A Bold, Fresh Piece of Something, Anyway
Oct. 22nd, 2008 05:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfield"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
- Jack Nicholson as Col. Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men, written by Aaron Sorkin
Good news for Bill O'Reilly and his legion of rabid, frothy followers: he's renewed his deal with Fox News for Four More Years.
I once told a friend of mine that if I encountered Osama Bin Laden and Bill O'Reilly walking down a street and I had only one bullet in my gun, I would definitely shoot Bin Laden. But there would be a fraction of a second where I'd think about it.
Even as I said it, the statement felt gratuitously, violently harsh. In retrospect, the comment sounds even more grotesque. Sure, I hate him, not even so much for his opinions but for his attitude, approach, manner and methods. But most importantly, I hate him because he provokes me to be like him. In other words, I hate his pugnacious persona so much that I want to punch him in the face.
So the question, then, is: is O'Reilly just a political lightning rod and inadvertently ironic figure? Or is he a character operating as some sort of meta-criticism -- a work of contemporary impressionist performance art, in which the product is specifically designed to evoke an impulsive reaction from the viewer?
O'Reilly does not seem intelligent or self-aware enough to accomplish the latter, or else he's much, much better than people give him credit for being. (Smarter, even, than Stephen Colbert, who is brilliant but too inherently likeable to be taken seriously.) And he certainly does seem ignorant and ambitious enough to be the former. So let's assume that he really is what he proposes to be: a crusader for the common man and his arch-traditionalist values.
Is he a necessary evil? (The same question could be asked of his network, which he helped to found and which likewise positions itself as a traditionalist alternative to other media -- which begs the rhetorical question: Is O'Reilly created in Fox's image, or is it the other way around?) Is the presence of this boorish, loathsome man an essential counterpoint to responsible -- or, to be fair, liberal -- journalism? Or is he a Part of the Problem, calcifying reasonable differences into intractable dogma?
Complicating the answer to that riddle is the fact that he is so damn popular. As the article linked above says, his show "has been the top-rated program in cable news for nearly eight years." I do believe in democracy and the wisdom of crowds, which seems to legitimize O'Reilly. This suggests that he does play a valuable role, giving voice to otherwise marginalized Americans. And the strength derived therefrom not only energizes his detractors but also compels his competitors, the "mainstream media," to redouble their own efforts.
To wit: a few years ago, MSNBC, seeing the writing on the wall (or, perhaps more accurately, hearing the pounding on the desk), recruited Keith Olbermann to fight fire with fire. This is not an altogether inappropriate metaphor, considering fire's power to both illuminate and destroy. A more accurate comparison, though, is that it was like calling in Mothra to take on Godzilla. Mothra is never going to be more popular or infamous than Godzilla, so all it really does is increase the net amount of strident shrieking sounds.
Olbermann has essentially become the booming house organ of the far left in much the same way that O'Reilly is the reveille of the far right. The echoes of this sonic battle frequently drowns out whatever intelligent reporting was still going on somewhere. Who can even hear Charlie Rose over all that racket?
So maybe O'Reilly's is both a critical part of our socio-political dialogue and a pox on it, like pond algae. What is undeniable is his skill at sustaining the conversation.
But O'Reilly has been fairly innocuous during this campaign season, even after prickly interviews with both presidential candidates. Somehow, legendary blowhard Rush Limbaugh seems to have come out of retirement to wrestle away the mantle of Most Flammable Gasbag. Maybe he's getting old and tired of his own schtik. Or perhaps, to his credit, he is truly reluctant to indulge in the common race-baiting that seems to attract mainstream media headlines.
This inspired some sympathy from me, at least until I heard about his latest endeavor. He recently released a memoir called A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity. Beyond being self-aggrandizing, the title is as unflinchingly confrontational as his personality. (I suppose it is some small comfort that he is as willing to pass judgment on himself as he is on others.)
But is it accurate?
He certainly is "bold." In fact, he seems to revel in boldness for boldness' sake. But it's hard to tell if his boldness is cynical -- calculated and synthetic -- or a genuine, earnest product of infantile aggression. And I don't know which is worse.
"Fresh?" I'm not so sure; he basically is Limbaugh 2.0 (with Irish service pack) and perhaps a distorted version of William F. Buckley, in the same way that a document is warped after Xeroxing a copy once too many times.
And "humanity." He may be on to something here. Humans -- in general -- are ambitious, uncompromising, cunning, brash, opportunistic, selfish, violent and foolish. Indeed, O'Reilly may in fact be the very model of humanity.
Yes, this is a depressing notion. Personally it makes me want to punch myself. But O'Reilly's contract extension implies two qualities that would be good for humanity: success and longevity.
- Jack Nicholson as Col. Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men, written by Aaron Sorkin
Good news for Bill O'Reilly and his legion of rabid, frothy followers: he's renewed his deal with Fox News for Four More Years.
I once told a friend of mine that if I encountered Osama Bin Laden and Bill O'Reilly walking down a street and I had only one bullet in my gun, I would definitely shoot Bin Laden. But there would be a fraction of a second where I'd think about it.
Even as I said it, the statement felt gratuitously, violently harsh. In retrospect, the comment sounds even more grotesque. Sure, I hate him, not even so much for his opinions but for his attitude, approach, manner and methods. But most importantly, I hate him because he provokes me to be like him. In other words, I hate his pugnacious persona so much that I want to punch him in the face.
So the question, then, is: is O'Reilly just a political lightning rod and inadvertently ironic figure? Or is he a character operating as some sort of meta-criticism -- a work of contemporary impressionist performance art, in which the product is specifically designed to evoke an impulsive reaction from the viewer?
O'Reilly does not seem intelligent or self-aware enough to accomplish the latter, or else he's much, much better than people give him credit for being. (Smarter, even, than Stephen Colbert, who is brilliant but too inherently likeable to be taken seriously.) And he certainly does seem ignorant and ambitious enough to be the former. So let's assume that he really is what he proposes to be: a crusader for the common man and his arch-traditionalist values.
Is he a necessary evil? (The same question could be asked of his network, which he helped to found and which likewise positions itself as a traditionalist alternative to other media -- which begs the rhetorical question: Is O'Reilly created in Fox's image, or is it the other way around?) Is the presence of this boorish, loathsome man an essential counterpoint to responsible -- or, to be fair, liberal -- journalism? Or is he a Part of the Problem, calcifying reasonable differences into intractable dogma?
Complicating the answer to that riddle is the fact that he is so damn popular. As the article linked above says, his show "has been the top-rated program in cable news for nearly eight years." I do believe in democracy and the wisdom of crowds, which seems to legitimize O'Reilly. This suggests that he does play a valuable role, giving voice to otherwise marginalized Americans. And the strength derived therefrom not only energizes his detractors but also compels his competitors, the "mainstream media," to redouble their own efforts.
To wit: a few years ago, MSNBC, seeing the writing on the wall (or, perhaps more accurately, hearing the pounding on the desk), recruited Keith Olbermann to fight fire with fire. This is not an altogether inappropriate metaphor, considering fire's power to both illuminate and destroy. A more accurate comparison, though, is that it was like calling in Mothra to take on Godzilla. Mothra is never going to be more popular or infamous than Godzilla, so all it really does is increase the net amount of strident shrieking sounds.
Olbermann has essentially become the booming house organ of the far left in much the same way that O'Reilly is the reveille of the far right. The echoes of this sonic battle frequently drowns out whatever intelligent reporting was still going on somewhere. Who can even hear Charlie Rose over all that racket?
So maybe O'Reilly's is both a critical part of our socio-political dialogue and a pox on it, like pond algae. What is undeniable is his skill at sustaining the conversation.
But O'Reilly has been fairly innocuous during this campaign season, even after prickly interviews with both presidential candidates. Somehow, legendary blowhard Rush Limbaugh seems to have come out of retirement to wrestle away the mantle of Most Flammable Gasbag. Maybe he's getting old and tired of his own schtik. Or perhaps, to his credit, he is truly reluctant to indulge in the common race-baiting that seems to attract mainstream media headlines.
This inspired some sympathy from me, at least until I heard about his latest endeavor. He recently released a memoir called A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity. Beyond being self-aggrandizing, the title is as unflinchingly confrontational as his personality. (I suppose it is some small comfort that he is as willing to pass judgment on himself as he is on others.)
But is it accurate?
He certainly is "bold." In fact, he seems to revel in boldness for boldness' sake. But it's hard to tell if his boldness is cynical -- calculated and synthetic -- or a genuine, earnest product of infantile aggression. And I don't know which is worse.
"Fresh?" I'm not so sure; he basically is Limbaugh 2.0 (with Irish service pack) and perhaps a distorted version of William F. Buckley, in the same way that a document is warped after Xeroxing a copy once too many times.
And "humanity." He may be on to something here. Humans -- in general -- are ambitious, uncompromising, cunning, brash, opportunistic, selfish, violent and foolish. Indeed, O'Reilly may in fact be the very model of humanity.
Yes, this is a depressing notion. Personally it makes me want to punch myself. But O'Reilly's contract extension implies two qualities that would be good for humanity: success and longevity.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 03:46 pm (UTC)I like Rachel Maddow, although she seems so down-to-earth that I sometimes get the impression that she's not very bright.
And I like Keith Olbermann when he's not trying to be a polemicist, which isn't very often anymore. I agree with most things he says, and even I find him practically offensive.
Maddow
Date: 2008-10-23 08:15 pm (UTC)I would much rather watch Colbert than Olberman. At least Colbert knows he's doing satire.
Re: Maddow
Date: 2008-10-23 08:59 pm (UTC)... So I guess I'm way off base. Maybe what I mean to say is that I don't find her particularly insightful. But you know, the world could use more reporting and less analysis anyway.
Re: Maddow
Date: 2008-10-24 08:13 pm (UTC)Re: Maddow
Date: 2008-10-31 01:38 pm (UTC)Stat Boy weighs in (just call me Tony Reali)
Date: 2008-10-24 10:34 pm (UTC)The O’Reilly Factor: 3.3 million viewers
Rachel Maddow Show: 2.1 million viewers
Countdown with Keith Olbermann: 2.2 million viewers
Both MSNBC shows beat the O'Reilly Factor among viewers aged 25-54, which is likely what Sarah was referring to.