Bill O'Reilly

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is why I have pomy on ignore. What is the point of a discussion with someone who just denies any and all evidence in front of him and brushes off facts, not by checking the fact, but by 'ad homing' the messenger?

 

[JoeEllison]

For instance, how many posts do you see here and elsewhere that basically say - 'I disagree with the guy's opinion, therefore he is a stupid lier.'

Not many... although I see many people misrepresenting reality by making that claim.

Bill O'Reilly, for instance, is a liar because he tells lies. It isn't about a difference of opinion, it is about the fact that he makes things up out of thin air, and it is a documented fact that he does. People have posted tons of links. Go check them out, especially the ones from Media Matters, since they post video so that you can hear what he says for yourself.

 

[pomeroo]

So you claim. Can you back that up?

Yes. I refer you to your posts.

...and no context. Do you not understand how a lack of context can change the meaning of a quote?

Nonsense. I have subscribed to Notable Quotables for years. There is a reason why no lefty ever disputes the material that is printed. There is no attempt to mislead.

 

[pomeroo]

Why not?

Did John Ellis, a Bush family friend, hold a position of authority in the Fox election coverage team?

So what? You have no point. The revolving door between the mainstream media and the Democratic Party spins very fast. Ellis was crunching numbers, not affecting votes. But, you already know that.

I've read the book.

Please don't tell me you think the major media were behind Gore? Please don't.

Okay, I won't. Members of the mainstream media voted for him overwhelmingly and pulled some amazing tricks on Election night to help him win, but they weren't actually behind him. Notice that you have absolutely nothing to say about this astonishing performance by the major networks.

No. The biggest story of Election 2000 is what the biggest story is: one of the most shameful and anti-American episodes in the nation's history.

The election results, again, at the time, were too close to call. Too close to call. Would you like me to repeat that? Too close to call. It does not matter what the results were eventually, though that question is not as simple as you make it out to be.

When a state is too close to call, networks tend not to call it. If Ellis made a premature call AFTER all polls had closed, the network suffers, not the candidate.

I don't know to what you refer.

I'm referring, obviously, to the frustration felt by Democratic fraudsters who couldn't create enough Gore votes to put him ahead. If they had, the counting would have stopped.

And the Bush operation was a team of angels in whose mouths butter was safe from melting.

The Dems cheated Bush out of thousands of votes in Palm Beach County. The Republicans did nothing comparable.

No. To review, the state was too close to call.

And who said other networks relied on Ellis?

But, it wasn't too close to call according to Ellis. If he had been wrong, he would have been the one responsible. His call did not help Bush or hurt Gore. That is the myth peddled by the Democrats. If Gore had suceeded in winning a recount, would anyone remember Ellis's decision?

 

[pomeroo]

Looking for false information spouted on Faux Noise (like that addition ) on Google, one is overwhelmed with example after specific example.

Hannity and FOX News Keep Those Supreme Court Lies Coming
Fox News' Live Desk cluttered with falsehoods on Clinton, Bush terrorism records
Below are excerpts from Ailes' Q&A interview followed by evidence Media Matters has documented that refutes his claims:
Top five Gitmo falsehoods (from Media Matters)

You can find similar notes looking on Google for CNN falsehoods. The CNN falsehoods (on brief review) seem to center around interviews allowing people in government positions to state unchallenged falsehoods. And of course there are the poorly rebutted Larry King interviews with people like Sylvia Brown and James Van Praagh.

The quality of the falsehoods are considerably different. To overgeneralize, CNN is a government mouthpiece, Fox News is Murdoch's.

The fact we get such distorted news overall is truly problematic. Personally, I see it as a threat to true democracy. Some people think I overstate the threat.

Media Matters is a far-left outfit, not an objective watchdog group.

 

[articulett]

Media Matters is a far-left outfit, not an objective watchdog group.

said the guy who just said: "There is no evidence that Fox slants its news coverage."

Does anyone serious take you seriously?

 

[m_huber]

Alternately, if you think O'Reilly is a really great guy, I would be interested to see how he has done something positive for, well, anybody (besides himself and his agenda).

I I think someone else asked this question too.

• He lit a fire under the American Red Cross to see that funds donated to relatives of 9/11 victims got to them in a timely fashion.
• He lit another fire under the USO to urge them to get more celebrities for shows in Iran for our troops.
• All the proceeds from the stuff he sells on the web go to charity
• He personally funds 100% an orphanage in Central America
• He is a major donor to two other such orphanages
• He has brought the light of day to a number of incompetent judges who let serious criminals out on the street way too soon with ridiculously light sentences
• He is a major champion for the passage of Megan's law in all states to provide mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters and especially repeat offenders

I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them right now. Of course none of this makes the guy right about anything he says anyway, but it does prove he has a few good qualities.

BTW, I do find it weird to be discussing this on JREF, but as long as we are --

I find the techniques of the extreme fringe loonies at both ends of the spectrum rather tiresome. For instance, how many posts do you see here and elsewhere that basically say - 'I disagree with the guy's opinion, therefore he is a stupid lier.' The other technique is to closely follow what someone (like O'Reilly) says for a relatively long time, and wait for him to say something dumb or incorrect or that can be taken out of context to make him look bad in some way. Nobody can withstand that kind of scrutiny!

And someone here posted an anti-O'Reilly message that said he was full of crap. It also claimed that he advocated a boycott of Canada. Now I watch pretty frequently. and I recall no such boycott. So I would maintain that the poster is the one full of crap, unless he can document such a boycott

Ah, the other side comes out. I would like to see some references to these good deeds, beyond just your memory. Sorry to doubt you, but we are a bunch of skeptics, right? I know you can't post links yet, but if you separate the . for (dot), I can figure it out. (or someone else could post links).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006
For info about the Canada boycott (not much to it, someone else might have something better).

As far as scrutiny, I would beg to differ. It is true that anyone can and will make an error, but what matters is what happens after the error is made. Does a person apologize, or do they ignore the error, or do they defend the error? In O'Reilly's case, he chooses to either ignore or defend his errors. We live in a world now where a person can make a terrible error, be criticized for it, then hold a press conference the next day to apologize, and everyone loves him more for it. Look at the bonus votes Huckabee got with the Romney ad last week.
You would also expect that he would learn from his mistakes. If he makes a factual error once, he shouldn't make the same one again. But he does, over and over. Bill Clinton didn't know how to salute the first time; after that, he gave the best salute you ever saw.

 

[SezMe]

The Dems cheated Bush out of thousands of votes in Palm Beach County. The Republicans did nothing comparable.

Look, I know we're only three days into 2008 but can I nominate this post as the most stupid of the year?

 

[Lurker]

Yeah, you'd do real well in a debate with Bernie Goldberg on that insane topic. I wonder why Evan Thomas disagrees so completely with your nonsensical opinion.

Isn't Bernie Goldberg's book Bias essentially soley anecdotal evidence for liberal media? I mean, he does absolutley no studies. He does no comparison to other networks. He clearly has no idea how to do actual research.

 

[Lurker]

This would of course necessitate that you actually watch "The Factor" and not just C&P your O'Reilly info from smirkingchimp, media matters, moveon.org, etc.


But please present your method of measurement.

No problem. I suggest we go to the FoxNews website where they post transcripts of portions of O'Reilly's shows. Over the course of a week we can examine each issue he addresses and between the two of us, tally whether he takes the conservative position or the liberal position. Some issues will be neither conservative or liberal. I assume you and I would agree on how to score each issue but if we don't, it would be skipped. We can start on Monday. At the end of the week, we see how many conservative vs liberal positions he supports.

Sound fair?

 

[JoeEllison]

Isn't Bernie Goldberg's book Bias essentially soley anecdotal evidence for liberal media? I mean, he does absolutley no studies. He does no comparison to other networks. He clearly has no idea how to do actual research.

He's kind of a joke, hopping on the idiotic lie that the media has a "liberal bias" for cash and fame. Only stupid people believe that stuff.

 

[JoeEllison]

Look, I know we're only three days into 2008 but can I nominate this post as the most stupid of the year?

Don't worry, he'll say something more stupid by the end of the weekend.

 

[pomeroo]

Look, I know we're only three days into 2008 but can I nominate this post as the most stupid of the year?

No, you can't because you're an ignoramus. Your arrogant disregard for facts stamps you as typical leftwing zealot. The Democratic vote fraud is covered extensively in John Fund's Stealing Elections.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. I refer you to your posts.

Okay, what about my posts?

Do you not understand how a lack of context can change the meaning of a quote?

Nonsense. I have subscribed to Notable Quotables for years.

That's lovely, but it in no way answers my question.

There is a reason why no lefty ever disputes the material that is printed. There is no attempt to mislead.

Or nobody actually reads the stupid thing.

Media Matters is a far-left outfit, not an objective watchdog group.

Says the man that keeps pointing to a far-right outfit as an objective watchdog group.


I just had Lasik a few weeks ago. I'm not sure all this eye rolling is healthy for me.

 

[pomeroo]

said the guy who just said: "There is no evidence that Fox slants its news coverage."

Does anyone serious take you seriously?

Yes. But people who know very little tend to doubt me.

 

[pomeroo]

Okay, what about my posts?


That's lovely, but it in no way answers my question.

It does answer your question, which, incidentally, is a disingenuous one. Notable Quotables provides the quote and the venue. No attempt is made to distort or mislead.

Or nobody actually reads the stupid thing.


Says the man that keeps pointing to a far-right outfit as an objective watchdog group.


I just had Lasik a few weeks ago. I'm not sure all this eye rolling is healthy for me.

The Media Research Center bills itself as a conservative group. Media Matters dishonestly bills itself as a neutral watchdog group.

You know, I forced myself to watch over three hours of Fox News coverage of the Iowa caucuses. It is inconceivable that anyone watching would have detected a conservative or Republican bias. Susan Estrich was one of the analysts, as was Mary Anne Marsh. People who talk about Fox's slanted news coverage simply don't watch the network.


I hope your eyes are better. I just returned from the ophthamologist--I have viral conjunctivitis and a floater in my right eye. Some fun!

 

[Upchurch]

It does answer your question...

So, I guess you are saying that you don't understand how the lack of context can change the meaning of a quote?

For example, John McCain said, "bomb Iran!" That, by itself, sounds like McCain was calling for an immediate attack on Iran.

If, on the other hand, you could actually hear McCain singing, "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!" to the Beach Boys' tune "Barbaraanne", you might realize that he was telling a joke.

Context is critical to proper understanding. The English language is too complex to simply trust sound bytes with no context.

The Media Research Center bills itself as a conservative group. Media Matters dishonestly bills itself as a neutral watchdog group.

Y'know. The really ironic thing is that you just chided others for not knowing very much. You probably don't know as much information as you assume information. But after all, that is what skepticism is all about, correcting assumptions and misconceptions with evidence.

From Media Matters website (my emphasis):

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

They do not bill themselves as a neutral watchdog group. (If you think otherwise, I challenge you to back your claim.) They bill themselves as "a progressive research and informaiton center". Yes, they have a liberal view of news, but they provide you with the primary source information with extra information before and after the particular quote to provide context. You can view the clip, article, or sound clip for yourself and make your own call.

I just returned from the ophthamologist--I have viral conjunctivitis and a floater in my right eye. Some fun!

I have no idea what that is, but it doesn't sound pleasant. Feel better.

 

[pgwenthold]

The Media Research Center bills itself as a conservative group. Media Matters dishonestly bills itself as a neutral watchdog group.

:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

I think the word you are looking for is "pwned"

I never realized pomoroo was such a whack-job. It almost makes me want to reconsider my position on 9/11.

 

[Lurker]

I am interested to hear why Pomeroo thought MediaMatters was billing itself as neutral. I have never heard that. Perhaps he can show his source. Surely he would not just make something like that up, would he?

 

[Skepticybe]

Arguing with a liberal about whether there is a liberal bias in mainstream news reporting is like to trying to convince a creationist that virtually everything in the world around us demonstrates an old earth formed through natural processes. Creationists are so blinded by their dogma that they even perceive evidence such as rock layers, fossils, and fuel deposits as supporting their position.

It has been my experience that when emotion enters the mind, logic exits. So it should come as no surprise that fervent liberals would be unable to see a liberal bias in the media, no matter how blatant. But it is there nonetheless. I'm not talking about nit-picking mistakes, I'm talking about crafting the reporting and stories to lead the viewer to a desired conclusion, even if the crafting is merely the result of unprofessionalism or sloppiness. But someone who doesn't want to see it never will, no matter how many references anybody cites.

The fact is Faux News is not objective. If you can't see that you are living in an alternative reality.

I would never expect someone who would actually post this to be capable of discerning a liberal bias.

I'll admit that it's entirely possible that Fox News has a conservative bias that I've been blind to. In fact, that's why I posted in this thread. But whether there's a conservative bias at Fox News is irrelevant to whether there is a liberal bias in other mainstream media news reporting, except that a great deal of Fox's success can be attributed to the widespread perception that the other networks do carry a liberal bias.

I don't defend Fox News. Fire away, I don't care, except that if there is a legitimate bias in the news reporting on Fox News, I would want to be aware of it.