TVSquad

Of course this is appropriate for a blog on TV. O'Reilly has a TV show, he is a TV personality. Thank goodness he has no real power except preaching hate to those that are looking for a reason to hate.

Reply

I didn't realize Bill's market share was 1/2 of the USA. Thanks for the update.

Reply

He can be over the top sometimes, I agree.

But, do we have to post political stuff that attempt to disprove political beliefs? Political blogs do that. Not my website, but TV stuff is this website's bread and butter.

Reply

Brent-

Bill O'Reilly is mainly a television personality and not a politician. Without his TV/Radio show the public wouldn't have a clue who he is. Anyone who watched the O'Reilly Factor for 5 minutes in December could tell you all about how he was going overboard (on the television) about this non-issue. Letterman even called him out during the week. It may be political, but saying "give me TV without the politics" would be very akin to saying "give me TV but without reality shows."

Reply

It is NOT a non-issue. Christmas has been under attack for quite sometime now. There are groups out there trying to deemphasis the importance of Christmas. They made up pc words like Winter Break instead of Christmas Break, Holiday Tree instead of Christmas Tree, Happy Holidays instead of Happy Christmas, etc. It goes on and on. For crying out loud, they even tried to create a new holiday out of thin air ...Kwanza! You are blind if don't notice the trend. To the extent in which it is being done, that is up for debate.



OReilly is a vile human being because he has a theory and is defending the idea of Christmas? Are you not going overboard with your insult? Maybe in the end, he is wrong but he is not vile. Jeffrey Dalmer is vile ...having a theory and defending it IS NOT VILE. Insulting someone for no legitimate reason IS vile.



I am with the other reader ...I think you are bringing OReilly up just to express your political views. This is by no means the first time too.

Reply

People. Lighten up. This is a blog about television, that specializes in RESPONDING to television shows and personalities.



Bill O'Reilly is a television personality with a television show. This post appears to be a response to Bill O'Reilly's television show, ergo, it's totally appropriate for this blog. If someone posted an article responding to a liberal television pundit, that would be okay, too. (I'm having trouble thinking of doppelganger for O'Reilly, but there must be one out there somewhere.)

Reply

You can get a poll to say anything you want, that's the first thing they teach you about journalism. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" -Benjamin Disraeli.

Reply

I agree with Brent, just because one of the contributors to this site has ideological disagreements with one of the people on television does not make it worth a blog post on a television blog.



When you get to the point of debating an issue with a "talking head," you are no longer blogging about television.



Keep it about the TV, and lay off the left-wing FOX-hating diatribe. Your bias shows in these kinds of posts, and you have no reason to show it on a site such as this. This is an interesting site to read, but keep this up and you'll lose at least a few readers (myself included), I'm sure.

Reply

I'm with the majority of these comments regarding the airing of Bob Sassone's political views.



This is a TV blog, not a political one. I happend to find Sassone's continue vilifying of O'Reilly and his beliefs to be vile.



Instead, you deify Jon Stewart and vilify O'Reilly. I'd hate to not read this site, but, it's getting kind of annoying already.

Reply

I am 41 and when i was younger, christmas was more of a community event. Everybody use to say Merry Christmas to each other. I don't know when it happened but society or the main stream media made us (christians) beleive that Christmas was something to keep out of the public arena. No christmas Trees, No christmas decorations, no Nativity scenes. Every place These things showed up in the past slowly started to take them away. Yes i know only on government or public spaces but they still took them away. It may not be a war on christmas, but there are certainly groups and people that are trying to extinguish it from the public eye. These people tried to make the people who celebrated christmas feel like we were ramming the holdiday down everyones throat. Even stores that owe 80% of their revenue to the holiday started to take down any sign that had to do with christmas. Well sometimes it takes overwhelming force to stop a dangerous movement from gathering even more momentum, and bill oreilly was that force. Christians win!

Reply

"Letterman even called him out"



right, that must've been when he said "60% of everything you say is crap" as if there were some numbers to back it and we should believe that without question.



yeah, when it comes to who am i going to believe when it comes to news and politics..... let's see, do we believe the guy who has a show where he has stars whoring their latest movies or TV shows and asks them what they do for fun.....or do we believe the guy who's knee-deep in politics and news all the time? gee that's a tough one. i mean, alec baldwin and barbara streisand have already shown that celebrities certainly know everything about politics and we should just believe everything they say..... yeah i'm still going to side with O'Reilly on this one. he may be arrogant and overboard at times, but he's still a better source for news that matters than a late-night talk show host.

Reply

"It is NOT a non-issue. Christmas has been under attack for quite sometime now."



What do you mean by "attack" exactly? Nobody is taking anything away from those who want to celebrate Christmas. Even if I were to agree that Christmas is being erased from pop culture, casual retail greetings and other media (which I don't), none of that has any bearing on the best aspects of Christmas anyway. When December hits, go home to your family, put up some pretty decorations, give presents to those you care for, have a drink with someone you haven't seen in a while, share some good memories. Nobody in the media or otherwise will try to stop you or Bill O'Reilly, I'm pretty sure.



"There are groups out there trying to deemphasis the importance of Christmas."



No there aren't. There ARE, however, groups who are sensitive enough to recognize that this continent is populated by people of many different cultures, backgrounds, and beliefs. And yes, some of those people don't celebrate Christmas in the Christian sense of the word. So, rather than excluding those people, phrases like "Happy Holidays" are created. This does not diminish Christmas for those who celebrate it. It is a gesture of acceptance and inclusion, which would hope anyone can appreciate the importance of.



"For crying out loud, they even tried to create a new holiday out of thin air ...Kwanza!"



Although I don't claim to be an expert, my understanding is that Kwanzaa originated in the 60s, thus it did not appear out of thin air. Also, people have the right to choose to celebrate Kwanzaa if they want. Nobody is forcing you to convert.



"You are blind if don't notice the trend."



We are blind because there is nothing to see.



"OReilly is a vile human being because he has a theory and is defending the idea of Christmas?"



He is vile because he is taking advantage of people by creating a fluff story to upset people and then gaining their sympathy by convinvcing them he is on their side, probably attempting to boost his own ratings in the process.



Look at it this way... Can you think of any pundits who are going on air to say "We must fight Christmas and its champion, Bill O'Reilly"? No, because nobody is. How can you defend against a non-existent enemy?



And on that note, I hope you all enjoyed your holidays, Christmas or otherwise.

Reply

Patrick, OReilly IS NOT the first person to point this out. This story has been around for some now. OReilly's ratings has been way up there before the Christmas story ...I don't know what he has to boost but his ego. If it was an anchor on CNN story, then you might have an argument.



The season is a holiday BECAUSE its Christmas. To represent it as something is nothing but the PC crap. No one is forcing people to buy trees and decorate them.



As for Kwanzaa, you should do some research yourself. You don't call a holiday founded in 1967 and is observed exclusively by African Americans in the United States between DEC 26TH to Jan 1 a figment of someone's counter-reaction to Christmas? Matter of fact, it was founded by a POLITICAL activist and it was formed out of thin air.



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

Reply

Next we'll have Bill telling us that gay people are proposing a ban on straight marriage. Oh majority...

Reply

"The season is a holiday BECAUSE its Christmas."



No, the season is a holiday BECAUSE of Winter Solstice, a pagan holiday the Christians sort of appropriated in a very crafty (and successful) effort to "convert the heathen" as it were. If it weren't for Solstice, Christmas as we know it wouldn't exist.



It's remained a holiday because of Christmas. And Chanukah. And Kwanzaa. It's a very auspicious season all-around, a season of (and this is going to sound corny) togetherness. So why be exclusive? It's not about political correctness so much as tolerance and inclusion.



At least, that's the way I understand it...

Reply

"Patrick, OReilly IS NOT the first person to point this out. This story has been around for some now."



I have nothing to counter that since O'Reilly is the first person I've heard vocalize this concern, so fine I'll go with it. Nevertheless, O'Reilly appears perfectly happy being a poster boy for the cause.



"The season is a holiday BECAUSE its Christmas."



That's a pretty elitist way to look at things. For you and many others, yes, but that type of thinking condescends to and belittles everyone with a differing point of view. Lots of festivals land around this time of the year and all are equally valid as far as the people celebrating them are concerned--Kwanzaa included. Hanukkah also lands in late December. Then we have the Western new year (also a holiday). The Chinese new year comes a little later, but also around mid-winter (January/February). There are various Winter Solstice festivals that are celebrated differently around the world as well.



"No one is forcing people to buy trees and decorate them."



And no one is preventing them, either. So what's the problem?



"As for Kwanzaa, you should do some research yourself. You don't call a holiday founded in 1967 and is observed exclusively by African Americans in the United States between DEC 26TH to Jan 1 a figment of someone's counter-reaction to Christmas?"



1967 is nearly 40 years ago, which to me does not qualify as "out of thin air". The world can change drastically in 5 minutes, so 40 years is fairly substantial when you consider the celebration has endured this long. I guess we'll have to disagree on the semantics. Either way, what gives you, me, or Bill O'Reilly the right to deny someone their right to celebrate anything they want (regardless of whether you feel it is "made up")? If someone wants to celebrate Kwanzaa and feels it is important to them, how does this take away from your ability to celebrate Christmas? It doesn't. Hence, no story.



Thanks for the discussion. I have nothing left to add on this one.

Reply

Christmas is not Christian. It's not a Christmas tree, it's a pagan tree. The idea that the mythical Christ was born in December is contradicted by the New Testament. The most vocal opposition to Christmas has historically come from CHRISTIANS who were better educated in their faith's history than is common today. Several US states have in the past banned observance of Christmas (nice religious freedom there) due to this Christian influence. Until roughly a thousand years ago, the church taught that it was not pious to celebrate birthdays, and the celebration of Christ's birthday was a blasphemy.

Christmas itself was created "out of thin air." It was originally a political tool to manipulate people. Now it's a commercial tool to manipulate people. All this moral outrage just makes me sad.

If it IS the case that Christmas is in decline, three cheers for that. I'm tired of the gift culture. I'm tired of the rah rah for the home team. I'm especially tired of the valuing of faith over critical thought. It's as though people WANT to be lied to, and it's disgraceful.



Another thing. I think it reflects poorly on this forum that many people seem to think television is just for fluffy entertainment, and that serious discussions of its content should be avoided. Television changed the world, and it's not done yet. If we are not critical in our consumption of its messages, it will not be a change for the better. For shame!

Reply

Canton, if the holiday season is about tolerance and inclusion as you say, then O'Reilly is right.



There are plenty of places around the US where you are not allowed to display a nativity. Or how about Macy's where they no longer say Merry Christmas.



Great to see the ACLU is all about inclusion and tolerance. At least for their own narrow point of view.

Reply

I said it before, and I'll say it again-- leave the political debate off this blog, and stick to just the TV shenanigans. Otherwise, start a "Politics in the Media" blog or something.

Reply

"There are plenty of places around the US where you are not allowed to display a nativity."



Right, like capitol lawns and courthouses. Displaying a creche in a public place like that could be considered sponsorship of Christianity. State-sponsored religion is what the early settlers wanted to get away from, way back when.



"Or how about Macy's where they no longer say Merry Christmas."



How awkward would it be to say "Merry Christmas" to somebody, only to learn they're Jewish and celebrate Hanukkah?

Reply