The news segments on his show aren't about people giving their opinion based on party perspective. It is about journalists or people who spend a lot of time on issues discussing them. Exploring a perspective is different than arguing a side. It isn't the same format from O'Reilly so the argument doesn't even make sense.
Baloney, since O'Reilly never lets a guest finish a sentence. They are basically there to make him look omnipotent, instead of impotent.
Journalists are not without bias. "Exploring a perspective" is just arguing a side through the back door
Never? You must not watch the show much. Yes, he interrupts them, but they can get their point across if they are fiesty enough.
But their bias isn't explored. That isn't the purpose of those segments. Journalists who cover the whitehouse or are stationed overseas have a unique perspective of being able to see many issues, how they are handeled and then discuss some comparitive analysis, and possibilities. It is a part of the show where people aren't trying to score political points. So having people from one view and an opposing view trying to score political points would require people from opposing sides. Having mostly journalists and experts related to an area being covered wouldn't.
I've seen it enough to know what a joke it is. "They can get their point across if they are feisty enough", eh? Your comment tells me everything I need to know, and confirms why I never watch the show. Sounds like a game show instead of journalism, but then again, I've never expected very much from an Inside Edition lightweight like Bill O'Reilly. The "No Spin" Zone is as clear an example of the dumbing down of America that I have ever seen.
As compared to what? Olbermann runs an echo chamber. Clearly Olbermann is not comfortable having on people who disagree with him. Sometimes his guests do take issue with him gently, but that's the exception and it often takes the form of the guest agreeing with Keith generally but not wanting to go as far as Keith after a typically leading question.
Like FranchiseBlade told you, the two shows are apples and oranges, and to compare them ad nauseum the way you do is a waste of freaking time. Have fun with O'Reilly. I prefer journalism from journalists, not stalkers!
You probably shouldn't use the phrase "through the back door" in a thread about Bill O'Reilly. Or "Exploring a perspective" for that matter. We all know he already has a thing for dildoes.... O'Reilly is a douche, and for some reason Olbermann is obsessed with him and wants to be just like him. Just a weird situation between two attention whores. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would care about their (totally contrived) little "feud'.
So if O'Reilly has a thing for dildoes, and Gwayneco watches O'Reilly religiously, do you think that..... NO!!! WAIT!!! Not gonna go there!!!
this is how i feel about it. i dont pay attention to either of them anyway. o'reilly is a pervert and a moron, but keith does seem to spend too much time obsessing on him. i suspect in the end the whole "feud" is ratings driven. bill oreilly is to keith olbermann as 9/11 widows are to ann coulter.
Those people are hardly victims. They harrassed Keith, and called him all kinds of vicious and baseless names. Keith responded inappropriately, and apologized. End of story.
