Roger Ebert about pundits negative effects on orderly and constructive disscusions

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009...procedure.html

Do you think Ebert's point about aggressive pundits such as O Reilly and Obermann really replacing and destroying calm rational and respectful discussion in America due to their high ratings is true?
Do you think such discussions are already extinct?
Do you think that such aggressiveness is actually beneficial?

Don't be surprised if this gets locked, the rules state you need to offer an opinion in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Don't be surprised if this gets locked, the rules state you need to offer an opinion in the OP.

---

Sigh, does every conversation need an opinion to be praised or condemned in order for it to start? Lock this then. If the backroom can't even have a constructive discussion without immediately establishing "sides" then I am done here. If anything, the opinion of my OP was Roger Ebert's which was to be talked about.

ACIN, it's not that you're supposed to stake out a "side" as such, but rather that some sort of analysis, question-asking or detail is appreciated, rather than a link and "discuss." The bar isn't set absurdly high; it's just not resting on the ground.

Thread now edited to comply with Backroom rules.

Please continue.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009...procedure.html

Do you think Ebert's point about aggressive pundits such as O Reilly and Obermann really replacing and destroying calm rational and respectful discussion in America due to their high ratings is true?
Do you think such discussions are already extinct?
Do you think that such aggressiveness is actually beneficial?

---

Watching the clips on that website I just have to say first up that if any Australian news presenter acted so childish as to actually have what is basically a temper tantrum then they would be out on their arse looking for a new job the very next day.

This obviously isn't "the news" it seems to be more of a perverted "current affairs" show, but what I need to ask is do the average Americans actually listen to this and agree with his views? If so then this is very worrying. I thought Australian current affairs shows were bad in the way they take sides, but Bill O'Rielly's arguments consist of saying "I'm right and your wrong" and to prove how right he is, he shouts shout louder than the other guy.

Using aggression and ignorance to prove your point is a terrible message to send to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

Watching the clips on that website I just have to say first up that if any Australian news presenter acted so childish as to actually have what is basically a temper tantrum then they would be out on their arse looking for a new job the very next day.

This obviously isn't "the news" it seems to be more of a perverted "current affairs" show, but what I need to ask is do the average Americans actually listen to this and agree with his views? If so then this is very worrying. I thought Australian current affairs shows were bad in the way they take sides, but Bill O'Rielly's arguments consist of saying "I'm right and your wrong" and to prove how right he is, he shouts shout louder than the other guy.

Using aggression and ignorance to prove your point is a terrible message to send to the public.

---

As you correctly observe, O'Reilly isn't a news presenter, journalist, or anything similar. You could charitably describe him as a news "analyst", but basically his stock and trade is in manipulating people's sense of outrage and in entertaining with his ridiculous over the top antics. Then you have your Olbermanns and Hannitys who are basically just cheerleaders for their respective political bases.

Do these people hurt the political discourse? Maybe- compared to what? Ebert laments the current state of affairs while wistfully looking back to a time when most people got their news from bite-sized 30 minute broadcasts aired by just a couple outlets. If blowhards like O'Reilly are the price we must pay to have broad and varied sources of news, then I think it's a fair trade. Certainly, the times when we had severely limited options was more damaging to vigorous political debate than the wide variety of options we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Do you think Ebert's point about aggressive pundits such as O Reilly and Obermann really replacing and destroying calm rational and respectful discussion in America due to their high ratings is true?
Do you think such discussions are already extinct?
Do you think that such aggressiveness is actually beneficial?

---

Yes, and not only in America.

No.

No.

Short and fleeting, without ever delving deeply into the manner is the problem of today's public debate. As witness this post.

They serve as a safety valve for "latent outrage", so the majority, a mostly moderate group (whether left- or right-leaning) can see an actor/entertainer act-out their: "What I would say to the nutter on the other side, if the consequences weren't so dire." fantasies.

By now, most folks don't buy the masquerade that this is "news" or even "discussion".

They satiate the same (hidden) pruient interests as the celeb-gossip shows, from which many of them (including O'Rielly) come.

Eh, who cares? OReilly is a blowhard, Hannity is a blowhard, Limbaugh is a blowhard, Olberman is a blow hard, Maddow is a blow hard, Stewart is a blow hard, Colbert is a blow hard, Cafferty is a blow hard, Beck is a blow hard, Dobbs is a blowhard, etc. All of these people are aggressively obsessed with their political opinions and share them endlessly. Are they any different from the people in your own life who rant a rave about the same garbage? They all appeal to emotion and feelings. I like guys like Brian Lehrer, Leonard Lopait, Charlie Rose etc and I will listen to them.

In a way, these people counterbalance one another and shred their own credibility. Anyone who watches any of those shows is a hopeless curmedgeon, even the funny ones who are simply recruiting the young into closed minded intensity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Colbert is a blowhard

---

If you want to get technical here, Colbert is making fun of most of the blowhards you just mentioned, though he is fairly political in his own way.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think people like O'Reilly or Olberman will suddenly destroy rational thought or discussion, but I do believe they hurt how the media is portrayed. When many people think of the news and media outlets these days, the first thing that will pop into their minds is a bunch of raving idiots. It makes people more likely to dismiss everything as lies and propaganda and less likely to talk about it themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tratorix

If you want to get technical here, Colbert is making fun of most of the blowhards you just mentioned, though he is fairly political in his own way.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think people like O'Reilly or Olberman will suddenly destroy rational thought or discussion, but I do believe they hurt how the media is portrayed. When many people think of the news and media outlets these days, the first thing that will pop into their minds is a bunch of raving idiots. It makes people more likely to dismiss everything as lies and propaganda and less likely to talk about it themselves.

---

If you want to get really technical, they are all reactionaries fueled by one another. The unrelenting partisanship is not one sided and the Daily show/Colbert report are simply a cynical (and often humorous) evolution of politically biased steamrolling. All of them use intensity to strongarm their ideas. The new humor is a more effective way of baiting the younger generations into closing their minds and attacking what they don't understand out of hand. Some shows are different in that they do not embrace a particular agenda - they use biting and scathing or innocent humore on different points of view with variation. TDS and TCR jovially jostle the left while never missing an opportunity to berate and misrepresent even subtle actions of those on the right (or from conservative democrats). I prefer those who call a spade a spade, not only is that spade is a Republican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

If you want to get really technical, they are all reactionaries fueled by one another. The unrelenting partisanship is not one sided and the Daily show/Colbert report are simply a cynical (and often humorous) evolution of politically biased steamrolling. All of them use intensity to strongarm their ideas. The new humor is a more effective way of baiting the younger generations into closing their minds and attacking what they don't understand out of hand. Some shows are different in that they do not embrace a particular agenda - they use biting and scathing or innocent humore on different points of view with variation. TDS and TCR jovially jostle the left while never missing an opportunity to berate and misrepresent even subtle actions of those on the right (or from conservative democrats). I prefer those who call a spade a spade, not only is that spade is a Republican.

---

I see your point. But then again, I'm Canadian, so I can watch TDS and TCR without having my political views twisted very harshly. I don't get a say in most of what their talking about. Most of the criticisms against TDS or TCR are easily deflected though, because most Republicans don't understand how to properly use humor to get their message across. (No offense meant, just an observation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tratorix

I see your point. But then again, I'm Canadian, so I can watch TDS and TCR without having my political views twisted very harshly. I don't get a say in most of what their talking about. Most of the criticisms against TDS or TCR are easily deflected though, because most Republicans don't understand how to properly use humor to get their message across. (No offense meant, just an observation

---

Republicans are hilarious. This was a common criticism of the left in the US, priot to the John Stewart coming to the daily show. Older people have an older sense of humor, and older americans are represented more heavily in the GOP. Adam Sandler is a NY Republican. Norm MaCDonald is no liberal. Chris Farley was and his family is conservative leaning. There is no shortage of funny republicans, but our political structure caters to older sensibilities, so the humor can be a bit more dated. Have you ever watched Brian on Fox and friends?

We and moderates are the ones that incinerate political correcness. Thank the abhorance of liberalism for the funnier aspects in South Park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Republicans are hilarious. This was a common criticism of the left in the US, priot to the John Stewart coming to the daily show. Older people have an older sense of humor, and older americans are represented more heavily in the GOP. Adam Sandler is a NY Republican. Norm MaCDonald is no liberal. Chris Farley was and his family is conservative leaning. There is no shortage of funny republicans, but our political structure caters to older sensibilities, so the humor can be a bit more dated. Have you ever watched Brian on Fox and friends?

We and moderates are the ones that incinerate political correcness. Thank the abhorance of liberalism for the funnier aspects in South Park.

---

I didn't say Republicans aren't funny, I said they aren't using humour properly. The Daily Show makes light of politics and have a bit of a liberal bias. Any similar attempts that I've seen lately with a conservative slant(An American Carol) just come off as mean spirited to me. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tratorix

I didn't say Republicans aren't funny, I said they aren't using humour properly. The Daily Show makes light of politics and have a bit of a liberal bias. Any similar attempts that I've seen lately with a conservative slant(An American Carol) just come off as mean spirited to me. :shrug:

---

American Carol blew. I wouldn't consider the Daily show "a bit" biased either, but hey, I'm not Canadian, so I don't know where you're coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

American Carol blew. I wouldn't consider the Daily show "a bit" biased either.

---

It is left leaning, they make fun of Republicans more than Democrats. They do have both conservative and liberal leaning guests, though, and Stewart usually treats them with respect and lets them speak their piece. I don't think it's exactly the evil leftist propaganda machine you're making it out to be.

At least we can agree that American Carol blew.

You're all forgetting that comic masterpiece, Fox's 1/2 Hour News Hour. That stuff was brilliant.