Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Bill O'Reilly. Unspun.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good point.

I think I meant to say 'cable news' too.

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.

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?

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.