for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced"
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by melody on July 30, 2004 at 14:18:53:
interesting read -
My First (and Last) Time With Bill O'Reilly
by DAVID COLE
From: The Nation
It started innocuously enough. On Monday, June 21, a producer from Fox News's
The O'Reilly Factor called to ask me to appear as a guest that evening to
comment on a front-page story in the New York Times claiming that the Bush
Administration had overstated the value of intelligence gained at Guantánamo and
the dangers posed by the men detained there. I'm generally not a fan of
shout-television, and I had declined several prior invitations to appear on
O'Reilly's show, but this time I said yes. Little did I know it would not only
be my first time, but also my last.
I sat in the Washington studio as the taping of the show began in New York with
a rant from Bill O'Reilly. He claimed that "the Factor" had established the link
between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and then played a clip from Thomas Kean,
head of the Senate's 9/11 Commission, in which Kean said, "There is no evidence
that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way
in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say,
however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq,
Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."
I was impressed. O'Reilly, who had announced his show as the "No Spin Zone," was
actually playing a balanced soundbite, one that accurately reported the
commission's findings both that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11,
and that there was some evidence of contacts (if no "collaborative
relationship") between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Maybe all those nasty things Al
Franken had said about O'Reilly weren't true after all.
But suddenly O'Reilly interrupted, plainly angry, and said, "We can't use
that.... We need to redo the whole thing." Three minutes of silence later, the
show began again, with O'Reilly re-recording the introduction verbatim. Except
this time, when he got to the part about Kean, he played no tape, and simply
paraphrased Kean as confirming that "definitely there was a connection between
Saddam and Al Qaeda." The part about no link to 9/11 was left on the
cutting-room floor.
Now it was my turn. O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are
at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are
running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin
must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then
characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guantánamo detainees
were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions
holding the detainees at Guantánamo."
I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the
article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed to be low-level
and had provided little valuable intelligence.
That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for
misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not dangerous. I
replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times
had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk
television.
But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling
the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you
re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head
of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between
Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
Apparently O'Reilly does not like being called "the pot." He exploded,
repeatedly called me an "S.O.B." and assured me that he would cut my accusation
from the interview when the show aired. He also said I would "never ever" be on
his show again. At this point, I wasn't sure whether to take that as a threat or
a promise.
Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired later that night, both Thomas Kean's
statement about 9/11 and my charge about O'Reilly deleting it were missing. All
that was left was Bill O'Reilly, fuming at the liberal media's lack of
objectivity and balance, and ruing the divisive effect "spin" has on our
national unity.
Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced"
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Doug W on July 30, 2004 at 25:23:23:
In Reply to: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced" posted by melody on July 30, 2004 at 14:18:53:
Yes interesting. A few things to note; The O'Reilly Factor is an opinion and entertainment program. "Fair and Balanced" refers to Fox's NEWS presentations. To tar Fox’s news coverage with the brush of the O’Reilly show is the same as tarring ABC news for the radically partisan “60 Minutes” which has been a Bush-bashing book promotion tour for the last 6 months. Just as O'Reilly selects what to report and uses the tricks of selection and language to persuade, so do his critics; there are at least two sides to every story.
O'Reilly has his viewpoints that he promotes. Do you imagine that David Cole is an impartial, objective source? He reports for “The Nation”, a radical, anti-American, pro-Marxist, pro-terrorist publication. Here are some of the tricks to look out for.
Cole says that O’Reilly said that the Factor had “established” a link between al Qaeda and Saddam. The word O’Reilly actually used was, “provided” (a link). Cole lied. Why? To make it appear like it was O’Reilly’s own conclusion rather than that of the commission and that therefore O’Reilly had a stake in the fact of a link and to deligitimize the link.
Cole uses inflammatory, subjective language to discredit O’Reilly such as “rant”, and “plainly angry.” Keep in mind that Cole is a radical Marxist, in other words, a practiced liar. Nothing that he says, that cannot be verified, is worth a soiled Kleenex. He attempts to impute some sinister motive to O’Reilly’s discarding of the Kean statement which said that, although there was no link to 9/11 there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. But if O’Reilly meant to mislead, WHY DIDN’T HE IMPLY, ANYWHERE IN THE PROGRAM THAT THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11??? In fact, he accurately paraphrased Kean’s statement! Could it be that O’Reilly was simply using his artistic talent and experience to produce an entertaining, flowing and incisive show in the limited time allotted? If he meant to mislead, WHY DID HE HAVE COLE ON IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Finally Cole is outraged that O’Reilly cut his criticism of O’Reilly’s editing. O’Reilly did not bring this guy on to critique his program, but to talk about the detainees at Gitmo. He has a set amount of time to pursue each topic. Why should he waste time in the Gitmo segment defending his editorial decisions regarding the Talking Points segment ON ANOTHER SUBJECT?
This is just another leftist with a God complex with his nose all out of joint because he was not allowed to spew his wacko, conspiratorialist, anti-American propaganda on national TV.
O’Reilly is a pompous, self-righteous, self-promoting asshole. His sweeping pronouncements on morality and society are mostly ridiculous and innocuous. But, he does serve a valuable function exposing government corruption, radical, permissive judges, the disgrace on our borders, the danger of the seditious ACLU, the utter failure of child protective services to do their job, the nature of our foreign enemies like the French and many other outrages. So, basically, in spite of himself, he does some good and little bad.
But, the main point is that all news purveyors work from their own view of reality. This varies for all of us. I believe that America is a good country and that our foreign policy is overall benign and is a countervailing force against evil in the world. So, I gravitate to the news service that shares that view; the news service whose newscasters wore American flags on their lapels after 9/11. The networks, CNN, The New York Times, etc., etc., etc., believe that America is the locus of all evil on Earth. Those who share that view gravitate to those sources. Make your own choice, but be wary of commie scum like Cole. He has his own agenda.
If you want to make up your own mind on this particular issue, here is the O’Reilly show from that day. Followed by the New York Times article in dispute. Original source material! The bread and butter of those who really want to know why the world is the way it is, who refuse to be fooled and what the little people can do about it. (the 9/11 commission report is also available online).
Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced"
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Bill on August 02, 2004 at 11:38:47:
In Reply to: Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced" posted by Doug W on July 30, 2004 at 25:23:23:
Doug W,
Why is everyone who doesn't agree with your political agenda an anti-american and a commie? When I read your rants, I can almost hear the firing squad loading their weapons in the background, ready to execute those who would dare to dis-agree with powers that be.....
Bill
Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced"
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Doug W on August 02, 2004 at 12:28:47:
In Reply to: Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced" posted by Bill on August 02, 2004 at 11:38:47:
Bill, there are many who disagree with me who are non-commie, decent Americans. You come to mind. However, I am a pro-American, anti-Communist and therefore I disagree with ALL anti-American commies and that is where my focus lies. If a doctor specializes in cancer, and talks about cancer, and fights cancer and exposes cancer, would you accuse him of believing that all illness is cancer?
My characterization of David Cole and The Nation is accurate. I have come across this asshole before. Are you saying that The Nation is NOT a Marxist publication dedicated to the overthrow of our present system of government?
Why is everyone who doesn't agree with your political agenda on the verge of setting up death squads to execute their opponents? We're just talking here. I believe that exposing the anti-American Left on forums such as this to be quite sufficient.
Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced"
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by melody on August 02, 2004 at 11:30:38:
In Reply to: Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced" posted by Doug W on July 30, 2004 at 25:23:23:
yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. but the bottom line in tv news
(talk shows or not) is that editing out info to slant the view is a no no.
period. not supposed to be done. and the producers should have never let a guest
see that kind of tampering. bad form.
Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced"
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Chris Moore on August 02, 2004 at 13:22:41:
In Reply to: Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced" posted by Doug W on August 02, 2004 at 12:28:47:
Doug W I thought the Cold War was over and the US won. Do you think the commies are just playing possum?
I saw in the NY Times business section that executive pay
up 15% to 22% last year. I've noticed the trend of obscene executive
compensation (IMHO 300X+ times median wage is obscene!) really took off once
communism and the Soviet Union were vanquished. I wonder if there is a cause and
effect? Perhaps the big muckity-mucks worried that greed wasnt so good with the
USSR offering a possible alternative system to workers should they get too
annoyed at overly piggy behavior among the 'captains of industry'. But once the
Soviets were gone it was 'get while the getting is good' for the CEOs and top
executives from their lap dog compensation committies. Just I thought.
Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced"
PRIVATE
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
[
Follow Ups ] [
Post Followup ] [
The AAA Frame Message Board ] [
FAQ ]PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=usf261b.gif (10730 bytes)"
Posted by Ron on August 02, 2004 at 13:28:09:
In Reply to: Re: for those who actually think fox is "fair and balanced" posted by Chris Moore on August 02, 2004 at 13:22:41:
Comrade Moore, maybe if you worked harder you could be one of those high paid executives. Instead of shooting jealous slings and arrows from afar, you could be rubbing elbows and living the good life.
I'm sure if you were making "an obscene" salary you would be just giving it all away and refusing salary increases/parachutes/bonuses/stock options...
Quite noble of you... but as you put it yourself, that's probably not something you'll ever have to worry about so why hypothesize...