Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Brook on O'Reilly 12/13

Rate this topic


Oakes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

O'Reilly was looking for an excuse to bump this speaker and he found it!

Why do you say that? O'Reilly is far from a favorite of mine, but he does not strike me as a wishy-washy character, looking for excuses to undo something that he wanted in the first place. I guess what I am asking is, on what evidence do you base your assertion that he was "looking for an excuse to bump this speaker?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARI's executive director Dr. Yaron Brook, is scheduled for an interview on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor on Friday, 12/17 (rescheduled from 12/13). The topic will be Iraq. This program airs at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. Eastern Time. Please check your local listings for exact times in your area.
Edited by Capitalism Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say that? O'Reilly is far from a favorite of mine, but he does not strike me as a wishy-washy character, looking for excuses to undo something that he wanted in the first place. I guess what I am asking is, on what evidence do you base your assertion that he was "looking for an excuse to bump this speaker?"

Dr. Speicher,

Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself. Let's put this in the context of why Dr. Brook was supposedly bumped. The excuse was the Scott Peterson verdict, or sentencing. One of those anyway. How long has this been big news? The verdict came down a couple of hours before The Factor was even scheduled to be on the air. It was no longer breaking news, yet he decided to preempt everything else? That, to me anyway, is ludicrous. Most viewers are sick to death of the Peterson case, and couldn't care less anymore other than the fact that they are glad to hear that the scum was sentenced to die. So why bump an invited speaker to feature some reoccuring, tired news story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Speicher,

Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself. Let's put this in the context of why Dr. Brook was supposedly bumped. The excuse was the Scott Peterson verdict, or sentencing. One of those anyway. How long has this been big news? The verdict came down a couple of hours before The Factor was even scheduled to be on the air. It was no longer breaking news, yet he decided to preempt everything else? That, to me anyway, is ludicrous. Most viewers are sick to death of the Peterson case, and couldn't care less anymore other than the fact that they are glad to hear that the scum was sentenced to die. So why bump an invited speaker to feature some reoccuring, tired news story?

This post would make a good point if he hadn't been rescheduled for this Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself.

But Yaron Brook was previously a guest on the show, so if your speculation were true why would he have been invited back?

Let's put this in the context of why Dr. Brook was supposedly bumped. The excuse was the Scott Peterson verdict, or sentencing. One of those anyway. How long has this been big news? The verdict came down a couple of hours before The Factor was even scheduled to be on the air. It was no longer breaking news, yet he decided to preempt everything else? That, to me anyway, is ludicrous. Most viewers are sick to death of the Peterson case, and couldn't care less anymore other than the fact that they are glad to hear that the scum was sentenced to die. So why bump an invited speaker to feature some reoccuring, tired news story?

Perhaps you and I are not that interested in the Peterson case, but apparently quite a few others are interested enough to garner support for that sort of coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. O'Reilly has done this before to other speakers. Yes, I could might be biased, but I based my assertion on the fact that Mr. O'Reilly isn't fond of someone that he can not intimidate or pigeonhole as a leftist. He likes to debate lightweights and leftist nitwits that he can intimidate and make to look foolish. He probably (not based on fact, I admit) remembered back to the incident when Neal Boortz made him look like a complete boob. It could be that he doesn't want history to repeat itself.

But Yaron Brook was previously a guest on the show, so if your speculation were true why would he have been invited back?

Perhaps you and I are not that interested in the Peterson case, but apparently quite a few others are interested enough to garner support for that sort of coverage.

Yeah, you're probably right. I have to admit, though, that Fox and all the other news outlets are beating a dead horse with this Peterson case. Now, unfortunately, we're going to be hearing about the Robert Blake case for who knows how long. :thumbsup: That'll be talked about nonstop.

I didn't know that Dr. Brook had been on his show previously. I look foward to the interview tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that Dr. Brook had been on his show previously.

I think that he has been on O'Reilly at least two times before, as has Leonard Peikoff. And Rob Tracinski was on O'Reilly too. So, loud-mouth that O'Reilly is, he has provided a platform to get in a few Objectivist-related points over the years, and the ARI address (or web site?) is usually prominently displayed on the screen during the interview.

Note that Fox has been open to ARI-affiliated speakers. In addition to those on the O'Reilly show, Ed Locke was on Brit Hume's show a couple of times, and Tom Bowden was on Hannity and Colmes.

I look foward to the interview tomorrow.

Yaron always gets in a few really good points, stuffed in between O'Reilly's incessant babbling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that he has been on O'Reilly at least two times before, as has Leonard Peikoff. And Rob Tracinski was on O'Reilly too. So, loud-mouth that O'Reilly is, he has provided a platform to get in a few Objectivist-related points over the years, and the ARI address (or web site?) is usually prominently displayed on the screen during the interview.

Note that Fox has been open to ARI-affiliated speakers. In addition to those on the O'Reilly show, Ed Locke was on Brit Hume's show a couple of times, and Tom Bowden was on Hannity and Colmes.

Yaron always gets in a few really good points, stuffed in between O'Reilly's incessant babbling.

LOL

How does Hannity do with ARI-affiliated speakers? I think Brit Hume is a good interviewer, for the most part. I like Ed Locke's columns. He is not so pompous as Bill O'Reilly and poses thoughtful questions while conducting an interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Hannity do with ARI-affiliated speakers?

Tom Bowden was the only one interviewed that I can recall, and I do not remember if Hannity himself interviewed him, but nothing on Hannity's show could compare to the abuse that O'Reilly heaped on Peikoff on at least one occasion.

I think Brit Hume is a good interviewer, for the most part.
I rarely watch these shows, but my wife Betsy does and I know she thinks highly of Brit Hume.

I like Ed Locke's columns.

Yes, he is terrific in a multitude of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that Fox has been open to ARI-affiliated speakers. In addition to those on the O'Reilly show, Ed Locke was on Brit Hume's show a couple of times, and Tom Bowden was on Hannity and Colmes.

I missed Locke and Bowden! That would have been great to watch. I rarely watch tv anymore. :)

Harry Binswanger was very impressive on Geraldo Rivera's show a year or so ago. Binswanger is very careful and measured in his responses, and usually hits the target well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Binswanger was very impressive on Geraldo Rivera's show a year or so ago.  Binswanger is very careful and measured in his responses, and usually hits the target well.

Yes, I thought he did very well. As did Peter Schwartz and Yaron Brook when they too were on Geraldo. (ARI is surely doing something right in promoting Objectivism in this medium.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Yaron Brook was terrific on the show. In the short time he had, he got in a large number of points, and stood up to O'Reilly real well. Brook got across what you otherwise never hear on TV, Fox or elsewhere, about how we need to do whatever it takes to win this war, and how we need to stop sacrificing our soldiers out of concern for the civilians. Brook also hammered home that it is appeasement which emboldens the enemy, and a strong, uncompromising stance is what is needed to bring the enemy to its knees. Great stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Yaron Brook was terrific on the show. In the short time he had, he got in a large number of points, and stood up to O'Reilly real well. Brook got across what you otherwise never hear on TV, Fox or elsewhere, about how we need to do whatever it takes to win this war, and how we need to stop sacrificing our soldiers out of concern for the civilians. Brook also hammered home that it is appeasement which emboldens the enemy, and a strong, uncompromising stance is what is needed to bring the enemy to its knees. Great stuff!

This is the first time I've seen an ARI guy on any major media, and I'm excited with Brook's performance, for all the reasons you've given. Every time O'Reilly said that we'd "alienate the world" or that "the rest of the world doesn't see it that way," I wanted to shout Who cares?!

If anybody gets around to watching it again, look for all of Bill's responses when Brook brings up Hiroshima. First he responded that "the rest of the world didn't have nukes then," then he said that "we asked those nations to surrender," and his final attempt to distinguish Fallujah from Hiroshima was to say "Iraq didn't attack us! That's a very important difference."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just turned on the tube, and quote randomly happened to catch the last 10 seconds of the interview :(

But isn’t it great that you can randomly come across Objectivist speakers in the media : :D

Does anyone else think that Dr Brook and Dr Binswanger are responsible for much of this success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised O'Reilly actually let Brook complete some of his thoughts. And they were good ones!

"I'd like to see Fallujah turned to dust." Ditto.

He perfectly essentialized the flaw of the current war when he pointed out that the moral emphasis in past wars that we won was on preserving the lives of our soldiers, while in this one the emphasis is on preserving the lives of Iraqi civilians. O'Reilly concluded by saying, "I'd like to see us get more aggressive, but you can't kill civilians." Then how exactly do we fight this war when the enemy is hiding among them? Blank-out. All he can come up with to say is, "We have to fight it 'smarter' ". Gee, that's real helpful there, Bill.

Did anyone watch Michael Newdow on the Hannity and Colmes program? He ate Hannity's lunch. Whatever Newdow's faults may be, he is an effective and persuasive speaker, at least on this seperation of church and state issue. He knows his stuff. Then I switched stations and saw Christopher Hitchens likewise making mincemeat of Pat Buchanan on Scarborough Country. I like Hitchens more and more the more I see and read of him, though I don't know much about the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...