What's So Bad About Bill O'Reilly?

fishbob said:
Backwards as usual. He is a lying worthless blabberer, so I disagree with his message.
Click to expand...
It is amazing how many people actually believe the disdain for O'Reilly comes before the criticism of his lying, etc.

My personal anecdote (yep, I know, a survey of one) is that a friend of mine turned me on to O'Reilly. I read his first book, started watching him, and liked him right away.

You don't know how tough that is for me to admit that! :redface1
 
I was watching O'Reilly a bit last night and yet again, he mentioned how a person (I forget which one it was now) has refeused many invitations to come on the show. While he spins on a lot of things I feel confident he's telling the truth on that one and I just can't understand why big political names and organizations repeatedly refuse to go on and instead just let themselves be bashed by O'Reilly. It's simply dumb. All you have to be is intelligent and informed and you can hold your own with him.

Someone last night said something to O'Reilly that stopped him short and it amazes me it more people don't say this to him because it is a great (and obvious) response to some of what he says. O'Reilly asked something and the other person said "That's an unfair question" and proceeded to explain why. If people would just do stuff like that and also point out to the audience those times when he only gives 10 seconds to answer when 60 seconds are required to give a sufficient answer then the tone of the show would be way different. At least O'Reilly wouldn't be able to say "We invited X on the show many times and he refused" since he'd probably just stop inviting X on the show.

The O'Reilly Factor is far and away the most watched nightly newstalk show and yet in the months...months...leading up to the 2004 election the Democratic candidate refused repeted invitations to be on the show. That is absolutely moronic.
 
Lurker said:
hun:

I find it odd that you jump in and defend O'Reilly and it is clear you don't even know the substance of the complaints against him. The Paris Business REview is a prime example but others exist.
Click to expand...

I don't defend him. I commented on the "War on Christmas."

You seem to be defending his "War on Chirstmas" rallying cry yet you know no particulars of what O'Reilly said.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm working on what I have seen, not what he has said.

O'Reilly said that a school district had banned wearing red and green when that turned out to be untrue.

O'Reilly claimed that a choir had altereed the song Silent Night to kowtow to anti-Christian secularists. Turns out the revised edition of Silent Night had been written many years ago by a Christian who made it plain it was not anti-Christian.
Click to expand...

I know nothing of those claims or events.

You see, Hun, our complaint about O'Reilly is not his positions, but that he makes claims that are patently false.
Click to expand...

Okay.

I'm focused on the "War on Christianity", including the "War on Christmas."

If the man had the cojones to admit his mistakes on TV and correct them, that would be fine. But he seems to prefer to bury his mistakes and not ever discuss them allowing people like you to think what he said is the gospel truth.
Click to expand...

Even if I was inclined to believe what he says is "the gospel truth", that wouldn't apply if I don't listen to him, would it?

I see his show perhaps two or three times per year. He ain't my Messiah.

Edited after seeing your response above. My apologies.
Click to expand...

No problem.
 
jimtron said:
And yet another strawman. Do you really not understand that we're criticizing O'Reilly not because of his opinions, but because he makes stuff up? There are plenty of broadcasters whose views I do not share, yet I respect their integrity.
Click to expand...
LOL. You have plenty of broadcasters that hold views you don't share, yet you respect their integrity? Name a couple, recalling this thread is in politics (as subset of which is media of every persuasion in today's world.)


Where's the uproar/attacking regarding the observation of Christmas in schools, or displaying nativity scenes in American cities? Please cite sources. I had assumed that this was an O'Reilly strawman, but maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
You are correct; since you can't hear them, there is no silent majority. "Fly-over country" does not exist. They do vote.
 
hammegk said:
LOL. You have plenty of broadcasters that hold views you don't share, yet you respect their integrity? Name a couple, recalling this thread is in politics (as subset of which is media of every persuasion in today's world.)
Click to expand...
I know this was not directed at me but I can respond:

George Will

Morton Kondracke
 
hammegk said:
LOL. You have plenty of broadcasters that hold views you don't share, yet you respect their integrity? Name a couple, recalling this thread is in politics (as subset of which is media of every persuasion in today's world.)
Click to expand...
Also not directed at me, but I have a lot of respect for Pat Buchanan. I'm not sure I agree with anything he says, but I feels he states his opinions honestly, but more importantly, I don't think he takes himself to seriously. Contrast that with Dan Rather, who I may agree with more, but feel he takes himself way to seriously.
 
DavidJames said:
Also not directed at me, but I have a lot of respect for Pat Buchanan. I'm not sure I agree with anything he says, but I feels he states his opinions honestly, but more importantly, I don't think he takes himself to seriously. ..
Click to expand...
Great example. I find Buchanan's views to be reprehensible, sometimes patently offensive and probably dangerous. But he's not a snivelling liar like O'Reilly. I can respect Buchanan. Also, he's a lot smarter.
 
Part of O'Reilly's evidence of the War on Christmas is that greeters and signs at malls and stores like Walmart used to say "Merry Christmas" and now say "Happy Holidays." Because devout Christians complained that proclaiming Christmas in a commercial way was irreverant (perhaps to the point of being offensive), many stores changed their policy to have non-religious felicitations. Most people see the change as both an accomodation to passionately religious folks and a way to include other members of the population. O'Reilly sees the change as an affront to Christians. I disagree with his opinion.

ETA: this is a perfect example of how O'Reilly is like a bully. He doesn't care aboout other folks - he wants his religion to be the only one acknowledged in December.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
Great example. I find Buchanan's views to be reprehensible, sometimes patently offensive and probably dangerous. But he's not a snivelling liar like O'Reilly. I can respect Buchanan. Also, he's a lot smarter.
Click to expand...


I'll second that. Although I find his outright denial of evolution somewhat repugnant, I do believe that in many areas, he adds to the marketplace of ideas. I don't agree with everything he says, but I am willing to listen to his points. Same with Newt Gingrich.
 
I agree with Newt. Not one I'd ever vote for, but I can respect him. Buchanon too I guess although my heart twinges at the thought of posting anything positive about Buchanon.

Lurker
 
Ladewig said:
Part of O'Reilly's evidence of the War on Christmas is that greeters and signs at malls and stores like Walmart used to say "Merry Christmas" and now say "Happy Holidays." Because devout Christians complained that proclaiming Christmas in a commercial way was irreverant (perhaps to the point of being offensive), many stores changed their policy to have non-religious felicitations. Most people see the change as both an accomodation to passionately religious folks and a way to include other members of the population. O'Reilly sees the change as an affront to Christians. I disagree with his opinion.

ETA: this is a perfect example of how O'Reilly is like a bully. He doesn't care aboout other folks - he wants his religion to be the only one acknowledged in December.
Click to expand...

My wife runs a school and it’s the Christian parents who want to crack down on Christmas as well (the secular and commercial parts), and of course Halloween.
 
Lurker said:
I agree with Newt. Not one I'd ever vote for, but I can respect him. Buchanon too I guess although my heart twinges at the thought of posting anything positive about Buchanon.

Lurker
Click to expand...
Buchanan is a better barometer IMO of the sensibilities of those who have lost faith with Dems and Reps as being representative of their positions. He comes with baggage, of course, but he's a refreshing voice now and again. (His latest on DC consent laws, on the other hand, has me scratching my head)

Newt is all too often a "more of the same" windbag. His Contract with America idea was a decent piece of political work, but he hasn't sold me on much of anything lately, other than being attention starved.

DR
 
hammegk said:
LOL. You have plenty of broadcasters...
Click to expand...
In my view, BO speaks untruthfully to an uncommon extent, though I readily admit that my biases could be at play here (as to the uncommon part; his serial spewing of misinformation is well documented).

You suggested that the Paris Business Review gaffe was probably committed by a staffer. Maybe so. But when misinformation goes uncorrected, that's when it can and should be called for what it is -- a lie. (I searched for "paris business review" at billoreilly.com and whaddya know, hit a blank.)

If you, Huntster, or any other BO defenders are interested, maybe we could devise a test to try and determine if BO is in fact looser with the truth than a liberal reporter/commentator such as Olberman, by seeing not just who utters the more egregious falsehoods, but also who fails to issue corrections.

I realize that any test we devise will be far from perfect, but it could be an interesting, enlightening, and fun exercise in any case. What do you say?
 
LOL. You have plenty of broadcasters that hold views you don't share, yet you respect their integrity? Name a couple, recalling this thread is in politics (as subset of which is media of every persuasion in today's world.)
Click to expand...

Do you think that everyone who has views that you don't share is lacking integrity? Here are a few folks who I disagree with, but who have integrity afaik:

John McCain
George Will
David Brooks
P.J. O'Rourke
Penn & Teller
 
varwoche said:
In my view, BO speaks untruthfully to an uncommon extent, though I readily admit that my biases could be at play here (as to the uncommon part; his serial spewing of misinformation is well documented).

You suggested that the Paris Business Review gaffe was probably committed by a staffer. Maybe so. But when misinformation goes uncorrected, that's when it can and should be called for what it is -- a lie. (I searched for "paris business review" at billoreilly.com and whaddya know, hit a blank.)
Click to expand...

It's not just a matter of miscommunication. An uncorrected mistake is an uncorrected mistake.

However, when O'Reilly is confronted with these "mistakes," he blusters on about "smear campaigns," blames Media Matters, and completely refuses to take responsibility for them.

Then he tries to market himself as credible and fair, which is patently false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom