The poodle which didn’t bark: Last Tuesday night, Bill O’Reilly melted down on his semi-eponymous cable news program.
Over and over, he called Alan Colmes a liar, although he began to apologize for the name-calling before the segment was over. The following night, he devoted his opening segment to the fracas, though he kept spreading disinformation about Obama’s budget proposals, the matter which had been in question. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/8/13.
Those segments aired last Tuesday and Wednesday. But how strange! Last night, O’Reilly was still trying to explain away his extremely loud outburst. He devoted his “Talking Points Memo” and his opening segment to the outburst, which was now six days old. Speaking with two friendly pundits, he explained why he had yelled at Colmes so much—even though, he now assured us, he had never been mad.
Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham played along with Mr. O’s nonsense, although the look on Williams’ face, and his forced laughter, provided a window into his soul.
For unknown reasons, Mr. O is still explaining away last Tuesday night’s outburst. This brings us to the French poodle which didn’t bark in Sunday’s Washington Post.
Every Sunday, in the hard-copy paper, the Post features a Fact Checker piece by Glenn Kessler. O’Reilly spewed tremendous disinformation last week, speaking to five million people as he did.
The problem was especially strong last Wednesday night, in his follow-up segment with Kirsten Powers. This would have been a wonderful topic for Kessler to pursue.
Darlings, that poodle just didn’t bark! Things like that are simply not done. O’Reilly is powerful, and the Post is a trollop, a trollop which hates to bark.
In the Sunday hard-copy Post, Kessler batted Obama around for about the three millionth time. O’Reilly can bullshit as much as he wants. The Washington Post will not notice.
The French poodle wagged its tail at O'Reilly. In this way, we reach the Bedlam, the powerful Babel, within which our culture now lives.
Go ahead, enjoy a good laugh: This was part of the nonsense as Mr. O explained to the stooges why he melted down:
O'REILLY (3/11/13): Don't you understand that, when I engage in this kind of hyperbole with Barney Frank or Geraldo or Alan Colmes, that the whole nation, indeed, the whole world, is engaged then on the subject? I don't really give a hoot what people think about me, I don't care.“That's part of the modus operandi,” Mr. O explained. He just uses that “technique” to get us rubes involved!
HAM: Of course.
O'REILLY: But then I— The discussion about the federal debt was elevated so even the people who don't pay attention, don't care, think, “What's that all about?” So that's part of the modus operandi here when I get so frustrated because people aren't paying attention to this and they have to that I use that technique to get everybody involved.
Ham had prestated her “of course.” It's right there in the script!
"But why was Whitaker suspected [of shoplifting]?"
ReplyDeleteFrom the 2/16/13 NY Daily News:
"It was around lunchtime and the store was packed," said a Milano employee who refused to give his name. "We were like 50 people deep. The person [Whitaker] walked in and out really quickly so our person just made a mistake."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/forest-whitaker-stopped-frisked-upper-east-side-deli-article-1.1266100#ixzz2NLSDTjmd
This is in the wrong post - should be for Bob's post on the Coates' article.
ReplyDelete"...the look on Williams’ face, and his forced laughter, provided a window into his soul." Imagine the lashing someone named Rachel or Dowd would get from Somerby if they'd have mind-read a reaction into someone like this.
ReplyDeleteHow did the look provide a window into Williams soul? Somerby doesn't say. Why is this mentioned at all? Is the piece stronger or weaker because Somerby mind-reads a look and forced laugh onto someone and never explains why. How does this differ from "practically lactating" spoken by Dowd?
You can hear forced laughter, it has a tinny sound that calls attention to itself.
ReplyDeleteTechnically he is, yes, on thin ice, but Jeeze... that's how Juan looks every time I see him choking down some crap sandwich, wondering if his pay check is huge enough to wash the taste from his mouth.
Modus operandi? That sounds strangely familiar, especially coming from O'Reilly. Why is that? Oh, now I remember...
ReplyDelete"Once people get into that hot water they shed their inhibitions, you know they drink during the day, they lay there and lazy, they have dinner and then they come back and fool around…that’s basically the modus operandi.”
And then fade to the falafel shower scene. Now I remember.