Why Bill O'Reily is such as great journalist

[skadistic]

Please, do you think the only one who hates O'Reilly is liberal? Your that far entrenched in Partisan dogma. Please sir, compared to me you are the screaming Marxist left.

Hahaha what the hell was this sposed to mean and who was it directed at?

 

[bhsup]

Honestly, I don't have time anymore to watch him and haven't for quite awhile. I work from 9am-7pm and his show comes on at 7pm. I'm sure as hell not going to rush home just so I can be sure to catch the latest installment of a political show on Fox News (or CNN or MSNBC either).

I'll get on Youtube and see what's there.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What I can't get is why people would want to defend him. Great, he agrees with you, hes still terrible! The right would be better off without him, Hannity and Coulter because if anything it gives the left a scapegoat for any legitimate info that actually supports the right wing. The Same reason the left has abandoned Michael Moore by and large. Why cant the Right learn the same trick.

 

[bhsup]

Park, I'm not so much defending O'Reilly as wanting to see accusations backed up with evidence. El Mac said Youtube has some clips, so I am going to go take a look at that, but so far nothing you have shown gives any evidence of it. Do you acknowledge you were wrong about him lying regarding taxes and the 2005 federal tax receipts?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Certainly, I was lazy and stole from a site. A mistake to avoid in internet debate. Mine was more disputing the claim "Bill O'Reily is such as great jounalist". Hes obviously not a complete liar, but to hold him up as a paragon is absurd. He is for the lowest and worst form of political discourse.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Hahaha what the hell was this sposed to mean and who was it directed at?

The "It's sounding more and more like "Bush stole 2000" stuff to me." comment.

 

[MobBoss]

September 19th 2005 Bill O'Reilly claimed
"Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II. President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration."

The highest rate under clinton was 39.6 percent for those making over $250,000 dollars. In 1955 it was 59 percent, in 1965 it was 53 percent, in 1975 it was 60 percent, and in 1985 it was 50 percent. So the first part of his claim is complete crap. As for the second part of his claim, that is also false.

So you have shown your ability to cherry pick data. What about the vast majority of people...you know...the ones that make under $250k a year?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

A few years ago Drudge went after O'Reilly, causing the latter to say "I don't consider [Drudge] a journalist." Drudge's comment? "The feeling is mutual"

As the saying goes... it takes one to know one...

 

[bhsup]

Like I've said before, I certainly don't consider him a journalist. He is an advocate or an analysist, whichever term you prefer, for topics he wants to discuss.

Per El Mac's comment about Youtube, I did a search for "Bill O'Reilly" and the first one to come up is this one.

It was a very interesting watch, but there are a few things I would like to point out. O'Reilly kept saying "at Malmedy", which is indeed wrong, but the anchor over at MSNBC kept saying "December 2004 at Malmedy", which O'Reilly never said. That prompted me to look into it a bit, and it didn't take much to discover this Wikipedia entry.

On December 17 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, German Waffen-SS troops killed American prisoners in the Malmedy massacre. Word of this spread rapidly among American forces, and caused great anger. One US unit issued orders that, "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight."[2] In this atmosphere there are claims that American forces killed German prisoners in retaliation.

Author Martin Sorge writes, "It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards. The guilt went unpunished. It was felt that the basis for their action was orders that no prisoners were to be taken." An eyewitness account by John Fague of B Company, 21st Armored Infantry Battalion, of battle near Chenogne describes the murder of German prisoners by American soldiers. "Some of the boys had some prisoners line up. I knew they were going to shoot them, and I hated this business.... They marched the prisoners back up the hill to murder them with the rest of the prisoners we had secured that morning.... As we were going up the hill out of town, I know some of our boys were lining up German prisoners in the fields on both sides of the road. They must have been 25 or 30 German boys in each group. Machine guns were being set up. These boys were to be machine gunned and murdered. We were committing the same crimes we were now accusing the Japs and Germans of doing."

What actually disturbs me more from that Youtube clip is Fox's apparent altering of the transcript. I'm willing to write off O'Reilly's comments simply because it was all related to the Battle of the Bulge and specifically related to the events at Malmedy in that it was done, allegedly according to Wiki, in direct retaliation to the killings at Malmedy.

EDIT: By the way, Park, with that "sounding more like..." comment, I wasn't really trying to imply that you're a liberal. It's just that, given the examples I've seen so far, the accusations that "O'Reilly is a liar" are starting to sound about as accurate and strident as those false claims about Bush in 2000.

By the way, I have no doubt that he is a liar. We all lie at times. How many times have husbands told wives that they don't look fat in a certain pair of pants? How many times have we said little white lies to avoid hurting someone's feelings? Yes, I know that's not what we're discussing here, but I just wanted to point that out.

EDIT #2: Regarding the Foxnews transcripts, I'd still like to know whether Normandy was discussed later in the program or not. Maybe it was edited, maybe it wasn't and they just showed a different part of the transcript.

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind that I truely know little about the man; these are just the ones I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU69gHXCjis
Mislabelling Gitmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjrBim8nAtM
His opinion of his interaction style

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GebrR6BNPsw
Getting some history completely wrong (allegedly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqMYp9YCCRY
Uses a year-old clip to accuse the Daily Show of attacking Christmas this year

There are a lot out there about this fellow.

Edit: x-post with the Agent-man.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Much Ballyhoo

Dude. You're a soldier, yes?

Why the fack are you defending this liar?

EDIT: damn, beaten to the punch...

 

[MobBoss]

Dude. You're a soldier, yes?

Why the fack are you defending this liar?

EDIT: damn, beaten to the punch...

First of all, what does me being a soldier have to do with anything you have linked there?

Because the vast majority of the time I have watched his show I agree with his position on topics covered. Do journalists/hosts do stupid stuff sometimes? Sure. O'Rielly is no exception to this, but rather than damn the man for a few ill-said comments or misperceptions, I try to look at his positions and comments overall.

And overall he makes a lot of sense most of the time.

If you want to debate a specific position or mistake he has made by all means do so.

 

[Goonie]

Funny, I looked on dictionary.com. and the definition of journalist was "One whose occupation is journalism", or "One who keeps a journal". Funny, no mention of not using the word "junk" in a news broadcast - maybe that's not an official rule?

I agree will Bill O'Reilly on some things, not all - maybe 75% of the time - but I think he's usually pretty interesting, and or amusing to watch. And yes, he is indeed a journalist.

I think a lot of the people here have forgotten that someone can be a journalist, even if you don't agree with their position. Check the definition, nowhere does it say "Someone who reports news and agree's with [insert your name here] all the time."

Objectivity is an inherent to good journalism.

Good journalism has nothing to do with "agreeing" with the journalist.

 

[Goonie]

I'd call that Karma, if I believe in Karma. Nerdy Bill who got beat up grew up to be considered on of the greatest journalist, and your dad remains unknown.

Where does this presumptuous nature you constantly present come from?

 

[Goonie]

Having said that, there are plenty of people with an "I disagree with them; they are therefore evil" mindset. On both sides.

Quoted for truth brother.

Intolerance belongs to both some on the left and right.

 

[Red Stranger]

Objectivity is an inherent to good journalism.

Good journalism has nothing to do with "agreeing" with the journalist.

Ideally that's the case. But I suspect liberals only consider Bill O'Reily to be a bad journalist because they disagree with him.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Bill never lies or makes things up? Well, let me just consult quickly with my copy of the Paris Business Review...

Oh wait.

Crap.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

First of all, what does me being a soldier have to do with anything you have linked there?

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?

O'Rielly is no exception to this, but rather than damn the man for a few ill-said comments or misperceptions,

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....

Having said that, there are plenty of people with an "I disagree with them; they are therefore evil" mindset. On both sides.

It would be futile to say "If he stopped lying and stuck to the facts, I would have no problem with him" because if he stuck to the facts, he couldn't have the opinions that he does.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ideally that's the case. But I suspect liberals only consider Bill O'Reily to be a bad journalist because they disagree with him.

Have you ever watched any of the videos refuting Bill or critiquing him?

 

[MamboJoel]

He introduces the show by saying "I debated Phil Donahue". Journalists don't debate, they organize debate between different opinions. Odd.
Anyway, we would never see that in Europe, I agree with ElMac, it's all organized, just like wrestling or some other US talk shows.