O’Reilly is not a journalist. He’s not worth my time. My criticism of Brian Williams, by contrast, was a necessary purge. I’d liked his work and trusted it, so felt betrayed, let down, disappointed.
As far as O’Reilly is concerned, the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman put it best:
Brian Williams got suspended from NBC News because his bosses feared that his tall tales had cost him credibility with his audience, which could lead that audience to go elsewhere for their news. O’Reilly and his boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes, are not worried about damage to Bill O’Reilly’s credibility, or about his viewers deserting him. Their loyalty to him isn’t based on a spotless record of factual accuracy; it’s based on the fact that O’Reilly is a medium for their anger and resentments.
Of course Fox News isn’t worried about a “loss of credibility”. Credibility is not their aspiration.
And O’Reilly, a channel for the anger of his median-72-year-old audience: Not worth my time. (ok, this was 30 minutes well spent).
2 thoughts on “Why Criticize Williams But Not O’Reilly?”
Did not like the dig at 72 year olds.could have left that out. As a 72 year old I really like Brian Williams and have always felt o’reilly a little pompous for a news source
Sent from my iPad
Sorry madame, but you mis-read. There is no dig at 72-year-olds. None at all. Only a note of fact about O’Reilly’s audience (whose median age is 72), and why he resonates with them (a generalization, yes, but not mine alone–in this case I repeat another journalist’s view because I happen to agree).
It speaks well of you that you are not in the O’Reilly camp, regardless of your age.
Thanks for checking in here!