Dude has a crazy beef with Bill Moyers. Like, to the point that it made me wonder what kind of catty move Moyers pulled on O’Reilly back in the day. Did he elope with O’Reilly’s grandma? Sell meth to O’Reilly’s cat? (And yeah, I could Google research this, but…that would be journalism?)
Anyway, to illustrate that PBS is an evil that should be treated like a golf-ball-sized kidney stone, O’Reilly held up a sign with a picture of Moyers that said, “We are paying this guy.” Later, he said that, “Bill Moyers needs help — but not economically.” Then even later, he said, sarcasm dripping, that Moyers was the most reliable journalist working today.
Like Moyers, O’Reilly also has a grudge with Georgetown Law Student/notorious birth control freeloader Sandra Fluke, and invoked this presumption about her more than once (to the delight of my seatmates — what fun they were to sit with!)
As rebuttal, Stewart jumped in quickly with, “My friend, Mr. O’Reilly, is completely full of sh*t.” Then he pointed out that Ms. Fluke was actually advocating for insurance companies to cover birth control the same way they cover Viagra. After that, we managed to crawl back out of the Quantum Leap time worm hole that had transported us back to February 2012, before legitimate rape had eclipsed taxpayer-funded birth control as the hotbutton War on Women issue of the day.
Anywho!
O’Reilly doesn’t agree with Romney’s assertion that 47 percent of America are slackers. Meh, he believes it’s more like 27 percent. But “it’s a growing industry.” He also said/joked at different points that (a) he liked Obama and wanted to shoot hoops with the Prez; (b) what happened with Bush is in the past so GEDDOVERITALREADY; and (c) SPOILER ALERT, believes we never should have gone into Iraq (to which Stewart cried out: “Somebody better livetweet that, motherf*ckers!”).
What else did I glean? That O’Reilly really thinks the fact that lots of people have arthritis is a problem. Like, maybe a Moyers-level problem that’s bringing us down. And people’s teeth are falling out in Britain = argument against socialized healthcare. (To that we kindly submit counter-point, Kate Middleton).
“A good portion of this country is living in an alternate universe,” Stewart opened, beginning a hilarious allegory about a place called “Bullsh*t Mountain.”
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/679/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-07-at-8.52.39-AM-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/trump-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/trump-tweets-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/tumblr_mhtljzbfKA1qlix6mo1_250-150x150.gif)
So you’re saying that your view of someone was so entrenched in their politics that when they answered your question like a human being, you were shocked.
I’m most likely wrong, but with that I think it is interesting and silly at the same time. Interesting that we’ve come to that point where our judgments of people are so clouded by what we’re told and silly because you claim that his “humanity” changed your whole point of view.
It’s very hard to continue to see political opponents fairly. When there’s so much information (news, opinion, outright lies, w/e) that supports your beliefs, how can all those people disagree w/ you??! They must be monsters, dolts, willfully ignorant or maliciously manipulating the system.
So yeah. It’s good to be reminded now and then that everyone’s just doing the best they can.
I guess I still just feel that people are still people at the end of the day. Even Kim Jong Il watched movies and drank liquor like I enjoy doing. And he was a bad guy.
It’s a different song for everyone though and that’s cool. I never really think of people like Hannity or O’Reilly as monsters. There’s plenty of assholes at the end of the day, but they’ve still got families and stuff. We’re all too involved with our own parties and beliefs to help it.
I like the Daily Show, I like Jon Stewart, but I have to say, he often comes across as a little detached and (dare I say) condescending in interviews. He just seems like he’s tired of it all.
Maybe Stewart has too much of himself invested in it? Colbert generally seems pretty affable in interviews, and maybe the difference is that Colbert is playing a character.
As much as I like the Daily Show (like, a lot), it might be time for Stewart to hand over the reigns to someone else.
*ducks to avoid incoming barrage of tomatoes*
“Mattingly, I thought I told you to trim those sideburns!!! Go home, you’re off the team, for good!!!” I registered to this site just so i could comment on your picture! LOL
Oh and you make a good point too.
I think Colbert is invested in his show more than any other performer active today.
Colbert sometimes seems very nice in interviews. But other times he’s busy trying too hard to establish his “Character” and he won’t SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the guest speak. He just keeps talking and talking and asking idiot questions that the guest can do nothing with.
I won’t watch most of Stewarts interviews, they’re useless unless it’s like a high level someone or Louis CK.
Yeah, gotta agree with Dux. Colbert cant even do a sincere interview because he has to play that character all the time. The Daily Show actually gets into some meaningful discourse (occasionally), because Jon is allowed to be a person AND the host. Colbert just mocks anyone remotely conservative and hurls softballs at the liberals so they can pretend not to agree, only to make out during commercial breaks.
I was especially disappointed last week when Colbert had a minister on to talk about pastor’s rights to back presidential candidates. Rather than have an actual discussion, Colbert just yelled rhetoric at him and riled the crowd up to the point where the guest couldn’t even get a word in. I thought, wrongly, that the Colbert audience was intelligent enough to want to hear both sides of what could have been an interesting debate. It turns out that Colbert has become indistinguishable from the pundits he is supposedly satirizing.
What Colbert does, especially in regards to the core purpose of his super-pac, is performance art.
An O’Reilly interview on the other hand……
This is pretty unfair on Papa Bear. I may not agree with statements he made but he was there in good spirit. It was fantastic watching them bounce off each other.
Like the “Save a famous person” question. The look on both their faces when Jon somehow mixed over the top with nonchalant when he answered his family. Fantastic.
Stewart answering that he’d save his family was pretty lame to me. That’s the type of non-answer you’d expect him to go apeshit about if someone else said it.
(But I mean, it was kind of a throwaway question and I’m sure he was aware of what he was doing, so upon further review I don’t hate it as much as I did when I heard it live.)
Yeah, I mean it’s changing the premise of a question that was supposed to be funny to get a cheap point from the crowd. Unless he thinks his family members are famous.
A few observations I had about it. (identify myself as mostly liberal)
- God damn were those servers shitty
-Both Bill and Jon had valid points that were in contention.
-For O’Reilly I actually agree with the fact that entitlement is growing. Not for the reasons he stated but yes people are becoming more dependent on government and its not a good thing.
-Healthcare/Wars/Conservative hypocrisy all to Stewart
-Jon Stewart confused debt/deficit claming Bush added all $10 trillion to the debt. Debt was near $6 trillion at the end of Clinton. He was incorrect and O’Reilly called him out on it but Stewart was adamant and said he knows the difference between the two but they sort of just went to the next question.
Jon Stewart’s podium thing was really a distraction. At first it was kinda funny then meh.
K, flame if you must
If I had more time, I’d smack that “people are becoming more dependent on government” comment right off yo’ face.
Yeah, Jaxy clearly listens to more Limbaugh than anyone ought to (= any). The idea that people want to be live on $250 a month government handout instead of making money is never going to attract people. It’s usually racism or some other bias that convinces people to buy into that type of thinking. The ironic part is the racial bias component to that argument pushed by the tea party is factually incorrect – it’s mostly white rednecks (likely tea party members/supporters) who take the majority of public assistance $.
I agree with most of what everyone has written in the comments so far. I’ll add that it looked like Jon was much better prepared than O’Reilly.
But he really came across poorly many times throughout the debate (and that’s saying a lot considering who he was talking to). He was pretty childish at times, he interrupted a lot and seemed kind of manic. The look on Jon’s face often times was bizarre, not his usually bemused/sarcastic and calm demeanor.
I’ve never found myself agreeing with O’Reilly so much, though it was still less than I agreed with Stewart. He really needs to slow down though, he is getting extremely self-righteous. O’Reilly is known for having a big ego but he took shots like a champ.
Gerry and the Pacemakers
That was the name the Grateful Dead toured under in the late 90s, right?
All in all it was very entertaining. I agree that O’Reilly came off as more of an actual person that I’m used to seeing.
I liked the question towards the end on ‘why is it two obviously conflicting personalities can come together for something like this, while our government can’t seem to do the same thing in an effort to better our country’, however I don’t recall a real answer, just Stewart sitting on O’Reilly’s lap.
MSNBC hires guys who look like they just got off work at the foundry, CNN hires Bennaton ads and Fox hires blondes to advertise their enthusiasm for aryans.
You mean the all-gay foundry from The Simpsons, right? “We work hard, and we play hard.”
The only work those MSNBC guys look like they do at the foundry involves collecting union dues and handing out favors…so, just like at MSNBC.
O’Reilly and Stewart are smart enough to know that they need one another, and you could see their camaraderie shine through in the debate. As far as performance, I did not care for Stewart’s height apparatus or O’Reilly’s cards.
The economy was a centerpiece, mirroring the Presidential Debate, and both O’Reilly and Stewart made good points. Stewart stumbled on the debt vs. deficit argument, but I can’t understand why political people can’t agree that government needs to both spend less and take in more money.
All in all it was pretty entertaining and I’m looking forward to watching the second half.
O’Reilly and Stewart are smart enough to know that they need one another…
One attorney in a town will starve to death. Two attorneys in a town will become millionaires.
They’re both elite NY-raised media show ponies and stars of their respective networks–Stewart is the information source for the screeching 20-something lefties in his audience, and O’Reilly is the information source for the cranky righties who make his show a financial gold mine for FNC. What makes O’s show watchable from time to time is that he doesn’t have an audience that screaming its approval of talking points they think they heard him parrot. Stewart, while very bright and an amusing advocate for his side is overshadowed by people less intelligent than him.
Old Fat Bald Chick Magnet I just have to say you are one of the dumbest fucking people I’ve ever had the misfortune to read comments from.
I think the one thing we can all agree on is these two need to have a TV show together every week. And live together in the same house.
Super disappointed O’Reilly didn’t make an allusion to “Fuck it! We’ll do it live!” Other than that, fantastic show. Informative and entertaining in equal parts.
As far as O’Reilly hating Bill Moyers – I think O’Reilly had a squad that would ambush people, basically bully journalism. Well, they tried it with Moyers and it didn’t work – plus he had some of his own people that turned the tables on the hack trying the ambush. As the guy tried to hurry away, they kept following him and ultimately when they asked him if he liked the experience he admitted that, no, he did not. O’Reilly may have had a mad-on for Moyers before that, but I’m guessing this incident did not endear him much to O’Reilly.
Conservative humor more or less doesn’t exist. Not totally sure why, but it’s an interesting question IMO.
Per Tony Hendra in Spinal Tap: it’s a more selective audience. Actually, there is some, but it’s a tough sell into TV given what we know about programmers: “Comedy=Young, Young=Liberal”
You could read/listen to Dennis Miller or Adam Carolla, not to mention Matt Labash, Larry O’Connor, and the lovely and talented Ann Coulter. But then everything you thought you knew will seem off somehow.
“and the lovely and talented Ann Coulter” ?
Oh yeah, she can be funny as hell. A little bony for my taste, though. I’m more of a Michelle Malkin guy, even though she isn’t funny at all.
Conservatives aren’t funny for two reasons: Humour often requires the ability to put yourself in other people’s shoes (aka empathy) which a conservative is incapable of understanding and two, comedy is often a tool for subversion or commenting on power or power structures, and conservatives worship at that alter too much to ever joke about it.
might be a stretch, but South Park could be added to that list too