I have often been critical of Bill O'Reilly in this blog, as well as complimentary of him for his criticixm of other media people (criticism that he seems unable to aplly to himself). O'Reilly tends to go on emotion instead of facts, while falsely claiming "no spin". I have correctly labeled him a kook (media type) for his presentation of "body language" and handwrinting analysis as something worthy of national presentation as useful types of inquiry. O'Reilly has little intellectual depth, and often seems to shift with the wind as to what he "thinks", and what he regards as important. He likes villains (e.g. NBC News and the oil companies), and heroes, even if he has to exaggerate both. He seems to like ratings more than anything, and I think there is a legitimate question as to whether he is anything more than an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, who admits to being an entertainer, although one with a serious intellectual message, has much more intellectual rigor and consistency to what he says.
Yes, Bill O'Reilly can be fun to watch, atlhough his act has grown somewhat tiresome for me. The question arises: Is O'Reilly a PHONY? He constantly claims to be looking out for the "folks", and yet that seems to be just his "shtick", rather than a real connection with the "folks". In other words, I distrust someone who says "folks", and continually seems to say and do (body language) things because he thnks they will be popular with the audience. It is often hard to figure out where O'Reilly really stands on "issues", because he shifts around so much, and so easily. Where does O'Reilly REALLY stand on illegal immigration, once you get beyond his (self-serving?) crusade against CRIMINAL illegal aliens? You are delluded if you think you know.
Then there are those internet tapes of O'Reilly still floating around (admittedly OLD). There is the video of his Jekyl and Hyde transformation as he curses like a drunken sailor off air, only to look calm and composed the moment the camera is back on him. There are the "sex" audiotapes of what he said to that woman he was accuaed of sexually harassing (that is, I think it is that woman). Now I have said before that hypocrisy is a vastly overrated sin, and a lot of this may mean nothing more than O'Reilly is a complex man unbable to always hold to his own principles (like ALL of us). But O'Reilly has begun toannoy me with his cable TV willingness to say outrageous, and outrageously false, things.
Last night is a case in point (I bet you thought I would never get to the point). O'Reilly said that Big Oil companies have the largest profits in the history of man. In any real sense, that is a LIE. GOOGLE is a MUCH more profitable company. I have (correctly, unlike O'Reilly's demagoguery) discussed this in this blog. If 100 oil companies have total profits of 100 billion dollars, that is NO different from 10 oil companies with total profits of 100 billion dollears, where those ten companies are ten times as large. It merely means that Big Oil companies have become extremely LARGE, without being as profitable as many other, samaller companies. I have told you that this has occurred by MERGERS we should never have allowed, and that the companies should not have been allowed to get that large BY MERGER, but that is not O'Reilly's point. He wants to focus on oil company PROFITS, and that is exactly the WRONG place to look. As I have said, O'Reilly shares a quality with most oil comany executives (at least as to how these executives operate in their own industry): O'Reilly does NOT believe in free markets. He is hardly alone there, but he is willing to engage in outrageous FALSEHOODS to try to make his "pont". This assertion that oil companies are more profitable now than any comnay in the history of man is one of those outrageous falsehoods.
Then O'Reilly talked about how much money oil company executives are making--something which is really only the business of their SHAREHOLDERS (albeit the SEC perhaps should make it a little easier for SHAREHOLDERS to challenge that sort of thing). You (or O'Reilly) doubt me on this (O'Reilly really is a fool if he doubts me!!!!)?
Consider Alex Rodriguez, or Tiger Woods, or Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie or (pick your own rock star, movie actor, sprorts star, etc.). Some make much MORE than oil company executives (when all sources of income are included). Some make somewhat less. But they ALL make a LOT of money. RUSH LIMBAUGH makes amounts not too far from that of Big Oil CEO's (maybe even in their range. O'Reilly may not understand this, but it is really none of our business. It is only the business of the people PAYING those amounts. Further, executives in many other public companies, including executives who gravely HURT their companies (Albertson's and Home Depot come to mind here--my pharmacist brother can hardly contain his anger over the Albertson's CEO who virtually RUINED the company, and walked away with uncountable MILLIONS--but there are MANY others). Oil companies have at leas done WELL recently (which O'Reilly does not like either).
Bill Gates accumulated a fortune of 50 BILLION dollars or more because of Microsoft--more than ANY oil company executive. No, Bill Gates did NOT make the money in SALARY, but it would have perhaps been more honest if he did. It is a GIMMICK of tech companies generally, and many other companies, for their executives to make most of their money in stock and stock options. Nope. I don't think there is any basis for complaint by the general public that some people earn too much, although SHAREHOLDERS may well have a basis for complaint. Or people might want to refuse to pay the ticket and/or concession prices at Yankee games made necessary by the salary of Alex Rodriguez (and others). In a free enterprise system, some people are going to make a LOT of money. So what? We should be concerned at making sure that our "free markets" are truely "free", and that people who are impacted--like shareholders and prospective shareholders--have transparent information.
O'Reilly is not interested in the real issues involved here. He (like leftist Democrats) is merely interested in VILLAINS (which oil compnay executives generally ARE, but NOT for the reasons O'Reilly is hyping--at least not for many of those reasons).
Then O'Reilly (last night again) went totally into the mainstream media/leftist Democrat tank (in this phony? effort to connect with the 'folks"). He said that (paraphrasing, but accurately): "I don't care what anyone says. We are in a recession."
Will, I don't care what anyone (leftist Democrats and the mainstream media, plus O'Reilly) says: We are NOT in a recession. Yesterday's economic figures AGAIN emphapsized that out economy has not even had ONE down QUARTER. By DEFINITION, a recession requires TWO down quarters. Thus, even if the June quarter is a down quarter (unlikely, although possible), we are STILL not yet in a recession. What function does it serve to assert otherwise? Is it not PHONY? I say it is. It means that you want to bea demagogue, rather than discuss the real facts. Sure, you can say (as I have) that it does not make much difference whether the economy grows .5% (it actually grew 1% last quarter), or contracts .5%. Either way, the economy is neither doing very good nor especially bad (in comparison, for example, with the CLINTON recession as President Bush came into office).
O'Reilly has a segment on his Fox show called "Reality Check". He needs to evaluate himself under the standards of that segment.
Baci to the question: Is O'Reilly a PHONY? Well, that may be irrelevant. To one extent or another, we all are. I can't get into O'Reilly's head. I am sure he convinces himself of a lot of what he says (as truely taltented con men and unbelieving evangelists often do). Nevertheless, my own answer to the question is "yes".
More importantly, I really don't see much reason to watch O'Reilly anymore. The annoyance factor is beginning to overcome the entertainment factor (plus the fact that O'Reilly has been a source of a lot of entries for this blog, as he WILL highlight stories that the rest of the media will not--I may continue my present policy of surfing the beginning of O'Reilly to see what he is covering without watching much of his program).
P.S. Did I mention that Bill and Hillary Clinton made 109 MILLION dollars over the past few years, as shown by their tax returns? Well, O'Reilly forgot to mention it as well. Nope. It is pure and simple demonizing to post salaries of oil company executives as "evidence" of their evil. Barack Obama and his wife, of course, are also "rich", although not in this league (WAY "richer" than ME, however). And McCain has his wife. It is absolutely amazing how many RICH Democrats ("rich" by their OWN defintion) demonize "the rich", as if not talking about themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment