Many of you probably saw this interview before the game on Sunday. This is one of those examples of clear style differences between the right and the left, or more accurately the right and the middle. O’Reilly starts out with a sincere thank you to the administration then seamlessly (?) transitions into a point blank question that everyone knows has no answer.
Other journalists, and even opinion guys like O’Reilly, contextualize questions; they provide a framework that conveys they too have given the matter at hand some thought. Hell, even Beck prepares for interviews, even if its writing in his own journal. But when it comes to Egypt, Mr. O’Reilly spits his opening question out in the same tone one would ask a rude waiter for a second beer.
But this is not where the contrast between the two is most evident. That comes after each of the President’s answers. Now mind you, these answers are evasive and political. They have the same vague flavor you would expect from any leader commenting on a revolution not taking place in their country. But I would chose vague over the partisan editorializing O’Reilly uses to shift from one question to the next. Its astounding how even though he is sitting in front of the leader of the free world, he still acts like he’s on the Factor.
And through it all the president’s signature smile. He knows this guy is a joke but there’s the large viewership to consider. The look on his face when O’Reilly asks him if he knows football is the same you give a child that’s asking why they have to go to bed. If I had to guess, wearing a jacket just became the second worst part of the President’s Superbowl Sunday.
And in the mean time, someone at Fox needs to explain to Bill O’Reilly the difference between asking hard-hitting questions and acting like a hardass.
No comments:
Post a Comment