Talya wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
In the sense that they're both entitled to them, yes. However in terms of whether they make sense (and not in a O'Reilly is conservative and Goldberg is liberal sense) O'Reilly is far better because it's his job to look at raw facts and give opinions on it, whereas Whoopi is just an average person in every respect except her fame. O'Reilly does a much better job of articulating why he thinks what he thinks.
I think it's a mistake to assume that just because a person is an actor that they somehow are going to make less sense or be less informed than someone who's only ever been an opinion-man. I think the vast majority of people -- conservative and liberal alike, think O'reilly is a blowhard who is usually wrong on his opinions. I'd agree with that majority. Here we all post, day after day -- IT professionals, businesspeople, former cops/military types, students -- many of us seem reasonably bright, we have LESS experience dealing with public communication than Whoopi. And yet, I'd agree, many of us are likely better at it--but we're better than O'reilly too. And yet, somehow, I don't think we'd sell commercials. She does. There's a reason actual experts in a subject are usually only making guest appearances. Nobody wants to watch the expert that long. :p
I think you're missing my point. Whoopi is not wrong almost all the time because she's an actress; she's wrong because she's an uninformed, unintelligent nitwit who thinks being a black woman who has acted in a movie famous for supposed social commentary is a substitute for actual understanding - which is why she goes storming off the set when confronted with something she doesn't like. It just so happens that her fame gives her idicoy a public forum. You could select quite a few other ignoramuses and put them on the view and get essentially the same thing. Her only real advantage is, as you pointed out, lengthy experience with public performance.
O'Reilly, on the otherhand, while something of a blowhard, does not go storming off the set and makes an attempt to explain why he holds whatever opinion he holds, and engages others in discussion whether or not he agrees with them. Sometimes he does shout them down a bit, but the fact remains that he does try to articulate some kind of reasoning, even if that reasoning is poor.
In that regard he is several cuts above Whoopi.
As to the selling commercials, that is undoubtedly true, but says nothing of substance. There is nothing about the view that makes it particularly exceptional in selling commercials, and the networks do indeed care about the content because the content is what gets people to watcht he show and therefor the commericals.
They may not care if its a serious talk show for its own sake because it fits a niche of emotional angst for housewives who want to pretend to social activism and thereby garners those viewers in that time slot, but they do care in the sense that if its reputation becomes too negative, and drives away too many viewers it becomes a liability.
In any case, the fact that The View is ultimatley a marketing tool doesn't somehow preclude discussion of its merits. Since all shos are marketing tools, that point isn't terribly helpful except insofar as it reminds us that opinion and news shows are not simply a public service.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
