Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder joe, as has been said countless times here, it is possible to have watched O'Reilly and come away thoroughly unimpressed. Good for you if you like theguy. Many of us don't share your enthusiasm. How is that a knock on you?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Don't watch the show as maybe you may have to say "Yes Bill did produce positive action." You people who criticize the factor with no eg's are people I don't take seriously at all." << One thing you need to understand is that there are a lot of different sources of information out there and it is next to impossible to pay attention to all of them. If you feel that O'Reilly provides a balanced and accurate view, then you certainly should continue to use him as a primary source. I, on the other hand, have heard enough from him to decide that I would much rather get my information from other sources. Honestly, O'Reilly was never really that much on my radar as a source of information. His background in tabloid television largely drove that disinterest. His recent involvement in pushing the ridiculous controversy over the so-called "war on Christmas" was really what pushed me over the edge from disinterest to distrust. While I haven't watched his show recently, I did read through some of his "talking points memos" on this issue on foxnews.com and found pretty much what I expected. None of what he said was really factually innaccurate based on what I have learned of this story from other sources, but he does omit a lot of information, primarily with regards to the judge's actual justifications for his decision. He also spends a ridiculous amount of effort on trying to villanize the judge while suggesting boycotts of the entire state of Vermont (I wonder if that will extend to him pushing for Fox News to be pulled from Vermont cable systems...) I quickly came to the conclusion that there are much better sources for information on this issue. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Beaumandy >> "What more is there to talk about? We have people on here who think giving a child rapist parole after a whole big 2 months in jail is perfectly fine." << I haven't seen anyone say any such thing. >> Famulan made excuses for the judge as did Tom Sawer on here. O'Reilly has had people from Vermont on his show from ALL SIDES of the issue. How is he not covering the story fairly? What he did do was bring attention to a judge who has lost his right to be a judge. He has also put the bright spotlight on the state of Vermont and the fact that crimes against children in Vermont is way up. What's wrong with that kind of reporting? What has O'Reilly evere said that is not accurate or fabricated?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << None of what he said was really factually innaccurate based on what I have learned of this story from other sources, but he does omit a lot of information, primarily with regards to the judge's actual justifications for his decision.>> O'Reilly has had MANY guests on his show who talked about the reason the judge made the ruling he made. I don't see how a journalist could be more fair to a story. He's not like the losers on the left who only bring in their people to talk about a story.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau---ditto-----ALL sides and these people just won't give examples of how he doesn't show all sides. It really is hopeless here and you deserve credit but some people are just nuts and let the folks decide who> you, me, or the "whatever pal" condescenders.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Relentlessly he presents BOTH sides of every issue. Give me an example when he doesn't?>> OK, I will give you an example. Last spring Bill O'Reilly was all upset about the "all white prom" at a Georgia High School. What he failed to mention was that there were actually there were multiple private partys that were not school sanctioned. I really don't recall if the school had an "Official" High School sponcered prom. The white and black students voted to hold seperate private partys off school property, without school donantions. So as far as I'm concerned they were private partys. The students did car washes and other things to get donations for the private functions. The school had no say in the matter. When asked the students said that they held private partys because they didn't really agree on the music that would be played at the prom. I take it the black students wanted rap and the white students wanted country. And yes some students attended both partys. I remember the news crews interviewing several black students who were invited and attended the "white" party. It was no big deal to any of the students, the school or the parents. Then comes Bill O'Reilly declaring that its all rasist. And Joe, Bill lied. he never mentioned that they were private functions off school property. Like it or not, but the law is the law. People are still allowed to hold private functions if they want to.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I can see why people would not listen to Rush, Hannity and Al Franken. These people are pure partisans. O'Reilly is not in this camp at all. His gig is to be honest and balanced. Does his honest look at the country show that the far left is insane and dangerous? Yes it does. But he can back up why these people are out of the mainstream and he will debate any of them on any topic. How many far left people EVER debate a conservative or a libertarian in a fair debate? It simply doesn't happen.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<It was no big deal to any of the students, the school or the parents. Then comes Bill O'Reilly declaring that its all rasist. And Joe, Bill lied. he never mentioned that they were private functions off school property.>> Are you sure he didn't mention this Ken? There is no way O'Reilly would leave this point out if he knew about it. Why would he leave it out? What does he gain by trying to paint a school as racist? I'm going to Email him and ask him about this though.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Please do Beau. Bill can be good. But he is not always balances. He intentionally misreported the Georgia High School Senior Prom for ratings.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I know one thing about Bill. If you tell him he misreported something for ratings he is going to set the record straight. I will let you know what he says.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I take Bill with a small grain of salt. He thinks he is right all the time. And I have given you an example of when he intentionally misrepresented the facts.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I know one thing about Bill. If you tell him he misreported something for ratings he is going to set the record straight.<< No he won't. He's a loudmouth right-wing opinion pusher who gives just enough facts to justify the right-wing position and leaves out all the facts that could give credibility to another position. And if you tried to call him on his intentional misinformation, he'll call you a liar and tell you to shut up. I've seen and heard him do it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <O'Reilly is not in this camp at all. His gig is to be honest and balanced.> No, that's just what he claims for himself. He's not actually as predictibly right-wing as Limbaugh or Hannity. Sometimes I even agree with him. But he is awfully pompous and full of himself, and he has a bad habit of shouting down his guests if they raise his hackles. Sometimes he'll let his guests have their say, even if he disagrees with them, which is the way it ought to be. This is especially true if the topic is one that O'Reilly is not particularly passionate about. In those cases, he tends to be on his best behavior. But he also seems to have a very quick temper, and if one of his guests says something that cuts close to the bone or raises his hackles, he'll shout them down, even tell them to shut up, which a host should never do. And it becomes just another nail in the coffin of civil discourse in America. Actually, all you really need to do to understand O'Reilly is watch the Colbert Report for a week. He's got O'Reilly down.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>O'Reilly is not in this camp at all. His gig is to be honest and balanced.<< Something very interesting about this statement (other than the fact that it's blatantly untrue). Notice that word balanced is used as though it were the be all and end all in journalism. I always thought that giving the complete facts was more important than anything. "Balance" simply means that one side gives its half-truths and the other side gives their half-truths. Somewhere in that exchange, essential facts are left out and the truth itself is lost. As a wise being once said: Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Okay----One example in what a year now? Man if we all had that record? If that's the worst thing he ever did, not too bad. He let the AG have his say last week anent the Vt. case and I'm sure he'll let everyone have his or her say tonight and people won't watch as they're scared to death. It must be tough to have a self-image so poor that you can't bear to watch something that conflicts with your prejudices that you have to protect to a degree of NOT looking at things that may be different. I wonder what Dr.Phil would say.
