So That’s What 60% Crap Sounds Like
With thirteen simple words, David Letterman expressed to Bill O’Reilly what the entire blogosphere has been squaking with post after post for the past month or so:
I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.
Well, that just about sums it up for me. You know, I tried my best to stay away from this “War on Christmas” meme, but when David Letterman dropped that gem on Bill O’Reilly last night, I had to get a word out on this contrived issue.
To begin with, Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson may be a lot of things, but they’re not idiots; neither of them believe the bullshit they spew for one single minute. Both O’Reilly and Gibson are key, prime-time players in the Fox Broadcasting Channel ecosystem, the modern day network equivalent of a Bill Veeck run ballclub. Not familiar with Veeck’s antics for filling seats back in the day? Check out this quote from ESPN Classic:
Just as he predicted, Bill Veeck, for all his accomplishments, is best remembered as the guy who sent a midget to the plate. And yet, Eddie Gaedel’s lone major league appearance, while the most famous of Veeck’s stunts, may not even have been his most bizarre.
I wonder where this “War on Christmas” meme will rank in the annals of Rupert Murdock’s broadcast network legacy.
See, the problem I have with the coverage that Media Matters, Think Progress and the rest of the well-meaning blogosphere has given this topic is, well, it’s on multiple levels. To begin with, the meme had no legs until the blogosphere chimed in. A large percentage of this country — not “dumb middle-America” mind you — considers this form of opportunistic stupidity a cheap form of simple entertainment. With the costs at the theatre and the ballgame, can you really blame them? I’d be extremely interested in seeing someone create a model to express the amount of free advertising the ’sphere provided The Factor with it’s coverage of this meme.
Remember, conversations don’t always subvert hypocracies, they can also reinforce them.
Last year, while working on the Media Matters redesign, I posted about O’Reilly’s incessant whining regarding MM’s coverage of his “60 percent of crap,” I ended the post with a bit of baiting:
So put on your seatbelt, Billy Boy. If you don’t stop spewing misinformation from a projected position of “news,” your rough ride is going to continue to get worse.
Now, imagine if you can that Fox and O’Reilly actually decided to see how far MM and the ’sphere would go to frame his retarded crusade as a litmus test for the network (with the running premise that all data is good data). Just a month prior to defending Christmas, O’Reilly went on a media blitz, admitting that he was worn out and considering retirement; what if that was the grand bait and switch of all bait and switches?
- He plays gimpy in the mainstream media, drawing in his “smear sites”
- He gets us salivating over the prospect that just one more major O’Reilly campaign from the blogosphere will get him to call it quits
- He launches the War on Christmas meme, and like clockwork, the sphere bites hook, line and sinker
I’m all about framing propaganda for easy digestion by the public, but the War on Christmas? Call me paranoid, but don’t you think it’s possible that Fox and O’Reilly learned their collective lesson when their trademark lawsuit made Al Franken’s book a top seller on Amazon? Just by going after him and dedicating airwave time to the battle, they exposed Franken to a whole new audience (which he greatly appreciated).
All I’m saying is that sometimes a softball isn’t necessarily a softball. Sometimes it’s an iceball packed by evil, elves aiming knee-high.
In either case, thank you Dave!
UPDATE: While trekking across the web today, I found this gem from O’Reilly, where in 2001, just a month after Clinton left office, he claims that Letterman can smell bullshit from a mile away. Ha!
Tags: Bill OReilly, blogging, David Letterman, Fox News, John Gibson, Media Matters, old media, politics, Rupert Murdock, The OReilly Factor, War on Christmas.
16 Responses to “So That’s What 60% Crap Sounds Like”
- 1 Pingback on Mar 14th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
- 2 Pingback on Jan 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Search
No Tweets RSS feedLatest Posts
- mccain and his history of frau…
- missed the last night of green…
- @defiantmike sounds like being…
- @rafmanne what does that have …
- @Sky_Bluez moron.
- @TracyKarol totally psyched???
- palin is the verbiage — a pro…
- @RobbieCooperATX malkin? haha….
- palin: how do you not raise ta…
- palin just said “shout out” in…
What I Write About (see all)
- 9 11 accountability activism Adam Smith Problem advertising America antiwar artsy fartsy blogging business capitalism change citizen media community Congress corporation corruption creativity disturbing experience design film funny George Bush government graffiti Greensboro Hip hop humanity information architecture innovation inspiration internet Iraq War journalism lyrics media music New World Order New York City North Carolina personal philosophy photography poetry politics reality Republican Party terrorism video World 2.0
My favorite part is that after Dave said it, O’Reilly just took it. You could see him trying to figure out a good combat but he couldn’t. He took it. Thank you Dave! But I thought the number was higher, at least high 80s.
Well, Billy Boy is used to being the bully as a 6′5″ host. When Dave verbally smacked him, he realized he was going up against a beloved trailblazer and icon in television and entertainment, something that O’Reilly desperately wants to become. What could he say? He tried to zing him with “you don’t know what people say about your show” as a reaction, but that fell flat on its face.
My favorite moment was when Dave told him he doesn’t watch his show and then scoffed at the gesture of a free hat for his time.
Your piece inspired me to write a spoof :)
Umm…I just have to chime in here, WHERE did Dave really “zing” him. I think Bill said it best with “Give me an example”. Your “So That’s What 60% Crap Sounds Like” does not show anything close to 60% of anything. You bring up Bill Veeck and his lawsuit with Al Franken as your proof that 60% of the statements he makes are false?!? He makes a statement that he is “worn out and considering retirement” as a grand bait & switch?!? The key word in his statement was CONSIDERING. I considered not posting a response, but here I am doing so…is that a bait & switch? is Come on, if your going to write something that states that a news commentator is incorrect 60% of the time in the statements that he makes, you don’t prove your point by comparing him to a man that is credited for the signing of the first African-American player in the American League in 1947.
well, first off, my “So That’s What 60% Crap Sounds Likeâ€? title playfully referenced my well established feelings towards o’reilly. it wasn’t an attempt to prove letterman’s observation on any level. letterman’s line only provided me with a visceral image of a man filled just past his waist with refuge. i’ve watched enough o’reilly to think it was an extremely apropos statement.
secondly, i brought up bill veeck as an analogy to rupert murdock, not bill o’reilly. both men used/use extreme methods to fill seats/gain eyeballs.
i didn’t post to try to prove anything about bill o’reilly’s bullshit, his record speaks for itself. if you’d like to wade through the 360+ items on media matters which document his misinformation and disinformation, feel free. i’m not going to waste my time on this blog.
that was my point about o’reilly and the war on christmas: they’re not really worth discussing, because they’re just pawns in the strategy of the Fox network.
“that was my point about o’reilly and the war on christmas: they’re not really worth discussing, because they’re just pawns in the strategy of the Fox network.”
You’re absolutely right. They tried to get folks talking about them. Which equates to linking about them/to them.
Which helps by…. :)
yeah, being that i didn’t want to add my linked version of a 30-second spot to the mix, this post was kind of a catch 22… but i figured it was worthwhile because the meme is dying down (with a great exclamation point by dave) and, hopefully, i made my point.
but don’t get me wrong; holding the media and its players accountable to bullshit mis/disinformation is important… just not the war on christmas or its equivalent.
o’rilley is a jerk, plain and simple, whose only interest is in himself.
O’Reilly is an egotistical liar, plain and simple. That is why I despise him, because he distorts the truth or makes mountains out of mole hills. The sad thing is that it works. Some people believe him. However, I believe he has the Howard Stern-like attractability for ratings. People who love him AND hate him watch because of what he is going to say. That is why his ratings are so high. Critics watch in hope of finding a misstatement or outright distortion.
OK - I just got done reading some (I will admit, not all) of the 360 items on Media Matters and I have a problem with what they are calling misinformation. For example:
O’Reilly repeated false claim that school changed “Silent Night” lyrics.
Media Matters did point out that the lyrics that were being song at the Ridgewood Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wisconsin were not the original lyrics, but from a 1988 play The little Tree’s Christmas Gift - Cold in the Night. So where is the misinformation here? Yes, the school did not write the lyrics themselves, but provided these alternative lyrics for them to sing at the school choir concert.
O’Reilly on Cindy Sheehan: “She’s run by far-left..”
Media Matters went on to repeat a number of quotes from O’Reilly on his comments on Cindy Sheehan, but did not even once address his point that she is being used by the far-left. I’d like to see Media Matters come up with data to disprove that before I believe this is misinformation.
O’Reilly mischaracterized proposed wager with Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter.
Ok - Media Matters got him there. The wager was not if the President has the legal authority to wiretap but whether Bush would ultimately be convicted of a crime (really not that much of a difference). Regardless of the complete accuracy in his statement of the nature of the bet - Mr. Alter still would not take the bet.
O’Reilly links same-sex marriage to UK woman who “married” dolphin.
This is not misinformation, it’s an analogy that he used to prove his point as to his view of same-sex marriage. Please remember, he is a commentator that give his opinion news topics. I don’t speak for Bill, but I believe his point is that when he references that humans will one day want interspecies nuptials and people reply “This will never happen”, he is pointing to a women in the UK who is attempting just that. What today we see as ridiculous, could someday be seen as reasonable.
O’Reilly suggested headline to “left-wing smear sites who are listening”: “O’Reilly wants cab drivers shot dead”
Looks like Media Matter took his suggestion. No Misinformation here.
O’Reilly adds New Yorker to media blacklist thanks to Christmas “war” column.
In the commentary by Hendrik Hertzberg on O’Reilly, the survey by Media Matters is referenced as proof that there is no “War” on Christmas, just because the Fox News Channel is the cable news network that most frequently has segments on the topic. How is this proof that the “War” does not exist? If CNN or MSNBC do not cover it, it must not be true. That just means that CNN & MSNBC are not devoting as much time to the topic, that’s all. Mr. Hertzberg goes on to quote the book by John Gibson which states that 96% of the US population celebrates Christmas (84% of the population is Christians), yet people in the marketing departments of retail corporations are reverting to “Holiday Sale”. Wouldn’t a good marketing department want to target a population segment like 96%? So why do they stay away from Christmas references? I don’t know, but that are some of the questioning that Fox News and O’Reilly are asking.
I could go on with more questioning of the information that Media Matters reports on Bill O’Reilly. I did not read all 360 items, they lost their creditability after the first 10 I did read. Some items are legitimate, others are dishonest themselves. MY POINT….just because you do not agree with the opinion or view point of someone, it doesn’t mean they are wrong, full of bullshit or serially presently mis/disinformation.
Wayne, I commend you for going out there and taking a look for yourself. And while I would agree with you that Media Matters uses the terminology “misinformation” very loosely, and sometimes the things they cover aren’t worth it (like this ridiculous War on Christmas), most elements they document are nuggets where O’Reilly twists context, drops key information and re-presents the garbled facts through his perspective to his audience. When he misrepresents a quote or situation to create his opinion, that’s dangerous, as his broadcast is often taken at face value.
Fox uses this strategy across the board. O’Reilly is just one of many. If you get a chance sometime, check out the documentary, “Outfoxed.”
Bill O’reilly is a bully, and then twists people’s words after he bullies them. That’s why I loved Letterman’s line.
Sean -
I’m sure the two of us could go back and forth on this ad nauseam. I enjoy a good, well thought out debate on issues, especially when my opponent avoids personal attacks when they have no other way to defend their point of view. I’ve just recently discovered this blog. I wouldn’t be surprized if I feel compelled to chime in on some of your future postings.
Cheers!
Wayne, dude, you ARE NOT seriously defending that piece of filth Bill O’Reilly.
I read your posts, you’re a smart, thoughful guy…not his target audience.
Don’t waste your time defending the indefensable falafel master.
Later, Wayne