A MATHEMATICAL MODEL
OF BILL O'REILLY
The Progressive Review
In the first mathematical analysis of Bill O'Reilly ever done, the Review has incontrovertibly proved what was previously believed only anecdotally: O'Reilly is a bully and a jerk.
The study examined O'Reilly's interview [sic] with Jacob Sullum who has written an important book on drugs, "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use." Using the advanced technology of Microsoft's Word Count, the Review determined that Sullum only got in 35 more words than the interviewer, O'Reilly. O'Reilly got in the longest statements - 89 and 104 words - while Sullum in 35 exchanges only managed to say more than 50 words (a little less than a half minute) on three occasions. In 42.85% of the exchanges Sullum only managed to get in five words or less.
Ironically, the longest statement of the interview - by O'Reilly - began this way:
Up to that point, the interviewee had only managed to get in five more words than the host.
The study also found that while Sullum interrupted O'Reilly seven times, the host interrupted the guest 12 times, providing such useful additions as:
At the end, O'Reilly - as he often does - graciously told Sullum;
In fact, not only did O'Reilly managed to get in four more last thoughts but they added up to 33 more words than Sullum was able to squeeze in.
Covertly applying this research, your editor recently took on O'Reilly and managed to do considerably better. In sum, he managed 104 more words than the interviewer, nearly three times as many as Sullum. Further, editor Sam actually gave two answers of 78 and 84 words. Note that for only one brief instance did O'Reilly outtalk Sam. And while Sullum was restricted to five or less words in 42.85% of his exchanges, Sam was reduced to five or less words in only 31.11% of his replies.