I, too, watched that interview, and I thought O'Reilly was downright rude! I counted up to 20+ interruptions and then I quit counting. President Obama showed class in his self-control; O'Reilly revealed his lack of upbringing. At first, I did not want the President to even give an interview to O'Reilly, but after watching it, I think maybe he was right. Viewers could very clearly see the difference in intelligence and behavior. It was a stark contrast in civility and lack-of.

When interviewers ask questions and then interrupt before the other person can finish his/her answer, the interview accomplishes nothing. It becomes obvious that the interviewer wants only what he/she wants to hear, not to get real in-depth answers.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-09/glenn-beck-sean-hannity-ratings-drop-right-wing-talk-is-dying/

Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are losing fans in a key market. John Avlon on why listeners and station managers are sick of anti-Obama tirades—and who bucks the trend.

Here’s another sign that the tide might be turning against the Wingnuts—Glenn Beck’s TV ratings are down 50 percent and major market radio stations are dropping him.

That’s not all—a look at radio ratings shows that hyper-partisan talk has been declining or flat-lining between ‘09 and ‘10, despite the intensity of the election year. There’s a demand for something different—smart, un-predictable, non-partisan news is gaining market share because it stands out from the pack. And leading industry analysts say there is a market for more independent voices.

I would be in trouble if for some unknown out of the question reason I was ever considered important enough to be interviewed by O'Reilly. About the second time he interrupted me I would have to tell him to shut up and let me finish with what I was saying. O'Reilly is a very rude and arrogant person that I cannot stand.

I consider myself a conservative independent, but I do not listen to Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh. I am sick of both sides carrying on the way they do. The left is as bad as the right with their political rhetoric.

in my opinion, is Chris Matthews.

You're spot-on about Limbaugh, Beck, and OReilly. I'm way to the Right of almost everyone here ---it would be useless to deny it!--- but those three are over the top and hurting our common cause.

Beck sees himself as some sort of "prophet of doom crying in the wilderness", Limbaugh is just in love with his own fame, $30 cigars and custom made silk suits, and as you said above, OReilly is rude. He doesn't do interviews at all anymore ---just lynchings.

That kind of behavior ---any of the three--- definitely does not represent me as a Conservative, and is counter-productive.

I didn’t like Walter Cronkite all that much, especially when it was made known he almost single-handedly made things go bad for our troops in Viet Nam by calling into question the actions of our troops. I know, I know, there WERE some questionable things but I don’t think it was his place to do so. He wielded much influence in his position.

Be that as it may, one of the best conservative debaters I miss is William Buckley. He could argue a line of reasoning without the need for interrupting or attacking an individual. He was a real class act, IMO.

Locally, I occasionally, (very occasionally) listen to Robert Pratt. I do agree with him on several points but get pretty irritated when he interrupts his guests. I think he loves the sound of his own voice.

Explain yourself! Yer tongue's flappin' but no noise is comin' outa yer big mouth! - Foghorn Leghorn

I stopped watching Chris Mathews because of the interruptions. I've tried to make allowances for "talking over" another person because using satellite Skype with friends and relatives, I can understand the latency issue -- signal must have time to go to the satellite and come back down, but professionals should know how to allow for that.

I totally agree with you both about Limbaugh, Beck, and OReilly..... they are hurting the common cause. Makes you wonder why so much people continue to listen to their nonsense. tspears, I will agree with you up to a certain point. The difference between...... OReilly is plain rude if you don't agree with his point of view, Matthew terruptions come because he can't wait to get in his next thought. But you are correct it does get a bit distracting at times. My personal opinion, of all the pundits shows....Rachael Maddow...a Harvard grad....think what you will about her....but more than anyone.... she will give you the facts on any object she is covering that night and has the proper documentation for support ....and will correct herself the next night if she was wrong.

I, too, like Rachel Maddow's reporting. I like that she allows her guests to respond and she tries to get people on her show who disagree with her -- then she lets them respond in full. AND she is INTELLIGENT!

Truthdetector, I disagree that Mr. Cronkite "made things go bad for our troops in Viet Nam." He was making an honest statement. You need to see the documentary (notice that I said documentary), Sir! No, Sir!. If your local library does not have a copy, the Vietnam Archives at Texas Tech does. That documentary shows real pictures, not photoshopped. The voices are real veterans who lived through the experience. I think you will be surprised.