idrankwhat 0 #26 April 20, 2007 Quote Even if you think he always lies, he has guests to counter his positions. Most of the time there just there to be a punching bag if they disagree with him. He cuts people off incessantly when they try to make a point. He shouts at them if they don't bow out because he seems to think that volume helps his argument and it's a way to assert his control of the discussion. And after he's given a few seconds for his guest to try to make their point he launches into a monologue to get HIS spin on the issue planted as the take home message. I think it's a lousy way to interview a guest. It's disrespectful and it deprives his viewers of the alternate view that is supposedly the reason for the guest in the first place. And resorting to the argument tactics that he uses is a good indicator that he doesn't think that his argument can withstand honest scrutiny. My tip for a good interview: let the guest speak more than the host. That said, I don't think he's interested in having an honest debate about the issues and I don't think that his "entertainees" tune in to hear one. So he's doing his job well. Rush Limbaugh says it best: "I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates," Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 April 20, 2007 And this is different from Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman or Alan Colmes how, again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 April 20, 2007 I have yet to see any one of them at any time with foam coming out of their mouths or shouting at a guest.. EVER.... I have seen O'Reiley do it though. I remember seeing Lush Rimjob seething and shouting on his show too.. must be a symptom of believing all that right wing crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #29 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteI think he is a very good political commentator. Well now your views on Israel and free press have been cleared up. What's clear, Errico, is your ability to take what people say and misrepresent it with what you'd like to say. Quotebecause he shouts down every single person he disagrees with. That's provably false, and it is clear you must've formulated that opinion in some way outside actual observation of the show. QuoteO'Reilly is an entertainer, he is not a credible "political commenter" in any way, shape or form and his show is not news. Another false statement. O'Reilly has credibility simply due to the fact that many millions of people from all walks of life assign it to him. Try thinking beyond your nose -- just because YOU don't think his opinions or style are on track doesn't affect his actual credibility level. In truth, O'Reilly is both an entertainer and a credible political commentator (and seeker of justice, and philanthropist). QuoteIt is also disheartening (as a fellow skydiver) that you watch this show for serious journalism and consider yourself to be informed about free press or news coverage. Wow, it's suddenly clear to me that if you watch O'Reilly, it must be impossible to get news or perspective from any other source or medium. Thanks for the Eureka moment . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 April 20, 2007 Quote I have yet to see any one of them at any time with foam coming out of their mouths or shouting at a guest.. EVER.... I have seen O'Reiley do it though. I remember seeing Lush Rimjob seething and shouting on his show too.. must be a symptom of believing all that right wing crap. I've seen Matthews do it... and seen clips of Olby/Colmes. Of course, in Matthews' case, it may just be Pavlovian drooling...hard to tell. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base428 1 #31 April 20, 2007 It's "O'Reilly" (with two L's). I like him and I hope his program sees continued success.(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 April 20, 2007 Quotehe, Limbaugh, and Hannity etc. have a tendency to pretend that they're "news" sources See, I don't see that at all. They are talk show, hosts, commentators, editorial types. I've never seen any of them come across as news nor proclaim themselves as news. They talk ABOUT the news, but never seem to report it. That's crazy talk. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #33 April 20, 2007 Quote I understand that O'Reilly is a threat to liberals, . He is? Is Al Franken a threat to Cons? As far as him being 'infotainment', see his Fox News Bio page- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155,00.html "During his six years at Inside Edition, the show was one of the highest-rated "infotainment" programs in America." -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #34 April 20, 2007 QuoteIs Al Franken a threat to Cons? No. Franken has nowhere near the influence that O'Reilly enjoys. Franken can't even keep a radio show going. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperKat 0 #35 April 20, 2007 QuoteIt's "O'Reilly" (with two L's). I knew something was wrong. I just copied and pasted from Youtube. Are you the spelling police? lol Just borrow one L from his first name. What's the most you ever lost in a coin toss, Friendo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #36 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuotebecause he shouts down every single person he disagrees with. That's provably false, and it is clear you must've formulated that opinion in some way outside actual observation of the show. Provably false if I leave it as literal and don’t correct my broad statement to mean he talks over, and yes sometimes yells AT and OVER any guest with a dissenting opinion against the one that the large demographic of his viewers would hold. Quote QuoteO'Reilly is an entertainer, he is not a credible "political commenter" in any way, shape or form and his show is not news. Another false statement. O'Reilly has credibility simply due to the fact that many millions of people from all walks of life assign it to him. No he doesn't. In any journalist or academic circle of any serious nature he has none, he is an entertainer. Quote Try thinking beyond your nose -- just because YOU don't think his opinions or style are on track doesn't affect his actual credibility level. In truth, O'Reilly is both an entertainer and a credible political commentator (and seeker of justice, and philanthropist). The credibility of himself, his show, his associates, and the entire network are zero on any journalistic or academic level. That is not my opinion that is a widely accepted fact for anyone with half a brain in either of those lines of work. I myself actually find him hilarious and a good watch. QuoteQuoteIt is also disheartening (as a fellow skydiver) that you watch this show for serious journalism and consider yourself to be informed about free press or news coverage. Wow, it's suddenly clear to me that if you watch O'Reilly, it must be impossible to get news or perspective from any other source or medium. If you had followed a previous conversation between the person I was addressing my comment to and myself you would realise it is not impossible to get news from other sources, I have never said that, I advocate doing just that, and it is irrelevant to my comment. You would also realise that is comes as no surprise to me (as I already said) that the person I was addressing watches fox news as a credible source to try and understand the world while arguing about the basics of American "free press" and pasting Zionist websites. Fox news is essentially the echelon of the propaganda model for western societies and the only reason you should be watching it as news amongst all the other news sources, which you have made note can be accessed, should be to contrast and laugh at the results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #37 April 20, 2007 Quote It is also disheartening (as a fellow skydiver) that you watch this show... Why on God's green earth would that bother you as a "fellow skydiver"? Skydiver? Yeah, right. Fill out your profile. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #38 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteIs Al Franken a threat to Cons? No. Franken has nowhere near the influence that O'Reilly enjoys. Franken can't even keep a radio show going. Yes, but he has several very successful books that actually cite sources. The 'source nazis' in SC should appreciate that. I'd be happy to send my copy of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" to any con who would like a good read. RushMC? If you promise to read it, I'll throw in a Limbaugh book of your choice.... -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 April 20, 2007 Types pretty good for a guy that's been dead nigh-on 75 years, doesn't he? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #40 April 20, 2007 QuoteThe credibility of himself, his show, his associates, and the entire network are zero on any journalistic or academic level. That is not my opinion that is a widely accepted fact for anyone with half a brain in either of those lines of work. Do you have the results of a study or official statement from any credible (read non-partisan) journalistic society to support this "widely accepted fact"? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #41 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe credibility of himself, his show, his associates, and the entire network are zero on any journalistic or academic level. That is not my opinion that is a widely accepted fact for anyone with half a brain in either of those lines of work. Do you have the results of a study or official statement from any credible (read non-partisan) journalistic society to support this "widely accepted fact"? People think there are studies on fucking EVERYTHING. News flash - SOME THINGS ARE SO OBVIOUS THAT THEY DO NOT REQUIRE A STUDY! If I said the sky is blue, someone would freaking ask me for a damn study!! Then, when there is a study (global warming) they call it bullshit. sigh. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 April 20, 2007 Do you have an reliable CITE for that??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #43 April 20, 2007 Quote Types pretty good for a guy that's been dead nigh-on 75 years, doesn't he? He's not the first to live vicariously through someone else who actually was somebody. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 April 20, 2007 You read a book and the next thing you know the guy is mirroring his "hero" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #45 April 20, 2007 QuoteNews flash - SOME THINGS ARE SO OBVIOUS THAT THEY DO NOT REQUIRE A STUDY! So you believe the statement "The credibility of himself, his show, his associates, and the entire network are zero on any journalistic or academic level" is objective, self-supporting truth for which no cite or source is needed? I disagree. If I turn on FOX news today, I will recieve at least some true information about events happening in the world that I wouldn't know about if I didn't read, watch, or listen to any news at all. That puts FOX somewhere above zero on the journalistic scale. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #46 April 20, 2007 QuoteIf I turn on FOX news today, I will recieve at least some true information about events happening in the world that I wouldn't know about if I didn't read, watch, or listen to any news at all. That puts FOX somewhere above zero on the journalistic scale. Personally I put it about on the same scale as PRAVDA and TASS during the Soviet Era. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #47 April 20, 2007 Quote Quote The credibility of himself, his show, his associates, and the entire network are zero on any journalistic or academic level. That is not my opinion that is a widely accepted fact for anyone with half a brain in either of those lines of work. Do you have the results of a study or official statement from any credible (read non-partisan) journalistic society to support this "widely accepted fact"? Nope you are just going to have to take my word on this one I guess. Quote Quote It is also disheartening (as a fellow skydiver) that you watch this show... Why on God's green earth would that bother you as a "fellow skydiver"? Skydiver? Yeah, right. Fill out your profile. "Dude" I talk enough about jumping in real life, I'm not here to talk about it more and fill out my profile like anyone cares. The internet is for alt-tabing between essays and political talk. I'm not going to go off to forum.politics.com. Obviously I am going to go to the political sub-forum of a webpage I'm already interested in for other reasons, and... It bothers me because I enjoy ignoring the fact we come from all walks of life including ex-military/conservatives/right-wingers and prefer to think that we are all renegade left wingers who adventurously have one-up on the rest of society Although to be honest it bothers me more as a human being that people (read Aamericans) watch fox news and don't die from laughter or realise they should be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #48 April 20, 2007 Quote So you believe the statement "The credibility of himself, his show, his associates, and the entire network are zero on any journalistic or academic level" is objective, self-supporting truth for which no cite or source is needed? Zero? No. Close to zero? Yes. But hey, screw it, here is some support for this. Saudi Billionaire Boasts of Manipulating Fox News Coverage http://www.aim.org/press_release/4222_0_19_0_C Bill O'Reilly Needs Help Fox host demands Letterman apologize for pointing out Fox host's inaccuracy http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2988 and HERE, a freaking study - Still Failing the "Fair & Balanced" Test Special Report leans right, white, Republican & male http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #49 April 20, 2007 Quote Quote Quote The credibility of himself, his show, his associates, and the entire network are zero on any journalistic or academic level. That is not my opinion that is a widely accepted fact for anyone with half a brain in either of those lines of work. Do you have the results of a study or official statement from any credible (read non-partisan) journalistic society to support this "widely accepted fact"? People think there are studies on fucking EVERYTHING. News flash - SOME THINGS ARE SO OBVIOUS THAT THEY DO NOT REQUIRE A STUDY! Then again, some people seem to think many claims, no matter how absurd, are obvious truths. Oil company/gas price collusion... Race is irrelevant regarding gun violence... Oswald acted alone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #50 April 20, 2007 QuotePersonally I put it about on the same scale as PRAVDA and TASS during the Soviet Era. But FOX has much better catchy music riffs between stories. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
