O'Reilly evidence

Truthlover, I recommend that you watch "Outfoxed", which is a documentary about Fox News Corporation.It documents O'Reilly's penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts. He particularly likes to reinvent history, misquoting guests and creating lies about what they said, sometimes out of whole cloth.Also, he tells people to shut up all the time.(added by edit: O'Reilly is on record defending the accusation that he tells people to shut up on his show, and has claimed that he's only told people to shut up a couple of times, yet Outfoxed demonstrates that he has told people to shut up many, many times.I saw it with my own eyes.)Lastly, if you really want to get into well-documented facts about O'Reilly, Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them" also lists quite a few.He's also is the biggest blowhard on TV news and the only reason he hasn't been fired is because he doesn't work for a real news corporation, he works for Fox.I respect Rush Limbaugh more than O'Reilly only because Limbaugh is a blowhard and doesn't pretend to be anything else, but O'Reilly pretends to be some kind of real news reporter.O'Reilly is pathalogical. And he's a total blowhard.That you don't recognize that is incredible to me.Oh, and just who are all of those Socialists on the radio shows you say exist out there in your nexk of the woods?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-03-2005 05:13 PM

quote:

---

I have no reason not to believe Al Franken makes up a lot of what he says.

---

Well, there are 13 pages of detailed references at the back of the book.Unless you think that The Washington Post, the Boston Herald, or The White House among other sources are all fake or something, I really don't know why you think that the entire book is almost nothing but lies.

quote:

---

I looked at his book in the bookstore long before I ever heard you suggest it to Percy, and it didn't look very reliable.

---

Why not, because he says things you don't like to hear?

quote:

---

I heard O'Reilly's answer to Al Franken's charge about the Republican/independent thing, and it seemed believable to me. What gain could O'Reilly possibly get by registering Republican and publicly saying he was Independent?

---

Because he could don the air of someone who was truly independant, undecided, and not a partisan hack. Seems to me this would be a big advantage in the politcal commentary game.I would think that was obvious.

quote:

---

Listen, I have been on the receiving end of a lot of slander & libel. Fox News ran a completely negative news story on us with about two minutes of slander from a family that hates us, and they followed it with about 8 minutes of inuendo and suggestion. A pastor in Florida wrote a 19-page refutation of us, with numerous out-of-context quotes from our web site, most of which was written by me. Then I was called as a witness in a custody case, and grilled about more out of context quotes from our site, which wasn't even up anymore. Prodigy's message board once had two people claiming that I propositioned a 13-year-old boy by email, and they had the email to prove it.

​

I'm in a "cult." People will produce all sorts of accusations. I've learned not to trust those accusations, because I've seen what's been done to us and to me, and I've seen the witnesses produced to prove those false accusations were true.

---

I'm sorry that Fox did that to you.That's the kind of thing that O'Reilly does to people, and I have seen it on the TV with my own eyes.

quote:

---

I believe O'Reilly when he says he didn't know he was registered Republican.

---

I don't.

quote:

---

The man seems honest to me,

---

He seems like a pathalogical liar and a bully to anyone who disagrees with him to me.Look, I watched him browbeat, berate, and cut the mic of a young man on his show who's father had just died in the WTC bombing because that kid had the audacity to oppose our military action.Weeks, and then months later, he completely misrepresented what the young man said on his show.I SAW it with my own eyes.Either he is deliberately lying, or he is an irresponsibly sloppy journalist.The man is a egomaniac with an anger management problems, who also has a problem telling the truth.

quote:

---

and I have yet to see the motive for any of the lies they've accused him of telling;

---

Why would he lie multiple times (these are documented) about winning two Peabody awards, one of the most prestigious awards for journalism, while he was host of Inside Edition?Gee, I just don't know why someone who wants people to view him as a serious journalist would lie about getting journalism awards. You stumped me there!(Inside Edition won a single Polk award, about a year after Bill left the show)Then, he started to lie about having ever lied about getting two Peabodies!

quote:

---

nor to see one of those lies that's even significant.

---

You don't think that a wanna-be journalist lying about getting prestigious journalism awards is significant?You don't think that lying about what a guest said on your show is significant?

quote:

---

If the man were going to lie, don't you think he'd find better things to lie about than how he's registered at the polls and the name of an award that can be researched by anyone?

---

Clearly, he has found better things to lie about.OTOH, how often do you think that Fox News viewers ever look anything up or fact check anything ever said on that network?ROTFLMAO!Considering that a well done survey found that Fox News viewers are the most likely of any news consumers in the US to have the least accurate view of some of the most heavily-covered events, such as the Iraq invasion, it seems that they are extremely unlikely.People listen to O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" in order to cheer for the team, demonize the "libruls" and to be told what they want to hear.

quote:

---

I don't have any reason to believe Fox is not a real news corporation.

---

I do, and so does the non-partisan media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: F.A.I.R. has a whole section on Fox's extreme right wing bias

quote:

---

I listen to their five minute news on the hour on the way to and from work, and I listen to NPR news if I have time in the car at other times in the day. NPR is more thorough...sometimes so thorough it's boring...but otherwise they don't seem much different to me.

---

You don't watch the TV news, which is where the majority of people are getting their news in the US.There is a big, big, big, big, big difference.

quote:

---

I did find out last month on our Dallas trip that FoxNews is the most popular morning news program there. I don't think most people agree with you,

---

No shit that Fox is the most popular news station in DALLAS, TEXAS.Besides, when did the popularity of something make it good, or accurate, or correct, or high-quality, or authentic?

quote:

---

and "most people" seem a better source than Al Franken's book of accusations.

---

Al Franken's book is referenced pretty well. What about "most people" in Dallas? Have they hired a team of Harvard students to fact check for them, like Al did?I really can't believe you are using these fallacious arguments, Truthlover, you know better.

quote:

---

And that link I followed from you in the last thread this was discussed was simply inaccurate. FoxNews couldn't be any more slanted than that article you sent me to. (One of their three "myths" that FoxNews watchers think is true proved not to be a myth, but to be quite true. Definitely makes their statistics useless.

---

What, exactly, are you talking about? What "myth"?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-03-2005 08:15 PM

quote:

---

Just a note: you didn't get that socialist term from me. I don't refer to democrats or left-wingers as socialists, unless they call themselves that.

---

No, you got it from me.See, you claimed that you listened to a broad range of political radio, from right, moderate, to left-leaning commentators.I suggested that what you actually were listening to were far radical right ultra-conservative, regular conservative, and moderate conservative voices.I said that moderate liberal, liberal, and radical Socialist voices were pretty much absent from our airwaves, so to claim that you listened to a true broad spectrum of conservative and liberal opinion was not really accurate.Everybody knows that talk radio is heavily, heavily weighted with conservative voices. It is simply the truth.That's why AirAmerica was such a big deal when it came out.There was nothing else like it.Anywhere.In the whole country.

Al Franken is a comedian, yes.But he's also very, very smart.He is also very bright and well-educated. He's a Harvard graduate and a former Fellow with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy.He's one of our country's best bolitical satirists, right up there with Molly Ivins if you ask me.

Thanks so much TL, for taking the time to read my link and think about what I said.I figured it was just a matter of you not really having the full picture about Fox News and O'Reilly.FYI, if you ever get a chance to see Outfoxed, you will see the interview with that boy who had just lost his father in 9/11 and you will see how O'Reilly just about rips him a new one, right there on the air.For anyone who wants to consider himself a professional jounalist, he behaves in a very intimidating, thuggish, and thoroughly unprofessional manner.I like to watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and they often have this very, very funny bit where they have a short script made of an exchange between hosts and guests on one of the political commentary shows, like Hannity and Colmes or Crossfire, only the parts are read by gradeschool children.Very illuminating as well as funny,because the exchanges are not much more than juvenile mudslinging; utterly contentless namecalling.

quote:

---

You can have whatever opinion you want of how strong or weak a link that was, but you can't ask someone whether there was clear evidence of a link and then publicly say they hold a misperception when they say yes; not without being guilty of the same poor reporting others are being accused of.

---

The point is, though, that there was not at all the sort of link that Fox News listeners and Bush supporters thought there was.The point is, there was no reason at all to invade Iraq in connection to 9/11, but Bush and Co. and Fox News succeeded in making a great many American people believe that there was a very close connection between Hussein, 9/11, and WMD. (The nonexistent WMD came later in the run up to war, though)A sizeable percentage of the US public actually thinks that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, TL, not Saudi. Where do you think they got that idea?I am willing to bet a good chunk of change that most Fox News watchers and Bush supporters haven't read the 9/11 commission report at all..This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-08-2005 07:07 AM

quote:

---

What's funny is that to some of those other questions CBS was actually worse than Fox. 9% MORE of CBS listeners were said Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. They were 2% ahead of Fox on the "less egregious, but still unproven" misperception that Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda.

---

Yup. That's why I don't get my news from any mainstream US TV news. I listen to NPR a great deal and also the BBC plus some other sources.You did notice that NPR listeners had the most accurate views?

quote:

---

Of course, you presume that conservatives and liberals are equally likely to bouy their position with propaganda and falsehood, and I don't see why that would be the case.

---

That's very true.In my own experience with relatives and other people who are Republicans, they tend to defend and cheerlead for "the team", with all of the rationalization and post hoc reasoning and making excuses that such team mentality entails. They are "defending the faith", as it were. Bush and Co. are right, the Republicans in Congress are right, in everything any of them do, and the follower's job is to defend and justify to themselves and others the actions, even if that means being willfully ignorant.By contrast, while I definitely lean left politically, I was not Clinton's greatest fan, I was disappointed that the Democrats chose Kerry (although I understood why), and I think I do a pretty good job of thinking through my position on the issues.I don't think a lot of the Republicans I know have actually thought through their positions themselves, considering many different alternatives and the pros and cons of each.They are just a member of the faithful throngs who follow because it feels good to them.

quote:

---

The "misperception" survey that is referenced earlier is kind of a one-sided thing. Someone who is against the war on Iraq would be much more likely to say that the world was against Bush, that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda, and whatever that 3rd thing was. So, that survey, while proving that Fox listeners are moved by bias and believing things aren't true, really doesn't prove that NPR listener's don't have a liberal bias. A liberal bias would make them almost immune to such misperceptions.

---

Remember, in the survey, both Fox watchers and NPR listners agreed on what the Bush administration was saying about the war.It's just that NPR listeners were more likely to have more accurate views of the facts regarding Iraq, and this included conservatives who listened to NPR.

You know, TL, I really do admire your attitude about most things.You really are a true seeker of knowledge.I'll have to read the book again so we can continue to discuss it.

I almost forgot...Merlin is getting his armpits scratched along with a belly rub.He likes that.(the name of that image on our computer is "cat yoga".)

quote:

---

I see a lot of stereotyping on this forum regarding conservatives / republicans. It must feel good to think one has figured ?them? out as a group. Once the stereotypes are entrenched, it's very easy to explain any media event in that context.

---

I don't believe I have done this. I believe I have specifically spoken of my personal experiences with conservatives/Republicans.

quote:

---

First, it?s just plain wrong to paint such a broad brush and second, the EXACT same thing happens on the other side.

---

Show me the Democratic equivalent to Fox News, Paul Wolfowitz, and Tom DeLay, and I might believe that it is EXACTLY the same.Remember, I'm the one who characterized Carville as a partisan Democratic cheerleader, so your accusation of one-sidedness on my part is a bit weak.

quote:

---

I can take your post and substitute the words ?republicans? for ?democrats?, and ?Bush and Co.? for ?Clinton and Co.?, and you would have the exact same mantra espoused by the republicans during the Clinton years.

---

But I wasn't talking broadly in the above statement.I clearly qualified my statement as referring to "my experience with relatives and other Republicans."

quote:

---

We should remember that the political pendulum never stays at one end very long. Soon enough, the country will grow weary of the republicans and the time will be ripe for a democrat to take over. In every case since WWII, a two term president has been succeeded by a president from the opposition party. I would say the odds are good that a democrat will get elected in ?08.

---

I don't know. With the voting and voter registration fraud shenanigans that have been going on I am not too sure. I live in Michigan, so I have seen locally what the Republicans are willing to do to stay in power.

quote:

---

Ah yes, political hubris knows no boundaries.

---

Look, I am talking about the specific people in my life who have self-identified as Republican, and I am talking about the specific issues I have discussed with them, and I am telling you that they all have pretty much spouted the party line on all of them.I can't really help that, now can I?

quote:

---

No, you can't really help that if that's the type of people you associate with.

---

Those are almost the only kinds of Republicans I know these days, and I certainly can't help but associate with them as they are coworkers and family members.You know, people that you know in everyday life.So, do you acknowledge that I am not stereotyping to all republicans and am reporting my own experience?

quote:

---

My question to you then; Do you ever extrapolate your personal opinions regarding the republicans that you know to the broader group of republicans that you don't know?

---

I try not to.I know that all Republicans are not like the people I know. I know that there are some very reasonable Republican lawmakers like Arlen Specter and John McCain that I respect and admire, although I do not always agree with all of their views.The group that I tend to paint with a broader brush, rather justifiably, I think, are the Far Right religious fundamentalists and the NeoCons. I include Bush, Cheney, and many of the Republican House and Senate leadership in this group.Like any extremists, they tend to not tolerate much dissent among themselves, so they really do lend themselves to actually being "all the same" compared to more moderate people.

quote:

---

Republicans and Democrats ARE the same in tactic and scope. Different ideologies that?s all. Democrats are just as extreme in their views, just as likely to spew propaganda, just as ready to ignore evidence contrary to their positions as are the Republicans. In short, politics is the same on both sides.

---

I disagree vehemently.It has been shown, time and time again, that Republicans in recent years are willing to lie and cheat to remain in power.They lied about WMD and a connection to 9/11 with IraqThey perpetrated large amounts of various sorts of voter fraud in battleground states, including fliers circulated in poor black communities telling people they couldn't vote if they had outstanding parking tickets or child support payments, and listing election day as the day after the real day.They lied about using napalm in Iraq.They lied when they secretly paid journalists to promote Republican policies without disclosing they had done so.They lied about Kerry's record and used the swiftboat veterans to smear him.They lied when they utterly misrepresented most of Kerry's proposals and positions. (I am specifically thinking of his healthcare plan and the tax rollback for the rich)Bush has lied about his military service....and those are just off the top of my head.Granted, not every Democrat has been lie-free, but I really don't see a parallel between actions of the Democrats compared to the viciousness and amorality and disregard for the truth that the NeoCons have blatantly displayed over the last 5 years.Unfortunately, the fact that Democrats are, by and large, not extremists or radicals and are not willing to take a "the ends justifies the means" sort of tactic the way the NeoCons do means that they will have a harder time.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-25-2005 10:13 PM