In an age where everybody has a website or a blog ;), there are 400 channels on your television, and satellite radio is beamed into your car as you drive to work everyday, there is a lot of media to go around. Sad to say, most of it isnt worth the air or net space it takes up. That said, Wednesday and Thursday night's O' Reilly Factor was truly "Must-See" TV for a number of reasons. 

The art of interviewing is almost a forgotten craft in this day of 15 second soundbites and news packages (news stories that run on the network and local levels) that have to run a minute twenty with two pieces of sound and stand up ( the part of the story, usually somewhere in the middle but could be at the end, where the reporter is on camera talking about a particular part of a story usually with a prop or in front of or behind a visual "relevant" to the story). Usually, reporters and even show hosts (who are limited by time constraints due to advertising and constantly have consultants saying things like "our stats show people will only watch/listen for 4 to 5 minutes before turning away") do a "quickie" interview that is nothing more than getting your soundbites and moving on. The viewer sitting at home, if they are watching for information value, is asking, "Okay... Where's the follow-up?". Politicans, on both sides, thrive on this. The reason they thrive on this is because they dislike being taken out of their comfort zone. They are prepped by their handlers to respond in 15 second soundbites...which is why a lot of them fumble and/or stumble when they are asked to go deeper into their reasoning.

This brings me to Bill O' Reilly's interview with Hillary Clinton this past week on Fox News. Sure Fox will be bragging about it like an upcoming WWE Pay Per View, but push aside the Fox hype and O'Reilly did an interview that should be required viewing by EVERYONE in the media industry. It was obvious O'Reilly did his homework and prepped for the interview more so than most of his colleagues and competitors would've done. And in doing so, he did his viewing public, Mrs. Clinton, his network and television in general justice. It is, in my opinion, the best interview conduction with an aspiring presidential hopeful, in many years.

When O' Reilly brought up topics, he had background information to do a point-counter point arguement with Senator Clinton such as when they were discussing the problems with Pakistan and the cost of Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals. He held her to the point which forced her to go deeper into her explainations of her initivives. This is what an interview should do. Listen to the person's answer and counter question based on statics or facts.

This interview wasnt emotional at all, and at times it seemed almost jovial, but it was fact based and more revelant than all of the debates I've seen (about 10 of the 21) between Senators Obama and Clinton. The debates are no more than specticals for networks to promote and hopes of getting an easy story by someone saying something stupid and making headlines the next day.

Sure Fox did the promotional aspect of the interview...stretching an interview into two twenty minute segments over two days, releasing sound bites for use on Fox in different dayparts, letting other media outlets know what was said in the interview before it aired, that's just good promotion in a day and age where promotion is a vital key to any business.

My opinion, O' Reilly knew this was a BIG interview for him, his show, his network and it was an opportunity for him to explore Senator Clinton's stand on the issues. Sure, O'Reilly is a bulldog. That's his style. And at times he looked and seemed somewhat confrontational... but very respectful. It takes a professional to pull that off. Something some of the other talking head networks know very little about. O'Reilly seemed to draw from a time and a style long forgotten and gave us a fantastic interview with one of the most important people of our day (whether you like her or not).

As for Senator Clinton, in my opinion, for the first time, I felt she looked like a leader. She was sly in the way she cozied up to mainstream Fox viewership with favorable mentions of Ronald Reagan and John McCain.  She didnt back down and gave the bulldog everything he could want. She answered O'Reilly questions and follow ups pretty well. There were a few areas she could've done better (Immigration and sanctuary cities, I felt she either didnt understand the situation or didnt communicate her ideas very well), but in large part I thought she looked very good and very strong. I dont agree with her on a lot of her plans, as I am sure that is shared by many of Fox's viewers, but she played well on a tough platform which can only help her standing with moderates, Reagan Democrats, and Republicans and Conservatives. And if she can somehow win the Democratic nomination, she will need these voters, as much as the far Left Fielders hate it and believes the only people who matter live in San Franscisco, Hollywood, and New York, to win in the general election.

I've heard some of the fall out from the interview. Most of it, from the Left Fielders which is expected, but one group sorta surprised me by coming out against the interview. MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Kieth Olbermann keep giving Fox News credibility and promotion by blasting the interview. I dont know why they feel the need to promote the competition's product but I am sure Fox doesn't mind.  Olbermann in particular is a pseudo intellectual who enjoys hearing himself speak (aka.. bag of wind), he blew as a sports host for ESPN and now is continuing this fine tradition at MSNBC. His rating speak for itself. Chris Matthews, who can pull off quality shows, alledged some sort of conspiracy inthat a presidental candidate would go on a show that has a solid middle income moderate Republican audience. Give it a rest, Mr. Hardball. After seeing how Matthews and MSNBC pander to Senator Obama, maybe they should change the name of his program to "WiffleBall with Chris Matthews".

Just a view,

Talon X