Why O'Reilly is a bad journalist

[Taliesin]

"If Josef Stalin was alive today, he'd be the spokesperson for UNICEF."
"I understand Europe. They're cowards. Cowards over there. With all due respect, and I'm generalising..."

 

[ParkCungHee]

Err. Why not?

For the reason stated.
Joeseph Goebbels was a journalist. He was a far more successful journalist then Bill O'Reilly.

MobBoss's Definition = Joeseph Goebbels was a great journalist.

 

[MobBoss]

I'd like you to address the Paris Business Review issue and Billo's repeated false claims that his boycott is damaging the French national economy, MobBoss. Billo lied, never acknowledged it, never apologized for it.

By their very nature, a boycott, no matter how small, damages an economy as opposed to adding to it.

 

[MobBoss]

Okay, I ask this only because I'm curious. If I described you as the biggest coward in America, would you label that a personal attack? If I said that you are a nut-job swallowing left-wing propaganda, would you say that is a personal attack? I'm not saying that you are these things (clearly), but I've certainly seen you use the report button for less.

As well (I know nothing of the man), would you say that it is factually true that Howard Dean is the biggest coward in America? And because of this truth, calling him such is not a personal attack? I would think that this is very much a personal attack; and any sane person would call it such.

If I actually were the biggest coward in America I dont think that a personal attack, but it would be a simple truth. As for the report button, simply, the forum here at CFC has different rules than journalists do.

As for Howard Dean, I dont have a very high opinion of him at all and happen to agree with Bill O's assessment. The man is dispicable.

Ask your boss why this not a true statement. It's related to the reason why market tabloids can make all those outrageous claims. In Canada (and I'm sure you have it in the States), there is this procedure called 'discovery' that essential prevents famous people from suing journalists of poor moral character.

Ah...I dont think discovery means what you think it means in this context. And I didnt say suing for poor moral character, but for slander. Journalists get sued for slander and libel all the time.

 

[Phlegmak]

I have to write more later.

This is a film about the right wing media in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJRyRnj1TlQ&mode=related&search=

At 15:38 it starts talking about Bill O'Reilly.

I didn't know what Pasi Nurminen's comments about the Paris Business Review meant until now. Pasi Nurminen's correct. Bill O'Reilly made it all up. His so-called boycott did nothing to hurt the French economy. And, there is no such thing as the Paris Business Review. MobBoss, he has not apologized nor retracted that, has he?

 

[MobBoss]

For the reason stated.
Joeseph Goebbels was a journalist. He was a far more successful journalist then Bill O'Reilly.

MobBoss's Definition = Joeseph Goebbels was a great journalist.

Totally false and I find your comment incredibly insulting. I have never, ever said such a thing and for you to put such words in my mouth means you are acting far more like Joseph Goebbels than I ever have.

MobBoss, he has not apologized nor retracted that, has he?

No idea...I am not obsessed with the man and thus do not follow his every move.

 

[El_Machinae]

I didn't saying suing journalists for bad moral character, but OF poor moral character; my posting means something other than what you think it did.

So ... in your opinion, it is a FACT that Howard Dean is the biggest coward in America, then? And thus, calling him such is not a personal attack? (again, I know nothing of the guy). And such, O'Reilly doesn't make personal attacks?

This is truely your position?

 

[El_Machinae]

Totally false and I find your comment incredibly insulting. I have never, ever said such a thing and for you to put such words in my mouth means you are acting far more like Joseph Goebbels than I ever have.

To be fair; I agree that while one could intuit that you think that ratings indicate the quality of a journalist, you never actually say so. You seemingly dispute comments that ratings don't reflect the quality of a journalist, without actually saying that they're a measure. You also comment that O'Reilly is clearly successful due to his ratings. You also comment that he's a journalist.

So, I could reason that you think he's a successful journalist, but might not judge the quality of his journalism in that regard. Of course, you did dispute that ratings were not a good measure of quality.

 

[JollyRoger]

If that were the case, he wouldnt be the #1 guy in the ratings race now would he?

Apparently, he is very, very good at what he does, despite your (and others) opinion of him.

Goebbels was #1 in his day too. Apparently, he was very, very good at what he did, despite your (and others) opinion of him.

 

[Urederra]

Funny how left wing people compare O'reilly with the propaganda leader of the National Socialist Workers party.

 

[MobBoss]

I didn't saying suing journalists for bad moral character, but OF poor moral character; my posting means something other than what you think it did.

So ... in your opinion, it is a FACT that Howard Dean is the biggest coward in America, then? And thus, calling him such is not a personal attack? (again, I know nothing of the guy). And such, O'Reilly doesn't make personal attacks?

This is truely your position?

EL_M: Prior to me answering your question, please answer one of my own. Do you hold Bill O to a flawless standard? And if not, then how much error (or as you would call it: lies) is acceptable? Why do you find an offhand comment where he says he doesnt make personal attacks when its the very nature of his job to do so, so offensive?

Bottom line: I think arguing over whether Bill O lied about making personal attacks vs the likes of Howard Dean incredibly nit picky. And I humbly submit again that he is being held to a standard, of which other journalists are not.

Now, that being my position, and hopefully it being understood, do I think some of what he said a pesonal attack? Sure. Not all of it, but some of it could certainly be classified as opinion, and being opinion I would call it a personal attack.

Everyone, and I mean everyone makes a stupid statement every now and then. But I am simply amazed at the microscopic level of scrutiny that people such as post in this thread give Bill O in comparison to other journalists of the same caliber. I often wonder why? Is it because he leans right? Or because of his success? Or a combination of the two? Or more?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Totally false and I find your comment incredibly insulting. I have never, ever said such a thing and for you to put such words in my mouth means you are acting far more like Joseph Goebbels than I ever have.

You have used the logic that since O'Reilly is #1, and his audience evidently believes he can be trusted that:

A) He can be trusted
B) He is a good journalist

The same logic can apply to Goebbels, or if you prefer a less inflamitory rhetoric, Herst and Pulitzer.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Funny how left wing people compare O'reilly with the propaganda leader of the National Socialist Workers party.

Well being as it was neither Nationalist nor Socialist I hardly think that matters.

 

[El_Machinae]

EL_M: Prior to me answering your question, please answer one of my own. Do you hold Bill O to a flawless standard? And if not, then how much error (or as you would call it: lies) is acceptable? Why do you find an offhand comment where he says he doesnt make personal attacks when its the very nature of his job to do so, so offensive?

Sure. I'll give it a shot. Keep in mind that I too understand that there is a difference between lying and being wrong; we can avoid this technicality, except that I think that a journalist should retract 'wrong' statements once they are discovered. An audience should not be allowed to continue basing opinions on falsehood.

My issue with this statement in particular ("I don't do personal attacks") is especially offensive because it shows such a divergence from reality that it would be foolish to trust the man with any opportunity to interpret partial facts. He has ALL the facts regarding whether he does personal attacks or not (I don't know whether it's actually the nature of his job), and is still of the opinion he does not. In all other instances of reporting, he has only partial facts. It's obvious to me that he's willing to spin them to his own personal agenda, whatever it is, and is willing to ignore facts that contradict his opinion. He will then present that opinion as truth.

Given that the man does not retract false statements (except the few times it supports his agenda) AND does not have an accurate view of reality, I think it is pathetic that the man is considered the least bit credible.

Bottom line: I think arguing over whether Bill O lied about making personal attacks vs the likes of Howard Dean incredibly nit picky. And I humbly submit again that he is being held to a standard, of which other journalists are not.

It's a microcosm of a greater problem. Pasi brought up an excellent example where he made up a source to confirm his statement. Each example must actually be examined to determine whether the man is a liar or not. And since you originally considered none of the youtube clip to contain 'personal attacks' when presented as a whole, I made an attempt point out that yes, despite you statement, there were personal attacks in it.

But I am simply amazed at the microscopic level of scrutiny that people such as post in this thread give Bill O in comparison to other journalists of the same caliber. I often wonder why?

This is (I think) the third time you've mentioned that he is just as bad as others. Hell, you haven't even named anybody, just internet hand-waving. But I think he's receiving attention because (a) the thread is about him and (b) a large number of people form an opinion based on the man's propaganda. The man clearly does not have an accurate view of reality, and as such, he's a dangerous person to be an icon.

I'll run with the Goebbel analogy (we can agree that he was a dangerous propagandist) for a sec. While I don't know how much his propaganda differs from a local Nazi website, the fact that his audience was larger meant that more effort should have been made to expose the fact that Goebbel was a liar with an agenda.

 

[CartesianFart]

Just ignore the show.Trust me,it will do you good to abstain from these hacks.If you have an noble and creative thoughts,it is better not to exercise your facilties by arguing for or against these silly shows.

 

[Abaddon]

for Entertainment only.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Funny how left wing people compare O'reilly with the propaganda leader of the National Socialist Workers party.

My apologies for going off-topic, but ignorance of history is not funny, and even trolling should have certain standards.
I hate to break this to you, but language is not reality.
For instance, the official name of North Korea is Democratic People's Republic of Korea, So according to you, North Korea is a democracy then?
The class character of the Nazi regime is well-known, it lead a regime which by and large greatly favoured the traditional ruling classes, and in my country nobody leaves elementary school ignorant of that fact.

 

[MobBoss]

Sure. I'll give it a shot. Keep in mind that I too understand that there is a difference between lying and being wrong; we can avoid this technicality, except that I think that a journalist should retract 'wrong' statements once they are discovered. An audience should not be allowed to continue basing opinions on falsehood.

My issue with this statement in particular ("I don't do personal attacks") is especially offensive because it shows such a divergence from reality that it would be foolish to trust the man with any opportunity to interpret partial facts. He has ALL the facts regarding whether he does personal attacks or not (I don't know whether it's actually the nature of his job), and is still of the opinion he does not. In all other instances of reporting, he has only partial facts. It's obvious to me that he's willing to spin them to his own personal agenda, whatever it is, and is willing to ignore facts that contradict his opinion. He will then present that opinion as truth.

Hang on a sec. I thought you had previously said you didnt watch Bill O and didnt really know much about him?

I'll run with the Goebbel analogy (we can agree that he was a dangerous propagandist) for a sec. While I don't know how much his propaganda differs from a local Nazi website, the fact that his audience was larger meant that more effort should have been made to expose the fact that Goebbel was a liar with an agenda.

But unlike Goebbels, I have actually seen Bill O condemn the current administration for not doing its job. I have seen Bill O go after right wingers as well as left wingers. You can see it how you want, but the man is not a Goebbels and the comparison is simply nonsensical.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But unlike Goebbels, I have actually seen Bill O condemn the current administration for not doing its job.

Right, and Goebbels was a big time supporter of The Weimar Government

I have seen Bill O go after right wingers as well as left wingers.

I've seen Goebbels do that to.

You can see it how you want, but the man is not a Goebbels and the comparison is simply nonsensical.

Your right, Goebbels was 98 pounds, O'Reilly clearly isn't. I also offered the less inflamatory rhetoric that he is comparable to Herst and Pulitzer

 

[El_Machinae]

Hang on a sec. I thought you had previously said you didnt watch Bill O and didnt really know much about him?

That has nothing to do with my point; I don't know how to communicate with you on this issue. You won't accept a broad picture, asking for clarification. What when approached with clarification, you then complain about the broad picture.

If you can find any statement where he spends time slamming Bush, I will read it.