Bill O'Reilly

[Cicero]

Cicero,

Would you be interested in performing an actual experiment to determine O'Reilly's position on the liberal/conservative scale? I have made this offer to other conservatives who claim O'Reilly is not so conservative and they never take me up on the challenge. Interested?

Lurker

This would of course necessitate that you actually watch "The Factor" and not just C&P your O'Reilly info from smirkingchimp, media matters, moveon.org, etc.


But please present your method of measurement.

 

[Cicero]

I was responding to your statement that "Fox News has never attempted to swing a presidential election." The actions of John Ellis put the lie to your claim.

As for your blurring the issue with regard to the folly of analyzing votes in hindsight, cast or not, when Florida was called for Bush it was not known what was what other than the tallies indicated that recounts would no doubt follow. Making the call (with the subsequent competitive rush of the other networks) injected a psychological barrier in much of the public's thinking with regard to any opposing candidate's rightful challenge. This is old news and, as I say, not relevent to what you initially wrote.

Are you aware that major U.S. newspapers officially endorse political candidates?

 

[Lonewulf]

This would of course necessitate that you actually watch "The Factor" and not just C&P your O'Reilly info from smirkingchimp, media matters, moveon.org, etc.


But please present your method of measurement.

I don't get why there's this assumption that people that criticize the O'Reilly Factor have never ever actually watched it.

Do these people really assume that none of us have ever actually seen the show? I have seen it, personally.

Can you tell me precisely what I actually missed? In detail?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Are you aware that major U.S. newspapers officially endorse political candidates?

I haven't read any other endorsements, but the Dallas Morning News endorsed both a Democratic and Republican candidate (sorry, who they were slip my mind currently) and gave rational, non-partisand reasons for doing so.

That's in a city with one major daily though, so I'm sure "the old" days are still in effect elsewhere where there's multiple dailies.

 

[Skepticybe]

Yes, you'll note Rather no longer worked at CBS after that incident.

I'll check it out in more depth later, but from what I saw it didn't seem very well sourced.

Whether he continued to work at CBS after this public, embarrassing exposure of bias does not change whether such bias was, or is, at work. I'm surprised you would pose such an argument, as I'm sure you're aware that the bias was present and at least tolerated, if not encouraged.

When you check out MRC, look through the cyberalerts. Lots of hypersensitivity, but also lots of genuine and blatant liberal-slanted journalism. They provide the relevant transcripts and details for each item, which is well-enough sourced for me.

 

[Upchurch]

You are becoming a self-parody: Lefties who read nothing prattling about "sources," as if you care.

Yeah, why would skeptics care about evidence?

Notable Quotables gives the quotes demonstrating liberal/left bias and provides the venues and dates.

With no links and hardly any context. That's just super.

Whether he continued to work at CBS after this public, embarrassing exposure of bias does not change whether such bias was, or is, at work. I'm surprised you would pose such an argument, as I'm sure you're aware that the bias was present and at least tolerated, if not encouraged.

He was fired, or at least "requested that he resign". How do figure that was encouraged?

My argument is that proper journalism is self-correcting. In this particular case, the bias was found and removed.

When you check out MRC, look through the cyberalerts. Lots of hypersensitivity, but also lots of genuine and blatant liberal-slanted journalism. They provide the relevant transcripts and details for each item, which is well-enough sourced for me.

Although the cyperalerts are certainly better documented than those Notable Quotables, most of it isn't sourced to primary sources. Most of the links are either to other MRC articles or re-hashed NewsBusters.org articles that have no source at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know this liberal vs conservative media debate is off topic but I must jump in. I went to great lengths to see what both sides were basing their conclusions on. And that's all it took to resolve the obvious contradiction that the news media seemed to have a conservative bias to me (especially in the last couple decades) while the conservatives use the cry of liberal journalism every time they hear something which doesn't favor their views. Why listen to other people's opinions? Just go to the data directly.

The claim the news media has a liberal bias is based on any number of sources that surveyed the political position of employees in the news rooms. There are more registered Democrats working in news rooms than registered Republicans including some but not all top newscasters. More top newscasters in the past were Democrats than currently. Now there are a whole slew of right leaning or outright right wing newscasters and pundits.

The claim the news media has a conservative bias is based on a number of sources that actually analyzed the news content.

So what would be the skeptical conclusion as to which of those data sources more accurately reflected the actual news bias?


Edited to add:

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.

Now here you go with exactly what I said. There are more liberal employees including reporters. Apparently the editors and owners, not so much. And reviewing the content reveals the outcome.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

The fact is Faux News is not objective. If you can't see that you are living in an alternative reality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Actually Faux News has both false reporting and neocon talk programs.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't get why there's this assumption that people that criticize the O'Reilly Factor have never ever actually watched it.

Do these people really assume that none of us have ever actually seen the show? I have seen it, personally.

I found out a few weeks back that cicero is wrong almost 100% of the time. When it's pointed out, with evidence, he's not man enough to admit it. At that point I stopped responding to him. I decided I had my share of debating with those not mature enough to know better when my children were growing up and felt no need to reminisce.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you aware that major U.S. newspapers officially endorse political candidates?

Are you aware they do so openly on the editorial page and take care not to bias the actual news coverage?

Unlike Rupert Murdoch who can hardly conceal the use of his media empire as a propaganda machine.

Rupert Murdoch - News Corporation: Chairman

Two News Corp holdings in particular have provided neoconservatives an influential platform: Fox News and the Weekly Standard. Murdoch's personal involvement has helped to ensure that almost all of his news organizations "have hewn very closely to Mr. Murdoch's own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq," as one commentator put it (New York Times, April 7, 2003)....

One British newspaper opined: "You have got to admit that Rupert Murdoch is one canny press tycoon because he has an unerring ability to choose editors across the world who think just like him. How else can we explain the extraordinary unity of thought in his newspaper empire about the need to make war on Iraq? After an exhaustive survey of the highest-selling and most influential papers across the world owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, it is clear that all are singing from the same hymn sheet. Some are bellicose baritone soloists who relish the fight. Some prefer a less strident, if more subtle, role in the chorus. But none, whether fortissimo or pianissimo, has dared to croon the anti-war tune. Their master's voice has never been questioned" (Guardian, February 17, 2003)....

Fox News, which eclipsed CNN in 2002 as the top-rated cable news network in the United States, has frequently been singled out for criticism because of its blatantly one-sided coverage of the war in Iraq and for printing unsubstantiated stories about the conflict. When CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour blamed Fox for creating "a climate of fear and self-censorship" regarding coverage of Iraq, a Fox spokeswoman shot back, "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaida" (USA Today, September 14, 2003)....

 

[pomeroo]

Yeah, why would skeptics care about evidence?


With no links and hardly any context. That's just super.

You're not a skeptic. You are an uncritical partisan.

He was fired, or at least "requested that he resign". How do figure that was encouraged?

My argument is that proper journalism is self-correcting. In this particular case, the bias was found and removed.

A tad misleading. The bias of the three major networks is blatant and ongoing. Rather and Mapes crossed the line separating bias from outright advocacy and commissioned a hit piece designed to elect the Democratic candidate. I will acknowledge that many liberal Democrat journalists were appalled by CBS's breach of professional ethics.

Although the cyperalerts are certainly better documented than those Notable Quotables, most of it isn't sourced to primary sources. Most of the links are either to other MRC articles or re-hashed NewsBusters.org articles that have no source at all.

You have created a rather silly canard. Notable Quotables provides the quote, the name of the person who spoke or wrote it, when it was said or written, and the venue. There are no paraphrases or distortions: the quotes speak for themselves.

 

[pomeroo]

Are you aware they do so openly on the editorial page and take care not to bias the actual news coverage?

Unlike Rupert Murdoch who can hardly conceal the use of his media empire as a propaganda machine.

Rupert Murdoch - News Corporation: Chairman

Have you ever looked at, much less linked to, a source that isn't very far left?

 

[pomeroo]

Actually Faux News has both false reporting and neocon talk programs.

There is no evidence that Fox slants its news coverage. We understand that you object that it isn't slanted to the left.

 

[Upchurch]

You're not a skeptic. You are an uncritical partisan.

So you claim. Can you back that up?

You have created a rather silly canard. Notable Quotables provides the quote, the name of the person who spoke or wrote it, when it was said or written, and the venue. There are no paraphrases or distortions: ...

...and no context. Do you not understand how a lack of context can change the meaning of a quote?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looking for false information spouted on Faux Noise (like that addition ) on Google, one is overwhelmed with example after specific example.

Hannity and FOX News Keep Those Supreme Court Lies Coming
Fox News' Live Desk cluttered with falsehoods on Clinton, Bush terrorism records
Below are excerpts from Ailes' Q&A interview followed by evidence Media Matters has documented that refutes his claims:
Top five Gitmo falsehoods (from Media Matters)

You can find similar notes looking on Google for CNN falsehoods. The CNN falsehoods (on brief review) seem to center around interviews allowing people in government positions to state unchallenged falsehoods. And of course there are the poorly rebutted Larry King interviews with people like Sylvia Brown and James Van Praagh.

The quality of the falsehoods are considerably different. To overgeneralize, CNN is a government mouthpiece, Fox News is Murdoch's.

The fact we get such distorted news overall is truly problematic. Personally, I see it as a threat to true democracy. Some people think I overstate the threat.

 

[Upchurch]

There is no evidence that Fox slants its news coverage. We understand that you object that it isn't slanted to the left.

Check out Media Matters. It not only provides a quote, but also the context of the quote and the primary source for the quote.

Now, unless you can debunk MM's Fox News related articles, you cannot yet again repeat your above claim without showing yourself to be an uncritical partisan.

 

[dpskala2517]

O'Reilly Good Deeds

Alternately, if you think O'Reilly is a really great guy, I would be interested to see how he has done something positive for, well, anybody (besides himself and his agenda).

I I think someone else asked this question too.

• He lit a fire under the American Red Cross to see that funds donated to relatives of 9/11 victims got to them in a timely fashion.
• He lit another fire under the USO to urge them to get more celebrities for shows in Iran for our troops.
• All the proceeds from the stuff he sells on the web go to charity
• He personally funds 100% an orphanage in Central America
• He is a major donor to two other such orphanages
• He has brought the light of day to a number of incompetent judges who let serious criminals out on the street way too soon with ridiculously light sentences
• He is a major champion for the passage of Megan's law in all states to provide mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters and especially repeat offenders

I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them right now. Of course none of this makes the guy right about anything he says anyway, but it does prove he has a few good qualities.

BTW, I do find it weird to be discussing this on JREF, but as long as we are --

I find the techniques of the extreme fringe loonies at both ends of the spectrum rather tiresome. For instance, how many posts do you see here and elsewhere that basically say - 'I disagree with the guy's opinion, therefore he is a stupid lier.' The other technique is to closely follow what someone (like O'Reilly) says for a relatively long time, and wait for him to say something dumb or incorrect or that can be taken out of context to make him look bad in some way. Nobody can withstand that kind of scrutiny!

And someone here posted an anti-O'Reilly message that said he was full of crap. It also claimed that he advocated a boycott of Canada. Now I watch pretty frequently. and I recall no such boycott. So I would maintain that the poster is the one full of crap, unless he can document such a boycott

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You can't possibly be serious.

Why not?

You shovel the most threadbare Democrat propaganda and talk about putting the lie to my claim.

Did John Ellis, a Bush family friend, hold a position of authority in the Fox election coverage team?

You can read a fairly objective account (one that still leaves certain important questions unanswered) of the VNS fiasco in Oh Waiter! One Order of Crow!, by Jeff Greenfield, a well-known Democratic consultant.

I've read the book.

Greenfield tap dances around the potentially scandalous issue of why the major networks were instantly calling states for Gore that he eventually won by close margins, but leaving uncalled for inexplicably long periods states Bush won by landslides. The networks, incidentally, have refused to account for their behavior. Greenfiled suggests that "corrupt" VNS data caused the problem. In the meantime, of course, the networks created the false impression that a Gore tide was sweeping the nation, affecting states where polls remained open.

Please don't tell me you think the major media were behind Gore? Please don't.

The biggest story of Election 2000, you'll note, is one that very few people know about.

No. The biggest story of Election 2000 is what the biggest story is: one of the most shameful and anti-American episodes in the nation's history.

The hopelessly lame spin of the Democrat attack dogs about "public perceptions" papers over the fact that Gore lost every recount and never led in Florida.

The election results, again, at the time, were too close to call. Too close to call. Would you like me to repeat that? Too close to call. It does not matter what the results were eventually, though that question is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Oddly enough, if Gore had ever taken the lead, for reasons absolutely no one can explain, the counting would have stopped instantly.

I don't know to what you refer.

Hmmm. Those alleged public perceptions did not inhibit the Gore camp from pulling every trick in the book.

And the Bush operation was a team of angels in whose mouths butter was safe from melting.

John Ellis advised Fox to call the state for Bush because that is what his projections showed. The other networks did not rely on Ellis; they used their own judgment.

No. To review, the state was too close to call.

And who said other networks relied on Ellis?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Are you aware that major U.S. newspapers officially endorse political candidates?

And minor ones, too. Your point?