The Bill O'Reilly Thread

[rue]

Why exclude the Fox News Employees and harbor them off like they're invalids? No economists? Stuart Varney's a graduate of the London School of Economics.

Ahh, interesting point!  So you think that Fox News employees are reasonable stand ins for debate?  I believe this is very telling of our difference in opinion.  If one is a Fox News employee, they are forced to express certain opinions, and those who don't are fired or demoted, etc.  It is true there may be some who are accomplished in and of themselves, but Fox even censors those people.  When those people enter into a debate, you can't expect a fair portrayal of their side of the case, because Fox is structuring what they say, and what PARTS of the discussion are avoided.  For a very blunt and fictitious example, you and I could debate the war in Iraq for hours and hours, and a viewer might find it to be compelling and honest.  But if we never mention the claim of WMD's, the Bush administration may come away from the discussion seeming reasonable and fair.  And it is in so doing that Fox crafts and paints the picture that they want.

Honest debate can only result when both sides are allowed to say their WHOLE piece, and neither side is censored in what they say.

It is for this reason I discount any and all Fox employees.

You're doing it again.  This is speculation, Zera.  I'll be more specific this time.

" If one is a Fox News employee, they are forced to express certain opinions, and those who don't are fired or demoted, etc."

<Insert anecdote of Fox News employee whose career has been threatened when certain views were expressed>

"It is true there may be some who are accomplished in and of themselves, but Fox even censors those people."

<Insert anecdote of accomplished person censored by Fox>

" When those people enter into a debate, you can't expect a fair portrayal of their side of the case, because Fox is structuring what they say, and what PARTS of the discussion are avoided."

<Insert blueprints for mind control devices inserted into television personalities on Fox News>

And by all means, bring up the internal memos from John Moody.  I'll be glad to respond to them. 

  I think you'd agree, the FNC has primarily all hosts of the same political flavor.

I do not.  As hosts come, I know of only Sean Hannity and Mike Huckabee as registered Republicans.  There are several who are very critical of President Obama and other Democratic politicians, such as Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, but both are also rather harsh on the GOP.  In both regards, they resemble less of me and more of...you, Zera. 

[Stinger]

John Moody memos, you say? You mean his regular programming suggestions he sent out, that was described by a then-employee as "talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray." Those memos? Some exerts;

First, two from his 4/04/04 memo;

Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group.

The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved.

"They deserve anything that they get, make sure our coverage is very clear on that." Fair and balanced, much?

4/28/04:

[L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation.

I'm pretty sure telling people what words they can and cannot say is in the definition of "censorship"... But what do I know, I've just been fighting against it a decade.

6/02/03:

Two style notes: [Eric Ru]dolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." ...[TO]DAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING.

You know what kind of person refuses to refer to a multi-purpose clinic that also performs abortions as nothing but an "abortion clinic"? Someone who's incapable of hiding (or unwilling to hide) their "pro-life" bias, and wants people to understand that there's a BIG difference between killing doctors randomly, and killing a doctor who murders them helpless babies! Fair and balanced, much?

6/03/03:

[Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day.

Now, wouldn't it be funny if the network of people this guy was constantly sending these memos to were always known as Bush apologists? Man, wouldn't that be some kind of coincidence?

Alright then, here's one from you.

<Insert blueprints for mind control devices inserted into television personalities on Fox News>

See, that's the cool thing about selective hiring; You don't need to control their minds! Funny thing, when you only employ the talking heads who you already know share your opinions before you hire them, you don't really have to reign them in that much...

And yet they still sent out those memos, didn't they? The memos making sure the selectively hired people still knew where the boundaries were? And just because no new ones have been leaked doesn't mean no new ones have gone out... And you know what, Fox News has a right to be a bunch of biased pricks! They do, privately owned, good on em.

But they are NOT "fair and balanced"... They're so biased that it's fucking impossible to argue that they aren't. Go ahead and try though. Well, you know... After Zera posts something similar. I know you won't respond to me directly, I'm too scary. It's OK, I understand. I too would be in awe of me, I am pretty awesome.

[Stinger]

Quick aside; part of why I found the guest list for O'Reilly so entertaining is that Dennis Miller is a frequent contributor. I was raised on SNL reruns, and Miller's "Weekend Update" played a decent part in forming my sense of humor, and desire to be a comedian. (Along with Carlin, and Robin Williams standup during the coke years)

When I got a bit older, I realized that Dennis Miller also was one of my earliest copywriting influences. While I didn't know that was what I was doing at the time, he was one of the first people I ever studied specifically for the purpose of picking up his persuasion techniques. See, up until 9/11, Dennis did the exact same smarmy act he does now, but he was doing it for the liberal side...

I mean it when I say it was the "same act", he follows identical formulas to this day. I made it a point to watch many of his shows when he switched sides, hoping to find some enjoyment in his new style... And in a lot of ways, I did! I appreciate the sciences of public speaking, coercion, and comedy, and on all three of those, Dennis hasn't lost a step. He's just no longer aligned with me philosophically, and seeing as how he's ALWAYS been a professional biased mouth-piece, I can no longer find the same pleasure in watching his work.

When it comes to leading around the gullible of ANY group though, liberal or conservative, I have to give Dennis Miller all the credit in the world. He's a guy to watch if you want tips, he's a master.

[Zeradul]

You're doing it again.  This is speculation, Zera.  I'll be more specific this time.

As far as I can tell you just restated what I said.  If there was a rebuttal in your response, I missed it.  I understand you think what I'm saying is speculation, but I'm trying to explain to you my view of Fox.  I understand you don't like Fox, and you just watch O'Reilly, but he's kingpin on that network.  I'm not familiar with this Moody guy you two are talking about.

In all honesty, back when the war was the primary topic of discussion, you could literally watch ANY segment on Fox, or O'Reilly's show and watch them dance around sensitive issues that they dare not touch, because it weakens their propaganda.  If I was more knowledgeable about economics I'm confident the same is happening now when they discuss the economy.  Yes, they mix in 50-95% truth, fact and relevant observations, but by avoiding certain parts of the topic, or dismissing certain parts which they justify with a logical fallacy, they skillfully paint a picture, and they allow their audience to miss the forest for the trees, by merely never talking about those little things that are very important when trying to understand the whole issue.

The best recent example is how they treated Ron Paul during the elections.  You can literally pick any clip, and watch whomever is interviewing them very craftily steer the conversation away from talk about important things Republican blunders like the Patriot Act, the failure to pursue Osama, the historical reasons why 9/11 happened, why the Neo-Con aggressive militarism is a very bad thing, etc, etc, etc.  They work very hard to keep the discussion from going their, because all of those roads to them looking REALLY bad.  It's why Fox did not allow Ron Paul back for the second Fox News hosted debate, even though Paul had CRUSHED Giuliani, and Tancredo, and others in the recent primaries.

I have to admit, I'm surprised you're taking this stance DD, BUT I guess it's not that hard to believe if you do really believe O'Reilly is legit.  I guess thinking Fox is not a propaganda machine is the next subsequent mindset.  Can you remind me again why you don't like the REST of FNC, and just like O'Reilly?  Because if not for THIS reason, I guess I am at a loss.

I know of only Sean Hannity and Mike Huckabee as registered Republicans.  There are several who are very critical of President Obama and other Democratic politicians, such as Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, but both are also rather harsh on the GOP.

Okay, a claim here of possible neutrality.  So lets test the waters.   It's not hard to pile on, when Bush's approval rating has dropped to 9% in the final year of his administration, but I wonder how many of these Hosts were hard on him in say, FALL 2004???  In fact, I've got a video of O'Reilly RAILING against McCain as recently as spring of 2008, only to recant by summer as McCain won the nomination.  Surprise, Surprise.  I also have a video of a FNC Host and guest on O'Reilly's show railing against Hilary because "she wouldn't be able to stand up to the big boys" running other nations, and then just a few weeks later, making exactly opposite claims to support the selection of Palin.  Both were sexist remarks, but it is interesting to see these Hosts-With-Agendas change their mind so quickly when the tables turn.  Someone without an agenda, being mentally honest would have the same stance, supported by the same facts, and wouldn't get caught in these logical incongruities.

Colmes is no longer on his show with Hannity, so lets see if you can list any others to validate your claim of not just conservative viewpoints.

Can you name any Fox Host who is Liberal?
Can you name any Fox Host who supported Obama on the air?
Can you name any Fox Host who supports Gay Marriage?
Can you name any Fox Host who is in favor of legalizing drugs?
Can you name any Fox Host who is in favor of legalizing marijuana?
Can you name any Fox Host who is Pro-Choice?
Can you name any Fox Host who is Pro-Gun Control?
Can you name any Fox Host who is Pro Welfare?
Can you name any Fox Host who is Pro Union?
Can you name any Fox Host who is Anti-Free-Market?

And less relevant, but still interesting and indicative of truely diverse opinion:

Can you name any Fox Host who is Muslim?
Can you name any Fox Host who is an Atheist or Agnostic?

[rue]

"As far as I can tell you just restated what I said.  If there was a rebuttal in your response, I missed it.  I understand you think what I'm saying is speculation, but I'm trying to explain to you my view of Fox.  I understand you don't like Fox, and you just watch O'Reilly, but he's kingpin on that network.  I'm not familiar with this Moody guy you two are talking about."

Check under each quotation. 

"I have to admit, I'm surprised you're taking this stance DD, BUT I guess it's not that hard to believe if you do really believe O'Reilly is legit.  I guess thinking Fox is not a propaganda machine is the next subsequent mindset.  Can you remind me again why you don't like the REST of FNC, and just like O'Reilly?  Because if not for THIS reason, I guess I am at a loss."

Slow down.  I didn't say I don't like Fox.  I said I watch CNN.  9/11 happened while I was starting my senior year of high school.  Before then I wasn't very interested in politics or current events.  For probably the next week, like most Americans, I was glued to the TV screen watching images and hearing stories from NYC.  I used to be big into Tom Clancy novels and Clancy often has the protagonists of his stories learning news from CNN.  That became the logical choice for my channel selection in November, 2001.  Since then I've become hooked primarily due to familiarity.  I can recall being up late one Christmas break evening in 2003, playing some computer game or another when CNN reported one of its embedded reporters was very excitedly reporting one of the Raider Brigades had returned to its firebase jubilantly toasting the successful completion of Operation Red Dawn.  An hour or more later CNN showed live Paul Bremer walking to a podium and announcing "We got him."  Since both these incidents it's become a regularity for me to have the TV tuned to a news channel while I'm home.  Most of the time, it's CNN. Unless Lou Dobbs is involved.  I hate Lou Dobbs.  Candy Crowley, too. 

As to the ten questions posed at the end of your post:

 Most of the legitimate questions seeking liberalism can be identified with Geraldo Rivera.  Other questions asking for hosts' personal views on hot topics such as "Can you name a Fox host who is in favor of legalizing drugs?" are loaded questions.  I can't think of any hosts from the big four who support legalized drugs, are Atheist or Agnostic and I couldn't think of a Muslim host until I checked to see if Ali Velshi is.  He is, but despite his being with CNN and me viewing him very frequently, I wasn't aware of his religion until I looked it up.  It doesn't come up very much as his expertise is economics.   The most prominent Atheist news person in television I could think of was of course Bill Maher, but beyond that I'm not aware of any others, though I'm sure it's prevalent.  You and I should both be thankful religious preference or nonpreference is "background" enough that for the majority of media members, we just don't know. 

[Stinger]

"Most of the legitimate questions seeking liberalism can be identified with Geraldo Rivera. "

Geraldo is a tool who makes Micheal Moore look professional. The fact that Fox picked him up after everyone else dumped him for light treason hardly speaks highly of the network... It's like having Sara Palin as your token republican; Most of the people technically on her "side" would still be embarrassed to have her representing them. On top of that, he hardly does an adequate job of putting out the liberal viewpoints correctly... So he's annoying, and ineffective simultaneously.

"The most prominent Atheist news person in television I could think of was of course Bill Maher, but beyond that I'm not aware of any others, though I'm sure it's prevalent.  You and I should both be thankful religious preference or nonpreference is "background" enough that for the majority of media members, we just don't know. "

"Religious preferences" stay in the background? What? Half of Fox is openly christian, God is brought up repeatedly on that network. Fucking major hypocrisy; The only reason Bill Maher is the only person you can think of in "news" that's an atheist is because he's the only one with enough balls to come out with it, and if you'll recall, his balls and convictions got him fired from anything not pay-cable. Also, atheism isn't a religion, so while it's real nice of you to capitalize the first letter and all, it's not necessary. Unlike with the word "christian", which is a constant source of arguments between me and spell check.

You know what I really love? You were willing to respond to me when you thought (incorrectly) that I made a big debate mistake that you could taunt quickly. When it turned out that I was saying something perfectly relevant, you turned tail and ran off. Seriously DD, keep ignoring my valid points. I take it as the highest form of compliment that I'm just that intimidating. Talk to you after the next time you say something to someone else.

[rue]

Stinger, I can't take you seriously for much the same reason I struggle with Nietzsche.  That's all.

[Stinger]

... Thanks?

[Zeradul]

Really guys?     

Stinger, he's either going to respond to your points or he's not.  Namecalling is not going to encourage a response.

DD, is it not futile to get Stinger riled up in this way?

Either way, lets let this thread rest a while,  and resume in a week or two.  I have a hunch some of these last posts are going to be moderated.  When we do resume, lets try to stay on topic and avoid these personal attacks.

[Zeradul]

Sorry I'm not being encouraging enough?

The point was that you can't just make someone respond if they don't want to.

And last time moderation stepped in here it decided to shit on the good as well as the bad, so don't mind me if I don't root for more censorship.

You know, if you don't like moderation, then use your modify button and deal with it yourself.  I'm not buying your "blame a moderator" just because they didn't want to go through your post and remove just the inflammatory portions.

[Mnementh]

If asked, I will unlock this topic.  Otherwise, your gripes are duly noted, Stinger, but I could really care less if you feel you were "censored".  Act like a child, get treated like a child.