Bill O'Reilly: a mathematical analysis

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 31, 2003, 6:14 pm

http://prorev.com/oreilly.htm

In the first mathematical analysis of Bill O'Reilly ever done, the Review has incontrovertibly proved what was previously believed only anecdotally: O'Reilly is a bully and a jerk.

The study examined O'Reilly's interview [sic] with Jacob Sullum who has written an important new book on drugs, "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use." Using the advanced technology of Microsoft's Word Count, the Review determined that Sullum only got in 35 more words than the interviewer, O'Reilly. O'Reilly got in the longest statements - 89 and 104 words - while Sullum in 35 exchanges only managed to say more than 50 words (a little less than a half minute) on three occasions. In 42.85% of the exchanges Sullum only managed to get in five words or less.

Ironically, the longest statement of the interview - by O'Reilly - began this way:

"We got -- hey, Mr. Sullum, this is a discussion, all right. You let me get my points in. I'll let you get yours in, all right. Let's get that straight up. . . "

Up to that point, the interviewee had only managed to get in five more words than the host.

The study also found that while Sullum interrupted O'Reilly seven times, the host interrupted the guest 12 times, providing such useful additions as:

O'REILLY: Pinheads like you are encouraging intoxication...

At the end, O'Reilly - as he often does - graciously told Sullum;

O'REILLY: Look, you irresponsible libertines cause so much damage to this society, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I'll give you the last word.

In fact, not only did O'Reilly managed to get in four more last thoughts but they added up to 33 more words than Sullum was able to squeeze in.

Pretty funny, and pretty sad that people actually watch this show and think that he some kind of champion of the right. I often wonder why so many rightie talking heads have to be lying blowhards that spew BS and manipulate debates more often than they present arguments and discuss rationally.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 31, 2003, 6:38 pm

I watch O'Reilly. He IS a bully and a jerk. What was your point? He is entertainment, don't let your blood pressure get all worked up over his opinions. I find it funny that a scientific study had to be done to prove to you that he is a bully and a jerk. I could have told you that for half the price.

-edit- please, take the graph down, it just makes you look rediculous.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 31, 2003, 7:10 pm

I listen to the "No Spin Zone" radio show that O'reilly does. Like Krimson said, he is definitely a strong-arm interviewer. But...he also has many views on his show that he "champions" for that you also believe in, Kyo.

He questions government, and on more than one occasion, the topic of the show was straight from this message board (I think Bill posts here...).

I like his show. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with the point he is trying to make, but it is an entertaining way to hear both sides (usually the extremes) on an issue. That, and he is just a funny son of a bitch sometimes

Somehow, I figured you watch/listen to Bill O, do you?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 31, 2003, 8:33 pm

notice he always interviews people who cant speak english then cuts them off and says, yeah thats right bitch

he needs a good asswhompin, goddamn inbred redneck rascist conervative nazis!1

Trek · Post by **Trek** » May 31, 2003, 10:50 pm

Fucker should name the show after himself or something if he is gonna talk on it all the time

Ceredwin · Post by **Ceredwin** » June 1, 2003, 10:33 am

I wonder if his critics have actually watched his show. He is just as likely to call Rebublicans to the carpet as he is Democrats and brought media attention to his own church's faults. He admits to being arrogant and opinionated, at least he is honest.

I read his book when it came out long before Fox News was even available on Cablevision in NYC (there is no media bias though, CNN or CNN take your choice) and find him quite entertaining.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 1, 2003, 10:44 am

Krimson Klaw wrote:I watch O'Reilly. He IS a bully and a jerk. What was your point? He is entertainment, don't let your blood pressure get all worked up over his opinions. I find it funny that a scientific study had to be done to prove to you that he is a bully and a jerk. I could have told you that for half the price.

-edit- please, take the graph down, it just makes you look rediculous.

wow 24 whole minutes before the rightie windbag apologists start crawling out of the woodwork.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 1, 2003, 4:10 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:I watch O'Reilly. He IS a bully and a jerk. What was your point? He is entertainment, don't let your blood pressure get all worked up over his opinions. I find it funny that a scientific study had to be done to prove to you that he is a bully and a jerk. I could have told you that for half the price.

-edit- please, take the graph down, it just makes you look rediculous.
wow 24 whole minutes before the rightie windbag apologists start crawling out of the woodwork.

Wow, what a great point you just made. This probably ranks as your worst thread ever.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » June 2, 2003, 3:39 am

That study seems taken out of context. Analyzing one interview is a completely ludacris way to make an accurate study. A large survey would obviously be the most true.

Consider that maybe this guy Sullum was a complete idiot. Changes everything pretty quickly. You really don't have anything to stand on without knowing what the hell the other guy was saying.

That aside, O'Reilly is an ass, but he is fun to watch sometimes. I am more liberal than conservative btw

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 2, 2003, 9:52 am

The study examined O'Reilly's interview [sic] with Jacob Sullum

Took me a sec of trying to figure out what was wrong with the spelling of interview to get the joke

Coffee, work faster please.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 2, 2003, 10:38 am

Gzette wrote:a completely ludacris way to

Ludacris is a rapper.
Ludicrous is a word.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » June 2, 2003, 11:30 am

miir wrote:
Gzette wrote:a completely ludacris way to
Ludacris is a rapper.
Ludicrous is a word.

Maybe he meant thats the way Ludacris would do it if he had a talk show.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 2, 2003, 12:18 pm

Trek wrote:
miir wrote:
Gzette wrote:a completely ludacris way to
Ludacris is a rapper.
Ludicrous is a word.

Maybe he meant thats the way Ludacris would do it if he had a talk show.

Point taken

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » June 2, 2003, 12:35 pm

Has anybody seen this shit yet?

O'Reilly vs. Franken

Always got to love it when these nice scheduled panel thingies goes a little haywire

All I know is that I have definite plans to be watching Cspan2 Sunday, at about 5:30pm

miir · Post by **miir** » June 2, 2003, 12:46 pm

Al Franken is making me much laughing.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 2, 2003, 1:47 pm

I would actually watch O'Reilly again if Franken went on it. Watching him take that blowhard apart would be hilarious.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » June 2, 2003, 1:56 pm

...with Jacob Sullum who has written an important new book on drugs

What makes his book so important? That it said all drugs should be legalized? I saw the interview myself and concluded that Sullum was an idiot without Bill to make the case.

Seriously though, to actually post a link to a report that compares word/phrase counts as some sort of "scientific evidence" of a subjective conclusion (Bill is a bully and a jerk!) is simply assinine.

Why not just say "HAHA I found this article that I find funny and agree with! Don't you think it's funny and agree with it? If not I will flame you as a rightwing bigot."

/sigh

miir · Post by **miir** » June 2, 2003, 2:05 pm

What makes his book so important?

Hook.

to actually post a link to a report that compares word/phrase counts as some sort of "scientific evidence" of a subjective conclusion is simply assinine.

Line

Why not just say "HAHA I found this article that I find funny and agree with! Don't you think it's funny and agree with it? If not I will flame you as a rightwing bigot."

Sinker.

Teh big \/\/

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 2, 2003, 2:06 pm

The link I posted and my thread title are both tongue in cheek. Relax. I just find it funny that the host of an interview style talk show blabs more than the people he interviews. O'Reilly has a reputation for talking over people and shouting them down and turning their microphone off during his "debates" so this struck me as funny. At least Rush is smart enough to avoid debating with people who would routinely trash him on basically everything he says and just blabbers on by himself for hours at a time.

Man you righties are high strung about your propagandists.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 2, 2003, 2:08 pm

That's pretty much what was said, Ash. The whole post is a repaste of what is in the site, barring the portion beneath the graph.

I'd say the book must be somewhat important if its author was asked to be on the show. And I think that bully in this context would probably refer to his interviewing tactics, of which the number of words that he allows a "guest" to get in would actually be relevant. An interview is defined by dictionary.com as "A conversation, such as one conducted by a reporter, in which facts or statements are elicited from another." Seeing how he spoke as much or more than the guest, it appears he was doing less to get the other's opinions and more to express his (I'm assuming contrary) veiwpoint. Sounds somewhat bullyish to me.

That said, I don't even really know who this O'Reilly fellow is. I know I've heard the name, and I think I know what he looks like, but I've certainly never watched his show.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » June 2, 2003, 3:14 pm

You should watch his show sometime...just once if that's all you can stand. I personally don't like his TV show...it's just like all the rest to me. I listen to his radio show, which has a lot of home callers in it...which makes it more appealling to me. I seriously think most of his viewers/listeners hate him more than they like him...but hey, that's how you get people to tune in I guess?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 2, 2003, 5:27 pm

kyoukan wrote:The link I posted and my thread title are both tongue in cheek. Relax. I just find it funny that the host of an interview style talk show blabs more than the people he interviews. O'Reilly has a reputation for talking over people and shouting them down and turning their microphone off during his "debates" so this struck me as funny. At least Rush is smart enough to avoid debating with people who would routinely trash him on basically everything he says and just blabbers on by himself for hours at a time.

Man you righties are high strung about your propagandists.

I have seen Rush get obliterated by even the most average left wing debator. I think that's why he chooses to do his *no guests* radio show. I mean, the guy is smart, and given time to think, he can make some interesting points, but you put a moving target on his show and he looks like he's on a 6th grade debating team. O'Reilly on the other hand is much better at it than Rush, and I like it when someone cleans his clock because he gets very aggressive to the point that it's funny. Give Rush an overnight assignment, he'll rock the house on the debate. Put someone in front of him, he'll lose almost every time. O'Reilly on the other hand is a first round boxer, he comes out swinging looking for the early KO, and if he does not get it, he's pretty much done for and resorts to scratching and biting. For the record, I like both of them. I have yet to find any of their comments racist, as a matter of fact, that's what got me to listening to them in the first place. Decided to see what the lefts view of racist was. I don't agree with most of their comments, but I have yet to see evidence of racism on their shows. I started watching Rush when I lived at home as a teenager, I was at the time a liberal within a liberal household. Nothing wrong with that, you pretty much share your parents points of views until you see the world for yourself anyway. At this time when I was a big lefty, I tuned in to Rush's tv show (no longer comes on) to see what this *racist* had to say. Funny thing is, I found no evidence of it (believe me, I was looking) and I actually found him making some good points at the time. Few years go by, I join the military and become a rightie. Thanks for tuning in.
s

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 2, 2003, 5:37 pm

I re-read the thread and I didn't see anyone call them racist. Just moronic blowhards with little too say that take too many words to say it in.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 2, 2003, 5:43 pm

No I don't think anyone on this thread did, but I've seen you call them that and biggot on more than one occasion, but that's neither here nor there and not the focus of my post(s).

-edit- For clarifications sake, I completely agree with you on this thread, and it seems like it's driving you absolutely crazy. Suck it up chick.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 2, 2003, 11:23 pm

Consider that maybe this guy Sullum was a complete idiot.

I've read Sullum's columns and articles in Reason for over 10 years now and generally speaking they have been excellent.