TVSquad

It was decent for O'Reilly and Fox News, not decent in any way people would normally define "decency". He made little sense and pretended, like he always does, that he is somehow better than Stewart, better that a "satirist", and somehow in any way resembling a newsman.

Even in these distorted and misrepresented clips of Stewart, O'Reilly seems like the lying clown compared to Stewart's honesty and integrity.

Comedy, especially political satire, is meant to be skewed. But the Factor isn't supposed to be comedy, is it? What gives the Factor, and the rest of Fox News' line up that is usually far worse, the excuse to twist and manipulate the facts like they do, and pretend they are being: "fair and balanced". The Daily Show doesn't try to be fair and balanced, and would in fact fail at its primary purpose if it did, but nevertheless, is far more fair and balanced in its criticism and lampoonery than Fox News will ever be.

@omega

Except the O'Reilly factor isn't reporting news, it doesn't pretend to. It's commentary just the same as the Daily Show. They're both very biased. The Daily Show skews liberal and the O'Reilly Factor skews to whatever the frick O'Reilly is. In the case of the Factor, they are targeting a different audience and don't rely on comedy to make a point. It's a more professional way of doing it, and they aren't going for laughs.

All O'Reilly did was make a point, and in this case, he made a good one. Don't try and compare the two, something about Apples and Oranges springs to mind.

I really don't watch either, but what are you talking about? Stewart aired his piece on one night and O'Reily rebutted the next night. At least that is what I gathered here on TV Squad, so how was O'Reilly waiting for Stewart to go on vacation? Should he have waited three weeks to air a rebuttal, when it is old news?

I mean someone else can skew it that Stewart dropped this bomb just before his vacation to avoid the rebuttal.


I believe neither scenario and believe it developed the way it did naturally.

So... of all the times Stewart has called O'Reilly on his hypocrisy (and there have been many...) O'Reilly just happened to wait until now to respond? I'm not buying it, sorry. It just comes off as a cheap shot when Stewart isn't around to reply.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that he was responding to this specific incident the day after it happened. He may not have responded to prior incidents of hypocrisy because they may have either been true or he felt it wasn't worth responding to, but that is neither here or there, because he hasn't waited for Stewart to go on vacation to rebut on the past now has he? So why do it now?

Now if he responded to Stewarts piece late next week, I think you would have a case.

I love how smug he gets when he explains that he was calling the 'arrested' protesters loons. As if it's common knowledge that anyone that's ever been arrested is certifiably crazy. He completely ignores the fact that he said 'surveys' supposedly say this and the fact that two sentences didn't really seem to be connected.
It's hilarious that he thinks Stewart is catering to his 45% liberal audience. If that isn't projecting, I don't know what is.

Jon Stewart's program is FAR more accurate than O'Reilly's. O'Reilly's show is nothing but right-wing propaganda. Plus, Bill O has proven himself to be incredibly dumb over and over again. For example, when a viewer mail said that Canada has a higher life expectancy than America, O'Reilly responded by saying "America has ten times as many people than Canada, and thus ten times as much crime and ten times as many deaths." Even someone who failed first-grade math wouldn't be stupid enough to make such a ridiculous statement.

On a related note, it's gotten to the point where the right-wing has forgotten what context/out of context actually means. Their definition has been reduced, in essence, to: anytime someone takes a clip of a Republican saying something that sounds funny or stupid, it's "taken out of context." Their "proof" of this is, as O'Reilly did, playing the sentences before and after the funny/dumb statement. Since the part before and after are not funny/dumb, they really think that means the original part was therefore taken out of context. Of course that's not how it works. But, when your whole entire ideology is based on stupidity and misinformation, what else can ya do?