Bill O'Reilly: master of the partisan press

[JayHawk]

People actually pay attention to Bill O'Reilly?

An incredible amount of people!

 

[chance1]

He overbears most people who he invites on to speak on behalf of their cause. I used to watch regularly just because it stayed on while I putted around the house. Many times Bill has on complete idiot to represent their views and then he shreds him to his viewers delight. One thing that made him *better* was his display of viewer complaint mail. Most fox shows have followed suit. The only other true crusade he can be honored with is holding judges accountable for doing what we all would consider correct. Mostly focused on child abuse he will take on any issue that seems exceedingly unfair. That makexs him the people warrrior and hence his books sell.

The only true gem for me of Fox is Brit Hume and Shep. Brit is decidedly conservative and Shep I bet has liberal ideas but likes his spot as risen star that came up with Fox's star.

agreed on the holding judges accountable

I think in general as people become more popular/better paid, they lose their core a bit. I think O'Reilly is a little taken by his stature and celebrity - so he loses the "everyman" title

I loved his immediate take the Judith Regan/OJ thing - took her and Fox to task before anyone did - not necessarily a popular thing in the building.

Would love to know what "complete idiots" u are referring to. Often he has on extreme liberal conspiracy theorists - are those the idiots?

He has had on Dan Rather, John Kerry and many others - he treats them with respect but does not back down.

I personally find the complaint/feedback mail a bit dull - "Mary from Minnesota says "Bill, I think you should run for President - I'd vote for you"

"Thank you Mary - thanks very much"

 

[Kulindahr]

"JUB regulars don't agree with him politically"....

Yo, Chance! What all "JUB regulars" are you lumping together?
I'll confess, I frequently, maybe even generally (I plead insufficient data), don't agree with him politically -- but then I don't agree with very many people politically; it's hard to find anyone who actually believes in liberty these days.

BTW -- it would help if you invested in a little punctuation. I had a little trouble making sense of parts of your post #27 because commas and quote marks were absent, like when you wrote about Keith O.

 

[bike10]

Bill O'Reilly has become the spokesman for the far right for past number of years. He can accept the fact that people and the media object to his line of thinking. In so doing if you oppose or object to the conservative view point you are truly "un American."

 

[JayHawk]

Strangely since his broadcast and books are #1 it seems the people don't exactly fall right along the lines you describe.

 

[jockboy01]

Well, I don't watch O'Reilly much anymore. I used to when I had a conservative roommate.

And I don't consider myself left (only slightly left of center). But I have to say, that from that clip, O'Reilly fairs far worse than Glick. As pointed out, simply dismissing somebody as being "far left and a marginal position" shows that you don't have the intellectual resources to argue the issue and would rather just dismiss the opponent. It's weak and pathetic. Glick tries to argue the case and O'Reilly doesn't just dismiss him, but goes on to imply and basically say that he is a dissappointment to his family ("I hope your mother isn't watching" and comments about how his father wouldn't agree). It's scum of the earth low in terms of arguing a topic.

And as to Glick's position that the US acts like a terrorist sometimes, that's not unfounded at all. If you take a look at history from somewhere outside the US, the history looks a lot different in a lot of places. We use underhanded tactics all of the time... we just spin it differently. For instance, we hold prisoners without legal counsel for an indefinite amount of time with no trial. But since they are suspected terrorists, it's okay. We've tried on multiple occasions to assasinate Fidel Castro, but again, national security. If another country tried to assasinate Bush, what would we call it? You guessed, terrorism. Let's be honest, the US is not blameless in this game.

 

[Kulindahr]

O'Reilly calls people "un-American".
Several of our people here say peoploe "hate America".

What's the difference? None, really; it's rabble rousing, is all.

 

[chance1]

O'Reilly calls people "un-American".
Several of our people here say peoploe "hate America".

What's the difference? None, really; it's rabble rousing, is all.

disagree Kulindahr

folks (O'Reilly says that too - LOL) who equate us with them and provide moral equivalency between us and them - there is some truth to Un-American

It's thrown around way too much, which makes the real examples blurrier

This is not an O'Reilly-ism - "Un-American"

Blaming the U.S. for everything is a "hate America" thing

 

[Kulindahr]

Chance, I don't follow your "us and them" phrase -- "us" who and "them" who?

 

[jockboy01]

So then, where's the line exactly as to what's un-american?

For instance, a lot of right wingers say that people who are against the war in iraq are "un-american" which is totally not the case. Just because you don't agree with everything the US does, does not make you un-american. In fact, I would argue if you feel that you have to agree with everything the US does, then you're being un-american b/c you miss the whole point of freedom that this country is based off of.

And along those lines, people who say that people against the war don't support the troops are equally off base and delusional.

 

[chance1]

Chance, I don't follow your "us and them" phrase -- "us" who and "them" who?

sorry kuli

and I thought you were the only one who understood me??

I'm specifically referring to:

"us" - being the U.S., our govt, our soliders

"them" - being our enemies - terrorists, Iran, Hezbollah

or more simply

good guys and bad guys

 

[Kulindahr]

Tanks, Chance -- now it makes sense. I kept trying to make "us" and "them" U.S. political factions....

I understand your grammar and composition... I don't always do well on insufficient data.

 

[Andreus]

So then, where's the line exactly as to what's un-american?

For instance, a lot of right wingers say that people who are against the war in iraq are "un-american" which is totally not the case. Just because you don't agree with everything the US does, does not make you un-american. In fact, I would argue if you feel that you have to agree with everything the US does, then you're being un-american b/c you miss the whole point of freedom that this country is based off of.

precisely

american citizens are constantly being told by the uber bullies of america that to have an opinion counter to that of the bush admin is unamerican, when the truth is, freedom of speech is the TRADEMARK of the american spirit.

thanks for your well worded and thoughtfull post

 

[Kulindahr]

precisely

american citizens are constantly being told by the uber bullies of america that to have an opinion counter to that of the bush admin is unamerican, when the truth is, freedom of speech is the TRADEMARK of the american spirit.

thanks for your well worded and thoughtfull post

And as I said above, JUBbers are constantly being told that if they have an opinion counter to the die-hard Democrat position, they hate America and should leave.

 

[Andreus]

And as I said above, JUBbers are constantly being told that if they have an opinion counter to the die-hard Democrat position, they hate America and should leave.

i disagree with your analysis.

I think theres plenty of people of all persuasions being called just about everything in the book.

it isn't just one side.

it isnt about a party affiliation or a faction.

its about civility and individual behavior.

constantly blaming one side as you have just foments more of the same... acid posts and acrimony.

 

[Kulindahr]

At the risk of being penalized for a clear analysis:

Andreus, please READ before responding!

If you do, you'll see that you repeated my point and then accused me of making a different one.

 

[Andreus]

you blamed a specific group of people here at JUB

I am saying that if we want it to change we all need to personally own the problem and make a change in the only way we can: by the way we say things before we hit the post button.

I am frustrated with this forum, in both my behaviors and others, and my posting in it has decreased greatly in the last week.

If i can't represent my point in a positive or at least neutral way in regards to my fellow posters, then I try to skip it. Ideas and public officals are and always will be fair game, but we are all here to enjoy ourselves, and if we need to beat each other up every day just to have fun, then what does that say about who we are and what we have become?

the process i have chosen to try is simple... i just look for a post in a thread that i agree with and explain why, instead of looking for the one i dont and rant at someone over it.

as to the point and in allignment with this thread's topic...

members of the press often have the same option. they can either find a story that has facts that they think needs representation and exposure, or they find someone that they disagree with and argue and berate them.

Oreilly is a person who is more fond of picking a fight than making a positive point, IMO. The press is meant to disseminate information, not pick a side to berate. Ever since Woodward caught Nixon with his hand in the cookie jar, some press members have tried to take the shortcut to the top by bringing someone down just for the sake of furthering a career.

this has spilled over into all of american politics as well.

I say we try to make a difference personally. that means we change our behaviors...

for the consumers of the american media that means not watching or buying their product.

 

[Kulindahr]

you blamed a specific group of people here at JUB

I am saying that if we want it to change we all need to personally own the problem and make a change in the only way we can: by the way we say things before we hit the post button.

I am frustrated with this forum, in both my behaviors and others, and my posting in it has decreased greatly in the last week.

If i can't represent my point in a positive or at least neutral way in regards to my fellow posters, then I try to skip it. Ideas and public officals are and always will be fair game, but we are all here to enjoy ourselves, and if we need to beat each other up every day just to have fun, then what does that say about who we are and what we have become?

the process i have chosen to try is simple... i just look for a post in a thread that i agree with and explain why, instead of looking for the one i dont and rant at someone over it.

as to the point and in allignment with this thread's topic...

members of the press often have the same option. they can either find a story that has facts that they think needs representation and exposure, or they find someone that they disagree with and argue and berate them.

Oreilly is a person who is more fond of picking a fight than making a positive point, IMO. The press is meant to disseminate information, not pick a side to berate. Ever since Woodward caught Nixon with his hand in the cookie jar, some press members have tried to take the shortcut to the top by bringing someone down just for the sake of furthering a career.

this has spilled over into all of american politics as well.

I say we try to make a difference personally. that means we change our behaviors...

for the consumers of the american media that means not watching or buying their product.

I used an example from close at hand.
I also used the word "and".

I don't watch enough O'Reilly to make that broad a judgment. I have seen him make a positive point, but he does go to fighting mode easily. It can be an interesting study to watch him try to catch himself, but fail, and try again, but fail...

I agree with the Watergate thing -- felt that way for years, but God help the one who tries to tell the press that! They've turned from observers to hunting dogs, and many have gone from being hunting dogs to being mere carnivorous predators. It started on the Left, and soon enough the Right picked it up, and they've been competing to make it a fine if brutal art -- exactly the point I was making by pointing to our die-hard D. JUBbers.

For me it means getting my news on-line... and at this point, in practice, getting it more from the BBC than from all three major U.S. networks combined.

 

[chance1]

So then, where's the line exactly as to what's un-american?

For instance, a lot of right wingers say that people who are against the war in iraq are "un-american" which is totally not the case. Just because you don't agree with everything the US does, does not make you un-american. In fact, I would argue if you feel that you have to agree with everything the US does, then you're being un-american b/c you miss the whole point of freedom that this country is based off of.

And along those lines, people who say that people against the war don't support the troops are equally off base and delusional.

JB

couple things

your "a lot of right wingers" - what's that?

as for not supporting the troops, I agree with u - being against the war doesn't mean ur against the troops

But if carp and complain and undermine the Pres/admin at every step, instead of trying to make things better, then you are hurting the troops and the cause

Big difference for sure.

Guys like Russ Feingold are anti war to the core - but his disagreements are not divisive - like many others in the House and on this board

 

[theFallenGod]

I'm sorry... but for having a "no spin" show where everyone is entitled to express their opinion... once he feels he's losing the upper hand... its "cut their mike".... he has absolutely no credibility NONE... the man is just another puppet for the lies and slander machine meant to drive America apart at the seams and turn it into a completly freedomless land where only the bigots and religious fundamentalists thrive.