Again, this is simply not true. Watch any hour of his show and you can prove this statement demonstrably false.
In fact, many of his best regular guests are people who he disagrees with on everything such as Al Sharpton. He’s on the show often. He nearly always disagrees with O’Reilly. He’s allowed to answer questions. Your statement is false.
Please quote where you retracted it.
Folks - arguing about O’Reilly’s relative merits should probably be in Great Debates or the Pit. Sorry I contributed by commenting on my take about the man, but I was trying to do it in a way that was clear but not offensive to those who have a different view…
:rolleyes:
This has nothing to do with what I was posting. You have conceeded that O’Reilly’s ratings are higher than all of his cable news competetors combined. My point was that it isn’t fair to set such a higher standard in the first place.
I asked for you to quote this just to point it out to you. For some reason it greatly annoys me when people play the “you don’t understand what I meant, therefore you must not be paying attention to my posts” card.
I paid attention, and I read your post. It still was in disagreement with your original point, which had not been (and still has not been) retracted, and I pressed you on it.
Whatever. I see you haven’t commented on the fact that I mentioned that ratings are relative. Disagree with that?
Of course they are. A high rating for O’Reilly would be a low rating for the Superbowl. So what?
Well, I suppose I could wade in here and yell “Everybody play nice!” – but for the life of me, I don’t understand why this thread should be in Cafe Society at all. Just because it’s on th’ teevee doesn’t mean it’s “art” or “entertainment.”
So how about if I just move it to the Pit, where most of the O’Reilly threads live anyway, and everyone can be just as mean as they please.
– Uke, CafSocMod
Here’s some, that I consider substantial.
That’s a real fair and impartial site you got there. :rolleyes: I took a look at the first three cites they have.
The first one is some whining about how Bill’s apology regarding the US not finding WMD’s in Iraq wasn’t sincere enough. However, O’Reilly did apologize as promised and didn’t lie about anything. They just don’t like him. So what.
The second one is about O’Reilly’s comments about Canada. He says that they have no military to speak of and that their socialistic system has nearly bankrupted them. They point to the fact that Canada has a surplus of 7 billion for that year as ironclad proof that O’Reilly lied. Well, from their own cite you can see that Canda is using the surplus to pay towards thier 510 Billion dollar debt. It’s debatable if this makes Canada “nearly bankrupt”, but O’Reilly clearly isn’t lying here. He just has an opinion that they disagree with.
The third cite is them complaining about O’Reilly picking on Dean. O’Reilly points out that Dean is against parental notification laws for minors having abortions and that this position will cost him votes in the south. They complain about how awful O’Reilly is for pointing this out, but admit that it is actually true. This one is particularly bad. There isn’t any real logic to speak of behind the rantings, and it appears to be written by a child or someone very immature. I would expect far better of a standard SDMB post than is shown here.
I gave up after the first three. The charges seem to be that O’Reilly said something that they are offended by and/or disagree with, and that somehow makes him a bold faced liar. Well, sorry, but that’s not how it works. He does a show that is based on his opinion. If you don’t like it then don’t watch. However, that does not make him a liar. I find it extremely intellectually dishonest for people to need to call him a liar just because they disagree with his politics. It’s just immature and poor form.
I don’t have a TV with access to Fox News, so I cannot really watch O’Reilly, although I would certainly like to watch his interview of President Bush.
I’m certainly willing to acknowledge that O’Reilly isn’t all evil, and that he may produce a show that is largely topical, substantial, and interesting. However, when listening to that NPR interview, things were going along quite nicely until O’Reilly seemed to just explode over, IMHO, a rather minor point. It was so sudden and irrational that the whole thing struck me as a pre-planned event that O’Reilly would tell Ms. Gross to basically fuck off. Back on his own show, his representation of the interview was that, “he actually enjoyed telling the woman off,” and presented the entire thing as adverserial. My initial response to the whole interview was that Ms. Gross was doing a pretty interesting job of getting some pretty interesting stuff from O’Reilly about his past, and I thought that the interview actually represented him positively. Even if I don’t agree with some of his viewpoints, he seemed like a relatively thoughtful and interesting guy. Until his little pre-planned temper tantrum.
Hence, I’d say that he’s more likely simply an attention whore than anything else.
Come on, O’Reilly can’t even get The Daily Show’s demographics right.
Come on, this is the No Spin Zone. You might have a point on the other two matters, but O’Reilly was wrong on this one. I can’t figure out how a country with six straight annual budget surpluses (quoted from the linked material) can possibly be construed to be close to bankruptcy. Stop the spinning!
I think that many on the left dislike O’Rielly with such fervor is that he is the representation of Fox and the “new media”. Your perception of bias will lie in your own belief system…and Bill is to the right of many on this board and therefore wrong. If you actually WATCH his show as I do a couple of times a week, you will be able to see that he is closer to the middle than many others.
That’s especially rich in light of the PIPA study (.pdf link) that concluded that FoxNews viewers were much more likely to have no fucking clue whatsoever about a central campaign issue.
This just in – “Fake News” viewers better-informed than fans of “No Spin Zone.” Who’s surprised? 
Debaser: The second one is about O’Reilly’s comments about Canada. He says that they have no military to speak of and that their socialistic system has nearly bankrupted them. They point to the fact that Canada has a surplus of 7 billion for that year as ironclad proof that O’Reilly lied. Well, from their own cite you can see that Canda is using the surplus to pay towards thier 510 Billion dollar debt. It’s debatable if this makes Canada “nearly bankrupt”
Debatable? I certainly hope so! Otherwise we’re in deep doodoo: if Canada’s $7 billion budget surplus and $510 billion debt make them “nearly bankrupt”, then the US’s $400 billion budget deficit and $7.3 trillion national debt must make us absolutely bankrupt!
So where’s O’Reilly complaining about our capitalistic system bankrupting us? Lordsakes, if he’s going to go around flagging national economic emergencies, we’re obviously a much more dire case than Canada is.
In my opinion, he’s much closer to the middle than the likes of Dan Rather (who I’ve loathed for decades), Peter Jennings and Aaron Brown.
O’Reilly is a drop in the bucket. This country is inundated by liberal journalists. CBS’ own retired news president (whose name escapes me at the moment) said so himself on MSNBC just last week. He says it’s just “the way of the world” when it comes to journalism. There are dozens of nationally prominent news personnel, and hundreds if not thousands of more localized news personnel, that are liberal.
And on the right? Well, ten years ago there was Limbaugh. Now, there’s Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly.
And what is generating ranting, outrage and indignity, both here and around the country at large, about unfair media bias? Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly!
Like I’ve said before. There mere absence of liberal complaint about the news media in general is itself the best evidence of media bias.
I disagree. I can’t speak for anything prior to the media during Clinton, but I think that’s a misconception. During Clinton’s presidency, the right hollered and complained about the media not covering what they perceived as scandals or shortcoming of the White House. They claimed it was due to a liberal bias. Well, during the Bush administration, there are still shortcomings and scandals which just aren’t met with my hard journalism.
My contention is that the media isn’t liberal, it’s just stupid.
SA: absence of liberal complaint about the news media in general
:eek: Boy, SA, you obviously don’t keep up with liberal opinion! Of the many, many liberal commentators complaining vociferously about mainstream media’s bias against liberal views, I direct you only to Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media?:
You may not find Alterman’s and other liberal complaints persuasive, but you certainly can’t argue that there’s an “absence” of liberal complaint about media bias.
What a bunch of garbage. The editorial slant of the bulk of US media is decidedly conservative. Individual liberal voices can certainly be found, but they are not as imbedded in the mainstream media to the extent that the conservatives are. You notice the source you quote for support is retired, SA. No intelligent person has used the phrase “liberal media” with a straight face since the Reagan years. Wake the fuck up.