Dear Roger,

Spot on once again, but it's "Britney," not "Brittany." But don't ask me to spell the names of either of the candidates in the recent Iranian presidential election....

Ebert: When the Bomb falls, I'll die not knowing how to spell her name. That will be some consolation.

Another facet of this is that O'Reilly and his ilk really believe that the average person agrees with them. They only see three types of people:

1. The enemy, who often compound their evil by not admitting that they are evil. (I say "admitting" because people like this honestly believe that the enemy has deliberately decided to be bad in order to "play the victim" or get some kind of "special treatment".)
2. The brave, moral, superior few who are the only ones courageous enough to stand up for the majority.
2. The majority, who agree with the above but are too cowardly to be honest about it and who instead resort to "political correctness".

It never once occurs to them that the majority of people don't agree with them. It never once occurs to them that people avoid hateful language not because it's "politically incorrect" but because it's wrong and immoral to use hateful language. Morality is what they think it is, God agrees with them in every way, and anyone who opposes them isn't just wrong but knows that they're wrong and is just doing it to get something for nothing.

"It never once occurs to them that the majority of people don't agree with them."

True, but this minority has the luxury of having a news network dedicated to their views. Who knows how powerful Father Coughlin might have been had he run FCNN? (Or would it be MSNFC?)

What a marvelous exercise in critical thinking.

I wonder, however, just how many in BOR's audience would benefit from reading your journal entry. I fear for most it is too late. But for young people I can't think of a more important summer reading assignment. I hope there are still some schools in session and that there are still some brave teachers that would expose their students to the lessons in resisting propaganda you offer.

I found Joan Walsh's recent shout down at the hands of O'Reilly very disturbing.

She writes about it in Salon here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/06/12/oreilly_walsh/?source=newsletter

"It never once occurs to them that the majority of people don't agree with them."

True, but this minority has the luxury of having a news network dedicated to their views. Who knows how powerful Father Coughlin might have been had he run FCNN? (Or would it be MSNFC?)

Thanks to blogs like these, I'm still able to find intelligent discourse (Thanks, Roger!), but major news coverage has become genuinely disheartening.

I'm a teacher. I've seen the look on the face of the young Bill O'Rilley on the cover of his book. All teachers have, and know what it means. Sometimes parents don't see it but we do. Instead of telling your very smart readers what it means I'll let them take a good long look at it and come to their own conclusions.

The fact that he chose that picture as the image that he wants us to have of him as a youth shows a lack of self-awareness that is disturbing on a deep level.

I am 25-years-old and I grew up under the reign of these bombastic and polarizing pundits. I have never really known a period of genuine objective journalism. Does such an idea even exist anymore?

I think, for me, the big question is of the chicken or the egg. O'Reilly and Jerry Springer sell. The audience eats them up and they thrive and continue to thrive and will continue to thrive until we stop watching them. We have placed them on their thrones and it is up to us to knock them off. But the longer they exist, the larger their influence. How is it that the American culture has changed so dramatically that we now want to receive our news adulterated and full of vitriol and hate?

I think this is part of the same disease that has us (I use this "us" generally) itching for celebrity news. We want to see actors and actress cracked out and screaming on the streets of Los Angeles. We want celebrities to become gods so that we can watch them fall to earth and sink into dissolution. It seems to me, and this is only my opinion, that we've very much become a society that is full of anger that enjoys yelling and screaming and sadistic behavior.

Maybe I am cynical, but it is hard for me to blame Bill O'Reilly. If we didn't watch his show, he wouldn't be on. If we didn't read the Inquirer, it would not remain in circulation.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

Howard Stern is one of the few smart enough to win listeners who are actually interested in whatever he happens to say.

Not very long ago, I was surprised to learn that of all the shows in the USA, Howard Stern's was one of the first to introduce the name Barack Obama to a national audience. And when I listened to it, I was even more surprised to hear that it was none other than our Roger Ebert doing the introducing!

On another note, it's no wonder that 'fake news' sources like Colbert, Daily Show and Bill Maher capture big audiences. They have bluster and bombast too (except for Colbert, which seems to be wonderful pure satire), but at least it's done with a big wink to the audience. You have to appreciates how effectively subversive comedy can be.

Speaking of subversive. I'm a big fan of the movie V for Vendetta, which came out during the height of the right-wing Iraq hysterics and media silliness. That's probably why I liked it so much.

Bill O'Reilly = that hysterical news anchor, Lewis Protheror. It's not such a stretch.

When I read that list of propaganda techniques, I immediately thought of Glenn Beck, a man I think is far more dangerous than Bill O'Reilly. But I'm a hypocrite. From my perspective, Keith Olbermann only uses three of the seven propaganda techniques.

I understand your concern on this problem, but I wonder why you are focused on O'Reilly only, as if there aren't other TV talking heads and radio "shock jocks" out there. And O'Reilly isn't just "preaching to the choir". Many people who listen to him disagree with him.

Anyway, here are some facts that you don't even mention:

1. One reason why O'Reilly gets into arguments with his guests is because he actually has guests that disagree with him!! This is in sharp contrast to people like Keith Olbermann, who allow no other viewpoints whatsoever. Every one of Olbermann's guests echo his own views.

2. I don't know about the others, but both Geraldo and O'Reilly consider themselves good friends, even after having spirited debates on the air.

3. If O'Reilly is to blame for some of the recent violence, then isn't the other side equally to blame? Can't we blame the anti-war commentators for the killing of the Army recuiter a couple weeks ago? The shooter publicly said that what he did was justified since the Iraq war was illegal, something that Olbermann and others have quite loudly proclaimed on many occasions. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

4. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert don't shout down their opponents very much, but Stewart whacks them with snappy comments written by his professional jokewriters, while Colbert cuts off all discussions after only a minute or so. These are simply other methods of reaching the same goal of silencing your opposition.

I'd like to refer you to "Host," an essay in David Foster Wallace's "Consider the Lobster." It's a great dissection of the Talk Radio culture centering on John Zeigler, the talk-show host currently trying to exploit the David Letterman-Sarah Palin dustup. God, I miss Wallace.

I've seen a few episodes of the O'Reilly factor and i liked Bill O'Reilly. After watching those videos, I'm not so sure anymore.

O'Reilly is a bully, but in a way, so is Keith Olberman. And Lou Dobbs. And Sean Hannity. And Greta Van Sustren. And Nancy Grace.

To be honest, the only way to get a sane newscast these days is to watch PBS or the BBC. It may not be 'fair and balanced', but at least no one is screaming at you. The average Daily Show episode contains more hard news than most of the CNN/MSNBC/FOX talking heads primetime blocks.

It saddens me because I'm only 26, and I can remember the 'good ol days' when CNN was first covering the Desert Storm and some of the major events of the 90's. Nowadays, I get Larry King talking to the American Chopper guys and Wolf Blitzer leading with the latest Palin/Letterman spat. And the reason for the change? When they got more shallow, more people started to watch.

I'm too young to be waxing nostalgic, but there it is.

Whatever side of any argument one chooses, one is an idiot if defending anybody just because they "claim" to be on the same.
As a conservative and pro-lifer, I find this man sad and appalling and urge those with my views to be more selective of their role models.
I have no doubt if O'Reilly had been born in latin-america he would never had entered the US looking for a better life on the basis that "he would have no right to be there". Maybe he should ask any native american what he thinks about that.

So Roger, with your "I say... you say" example, you seem to be positioning yourself as the Bill O'Reilly of the left, using the exact same exaggerations to the opposite end. Was that your intent? Why do you say "right wing wing-nuts", it undermines your last paragraph completely. Wouldn't the examples be much stronger if you say all sensible things, and O'Reilly says the bombastic ones.

Or do I just not get what you are doing?

Roger,

Thanks again for providing -in this small corner of the web- a place for reasoned thought. I am reminded of Harlan Ellison's "The Glass Teat" in regards to Billy's pandering to the lowest common denominator and it saddens me that my source for reliable and unbiased US news comes from the BBC.

While I can appreciate the longing for serial programs of yesteryear, I think we both know (however sad it may be) that the programming execs will not put such shows back on the air anytime soon. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but somehow I don't think so.

My question is this: Aside from simply not watching O'Reilly and his ilk, what is the answer to this infotainment idiocy? Are there any news or talk show programs on television worth watching?

Dear Roger,

Very thoughtful post, as usual. I'm curious as to what my mother might say if I told her about the study of propaganda devices used by Bill O'Reilly.

It's extremely frustrating when someone kills off thoughtful debate by claiming the moral high ground, which seems to be increasingly popular these days...

Interesting, isn't it, how a roll-call of the shouters, name-callers and interrupters tends heavily to the right wing (Hannity, Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, O'Reilly). I wonder how much of their playbook comes from those seminal encounters between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal during (wait for it) the 1968 Democratic Convention, at the height of the Vietnam War.

In the clip below, note the politics of the guy who (a) first interrupts the other guy (b) first calls the other guy a Nazi and (c) first threatens to punch the other guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8

You could almost say that modern hate radio/TV is an ongoing Buckleyan effort to once and for all shut up Gore Vidal.

Look at the Breakfast Club audience all dressed up. Those were the days, when people put on their finest when they left the house.

Dear Roger,

I moved to Germany in October 2000 and returned to the States less than a year ago. A valuable tool in learning German, besides going out and having a beer in a local pub (Kneipe), was watching television. As it was the sixtieth anniversary of many of the events of WWII while I was there, I saw quite a few documentaries on this era of their history. As I did not initially speak German on watching these broadcasts, what I noticed when clips of Goebbels or Hitler or some high Nazi party official were used was not what words they were using, though 'Juden' was unmistakable, but how they sounded. Whichever of the six or seven propaganda devices mentioned above were being used was almost irrelevant - the tone of voice conveyed everything. I noted at the time the similarities in tone of voice coming from the then current leadership in Washington. Though the words being used are important, words are still concrete and can on some level be argued against and presented as 'evidence' of something or other being said. What we need is a de-coding of the language of hate/inhumanity/totalitarianism that is conveyed in the subtleties of tone of voice.

* Well, now, Charlene, I'm not entirely sure it's immoral to use "hateful language." It's not always clear to me what "hateful language" is. I'm pretty good on ethics and morals, and I'm not following. I'll admit that "hateful language" is not nice, and best avoided, but I think I draw the line at "immoral." It can hardly be equated with marital infidelity, murder, and child molestation, all of which I'm pretty sure are immoral. (The concept of "immoral" is pretty much binary; it doesn't come in degrees.)

* I agree that Bill O'Reilly is a three-legged dog from the get-go. At the same time, watching someone rip Barney Frank a used one (new ones are SO expensive, and he's not worth the effort) is to me a deeply satisfying experience, because Mr. Frank is simply the worst sort of politician imaginable. I have to rank Ol' Barn' a bit lower than O'Reilly because when the representative lies and dissembles, misremembers, and generally misrepresents his record, it has an actual effect on things. The truth just isn't in him (and it's not like he's the only one in the Congress with this problem).

* As much as it pains me to say it, I'm not sure that mainstream television is such a hot deal, either. It seems to be an intelligence depressant all by itself. A nation now raised in large part on a diet of MTV, the Simpsons, and lately, American Idol, really has no business allowing so many of its citizens to visit the polls. How could they possibly be adequately prepared for that experience? By a public school system that no longer has civics classes in its curriculum? "Rock the vote," my pale white behind. In fact, I think there should be a test in order to qualify people to vote:

1. Do you watch the Simpsons? [ ] Yes [ ] No

People answering "yes" would be disqualified and made to leave. Smart people would answer "no" and be allowed to vote. People who watch the Simpsons wouldn't be smart enough to answer "no," because, as I've already pointed out, they watch the Simpsons. (Besides, lying is immoral, and we don't want that sort of person voting anyway.)

Just so nobody could cheat, the questions would rotate on a per-election basis. The following election, the inquiry would be about MTV, and the time after that, American Idol. If any other low-brow, populist pap sort of show comes on the air in the meantime, it could be substituted for any of the other questions.

* I should do us all a favor and run for the presidency as a conservative. (Well, I AM a conservative, so it's not that far-fetched a scheme.) The whole point of it would NOT be to get elected. It would be to get some face time with Bill O'Reilly so I could irritate the livin' heck out of him by being smarter (I am), more conservative (I am, in a rational, thinking way), and of course, being a lot better with the language than he is. I also know how to be intentionally funny, which he doesn't. (Hannity has the same problem. Hmm. This could be a disturbing pattern--but I digress.)

* If we're going to tar and feather Bill O'Reilly, shouldn't we be doing the same for just about all the coven members on "The View?" Just thinking out loud, of course....

A problem I have had with O'Reilly's rhetoric is his unwillingness to stand with the Right, namely the Republican party. In interviews he states he is an "independent" then he goes on his show to defend any and every decision that the Bush administration made.

My theory is he calls himself an independent to maintain some false sense of neutrality in his own mind so he can, in turn, feel a false sense of superiority to those that he is arguing with. Say what you want about someone like Rush, but at least Rush is honest with himself.

The problem with the commercial broadcasting biz has been the exodus of local "everything" in Chicago. At one time we had the best DJ's, newsmen & personalties. Other markets looked here for radio inspiration. Today it's pretty much gone. One need only look at WLS-AM and WGN for examples of tailoring the format to appeal to the exact same groups of listeners. How many radio right wingers (or even lefties) do we really need on the air all the time? I miss the good ole days of Larry Lujack, Fred Winston, King B and Steve and Garry. No yelling, screaming and accusing just great entertainment! Radio programmers have lost the vision of great entertainment. It made my day better when I listened to those guys. I wouldn't give the time of day to Bill O, Sean Hannity or any of them now. It's funny but for all their kavetching nothing gets solved anyway. Thanks for such a great thought provoking sight, Roger.

I am doomed to die knowing how to spell Britney Spears. And when I go, I will have formed an opinion on Jon and Kate. And, I get my news from John Stewart. Doomed, I admit it.

Is there anything that hasn't been ruined by the 24-hour-a-day cycle? Journalism ended with the advent of CNN Headline News. Popular music ceased to be challenging with the advent of MTV. ESPN sarcastically poked at all of the nation's long-held, long-cherished sports mythology until its hind legs could no longer support its weight.

So much empty space had to be filled.

How can emptiness be filled with even more emptiness? A question for the Buddha.

No wonder Bill O'Reilly is so angry. His career depends on it. And, anger becomes habitual.

Roger, once again you've made me long for an era I wasn't alive to see.

I also find a kind of reassurance in the knowledge that the Bill O'Reillys of the media world are not unique to this time. More powerful, perhaps, but this too shall pass. I am hopeful that sooner or later there will be a kind of backlash against this sort of blustery, insubstantial "news" programming and more people will seek out nourishing political discourse that doesn't stoop to name-calling and doesn't need to raise its voice.

This post has also reminded me to stop taking my favorite NPR station, which still provides a wonderful variety of news and music, for granted. Thanks.

Ebert: Most of the taxi drivers I encounter in Chicago are of East Indian, African or Middle Eastern origin. In the year since I began taking notice, each and every single one, without exception, has been listening to NPR. If the radio is off and I ask them to switch it on, it's tuned to WBEZ. Is this an indication we were getting the best and the brightest?"

I think there are a couple of things that help explain this.

One of the main differences, I think, between then and now is the proliferation of media outlets. I imagine that if we were to time warp back to 1970, we'd find 3 tv stations and maybe a half dozen radio stations per major market. And those stations were available in a limited geographic area. But today, we have hundreds of different specialty TV channels available through cable, satellite or internet; dozens of speciality radio channels similarly available.

Another is the population growth. As Jim Emerson pointed out, there were 2 billion humans at the end of World War II. Now there's nearly 7 billion.

The end result is that one media company can generate a profitable business by building a stable of niche broadcasting entities, each of which can appeal to a sufficient segment of the population to be make money - which is the raison d'être of a corporation.

We get the same kind of behaviour - perhaps toned down a bit - in Canada. Lowell Green, who pontificates on radio here in Ottawa, is little more than a stooge for extreme right wing politics. I had the misfortune to work next to someone who had his show on their radio in their office cubicle.

I once found a web page, which I've since lost track of, which listed and gave examples of every kind of rhetorical bullying. Would that I could find it again - I'd petition my school board to make its contents part of their curriculum. http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/rhetoric.php comes close, but it wasn't it.

Anyway, it seems that many of the extreme media types out there - of both left and right persuasions - are guilty of playing these games.

What Ever happened to the kind people? Where did they go?

I gravitate towards kindness and intelligence, and that Bill O'Reilly
has neither.

He is no philosopher king.

Jonathan Brandmeier's morning show may be the only quality radio show left in this town. Every morning you are guaranteed to get all your news fixes, like traffic, weather, and sports; but then, there is always a topic at hand which is discussed at large, whether it is entertainment or just plain interesting.

What I love so much about the show the most is how it doesn't take itself seriously, but still remains intelligent and entertaining. As far as finding out my news for the day, I head to CNN.com and listen to Johnny.

You are partially right about O'Reilly but it doesn't mean he isn't making good points. Most of the time I have caught his show, he isn't violently yelling at the people he disagrees with. Yes there are instances where he goes ballistic but from what I have seen, those people deserve it in a way. I know he once went nuts at a guy who believed 9/11 was an inside job. I go ballistic at those people all the time. In the Barney Frank clip, I understand that he is a Congressional leader, but in many ways Frank deserved what he got because he, along with Bush and his cronies, were completely misleading the American people on the housing market. Also, in the Geraldo Rivera clip, yes he did go overboard, however what was at discussion was an instance where a person who was an illegal alien killed a kid because he was drunk. What is upsetting about that story was that the illegal alien had been arrested before with a DWI (from what I understand on 4 prior instances) and, by our laws, should have been deported however he was not. ICE was not even contacted on these prior convictions. I am not saying that O'Reilly didn't go overboard, however its upsetting because this indecent could have been avoided.

My question to you Mr. Ebert is do you hold the same standards for someone like Olberman? I find him as venomous, if not more venomous, than O'Reilly is.

I know virtually nothing about Bill O'Reilly off-camera. All I know is what I have seen, briefly, on Fox News Channel. What I see is an angry person, a bully in every respect. He is, for me, representative of a society that has forgotten how to listen, he shouts, he throws temper tantrums but he isn't fair to the other perspective. It has nothing to do with his beliefs, it comes from the need for ratings. I won't watch him because I'm not informed about anything, it is like watching Springer, it's all about the trained animals, there's nothing informative to be found.

O'Reilly is a celebrity because sensationalism rather than for his accomplishments. I think that if he didn't shout and thunder and bellow, no one would pay him any attention.

In a world of shouters posing as political discourse, I am relieved you still give voice to your reasoned and seasoned opinions. Thank you, Mr. Ebert.

Roger,

I agree with a lot of what you say about Bill-O. But dude, have you ever watched Keith Olberman????

Mike in Virginia

Ebert: I know. Did you see this?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/okay_okay_already_i_wont_watch.html

Dear Roger,

I am a middle school teacher and would like to add a wrinkle to your comments about bullying. In the case of many of the bullies I observe, those who bully the most are desperately trying to prove their value (and get the attention of) the “alpha” bully who never puts his/her hands on anyone but merely cajoles the pack and laughs at the suffering of others. Therefore, in the alpha’s mind s/he never had anything to do with what happened! S/he never told anyone to do anything...and thus, the alpha is being picked on when others call them to the mat. Too many people’s emotional development stops at middle school.

o'reilly, limbaugh, et al are silly salespeople who have learned an important lesson. if you lie, the results are limited to one or more of the following:

1. many people will believe it without making an effort to verify it

B. those who do not believe it will not care enough to expose the liar

3. even if evidence surfaces to expose the lie, the dispenser of the lie will deny the evidence.

IV. move on to the next lie in order to distract your accusers and keep them on their heels.

i want to say that we shouldn't talk about them because the attention only feeds their ego and reinforces their behavior. however, if we don't try to educate the public, then we're just allowing the negatives to breed more hatred.

A great entry, as always, that highlights the damnable state of the current media. Was it even possible in the past, even 5 years ago, to imagine the slow and painfull death of Newspapers?

As for O'Rielly, I find him to be equal parts fascinating and repugnant. I often switch over to his program, knowing full well that I will end up screaming at the television. His use of propaganda is so ubiquitous, I don't think he can behave in any other way.

Every word of his is a lie; some more insulting to human intelligence, some less. When he is not too over-the-top, I get a kick out of his tactics. Oftentimes, I am left to wonder just who watches - or believes - this stuff?

Also Mr. Ebert, I kind of have to take you to task on this statement:

"There was a time when ordinary Americans would have been deeply offended by the way O'Reilly speaks about their President--any President."

What has O'Reilly said about Obama or Bush that can be construed as offensive? You make a statement but don't back it up with any real fact on the matter. Please specify.

Ebert: Nothing that I recall about Bush.

Roger, I completely understand your dislike of Bill O'Reilly. I don't care for him much myself. That being said if you are going to condemn bad behavior on one side (in this case the right) you should also condemn it on the other. Liberal pundits such as Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore are every bit as bad as O'Reilly. Sure they are not as blunt as he is but they are every bit as mean spirited and polarizing.

This hypocrisy on both sides truly does bother me. For example, the same people who are currently condemning David Letterman for his joke about Sarah Palin's daughter are probably the same people who defended Rush Limbaugh in the early 90's when he made the "joke" about then 13 year old Chelsea Clinton being a "dog". I haven't seen Sean Hannity's show in a while but I am sure he is all over Letterman right now.

I really do wish people would start condemning bad behavior on both sides as opposed to only the side that they are idealogically opposed.

I recently saw a "Factor" clip with you on the show, talking to O'Reilly about some kind of implant. It was taped a few years ago. You seemed enthusiastic about it and O'Reilly was sedate enough to hear you out. I enjoyed watching it and I thought you guys got along pretty well. But you no doubt spent some time with him before and after the taping. What was your impression of him in person? Did he try to sucker punch you or bite you on the face?

Ebert: That was years ago. He was very pleasant. I was the goofball on that show.

When in 2004 Jon Stewart effectively killed an entire genre of cable television--the point-counterpoint--did he have any idea he was birthing a genre even more idiodic? Instead of people on TV yelling idiodic blather at each other, they yell idiodic blather at the viewer. Apologies for breaking your rule earlier about not discussing political viewpoints, but I honestly believe that the format of cable news requires idiocy no matter the position on the ideological spectrum.

To me, O'Reilly seems relatively sane compared with some of his rivals. At least he invites those he yells at on the show. In that one segment you posted with Barney Frank, you could at least somehwat understand what Frank was trying to argue--though he clearly was disadvantaged in his argument. Many other cable shows are like self-contained universes where challenging information doesn't make it in, and all the anger is directed outward.

What's really aggravating is that you *CAN* make good television reporting. It's happened before. And I honestly believe you can make good programming that isn't of the PBS tea-sipping variety--that is lively and competitive and accessible. But on the vast majority of cable, a combination of raging anchor ego and Lower Common Denominator-ism has virtually eliminated any public good.

I work for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and as a result I get to do a lot of travel. My conclusions of the western world are that despite all the stereotypes - whether you're British, American, Australian, New Zealander etc - the societies and their respective news services all pretty much work the same. However, one night whilst I was staying in New York a colleague suggested I watch Bill O'Reilly. What I witnessed was the most unprofessional (but perhaps more importantly, entertaining) pieces of television I have ever seen. That night was the fateful Bill vs. Geraldo Rivera argument and more than anything it was just a shock to see something like that on TV - Im not sure if Bill is serious or just acting - especially when accused of making a cheap political point he screams "You want anarchy! You want open-border anarchy!". I still smile and think back to New York whenever I see the wide shot of two supposed journalists yelling and leaning over whilst simultaneously pointing fingers at each other

O'Reilly and ilk, whether left and/or right are a sad condition of our times. Depressing......

Great piece Roger. Two of my favorite BOR "techniques" are his hooking on of the appendage "...and everybody knows that" - no matter how factual or opinion based his assertions are. EXP: "The left wants big government to run every aspect of their lives, and everybody knows that!"

And then I love how he spends 6-7 straight minutes railing against the "far-left" sin du jour - name calling, hyperbole, and opinion-as-fact all included. But then to get all "fair & balanced he slaps on an "and that goes for the far-right too" at the very last second. End segment.
Morton Downey Jr. reborn (My apologies to the Downey family)

Reading this entry helped me understand why people from outside the United States seem more well informed of world-wide issues, as well as more open to rational debate. I have noted that most countries (especially the developing ones) tend to have better local channels, mainly because they focus on providing variety, the reason being that they want to appeal to the widest audience possible. The trend in the U.S. has been of networks targeting a certain group or finding a peculiar niche.
Not only that, If you look at statistics, the U.S. is the country that spends the most hours per week of television viewing (tied with the U.K.) with 28. Compared to the U.S. the rest of the world has much lower numbers. In these countries a greater emphasis is put on the quality of their programs. How could they not, word of mouth has a much greater influence. If a certain network is said to favor a party, people who oppose that party would immediately avoid the network, something that can prove critical on an already poor market. As a result, you are guaranteed to have shows that promulgate the values and stances of all sides of the spectrum.
The reason why commentators (if the term can even be applied) like O'Reily are hurting America is not that they are heavily promoting the ideology of one faction, but rather that they are preventing dissenting views from being exposed to each other. It is quite difficult to make an informed decision when you have to change channels to hear both sides of a story. This insurgence of biased news networks is only fostering cognitive dissonance, something that history has proven to be very harmful to the foundations of democracy. No wonder it is one of the preferred tools of tyrants and dictators.
By no means do I claim that my conclusions were reached by proper research, but they are based on first-hand observations during my experiences living in third world countries. I couldn't help but notice how the citizens of countries such as the Dominican Republic and Guatemala inevitably end up talking about politics no matter where the conversation started. Several of my African and European friends have also expressed to me how unnerving it is to live in a society in which the citizens do not engage in active political debate. Something like this is, in fact, almost unthinkable in the current American society, in which avoiding political matters is considered good manners.
All this might be far-fetched, but I think is worth looking into.

I grew up in a Republican family. I've had to deal with right-wing bullies of all kinds on the radio and TV. My parents aren't anything like O'Reilly or any of the people they watch. They're sweet, good-natured and understanding people. It always astounds me that they prefer to watch the people on Fox News and listen to all the shouting and snide remarks, but then again I guess that's the easy way to have political beliefs.

It's like the TV news equivalent of preferring a Roland Emmerich schlockfest over a more subtle and nuanced bit of mind play. Whatever people's political leanings are, it's so much easier to nod their heads and be toadies to the blowhards than to have everything be presented objectively. That would require thought, discussion, and an acknowledgment of two valid sides, and I don't think that's what people are watching TV for these days. Look how well the primetime network shows have been doing. Sadly, some people just need to be told what to think or to be validated by the big kids on the playground. My dad grew up on business guides and self-help books before moving up to Conservative talk show hosts.

For all the exposure they gave me to O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and all the other loudmouths on the right, my parents may actually have helped turn me into a moderate liberal. After all, before you can know what you like, sometimes you have to figure out what you don't!

While I understand your thoughtful argument...I must add that while you see O'Reilly as an angry bully, I would argue that many who he is angry against have hurt us, and I for one, am happy he can do and say what many of us who have no public voice can't do. You are a powerful man, Mr. Ebert. People care about your thoughts on films. People could care less about mine. When you attack filmmakers for making junk, I applaud you. I suppose when O'Reilly yells at Frank, I see him as saying what I can't, just as when you called what the Power Rangers filmmakers did as hurting the imaginations of children. In the end, you both have a soapbox. And you both preach from it what you think needs to be heard.

Mr Ebert, Do you see a difference between O'Rielly and Janeane Garofalo who seems like a passive aggressive liberal version of the same thing to me.

At some point, Bill O'Reilly turned into a cartoon character. My mother remembers when he used to do the news in Boston, and still can't believe the way he's transformed into a bullying narcissist. I doubt he even cares about half the things he spews about. He simply understands that he has an audience that expects him to do certain things, and so he does them (no matter how far he pushes himself into the realms of the indecent). The type of polarized attention-grabbing programming we see from people like him, Hannity, and even Olbermann is purely about money and ratings. The situation that exists today is evidence that the American public's standards for decency and decorum have fallen at an alarming rate.

Right on the money. There is a quite a lot of insecurity in his opinion that goes with his shouting, he is actually quite afraid of defending it logically, because he is afraid he can't back it up on live TV; on his own show. I also thing for viewing purposes... that he wants to be an ass.

Roger, is it really fair to even imply O'Reilly might share responsibility for the Tiller murder? He honestly believed that what Tiller was doing was murder, and whether you agree or not, you can't place blame on him unless he actually encouraged vigilantism.

Searching for covert ways he might influence people to commit crime is something i could see O'Reilly doing. If Bush got capped, would you blame Olbermann?

Mr Ebert, Do you see a difference between O'Rielly and Janeane Garofalo who seems like a passive aggressive liberal version of the same thing to me.

Ebert: One difference is that Garofolo has never called for the boycott and failure of newspapers she disagrees with.

Mr. Ebert:

I must disagree with your correspondent Charlene, who posits that media figures such as Mr. O'Reilly, "believe that the average person agrees with them."

I have reported from war zones from Sarajevo to Liberia to Afghanistan to Iraq to Darfur and despite my personal political leanings -- Michael Collins meets Alexander Kerensky -- because I have a knack of telling thrilling combat tales of our brave soldiers I have been a guest on Mr. O'Reilly's show, among many others of its nature. It is an act these hosts perpetrate -- or it least so it appears to me.

Off camera these hosts are rather daft and ... well, empty-headed, puppets who invariably repeat what their producers program them to say. I suppose it is all about the ratings, and not insubstantial money. But true idealogy? I think not. (And poof go my appearances.)

Further, your schoolyard bully analogy rings true, and prompts a memory not inconsistent with the nature of your post: in the late 1980s, as the "Crack Wars" devastated New York City, myself and other police reporters from various papers (two of whom went on to win Pulitzer Prizes)would gather almost nightly at the prosaic gin mill Ryan-McFadden's on the corner of 42nd Street and 2nd Avenue in midtown Manhattan. For reasons beyond our ken -- probably because tough, handsome NYPD Homicide Detectives often joined us, attracting hot women -- the joint became known as a tavern in which to be seen, and was mentioned often in the gossip columns. One day my metro editor recieved a telephone call from Mr. O'Reilly's publicist -- he was at the time hosting a tabloid show (Inside Edition? Current Affair?)-- asking if it would be all right for "Bill" to come down to hang out and drink with us.

As a long-time newspaperman, you can well imagine the resultant reaction when this request made its way around various city rooms. Why not just have your Mom call? Needless to say, we never saw him.

I'm convinced the bullying is a residue of our religious upbringing. It's always impressed me that the right-wing media is populated heavily by Irish Catholics. The church seems to breed guys like this, who have been seriously disappointed by the entire world. I used to say that my high school experience was like being locked in a prison shower room with five hundred clones of Patrick Buchanan. O'Reilly makes the connection explicit on the cover of his book, with that dyspeptic photo of himself as an unhappy schoolboy. It was the nuns, of course, who called him "a fresh bold piece of humanity." In my school, they used to call us "fresh articles" who didn't "have the brains God gave to a dead flea." He would probably tell you that they taught him "values," but it's no mystery where his urge to verbal abuse originated.

Methinks, after considerable reflection that Bill O'Reilly and Dr. Michael Savage ought to get together sometime for martinis. I think after reading your column and hearing Mr. O'Reilly's broadcasts:

--that it is a minor miracle that Bill O'Reilly hasn't boffed someone in the mouth who disagrees with him. God help us if someone provides him brass knuckles.

--that if it were up to you in the driver's seat at FNC and/or Westwood One radio, which syndicates Mr. O'Reilly's editorials (and once produced his radio show), he'd long since be out on his belligerent and vindictive tochis.

--that the eerie thing is not that Mr. O'Reilly believes people agree with him, but that people agree with Mr. O'Reilly anyway.

--that Mr. O'Reilly is painfully ill-equipped to be a film critic. His understanding of the human condition, evinced in the film clips you present, is much too narrow both in scope and depth.

--that I'm a fool for even buying into Mr. O'Reilly's schtick, as I once did (as many as seven years ago.)

Go back and look at Good Night, and Good Luck, or watch Edward R. Murrow's original broadcasts on Youtube. Look at what Murrow was able to do while keeping a calm and steady voice whilst looking down at a script. Can you possibly imagine Edward R. Murrow shouting at Fred Friendly or haranguing Don Hallenbeck? Teevee news climbed too fast up Everest and has been falling the steep side of the mountain ever since.

The technology is far different, but teevee news is now as hollow and as dim as the lights and tube taken out of the box.

By the way, if you've never heard Dr. Michael Savage on the radio, keep in mind that his real name is Michael Alan Weiner. He should have kept it.

I remember the 7 Propaganda Devices from 5th grade history when we were studying the methods used by Communists/Russians to influence their citizens. How utterly ironic to see it applied to these bullying bullsh*tters.

Two observations.

First as best I can tell from what I can stand to actually listen to, most of these people seem to be stuck doing third-rate imitations of themselves. They've chosen a certain radio persona and they are stuck in a No Exit play of their own making doomed to echoes in their own chamber. It's a wonder they don't go mad doing the same show over and over.

Many of us are left to wonder why it seems to "work". I think it's similar to the syndrome associated with junk food eating. According to the former head of the FDA, David Kessler, the food industry has done such a good job of packaging empty calories of sugar, fat, & salt that we now eat for the stimulation and not even taste. And studies have shown that even while we eat these junk items we still crave the stimulation. And the more we do this the more we are psychologically & physiologically changed to want more. Bill, Rush, Keith, and others (on both sides!) stimulate their listeners who tune in not for the substance but for the intense stimulation. And the more they are stimulated the more they need it in ever increasing intensity.

Phil Donahue. Wow! I've never seen someone handle O'Reilly like that. Why is this man not anywhere to be found on my TV?

Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal, aren't they really just two sides of the same coin? To me they just seem like the same concept communicated with different language and a different aesthetic. Liberal commentators may not shout but they do insult in their own way. The objective of both sides is simply to win, and they generally don't care how disingenuous they have to be in order to make it clear to the audience that they are right and their opponents are either bumbling fools or outright evil. Understand Mr. Ebert that I agree with you regarding O'Reilly and a slew of other conservative commentators, but I hope that you would agree that commentators on the left such as Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher are trying to do the same thing only with different tactics. I'm probably wrong but I have to say that my suspicion is that if a liberal commentator were to resort to shouting then your perception of them, at least initially, would be that they were passionately defending their beliefs, just as I'm sure plenty of conservatives view O'Reilly in this way.

I think the only way to have an intelligent discussion, especially in regard to politics and religion, is for everyone to admit their uncertainty. Realize that you have the views you do mainly because you were raised a certain way or have had certain experiences or because you currently live in a certain type of environment or an endless number of other reasons. Most people are surrounded by political and religious "yes men" who are constantly affirming and reinforcing what they believe, never having their beliefs questioned. There is always the affirmation that we are on this side and we think this way and our opponents are on that side and they think that way and we must always remember that our way is correct. We must forget about all of this and admit that we are really not as sure of ourselves as the facade we present would suggest. Then maybe we can get closer to presenting what might be called an "objective viewpoint," if such a thing really exists.

The failing to all of this is that it only really works if everyone does it, and that will never happen. There will always be those that firmly believe things that cannot be firmly proven. So I guess all my words are futile and amount to nothing in the end. :(

Ebert: The entry uses O'Reilly as a general example of the overall race toward polarization. I might have chosen Olberman if he had called for the failure of my newspaper. Rachel Maddow, now, I consider sane.

In writing this entry, why not mention those on the left with similar tactics to O'Reilly? Why not mention Bill Maher, or Stephen Colbert/John Stuart who aim to make fools out of those they interview on the right?

True; people like O'Reily or Ruch Limbaugh are especially obnoxious, so they stand out more; but they're tactics are no different from the Liberals I mentioned. John Stewart has his "Evolution, Smevolution" special, which he ran for an entire week. During one of those episodes, he invited an evolutionist, IDist, and a metaphysicist with some silly wacked-out ideas on creation. After asking condescending questions to the legitimate IDist, he then asked the metaphysicist some questions.
Obviously, Stewart did his research on that wack job, and tried to make it seem like this was what ID was actually about when the woman spewed out her crazy theories. The evolutionist was treated with the utmost respect, and even allowed him to have the last word, which were harsh words against the ID movement that had the liberal audience applauding.

Sounds like something O'Riely would do, doesn't it?

And if you're thinking "Well, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution IS a wack job and deserves that same treatment", well I've got news for you; O'Reilly's core audience feels the same way about how he shouts at those the the far-Right feel are immoral satanists.

People don't have a problem when someone uses these tactics, when it's in favor of thier own views.
O'Reilly has his obnoxious big mouth, but Colbert/Stewart use thier razor sharp wit...like a razor. They can mercilessly cut anyone with thier words, and have no qualms about doing so. And don't give me that jive about how O'Reilly is a "real" news personality, and Colbert/Stewart aren't. Thier satyrical views on politics are taken just as seriously.

The blogosphere has countless entries from Right-Wingers on how nasty the Left is, and how rotten and evil some Liberal media personality for unfairly persecuting them. I don't believe there's a trully unbiased person left on earth anymore. I know I'm certainly not. And whether you conciously realize it or not, Mr. Ebert, you aren't either. Your harsh criticism of Ben Stein only a few days after giving such a positive review of Bill Mahers movie is one example why.

But like me, at least you're not alone.

Ebert: When Ben Stein tries to blame the Holocaust on Charles Darwin, it is justified to be harsh. There is a regular in the (still very active) Ben Stein thread, Randy Masters, who is an admirable example of the rational defense of I.D.

Roger says he doesn't want to discuss politics, but the very fact he decided to write this article about Oreilly rather than, say Keith Olberman pretty much tells the entire story.
Keith has done and said far worse than anything portrayed here under the guise of some argument about fairness and bullying

I think Roger liked it much better when the media was entirely slanted in his ideological direction.
It's quite evident to me that is what this article is about.

Sometimes its what you choose NOT to write about, rather than what you choose TO write about.

All you have to do is go back to some of Roger's reviews and little nuggets about the Bush administration in which he uses terms like "common knowledge" about issues concerning the Republican party when no such common knowledge is present.

Roger, you should stick to your movie reviews, but if you must make a point you should not hide behind a false argument, but rather show both sides.

The lack of showing both sides in your very own article illuminates the real message behind the article.

O'Reilly yells so what. Turn him off or don't watch. Maybe he is passionate. He's a guy not one of those Ichabod Crane eunechs on PBS. What about Keith Oberfuhrer? That guy looks like he will tear your jugular out. Keith Oberfurher doesn't yell cause he doesn't have anybody on his show that disagrees with him ( which is 90 % of the media). At least O'Reilly has people on his show that disagree with him. What about the "The Tingler" Chris Matthews?? O'Reilly has championed the cause of child safety and "Megan's Law" legislation. O'Reilly savaged the Catholic Church and its' Cardinals for the cover up of priest molesters/rapists. O'Reilly was not a fan of GW Bush and Cheney ( although did not want them dead as you folks do...) and criticized the administration often. Lastly , Barney Frank was chairman of the House Finance committee( and received large donations to his political campaign from Fannie/Freddie) and did not regulate the banks/mortgage companies that it was his duty to do so.
Hey Ebert if you don't like O'Reilly then get your info at CNN,ABC, CBS, NBC , MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, NPR, NYTimes, All Big City Newspapers, Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Reuters, AP, McClatchy, All the European Press, BBC, LeMonde......

Ebert: Sounds like a good idea to me.

There is a video available on Youtube of an interview that O'Reilly did with Jon Stewart. Very early in the interview O'Reilly states that "87%" of Stewart's audience were "stoned slackers", and I wonder if these were the same researchers and poll takers who took the polls on the Fox News ticker that stated that over 80% of people felt that John McCain won each of the three presidential debates. I mean yes, yes, I know that was an online poll. But isn't it handy to be able to manufacture a self-perpetuating majority through your own media outlet? It's no different for Keith Olbermann, though, Olbermann actually comes off as a legitimate journalist, albeit an extremely bias one. But that's the world I've grown up in, I guess. There's the minority news (Fox) who attacks those in power, the majority news (MSNBC) who attacks those who are attacking those in power, and finally there's the neutral news (CNN) who spend their days reading comments from their Twitter page. Isn't it depressing that Jon Stewart and film critic blogs are the most reliable sources for news today?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orwXGlXP2O0

Look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gr-QxU1Sz0

It's sad how low the American media has sunk. Instead of the clarity and honesty we get from that video forty odd years ago, American "news" has now become more about ego, personality, cheap competition, shallow and banal entertainment and polarization.

i've always thought this about bill. he is the smartest man on tv with no common sense about situations. he is educated but extremely ignorant about things at the same time. it's a shame that celebrity status goes to their heads like that.

Fox Evening News is fair and balanced.

Fox News entertainment shows are labeled as such - opinion. Even the evening line up is somewhat balanced, less so now that Colmes has left the air. Can the same thing be said for MSNBC or CNN.

Bill O, Sean H, Keith O, Chris M are not fair and balanced, nor do the present the news. I am curious why people expect it and then are disappointed when it does not happen.

Lastly, I wouldn't use a clip of Rep Frank as an example for civil debate. I saw him on CNBC the other day and he quickly lost his temper when the host questioned one of his points. Most liberal politicians are not equipped to handle dissent.

Just a side note to the discussion, but a 2005 UCLA study found the news media is decidedly liberal, but Fox was the fourth most centrist. Study link - http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Dear Roger,

Thanks again.

Interesting that this post appears shortly after the John Wayne post. They are mirror images of each other, no?

I would infer that when you're speaking of John Wayne, you're not just speaking of John Wayne, but the John Wayne era (meaning, an era that produces and appreciates John Wayne). Likewise, here we read of the Bill O'Reilly era and its poster child. Taken further, I would infer that you speak of that past era as an era where our heroes are genuine and were angered by wrongdoing (as opposed to these contemporary "heroes" who use anger as a bludgeon), and a longing for its return.

Since reading that John Wayne post, I've been trying to think of today's heir to John Wayne, and the best I've been able to come up with is Bill Cosby. Someone who seems to have his (or her) own personality, that seems to be genuinely "him." Someone who seems to have integrity. Someone whose political and social views -- though popular or unpopular -- seem to be a natural extension of his personality.

Perhaps you are telling us that we are Bill O'Reilly: rather than face ourselves, we bludgeon others? At least, that is how the Sufi in me reads it, and whether or not you are saying it, I certainly do believe it.

Most interesting.

Very respectfully,

Omer M

I think another appropriate term for O'Reilly's crowd would be fanatical believers – they will forever relish in the banter he exudes on television, notwithstanding contrary evidence or rebuttal.

It's not just O'Reilly though. MSNBC has become the anti-Fox News network in political and media commentary (nix the O'Reilly piss and anger). But, to be frank, most (if not all) news networks are "liberal" compared to Fox News, which is a sad revelation in modern media. There is no Socratic discussion, no prompt rebuke with a leveled backing; everything is black-and-white, red-and-blue, a unfavorable appeal to emotions rather than reason or credibility.

Frankly, I'm unsurprised that most younger viewers (my generation) have been turning to "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report" for their TV dose of news – in the dramatic mist of screaming and crying hosts, perhaps it's the jesters of news that offer the most truth above all else. After all, wasn't it only the Fool who truly indulged King Lear with insights of honesty?

Earlier today I was watching an interview that Mike Wallace did with Frank Lloyd Wright back in 1957. Seek it out and watch it because in those forty-five minutes eighty-eight year old Wright displays more intellect, thoughtfulness, compassion and humanity than the entire Factor archive.

This is quite an interesting article. O'Reilly undoubtedly does nothing to promote real debate. I occasionally watch his program and follow his shows because I do believe that the majority of media is left-wing and because it's clear that Fox news is very right wing. In absence of an unopinionated news source, it's second best to get the opposite and biased opinions. It's very unfortunate because I wonder how many people watch his show and swallow what he says whole.

This pre-fabricated media, however, is a product of our society. We live in a fast-paced, hectic world (or so we're constantly told). In our rush these days, our commercials are constantly bombarding us and telling us what to do to make the most of our precious time, of which every second MUST be used for something productive. There's no time to stop to think, you have to think on the move. It's not "look before you leap" it's "try and catch a glance while you're running up to the edge in order to leap." When we're hungry we're told to go eat pre-packaged fast food; it's natural that when we when we want news we want pre-formed opinions about that news fed to us. More people vote for an American Idol than for an American president because it takes a few seconds to text message a vote but a fair time commitment to register then cast a vote. Yes, O'Reilly's behavior presents a danger in our society, but he is a right-wing symptom of a greater societal ill. There are left-wing symptoms like him, less only in severity, but nonetheless reflections of the cancer that festers within; the same cancer that tries to fatten us with fast food, that tries to indoctrinate us with easy political opinions, and that tries to sell us their low-quality products for whatever price they tell us they're worth.

There's nothing more dangerous than letting someone think for you, whether it be Bill O'Reilly or any of the other pundits out there who compete for our souls.

I have to stick up for Jerry Springer here. I find it unfair to lump him in the same category with O'Reilly, as Springer never pretends that what he does is anything besides carnival freak show. There are no bullshit claims of legitimacy or respectability there, it's just bottom of the barrel entertainment, and Springer gladly admits to that.

Hey Roger,

I'm 28 years old and I agree with every word. When I have my kids, and grow older, I will reminisce with them about a time when there was an intellectual journalist who wrote with substance. Hopefully when they grow older, BOR will be forgotten and the world will remember Roger Ebert. I will do my part...

When I watch Keith Olbermann, I wonder if he's just the flip side of the O'Reilly coin. Both are opinionated and passionate about their beliefs. The thought of the two in the same room would make anybody cringe. Neither are fair nor balanced; in fact, Olbermann to my knowledge NEVER has on guests whom he disagrees with. Then again, O'Reilly never has guests on whom he can't shut up.

I wonder if I give Olbermann a free pass for being a liberal. I agree with most everything he says. I sometimes like to rationalize him as someone who speaks for those without a loud enough voice to counter that of O'Reilly. If we're going to have an O'Reilly, do we not need an Olbermann? Or, is it even fair to compare the two?

I'm not a Republi-crat. Hardly lean either way. I watch O'Reilly here and there and I almost never see him blow up. Sure there are the few times (the times when he should apologize respectively to his audience) but from I have seen it's more of a discussion/debate show. Someone said they fear Glenn Beck more...I see Glenn Beck as more of a satirist for the right. He makes jokes mostly and he's a bit more light-hearted to watch. The one that really worries me is Sean Hannity. That guy scares the be-jesus out of me. It's like listening to a right wing Al Franken on steroids. "Err...I'm Republican, I'm Republican! Hannity Smash!!"

I think it's pretty clear that Fox News leans right...but should anyone care? The other news channels lean left as far as I can tell. That's three (CNBC, CNN, and MSNBC) against one. I guess because Fox News is so popular that people immediately take aim and fire. One thing is for certain...fair and blanaced it ain't.

I read newspapers a few times a week, make my decisions based on what I read if it's an important issue without having somone pull my judgment away. And I'll listen to talk radio in the car driving to or coming from work (Michael Savage on the middle right, Randie Rhoads to the middle left). there are things I may agree with them on, there are things I may not. You're right when you say people stopped thinking for themselves...but wasn't that always the case? Did ancient Egyptians fully think of themselves or did they follow the Pharaoh in group think? How did early settlers gain intelligence and news? There has been slander and fool's throughout history, same as today. Today, people have on Obama shirts...completely clueless and in the dark as to any other reason they support him other than that he's a black democrat. Those people just follow the trend. People follow O'Reilly because he "sounds" passionate and concerned for everyone, not really questioning that perhaps the only reason he acts like that is to garner ratings (lest not forget the time he was making those "sexual advances" to one of his former staff members...). Sure what I just said might raise some eyebrows, but look around you...isn't it partly true? People just tend to follow the certain trend that seems to be popular at the time (like bashing Bush...my, that was the thing to do for 6 years...)

The one's who can really think for themselves without resorting to childish name calling or yelling, or any vindicitive sort of rubbish, will be the ones heading towards the future. The others will be exactly that...following the crowd into another mindless abberition of group think and mechanized thought...

Here's a funny little cartoon I made with O'Reilly's voice. I think it's kind of what you'd imagine him to look like if you heard him on the radio but never saw him on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sW05zb9Cpo

Although I tend to agree with you overall viewpoint on this issue and do appreciate the intelligent discussion, I have to take issue with two items in this discussion:

1) "Mr Ebert, Do you see a difference between O'Rielly and Janeane Garofalo who seems like a passive aggressive liberal version of the same thing to me."

"Ebert: One difference is that Garofolo has never called for the boycott and failure of newspapers she disagrees with."

Is it not equally inflammatory for her to say, "Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

I do not mean to bring up an entirely separate argument, but on principle this is exactly the type of behavior you have complained about O'Reilly exhibiting. I don't intend to put one over the other, but surely there should be some attention to the fact that both sides, politically, often act in inappropriate and senseless manners.

2)"There was a time when ordinary Americans would have been deeply offended by the way O'Reilly speaks about their President--any President."

"What has O'Reilly said about Obama or Bush that can be construed as offensive? You make a statement but don't back it up with any real fact on the matter. Please specify."

"Ebert: Nothing that I recall about Bush."

Obviously, it is clear where Mr. O'Reilly's interests are. He has certainly been more difficult on Obama than he ever was on Bush (though he did take issue with some of Bush's decisions, for better or for worse). However, I believe there is a more complex issue here. Bush, through all of his faults (and there were many, many, MANY), was mistreated on countless occasions; having been called horrible names, accused of horrible crimes, even having had death wished upon him. Where were you defending that Republican President, not on principle, but on decency? Why is it that "There was a time when ordinary Americans would have been deeply offended by the way O'Reilly speaks about their President--any President." only applies to O'Reilly and a Democratic President. If you have defended a Republican on this idea of respect for our President, please let me know.

The violent hate speech spewed about Bush far exceeded anything Bill O'Reilly ever said about anyone, thus far. There's no arguing O'Reilly's faults, but at least be consistent in arguing against such faults.

Ebert: Bush committed horrible crimes. He declared war based on lies, authorized torture and illegal wiretaps, and ignored the Constitutional guarantee of habeus corpus.

It's like you were listening in on a conversation I was having with relatives last week, only to be shouted down as getting on my "liberal soapbox" for pointing out the questionable ethics in this guy's "journalism."

Thank you.

Hey Roger,

Wondering what your opinion is on Glenn Beck.

I don't watch television very much. Sometimes I'll watch the Today Show, sometimes I'll turn on Big Bang Theory or use it to order movies from pay-per-view. My parents watch the news. I hide behind my computer on the couch and get busy writing or reading books. I don't really know my political views. I guess you could say I'm a moderate leaning liberal? Watching politicians argue is, to me, like attempting to watch those Spanish soap operas always playing on Telemundo with only a year of Spanish class to aid me, and my experiences of watching Dora the Explorer when I was little. I support gay marriage and am pro-choice on the matter of abortions. While I obviously plan to get into politics more as I reach voting age, I hardly ever get into debates on politics with my parents. Mostly, we just agree or agree to disagree -- probably because I was allowed my own opinions to form without comment from my parents.

And as for you saying that most eighth graders can't read a newspaper, now that summer's started up I'm not quite sure if my demographic counts anymore -- though I have to say that I think most people in my class could read a newspaper, if not comprehend it. I ask about what happens in the world, on occasion, but I'm more interested into delving into the mysteries of the universe. Science is not objective. Philosophy has its classics. Literature, in and of itself, has its multiple interpretations, but there's nobody out there to yell at me for the 'wrong' one, and certainly nobody votes on the meaning of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock or the like. I guess at this age, most interests are internal rather than external. I like history. I occasionally worry that it may be repeated. I hate intolerance. Seeing it on the news disturbs me and makes me fear for the future, mostly because if we can't learn to get along we aren't going to get anywhere. People who yell at each other while discussing differing beliefs that are reasonable on both sides are making the situation worse. Both sides should listen to each other -- it really doesn't matter who I agree with, because I think that as long as there are two political parties there will be disagreements. Some can be reconciled, some can't be. Popular sovereignty ought to rule, not propaganda and/or beliefs shoved down people's throats with little to back up said statements but airy half-truths and lies.

Nonetheless, as for the degeneration of all things media, this is the iGeneration, or whatever one would like to call it. Our attention spans are shortened, vastly. I can sit here and 'visit' Europe via Google Images (I'd still yearn to go, no matter what.) Books marketed to teenagers are making me nauseous. They hardly ever make you think. I asked for Dostoevsky at my school library and they laughed at me (not that I really expected anything else... XD). School is okay. You mostly did a lot of things by rote and never really examined Shakespeare, or looked into whatever you were reading. I had mostly cool teachers, though, so I guess I have to blame the curriculum. The test dates made our teachers scramble to teach us what was on those standardized little papers of bubbles and scan-trons. My math teacher was complete milquetoast, along with the textbook itself. Hah. For the rest of the world, though, a lot of things have been shrunken to bite-sized pieces already. Like someone already mentioned, fast food fits into the idea that our attention spans are small. We can't sit down and read books with informed ideas anymore -- we just eat up what other people tell us and fall into line.

I worry mostly about having a population so narrow-minded that it cannot see the virtues of the "other". The Other is utilized commonly in horror films, I think, but what I really mean is that I'm glad people disagree. There's variety and diversity. If everyone agreed I'm afraid I'd probably be quite the bored person. Philosophy would consume itself and good, reasonable debate would die like the dinosaurs (not that there's much of the latter around, really.) I'd like to see someone who could engage another person, both equally intelligent and ready to prove their views with equally well-cited details and evidence and wait to see what happened. I think they might agree, or one might convince the other of one point and vice versa. It would be all very interesting. (I have yet to find this, or perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.) All the same, I recently read 1984 and was amused at how the Oceanians so easily rewrote their own history. I don't know about a totalitarianism like 1984 showing up anytime soon, but the entire idea of conflicting things existing in one slogan and the world eating it up because of conformism is believable in this climate.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Big Brother is watching you?

- A kid.

Ebert: I first approached Dostoevsky with naive dread that he would be "hard." I could not put down Crime and Punishment. I too had no use for "young people's" books. I wanted the real stuff. A great early influence was Mark Twain. He showed me that humor is more difficult in the style than in the content. And Thomas Wolfe swept me away in high school. That is when you have to read him, as an adolescent. And always the divine Dickens.

As somebody who has spent years worrying about the trend towards having no appreciation for substance, all I can say is, in all my various discussions with people, the bottom line seems to be that they're tired from work, don't have much time on their hands but are still looking for something fun to do (or watch). It takes time and energy to appreciate substance and people seem to not have either these days, or so I'm repeatedly told but when I see movies like "American Splendor" I can't help but still feel people are full of it and making excuses for terminal laziness... When I try to talk people into looking into more great movies they've never heard of - that is, various landmarks over the course of film history - it's always the same: who has time to develop a 'critical eye'? But when you think about it, there's what, a little over 300 movies in Roger's Great Movies collection? And how many days in a year? So how long will it really take you to become substantially knowledgeable about films? All it takes is open-mindedness and the will to want to explore what's out there... And that takes imagination, something the go-go-go, buy-buy-buy, sell-sell-sell culture around us continues to lack...

It is somewhat consoling that US is not that ahead of others in many ways. Perhaps we have arrived where the psyche,beneath the skin is already globalised and homogenised...who said that tyranny demands not just agreement but emotional agreement...

Geraldo deserves a better network.

By the way, I seem to remember you writing an open letter to O'Reilly after he included the Sun Times on a list of papers he thinks should be boycotted. You ended up comparing him to Squeaky the Chicago mouse. Let it always be known that you can tear somebody a new hole better than a mad dog on speed.

"The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature, the predictability of two of the leading cable news channels. A majority of cable news viewers now get their news slanted one way or the other."

I am not sure the shows on MSNBC (the implied other in your post) display even close to the level of propaganda and hate speech spewed by the talking heads at Fox. Olbermann started going over-the-top with his commentaries after he found out they were a ratings hit and he does get worked up, engages in name calling and some other childish behaviour (he also often pokes fun at himself and apologizes when he has facts wrong). Most of it is pointed at those who are the bullies, the ignorant and the heartless - not just those who he disagrees with. I would ask you to go watch "This Hole in the Ground" which was his first "special comment" and tell me the anger and call to action isn't spot on.

Maddow, Matthews and Olbermann represent centrist politics. CNN, The New York Times and other outlets do not allow nearly the number of truly left-leaning thinkers to have a voice. They are center-right, pro-war and pro-corporate organizations that only speak out against these things when it is well past the point of such reporting being necessary. This has been documented going as far back as Chomsky's film Manufacturing Consent in 1992.

All writers and reporters have a slant to their work. There is a lens of nationality, family upbringing, schooling and other biases at work guiding their choice of words, what stories to cover and what words to use in describing events. I am glad the bias is more open and honest these days. I don't care for subtle "unbiased" reporting which is really just the personal lens obscured by mechanical dry writing pretending to be fact. I think we are heading for a less polarized hybrid of old fashioned reporting and openness about biases now that so much information is open to so many people.

I love this entry, as I was just thinking of this subject today. I'm a high school student in Arkansas, at an all male Catholic school, and take a journalism class there. When we have free time, we watch Fox News, and the entire class cheers on O'Reilly's yelling, and mocks any of his liberal guests. It seems that this attitude carries over into my religion class, where we discuss various issues. I'm probably one of three in my class who aren't "conservative", and I'm normally the one who voices his opinion on the opposing side. The topic of homosexuality , and the debate on whether they should be able to marry came about. I said that if they are in love, it shouldn't be the state's decision whether or not they can legally marry. This was met with such an angry uproar, even by the teacher, that I'm starting to see the effects of fervently biased people in the media like O'Reilly. It seems more like he's trying to train an army than trying to run a news talk show.

Globalisation of stupidity....Einstein: Two things are infinite, the universe and man's stupidity---about universe I ain't so sure!

Ebert: S. M., I love you.

While usually your articles and opinion pieces are very good, this one was nothing more than liberal propaganda. To suggest that someone merely voicing their opinion is responsible for a murder is nothing more than an attempt to stifle oppositional views. O'Reilly believed that Tiller was a murderer. Hell, I believe Tiller was a murderer. He never advocated vigilantism or anything of the sort. Saying he's responsible is like saying gay-marriage supporters were responsible for that old lady who got mauled at a Prop-8 protest.

The bias in this article is very apparent. There are plenty of equally repulsive (although I do enjoy O'Reilly, I'll go along with the general opinion that he's an incarnation of Satan himself) journalists on the left. How about Keith Olberman? What about Garofolo? She is constantly spewing vitrol about Conservatives, lumping them all together as racists and rednecks. Sure, O'Reilly may be bad, but it is nothing out of the ordinairy. There are people like him on both left and right sides.

Quote:

Ron:Mr Ebert, Do you see a difference between O'Rielly and Janeane Garofalo who seems like a passive aggressive liberal version of the same thing to me.

Ebert: "One difference is that Garofolo has never called for the boycott and failure of newspapers she disagrees with.

A better comparison would be O'Reilly with Olbermann. And Olberman has called for boycotting Fox News.

Incidentally, Garafolo has said "conservatives are stupid", and that the tea party protestors were "racists" and "tea-bagging rednecks". For all his faults, O'Reilly never throws around generalities like that.

Mr. Ebert, I could take your commentary much more seriously if you weren't so blatantly biased, and condemning only one side of the political aisle.

What happened to freedom of speech? Those who do not like this programming have the freedom to watch or not watch. The real fear I have is not of O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann, Matthews....,I fear those who call to stifle their voices. In America WE ALL have the right to a voice and an opinion. We also, ALL have the right to turn the channel.

Ebert: I agree.

This is a fascinating article. I wouldn't encourage anyone who reads it to take seriously much of what Rush Limbaugh says, save for this one thing:

http://is.gd/14gAE

The salient snip:

At dinner the night before, Bill O’Reilly’s name came up, and Limbaugh expressed his opinion of the Fox cable king. He hadn’t been sure at the time that he wanted it on the record. But on second thought, “somebody’s got to say it,” he told me. “The man is Ted Baxter.”

...and for those who don't recall the name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Baxter

Ebert: I don't often agree with him, but I think of Limbaugh as smart and talented.

Hi Roger

No offence but do you feel that Pauline Kael was sort of like the Bill O' Reilly of her time?

Ebert: Not really.

I think it's less a case of appetites changing, and more the logical consequence of people following their tastes; choosing the buffet of distributed media over the trough of times past.

While I don't think it can be argued that the integrity and intensity of the mainstream public discourse are speeding in opposite directions, I find that countenanced by the wealth of quality discussion available to those willing to go look for it. Just as I can direct my TV, radio or web browser to any number of destinations delivering the verbal equivalent of pro wrestling, should that be what I'm entertained by (it IS entertainment after all, let's not delude ourselves), I can similarly direct my attention to any number of sources delivering complex, insightful and focused discussion on almost any issue imaginable (this blog, for instance).

The function of the vast increase in available sources of media has really been that of a prism, separating broad, evenhanded content into a spectrum of its constituent parts (ugly as some parts of that spectrum may be). While an uninvolved, somewhat apathetic consumer, someone who scans the news in the morning, and catches some TV at night, loses out in this arrangement. Those seeking the that complex, insightful and focused discussion have that available in a way unimaginable in eras past.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the nostalgia of civility is nice, but I'd still trade it in a heartbeat for the access, specificity and depth of information and analysis that I now enjoy and which I can avail myself of however I choose, wherever I choose, whenever I choose and with whomever I choose.

Hell, eventually maybe we can even have our cake and eat it too.

Through this blog I feel like I am watching your country through a pair of binoculars, like a peeping Tom. I can't think of much in Australia which compares to O'Reilly. Yes there is right-wing tv and radio but nothing quite so extreme in its volatility and aggression, verging on self-parody. I see it as a sleight of hand: the bluster and faux anger stands in place of any real emotion about the war and other melancholy events. You watch it not to feel roused up but rather so as not to feel anything at all, with the heroes and villains underlined for you in advance, and everything in its right place.

To be fair, Mr. Ebert, O'Reilly doesn't shout on a regular basis in his daily shows. But surly you can't blame O'Reilly for getting on Barney Franks' case. We're talking about a congressman who said Freddie and Fannie were "solid"; yet he tried to do damage control and weasel his way out of guilt in the "no spin zone." Frank blamed everybody but himself! I'll take one million O'Reillys before I take one Barney Frank. By that token we might have saved billions of dollars!

Roger,

While I do not agree with O'Reilly's methods, I find the venomous descriptions of him to be horribly exaggerated. That's not to say the man doesn't curse, rant, bully, overstep his boundaries, etc. But come on, you said it yourself: his audience already agrees with him! How much damage can he do if the people he influences were probably going to go along with that line of thinking anyway? I don't exactly for see Bill O'Reilly rising up and leading a right wing revolution anytime soon.

I get equally frustrated when people on the internet (usually under the age of 35) refer to Church organizations as "oppressive". Oppressive to who?? It's a bunch of old guys in hats kneeling in front of a cross...hardly the zealotry and violence of the Spanish inquisition. I think that sheep minded majorities villanize just a tad too much, for fear of having to criticize and police their own beliefs more consistently. There's a billion people out there who agree with you about Bill O'Reilly...therefore, you probably can stop worrying about him.

What I find kind of amazing is that anyone would want to watch this jerk. He reminds me of Morton Downey Jr, another loud right wing creep. Sean Hannity is even worse. He IS a racist as far as I'm concerned. After Katrina, he blasted the (mostly poor and black) residents of New Orleans for looting, and refused to acknoledge the criminal neglect of the Bush administration. He actually thought that looting was a worse crime then sitting idily by while people drowned.

Truth is, a lot of people that I know and respect watch Keith Oberman, Rachel Madow, and Chris Matthews, all of whom are just the liberal equivilant of O'Rielly and Hannity. They ask me why I don't like them, since I'm very much a liberal. I can't stand them because they get their point across by shouting and bullying and acting smug and superior.

Fact is, I long for the days when you turned on the news and got THE NEWS. When people actually reported the news. Originally, that's what CNN did. Now it's just Wolf Blitzer and a bunch of graphics. CBS and NBC have jumped the shark. ABC is the only news show that I think is even remotley credible. I'm sick and tired of hearing everybodies opinions.

Roger, I say this with a heavy heart. I am losing respect for you.
The sad post above is a clear reason why. It strongly suggests that your political thinking is about as objective and fair as the man you are denouncing.

I would have thought that an obviously intelligent man like yourself would see the hypocrisy of castigating O'Reilly while at the same time utilizing the very same tactics being denounced.

I am not sure how citing the findings of school bully studies is meant to persuade one to consider that O'Reilly may have influenced the murderer of Dr. Tiller. O'Reilly stated on many occasions that he considered abortion to be murder. If that in itself is enough to inspire someone to go out and kill an abortion provider, what degree of culpability does that place on O'Reilly? None. Promoting a viewpoint (however boorishly) on a controversial topic does not constitute bullying. I do not need convincing that O'Reilly is a crude commentator and a shallow thinker. Apparently you don't think the evidence of the show itself is enough to demostrate just what a bad guy he is, so you rush to implicate him in inspiring murder.

It is often believed that one's political beliefs cannot be held on objective grounds, which I believe to be nonsense. The example you have set over the years, Roger, may however intice many to believe it.

You lament the circus of partisanship yet you are a gleeful participant in it. Your use of the phrase "right-wing" resembles a button used to administer electric shocks; no need to define what you're talking about, just so the reader knows it's BAD. As far as I can tell, that is your working definition. I recall at one time you called Che Guevara (!) a right-winger for god's sake, in an effort to recognize his murderous legacy.

Several commenters here have noted your clear lack of objectivity in choosing targets. This is obvious. You often attempt to throw the other side a bone, like your bit on Olberman, which comes across as unconvincing. Then you defend Janeane Garofalo, dismissing any comparison to O'Reilly when in fact it's quite accurate (see Garofalo's recent comments about the Tea Party protests).

There is a natural tendency to defend those on one's own side. This often leads to one looking the other way, and thus partisanship is born.

So, Roger, I would really prefer it if you showed a little more respect for the intelligence of your readers. A partisan decrying partisanship when it suits him is not an inspiring thought.

O'Reilly (or Limbaugh, Hannitty, Savage and Beck) by no means introduced the style of mean-spirited confrontational electronic "journalism." Our country has always been plagued by such people. Father Coughlin (who was FDR's bain) was before my time, but back in the 50's and 60's we had to cope with Joe Pyne and his hard right agenda. Come the 80's (and cable TV) we were treated to the daily tirades of Morton Downey Jr. So, none of these obnoxious clowns are originals, even in the worst way.

To those of you who claim that Keith Olbermann practices the same brand of in-your-face misrepresentational partisanship, but of opposite polarity, I say balderdash. He's partisan, yes, but his chief rhetorical device is not a raised voice, twisted facts and outlandish accusations; it is humor, ridicule and incessant logical dissection of opposition philosophy and spurious claims of fact. He uses much of the same dry wit as Jon Stewart, except that he's a journalist who uses humor and Stewart is a humorist who mines news and politics. Olbermann laughs throughout his show (as does Rachel Maddow). O'Reilly and the rest of the "fair and balanced" crowd never crack a smile. To them, hate-mongering seems a serious business.

Olbermann and Chris Matthews even seem to have a good time laughing at themselves when they are parodied on Saturday Night Live. They replay the clips on their shows and chuckle along with us viewers. Olbermann knows he has a pompous delivery when he reads his opinion pieces towards the end of his show. He laughed heartily when Brad Pitt mocked him mercilessly for it on SNL. Has anyone ever heard O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannitty, Beck or Savage laugh at anything, let alone themselves?

I'm not going to pretend that to be truly "fair and balanced," or more appropriately, fair and objective, one needs to consider the two sides of the American political dialectic to be mirror images of one another and equally guilty of distortion, deception and manipulation. Not at all. One needs to make a choice. One needs to continuously test the credibility of both sides against what you know about the overarching truths in the real world as revealed by science, scholars, journalists, historians, and other learned individuals, not only from our own culture but from around the world. Which side seems to provide that consistent, congruent whole? And, keep in mind that facts and truth are not determined by consensus, polls or a ballot box, or by audience share or ratings. Given enough money, those things can be bought and sold, the truth cannot.

Your propaganda piece here is quite amusing. You see, propaganda has many faces; you just prefer a certain type. Mainstream media, NPR, etc. Unfortunately for you, many of us are too well-informed.

"There was a time when ordinary Americans would have been deeply offended by the way O'Reilly speaks about their President--any President."

What a ludicrous statement. As someone who never voted for Bush, I became very offended by the way he was spoken about, and that includes by the MSM.

Not only that, but as a longtime Factor watcher (yes, Independents watch too), I don't recall any 'offensive' language towards presidents. Regarding President Obama, I've heard praise, expressions that he should be treated with respect and fairness, and only slight criticism.

Also, is that a Freudian slip in your list of "you say, I say"?

In your list, you (I say) never say Republican nor Conservative, but do say "Far Right" and "Right-Wing Wing nut.

Yet you do say "Democratic party" and "Liberal" but not Far-Left nor Left Wing Wing Nut.

Hmmmmm.

The idea that propaganda techniques are used by O'Reilly but not, say, by you right here is laughable. And shouting down and bullying? Please, that takes many forms, including the written word. One needn't be present to be bullied.

Now, will there be a study on Olbermann, Mathews, Hollywood celebrities, NPR, and newspaper columnists--you know, to be fair & balanced? Certainly, they reach far more people than O'Reilly.

BTW, when will our MSM acknowledge that we have legal and illegal immigrants in the country. They have no credibility, even with the most basic truths. Your spin is equally as obvious.

Ebert: I listen to a lot of NPR and think it is doing some of the best news broadcasting in American history.

Roger,

Seems like a "bully" move on your part to focus on one person rather than focus on the broader problem that you go on AND on AND on about here. I guess you've never heard of Keith Olberman or Bill Maher or even David Letterman.

For someone who does what you do for a living; criticize and judge other people's art and performances, I find it ironic that you have the gall to call anyone a "bully".

You have ZERO credibility on this issue and someone should wake you up to your part in this "problem" you are fixated on.

Notice all the Chicago Land zombies drinking the Ebert coolaid.
Seems the hypnosis works both ways.

Roger,

I saw you on O'Reilly's show on a clip he showed a few weeks back talking about microchips being implanted in people's brains. He seemed to like you quite a bit, and I was wondering if you two have talked in recent years? He seems like he might have done something to personally make you mad. If not, you two should email back and forth to talk with each other.

Ebert: He issued a hit list of newspapers he wanted to fail, including mine.

O'Reilly sets the opposite example. He brings on guests who represent the "enemy," doesn't seriously engage their beliefs, and shouts: Be quiet! I'm right and you're wrong! I stand for good and you stand for evil! I'm not exaggerating. Sometimes those are the very words he uses.

i have been a long time viewer of bill oreilly's factor program, and yes... he does sometimes gets angry (if he perceives them to be lying or untruthful). but most of the time, 98% of the time, he's civil. he's nicer to obama than any of the MSNBC commentators or NYT's columnists were to bush.

of course, the few times he went nuts on air are all on youtube being recorded by george soros' media matters, and if you're not a regular viewer and only watched 5 minutes of compiled videos of o'reilly's "greatest hits", you'd come to the conclusion that he's a rightwing irrational hothead too.

he does so many shows every year that every once in a while (2%) he loses his cool. he's a news commentator. even the veteran comedian david letterman loses it every now and then, becomes rude and mistreats his guests (eg john mccain).

I say Liberal. You say Far Left.

I say Far Right. You say Conservative.

Is Mr. Ebert trying to balance the scales? Does he really not see that he is simply reflecting the same mindset he deplores, but from the other side? Liberal is liberal, conservative is conservative. Far left is Trotsky, Stalin, and Che. Far right is Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. Obama is liberal, Gingrich conservative.

Ebert: That is the point I was making with that list. "I say" was a hypothetical "me," and "you say" was a hypothetical "you."

I say Creationism. You say Intelligent Design.

You may disagree with both positions (I do), but there are differences. Creationists, if they really look at intelligent design, won't support it because it isn't a "young earth" argument.

I say Environmentalists. You say Tree-Huggers.

You say environmentalists, I say end-of-times hysterics...!

Mr Ebert, you state that One difference is that Garofolo has never called for the boycott and failure of newspapers she disagrees with.

The reason why is because there aren't any.

Ebert: Remarkable that even Rupert Murdoch and Lord Black before him don't qualify.

way to cherry pick video. He has had how many hundreds of shows and you find those clips? Barney Frank deserved MORE than what Oreilly gave him. Roger, dont you know what he did to our economy and how many people he hurt badly!! If you don't, then your not informed. If oreilly lost it every show, I would not want to watch him. He has good catholic ideals in a media full of permissive sexual and violent content and acceptance. Ive never gotten hot about an issue or a person I did not truly care about. Oreilly is genuine, and he is number 1 for a reason. Fading celebrities like yourself only look on with dismay and contempt. The media is 90% liberal and for those of us more conservative types, we
enjoy the chance to see someone represent our viewpoints on occasion.
Who called people teabaggers? cnn, msnbc, abc and more. Oreilly never stoops that low.

Ebert: I dunno. Somehow "teabaggers" doesn't strike me as as insulting term. If one holds a tea party, the bag doesn't fall far from the tea.

I find it interesting that many of the commenters here are bringing up Keith Olbermann or (for some strange reason) Janine Garofalo. Ebert's point is not specifically about Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is simply the most blatant example of what's wrong with our media. He's not the only example.

Ebert's point is that we've come to the point in our existence where a person can blatantly tell their audience, "Be stupid. Don't see two sides of any issue, and don't you dare read a damn thing that I myself haven't written for you," and it works. It's a sad state of affairs.

Ebert: Thank you, THANK you, for noticing that in my second paragraph I wrote:

"He has been an influence on the most worrying trend in the field of news: The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature, the predictability of two of the leading cable news channels."

Roger, I think Bill O'Reilly is a product of a Conservative upbringing. Conservatism breeds repression. Repression breeds perversity on unimaginable scales. It is evident in all countries. For example, in general, the "upper classes" in countries like England are conservative. Yet they are perverted and hide their perversions behind society's view of them as "superior". It was clear with the Catholic Church orders here in Ireland who ran our schools. They horribly abused children physically, mentally and sexually. Their life of celibacy and repression of any human feeling made them into perverts. Bill O'Reilly is like this, except obviously not as extreme. People like him caused Hitler's Germany to rise, convinced their country was right no matter what they did. Convinced God is on their side (as if God could be on the side of a whole country) and wants them to wipe out "evil". These are the sort of people who are evil in retrospect, like all evil. He is a fascist, but I don't think he is the only one, what with the emerging fascism of the global warming movement. Bill O'Reilly is an evil idiot, and sums up everything that is wrong with America and every reason people hate America in one wrinkled, furious package.

"Good Mornin' Breakfast Clubbers Good Mornin' to ya, we got up bright and early to How de doo ya!" Don McNeill's Breakfast Club was the best of midwestern friendly radio. What a nice way to start out the day. Wally Phillips came next and he was a gentle funny person who respected his audience. As usual you put into words my feelings about right wing talk radio today. Rush, B.O., the odious Glenn Beck the little pisher Sean Hannity have all sold their souls to the devil for their sheckels. I feel there is an undercurrent in this country now of people who unhappy in their lot in life and blame it on the "liberals" i.e. minority groups who they perceive have taken away their jobs, money etc. Almost like Germany before WW2. History has shown us the scapegoating is dangerous. The so called hosts remind me of the old Nazi radio broadcasts. B.O. was hated in Boston by the way. You can even see it in the comments sections of newspaper articles. I believe this trend may end in some sort of tragedy for our country. Thank you Roger for writing about it.

Ok... I usually respect your movie opinions.... This is another case of a typical hollywood type letting the public know where they stand politically. Who cares... I would expect this from O'Reilly but from you... O'Reilly and the other nut Olbermann are the ones that are supposed to force their opinions on us.

When you give your opinion on the new Terminator movie I will listen... Other then that I don't care. Do your job!

I've always found the red text cards that flash to the right of Bill, that reiterate his talking points as he says them almost verbatim, condescending and insulting to my intelligence (then again, I feel the same about the songs on the Conan O'Brien show that feel they require subtitles, otherwise they think we won't understand what's being sung).

Mr. Ebert,

You cannot separate your hate for Mr. O'Reilly from your diametrically opposes political beliefs. It's obvious from what you've written that you have constructed an profile based on selective and misleading information. Clearly you have not watched Mr. O'Reilly's show for any length of time because had you bothered to do so, you would come to know how incorrect your characterization of him truly is. But you don't care about getting it right, you just care about venting your anger and making yourself feel good by assassinating the character of someone with whom you deeply disagree. Because your form of callous hate must be opposed, thank God for Mr. O'Reilly and Foxnews.

While I applaud this column for taking O'Reilly to task for his dishonesty and bullying, I think there is a man who is far more dangerous than O'Reilly is. Glenn Beck. Beck is inarticulate, absurd, emotionally unstable, polarizing, and - let's be perfectly honest here - none too bright. At list William F. Buckley was intelligent and verbose. Beck is now obscenely popular for being a dim witted propaganda maestro who appeals to "the common folk". The state of anti-intellectual pride presented as folksy, salt of the earth "I'm just a straight talker" mentality is by far the most troubling trend in the American psyche.

Once again, another self-congratulatory, morally superior article from the great Roger Ebert, film critic. INSISTING that others are guilty.
You didn't bother to mention that, for example, the museum killer was on YOUR SIDE! It is impossible to prove a connection between Roger Ebert & him, but both hate Bill O'Reilly. Could this culture of hatred & moral superiority be spawning such violent acts against those whom they see as morally inferior human beings, primitive only in their shoutings & rantings?
As far as the majority not agreeing with them, another coplete fabrication, as the overwhelming majority of AMericans oppose late-term abortions.
This eschews the substantive topic of whether or not such capricious acts, done for the most capricious of reasons, are morally just.
Further, because of your superiorist view of unborn human life, it is shown that you value yourself higher than other human life forms (unborn children, Bill O'Reilly, etc) & thus create a eugenic kind of understanding of some human lives being more worthy & valuable than others. It is impossible to prove, but could this Ebertian culture of eugenics be responsible for the mass killing we see in our culture today in schools & in museums (by a self-attested Foxnews & Bill O'Reilly hater)?
Could this media representation of America as an imperialist state for 8 years (while suddenly COMPLETELY innocent of such a charge with a new leader) be the cause of killings by Muslim radicals of US soldiers? This angry, editorializing, self-congratulatory, left-wing form of hatred that Roger Ebert espouses. Where ALL dissent against his left-wing statism is dangerous to a "civil & peaceful society" (read: do NOT express dissent against Ebert left-wing statism & call for others to do the same. Such an act of subterufuge is dangerous to our civil & peaceful society & therefore you are a menace

Name calling -- A Serial Bully
* Glittering generalities -- O'Reilly is a "danger to civil society"
* Card stacking -- isolated clips that show nothing of the genial interviews with leftist guests who frequent the show, as well as cultural segments & children's rights work;
* Bandwagon -- cf. entire article; ("I'm right, you're wrong! follow me!"
* Plain folks -- cf. entire article
* Transfer -- studies done by Indiana university
* Testimonials -- commeny section below article

So again, we see a glittering example of liberal hypocrisy in full display.
Can it be??? Ebert OBJECTS to a liberal bias in the media!??! Of course, this is a crazy thought. His entire article does not prove otherwise. It's just a CRAZY conspiracy theory!
The question must then be asked...has Roger Ebert even SEEN an episode of the show, apart from his incredibly painful (I feel it) viewings of random clips opposing his left-wing icons?
I doubt it.

Ebert: The museum killer was on my side?

Here's a cartoon for you, by me, G. H. Diel, of course. I believe, hope this commentary-type cartoon succinctly shows the balance that comes off when a bully is stood up by a little courage...in this case Joan Walsh, from Salon.com http://exoptica.typepad.com/blogoptica/2009/06/the-factor-interviews-joan-walsh.html

(Also note, there are no advertisments on our blog, ever.)

O'Reilly is in show-business...duh!

That the line between news and entertainment no longer exists is an altogether different argument, and hardly Bill O'Reilly's fault.

It would be a boring show if he were nice, or reserved, or had opinions that were not controversial.

People need to remember that show-business is not life, no matter how obsessed we are with it.

Go out and ride your bike!

Nice hatchet job, Ebert.

You wacky libs wear blinders whenever one of your own goes off on some sort of rant (which is VERY often. It's probably because it happens with such frequency, and is accepted by the leftists in this country who control TV, newspapers, and entertainment.

O'Reilly is a man who has passion for what he believes in, and his frustration with your side of the fence is our frustration.

We know you are all going to hell. We just don't want you dragging us down with you.

Roger- It appears that you too have been taken in by the Youtube videos of O'Reilly screaming, rather than actually hear into the context and substance that envelopes his passionate rants. In each one of the shouting matches above, he advocates for the folks who do not have a voice in the mainstream media. How often have you stood up for an innocent child raped, a soldier who is shouted upon because he is fighting the wrong war, or the common folk who lost their life savings because the people in Congress looked out for their own agenda. I am a legal immigrant from East India who has grown to appreciate people like Bill O' Reilly because he seems to be the only one looking out for the people who don't have a voice. All that the newspapers and the mainstream media seem to do is defend their agenda. If you watch O'Reilly consistently, you will find out that he is the voice for the undefended. When the day comes where Republicans or Democrats or our President looks out for the hardworking folks, I do not need the O'Reillys shouting at the top of their voice. Until then, I am glad that there is one person out there who has the passion to look out for the folks like me and my baby daughter.

To extend what you say, what concerns me is that we have many people who can't separate fact from opinion. These biased networks don't help. A trick that I hear on the rare occasions I listen is to say "Democrats are" or "Conservatives do" or something which generalizes a specific. It may be that a Democratic Congressman (sorry, CongressPerson)lied. That doesn't mean that all Democratic CongresPeople lie. I suspect that you and I would have some disagreement about how to resolve certain social issues, because I am more conservative than you. But my hope would be (a) that we could have a civil discourse about issues, without calling each other a pinhead, and (b) that we could respect each others' opinions, regardless of whether we disagree about them.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE GROUP DO A 6 MONTH STUDY OF PRES. OBAMAS SPEECHES USING THE SAME CRITERIA, AND WHILE THEY ARE AT IT THROW IN CHRIS MATTHEWS, JUST TO BE 'FAIR AND BALANCED'.

Ebert: I think you might be surprised at the results of a study on Obama.

Spot on, Ebert. Once again, you show yourself to be one of our greatest critics. Unlike those others, you haven't sold your soul. You are a true journalist.

roger,
your analysis is ridiculous... comparing o'reilly to some preacher in the 30's that was purportedly pro nazi and an anti-semite is slanderous and you know it... isn't that waht the left does, cloak things in the name of "civility" and "civil discourse" and then make comparisons of conservatives to nazis and or nazi lovers??? puhleeeese... you yourself are guilty of the vitriole and hyperbole you just tried to say was no good... whereas when i say leftists like you need a dose of sunshine as mental and ethical disinfectant, because cockroaches of your sort scurry away from the light [ read: truth ] i make no bones about what i'm saying. i say what i mean and i mean what i say. [see: honesty-trait of a conservative] you just don't like what i have to say, becuase its 180 degrees opposite from you... if o'reilly wasn't fair he would have "enemy" guests on his show at all nbow would he??? kind of like olberdouche on that other channel.... so what if o'reilly gets hot under the collar sometimes, i'd call that passion, you call it anger... if you're correct, then why are his ratings sooooo freaking high for sooooo long-- do you really think it's onlky the "choir" that watches every night??? me thinks thou protesth to much. maybe,just maybe o'reilly and limbaugh, beck and all the others ratings are soooooo high for so long because they discuss important issues and search for truth froma perspective yu can't get anywhere else... maybe they do more good, not that you'd mention ever it, donations to charity, troop organizations, stimulating the economy, and get jessica's law passed, defend the honor of this country and bring corrupt officials to light, than you could ever even realize... not to mention i find o'reilly and limbaugh and beck and all the others very entertaining and i fully recognize they are much more than entertainers--- there is a reason why they are so popular-- the truth shall set you free. today. tomorrow. always. like most liberal hacks you have a hard time with the truth. i'll conclude with this-- since the truth always finds it's way out, always gets to the top, you'd better realize these shows are the vanguard of the coming conservative, right wing renaissance of the next 20-30 years. the aforementioned people [ and people like sarah palin ] are the tip of the spear of the great conservative awakening that IS happening in this country-- and i know that has you very worried, so you come up with crap like this.

"There was a time when ordinary Americans would have been deeply offended by the way O'Reilly speaks about their President--any President."

Umm, Roger, I just did a Google search to see if you were 'deeply offended' by the KILL BUSH death cult on the Left that included movies, books, plays, merchandising, art exhibits and Air America's Randy Rhodes simulating Bush's Freddie Corleone-like assassination on the air, complete with gunshot audio.

Couldn't find any condemnation of all that in past commentary. Could you clarify? Post an older OpEd in which you condemned all that? Because otherwise I might think you're a blatant hypocrite with a short or selective memory who should stick to movie reviews.

I remember a few years ago when O'Reilly described The Daily Show audience as stupid stoners and Stewart responded by doing a survey on political knowledge of viewers of the daily show, cnn and o'reilly factor. Not suprisingly daily show won hands down over cnn watchers and o'reilly at the bottom. O'Reillys appearance on the Daily Show however was quiet funny and I kind of got the impression that there is a fair amount of acting on his part on his show.

The point I wanted to make however is that here in Switzerland, if we have political discussions, it will practically always include a moderator (should be unbiased) to keep discussions emotionfree and polite. The one-on-one format where two total opposites attack each other head on has the foregone conclusion of ending in a verbal brawl, a bit like boxing. Most people will not admire the skill of the boxers, they just want to see a knock-out.

Roger,

Stick to film. I can only assume you feel the same way about Olbermann, Dowd, Krugman, columinst from the Examiner and a whole host of others that cheapen the discourse. My suggestion, instead of playing into the hands of your accusers, it would have been more worthwhile for you to do an expose on those people as well. You didn't. Surprise.

You used to have integrity now you spend your days making biased nuanced arguments and in this case overt "Obvious" arguments against religion, libertarianism, and conservativism.

You are a cliche

I say "people agreeing with a reasonable essay", you say "Chicago Land zombies drinking the Ebert coolaid"

First, shocking that a liberal department at a liberal university would find O'Reilly bad. Speaking of propaganda, when's the last time the left labeled someone a homophobe, a hick, a redneck, ignorant, unsophisticated, etc? Here's a fact, socialism has never worked in any country, ever. In fact, it's oppressive, stifling and parasitic. Conservatives thought that once Bush was out of office the left's hatred would abate, in fact it's just the opposite; it's intensifying. Your side hates, fumes, foams and loathes people so much it borders on psychotic. You hate people who want to protect pre-born babies, you hate people who want to preserve marriage between one man and one woman, you hate people who refuse to genuflect at the altar of environmentalism, you hate people who are patriotic, you hate people who love Jesus. No, not just disagree with, but hate and want to punish those who agree with even one of the above. Garofalo calling for the jailing of conservatives on Bill Maher, the article (that was quickly removed) asking when people who are global warming deniers will be jailed or executed. Sadly, your liberalism is not one of enlightenment, but of an imminent "eugenic culture of death" steeped in a liberal use of propaganda. After all, Obama is not a god-like, messiah, deliver, Christ figure. He is a man! But you wouldn't know that from all the liberal media propaganda.

Mr. Ebert...couldn't agree with you more and I've actually watched BOR quite a bit to be able to make a well formed opinion. Your article, as usual, is quite insightful into the self-important mind of Bill O'Reilly. What has actually struck me is how little he actually knows of several topics that would be better if he did not cover them. This is especially true of the entertainment field as he even tries to turn things like movie grosses into some kind of political statement. I remember when Iraq based movies started coming out a couple of years ago that did not do well at the box office, he made a declaration that this was obviously due to americans backing the Iraq war and the Bush administration. He went on to say that these movies were nothing more than Hollywood propaganda. His statements were laughable at best because anybody with any sense knows that seldom do political views impact how a movie performs at the box office. If this were the case and he was correct, Michael Moore would not even have a career at this point and An American Carol would have been the top grossing movie last year.

Some people like to compare BOR with Keith Olberman...but the one difference is that Mr. Olberman make no bones about his political beliefs or what side of the political spectrum he falls on. But beware, Mr. Ebert, with this article, you will probably become one of BOR's newest targets; because, after all, that's exactly what bullies like him do.

Ok, maybe I was harsh in my previous response.
This is what happens in a free society. People get harsh & annoyed when they view what they construe to be hypocrisy, misconduct, misrepresentation of factual data, moral superiority, & intolerance.
I respect Roger Ebert as a film critic. I often agree with him.
But what has happened here is that Bill O'Reilly has been presented as something of a shibboleth. A charicature & not quite a normal person. Not someone with a job, with a wife, & with children. But objectified as some kind of screaming lunatic (out of context, in my opinion).
I have friends who are equally disdainful of O'Reilly, but have never sat down to watch a full episode. So they are unaware of the work he does for children. They are unaware of his love of culture (movies & TV) in which his show features entertainment icons from the past (eg. Ernest Borgnine). No, they only see isolated clips of him yelling at Barney Frank & Geraldo.
Again, what is not mentioned is that he very openly invites the most ardent of critics to appear on his show (I'm sure he would be glad to have Roger Ebert). Further, most of the people he has argued with RETURN to the show, on account of the fact that they are friends, who happen to disagree strongly & passionately on an issue.
There is room for impassioned disagreement on TV. We see it ALL the time from the opposite side. How many TV personalities dined out on angered evisceration of Bush for 8 years? Has O'Reilly ever said FU to those he disagrees with, as Jon Stewart has? Has he ever deemed anyone 'worst person in the world'? Are these problems too? Why couldn't they incite violent, or be dangers to a peaceful society? I do not see a qualitative difference. Both are impassioned for their beliefs & causes. Both virilently call out those whom they see as opponents. Ebert does the very same thing here.
I don't believe that it is his demeanor that bothers Ebert, but rather his influence. As those on the right may be disdainful of influential liberals, it is not hard to see that those on the left would feel equally so about influential conservatives. They are responsible for LESS people believing in what they believe is correct.
When he speaks of Americans being deeply offended about the way he speaks of a president, two things come to mind. First, O'Reilly is consistently respectful to President Obama, even when right-leaning guests on his show are not. This is indisputable. Even a cursory viewing would confirm this. Secondly, is disrespect for the POTUS REALLY the issue? Are you trying to tell me that the left was NOT disrespectful of Bush? Or that when they were, it was ok, and now it is not? I'm sorry, but this seems incredibly disingenuous to me.
I am very interested in knowing whether or not Ebert will admit that the same disrespect for Bush was unwarranted -- or because he personally believes that Bush's actions were harmful, that it was ok in that particular case.
Again, there are MANY angry & impassioned liberals and nobody was more insulting than the left were toward Bush for 8 years. O'Reilly could not even hold a candle to some of the harshest of Bush critics. But I don't think this is really a criticism of demeanor, as there are many on the liberal side to criticize. Again, it is a discomfort with influence leading people toward the opposite of the author's side.
Many liberals scream at their political opponents (you'll notice that Donahue was hardly passive). But how many invite them to discuss the issues on their show? Further, when they do, how many stick to debate & not simple ad hominem attacks?
I object to the characterization of "fanning the flames" of (implied) hate for one side, but not the other. (Again, is Olberman guilty? Is the constant derision & mean-spirited condescension of Stewart & Colbert included?)
But this is what makes America great. That we have freedom to express our beliefs. We have the freedom to call out people whom we see as harmful in some way. We have the freedom to be impassioned about our beliefs and we have the freedom to present our arguments. As Bill O'Reilly has done, so has Roger Ebert. Both are equally free to do so. I'm sure one will believe he has been more fair in doing so than the other. In fact, I'm sure both believe this. But it's hard to believe that this article is disinterested as there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides. But only O'Reilly is singled out. I am not sure why. Surely, Ebert does not deny the existence of influential, impassioned & angry liberal commentators; some who say very vile & nasty things about presidents & people they oppose.
You say yourself that he is preaching to the choir. So what is the harm? If they already believe what O'Reilly believes, they are simply catharting in watching the evisceration of people they already disagree with. This article does the very same. If he is only preaching to the choir, what is the danger to society that is spoken of? People who believe something, listening to someone who agrees with them call out people that they already disagree with, and in some cases dislike (eg. Barney Frank) is REALLY a serious affront to peace?

I do apologize for the nastiness of my previous comments. Roger Ebert is an asset to the film community. I could not disagree with his opinions on cultural/political issues more. But whose idea is it that opinions of others should be formed on the basis of political belief?

I would challenge Ebert to appear with Bill O'Reilly on his show & discuss their differences. I am willing to wager that, rhetoric aside, it is possible that mutual respect be gained.

Mr, Ebert -

I am not so sure this country wants to get well it may be too late but I support you in exposing the truth. I would vote for you if you ran for office.

While I can see that people could make a rightful argument that the MSNBC pundits are just as liberal as the FOX pundits are conservative I see no comparison in how they handle their dissemination of their views to the public. As bombastic as Olberman is (to the point where I have a hard time watching him) he doesn't preach hate. None of them do. They don't use the word un-American on a regular basis unless it's a response to a conservative claim of being un-American or unpatriotic. They don't scream at their guests for disagreeing with them. Before you say it, yes, they have conservatives on, particularly Chris Matthews.

Now, full disclosure, the only one I watch is Maddow because she is a brilliant person and thoughtful in her show. Matthews loves to hear himself talk and Olberman seems to think he is funny. More to the point I consider none of them "news" at all. I watch Maddow because I agree with her views. It's simply a progressive current events show as far as I see it.

The problem arises there though. Why are these shows on supposed "news" networks? Where is the unfettered news anymore? Removing your own bias used to be the point of journalism, its very soul. A country starts to walk a dangerous road when its journalism is defined by opinion and ratings.

Well I dislike O'Reilly, he's a bully and a coward. And I did respect Ebert once concerning his opinion about films. His political opinion I find inconsistent with how I perceived him as a movie critic. Politically he's nothing but a mainstream Hollywood "Useful Idiot", I see he does have a good following of "useful Idiots". This term was used by the communist party to define stupid people in the US they could use. I cannot believe what was said in the majority of comments.

I honestly believe that people like O'Reilly, Limbaugh and their kin get a sizable portion of their audience from moderates and liberals who like to watch and laugh at them. Unfortunately, this translates as "approval" in the ratings.

If everyone who actively disliked and/or disagreed with Bill O'Reilly boycotted Fox News, how long would he still be on the air? I wonder.

BULL!!! How can you write about O'Reilly as a the bully and leave out Keith Olbermann or the other jacka*s at MSNBC Mr. "Tingle Up My Leg"? Nice way to conveniently deny a link between BOR and the murder of Tiller, without really severing the link. Where were you when the Left blogs and Hollywood made movies and jokes about the murder of President Bush? That passed as art, but criticism of Obama is quikly denounced as "racist", "dangerous" and "extreme". I always said the Left is more odious and dangerous than anything the Right because the Left convinces many its ideology and policies are for the common folk, meanwhile they take away more rights and liberties with every new regulation or law ostensibly passed for the "working man". You're a complete idiot.

Oh, and I have to add: James Hawk III, people should not be able to vote if the watch the Simpsons? I understand you're being facetious but the Simpsons is the example you chose? The Simpsons has more intelligent social commentary, particularly during its heydays in the late 90s, than 99% of the crud that's on TV these days.

And one more point. Morality is far from binary, friend. If such a simplification was true we'd all agree where the line between black and white lies with nary a shade of gray. If such a simplification was true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Mr. Ebert,
The problem with your entire hyptothesis is that it presumes that the media prior to talk personalities was any more objective than it is now. It simply wasn't. Holding up NPR as an example of objectivity simply because they all speak in measured tones is just ridiculous. NPR has always been a mouthpiece of the Left.
You're comparing opinion slingers with journalists. There is a difference. Have you ever watched the pure news broadcast on Fox (shepherd smith)? It is quite objective - certainly more objective than the New York Times or MSNBC.
I know you probably despise Rush, but have you ever listened to his monologues? Seriously. Tho he can be bombastic and sarcastic otherwise, his on the hour monologues are some of the most reasoned literate soliloqies that I have ever heard.
Unfortunately your desire to make a salient point about the nature of political discourse in this day and age is colored by your own political prejudices. One HAS to wonder if you would make the same point were you a conservative. I doubt it. Your criticism approaches irony, as you betray your own political prejudices while pretending to objectively criticize the media for being biased. Isn't there a pot/kettle issue here?
The bombast of a Limbaugh or an O'Reilly is much less dangerous to public discourse than is the dishonest subtle propoganda espoused by Stewart, and Colbert. It is much easier for one to filter through bombast than it is to filter through pied piper newspeak.
Holding up the New York Times as an example of journalism is troubling as well. There is a reasonable case to be made that their publishing of propaganda during the Iraq War emboldened the enemy and cost soldier's lives. There's nothing wrong with calling for a boycott in that instance. Isn't that our right?
It seems like you equate 'objective' with 'Left', and that bias betrays any legitimate point you might otherwise have made. Politics has become pop-culture, and the country is the worse for it. Of that there is no doubt. Surely tho, aren't the ones who do the blending (Stewart, Colbert, network programming chiefs) the ones to blame, rather than those who hold their bias out in the open for all to see?

Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews etc don't have any guests that oppose them. Propaganda? Definitely.

The thing I find insulting, and this is not a knock on Mr. Ebert,
is that people worry about what kind of influence people like O'Reilly or any of these faux intellectuals or "journalists" have on the "unsuspecting" anonymous American "viewer".

Believe me, people have gotten wise since, well, since forever.

They (We) know it's a show, and to watch is not to agree.

Where is reality reflected? Well, if you need to watch TV news to get your reality, I guess you best bet would be PBS.

But in the overall scheme of things, TV news anchors and basically all people who get paid to be in front of an audience
are just not that important, and their over-inflated view that they are basically proves it.

And to watch these people putting others of their own kind down is amusing to me, but I guess also necessary for some to distance themselves from the other celebrities that they don't want to be associated with.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Ebert and other normal people in show business, you're all on one big channel, the "TV".

Ebert, you are a joke. Bill O'Reilly is one of the few people on TV willing to speak the truth. It's far left radicals like yourself that are bringing this country down. I notice you only mention O'Reilly but none of the wack jobs on the left like Uberman and Stewart or Colbert or Middows. Those are some of the most HATE filled people I have ever heard in my life.

Get a life you fat tub a gay goo.

Ebert: Oh yeah? So's yer old man !

Oh please. Olbermann is ten times worse than O'Reilly will ever be, and Ebert will never go after him. Everyone in this comment thread knows it. Ebert is just another left wing shill going after right wing targets. This is entirely about the politics, the thing Ebert wants to set aside right upfront.

"I am not interested in discussing O'Reilly's politics here." But they're the only reason this article happened.

I think it is ironic that someone devoted to the moving image complains that people don't read enough anymore. They are not mutually exclusive, but there is a strong correlation, and the moving image experience is a more passive one that is less likely to foster critical thinking.

Perhaps, all films should have subtitles (j/k).

Roger,

I'm a Conservative Republican and I agree with you about O'Reilly. People like O'Reilly, Coulter, and others worry me because they give the Conservative message a bad name. It's like hearing Hilter read the from the Gospel of St. Matthew: the message is good but it's tainted irrevocably by the speaker.

I recently watched some videos on YouTube of William F. Buckley engaging in debate with several Liberals of his time. I was amazed at how civil the proceedings were and how much more I learned about both sides of the issue. But I guess those days are gone.

In reference to the bygone era of true variety telecasting, one contemporary example comes to mind: A Prairie Home Companion. Where else can you find truly inspired sketch comedy with a bluegrass interlude?

Of course, Garrison Keillor has his biases as well, but I think it's unreasonable (and perhaps even anti-progressive) to plead for passionless reporting/entertainment. As valuable a resource as C-SPAN is, it's only slightly more animated than rigor mortus.

Roger,

I'm surprised that neither you (a longtime Chicagoan) nor any of your commenters mentioned WGN's "Extension 720" with Milt Rosenberg. In an age when AM radio has largely degenerated into a wasteland of vacuous talk and vitriolic commentary, Dr. Rosenberg continues to conduct intelligent, civil and enlightening interviews with guests from all walks of life, as he has for the past 36 years. To my mind only Diane Rehm and Terry Gross of NPR compare to him. There are still alternatives to O'Reilly and his ilk, even on the AM band, for anyone diligent enough to seek them out. (And it's to the world's benefit that Internet radio has vastly expanded the audience for all of these folks.)

I suppose it can be more satisfying for people to tune in to a "friend" than to a variety show. By preaching to the choir, the polarized channels provide a sort of virtual Tupperware party, which might be more comfortable than heading to Ed Sullivan's theatre every evening.

Well that was a completely tedious and exhausting thesis to slog through.... O'Reilly's not nice to people... oy vey. I’d say that reading this journal entry to captured jihadists would be an effective replacement to waterboarding. You should stick to your movie reviewing Ebert.

The average joe schmoe out here in the real world (geeze who wouldn't love to get paid a lot of $$ to watch movies and write about them... but most of us have to work for a living) doesn't have their own personal mass communications vehicle to spout off their views... political or otherwise, like you. An earlier comment by Paul Moomjean pegged it with his analysis. Us average joes don't have a voice, other than our ability of vote (unlike in Chicago, since I am a living person, I can only vote once during an election event where I live), whereas you can pen and then have published for mass distribution, your lefty world views anytime you like.

And here you are the perfect example of the typical liberal, in that you only see the "bullies" on the right as a danger to the world... though the first sentence of the second paragraph says, "I am not interested in discussing O'Reilly's politics here." Because your leftward politics are well known, I can't help but believe you have chosen O'Reilly exactly because of his politics.... you don't like them. Thus, he makes an easy and convenient target for your feigned disgust.

So the rub here Ebert is that your politics show through in pretty much all the stuff you write. It's your right to do that. And, since I don't agree with your political views, I choose not to read the stuff you write, movie reviews or otherwise (I only read this because of a link from BigHollywood.com). So, if you think you're presenting this analysis of O'Reilly's manner of doing business in an objective manner, you're deluded.

But then again, as evidenced by the comments, you're essentially "preaching to the choir" anyway. So your journal entry here appears to be essentially a therapy session for you and your fellow lefties... and in that respect, I'd say you did great job!

You are a true gentleman if you managed to write this post without mentioning falafel. It used to be the top entry on google.

Propaganda Technique 8: Appeal to fairness

- It's not fair to talk trash on O'Reilly unless you talk trash on Olbermann (even though Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly is right)

- We only want you to be fair and show both sides of the debate (even though evolution is crap)

I never really understood the Us vs. Them mentality of either the far right or the far left guys at the HuffPost. But to everyone complaining that Mr. Ebert didn't mention Olbermann or Garafalo, I refer you to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Trashing O'Reilly doesn't mean that you think Olbermann is dreamy.

I agree with your depiction of O'Reilly as a bully -- that's the best word to describe what you're referring to. I'm also glad you make a point to mention that he was once a journalist. He most certainly was. I watched his show in its earlier days, and it was actually quite refreshing. I'm not quite sure when it became something else (I'm sure it was gradual), but it was not always this way. There's a journalist underneath the shouting, though we may never see him again.

All that said, despite my agreement, I don't think the first clip (the Barney Frank one) is a particularly good choice. Frank, unlike most of the people O'Reilly goes off on, absolutely had it coming. There are a few things that need to be shouted, and even a stopped Bill O'Reilly is right twice a day.

How intellectually dishonest you are Mr. Ebert. You speak of O'Reilly's viewers like they can all fit in a box, using terms like "they." Just like many with your liberal point of view, it is always easier to paint your opposition with one broad stroke.

I bet even your faithful readers (who commented directly after the story was published) even know that you have a left-wing agenda in play here.

If you compared O'Reilly to some of the others that attempted to use his brand of shock tv, I 'might' have taken you a little more seriously. Why doesn't Ed Schultz, Matthews, Olbermann have just as high ratings as Bill? They engage in the VERY SAME tactics. Maybe it is because he is one of the few journalists on television that plays things mostly down the middle.

Your piece was lazy as is you, it sure is easy being a "critic," always judging others' work, never taking responsibility for your own.

Good article. I think the thing you are missing though is that every single one of these "talking heads" on these 24 hour networks are like this. But that's what happens when you need to pull the ratings to support your commercial "news" network. these networks are nothing more than a 3 ring circus, most times making more news than is there, or analyzing to death any bit of minutia that they give. i watched when they first came out, but now i only get news on the internet. all the stories i need minus the personality.

I have stopped watching television altogether, and prefer to read my news. Having grown up in Berkeley, Ca this discussion reminds me of a popular bumper sticket that once adorned many bumpers on the West Coast. "Kill Your Television"

-Chris

Roger,

I don't see how you could watch O'Reilly long enough to collect the info needed for this article. I've seen bits and pieces of his work, some used to advertise his own show, and he usually seems to come across as a lunatic. I don't like many Republican ideas, but I don't particularly think those people are evil. I find O'Reilly to be evil incarnate, and he goes against what I assume he claims to fight for - good, decency, and a Christian America. It hurts my head and heart to listen to him.

As for the shouting, if you have to raise your voice and call others names to get your point across, you have lost the argument. Anyone outside of elementary school will tell you that.

O'Reilly speaks in the same language as the majority of the US but the liberal elite have such an issue with any opinion that is different then theirs. For the first time the silent majority is speaking up and the liberals are going to fight as hard as they can to keep this voice suppressed. Please do not keep quiet because of ignorant media bias.

Dearest Roger,

Your column bringas to mind my favorite story by that lunatic Ernest Heningway, "The Gambler, the Nun, and the Radio," about the sick men in a hospital marking time and avoiding reality by listening to various radio broadcasts from different cites during the day and night.

As a kid in New York I used to listen to WCBS NewsRadio 88 while working in my basement darkroom, stirring 5 x 7 sheets of silver-impregnated paper in vats of nasty chemicals for hours on end. I was always a little different, but to me, down there in the dark, news radio was life unfolding.

I am lucky enough to live within range of WBBM in Chicago, and sometimes when I jolt awake at 3 a.m. I click it on, just glad to know everyone else is still out there.

You have always been a beacon of reason amid the shouters and name-callers. Thanks to the web you are always there, like the news radio. Please keep it up as we work to undo so much of the evil that has been done to us and, allegedly, for us.

Far more dangerous than Bill Oreilly is you Roger Ebert for trying to stifle free speech. You and others like you scare the hell out of me!!!!!!!!!!!

I listen to O'Reilly whenever possible and have Fox News on in my classroom every day. The only difference in him and Ebert is that he brings on guests who have differing opinions from his own and he doesn't use a mute button like some commentators. How do you learn anything by always listening to people who agree with each other?

It always amuses me that people, under the guise of being even-handed, say that Olbermann is the same as (if not worse) than O'Reilly.

Consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bil8s44sSmk

It's Olbermann issuing a retraction for a mistake / lie / half-truth during the recent election. Many others are available.

Considering O'Reilly has been on the air for, what, 5 times longer than Olbermann it's strange that a similar video for him is not to be found.

Unless, of course, O'Reilly has never made a mistake on air.

Haw-hahaha...bill'o is nothing more than a blowhard, ignorant, far right fanatic, that LOVES to preach hate and devisiveness. Some call him a bully.....lol.....I call him someone who has just not gotten into the right persons face with his hysterical screaming. One day he will scream to the wrong one, and I hope that the cameras are there to capture it. Bill'O is nothing less than a Tokyo Rose talking head. I can now understand why he is not teaching school anymore, cause he WOULD NOT be teaching my child, not even physical education. He and limbaugh are in the same boat, and it is just a matter of time before the boat starts sinking. The American people are turned off by all this hate and divisive preachers, thats what brought down the GOP, and these morons are to brainless to realize that.

I pretty much tend to be a Centrist and just sit back and watch the extreme from both sides and think its a sad thing to see. I enjoy getting into political and philosophical discussions (not arguments) but I do tend to notice something your article alludes to. The followers of Conservative media personalities tend to exactly reflect not only their views, but temperaments. At work a few months back a nice little old lady came in to buy a transistor radio. After helping her pick out a radio, she said she needed it to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Always one to listen to someones opinion, I asked her politely, "What is it you like about listening to him." No sooner did I finish my sentence she stared at me as if I was growing arms out of my head and went on a foul-mouthed rant about how he speaks the truth, Fox news speaks the truth and all the rest are hippie left-wing nut jobs that control the media for "Nobama."
I started to tell her it would be wise to get your news from more than one source to see multiple sides of a story, which made her start to call me a Liberal and that other news organizations were biased and not "Fair and Balanced" like Fox news is. I went on to politely explain to her that I served in the Marines as a combat correspondent and worked in public affairs, and she was doing a classic job of reciting talking points, mission statements, attitudes and redacted information from Conservatives. She paid for her radio, called me several forms of "left-wing nut" and angrily stormed out of the store. All that attitude for simply asking why she liked listening to Rush Limbaugh. No wonder the two political ideologies can't get along, as both sides are doing such a good job of forming the impressionable minds to their extreme points of view and teaching them to hate those with different opinions. Monkey see, monkey do I guess.

What baffles me about Bill O'Reilly is that he turned out as he did, given a biography (swiped from Wikipedia) that would suggest otherwise:

"After graduating from Marist College, O'Reilly moved to Miami, Florida at age 21, where he taught English and history at Monsignor Pace High School for two years. O'Reilly later returned to school and earned an M.A. in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University. While attending Boston University, he was a reporter and columnist for various local newspapers and alternative news weeklies, including The Boston Phoenix. O'Reilly did his broadcast journalism internship in Miami during this time and was also an entertainment writer and movie critic for The Miami Herald. O'Reilly also earned a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. At Harvard, he was a student of Marvin Kalb.[17]"

O'Reilly worked for the Boston Phoenix, one of the more liberal-leaning newspapers in a city full of "intellectual eggheads." He studied under Marvin Kalb, one of Murrow's boys. It stands to reason that there was a time in his life when he was able to acknowledge and respect opposing viewpoints - I think Kalb even gave him an A- for the semester. You can't thrive in those environments if you're a loud-mouthed defender of a single side. Being a good newsman - and he apparently was, for a time - practically FORCES you to play devil's advocate, no matter what side you personally align with. In fact, that used to be the whole modus operandi of savvy managing editors during O'Reilly's early days on the job - send the Catholic to cover the atheist symposium and the atheist to cover the Pope's speech. That way, at least you wouldn't be getting personally BIASED coverage.

Later info reveals O'Reilly to have been an award-winning investigative reporter in Texas, an impossible achievement unless you're willing to crawl deep inside the heads of the assorted degenerates you're covering.

So my questions are:

Why did he turn into Bill O'Reilly as we know him? What made him say, "Gosh, maybe I'll stop debating and just start screaming?" Only the possibility of high ratings? Was he leaning in that direction already, or was he a good reporter who sold his soul?

And does he care?

By the way, if you are wondering about this influx of "wingnut" commenters, you have been featured on my current favorite right-wing site Fox Nation.

Favorite because the commenters come directly from "I only watch Fox News" land without being tempered by the other right-wing blogs first. The crazy is slightly purer. Definitely worth a read. Unless you're actually American (unlike me) in which case it would probably just make you weep.

Roger, the sad part to me is that the convergence of news and entertainment is corrupting people's world views. A film, a sitcom, an album, etc. is made to more than anything entertain. The news should be told, more than anything, to inform. O'Reilly and his ilk are making careers out of turning very serious, very important issues into nothing more than witty soundbites and talking points. These are issues that should be studied by people. People should not be making decisions on politics, especially in a climate involving war and economic crisis, based on this "yelling." Bill O'Reilly is out to make a profit. His goal is not to educate or inform. If he wished to discuss issues in a real manner and give his opinions in a dignified way, explaining how he has formulated his views, he could do that. But he knows yelling will bring him a profit. And people, many people, don't get that. They think that what he (and others, from both sides) is preaching is gospel.

These commentators are ruining the free and educated thought of the electorate. They are similar to a bad school teacher -- they are limiting the minds of their students, not broadening them. They often point out the supposed bias of the academic world, as if to state that their opinions are above that of even scholarly work. I wish more people would realize that the goal of these "yellers" isn't the news, it is the profit.

Stick to reviewing movies. Don't care what you think politically. Someone from Chicago lecturing people is funny.

Say what you want about me, but leave Chicago out of it. You should be so lucky as to live here.

Ebert is just trying to help the Left and be a good bag boy for the progressives. Sad, very Sad. If you had done any research you would see that Bill was spot on with Barney Frank. It’s plain to see that Objective Reporting is not your forte. When you don't understand a subject, it may be better to stay silent.

Roger

Well, you admit you targeted O'Reilly because you say "he issued a hit list of newspapers he wanted to fail, including mine."

Can you please provide a link to the newspapers he 'wants to fail'?

It seems what you don't like is him calling out MSM newspapers with a left-wing bias.

To top it off, you try to hide your agenda (targeting O'Reilly because he 'wants your newspaper to fail') behind lamenting about 'propaganda', 'political dialogue', and "the most worrying trend in the field of news: The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature...".

Obviously, if those were your REAL concerns, you'd have to target many a newspaper columnist (your preferred propaganda tool). BTW, was it Molly Ivins who coined Bush as Shrub? Oops, forgot; those weren't the times when ordinary Americans would be offended by the way their president was spoken about.

Let's face it; you don't care what is said or how it's said, as long as you agree with it (no matter how polarizing), all is well.

PS--no surprise you believe NPR is doing some of the the best news broadcasting in American history. NPR and its listeners can't even handle Juan Williams. NPR is leftist group-think, nothing more.

Here's his hit list, right here:

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/mediadef.jsp

And a Mediaweek editorial about it: http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/community/opinion/e3id53e7ac87972131e4e04f9c5af3a5a18

"Ebert: Bush committed horrible crimes. He declared war based on lies, authorized torture and illegal wiretaps, and ignored the Constitutional guarantee of habeus corpus."

So basically, it's ok for me to despise your president for the crimes that I construe, but it's not ok for Bill O'Reilly to criticize Obama?

And when I said the museum killer was on your side, I meant that he hated Bill O'Reilly & foxnews. He agreed with your position of O'Reilly. Certainly I'm not insinuating that you agree in all matters.

But again, you both have soapboxes. You both are opinionated. You both are influential. You both see certain public officials & perhaps some private citizens as harmful in some way to America. You both wish to call out people with whom you disagree (as you have just done with Bush). You're both angry about what you construe to be injustice. You have different ways of expressing it. O'Reilly may be more animated about it. But that's just a personality clash. I happen to dislike passive aggresive people. But their demeanor will not affect what I think of their opinions. I may agree or disagree with them on a number of issues.
You're both equally free to do so in a free country. Neither is an enemy of peaceful & civil society. Neither calls for violence, or even hatred (as far as I can tell). I think you should rethink that position.

I don't think you can deny that there is much anger & hatred on the left, as well as the right. The Bush hatred reached unprecedented levels ("Bush is evil, Bush is Hitler, Bush is a terrorist, Kill Bush! etc" All of which you would object to if they were directed toward Obama, and rightly so). Again, you may wish to point out what inspired such hatred, but those who hate Obama will attempt to justify their hatred for construed crimes as well. It's a disagreement. One side is not more guilty than the other. It's a two-way street. I don't think you would go so far as to say that it's ok when one side does it, but not the other. That would be hypocritical, and I can't imagine someone as educated as yourself would support that. I think O'Reilly holds both sides accountable, though clearly leaning one way. This is more than I see from the Olbermann's & Garafalo's, who are far more incindiary & partisan.

I understand you dislike Bill O'Reilly, and that's fine. You're perfectly within your rights to do so. But there's no need to pretend it's an objective analysis when there are many on the other side who were so much more hateful for 8 years that you don't criticize. Yelling at political opponents construed as harmful is hardly above the left. You know this as well as I do.
I think we can criticize without resorting to portraying people as dangers to peaceful & civil society for simply expressing beliefs, however they do it. And debate is always welcome, even if it sometimes descends to shouting. Something is usually learned.

i am fascinated by this extremely civil conversation between bill o'reilly and marilyn manson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o

why is o'reilly so civil here? is it because he actually likes or respects manson? or is it because manson is so calm?
maybe o'reilly yells because he can smell fear or uncertainty? (in the weaker guests)
or maybe he yells because he knows the guests can yell too? (in the geraldo or donahue cases)

i'm curious to see how many other videos there are with very calm guests who have different opinions than him. one thing is certain, yelling back will certainly not quiet him.

I am going to guess that at least 80% of the negative feedback you're getting on this post is coming from people who have visited "Roger Ebert's Journal" for the very first time, because there was some kind of O'Reilly-fan pep rally wherein it went something like "rumble at the Sun-Times--they're badmouthing The Man--bring your weapons--pass it on."

I haven't watched O'Reilly very much. To me he seems like the heir to the mantle once borne by Joe Pyne, except he's louder. For both the basic strategy seems to be: Find the single most vulnerable element of the guest's character/viewpoint/cause, get out a baseball bat, and whale away.

Screaming at Barney Frank that he's a coward was unconscionable, especially for the creator of the 'No Spin Zone.'

Since you have praised NPR may I offer you a bit of hope?

NPR is usually at or near the very top in radio ratings. This fact is often excluded from news coverage of radio because NPR is traditionally excluded from the official Arbitron ratings report. The stated reason for this is public radio does not sell commercial time. The truth might be that commercial radio is embarrassed by their lack of competitiveness with a non-profit.

Special reports are issued to NPR stations and those Arbitron subscribers interested in the full ratings results.

Companies 'underwriting' NPR stations advertise to a large audience of educated, above average earners interested in the world around them.

Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard and his ego has trumped any journalistic integrity that he boasts, but he's harmless. He panders to neo-cons and infuriates liberals. His bloodcurdling shouting matches are just a grab for ratings. I don't think he has sunk to the level of Springer, but no one can do that. He's not the only one that does this. Everyone in his line of work sells out, but he's just on top so he's the target. I think we should criticize his simplicity, not whether or not he is truthful or a bully. No one really pays attention to the words that television journalists use so he has to raise his voice in order to attract attention.

Mister Ebert, I have in the past enjoyed reading your in-depth reviews of movies (in particular, the line that "Jack Frost" would still be unwatchable if it had been co-directed by Orson Welles and Steven Spielberg was hilarious), but, with all due respect, as bombastic as O'Reilly is, I have far more respect for a man who has vocally championed causes such as Jessica's Law, which aims to make penalties stronger for convicted child molesters than a man who has made his living as a movie reviewer. The fact that O'Reilly does champion such causes pretty much negates your arguments, in my view.
I, for one, would have taken your views on O'Reilly a little more seriously if you had compared him to someone other than Springer. One could easily make the same argument about any one of the lefties on MSNBC.

My fear is that this trend is irreversible, not only because these cable and radio programs can net extremely dedicated fan bases, but in large part because of the internet, where people can more easily than ever join in insular echo chambers where their opinions are never challenged, and emerge onto other sites to lash out against anyone who disagrees without caring or even reading what people say in response. Not to the say that the internet doesn't offer ground for more level-headed people, but a worrying amount of their time is spent fretting about all the other nutty people around.

This isn't even to say anything about the irony, instantly noticeable to anyone, of people coming onto your blog about the disintegrating discourse on cable talk shows, to call you a complete idiot who sides with the shooter at the holocaust museum. I can't even tell what they're trying to accomplish, because that's too ridiculous to get angry about, and too inflammatory to get anyone to agree. All it does is disturb me.

I too fear that people only want to yell at each other these days. No one wants to have a real "debate" anymore. In a debate you state your opinion, you listen to the other guy, and you both state reasons why you feel that way. You try to do it respectfully and without shouting at the other person. These days it seems everyone wants their beliefs "validated" instead of just believing them. If you don't believe what I believe, fine, I still think we can live together peacefully.

I am a Christian but I have very liberal beliefs and I have friends who are agnostic and athiests. We try to have civil debates about religion and politics and often come to the conclusion that we just see things differently.

I have a friend who believes hockey is the end-all, be-all of sports. He told me once that he was on a date with a woman from a different country and apologized to her for the fact that NASCAR was the most popular spectator sport in our country. I asked why. He asked why I wasn't embarrassed that such a stupid sport was so popular. I said, why not celebrate the fact we live in such a great, free, diverse country that there are sports for those who like watching cars drive in a circle and hockey for hockey fans and baseball for baseball fans and on and on.

People are allowed to disagree. Just because you do doesn't make you "gay." It doesn't necessarily even make you wrong. It just means you believe something else.

Sigh. Do you still think you have the most thoughtful blog readers on the net?

Yes, in general. :)

Ebert cites a study referring to "propaganda devices" that O'Reilly uses. But Ebert used the same devices throughout his article. For instance, his first paragraph used the "transfer technique" and "name-calling." Unfortunately, these are normal ways to express opinions.

Out of due respect, Roger, and being a big fan of your perspective, I sense a double standard here. Hollywood has always said that if a movie is on that contains content that one finds offensive, that person is free to change the channel. Years pass, and studies indicate that a rise of sexual promiscuity amongst teenagers, the rise of violence, the rise of drug usage, etc, etc, are due, in large part, to the rise of positive portrayals of such in the mainstream arts, and their nonstop coverage in newspapers, magazines, even piping thru the speakers at the grocery store. But those who are so offended are told to install a V-chip and let bygones be bygones.

And yet, your 1700+ word essay expressing concern over one conservative commentator strikes me as somewhat contradictory in light of the above-mentioned paragraph. People who have passionate opinions argue on the airwaves all the time. It makes for great television, and people make up their minds, once the arguments are out. For me, it's refreshing to hear dissenting opinions from rational, educated experts in the field, whether it be about global warming or those who had accuartely predicted the current economic crisis (including Glenn Beck, whom some here find distasteful).

Take a lesson from your own rulebook. You don't like O'Reilly? Change the channel.

BTW, thank you for your many years of arguing voraciously with your co-hosts regarding the great importance as to whether a movie is worth our $7.50.

Enjoying your can of worms Roger? You didn't really think that O'Reilly supporters would rationally consider your argument did you?

Roger, what scares me most in this country right now is the balance between left and right is dying. We are tilting so far to the left that I'd rather not live to see what Obama has turned this country into. You say Bush's crimes were horrible, do you honestly think what Obama is doing is any better?

Controlling the census, spending more than all the President's before him to saddle our great grandchildren with enormous debt, being weak in the face of radical islam?

Also, he's continuing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because no amount of singing Kumayah with radical religious fanatics will help...wake the hell up.

Why am I bothering to talk to a movie critic?! Holy crap, I do hope your paper fails for allowing a movie critic to turn into a political commentator....that's about as realistic as turning a sports commentator into a politcal pundit..oh wait.

Bill Oreilly is an american hero who truly looks out for people.He donates large sums of money to different charrities and goes out of his way to help people. He does his research well before he speaks. He calls people or groups out to the open and exposes the left or far right agenda. i have been watching him for years and love what he does. there is a reason why he has been # 1 for years. Only liberals dont like him , people like code pink, the aclu,move on .org,cnn,msnbc and other disengenerous so called news outlets cant stand him but most of america does. Comparing him to Jerry Springer is rediculous and tells me allot about the complaining of the writer Ebert who i think is just another liberal. GOD BLESS BILL OREILLY and who really cares what liberal loons think.

note 1: there are liberal commentators who do the same, though admittedly a lot less in quantity and percentage.

note 2: that being said, I have to say that I have had this strange fascination lately, not with o'reilly so much as conservative talk radio. At least where I live this is the only type of political talk radio (and the non-political talk radio is also conversative politically). I have spent a lot of time listening to Laura ingraham, Glen Beck, Savage nation, Rush, etc. I'm not exactly sure why i'm so obsessed with it, but it mostly just angers me or makes me chuckle at the inconsistencies/ignorance shown there. Some of them, such as Ingraham and Rush, are definitely adept at doing what they do, but the way they portray the "liberal" population is really damaging and unfortunate. I have noticed several things. First, "liberals" are seen as a well defined group of people with easily expressible views, usually socialist, pro big government, believing in a radical relative epistemology, etc. The main problem I have is the way in which they do this type of caricaturing, and most of the viewers can't tell the difference. Their callers come on the show and praise the hosts for being saviors of America and a voice of truth in a sea of liberal fascists. The level of heightened feelings on these shows is frightening and I'm not sure that you're completely wrong in drawing the connection. I really genuinely believe that it's tearing us apart to portray such a divide, draw lines to say who is really America and who isn't. This mindset is truly frustrating.

Mr. Ebert,

Certainly there is a point to be made about Mr. Olbermann being inexcusably unethical in his duties as a journalist and host, but his effects have not been nearly as damaging as some of the 'duties' Mr. O'Reilly has called upon the public to perform. To have the gumption to boycott a News Publication during a time where the industry is struggling to keep it's own head about water is despicable.

Clearly both sides of the spectrum are out of order. Both have forgotten why the other had once been credible. The 'Us v. Them' loop we're stuck in is both maddening and unproductive. I hope that at some point this changes, preferably before we destroy one another.

Going to your point of the old generation of radio. As many of the other younger readers have stated, I too wish to have seen the days when low-brow and high-brow entertainment were presented in parity on major networks, and not just on NPR and CBC (Here in Detroit, we catch our southern brother's public radio out of Windsor). Our national obsession with celebrity escapism and neanderthalian reality spectacles is pretty revolting. How it has engulfed our news media is beyond me. Oh wait, money. Nevermind. Maybe with this economic collapse and certain lack of money we can find a way to sneak integrity and intelligence back in.

James Hawk III: That's an awfully harsh, broad, and innaccurate characterization of Simpsons fans, and somehow I doubt that my affection for this program in any way hampers my ability to intellectualize. In fact, I bet that I could totally hang with you in a round of Double Jeopardy (as could scores of other Simpsons fans.)

Jon on June 17, 2009 9:10 AM: Speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, thank you for demonstrating our point. You should have your keyboard taken away. You so succinctly proved the accuracy Mr Ebert's postulations that I almost wonder if You're a plant. Brilliant if it's sattire, though.

Ebert mentions the dangers of 'O'Reilly and others like him'. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he includes Olbermann, Maddow, and Ed Schultz, not just Hannity, Limbaugh, and their ilk. He's spot on, but anyone he only sees this insanity as ONLY coming from the right or the left are fooling themselves, and have fallen victim to this very phenomenon.

I would like to see a similar study of Chris Matthews' work, my guess is he'd come across a wee bit better simply because he avoids taking on guests who are able to offer a spirited counter argument to his views. But he's just as angry, and just as determined to advance the agenda he believes in without quarter. I read comments on blogs, and there's every bit as much anger on the left, vile and hateful speech. I wonder how folks on the left would react if someone made a movie about assassinating a young black president, like the left did on Bush while he was in office. Considering the line of commentary I normally follow from Roger I was surprised he didn't mention that movie as another example. I hope it's not an intentional omission.

Roger,

You wrote, "I wonder which one of the seven [propaganda techniques] he didn't use." Looking at the original paper (thanks for the link!), I see that the one O'Reilly does not use, or maybe the experimenters just did not measure, is "Card stacking" - manipulation of the facts. I am assuming they did not measure it because it could raise political issues with the analysts themselves (what is card stacking and what is not?).

For fun:
O'Reilly used name-calling 8.88 times per minute (vs. 3.5 for Coughlin).
O'Reilly used glittering genealities 3 times per minute, about the same as Coughlin, mostly referring to US troops as "the good guys" (okay, not bad) but also talking about how Terri Schiavo represented "the greater good" and calling the Mexican border fence a "non-partisan people's movement."

Interestingly, Father Coughlin was far more likely than O'Reilly to use the "plain folks" appeal - in fact, though they only studied a half-hour of Coughlin vs. 248 minutes of O'Reilly, Coughlin used it 13 times to O'Reilly's 10! My guess is Bill was just too busy name-calling.

Also, O'Reilly is apparently a fan of "reverse testimonials" - destroying ideas he doesn't like by quoting crazy or detestable people in support of those ideas.

The original report is a fun read. I like the understated humor of the report that, on May 2, 2005, Bill O'Reilly referred to himself as, "your humble correspondent."

When I was growing up, "liberal" and "conservative" were not mutually exclusive, because they described different parts of a person's viewpoint. One could simultaneously have "liberal" views and also "conservative" views without self-contradiction or irrationality.

A "conservative" might say something like "our institutions developed over time for good reasons, even if those reasons aren't immediately apparent....we need to be careful before we make sweeping changes because there might be unintended consequences that aren't immediately apparent." Another term might have been "gradualist." They emphasized individual responsibilty in the context of social obligation; underlying their overall philosophy was that a strong sense of property rights was essential to the functioning of civil society.

A "liberal" at that time might say something like "we need to make sure everyone in society has a chance at a decent life, and we don't want the government meddling in people's private lives." The two views often converged, because both "sides" wanted the same thing in the end, they merely disagreed about the path to take to get there ("make sure everyone has a chance at a decent life so that they don't riot and take things by force" might have been an unspoken conservative thought, "make sure everyone has a chance at a decent life so that I can enjoy my relative luxury without a guilty conscience" might have been an unspoken liberal thought).

The fact that these two "labels" described different aspects of an integrated person allowed people to have civil discussions and negotiate and reach compromise. Often my father and I would end a conversation with each of us saying to the other "I agree with the points you make; they are sound and make sense; however, these other points to me carry more weight and as a result I decide as I do."

Something happened when "winning, no matter what" became more important than "compromise for the common good." It's hard for me to pinpoint a time when this changed; it seems to me that it was the reaction to the 1994 "Contract with America" (NOT the original "Contract" itself) that became a seminal moment in the transition.

In my experience today, "liberals" use the word "Should" far too often. They come across as incredibly naive about the "free rider" problem, and often sound to me like idealistic adolescents: "gee if we could just sit down and talk things over then there'd be no more war."

"Conservatives" use the word "shouldn't" too often; they seem to ignore the "problem of the commons" and often sound harsh and heartless.

My conclusion is easily debatable, but it seems to me to stem from (a) the Republican Congressional majority of 1994; the Democrats had a sense that "we OWN Congress" and somehow by a "trick" it was "stolen" from them, and (b) the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Fox News and O'Rilley are the highest watch news shows, leaving the mainstream media in the dust. That's why they are so mad. People like me are tired of the half truths and liberal agenda. I like to watch real news and not 'Entertainment News' like CBS, MSNBC, ABC and the others. They are no longer new stations but are for entertainment purposes and government propaganda only. I have stopped watching any of these stations.

Hmm, sounds like you are trying to apply the techniques used by the Obama campaign, and now administration, to supress those that don't agree with their radical socialist agenda. I am very disappointed to find out that Roger is clearly a massive cool aid drinker as well. Maybe we will all get lucky and the kool aid all you lefty's are drinking will have a similiar, if not same, affect it did in Jonestown. What would Gene say? Down with OBAMA, PELOSI, REID and the rest of you nut job socialists who don't have a clue about what this country was founded on and what it stands for. You are all traitors and should be punished as such.

Here's a modest proposal: Shut off your television for a week. During this time read as much of the following publications as you can: The Nation, The National Review, and the Economist. Many of the views espoused in TN and TNR will reflect the sentiments of MSNBC and Fox News, respectively, but since reading is a silent exercise, the distracting shout-a-thons mixed with an endless orgy of colorful/distracting graphics will be entirely absent. The Economist is staunchly capitalist (economically conservative) and socially liberal and thus represents a reasonable midpoint between the other two magazines.

"The truth" must certainly lie within this matrix of passionate partisan viewpoints, right?

In the end, you'll probably end up only supporting the news/commentary which fortifies your pre-existing viewpoints. I fear that we are all slaves to this inherent human flaw in our critical thinking. Well, at least you can say you tried.

I read the Economist and agree. My favorite single magazine is The Spectator, from London, which is conservative.

life is much much different now than it was back "in the good ole days" God, patriotsm and discipline have been removed from public schools...those of us who have a large percent of our pay w/h from us every time we get a paycheck and still have to pay for our children to go to schools where prayer and patriotism are the norm and discipline is enforced have a lot to be angry about. our money is taken from us and used in ways we would NEVER use it for ppl who are lazy and multiply like rabbits only to be the scurge of murderers and thugs the public school system mostly produces...
and now we have a self-absorbed narcissitc bozo for president who is trying to take the rights granted to us by our Constitution as well...
anger?? nah, i see no reason for it either ebert...you leftwinger...

Roger, I stopped reading you a few years back after going to too many of your "thumbs up" movies that turned out to be crappy. But I read this with interest. It seems when a media personality's ratings are down or they are on the verge of being forgotten, they try to pick a fight with a highly popular figure to get some attention. You wouldn't do that though, would you. Thumbs down on the article.

Mr Ebert, I have always respected you as far as your film reviews go, but when it comes to analyzing someone like Bill O'Reilly, you come across as being no better than the NYT's favorite bomb thrower, Paul Kruegman.

The major problem I have with what you had to say here is that you seem to feel that someone like Bill O'Reilly cheapens journalism, when in actuality, what used to be called journalism in this country died a long time ago, and has been replaced by a type of reporting that slants the news as much to the left as it can, and attacks anyone who disagrees with that POV.

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are probably the only remaining bastion of sanity left in what used to be thought of as ethical journalism, because they report the news, they do not attempt to make it or slant it. Outlets like MSNBC has taken a clearly leftist stance on everything and are now resources for what would be considered ranting moonbat loons. One only needs to tune into at least five minutes of Countdown With Keith Olbermann to see this. One need only bring up websites like Daily Kos and the Huffington Post to see this as well.

And based on some of the commentary I am seeing here against Fox News and O'Reilly, it seems these same kind of weird and wacked-out folk have found a home at the Chicago Sun Times as well.

Frankly, Mr. Ebert, I will always look to you for your film reviews. But as to your attempts to be a political commentator or a media reviewist, I think you need to do some homework in those two arenas before launching critical attacks against people like Bill O'Reilly, or moreso, people like me who trust Mr. O'Reilly and Fox News.

Consider this my just venting my two cents here, Mr. Ebert.

I eagerly await Mr. Ebert's article in which he takes Keith Olbermann to task for engaging in precisely the type of rhetoric and behavior that he accuses O'Reilly of.

I imagine I'm in for a very long wait.

Olbermann is great at lies , more lies and half truths, and Ebert is a fool.

Roger,

You clearly are attacking O'Reilly because you're mad that he called a boycott of your newspaper. So,your criticism of his anger is a result of your own anger towards him. But you don't yell like him -- you just construct a long-winded hatchet job, even accusing him of possibly having something to do with the death of Dr. Tiller.

Coming from you - someone who has always praised and given nothing but big thumbs up reviews to Michael Moore, a true propagandist IMO -- it is hard to take the arguments in this piece seriously.

Reading comprehension needs further emphasis on state and national examinations, it appears. O makes for a good target because he's one of the more baldly volumed of the lot, but of course many on both sides are guilty of it; I thought Ebert made that pretty clear. I agree that O is a bully. I wonder what percentage of his audience genuinely agree with him and what percentage clandestinely watch so they can cluck their tongues and stew from their armchairs. Why would you subject yourself to that? Just don't watch. He will go away in time.

Just have continued hope in the newer generations...in all things.

Dear Roger,

Just look at how much we have accomplished in such a short amount of time. Let’s see, our country is broke, in debt and out of work. We have shredded The Constitution. And despite the technology that makes information instantly available, we are the most uninformed, ignorant and polarized generation America has ever had. We worship evil bullies and celebrate those who engage in illicit behavior.

Once upon a time, most Americans could spot a bully a mile away. They knew that they thrived on appealing to the worst inside ourselves. In time, they were tarred, feathered and run out of town. And those who were elected and trusted to represent us but betrayed that trust were vilified, thrown out of office, convicted and exiled into oblivion.

Now, we get our news and opinions from bigoted loudmouths. The more they scream their hatred, the more we listen and celebrate them. The more outrageous our politicians' crimes, the more famous they become. Fame and infamous are now the same thing. For, they both lead to reality shows and big paychecks. Once, a Blagojevich would have been running from pitchforks and torches. Now, we revel in his talk show circuit and are captivated by his insane behavior. And all the while we take our cues from the screaming, ignorant, hate monger with the bull horn and a fat 10 year contract.

Maybe in another 100 years they’ll look back and shake their heads in disgust at our time. But then again, maybe the few people left on that last island in a water submerged world will be listening to the screaming bully perched in his palm tree while the elected leader steals the remaining food for himself.

Fair & Balanced = Pravda

The thing I really wonder about Fox News is what percentage of its viewership is unironic. Everyone knows very well why Fox has the highest ratings amongst the cable news networks; making sure that they not only cater to the otherwise (thankfully) unrepresented crowd of, let's say, Obama birth-certificate skeptics but also to do so with the subtlety of an Elephant orgy, which, in a way, it is. When I'm in a household with cable TV I find it hard to avoid veering towards the lowest common denominator for the sheer spectacle of it all and Fox News is usually my first choice.

I wouldn't be surprised if up to a third of Fox News' viewers were in it just to witness their shameless propagandist audacity. I think one thing that has yet to be studied in America is how sincerely the average viewer engages with their viewing material.

After carefully reading this article and taking in Mr Eberts thoughtful analysis all I can say is that Mr Ebert needs to stick with giving movie reviews and leave the political scene to those that really know what they are talking about. I dont always agree with Oreilly but that times that I have seen him get loud with guests were times where these so called guests couldnt explain they reasons nor were they going to explain them. At least Oreilly does represent the facts for the audience to decide not lot the other networks where they dont "bully" anyone but neither do they report anything worthwhile. They dont report the facts they give personal leftist opinions. I am not a republican, I am a libertarian so please dont call me a right winger.

Okay, let's forget Olbermann and O'Reilly for a moment and return to the thesis of your blog, which is worth discussing. Has the state of public and political discourse deteriorated in our time? If one looks solely at the network, 24-hour news and entertainment outlets, it would be easy to conclude that it has. The popularity of such talking heads as those mentioned above has given us an insatiable buffet of either liberal or conservative views, depending on our particular appetites.

However, there is a vibrant blogosphere out there, one that respresents the wild and crazy diversity of this country, on all topics and special interests. For those that want to get educated on any number of issues, it is a joy to connect to some of the best, of which this is an example. I also like various science blogs, such as Bad Astronomy, or Science Daily. But there are also sites for Christians, Jews, social activists, skeptics, dog lovers, and everything else. In a way, newspapers are failing because they cannot decide what "news" is, because it's constantly being redefined, and quickly becomes obsolete.

But the universal remains: politics fascinates, and politics is by nature devisive, involving value judgements on what we believe, and the worth of what others believe. It has always inspired a base element, as many of these "vulgar" posts reveal. We should rise above, by that I mean: turn off the TV, and embrace messages of kindness rather than hate.

As John Prine sings:

Blow up your T.V. throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try an find Jesus on your own

Roger Ebert applies his own hard feelings to his enemies; in this case Bill O'Reilly. Every activist pushes hard for what they believe, and O'Reilly is no different. That he says the truth and exposes corruption is undeniable. It is denied only by those who are exposed. That some are Leftists who believe and promote things that aren't true is coincidental. O'Reilly goes after everyone, as anyone who watches him knows.

Mr. Ebert said in the beginning of his article that he didn't want to discuss Bill O'Reilly's politics. But that's exactly what he did, however cleverly disguised it was. He suggests that stupid people who want sensationalism watch O'Reilly, and listen to radio talkers with conservative viewpoints. In truth, it is people who are fed up with the mainstream media and entertainment culture who have been driven away, and toward common sense.

Roger Ebert is a sophist, a product of the uncritical thinking of pseudo-intellectuals on the Left. He has remained that way all his life because he can; America is a soft, squishy culture where dreamers and flat-out delusionals can rationalize their positions and stay on course.

It isn't just television, but all of journalism, that has fallen down the rabbit hole. It's become a cage match mentality, where every story has to have two sides, however lopsided they may in truth be. Imagine if you will a news story about, say, setting kittens on fire, where a newspaper goes out of its way to hunt down the one institutionalized sadist who will go on record to state how necessary it is to burn kittens and quote him as a supporter of the practice. And then set one or two crazies up to argue face-to-face with incredulous animal lovers as though the two were on equal grounds. Torturing kittens: cruelty to animals or fighting the evil forces of cuteness? Next on channel 7 news.

When did objectivity become a refusal to exercise any reason or standards whatsoever? I blame 60 Minutes and the realization that news could be a big moneymaker instead of just a measly public service. People yelling at each other are apparently entertaining, and produce ratings. It's almost irrelevant to the corporate headquarters what those people are yelling about. And the same goes for the yellers, too.

Jeez. Sorry for missing Mr. E's obvious point with that list. Not enough coffee, I guess.

I have an old Sydney J. Harris column, nearly 30 years old, in my collection of newsclips and articles that I keep in my desk. It's called "Intellectuals and Phonies" and it's a terrific piece about the difference between people with a real interest in truth and know-it-alls. What Harris says about pseudo-intellectuals fits O'Reilly like a comfortable suit, although O'Reilly probably doesn't think of himself as an intellectual, and it fits Olberman, too. I pulled the piece out after reading this and was reminded of the smart pundity that guys like Harris practiced. Thanks.

We've spent decades becoming a people who prefer style over substance and regard opinion as fact. Now we're reaping the seeds of that. I've been talking about the "death of a liberal arts education" for almost two decades. We have become a shallow, dumb, doomed people, and our status as world leaders has slipped because of it.

While I do like Olbermann and Maddow, I fully recognize their slanted approach. They are not nearly as bad, nor as divisive as their Fox counterparts, but they are on the same continuum.

I can only hope that having a thinking, highly intelligent president, one who has high regard for education, will eventually give us a different point of view. I believe deeply that education is the solution to many ills.

(And thank you for this blog, Rogar; it's priceless.)

if O'Reilly is so far out of wack w the rest of the country, it should be very easy to disprove anything he says. And if no one agrees with him, why is it that he has more viewers than all the other cable news networks COMBINED? you've created several false premises, and have tried your best to support them, although the only people that can possibly agree w you, all share the same mental disorder, liberalism.

Roger,

Thanks for another great journal entry. When I was at the U of I in good old Champaign-Urbana (yea, Champaign gets first billing!) I had to take a class about democracy (I forget the name of the class). The prof. was excellent. What I took from that class was how critically important it is for citizens of a democracy to be well educated in the events and issues of the day, and to be skeptical of everything they hear from their leaders and the media. Don't just accept a fact 'cause one guy says it - do a little research and see if it's really true.

In modern American it seems that these ideas have been lost. If the screeching head on the boob box says it, it must be true, no matter it flies in the face of reason or even personal experience. No need to know what's really going on - the screeching head will tell you AND tell you how to think and feel about it. And if you don't like screeching heads, at least of the political variety, you can tune them out altogether and warm to the glow of "reality" TV, or "celebrity" TV, or whatever trash is being pedaled this season. It's truly sad.

Sadder still is how few of us seem to have noticed this decline, and care. In my own house I am considered by my wife and kids a crank because I'd rather read a paper or magazine (such as the Economist or the Atlantic) than listen to trash radio or talk TV.

That's mighty nice of you, Mr Ebert-- I sho ain't done nothin' to deserve it.

All of you neo-con/libertarian trolls spouting right wing platitudes while questioning Ebert's credibility and even attacking his character should be ashamed of yourselves. What credibility do any of you have on the subject? This article was NOT about O'Reilly's politics, rather it was about his bullying tactics. And to the person who said O'Reilly's political ideology was the catalyst of the article you're dead wrong. If you had been paying attention, it was O'Reilly's call for a boycott of the Chicago Sun-Times that inspired this long simmering article. Gee, who would have figured that O'Reilly calling for a BOYCOTT of the very paper that Ebert has been a loyal employee for 40 years would inspire this article? A call for boycott because they removed his column, and are thus labeled a part of that oh so dangerous "lunatic left wing media"! O'Reilly does not have "passion" for his ideals, and he is not looking out for your interests. If you think so you're naive at best and a tunnel visioned extremist at worst. Perhaps Ebert should call out Olbermann or Maher or whoever else offends right wingers, but neither of those men has ever called for a boycott of the Chicago Sun-Times or any boycott at all. You all can't see the forest for the trees, and you're drumming up political arguments and instigating flame-debate just for the sake of being instigators. At first I was surprised that Mr. Ebert wasn't defending himself against you all, but then I realized your inflammatory posts are not worth his valuable time.

Greetings from what Gov. Mike Huckabee calls "the mushy middle". (I had hopes for him - what a pity.)

Let me start with my bona fides: I grew up here in da Grate Citya Chicaga in the 1950s, when I was exposed to such classic communicators as Jack Eigen, Marty Faye, Howard Miller, and particularly Tom Duggan, the snarlingest of them all. As I grew up (or got older, or aged, or whatever), I was exposed to such solons as Joe Pyne, Alan Burke, Jerry Williams, Warren Freiberg, Morton Downey jr., and any number of others who came and went. From the '50s, when everybody seemed to like Ike; through the 60s, when we went from loving JFK to hating LBJ; into the 70s, as Nixon fatigue gave way to Carter anomie; up to the 80s, with Reagan as President Feelgood; on to the 90s, as Clinton drove us all to loving and hating him simultaneously; and at last the Millenium, and GWBush taking a nation newly united in the face of crisis, and then making the divisions more pronounced than before. This is an out-of-control rollercoaster, and none of us can get off.

As I read through the comments, it seems nobody checked their baggage. More's the pity.

Where it all seems to stem from is the prevailing maxim that "there are two sides to everything". The problem arises from the extrapolation "There are only two sides to everything". In the real world, there more sides than a dodecahedron. Reasonable people seek common ground, compromise; they often find themselves marginalized by the zealots of the week. The rigid winner-take-all mentality of the "bases" prevails, and shouting trumps plain speaking.

FoxNews's "fair and balanced" tagline comes from their entrenched corporate belief that that all other mass media are on the other side; balance only exists at all if they put it there. Even it this were true it would not be true balance at all - merely counterweighting. If we accept the notion that true objectivity is impossible, than it follows that true balance is also impossible; one side will always claim that the other side is shutting them out.

If we could only ratchet down the hostility - but that will never happen; hostility is so much more entertaining than a dry-as-dust discussion of issues.

There are so many directions to go with this, and I'm out of gas right now. Maybe tomorrow...

I also wanted to mention, in case you found it interesting, that I did a college thesis project on network news coverage of the 2000 Election. My initial hypothesis was that I would confirm a liberal bias in news media coverage of the election in the 6 weeks leading up to election day. What did I actually find? After exhaustive analysis of every single moment of coverage, I saw that segments devoted to each candidate were identical to an infinitesmal degree, down to the second. The length of screentime for the actual candidate, the length of soundbites, even coverage of other candidates and issues were balanced exactly along party lines. If one candidate said or did something interesting that day they would cover it, but then they would give an equal amount of coverage to the other candidate even though they didn't do anything that day, so as to avoid any appearance of bias. Usually they didn't really say very much about either candidate, just so the opponent's segment wouldn't come out comparatively lightweight. The result was that the news coverage of the 2000 American Election told you almost exactly nothing about the candidates, and was reduced to a basic bulletin of where they campaigned that day and video of them waving to crowds. They would list issues that were brought up but not tell you what was said or what it meant. The one thing that they did cover extremely well, strangely enough, was the possibility that the election would come out in an effective tie - this bit of prescience was probably due to their slavish attention to polls, which was the main focus in each broadcast. The problem with television news, I concluded, was not that it was biased but that it was paralyzed, shackled, trying not to offend viewers while pleasing none of them, which leads the audience of all political persuations to conclude that the news is biased against them personally.

That was in 2000 - any current college students could probably do an interesting follow-up in 2009, and see how the landscape has(n't) changed.

I posted a link to this article on Reddit because I thought it was interesting, if you want to read some more commentary on this article here is the thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8t9c9/an_interesting_blog_by_roger_ebert_about_the/

On a side note. I'm surprised how many people here seem to miss the entire point of the article. They "shout" their debate against your article. Most of them either are pissed off at O'Reilly or pissed off you for not mentioning the people they hate. I think one of the points of this article is that this hatred can only be destructive. I find myself guilty of it also. There's a feeling of suppression, of having to fight to be heard. You become afraid that if you aren't noisy you'll be swept away.

This is obviously a false feeling. I think all too often we get caught up in this panicky scramble for attention/power and forget that the people we are, in essence and sometimes literally, labeling as "evil" are still people at their core. Those godless communists were as well intentioned as those capitalist pigs.

It's kind of sad when you think about it. It'd be nice to have an evil entity to fight. To have that confirmation of our fears and for it to then be clear what we need to do. Instead there are no villains. One of the greatest tragedies in the world is the fact that there's no conspiracy against us. It seems like there's something built into us wanting to fight for something but we have no one to fight. So instead we lie to ourselves and create an enemy for ourselves. Whether it be some shadow government or opposed political group. Just because your pro-choice doesn't mean you want to drink the blood of children, pro-choicer's honestly don't believe there's anything to kill. Same with pro-life, it's not that they want to put the woman bare foot in the kitchen, they honestly believe a life is being killed and want to protect it. Neither is evil and both are fighting for good reasons (to protect freedom and to protect life).

Mr. Ebert, I applaud the thesis of your article. We (the royal "we") lead by example, and the example being set for the this generation is that disagreements are to be settled loudly, and (for the more observant) that propaganda and polarization is a strategy for success. It's disappointing that more respondents don't recognize that O'Reilly is only one example of the problem, and attack that example rather than seeing the fundamental point.

I have to wonder, though, when I read accounts like yours of "the good old days". They weren't that good, to be honest. Rampant racism, sexism, a world at war: accentuating the positive is commendable, but while we still have our problems to solve in the western world, I would have a hard time arguing that we were better off back then.

I wince when I hear the words of someone seeing the past through rose-colored glasses, and I'm surely not the only one. In this case, I fear that it might wound the credibility of the rest of the article, which would be a shame.

Isn't Ebert a movie critic? O'Reilly has been off my list of listenable people lately. He in my opinion has been overly cautious about making any negative comments about Obama when there's so much to pick from. He's gone off the deep end with the Tiller thing trying to make sure everyone understands that it's not his fault that some nutjob killed Tiller. However I find it interesting that the slobbering, drooling liberals lapping at Obama's feet haven't bothered to mention the Army recruiter who was gunned down by a muslum extremist that same weekend and show the appropriate amount of outrage toward the muslum extremist.

Maybe O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc. feel like that have to yell because ABC, NBC, MNSBC, CNBC, PBS, NPR, CBS, CNN, XYZ, blah blah blah aren't even reporting that there is another viewpoint out there. I think that if Obama went out on the front lawn of the white house and pulled his pants down and told everyone to kiss is ass, the above mentioned main stream news channels would report that he was just trying to even out the tan.

Hannity is driving me nuts, he's way too far to the right for me and I'm really conservative.

Personally Glenn Beck is the only one out there who is trying to explain and bring to light the alternative viewpoint and keep the normal people up to date with what you aren't hearing on the regular news channels listed above. He's a little whacky and yes he cries, but I got to tell you, every day I hear of some new Czar or plan is in the works to screw us over a little more, I cry a little too.... for my freedom.

I was listening to my local Houston Sports Talk station one morning about a month ago and they were having a fairly general conversation with a local reporter who covers the Texans. Well, in the course of the conversation, she said that she spent a summer interning for the O'Reilly Factor. She said she knew she wanted to cover sports ... but she wanted to give it a try.

She tried her best not to blast the man, and I respect her, but she did say something about O'Reilly that surprised me ... well not really.

Her job, this reporter said, was to research guests and stories. She would then present the info to O'Reilly. So, she walks into his office - big corner office, large wooden desk, you can imagine - and says hello.

And waits ... and waits ... and waits as Mr. O'Reilly finishes what he was doing or as he stares out the window until HE decides to acknowledge her presence and then she is free to make her presentation. According to the reporter, it was one of the most intimidating things she'd ever done ... and I believe her.

Just thought I'd pass it along.

With the level of polarization of thought -- and the hostility it appears to inspire (even in your usually level-headed readers) -- I fear that the pendulum is only beginning to gain inertia. And when I look at other cultures and civilizations throughout history that have experienced similar levels of polarization and hostility and where that led, I find only those that have experienced catastrophic cultural "implosions" have altered their course. I think of Germany and Cambodia as examples here.

And ironically, those that have failed to halt their course towards (or beyond) "rule-by-fear dictatorships" are those that America fears the most! Think: Iran, North Korea, and, in times past, the Soviet Union.

I only hope Obama can help America redefine itself as a nation of intellect and balance. Otherwise we Canadians, often seduced by the power of our American neighbours, may not be far behind.

I have never seen Bill O'Reilly being disrespectful of the sitting president. It has been my viewing experience that he always gives him the benefit of the doubt.

The fact is, he digs deep for information. He informs you of things you would find no where else, and he must be accurate, because if anyone caught him being inaccurate, (considering the hatred that people are infected with) they would pounce on him so fast it would make your head spin.

It says something good about Fox Nation that this less-than-complimentary article about O'Reilly, (with every incidence of Bill's "losing it" exposed) appears on The Fox Nation site - the Fox News site. This is a perfect example of how you can find both sides of a story if you tune in to Fox News.

Ebert's comment about how everyone is talking about politics now is ironic. I thought he was a film critic. When did he switch?

I find it amusing that a majority of the people criticizing Roger on this blog post appear to be employing the first and fourth propaganda devices listed above in their critiques, a word I use generously here. My questions to these people: Who are you to say what should or should not be written about here? Who are you to tell Mr. Ebert to stick to reviewing films? The job of a critic is to think critically and not just about his or her specific medium.

And, by the way, it's his blog. He can write about whatever the hell he damn well pleases! I've seen several people tell Roger to not watch O'Reilly if he bothers him so much. That advice goes both ways.

Every time I hear criticism of O'Rielly, the first question I ask is how often they watch and invariably they don't and say they never would. Ignorance must be comforting. If O'Rielly was so effective in inciting hate there would be a hundreds of these tragedies, instead what you have is one madman. Its a shame Roger has pursued this...I have always liked him and felt for him during his illness. But this outrage is misplaced.

The companionship radio show is not gone, it's just migrated to the podcast. I listen to a lot of podcasts that are not about politics, but just a person or a few people talking everyday, having a conversation.

To all those wanting Ebert to call out the 'left wing nutjobs like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert'... Those guys are *comedians*, not journalists... Stewart himself has admitted on O'Reilly's show that we're in trouble when people look to him for reliable news... But, then again, as many have noted here, these days they're both more reliable sources of news (if Colbert is read in reverse of course, because he's a satire of guys like O'Reilly and Olbermann).

Also, to those who feel Stewart is a left wing extremist who distorts the news and takes it out of context, I'd take a look at what he's done recently, his June 16th episode for example, where he takes a look, as Jim Emerson did recently, at how CNN seems to be getting most their news off Facebook and Twitter these days... He also watches Bill O'Reilly yelling "No, you have blood on your hands!"

Or... June 3rd he observes that The New York Times has resorted to bringing potential reader with a free diamond giveaway... He then calls out Strabucks' Morning Joe talk-news TV show for how their shameless self promotion affects their news... He also discusses an interview and Q&A with Dick Cheney who blames 9/11 on Dick Clark, the guy who warned Bush and Cheney about a potential attack... Cheney laughs "I haven't read Dick Clark's book"... Audience laughs... In clip 2, one of the show's funniest 'reporters' Wyatt Cenac talks about imaginary black on white crime...

June 8th, Morning Joe corrected him saying it's sarcasm and "shameless self promotion" in quotation marks... Stewart says "I'm such an idiot!", yells at his '90 writers' for not getting it, and then proceeds to watch Sean Hannity on FOX news play the first part of a statement in an Obama speech but not the second... And how FOX News finds many things 'interesting'... In the second clip, he notices FOX News complaining about Sacha Baron Cohen and Eminem's MTV stunt where Sacha, as his Bruno character, dropped his behind into Eminem's face on live TV... FOX news then cuts to one of their reporters doing the same to a scantily clad woman... They declare that "one of the best things they've seen on television..."

June 10th... Morning Joe says Stewart is 'the angriest TV show host' and compares him to Napoleon... Stanley Kubrick might have considered that a compliment...

The study that shows Fox to be more centrist and less biased than the Big Three or PBS has already been quoted, so I will take it as given that there is more variety of expression on Fox than on the other networks. That is what I watch Fox more often than the others. I know I am going to get both sides from spirited and well-informed people who hold differing opinions. Remember, Fox includes liberal and centrist newscasters as well as their three main conservative commentators.

Bill O'Reilly does SOMETIMES bully his guests. For every clip where he is doing so, you could produce five or ten where he has a civil discussion with an opponent. The bullying starts when the opponent is evasive or blatantly dishonest. Somehow when a dishonest and evasive Barney Frank is bullied instead of bullying, which is more Frank's style, it doesn't hurt my feelings. And in comparison to Olberman and Garofalo, he is Mr. Manners.

I missed that study.

I am disturbed by the number of comments on this post that are more concerned with accusations of hypocrisy than with the actual crux of the issue being discussed: increasingly sensational, bombastic and polarized presentations of so-called news in modern media. Granted, through the utilization of Bill O'Reilly as an example of this type of news coverage, the blog leans to the left. But can it legitimately be argued that O'Reilly doesn't use these techniques? Keith Olbermann is guilty of the same offense, but merely bringing him up to denote hypocrisy doesn't actually address the issue. This is defensive language (it happens on both sides, equally I'd say) that is meant to discredit an opinion rather than enter into a legitimate dialogue with it.

Regardless of my own personal politics (I haven't--and won't--address them here), I agree with the post's sentiment. It's hard to feel informed when the majority of newscasts seem more concerned with the trivialities of celebrities' affairs, waterskiing squirrels, and sensationalistic newscasters.

This all makes me so very... tired.

Tired of "isms," tired of the idea that politics is all about boosting your team and gutting the other. Of the presumption that loud equals correct. So crushingly tired of it all.

Am I apathetic? Hell, no. I care deeply about our society and polity. I've got scads of well-defined ideas about many of our problems, and some of our opportunities. I'm the least apathetic person I know. But no one wants to have those conversations anymore. If you show more nuance than a bumper sticker, you're dismissed for not being "committed" enough. Such an ironic choice of terms.

I've grown up in the [---] Party and now that means nothing to me. I have always considered myself an adherent of the [---] political philosophy (the [---] variant of it, of course), but today it's the last thing I'd ever say out loud about myself -- because today it represents only a label, not a school of thought. I don't want to be on a team. I just want to be a citizen invested in my country. When did that become passe?

I'm a regular reader of all the columnists with whom I usually agree -- and of at least as many with whom I almost never do. Today that sounds like a boast, as if I'm some kind of ecumenical saint. When did it stop just being normal grown-up behavior?

So very tired.

Oh, and re the Garofalo comment: Apologies, but I think this is the meaning at issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging

I doubt Garofolo intended it in that context. If she did, she was discrediting herself. How many people do you think know of that definition?

I don't watch Fox News because I don't have television but I did visit the Fox News website once. The day after one of the most historic days in US history, the election of our first African-American president, I was curious about the "fair and balanced" response. The headline on the homepage was a criticism of Michelle Obama's dress.

That was the first dress I've seen her in that I didn't like. But the headline?

I must admit, I'm one of those who doesn't watch televised news because I can't stand the sensationalism and commercialism of it all. I prefer to read my news online (preferably bbc.co.uk or ted.com), or catch the Daily Show and Colbert Report. I do find it sad that those seem to be a few the last bastions of substance, even if, in the case of DS and CR, the shows' creators don't intend it.

Roger Ebert has it all wrong on O'Reilly. Liberals always want to inject their so-called "passive" intellectualism into their politics to make it
seem like their failed agenda actually has substance.

Take what you will from his ramblings, but remember: there's always a right and a wrong. There just can't be anything wrong with loudly celebrating the right while attacking the wrong with all you can muster.
And that's all Bill is doing. The American way.

Loud? Yes. Boisterous? Yes. Right? We'll do it live!

Hi, Roger! I've only been reading your journal for a short while, but have always enjoyed your movie reviews. I've wanted to comment on several or your earlier journal articles, but am especially compelled today.

Let me begin by admitting that I am a liberal. I find O'Reilly to be an unpleasant person and his rage-filled broadcasts, even brief clips of them, give me an unpleasant feeling in my gut. This brings to mind your previous journal post about the good kinds of gut feelings and nerve responses that some movie moments induce (the Oprah effect was it?), and wonder what O'Reilly is doing to my brain in a neurological sense.

I also admit that I watch Olbermann and Maddow. Olbermann is entertaining if a bit pandering. Lately, I've been watching more of Maddow, as she is inclined to welcome debate and at least tries to nab guests from the opposite side of the political spectrum. More to the point, relative to your article, I recognize that the shows that I watch (and I'll include The Daily Show here) are undoubtedly biased, knowingly or otherwise. However, I feel like they present a stimulus for me to do my own digging into the issues. I do not simply rely on these 30- to 45-minute shows to fully inform my own views on the world's news. I also have never felt the level of anger or visceral discomfort from these shows that O'Reilly or Beck cause me to feel. More importantly, I can not imagine Maddow or even Olbermann referring to anyone performing their legal job activities as a "Baby Killer," calling a guest stupid or yelling at them to shut up (why have them on?). The latter is behavior that my parents won't even allow in their own house based simply on good manners.

Finally, I come from a conservative Christian, Republican household. My mother does not watch FoxNews or any Fox channels. She reads news from the web. She will read articles that I send her which I find interesting, and the two of us can have civilized discussions on a range of polarizing political and moral topics. She is pro-choice and believes in equal rights for the GLBT community. My father watches FoxNews, including O'Reilly, and reads the local newspaper. He does not seek out other objective news sources. Let's just say that his views on a range of topics are very different from mine, and he sees them in a black-and-white way. I do not discuss politics or religion with him because I love him and prefer to keep things that way.

I very much enjoyed your article. You have done a wonderful job of illuminating many of the fears I have of O'Reilly and what this style of pseudo-journalism is doing to our country. I suspect that the influence of the O'Reilly Factor, the level of propaganda presented and absorbed, and the ability or willingness of viewers/readers (of any media) to synthesize a range of information accounts for the differences in many individuals' world views.

My rebuttal: Two words, “Keith Olberman”.

Not up to O'Reilly's standard.

Hello all!
This morning I have found a very funny toon about the office workers everyday life.
I recommend this for all to elevate your mood.
I helped))
You can watch this toon here

Great insight into O'Reilly's use of bullying and other propaganda techniques! You noted that the Indiana University study showed O'Reilly using six of seven elements of propaganda. According to an article on the Indiana University School of Journalism web site, they found he used all seven.

http://foxnewsboycott.com/bill-oreilly/study-bill-oreilly-uses-all-seven-elements-of-propaganda/

You have got to be kidding. Olberman??? Matthews???? Each MUCH worse than O'Reilly. Where's your dissection of these "liberals" and the threat to civil discourse they represent?

I'd call them liberals, not "liberals."

They're also-rans in this derby. O'Reilly himself is badly trailing Glenn Beck.

Way to prove Roger's point, commenters. Any thoughtful, reasoned critique of O'Reilly raises a torrent of "oh yeahs?" and "what abouts" from BO's disciples. O'Reilly has lowered the bar for rational discourse and the result is his fans have lost their ability to think for themselves. I'm sure deep down O'Reilly knows he's sold his soul, but his audience continues to justify his outrageous behavior.

I found something that Bill and Roger agree upon!

“On his own program, O’Reilly initially threw some bricks at conservative talk radio in general.
 
“It gets me angry,” said O’Reilly.  “I do talk radio and most talk radio is conservative-dominated ideologues; Kool-Aid drinking idiots.  Idiots. Screaming at you that this is socialism, this is this, this is that. ‘It’s Clinton’s fault.’ It’s Clinton’s fault? He hasn’t been in office in 8 years. It’s Bush’s fault! It happened under Bush’s watch.”
 
But then O’Reilly’s tirade seemed to aim at Rush Limbaugh—without actually naming him.
 
“But let’s get back to this talk radio stuff,” said O’Reilly. “These idiots.  I mean, they’re misleading you. They’re lying to you. They’re rich, these guys.  Big cigars. All of that. ‘Yeah, oh yeah, my private jet!’ And they’re saying, ‘Oh, no! No bail out!’ Uh, uh, no way!
 
“Hey! You’re going to get it, not them!” O’Reilly continued. “That foreign investment pulls out, we are toast! And they’ll pull out if this bailout doesn’t happen.  Are you getting the message here? Walk away from these liars, these right-wing liars. Walk away from them! They’re not looking out for you.””

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=36423

O'Reilly is not a doctrinaire conservative. He is for gun control, against the death penalty. He criticized the Swift Boat Veterans group. He believes the government should be “pro-active” in protecting the environment against global warming. He does not support gay marriage, but does support gay civil unions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I don't own a TV, so I have watched his show in full only about 12 times. The format is usually this: rundown of news topics O'Reilly is interested in; interview segment; reader mail; O'Reilly editorial. From what I have seen, he interrupts EVERYBODY, which is extremely annoying in my opinion. If O'Reilly agrees with the guest, he interrupts to indicate approval. If O'Reilly moderately disagrees with the guest, he interrupts (often by laughing or chuckling), but does not scream at the interviewee. Often in such cases, he ends the interview by saying, “The last word is yours”, at which point the guest has 20-30 seconds to hit his or her key points before the commercial break. I suspect this half-a-minute is what compels people to go on the program. If O'Reilly vehemently disagrees with the guest, the result is similar to what Roger has linked to.

I have two uncles who live up North. They are longtime union members and Democrats. They generally dislike the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, etc. They like O'Reilly. His middle-class Catholic background is very similar to their upbringing.

I dislike shouting matches, but there is obviously a large audience for them. On TV, O'Reilly's forebears include Crossfire, the McLaughlin group, etc. Sports is inundated with this sort of format: see “Pardon the Interruption”, Skip Bayless, etc.

None of this crap is my cup of tea, but I hardly think their collective impact on society is as bad as Howard Stern, who Roger apparently supports. Stern regularly includes mentally or physically disabled people on his show, then exploits them for cheap laughs. One example is “Wendy the Retard”:

“Wendy, who is mentally handicapped, lives with her mother and sister who both support her financially. She became mentally handicapped because her umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck prior to her birth.
She enjoys bumper bowling and singing pop song karaoke in her bedroom, as well as playing the drums. In many of her on-air telephone calls, she answers "yes" to any question from Stern, no matter how insulting or sexual. Based on her recent conversations with Daniel Carver, she may also be a racist—or merely just impressionable.”

[This source is from Wikipedia, so its veracity may be questionable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whack_Pack
Devoted Stern listeners should correct me if necessary.]

Howard Stern is deemed a "classic bully" by an expert in workplace bullying.

"Before doing an interview with Howard Stern yesterday, Dr. Namie said the radio host was a classic bully: "He's a holy terror, he's a real tyrant. His employees are all terrified that it's going to be a disaster."

http://www.workplacebullying.org/press/natlpost000921.html

I think this article is an excellent example of false knowledge. As culture critic Charles Sykes once wrote, “Many of the theological and existential issues of human life are translated into therapeutic terms.” Most of what Mr. Ebert wrote is debatable at best and biased at the very least.
In Mr. Ebert's world the person responsible for the murder of Dr. Tiller isn't just the person who killed him. But maybe it's just that simple and tragic. A sick man killed someone he hated. End of story.
Mr. Ebert’s desire to describe with scientific precision the mysteries of human identity says more about him than it does about Mr. O’Reilly.
I think an exact article could be written about one of Mr. Ebert’s favorite filmmakers, Mr. Michael Moore, who has used the power of film to distort the truth for years, to great applause.
Mr. Ebert I look forward to that article too, but I recommend that you stick with film criticism.

I find the publics fascinations with Bill O`riely to be a little odd. While I seriously doubt many people would consider him a serious news figure, I think he`s more silly than anything else. Compared to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Dr. Laura or Glenn Beck he`s comparitively benign. But here`s the paradox because he is somewhat innocent he is probably more popular which makes him a bigger target. Also, I don`t really think of him as a conservative because two of the causes he champions the most boycotts and censorship are thoroughly anti-capitalist.

I'd also like to take umbrage with James Hawk III's comments. I do not mean to make this a "pro-Simpsons/anti-Simpsons" debate, and I understand that at the time of the show's introduction it was considered child-polluting trash by the mainstream media.

I believe your comments date yourself, however, because the Simpsons is nearly universally accepted and thought of and intensely sharp and often poignant satire of the American culture of consumerism, greed, and the desire for immediate satisfaction. The show's heyday from 1990 to 1998 or so is regarded as perhaps the finest television ever created, not just by immature youth but by respected and cherished publications like Time Magazine and the New York Times.

It was George Bush that said that "We need more families like the Waltons, and less families like the Simpsons". And he's 90-something years old. Your comments just really sound ridiculous and out of touch.

Sorry, Roger, I can't go along here. You're not being--to use a hackneyed phrase--fair and balanced.

While O'Reilly's excesses (and he does have them) are well-publicized, the excesses of people like Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garafalo, and Michael Moore go relatively unnoted.

In the John Wayne thread, you stated that you gave 'The Green Berets' zero stars because it was morally objectionable. Presumably (and not too much of a stretch), this is because you opposed the Vietnam War and found Wayne's support of it--through film--to be morally indefensible. Except that it isn't/wasn't. And, at least, Wayne's film wasn't pretending to be anything other than a film with a point-of-view.

What about the so-called documentaries produced by Michael Moore? How many of the seven propaganda devices you list above is he guilty of using? All, by my count...and in great abundance. Do you forgive this because his politics agree to some extent with your own? I have to think so.

Your politics compromises your objectivity.

Is a lie in service of a goal you support praiseworthy but a truth in support of one you oppose morally indefensible? If so, you're less a critic of the arts than a practitioner of politics.

I'm not a film critic (other than around the office water-cooler), but if I were, I hope I would have the courage to praise a well-made film despite any conflicts with my politics or morality. If I couldn't do that, I'd be no different than the millions of other closed-minded people in our society...