Why O'Reilly is a bad journalist

[Urederra]

Well, North Korea is not Democratic, no matter what the official name of the country is. That is a different issue from the National Socialist Workers party, which was a party that gained the power by winning democratic elections. They run an election calling themselves national socialists and german workers voted to that party, democratically. You don't think they were socialists? OK, that is an honest opinion of yours. The german workers who voted that party wouldn't have voted if they had thought that the National Socialist Workers Party wasn't socialist at all, so they considered the party socialist. An honest opinion of them, too. North Koreans didn't have the option of voting about how to name their country.

Going back on topic, Goebbels learnt the propaganda techniques from the soviets in the same way that german concentration camps were copied from the gulags.

I hope in your country nobody leaves elementary school without knowing what a gulag is. A school shouldn't be like a komsomol academy, you know.

 

[MobBoss]

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

Actually, since the Weimar Republic eneded in 1933, by all means, give me an example of Geobbels writing regarding it.

I've seen Goebbels do that to.

By all means please share your proof.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

Heh, sorry, but I find you rather inconsistent in your description of familiairity with Bill O, thus how can your point be consistent? On one hand you say you dont know very much about the guy and never watch him...one the other you are comment on how he does thus and so. Well, which is it?

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

Off hand I recall he has been quite critical of Bush's handling of immigration issues. But as I have said before, I dont keep Bill O quotes on file to whip out as necessary. If you are that interested in pursuing it by all means go ahead.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually, since the Weimar Republic eneded in 1933, by all means, give me an example of Geobbels writing regarding it.

Basically ever edition of Der Angriff from its inception to the fall of the Weimar Republic was an attack on the government.

By all means please share your proof.

Well for starters you can take this issue of Der Sturmmer. Der Sturmmer of course was Streicher's paper, but all of that fell under Goebbels position. It criticizes the Catholic Church as "Judaised"

 

[ParkCungHee]

The german workers who voted that party wouldn't have voted if they had thought that the National Socialist Workers Party wasn't socialist at all, so they considered the party socialist.

And how did you reach that stunning conclusion?

First you assume that if it wasn't socialist it wouldn't have won the election, yet there were several socialist parties in german politics throughout the Weimar Republic, none of which ever won power. On the contrary Hitler became chancellor only after assuring Von Hindenburg that he was against progressive taxes, breaking up the Junkers estates etc.
Second you assume automatically based on this fallacy that they therefor thought they were socialist. So we are to believe that after over 10 years of campaign, constant bombardment with propoganda, no one listened to Hitler Speak or Read Goebbels papers, or indeed any other papers, that would describe the constant street battles with the socialists? We are to believe from 1926-1932 no one read a newspaper in Germany, then turned out to the ballot box in order to vote for a party that they had never heard the platform of based entirely on its name?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Moderator Action: Phlegmak, MobBoss, El_Machinae, warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Urederra]

And how did you reach that stunning conclusion?

First you assume that if it wasn't socialist it wouldn't have won the election <snip>...

This is a bit off-topic, but anyway, I haven't said that, I said that under many workers' opinion, Hitler's party was socialist, otherwise they wouldn't have voted his party.

<snip>... yet there were several socialist parties in german politics throughout the Weimar Republic, none of which ever won power.

So what? the workers didn't find them appealing enough.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

O'Reilly is an entertainer, nothing more. He is a good one, though, I always enjoy his show, if just to watch him listen to someone else's POV, and then shoot it out of the sky.

 

[CaptainF]

Bill O' Reiley is a douchebag. He cut the microphone of George Carlin on his show. George Carlin? What a dick. And he likes falafel.

Here's a few videos of him looking like an idiot:

How he spins the crap out of everything.

And again.

Him just being an idiot.

Yes, I know that Keith Olbermann is just as much of a faux journalist as Bill, but I do not watch the Keith Olbermann show, as a matter of fact I haven't yet seen a single episode.

I just happen to appreciate how he slams Ol' William.

 

[MobBoss]

Basically ever edition of Der Angriff from its inception to the fall of the Weimar Republic was an attack on the government.

After checking on this you are correct. Der Angriff started up mid 1927 and the republic fell in 1933.

Well for starters you can take this issue of Der Sturmmer. Der Sturmmer of course was Streicher's paper, but all of that fell under Goebbels position. It criticizes the Catholic Church as "Judaised"

It seems you forgot what you were to provide proof of. Remember if Bill O'Rielly is your version of Goebbels, I had mentioned where O'Rielly had attacked the administration (i.e. the side he is viewed as being on). You said Goebbels did the same thing - which I would interpret as Goebbels as being critical of Hitler, as O'Rielly has been critical of Bush. You showing an article about the Catholic Church isnt proof of same.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, North Korea is not Democratic, no matter what the official name of the country is. That is a different issue from the National Socialist Workers party, which was a party that gained the power by winning democratic elections. They run an election calling themselves national socialists and german workers voted to that party, democratically. You don't think they were socialists? OK, that is an honest opinion of yours. The german workers who voted that party wouldn't have voted if they had thought that the National Socialist Workers Party wasn't socialist at all, so they considered the party socialist. An honest opinion of them, too. North Koreans didn't have the option of voting about how to name their country.

The point that language and reality stands anyway.
As for the rest:
- Workers even today vote in great numbers for unsocialist parties.
- The words "socialist" and "workers" was used exactly to try to get more support from workers.
- German workers still did not overwhelmingly vote for Hitler.
- Those who anyway did, may have believed the propaganda, but was in for a rude awakening.
- NSDAP never got more than about 35% of the votes in any election. Hitler was appointed kansler by Hindenburg.
- NSDAP received massive financial support by German Big Business which they handsomely paid back by creating what euphemistically can be termed as an enormously business-friendly environment as well as providing them with slave labour and raw goods during the imperialistic phase. There was also a great deal of admiration for Herr Hitler in both the US and Europe because of the firm way he handled those bad, bad unions.
- This is more than an honest opinion of mine, it is well documented facts.

Going back on topic, Goebbels learnt the propaganda techniques from the soviets in the same way that german concentration camps were copied from the gulags.

At best, that is partly true. In Mein Kampf Hitler expresses his admiration for the allied WW1 propaganda, which in his opinion was one of the reason for Germany losing the war.
As regards concentration camps those had been built by both the English, the Spanish(!), and the Germans (!!)themselves before the existence of any USSR.
You might also check out for instance the biography of Dostoyevsky to learn more about how oppositionals could be treated in Czarist Russia.

I hope in your country nobody leaves elementary school without knowing what a gulag is. A school shouldn't be like a komsomol academy, you know.

I find this paragraph insinuating, immature and rude, as I never defended Stalinism but probably wrote more against it here than you ever did.
Yes we learn about that, as well as Western colonialism and imperialism.
While there is a certain right-wing slant in our school system, we try at least not to be a John Birch Society either.
But tell me again, how is this in any way related to the fact that the NSDAP was not a socialist party?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, North Korea is not Democratic, no matter what the official name of the country is. That is a different issue from the National Socialist Workers party, which was a party that gained the power by winning democratic elections. They run an election calling themselves national socialists and german workers voted to that party, democratically. You don't think they were socialists? OK, that is an honest opinion of yours.

No, that's fact actually.

The german workers who voted that party wouldn't have voted if they had thought that the National Socialist Workers Party wasn't socialist at all, so they considered the party socialist. An honest opinion of them, too. North Koreans didn't have the option of voting about how to name their country.

Heh. Are you sure?

Tell me, in the democratic elections, who were the main opponents of the Nazis? I'll give a hint as well. The party's name was often abrieviated as 'Sozi'

In the many speeches Hitler gave he usually blasted socialists. So, the people who voted for Hitler darn well knew it wasn't a socialist party.

edit: My post is useless. Luceafarul beat me to it with a far better one

 

[Phlegmak]

Various things. My responses to various posts are out of order. If you are going to make fun of my doing that, then you're an idiot.

I won't be commenting about the Nazis. I don't really care about that, and I think it's irrelevant to this discussion. I wish it wasn't brought up.

Yes, I know that Keith Olbermann is just as much of a faux journalist as Bill, but I do not watch the Keith Olbermann show, as a matter of fact I haven't yet seen a single episode.

Keith Olbermann is a faux journalist? How so? You can watch video clips of his show on Crooks and Liars. http://www.crooksandliars.com I also have never seen a complete episode, but I have seen many clips. I don't see what's fake news about him. There is one thing he talks about many times which isn't really "news", but rather commentary, which is all of the lies and half truths spoken by O'Reilly. If you believe he's fake news and have proof, by all means, start up another thread and post your proof.



~~~~~~
Regarding this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4546578&postcount=71

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?

A few things about this: No one is holding Bill O'Reilly to a flawless standard. Your insistance that he be held to one is a straw man. Being honest isn't an impossible standard. Errors are ok when they're followed by retractions or apologies. That does happen among real journalists by the way.

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?

If it's his job to make personal attacks then he shouldn't say that he doesn't do it, right?

What I personally find insulting about him saying he doesn't do it is it gives a pretense that he's of a higher moral standard than other people, which is of course, not the case. It's obviously a lie too, since he does it all the time.

Now, that being my position, and hopefully it being understood, do I think some of what he said a pesonal attack? Sure.

So then you agree that he lied when he said "We don't do personal attacks."

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?

Of course people make stupid statements. However, actual journalists make retractions or apologies for mistakes. In fact, nonjournalists frequently make apologies for mistakes. I do it at the office when I screw up.

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4546635&postcount=74

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.

Thank you.

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4543324&postcount=45

The point was the number of veiwers a journalist has or the number of reader or listeners, is not a good way to judge journalists.

I know. I think it's actually a valid analogy, but it's not necessary.

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4542730&postcount=23

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.

There is no room for opinion. You have evidence he's a liar. You seem to actually agree with that here.

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.

Fortunately, there is a thing called apologies and retractions to correct mistakes. When those mistakes aren't corrected, it gets deemed a lie.

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.

Perhaps, but it's obviously true.

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.

I don't see why you don't dislike him. I guess lying isn't a standard you use for disliking or liking someone.

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4542735&postcount=24

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

This is what I stated in the opening post. You're doing the communist thing of trying to distract attention. You're saying, "he lies, but who doesn't?"

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4542770&postcount=27

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.

Let's stop there for a second. If you have no knowledge or little knowledge of a subject that he's talking about, how would you know he's lying? How would you know he's telling the truth? I saw the clip about the Paris Business Review. I had no knowledge of that publication before him saying it. If I hadn't seen immediately after that he just made that up, I wouldn't know either way if he's telling the truth or not. How can you be so confident that he's telling the truth?

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'm not obsessed with him either. And how am I not lamenting over bad journalism as a whole? I don't see how you jumped to that conclusion.

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

Didn't he quit? If he wanted to quit, then that's fine with me. If he was fired, then I don't care. My opinion is "whatever" either way.


Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4542857&postcount=35

Originally Posted by El_Machinae
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.

Now there's the kicker. You are simply sticking your head in the sand. Or rather, in the toilet. You are wilfully ignorant. How the hell can you have an intellectual debate with anyone if you refuse to examine the evidence given to you? It's like you're Dick Cheney. If some evidence doesn't fit your belief system, ignore the evidence. This is intellectual dishonesty at its height.

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.

Like I said elsewhere, you have evidence that you can watch with very own eyes that he's a liar. Biases are irrelevant.

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.

This is a straw man. You were the first to bring this up and you've stuck with it through this thread. There's nothing to talk about with the Letterman episode since O'Reilly didn't state anything as fact there, but rather just opinion, such as Sheehan being a bad person.


Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4542899&postcount=37

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?

You have still ignored the evidence in the opening post. You've ignored pretty much everything I've posted here. If something is from Youtube or not, it's irrelevant.

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4542933&postcount=38

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.

You are correct. I can answer why he's in the thread though. He wants to defend something he holds dear and he doesn't like it being attacked.

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4543035&postcount=40

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.

I don't see how video clips that show O'Reilly speaking are only showing one side.

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

Straw man again, since he obviously didn't say you couldn't participate in the thread.


Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4545072&postcount=50

I daresay that your definition of "being honest" slightly different than mine then. I also humbly submit that its not a standard you seem to hold other "journalists" to either.

Then please tell me what on Earth you think my definition of being honest is.

If you would watch the clips I posted then you would quite a good reason to KNOW that he's a liar. There is no wiggle room here. There is no room for opinions. It's quite obvious he's a liar.

There is plenty of wiggle room. I bet I could follow you around for a day filiming video and then cut clips to make you look like a liar. No...its not obvious that he is a liar and apparently his audience doesnt think its "obvious" either.

Wrong. There is no wiggle room. He's a liar and you have proof of it. And if you made a video of me editing to make me do or say things I didn't, I can then point out the frauds in your video.

There is only one man that has ever lived that didnt lie as far as I know. Bill O isnt that man...and neither are you.

That man would be...George Bush?

Sorry, I am not in the habit of determining truth from biased sources. To do so would be taking such information out of context. As I have said previously, after watching the man with my own eyes, I have found very little that he has put out (if anything) to be "untruthful". You dont like my assessment? /Oh well.

That is insane. You're saying you don't trust biased sources and O'Reilly is a biased source. AND: bias is irrelevant. Truth is truth. Even if O'Reilly says something that's true, it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

If you would watch the clips I posted, you would see with your very own eyes that he does indeed lie.

Not at all. In fact, I am more "fair and balanced" than you will ever be for the simple fact that I take neither side at their word, but trust my own eyes and ears in the matter.

But you DO take O'Reilly at his word! You've said you've never seen him lie. I've given you evidence that he has and you refuse to watch it.

At least I can form my own opinion from my own experience watching his show as opposed to watching someone elses' edit from youtube. In my humble opinion, you are the person "intellectually dead" as you only take one side of proof and thats it.

I've never seen a full episode of his show. Only clips from Crooks and Liars and other places. Most of them were unedited. How am I only taking one side? How is honesty a side?

You see thats my disagreement. I dont think O'Reilly was being stupid at all. In fact I think he did a great job in an obviously hostile interview. So much for you being intellectually "open".

I am intellectually open. How is me calling him stupid "intellectually closed"? It's my opinion that he was stupid, not a provable fact.

Have I said "I love O'Reilly"? No. Thats how YOU are intellectually dishonest. I even stated he is no where near my favorite talk show host/journalist. Bottom line, you are much too ready to plagerize and put false words in someones mouth like you just did to have an honest opinion on the subject.

I was summarizing your opinion and you know it. Of course you didn't say those exact words; you've just intimated them frequently throughout this thread.

Regarding:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4546233&postcount=63

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

Wait a minute! Whatever happened to addressing the Paris Business Review thing? Clearly it's a fictional publication but O'Reilly stated it as fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
So we are left with garric's opinion:
* He accused me of being inconsistent while otherwise ignoring the opening post.

Fox McCloud's opinion:
* It's all just blind hatred.

MobBoss opinion:
* Refusal to study opposing viewpoints; therefore, he has no evidence that O'Reilly lied.
* Refusal to study all opposing viewpoints presented.
* Never answered some points of O'Reilly lying, such as the Paris Business Review.
* Numerous straw men.
* Other people lie so it's understandable that O'Reilly does too. (By this logic, you should like Michael Moore.)


So...this doesn't help at all for my topic. I'm left with no real reason why anyone should consider him credible.

EDIT: Struckthrough a mistake and added a correction.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It seems you forgot what you were to provide proof of. Remember if Bill O'Rielly is your version of Goebbels, I had mentioned where O'Rielly had attacked the administration (i.e. the side he is viewed as being on). You said Goebbels did the same thing - which I would interpret as Goebbels as being critical of Hitler, as O'Rielly has been critical of Bush. You showing an article about the Catholic Church isnt proof of same.

Who said I veiw him as being on the Side of Bush? Besides you made no such request, merely saying that O'Reilly is critical of the Left and the Right. The Article clearly shows Goebbels was, unless your willing to argue that the Catholic Church is "the left"

This is a bit off-topic, but anyway, I haven't said that, I said that under many workers' opinion, Hitler's party was socialist, otherwise they wouldn't have voted his party.

Again you offer no reason why this is, or evidence to back it up. If they were interested in socialism, they would have voted for socialist parties before them. I can use this cyclical logic to prove just about any claim about the German Voters. "The German Voters were interested in voting for space aliens, they clearly believed the Nazis to be space aliens otherwise they wouldn't have voted for them."
As stated, Hitler made it plenty clear in all of his propoganda that he hated the socialists, you have yet to prove the essence of your argument that after over 10 years of campaign, constant bombardment with propoganda, no one listened to Hitler Speak or Read Goebbels papers, or indeed any other papers, that would describe the constant street battles with the socialists? We are to believe from 1926-1932 no one read a newspaper in Germany, then turned out to the ballot box in order to vote for a party that they had never heard the platform of based entirely on its name?

 

[MobBoss]

Who said I veiw him as being on the Side of Bush? Besides you made no such request, merely saying that O'Reilly is critical of the Left and the Right. The Article clearly shows Goebbels was, unless your willing to argue that the Catholic Church is "the left"

As you seem to be having trouble comprehending what I said here is my exact quote:

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.

Please note the bold. Now, do you have any evidence of Goebbels going after Hitler, like O'Rielly has gone after Bush? I am willing to bet no, since you were so adamant in your misrepresentation of my point.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And I repeat my initial responce to you question, I shall have it writ large for you to see

Who said I veiw him as being on the Side of Bush?

 

[Goonie]

MobBoss - do you condone the altering of transcripts that are posted on the internet following the show?

 

[Mr. Do]

You should clarify whether it's a right-winger or a left-winger doing the edits first.

 

[Goonie]

No I should not. Irrelevant.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss - do you condone the altering of transcripts that are posted on the internet following the show?

If the transcripts are supposed to be verbatim, then no. However, I find that many such "show transcripts" not verbatim anyway, as they edit out quite a bit of the unimportant stuff.

Also in turn, I would say its the shows producers that are responsible for such editing/altering. Even Bill O has bosses, and it could be that he had nothing to do with it at all - or he could have had everything to do with it - we just dont know.

@ParkChungHee. If Bill O isnt a propagandist for the right wing agenda and Bush sycophant as viewed by the left then what is he? Fair and Balanced? Quite plainly, if he is not on Bush's "side", then whose side is he on?