This is not a comparison of Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher – the former supposedly a battle-weary veteran holding fort for the "fair and balanced" news network, and the latter holding up the bastion of the liberal left against the "evil" right wingers. This is not a situation where I find which one is better and say the other one should shut up.
On the contrary, I find them to be incredibly alike. Yeah, that's right: alike! Somewhere, in both worlds (clearly the liberal and the conservative occupy different planets), heads are popping and hearts are giving out simply because I'm writing this, nay, even thinking about it!
Surely I'm mistaken, they may say. I must mean that O'Reilly and Maher are exact opposites of each other. Look at their shows, their views, and their guests. They cannot be alike. It must be an error of judgment on my part. Perhaps I'm one of those left-wing liberals trying to bring down a straight talking, shoot-from-the-hip TV host. Perhaps I'm a conservative trying to bring down a straight talking, shoot-from-the-hip TV host.
Let me get rid of the subtlety and sarcasm and get down to the point. They are both biased. They stick to extremes on their own sides, push their own left-liberal/right-conservative agendas, trash talk about and talk down to people they don't agree with, and bring up hypothetical situations about the attack on the right/left.
They both take pot shots at each other (at least of late I've seen Maher do that to O'Reilly and I'm sure the other Bill can never resist a brawl). They're both preaching to the choir and increasing the division between their respective audiences. During a time that bipartisanship is supposedly at its height, what are they doing besides fanning the flames?
They each blame the other side for doing the exact same thing they themselves do. While O'Reilly claims the media are left-leaning, baby-murdering terrorist supporters, Maher claims O'Reilly and his kind are right-wingers who lust for oil and are – yup — baby-murdering terrorist supporters.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Even more significant, they both claim to be of one political persuasion, but on examination turn out to have an entirely different set of beliefs. O'Reilly claims to be a conservative, but is actually an old-style moralistic democrat. Maher claims to be a Libertarian, but is actually a amoral socialist.
Dave
2 - Chris Jones
There is a big difference between Bill Maher and the left wing loons that appear on his show. Most of Maher's guest just spit out the usual Media Matters talking points that have no basis in fact.
Maher himself takes extremely left wing positions on most issues, but he at least educates himself on an issue before speaking about it.
That's why O'Reilly has a lot more respect for Maher than he does most far left people.
I personally agree with Bill Maher on almost nothing, but I respect his point of view because its coming from someone with a grasp on the issues.
People like Sean Penn, Rosie, and the rest are completely ignorant about pretty much everything, but make ridiculous statements anyway.
3 - daryl d
The difference between Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher is that one is actually funny. And it's not the one who had homosexual erotic fantasies with falafels and dildos.
4 - JustOneMan
Ones a devout Catholic who is honest about it..the other is a jew that pretends to ba an atheist...the only religion he attacks Christianity...
Maher a real phoney...
JOM
5 - RJ
"During a time that bipartisanship is supposedly at its height"
I hope that's a typo... :-/
6 - Baritone
Bill Maher may be a cultural Jew, but, if memory serves, he is pretty much against all religion. He does NOT claim to be an atheist, however. I have heard him state on a # of occasions that he does in fact believe in god. From my perspective, that's unfortunate, but what the hey.
Of course I would take Maher over O'Reilly anytime. O'Reilly is a complete asshole, outdistanced in my opinion only by Rush and the sweet, demure Ms. Coulter, oh and maybe a few of the other right wing radical radio wackos.
However, I am not a great fan of Maher when it comes down to it. It's not his views. I generally agree with him. My problem with him is that his schtick is obviously a major ego trip for him. He doesn't hide it very well.
B-tone
7 - Dave Nalle
JoM, I think it says a great deal about you that you assume because of his name and his perceived liberalism that Maher is a jew. Although his mother was a non-practicisn Jew, Maher didn't know it until he was grown up and he was in fact raised as a Catholic like his father (and Bil O'Reilly) who is of Irish and Swiss ancestry.
Politically Maher calls himself a libertarian and his views aren't far from those of the libertarian party. Realistically I'd call him a left-libertarian or a socialist/libertarian because he is less of a constitutional libertarian and more of a social issues libertarian. He voted for Bob Dole when Dole ran for president and supports a lot of the more sensible policies which libertarian-leaning Republicans believe in. But along with that he happens to just flat-out hate George W. Bush, and that has pushed his perceived position rather far to the left in the eyes of many.
O'Reilly, on the other hand, presents himself as a conservative, but politically he's much more of a populist/progressive or a 'values' conservative. Like a lot of Catholics he holds basically socialist/unionist views along with socially and morally conservative views on some issues like abortion and sex education and drug laws. He's really the worst sort of conservative - right wing on all the wrong issues and left leaning on all the wrong issues.
Dave
8 - RJ
Bill O'Reilly is a conservative/populist who pretends to be objective and moderate. Maher is a leftist who pretends to be a libertarian.
But O'Reilly at least has the guts to go one-on-one on his show with people who disagree with him. Maher insulates himself by having three Marxists and one conservative on his show, and then packs the audience with fellow leftists. Naturally, the conservative gets shouted down and demonized, while Maher gets to pose as a real journalist. Basically, Maher's show is nothing more than a bash-the-conservative-and/or-Republican-fest.
I've been watching Maher on-and-off since his show was on Comedy Central. Back then, it was all about the jokes, and it actually was politically-incorrect and funny. Then he got on ABC, and he became little more than a humorless mouthpiece for the Democrat Party and the Clinton administration. Then he lost that show due to anti-American comments in the wake of 9/11, and eventually got his show on HBO, which is now nothing more than a leftist wank-fest. (But I do give him credit for telling the 9/11 Troofers to go fuck themselves.)
9 - JustOneMan
Nalle...I think it says a great deal about you that you assume I assume that Maher is a jew...technically he is... he like other liberal self hating jews publically deny it while bashing christians ...[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] its obvious you watch too much TV..
JOM
10 - Dave Nalle
JOM, from you I'll take that as a compliment.
Dave
11 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Basically, Maher's show is nothing more than a bash-the-conservative-and/or-Republican-fest."
There was one show when Maher brought in three conservative guests. And he did it on purpose. And they ganged up on him.
And he's probably better friends with Ann Coulter than O'Reilly is. Only in America.
12 - Clavos
Rumor from a reliable source has it that JOM writes Maher's material for him.
13 - REMF
"...eventually got his show on HBO, which is now nothing more than a leftist wank-fest."
Yes, much worse than Rush Limbaugh's rightist wank-fest...
14 - Lapdog
rj #8: "Then he lost that show due to anti-American comments in the wake of 9/11,..."
Where do you come up with that bull?
He was dumped because the ratings were down and his humor wasn't funny or original.
15 - El Bicho
It's good to see you guys come together in a bipartisan way and both get this subject wrong.
Maher's comments weren't anti-American unless you make up stuff to get offend by. It is braver to fly a plane into a building over firing missiles from far away. It is also crazier and not as smart. But Maher was dumped because his ratings couldn't handle the controversy and loss of advertisers.
You guys should stick to not knowing much about politics and stop straying out into other areas you don't know much about.
16 - gonzo marx
"You guys should stick to not knowing much about politics and stop straying out into other areas you don't know much about."
Quoted for Truth
Excelsior?
17 - Baronius
The most obvious similarity between these guys is that committed people on either side don't take them seriously. They never get below the surface, they have no actual constituencies, and they exert no influence. If either one went off the air, the only people who'd notice would be a few blowhards on the opposite side. Case in point: Maher gets fired all the time, and no one cares.
18 - RJ
rj #8: "Then he lost that show due to anti-American comments in the wake of 9/11,..."
Where do you come up with that bull?
He was dumped because the ratings were down and his humor wasn't funny or original.
Cite:
ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002 after he made a controversial on-air remark on September 17, 2001, in which he agreed with guest conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards, and then went on to say, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
So, after he called Americans cowards while praising Islamic terrorists in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he lost his show. Which is pretty much what I said.
19 - RJ
Maher's comments weren't anti-American unless you make up stuff to get offend [sic] by...Maher was dumped because his ratings couldn't handle the controversy and loss of advertisers.
Gee, why was there a controversy? Why did he lose advertisers? Could it be because he offended a large number of Americans with his comments?
20 - El Bicho
"Gee, why was there a controversy?"
Because a little known Houston DJ named Dan Patrick (not of ESPN) misrepresented what was said in a newspaper two days later to get a little of the spotlight. Plenty of people who didn't watch the show decided to get offended because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves. It happens far too often in this country.
"Why did he lose advertisers?"
Because some don't know want their products associated with any controversy at all, but they were replaced. The show didn't go commercial free.
"Could it be because he offended a large number of Americans with his comments?"
Considering the show wasn't canceled until May 2002, a full eight months after Maher made his comments, I doubt it, but feel free to cite proof. There's a difference in not renewing a contract and firing someone. Are you saying if his ratings had been better, he still would have been let go? If so, you know less about the television business than I thought.
To see what happens when a large number of Americans get offended by someone in the media, see Don Imus.
21 - Baritone
As offensive as they may have been, Maher's comments about cowardice were correct. The 9/11 terrorists were horribly misguided fools, but not cowards. They were Islamic Kamikazes.
I don't know that lobbing missiles into a city is altogether cowardly, but it certainly involves a great deal less risk than other means of waging war. It is, for the launcher, antiseptic. Obviously, not so for those targeted. Nevertheless, that is the direction technology is taking us. Push button warfare. Click, boom!
B-tone
22 - Dave Nalle
I think an argument can be made that if you're crazy enough to think flying a plane into a building with yourself in it is a good idea, then you probably aren't able to make the kind of rational assessment of risk necessary to be brave in the face of danger.
It's not brave to die for a cause when you think you're going to go straight to heaven It's just crazy.
Dave
23 - Baronius
You can be brave while you're doing evil things. There's no contradiction in it.
There was some speculation that most of the 9/11 terrorists thought they were just going to hijack the planes. Only the leader on each of the planes knew what the real plan was. I don't remember why people thought that.
24 - Baritone
Dave,
"Courage" comes from many sources. Most acts of so called heroism are made without any "rational assessment of risk." Once again, we are into a semantic argument. Those men were not crazy. It's true that their belief in Allah and their promised ascension into paradise was and is bullshit. Sadly, such beliefs are shared by hundreds of millions of similarly delusional folks. But how many "brave" Americans went to their glory in battle believing they were, by their acts, likely to gain access to and through the pearly gates? Your inability to believe it took courage for those guys to complete their mission is simply your overactive American jingoism run amok.
B-tone
25 - Matthew T. Sussman
Ooh, a discussion on courageous relativism!
It took a lot of courage for me to go for it on 4th down in my NCAA Football game on Xbox on my own 24 yard line.