Why O'Reilly is a bad journalist

[ParkCungHee]

And where do you assume that such hatred springs from? How is it "blind"? Have we not stated our motivations for our anger with him? You do not even bother to challenge these motivations merely commenting how we should not hate him...why exactly? Because he agrees with you? Not a very compelling reason.

 

[Goonie]

Blind hatred implies on important thing Fox:



Blindness.



It would appear to me that all those in this thread who have stated a dislike for the man have not done so blindly, but quite clairvoyantly by lacing their arguments with facts and not simply ad hominem.

 

[MobBoss]

People are very good at swallowing lies then.

Is no one going to address the conflict inherent in liking a guy who lies so much?

In my opinion, I dont think he lies that much. Does he get stuff wrong sometimes? Sure...but all journalists do that every so often. But the guy is doing a show just about every day of the week - its simply presumptous (and silly) to think doing that year after year is going to be error free.

Try to come up with a better reply than "people are very good at swallowing lies". That is so extremely weak as an excuse its laughable.

I, for one, dont swallow lies (least of which yours), and I tend to like him. Is he my #1 favorite talk show guy? No. But I dont dislike him.

 

[MobBoss]

Come on MobBoss, we agree he's a good show man, don't you think he lacks one of the journalists most important values : impartiality ?

By that standard, the left is full of non-journalists also...where is your hate of them?

 

[Goonie]

Create a thread for them and people will rag on them.

This thread is about one man according to the OP.

 

[Phlegmak]

The blind hatred towards O'Reilly disgusts me. You are all worse then he is.

Again, can you address anything that was said in the opening post? And hatred of him isn't blind.

So you predicted people would notice your mistake? Imagine that.

Noticing I made a mistake is fine. However, I predicted that people would focus on that rather than the opening post, just as you did.

In my opinion, I dont think he lies that much. Does he get stuff wrong sometimes? Sure...but all journalists do that every so often. But the guy is doing a show just about every day of the week - its simply presumptous (and silly) to think doing that year after year is going to be error free.

Try to come up with a better reply than "people are very good at swallowing lies". That is so extremely weak as an excuse its laughable.

I, for one, dont swallow lies (least of which yours), and I tend to like him. Is he my #1 favorite talk show guy? No. But I dont dislike him.

Then when does he make apologies or retractions for his incorrect statements? If he doesn't, then he's responsible for those lies and he's still a liar. And you still like a liar.

I guess you can rationalize any belief you hold dear. "He lies, but who doesn't?" Wonderful.

 

[MobBoss]

Noticing I made a mistake is fine. I predicted that people would focus on that rather than the opening post, just as you did.

Dont confuse me with garric. kthxbye. I just commented on your observation that people would notice your mistake.

Do I think O'Reilly a journalist? Yes. In addition to his show, he also puts out a weekly column. He is a journalist. You may think he is a bad journalist. /meh.

I think he is a successful one. That is beyond question.

Edit: Bottom line, I make my own judgements if I consider the man a liar or not. The times I have viewed his show personally, I have noticed no lies or untruths. So, since I am not literally obsessed with the man like you are, I dont go hunt down every misquote or mistake he has done over years and years of work. Bottom line, for you to focus so on one single person as opposed to lamenting about bad journalism as a whole, I find rather hypocritical.

I suppose you think Dan Rather was fired wrongly as well.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I would also point out that Joesph Goebbels was a journalist, and an even more successful one at that.

 

[Phlegmak]

By that standard, the left is full of non-journalists also...where is your hate of them?

This is the second time you've done this in this thread. "My guy's bad, but yours does such and such!" Make another thread about so-called leftist journalists and then you can say anything you want about them.

Dont confuse me with garric. kthxbye. I just commented on your observation that people would notice your mistake.

Nope, that's the same as what garric did. What's you're stating is obviously different from my observation. I wasn't shocked or anything that someone noticed my mistake, but rather that it would be the focus. Which is again what you're doing.

Do I think O'Reilly a journalist? Yes. In addition to his show, he also puts out a weekly column. He is a journalist. You may think he is a bad journalist. /meh.

I think he is a successful one. That is beyond question.

That's right, it's beyond question, since we're not talking about that. You know he's a liar. You don't seem to care.

 

[El_Machinae]

Does anybody have any evidence of O'Reilly retracting a statement?

 

[Phlegmak]

I would also point out that Joesph Goebbels was a journalist, and an even more successful one at that.

Excuse me Mr. Bush, I mean Mr. Rumsfeld, oops, I mean ParkCungHee, but we don't need to bring Nazis into this. Thanks for the effort, anyway.

 

[MobBoss]

This is the second time you've done this in this thread. "My guy's bad, but yours does such and such!" Make another thread about so-called leftist journalists and then you can say anything you want about them.

Not what I said. Lets be blunt, so that you understand me. I never said "my guys bad" or that "yours does such and such". My point is that you are holding O'Reilly to an entirely different standard - one nigh unreachable at that. Everyone makes mistakes or can err over the course of time. O'Reilly is no exception.

As I am a mature person, I allow and understand such things as opposed to grabing my pitchfork and torch and demanding a crusifiction.

 

[MobBoss]

Nope, that's the same as what garric did. What's you're stating is obviously different from my observation. I wasn't shocked or anything that someone noticed my mistake, but rather that it would be the focus. Which is again what you're doing.

Sorry...thats not the "focus" of my arguement. Nice try though.

That's right, it's beyond question, since we're not talking about that. You know he's a liar. You don't seem to care.

No..I dont know he is a liar. And what I dont care about is that YOU seem to think he is. I really dont care if you think he is a liar or not. Reason? I have watched the guys show and I have never, EVER, seen him lie about something. Thus, I have no reason to believe him a liar. Period.

You dont like that? /Oh well.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you willing to examine any evidence about him lying?

 

[MobBoss]

Are you willing to examine any evidence about him lying?

Whats the point? If I search hard enough I can find evidence about any journalist lying.

The point for me is its not that important. Why should I believe biased website X and their evidence as opposed to my own very eyes? Answer: I shouldnt.

My proof? I personally saw the exchange between O'Reilly and David Letterman that night. And it most certainly didnt go down the way those websites describe it. In my opinion, those websites (yes, even the wiki) misrepresent what happened and "lie" about it if you will.

 

[El_Machinae]

You are simply unbelievable.

What was it you posted, that you don't swallow lies? Given that you have no intention of examining lies even when they are pointed out to you, you have no way of knowing if something is a lie or not.

 

[MobBoss]

You are simply unbelievable.

What was it you posted, that you don't swallow lies? Given that you have no intention of examining lies even when they are pointed out to you, you have no way of knowing if something is a lie or not.

Did you not comprehend what I said. First of all, why on earth should I trust someones' biased opinion of O'Rielly as opposed to what I have viewed with my own eyes? Who should I trust more? I think I will trust my own eyes thank you very much.

Also, I DID look at some of those websites and I gave you a direct example of something I didnt agree with. The O'Rielly/Letterman thing. I saw that first hand, and I certainly dont agree with how the anti-O'Rielly websites portray it. Thus in this instance, I most certainly can compare my "eyes" to what was posted....and I find what was posted to be greatly biased and misleading.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

[El_Machinae]

I posted to a replay of the Letterman incident; having never read a blog about the incident, I did not know what the issue was.

Did you not comprehend what I said. First of all, why on earth should I trust someones' biased opinion of O'Rielly as opposed to what I have viewed with my own eyes? Who should I trust more? I think I will trust my own eyes thank you very much.

I asked if you would even examine evidence; you have said no. You're not even trusting your own eyes, you've admitted that you are willfully blind.

Did I ask you to read someone's opinion?

I don't even know why you're in the thread, since you seemingly have nothing to contribute other than an apparent proclamation that you enjoy being his fanboi.

 

[C~G]

No, "bad journalist" means he is a journalist, but not a very good one.

I am not a "bad brain surgeon", I'm "not a brain surgeon"

No, Scuffer.

I know when I say this you will climb on the walls but have to do it.

What if someone right now takes you to surgery room and gives you the knife and say that you have to make the cut now?

You might say that you aren't brain surgeon while they might say you are brain surgeon but just bad one.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that you might not be bad brain surgeon even by default if only the people currently available are considered as possible candidates. In fact you might be the best one available.

So basically with this logic Bill O'Reilly (or anyone else for that matter) might be the worst, best and only journalist if there aren't any other possibilities out there.

EDIT THE SEQUEL: In the end Bill O'Reilly could be the best journalist of US (if there wouldn't be any other available), worst of the world (rest of the world population available) and in the end the best and funniest entertainer of the world since he would suck so bad as journalist that everybody would just absolutely love and feel pity for him.

 

[MobBoss]

I asked if you would even examine evidence; you have said no.

Not true. I have examined the evidence. However, on many of those issues I am only shown a single side - their side, not O'Riellys. The Letterman issue was one that I DID see and thus could put into context.

You're not even trusting your own eyes, you've admitted that you are willfully blind.

Again, you are simply incorrect. I find it extremely disengenuous to take only one sides proof and claim truth. When you do this, you take things out of context. With out the proper context, who is to say what is true and what isnt?

I don't even know why you're in the thread, since you seemingly have nothing to contribute other than an apparent proclamation that you enjoy being his fanboi.

Oh...I guess that only people who wish to bash O"Rielly are welcome in the thread then. My mistake.

Honest debate indeed.