Colby: Did you watch the interview? Because Stewart’s Mao comment was indeed included, so I’m baffled as to why you would write that it wasn’t.

Interesting, I see you already edited your article to remove your comment that the viewers didn’t hear that part of the interview, when indeed they had.

I thought it was interesting that Stewart also recognized that he should have gone after CNN and MSNBC for not covering the Brown victory speech.

Dennis Miller followed the Stewart segment and nailed it perfectly/ Both Stewart and O’Reilly are number 1 because they believe what they say.
It does my heart good to see the gap bridged, no doubt making the ideologically entrenched squirm. Too bad for you, squirmers!

Good interview overall. I would have liked to seen O’Reilly reverse it on Stewart by asking him if he’s so up in arms about Fox being a front for the GOP, how does he feel about MSNBC being a front for American liberals. There is always tomorrow night.

None of the other blovating talking heads could have pulled something like this off.

It was interesting and fun and enjoyable. O’Reilly didn’t try to dominate things as he often does.

For all of his faults, O’Reilly is still the best at conducting something like this.

Both men came across as authentic.

Wow, Colby. I went thru entire video again to state at min 11 on your vid “Mao” comment was aired. In that time you edited your comments that it hadn’t. Uh…Thanks.

Couple things from interview:

1. I’m sure most cables have a their share of cable news detractors on specifically to make their case on why their cable news “not worthy”. O’Reilly has had 2 specifics this week alone (Stewart/Klein). So good for O’Reilly. They were booked with time dedicated to discuss Fox News not worthiness.

2. Makes for good TV and agree with Colby, viewers win in this situation. reasonable debate.

3. That one of Stewart’s main issues was “Beck” and “Hannity” on named “Fox News” channel with inserts of Opinion. But Stewart at times wants to make serious statments on his show (at least taken seriously (like with O’Reilly and Olbermann -point taken episode) and Stewart’s show on “Comedy Central”

I couldn’t reconcile that.

As to substance, Stewart misses (somewhat) the point that process is now part of policy-making. With 24 hour cable news, the internet and talk radio, the ability of an Administration to husband a bill through Congress with none of the dirty details getting out is long gone. How an Administration passes major legislation is almost as important as the substance of the bill.

President Obama has allowed to much of the old games of backroom deals and special interest exemptions to dirty the healthcare bill (and to a lesser extent his stimulus bill). He never challenged the Bulls on the Hill; indeed, he worked with them. For much of the public – including the moderates – this was not change but old fashioned horse-trading. Something they thought they weren’t going to get.

I’m going to see John Stewart’s show soon and Bill is coming to a town near me which I’m going to also. Should be good to listen to both of these guys.

Earlier when I tried to play “gotcha”, it splashed back on me, but…

During the exchange about how FNC’s opinion shows may not be sufficiently labeled and O’Reilly retorts that Stewart’s show doesn’t come with a comedy disclaimer… The Factor airs on Fox News Channel, while The Daily Show is on Comedy Central.

PS) Good interview. I expected nothing less from them and am looking forward to the unedited tape.

Check his math!

Jon Stewart to O’Reilly: “Are you still referring to” Fox as a “news organization”?

I got the feeling from Stewart that on quite a few things, he agreed with O’Reilly but had to put up the image and deny it or change direction.. Great interview for both.

@magister.

IMeaning I could reconcile Stewart’s opinion/cable channel name issue. Opinion/Fox News – Important Arbiter/Comedy Central dichotomy

@liberalontogeny: I saw that in your comment and maybe I misunderstood your meaning, but last night I killed some time watching YouTubes from Craig Ferguson. One of the guests was Lewis Black, who was promoting a holiday themed show for the History Channel. I sort of took your number three, the same way.
—

And since I’m revisiting this thread, I wonder (hope) some Mediaite draws a line between Goldberg’s “Chairman Mao” reference through to tonight’s from Stewart, with O’Reilly actually suggesting which host(s), so that we don’t have to do it.

A prime example why you never go on O’Reillys show for an interview: they’re shredded and edited.

Where can I download and watch this show?! I missed it tonight and I really want to see O’ Reilly get ripped a part.

Swap it! Encrypt it! | Transfer files – Send large files
http://www.swapitencryptit.com

@TfT That’s not true, though. CNN did cover Brown’s victory speech. (I don’t know whether MSNBC did.)

Anne: Neither CNN nor MSNBC covered Brown’s victory speech:
————————————–
When Martha Coakley (D) took the podium to concede the election, all three channels aired most or all of the eight-minute speech. However, Republican Scott Brown’s address was cut short on CNN after just seven minutes. However, Republican Scott Brown’s address was cut short on CNN after just seven minutes. On MSNBC Keith Olbermann cut Brown’s mic and instead attacked the Republican candidate, talked about “teabaggers”, and ran commercials. CNN only ran 26% of Brown’s speech, while MSNBC aired 37%. Fox News Channel carried 100% of both speeches.
—————————————

See Johnny$ for details and graphical representation of the amount of time each network gave to Coakley and Brown.

I thought it was all a bit uninspired and dull. Maybe, as suggested, the naughty bits were cut away. O’Reilly cuts “tape” like an aggressive gardener does an over-bearing ligustrum in April.

Speaking of over-bearing, Shine really is too heavy-handed by half. Not being a FOX fan, I may not be able to understand that FOX fans may enjoy being repeatedly hit over the head, but he is simply too much a used car salesman to be tolerable.

@TfT Oh, right! I was confused by what you meant, I know they didn’t show the whole speech, but I thought you meant they didn’t cover it at all. I remember they did because I was annoyed they kept switching back and forth between politics and their Haiti coverage. They should have just aired the whole speech and then go on to cover Haiti. But thank you for that info. :)

Over at the FOX Fan Klub site, Cecelia, you wrote: “Mediaite will blog any crap just to put up a picture of Stewart.” I’m sure that pleased Koldys, whose jealousy of and pettiness regarding Stewart is well known, to no end, but aside from that, do you think it might be fair to say that the reader/poster who enjoys Mediaite might tend to be younger (present company excluded), more urban and urbane, better educated, more intelligent and more politically diverse than a typical reader/poster at the Fan Klub site? As such, isn’t a Mediaite poster/reader more likely to be drawn to and interested in Stewart than a typical Fan Klub member? By contrast, isn’t a typical Fan Klub member far more interested in, indeed utterly obsessed with every word posted at the News Hounds than a reader/poster of Mediaite? I’m not sure how critical you were being, but it does seem to me Mediaite is simply well-attuned to the interests and predilections of its readers/posters. Certainly, that is not deserving of criticism. Of course, as I excepted myself from the youthful vigor of the typical Mediaite reader/poster, I except you from being a typical Fan Klub member.

This is quite a long-winded effort just to insult Johnny Dollar’s Place readers, TRFRK.

Don’t you think that it’s time you just admitted to Johnny Dollar, that you lied about knowing the content of a show hours before it appeared on the air? Afterall, it’s obvious that you’re dying to come back to Johnny’s site.

Anyhoo…The thread regarding Stewart calling himself a journalist (when it’s obvious by the video that he was referring to Williams) is indeed absolute crap.

And yeah, the endless stories about both Beck and Stewart here, get old.

Well, Cecelia, a blog editor or site owner sometimes has to give the people what they want. At Mediaite, they like Stewart and they dislike Beck. Creates interest. As the FOX Fan Klub, they like Beck, but they like to obsess about New Hounds even more. You’ve found a happy home at both. That’s a bit of a split over a pretty wide demographic chasm. That’s good for you.

Actually, I think the best FOX site is not the Klub, but GW. I’m not particularly fond of the on-the-air Greta since she gave up serious journalism to stalk Beth Whatever Her Name Is Now But Use to Be Holloway Twitty, SOS Clinton and Governor Palin (R-AK-Resigned) and play hostess to a endless, mundane rotation of has beens and never weres including Bolton, the philanderer Gingrich, the perverse Morris and Rove, but she is really doing some cutting-edge internet work and she attracts a cutting edge, diverse group of readers/posters. I like FOX on air for Shep and Major, and on line for Greta.

What are the names of any O’Reilly guests who have alleged that their segment was inappropriately edited?

O’Reilly is not a live show, and he has been criticized often for editing and for cutting microphones off. Donahue, Krugman, Moyers and Walsh (although she buried O’Reilly the next time she was on) were improperly edited. Franken, not as a guest, complained of editing of a segment from a speech he gave elsewhere.

Other than your statement that the aforementioned were improperly edited, do you have actual links to sources of these folks alleging improper editing? It’s not that I doubt such allegations have occured, it’s just that I never heard them. In fact, I don’t recall either Krugman or Moyers ever coming on the Factor.

What is your definition of “often”? How many times would improper editing need to occur over 14 years on-the-air to meet your definition?

As to Walsh…I can only suppose that if you do not value the sanctity of the life of an unborn child…then you would see this as O’Reilly getting “buried”. Needless to say, I thought her attempt to defend the wholesale slaughter of unborn children was pathetic. But opinions vary…

I’m not sure which Walsh appearance you’re referring to. But Walsh in her own column gave credit to O’Reilly for how they edited (didn’t edit) her Tiller segment.

He (O’Reilly) showed it all

Walsh in her column stated she was wrong and apologized after recognizing O’Reilly did not cut and “showed it all”

Thanks for clearing up yet another falsehood. Why can’t people just tell the truth?

Thank goodness the truth has emerged from the great arbiter of all things truthful. In his opinion of the truth.

Good give and take between O’Reilly and Stewart. Of course the far left will say that most of Stewart’s part was edited out, but that’s par for the course. At least O’Reilly has on people who disagree with him. Won’t see that on Olbermann. And O’Reilly made a good point about the left lumping Fox’s newscasts in with its opinion shows. Do Hannity and O’Reilly lean right? Yes. But their shows are opinion shows, not newscasts. (Something Olbermann doesn’t seem to grasp. He actually considers his show to be unbiased journalism. Wow.)

To everyone concerned about editing: Colby (and everyone else on the internet) has reported that the unedited interview will be on the website tomorrow. This is basically the same tactic that Stewart employs, except he never cuts anything into two day, but the Daily Show way with long or extra-interesting interviews is to put the whole thing on the web.

Writer, I do agree with you that O’Reilly has some sense of decency about him and that he is less threatened by opposing opinions than Olbermann. Or Beck. Or Hannity. Or Van Susteren. O’Reilly is stylistically a bit more like Maddow. They have strong and obvious beliefs which they don’t try to mask. O’Reilly’s admittedly fall less into a coherent ideology than Maddow’s, but, still, whether personal or philosophical, we know where they stand. And, they are willing to host and to listen to opposing views. While I do fault Maddow for being a bit too ideological, I have to fault O’Reilly for being a bit of a bully. He does have opposing guests on. However, he is known, perhaps well known, for cutting them off. In the “editing” remark above, the thoughtful response of liberalontogeny, for which I am thankful and the cryptic and caustic response of Koldys about which I am not surprised, we have to realize that editing involves cutting and snipping, but also instructing a guest not to continue to speak or something, shouting down a guest and subsequently using selective clips of a guest out of context. O’Reilly is “guilty” of all, but, again, he is far less egregious than many. He is a terrible hot head, to be sure. I suspect he regrets this, perhaps as evidenced by the manner in which he (often) graciously allows a guest the last word. In his “Tiller the Baby Killer” litanies, he ought never to have used such language. He is likely a Catholic who takes the Church’s life issue as it pertains to abortions to heart, but seems to think that the sanctity of life ends at the quickening. He’s not alone. His view is acceptable and understandable. I also tend to think he was throwing raw meat to the rabid FOX rightists, who are numerous. I don’t actually think O’Reilly is a bad guy or a poor host. In fact, I think he is better than Olbermann, although my own views tend to be more Olbermann-like. I do think O’Reilly is flawed, particularly in his smugness and his hot-temperedness, but who isn’t flawed. I’m glad there is an O’Reilly.

To give the devil his due, I’ll say that Olbermann does a good job. I believe he’s paid to be outrageous, and in that regard he’s earning his pay. But when he acts like Fox is biased and MSNBC isn’t, that’s a bit much. And when he calls someone a sexist, then uses terms like slut, whore, and lip-sticked meat bag to describe females who disagree with him, that too is a bit much. O’Reilly is a hot head, and so is Olbermann. Both are opinion shows. Olbermann just won’t admit it. And O’Reilly is correct when he says that the left lumps all of Fox news in with its opinion shows. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between Shepard Smith and Sean Hannity isn’t paying attention.

Writer, I would add one point for consideration. FOX does make a point of using the phrase “cable news” often, when in fact little of its programming is news. And, it use “fair and balanced” to a sickening point. Commentary ought to be informed, but fairness and balance don’t improve the quality of commentary. So, I’d have to say that FOX PR/marketing is responsible for much of the sense of bias and lack of objectivity that FOX projects. O’Reilly is informed, not a journalist, right-of-center (albeit not to the same extreme as Beck or Hannity). Who could have a problem with that in general terms? I still don’t see what problem the ardent FOX fans have saying that FOX has a rightist slant. It’s almost like they believe there is something inherently wrong with a rightist outlook. There isn’t. Why just not be honest about it? And, I could say the converse of MSNBC.

Mark Koldys,

Iis their anything more deceitful than your full-time dedication to creating propaganda that defends the sleazy practices of Fox News?

“Is there” grammar police

I believe I did say that Fox’s opinion shows do have a rightist slant. And I’m pretty sure that Sean Hannity has never been deceptive about how he sees things. So why can’t Olbermann be upfront about his far left bias and admit his show is an opinion show, not a news show? And here’s a question. Name the other news outlets that have a conservative bias. (Rush and all the other radio talk shows don’t count. They are also opinion shows and don’t call themselves newscasts.) So just who are all these rabid right wingers? The New York Times? NBC? MSNBC? ABC? CBS? Is Katie Couric a rightie? Was Dan Rather? Out of all the outlets, Fox is the only one that leans right, and the left can’t even put up with that. They want it to be 100% biased in their favor.

Fox News isn’t just conservative it is irresponsible, and that is the difference.

And how is it any more irresponsible than any other network? It’s the conservative slant the left can’t stand. The left has all the other outlets. Can’t conservatives have even one?

Extremist rhetoric doesn’t apply to the nightly newscasts on CBS, NBC and ABC. And rare moments of anchor bias on recapping the news stories don’t justify extremists like Beck and Hannity likening the president to the anti-Christ night in and night out.

Because just as McCain’s campaign economic adviser said the other day, the U.S. would still have record deficits if McCain were president.

So Olbermann isn’t an extremist. Ed Shultz isn’t an extremist. And when Dan Rather, in his left wing zeal, put out that phony story about Bush’s National Guard service, that wasn’t irresponsible journalism. The left can’t stand even one network that doesn’t toe the party line. The choir prefers to be preached to every night. No dissenting opinions allowed.

Name the other news outlets that have a conservative bias. (Rush and all the other radio talk shows don’t count. They are also opinion shows and don’t call themselves newscasts.) So just who are all these rabid right wingers? The New York Times? NBC? MSNBC? ABC? CBS? Is Katie Couric a rightie? Was Dan Rather? Out of all the outlets, Fox is the only one that leans right, and the left can’t even put up with that. They want it to be 100% biased in their favor.

—

FOX is tilted far to the right, MSNBC to the left (although not as pronounced itself, as it is tempered by corporate ownership). CNN is pretty straight. Perhaps, some of their personalities seem slightly left of center, but a real journalist does. After all, a journalist’s job is to question the status quo. Therein is an analytical mode rightists always see as leftist. Yet, but for this, we’d only need a Propaganda Ministry, wouldn’t we. And, CNN does a far better job inviting rightist commentators than FOX does with progressive commentators. ABC? Sawyer a liberal? Hardly! Gibson? Hardly! NBC? Williams plays it pretty straight. CBS? Couric? Detail a pronounced leaning. I’m not sure you can. Goodness knows she went to great lengths to keep Palin from embarrassing herself. If you are on the extreme right, looking to the middle, it will be on your left, won’t it? I’m less concerned with leanings than I am with corporate ownership meddling and influence. That’s why PBS, NPR and BBC/BBC World are superior.

phony story about Bush’s National Guard service ….

—

A Rather failing here, but was the story phony? I don’t think so. I think the sourcing was poor and not up to the best journalistic standards. I’m not sure anyone seriously believes W was faithful to this Guard oath or to the orders given him. It would be too un-W. And, I’m sure if this were a vital item, a good journalist could source it well.

G.E. owns NBC. You’re really saying that Zucker et al aren’t left wingers? With a straight face? And Couric was trying not to embarrass Palin? Come on, Royal. Even you can’t believe that. I understand that being on the left, you see MSNBC as being moderate. Anyone not blinded by ideology sees it differently. Again, yes Fox leans right. But they’re the only ones. Does a “real” journalist ignore stories because they don’t fit their political mold? And I have a hunch that if Fox had muffed the national guard story like Rather, you’d have a different take on it.

Only a True Believer would say that Dan Rather’s concerted bias led him to promote the TNG story (whose facts have never truly been disproved). and only a True Believer would say that Sarah Palin’s incoherent run-on sentences (also too in addition as well) were a result of Katie Couric deliberately trying to embarass her. Writer even ignores the fact that TRRK EXPLICITLY says MSNBC is left-wing, and claims he said they were moderate! There is no use argueing with someone like this.

Very profound dialog! It’s worth a read, thank you for sharing this post! Many thanks to you! classified |ads|select comfort beds