Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives
Posted By: daenku32_dup1 Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/17/04 07:54 PM
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=coleweb

Quote:

I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."





So. Does Fox News have anyone to balance out O'Reilly, or is that other networks responsibility?


EDIT:
And to continue revealing the spin meister O'Reilly, let's look up transcript July 16th show:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125958,00.html
Quote:

That's nine mentions of conservatives being for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now if you read the articles, it's obvious what "The Times" is doing. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is labeled a conservative




No. It means people who are for Constitutional Amendment on the matter, are most likely Conservatives. If the NYT article even talked about gay marriage itself, O'Reilly certainly did not mention it. And that "majority of Democrats in America oppose gay marriage" doesn't mean jack when it comes to Constitutional Amendments.
Posted By: Dan Nixon_dup1 Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 05:04 PM
Is this a revalation that O'Reilly is conservative?

He IS the balance for Jennings, Brokaw, & Rather...all of which preceeded him. O'Rielly does claim to be fair and balanced (not really true) but at LEAST doesn't claim to be a reporter (unlike the 3 I mentioned), instead he is an analyst...were bias is fair game.
Posted By: daenku32_dup1 Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 05:30 PM
So when he says that he or his show is 'Fair and Balanced', that is a pure lie.

I don't recall the others making any claims about being 'Fair and Balanced'. Nor do I see them going overboard like O'Reilly with accusations.
Posted By: Davo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 05:32 PM
I don't like O'Reilly. The "No Spin Zone" is completely bogus. Not agreeing with B.O. is considered spin in that zone. He's trying to be a middle-road Rush Limbaugh, but it will only be a matter of time until he realizes how contradictory that is. His ratings have been falling for a while now, even though he's still tops in cable news.
Posted By: The Digital Slacker Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Davo7SVT:
His ratings have been falling for a while now, even though he's still tops in news cable.





*sigh*
Its not news, its news commentary.
Posted By: Davo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 05:56 PM
Good point.

I think I meant to say 'cable news' too.
Posted By: Dan Nixon_dup1 Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 06:00 PM
Not a pure lie...maybe a half truth. The guests he has on the show are fairly well mixed (conservative v liberal). Bill takes the conservative position about 3 out of 4 times...but at least the liberal position is vocalized.

In contrast, the networks typically offer one position in a given news piece, with liberal positions outnumbering conservatives maybe 2:1. Exceptions like Tim Russert exist but they are uncommon. The 3 journalists (all having admitted being liberal in viewpoint but denying in colors their broadcast) I cited do not do so many interviews..there liberal flavor is best tasted in the type of stories covered (they each have extensive editorial control of their respective networks), with excessive dwelling on negative (for the admin) stories and ignoring many positive stories. To some extent this can be blamed on "bad news sells" but the contrast with Fox is striking. I would also add if bad news really does sell, good news must sell better because Fox is growing yearly in market share.

Bias is in the eye of the beholder...what I see as bias will not be what you see. What you see as bias, I will not see, as clearly at least. But I CAN recognise that YOU see it. Fox stands out to liberals as right wing in part because no alternative from the network/CNN perspective has been offered for so many years. I see Fox as MUCH closer to a balanced perspective in at least VOCALIZING the left viewpoint, even if the commentator disagrees. IMO but not yours I suppose it is shocking that networks have remained so incredibly one sided to the point that I wonder how they got away with it unchecked for so long. It is good to have alternatives, right wing or left...keeps BOTH sides honast.
Posted By: 99blacksesport_dup1 Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 06:09 PM
Wow so his claim is that someone edited something to make it lean more towards the point that they are trying to make? Thats rediculous, no one would ever do such a thing! **ahem**Michael Moore...

Amazing when moore's commentary films do the EXACT same thing, they are hailed as being enlightenend to the evils of the Bush admin. But when someone who never claimed to be making a documentary does it, all of the sudden he has done something wrong?!?

I watched a nice segment on Foxnews about that commentary movie OutFoxed. One of the great points they made is that just because the people that do the commentary shows on Fox are not liberal like the rest of the newss stations, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, that does not make them this ultra conservative bunch they are trying to be made out to be.

Also, in my opinion, if they were as conservative as they are being made out to be, that would be fine in my book. Because when it comes down to their actual news reporting, they show another side to the stories that the Clinton News Network is showing. Instead of reporting all this doom and gloom on the war, they show the U.S. soldiers being cheered in Iraq and Afghan, and alot of other stories like it. But when something actually does go bad in Iraq, they will also report that. That is fair and balanced.

Thats also another thing that I don't understand. Everyone is all up in arms about their slogan, Fair and Balanced. Well when a product claims to be "the best stain remover ever!" and its obviously not, where is all the outrage of false advertisment?
Posted By: TourDeForce Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 07:02 PM
Originally posted by daenku32:
So when he says that he or his show is 'Fair and Balanced', that is a pure lie.

I don't recall the others making any claims about being 'Fair and Balanced'. Nor do I see them going overboard like O'Reilly with accusations.




Those others are not news commentators, they are professional journalists presenting the news - supposedly. It is their DUTY as journalists to present the various facets of a controversy and let the reader/listener decide how it will affect them.

If they bias their broadcast in an effort to sway public opinion, or withold an opposing point of view in a effort to advance some social agenda, then they are nothing more than mouthpieces for one side or the other. In that respect I think B.O. has the news networks beat - he at least has a dissenting voice to speak to (or at least offers them the opportunity to come onto his show to be heard).

I can't count how many times I've heard the network newscasts spend 4 minutes on one side of an issue, then finish the segment with, "The White House denies these allegations.". They're only doing 1/2 their job & they're getting away with it.
Posted By: Davo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 07:14 PM
If the media admitted their biases, I'd have no problem with them. Media is a capitalist enterprise, therefore they have no obligation whatsoever to present the "news" in one way or another. My problem is that they continue to deny the bias, misleading millions of people. People are becoming smarter and smarter, and B.O., Rush, Hannity, and all other counter-liberal media are evidence of that.
Posted By: TourDeForce Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Davo7SVT:
If the media admitted their biases, I'd have no problem with them. Media is a capitalist enterprise, therefore they have no obligation whatsoever to present the "news" in one way or another. My problem is that they continue to deny the bias, misleading millions of people. People are becoming smarter and smarter, and B.O., Rush, Hannity, and all other counter-liberal media are evidence of that.




In that one aspect we differ. Journalistic integrety has gone down the toilet to such an extend that we no longer hold these clowns accountable??

If they want to slant things in order to serve their capitalistic masters, then they need to put out an alternative. A magazine themed to their views, or package a news analysis program in such a way that it is palatable to the American public. But to present a "News Broadcast" and bias their reporting to such a degree, they should lose their FCC license.

Now don't take this as a afront to the freedom of speach, but rather a wake up call that ENCOURAGES the freedom of speach and public debate. I don't want them shut down, but rather if they want to broadcast, then let's have all of the news, not just the portion they want us to hear.

Gee, that almost sounds like THEY are squashing other peoples freedom of speech, doesn't it... ironic.
Posted By: lsneo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 08:49 PM
the liberal media and democratic media are ruining our young. I see this everywhere i go. Everyone is making uneducated decisions on everything. I am only 20 but i make it my point to watch both sides of the media and then make my decision. When i watch fox news i see what is going on, when i watch the other news i see nothing but bush bashing and blaming. Everything that is going on right now is being blamed on bush. Like lots of people say we have no jobs, and that we were better of with clinton, yet the numbers show the contrary. People need to realize that times are changing and that its not our president who is ruining us, we are ruining ourselves. Corporate america is outsourcing faster and faster,thats the reason we are losing many jobs. And we as people just cant get along, like we cant have the word god in public places. Thats b.s. im not religious and i dont give a flying Fack if the word god was painted all over the world. We are becoming nothing but a bunch of lying, bitchen, sacks of shix. We are becoming FRENCH. Screw that, we need to stop that. we are going to kill this country.
Posted By: Davo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 08:58 PM
The same media that puts Joe Wilson on a golden pedestal and kisses his feet when he spouts off about how the intelligence about Iraq buying uranium from Niger is bogus also runs and hides when it is revealed that he pretty much made everything up. Well, they didn't run and hide, they just ignored the story.

But I could go on for days about media bias...
Posted By: TourDeForce Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/19/04 09:14 PM
Originally posted by lsneo:
We are becoming FRENCH.




Them's fitin' words, young man!
Posted By: PackRat_dup1 Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 12:39 AM
Originally posted by daenku32:
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=coleweb

Quote:

I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."





So. Does Fox News have anyone to balance out O'Reilly, or is that other networks responsibility?


EDIT:
And to continue revealing the spin meister O'Reilly, let's look up transcript July 16th show:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125958,00.html
Quote:

That's nine mentions of conservatives being for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now if you read the articles, it's obvious what "The Times" is doing. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is labeled a conservative




No. It means people who are for Constitutional Amendment on the matter, are most likely Conservatives. If the NYT article even talked about gay marriage itself, O'Reilly certainly did not mention it. And that "majority of Democrats in America oppose gay marriage" doesn't mean jack when it comes to Constitutional Amendments.




Awwwww. Did you and your wibewal fwiends forget that Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a journalist?
Posted By: Davo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 12:55 AM
Originally posted by PackRat:
Awwwww. Did you and your wibewal fwiends forget that Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a journalist?



Ted Koppel let some swill about Hannity being a journalist leak out of his mouth. I guess they start to think everyone claims to be a journalist like they do.
Posted By: Wien_Sean Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 05:41 AM
lsneo, just wanted to mention about the word of God not allowed in public places usually has to do with Government places. I am Christian myself, but the government can not endorse any religion. Plus as a Christian I know the bible states spread the word but do not force it upon non-believers. So when you only teach Christianity aren't you forcing students to believe that the bible is fact? Are you giving the student the oppertunity to choose to be a Christian or not? Can you teach every religion? No, and that is why there is no endorsement of religion by the US government. That is where it's become a little more cloudy then can we have a bible verse on a wall or not. And on another note I do blame the people in power because of the state that we are in right now. I have made an informed decision about what I think of the current admin. and I think they have done a lot wrong. But yes you are right that the outsourcing of jobs is killing us. The problem is jobs used to go to other countries 30 years ago, but we just had better and more hightech products. Plus service industry jobs like call centers hardly ever went over seas. We either need to make it more lucrative for employers to keep jobs here or come up with something that the US alone can produce that the world wants.
Posted By: ODC Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 06:10 AM
Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard like Micheal Moore.

Oh, what happened to the people with integrity and pride like Uncle Walt.
Posted By: GrooveNerd Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 07:02 AM
Originally posted by ODC:
Oh, what happened to the people with integrity and pride like Uncle Walt.




Uncle Walt, as in Cronkite? Yeah, there's some unbiased, credible integrity there... "And that's the way (we want you to think) it is..."

Speaking of unbiased, it's nice to see that Air America is (still) floundering. They pulled a one-something compared to Rush's four-point-something recently -- and I think that was in NYC! Maybe the market is finally saturated with enough liberal wackjob, Hate America First networks...

On another, if somewhat off-topic -- but positive -- note, distinguished politcal expert Linda Ronstadt got herself 86'd from the Aladdin in Las Vegas on Saturday. "In a bizarre performance notable for its bridge-burning comments, Ronstadt inflamed more than her Aladdin audience on Saturday by taking potshots at Las Vegas and dedicating "Desperado" to "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker Michael Moore." That's it LinDUH -- bite the hand that feeds you. It truly is a beautiful thing to see these buffoons getting reprimanded for injecting their political views into non-political events. People like Rush get criticized for even having the views they do, but the libs are supposed to get a pass when they start bashing America? HA! I don't think so! The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. It does NOT, however, guarantee you an audience.

Marty
Posted By: Wien_Sean Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 07:46 AM
Why do you think Air-America hates America? Is it's because they are critical of America that they hate America? Thomas Jefferson said it best "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.". Just because the people over at Air-America have just as valid and cogent message that you do not agree with does not mean they hate America. Indeed I believe these people who critical of what has happened in this nation are infinitely more Patriotic then those who blindly follow the right or the left wing.
Posted By: Davo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 01:22 PM
Originally posted by IL Sean:
lsneo, just wanted to mention about the word of God not allowed in public places usually has to do with Government places. I am Christian myself, but the government can not endorse any religion. Plus as a Christian I know the bible states spread the word but do not force it upon non-believers. So when you only teach Christianity aren't you forcing students to believe that the bible is fact? Are you giving the student the oppertunity to choose to be a Christian or not? Can you teach every religion? No, and that is why there is no endorsement of religion by the US government. That is where it's become a little more cloudy then can we have a bible verse on a wall or not.



This comes up a lot around here because there are a couple public parks in towns around here with The Ten Commandments displayed. The ACLU gets involved, there are court orders, etc. What everyone has failed to do, up to this point, is prove how having The Ten Commandments displayed in public is government endorsement of a religion.
Posted By: TourDeForce Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 01:48 PM
Originally posted by GrooveNerd:
Originally posted by ODC:
Oh, what happened to the people with integrity and pride like Uncle Walt.




Uncle Walt, as in Cronkite? Yeah, there's some unbiased, credible integrity there... "And that's the way (we want you to think) it is..."




Wait just a second Marty. Uncle Walt was a consummate professional for the bulk of his career to my recollection. He rarely interjected his political views into the broadcast of the news - at least from what I can recall as a very young man. As his career wound down, the slant began, and upon his retirement his views were made evident. But he did have far more journalistic integrity than todays purveyors of yellow journalism.

Quote:

The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. It does NOT, however, guarantee you an audience.




Hehe. One of my favorates is a variation of that. "You have a right to free speech, but I am not required to listen."
Posted By: Davo Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 01:51 PM
Originally posted by TourDeForce:

Quote:

The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. It does NOT, however, guarantee you an audience.




Hehe. One of my favorates is a variation of that. "You have a right to free speech, but I am not required to listen."



Unless, of course, you're in the public school system.
Posted By: TourDeForce Re: Bill O'Reilly. Unspun. - 07/20/04 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Davo7SVT:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:

Quote:

The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. It does NOT, however, guarantee you an audience.




Hehe. One of my favorates is a variation of that. "You have a right to free speech, but I am not required to listen."



Unless, of course, you're in the public school system.




Yeah, that kinda hurts.... SO NOW I HOME SCHOOL!!

TAKE THAT YOU GUYS!!
MY KIDS ARE GONNA BE JUST LIKE ME - ONLY BETTER!!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
© CEG Archives