The Bill O'Reilly Thread

[Zeradul]

I have no admit, I was very surprised to see DD put down that he respects Bill O'Reilly in the podcast thread, so much so that he listen's to Bill's daily podcast.  Personally I see Bill as a pundit who's gaming the system.  I'll clarify that a bit.  I think Bill has decided what the best course of political action is, and then filters the news, and literally everything he says through a filter of "how can I win more people to my way of thinking" and that he believes in a "ends justifies the means" and that he lies, misleads, and tricks his way to further his cause.  If he was actually "right" in what he was saying, no amount of trickery or misleading would be necessary, because the facts would support his side.

Now, I have no problem with anyone speaking their mind on anything, in fact, I think that discussion and debate are very near the most important things there are in society.  But I do not appreciate it when anyone misleads or twists the facts to make their case.  I think this sort of intentional confusion results in some of the worst stunting of progress and spread of knowledge there is, and YES EVERY POLITICAL SIDE HAS PEOPLE WHO DO THIS.  But I think Bill is second only to Michael Moore in his deception, so much so that you really can't take anything he says seriously.

So this thread will contain examples of how Bill is misleading/misconstruing/twisting the facts/ or lieing, and anyone who has any interest in responding is welcome.  I'm not trying to pick on DD, or anyone in specific, but I was shocked to see someone who I respect as much as DD actually list Bill O'Reilly as someone he respects.  All I'm looking to do is prove my point that Bill O'Reilly is a shyster who cannot and should not be taken seriously by anyone.  So I welcome anyone to try to defend O'Reilly as he is repeatedly tripped up by people actually listening to what he says.  You can even defend him as devil's advocate if you want.

That said, here is Exhibit A:

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2009/02/10/jon-stewart-nails-oreilly-on-right-to-privacy/

I'd be perfectly happy to have a Micheal Moore thread, or a (he's getting less objective by the day) Keith Olbermann thread.  I'm all for calling everyone on their bullshit, and what we have to break down is the two party "divide and conquer" tactics that are mostly achieved by both sides being mislead about the other side.

[Ruckus]

bill O slammed Helen Thomas also which I found really funny

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/bill-oreilly-calls-helen_n_165696.html



if you read the comments one of the first ones is a Q&A

Q: What is the difference between Bill O'reilly and Helen Thomas ?

A: Helen Thomas is a journalist

LOLOLOLOLOL    fucking owned 

and also wasn't the Witch of the east the good one ?   hahahahaha

he can't even get that minute fact straight      welcome to the far right wing of America

[rue]

A preview to my longer rebuttal. (sorry, studying like crazy this semester.  everyone: don't be a math major.)

[Zeradul]

Holy Crap, is that accurate?  Over 75% of O'Reilly's viewers are 55 or older?

If true, that is a wonderful thing.  Apart from that, I don't see the relevance.

Its a busy time of year, so no rush on the response.

[Ruckus]

the unfortunate thing is most of his viewers think of him as an anchor not an entertainer.


wow America is a country of fucking tools

[joel]

I think both shows suck and try to sensationalize the news by pandering to their core viewers. Rather than portraying their point of view in an informative matter and maybe having a discussion or debate to put off the other side, they just try to cram their self-righteousness down everyone's throats.  Neither of them are journalists.

[Zeradul]

Well, said.

Now, what to do about it.  Many people take them seriously. 

[rue]

Holy Crap, is that accurate?  Over 75% of O'Reilly's viewers are 55 or older?

If true, that is a wonderful thing.  Apart from that, I don't see the relevance.

Its a busy time of year, so no rush on the response.

This really shouldn't be surprising, for two reasons.

-The results shown here are Friday nights.  25-54ers have a much greater likelihood of being out at 8 EST any night, much less a Friday night.  With a little research done (sorry Zera, didn't mean to steal your persona) over at TVBythenumbers.com, I found that last week the average of 18-49 viewership for Monday-Thursday of the four major broadcast networks was a Nielsen rating of 3.7.  Friday's Nielsen was 1.8.

- I have class in 15 minutes so my next point will be shabby, but probably obvious anyway.  It's that 25-54 year olds aren't uniformly the type you'd expect a news program to have a high viewership. Take a look at least week's broadcast ratings.  60 minutes is what I want to speak of specifically.  60 minutes is the last bastion of evening news relevance in the age of cable, which is already losing out to the internet--specifically mobile news.  Even so, it was the second most watched TV show last week, allowing that the Grammy's were a special event and American Idol can't be first twice.  Despite this, its 18-49 ranking was a paltry 25th.  18-49 is an immense amount of our population, yet, television news simply doesn't work for them.  The difference is a mixture of indifference and the appeal technology such as the internet has over 18-49 (hopefully much, much more of it is the latter.  Hopefully.)

[rue]

wow America is a country of fucking tools

Ruck, no one can read your avatar. 

[Ruckus]

tx   i will change it

[Zeradul]

Okay, I recognize that you aren't finished making your point, but I wasn't talking about ratings at all.  The only reason ratings factor in at all is to see how many people might actually be believing him.

If your point is that FOX is just a business trying to turn a profit and that they put on literally whatever results in higher ratings, then I'll concede that, but that doesn't make them immune from this discussion.

[rue]

dammit, dammit, dammit.

I did it again.  When I login from school I forget to check "keep me logged in" and invariably I get logged out at some point.  Then I try to submit my message and it says I need to login.  *ZAP*, there went my post.  Oh well, I'm sure some brevity from my end would be appreciated by anyone reading.

In summary, I had a post that said:

-Bill is much, much less right wing than the caricature Stewart, Letterman and the print media paint him as.  I had several examples with details, now they'll just have to be examples. 

Bill was very protective of Obama from right wing hate machine attacks during the election.  There were "swift boat attack" stories that circulated about Obama in the months leading up to November.  Bill wasn't having it.

Bill has consistently hammered the oil companies for "war time profiteering."

Bill is frequently listed amongst right wing journalists and tv and radio personalities such as Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Michael Savage.  However, right wing publications never list Bill as an ally in the same vain.  Savage, in fact, famously (for the right) and comically refers to O'Reilly diminutively as "The Boston Leprechaun". 

As a note to my next point, The O'Reilly Factor is the second most watched news show on television, behind a broadcast news show, 60 Minutes.  That said, bear this in mind:  The only candidate to accept Bill's invitation to be interviewed on The O'Reilly Factor was Senator Barrack Obama*.  If Obama had picked a venue like Hannity's America or *shudder* whatever piece of garbage show Lou Dobbs does, he would have had nothing to gain and lots to lose.  Why, if O'Reilly is such a right winger, was this not the case on The O'Reilly Factor?

*Note O'Reilly's ratings for 9/5.  It explains the peak. 

The Ambush clip has a good explanation.  Stewart never bothered to ask who the people being "interviewed" are or what they've done to warrant a visit from The O'Reilly Factor.  The audience is left to assume the motives.  An audience like Stewart's will default to the common explanation for Bill's caricature: that they have said something Bill doesn't like, and Bill is obtaining vengeance.  He even, mathematically to my glee, confirms this graphically to any who haven't quite caught up. 

I hope there's more Exhibits because this hardly qualifies Bill for being a liar, misleader or trickster for a malevolent cause in any case. 

[Zeradul]

DD:  First of all, yes, when Bill saw Bush going down in flames he had to jump ship, because 1.) a popularity rate declining to an eventual 6.8 percent isn't a wise thing to associate yourself with, and 2.) Bush actually was doing stupid shit that the majority of conservatives began to resent him for.

You can say this is him being "fair and balanced" but this is survival, and it's easy to not be in lock step with a President who has gone so incredibly far off the "conservative" path.

Your second main point;  Hannity and Savage are further off the deep end so, to say that Bill is more prudent than they are, makes sense if he wants to not alienate his "broad" audience.  Plus, hints of objectivity can legitimize an otherwise extremely slanted message.

Your third main point;

The Ambush clip has a good explanation.

Let's hear it!  Why is Bill not a hypocrite on this subject?  You say that Stewart is misleading his audience, to come to their own conclusion, but you don't finish your thought on how Bill ISN'T being a hypocrite.

I hope there's more Exhibits because this hardly qualifies Bill for being a liar, misleader or trickster

Agreed, being a hypocrite is chump change, but I figured we'd start somewhere defensible.  Additional "Exhibits" will be slow in coming, as I'm not going to dig around for them, just post them as they happen, or as I happen to stumble across them.

[Ruckus]

While working in Northern Virginia this past summer I listened to the bigtime D.C. talk radio channel all the time. It had Glen Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and Bill O's radio shows on it. And some Left winger woman at 10am I can't remember her name but she was hilarious !!
   I listened to him for 2 weeks straight. Absolute right wing propaganda if I've ever heard it. He called himself a centrist and a libertarian the entire time. While praising Bush at every breath. In 2 weeks he prolly disagreed with Bush once.  It was such a train wreck I listened everyday from like 1 to 2 pm and yelled at the radio.  hahaha

[joel]

Bill O'Reilly is less right wing than Hannity, but Hannity is almost a human cartoon.  Bill is right wing, he's just not a hardcore conservative.

He never called O'Reilly fair and balanced, he just showed he's not a hardcore conservative.

[Ruckus]

O'really ?     ok I would have to agree with that.

    He was so sexist on NPR's "fresh air" show that the host (forget her name) had to turn his mic off    lolol

[Zeradul]

I listened to him for 2 weeks straight. Absolute right wing propaganda if I've ever heard it. He called himself a centrist and a libertarian the entire time.

I assume you are referring to Glen Beck?  Yes, Glen Beck, and another jackass named... (had to look this up) Neal Boortz both go on their respective shows claiming to be "libertarian", and while it is true, maybe 10% of what they say has some sort of libertarian truth to it, they are WAAAAYYYYY not libertarian.  They misinform people as to what libertarianism is by calling themselves that, and I think they are a result of the two party system trying to secure their place by tearing down "libertarianism" from the inside.

I get SOOOOOOO pissed off listening to either of them.

joel: yes, I wasn't saying that DD said Bill was "fair and balanced", I was just continuing the logical argument of "why would Bill defend Obama on a certain issue" (for example)

[Ruckus]

Boortz is another one


One thing about it though, it was entertaining   

[rue]

Something that got lost in my original post is my apology for steering the discussion into ratings.  It's just, as an O'Reilly fan, I did a mental chuckle at the suggestion of the creation of an Olbermann Thread as balance.  Nobody watches Olbermann. 

[rue]

DD:  First of all, yes, when Bill saw Bush going down in flames he had to jump ship, because 1.) a popularity rate declining to an eventual 6.8 percent isn't a wise thing to associate yourself with, and 2.) Bush actually was doing stupid shit that the majority of conservatives began to resent him for.

You can say this is him being "fair and balanced" but this is survival, and it's easy to not be in lock step with a President who has gone so incredibly far off the "conservative" path.

Your second main point;  Hannity and Savage are further off the deep end so, to say that Bill is more prudent than they are, makes sense if he wants to not alienate his "broad" audience.  Plus, hints of objectivity can legitimize an otherwise extremely slanted message.

Zera, I hate when you do this. :|  Why should we assume that Bill has some malicious intent in everything he does?  Who should we believe that of, ever?  Sometimes I have to shift my eyes left to make sure I haven't read too far and I'm into Ruckus' posts now.  It's all so conspiratorial.  Like Bill wakes up in the mornings, checks the Pres' polls and says "hmm....I better shift my viewpoint."  The man's in his 60s with a ton and a half of money.  I don't see or hear a man looking to become richer and more powerful at all costs.  O'Reilly's written 7 books to date.  I read 5.  His viewpoint hasn't changed, with minor exceptions, in 20 years (ex. Bill used to be all about severe amounts of gun control.  After Katrina he loosened his stance significantly.)  It's arrogance to assume others lack any more or less purity in intent than yourself.  This post is some crusade demanding the press stop contriving an artificial war between differences of opinion for ratings?  Why don't you start by not pitting everyone against O'Reilly via a subjective opinion of his intent? See a human being for once.

[Zeradul]

Why should we assume that Bill has some malicious intent in everything he does?  Who should we believe that of, ever?

Ah!  Great question, and has two parts to the answer:

1.) I don't think Bill thinks he is being malicious, I think he believes that the end justifies the means, and that he has decided in his mind what the best reality is, and yes, maybe he legitimately changes his mind based on new information once in a while, but I think he uses his show to convince moderates, and reinforce beliefs of conservatives in such a way that perpetuates a world that he believes is best.  I think he uses whatever means necessary to accomplish this goal.

2.) I believe this because I have watched him over the years, and I have come to this conclusion.  It is my premise for this debate.  I believe he can be extremely misleading, to the point of outright "dodging the issue" like when he canceled Michael Badnarik's appearance on his show back in 04 or 05.  Bill openly made a challenge to all watching that he would debate the merits of the Patriot Act with any "pinhead" who dared debate it with him.  Michael Badnarik (a libertarian presidential candidate) stepped up to the plate, and Bill's staff (thinking Bill was serious) booked Badnarik and then, when Bill saw Badnarik on his list of guests for the following week, canceled without explanation 3 days prior to the showdown.

Bill knew that he would get slaughtered by Badnarik, and that he'd lose the argument, and much of his Freedom and Liberty loving audience would think less of him, and it was a cold calculated move.  O'Reilly was a pure coward in that instance, and there have been many instances like that over the years, although this is likely the most glaring.

These examples have lead me to the conclusion that Bill uses his show to enact political change in ANY WAY HE CAN, which includes deception, trickery, and "maliciousness"  No, I don't think Bill is still motivated by money, you're right.  I was just throwing that out there, because while he may not be paying attention to the money, his writers and staff are, and not just for money itself, but for popularity of the show.  If the show decreases in popularity, then Bill's influence decreases.

---

One more thing, I'm fine with slants, and agendas, but I want a fair fight.  Look at my sig.  If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.  If you have Law, or precedence, or other supporting circumstances, pound those pieces of evidence in support of your case.  But if you've got little to nothing, you pound the table, and call people pinheads.  You cut their mics, you cancel guests who can legitimately threaten your stance, etc, etc, etc.

And no, I'm not saying that Bill falls entirely into the "pound the table" category, but on many issues, he does.

--------

Also still waiting for you response on this:

The Ambush clip has a good explanation.

[rue]

1) and 2) still include nothing objective.  Saying he'll go to any length to convince others of his particular beliefs is still conspiratorial.  I'd like to see an instance, no really several instances since mistakes can be made over the years, where outright lies were told before I'll believe this. 

Believing he expresses his opinion and attempts to persuade others to agree with him is mild.  In fact, it's sufficiently mild to declare it a shared quality amongst 100% of all politically active minds in the universe, so I hope you won't hold that against him anymore.

 Cancelling a guest for anybody's show has a myriad of explanations beyond cowardice.  Sadly, O'Reilly has been burned in the past by guests who come on under the assumption they want to talk about x, y and z; but instead expound on topics outside the scope of the interview.  Bear in mind that Bill is a political target for both sides, because the Right wants his stamp of approval and the Left wants to make him angry; both of which advances their respective causes.  Since The O'Reilly Factor is live, Bill's very careful about who comes on.  In his advanced age, he's become increasingly jaded.  In any case, his show, his perrogative.   

I'll forego doing all of your homework and just talk about one of the so called "ambush" cases Stewart showed in the clip.  Cynthia Tucker is a columnist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  When Sarah Palin's daughter was revealed to be pregnant, Tucker non chalantly asked why Republicans didn't hammer Sarah Palin on this since abstinance before marriage is a tennant of the typically religious conservative viewpoint.  She did this in print, in her column. In particular she noted that Bill O'Reilly called Jamie Lynn Spears' parents irresponsible but didn't show the same vitriol for Sarah Palin.  Bill commented on his show that he found it curious that she expected him, who considers himself independent, to condemn any and all stories regarding teenage pregnancies.  He felt Tucker should have better things to do than stoke the fires between right and left, or at least to find a target that holds claim to either side.  When he asked to speak to Tucker on the matter, she was unreachable.  Calling someone out in the press and refusing to discuss it beforehand or after is not very nice, wouldn't you agree, Zera?  So Bill's camera crew went to ask for an answer.  You can see the results.  There was no home invasion or high speed chases across interstates.  They weren't trying to get pictures of Tucker naked.  Hopefully we can now see the difference between the hounding that probably lead to the death of Princess Diana, and a visit to someone's home, office or a random meeting on the street.  I wish Stewart could. 

[Stinger]

Sorry DD, but as logical and reasonable as most of your arguments are, I have to strongly disagree with your justification of ambush-type media.

When he asked to speak to Tucker on the matter, she was unreachable.  Calling someone out in the press and refusing to discuss it beforehand or after is not very nice, wouldn't you agree, Zera?  So Bill's camera crew went to ask for an answer.  You can see the results.  There was no home invasion or high speed chases across interstates.  They weren't trying to get pictures of Tucker naked.  Hopefully we can now see the difference between the hounding that probably lead to the death of Princess Diana, and a visit to someone's home, office or a random meeting on the street.  I wish Stewart could. 

You're literally saying that it's OK when Bill does it, because it's Bill, and surely his reasons are better than everyone elses. That's all you're saying. I'd bet heavily that the people who were trying to shoot Princess Di weren't there for blood, they were there because Di had said or done something that made her a good news story in their mind, and they went to shoot it.

What you just gave is a situation where Bill's crew saw something that made for a good news story, and they went to shoot it. If you're arguing that it's OK here because their intent was noble, then you're arguing that it wasn't OK for the others because their intent wasn't. You're letting your bias determine right and wrong just like you're accusing others of.

Princess Di would be alive if her driver didn't take liberties with their safety in trying to get away... Clearly that's the fault of the people who were trying to take pictures of her...

Celebrity is money. Ambush media is always a matter of taking that measure of celebrity that someone else has, and trying to rub it on yourself for personal gain. I've only occasionally watched Bill, as I find him a hateful retard, but I've seen more than enough of him to know that he openly expressed an opinion very similar to mine on this one... And then when he notices someone who pissed him off, and he'd like the rub of their particular brand of celebrity, he does it anyway. I'd even go so far as to say he believes that this exception could prove his point, maybe in his mind it's some kind of snarky parody attempt that he feels is a righteous evening of the field... But it's not, it's him being a flaming hypocrite, and in this case, it really is indefensible. There's no reason to defend it... Because he's literally doing the exact thing he points out as negative in others... Any defense of him on this one point really just paints the defender as an apologist.

   Like Zera said, there are worse crimes than being a hypocrite. We all commit hypocrisies, some of us for money, some of us large blatant ones (There is no God... If you disagree, go here and buy a book.)... To say that Bill's free of this because Bill keeps telling everyone he is shows a propensity for following the leader.

   I'm really interested in your other points. As someone who's only watched him occasionally, I'm not able to form an informed opinion about how much his views have evolved over time. I'm sure you have a much better scope on that than I... But are you saying you haven't noticed more than a handful of changes on this? I'm not talking the big ones, I'm sure the core of who he is has changed very little... But I've seen no more than 10 of his shows in my life, and I've noticed things he's said that have contradicted other things he's said at least half a dozen times... You're smart as shit, I have nothing but the highest respect for your intellect... Is it possible that you just hold different standards for "changing an opinion"?

   I'm genuinely curious, because it really can be proven that he changes his "voiced opinion" based on whether or not it will serve the agenda he's trying to impose that day.

   And that's another thing; Are you saying that you DON'T believe Bill's an evangelical? He tells the truth, as he sees it, with the expressed intention of re-affirming that belief in others, and trying to implant that belief in those who disagree. There are lots of people who do this on the liberal side, tons of people who do it on the conservative side, and only a handful of people who do it in the middle.

   Here's an example of why I hate Bill; He has Karl Rove on, and the two of them repeatedly refer to the people trying to hold the Bush people accountable for war crimes as people on a "Witch Hunt." There were crimes committed... Clearly. I'm not even saying it's a cut and dry issue that would ultimately lead to people being convicted, I'm just saying that the act of wanting to put people on trial is an American fucking right, and that it's one of many that Bill is for when it's against someone he hates, but when it's against the right-wing people who he claims NOT to be a part of, it's a witch hunt to even talk about trying them...


   I'm serious, DD, I'm very interested on your take on this. I hate the guy, but you don't and I believe strongly that you are an anti-dumbass. Why does Bill openly, and trackably, and frequently, defend an action for one person that he openly condemns when it applies to people he hates? Paparazzi is one, trials is another... Free speech is yet another, actually, since he says things that offend the fuck out of half the country (Which is his right, Agnos bless the fucker), then uses elaborate tapestries of words to paint people who do the same thing with other opinions as morally bankrupt for subjecting unpopular opinions on the morally pure.

   I've watched Olberman about a dozen times as well, and while I find his opinions a lot easier to swallow and agree with, he really is no better. Though I'd have to say, comparing him to O'Reilly is apples and oranges on everything except show format, which are practically identical. That's because it comes down to audience.

   O'Reilly has all the audience he will ever have... Seriously, the man has peaked. And as you're pointed out, it's all older people, low percentages of younger people. Bill's ratings beat Keith's regularly, fine. Keith beats the shit out of him on the age-levels that are considered most financially viable for sales (and since Bill caters to republicans, that's saying something), and for actually getting and keeping forward rating momentum. Bill's peaked, basically. Which is why he's so vainly holding on to the numbers while they benefit him. Truth of the matter is anyone who can do some simple projection math knows that Fox News as a whole peaked during the Bush administration, and is now steadily losing base.

   Society, all societies, move in alternating dominating waves of conservative views and liberal views. It's been conservative, so now we're going liberal. We voted for a black man, gay marriage is going to be legalized like wildfire over the next few years, marijuana is downright likely to become legal in the next 15 years, and MSNBC is about halfway up it's slide into dominant popularity.

   Don't worry conservatives, anyone who reads their history books know it won't be more than 40 years before we go back to some kind of retarded ultra-conservative leadership. Never takes more than 40 years. Frequently it's less. But in the meantime, let those of us who don't hate the fags and good parties have a turn.

   By-the-by; I'm a businessman. I take that very seriously, and I'm very good at it... Which means that I'm a fiscal republican. But only fiscally! Basically, show me a businessman who's not a fiscal republican, and I'll show you somewhere I don't want to put money.

[rue]

Stinger, please, please, don't inform me of what I am or am not saying. 

-I'm saying celebrities of the type Bill was talking about have a certain right to privacy.  They're private citizens.  The press does not.  If you want to print something, hold yourself accountable.  There's a vast difference between the act of saying something about someone in print, prior to discussing the issue with said person especially before but even after; and being hounded because you're pretty, you star in movies, or you're royalty.  It's the difference between a prior malignant act and a benign one.

-If you're looking to be professional here and not and an entertainer, be very careful with terminology.  You can't convict anyone, much less a President, of crimes without trial.  That's bloviating.

-From both you and Zera I hear an awful lot of pandering.  "Aww DD, you're so smart, but...!"  Please don't.  It's mocking.  Go one way or the other.  Say "DD, your opinion is dumb, therefore you are dumb."  Or "DD, you're a smart guy and you listen to O'Reilly way more than I do.  I'll respect your judgment."  Saying "DD, you're smart, you listen to O'Reilly all the time, but I know him better than you do." is just beyond words. 
-Check the chart again.  O'Reilly leads overall and in the 25-54 bracket.

-California just enacted an Amendment banning gay marriage.  No I don't agree with it, as I've spoken in the past.  Just another fact check.

[Stinger]

Sorry if you felt I was mocking you. I genuinely wasn't, up until your last post I had nothing but honest respect for you and your intellect. I seriously only joined in on this thread because I was enthralled by what you said, and I wanted to get your opinion on deeper aspects of the subject matter. That was my mistake. Hold on.

Should I take a minute to respond to the things you said that weren't just petty attacks? Sure.

-California just enacted an Amendment banning gay marriage.  No I don't agree with it, as I've spoken in the past.  Just another fact check.

I said that gay marriage would become legal like wildfire over the next few years. Did I say shit about California and it's over-turning? Weren't you the one bitching about me sticking word in your mouth?  Write it down, set it in stone, the age of social acceptance of homophobia is on the way out, and that means that, little at a time, gay marriage will spread in legality. Kinda like wildfire.

-Check the chart again.  O'Reilly leads overall and in the 25-54 bracket.

See, that's why I know that 24 year olds don't belong in the same bracket as 31 year olds, little less 54 year olds. Show me number for 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, and I'd bet dollars to pesos that Bill doesn't have much of shit in the market share of people who aren't already old and jaded. See, that's the kind of thing I can say, because I know what I'm talking about, and know better than to accept a ratings chart that groups people across 29 years as "The same audience" as anything other than bullshit released to help people justify their stupid fucking opinion.

That's the great thing about statistics. Manipulate them enough and you can "prove" just about anything.

[rue]

Let's resume, Zera. 

[Stinger]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006   Great article for the O-Reilly thread.

I went and did some ratings research, and seems like most charts group together that massive range... How retarded.

[Stinger]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11698322/ - Another good one.

[rue]

Ahem

[Stinger]

Op, one more.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1107

People often forget that the Nielsen ratings are a marketing tool because many try to use them as an indicator of popularity. In the business, however, it is well known that the numbers are routinely massaged to produce positive results for whomever is reporting them.