O'Reilly and Fox... THE most shameless move to date

When you come up with a real issue,instead of just trying to attack and bash conservatives just because we disagree with you,then I will be glad to.

I dont consider what Bill O'Reilly said or didnt say to be an issue.
After all,he is allowed to give his opinions,and thats what he does.

I find it interesting that you place so much importance on what an entertainer says.
Do you give as much credence to Rush?

0 Replies

I watched the video linked into the first post. When all the name calling, which constitutes 99% of the article, is removed, the only facts that we are left with are that:

1. O'Reilly stated that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are no worse than those in other wars, which is true.
2. He made an error about one particular battle in WW2. Although, apparently, no Americans committed prisoner abuses in that war, we all know that there were instances in WW2 in which a few bad seeds did abuse prisoners.

The fact that he made the same historical error twice is taken as proof of lying, but there has been nothing posted here which proves knowledgeable intent to deceive. He apparently just made a history mistake, which the left, who pore over his every word seeking such things, seized to prove his alleged bad character.

0 Replies

It's the second time he's made the mistake - first time gets a pass, second doesn't.

He has a responsibility to be accurate. Noone is calling for him to lose his job or anything, just giving him a hard time for his gross inaccuracies, when he has no excuse for them.

The fact that he uses inaccuracies as part of an argument excusing the murder of civilians makes it particuarly odious.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's the second time he's made the mistake - first time gets a pass, second doesn't.

He has a responsibility to be accurate. Noone is calling for him to lose his job or anything, just giving him a hard time for his gross inaccuracies, when he has no excuse for them.

The fact that he uses inaccuracies as part of an argument excusing the murder of civilians makes it particuarly odious.

Cycloptichorn

Do you hold everyone to that standard?

Must everyone that gives an OPINION be 100% accurate?
If that were the case,then most of the people on talk radio,both liberal and conservative,would be out of work due to their inaccuracies.

Those people just give opinions,and commentary.
They dont report the news.

0 Replies

No, they don't have to be 100% accurate. Just not make the same mistakes over and over again, when they should know better.

I would treat any liberal who was forwarding stupid arguments the same way... it isn't a partisan thing, it is a responsibility to one's viewers thing.

When forwarding an opinion, if you use false information to build support for that opinion, and the viewer doesn't know that, then you are essentially misleading them about the veracity of your argument. Like I said earlier, there was nothing wrong with O'reilly being wrong the first time - we all make mistakes. But he shouldn't repeat things he knows are wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The bigger and more disgusting lie is how Fox "news" changed the transcript to make it appear that he never said it.

Of course, Ticomaya, Mysteryman, and I'm sure lots of other fools focus on the smaller "mistake" as an attempt to divert the attention away from the ethically bankrupt practices of their precious propaganda source.

It is truly amazing how deceitful and shoddy this piece of **** operation is.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

The bigger and more disgusting lie is how Fox "news" changed the transcript to make it appear that he never said it.

Of course, Ticomaya, Mysteryman, and I'm sure lots of other fools focus on the smaller "mistake" as an attempt to divert the attention away from the ethically bankrupt practices of their precious propaganda source.

It is truly amazing how deceitful and shoddy this piece of **** operation is.

Interesting.
You assume that I get my "propaganda" from Fox news.
I do watch Fox news,along with CNN,BBC,Sky News,and several other sources.

You are making a common mistake.
The NEWS dept at Fox is just as good as any other broadcast news network you can think of.
You are confusing the COMMENTATORS and EDITORIALISTS (is that a word) with the actual journalists.
All networks have people that give editorials or opinions.
That does NOT make them journalists.
If you are incapable of even making that distinction,then how can you understand anything else.

0 Replies

1. He said that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are not something unique to this war, which is certainly true.
2. He made a history mistake.

To pore over his every word at all times, and jump on such an occurrence to paint him as a monster is the absolute standard MO of the left. For some reason, they cannot simply disagree without trying to paint their opposition as unworthy. Childish.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

1. He said that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are not something unique to this war, which is certainly true.
2. He made a history mistake.

To pore over his every word at all times, and jump on such an occurrence to paint him as a monster is the absolute standard MO of the left. For some reason, they cannot simply disagree without trying to paint their opposition as unworthy. Childish.

Well, you must really love O'Reilly, then. The guy claimed for years that he'd won a Peabody award, then when called on it, exclaimed: "Polk Award, Peabody, what's the difference?"

Sigh.

0 Replies

RichNDanaPoint wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
1. He said that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are not something unique to this war, which is certainly true.
2. He made a history mistake.

To pore over his every word at all times, and jump on such an occurrence to paint him as a monster is the absolute standard MO of the left. For some reason, they cannot simply disagree without trying to paint their opposition as unworthy. Childish.

Well, you must really love O'Reilly, then. The guy claimed for years that he'd won a Peabody award, then when called on it, exclaimed: "Polk Award, Peabody, what's the difference?"

Sigh.

No, he never claimed that he had won a Peabody Award. He stated that a show he'd been on, "Inside Edition" had won a Peabody Award, and when challenged later stated that he'd made a mistake and it was the Polk Award.

For this innacuracy of your post, by the standards of the accusations against O'Reilly, you'd be called a liar too.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

RichNDanaPoint wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. He said that the abuses at Abu Ghraib are not something unique to this war, which is certainly true.
2. He made a history mistake.

To pore over his every word at all times, and jump on such an occurrence to paint him as a monster is the absolute standard MO of the left. For some reason, they cannot simply disagree without trying to paint their opposition as unworthy. Childish.

Well, you must really love O'Reilly, then. The guy claimed for years that he'd won a Peabody award, then when called on it, exclaimed: "Polk Award, Peabody, what's the difference?"

Sigh.

No, he never claimed that he had won a Peabody Award. He stated that a show he'd been on, "Inside Edition" had won a Peabody Award, and when challenged later stated that he'd made a mistake and it was the Polk Award.

For this innacuracy of your post, by the standards of the accusations against O'Reilly, you'd be called a liar too.

May 2000 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "All I've got to say is that Inside Edition has won, I -- I believe, two Peabody Awards, the highest journalism award in the country."

19 May 2000 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "We won Peabody Awards... We won Peabody Awards... A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?"

Feb 2001 Bill O'Reilly gives a speech claiming credit for Inside Edition winning a coveted Peabody award during his tenure.

1 Mar 2001 The Washington Post reports that Inside Edition never won the Peabody Award. Although, they did win a Polk award, but more than a year after O'Reilly had left the show.

13 Mar 2001 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Guy says about me, a couple of weeks ago, 'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it."

8 Sep 2001 In an editorial, Bill O'Reilly claims that the ACLU supports the practice of pederasty because they defended NAMBLA in court.

Jan 2002 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly informs the pastor of the 5th Street Presbyterian Church in New York City: "Jesus would have demanded that the homeless people shape themselves up or else; because, we all know the passage: 'The Lord helps those who help themselves.'" [The quote appears nowhere in the Bible, much less in a quote attributed to Christ.]

5 Feb 2002 On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly tells NOW President Kim Gandy: "58% of single mothers are on welfare." When Gandy questions the figure, Bill retorts: "You can't say no, Ms. Gandy. That's the stat. You can't just dismiss it... It's 58%. That's what it is from the federal government." Two days later, O'Reilly gives the correct statistic: a disappointing 14%.

16 Feb 2002 In an editorial, Bill O'Reilly advocates that the American people as a society shun those who act reprehensibly and refuse to speak to them. "I'll tell you this: If I see someone who -- in my judgment -- is hurting society, I will quickly invoke my Fifth Amendment rights and give them the silent treatment. Suspected criminals are not the only ones who should use that privilege."

16 Jul 2002 Fox News dispatches a letter to the proprietor of oreilly-sucks.com insisting that he immediately remove all instances of O'Reilly's name from the site. The letter is scanned, posted to the site, and promptly ignored.

Oct 2002 During the course of an interview with sex columnist Dan Savage on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly insists (For the sake of argument): "I want to go to a gay bathhouse! I want to go to a gay bathhouse!"

Nov 2002 In an interview with Stuff magazine, Bill O'Reilly declares: "The most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries."

0 Replies

Quote:

You are confusing the COMMENTATORS and EDITORIALISTS (is that a word) with the actual journalists.

Fox does this intentionally. There isn't much of a line between their entertainers and journalists.

This is a common right-wing tactic; for example, Rush and Coulter are commentators, yet they act as journalists to many who rely upon them for information. Those who send out mass Direct Mailings to rural folks on behalf of the Republican party are editorializing, but it isn't clear to most people that this isn't journalism; especially when they are told over and over that the journalists are lying to them!

Blurring the lines between news reporting and commentary has long been a tactic of the right wing in America...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
You are confusing the COMMENTATORS and EDITORIALISTS (is that a word) with the actual journalists.

Fox does this intentionally. There isn't much of a line between their entertainers and journalists.

This is a common right-wing tactic; for example, Rush and Coulter are commentators, yet they act as journalists to many who rely upon them for information. Those who send out mass Direct Mailings to rural folks on behalf of the Republican party are editorializing, but it isn't clear to most people that this isn't journalism; especially when they are told over and over that the journalists are lying to them!

Blurring the lines between news reporting and commentary has long been a tactic of the right wing in America...

Cycloptichorn

I dont think its only a "right wing" tactic.
Even CNN has a habit of doing it,and they arent exactly "right wing"

Larry King is on the left,he is their version of Bill O'Reilly.
He isnt a journalist,but he sure does give alot of opinions.

Air America,a left wing network,is also guilty of the same thing.
They present opinions as facts,but from the left wing point of view.
So for you to say its only a "right wing" tactic is misleading.

0 Replies

This happened in October fer chrissakes. Whats with the timelag? Or is this part of the insurgent lover's push to keep every American mistake at the forefront, ad infinitum, while the daily murder of innocents continues?

Liberals have become tools of the bad guys, again.

0 Replies

Quote:

I dont think its only a "right wing" tactic.
Even CNN has a habit of doing it,and they arent exactly "right wing"

Larry King is on the left,he is their version of Bill O'Reilly.
He isnt a journalist,but he sure does give alot of opinions.

Air America,a left wing network,is also guilty of the same thing.
They present opinions as facts,but from the left wing point of view.
So for you to say its only a "right wing" tactic is misleading.

Larry King hasn't talked about a modern issue in 15 years. He mostly interviews aging stars these days, in case you haven't watched him lately.

The other day I saw him interviewing Ann Richards; it looked like two incredibly old vampires swapping stories. I actually felt myself growing older while watching it.

Air America makes no bones about their ideological bias, whereas Fox pretends to be 'fair and balanced' when it comes to bias. Of course, we all know that they are not. There isn't anything wrong with partisanship, when you identify it up front as partisanship. Only when you pretend that you are not being partisan.

I doubt you will find too many Air America broadcasts that don't identify themselves as 'liberal' interpretations of events...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

paull wrote:

This happened in October fer chrissakes. Whats with the timelag? Or is this part of the insurgent lover's push to keep every American mistake at the forefront, ad infinitum, while the daily murder of innocents continues?

Liberals have become tools of the bad guys, again.

Well, I didn't know about it until now. I don't watch O'Reilly, so I wouldn't know when he says something stupid. Fortunately, other people do. So when they find out, I find out. Then I put it here.

If you'd like to keep track of his false comments, feel free. But something tells me I can't trust you to let us know the next time he does something like this.

paull wrote:

...Or is this part of the insurgent lover's push to keep every American mistake at the forefront...
...Liberals have become tools of the bad guys, again.

Oh, I'm sorry. For a second, I thought I was talking to a rational human being. My mistake.
Anyway, maybe it's a good thing you're here. You can bring a fresh dose of pointless idiocy to the discussion. The regular trolls on this site are starting to get a bit predicatble.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

kickycan wrote:
The bigger and more disgusting lie is how Fox "news" changed the transcript to make it appear that he never said it.

Of course, Ticomaya, Mysteryman, and I'm sure lots of other fools focus on the smaller "mistake" as an attempt to divert the attention away from the ethically bankrupt practices of their precious propaganda source.

It is truly amazing how deceitful and shoddy this piece of **** operation is.

Interesting.
You assume that I get my "propaganda" from Fox news.
I do watch Fox news,along with CNN,BBC,Sky News,and several other sources.

You are making a common mistake.
The NEWS dept at Fox is just as good as any other broadcast news network you can think of.
You are confusing the COMMENTATORS and EDITORIALISTS (is that a word) with the actual journalists.
All networks have people that give editorials or opinions.
That does NOT make them journalists.
If you are incapable of even making that distinction,then how can you understand anything else.

Wow. How do people allow themselves to believe this bullshit? It's truly amazing.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

paull wrote:
...Or is this part of the insurgent lover's push to keep every American mistake at the forefront...
...Liberals have become tools of the bad guys, again.

Oh, I'm sorry. For a second, I thought I was talking to a rational human being. My mistake.
Anyway, maybe it's a good thing you're here. You can bring a fresh dose of pointless idiocy to the discussion. The regular trolls on this site are starting to get a bit predicatble.

This is a fascinating specimen of a post. It's 100% name calling. You make not the tiniest effort to address and refute paull's argument. A post like this one of yours counts for precisely zero in a debate.

0 Replies

It's like da brain turn to poop.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

JustanObserver wrote:

paull wrote:
...Or is this part of the insurgent lover's push to keep every American mistake at the forefront...
...Liberals have become tools of the bad guys, again.

Oh, I'm sorry. For a second, I thought I was talking to a rational human being. My mistake.
Anyway, maybe it's a good thing you're here. You can bring a fresh dose of pointless idiocy to the discussion. The regular trolls on this site are starting to get a bit predicatble.

This is a fascinating specimen of a post. It's 100% name calling. You make not the tiniest effort to address and refute paull's argument. A post like this one of yours counts for precisely zero in a debate.

No, your post is an ven more fascinating specimen. Paul doesn't make any argument. he just name calls. Pointless idiocy and trolling it is.

0 Replies

O'Reilly and Fox... THE most shameless move to date

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know