Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Bill O'Reilly, you pinhead.
One of Bill O'Reilly's favorite disparaging words is "pinhead." He uses the word to describe someone who gives the appearance of being an expert on a subject but doesn't really know what he is talking about. Bill O'Reilly, you pinhead! Here's why.
O'Reilly interviewed an author on his TV show who wrote a book claiming the divine nature of the Jesus story was fabricated. The author is obviously trying to outdo Dan Brown. O'Reilly disagreed with the author's book and said he would not recommend anyone read it.
This led into a conversation on Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code. A caller to his radio called him on the carpet and asked why he would have a problem with anyone reading the book he disagreed with and yet no problem with The Da Vinci Code. He had two answers.
He says the problem with the disagreeable book is that the author and book portrays the book's content as fact. Dan Brown, according to O'Reilly, never did such a thing. O'Reilly should put the crack research staff he often brags about to work.
The Discovery Channel recently broadcasted and is re-broadcasting, thanks to the Da Vinci movie, a documentary called The Real Da Vinci Code. In the documentary, the host goes from site to site investigating Dan Brown's claimed "facts".
Let start right there. Did Dan Brown ever claim his book to be fact? Yes, and on more than one occasion. The Real Da Vinci Code aired an interview with Dan Brown and British television where he claimed the people, events, sites, etc. in the book are factual. In another interview, Dan Brown says the following:
All? Really? There are secret codes in Da Vinci's paintings? Jesus and Mary Magadelen really did start a family? The Priory of Sion, a proven hoax, really did exist? Opus Dei is really a group of assassins? Wrong on all counts. This and many other works of fiction are presented as true on the "facts" page in the book.
All of these are so easily disprovable, yet, O'Reilly says Dan Brown never portrayed his work as non-fiction. O'Reilly, you pinhead.
He does have a reason for spinning The Da Vinci Code as fiction. To appear consistent in his judgment. Too bad he doesn't know the real facts.
His second argument is people will believe the disagreeable book, but only "ignorant people" will take The Da Vinci Code as fact. O'Reilly, couldn't the same argument be made about the book you disagree with? The fact is there are people who will walk away from either book believing what has been said is fact. Interviews with tourists at the Vatican by The Discovery Channel proved this to be true about The Da Vinci Code. So despite all of O'Reilly's disclaimers about supposed disclaimers of The Da Vinci Code being a work of fiction, there are people walking around taking portions as fact. O'Reilly, you pinhead.
O'Reilly interviewed an author on his TV show who wrote a book claiming the divine nature of the Jesus story was fabricated. The author is obviously trying to outdo Dan Brown. O'Reilly disagreed with the author's book and said he would not recommend anyone read it.
This led into a conversation on Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code. A caller to his radio called him on the carpet and asked why he would have a problem with anyone reading the book he disagreed with and yet no problem with The Da Vinci Code. He had two answers.
He says the problem with the disagreeable book is that the author and book portrays the book's content as fact. Dan Brown, according to O'Reilly, never did such a thing. O'Reilly should put the crack research staff he often brags about to work.
The Discovery Channel recently broadcasted and is re-broadcasting, thanks to the Da Vinci movie, a documentary called The Real Da Vinci Code. In the documentary, the host goes from site to site investigating Dan Brown's claimed "facts".
Let start right there. Did Dan Brown ever claim his book to be fact? Yes, and on more than one occasion. The Real Da Vinci Code aired an interview with Dan Brown and British television where he claimed the people, events, sites, etc. in the book are factual. In another interview, Dan Brown says the following:
One of the many qualities that makes The Da Vinci Code unique is the factual nature of the story. All the history, artwork, ancient documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate…as are the hidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci's most famous paintings.
Source
All? Really? There are secret codes in Da Vinci's paintings? Jesus and Mary Magadelen really did start a family? The Priory of Sion, a proven hoax, really did exist? Opus Dei is really a group of assassins? Wrong on all counts. This and many other works of fiction are presented as true on the "facts" page in the book.
All of these are so easily disprovable, yet, O'Reilly says Dan Brown never portrayed his work as non-fiction. O'Reilly, you pinhead.
He does have a reason for spinning The Da Vinci Code as fiction. To appear consistent in his judgment. Too bad he doesn't know the real facts.
His second argument is people will believe the disagreeable book, but only "ignorant people" will take The Da Vinci Code as fact. O'Reilly, couldn't the same argument be made about the book you disagree with? The fact is there are people who will walk away from either book believing what has been said is fact. Interviews with tourists at the Vatican by The Discovery Channel proved this to be true about The Da Vinci Code. So despite all of O'Reilly's disclaimers about supposed disclaimers of The Da Vinci Code being a work of fiction, there are people walking around taking portions as fact. O'Reilly, you pinhead.
# posted by Kyle A. Miller @ 1:40 PM 
