Bill O'Reilly

[pomeroo]

Good question. Perhaps the increase was not noticed by the news agencies right away. Perhaps they wanted to see if it was more than a 1 year blip before expending resources on the story. Perhaps they were demonstrating a liberal bias by killing the story although if I were in chrge of writing the story, I would have easily excised the 1999 year to make it look more like Bush was the cause.

Anyway, do you think the American public is so stupid that they would not know that Clinton was President in 1999?

A recession began in the fourth quarter of 2000. The jihadist attacks inflicted a trillion-dollar hit on the American economy. Democratic politicians in 2002 and 2004 talked about the "Bush" recession. How stupid is the public and how utterly shameless and cynical are pols?

 

[pomeroo]

Isn't Goldberg's premise that the media is biased to the left?

Goldberg published a piece in the Wall Street Journal slamming Eric Engberg. Engberg had done a "Reality Check" on the CBS Evening News which trashed the Steve Forbes "flat tax" proposal; Goldberg denounced Engberg’s "Check" for its liberal bias. But Goldberg’s treatment of the Engberg piece is a perfect example of his larger method—the anecdotal approach which can feel so good, but is so worthless for those who aren’t spoutin’.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Engberg’s report was unfair to Forbes. Does that show Engberg has "liberal bias?" Wouldn’t you want to review the gentleman’s other reports before making such a sweeping accusation? In fact, just a few weeks before he beat up on Forbes, Engberg did a "Check" trashing Hillary Clinton for Whitewater and the travel office firings. The report featured a few bits of bogus reporting which drove the coverage of those two matters. So what kind of "bias" did this report show? Did this piece show a conservative bias? And—reviewing Engberg’s work in the year before he slammed Forbes—what kind of bias was Engberg showing on April 6, 1995? On that day, the scribe reviewed the first 100 days of the new Gingrich Congress:

ENGBERG (4/6/95): They scoffed last fall when Newt Gingrich said a Republican House would slam-dunk the status quo…Time out! They did it. Politicians actually keeping a promise?

And what bias was he showing on May 24? Here’s how Engberg closed a "Reality Check" about GOP proposals to balance the budget:

ENGBERG (5/24/95): Fiscal fantasy number four is that a balanced budget cures all ills…It’s future generations that really benefit. But the fiscal discipline that might be imposed by the GOP plans could be a welcome step away from fiscal fantasyland. Eric Engberg, CBS News, Washington.

In that report, Engberg criticized past, failed efforts to balance the budget, saying, "Best sign that this year is different? The Republicans are going after big-dollar entitlement spending." And what was the bias on November 20, when Engberg said that "the Republicans’ call for $245 billions in tax cuts which the Democrats say are heavily weighted toward the wealthy" really weren’t that big a deal? "That’s because even with this cut, the IRS will still collect $13 trillion over the next seven years," Engberg said. "A $245 billion slice of that is just 2 percent, a drop in the bucket."



So Pomeroo, you seem to really enjoy the works of Goldberg, having brought his name up numerous times recently. Yet as a self-professed skeptic, look at his work obejctively. Does he do anything more than offer anecdotes? Does he perform any actual analysis? Any studies? Now, isn't anecdotal evidence just a shade above worthless?

Really, if Goldberg is going to excoriate Engberg and use him as an example of liberal bias, shouldn't he check to see if Engberg is (relatively) consistent in his liberal bias?

Pomeroo, go re-read Bias and pretend you are a scientist. Tell me what evidence he provides other than anecdotal (which I am not meaning to totally dismiss). Then we can discuss whether it is appropriate for you to keep citing it as some sort of definitive source for the claim of liberal bias.

You're not really getting Goldberg's point. He analyzes Engberg's piece carefully, in terms of its content and style. He shows why heavily-slanted editorializing presented as news is not reporting. You are asking Goldberg to be a social scientist; he is a reporter. Yes, Engberg is consistent in his liberal bias, and that's what the book is about.

 

[pomeroo]

The fact that you have the chutzpah to say that gets you another one.

The fact that you have the chutzpah to pretend that you accomplished something when, in fact, you accomplished nothing is enough for me.

 

[Lurker]

You're not really getting Goldberg's point. He analyzes Engberg's piece carefully, in terms of its content and style. He shows why heavily-slanted editorializing presented as news is not reporting. You are asking Goldberg to be a social scientist; he is a reporter. Yes, Engberg is consistent in his liberal bias, and that's what the book is about.

Unfortunately, Goldberg is acting as social scientists when he comes to conclusions. A reporter is supposed to report teh news, not come to conclusions about bias. that requires a social scientist, no?

Let's look at your claim that Engberg is consistent in his liberal bias to see if Goldberg and you (by extension) are correct in that assessment. Please explain how these pieces by Engberg are liberal bias: (my comments in italics)

1. Engberg attacked Forbe's flat tax plan yet many conservatives attacked it as well (including Gingrich). Why did Engberg display a liberal bias but Gingrich and other conservative flat tax critics did not?

2. Engberg did a "Check" trashing Hillary Clinton for Whitewater and the travel office firings. Is this an example of Engberg's consistent liberal bias?

3. Engberg quote4/6/95): They scoffed last fall when Newt Gingrich said a Republican House would slam-dunk the status quo…Time out! They did it. Politicians actually keeping a promise? Is this an example of consistent liberal bias?

4. Engberg Quote (5/24/95) Fiscal fantasy number four is that a balanced budget cures all ills…It’s future generations that really benefit. But the fiscal discipline that might be imposed by the GOP plans could be a welcome step away from fiscal fantasyland. Eric Engberg, CBS News, Washington. (hmm, Engberg says a welcome step by the GOP, is this an example of consistent liberal bias?)

5. Engberg Quote concerning the goal to balance the budget "Best sign that this year is different? The Republicans are going after big-dollar entitlement spending." I bolded the editorializing by Engberg so you would not miss it. Is this an example of consistent liberal bias?

 

[pomeroo]

Unfortunately, Goldberg is acting as social scientists when he comes to conclusions. A reporter is supposed to report teh news, not come to conclusions about bias. that requires a social scientist, no?

Let's look at your claim that Engberg is consistent in his liberal bias to see if Goldberg and you (by extension) are correct in that assessment. Please explain how these pieces by Engberg are liberal bias: (my comments in italics)

1. Engberg attacked Forbe's flat tax plan yet many conservatives attacked it as well (including Gingrich). Why did Engberg display a liberal bias but Gingrich and other conservative flat tax critics did not?

Sigh. Engberg ATTACKED and RIDICULED Forbes's tax plan in a < NEWS > STORY, < NOT > AN EDITORIAL OR OP-ED PIECE.

 

[pomeroo]

Unfortunately, Goldberg is acting as social scientists when he comes to conclusions. A reporter is supposed to report teh news, not come to conclusions about bias. that requires a social scientist, no?

Let's look at your claim that Engberg is consistent in his liberal bias to see if Goldberg and you (by extension) are correct in that assessment. Please explain how these pieces by Engberg are liberal bias: (my comments in italics)

1. Engberg attacked Forbe's flat tax plan yet many conservatives attacked it as well (including Gingrich). Why did Engberg display a liberal bias but Gingrich and other conservative flat tax critics did not?

2. Engberg did a "Check" trashing Hillary Clinton for Whitewater and the travel office firings. Is this an example of Engberg's consistent liberal bias?

3. Engberg quote4/6/95): They scoffed last fall when Newt Gingrich said a Republican House would slam-dunk the status quo…Time out! They did it. Politicians actually keeping a promise? Is this an example of consistent liberal bias?

4. Engberg Quote (5/24/95) Fiscal fantasy number four is that a balanced budget cures all ills…It’s future generations that really benefit. But the fiscal discipline that might be imposed by the GOP plans could be a welcome step away from fiscal fantasyland. Eric Engberg, CBS News, Washington. (hmm, Engberg says a welcome step by the GOP, is this an example of consistent liberal bias?)

5. Engberg Quote concerning the goal to balance the budget "Best sign that this year is different? The Republicans are going after big-dollar entitlement spending." I bolded the editorializing by Engberg so you would not miss it. Is this an example of consistent liberal bias?

(From the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group)

ERIC ENGBERG: SPIN DOCTOR OF CBS​

On May 29, House Speaker Jim Wright was about to resign. CBS asked correspondent Eric Engberg to give his perspective on the evolving story. "Politics didn't just turn ugly. It evolved from a nasty presidential campaign that featured the GOP's famous Willie Horton ad," he explained. This deft transformation of a liberal complaint into a statement of fact is typical of what viewers can expect from Engberg.
MediaWatch analysts reviewed a year of Engberg's reports (July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989), including 59 on the CBS Evening News. This review demonstrates that whenever possible, Engberg adds a liberal spin to major news events and files pieces on liberal agenda items no other network finds important enough to cover. Here are some representative examples of Engberg at work:
THE CAMPAIGN. The majority of Engberg's reports in the last half of 1988 focused on the "nasty" presidential campaign. Engberg regularly accused Vice President George Bush of leveling personal attacks on Governor Michael Dukakis. On August 8, for instance, he reported: "Bush continued to pound Michael Dukakis personally, implying that the Democrats' wide lead in the polls stems from ducking the issues."
Engberg also pounced on October 22, when Bush disavowed an Illinois pamphlet suggesting criminals favored Dukakis, asserting "It's one of the few times Bush has publicly voiced any doubts about the pit-bull style Republican campaign. But he showed no signs this week of deviating from a harsh personal-attack style." Observing Bush on the stump during a November 4 campaign swing, Engberg reported: "The headline in the pro-Bush Boston tabloid [Boston Herald] told of bank overdrafts by the state covered by borrowing. Bush, without taking note of the fact that the federal deficit is now $155 billion, acted like an outraged prosecutor." "Bush's read-all-about-it act with the anti-Duke headline may have pleased the crowd," Engberg snidely concluded, "but the big draw was 7,000 free lunches handed out after he left."
IRAN-CONTRA. As the Oliver North trial came to an end, Engberg preferred liberal lectures over a balanced presentation of prosecution and defense. When the verdict came in on May 4, he pieced together his lesson of Iran-Contra with video of Reagan Administration figures: "Once secrecy is embraced, rather than public debate and compromise, the freewheeling covert operators can do as they wish because an invisible policy can't be questioned...But secrecy leads to deception...Deception leads to lies...Lies tear apart the rule of law...Could it happen again? Scholars say yes, until Presidents accept the need to compromise with Congress."
Later, on a CBS News special report, Engberg asked a second time: "Can it happen again? If secrecy and misleading Congress worked once," Engberg began, letting Democrat Clark Clifford finish the sentence "...There is no absolute guarantee to keep it from happening again. It depends upon the acceptance by a President of our system of laws."
A month earlier, his liberal perspective on the world even led to factual inaccuracy. On April 6 he charged: "George Bush as Vice President carried promises of U.S. aid to the military dictatorship of Honduras," misleading viewers about a government that's been elected democratically since 1981.
EXCLUSIVES. Engberg never produced a story based on a conservative agenda concern. On a few occasions, however, Engberg filed stories on activities of liberal organizations, focusing attention on subjects not considered newsworthy by the other networks. On June 13, Engberg reported left-wing attacks on corporate support for university research. "Corporate giving to universities is more like give and take....to the point that critics worry the pursuit of knowledge is losing out to the pursuit of profit."
Engberg interviewed Leonard Minsky of the Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest, who said "With the advent of money and greed in the university, the ethics of Wall Street have also invaded the university." Engberg's strange conclusion: "Congress is also concerned about taxpayer money being lost. After all, universities are kept afloat with federal dollars, money that's supposed to benefit the public, not some bottom line."
This past Spring, the left-wing Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) advocated adding money for low-income housing to the S&L bailout bill by occupying federally owned housing. "If taxpayers are going to kick in $40 billion, they argue, then the whole structure of financing homes should be made to benefit the little guy, the idea behind savings and loans in the first place," Engberg explained in an April 12 story. Engberg ended the report: "As the Congress races to do something, the process of writing the bill has turned into what one House staffer calls chaos. Activists hope to take advantage of that and push for changes in a system they claim locks the little guy out of the housing market."
On the eve of President Bush's first State of the Union address February 9, Engberg again served as the CBS spin doctor: "As George Bush presents his priorities tonight, there's evidence in this poll and elsewhere that the nation will respond to a very American idea: that their government by the people sometimes must act boldly for the people." The CBS poll found support for the "very American idea" of more government social spending: 55 percent in favor of government day care, 66 percent for more student aid, and 71 percent for nursing home care.
To explain these liberal causes, Engberg brought on liberal economist Robert Reischauer (then with the Brookings Institution and now the Director of the Democratic majority's Congressional Budget Office) and labor economist Audrey Freedman, who said "I think the country's beginning to develop a sense of guilt after eight years of saying 'I don't care. I feel good, and I don't care.'"
The journalist's only value is credibility. Engberg cannot maintain his credibility if he continues to promote liberal ideology as news reporting. An ongoing record of bias, of turning liberal interpretations into facts and liberal causes into feature stories, leading even to factual inaccuracy should bring into question the credibility of this network correspondent.

7

 

[JoeEllison]

Why the change of subject? To avoid the lie about homeless veterans. Sad.

 

[pomeroo]

Why the change of subject? To avoid the lie about homeless veterans. Sad.

Whoops! Caught you again: there was no "lie" about homeless veterans. Yes, your dishonest tactics are sad.

 

[Lurker]

Pomeroo:

I have no idea if Engberg leans liberal or conservative. But you were the one who said that he is consistent in his liberal bias. I provided examples where he showed a conservative bias in his editorializing. So, which one of us is right? I don't know but perhaps the problem is Engberg probably shouldn't be editorializing so much in his news reports.

Regardless, your point has been refuted that Engberg is consistently liberal biased. #2, #3, #4 and #5 betray a conservative bias when he editorializes in their favor. Again, your point is refuted.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

I have no idea if Engberg leans liberal or conservative. But you were the one who said that he is consistent in his liberal bias. I provided examples where he showed a conservative bias in his editorializing. So, which one of us is right? I don't know but perhaps the problem is Engberg probably shouldn't be editorializing so much in his news reports.

Regardless, your point has been refuted that Engberg is consistently liberal biased. #2, #3, #4 and #5 betray a conservative bias when he editorializes in their favor. Again, your point is refuted.

I beg you to consider that people who know Eric Engberg and are familiar with his work understand that he is extremely liberal. His bias is apparent. You can't refute my point because your premise is totally out-of-whack.

 

[Lurker]

I beg you to consider that people who know Eric Engberg and are familiar with his work understand that he is extremely liberal. His bias is apparent. You can't refute my point because your premise is totally out-of-whack.

Well, if you have changed your point to Engberg being biased to the left then you are correct. If your point was (and as you had actually stated it) that Engberg was consistently biased to the left then I indeed have refuted it and rather quickly I might add. A google search and a few minutes of time I was able to provide numerous anecdotes of Engberg editorializing in favor of Republicans which is clearly NOT a left bias.

Just adjust your position accordingly and we can continue.

As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words means things" Your choice of consistent had an intended meaning. Unfortunate for you that it turned out to be a bad word to use in this instance.

Now I don't know Engberg at all, but the fact that I could refute you so easily does bring into question whether you are looking at the evidence with a jaundiced eye or not, casts doubt on your ability to look at things objectively, and, whether you will exaggerate or use hyperbolic statements to bolster your position in the future.

 

[pomeroo]

Well, if you have changed your point to Engberg being biased to the left then you are correct. If your point was (and as you had actually stated it) that Engberg was consistently biased to the left then I indeed have refuted it and rather quickly I might add. A google search and a few minutes of time I was able to provide numerous anecdotes of Engberg editorializing in favor of Republicans which is clearly NOT a left bias.

Just adjust your position accordingly and we can continue.

As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words means things" Your choice of consistent had an intended meaning. Unfortunate for you that it turned out to be a bad word to use in this instance.

Now I don't know Engberg at all, but the fact that I could refute you so easily does bring into question whether you are looking at the evidence with a jaundiced eye or not, casts doubt on your ability to look at things objectively, and, whether you will exaggerate or use hyperbolic statements to bolster your position in the future.

Sigh. I'm doing a lot of sighing here. Saying that Engberg displays a consistent liberal bias means that over his long career he has often promoted a liberal agenda disguised as hard news. It doesn't mean that every story he has ever done is an example of liberal bias. Here is Goldberg on liberal bias: "But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world."

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Sigh. I'm doing a lot of sighing here. Saying that Engberg displays a consistent liberal bias means that over his long career he has often promoted a liberal agenda disguised as hard news. It doesn't mean that every story he has ever done is an example of liberal bias. Here is Goldberg on liberal bias: "But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world."

Of course you're sighing. Lurker, nor anyone who can actually read what is being wrote is buying your spin about Engberg being "consistently" liberally biased when evidence that he is not "consistently" liberally biased is so easy to look up.

I'd imagine people not megadittoing your spin is quite frustrating.

 

[pomeroo]

Of course you're sighing. Lurker, nor anyone who can actually read what is being wrote is buying your spin about Engberg being "consistently" liberally biased when evidence that he is not "consistently" liberally biased is so easy to look up.

I'd imagine people not megadittoing your spin is quite frustrating.

It is frustrating to deal with people who are--one hopes!--very young and therefore uninformed. Eric Engberg has had a long career. You won't find out everything you should know about him through a quick Google search. Some of us have actually heard of Engberg, have watched him on CBS News and have read his op-ed pieces. We know, in other words, who Eric Engberg is. When someone who does not know who Eric Engberg is claims that he can transform him into a conservative, it is a reason to sigh.

What does "megadittoing" mean?

 

[Upchurch]

I have e mailed the creator of the site and am waiting for an answer. Who knows if it will be truthful?

How's that coming, Painter?

In the meantime, you might also try asking the owners of www.parisbusinessreview.com. Even though the site is no longer up, they also started a parody website dedicated to O'Reilly's make believe publication. As you can see, it was also started after O'Reilly lied about his source.

Registrar: CAPITAL NETWORKS PTY LTD
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Dates: Created 14-jul-2004 Updated 21-jul-2007 Expires 14-jul-2010

As I see it, the only possible scenario you could be hoping for in emailing the creator of the site is that he will tell you that he started a parody site sometime before Bill O'Reilly's fabrication ...er, "being fooled" and then inexplicably moved the site to a new domain the following July. As did, apparently, the people behind the ".com" version.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Is it more likely that (A) O'Reilly lied his fool head off and at least two people subsequently made parody websites to mock him about it or (B) that at least one, possibly two people created parody websites mocking O'Reilly's French boycott and then moved their sites to new domains?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Could it be that it sounds like I have some idea because I've already told you that I have some idea? Sheesh!

Will you offer a number then?

I appreciate the precise use of words: I don't dismiss the VA number; I question it.

On what basis?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

...claims that he can transform him into a conservative, it is a reason to sigh.

Who is suggesting he "transformed" into a conservative? The question is whether he has a consistent liberal bias or not and Lurkers quotes evidence that he does not.

What does "megadittoing" mean?

Been using the Internet long? Ever heard of a site called Google?

 

[pomeroo]

Who is suggesting he "transformed" into a conservative? The question is whether he has a consistent liberal bias or not and Lurkers quotes evidence that he does not.

But he does have a consistent liberal bias. That's the whole point. It is possible to cherry-pick isolated stories of his that do not display a bias, but by doing so, you have not invalidated Goldberg's argument.

Been using the Internet long? Ever heard of a site called Google?

Yes, I discovered that the "ditto" business is some sort of code that listeners of Rush Limbaugh use. As someone who doesn't listen to talk-radio (non-baseball talk radio, that is), why do I need to bother tracking down jargon from shows I'm unfamiliar with?

 

[Ladewig]

I'm still waiting for the number that matches his "gut"... or, less probably, an admission of what has been clear to everyone else from the start: Bill O'Reilly and pomeroo are both lying about John Edwards, and making a bunch of noise to cover up their dishonesty and ignorance.

Why on earth do you clowns have to pretend that everyone who rejects your propaganda is "lying" about something? I don't know the number of homeless vets and neither does John Edwards and neither do you. The left in general is spectacularly dishonest. Stop being such a hypocrite.

So people who pretend to know the truth and falsely accuse others of lying are clowns. O.K., I'll buy that - as long as Mr. O'Reilly is prepared to wear whiteface makeup and really big shoes:

O’REILLY: Edwards knows this [substance abuse is a major factor in homelessness]. He’s lying. He’s lying. He knows it. Everybody knows it.

. . . . . . . .

I could respect Mr. O'Reilly if he had said, "That number does not sound credible, I am going to investigate the methodology that the Department used" or "I will research this issue and provide a much more accurate number." But he didn't, so I don't.

 

[The Painter]

How's that coming, Painter?

In the meantime, you might also try asking the owners of www.parisbusinessreview.com. Even though the site is no longer up, they also started a parody website dedicated to O'Reilly's make believe publication. As you can see, it was also started after O'Reilly lied about his source.


As I see it, the only possible scenario you could be hoping for in emailing the creator of the site is that he will tell you that he started a parody site sometime before Bill O'Reilly's fabrication ...er, "being fooled" and then inexplicably moved the site to a new domain the following July. As did, apparently, the people behind the ".com" version.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Is it more likely that (A) O'Reilly lied his fool head off and at least two people subsequently made parody websites to mock him about it or (B) that at least one, possibly two people created parody websites mocking O'Reilly's French boycott and then moved their sites to new domains?

What's wrong with you?? My mea culpa not good enough for you?? You are a petty little man.

As I said in post 623 "I couldn't care less about O'Reilly". You may be obsessed with him, I'm not.