posted
I saw this, we need your presidential debates to be more like this, more "conversational".
I think Stewart could've been more on the ball, he tripped up regarding debt vs deficit and O'Reilly was fairly entertaining and I think kept his cool and both sides afforded each other quite a bit of respect for each other but O'Reilly consistently played into Stewart's narrative regarding Bullshit Mountain, making specifically responding to the more outlandish claims by O'Reilly unnecessary; ultimately edging out a win for Stewart.
IP: Logged |
posted
One of Bill's first props indicates that to refer back to how the Bush administration effected, well, anything is "boring." I can't understand how Jon didn't pounce on that.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Kinda didn't have to, Bill made himself look silly, thereby playing into Stewart's hand regarding the cognitive dissonance of BS Mtn.
IP: Logged |
posted
O'Reilly's MO is to abdicate any point on which he can't score as "boring" or "irrelevant," and hammer away at anything he can as what really matters. This how you get a guy who can, with a straight face, blame Barack Obama for the debt problem and in the same breath dismiss the bulk of the debt incurred under obligations created by Bush (war, tarp, etc). Context is the enemy of that kind of argument- he pounces on references to Bush now as if it's passé, because he doesn't want you to think about why anything that is happening now is happening- as if why doesn't matter in your decision making about the future.
The thing that I really can't get over when I listen to O'Reilly speak is the arrogance. The enormous level of arrogance that he displays in demanding that every point, in every argument, must be made according to a specific set of rules that only he has access to. OSC is (at least I suspect) a devout student of this style. Michael Moore would be another. What I like most about Stewart is that he is perfectly willing, in virtually every case, to explore a deeper context to any question that is posed, and incorporate that into his argument. O'Reilly's whole style is built on dismissing context and dismissing subtlety in favor of shortest path arguments that only work if you vehemently deny anyone's prerogative to explore their actual veracity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Stewart did actually nail him on the Bush thing, though, O'Reilly gave a lot of rope to hang him with.
There really were some absolutely fantastic lines from Stewart last night. A lot of it is stuff recycled from his show, in the same way candidates recycle their stump speeches into applause lines, but man, they're really, really good lines.
Stewart got tripped up a tiny bit on deficits vs. debt, though the substance of his argument was still mostly dead on. But I think he successfully parried just about all of O'Reilly's attacks.
To give Bill credit, he wasn't a Fox talking point spewer. He actually came across as rather measured, and either agreed with Jon on several points, or took a position far more moderate than what a standard issue conservative would.
It was highly enjoyable and a great exchange of ideas, and made me pine for the 90 minutes of time I can never have back from the Romney-Obama debate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
We should have them moderate the debates.
IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I think would be that, honestly, I think Stewart would be the better moderator. He's obviously liberal as O'Reilly is conservative, but Stewart has a much better track record at hitting anyone who isn't doing a good job. He's less partisan in his attacks.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
During Stewart's bit about how there is so many ways to recieve news and whatnot to really have any one person be the most trustworthy newsperson, did anyone else flashback to when he was voted "America's Most Trusted Newsman?"
The fact that he didn't even acknowledge his own claim to the throne as it were, really impresses me. It could have been a big fat soft-ball of a question but he went the other way when no one would have blamed him for bolstering his ego.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time judging that myself, because while I do believe it's not a cynical ploy I often agree with him-and even more approve of the attacks and pokings-of-fun he does-that I recognize that huge window for bias to waft in.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
