Why Bill O'Reily is such as great journalist

Tell you the truth, probably he has some kind of entertainment value but in fact he is as loony as they come.

My real underlying thoughts about this person cannot be expressed on this forum.
I have certain combination of words that I use to describe people who are arrogant and absolutely wrong about almost everything but since they are backed up by other loonies just like themselves, they act like they own the world with their pals.

He's not only bad journalist, he's complete fake, idiot and above all a liar.
If you ask me Fox would have way better reputation without these kind of people.

EDIT: I wouldn't compare Al Franken to Bill O'Reilly ever. Al Franken is comedian and political satirist while O'Reilly tries to be serious editor and commentator while his shows are only self-satiristic at best.

Fox Mccloud said:

Yes they do. Look through this damn thread. I once saw someone (Rambuchan I think) say that Fox News should be shut down. They claim to be tolerant, but truth is they actually hate everything that disagrees with them.

Click to expand...

Please don't confuse criticism with hate.

If you've got a good point about why we should consider O'Reilly a journalist, then please state it. And don't try to tarnish those who disagree as "hateful". It doesn't make your point.

C~G said:

EDIT: I wouldn't compare Al Franken to Bill O'Reilly ever. Al Franken is comedian and political satirist while O'Reilly tries to be serious editor and commentator while his shows are only self-satiristic at best.

Click to expand...

Exactly C~G.

This is the point that Fox McCloud and any other O'Reilly cheerleader should consider. He claims to be a journalist (as does much else about Fox "News") but he is an entertainer really. And yes, O'Reilly was compared to Tom & Jerry by me because he does have far more in common with that show than any news show. It's entertainment, not journalistic information. Just like Tom & Jerry, people tune into O'Reilly for the "crash, bang, wollup" factor of the show (at least I hope they do!).

When I called for Fox News to be shut down, I clearly stated that they should be shut down as a news agency. If they want to set up as a satirical show, then fine. If they want to be a political lobby, then fine. Just don't call it news!!

edit: But there is a big problem getting in the way of that and indeed public access to proper, rigourous journalism > Current legislation in the USA. It does not actually protect the public from lying journalists (not only those from Fox btw). As I pointed out here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4473502&postcount=40

This is why Bill O'Reilly should be beaten to death by baguette wielding Frenchmen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DvPAy5D-6U

Rambuchan said:

He claims to be a journalist (as does much else about Fox "News") but he is an entertainer really. And yes, O'Reilly was compared to Tom & Jerry by me because he does have far more in common with that show than any news show. It's entertainment, not journalistic information. Just like Tom & Jerry, people tune into O'Reilly for the "crash, bang, wollup" factor of the show (at least I hope they do!).

Click to expand...

Nice artificial eloquence.

Can you elucidate on what is an entertainer and what is a journalist,on your own reasoning?

CartesianFart said:

Nice artificial eloquence.

Can you elucidate on what is an entertainer and what is a journalist,on your own reasoning?

Click to expand...

Why of course

To start with, Journalism is a discipline, governed by a journalistic code of conduct.

Entertainment isn't subject to any code of conduct, save for perhaps censorship and copyright regulations. This is because Entertainment is not a discipline as such and it does not have practitioners as such, hence no need for a code of conduct. Rather it has varying forms of entertainment, like comedy, drama, etc, which are subject to their own loose rules, which are of course far looser than those of journalists. It takes a lot less to call oneself a comedian than a journalist.

In the same manner as Chartered Accountants are only able to carry the badge when they abide by the code of conduct of their discipline, so too are practioners of Journalism. They are only Journalists when they abide by this code of conduct:

Journalists are expected to follow a stringent code of journalistic conduct that requires them to, among other things:

• Use original sources of information, including interviews with people directly involved in a story, original documents and other direct sources of information, whenever possible, and cite the sources of this information in reports;

• Fully attribute information gathered from other published sources, should original sources not be available (to not do so is considered plagiarism; some newspapers also note when an article uses information from previous reports);

• Use multiple original sources of information, especially if the subject of the report is controversial;

• Check every fact reported;

• Find and report every side of a story possible;

• Report without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one;

• Approach researching and reporting a story with a balance between openmindedness and skepticism.

• Use careful judgment when organizing and reporting information.

• Be careful about granting confidentiality to sources (news organizations usually have specific rules that journalists must following concerning grants of confidentiality);

• Decline gifts or favors from any subject of a report, and avoid even the appearance of being influenced;

• Abstain from reporting or otherwise participating in the research and writing about a subject in which the journalist has a personal stake or bias that cannot be set aside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Professional_and_ethical_standards
(sorry for the link but it's saving me much time)

Click to expand...

I don't think you need me to point out that our entertainers simply do not have to follow these guidelines and that Bill O'Reilly does not.

nonconformist said:

This is why Bill O'Reilly should be beaten to death by baguette wielding Frenchmen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DvPAy5D-6U

Click to expand...

"France is our enemy." Ridiculous.

Pontiuth Pilate said:

Well, if Bill O'Reilly said on national TV that S. J. Gould (famous biologist) was a child molester, I would be personally insulted from a career standpoint above and beyond the sheer disgust at the lie.

Bill O'Reilly said on national TV that your predecessors in the armed forces carried a massacre of surrendering soldiers, when in fact they were the VICTIMS of that massacre. You don't feel insulted?

Click to expand...

No..because I know for a fact that after Germans shot american POWs during the Battle of the Bulge it most certainly was a quid pro quo situation there for a bit. It was basically "no rules warfare" there for awhile after Malmedy between Americans and the Germans. This was even alluded to in Band of Brothers. So what if he wasnt correct in every detail - who is? You? Nope. Neither am I. Bottom line, the amount of venom directed the mans way is disproportionate to his mistakes.

The entire wiki page about him is full of lies he's made that've been exposed. Standards may be different on the other side of the aisle but you'd think the Right would favor competent liars....

Click to expand...

Not everything on the wiki page is true however. I personally saw the exchange between O'Reilly and David Letterman, and it didnt go down like the wiki puts it at all. There is most definitely spin involved on that particular wiki page and I dont think you can deny that.

nonconformist said:

This is why Bill O'Reilly should be beaten to death by baguette wielding Frenchmen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DvPAy5D-6U

Click to expand...

Jon Stewart!

I like how they are taking on Geraldo now.

EDIT: Also O'Reilly was on his own show saying Stewart and Colbert don't matter, when he was on the Daily Show.

Rambuchan said:

To start with, Journalism is a discipline, governed by a journalistic code of conduct.

Click to expand...

It is just a guise,if you ask me.

Entertainment isn't subject to any code of conduct, save for perhaps censorship and copyright regulations. This is because Entertainment is not a discipline as such and it does not have practitioners as such, hence no need for a code of conduct. Rather it has varying forms of entertainment, like comedy, drama, etc, which are subject to their own loose rules, which are of course far looser than those of journalists. It takes a lot less to call oneself a comedian than a journalist.

Click to expand...

You know what is funny about this global capitalistic world we are in?It never cease to amaze me on how many unlimited worthless occupations ever being produced.It is not as case in the beginning that consumers cry out the want of being entertained but being force-fed of entertainment.

Sorry,just a trivial rant on that one.

In the same manner as Chartered Accountants are only able to carry the badge when they abide by the code of conduct of their discipline, so too are practioners of Journalism. They are only Journalists when they abide by this code of conduct:

Click to expand...

Can i ask you another question?What is your ideal news reporter that fit your criterion of a real journalist?Give me a name?

I don't think you need me to point out that our entertainers simply do not have to follow these guidelines and that Bill O'Reilly does not.

Click to expand...

I have to say that it is interesting that you some how dichotomized a television personality(trust me,i am not defending O'Reilly) of a entertainer and journalist while choosing the former as something of a fact.All you could simply say(which i habitually say),a mere televison personality.I think this is a better label.

Rambuchan said:

To start with, Journalism is a discipline, governed by a journalistic code of conduct.

I don't think you need me to point out that our entertainers simply do not have to follow these guidelines and that Bill O'Reilly does not.

Click to expand...

No arguement Ram, but reading your list of what Journalism is....if that is your standard, then the majority of "journalists" today are not journalists at all.

MobBoss said:

if that is your standard, then the majority of "journalists" today are not journalists at all.

Click to expand...

And hear the unpleasant truth: They aren't.

CartesianFart said:

It is just a guise,if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Are the Codes of Conducts that Architects, Doctors, Documentary Film Makers and other professional craftsmen follow guises as well? If so, a guise for what?

Cynicism aside, I'm failing to see how a code of conduct such as that posted could work to the public's detriment. I can see how regular breaches of it can though. News is very important, if not essential, to democratic procedure.

You know what is funny about this global capitalistic world we are in?It never cease to amaze me on how many unlimited worthless occupations ever being produced.It is not as case in the beginning that consumers cry out the want of being entertained but being force-fed of entertainment.

Sorry,just a trivial rant on that one.

Click to expand...

Nice rant.

Can i ask you another question?What is your ideal news reporter that fit your criterion of a real journalist?Give me a name?

Click to expand...

I believe that the current BBC Political Correspondence, Nick Robinson, is an excellent journalist. That's just one name for you. Each of his reports can be seen to follow closely the code of conduct I quoted above.

I have to say that it is interesting that you some how dichotomized a television personality(trust me,i am not defending O'Reilly) of a entertainer and journalist while choosing the former as something of a fact.All you could simply say(which i habitually say),a mere televison personality.I think this is a better label.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If comparing the contrasting fields of Entertainment with Journalism and pointing out that O'Reilly is not a journalist but an entertainer is dichotomising a TV personality, then I'm sorry. That's how I see it and I hope I've spelled out the distinction clear enough (cynicism notwithstanding!)

I would also urge caution over simply ascribing him a label such as "television personality". He still does so under the label of "news" and there are people fool enough out there to still believe that he is a journalist and worth listening to on facts that matter. People vote based upon his lies.

MobBoss said:

No arguement Ram, but reading your list of what Journalism is....if that is your standard, then the majority of "journalists" today are not journalists at all.

Click to expand...

I never said O'Reilly was alone in this regard. But if you think it's a problem, then look to the link I gave above (to that "scandalous, hateful thread" I started) to see how your newsmedia laws do not protect you from those who peddle lies under the name of journalism. Again, it's worth pointing out that people vote based on these lies.

Here is why Bill O'Reilly is a horrible journalist.

Wiki!

"CUT HIS MIC!"

MobBoss said:

So what if he wasnt correct in every detail - who is? You? Nope. Neither am I.

Click to expand...

The error was pointed out by others, and not only did Bill not retract the statement, but he made the same 'error' again a couple months later. Allegedly.

Edit: here's the Letterman bit, for reference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCS38OSsL4c

MobBoss said:

No arguement Ram, but reading your list of what Journalism is....if that is your standard, then the majority of "journalists" today are not journalists at all.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. Its a sad consequence of the turning of network news into infotainment.

Rambuchan said:

Are the Codes of Conducts that Architects, Doctors, Documentary Film Makers and other professional craftsmen follow guises as well? If so, a guise for what?

Click to expand...

I didn't say of the professions such as Architects,Doctors or others that does not fall into the category of journalism.
I am saying that a guise of theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.Journalists are not immune of this.

Cynicism aside, I'm failing to see how a code of conduct such as that posted could work to the public's detriment. I can see how regular breaches of it can though. News is very important, if not essential, to democratic procedure.

Click to expand...

It is more harmful than good in democracy to have these schizmatic individuals telling us on how to interpret events.As long as there is no objective meta-language,there will allways be audiences responding by habits way of thinking of their given class,social movements,and institutions.

I believe that the current BBC Political Correspondence, Nick Robinson, is an excellent journalist. That's just one name for you. Each of his reports can be seen to follow closely the code of conduct I quoted above.

Click to expand...

So you are a lover for individuals who is methodical-obeying of doctrines of conduct.What-ever make you feel safe in having a blind faith on other people testimonies,i guess.

That's how I see it and I hope I've spelled out the distinction clear enough (cynicism notwithstanding!)

Click to expand...

Since you are a self-profess cynic,it is weird that you favor Nick Robinson.Or that you are a selective cynic?

I would also urge caution over simply ascribing him a label such as "television personality". He still does so under the label of "news" and there are people fool enough out there to still believe that he is a journalist and worth listening to on facts that matter. People vote based upon his lies.

Click to expand...

True.But i haven't met anyone who voted by his stance on some political issues,i wouldn't be surprise that there is one though.

I never said O'Reilly was alone in this regard. But if you think it's a problem, then look to the link I gave above (to that "scandalous, hateful thread" I started) to see how your newsmedia laws do not protect you from those who peddle lies under the name of journalism. Again, it's worth pointing out that people vote based on these lies.

Click to expand...

I don't call them liesbut instead i call them "manufactoring consent!"

Excuse me for being a unapologizing eccentric.