What's So Bad About Bill O'Reilly?

Not sure if this has been posted or not but here's my short rant on "Bill O'Really?"

I haven't read his book. I've got better things to read. I do watch his show on occasion and I saw him on Opra yesterday ranting about his nonsense. So here are my objections.

Firstly, What's with this "Traditionalist" / "Secular progressive" nonsense? Last time I checked these aren't real terms used in political science. What Bill has done here is basically make up two terms and use one to describe everything he supports and the other to describe everyone who disagrees with him. He claims that "Traditionalists" believe America is a great and noble nation that may have some problems but ultimately it's a great nation. Then he defines "Secular progressive" or "Sp's" as people who believe America is rotting from the inside out and was founded incorrectly and needs a facial. He describes "Secular progressives" as people who support abortion, are environmentalists, support legalization of drugs, oppose church meddling in state affairs, support stem cell research etc etc. Basically liberals. Then he describes "Traditionalists" exactly as Religious conservatives are described.

Anyone see what he's doing here?


Secondly, The guy likes to evade basic questions and constantly changes his viewpoints and changes the goalpost when pressured. For instance yesterday on Oprah there was a guy who said that he believed that America is a great country and was founded on great principles (Traditionalist according to O'reilly" but also claims that he supports most things 'secular progressives' support such as stem cell research, woman’s right to abortion and things like that.

When Oprah asked him about when he said that he would "never trust the Bush admin again" and if he would keep his word what his response was "I will be more skeptical of them from now on". Huh? "More skeptical" That's NOT what you said Bill. You said "never trust them again". Hmm.



These are just a few of the many many problems with Bill's rhetoric and quasi philosophy and tactics. If you don't see the many others then you need to slap yourself.
 
firecoins said:
The only thing that qualifies O'Reilly to be a news commentator are ratings, which he has.
Click to expand...



He has ratings (just as all of Fox news does) because he peddles to American ignorance. His straw men and fallacious logic are what Americans buy into. Americans generally are incredibly credulous people who don't have much critical thinking skills and Fox news as a whole basically takes advantage of this and exploits it. Which is why their ratings are so high.
 
Dustin said:
Firstly, What's with this "Traditionalist" / "Secular progressive" nonsense? Last time I checked these aren't real terms used in political science. What Bill has done here is basically make up two terms and use one to describe everything he supports and the other to describe everyone who disagrees with him.
Click to expand...
I think that summarizes it very nicely.
 
Just see this exchange between O'Lielly and Letterman (October 27, 2006). The best response O'Lielly has is about terrorism in Northern Iraq (Note: This is basically a Hertitage Foundation Press release), but the reality of that "argument" is much different.

Facts, provided by the Senate intelligence committee, show O'Lielly is either lying or misinformed. No matter the case, those listening to O'Lielly are likely to be misinformed if they don't seek the information he left out.

...detainees that originally reported on AI-IIS links have recanted, and another detainee, in September 2003, was deemed to have insufficient access and level of detail to substantiate his claims.
...
According to the DIA, detainee information and captured document exploitation indicate that the regime [of Saddam Hussein] was aware of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qa'ida presence in northeastern Iraq, but the groups' presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them.
Click to expand...

Source: Page 92 of Phase II of the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq (PDF file)

If his audience understood that Saddam's government was "secular" and was distrustful of religious radicals that sought to overthrow the Iraqi government then O'Lielly's argument wouldn't make any sense. However, those listening to his claims without skepticism become misinformed.
 
Last edited:
Dustin said:
Anyone see what he's doing here?
Click to expand...
He's being positively Orwellian by oversimplifying complex political concepts and issues into "good" and "not good".

First, he simplifies the diverse and nuanced American public in to black and white labels. Then, he takes his label for his "enemy" faction and reduces it even further to an acronym, seperating the label from its contextual meaning.

What he has done is set up a system where "the enemy" can be affixed with a label even if that label doesn't literally apply. SP is no longer means "not overtly or specifically religious making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities", but instead means "anyone not fundamentalist christian conservative".

Real life example of Newspeak in action.
 
Any discussion of O'Reilly's nonsense would be incomplete without a reference to the Fox Network's lawsuit against Al Franken who used the words "Fair and Balanced" in a book title - a lawsuit so absurd that it was literally laughed out of court http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/n...&en=221c949c94e93f90&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

O'Reilly's calling for the arrest of the broadcasters at Air America Radio ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200506220006 ) is one more reason to take what this man says with a grain of salt.
 
Count me as one that agrees that O'Reilly's dichotomization of Amercians into "traditionalists" and "secular progressives" is completely ridiculous. When I first heard him talk about that I was incredulous. I mean, he stretches and spins sometimes, but this was a new high (or low, depending on your POV).

There are so many people that don't fit into either of his nice boxes that it amazes me that he thinks people will buy this, but then again maybe they will.
 
Number Six said:
Count me as one that agrees that O'Reilly's dichotomization of Amercians into "traditionalists" and "secular progressives" is completely ridiculous. When I first heard him talk about that I was incredulous. I mean, he stretches and spins sometimes, but this was a new high (or low, depending on your POV).

There are so many people that don't fit into either of his nice boxes that it amazes me that he thinks people will buy this, but then again maybe they will.
Click to expand...
I can't stand the guy, but it's a heckuva marketing gimmick (and little else). Pure genius in that regard.
 
Lurker said:
Why not judge him? If the man is blatantly lying, am I supposed to let other viewers not know?

I like to listen in on other points of view. Sometimes it is to learn new things which modify my point of view. Sometimes it is just to see how the other side thinks.

Do you only watch that which you agree with (or like?)?
Click to expand...

I never even said who I watched. I prefer newspapers like the Wall Street Journal usually. I also said I find many things he said "misleading". But many people in this thread are making character judgments on a man they have never met. And if he is lying, prove it. Post some facts that are not just smear weapons from leftwing websites and news anchors. And I would imagine that a majority of cable news anchors distort and skew news much of the time. So why not all the hate for them?
 
Dustin said:
Not sure if this has been posted or not but here's my short rant on "Bill O'Really?"

I haven't read his book. I've got better things to read. I do watch his show on occasion and I saw him on Opra yesterday ranting about his nonsense. So here are my objections.

Firstly, What's with this "Traditionalist" / "Secular progressive" nonsense? Last time I checked these aren't real terms used in political science. What Bill has done here is basically make up two terms and use one to describe everything he supports and the other to describe everyone who disagrees with him. He claims that "Traditionalists" believe America is a great and noble nation that may have some problems but ultimately it's a great nation. Then he defines "Secular progressive" or "Sp's" as people who believe America is rotting from the inside out and was founded incorrectly and needs a facial. He describes "Secular progressives" as people who support abortion, are environmentalists, support legalization of drugs, oppose church meddling in state affairs, support stem cell research etc etc. Basically liberals. Then he describes "Traditionalists" exactly as Religious conservatives are described.

Anyone see what he's doing here?


Secondly, The guy likes to evade basic questions and constantly changes his viewpoints and changes the goalpost when pressured. For instance yesterday on Oprah there was a guy who said that he believed that America is a great country and was founded on great principles (Traditionalist according to O'reilly" but also claims that he supports most things 'secular progressives' support such as stem cell research, woman’s right to abortion and things like that.

When Oprah asked him about when he said that he would "never trust the Bush admin again" and if he would keep his word what his response was "I will be more skeptical of them from now on". Huh? "More skeptical" That's NOT what you said Bill. You said "never trust them again". Hmm.



These are just a few of the many many problems with Bill's rhetoric and quasi philosophy and tactics. If you don't see the many others then you need to slap yourself.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with someone having their own views on the world. That's how he see's the world and he has a right as an American to tell how he see's the world to other people. And who really cares if he makes up two new words. Its not the words that are important, the issues that are involved are real issues, and could be called anything. I disagree with him that its so clear cut, I do think there is a "curving frontier" that people fall on, with some very traditional and the "kool aid drinkers" on the other end.
 
Dustin said:
He has ratings (just as all of Fox news does) because he peddles to American ignorance. His straw men and fallacious logic are what Americans buy into. Americans generally are incredibly credulous people who don't have much critical thinking skills and Fox news as a whole basically takes advantage of this and exploits it. Which is why their ratings are so high.
Click to expand...

Ok so the biased brainwashing that CNN does is any different. All of cable news is like that. To put the blame squarely on Fox News is wrong. People in America arnt ignorant, they are just sick of the "sky is falling" mentality of left-wingers that overwhelmingly seeps out of CNN, MSNBC, and so on. In no way am I saying Fox News is any different, they are on the other spectrum of it.
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
Whats wrong with someone having their own views on the world. That's how he see's the world and he has a right as an American to tell how he see's the world to other people.
Click to expand...
Not a thing wrong with having his own ideas. What I object to the ideas themselves. They are simple-minded, deliberatly divisive, and a bad thing for the world. They should be denounced and it should be explained to people who buy into them why they are wrong.

MilwaukeeMike said:
I disagree with him that its so clear cut, I do think there is a "curving frontier" that people fall on, with some very traditional and the "kool aid drinkers" on the other end.
Click to expand...
Funny. It's the ones who O'Reilly describes as "traditionalists" that I think of as the "kool aid drinkers".
 
And if he is lying, prove it.
Click to expand...
Several lies have been pointed out in this thread. For example, he lied when he said his boycott of France had a significant encomic impact, and he lied that there was a magazine called Paris Business Review that published that the boycott was working.

Whats wrong with someone having their own views on the world.
Click to expand...
Everything. No one should have their own views on the world.;) This is a straman argument--who said there was anything wrong with having views?

Ok so the biased brainwashing that CNN does is any different.
Click to expand...
Feel free to cite specific examples of lies or unfair reporting on CNN. I'm against lying and misleading from the left, center, and right.

Why not respond to the specific criticisms of O'Reilly that have been made on this thread?
 
Last edited:
MilwaukeeMike said:
I think I found the problem here, this thread is full of a bunch of "Kool aid drinker". Hahaha
Click to expand...
But what if I cannot resist that sweet, sweet ambrosia?

45145492820a95b4.jpg
 
back2basics said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Google "nativity public aclu".
Click to expand...
I could do, i was just wondering if you had any substantive evidence?
Click to expand...

Will it be the game of "evidence", then "substantive evidence", then "compelling evidence", then "proof", ad nauseum?

I hate that game...............

Look at the legions of information using the keywords I cited, or forget it.
 
varwoche said:
......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......
Click to expand...

Huh? BO defender?

I don't smell that bad............
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
Its funny that everyone hates, ridicules, smears Bill... But he is obviously an important figure if all of you sit here and debate him.
Click to expand...

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Olberman (MSNBC), Bill's main competition, routinely has segments where he simply bashes him for 5 minutes...
Click to expand...

Older.......Oly..........Olger............Who?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom