Roger Ebert is a legend, a Pulitzer Prize winning film critic who elevated the status of critics everywhere with his long-running show with the late Gene Siskel.
He’s also a writer who doesn’t know enough to stick to movie reportage.
Just check out his latest attempt at column writing outside the realm of the movie theater. (hat tip: Big Hollywood)
His rant against Bill O’Reilly is sloppy. Silly. And I’m pretty sure plain wrong on a few fronts. And it’s part of an overall decline in the quality of his opinions.
Here’s one frothing example from Ebert’s piece:
It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him.
It’s nonsense. O’Reilly loses his cool occasionally, but 90 percent of the time he engages in sharp debates with people who disagree with him.
Just like Keith Olbermann. Tee hee.
Let’s take Ebert’s central argument – that a key reason O’Reilly is boycotting the Chicago Sun-Times is because the paper dropped his column.
Can’t imagine that’s true … if someone has a link or a YouTube clip that supports that claim please let me know.
And I’ve been reading O’Reilly’s columns for a while now. They’re more tame than some of his on-screen bluster. Frankly, they’re right-leaning but hardly inflammatory.
My guess? Ebert never reads O’Reilly’s columns. He just disagrees with his views in toto and rather than argue him point by point he decides to write this disjointed assault against him.
Stick to movies, Roger. Please. Or, if you’re gonna dip your toe in ideological waters, bring your “A” game.
And that means not critiquing a politician for wearing glasses.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
I used to get the Sun-Times, and I remember his first ‘editorial’ about President Bush, it was awful; un-inforrmed, polemic, and ignorant. I was so ticked that he went outside his zone, I sent off a letter to the editor asking them what about reviewing movies made him a political expert.
They stopped it for a long time, because many readers had the reaction I did (Ebert put comments in some of his columns about why he had done it, and the reaction that came in to the paper), it’s sad that he is getting that platform again.
The hyper-radicalization of the left the last eight years has been damaging on many fronts, but from a sheer pet-peevish standpoint, nothing is worse than the resident film/art/theater/food/music/sports/fingerpainting critic waxing politic with reckless abandon. Everything and everyone is politicized. The daily rag would be much more accessible if they kept all that tripe on the Opinion page.
And said critics often shoe horn political swipes in where they don’t belong …. instantly taking you out of the mood of a piece.
Case in point. This is a snippet that I found on Rotten Tomatoes from J. Hoberman of the Village Voice from his review of ‘Observe and Report.’
“Ronnie the Mall Cop is as an iconic expression of irate proletarian populism and brainless role-playing as Joe the Plumber or Rush the Limbaugh — identify or ignore at your peril.”
This kind of thing is not breaking news. I’m just soooooooo tired of it.
Wow. Great way to illustrate the point, Grofe. Man, that’s just sloppy and alienating to write like that.
That approach could work on a blog … where personality and ideology are more acceptable … and expected.
And Rush Limbaugh is brainless? Dude, the guy is at the top of his field for 20 years, and midway through he lost his hearing and still remains on the king of rightwing radio!! Get some perspective, buddy.
I don’t really care for O’Reilly–he seems less of a true conservative and more of a social-climbing populist–but I don’t think I’ve ever met a “liberal” who had any right to feel superior to him. And when “liberals” I’ve encountered bad-mouth O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Lmbaugh, if you ask them, “Oh, do you listen to their shows [or read their columns]?” the answer is invariably, “Well, no, but . . . .”
Not that it would matter if they did. When you’re a member of the Cult of the State, O’Reilly could be Voltaire and his arguments wouldn’t penetrate.
As Voltaire said, “You can’t reason someone out of what they haven’t been reasoned into.”
I’ve never understood Roger Ebert’s status as a critic of film, much less of anything else. This isn’t about disagreeing with his opinions–though I often do. He doesn’t even get plot synopses or the examples he chooses in his reviews correct. My favorite Ebert dismissal is from Richard Corliss, who complained that “Sneak Previews” wasn’t film criticism, it was a sitcom about two guys who lived in a theater and argued all the time.
Ebert can’t be all bad. He gave “Brothers at War” a good review.
I just have to assume that Roger desperately, desperately wants to be Frank Rich. It’s just not enough for him to only write about movies. Unfortunately, his political commentary makes Frank Rich seem nuanced and eloquent. Imagine that.
I like Roger Ebert as a film critic, even though he gave glowing reviews to pieces of trash such as “W” or “Fahrenheit 9/11.” It became obvious to me that he was more than a little left of center, politically, but for someone from Chicago that isn’t hard to believe.
What Ebert’s problem is, in my opinion, is that he cannot separate his political beliefs from his job as a film critic and give an objective review. He wants anti-conservative films to be much better than they are and the truth is that most of those films are just rambling “we hate the right-wing” sermons that preach to the choir, yet get national coverage from Hollywood leftists and the fawnng liberal media.
Roger Ebert is a soft, overly protected lefty, a sad product of the cushy lifestyle America provides for those who don’t need – or want – to grow up. He supports the stupidity of the left-wing ideology because he’s never been exposed to real trouble along lines that threaten his freedom. He’s never had to think things through.
And you know he’s never properly tracked Bill O’Reilly’s TV show or newspaper columns. He simply repeats what others in his hermetically sealed echo chamber have said.
I’ve always liked Ebert as a film critic. One thing I like is that sometimes “gets” movies that I liked that other critics don’t “get” (like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST or THE ALAMO [2004 version]). He should stick to his specialty, or if not, at least emerge from the Pauline Kael Cocoon and actually read some pro-freedom literature.
Siskel and Ebert on PBS. Those were the good ol’ days.
Come on, people. O’Reilly brings abuse like this on himself. Ebert’s take down of O’Reilly is making the email rounds and amusing many a liberal.
Squeaky the Mouse!
O’Reilly is a big guy, Abe, and he can take it. But let’s critique one another in a professional, rational manner. I don’t think Ebert’s column rises to that level.
That said, I think Ebert’s current health problems are tragic and I’m saddened that he appears to have lost the use of his voice … possible permanently.
It’s great he has such a “vocal” platform via his reviews. I just found his latest column wanting … to say the least.
Ebert LOVED Redacted which even most lefties disliked. Cancelled my subscription when Ebert wrote his hitpiece on Bush in 2008. To call him a partisan hack is an insult to partisan hacks nationwide. You hate conservatives. How “progressive” the Obama-Times is!
Nothing to add, here.
~ Dagnabbitt
Ebert has established himself as the doyenne of american film critics…period. I applaud his columns decrying the empty headed, thuggish behavior of ‘Billo The Clown’, a man who lost a 10 million dollar sexual harassment suit, and the lying, traitorous drug addict Limbaugh. Bravo!
I completely disagree with you. In toto. The blog on O’Reilly was spot on. O’Reilly is a hack and a bully. Besides that point Ebert was only using O’Reilly as an example of a broader pundit run world of supposed “journalism.” Ebert correctly pointed out that Glenn Beck is the worst offender currently raving over our air waves. Ebert also made very prescient comparisons to the right wing radio personalities from the 30’s. You may believe yourself to be a level headed moderate, but if you believe that O’Reilly “engages in sharp debates” 90 percent of the time, then you are not a conservative, you are a right wing nut job. And by the way, Ebert calls out Ollberman for his lack of journalistic integrity. On a related note, all of the people getting up in arms because Ebert is open and honest about his political opinions are ridiculous. Political beliefs are merely a part of everyone’s analytical assessment of the world around them. This includes movies. Though notice that Ebert includes Leni Reifensthal’s nazi propaganda film on his great movies list. Though in his review of the film, he also notes his repulsion to the fascist political content of the film. I’m sorry he happens to be a bit to the “left” of Hitler in the political realm. Should he refrain from bringing politics up when veiwing Nazi propaganda. No, I’m not saying that O’Reilly is like a Nazi, though his right wing propaganda is dangerous and in “toto” wrong. I’ll leave the Nazi name calling to the tea-baggers, whom I’m sure are big fans of Bill O’Reilly.
Where to begin, Devin …
* O’Reilly is a hack and a bully. Bravo for not playing the race card …
* Glenn Beck helped break several stories over the last two weeks that the mainstream press avoided like the plague. He’s not perfect, far from it, but bravo for doing the work the press should be doing.
* O’Reilly’s propaganda is dangerous? As ideologues go, O’Reilly is far less extreme than Rush, Hannity, etc. So I guess you’re saying they’re dangerous, too. Man, it’s almost like anyone who disagrees with your world view is dangerous. Must be nice to have such moral superiority.
* Ebert has become a hack when it comes to films with any sort of ideological bent. His review of “The Day the Earth Stood Still” is particularly embarrassing. He once was great … and he elevated the status of movie critics everywhere, but now he’s simply tired.