to the last part of the Franken stroking by Terry Gross. I plan to listen to O'R next.
Thomas-- Did you listen to the Franken interview, and compare her in the interview with O'R?
O'Reilly and his paranoid fantasies are the subjects of this thread. This disussion is therefore very germane.
Gross asked both Franken and O'Reilly the same questions about what Franken has characterized as "lies and the lying liars who tell them." What is striking is not Gross' interview style--it did not differ from one interview to the other. She asked both men about their public careers, about their childhood and their rise into the public limelight, and she asked them about Franken's accusations.
What is striking is the reaction. Franken laughed and indulged hilarity because he has O'Reilly by the short curlies and both he and O'Reilly know it. The attempt to sue Franken was literally--not figuratively, but literally--laughed out of court. It is also very instructive and entertaining to hear a recording of the court proceeding in which the suit by Fox "News" was dismissed--to gales of laughter from the gallery.
O'Reilly had his adolescent fit because he can neither deny Franken's charges, nor admit to any error and move on. That should tell anyone interested a great deal about the value of any contention that O'Reilly makes. His utterances are suspect because he has a demonstrated history of lying and refusing to acknowledge as much.
In the final analysis, on the topic of "diminishing christianity," one cannot do better than to refer to the excellent quote of Wonkette which Cyclo provided us:
The truth is, anytime someone starts talking to you about how Christians are persecuted in the United States, you are -- right then and right there -- talking to a retard.
No Lash, I didn't listen to the Franken Interview yet. To be frank, I find brute government crimes more worthy of my attention than the fine points of media bias. So my priority for A2K this afternoon was to translate the
Sueddeutsche Zeitung interview with Khaled el-Masri, the German CIA abductee. I started a new thread for the translation here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=65007&highlight=
But I'll listen into the Al Franken interview later this evening.
couple things got my attention in the O'Bill interview. Not sure I heard them correctly. (when I was 17 my father hit me so I hit him back, just like in every other family) and something to the effect (I look at things as a problem solver-just like a jesuit) interesting?
.
Dys, that was what i was talking about when i mentioned to D'Art that the interview was very revealing about his views of his adolescent life . . .
Every single question so far has been prefaced with a negative to very negative preamble delivered to O'Reilly.
Completely different than any interview I've ever heard her do. Tookie Williams would probably not be challenged by Gross.
But, he's not a conservative.
All negative.
At minute 21, Gross starts asking normal, non-partisan questions.
'cuse me Lash but O'Bill is a political intertainer, how could anyone approach him in a non-partisan basis?
"and are you a cat fancier Bill?"
By treating him just like she did the political entertainer who has made his second incarnation with political books: Stuart Smiley.
Bill, does this shift make me look fat?
Terry, that's the most idiotic, left-wing drivel i've ever heard! You're so skinny, you make a coat hanger look fat!
(EDIT: Thanks for the inspiration, Dys . . .)
BTW-- at minute 28, things are still cordial.
Lash wrote:By treating him just like she did the political entertainer who has made his second incarnation with political books: Stuart Smiley.
I have, as of yet, failed to read/see where Terry treated O'Bill differently. I could be wrong.
