Does Bill O'Reilly Think The Simpsons Are Real?
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
I posted it as a take from it what you will video.Pyode said:
I hate O'Reilly simply because he brings people on to ether agree with them or to yell at them then promptly sticks his finger in his ears going lallalala i can't hear you. Not for what he said on the video.
O'Reilly gets paid to rake muck, not make jokes. Making joke and showing a clip doesn't fit the formula of Bill's show, and it never has. What does fit his formula is overreacting to something that goes against his or his show's established moral code. He's smiling because he is trying to keep a cool head about it, but it's pretty clear from his history that O'Reilly thinks the joke is in poor taste. Which is sad, because it is really funny, and Fox should be able to laugh at himself.
Let's not forget, Bill O'Reilly regularly represents the views and opinions of an entire generation of Americans who thought Bart Simpson was going to corrupt our nation's youth simply by talking back to his parents. It was on the documentary about the Simpsons; before Family Guy, South Park, et. al., the Simpsons was one of the culturally edgiest shows out there, and people took offense to it left and right.
I don't think Elizabeth meant he literally believes the characters are real; she's hyperbolizing. It strikes me as a good writing technique, because all Fox news does is over-exaggerate and sensationalize stories that aren't worthy of the attention, so making fun of them in that manner only seems appropriate.
Let's not forget, Bill O'Reilly regularly represents the views and opinions of an entire generation of Americans who thought Bart Simpson was going to corrupt our nation's youth simply by talking back to his parents. It was on the documentary about the Simpsons; before Family Guy, South Park, et. al., the Simpsons was one of the culturally edgiest shows out there, and people took offense to it left and right.
I don't think Elizabeth meant he literally believes the characters are real; she's hyperbolizing. It strikes me as a good writing technique, because all Fox news does is over-exaggerate and sensationalize stories that aren't worthy of the attention, so making fun of them in that manner only seems appropriate.
I wasn't under the impression that O'Reilly thought the cartoon characters themselves were responsible for their jokes, but I am under the impression that Bill thinks that because the Simpsons has traditionally aired on Fox, that the show is supposed to be some sort of puppet for the network rather an independently created cartoon.
Funny how Bill O'Reilly loves free speech when he wants to call the president a socialist Nazi, and gets offended when someone uses it to take a jab at his joke of a news network.
Funny how Bill O'Reilly loves free speech when he wants to call the president a socialist Nazi, and gets offended when someone uses it to take a jab at his joke of a news network.
I think what people need to realise is that FOX doesn't care. Doesn't care about its viewers, doesn't care about its politics, doesn't care about the programming. In fact they don't even really care about republicans or values voters. They care about money. FOX News rakes in money, the Simpsons rakes in money, appealing to Republicans rakes in money (both through advertising and through lenient tax breaks etc...).
I think the Banksy episode of The Simpsons shows this even more than this FOX news vid. At the end of the day, one can't assume that any organisation that is for-profit believes in anything but that profit. Something for values voters to chew on...still MSNBC or any of the rest are hardly any better...or Activision...or Ubisoft...as much as we may want to believe that the companies which produce things we like have similar views of the world, or similar attitudes to us. They don't, and if you think they do...well, that company just has great PR and brand management.
I think the Banksy episode of The Simpsons shows this even more than this FOX news vid. At the end of the day, one can't assume that any organisation that is for-profit believes in anything but that profit. Something for values voters to chew on...still MSNBC or any of the rest are hardly any better...or Activision...or Ubisoft...as much as we may want to believe that the companies which produce things we like have similar views of the world, or similar attitudes to us. They don't, and if you think they do...well, that company just has great PR and brand management.
As well you should. If all you can do is spit out hyperbolic language, anecdotes so overwrought that noone believes them, and generally hold yourself above everyone else as a paragon of independent thought when you're doing nothing countless others don't do every time someone so much as mentions Fox News, what makes you so different from a Fox News talking head? =PTalcon said:
The fact of the matter is that 90% of the posters in this thread made up their mind before they even finished reading the title. Most (if not all) have probably never even seen more then a small, out of context, clip of him on YouTube and yet they act like he's Satan incarnate.Talcon said:
I already tried pointing out on the first page that this clip was obviously just O'Reilly joking around, but it still goes over most peoples heads.
The thing that angers me the most though isn't the random people on the internet posting (I've come to expect this sort of thing from them), but the "journalist" who thought this was actual news and the editor that let it go to print. These people are supposed to be professionals and the fact that this story got the green light is a disgrace.
I can't but think I'd be concerned if I worked for FOX, and saw that a mainstream, not an edgy,'niche' show, but a regular, prime time TV show can effectively label them as racist, as on a mainstream show, you're rarely going to get away with a viewpoint opposite to the majority.
However, I think FOX put up with the occasional potshot taken at them as they know there's about 700 other TV stations that would take the Simpsons off their hands in a minute.
As for being biased against FOX, when they have people say stuff like 'Next up, we'll be having a fair and balanced debate about how an upcoming videogame can turn your child into a terrorist!' then I kinda lose faith in their 'fairness and balance'.
As for the BBC, sure they're a little left of centre, but someone has to be to counter our newspapers and SKY.
However, I think FOX put up with the occasional potshot taken at them as they know there's about 700 other TV stations that would take the Simpsons off their hands in a minute.
As for being biased against FOX, when they have people say stuff like 'Next up, we'll be having a fair and balanced debate about how an upcoming videogame can turn your child into a terrorist!' then I kinda lose faith in their 'fairness and balance'.
As for the BBC, sure they're a little left of centre, but someone has to be to counter our newspapers and SKY.
I must say, that was pretty funny.
Personally, I can't say whether or not Fox News is full of bigots (don't watch enough of it, mostly because I don't have cable), but I do know that Bill O'Riley is a rare combination of douche and jerk that only conservative punditism can produce.
Considering that 'pinhead' is a high insult for Mr. O'Riley, I think I can safely say that he doesn't understand satire.
Personally, I can't say whether or not Fox News is full of bigots (don't watch enough of it, mostly because I don't have cable), but I do know that Bill O'Riley is a rare combination of douche and jerk that only conservative punditism can produce.
Considering that 'pinhead' is a high insult for Mr. O'Riley, I think I can safely say that he doesn't understand satire.