Bill O'Reilly

[JoeEllison]

Yeah, I do. I mean I hate to be all judgmental, but I think I'd have a visceral dislike for someone who mentioned that they liked Bill O'Reilly. What do these people think when they watch the clip above? I think Bill-o and the religious kid look like total stupid prigs... and the other kid sounded so mature and eloquent. I can't imagining people looking at that and seeing Bill and the other kid as actually saying something valuable. I think he's so close to a parody of a bigot, that Steven Colbert hardly has to do anything to tweak his persona into great comedy.

To be fair, even the kid that was on O'Reilly's side came off much better than Bill did. At least he didn't immediately stoop to calling the other guy a "pinhead", the way Bill-O did. Two high school kids, and Bill O'Reilly, and it is the "adult" who loses his temper and starts calling names? That's just really sad.

To Me, those who like that ilk see the world through a very distorted lens that has been molded by propaganda in the same manner that religion molds thinking. These people seem to let the spin doctors tell them what to think and then they spout it back... but they don't think on their own. They've lost the ability to see the egregious behavior of their spokespeople while exaggerating to the point of digressing ridiculousness the smallest pecadillos of their opponents--those evil leftist godless commie secularists jews etc. They're so "red necky" and the personification of the "boorish American". They embarrass me. I'm embarrassed that people in my country like them even.

I've been around plenty of rednecks, and most of them start out as decent people. Part of the problem is that they trust anyone who tells them what they want to hear, whether they are being honest or not. There's also an element of "entertainment", in that some of the same people who watch Bill-O are probably also pro wrestling fans... they like their entertainment to be fundamentally fake, with lots of screaming and name calling, and they prefer their fake news the same way.

It's so childish... "good guys" and "bad guys" and fear and "going to hell in handbasket" and "American values"... blah, blah propaganda, blah... I look forward to a time when this era in history is laughed at like Leisure Suits and pet rocks.

...and back when people thought pro wrestling was real...

 

[pomeroo]

My opinion of O'Reilly and Coulter are based on knowing their stuff very well. You may have whatever opinion of them you wish but you admit to not knowing them well. A couple YouTube slivers are not going to change the opinion of anyone here that has seen O'Reilly on a regular basis.

As far as pomy goes, you are new to the board. Pomeroo has not only posted the most rude and awful stuff about me,

I point out that you are an uninformed leftwing zealot who gives the impression of never having read a book. Anyone new to the forum will reach that conclusion rather quickly.

he has done the same about anyone who doesn't share his political views. Pomy also went stalking my posts and reported them falsely to the admin with fabricated claims that I had quoted entire sources which I had not done.

Is this pure dishonesty or more of your characteristic muddleheadedness? What can you be talking about? Why on earth would I report anything falsely to the admin? Your statement makes no sense whatever.

So again, you judge the situation from a very narrow viewpoint. Maybe you should observe a bit more before jumping to your hasty conclusions.

You are outstanding for judging situations from an extremely narrow viewpoint. Maybe you should attempt to read a real book, painful though the experience may prove.

 

[pomeroo]

Hmm, quite interesting. You provided a single anecdote to support the notion that Bill's call for a boycott had an effect. Yet wouldn't it have been so much better to have actual budget numbers from the Paris Business Review like Bill O'Reilly had?

I thought my point was simple, but apparently it wasn't simple enough. The friend I alluded to doesn't watch O'Reilly. So the boycott isn't really Bill O'Reilly's boycott, is it? I find it fascinating how the two sides operate. O'Reilly quotes stats from a nonexistent publication, while his detractors post propaganda arguing that the boycott increased the sales of French products in America. A little critical thinking, please. I am not prepared to quantify exactly the effect of millions of Americans refusing to buy French goods, but that effect was not an increase in sales. Duh! A majority of Americans either ignored the boycott or were unaware of its existence. A minority stopped purchasing French products. It cannot add up to an increase in sales.

 

[Ladewig]

I thought my point was simple, but apparently it wasn't simple enough. The friend I alluded to doesn't watch O'Reilly. So the boycott isn't really Bill O'Reilly's boycott, is it? I find it fascinating how the two sides operate. O'Reilly quotes stats from a nonexistent publication, while his detractors post propaganda arguing that the boycott increased the sales of French products in America. A little critical thinking, please.

Yes, I agree with your call for a little critical thinking. Nowhere in Lurker's post did Lurker say that there was a net increase in sales. The topic under discussion is whether or not Bill O'Reilly's call for a boycott measurably reduced French imports. I'm not sure why you are attacking people who claimed there was an increase. Whether or not some of O'Reilly's detractors quoted statistics of dubious value is of no importance because that has absolutely nothing to do with whether Bill O'Reilly is a reliable, credible news source. He is not. You admitted that he is not. Why is this thread continuing?

 

[pomeroo]

Yes, I agree with your call for a little critical thinking. Nowhere in my post did I say that there was a net increase in sales. The topic under discussion is whether or not Bill O'Reilly's call for a boycott measurably reduced French imports. I'm not sure why you are attacking people who claimed there was an increase. Whether or not some of O'Reilly's detractors quoted statistics of dubious value is of no importance because that has absolutely nothing to do with whether Bill O'Reilly is a reliable, credible news source. He is not. You admitted that he is not. Why is this thread continuing?

Hold on. O'Reilly, I acknowledge, falls short of being an unimpeachable source. Is he less reliable than other commentators on the major and cable networks? I strongly doubt that. Fox News has never attempted to swing a presidential election, as did CBS in 2004. Does O'Reilly distort facts and smear his opponents as blatantly as Keith Olbermann does? Is O'Reilly as overtly partisan a Republican as Chris Matthews or Bill Moyers are Democrats? My problem with this thread is that it singles out Bill O'Reilly, who is far from being the poster boy for what ails American journalism.

 

[Lurker]

A majority of Americans either ignored the boycott or were unaware of its existence. A minority stopped purchasing French products. It cannot add up to an increase in sales.

I agree with your first sentence.

I never claimed any increase in sales but the call for a boycott could actually increase the sales contrary to what your second sentence claims, right? Certainly it is possible that through population increase, larger demand through advertising, discounts, new products in demand, or even people who dislike O'Reilly and/or the demonization of the French purposefully going out and buying more French wine, the French could see an increase in sales, correct? ETA: What Ladewig said x2

Anyway, why not consult the Paris Business Review since it is the definitive source for statistics on French exports?

By the way, I agree with you that O'Reilly could simply be mistaken in his sourcing, but why would he not correct it? I am sure he realizes he is made the fool for that comment.

 

[Lurker]

Is O'Reilly as overtly partisan a Republican as Chris Matthews or Bill Moyers are Democrats? My problem with this thread is that it singles out Bill O'Reilly, who is far from being the poster boy for what ails American journalism.

Hmm, Matthews pretty much never has a kind thing to say about Hillary and went after Gore with zeal. Can you show me where O'Reilly is attacking the GOP front runners in this election?

ETA: I *do* think Matthews is a bumbling idiot and I cannot for the life of me figure out why he has a show. He is obsessed with the minutia of the candidates. Clothes, posture etc... Great example of lazy journalism.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Upchurch]

Fox News has never attempted to swing a presidential election, as did CBS in 2004.

Do you honestly believe that? Sean Hannity is still trying to claim that Hillary Clinton was involved in the death of Vince Foster. Do you think that is a less blatant attempt to swing a presidential election (or primary at this point) than saying a candidate skipped out on some of his military obligations? Going back to '04, Fox News trumpeted the Swift Boat Veterans' false claims. Do you consider that less blatant?

By what criteria are you judging this?

Does O'Reilly distort facts and smear his opponents as blatantly as Keith Olbermann does?

My gawd, yes. Far more so, since Olbermann does it tongue in cheek and O'Reilly pretends that he is speaking the literal truth a vast majority of the time.

Is O'Reilly as overtly partisan a Republican as Chris Matthews or Bill Moyers are Democrats?

More so than Chris Matthews, definitely. (I don't watch Moyers enough to comment on him.) Matthews has had man crushes on both Guilliani and McCain.

My problem with this thread is that it singles out Bill O'Reilly, who is far from being the poster boy for what ails American journalism.

O'Reilly is singled out because it is a thread about O'Reilly. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[JoeEllison]

More so than Chris Matthews, definitely. (I don't watch Moyers enough to comment on him.) Matthews has had man crushes on both Guilliani and McCain.

It is hilarious to hear anyone accuse Chris Matthews of being partisan in favor of Democrats, when the exact opposite is true.

 

[pomeroo]

Do you honestly believe that? Sean Hannity is still trying to claim that Hillary Clinton was involved in the death of Vince Foster. Do you think that is a less blatant attempt to swing a presidential election (or primary at this point) than saying a candidate skipped out on some of his military obligations?

You're experiencing cognitive dissonance here. Sean Hannity is the conservative wrestler on a debate show. He isn't supposed to be objective. He isn't a reporter, much less a news anchor. CBS has absolutely no excuse for doing the work of the Democratic National Committee. Rather and Mapes had their hides ripped off by several op-ed writers who are not known as conservatives. A columnist for the Chicago Tribune blasted CBS for working for five years on a partisan hit piece with no intrinsic news value. The allegation that Bush coasted for the last two years of his six-year hitch was made by his opponents in two gubernatorial elections and in the 2000 Presidential election. What major network produced a hit piece on Bubba's sale of presidential pardons?

by Going back to '04, Fox News trumpeted the Swift Boat Veterans' false claims. Do you consider that less blatant?

By what criteria are you judging this?

Funny you should ask. The one controversy connected with the Swift Boat Vets' attacks on Kerry that was settled definitively--that is not a matter of opinion--is Kerry's claim that he spent the 1968 Christmas holidays, under President [sic] Nixon, on a secret mission to Cambodia. Bear in mind that Kerry has often alluded to this experience, saying that it was "seared into his memory." It turned out that Kerry was lying and the Swiftees were telling the truth.
The most damaging claim made the Swift Boat Vets is that Kerry slandered the men who fought in Vietnam. Was that a false claim?

My gawd, yes. Far more so, since Olbermann does it tongue in cheek and O'Reilly pretends that he is speaking the literal truth a vast majority of the time.

Olbermann's rabid, beet-faced rages are "tongue in cheek"? Now, that's what I call creative spin!

More so than Chris Matthews, definitely. (I don't watch Moyers enough to comment on him.) Matthews has had man crushes on both Guilliani and McCain.

You're kidding, right?

O'Reilly is singled out because it is a thread about O'Reilly. Why is that so hard to understand?

We get the idea. I repeat: if you're concerned about lies and distortions, O'Reilly is far from being the worst offender.

 

[Lurker]

Funny you should ask. The one controversy connected with the Swift Boat Vets' attacks on Kerry that was settled definitively--that is not a matter of opinion--is Kerry's claim that he spent the 1968 Christmas holidays, under President [sic] Nixon, on a secret mission to Cambodia. Bear in mind that Kerry has often alluded to this experience, saying that it was "seared into his memory." It turned out that Kerry was lying and the Swiftees were telling the truth.

Actually, the Christmas in Cambodia story is inconclusive. The "evidence" against Kerry was his book but the Swifties were careful to read only the portion of the book that supported their claim while excising out the immediately preceding 10 pages that questioned it.

The most damaging claim made the Swift Boat Vets is that Kerry slandered the men who fought in Vietnam. Was that a false claim?

Slandered? He repeated testimony that he had heard. He even said it was stuff he had heard at Winter Soldier. Interesting how every event he mentioned has been verified to have happened at least once and you can imagine how difficult it would be to verify these sorts of things in a war. Did he go overboard? Perhaps and this is the only justified attack on Kerry IMO. The attacks on his medals and purple hearts is far below what we should engage in. I don't want to open the box of questioning veteran's honors 30 years after their service in a war. I sincerely hope you are not one of that sort, Ron.

 

[JoeEllison]

Actually, the Christmas in Cambodia story is inconclusive. The "evidence" against Kerry was his book but the Swifties were careful to read only the portion of the book that supported their claim while excising out the immediately preceding 10 pages that questioned it.


Slandered? He repeated testimony that he had heard. He even said it was stuff he had heard at Winter Soldier. Interesting how every event he mentioned has been verified to have happened at least once and you can imagine how difficult it would be to verify these sorts of things in a war. Did he go overboard? Perhaps and this is the only justified attack on Kerry IMO. The attacks on his medals and purple hearts is far below what we should engage in. I don't want to open the box of questioning veteran's honors 30 years after their service in a war. I sincerely hope you are not one of that sort, Ron.

Funny how in this thread on liars and lack of integrity, pommy has to lie about Kerry, as though no one is paying attention. Weak!

 

[Ladewig]

Hold on. O'Reilly, I acknowledge, falls short of being an unimpeachable source. Is he less reliable than other commentators on the major and cable networks?

And the merry-go-round makes another pass. From post #7:

Political commentators and journalist are held to different standards. When a political commentator is caught making up a source, usually very little happens. When a journalist is caught making up a source (and making up fictitious statistics to support his point of view), he is fired.

The problem is that while most of O'Reilly's defenders see him as a political commentator, Mr. O'Reilly sees himself as a journalist (as per his website).

I'm prepared to call him a political commentator, but not one like any other I've seen.
Have any of the other people you mention made up a source out of whole cloth, been caught, and refuse to even acknowledge the error? Have any of the other people you mention claimed to have single-handedly won the War on Christmas? Have any of those people claimed to have kept gasoline prices low after Katrina (transcript)?

O'Reilly is in a class by himself. He deserves his own thread.

 

[Upchurch]

You're experiencing cognitive dissonance here. Sean Hannity is the conservative wrestler on a debate show. He isn't supposed to be objective. He isn't a reporter, much less a news anchor.

And he's one of Fox News' leading shows along with O'Reilly. The question wasn't one of whether or not Fox News has conservative fluff shows. It was whether or not Fox News has ever tried to swing a presidential election. They have and continue to do so.

Your claims of cognitive dissonance would carry more weight if you could keep the thread of discussion together longer than a single post.

The most damaging claim made the Swift Boat Vets is that Kerry slandered the men who fought in Vietnam. Was that a false claim?

I know you get upset when people start bring facts to the party, but educate thyself.

Olbermann's rabid, beet-faced rages are "tongue in cheek"? Now, that's what I call creative spin!

What beet-faced rages are you talking about? To my knowledge, most of Olbermann's "smearing his opponents" comes in his "Worst Person in the World" bit. And, yes, that is mostly tongue in cheek.

You're kidding, right?

Not especially. If I were kidding, I would try to make it funny.

We get the idea. I repeat: if you're concerned about lies and distortions, O'Reilly is far from being the worst offender.

Granted, but that wasn't really the question, was it?


eta: If we were going to start with the worst offenders of lies and distortions, we would probably have to start with Savage and then continue on to Coulter and Hannity. Maybe then we get to O'Reilly.

 

[Ladewig]

I thought my point was simple, but apparently it wasn't simple enough. The friend I alluded to doesn't watch O'Reilly. So the boycott isn't really Bill O'Reilly's boycott, is it? I find it fascinating how the two sides operate. O'Reilly quotes stats from a nonexistent publication, while his detractors post propaganda arguing that the boycott increased the sales of French products in America. A little critical thinking, please. I am not prepared to quantify exactly the effect of millions of Americans refusing to buy French goods, but that effect was not an increase in sales. Duh! A majority of Americans either ignored the boycott or were unaware of its existence. A minority stopped purchasing French products. It cannot add up to an increase in sales.

And yet, it does add up to an increase in sales.

O'Reilly called for a boycott in March of 2003. In April of 2004, he claimed that "France has lost billions of dollars." The U.S. Census Bureau website indicates that the U.S. imports from France rose during that timeframe.

No one here is asking you to approve of liberalism or to admire reporters and commentators with a liberal bias. The only point we are trying to make is Bill O'Reilly is not good at his job.

 

[pomeroo]

It is hilarious to hear anyone accuse Chris Matthews of being partisan in favor of Democrats, when the exact opposite is true.

It is hilarious to deal with someone so clueless that he seems unaware that Matthews doesn't deny being a Democrat and is featured in almost every issue of Notable Quotables, the conservative newsletter that quotes media figures displaying a liberal bias.

 

[Upchurch]

It is hilarious to deal with someone so clueless that he seems unaware that Matthews doesn't deny being a Democrat and is featured in almost every issue of Notable Quotables, the conservative newsletter that quotes media figures displaying a liberal bias.

tit for tat

As for not "denying" being a Democrat, the man used to be in politics. He was a speech writer for Carter and an aide to Tip O'Neill.

 

[pomeroo]

And he's one of Fox News' leading shows along with O'Reilly. The question wasn't one of whether or not Fox News has conservative fluff shows. It was whether or not Fox News has ever tried to swing a presidential election. They have and continue to do so.

Let's try it again. CBS News violated the ethics of journalism by preparing a partisan hit piece aimed at electing the Democratic candidate. Fox News airs several "straight" news shows, NONE of which has ever engaged in partisan politics. This is a rather simple concept. Get it?--Rather simple. Sean Hannity is not a news anchor feigning objectivity. Shep Smith does not allow politics to intrude into the news. Dan Rather was a news anchor who allowed his politics to shape his coverage of the news. Why pick a fight you can't possibly hope to win?

Your claims of cognitive dissonance would carry more weight if you could keep the thread of discussion together longer than a single post.

We all understand that you'd prefer that I didn't point out the hypocrisy of the lefties on this thread. But, you'll just have to live with it.

I know you get upset when people start bring facts to the party, but educate thyself.

You're right: when you're kidding, you do make it funny. A Wikipedia article written by the Kerry campaign? Uh, yeah, the neutrality of that article has been disputed.
No, Kerry has not yet released the parts of his record that would settle the issues raised by the Swiftees. Some people have noticed.
It remains true that he lost exactly ONE day in the field from the "wounds" he suffered that, amazingly, produced three Purple Hearts.
It remains true that he slandered the men who fought in Vietnam.
It remains true that he lied about being in Cambodia under "President" Nixon.

What beet-faced rages are you talking about? To my knowledge, most of Olbermann's "smearing his opponents" comes in his "Worst Person in the World" bit. And, yes, that is mostly tongue in cheek.

Well, you've got me there. I guess I was referring to the beet-faced rages I see whenever I watch Olbermann, which, I am happy to report, is less and less frequently.

Not especially. If I were kidding, I would try to make it funny.



Granted, but that wasn't really the question, was it?

If the question amounts to leftist hypocrites criticizing Bill O'Reilly for sins they ignore when committed by pundits they like, well, it's a pretty fatuous question.

eta: If we were going to start with the worst offenders of lies and distortions, we would probably have to start with Savage and then continue on to Coulter and Hannity. Maybe then we get to O'Reilly.

No, the most egregious liars would be Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and everyone on the loony-left who has strained to engineer an American defeat in the Middle East.

 

[Lonewulf]

Man, this discussion has gone so off track, it's like a train wreck.

 

[pomeroo]

tit for tat

As for not "denying" being a Democrat, the man used to be in politics. He was a speech writer for Carter and an aide to Tip O'Neill.

Yes, I know that he worked for Tip O'Neill and I also know that he's genuinely outraged by the crookedness of the Clintons. Matthews is a very partisan Democrat, more partisan than Bill O'Reilly.