Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Bill O'Reilly actually acted in a reasonable manner? Good for him. I wish people would simply stop with the nonsense, and just started working together. There may be room out there for a commentator that is simply rational and reasonable and not an extremist. I wouldn't think Bill would be it, but it shows that a worthwhile discourse can happen, and that it's beneficial< Bill has his hot buttons like most talk show hosts, and I think his role is often cast by Fox to counter point some pundits slightly left of center on CNN. However the one thing I usually find is he is willing to spread the blame for certain issues around and not make it 100% one way or the other. I also sense some frustration with Bill, especially lately, in the process in general. He leans right of center, that I agree, but nowhere near the level that is divisive as some others.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 For what it's worth, the show in question, at least on Sunday, was apparently trounced in the ratings by the Sunday night football game, and didn't score much higher than the repeat of the (excellent) documentary on 9/11 (the one with the French brothers making a doc on the NYFD) on CBS.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But it did come in first on Monday night.... <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=televisionNews&storyID=2006-09-13T012918Z_01_N12176722_RTRIDST_0_TELEVISION-RATINGS-DC.XML" target="_blank">http://today.reuters.com/news/ articlenews.aspx?type=televisionNews&storyID=2006-09-13T012918Z_01_N12176722_RTRIDST_0_TELEVISION-RATINGS-DC.XML</a> >>Despite a 20-minute interruption from President George W. Bush, the second night of ABC's controversial miniseries "The Path to 9/11" won the primetime ratings race in key measures Monday. "Path" took hits for its depiction of the Clinton administration's stance on terrorism, and several last-minute edits were made to assuage complaints about its inaccuracy. But the miniseries faced a bigger threat from the Bush administration -- the president's 9 p.m. EDT Oval Office speech on the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Instead, "Path" started ahead at 8 p.m., and according to preliminary estimates from Nielsen Media Research, never looked back. "Path" averaged 12 million viewers and a 3.8 rating/10 share in the adults 18-49 demographic according to Nielsen estimates. It's tough to know exactly because of time-period estimates and the impact of the president's speech. At 10:20 p.m., ABC's "Primetime" special delivered roughly 11 million viewers and about a 3.7/10. This "Primetime" originated from the site of the World Trade Center and was anchored by Charles Gibson. Fox remained in the ratings game with a new episode of "Prison Break," which averaged 8.8 million viewers and a 3.7/10 in the demo, about on par with last week. But a new week wasn't as kind to "Vanished," which dropped to 5.9 million viewers and a 2.0/5 for its airing from 9:18 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. ET. Nightly averages: ABC (11.9 million, 3.7/10); CBS (7.2 million, 2.3/6); Fox (6.6 million, 2.5/6); NBC (5.6 million, 1.8/5); and The WB (1.6 million, 0.6/2).<< By the way, the ratings on Monday were about the same as Sunday, about 12 million viewers..... Just the fact there are a lot of Football fans, and the Sunday Night game was designed to draw viewers (Payton vs Eli Manning), as the NFL wanted to reward NBC for showing Sunday Night Football (first game).
Originally Posted By DlandDug So the night that was critical of Bush (Monday) drew higher ratings than the night that was critical of Clinton (Sunday)? I guess it just goes to show: Give the people what they want...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<And when Lanny Davis mentioned Rush Limbaugh as supporting this show but anti Reagan show, Bill politely stepped aside and said since he competes against Rush, he would rather not comment.>> Lanny Davis, a big lib, said that Eush demanded the Reagan TV show be pulled off the air. Well, this was once again a flat out lie coming from a lib regarding something Rush said. It never ends with these clowns. Rush never said the Reagan TV show staring Hollywood libs should be pulled from the air...ever.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy vbdad, good to see your watching O'Reilly. You might learn something about the war on terror and why it is the most important issue of our time. It's why he is number one by a mile.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <vbdad, good to see your watching O'Reilly. You might learn something about the war on terror and why it is the most important issue of our time. It's why he is number one by a mile.< I have watched O'Reilly for years so that is nothing new...funny though ho he agreed with the guy you call a big lib - and they seemed very chummy in general. And for a Big Lib he had nothing but negative things to say about the way the Dems treated Reagan in the 80's comparing it with how the GOP supporters treated Clinton - proclaming both to be wrong and covering up reality -- hardly sounds like a Big Lib to me. I do not find O'Reilly far right on most topics - right of center yes, but very few people are dead center.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << I have watched O'Reilly for years so that is nothing new...funny though ho he agreed with the guy you call a big lib - and they seemed very chummy in general. >> Lanny Davis is a nice lib. But he is still wrong on every issue he decides to talk about. Why he said Rush tried to ynak the Reagan TV show is beyond me if he wants to play the role of honest good guy. Now if you have been watching O'Reilly for years how can you be so in the dark about terrorism and the fact that it is the number one issue in America today, far more important than jobs or gay marriage. He has had many guests on his show that were terror experts who talked about how easy it would be for a terrorist to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in their next terror attack. You want to lose some jobs? Have that attack happen. Funny, I was thinking about you today as I was in a meeting with the dudes at Nike. LOL
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Now if you have been watching O'Reilly for years how can you be so in the dark about terrorism and the fact that it is the number one issue in America today, far more important than jobs or gay marriage< Because I actually have a mind of my own and in my world the future of the economy and the health of our citizens is equally as important as potential terrorist attacks. Are worth vitally important yes. I guess living thru 50+ years of people convincing us that the Russians were going to blow us all to kingdom come, or the Chinese etc...it is vitally important to be prepared, but not at the risk of overlooking everything else. The difference between you and I is that Terrorism on your list is #1, #2 #3 #3 #5 etc --- on my list it is 1 or 2 but not mutually exclusive from all other issues.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The cold war was different. As long as Reagan had just as many or more bombs than the soviets nothing was going to ever happen. The Soviets ( who have very hot women ) didn't want to die. The Islamic terrorists not only think dying is a great thing, they can actually get a WMD into a city and set it off using a small suitcase size container. This is scary stuff that is very, very real and possible. The terorists would like nothing more than to hit America as hard as they could. Clinton never got this. If Manhatten gets leveled I think our economy would be toast and then it really would be doom and gloom time not to mention all the people that would be dead.
Originally Posted By woody >>>>I think, by sending advance copies of the program mainly to known right-wing talk show hosts and columnists, they intended to build a sympathetic audience.<< This is a lie.<< >Shall I assume that telling someone what they said is a lie is different from calling them a liar? (And just between you and me, I wouldn't have gotten interested in this if your outcry hadn't made me so curious.)< Yes, it is different because it has been repeated so much that I believe it is a lie, yet sometimes the person saying it isn't lying when they actually believe such ridiculousness. I wouldn't call you a liar since you obviousness think things through and know what you'e talking about. >>Yet, I don't know the full story...<< Hold that thought. (And don't rely on self described "obscure right wing bloggers" to provide you with "the full story.") I agree with your sentiment, but he was responding to a narrow accusation and he did his research with other prominent right wing/ conservative bloggers and gotten their response, which is NONE of them received copies of the docudrama. There was nothing there. Also, it doesn't mean conservative talk radio hosts didn't receive a copy. Many did. However, there is no conspiracy as far as I can detect.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 "The cold war was different. As long as Reagan had just as many or more bombs than the soviets nothing was going to ever happen" This wasn't always the case in the cold war which goes back long before Reagan -- in the early 60's when they tried to scare the crap out of us, and we did drills of going into the hallway once every few weeks to get into the crouch and die position - the Russians had plenty more than we did, and the world was a lot more mysterious than it is today. We knew little of the Russians as a general populace except there were " out to wipe us off the planet" - that is the cold war I am talking about - likely before you were born...
Originally Posted By jonvn vbdad55-- You should go rent the movie Atomic Cafe. I think you'll get a kick out of it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I had not heard of it so I looked it up, would likely either be laughable or give me nightmares. It would be interesting though to see exactly how many of the spiels are exactly the end of the world scenarios I remember
Originally Posted By jonvn It's actually very funny at the same time. You'll see stuff from when you were a kid that you've totally forgotten. And it's also kind of scary. What it does show, though, is that threats to the United States are not some new thing. That we have never before been at risk in our own homes. That never before was there no fear of those who would infiltrate our society and destroy us from within. These things are not new. What is new is the government's interest in completely throwing out the rules in how we conduct ourselves as a nation. That's the big difference between then and now.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's actually very funny at the same time. " Should read "Funny AND scary at the same time"
