Fair and Balanced...O'Really?

[McClaud]

If he has to have the same first name.
Bill Maher.

Bill Maher? Well first of all there is the problem of him being a comedian and not a journalist. Secondly, how in the world is he open minded? All he does is ridicule anyone and everyone that doesn't share his leftist views of the world. Just listen to the awful things he says about Sarah Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a3fSoX3cg0

Wow. A lot of people don't have nice things to say about Sarah Palin. My father, the ultimate Conservative Republican, doesn't have nice things to say about Sarah Palin. Bill Maher being mean about Sarah Palin is not like something special that wasn't happening in the Republican Party already. He actually used a lot of the same arguments that most of my Conservative friends did when hating on Sarah Palin.

You need to chill, man. I stopped being a Republican two years ago because the God Squad took over and ran out the intelligent, fiscal and logical thinking people back in 2003. Sarah Palin is the last straw for most Conservatives. You should probably ask yourself WHY THAT IS.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

Oh really, no proof other than witness testimony you say? Well I'm sorry to inform you, it happened [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/oreilly-producer-stalks-a_n_178468.html]. Now I don't watch a lot of the factor but from that piece I can tell that he's both close minded and paranoid.

Did you watch the video? Did she look like she was being assailed or did she look off guard? I'd say no on the former, yes on the latter. They asked some questions and she answered them, that's all we can surmise actually happened the rest might have happened. I don't know, I wasn't there; but the alleged events being presented as factual events is a breach of journalistic integrity. If there was surveillance footage of the woman being followed around that would change things. If there were other eye witnesses that would change things. At this point I am not convinced that anything out of line occurred.

Bill O'Reilly isn't the worst by far, since Rush Limbaugh owns the title of Greatest Damaging and Dishonest Windbag in Media. But he is fairly biased. He doesn't give a shit who he hurts, when he hurts them, as long as he pleases his media handlers and has a high rating at the end of the night. He has a high rating because the people who hate him and know the truth listen to see what other crap comes out of his mouth.

Could you at least be a bit more specific so that there's room for discussion here? It's impossible to respond to anything that vague and incendiary. Since we've kind of established O'Reilly as the main talking point I'd also like to limit discussion primarily to him and not to every other conservative media outlet out there.

 

[jboking]

Well of course Bill O'Reilly is fair and balanced. The O'Reilly factor is the original no spin zone! It's just the liberal media starting rumors about him that makes people believe that he is unfair with his guests.

Please oh please tell me that's sarcasm coming from you Pumpkin?

Have you ever watched O'Reilly's show? If you watch it then you'll see that there isn't a more balanced and open minded news outlet today. Seriously, can you name one TV host who's more open minded and straightforward than Bill O'Reilly?

I've never had a huge problem with O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor. He is kid of a douche on the radio though, and it is there where my only problems with the guy come to light.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxMidi2TofY&feature=related

 

[sneakypenguin]

Why complain so much about fox? The right wing has fox the left has msnbc cnn.

 

[Aramax]

I only believe credible information now. To be deemed credible a news story must be presented on at least 3 credible news channels, have lot's of supporting evidences that I can have access to and not make my BS detector go crazy.

 

[sneakypenguin]

All I'm getting from this thread is "Your an idiot if you watch fox news, listen to Rush, don't agree with liberals."

Thats to be expected among youth. Age will moderate them, also since this is a "intellectual" forum there is a larger number of libs. Cause wherever pseudo intellectualism exist there you will find liberals.(like my college)

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

You only said a TV host, which he is.
And freedom of speech is a rather nice thing.

The OP was about news media so I thought it was an assumption that news and political talk was the only medium we would be discussing. On another note I would never assert that he doesn't have a right to say hateful, mean spirited things about someone he's never met before, but at the same time I have the right to criticize him for it.

You need to chill, man. I stopped being a Republican two years ago because the God Squad took over and ran out the intelligent, fiscal and logical thinking people back in 2003.

Have I been saying anything that's out of line? I don't think that I've said or done anything ITT that would require me to "chill." I'm just disagreeing with the popular opinion is all, there's nothing wrong with that is there?

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

Okay, I want to talk about this, but let's start with:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/36696/

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Well of course Bill O'Reilly is fair and balanced. The O'Reilly factor is the original no spin zone! It's just the liberal media starting rumors about him that makes people believe that he is unfair with his guests.

Please oh please tell me that's sarcasm coming from you Pumpkin?

Have you ever watched O'Reilly's show? If you watch it then you'll see that there isn't a more balanced and open minded news outlet today. Seriously, can you name one TV host who's more open minded and straightforward than Bill O'Reilly?

If he has to have the same first name.
Bill Maher.

Seconded. Real Time is the only HBO series I take time to watch.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

I've never had a huge problem with O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor. He is kid of a douche on the radio though, and it is there where my only problems with the guy come to light.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxMidi2TofY&feature=related

Yeah, that was a douche move, but who doesn't blow their top every now and then? I know that I do all the time, but I don't have every tantrum I throw broadcast live to the entire nation. If you read between the lines, that's all that happened, you can tell he's frustrated even at the very beginning, he was probably having a really crummy day and his frustration got the better of him. I'm not arguing that he's perfect by any means.

 

[jboking]

Oh really, no proof other than witness testimony you say? Well I'm sorry to inform you, it happened [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/oreilly-producer-stalks-a_n_178468.html]. Now I don't watch a lot of the factor but from that piece I can tell that he's both close minded and paranoid.

Did you watch the video? Did she look like she was being assailed or did she look off guard? I'd say no on the former, yes on the latter. They asked some questions and she answered them, that's all we can surmise actually happened the rest might have happened. I don't know, I wasn't there; but the alleged events being presented as factual events is a breach of journalistic integrity. If there was surveillance footage of the woman being followed around that would change things. If there were other eye witnesses that would change things. At this point I am not convinced that anything out of line occurred.

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.

 

[McClaud]

Bill O'Reilly isn't the worst by far, since Rush Limbaugh owns the title of Greatest Damaging and Dishonest Windbag in Media. But he is fairly biased. He doesn't give a shit who he hurts, when he hurts them, as long as he pleases his media handlers and has a high rating at the end of the night. He has a high rating because the people who hate him and know the truth listen to see what other crap comes out of his mouth.

Could you at least be a bit more specific so that there's room for discussion here? It's impossible to respond to anything that vague and incendiary. Since we've kind of established O'Reilly as the main talking point I'd also like to limit discussion primarily to him and not to every other conservative media outlet out there.

It's not your topic, Pumpkin. But I'll entertain you - the point was that Fox News and various Conservative-biased people are pretending to be honest, unbiased news sources. O'Reilly threatened a myrad of other news reporters, including ones that are not real news reporters - like Jon Stewart - for calling him out, with violence and litigation. I can name probably every person he's threatened on-air. Olbermann (by sending a guy out to harass him), David Letterman, Al Franken, and other liberal people. He even riled up a listener [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/is-bill-oreilly-to-blame_b_34068.html] enough to go and carry out threats in real life.

Look, I'm a Conservative in nature. I used to be Republican, but holy crap - even most of my friends who still are even think Bill O'Reilly's full of crap. And they listen to him just to make fun of his shock jock show. That's where his numbers come from - people who either buy into his crap or know it's crap and like to see what new crap he's going to spew today.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

I didnt realize there was that many people on here who watched or ,more disturbingly, believed fox news. Then again most cable news networks are rather full of crap, but really the king turd is fox news.

Fox new is the joke of broadcasting, here in Canada some people were pissed because Fox aired a talk show were they were insulting our military. For me sure I as offended, I mean out army isn't big but its not bad. Were a very well trainded and liked nation. When Americans go to the middle east they pretend to be Canadian. Then I realised it was Fox and just because they aired it they shoot themselves in the leg. (Actually a very Canadian version of Fox would be CTV for thier bull about Brandon Crisp and such)

 

[runtheplacered]

I've not only seen the show but I've read one of his books. I would definitely never imagine myself calling Bill O'Reilly "open minded". "Straight forward" perhaps, but definitely not open minded. Although he calls it the no spin zone, he makes his agenda very clear, and goes to great lengths to protect his agenda even at the cost of integrity.

Does believing fervently in one's ideals make one close minded?

"Believing" in something isn't being closed-minded. Of course not. Not listening to the other side or taking in what other people have to say certainly is. Which is why I made it a point to display the protection of his agenda at the cost of his integrity. He sets his agenda very "straight forwardly" as you said, but then stops at nothing to argue that point, no matter who says what.

This is how you gain an audience, by the way. Sticking to popular beliefs and rallying people behind you about them. Once you start being "open minded" on the air, your (for example) conservative audience is going to shout "What did he say??" and quickly change the channel, because you took a liberal stance on something. It really makes me sick that it works this way, but this is what sells on TV.

I'm not saying he's a horrible human being. I have no idea if he is or not. But he's just another player in the game called "marketing".

 

[iTeamKill]

Well of course Bill O'Reilly is fair and balanced. The O'Reilly factor is the original no spin zone! It's just the liberal media starting rumors about him that makes people believe that he is unfair with his guests.

Please tell me that was sarcasm... Maybe its just late here and I'm reading it wrong, but please let this be sarcasm...

 

[McClaud]

This is how you gain an audience, by the way. Sticking to popular beliefs and rallying people behind you about them. Once you start being "open minded" on the air, your (for example) conservative audience is going to shout "What did he say??" and quickly change the channel, because you took a liberal stance on something. It really makes me sick that it works this way, but this is what sells on TV.

I'm not saying he's a horrible human being. I have no idea if he is or not. But he's just another player in the game called "marketing".

Exactly. I don't know if he believes in half of what he spouts, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't care as long as it makes him money. His freakin' salary is huge. He didn't get it for being honest and unbiased, that's for sure.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

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? 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? 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. It's legal and it's ethical.

 

[AfricanSwallow]

Fox, and the O'Reilly Factor are on the same page as Entertainment Tonight and TMZ.


It's not news, it's a visual tabloid.

And as far as criticism of O'Reilly goes:

You could always just check the Paris Business Review.
It said he had won several Peabody Awards.
[/sarcasm]


He lied on several occasions about winning a Peabody award.

And how is a news outlet that manufactures statistics and publications is still reporting 'news'?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

It's not your topic, Pumpkin. But I'll entertain you - the point was that Fox News and various Conservative-biased people are pretending to be honest, unbiased news sources. O'Reilly threatened a myrad of other news reporters, including ones that are not real news reporters - like Jon Stewart - for calling him out, with violence and litigation. I can name probably every person he's threatened on-air. Olbermann (by sending a guy out to harass him), David Letterman, Al Franken, and other liberal people. He even riled up a listener [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/is-bill-oreilly-to-blame_b_34068.html] enough to go and carry out threats in real life.

Look, I'm a Conservative in nature. I used to be Republican, but holy crap - even most of my friends who still are even think Bill O'Reilly's full of crap. And they listen to him just to make fun of his shock jock show. That's where his numbers come from - people who either buy into his crap or know it's crap and like to see what new crap he's going to spew today.

If I were arrogant enough to claim ownership of a thread I would be telling you that it is news only, not that I assumed it was news only. That's not my intention I was just clarifying that that was what I was asking for because I thought it was what we were discussing. Can we try and keep this civil from here on out?

I read most of the article, but I'm finding the same problem with this that I've found with a number of things ITT; Bill didn't do it. I've never seen Bill advocate violence or intimidation against people he disagreed with. If you can cite instances where he has than that article would gain a lot of validity.

"Believing" in something isn't being closed-minded. Of course not. Not listening to the other side or taking in what other people have to say certainly is. Which is why I made it a point to display the protection of his agenda at the cost of his integrity. He sets his agenda very "straight forwardly" as you said, but then stops at nothing to argue that point, no matter who says what.

This is how you gain an audience, by the way. Sticking to popular beliefs and rallying people behind you about them. Once you start being "open minded" on the air, your (for example) conservative audience is going to shout "What did he say??" and quickly change the channel, because you took a liberal stance on something. It really makes me sick that it works this way, but this is what sells on TV.

I'm not saying he's a horrible human being. I have no idea if he is or not. But he's just another player in the game called "marketing".

So are you saying that there are two Bills? One that we see on television and hear on the radio and another Bill that we know nothing about?

 

[NeutralDrow]

...most of them? Okay, maybe not straightforward, but describing Bill O'Reilly as open-minded is beyond belief.

Pretty sure that would require enough salt to mummify a person.

You didn't answer my question, I asked you to name one, just one person who presents the issues more fairly than Bill O'Reilly and you couldn't do it. Bill O'Reilly haters always have to dodge that question because they can't give a straightforward answer.

Jon Stewart. Yes, I realize he is primarily a comedian, and with leftist views. He's still far more fair than pretty much anyone else I've seen since Johnny Carson died.

"Believing" in something isn't being closed-minded. Of course not. Not listening to the other side or taking in what other people have to say certainly is. Which is why I made it a point to display the protection of his agenda at the cost of his integrity. He sets his agenda very "straight forwardly" as you said, but then stops at nothing to argue that point, no matter who says what.

This is how you gain an audience, by the way. Sticking to popular beliefs and rallying people behind you about them. Once you start being "open minded" on the air, your (for example) conservative audience is going to shout "What did he say??" and quickly change the channel, because you took a liberal stance on something. It really makes me sick that it works this way, but this is what sells on TV.

I'm not saying he's a horrible human being. I have no idea if he is or not. But he's just another player in the game called "marketing".

So are you saying that there are two Bills? One that we see on television and hear on the radio and another Bill that we know nothing about?

I certainly hope so. I'd hate to think he's that much of a prick in real life.