After months of Psy taking the Internet, and then the world, by storm, you might think we’ve heard from all the pundits, music critics, pop-cultural commentators, and Korean-culture bloggers out there about the cultural, musical, and social significance of “Gangnam Style.”
But you’d be wrong. Because we hadn’t yet heard from Bill O’Reilly.
Now that “Gangnam Style” has broken all records for the most number of YouTube views, with 800 million watches and counting, the Fox pundit has deemed it worthy of his attention. But despite all the readily available resources to help him understand the song’s critique of modern South Korean culture, O’Reilly claims to be deeply confused.
In their five-minute assessment of the video, he and psychiatrist Keith Ablow come to the conclusion that the viral hit is just a lot of jumping up and down over a catchy beat. Both O’Reilly and Ablow roundly denounce the song as having no depth or emotion. Claiming that the song is devoid of “reality, feeling, and meaning,” they imply that “Gangnam Style” represents a need for “pure escapism.” Psy is “just doing the Pony … jumping up and down,” O’Reilly says.
O’Reilly states that the song is “without intelligible words,” and that it “doesn’t try to convince you of anything”—ignoring both the obvious fact that the words are unintelligible to himbecause they are in Korean, and the easily obtained fact that the music video is an intentional critique of South Korean materialism epitomized in the wealthy urban district of Gangnam.
The masses of listeners, O’Reilly claims, simply want to be “pushed towards a good beat that buries them in music.”
The climax of his litany of misunderstandings comes when he contrasts Psy with a handful of British and American singers:
Elvis Presley could sing. His songs had words. He put on a show. This is a little fat guy from Yongyang [sic], and he’s jumping up and down. … You could understand Presley, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, even Justin Bieber. … There’s no comparison.
Psy, who studied at the renowned Berklee Conservatory of Music in Boston before returning to Seoul (that’s in South Korea; Pyongyang is North Korea) to pursue his career, might disagree.
Keep on keepin’ on, Bill.
"He’s abandoned some of our key allies like Israel, Poland and Czechoslovakia."
I’m pretty sure Czechoslovakia abandoned Czechoslovakia… 20 years ago.
History is hard. :/
Don’t get me started on Obama’s treatment of Prussia. A damned shame, that is.
Personally I’m annoyed about his policies towards Hyperborea, Narnia and Middle Earth.
He has been really harsh on the Hyporborians, hasn’t he?
He hasn’t even weighed in on the scandal in Bohemia.
When is he going to comment on the destruction of Alderaan?(via invisibleblackunicorn)
"The entire theme of tonight’s Republican convention session, “We Built It,” is inspired by a lie produced by Fox News. The idea that President Barack Obama said to small business owners, “you didn’t build that,” is a fabrication concocted through deceptive editing. What the president actually said, was “somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.” Within two days of its first appearance on Fox, the channel had spent more than two hours repeating this lie. Even News Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rupert Murdoch got in on the action, tweeting that “Obama went off script, showed real self i.e. government omnipotent, individuals secondary. Must be big damage.” Within a day of Fox airing the deceptively edited clip, Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee, had picked up on it, saying Obama’s statement was “insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America and it’s wrong.” Romney also started running ads featuring the deception."
Fox News headline vs. Real Headline of the day.
I don’t usually contribute my personal opinion to posts on RFN, but explode? Fox, you take a perfectly acceptable headline on an article about Muslim Americans and change the word “grows” to “explode?” EXPLODE? What kind of fucked up xenophobic, Islamaphobic, word association bullshit is that? This should be removed from the Fox Nation site immediately.
Explodes. That’s a nice action verb which I’m sure they meant absolutely nothing by. T_____T
As if we needed any more proof that Bill O’Reilly is freakin’ nuts. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly spent more time covering the non-existent “war on Christmas” than actual wars. Full report available here: http://mm4a.org/ueOltf
Propaganda Techniques Used by Fox News
This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren’t activated, you aren’t alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.
Character Assassination/Ad Hominem
Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person’s credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. “liberals,” “hippies,” “progressives” etc. This form of argument – if it can be called that – leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It’s often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin’s mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they’ll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.
This is why people incorrectly believe that Park 51, an Islamic community center opening with a photography exhibit, is a mosque. This is the catalyst by which Islamophobia has been fueled in this country and abroad. This is not journalism. This is not factual. This is not a news organization, it is a blatant extension of xenophobic politics in America.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: 8/18/2011
FOX News - Is Warren Buffet a socialist?
GPOY… all day every day.
"You have to give Glenn Beck credit though. I mean, how extreme do you have to be to get kicked off of Fox News?"
My wise, wise father
This is actually the top story on Fox News’ “Fox Nation” right now.
Let’s discuss a Republican House of Representatives where the GOP’s failed to introduce bills creating jobs.
The abortion debate has left one issue largely off the table: The proper rights of men to prevent the abortion of their children.
I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so."
Dr. Keith Albow, resident Fox News homophobe and general asshole, in Men Should be Able to Veto Abortion.
Read more for afternoon rage.
Remember women, your bodies don’t belong to you!