Jon Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly: Did O'Reilly win the bout on points?

It was the big showdown, the media equivalent of Ali vs. Frazier, Tyson vs. Spinks or Louis vs. Schmeling. Jon Stewart went into Big Poppa Bear's den last night for a media heavyweight bout with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, a brawny meeting of two of our most celebrated media giants that felt so much like a boxing match that at one point, when O'Reilly reached out with one of his long arms, pointing a finger at his adversary, Stewart recoiled, practically curling up in a ball, saying "God, you've got Ali's reach!"

Most of the time, these much-vaunted clash of the titans feel anti-climactic, so I can't say I entirely agree with Time's James Poniewozik, who writing on his blog this morning, called the exchange "one of the best debates about media and politics in general, and Fox News in particular, that I've seen on TV in a while."

I'm not so sure I'd go that far, since the best debates are usually the ones where the combatants are two men from the same social class who really despise each other (like Bush vs. Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign). Stewart and O'Reilly, truth to tell, actually seem to like each other and each man certainly has a begrudging respect for the other, a respect you wouldn't see if Stewart were going up against Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. (For a fascinating inside peek at the showdown, check out my colleague Matea Gold's piece, which actually takes us inside the Fox News control room during the show.)

But hey -- if I'm calling this a heavyweight bout, then you just want to know who won, right? I'd have to give the edge to O'Reilly, if for no other reason than when it comes to TV interviews or the NBA finals, home court advantage is everything. When Stewart demolished CNBC nut-job stock booster Jim Cramer last year, "The Daily Show" host had his finger on the button for the entire exchange, putting up damning TV clips at will, leaving Cramer pretty much defenseless. But last night, Stewart was on O'Reilly's playing field, with O'Reilly controlling the tempo of their exchange, repeatedly interrupting Stewart in mid-sentence, throwing him off his comic rhythm.

I'm not saying O'Reilly won on the intellectual force of his arguments, since I'm totally in the Stewart camp when it comes to the insidious lack of fairness and balance on Fox News. But I have to give O'Reilly his props -- he's an old master as an interviewer and, presiding on his own home court, he used it to every advantage. For example, O'Reilly led off the interview with a great right hook, focusing his spotlight right on President Obama by asking Stewart: "How's he doing so far?"

It was a shrewd tactic, putting Stewart on the defensive, since as O'Reilly surely knew from watching "The Daily Show" that Stewart, like a lot of liberals, isn't especially enthusiastic about the president's first-year performance. And Stewart being Stewart, perhaps the most verbally convoluted comic of his generation, he wasn't going to duck the question or offer an easy answer, which immediately made him look as if he were dissembling a bit. In fact, Stewart's comic style, which tends toward elliptical, self-referential humor, didn't play especially well on the O'Reilly format, which rewards short, punchy replies and doesn't have the raucous studio audience that Stewart enjoys on "The Daily Show," which gives his comedy riffs a much-needed extra momentum.

Even though Stewart landed some powerful punches, especially when making clear how intimately connected Fox News is with the Republican Party, for the most part he was out of his element. It was like watching a great athlete playing an unfamiliar sport (like Shaquille O'Neal, for example, trying to hit a baseball). Stewart got in his swings, but he certainly wasn't hitting the ball out of the park like he does on "The Daily Show."

Photo: Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly verbally duke it out on "The O'Reilly Factor." Photo credit: Fox News

If you didn't see the show, here's the first half of last night's exchange: 

Comments

[Gareth Morgan]

"I'm totally in the Stewart camp when it comes to the insidious lack of fairness and balance on Fox News."

This is where I stopped reading. Just another liberal apologist. It is impressive that he declared the Fox talk-show host a winner.

[TR from WA]

I am sick & tired of people saying FoxNews is "biased", and yet feel CNN, NY Times, and most other "mainstream" media outlets are not biased. It's hypocrisy to the nth degree. Very frustrating.

[Shawn]

As most liberal shills, and John Stewart, who talk about things like "the insidious lack of fairness and balance on Fox News", you fail to mention CNN or BSNBC in your assessment of fair journalism. To mention one, and not recognize the others, shows your lack of fairness or reality. In fact, most people will agree fox's "news" programs are more fair and balanced than anything on either one of those stations. Polls show this. And, they don't present there opinions in a sophomoric, hateful way like Keith O, Rachel M, and Chris Mathews. Yes Glen beck is weird, but is not hateful name caller. They, the lower rated liberal shows, spend time bashing, tirelessly, their more successful competitor. Maybe because Fox is far and away on top in all the ratings. Again, none of which were mentioned by you or by Stuart in his rant about the hours spent on Fox with prime time opinion shows. Or the fact that BSNBC has Prison shows or to catch a predator all the time. Thank God most people are not as stupid as the prime time liberal watchers.

[swf]

Points. Schmoints. Stewart is an intelligent, witty, soft-spoken communicator, who has a thorough and thoughtful grasp of the issues. O'Reilly is a bombastic demagogue, whose brain can only handle pre-digested sound bites. No contest, but entertaining television.

[quinn]

So you think that Fox is unbalanced, fair enough. So what about all the rest?
Especially MSNBC, so far to the left, is not even close to Fox as far a "balanced" go...

[mike]

The real difference between Stewart and O'reilly;

Stewart has a sincere sense of humility.

I loved when O'Reilly was like; "Oh, now you're casting ASPERSIONS... Do you know that one? Aspersions?"

condescending jerk.

When Stewart went after Cramer (who, in case you forgot, told the whole world that AIG and some of the other questionable firms were great investments, knowing full well what they were doing), he didn't go after his audience, he didn't try to make him look like a moron. He took him to task for betraying peoples confidence in a way not unlike Ken Lewis, albeit far less of an offence in comparison.

Stewart has a good heart and a passion for the truth. All O'Reilly has is a paycheck he gets for political posturing and his lonely, sad, empty soul.

On a final note;

He may have had home court advantage, but that doesn't change the fact that O'Reilly has to coach his impressionable audience every night to bring their vocabulary up to a GED level.

[Eric Bressler]

Stewart did just fine in the face of O'Liely's bullying tactics. Why let someone finish a statement that you know you can't refute when you can just interrupt them or turn off their mic like O'Liely has done numerous times in the past.

[Tex]

Any time I see a "critic" talk about "an insidious lack of fairness and balance" at Fox News as compared to other media outlets, it merely drives home the realization that all of these other less-popular media sources are simply jealous of the superior ratings on Fox News. How strange that the "ignorant" masses are drawn to the news network that is accused of being less fair than the others.

Interestingly, the best argument against Fox News being fair and balanced is that they have Hannity and Beck on the same network -- two strong conservative commentators. The only problem with this idea is that none of the other television news outlets have ANYONE as conservative. Instead, we are stuck with Chris Matthew, Anderson Cooper, and similar strongly liberal commentators (blowhards). So, the argument somewhat stalls because the other networks are similarly biased in the opposite direction. If you're a liberal critic, you're bound to think Fox News is unfair, simply because every other network out there tends to "agree" with your viewpoints without proper debate.

As far as straight news, Fox News tends to do a more complete job of reporting than other networks, without inserting a lot of commentary. However, when Shep Smith does speak up, it's usually with a more liberal viewpoint.

Frankly, most people take O'Reilly more seriously than Stewart because at least O'Reilly takes the news seriously. Making a joke out of a news item doesn't diminish the impact of that news, and often, it skews the public's understanding of the story in a morally reprehensible way.

[Tim]

why would the best debates be between people who despise each other? Whatever happened to a rigorous, intelligent debate between two parties that respect each other, admire each other's accomplishments and intellect, and see their opposition as worthy adversaries? A debate where each party tries to put forth the most compelling, sound argument? I think you're mixing up "debate" and "argument"

[RK]

I think Stewerat won handily. O'Reilly took pot shots at Stewart, "Some people actually think you're smart, can you believe that?"

Stewart was self deprecating not taking any offense. That exchange made O'Reilly look like the bully he is.