Bill O'Reilly
- Thread starter m_huber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bill o'reilly
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Jump to conclusions much?
How do you conclude that because Walter Cronkite is a liberal he, or anyone else, is therefore unable to report more or less objectively?
From your own (biased) article:
Well, Maloney jumped to the same conclusion you did. However, it doesn't excuse that the conclusion is somewhat flimsily based on Cronkite's opinion alone.Maloney said:
Did you notice the word "perceived" in there or are you only cherry picking Cronkite's opinions that agree with your conclusion?Maloney said:
Did you notice that he never said he or anyone else has violated the first ideals of good journalism: that news reports must be fair, accurate, and unbiased?Cronkite said:
Assumes facts not in evidence. Unless Maloney can read Cronkite's mind, he is assuming the there is only one facet in what is really a very complex issue. Maloney has oversimplified the situation (i.e. spun the quote) to fit his point.Maloney said:
Maloney is just as biased as he claims Cronkite is. The difference is that Maloney is demonstrating his bias in this piece.
How do you conclude that because Fox News has conservatives that they are, therefore, unable to report more or less objectively?
The credo of American newspaper journalism has long been "to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." That does have more than a whiff of class warfare.
Skepticybe
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2006
- Messages
- 79
Bill O'Reilly makes me embarrassed to consider myself conservative. If I was a liberal I would promote his show.
Ironically (or not, if you really think about it!) he embodies everything he hates about the left.
Ironically (or not, if you really think about it!) he embodies everything he hates about the left.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Ironically(or not, if you really think about it!) right-wing authoritarians project all of their own flaws and "inner demons" onto their chosen enemies. It is part of what forms their entire worldview.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Because we've compared their lies to reality... it is pretty easy, because there's an average of a couple of lies an hour on Fox "News".
Certainly, there's very little reporting going on.Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
What he said.
Skepticybe
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2006
- Messages
- 79
Yeah. And they're completely unable to see how their own criticism applies to themselves and their allies.
Of course, liberals are completely free of such flaws.
An average of a couple lies per hour on Fox News? Can you back that up or are you pulling an O'Reilly?Because we've compared their lies to reality... it is pretty easy, because there's an average of a couple of lies an hour on Fox "News".
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Based on the use of a smilie
D), I'm guessing he is pulling a funny. That is the convention.Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
What I find interesting is that on FoxNews there is very little actual news being reported. The channel seems to be dominated by opinion shows. Even their business show (Cavuto) seems to have more opinion and entertainement news than actual business news.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Not completely, but free to a greater degree than those on the right. Liberals also tend to be more honest, more forgiving, and more able to deal with reality when it conflicts with ideology. The only question is whether we're all drawn to our political viewpoint because of our personality, or whether our personality is also somewhat shaped by political views.
Skepticybe
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2006
- Messages
- 79
OK, wasn't sure. People make this claim all the time and call it "Faux News", but so far it appears to just come from liberals who can't stand news without a liberal spin, and not understanding the difference between a news program and an opinionated talk show.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
There's no news with a "liberal spin" on television. I can guess where you got that completely BS idea from...
Skepticybe
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2006
- Messages
- 79
We should call this "O'Reilly's Syndrome" so that we can start the search for a cure.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
We should call this "O'Reilly's Syndrome" so that we can start the search for a cure.
Actually, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. You should read The Authoritarians, just for a little perspective.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Out of curiosity, what do you consider an example of a news program with a liberal spin? Not an opinionated talk show, but a news program?
As far as liberal bias in the media, game, set, match:
From:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press. Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.
Walsh wrote of the White House press corps members he surveyed: “Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal — even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures.”
“Those who did reply seemed to be representative of the larger group. Seven said they were Democrats, eleven were unaffiliated with either major party, and not a single respondent said he or she was a registered Republican (although some might have been but were not willing to say so).”
New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio.
Tierney found a strong preference for the liberal Kerry: “When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington.”
To see why journalists preferred Kerry, “we asked our respondents which administration they’d prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint.” More than half the journalists thought Bush was the better news subject: “The Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40....The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.”
“We tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others. ‘Bush's religious streak,’ one Florida correspondent said, ‘would drive me nuts on a desert island.’”
In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.
More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.
When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”
From:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press. Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.
Walsh wrote of the White House press corps members he surveyed: “Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal — even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures.”
“Those who did reply seemed to be representative of the larger group. Seven said they were Democrats, eleven were unaffiliated with either major party, and not a single respondent said he or she was a registered Republican (although some might have been but were not willing to say so).”
New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio.
Tierney found a strong preference for the liberal Kerry: “When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington.”
To see why journalists preferred Kerry, “we asked our respondents which administration they’d prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint.” More than half the journalists thought Bush was the better news subject: “The Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40....The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.”
“We tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others. ‘Bush's religious streak,’ one Florida correspondent said, ‘would drive me nuts on a desert island.’”
In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.
More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.
When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Okay, maybe I stuttered last time, but how do you reach the conclusion that reporters who have political beliefs are incapable of unbiased reporting?
(I also note that the article you reference has pretty small sample sizes and are mostly informal. The UC poll appears at the end to be the most formalized.)
eta: Incidentally, do you realize that by your own line of thinking the Media Research Center, a conservative organization, can not be trusted because it must have a conservative bias?
Last edited:
You seem to have all bases covered. The media are not predominately liberal, but, even if it is, they are still unbiased.
How could their own political ideology not color their reporting? The proof is in the pudding. Reading their articles, columns, scripts, etc, betrays their ideology all the time. Once a reporter/journalist uses an adjective, they have mixed opinion with fact.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Not at all. I'm saying you can't jump to the conclusion that their reporting is biased.
How do scientists own scientific views not color their results?
Lots of ways.
For example?