Bill O'Reilly

[MilwaukeeMike]

What a baited question to get people yelling at each other... especially on this forum... Lets not beat around the "bush," JREF slants to the left.... I got another question... What does everyone think of ol' Bushy?

 

[Stankeye]

This thread is still going? Paris.... Business...... Review....... nuff said

As I've been reading this thread for a few days now and I have read the Mediamatters article about Bill claiming losses by the boycott of French goods, I have a few questions about how this amounts to lying as the article really didn't do a very good follow up.

I can see that they quoted Bill from his show and that you can see the actual footage of the exchange but their research into it amounted to them looking on the internet for any information about a "Paris Business Review" and not finding anything.

Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." A Google.com search revealed no mentions of "Paris Business Review

They did some other searches as well but found nothing. I am confused as to how this amounts to lying other than they couldn't find anything therefore he made it up.

Did they do any follow up with O'Reilly or any other people about this?

If they did, did O'Reilly deny or confirm it?

On the surface it looks like he made it up, but the evidence is pretty flimsy to tout this as "THE" example of his lying ways, without some sort of follow up.

I hope I didn't miss any more information about this in the pages that this thread has become, but from that article alone I would be like "meh" about the claim of lying, and would find a better example.

 

[Upchurch]

I can see that they quoted Bill from his show and that you can see the actual footage of the exchange but their research into it amounted to them looking on the internet for any information about a "Paris Business Review" and not finding anything.

They did some other searches as well but found nothing. I am confused as to how this amounts to lying other than they couldn't find anything therefore he made it up.

How do you prove that something doesn't exist? I suppose, like Invisible Pink Unicorn, it could always be just out of sight.

If it is a media source and there are absolutely no references about it anywhere, that's a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist.

On the surface it looks like he made it up, but the evidence is pretty flimsy to tout this as "THE" example of his lying ways, without some sort of follow up.

It's coming up on four years and still no one has found the Paris Business Review (other than a few joke websites that sprung up after O'Reilly made it up) and your arguing that there still might be one?

I hope I didn't miss any more information about this in the pages that this thread has become, but from that article alone I would be like "meh" about the claim of lying, and would find a better example.

The man fabricated evidence on the spot to support his false claim that the boycott he called for cost the French economy billions of dollars. What would you consider a better case of him lying? Baghdad Bob level lying? He isn't far off.

 

[Cicero]

How do you prove that something doesn't exist? I suppose, like Invisible Pink Unicorn, it could always be just out of sight.

If it is a media source and there are absolutely no references about it anywhere, that's a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist.


It's coming up on four years and still no one has found the Paris Business Review (other than a few joke websites that sprung up after O'Reilly made it up) and your arguing that there still might be one?


The man fabricated evidence on the spot to support his false claim that the boycott he called for cost the French economy billions of dollars. What would you consider a better case of him lying? Baghdad Bob level lying? He isn't far off.

I guess the French didn't hold it against us since U.S. fan Sarkozy triumphed over socialist Segolene Royal. Do you think Bill engineered this as well?

 

[Upchurch]

I guess the French didn't hold it against us since U.S. fan Sarkozy triumphed over socialist Segolene Royal. Do you think Bill engineered this as well?

I don't think O'Reilly could engineer a paper airplane, but he'll still swear up and down that he matters.

 

[Cicero]

I don't think O'Reilly could engineer a paper airplane, but he'll still swear up and down that he matters.

Just because he is the highest paid on air personality on FOX NEWS he shouldn't think he has any influence on public policy. I wonder if Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Anderson Cooper realize this as well? Walter Cronkite figured he could influence the Vietnam War.

 

[Upchurch]

Just because he is the highest paid on air personality on FOX NEWS he shouldn't think he has any influence on public policy.

No, but he certainly has an effect on public perception, and a negative one at that. That is a responsibility he should take more seriously.

 

[articulett]

What a baited question to get people yelling at each other... especially on this forum... Lets not beat around the "bush," JREF slants to the left.... I got another question... What does everyone think of ol' Bushy?

Actually JREF skews smart and away from woo...

The far right contains much dumb and much woo... hence there will be few in that category on the JREF forum (except for known trolls.)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How do you prove that something doesn't exist? I suppose, like Invisible Pink Unicorn, it could always be just out of sight.

If it is a media source and there are absolutely no references about it anywhere, that's a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist.


It's coming up on four years and still no one has found the Paris Business Review (other than a few joke websites that sprung up after O'Reilly made it up) and your arguing that there still might be one?


The man fabricated evidence on the spot to support his false claim that the boycott he called for cost the French economy billions of dollars. What would you consider a better case of him lying? Baghdad Bob level lying? He isn't far off.

I guess the French didn't hold it against us since U.S. fan Sarkozy triumphed over socialist Segolene Royal. Do you think Bill engineered this as well?

No only are you the master of the straw man, you wield a mighty non sequitor too.

What does this have to do with the fact that the Paris Business Review exists on in Oh Really's mind?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

California, while not the largest in area, is the largest in population. Since land mass does not vote for a governor, the size of the state's population is much more relevant to Arnold's political achievement....

Largest : Biggest in size, IE square miles
Most populous : Largest population

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... especially on this forum... Lets not beat around the "bush," JREF slants to the left.... ..

You sure could have fooled me. If the forum is so clearly leaning to one political side then why are my views attacked so often?

I think if you did a survey, you'd find about the same mix of political views as anywhere with maybe (and I am not sure) an effect of having more atheists. The number of Libertarians probably (again, I'm speculating) makes the effect of more atheists among JREF members a wash.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I've been reading this thread for a few days now and I have read the Mediamatters article about Bill claiming losses by the boycott of French goods, I have a few questions about how this amounts to lying as the article really didn't do a very good follow up.

I can see that they quoted Bill from his show and that you can see the actual footage of the exchange but their research into it amounted to them looking on the internet for any information about a "Paris Business Review" and not finding anything.

They did some other searches as well but found nothing. I am confused as to how this amounts to lying other than they couldn't find anything therefore he made it up.

Did they do any follow up with O'Reilly or any other people about this?

If they did, did O'Reilly deny or confirm it?

On the surface it looks like he made it up, but the evidence is pretty flimsy to tout this as "THE" example of his lying ways, without some sort of follow up.

I hope I didn't miss any more information about this in the pages that this thread has become, but from that article alone I would be like "meh" about the claim of lying, and would find a better example.

No wonder so many people believe BillO. This thread is chock full of very specific LIES BillO has stated on the record clearly refuted by multiple corroborating sources. How many specific lies refuted by multiple corroborating sources do you need?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually JREF skews smart and away from woo...

The far right contains much dumb and much woo... hence there will be few in that category on the JREF forum (except for known trolls.)

Yes, but face it, arti, the far left has plenty of its own woo. The two extremes just have different woo, but it's still woo just the same.

To overgeneralize for the sake of the discussion:

Far left: anti-government anti-establishment conspiracies and frauds. I doubt many Republicans are among the 911 truthers, for example.

Far right: The Discovery Institute and all the ID, anti-evolution nutters, for example.

 

[Snide]

No only are you the master of the straw man, you wield a mighty non sequitor too.

What does this have to do with the fact that the Paris Business Review exists on in Oh Really's mind?

No Kidding.

Careful, or Cicero may suggest that you learn some new "French" phrases...

(See previoius banter between Cicero and me)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No Kidding.

Careful, or Cicero may suggest that you learn some new "French" phrases...

(See previoius banter between Cicero and me)

Noticed that, also noticed his predictable straw man/non sequitor response to by A and B conversation above.

Let's try another version of it and see if we can predict his reply:

A: President Bush took us to war in Iraq with a faulty war plan.
B: Why do you hate America?
A: I don't, I love America, but the war plan was faulty.
B: So you want the terrorists to win?
A: Obviously not, I'm merely wondering why it took 4 years for the Surge to be implimented?
B: Did you know B. Hussein Obama is a Muslim?

 

[Stankeye]

How do you prove that something doesn't exist? I suppose, like Invisible Pink Unicorn, it could always be just out of sight.

If it is a media source and there are absolutely no references about it anywhere, that's a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist.


It's coming up on four years and still no one has found the Paris Business Review (other than a few joke websites that sprung up after O'Reilly made it up) and your arguing that there still might be one?

Wow I argued that there still might be one? Really? I thought I was being very neutral about the whole thing, but apparently there is only two positions to take. I quoted the Media Matters article saying they did a search on the Internets, and mentioned that they needed to have more follow up in that article before on the face it that was proof. In looking further on other sites the PBR is made up and Bill has tried to back away. I apologize if I questioned the Media Matters article as it stood, as apparently that amounts to heresy.

The man fabricated evidence on the spot to support his false claim that the boycott he called for cost the French economy billions of dollars. What would you consider a better case of him lying? Baghdad Bob level lying? He isn't far off.

Yup it looks that way, but again I found the article wanting in saying it searched and found nothing therefore you the reader are to believe.

I found this one especially laced with venom.

No wonder so many people believe BillO. This thread is chock full of very specific LIES BillO has stated on the record clearly refuted by multiple corroborating sources. How many specific lies refuted by multiple corroborating sources do you need?

Um I had very specific issues with the article that upon further (outside of the specific article) research clarified what the article in my opinion was missing.

How this translates into me or other people believing in Bill is beyond me. You people need to step back a bit and not let your dogs out at the first sign of a question.

 

[Lurker]

How this translates into me or other people believing in Bill is beyond me. You people need to step back a bit and not let your dogs out at the first sign of a question.

I agree we sometimes need to step back a bit and attempt to corroborate thinsg better before jumping to thet condemnation stage.

Yet in the case of the Paris Business Review we have had years to try and find it and nothing has turned up. You would think at least one lover of O'REilly would find it somehow. I do grant (as I have in the past) that it is possible that O'Reilly mixed up his sources and meant to use a different name. The problem is that evidence of American imports from France having increased during the boycott period would seem to add further credence to the notion that BO just made it up.

Now, if you or anyone else could find evidence to the contrary I would be more than happy to assimilate it into my cadre of knowledge on this subject.

 

[Upchurch]

I quoted the Media Matters article saying they did a search on the Internets, and mentioned that they needed to have more follow up in that article before on the face it that was proof.

What is it you would like to see? An article entitled, "Still no evidence that the Paris Business Review ever existed"? Perhaps the week after they could run an article entitled, "Even still no evidence for the Paris Business Review"

You're ignoring the fact that they did do more research than a few internet searches. They looked for similarly named publications and found one (the European Business Review, iirc) but were unable to find anything in it that supported O'Reilly's claims.

After discounting O'Reilly's bogus source, they also researched the meat of O'Reilly's actual claim, his "boycott" cost France billions of dollars, and showed that was a lie too.

I don't know if you frequent MM very often, but they are in the habit of printing corrections or updates in the article if they get something wrong or something changes.

I apologize if I questioned the Media Matters article as it stood, as apparently that amounts to heresy.

Not heresy. You were just setting the burden of proof unreasonably high. It isn't like new information subsequently came to light that would require them to revisit the facts of the issue. In fact, the method of research they did appears to be reasonable and sufficient for the question of determining a media outlet's existence.

Yup it looks that way, but again I found the article wanting in saying it searched and found nothing therefore you the reader are to believe.

I dont' think you are being as neutral as you believe. Media Matters not only gave their conclusion, but also gave their methodology for arriving at that conclusion. From the article:

Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." A Google.com search revealed no mentions of "Paris Business Review," "Revue des Affaires de Paris," or any similar French name. A LexisNexis search for "Paris," "France," or "French" within five words of "business review" produced no relevant results. There is a journal called "European Business Review," which is published in England; however, over the past two years, "European Business Review" has not mentioned an American boycott of France.

They are being as transparent as one could be without, I suppose, posting screen shots of their search results. You can see what they did, try it yourself, or try another venue of search. They aren't asking you to take what they say on faith.


Out of curiosity, what follow up research would you have had them do?

 

[JoeEllison]

http://www.parisbusinessreview.net/

 

[Snide]

Noticed that, also noticed his predictable straw man/non sequitor response to by A and B conversation above.

Let's try another version of it and see if we can predict his reply:

A: President Bush took us to war in Iraq with a faulty war plan.
B: Why do you hate America?
A: I don't, I love America, but the war plan was faulty.
B: So you want the terrorists to win?
A: Obviously not, I'm merely wondering why it took 4 years for the Surge to be implimented?
B: Did you know B. Hussein Obama is a Muslim?

Somewhere in there needs to be:

B: So the world was a better place with Saddam in power?