As mentioned in a previous posting, acerbic commentators are the norm, rather than the exception today. Although more civil than his conservative counterpart Ann Coulter, and more emotionally restrained than FOX's other societal analyst Glenn Beck, O'Reilly is a man who is no stranger to gutter language, physical intimidation and gross exaggeration. One can ponder which commentator's actions are the result of being merely obtuse or which ones act out of a knowledge that the more outrageous the demeanor, the more viewers are entranced.
Bill O'Reilly is a character whose on-screen actions make one ponder their origins. O'Reilly's academic credentials are well documented. Unlike his conservative counterparts Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly is a university graduate. In addition, his formal education includes post-graduate studies at Harvard and Boston University. The mystery is whether or not O'Reilly betrays an actual intellect time and time again or if his extensive schooling does not correlate with the acquisition of wisdom. The latter scenario has been seen before and is a sad indictment of many of our educational institutions.
To begin with, it would be unrealistic to think that any public figure is incapable of making gaffes from time to time. What becomes alarming is when the gaffes become a staple of his everyday speech. O'Reilly is not an intermittent bungler. Through his books and on-screen affirmations, the man has become a near parody of himself. To illustrate, one need look no further than the written words of the man.
Evidence of this allergy to reason can be found in O'Reilly's recent attack of a survey that ranked Finland as the number one country in which to live. O'Reilly, instead of figuring out how our country can either achieve parity with or superiority to Finland in the categories surveyed, took the chance to unleash an "indictment" of the peaceful Nordic nation. O'Reilly "debunked" the lofty status of Finland by pointing out that one does not see a mass exodus of Swedes from their own homeland to the utopia next door. The rebuttal could only work on the most muddled of minds. Swedes are not immigrating en masse to Finland owing to the fact that they have also attained an enviable standard of living; thus, there is no need to flee. What would be more revealing would be what would have transpired if Finland had kept an open border with its other neighbor Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, Finland is a small nation with a population of only 5,000,000, strict immigration laws, a nearly impenetrable language consisting of 15 noun cases and a brutal climate. That hardly makes it a top destination for immigrants.
More of O'Reilly's writings reveal the absence of genuine thought. Writing in "Pinheads and Patriots," O'Reilly takes to task those individuals who can be categorized as "pinheads" rather than patriots. What O'Reilly disregards is that a well-intentioned pinhead can hold a genuine love for his country; therefore, the either/or designation is a ludicrous one. Within the category of pinhead is Madonna. This can be attributed to Madonna's decision to live as an expatriate within the United Kingdom and affect an English accent. O'Reilly, indignant over her speech patterns and expatriate status, takes the ageing pop star to task, reminding her of how America afforded her the chance to thrive in her industry. The reminder is absurd given how countless British people of humble origin have risen to stardom despite that country's well-publicized class system. Madonna could just as easily have become a rich pop star had she been born and raised in London rather than Michigan. No Etonian pedigree is required for success on the British stage and screen. As for the rigidity of the British class system, one could conjecture that we spend an inordinate amount of time in America focusing on it as a distraction from the fact that we have one as well.
O'Reilly knows that establishing oneself as a patriot is hardly a difficult task in a less-than-analytical society. This honor is bestowed upon O'Reilly by O'Reilly time and time again. Its affirmation comes from those who are taken in by style, not substance. After leafing through numerous columns and two monographs by O'Reilly, it is hard for me to believe that such analyses could have passed through an editor unless the editor himself is as obtuse as the writer or if he and the writer are aware that such thoughtless declarations are marketable. In the case of O'Reilly, one can ponder for a long time. Either O'Reilly is a clever, shameless opportunist who knows how to capitalize on the disposable income held by the thought averse or he is a sad reminder that an academic degree is not what it used to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment