[quote]Why should we assume that Bill has some malicious intent in everything he does? Who should we believe that of, ever?
[/quote]
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:
[quote]The Ambush clip has a good explanation.
[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote]-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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]-Check the chart again. O’Reilly leads overall and in the 25-54 bracket.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
OK, knock it the fuck off, already. This was a great discussion until the petty personal attacks started. DD, go to your corner, Stinger, go to yours. Now come back out and start acting like the adults you are again.
Now get back on topic, ladies. I wasn’t targeting any one more than the other…and if in your points were couched jabs, I took out the whole point. Make it without the personal jabs.
My apologies, Stinger. It’s true that I don’t like you and I never have. Sorry about that. It’s just a product of your nature. I’ll resume my daily struggle of cohabitating these forums with you.
Even so, in the future, be careful taking my written words too seriously. I very, very rarely mean offense.
Okay, I haven’t read all of this, and it seems I’ve missed a flurry of posting and deleting posts, so I don’t know what’s going on here.
I’m super busy today getting ready for a ski trip to Tahoe tomorrow (until Friday) and so I may not have a chance to respond for a while. I think DD was last to comment, so it’s my “turn”.
Anyways, unless I get really bored at the hotel, I probably won’t get around to a response for a while. But don’t let that stop the discussion! I’m sure others have opinions on the media.
Quick comment about ratings - I still don’t see the relevance to ratings in this discussion? What does ratings have to do with being misleading or not? I’m not suggesting that O’Reilly’s deception isn’t effective, because it IS, but that doesn’t change what it is.
To refresh our memories, here is a recap of my premise for this thread: I believe that Bill O’Reilly uses whatever tactics necessary to spread his message. I believe he is a master of deceit, trickery, half truths, and manipulation and he uses those skills to accomplish his goal of furthering what he has decided is the “right” way to do things. I think he feels that the ends justify the means, and that his deception is the best way to accomplish the goal, as opposed to a truly fair and balanced debate on any given topic, which I think we’d all agree is the most direct route to any real truth seeking or stance analysis.
So this thread’s goal is to show supporting examples of Bill being deceptive, and then debate to what extent he WAS deceptive or not.
…picking up with the most recent posts:
[quote]Canceling 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.
[/quote]
Yes, O’Reilly canceled on Badnarik right after offering a public challenge to anyone “brave” enough to debate the Patriot act with him. Yes, normally there would be a myriad of excuses one could use, but O’Reilly announced this as a formal challenge, and he realized that he would be destroyed by a superior position on the issue, by what he feared would be seen as a superior philosophical position by his viewers, and so he decided to not take the risk, and bailed out. I understand this is somewhat an unfair point for me to make, because the incident was so long ago, and there’s no good record of what happened, except for a whole bunch of people who wrote about being pissed that O’Reilly refused to man up and put his money where his mouth was with his debate challenge.
[quote]I’ll forego doing all of your homework and just talk about one of the so called “ambush” cases Stewart showed in the clip.
[/quote]
Ok, I guess I kind of see your point about celebrities’ privacy, as opposed to people in the public eye, but you can’t just cherry pick the best two examples from Stewart’s clip there to make your case. O’Reilly also bashes the media for invading Angelina Jolie’s privacy, but then as soon as the Fox perceives a slight from Jolie, they are stampeding down the sidewalk, leading the charge to invade her privacy. How is that not hypocritical? Same person, but now that Fox has a reason to invade her privacy in public, it’s just fine?
Lets try to wrap this up because I’ve found a few potential Exhibit B’s to pick from.
Totally conceded. I apologized a few posts up for making this about ratings. Stinger’s ADD brought it back up.
Yes, O’Reilly canceled on Badnarik right after offering a public challenge to anyone “brave” enough to debate the Patriot act with him. Yes, normally there would be a myriad of excuses one could use, but O’Reilly announced this as a formal challenge, and he realized that he would be destroyed by a superior position on the issue, by what he feared would be seen as a superior philosophical position by his viewers, and so he decided to not take the risk, and bailed out. I understand this is somewhat an unfair point for me to make, because the incident was so long ago, and there’s no good record of what happened, except for a whole bunch of people who wrote about being pissed that O’Reilly refused to man up and put his money where his mouth was with his debate challenge.
[/quote]
It’s not an unfair point to make because it was so long ago, it’s an unfair point because you’ve assumed you can read Bill’s mind. You cannot possibly claim you know why Bill canceled the interview. Allow me to offer an alternative possible explanation.
Perhaps, the problem Bill foresaw was the lack of interest in hearing the point debated by someone like Badnarik. Zera, I ingest a large amount of news and opinion daily and I have to say I had never heard of Mr. Badnarik before you mentioned him. His wiki page is open on my desktop now. Ok, he was the Libertarian Party’s nomination in 2004. He placed fourth. Imagine this promo:
“Tonight on the O’Reilly Factor! Bill has his challenge answered by none other than Michael Badnarik! The man who ran for president in 2004! He got > 1.5% of the vote then, and now he’s here to take on the #1 cable news host in the business! Tonight at 8 on…The O’Reilly Factor!”
He’s a small fry, Zera. Bill can’t accept every little challenge that’s slung his way, less his program become a springboard for whatever view any person wishes to proclaim. This isn’t PBS, it’s Fox News.
Let me provide an example I think you’ll agree with to hammer the point home. Over the past decade, perhaps more, Richard Dawkins has held a strict policy of limiting the debates and even public rebuttals he’ll participate in from various theists who would challenge the thoughts in his many books. I can’t source this because it’s somewhere way back that I read this, but Dawkins does this because he believes each time he was replying to whomever wished to debate or illicit a response from him, he was providing a forum for said person. It became an initiation rite for religious author A to take on the big dog. Dawkins is more than correct in ignoring random challenges like these.
This is the point I wish to convey about Bill when he doesn’t have someone on. Bill is now the big dog. His show, again, is the most watched news program behind weekly 60 minutes. Let Badnarik establish himself and perhaps Bill can take the time. That’s what our free markets are all about, right? If Badnarik was in demand he’d get his shot.
Ok, I guess I kind of see your point about celebrities’ privacy, as opposed to people in the public eye, but you can’t just cherry pick the best two examples from Stewart’s clip there to make your case. O’Reilly also bashes the media for invading Angelina Jolie’s privacy, but then as soon as the Fox perceives a slight from Jolie, they are stampeding down the sidewalk, leading the charge to invade her privacy. How is that not hypocritical? Same person, but now that Fox has a reason to invade her privacy in public, it’s just fine?
[/quote]
Left the scope of the discussion. I actually don’t watch very much Fox News (easy Ruck! easy! Breathe Big Guy!), both because I’m absolutely in the market, mentioned a few of my posts back, that cable is losing to the internet and my preference is actually CNN. Thus, I cannot speak knowingly or honestly of Fox News other than O’Reilly.
1.5% of the vote for president makes him a small fry? I just wiki’d him myself, that 1.5% comes out to 397,265 people who would likely watch the episode with Badnarik on it, most of which I kind of doubt are usually in O’Reilly’s viewership. Sounds like a pretty healthy dose of publicity to me. He has Rove on regularly, and I doubt if he ran for president he’d come close to 400k people thinking that was a good idea.
That’s the audio from a debate in the Bible belt, in a church, surrounded by nothing but theists, with Dawkins debating a man I never heard of before this debate, who was there because he was the guy in academia who stood up and said “Hey, I’m willing to question every one of the beliefs stated in your book in a public setting for the cause of a spirited debate.” It’s actually a very good debate at that, well worth the time to listen to it if you have the time to spare.
He’s taken on opposing viewpoints in hostile territory about a dozen times over that I’m aware of. There is no comparison between Bill’s cherry-picking of guests and Dawkins’ criteria for choosing debate partners. Dawkins knows he has logical arguments on his side, which goes a long way towards minimizing the fear of being proven wrong by someone elses cunning use of words.
One other thing that’s importa- Oh! Look! Something Shiney! My ADD is kicking in, I have to wander off now.
