The Results are In: The Stewart and O’Reilly Debate: A Blatant Money Grab or Genuine Charity?

The recently proposed “debate” between John Stewart and Bill O’Reilly wouldn’t normally make for a big analysis of the actual show or its contents.

What with one right wing conservative talk show host “debating” a slightly to the left moderate talk show host on national TV might seem like a good show. Funny, irreverent, a couple of good one liners, the perfect combination for viewers and programmers alike

The title of the proposed “debate” even has an air of jocularity to it, the title being “Rumble In The Air Conditioned Auditorium.” Might even make for an hour of fun and laughter, something very much needed, what with everybody being so serious about the upcoming election and all.

Now John Stewart and Bill O’Reilly have quite a history with one and other, trading jabs and insults almost nightly on their respective talk shows. This isn’t the first time they have sparred verbally, and this meeting, and subsequent illustration of rude and sometimes over the top comments won’t be the last, I’m sure.

This might just be the ticket if it weren’t for one thing.

You actually need tickets to see the event

The “debate’ is not on National TV, probably because they couldn’t agree on whose show it would be presented on. The event was held in Washington D.C. at George Washington University.

The event was not free to the public, it was $4.95 to be live streamed to your computer, with 50% percent of the proceeds being donated to charity.

However, this has raised many eyebrows from New York to Hollywood and back again.

Now these two gentlemen probably have plenty of money on hand, what with being celebrities in their own right, and for many a year. And I’m sure they get paid quite nicely for their views, and both men are quite popular.

So that begs the question. Why only 50% going to charity and not 100% or even 199% of “net” proceeds going to charity?

I mean, it is blatantly obvious that neither of these guys needs more money, unless it was an event solely for profit, no charity involved.

But the addition of a charitable donation, and only 50%, makes it smack of a for profit, fund raiser, the kind where the non-profit gets the short end of the stick, and the “Big Name” celebrities make the real money.

Mitt Romney’s comment about cutting funding for PBS has brought attention to the plight of all charities in recent days, so much so that it has given me an idea.

Ok, John and Bill, how about being good sports and modifying your original agreement and give away all the money. That’s right one hundred percent.

A good idea would be to give half to PBS and give the other half to the Food Bank Three Square. That way the general public wouldn’t feel like they were being taken advantage of, two very fine organizations would receive some much needed funding, and you guys would look great!

A couple of regular Joe’s that got a leg up in the world, and decided to pay it forward for a change.

Who knows, you might even be able to take it off your taxes.

It could happen.

Stay tuned.

Article by Jim Donahue

6 Responses to "The Results are In: The Stewart and O’Reilly Debate: A Blatant Money Grab or Genuine Charity?"

  1. GM   October 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Hence the term “net” proceeds Chris!

    Reply
  2. laura little   October 7, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Why is this title misleading? There are no results here as to who won or lost? is this really an informative story or just riding on the coattails of this debate for an audience?

    Reply
    • GM   October 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      Sorry Laura, the results are in, and it would appear that John and Bill are unscrupulous hacks, borrowing the word “charity” to fund their operation. This is an unpopular and unattractive feature for Hollywood types, and generally against the rules. The only people who raise revenue by doing it for “charity” are generally considered scum of the earth, so yes, the results are in. John Stewart and Bill O’Reilly have lowered themselves to that level. Do you get it now. A play on words.

      Reply
  3. laura little   October 7, 2012 at 10:48 am

    Why does the writer care? They are entitled to make money on their off time, just like anyone else.

    Reply
    • GM   October 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      The writer cares, Laura, because of the use of the phrase “50% of the money going to CHARITY.” Using the word “charity” is a no no unless you give the “net” proceeds to charity, not “50%”. As I said in the article, these guys have plenty of money, and using the word “charity” is an attempt to gain advantage by looking like some great humanitarian. Not playing fair.

      Reply
  4. Chris   October 7, 2012 at 6:20 am

    They have to pay all the workers like cameramen, broadcasters on internet , equipment and it is a non sponsored even So no other source of money for paying event .

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.