Pumpkin_Eater said:
jboking said:
Relating back to the point you brought up about him not being biased. Calling people, whether they are wrong or not, "Loons" is not a the way to look fair and balanced. His interviewer was also clearly antagonizing Terkel. Furthermore, calling Terkel a villian for outlining something O'Reilly had said is ridiculous and yet another way to come of as biased. "Did you catch the Mel Gibson component?", is it a crime for her not to remember something that is online and in writing? They caught her off guard and did it purposely to make this girl look dumb. If they wanted to be fair, they could have at least informed her at least a day beforehand that they wanted to speak with her regarding something she had written so she could at least go back and read it.
It's despicable and unsportsmanlike.
So you can't call someone out when they take something you said out of context? It's too much to expect someone to listen to a whole segment before they slander you for what you said in it?
What if it wasn't slander and they are deliberatly trying to catch her off guard so it
looks that way. You can call someone out, but give them some time to justify themselves, give them some ground to fight on instead of automatically taking the "Holier than thou" approach. Furthermore, there is nothing to say she didn't listen to the whole segment other than O'Reilly's own word, which I would say is a little biased in the situation. Again, expecting her to remember something she had written a decent amount of time in the past in a career field that requires you write in copious amounts every day is ridiculous. It's the same as if I were to ask you about a forum you posted in two weeks ago, be very vague about what you said, and then bring up something completely different from the thread you posted in and continually baraged you with the phrase, "Do you remember that? Hum, Do you?"
Yes catching her off guard did have the effect of making her look dumb, but do you really think someone that opposed to your organization would agree to make an appearance if you did request it?
It happens all the time man, if it didn't then why the hell would Bill Maher keep coming on O'Reillys show? It's a matter of reputation. If O'Reilly wanted to bash her for continually refusing requests to speak on the subject I would have no problem with it. I would even see the bashing as acceptable, but thats not what he endorsed here.
That kind of interview is the only way that they would have been able to get her to address those questions, and again: it's not that unusual to an interview someone like that. Although most of the time you just get "no comment" journalists and camera crews just come up to people in the news quite often and ask away.
You want O'Reilly to be the most "Fair and Balanced", but you try to justify his actions based on the poor moral actions others have taken? Remember, Just because it's not unusual doesn't mean it isn't unfair.
It's legal and it's ethical.
"We cant get a statement out of person A so lets follow them around and constantly ask them questions until they crack or better yet, lets do it in a large group so they'll crack faster." It's legal, but it's far from ethical.
Also, you didn't really adress O'Reilly mudslinging by calling people "Loons" and "Villains".
