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.

PopShops™ affiliate stores

Related posts:

1. I miss Roger Ebert …
2. Ebert the arrogant
3. Ebert: Four stars for ‘W.’

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly thinks Sean Penn is a terrific actor, and any director who hires him should expect nothing less than a fine performance.

But O’Reilly won’t plunk down his own cash to see it.

The traditional talker cannot stomach Penn’s support for dictators like Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, so he refuses to support Penn’s projects.

Fellow film blogger Patrick Goldstein takes exception to O’Reilly’s stance. You shouldn’t boycott an artist because he/she doesn’t subscribe to your belief system.

Goldstein is right. Frankly, if you’re a conservative and decide to boycott movies starring liberal actors you’d be left to watch films made pre-1975.

But Penn isn’t your average politically active actor. He’s about as far left as anyone can be, and his embrace of radical figures, frankly, should give anyone with a moral compass pause.

But should you boycott his movies? Should WWTW and other movie bloggers?

I won’t for practical reasons. I can’t report on what I don’t see, and Penn remains a key figure in modern Hollywood. But I will post his outrageous comments here when necessary. Readers can then make up their own minds.

Some artists live morally bankrupt lives. How do you defend the actions of Woody Allen regarding the Soon-Yi Previn affair? How ’bout Roman Polanksi’s rape case?

I still watch their work but only because I love film, not due to any solidarity with their actions.

But if your average media consumer decides Penn’s positions are too radical, then I can’t chide them for refusing to pay for his movies.

(Photo: Actor Sean Penn’s politics impact how Fox News host Bill O’Reilly views his film career)

PopShops™ affiliate stores

Related posts:

1. Sean Penn’s ‘humanity’ cheered
2. No honor for Penn?
3. Statham transports audiences, again