Why O'Reilly is a bad journalist

[A Viking Yeti]

Your verbosity does a great job of skirting the issue at hand... Like, for instance, the blatant lie I pointed out (which, by the way, does not come from crooks and liars.com). Until you are ready to discuss actual logical points, holding your tongue lest you receive some of horrid liberal fervor you seem so terrified of.

And, just for the record, there's no such thing as a 'liberal authoritarian'.

'1.a A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.' -American Heritage Dictioonary

 

[MobBoss]

Ann coulter: Invade them, kill them, convert them (forcefully?).

I would need a link to the exact quote in context. Do you have one?

Jesus: Love thy neighbour. Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you.

I have no problem with that, but will say its not always easy.

Now we are all human and can't really reach that level...well most of us.
But you seem to agree with Fox and Bill, despite them (mostly Fox as a whole) bringing in Ann coulter (alot, with a friendly smile and many of them agree with her and some are even her personal friends).

/shrug. Ann Coulter is the rights equivalent of Al Franken or Bill Mahar.

So you either must agree with Fox news and thus Ann Coulter and her viewpoints (at least some of them, which all are quite horrible) or agree with Christ.

Again, hard to do without quotes.

You can't keep watching a hypocritical newschannel as a source of information and say that you do not agree with thier policy and their hypocricy though.

I can watch whatever I like. /shrug. Not all of Fox is Bill O. and for the record I dont watch Bill. Heck, Phelgmak easily watches far more Bill O than I do.

 

[MobBoss]

So did Jesus say he would return to fulfill a ban on eating shell fish? Is that what he really meant? And if the 2 commandments summarize the Law how can it be worthless without the commandments?

Not what I said. I saw the law was worthless without the Jesus 2 commandments. In essence, he was saying that the sum total of the law = those 2 commandments. He didnt give any specifics other than that.

I comprehend you quite well

I assure you that you dont.

and Jesus did not say he was fulfilling every law or practice found in the Old Testament.

He said what he said. I gave it to you. I personally think its fairly clear. You are free to interpret it as incorrectly as you choose.

Otherwise he wouldn't be criticizing laws, like divorce laws started under Moses.

Did he criticize all the laws? No?

 

[Ondskan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter


Other things include: Woman shouldn't vote and John edwards is a fag.


Check it out.

 

[gallego]

Bill O'Reilly zeroes in on specific instances of behavior or particularly leftist people/events and says "omg look what those crazy liberals are doing!" and acts like he's some brave investigator that's revealing to America the left's true, evil side. He got called on it when someone told him to stop focusing on the extreme left because there's an extreme everything and someone could do the same thing with the right. He actually said that the guy was right and some stupid thing about "he beat me and I'm mad about that."

Watch this clip at around 2:20:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wOpbUgAwBE

Absolutely got owned.

He even brought some guy on once that said it was good to take consciousness-altering drugs. I'm a firm liberal democrat but I don't believe in taking drugs, and what O'Reilly is doing is making conservative viewers think that all leftists are like that. He stereotypes. I can name all sorts of examples, even on the main Fox News. They once brought on some incoherent, weird guy that wrote hateful things about the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq who had absolutely nothing at all to say just so they could use him as a punching bag against liberals. Then Ann Coulter goes and says stuff like "liberals think our soliders are toothless rapists." I mean seriously now, this is just sad. They have nothing better to report? And as always they keep attacking liberals as a group with these things. I think I'll make a show and invite the most extreme right-wing nuts and say "look America! look what these conservatives are saying! they're lunatics!" At least "leftist" TV show hosts are talking about the government and what's actually going on, not some hashed-up examples or leftist celebrities that say all kinds of dumb stuff. Last time I checked I didn't get my world politics lessons from Letterman, but thanks for insulting my intelligence, O'Reilly. I'm much more concerned about his show that reaches millions of people with its slanted attacks.

Bill also loves to ask complex questions that require detailed and lengthy answers, but cuts off his guests when they "don't directly answer the question." Sure Bill, everything is just black-and-white and important geopolitical or social questions are either "yes" or "no," all the time.

P.S. And I love how Bill nitpicks liberals' behavior yet makes a scene in public yelling "son of a b*tch" at Obama's personnel (just happened recently, check it out on youtube). Then on a Fox interview he laughs of off saying "yeah, I might have called him an SOB, hahahaha." I don't care what happened; it's a bad example of how to behave in public as a patriotic conservative and famous TV persona--profanity and lack of self-control in public. He always whines about how big some crazy liberal's audience is and how that person's crazy leftist views are leaking out and poisoning the public on a grand scale, yet for someone who touts a 4-million-person audience he goes and does this.

I could just go on and on.

 

[MobBoss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter


Other things include: Woman shouldn't vote and John edwards is a fag.


Check it out.

Methinks you take Ann Coulter far, far too seriously.

 

[Phlegmak]

Crooks and Liars;

"John Amato’s virtual online magazine…OK, It’s a blog!"

Blogroll

A Tiny Revolution
alicublog
AmericaBlog
Arthur Silber
at-Largely
Balloon Juice
bart cop
Blue Gal
bob harris
Brad Blog
Brad DeLong
buzzflash
Correntewire
daily howler
Daily Kos
democratic underground
Digby
Down with tyranny
driftglass
echidne of the snakes
Ed Cone
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
feministing
Firedoglake
first-draft
Glenn Greenwald
Intoxination
James Wolcott
Jay Rosen
Jesus General
Juan Cole/Informed Comment
Kung Fu Monkey
Lawyers, Guns & Money
left coaster
Liberal Catnip
Mahablog
Majikthise
Mia Culpa
MyDD
NewsHog
pandagon
Petrelis Files
pharyngula
Politics TV
PrairieWeather
Raw Story
Rising Hegemon
rude pundit
Sadly, No!
shakespearessister
skippy the bush kangaroo
steve audio
Talk Left
Taylor Marsh
TBogg
the carpetbagger report
The Daily Background
The Huffington Post
The Moderate Voice
the next hurrah
The Reality-Based Community
The Side Show
The Talent Show
the young turks
TheHeretik
truthdig
UnqualifiedOfferings
Whiskey Fire



This one is really funny.

Not biased to you at all, eh? You lambast and ridicule Bill O'Reilly and others for their bias, yet when in actually backing up these opinions, the sources you use have their bias written, often on the front page for all to see.

You seek in your faux pas authoritarian liberalism of self righteous hypocricies of fairness, balance and objectivity in news reporting, and the right to free opinion editorials only so long as those expressing opinions buttress your point of view of what is and is not righteous, fairness in conformity with your world view. Anyone expressing a dissenting view that is in any way different from yours is to be silenced and shouted down with left-wing propaganda that is often far more biased then what you accuse others of being.

Besides Crooks and liars, Keith Olbermann, a man who has built his career on insulting, ridiculing and creating a mantra of propaganda against those who are at most, just as atrocious and terrible as he is, also is cited as "evidence" for the bias in Fox News reporting and Bill O'Reilly reality distortions.

Yet, no matter however you would want to spin it, Keith Olbermann is on the far left fringe of authoritarian liberalism which seeks to silence that which is not agreeable to him, like his twin silent obfuscator of truth Phlegmak who once fallaciously protested to me that he is independent and perhaps believes that he is even moderate. If so, then so too would be Bill O'Reilly, in fact.

You are among those that you say you are not, which ridicules and attempts to shout down any opinion which disagrees with your own opinions while pretending to promote free speech and diversity of opinion. You are not interested in truth nor fairness.

You are one of them, as I have always suspected. You are one of those that you obsess in hatred while attacking them in a vile piety of self-righteous hypocrisy seeking to mask any other voice which you deem unacceptable with even more biased sources and propaganda as you do to Bill O'Reilly who you accuse of doing the exact same as you do in an attempt to destroy him advocating a policy of liberal authoritarianism which you claim to fight against and critisize.

That is all.

Where the hell did you get all this crap? Especially this nonsense that I'm authoritarian? I'm completely the opposite of authoritarian. "Authoritarian liberalism" is an inherent contradiction, by the way.

I am independent. But I'm definitely not moderate.

I am not interested in shutting people up. I am interested in people not lying. Bill O'Reilly lies. As long as he states quite openly that he's a liar, I have no problem with him continuing to vomit his bullcrap.

If Keith Olbermann insults people who are making our country and world worse, I have no problem with it.

And I actually have no problem with bias, as long as it's open. I don't want Fox "News" lying about being fair and balanced, when they're completely the opposite. And I have no problem with biased sources of information, as long as it's truthful. And since Fox "News" have fought in court for the right to lie, they should not be allowed to have the word "News" in their title. It should be more like Fox Editorials or something.

I have advocated objectivity in news, and I have at some later time realized that it's impossible to completely achieve. As long as news sources are open about their biases, it's fine. News should attempt to be objective, but it's not entirely achievable.

This thread has opinions and statements from me over a year and three month period. I'm not going to reread the whole thing to see what I said to see how my stance has changed over time. You can see me saying what I just now said many times in later threads than this one. I won't be searching for those posts. I leave that up to you to find.

The whole point of this thread was to show that Bill O'Reilly is not even a real journalist, which was clearly pointed out, except to his fanboys, who actually refused to even watch or listen to any negative opinion about O'Reilly. O'Reilly simply isn't a journalist since he makes crap up, and never corrects himself.

By the way Fox Mccloud, nothing in what you said even addresses that. Instead you just attacked me. Are you agreeing with what I said then?

 

[Ondskan]

She says herself in interview time and time again that she truly belives in what she says and so do her supporters.
Borats movie illustrates this in a funny way

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Methinks you take Ann Coulter far, far too seriously.

Yeah... Probably so, but the problem is that a lot of people in the US do pay attention to her as though she were a rational human being. I love democracy and the freedom of speech, but using it for such abhorrent purposes can have dangerous consequences. I don't understand how she gets ratings at all. I would think, in a democratic country, publicly stating that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they vote in the favor of a party you don't like would get you laughed off the air. I don't understand how the American people can be dumb enough to watch her, unless it's just for some cryptic humor.

 

[illram]

Since when was O'Reilly a journalist? I vaguely remember his career started out in journalism but now? He's not a journalist.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

I've already proven through dictionary definition that, despite what anyone is going to say about him, he is not a journalist. Ask them why they still think he is.

 

[Berzerker]

Not what I said. I saw the law was worthless without the Jesus 2 commandments.

Then the 2 commandments aint a summary of the Law

In essence, he was saying that the sum total of the law = those 2 commandments.

Well then you can have either the Law or the Commandments and have the same message, so whats the purpose of the 2 Commandments if they merely repeat the Law of the Prophets?

He said what he said. I gave it to you. I personally think its fairly clear. You are free to interpret it as incorrectly as you choose.

Here is what he said:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Jesus was accused of trying to do away with some OT laws so I'm not the only one with this interpretation, his audience thought the same thing. But when he was accused, he didn't say he supported every law in the OT, he said the Law depends (hangs) on 2 Commandments. He was providing a new context for interpreting the Law of the Prophets. Did all the laws of the prophets follow the 2 Commandments? No, Jesus argued against several OT laws, including the Mosaic divorce laws that let men dump their wives. How can you argue Jesus supported all the laws of the OT, including laws from prophets, when he clearly argued against some of them?

Did he criticize all the laws? No?

He criticized some, therefore he did not support all the laws. That makes your interpretation invalid...

 

[A Viking Yeti]

I think a number of the laws from the Old Testament conflict with 'Love thy neighbor as thyself.' Meh... This is somewhat (understatement) off-topic, isn't it?

 

[Berzerker]

true, way off topic. We have a running debate over religion and Jesus

Bill O'Reilly thinking Revelation was written 5,000 years ago is

 

[MobBoss]

Then the 2 commandments aint a summary of the Law

No, they precisely are. The proof is in the scripture and in Jesus own words.

Well then you can have either the Law or the Commandments and have the same message, so whats the purpose of the 2 Commandments if they merely repeat the Law of the Prophets?

To highlight to people what is most important.

Jesus was accused of trying to do away with some OT laws so I'm not the only one with this interpretation, his audience thought the same thing.

And when asked, he corrected them on their incorrect assumptions.

But when he was accused, he didn't say he supported every law in the OT, he said the Law depends (hangs) on 2 Commandments.

He didnt have to be specific about the OT laws. What he said was enough.