Michael,

This has been a great thread. With all of us being professional wordsmiths here, I think I detect an area where you let your own bias slip through, maybe unintentionally, but showing nonetheless. You called Bill O'Reilly a "conservative blowhard." I wholeheartedly concur that he is a conservative and that he is a blowhard. By putting the two words together in such a way, one might infer that you think all conservatives are blowhards.

But wait -- there's more. In your attempt at fairness you also called Keith Olbermann a blowhard. I concur with that also. But you didn't combine the blowhard word with "liberal." As unconscious as this difference may have been on your part, it is clear to many that in your view it's OK to use the term "conservative blowhard" but not "liberal blowhard."

OK, perhaps I'm wasting everybody's time because your political leaning is obvious from your post. But your choice of words should be a good lesson to professional communicators.

Will

Man, I've lost track. The other day there were flaming comments on Ragan.com declaring that Ragan is right wing for posting Michael Long's critique of Obama's speech. But now I discover that you're lefties for daring to say Bill O'Reilly is a blow hard. Please make up your minds.

Jon. Thank you for clarifying.

You should take a look at some of the comments to the story I wrote about Sarah Palin's speech. My favorite is, "Is Michael Sebastian running for McCain/Palin speechwriter?"

I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for the dialogue.

"The show is really one giant circus of idiocy brought to you by the good people at FOX."

"the network’s unbalanced coverage of the candidate."

Right. Sorry Michael. There's no agenda.

You are right about one thing - This might have been the first time YOU attacked Bill O'Reilly. But Ragan.com might as well be BillOReillySucks.com for all the obsessive spewing about him I've seen on this blog.

If you want to write about Obama's PR strategy by going on Fox, talk about that. But making a remark about a "circus of idiocy" brought to you by "the good people at FOX" makes you sound petty. It's like you needed an outlet to vent about your hatred of Fox and love for Obama and decide to write a BS story about the PR strategy around it to cover it up.

You can have your opinion. That's fine. I don't care who you vote for or what you watch. But the fact that Ragan.com regularly pulls this crap to glorify their left-wing preference and disgusing these posts as PR topics is getting so ridiculous. Be honest. Start a political blog if you want to do this. Stop using a blog that's supposed to educate professional communicators as a way to push your political views.

Me thinks some folks protest too much. Since Bill regularly rants against the left, I think it's safe to assume he considers himself much to the right of those opinions. A rant is a rant, be it left or right--let's be honest with ourselves even if we can't be honest when it comes to others. People who think they can lump "the media" into one camp or the other simply aren't listening, period.

Caleb. Good point.

I found it interesting that the teaser for this post in the Ragan's Daily Headlines email labeled O'Reilly as "an ultra-conservative talk show host". I listen to his radio show everyday and would never consider him ultra-conservative. In fact, his independence and fairness is the reason I listen to his show. He praises and criticizes repubs and dems alike and presents ideas through his viewpoint, not through a political lens like you seem to get from other hosts.

It's interesting how anyone whose views steer even slightly right of traditional big media is labeled an "ultra-conservative".

Sarah Palin's RNC speech made me feel very uncomfortable. Either because of how negative she let the speech writer portray her (c'mon girl, zingers? you're better than that) or how cute she is compared to Cindy McCain. (5 kids? really, WTF?). Either way, I felt a little threatened, and not very impressed.

Bill O'Reilly wants to have Anne Coulter's baby. But by going on FOX, Obama is attempting to do what Palin didn't and McCain probably won't.. appeal to someone outside the base.

Still, from a communications stand point, NO candidate should ever pre-record anything.

Jon, thanks for engaging me. However, every assumption you just made is false.

I challenge you to find the "agenda" on this blog. You might find views or themes emerge since it is a blog, but rest assured there is no agenda.

I'm curious why you think I have a "baffling obsession" with O'Reilly; this is the first time I've ever written about him.

If writing about someone or something means you're obsessed with them, well, then I suppose I'm also obsessed with Maple Leaf Foods, which also ran on today's homepage.

I am definitely not surprised by his popularity--that's for sure; although I do think everyone should share my same opinion.

(That's a joke.)

Again, I'm not saying Obama should never go on O'Reilly or FOX News; I'm talking about the timing. As Carol noted, she thinks it is is perfect timing and a great idea. I think it's too risky, plain and simple.

Michael - The only think I can fault you for is failing to realize that this election cycle is going to be even more of a battle royale than the whole Bush/Gore fiasco.

It makes me laugh that several of the commenters have, at the same time as they chastise you for voicing your "opinion" on this blog (i.e. a public forum for "debate") are behaving in exactly the same manner that Bill O'Reilly frequently does on his show(and yes, I DO watch O'Reilly because you have to know your enemy).

That is to say, he yells over, disrespects, or simply ignores positions or opinions which he disagrees with, rather than actually debating them on merit.

Its very interesting that people are frequently only in favour or "freedom of speech" when your speech agrees with their speech.

Thanks for posting this interesting news item and commentary. It will be a fun thing to watch after the McCain speech.

(Note that I left out the ridiculous dissension presented in the other comments)

Chill out ya'll. It's just a blog post. Don't get pissed because not everyone likes Fox, O'Reilly or McCain.

Is Ragan Communications a communications company or a political think tank? OK, so perhaps this blog is not an offical viewpoint for the whole org., but it is included in the Daily Headlines email etc. The liberal commentary and overtones is getting old; not just from this particular Ragan piece either. "conservative blow hard", "giant circus of idiocy"?
Come on, really! It is pretty obivious what political side of the fence you are on.
Ragan is good at communications, and has a lot of good general info, please stick to that and leave the political commentary to people like Rush Limbaugh, who have that as a stated purpose.

Your outrage (or surprise, I can't tell which) at the idea that Obama should go and discuss his views with someone of a differing opinion is indicative of the agenda I see on this blog on a regular basis.

Your baffling obsession with Bill O'Reilly and amazement at his popularity leads me to believe you don't think 1. anyone should have a political opinion that differs from yours or 2. they should be allowed a media vehicle like televsion to voice it.

And heavens! WHY anyone would voluntarily go on his show and validate his existence...oh! The humanity!

I'm sorry if my comment threw you, but if you insist on forever insulting Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, etc. while practicing selective blindness to the bias of other news outlets then you should be ready for someone to challenge you on it.

I certainly intend to.

The move is actually brilliant on Obama's behalf since it will allow him to get the next word after John McCain and the audience hanging around after the speech. Just for the record, Bill O'Reilly has been fair to Obama throughout the primary. And don't forget - they both went to Harvard - so at least they'll be respectful of each other's views. I have said from the beginning that all candidates should appear on all networks. We all need to see all sides of the issues. Not everyone votes only along party lines.

"I'm angry and I have something important to say and argh argh argh!"

Relax on the comments, O'Reilly drones. And yes, he and Olbermann are equally partisan "windbags." (Although I usually refer to them as a different type of bag that starts with a "d.")

The point of the article is clearly to analyze a risky political move from a PR perspective, nothing more.

It's sad that we're at a point in this country where people can't approach anything with any semblance of objectivity.

I think I've been called a whacko in the past, never a loon however.

Dan, I'm sorry that you were so offended by my critique of the Obama communication team's decision to let the candidate appear on The O'Reilly Factor after McCain's speech.

I didn't realize it was such a hot button topic.

Some of you actually think Obama has a chance against Bill O. I love this stuff.

I didn't subscribe to Ragan products to read more left-wing liberal rants from uninformed whackos. I can get this kind of garbage from MSNBC, CNN, etc., 24/7. Don't bother to cancel my subscription--I already have done so. Color me fed up.

Tim. Ouch. I'll try not to take it personal. Although your comments are quite amusing, because--if you look closely--you are the one who dragged partisanship into this debate.

I'm an equal opportunity offender; I dislike O'Reilly and Olbermann, FOX and MSNBC (right and left) alike. The reason I give O'Reilly credit for being a bigger windbag is due to his longer track record.

And yes, I do semi-regularly watch the cable news programs. I'll admit that attacking FOX and O'Reilly is cliche, just as attacking someone who attacks that pair is cliche.

But that wasn't the intent of the post.

Let me be clear, the timing of his appearance, I think, is the dangerous part, because, as I already noted, it comes at a crucial time. If I were advising Obama I would take the safer route and hold off on the O'Reilly interview until at least 24 hours after McCain gives his speech.

You very clearly disagree. Thanks for taking the high road.

This semi-literate, personal attack on O'Reilly bears all the marks of a far-left loon who doesn't watch Fox News but feels compelled to hate it. Absurd is the idea that it might be a "political blunder" for Obama to appear on the nation's top-rated cable news prorgam. NOT appearing until now is the blunder, "for those not familiar with the show," including you. If RAGAN actually employs or endorses you, its credibility is now zero.

Whoa, Jon, your last paragraph confuses me a bit. Why do you think Ragan.com thinks public debate is not a good thing? I'm very curious.

"(Fox's) unbalanced coverage of the candidate."

Well, I have to think that BO has no problem with the fact that CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, the Chicago times, (and on, and on, and on) have been fawning over him for the past year.

Heaven forbid he go on a program where he'll actually be challenged for the first time. Remember when Charles Gibson disrupted the Obama Love Fest a few months ago by DARING to ask a serious question about his plan to raise the capital gains tax? The media seemed on the verge of hanging a noose on a tree and lynching Gibson the Heretic.

I think it's a fantastic move for Obama. Since his policies, leadership, and experience are beyond question and logically infallible, he should have no problem making Bill O'Reilly look like a fool.

I hope one day the folks at Ragan.com realize that public debate is actually a GOOD thing, that we still have free speech in America, and that institutions and pundits of political bias, be they Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Oberman, Anderson Cooper, or anyone else with an opinion have the right to exist.