Bill O'Reilly: Idiot

I am less and less impressed with Bill O'Reilly, and with all of Fox News. Yes, in a lot of ways O'Reilly is obviously a smart man, but he uses his intelligence almost exclusively to promote Bill O'Reilly, with seeming little interest in the SUBSTANCE of issues except in relaton to promoting Bill O'Reilly. In other words, O'Reilly says what he thinks will make people feel good about O'Reilly. On issues, he has NO intellectual consistency and seemingly little interest in the substance of issues--no intellectual depth at all. This is clear. My only doubt is whether O'Reilly is really that shallow and stupid, or is a person who postitutes his intellect in the cause of what he perceives as the best interst of O'Reilly. Or maybe that is just two different ways of saying the same thing. O'Reilly has NO consistent principles--no consistent world view based on an overall philosophy;and that is a FLAW rather than a virtue.

A case in point is the Obama interview, where Obama asked perhaps the most pointless and stupid question I have ever heard him ask (saying a LOT, as O'Reilly has few interviewing skills).

"Mr. Obama, why do you think so many people hate you?"

What can you say about a questioin so stupid? First, it is a softball question. A HARDBALL queston would be something like (subject to honing): "Mr. Obama, there seemed to be, and still is, a lot of hatred on the left for George W. Bush. You could be said to have even contributged to that hatred with some of your statements on the Iraq War. What do you say to the accusation that you have tried to take advantage of that hatred of President Bush to blame all of your problems on him?"

But the fact that the question about "hate" is a SOFTBALL question--asking no real information and not at all concrete or challenging--is not its main defect. Its main defect, and what makes it so really stupid, is that it feeds into the disgraceful mainstream media mantra that all opposition to President Obama is based on racial hatred. The evidence is entirely to the contrary: that personal hatred of President Obama is not nearly the factor that it was with George W. Bush, but that a lot of people really hate his POLICIES (including me--and I assure you I don't hate President Obama, but I can't stand his policies).

Did O'Reilly think Obama would fall into the trap of blaming hatred of himself on RACE? If so, O'Reilly is a FOOL. Obama has avoided this trap time after time--mainly because Obama knows he can rely on the mainstream media to raise this "issue" for him. But if O'Reilly knew the answer he would get--and did get--why ask the meaningless question which did nothing but adopt the mainstream media approach to the Obama Presidency? The only answer is that O'Reilly is an IDIOT, except in promoting O'Reilly, and thought the question would advance O'Reilly's stature in certain quarters.

See "Airframe", by Michael Crichton (which every modern "journalist" should read as providing a mirror to show how contemptible they all are). O'Reilly does not really prtend to be a "journalist", and criticizes himself for having NO intellectual curiosity (in his position of representing the "folks"--an O'Reilly insult to the "folks"). But O'Reilly fails to realize lthat this is DAMNING to him, and is an admission that exposes himself as a shallow idiot. Crichton's devastating critique of TV "news", and modern "journlists" of all types, has a character mouth this advice on dealing with a TV "interview": "You need to realize that the TV interviewer is NOT interested in information, but in advancing a preconceived storyline, and therefore no information you give can really matter to the interviewer."

MSNBC--to which Crichton's critique applies in spades--criticized O'Reilly for interrupting Obama in the midst of every answer (without seeming to realize that the criticism is just as devastating as to EVERY single person on MSNBC). This merely emphasizes Crichton's point: O'Reilly, MSNBC, and almost every other modern "jounalist" is simply NOT INTERESTED in information. That is why O'Reilly "interrupted". O'Reilly was interested in O'Reilly, and not in what the President had to say. O'Reilly confused--idiot that he is--"confronting the President" with "hard questions". If you ask a hard question, you can wait for the full answer, and then follow up. If you ask a STUPID question, without much interst in any answer other than the one youy want, then you are going to have to "interrupt" to give the impression of being "tough".

O'Reilly is NOT a "tough" interviewer"--much less one interested in information. He is a STUPID interviewer interested only in O'Reilly (stupid unless you look at O'Reilly's real purpose of promoting O'Reilly, where asking truely tough questions would not advance that interst".

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked (bad eyesight on my part), unless this note has been deleted.