ninme

Edward Daley at the American Thinker has a nice essay on why Bill O’Reilly irritates the crap out of him, too, and it’s a bit more polished than mine was.

Sure, he’s been known to cut off more than a few babbling nitwits who’ve refused to answer his questions directly, but for the most part, he’s always tried to give everyone their say, and for that I’ve admired him… or at least I did before last summer.

See? I’m not the only one. And I started watching him on a regular basis at the beginning of the summer, right before he started going completely downhill. Lately I can’t even stand to watch the talking points memo. That self-satisfied smirk… I think he is going for Dan Rather’s job. I don’t think the underdog news network’s highest rated show is good enough for his rags-to-riches-if-I-can-do-it-you-can-too-just-read-my-book-to-learn-how story, even if it is the highest rated news show on television, or whatever. The thing is, he’d have to quit with the interview format, and become just a vehicle for the news, and I don’t think he’s capable of stepping that far back. I think he needs to be part of every story, so if he is just a news reader, he’d be even worse at interjecting his personal opinion.

My biggest reason for not watching him any more was just before the election, he’d always have a view from both sides, and let them duke it out, right? Fine. He prides himself on that. But he also prides himself on not letting people spin. And I’m sorry, but the liberals and the Kerry campaign managers he had on did nothing but spin, and he’d sort of hold them back a little, but then the next day they’d be on again. I mean, what’s the point of interviewing them every single freaking day if you have never managed to get a straight answer out of any of them?

Anyway, as King Arthur would say, read the whole thing.