Why O'Reilly is a bad journalist

[Scuffer]

lol
Until I make the cut, I'm not a brain surgeon
After I kill the poor patient, I'm a bad one

Anyway, let's give Phelgmak his thread back...

 

[El_Machinae]

Mobboss:Hey, if you wanted to defend him with anything other than rhetoric spewn regarding others, you're welcome to.

Okay, enough *****-footing around. Here's a quick link to a video. In the video, he clearly makes a statement about his own conduct, and then defends it.

Would you agree that the statement that he makes is false? (it doesn't matter that the statment is false, in the context as whole, because I agree that a journalist can make false statements without actually lying - it would be called making a mistake. It's the defending that matters.).

Now, do you think that he's willfully lying? In that, he knows that the statement he is defending is false?

Finally, would you think that he has an adequate grasp of reality to be trusted, if he believes his own statement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjrBim8nAtM

edit: the stars are referring to a word that means "a cat sneaking around"

 

[MobBoss]

Mobboss:Hey, if you wanted to defend him with anything other than rhetoric spewn regarding others, you're welcome to.

Okay, enough *****-footing around. Here's a quick link to a video. In the video, he clearly makes a statement about his own conduct, and then defends it.

Would you agree that the statement that he makes is false? (it doesn't matter that the statment is false, in the context as whole, because I agree that a journalist can make false statements without actually lying - it would be called making a mistake. It's the defending that matters.).

Now, do you think that he's willfully lying? In that, he knows that the statement he is defending is false?

Finally, would you think that he has an adequate grasp of reality to be trusted, if he believes his own statement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjrBim8nAtM

edit: the stars are referring to a word that means "a cat sneaking around"

First of all, you want to take an edited video full of one liners, with no context before or after the statements as proof of his "lies"? How fair is that? Answer: Not very.

So, you want to take a video done and edited by someone biased against O'Rielly and submit it as "proof". /shrug. Your perogative I guess. But a good majority of that stuff listed as "personal attacks" I would not call a personal attack....especially when I dont have any context to place it in.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Mobboss:Hey, if you wanted to defend him with anything other than rhetoric spewn regarding others, you're welcome to.

Everyone else:Hey, if you wanted to argue about him with anything other then rhetoric spewn regarding others, you're welcome to.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

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.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

Err. Why not?

Oh...and looking at edited videos from youtube is?

 

[Phlegmak]

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.

Wrong. I'm holding O'Reilly to the standard of "being honest." NOT unreachable.

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.

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.

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

Wow. That looks like you're admitting he's a liar. And yet...

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.

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

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.

Trust truth. Not O'Reilly's biased opinions. Like El_Machinae said, you are wilfully blinded. In other words, you are intellectually dead.

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.

What does the Letterman thing have to do with anything? O'Reilly was on Letterman being his usual stupid self. Where's the controversy?

Let the record show that all you have is "I love O'Reilly so what you say doesn't matter."

 

[El_Machinae]

First of all, you want to take an edited video full of one liners, with no context before or after the statements as proof of his "lies"? How fair is that? Answer: Not very.

Judge his statement with your own memory. Does the show make personal attacks? You are right in that I only have selected bits to show you (I could link an entire clip where he clearly refers to huge groups of people as drugged-out hippies (or something like that)); you've apparently watched him for some time. So, I guess you should be able to draw upon some memory of whether he makes a personal attack.

When talking to Honeycutt (lol), he's very clear in his position that the show does not make personal attacks. Is that statement false; and if so, is he lying?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Billo never lies, MobBoss? You know what, I think you're right. Let me just go back to reading my latest copy of the Paris Business Review...

Oh wait.

In any event, Billo's latest column on his website is a perfect example of Billo Journalism. Not only does he leave out that the suspect was tortured in ways other than bombarding him with rock music, but he also fails to mention that the "information" given up as a result of the torture was a complete crock.

 

[MobBoss]

Wrong. I'm holding O'Reilly to the standard of "being honest." NOT unreachable.

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.

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.

Wow. That looks like you're admitting he's a liar. And yet...

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.

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

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.

Trust truth. Not O'Reilly's biased opinions. Like El_Machinae said, you are wilfully blinded. In other words, you are intellectually dead.

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. 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.

What does the Letterman thing have to do with anything? O'Reilly was on Letterman being his usual stupid self. Where's the controversy?

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".

Let the record show that all you have is "I love O'Reilly so what you say doesn't matter."

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.

 

[MobBoss]

Judge his statement with your own memory. Does the show make personal attacks? You are right in that I only have selected bits to show you (I could link an entire clip where he clearly refers to huge groups of people as drugged-out hippies (or something like that)); you've apparently watched him for some time. So, I guess you should be able to draw upon some memory of whether he makes a personal attack.

When talking to Honeycutt (lol), he's very clear in his position that the show does not make personal attacks. Is that statement false; and if so, is he lying?

The only thing I can suggest (and this is my own opinion mind you) is that it quite possible Bill O' views a personal attack as some type of untruth, while what he was putting out he totally believes as true. I listened to quite a bit of his "attacks" and I found pretty much all he said not PC, but rather true. I mean, if I call you a big hairy ugly man...and you are...is that a personal attack or just an unpleasant truth?

Mind you, I am merely going out on a limb here as I dont have a lot of context to go on aside from the clip. But that is how I interpret it....if its the truth...it may be unpleasant, but its not a personal attack.

Bottom line, if Bill O were putting out falsehoods about people he would be in court all the time for slander. As that is not the case, I humbly submit my premise not far from whats occurring.

 

[Spartan117]

"boycotting" France...just leaves me wondering..

they are the enemy of the US...

"thats bull, thats bull!!!!" "It's BULL!!!"

"No spin Zone"?!?!?!

"cut the mic"

"cowards" said at so many people

some of my favorite quotes of the "great" o'reilly.

 

[Spartan117]

and this is just sort of sad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUQSY4C6CwE&NR

factor on 9/13/01

 

[Spartan117]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUGCkROwJE

this is criticizing o'reilly and its msnbc . no edits on youtube. except the clip is on youtube this is from the malmady thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSD40s9KW0Y&mode=related&search=

another criticism by olbermann on msnbc but this is funny though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVb4vf3yPc&NR

yet another criticism by olbermann on msnbc but this is another funny.


man i never heard of this guy before now. this guy is great so far.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Soldiers don't kill women and children (...) that hasn't happened, people overreact, and ... if there is bombing uhhhm ... of course, maybe other innocent people might be killed." This guy is a hoot. He might not be aware that what he's saying is complete gibberish, so that would not make him a liar but an idiot or a moron.

Oh, and by the way, the tapdancing prophet is amusing as well

 

[Urederra]

So, side question: Are journalists the ones who write articles calling Bush the 'toxic texan'?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

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.

 

[Narz]

I think we can all agree that whatever he's trying to do, he's not very good at it.

Though actually, I beg to disagree. He wants attention and he's gotten it.

 

[MamboJoel]

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

This points out quite a problem I have with you : you just can't concede anything.
Of course there are journalists on all side of the spectrum that are biased, wont you admit this one is too ?

Edit : (and btw I'm not a lefty picko commie gay liberal btw )

 

[El_Machinae]

Everyone else:Hey, if you wanted to argue about him with anything other then rhetoric spewn regarding others, you're welcome to.

I respect that you are trying to make a point by holding up a mirror to my statement. And I appreciate that you might have a point. Because of this, could you please clarify your point, because I'm not sure what it is.

I listened to quite a bit of his "attacks" and I found pretty much all he said not PC, but rather true. I mean, if I call you a big hairy ugly man...and you are...is that a personal attack or just an unpleasant truth?

Mind you, I am merely going out on a limb here as I dont have a lot of context to go on aside from the clip. But that is how I interpret it....if its the truth...it may be unpleasant, but its not a personal attack.

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.

Bottom line, if Bill O were putting out falsehoods about people he would be in court all the time for slander. As that is not the case, I humbly submit my premise not far from whats occurring.

LoL

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.