Bill O'Reilly

[Stankeye]

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.

Calling someone a liar and having me sign on, I do want a pretty high burden of proof. Just me I guess.

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:

The internet I know. That's where my skepticism came from and the fact that I may have taken some of the "liberal" bias information about Media Matters and held them to a higher standard. You may say that means I am no longer neutral, that's your prerogative. I just wanted more.

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.

Well they are the ones claiming to be a watchdog, I would hope for as much information as possible with follow ups. They provide the service so I don't have to..being lazy and all.

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

While this is still from them it is a good follow up that should have been included. Article
As it has Bill not defending his PBR at all which is pretty damning.

 

[Upchurch]

While this is still from them it is a good follow up that should have been included. Article
As it has Bill not defending his PBR at all which is pretty damning.

But that's kind of the point. All of those "follow ups" are in response to previous claims that O'Reilly reiterated. In other words, he made them current claims again. It isn't really a follow up but a back pointer to previously debunked claims. No new research was done, or needed since no new claim was introduced.

I still don't understand what it is you would like to see Media Matters do for a follow up. Go through Paris street-by-street, door-by-door looking for the office of the offices of the Paris Business Review? Like the IPU, you could look forever and never prove there isn't one. What, for you, would have been sufficient?

 

[Stankeye]

But that's kind of the point. All of those "follow ups" are in response to previous claims that O'Reilly reiterated. In other words, he made them current claims again. It isn't really a follow up but a back pointer to previously debunked claims. No new research was done, or needed since no new claim was introduced.

I still don't understand what it is you would like to see Media Matters do for a follow up. Go through Paris street-by-street, door-by-door looking for the office of the offices of the Paris Business Review? Like the IPU, you could look forever and never prove there isn't one. What, for you, would have been sufficient?

How can that not be a follow up? On April 28th they posted an article claiming he LIED by quoting a "made up" magazine/paper/journal to support his claims of loss suffered by the French "boycott". Their claim was supported by using the internet to try and find this magazine/paper/journal and not succeeding. They needed more follow up by going to the horses mouth and asking him if he misspoke or did he actually mean Paris Buisness Review.

By chance Bill decided on his own on July 6th to refute that he was lying by using a new source to back up the French loss, which makes his oringinal claim on April 28th rather damning to him unless he chooses to back it up.

The follow up that happened by chance needed to happen by the watchdog group. They need to ask the person who said the "lie" what they meant. Did he misspeak about his "source" or did he make it up? His letter greatly pushes that question to made up.

Does that sound sufficient or are you going to ask me again what follow ups I think should have happened when you accuse one of lying?

BTW I think he is a blowhard that will make up stuff to prop up his beliefs. (based on the single article).

 

[varwoche]

Aha, proof that the Paris Business Review exists! Here's the chart they published:

 

[Upchurch]

They needed more follow up by going to the horses mouth and asking him if he misspoke or did he actually mean Paris Buisness Review.

I suspect they had learned not to waste their time asking O'Reilly directly by that point.

Does that sound sufficient or are you going to ask me again what follow ups I think should have happened when you accuse one of lying?

Yes, that would be lovely in an ideal world.

 

[Stankeye]

I suspect they had learned not to waste their time asking O'Reilly directly by that point.

Probably true. I would suspect that O'Reilly has learned to dodge his critics well, but I still would like my watchdog groups to be as fair as possible and note that he could not be reached for comment.

Yes, that would be lovely in an ideal world.

We do strive for the ideal.

In further looking at Media Matters I followed a link from the article we've been discussing titled false statements.

I don't know if this is Media Matters comprehensive list for him or not, but it is a list I think they are promoting as some of his lies.

I picked one at random that interested me. TAXES!!

That's always fun. I read it and again we have Bill citing stuff that MM thinks are bogus but no insight into what the heck Bill was citing or how he came to his numbers.

We do get MM giving us the rundown on their numbers!

I went to the only section that pertained to me directly and that was LA. I'm not that far away.

1. They have the federal tax rate for a single person earning $250,000 correctly although by my estimate too high at 28%..I came up with 27.5%.

2. They have the state tax rate..of which they provide the link to the actual form at 7.8%. Unless my math skills are poor (possible), using the same table I came up 8.5%. Not huge but it's the watchdog trying call someone a liar here.

3. They left off completely all the payroll taxes, which in a paragraph earlier they said Bill left out of his calculations. They amount to about 2.67% for FICA, 1.45% for Medicare and .6% for CA disability.

4. Total all this and we come to 40.72% not Bills number nor MM's number.

I'm not here to defend Bill as again he obviously lies to support his case, but when the beacon we hold up to attack him is Media Matters and in a short time I'm able to "catch" them "lying" then we have another problem here including O'Reilly.

I'm also not stating that they are lying for lyings sake either. I think they are trying, like Bill, to make a point. I don't agree with either groups method on the surface of it so far, they could have done better IMO.

 

[pgwenthold]

3. They left off completely all the payroll taxes, which in a paragraph earlier they said Bill left out of his calculations.

Isn't that why they left them out? So they can do the same calculation as BOR and show that, even using the numbers he is using, he is getting it wrong?

So add them out and MM gets 28+7.8 = 35.8 and you get 27.5 + 8.5 = 36.0%. What did BOR claim?

4. Total all this and we come to 40.72% not Bills number nor MM's number.

So you agree with MM that BOR is getting it wrong? Glad to hear it.

 

[Stankeye]

Isn't that why they left them out? So they can do the same calculation as BOR and show that, even using the numbers he is using, he is getting it wrong?

So add them out and MM gets 28+7.8 = 35.8 and you get 27.5 + 8.5 = 36.0%. What did BOR claim?




So you agree with MM that BOR is getting it wrong? Glad to hear it.

So two wrongs make a right?

Glad to hear it.

 

[JoeEllison]

So two wrongs make a right?

Glad to hear it.

Bill-O is wrong, you're wrong, and that makes MM right.

Glad to hear it.

 

[Stankeye]

Bill-O is wrong, you're wrong, and that makes MM right.

Glad to hear it.

Oh welcome!

I've read your posts throughout this thread, so this ought to be interesting.

What am I wrong about now?

 

[JoeEllison]

pgwenthold pointed it out to you, and it was pretty obvious to me when I read the MM article.

 

[Stankeye]

pgwenthold pointed it out to you, and it was pretty obvious to me when I read the MM article.

Pgwenthold never said I was wrong, he just questioned my conclusion.

Look MM has an interesting dilemma here.

They on one hand concede Bill was right with his figures ONLY IF he left out payroll. Then go on to give us what it really should be with the payroll tax included.

Then they move to a second paragraph to compare the tax rates he quoted and at that point decide to not include payroll tax! I guess this is because they are ASSuming that Bills tax rate numbers for his second paragraph are without payroll since he did that in the first paragraph. Oh goody two groups of people using whatever they want to reflect whatever position it is they are taking.

I know some will try and defend the fact that they left out the payroll taxes in their second analysis because of that assumption but it is disingenuous to say the least to me.

Plus they still got the CA tax wrong, and their California tax numbers were the ONLY facts I checked in this whole article, the other stuff could be wrong too. (Not saying it is of course)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Aha, proof that the Paris Business Review exists! Here's the chart they published:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2258453a63658563e.jpg[/qimg]

If you made that up yourself, I'm nominating it for creativity and humor.

 

[ImproperUsername]

What education do Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Bruce Willis have? Oops!

Please excuse this reply, if someone else has already pointed this out: that Schwarzenegger graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a business and economics degree.

I also wonder why it is assumed that those of us who find O'Reilly (or Limbaugh, or any other commentator) entertaining and interesting also allow ourselves to be spoonfed what to think and believe.

 

[Lurker]

Please excuse this reply, if someone else has already pointed this out: that Schwarzenegger graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a business and economics degree.

Actually, it was UW-Superior.

I also wonder why it is assumed that those of us who find O'Reilly (or Limbaugh, or any other commentator) entertaining and interesting also allow ourselves to be spoonfed what to think and believe.

You mean you're not a "ditto-head"? Look, I also find Limbaugh entertaining (or a long time back he was, now he seems to take himself too seriously). I don't trust 90% of what he says and I get tired of the strawmen he erects.

 

[Upchurch]

I picked one at random that interested me. TAXES!!

I won't even pretend that I can speak knowledgeably on that particular topic. Not being able to say any differently, I'll have to concede on that point.

 

[Cicero]

Please excuse this reply, if someone else has already pointed this out: that Schwarzenegger graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a business and economics degree.

I also wonder why it is assumed that those of us who find O'Reilly (or Limbaugh, or any other commentator) entertaining and interesting also allow ourselves to be spoonfed what to think and believe.

Conservative Hollywood actors have actually run for public office, while the liberal Hollywood bug wits are content to do drive by politics, where they are never confronted to substantiate their sloganeering.

Arnold twice wins the governorship of the largest state by population, and the most diverse in political makeup, and the JREFer libs are still apoplectic about his success.

 

[varwoche]

If you made that up yourself, I'm nominating it for creativity and humor.

Alas, it actually came from parisbusinessreview.net.

 

[Lurker]

Conservative Hollywood actors have actually run for public office, while the liberal Hollywood bug wits are content to do drive by politics, where they are never confronted to substantiate their sloganeering.

Hmm, you seem to engage in the same "drive by politics" that actors do. Why the vitriol for them and not for yourself (or me)? Are actors supposed to be mute when it comes to politics while you are allowed to go on and on and never substantiate your sloganeering? It seems you engage in the very thing you decry actors of.

 

[Cicero]

Hmm, you seem to engage in the same "drive by politics" that actors do. Why the vitriol for them and not for yourself (or me)? Are actors supposed to be mute when it comes to politics while you are allowed to go on and on and never substantiate your sloganeering? It seems you engage in the very thing you decry actors of.

1) The mind boggles how you are incapable of comprehending how Hollywood celebs command an unfair platform using their fame, sometime glamour, and association to their flickering screen images, to make asinine political comments in forums they know they will never worry about being challenged.

2) Considering I respond to your nebulous observations, how exactly do I emulate lib celebs that never engage with those who hold opposing views?

3) I could not help notice that you didn't express an opinion why lib actors are reticent to put their actions where their mouth is and run for a political office.

4) I also am not invited to appear in a venue ostensibly to promote a movie/TV show/CD and then throw out bug wit political buffoonery. This is a political forum. Every poster has the same authority in making their points. Not the case when it comes to these celebs you seem to hold in such high esteem.