 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Wednesday, October 22, 2003
I'm confused Doc -- you changed your mind because you feel that Terry Gross made a tactical error in allowing O'Reilly to paint her a "liberal"? She should have instead given a softball interview, which would have undoubtedly caused O'Reilly to declare for all to hear that NPR is "fair and balanced"? When she read the piece after the tape ended it felt to me like she was simply satisfying the curiosity of the listener -- after she told O'Reilly that she wanted to read the quote it would have been a tease to then deny the listener the satisfaction of knowing what the quote was. That O'Reilly chose to leave the interview is his fault, not hers. That he couldn't take what he dishes is hardly a reason that Gross should be chastised here. Granted, I'm biased in thinking that O'Reilly is a destructive force in the mass discourse, but I fail to see how asking him to answer for some of his more vituperative statements is overly combative. The direct comparison of the Franken and O'Reilly interviews hardly seems fair. Franken is a comedian -- his book is satire. Politically sharp satire, but satire nonetheless. O'Reilly, on the other hand, offers no irony in his show or his book -- he is simply right (and all who disagree are either wrong or "spinning"). It seems quite appropriate to give O'Reilly a tougher interview in response to his tough style. If Franken did get a softball interview (and it's quite valid to think he did) with Gross, that is not a reason O'Reilly shouldn't be asked to answer the tough questions. I agree with your original statement: "If he'd held his temper and answered the rest of her questions as well as he'd answered her previous ones, he would have left the listeners with a lot more to respect." There are responses to this message:
|
