Man, is that ever the truth! I watched Hannity railing at one of the organizers of "The World Can't Wait," who struck me as the most charismatic possible spokesperson. She was exceptionally self-controlled and poised, and the commentator shreiked at her like he thought she was a grinning devil that had popped in on her monastic cell. Damn near threw an inkwell at her.

The point is, don't go on national blowhard shows, stick with the local ones who are still just wannabes. When I was a spokesperson for the local ACLU, I used to do local right wing radio all over the state, and even the country. You'd be suprised at how many of the callers were supporters on the issue of the day, even if they didn't know it when they called. And, with the wannabes, it is VERY easy to dominate their shows. Many of them think the whole game is just to piss you off with name calling. If you ignore that, they have nothing but talking points and cliches, which you have, of course, memorized long before going on the show.

Too broadbrush. I've seen some smart democrats stymie O'Reilly. If you and Yglesias dissuade eloquent democratic spokespeople from appearing, their producers will simply get less qualified, more easily-flustered rubes to appear "representing" the left. And when they implode, it'll harden the mindsets of the viewers. Each time O'Reilly doesn't score an uncontested touchdown helps persuade. Not all viewers of these programs are unreachable. TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM -- even if the best you can hope for is a draw!

AH, when will we find the WMD's in Iraq? Are we currently in the last throes of the insurgency? That fantasyland?

This is excellent advice. Wish more people would take it.

While watching Outfoxed, I was astounded at the tenacity and sheer unmovability of the young man who went on O'Reilly to talk about his father dying at the World Trade Center. O'Reilly screamed and yelled at the kid for saying that his father had hated Bush and would have thought the war in Iraq was bullshit. No matter how many times Falafel Boy shrieked "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" and called the kid a traitor to the country and his father's memory, the guy stayed calm and on point. Finally O'Reilly called for security to take him out of the studio, as I recall.

That's how to do it. Unfortunately, almost all of the pundits don't and can't.

Boy, is that right. Unless you're a seasoned pro yourself, you're not going to outduel guys like Hewitt or Bill O'Reilly.

Ah, Kevin. I see now why liberals can only appear on liberal shows like Stewart, Colbert, and Olbermann. You know that in the marketplace of ideas you'll always lose so you refuse to debate with people who disagree with you. You don't want to allow conservatives make the left look the fools they are. It all makes sense now.

Tough guy journalists? You've been watching too many old movies. The tough guy journalists have been replaced by cocktail weinie-snarfing sycophants.

Too broadbrush. I've seen some smart democrats stymie O'Reilly. If you and Yglesias dissuade eloquent democratic spokespeople from appearing, their producers will simply get less qualified, more easily-flustered rubes to appear "representing" the left

No, Kevin includes your exception:

KD: As near as I can tell, the exception to this rule is people with deep subject area knowledge and some level of conservative cred -- even if they aren't actually conservatives. Military officers, for example, or tough-guy journalists who can't be brushed off with the host's usual bag of smarmy slurs.

Otherwise, the producers can create a mise en scene in which the guest looks like a terror suspect trying to evade answering them. Only someone with seasoned TV presence can pull it off, and even then...

The tough guy journalists have been replaced by cocktail weinie-snarfing sycophants.

That's brilliant!

Yeay, maybe. How well do they do, going the other way?

I don't know if hosting a comedy show has made Jon Stewart a seasoned pro, but he kicked ass hard enough on Point Counterpoint to get the show cancelled.

James R MacLean says: I watched Hannity railing at one of the organizers of "The World Can't Wait," who struck me as the most charismatic possible spokesperson.

Perhaps he's refering to this:

rcybsea.blogspot.com/2007/01/oreilly-threatens-sunsara-taylor.html

Bonus points: what does "RCYB" stand for?

I've also noticed that Alan Colmes has a habit of shouting people down and engaging in logical fallacies.

The problem is that hack-controlled media outlets are rigged to make the host win, and if that isn't clearly evident in real time, the rest they take care of in post.

That's why those guys avoid a debate in any venue they do not control.

Lastly, don't forget that the hacksters are entertainers, and that's what their primary audience craves. If they wanted to become more well-informed, they'd watch the NewHour with Jim Lehrer or FrontLine. Instead, they watch O'Reilly, who is little more than a superficially credible reincarnation of Morton Downey Jr.

Basically good advice, but there has been one person who has done a great job of kicking ass against O'Reilly and Hannity, and that's Wes Clark.

They used to go to extreme lengths to try to trick him up, giving us great material for crooksandliars to see him showing them up for fools. Now they're more sly, so they don't look like such asses, but they still have never managed to trap him, despite his frequent appearances as a military/foreign policy commentator.

They've been trying to get material on him to take him down as a 2008 presidential candidate. He's been trying to get his face and message out to voters who get their news from Fox.

And despite the powerful propoganda machine, despite the massed forces against him --- Clark has come out the winner.

Don't bet against this four-star general.

As near as I can tell, the exception to this rule is people with deep subject area knowledge and some level of conservative cred

I guess you never saw the ass-whooping Jon Stewart laid on Tucker, or the one Donahue laid on O'Reilly -

It's worth checking out.

Hawk:So, liberals can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, almost never win arguments, and choose to blame it on the hosts of public affairs shows?
Ever seen O'Reilly on Letterman's show? (Which I know isn't a public affairs show, which makes the point even more emphatically.) O'Reilly is easily put down by a dumbass gap-toothed comedian, when he's not controlling the flow of the program.

CatherineD is right about Clark, by the way. He's one of the few but damn, he's good!

Hewitt likes to interview smart liberals. He has interviewed Matthew Iglesias, Jonathan Alter, Mark Helperin, Jonathan Chait, Thomas Edsall. There are scores of others. He regularly invites journalists to join him on the air, too.

Hewitt never cuts them off and he lets them have their say. But he asks them challenging questions.

Why are smart liberals like Kevin Drum afraid of Hewitt?

Al-Hawka: "...the marketplace of ideas..."

You guys wouldn't know an idea if it bit you on your fat, ignorant asses.
Guys, this baby-thinks-he-knows-something shtick is really wearing thin.
Finish elementary school and then come back to talk.

How about this one? Made O'Reilly look pretty dumb.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/25/liberal_lady_lawyer_runs_rings_around_bill_oreilly_on_subject_of_gitmo_detainees.php

FRequency Kenneth,
When did Mark Halperin(The blog guy at ABC right?) become a liberal? Did I miss something?

These shows truly are a no-win situation because not only are you going up against a very experienced host, you're also going up against his entire staff and crew. If you think it's easy, just watch someone like O'Reilly when he winds up on the Letterman Show when he's now the lone person.

And you know what, if somehow or other you're able to hold your own, perhaps even beat these hosts, what happens then? They'll never, ever let you on their show again? It's like being a card counter in Vegas, the best you can hope for are very modest victories because the number one rule on these shows is the house always win.

Seriously, anyone who thinks that right-wing blowhard shows are "the marketplace of ideas" probably thinks that game shows are "marketplaces" of consumer goods.

Even the use of that term to describe conservative propoganda points to its success.

It is a wonder that anyone bothers to watch cable t.v. news shows anymore, or listen to talk radio, for that matter. Well, I suppose it isn't, if one begins to think about how many people really don't have a desire to learn anything or think critically in any measurable degree. O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Olbermann, Matthews, etc., etc.; they all suck in their unique ways.

Hannity is certainly the dumbest, but I suppose he is due some credit for being the one who is least prone to pretending to be a neutral observer. O'Reilly is just a loudmouth who bullies people, often in a dishonest fashion. Matthews' problem is that he thinks he is about 75% more intelligent than he actually is; sort of like a hyperactive 7th grader. Olbermann only thinks he is about 30% more intelligent than he actually is, but he so urgently builds an echo-chamber for his views that his show actually ends up being less informative than the 7th grader's. Olbermann really is easily the most pretentious of the lot as well, if one factors that Hannity's pretentiousness is that of a room temperature I.Q.; ol' Seany would be properly an object of pity if he weren't raking in mountains of cash.

I started cutting way back on viewing shows like this in the Clinton years, and completely stopped watching the nonsense about two and a half years ago. I am a bit embarrassed that it took me that long.

I hope talented young liberal journalists won't take this advice. One the of reasons TV is increasingly dominated by conservative pundits is that they are the ones who have built up the name recognition that comes from TV appearances. Like it or not, frequent appearances count as credibility - even if you're braying nonsense. We can't cede this field to the other side.

Also, the only way to get TV smarts is to get on TV, then get on TV again, and again. Sure you'll take some hits at the beginning, but you might eventually wind up as one of those tough-guy (or gal) journalists.

Kevin is right. Which is why it's so insane that Rahm Emanuel thinks it's fine for Democratic presidential candidates to have a debate controlled by Fox News, whose goal is to make them look bad, but tells Democratic members of Congress to avoid the Colbert Report, whose goal is to make them look funny (which may or may not be bad).

Steven Colbert showed how it was done when he went on O'Reilly's show--granted, a special case since Colbert's whole schtick is that he IS O'Reilly, but O'Reilly looked like he'd crapped his pants and had to sit in it through the whole interview. One he was supposedly conducting. I'm almost ashamed of how much pleasure I took from that moment.

Kevin, you are 100% right about O'Reilly, but I think you're wrong to lump Hugh Hewitt in with him ("Hewitt and O'Reilly and their ilk..."). You may disagree with Hewitt -- I do, much of the time -- but he is both consistent in his views and, more important, intellectually honest. Frequency Kenneth is correct in saying that Hewitt "never cuts [liberals] off and he lets them have their say. But he asks them challenging questions." He also listens to, and responds intelligently to, their answers. In addition, he has a nice sense of humor. I enjoy listening to his show, which I really do consider to be a "marketplace of ideas."

Not wanting to make a huge political point here but, umm, are we saying that Air America is any different (other than the inversion)? Would you also recommend that no conservative (or libertarian, classical liberal) should not appear there because the rules of the game are so stacked against them?
Because if you are then we seem to have closed off the very possibility of even having a political debate. We should all just scream and wind up our own supporters and never engage with or try to persuade the others.
Not much of a way to run a democracy I would have thought but maybe that's just me.

Thinking that you can beat television professionals whose job is to make you look bad on a television network that they control is just hubris. Nobody's that smart. Nobody's that clever. Nobody beats the producers.

I'm not so sure that's true.

But I think we can be pretty sure that if someone *does* make O'Reilly or whomever look stupid, it won't be broadcasted.

Olbermann only thinks he is about 30% more intelligent than he actually is

Irony alert: Will Allen comments on others' alleged overinflated opinions of their own intelligence...

Kevin is right. Which is why it's so insane that Rahm Emanuel thinks it's fine for Democratic presidential candidates to have a debate controlled by Fox News, whose goal is to make them look bad.

Posted by: KCinDC on March 16, 2007 at 1:12 PM

With respect to the Dems boycott of Fox News, I posted the following at Tapped:

This whole issue shows why the public sees the Dems as being a bunch of wussies. If the Dems candidates for the most powerful office on the planet are afraid to stand up to Brit Hume, then just how effective would they be in dealing with this country's true enemies. (I know that most liberals regard Brit and Fox as being such an enemy)

The whole thing reminds me of the Monty Python skit about a fragile English waif who got the vapors by hearing words that were too "tinny."

How pathetic.

Chicounsel, if the Democratic candidates for the most powerful office on the planet are so inept as to enter voluntarily into an ambush set up by their political enemies, in territory completely controlled by those enemies, then just how effective would they be in dealing with this country's true enemies? Perhaps next you can have the RNC offer to make their ads for them and then accuse them of cowardice when they refuse?

If you're good enough and confident enough, it might make sense to go into a fight with one hand tied behind your back. But going in with both hands tied behind your back isn't bravery -- it's foolishness.

Gov. Clinton pulled it off with what's his name on FOX a few months ago, if I recall.

Re: Hewitt, He is very good at what he does. He does more than ask people challenging questions, he asks questions that piss the interviewee off, and they want to evade the question, or rephrase it, and Hewitt gets to look like a straight shooter just trying to ask an honest question.

Case in point, go find the transcript of the interview he did with Andrew Sullivan. Led off the interview, IIRC, asking Sullivan "are you a Christian?", which rankled him big time and made Hewitt look reasonable and put upon for the rest of the interview.

Contrast with Gen. William Odon, who didn't react to some of the loaded questions and dominated the discussion.

jhm: It was Chris Wallace, a most unctuous man, son of the revered Mike Wallace,
only wing-nutted, spouting the talking points and failing in his role as pit bull to the Big Dawg.

Which is why it's so insane that Rahm Emanuel thinks it's fine for Democratic presidential candidates to have a debate controlled by Fox News, whose goal is to make them look bad, but tells Democratic members of Congress to avoid the Colbert Report, whose goal is to make them look funny (which may or may not be bad).

Rahm is a neocon. Once that is understood, all his actions become understood.

They are bullies--Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh. They sicken me, but at times I am compelled to listen. I think Hannity is the most polarizing and divisive man on the planet; O'Reilly is pompous and absurd. Well, both are absurd. That Gibson guy on Fox is quite irritating--is it Charles? Chris Wallace is repulsive, like part squirrel/part man. Hannity is loud and overbearing, with no finesse, and he shouts down any opposing views. Both he and O'Reilly rudely interrupt to excess, and both try to narrowly control the "discussion."

Gov. Clinton pulled it off with what's his name on FOX a few months ago, if I recall.

In fact, he did. But he's generally known as "President Clinton," not "Gov. Clinton," although calling him the latter isn', of course, incorrect.

Add "rigged debates" to this issue.

Beyond right-wing politicos, this most applies to:

Creationsts/IDers setting up rigged debates at places like college campuses.

I had to laugh at the poster above who said it was "unfair" that Hewitt asked Andrew Sullivan if he was a Christian.

Andrew Sullivan reminds everybody all the time that he is a Christian. Just skim Sullivan's web site, just look at some of his books. The fact that Hewitt's question stumped Andrew Sullivan spoke volumes about the Sullivan.

Standing guard duty on the echo chamber again, Pvt. Gregory? Your ever vigilant duty atop the wall against discordant views is duly noted, private. Conformity must be maintained! Well done and carry on!

If you're good enough and confident enough, it might make sense to go into a fight with one hand tied behind your back. But going in with both hands tied behind your back isn't bravery -- it's foolishness.

Posted by: KCinDC on March 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM

How is having Fox News host the debate akin to going into a fight with both hands tied behind one's back?

Robert Kennedy Jr v Hannity and Jeremy Glick v Bill O'Reilly scroll down for relevant transcripts.

Fox Noise is existentially dishonest. Even during the old days of the Elian Gonzales brouhaha, they were selectively editing videos to distort events. Their viewers and listeners know they're dishonest and don't care because 'sticking it to libs' is the most important feature of their politics of resentment, personal destruction, and greed.
Politics, to these people, is warfare, and it's to be won by any means possible

There is no reason to be subjected to their propaganda techniques. Their audience isn't that large, nor is it amenable to fair and balanced discussion.

Some highly experienced media pros can manage very well. I recall Al Gore shutting down Tweety Matthews, but the next day, Matthews was back in to his regular mode of thrashing Gore.

… Olbermann really is easily the most pretentious of the lot…Will Alen on at 1:06 PM

One the of reasons TV is increasingly dominated by conservative… Virginia Dutch at 1:08 PM

All these "blowhard" talk shows are run by the same rules as so-called professional wrestling, and the old saw about poker always applies -- if you can't figure out who the patsy is, you are the patsy.

Keith Olbermann exudes intelligence, finesse and wit. He is fabulous. David Gregory was quite enjoyable sitting in this week for Chris Matthews. Chris interrrupts way too much. Sometimes everyone is talking at once and it is unbearable. Joe Scarborough has become quite the administration critic,and it is funny sometimes, but Pat Buchanan on these shows is way too overbearing, loud and intrusive for my tastes.
I have to say I watch all of these guys. Or listen while I'm cooking. And then switch to Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert during commercial breaks. I can catch repeats of most of the shows in the middle of the night when I am in insomniac mode. I am politically obsessed.

...and the old saw about poker always applies - if you can't figure out who the patsy is, you are the patsy.

What old saw? How long were you guys planning on keeping this from me? Well, this explains why I never have any quarters for parking meters.

I think it has to depend on the person. Like a few others have mentioned Wes Clark manages to hold his own. But then he generally knows 1000 times more than the idiot, is not afraid of looking smart, and is fast on his feet with the replies. Many people, no matter the persuasion, have a hard time with those things.

As Newshounds (who generally write favorably about Clark) recounts about Clark's 1/10/2007 appearance on O'Reilly:
At this point, Wesley Clark's intelligent reasoning and reminder of the way this country used to operate was extremely comforting. O'Reilly started in weakly using the " little chat " line which seemed to really annoy General Clark who shot back, " It is not a chat! "
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/10/wesley_clark_sucks_the_hot_air_from_bill_oreilly.php

or this from an 8/1/2007 appearance on Dayside:

It's one thing to be extremely intelligent, with a grasp of complex matters, an appreciation for historical context, and a raft of specialized knowledge. It's another to be able to communicate all that to an audience of average Americans. And it's still another to be able to do all that as a liberal on a Fox News show. But General Wesley Clark did it again Tuesday (August 1, 2006) in another appearance on "Dayside."
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/01/wesley_clark_delivers_another_wow_performance.php

Oh, yes, Mike, anybody who finds the aping of Murrow, among other dreck (I didn't think anybody could be more of a blowhard discussing baseball than George Will, but one should never sell ol' Keith short) to be pretentious, or the refusal to book a guest with strongly differing views to be the opposite of a serious discussion, obviously is unconcerned with the state of the country. How long have you been working on Olbermann's self-important carnival act?

I know of no one who dislikes Keith Olbermann.

Yes, cwa, you find people who agree with you to be full of intelligence, wit, and finesse. What remarkable coincidence.

That pretty much sums up the cable news show audience.

Yes, cwa, I'm sure you don't.

I was wondering when Will would noticed that he'd spelled his own name wrong. It was an amusing accessory to his pomposity.

Just to clear, if I were forced at gunpoint to watch these shows again, I might choose Olbermann's. The fact that if I were forced at gunpoint to drink terrible beer, I might choose Miller Lite, however, is not an endorsement of the swill.

"would notice," not "would noticed." Ha! Joke's on me. Just like at the poker table!

Yes, shorstop, poor keyboard skill is a sure indicator of pomposity. Thank you for your penetrating insights.

"Just to clear" what, Will? Any room you enter? You've pretty much got that down, haven't you?

I am not at all insulted. I love Olbermann. You must be a crabby conservative, Will.

Good one, shortstop. Did you see he also did not spell your name correctly, while insulting your typing skills.

For those for whom reading English does not represent an insurmountable obstacle, Will, "accessory to" does not mean the same thing as "indicator of." In other words, you're both idiotic and pompous, but one doesn't cause the other. They just live together in a beautiful Alenic--er, Allenic--yin and yang.

Will, you seem angry. Do ya wanna talk about it?

Yeah, neither do I.

CWA, I applaud your passion for politics. But that's way to much MSNBC for any rational mind. Cut out everything but the Olbermann, and you'll be just as informed.

Yeah, shortstop, I'm a terrible typist, as are you, apparently.

Nope, cwa, I'm not a conservative, unless you consider anti-abortion regulation, anti-drug war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-regulation of stem cell research, etc., etc., to be consistent with conservatism. That has nothing to do with the fact that Olbermann obviously sucks, to anybody who isn't predisposed to liking any show on an unqualified basis when the show's host has congruent views. Good Night and Good Luck. Sheesh.

Smedley, I'm not angry at all. Why would you wonder about my degree of anger, as opposed to those in this thread who chose to interact with me in a most uncivil fashion? Not for the first time, it is a wonder how people like you in this forum find it notable that people reply in kind to incivilty. Are you truly so lacking in self-awareness?

Now I understand Will's plight. He's a pissed off Libertarian. Neither party represents his core beliefs.

I can respect that.

Nope, smedley, I'm not a Libertarian, either, although I certainly have libertarian beliefs. Why the urgent need to slap inaccurate labels on people?

This advise to avoid the rightwing media reminds me of the old adage:

"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll end up tired and dirty, while the pig enjoys it."

Rightwingers in the media tend to have the mindset of a demented 13-year-old. They are immature and revel in lies and ad hominem slurs. Rightwingers in general tend to be stuck somewhere in a silly, emotional adolescence.

Read the work of socialogist Pierre Bourdieu (yes, he's french) --"On Television", in this case, I think -- he explains pretty convincingly why you can NEVER go on tv to discuss serious political issues and come out successful; that besides the fact that you're going up against pros the medium itself works against serious discussion.

"...we seem to have closed off the very possibility of even having a political debate. We should all just scream and wind up our own supporters and never engage with or try to persuade the others.
Not much of a way to run a democracy I would have thought but maybe that's just me."
Posted by: failingeconomist on March 16, 2007 at 1:55 PM

No, it certainly isn't and it is very unsettling. There is a desperate need for debate hosting that is viewed by all sides as generally impartial. I'm willing to listen to convervatives and liberals given equal time and impartial hosting. The advent of cable TV has created nothing but ideological cheerleading shows. Surely we are all not that polarized? Perhaps moderates generally don't watch this crap at all. I *rarely* ever watch any cable TV news of any kind since the 9/11 coverage showing all of the repetitive images over and over and over and over...

Nope, cwa, I'm not a conservative, unless you consider anti-abortion regulation, anti-drug war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-regulation of stem cell research, etc., etc., to be consistent with conservatism.

It is perfectly consistent with conservatism.

It is, in fact, pretty common among right-libertarians who are conservative (but not necessarily Republican) and libertarian (though not necessarily Libertarian).

Just for the record: I don't like Olbermann. I think he overestimates his own intelligence by far, far more than 30%.

Along the lines of the "never wrestle with a pig" adage...

After I told my wife about an unpleasant conversation I had earlier in the day with a member of the Minutemen, she said, "I've never won an argument with a lunatic."

I suppose the only hope is that some of the audience recognizes the host as a lunatic.

It's not that O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck can't be easily made to look like the morons they are in a fair debate, it's that in their studio where they control the mikes and cameras, and where there are no rules, a fair debate cannot happen. Thoughtful people understand this. The problem is the masses who watch these shows like they watch an ultimate fighting match.

cmdicely, employing labels is often not very illuminating, and I would submit that that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" long ago became so amorphous as to lose their utility. But if you want to call me a conservative, fine, as long as all the specifications are issued.

I guess, if I had to choose a label, I'd pick "classical liberal who supports a high degree of federalism."

I just don't find current liberal arguments persuasive. Its as though Liberals have evacuated any and all meaning in words, in the concepts of right and wrong, that they can't use words and their concepts of right and wrong to construct an coherent argument. The result is they get frustrated and resort to name calling.

Just isn't persuasive. Can't try to build a society on name calling and expect to get anywhere.

lol

…How long have you been working on Olbermann's self-important… Will Alen at 3:39 PM

…where the interviewer has researched the interviewee's record and can challenge with previous inconsistent statements…mhrat 4:55 PM

On the suject of sayings or addages when dealing with wingnuts this is my favorite

" Never get into a pissing contest with a sunk"

To Frequency Kenneth above-

At no point did I say that the question was unfair. I said it was designed to get under Sullivan's skin, which it did.

Anyone who's spent 10 seconds on his website, never mind read his book, as Hewitt did, knows that Sullivan considers himself a Christian, so its kind of a silly question to ask. You could hear Sullivan's wheels spinning-"why would he ask me that? It must be a trick question somehow.", and he ended up getting very defensive about a question he could have just answered "yes" to.

Hewiit is smart and he knows his stuff. He also asks good questions, normal questions to most Americans who want to see both sides of the story. Why do you think Air Americia failed? They could not and would not have an honest debate. Why read or talk with people who always agree with you. This is the reason the dems will fail. Inbreeding!

I've never listened to Hewitt, and after having seen the titles to his books, I've never wanted to. If I've missed something, so be it.

If anybody remembers the exchanges Milton Friedman used to have with J.K. Galbraith, they provide an interesting contrast in tone and quality of discourse.

Um, Harry, no offense, but Hewitt is a dildo.

I don't know Kev. I've come to this comments section for a year now as a lonely voice speaking truth to power, and I'm sure I've convinced a few folks that they should re-examine their prejudices. I'm sure if that obnoxious twit Yglesias was involved, the smarm wasn't coming from Hugh Hewitt's direction. He couldn't win an argument on the merits, so he took his ball and went home.

The Left's fear of public debate and consequent ridicule of their ideas leads to monolithic Party-control of media in places like Cuba and the erstwhile Soviet Union. Drum and his ilk, like cowardly Foxophobe John Edwards, would prefer a similar arrangement. Call it the Tyranny of Political Correctness.

It should not take skill to win a debate...

we need to organize all the best reasons to agree and disagree with every idea... into two seperate columns... then organize reasons to agree or disagree with the reasons...

It shouldn't be limited to certain amount of time...

"Matt Yglesias warns aspiring pundits against appearing on blowhard radio and TV shows:"

Of course, that's why very few people are on Ari America or do interviews on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC

duh

Cmon Kevin you know there is no comparison between O'Reilly's and Hewitt.

O'Reilly is a bully who shouts down his opponents. Hewitt is an admitted partisan but also one of the best interviewers in the business.

If you can't effectively argue your position on his program then you simply can't argue your position.

Olberman is a doofus. I saw one of the rants of his where is was berating Condeleezza Rice for grouping Saddam Hussein with Hitler. The reason? Germany's diplomats filed the proper paper work to declare war on the U.S. What a maroon.

Well, I'll pass on O'Reilly here who's apples to Hewitt's oranges and a total clown to boot. But I have to admit to a fascination with Hewitt. I've been following him from his days on PBS's Life & Times co-hosted with two of the most benign liberals you'd ever hope to meet. After rolling their eyes at Hugh's inanities for most of a show, the two of them would basically turn into schoolyard bullies by the end, taking Hugh's lunch and stepping on his specs. And who could blame them? The guy is like Milhous, one of those kids who just begs you to jam his shorts up his ass. (And how appropriate, too, since he once was overseer of the Nixon library, and true to the little Soviet heart that beats within, made reporters pass an ideological litmus test before giving them access to the archives). Anyway, Hugh's like a fantasy baseball freak who makes believe he's general manager of the whole political world. As a child, I'd guess, he dreamed of calling up Frank Lane and saying like, "Frank, you have to trade Rocky Colovito to the Yankees for Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford." Now his fantasies are all political, like: "If I write this sweet ass-kissing book about Mitt Romney and he wins maybe he'll make me Chief of Staff and I'll finally get to run the country." Twice I've been able to shanghai Hugh's radio show for an hour with bogus stories that played to his two ostentatious hobbyhorses: Christianity and Militarism. To his credit, and I want to be fair here, through both, he was playing off the script of my emails and in both instances he issued a caveat to his listeners that he couldn't vouch for my credibility but was very solicitous of my alleged pain. Of course that pain was his pain or his avowed pain, and my amusement was all too private. If you engage him as a liberal, however...or even Andrew Sullivan...you might as well figure you're stepping onto the witness stand, and here's how it goes:

HH: Ms. Sullivan, do you bake bread?
Ms. Sullivan: Yes I do, Mr. Hewitt.
HH: Do you serve it to guests?
Ms. Sullivan: Yes, I do.
HH: And how do you cut it?
Ms Sullivan: With a knife of course.
HH: Ahh, so you DO own a knife! I have no more questions for the witness.

And thus it goes...and Andrew Sullivan, who's no dummy, despite evidence to the contrary, knew something was up when Hewitt asked him if he was a Christian.

This is an example of tough question to start an inquisition...

Are you a Christian?

Some would answer Yes...
Some would answer No...

However, most Liberals cannot answer simple yes and no quetions. There are always shades of grey! So conflicted! Decisions are tough. And following through on critical decisions is even tougher. And, lo and behold, some decisions have to be made in a timely manner with partial information. Wow, what a concept.

Mishu the Grand Doofus,

Condi said that our present Congress reconsidering the authorization that was given to Shrub would be like Congress in 45 rethinking the reasons for going to war with Germany.

The German diplomats did walk into our State Department and hand Germany's Declaration of War to our officials days before we declared war on Germany.

Saddam did not declare war on the US. Mr Olbermann, did, as he usually does, give an intelligent comeupance to Condi and her ilk.

Ah, for the peaceful radio days of Joe Pyne when he would, sweetly, tell a caller to go gargle with razor blades.

This is a point that David Halberstam made in _The Powers That Be_, his book about the news media and Watergate: television newsmen, commentators, etc. are actors. They are professional actors. Professional actors always go back to Shakespeare. If you want to be a professional actor, you start doing Shakespeare in the park, for whatever small audience wanders by. Fifty people on a summer night is quite a good house for a troupe of ten or twenty players. If you don't want to do that, you are not an actor, and should steer clear of all kinds of audio or video, whether you control it or not.

I don't know the details, but I think you can take it as read that O'Reilly and Hannity paid their dues at some point, playing to a very small audience.

let's face it: the kind of folks who listen to Hewitt and O'Reilly and their ilk aren't going to be swayed by even the most silken-tongued liberal in the world. So what's the point?

THAT IS THE MOST PATHETIC COP-OUT!!!

come on, guys! how in the heck do you think the republicans became so successful? by giving up opportunities to get their message out? for one thing, think about this: lots of people who watch these shows have kids with them -- kids who (thanks to attitudes like kevin's) won't be exposed to any message other than the one being fed to them by their parents.

sorry, pathetic. it's your duty to get the truth out there, even if the host and a large part of the audience are hostile.

"I've come to this comments section for a year now as a lonely voice speaking truth to power,"

Dear heart, just what "truth" is that? And what "power" are you referring to? All you've done, basically, is to establish that you are a mindless partisan drone whose views are never backed up by anything resembling logic, reason, or facts.

"and I'm sure I've convinced a few folks that they should re-examine their prejudices."

No, dear, you haven't, because you're a mindless partisan drone whose views are never backed up by anything resembling logic, reason, or facts.

I don't like O'Reilley nor Hannity. I think both are shallow shouters. However, I listen to Hugh Hewitt all the time and I've heard him interview plenty of liberals. Almost all of them get killed. Not because they're not given time to talk, but because they are so poorly read and unprepared. If you read his blog, you can find transcripts from previous guests. You know exactly what he's going to ask. You can listen to podcasts and hear that he'll give you plenty of time to talk.

If you show up with a poor grasp of the facts, you're doomed. Your response to this seems to be to flee to marshmallow hosts who will kiss your butt and agree that George Bush is the devil. Well, good luck with that.

Recently heard an interview with Mike Ferrill, 'B.J. Honeycutt' of M.A.S.H. He claimed that he's been on Bill OReilly's show several times and while O'Reilly disagreed with Ferrill's politics, apparently O'Reilly treated him with respect and fairness.

Probably because no matter how liberal Mike Ferrell really is, his character on M.A.S.H. was actually fairly conservative/moral, at least compared to Hawkeye and Trapper.

Or maybe it's that Ferrell is really soft spoken and O'Reilly knows not to bully someone widely perceived of as nice.

Sort of reminds me of one night a few weeks ago. Hannity had Cindy Sheehan. Brit Hume had Steney Hoyer . Then I tuned to Chris Matthews who had a panel of 4 extreme Liberals not including himself.

"Boy, is that right. Unless you're a seasoned pro yourself, you're not going to outduel guys like Hewitt or Bill O'Reilly. You're just not."

What a crock of shit. Kevin: you are WAY too impressed.

I agree with those upthread about Hewitt-he does give you the time to respond, which certainly distinguishs him from O'reilly and Hannity. And that if you go on, he will not serve up questions that will let you get right into your talking points, so be prepared.

And I also certainly agree that it would be a mistake to abandon conservative radio and tv (I'd make exceptions for thugs like Hannity or Savage). Go on and make a good accounting of yourself and don't act afraid of tough debate or an unfair question. Don't we make fun all the time of Cheney running to Brit Hume everytime he gives an interview?

Hewitt is one of the most intellectually dishonest people in the "marketplace of ideas". And he cuts people off all the time. Also, he doesn't make arguments, he simply makes claims (which are more than often wrong - his predictions are especially laughable - "Painting the Map Red" anyone?)

That being said, I've heard him get taken to the woodshed by some journalists and other guests.

I follow Hewitt show and site and I have NEVER seen a liberal get the better of him. Outclassed every time.

I'm probably more conservative (whatever that means) than most of the commenters here, but what the heck - I'll add my $0.02 anyway.

I used to listen to Hannity on a regular basis, but tired of him after a while. And I never cared for O'Reilly - he's too much of a bully IMO. But I find Hewitt to be in a different class altogether. First off, he's the real deal intellectually - a professor of Con Law at Chapman. He's also invariably well prepared and a tough (but respectful) questioner.

I used to ,listen to his show regularly on the 45 minute drive home from teaching night classes, and I almost always enjoyed his interviews. And that says a lot, since I'm usually pretty quick to find fault.

My sense is that he's the type of interviewer I'd enjoy listening too even if he wasn't an advocate for many of the views I hold.

Here's a question for those of the Liberal persuasion: who would you suggest as an interviewer on the Left who has similar characteristics to Hewitt? Of course, if you think he's just a (fill in the negative term of your choice), feel free to sound off. But I'd truly be interesting in hearing your views...

unknown prof,

i don't know the answer to your question, but i'd recommend reading these links:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/hughhewitt

yours,

ruttiger