Why O'Reilly is a bad journalist

[JollyRoger]

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.

If Bill O is so misguided that he calls the Americans the war criminals at Malmedy (after he had be called on this error only a few months before), why should we expect his producers (who are willing to keep Bill O employed despite his repeated lies/"mistakes" about our WW2 troops) to be above altering Malmedy to Normandy when their first version of the transcript contained the word Malmedy and in the video Bill O clearly says Malmedy. Although, calling Americans war criminals at Normandy is pretty pathetic too.

 

[El_Machinae]

imho; that would have been a good place for an editor's note: [editor's note: the atrocity Bill is referring to occured at Normandy in 194x] for example

 

[Phlegmak]

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.

Show transcripts are supposed to be verbatim. I've never heard of transcripts that aren't verbatim.

AND that's ignoring the fact that an important fact of one of his shows was altered. Malmedy -> Normandy.

 

[Phlegmak]

More nonsense of O'Reilly. More evidence he's living in fantasy-land.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/22/oreillys-al-qaeda-death-list-is-really-a-fantasy-list/

 

[ParkCungHee]

@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?

Ah classical reasoning, he is not a carbon copy of the current president, and he is not outright opposed to him, he is therefor fair and balance. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the man holds his own views.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

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

That makes no sense. The Billo Boycott does nothing. Let me put it to you this way: so a couple of hundred nutballs decide to stop buying French products, well let's face it. Billo fans weren't buying French products in the first place. It would be like people from Alabama boycotting vacations to Aruba: they weren't going there in the first place. I'm sure the French economy has lost tens of dollars in the Billo Boycott. That's only if you ignore that French-American trade has increased since Billo jumped on the bandwagon, and that France continues to enjoy increasing trade surpluses with America, despite Billo's insistence that it has cost them "billions" of dollars.

Oh, and please address Billo's citation of the Paris Business Review.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Don't mind me, just bumping this thread.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I know you're out there, MobBoss, and I'd like an answer.

Moderator Action: Do not bump threads just to try and force an answer from someone.

 

[MobBoss]

I know you're out there, MobBoss, and I'd like an answer.

Actually Pasi, I have given my opinion and it hasnt changed. As I have stated over and over, you guys simply hate Bill O, not for his mistakes or error, but for the simple fact that his viewpoint is so often opposite your own.

Also, I find you are quite incorrect that Alabamans dont vacation in Aruba, as you full well know that Holloway girl was from Alabama as were all the other students that went along as well. And if you dont think the bad press that Aruba got in how they handled the Holloway case didnt negatively effect tourism, then you are simply naive in the extreme.

Also, as to the Paris Business Review thing...never saw the show involving it, thus I cant really comment on it.

Feel free to bump it all you want. Thats about all your going to get. Not satisfied? /meh.

 

[Mr. Do]

Well, that pretty much shows that some people will never be able to call Bill a liar, even after having his lies quoted to them, video clips made available, etc etc. I'd say you've lost your credibility, MobBoss, but I don't think anyone expected any different from you here (Plus I probably have none myself to begin with ).

 

[Phlegmak]

Actually Pasi, I have given my opinion and it hasnt changed. As I have stated over and over, you guys simply hate Bill O, not for his mistakes or error, but for the simple fact that his viewpoint is so often opposite your own.

I do not hate him because his viewpoints are different than mine.

Also, as to the Paris Business Review thing...never saw the show involving it, thus I cant really comment on it.

I posted a video clip of it. So now you can watch it and now you can comment on it.

 

[Rambuchan]

MobBoss: Two things to note for you:

1) In this thread I believe you've said that those coming out against O'Reilly as a journalist are "obsessed". Well, why don't you click the 'who posted in this thread' option on the OT mainpage and see that it is YOU who has dominated the thread (like every other thread related to the man) with your defence of him and slandering of others (as 'haters' mainly).

2) I pointed out why O'Reilly is a bad journalist in this post here and you said you had no problems with it. Now, all of a sudden, you've changed your tune and think he IS a journalist!! Why am I not surprised...!?

 

[MobBoss]

Well, that pretty much shows that some people will never be able to call Bill a liar, even after having his lies quoted to them, video clips made available, etc etc. I'd say you've lost your credibility, MobBoss, but I don't think anyone expected any different from you here (Plus I probably have none myself to begin with ).

No..it sums up that I am not willing to accept biased opinion as opposed to what I have viewed personally. Sorry, but I am not going to make judgements based upon edited youtube videos. I dont think that is fair at all.

That being said, have I heard Bill O say somethings I dont agree with? Sure. But I see no need in labeling the man a liar as many insist upon here.

I do not hate him because his viewpoints are different than mine.

Sorry...I dont believe you. A person simply does not hate another person the way you do for just "lying".

I posted a video clip of it. So now you can watch it and now you can comment on it.

As I have said before, I am not interested in watching videos outside of the context of the show.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss: Two things to note for you:

1) In this thread I believe you've said that those coming out against O'Reilly as a journalist are "obsessed". Well, why don't you click the 'who posted in this thread' option on the OT mainpage and see that it is YOU who has dominated the thread (like every other thread related to the man) with your defence of him and slandering of others (as 'haters' mainly).

2) I pointed out why O'Reilly is a bad journalist in this post here and you said you had no problems with it. Now, all of a sudden, you've changed your tune and think he IS a journalist!! Why am I not surprised...!?

Actually, Ram, I said that by your standard, that would make the overall majority of people who are considered journalists today, NOT journalists, and that as long as you were consistent in your approach, I had no problems with it. Why am I not surprised you took me out of context?

For what its worth, my reply verbatim was "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."

The "no arguement" part was directed at your definition of journalism, which I thought quite well put, and my follow up comment after that exactly as it stands....if that is your standard, then most "journalists" today dont meet it. Thus, in misrepresenting me, you didnt even follow your own journalism standards....hehe.

As for "dominating" a thread....big deal. So, I should go to a thread you post a lot in and accuse you of "dominating" it? So? I dont post to all threads here, but I do post in the ones I find interesting. Why would you have a problem with that?

 

[Rambuchan]

Actually, Ram, I said that by your standard, that would make the overall majority of people who are considered journalists today, NOT journalists, and that as long as you were consistent in your approach, I had no problems with it. Why am I not surprised you took me out of context?

Beautiful, elegant, endearing use of the roll eyes there. I feel privileged, once more.

a) It's not my standard, those are pretty much universal standards of journalism stated by the code of conduct I linked to.

b) You missed my point. You agreed that O'Reilly was NOT a journalist in that other thread. Now, in this thread, you are saying that he IS a journalist. Which statement is the one you actually hold to be true?

(Forget the other journalists, they have nothing to do with O'Reilly and his relationship to the journalistic code of conduct. Their transgressions are no excuse for O'Reilly to do the same and they do not suddenly make him a journalist by comparison).

As for "dominating" a thread....big deal. So, I should go to a thread you post a lot in and accuse you of "dominating" it? So? I dont post to all threads here, but I do post in the ones I find interesting. Why would you have a problem with that?

Once more, I said you were "obsessed" in the same way as you accuse others of being. Take a look in the mirror some time and notice that it's YOU who are obsessed and spend so much time posting in defence of the man.

 

[Phlegmak]

No..it sums up that I am not willing to accept biased opinion as opposed to what I have viewed personally. Sorry, but I am not going to make judgements based upon edited youtube videos. I dont think that is fair at all.

Well, I certainly hope you NEVER make judgements based on quotations from anyone, or video clips, whether they're on Youtube or on TV, of ANYONE doing ANYTHING. Everything you see and hear is only a portion of what people say, so that means that EVERYTHING you hear, read, and see is only part of the story. Therefore, you are stating you can never make a judgement on anything at anytime. Good job. You can't make a judgement on whether O'Reilly is lying or not either, since you're not with him 100% of the time.

To address your first sentence above (for fun), O'Reilly is biased opinion and your opinion of him is biased opinion.

Sorry...I dont believe you. A person simply does not hate another person the way you do for just "lying".

I hate Michael Moore equally. Why? For lying. And not just for lying. Both of these men have a huge sway in what people believe, and neither are truthful. Believe whatever fantasies you want to, MobBoss.

As I have said before, I am not interested in watching videos outside of the context of the show.

So then your position is impregnable. You refuse to view the evidence; therefore, your position is never wrong. That's very Dick Cheney of you.

EDIT: MobBoss, imagine this. Let's say you said Dan Rather is a communist. You then presented some extremely sound evidence backing your claim. Then I said, "nope, that evidence is biased; he's not a communist." Then I ignored the evidence. How reasonable is this to you?

 

[MobBoss]

Beautiful, elegant, endearing use of the roll eyes there. I feel privileged, once more.

As you should.

a) It's not my standard, those are pretty much universal standards of journalism stated by the code of conduct I linked to.

b) You missed my point. You agreed that O'Reilly was NOT a journalist in that other thread. Now, in this thread, you are saying that he IS a journalist. Which statement is the one you actually hold to be true?

Uhm...I just clarified for you exactly what I meant in that other thread. I put my own quote up since you declined to do so and I clarified my position. Bottm line, I agreed with your definition of journalism, but I didnt say Bill O wasnt a journalist. The man is a journalist, whether you like it or not. You might not believe he is a good journalist, but thats your opinion.

The thing I find telling here is that even when I clarify my position for you, you still insist on misrepresenting me. At that point what is left for me to do but /shrug and say /oh well.

Once more, I said you were "obsessed" in the same way as you accuse others of being. Take a look in the mirror some time and notice that it's YOU who are obsessed and spend so much time posting in defence of the man.

I dont even care that much for Bill O to be honest. I am certainly not obsessed with him as some here obviously are. But I would defend just about anyone that I viewed as being attacked unfairly...and perhaps thats what I am obsessed with.....justice.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, I certainly hope you NEVER make judgements based on quotations from anyone, or video clips, whether they're on Youtube or on TV, of ANYONE doing ANYTHING. Everything you see and hear is only a portion of what people say, so that means that EVERYTHING you hear, read, and see is only part of the story. Therefore, you are stating you can never make a judgement on anything at anytime. Good job. You can't make a judgement on whether O'Reilly is lying or not either, since you're not with him 100% of the time.

Sigh. No...I cant make a judgement on whether Bill O is a liar as I have not seen him lie when I watch his show. Of course I can make a judgement on what I have personally seen or heard. Me being with him 100% of the time has no logic basis at all, but him not lying while I have viewed him does.

I hate Michael Moore equally. Why? For lying. And not just for lying. Both of these men have a huge sway in what people believe, and neither are truthful. Believe whatever fantasies you want to, MobBoss.

Funny, I have never seen you rant about M. Moore. But then again, I am not with you 100% of the time.

 

[CartesianFart]

A real journalist is one who keeps his/her opinion or some underlying belief away from objective language of seeing and saying on what is going on.Do not confuse yourself of what is a real journalist that does take sources from field journalists(which happen to be individuals that are actually there witnessing such events and saying as it is).

Bill O'Reilly or other individuals that only bullfeathers in the comfort of a staged studio taking sources from field journalists are nothing but "Television Personality."

 

[MobBoss]

A real journalist is one who keeps his/her opinion or some underlying belief away from objective language of seeing and saying on what is going on.Do not confuse yourself of what is a real journalist that does take sources from field journalists(which happen to be individuals that are actually there witnessing such events and saying as it is).

Bill O'Reilly or other individuals that only bullfeathers in the comfort of a staged studio taking sources from field journalists are nothing but "Television Personality."

Well, Bill O has worked for other networks than just Foxnews before. He also writes a column. Heh, from the wiki on the man:

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born 1949) is a journalist, commentator, television personality and syndicated columnist.[1]

And when you consider the mans background....well sounds like a journalist to me.

Broadcasting career
After graduating from Marist College, O'Reilly moved to Miami, Florida at age 21, where he taught English and History at Monsignor Pace High School for two years. After leaving Miami, O'Reilly returned to school, earning a M.A. in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University in 1976. While attending Boston University, he was a reporter and columnist for various local newspapers and alternative news weeklies, including The Boston Phoenix. O'Reilly did his broadcast journalism internship in Miami during this time, and was also an entertainment writer and movie critic for The Miami Herald.

WJLA, Washington, D.C. Inside Edition promo featuring Bill O'Reilly, 1993.O'Reilly's early television news career included reporting and anchoring positions at WNEP-TV in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he also reported the weather. At WFAA-TV in Dallas, Texas, O'Reilly was awarded the Dallas Press Club Award for excellence in investigative reporting. He then moved to KMGH-TV in Denver, Colorado where he won an Emmy for his coverage of a skyjacking[10][11]. O'Reilly also worked for KATU-TV in Portland, Oregon, as well as TV stations in Hartford (WFSB), Connecticut, and in Boston, Massachusetts. [11]

In 1980, he anchored his own program on WCBS-TV in New York where he won his second Emmy for an investigation of corrupt city marshals. He was promoted to the network as a CBS News correspondent and covered the wars in El Salvador and the Falkland Islands from his base in Buenos Aires, Argentina (1982). He later left CBS over, amongst other tensions, a dispute concerning the uncredited use in a report by Bob Schieffer of riot footage shot by O'Reilly's crew in Buenos Aires during the Falklands conflict. (A 1998 novel by O'Reilly, Those Who Trespass: A Novel of Television and Murder, depicts a television reporter who has a similar dispute over a Falklands War report. The character proceeds to exact his revenge on network staff in a series of graphically described violent ritualistic murders.)[12]

In 1986, O'Reilly joined ABC News as a correspondent on ABC World News Tonight. In three years, he appeared on the show over one hundred times, receiving two National Headliner Awards for excellence in reporting.

In 1989, O'Reilly joined the nationally syndicated King World (now CBS) program Inside Edition, a tabloid-style current affairs television program in competition with A Current Affair. He started as senior correspondent and backup anchor for celebrated British TV host David Frost, and subsequently became the program's anchor after Frost's brief tenure. In addition to being one of the first American broadcasters to cover the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, O'Reilly also obtained the first exclusive interview with murderer Joel Steinberg and was the first television host from a national current affairs program on the scene of the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

In 1995, O'Reilly was replaced by former NBC News and CBS News anchor Deborah Norville on Inside Edition. He then enrolled at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he received a Master's Degree in Public Administration. Upon leaving Harvard, O'Reilly was hired by Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of the then startup FOX News Channel, to anchor The O'Reilly Report. The nascent channel's most popular show was renamed to The O'Reilly Factor when it moved to a later time slot in 1998 since the host was the main "factor" of the show.

As I stated before, you may not care for his style of journalism and/or think he is a terrible journalist. But to actually say he is not a journalist is a pretty darn bad case of denial.