# No Bill O'Reilly thread yet? [2015]



## wilma (Feb 25, 2015)

Looks like he also embellishes his background and tells some whoppers!


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 25, 2015)

Life expectancy of a BillO thread: < an hour


----------



## wilma (Feb 25, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> Life expectancy of a BillO thread: < an hour



Why? how is it different from the Brian Williams discussion, liars are liars...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

wilma said:


> Looks like he also embellishes his background and tells some whoppers!



You must be referring to the Falklands and Argentina reporting.

Here are the facts.   Can you point out the whoppers?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QNLnlz6e8


----------



## vacationhopeful (Feb 25, 2015)

Brian Williams might have fans who likes his good looks and boyish grin and has been to acting & charm school - no one likes Bill O'Reilly as he is an old Fart and has no class (dresses poorly also).

JMHO ...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

vacationhopeful said:


> Brian Williams might have fans who likes his good looks and boyish grin and has been to acting & charm school - no one likes Bill O'Reilly as he is an old Fart and has no class (dresses poorly also).
> 
> JMHO ...



It's funny how you project your own opinions as those held my millions of people.   

Let's test you logic skills.   If no one likes Bill O'Reilly, then why does he top the ratings year after year?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

wilma said:


> Why? how is it different from the Brian Williams discussion, liars are liars...



Perhaps your comparative analysis skills need some polishing.  No matter how much you want to smear Bill O'Reilly, he will not be taking an unpaid 6 month vacation from Fox News for lying.   I'll bet that just burns you, doesn't it?


----------



## wilma (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> You must be referring to the Falklands and Argentina reporting.
> 
> Here are the facts.   Can you point out the whoppers?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QNLnlz6e8



Yeah, don't say you've been in a "war zone" when you were staying a hotel in buenos aires....


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

[Political remark deleted]


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

wilma said:


> Yeah, don't say you've been in a "war zone" when you were staying a hotel in buenos aires....



did you get your talking points from Huffpo or Mother Jones?   If you feel it was a lie, call for his resignation.   It 2 weeks there will be crickets.   Did you even see the video or do you simply ignore facts you disagree with?


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> If no one likes Bill O'Reilly, then why does he top the ratings year after year?



I find him to be an obnoxious, self promoting bloviate. I won't waste a minute watching his act. But that said, I find the above statement a little like Yogi Berra's comment about a certain night spot: "Nobody goes there anymore, It's too crowded."

But just for fun, here's Bill O'Reilly contradicting guess who? Bill O'Reilly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/oreilly-suicide-mohrenschildt_n_6749182.html

Jim


----------



## wilma (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> Perhaps your comparative analysis skills need some polishing.  No matter how much you want to smear Bill O'Reilly, he will not be taking an unpaid 6 month vacation from Fox News for lying.   I'll bet that just burns you, doesn't it?



I don't need to smear ole Bill, he is doing a good job of that himself, threatening reporters and showing his true self. Of course Fox News wouldn't suspend him, they love the attention and don't care that they employ liars.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> It's funny how you project your own opinions as those held my millions of people.
> 
> Let's test you logic skills.   If no one likes Bill O'Reilly, then why does he top the ratings year after year?



Those are my opinions. 

As for the ratings, the polls are subject to the pollster along with the phrasing of the questions and who is asked in the sample (originally sampled &  not discarded).

And maybe I am not truly serious on this topic.


----------



## wilma (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> [Political remark deleted]



Boy, got your hackles up! Why are you attacking  anyone who might agree that ole bill has some credibility problems.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Feb 25, 2015)

Jon Stewart was right on target on this topic (again…)
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/pltdwg/raging-bill for
Sadly, the only real news mainly comes from fake news using satire (which some people do not seem to understand).

On 'The No-Spin' Zone...
"Misrepresenting the zone he is in is kind of his hook. 'You are in the no-spin zone' are the words he utters right before throwing to some jackass that disproves global warming by wandering around Boston pointing at snow -- on a network whose slogan is a textbook case of trolling. No one's watching him for the actual truth." -- Jon Stewart 


Misinformation and embellishment in the media is status quo (especially when starting wars is involved apparently).  O'Reilly makes a living at it… so why be surprised? He is not a true news reporter - and I feel sad for those who feel otherwise. Williams is (was) a news reporter, and therefore held at a higher standard (as he should be…).

you are comparing Apples and Oranges - and I am no fan of O'Reilly except for satirical purposes.

btw - Stewart has never called himself a news reporter - and is up-front with exactly what his show is (Satire!) - if those critics ever took the time to really pay attention… and listen… (and didn't have a conflicting agenda)


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Feb 25, 2015)

Had to get this in before the thread is closed due to one flamer's posts. A real shame as this could have been an interesting discussion. Maybe it will get back on course, hopefully.




wilma said:


> Yeah, don't say you've been in a "war zone" when you were staying a hotel in buenos aires....





Passepartout said:


> I find him to be an obnoxious, self promoting bloviate. I won't waste a minute watching his act. But that said, I find the above statement a little like Yogi Berra's comment about a certain night spot: "Nobody goes there anymore, It's too crowded."
> 
> But just for fun, here's Bill O'Reilly contradicting guess who? Bill O'Reilly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/oreilly-suicide-mohrenschildt_n_6749182.html
> 
> Jim





wilma said:


> I don't need to smear ole Bill, he is doing a good job of that himself, threatening reporters and showing his true self. Of course Fox News wouldn't suspend him, they love the attention and don't care that they employ liars.





vacationhopeful said:


> Those are my opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 25, 2015)

While I don't think his transgressions were quite as serious as Brian William's, he certainly gave contradictory accounts of his own experience.  (Yes, Boca, I saw the video, but the whole video, not the edited version that O'Reilly himself provided, together with other videos, O'Reilly's written accounts of his experience, and statements by CBS reporters who were there at the time.)

In the end, I don't think anything serious will happen to O'Reilly, in part because he portrays himself as an opinion columnist and not a reporter and in part because his following likes to portray anything that goes against their views as part of a media conspiracy, whether well documented or not.


----------



## silverfox82 (Feb 25, 2015)

Not O'Reilly's first issue with the truth, years ago he settled a suit out of court with a co-worker (female) for an undisclosed sum, some insiders have said he paid millions rather than have this go to trial. Bill has a tendency to be a bully, his best selling books are co-written, he's the name, not the brains! He loves to throw around "I went to Harvard" but he actually only took some grad school courses. Phony? probably, successful? beyond anything he is worth. Hey, it's the American way!


----------



## PStreet1 (Feb 25, 2015)

I don't know what he exaggerated and what he didn't.  However, he did receive a master of public administration degree from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1996.


----------



## billymach4 (Feb 25, 2015)

Bill O'Reilly is a major one sided ,biased, self centered, obnoxious excuse of a news reporter.
He represents all that is wrong with the fox network. They are so unbalanced in their news and analysis.

Fox will stand behind Bill like David Siegel would stand behind a wastegate salesman!


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 25, 2015)

One MAJOR difference between the situations of Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly is that *Williams' employer, NBC* suspended him without pay and is financing an independent investigation of the events that he did or did not witness. *O'Reilly's employer, Roger Ailes, & Fox News* refuses to examine the veracity of the multiple claims of exaggeration, 'mis-remembering', and outright lying that have been leveled against him from multiple sources. 

There has been some 'shoot the messenger'-ing here questioning those who have accused BillO of exaggeration and/or saying he was somewhere he clearly wasn't. At no time has O'Reilly produced information that factually disputes the accusations. Only bluster and counter accusations have crossed his lips.

How about a little 'Fairness and Balance' here.

Jim


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 25, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> How about a little 'Fairness and Balance' here.



No chance. Those who support Faux News aren't open to valid criticism.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

"Roger" said:


> While I don't think his transgressions were quite as serious as Brian William's, he certainly gave contradictory accounts of his own experience.  (Yes, Boca, I saw the video, but the whole video, not the edited version that O'Reilly himself provided, together with other videos, O'Reilly's written accounts of his experience, and statements by CBS reporters who were there at the time.)
> 
> In the end, I don't think anything serious will happen to O'Reilly, in part because he portrays himself as an opinion columnist and not a reporter and in part because his following likes to portray anything that goes against their views as part of a media conspiracy, whether well documented or not.



Of course not.   Nobody's accounts including those on this message board are 100% consistent all the time.   It doesn't mean people are liars or corrupt.   This story is dead and will have no legs.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> One MAJOR difference between the situations of Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly is that *Williams' employer, NBC* suspended him without pay and is financing an independent investigation of the events that he did or did not witness. *O'Reilly's employer, Roger Ailes, & Fox News* refuses to examine the veracity of the multiple claims of exaggeration, 'mis-remembering', and outright lying that have been leveled against him from multiple sources.
> 
> There has been some 'shoot the messenger'-ing here questioning those who have accused BillO of exaggeration and/or saying he was somewhere he clearly wasn't. At no time has O'Reilly produced information that factually disputes the accusations. Only bluster and counter accusations have crossed his lips.
> 
> ...



Wrong.   If the Brian William's story weren't hurting NBC, he would still be on air at night.   NBC suspended Brian Williams because that story was becoming bigger than anything he was reporting.  If NBC could have swept this under the rug, they would have.

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News has more powerful enemies who would love to take him down  than there are members on this message board.  If this issue could take down Bill O'Reilly, his detractors would be relentless.  Rupert Murdoch is not all powerful.  If he could simply ignore controversial issues at his own whim, then he would have been able to save News of the World.  It's now defunct.

This thread is interesting only to O'Reilly haters. Unfortunately for them, he will win and this thread will be gone within 2 weeks.  However, in 2 weeks, Brian Williams will still be suspended for lying to egregiously to the public.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

billymach4 said:


> Bill O'Reilly is a major one sided ,biased, self centered, obnoxious excuse of a news reporter.
> He represents all that is wrong with the fox network. They are so unbalanced in their news and analysis.
> 
> Fox will stand behind Bill like David Siegel would stand behind a wastegate salesman!



Yep.  He is all those things, except he is no longer a news reporter.   But, there is nothing wrong with the Fox News network.  If there were, they would be out of business.  Instead, they are thriving.  Can't say that so confidently about MSNBC, CNN, etc.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> Jon Stewart was right on target on this topic (again…)
> http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/pltdwg/raging-bill for
> Sadly, the only real news mainly comes from fake news using satire (which some people do not seem to understand).
> 
> ...




You said: "Sadly, the only real news mainly comes from fake news using satire"

Your above statement proves my point.   QED.


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> This thread is interesting only to O'Reilly haters. Unfortunately for them, he will win and this thread will be gone within 2 weeks.



The clock's running. But I suspect the thread will be closed first.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 25, 2015)

wilma said:


> Boy, got your hackles up! Why are you attacking  anyone who might agree that ole bill has some credibility problems.



This is not an attack.  To me, this is a friendly conversation.  If this were an attack, it would have 200-300 posts with 100 of them deleted and several banned or suspended members.   

Brian Williams has a credibility problem.   He was suspended for it. It is possible that he may never return.  Bill O'Reilly just has a bunch of haters who can't stand the fact that they can't turn what he said into a Brian Williams moment.


----------



## pedro47 (Feb 25, 2015)

This may be my last post . To political for me. Pitful.


----------



## wilma (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> This is not an attack.  To me, this is a friendly conversation.  If this were an attack, it would have 200-300 posts with 100 of them deleted and several banned or suspended members.
> 
> Brian Williams has a credibility problem.   He was suspended for it. It is possible that he may never return.  Bill O'Reilly just has a bunch of haters who can't stand the fact that they can't turn what he said into a Brian Williams moment.



You are trying to bully and dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you by categorizing anyone interested in this thread is a "hater".  Both Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly have credibility problems. While Bill is no longer a reporter, he is someone who has created his bogus "no spin zone" where only he tells the real story and debunks the liberal news coverage. But now his credibility is in question for a number of questionable statements, and Bill and his supporters will go after anyone who pursues the story.


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 25, 2015)

BocaBum99 said:


> there is nothing wrong with the Fox News network.  If there were, they would be out of business.  Instead, they are thriving.  Can't say that so confidently about MSNBC, CNN, etc.




This is hilarious. Don't you know what audience Fox markets to and why? Little things like Bill lying only increases the loyalty of their fanatical viewers. MSNBC and CNN can't do the same, since their viewers demand more.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## billymach4 (Feb 25, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> Life expectancy of a BillO thread: < an hour



Well you have been out smarted by Bill O!


----------



## slip (Feb 25, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> This is hilarious. Don't you know what audience Fox markets to and why? Little things like Bill lying only increases the loyalty of their fanatical viewers. MSNBC and CNN can't do the same, since their viewers demand more.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad



Pretty broad brush and even high and mighty. I sure only MSNBC and CNN 
Viewers are more demanding for the truth.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 25, 2015)

Not sure I see anything political in this thread. Some people support Bill because of their political views, others don't. Perhaps because of their views too, or not. I haven't seen any mention of politics except for the deleted post.

I am no fan of Bill and can perhaps count on one hand the number of times I have seen his show. I agree with others that he is a bully. Remember that out take from Inside Edition many years ago where he became belligerent?

You had to know that when Brian Williams went down that the left would go after someone on the left, likely at Fox News. They need something to draw the attention away from Brian.

Those on the right won't turn their back on Bill like those on the left turned their back on Brian. It just won't happen. People will continue to watch Bill. They probably would have continued to watch Brian too, but he wasn't given the chance.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Feb 25, 2015)

wilma said:


> You are trying to bully and dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you by categorizing anyone interested in this thread is a "hater".  Both Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly have credibility problems. While Bill is no longer a reporter, he is someone who has created his bogus "no spin zone" where only he tells the real story and debunks the liberal news coverage. But now his credibility is in question for a number of questionable statements, and Bill and his supporters will go after anyone who pursues the story.



Wilma,
  Sadly, bullies are of the same ilk whether here or on Fox News. When you call them out on something, they go on the personal attack hoping that those with opposing views will back down as most polite people will. They count on this.

_Argumentum Ad Hominem _is a tactic frequently used by them. Not to worry. Just see it for what it is.

Have you seen B.O.'s response to those who have called him out on the latest and just-now-evolving stories ? His _nuns in El Salvador _story is coming under close scrutiny as well as the JFK one.

When people attack the messenger rather than the message, they have already lost.



-


----------



## Talent312 (Feb 25, 2015)

I have a problem with all the pompous a**es who seem to think that the American people are sheep who'll follow anyone who barks the most or the loudest. I can name several on both the left and the right. It's hardly surprising that they feel the need to puff-up their own self-importance.

Unfortunately, in our society, whoever has the loudest bullhorn and repeats himself often enuff that it echos in otherwise empty heads draws the crowds. Ask someone to come up with an opinion that isn't a derivative of something they haven't heard someone else pontificate about and you're likely to get a blank stare.

<soapbox/off>


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 25, 2015)

billymach4 said:


> Well you have been out smarted by Bill O!



Yup. Surprised me, too. But I think the longevity of the thread has more to do with the restraint of TUGgers than the smarts of BillO. He wasn't here.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 25, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> Yup. Surprised me, too. *But I think the longevity of the thread has more to do with the restraint of TUGgers* than the smarts of BillO. He wasn't here.



Or the fear of the mods...


----------



## slip (Feb 25, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> I have a problem with all the pompous a**es who seem to think that the American people are sheep who'll follow anyone who barks the most or the loudest. I can name several on both the left and the right. It's hardly surprising that they feel the need to puff-up their own self-importance.
> 
> Unfortunately, in our society, whoever has the loudest bullhorn and repeats himself often enuff that it echos in otherwise empty heads draws the crowds. Ask someone to come up with an opinion that isn't a derivative of something they haven't heard someone else pontificate about and you're likely to get a blank stare.
> 
> <soapbox/off>



Well said.


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 25, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> Or the fear of the mods...



I don't know of anyone who's particularly fearful of the mods. They've reined me in more than once, and never drawn blood. After a run-in or two, the vast majority of TUGgers have a pretty good grasp on where the borders are and are careful to not overstep the rules. No, those of us who want to keep up a reasoned discussion will be careful to avoid the blatant stomping on the rules.

If anyone wanted to see the thread close, a one-or two sentence personal attack would get it done. I'm gratified that we've exercised enough restraint to avoid that.


----------



## am1 (Feb 25, 2015)

Who keeps O'Reilly on air, the people who dislike him or the people who like him?  I think the haters make him even more popular then he would be otherwise.  

He does draw which is very important to cable networks.  Especially in 2015.


----------



## persia (Feb 25, 2015)

Yeah, but Brian Williams works for a news organization, O'Reilly doesn't.



wilma said:


> Looks like he also embellishes his background and tells some whoppers!


----------



## persia (Feb 25, 2015)

Here a known liar claiming O'Reilly was in a war zone.

[youtube]l3veRZuHSew[/youtube]


----------



## Wyominguy (Feb 25, 2015)

*Please delete this thread*

I have to read enough BS complaining about O'Reilly on Facebook. I don't want to see this here. If you complainers don't want to watch him then turn the channel!!  

Just because one of yours got caught does not lead to your stupid arguments about Bill. This thread is beginning to look like the Huffington Post crap.

Neil


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 25, 2015)

Neil - If we deleted every thread that someone doesn't like, there wouldn't be much to read on TUG.  

My advice:  If it's bothering you - don't read it.


----------



## Egret1986 (Feb 25, 2015)

*Interesting.*



Wyominguy said:


> If you complainers don't want to watch him then turn the channel!!  Neil





DeniseM said:


> My advice:  If it's bothering you - don't read it.



Seems Neil is not utilizing his own "advice".  

No, you don't have to read the BS on Facebook.  It's a choice that you make, Neil.  Just like reading this thread.


----------



## am1 (Feb 25, 2015)

Egret1986 said:


> Seems Neil is not utilizing his own "advice".
> 
> No, you don't have to read the BS on Facebook.  It's a choice that you make, Neil.  Just like reading this thread.



Just like the people complaining about him do not have to listen to him but they seem to enjoy it.


----------



## Kal (Feb 26, 2015)

Beaglemom3 said:


> _...Argumentum Ad Hominem..._


 
 But wait, isn't that a hemorrhoid cream???


----------



## bogey21 (Feb 26, 2015)

silverfox82 said:


> Not O'Reilly's first issue with the truth, years ago he settled a suit out of court with a co-worker (female) for an undisclosed sum, some insiders have said he paid millions rather than have this go to trial.



I remember when this happened.  O'Reilly sat in front of the camera; said he was wrong and that the issue was resolved.  He didn't say there was a payment but it was obvious there was.  What was most interesting was what he said at the end of his statement.  It was something like "I don't want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying.  I am not a victim.  I was wrong".  Obviously this is not an exact quote but I remember watching that night.  The words "I am not a victim" were his exact words.  

George


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 26, 2015)

I am not a big fan of the "no spin zone" or Bill O'Reilly, and I often have to tell my DH to turn that B/S off the TV.  I will say, however, for what I seen and read albeit through the news/media filters out there, I do not see what O'Reilly's being accused of as nearly as egregious as what it is now clear Brian Williams did when lying about his presence while imbedded with our troops.

All of the "news" networks on cable that were mentioned (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) have issues with their slant on their reporting . . . to include what gets reported.  If you want to see slimy "journalism" at its best, look no further than Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC.  And just why isn't there outrage over someone in the media who owes millions in back taxes (federal and state)?


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 26, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> This is hilarious. Don't you know what audience Fox markets to and why? Little things like Bill lying only increases the loyalty of their fanatical viewers. MSNBC and CNN can't do the same, since their viewers demand more.





Timeshare Von said:


> All of the "news" networks on cable that were mentioned (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) have issues with their slant on their reporting . . . to include what gets reported.  If you want to see slimy "journalism" at its best, look no further than Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC.  And just why isn't there outrage over someone in the media who owes millions in back taxes (federal and state)?



Agree with Von's post completely.  There really is no difference between any of them, to assume otherwise is naive.  Personally, I'm glad we live in a society where both sides exist.  I have nothing against Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN.  I actually watch all of them.


----------



## wilma (Feb 26, 2015)

persia said:


> Yeah, but Brian Williams works for a news organization, O'Reilly doesn't.



You are right, I suppose Fox news should change their name to Fox lies and then they can be held to a much lower standard.


----------



## Mr. Vker (Feb 26, 2015)

wilma said:


> You are right, I suppose Fox news should change their name to Fox lies and then they can be held to a much lower standard.



Curious what you think of MSNBC?


----------



## wilma (Feb 26, 2015)

Mr. Vker said:


> Curious what you think of MSNBC?



I like Rachel Maddow and sometimes Chris Hayes, they are intelligent and provide fair and balanced analyses.


----------



## Mr. Vker (Feb 26, 2015)

wilma said:


> I like Rachel Maddow and sometimes Chris Hayes, they are intelligent and provide fair and balanced analyses.



Maddow and Hayes are incredible [deleted] leaning. There is nothing balanced about their reporting. Same for the entire MSNBC commentary line up-Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, etc. Same is true for Fox. I avoid both. 

Your belief that they are "fair and balanced"-just like the Fox viewers-show bias support-and the willingness to aggressively criticize the other.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 26, 2015)

Folks - I know that politics is the real root of this debate, but once you start talking about political affiliations, it's going to be edited or deleted.


----------



## Mr. Vker (Feb 26, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> Folks - I know that politics is the real root of this debate, but once you start talking about political affiliations, it's going to be edited or deleted.



Sorry! My error.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Feb 26, 2015)

Mr. Vker said:


> Maddow and Hayes are incredible [deleted] leaning. There is nothing balanced about their reporting. Same for the entire MSNBC commentary line up-Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, etc. Same is true for Fox. I avoid both.
> 
> Your belief that they are "fair and balanced"-just like the Fox viewers-show bias support-and the willingness to aggressively criticize the other.



+1

[deleted]  That's all Bill O'Reilly is.  He's a talking head.  He's not a news anchor from a mainstream news service like Brian Williams was.  Brian Williams was actually the head of the NBC News Division.

Comparing Bill O'Reilly to Brian Williams and what their jobs are/were is comparing apples to oranges.

I never watch Bill O'Reilly unless I want to get my Dad riled up.  My Dad is an ultra liberal who hates Fox News with a passion and watches MSNBC regularly.  So when he's over I'll sometimes turn on Fox News and Bill O'Reilly just to laugh at his reaction.  A couple of Christmases ago I actually bought one of O'Reilly's books and did a fake inscription on the inside cover and wrapped it up and gave it to my dad.  I'm still laughing about it now. :hysterical:


----------



## Mr. Vker (Feb 26, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> +1
> 
> [deleted]  That's all Bill O'Reilly is.  He's a talking head.  He's not a news anchor from a mainstream news service like Brian Williams was.  Brian Williams was actually the head of the NBC News Division.
> 
> ...



My MIL is the opposite. I will change her home page to MSNBC or have channels on to poke at her-in good fun. 

They are entertainers. All with their audiences. I do think they have responsibility to speak the truth-even if they are spinning. O'Reilly was an actual reporter then.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Feb 26, 2015)

I would actually occasionally watch Brian Williams and I liked him a lot.  I innately respected him.  When the story about him broke and I read about him a little more I was really shocked to find out that he was a 3 time college drop out with a grand total of 18 college hour credits to his name!  That was like a kick in the gut to me!  I felt like a sucker for buying into someone who obviously just charmed their way to the top! 

I can give a rats ass about Bill O'Reilly.  IMO he's just another talking head.  Comparing him to Williams and what their jobs are/were is really comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## wilma (Feb 26, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> +1
> 
> [deleted]  That's all Bill O'Reilly is.  He's a talking head.  He's not a news anchor from a mainstream news service like Brian Williams was.  Brian Williams was actually the head of the NBC News Division.
> 
> Comparing Bill O'Reilly to Brian Williams and what their jobs are/were is comparing apples to oranges.



However, he does claim to be the King of the "No Spin Zone" so the truth matters as he claims to be counterpoint for the liberal news bias/lies. But he has a problem with the truth and he works for a group that claims to be a news station. He is a phony and should be held accountable for his BS just like those he has raked over the coals.


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 26, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> Comparing him to Williams and what their jobs are/were is really comparing apples to oranges.



I watch O'Reilly occasionally (as well as CNN and MSNBC).  I feel that credibility is probably equally important to both OR and BW.  I will say after reviewing what transpired, that at the least - O'Reilly stretched things a bit here with his exaggerations.

The potential problem for him right now is that he's trying to come across as completely innocent.

.


----------



## rosebud5 (Feb 26, 2015)

Love the thread. 

Interesting it has not been marked for deletion yet. 

This isn't about Bill O, Brian what's his name, Fox or MSNBC. It's all about whether you have a conservative or liberal bias. It's a thinly veiled political debate. No matter what argument is made about the behavior of our favorite talking heads or news/entertainment networks, we believe what we want to believe. 

I view this thread as sort of a cartharsis. This is how we get our "ya ya's" out. Hope everyone feels a little bit better now that your views are well known!

Keep the cards and letters coming and keep it civil.


----------



## persia (Feb 26, 2015)

In The No Spin Zone, O'Reilly does write vividly about an assignment that took him to El Salvador during the country's civil war shortly after CBS News hired him as a correspondent in 1981. As O'Reilly recalls in the book, he and his crew drove for a full day to reach Morazán province, "a dangerous place," and headed to a small village called Meanguera, where, a Salvadoran captain claimed, guerrillas had wiped out the town. "Nobody in his right mind would go into the guerilla-controlled area," O'Reilly writes. But he did, and he notes he found a horrific scene: "The place was leveled to the ground and fires were still smoldering. But even though the carnage was obviously recent, we saw no one live or dead. There was absolutely nobody around who could tell us what happened. I quickly did a stand-up amid the rubble and we got the hell out of there." He does not mention being in any firefight.

O'Reilly's account of his El Salvador mission is inconsistent with the report he filed for CBS News, which aired on May 20, 1982—shortly before he was dispatched to Buenos Aires. "*These days Salvadoran soldiers appear to be doing more singing than fighting*," O'Reilly said in the opening narration, pointing out that not much combat was under way in the country at that time. O'Reilly noted that the defense ministry claimed it had succeeded in "scattering the rebel forces, leaving government troops in control of most of the country." He reported that a military helicopter had taken him and his crew on a tour of areas formerly held by the rebels. (This fact was not included in the account in The No Spin Zone.) From the air, O'Reilly and his team saw houses destroyed and dead animals "but no signs of insurgent forces."

As part of the same 90-second story, O'Reilly reported from Meanguera, saying rebels had been driven out of the hamlet by the Salvadoran military after intense fighting. But this was not a wiped-out village of the dead. His own footage, which was recently posted by The Nation, showed residents walking about and only one or two burned-down structures. O'Reilly's CBS report gave no indication that he had experienced any combat on this assignment in El Salvador.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Feb 26, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> I would actually occasionally watch Brian Williams and I liked him a lot.  I innately respected him.  When the story about him broke and I read about him a little more I was really shocked to find out that he was a 3 time college drop out with a grand total of 18 college hour credits to his name!  <snip>.



WHAT? Who in this day and age (okay even 20 years ago) would hire someone to be a national reporter with that type of college record? Really - 18 credit hours - I carried more in a semester several times while in college. He ONLY passed/earned/stay thru college course to earned 18 credit hours ... basket weaving, gym, art appreciation, meditation???? And tried 3 times to attend colleges ....

Did he make it thru his Fraternity Hell Week 3 times?


----------



## Talent312 (Feb 26, 2015)

I liked Conan O'Brien's summary of the Fox-MSNBC-CNN thing:
Watch Fox and you'll lean to the right.
Watch MSNBC and you'll lean to the left.
Watch CNN and you'll think that no airplane ever landed safely.

All of these talking-heads pander to their audience.
Sometimes, I have to turn to the weather channel for a reality check.
.


----------



## WinniWoman (Feb 26, 2015)

vacationhopeful said:


> WHAT? Who in this day and age (okay even 20 years ago) would hire someone to be a national reporter with that type of college record? Really - 18 credit hours - I carried more in a semester several times while in college. He ONLY passed/earned/stay thru college course to earned 18 credit hours ... basket weaving, gym, art appreciation, meditation???? And tried 3 times to attend colleges ....
> 
> Did he make it thru his Fraternity Hell Week 3 times?



I am not defending Brian Williams in any way, but not having a college degree doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of brilliant people that never got college degrees (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Glenn Beck, many many more) and there are plenty of dopes that have college degrees- in fact that list is much longer than the ones without!


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Feb 26, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I am not defending Brian Williams in any way, but not having a college degree doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of brilliant people that never got college degrees (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Glenn Beck, many many more) and there are plenty of dopes that have college degrees- in fact that list is much longer than the ones without!



 Agree. Peter Jennings and Walter Cronkite did not have college degrees either. They attended, but did not graduate.

  They were well-educated, though, without degrees.



=


----------



## vacationhopeful (Feb 26, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I am not defending Brian Williams in any way, but not having a college degree doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of brilliant people that never got college degrees (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Glenn Beck, many many more) and there are plenty of dopes that have college degrees- in fact that list is much longer than the ones without!



I was commenting MORE on the 18 credit hours of college level work and 3 different dropouts  ... is that lack of attention, lack of follow thru, not giving a crap or so wishy-washy & living for the moment? 

And who was the computer geek who dropped out of Harvard - he first had to get into HARVARD.

And some of the best people I know, with great character, smart and very HIGHLY principled, never attended college - AND never had any interest in attending college. 

I was expressing my shock as to the details ... not ever having gone to college is FAR different than dropping out 3 times and still, only having achieved 18 credit hours  ....


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 26, 2015)

I don't watch any of these channels regularly (especially since I canceled my cable TV) but they are all absurd at one time or another. Casting your lot with the channel that supports your political viewpoint seems to be a criteria in selecting what to watch and unfortunately does seem to be a major influence. I prefer to know that when I'm watching news from any source that I'm learning actual truthful statements, even if I understand they have a preference. Unfortunately, I don't believe what I learn on much of these shows.

I wouldn't be at all concerned if all news sources supported their political viewpoint, but it's simply inexcusable for any source of news to pretend to tell the facts and then not do so. This is the issue we confront today, since the influence erroneous news has is not inconsequential. Regardless of your political view, I would hope you would agree that we are all better off when we have the truth so we may consider the issue honestly. None of the popular news sources are exempt from criticism, and all fail at one time or another for various reasons. Unfortunately, Fox has the worst record in telling the truth. Simply saying that they all do this ignores the issue that some are worse than others, and the importance of knowing the truth.

For some fun reading Punditfact (a part of Politifact) reviewed some of Comedy Channels Jon Stewart's "50 Fox News 'lies' in 6 seconds, from 'The Daily Show'". I'm sure there are other sources for fact validation, so please post others...especially if they contradict this info. I have not independently verified this info. And for the record:



> PolitiFact, a division of the Tampa Bay Times, won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for its fact-checking of the presidential election. The Times, Florida's largest newspaper, is independently owned by the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla.



http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/feb/26/50-fox-news-lies-6-seconds-daily-show/



> "The Daily Show" presented 50 Fox falsehoods in a six-second Vine. We've fact-checked almost every claim. See them all.



As far as general accuracy goes, here is a brief summary from this site on the various TV news sources:

Full info: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ 
Click on TV in the nav bar and select a network to see details.

Fox: 
11% true
11% mostly true
18% half true 
20% mostly false
30% false
9% pants on fire

CNN
17% true
40% mostly true
21% half true
9% mostly false
10% false
3% pants on fire

For myself, I'd rather watch the source that tells the truth, or mostly truth, 57% of the time vs another source that is only at 22%. Of course, these numbers will change.

ABC, CBS, and NBC are also listed on the site.

Similarly, the site lists a few entertainers as well. A brief summary:

Glenn Beck: 
7% true
7% mostly true
26% half true
15% mostly false
22% false
22% pants on fire

Rush Limbaugh's review is rather amusing. He scores zero (that's 0, 0%, none, nada, zilch, not one) in the "truth" category and 57% for false and pants on fire.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/

Enjoy. Be entertained. That's what they are...entertainers, trying to keep an audience for advertising revenue (and other reasons...). 






Sent from my iPad


----------



## e.bram (Feb 26, 2015)

I watch him every night.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 26, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> I don't watch any of these channels regularly (especially since I canceled my cable TV) but they are all absurd at one time or another. Casting your lot with the channel that supports your political viewpoint seems to be a criteria in selecting what to watch and unfortunately does seem to be a major influence. I prefer to know that when I'm watching news from any source that I'm learning actual truthful statements, even if I understand they have a preference. Unfortunately, I don't believe what I learn on much of these shows.
> 
> I wouldn't be at all concerned if all news sources supported their political viewpoint, but it's simply inexcusable for any source of news to pretend to tell the facts and then not do so. This is the issue we confront today, since the influence erroneous news has is not inconsequential. Regardless of your political view, I would hope you would agree that we are all better off when we have the truth so we may consider the issue honestly. None of the popular news sources are exempt from criticism, and all fail at one time or another for various reasons. Unfortunately, Fox has the worst record in telling the truth. Simply saying that they all do this ignores the issue that some are worse than others, and the importance of knowing the truth.
> 
> ...



I think the problem with just about any source, you can never trust or know if there is any bias behind any of the information. There are doubts about Politifact bias also. If they have a bias, it would be shown in their "fact checking".


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 26, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> I think the problem with just about any source, you can never trust or know if there is any bias behind any of the information. There are doubts about Politifact bias also. If they have a bias, it would be shown in their "fact checking".




Healthy skepticism of all sources is appropriate. That's why it's always good to not trust a single source for anything. If you have similar reports detailing the accuracy of Fox or any other news source, please post. And, the reason I posted the details of who Politifact is was to show their (relative) credibility - they list details on their site. Again, I did not independently verify any of their info.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## WinniWoman (Feb 27, 2015)

Politifact is biased as well. For me, The Truth Lives at The Blaze network.


----------



## Roger830 (Feb 27, 2015)

O'Reilly still dominates cable ratings Wednesday for both 8 and 11 PM slots.
Viewers don't care about 30 year old story.

8 pm	        O’Reilly 3.084    Cooper 535  Obama Town Hall  907

11 pm	O’Reilly 975      Cooper 278  Obama Town Hall 406


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 27, 2015)

Roger830 said:


> O'Reilly still dominates cable ratings Wednesday for both 8 and 11 PM slots.
> Viewers don't care about 30 year old story.
> 
> 8 pm	        O’Reilly 3.084    Cooper 535  Obama Town Hall  907
> ...



Because of the notoriety of the current news reports across all sorts of sources, lots of people are tuning in to see what it's all about. Ailes and Murdoch are thrilled with the nightly ratings. (imo) It's a temporary bump, but time will tell.

Ratings have nothing to do with the 'truthiness' of the underlying reports. His trademark bluster, bullying, and doubling-down on those who've leveled charges against him attract viewers like the possibility of gigantic wrecks draws NASCAR fans.

Note that he has not produced a single factual argument that charges that he exaggerated or downright lied are wrong.


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 27, 2015)

Yes, Politifact is biased.  Here's a study by a University of Minnesota professor...

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php

Again, they are ALL biased to some degree or another.  It's human nature.  To pretend otherwise is just naive.  It sure would be nice if we could celebrate the fact that we have news sources on both sides of the aisle instead of the nonsense on this thread (as well as the BW thread).


----------



## slip (Feb 27, 2015)

That wasn't a bump, he always dominates like that. I'd be interested in seeing 
If his rating dropped in the poll for trusted people. He was like 7th or 8th early this
Year, I bet that will change. I forgot who did the poll but I know it wasn't a Fox
News poll.


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> Yes, Politifact is biased.  Here's a study by a University of Minnesota professor...
> 
> http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php
> 
> Again, they are ALL biased to some degree or another.  It's human nature.  To pretend otherwise is just naive.  It sure would be nice if we could celebrate the fact that we have news sources on both sides of the aisle instead of the nonsense on this thread (as well as the BW thread).




It's extremely difficult to find an unbiased source of news. That's why I've always advocated searching out multiple sources and make your own conclusion. However, it does seem that there is a place for sites such as Politifact. 

As for the bias of Politifact the article you quoted states:



> One could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site.



It seems clear that the author is questioning why Politifact chooses more items from one party than the other. That's a valid criticism, but there's no commentary in this report as to the veracity of the items it does cover. In other words, you may be right in questioning how the site determines which items to fact check, but the report doesn't question the result of those checks. More so, the Politifact category determination (true, false, pants on fire, etc) is only a high level classification of the item in question...it also lists details of the original statement and the facts so you are able to read details about each and make your own conclusion (or research further yourself). 

Frankly, I don't care what the numbers show. It's all about the details. If a political entertainer or trusted news source says something wrong, I want to know about it. The scoreboard itself is never going to be completely accurate, but if you read the details you'll be able to reach your own conclusion on who you think is truthful more often than not, etc. 

I think sites like Politifact are necessary. They aren't going to answer all questions, though. And, we need more sites like them since I think by now we all recognize we aren't getting the truth from any single news source.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## easyrider (Feb 27, 2015)

I haven't really ever watched a full episode of the O Reily's show. It bores me silly. 

I could watch Brian Williams because like the character Ron Burgundy, could read the news very well. 
Anchorman quote.


> 25. “He had a voice that could make a wolverine purr and suits so fine they made Sinatra look like a hobo.” — Narrator



I kind of like Stosel on Fox, Gupta on CNN and really enjoyed some of the business offerings like Crammer on msnbc and Forbes on Fox. For the most part, all of these stations have alot of shows that really dont interest me. These include the shows I like as often they bore me as well.

PBS newshour and ABC early morning are what is recorded at our casa and even then, most of the reports are fast forwarded.

Bill


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 27, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> For myself, *I'd rather watch the source that tells the truth, or mostly truth, 57% of the time vs another source that is only at 22%*. Of course, these numbers will change.



I think the PolitiFact post was interesting but your comment here is very misleading.  The 57% and 22% numbers are only for the very specific and selective comments that PolitiFact has chosen to review out of years of 24-hour coverage.  Until someone chooses to parse words and select comments by the other networks in a fair manner, it really doesn't score a lot of points with me.


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> I think the PolitiFact post was interesting but your comment here is very misleading.  The 57% and 22% numbers are only for the very specific and selective comments that PolitiFact has chosen to review out of years of 24-hour coverage.  Until someone chooses to parse words and select comments by the other networks in a fair manner, it really doesn't score a lot of points with me.




As I wrote, the % is simply an indicator. I notice that you haven't supplied any other site that reviews in a similar manner, nor provides details on how they reached their conclusion. The details matter. The % is simply a guideline, and while it's definitely subjective it also indicates a trend that might encourage some to read more. After reading several of these specific erroneous reporting incidents from Fox, it certainly gives me the impression that they are often wrong. If that's true, shouldn't that cause you to question the accuracy of their reporting?


Sent from my iPad


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 27, 2015)

Reading this recent interchange, I can't help think of the Steve Colbert line, facts have a well known liberal bias.


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 27, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> After reading several of these specific erroneous reporting incidents from Fox, it certainly gives me the impression that they are often wrong. If that's true, shouldn't that cause you to question the accuracy of their reporting?



I don't know if you're directing the question to me or everyone, but I don't want to get into whether or not FoxNews is accurate or not, because I don't think there's going to be any fair method in judging the accuracy of any network that provides close to 24 hours of daily commentary.  How do you think Al Sharpton of MSNBC would do if someone parsed and analyzed his every word?  I don't think anyone really cares, very few watch him, but he would take a beating for sure.

As I mentioned a couple of times, I watch all of them at different times.  Lately I've been watching Erin on CNN when I come home from work. Out of the Sunday morning talk shows, I enjoy Chris Wallace the best, but watch all of them each week.


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 27, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> <snip>How do you think Al Sharpton of MSNBC would do if someone parsed and analyzed his every word?  I don't think anyone really cares, very few watch him, but he would take a beating for sure.
> 
> As I mentioned a couple of times, I watch all of them at different times.  Lately I've been watching Erin on CNN when I come home from work. Out of the Sunday morning talk shows, I enjoy Chris Wallace the best, but watch all of them each week.



How come you seem to always try to deflect a thread away from it's subject? O'Reilly is the subject at hand here. It seems that he has repeatedly said he witnessed nuns being killed. *He didn't*. He has said multiple times that he was on the other side of the door when an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald committed suicide. *He wasn't*. And now he has been on record saying that in Los Angeles riots, 'rocks and bricks rained down'. Other reporters say that he rolled up in a limousine and got out into one guy's face, said "Do you know who I am?" and the guy smashed BillO's camera with a brick. Nobody was hurt and it hardly 'rained' rocks & bricks. Some riot.

Not once has he admitted exaggeration, or 'mis-remembering', preferring instead to blame 'Left Wing hit squads' for his troubles and threatening retaliation if the reports don't stop. Note, however that no suits or accusations of slander are forthcoming from his people or network.


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 27, 2015)

I was perusing through this thread and someone said Glenn Beck was brilliant.  That gave me a good chuckle.  Bill O'Reilly is a smart guy but he is indeed a bully.  And now we know he is not exactly a truth teller.  I would be surprised if this all blows over within two weeks as was asserted earlier in the thread.  There is still blood in the water and the sharks are still hungry.


----------



## easyrider (Feb 27, 2015)

What did Bill O Riely do that has everyone here talking about him. I must have missed the point of this thread. Is it his service record ?

Bill


----------



## Kal (Feb 27, 2015)

Beefnot said:


> I was perusing through this thread and someone said Glenn Beck was brilliant...




It had to be humor! Didn't he get chased off the airwaves some time ago?


----------



## wilma (Feb 27, 2015)

Kal said:


> It had to be humor! Didn't he get chased off the airwaves some time ago?



Yes, for saying the president hated white people!!!


----------



## Roger830 (Feb 27, 2015)

Kal said:


> It had to be humor! Didn't he get chased off the airwaves some time ago?



He's still on the radio in Florida.

He didn't get wealthy by being stupid.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 27, 2015)

Roger830 said:


> He's still on the radio in Florida.
> 
> He didn't get wealthy by being stupid.



I have no dog in this fight, but -

LOTS of people get wealthy being stupid - have you heard of Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian?  :rofl:


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 27, 2015)

Roger830 said:


> He's still on the radio in Florida.
> 
> He didn't get wealthy by being stupid.


 
I've had a long week. Two chuckles in the same thread, I needed that.




DeniseM said:


> I have no dog in this fight, but -
> 
> LOTS of people get wealthy being stupid - have you heard of Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian? :rofl:


 
People can surely become wealthy from intellect, but there are plenty of other ways to become wealthy: Inheritance, physical or artistic talent, luck, speaking ability, sensationalism, yes and stupidity!


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2015)

"Roger" said:


> Reading this recent interchange, I can't help think of the Steve Colbert line, facts have a well known liberal bias.




Keep in mind that Colbert was a satirist, and you shouldn't take his comments seriously.

I suspect you're referring to this line from his comments at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2006:



> I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.



Ironically, directly before this comment he said:



> I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the "No Fact Zone". Fox News, I hold a copyright on that term.



http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert




Sent from my iPad


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> I don't know if you're directing the question to me or everyone, but I don't want to get into whether or not FoxNews is accurate or not, because I don't think there's going to be any fair method in judging the accuracy of any network that provides close to 24 hours of daily commentary.




Or...because you recognize that Fox is often not accurate and can't defend them. Of course, it's quite simple to determine if a report is accurate or not and just requires a little research.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 27, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> I watch O'Reilly occasionally (as well as CNN and MSNBC).  I feel that credibility is probably equally important to both OR and BW.  I will say after reviewing what transpired, that at the least - O'Reilly stretched things a bit here with his exaggerations.
> 
> The potential problem for him right now is that he's trying to come across as completely innocent.





Passepartout said:


> How come you seem to always try to deflect a thread away from it's subject? O'Reilly is the subject at hand here.



Jim, I gave my opinion on O'Reilly in the above post.  The rest of my responses have been in response to what was already posted in this thread.  You might want to do a quick review if you really believe I'm the one deflecting the thread.


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 27, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> Or...because you recognize that Fox is often not accurate and can't defend them. Of course, it's quite simple to determine if a report is accurate or not and just requires a little research.



I recognize that Fox News has made mistakes as well as the fact that the other news organizations have made mistakes.  Fox, CNN, MSNBC have an abundance of political commentary.  When you have 24 hour coverage and commentary by multitudes of political analysts there will be mistakes and misstatements made by their so-called experts.    

As I mentioned, I appreciate all of them and appreciate the fact that we live in a country with prominent news sources both on the right and the left.  I can't give you much more than that.  I know you badly want me to come to the defense of Fox to carry on the debate but I can't give you much more than what I've already said before.


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2015)

ace2000 said:


> I know you badly want me to come to the defense of Fox to carry on the debate but I can't give you much more than what I've already said before.




Actually, I don't like these discussions very much at all. Unfortunately, I feel compelled to contribute at times when I see others making broad generalizations without regard for the specifics. Your responses are a prime example of wishing away my valid criticism of the networks, Fox in particular, by simply stating that they all make mistakes. There are many problems I find with this, in particular the disregarding of sources which have details on the veracity of statements made by popular entertainers in the guise of news reporting (and I'm willing to review any source which purports to have details on validating the truth of such statements). 

I've pointed out specific resources available which you may use to determine for yourself which network is more often not telling the truth...but it seems you aren't very interested in that. Similarly, I find many people simply uninterested in finding out the truth and will just believe what they learn from cable TV, etc. I find this lack of interest in the truth to be very disheartening.

Perhaps you simply enjoy the shows for the entertainment and not as a source of news? I've got a family member who enjoys Fox...but for the blonds not the news.  


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Kal (Feb 28, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> ..Perhaps you simply enjoy the shows for the entertainment and not as a source of news? I've got a family member who enjoys Fox...but for the blonds not the news...



It's even better when you turn the sound off!  Except for that dude with his glasses at half mast down his nose.  Was that popular in the 70's or 80's??  Oh, and then we have suspender sam with his pants up to his chest.  Whata pair! :whoopie:


----------



## slip (Feb 28, 2015)

I think everyone in this thread has changed the minds of everyone else just by
Pointing to things on the internet but that just means we're right where we
Started, no change.


----------



## ace2000 (Feb 28, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> ... Your responses are a prime example of wishing away my valid criticism of the networks, Fox in particular, by simply stating that they all make mistakes. There are many problems I find with this, in particular the disregarding of sources which have details on the veracity of statements made by popular entertainers in the guise of news reporting (and I'm willing to review any source which purports to have details on validating the truth of such statements).
> 
> I've pointed out specific resources available which you may use to determine for yourself which network is more often not telling the truth...but it seems you aren't very interested in that. ...



I've provided very specific responses to everything you've mentioned.  As I recall, you provided only one resource to support your claim above.  And then I posted one resource that did a study and displayed that your source is guilty of selection bias.  At least two other people in the thread mentioned that your source is biased also.  

Then I've stated more than once that it's virtually impossible to tell which of the networks "is more often not telling the truth" (your words).   One would have to fully analyze every statement made by several of the different networks for a fairly long time period to support your claim.  If you could find that type of study, you'd have me convinced.   Otherwise you've offered your opinion that Fox is the worst and then I've stated that I don't subscribe to your theory.  I can definitely understand your perspective. You've provided food for thought and then I've provided my side also.  

It's all good.


----------



## Roger830 (Feb 28, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> I have no dog in this fight, but -
> 
> LOTS of people get wealthy being stupid - have you heard of Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian?  :rofl:



I have seen both Paris and Kim on TV talk shows, Tonight Show and Larry King and I didn't get the impression that they are stupid. In fact, I was surprised at how interesting they can be. Paris has gotten five figures just to attend parties and Kim and her family just signed a contract reported as high as $100 million. 

I'd like to be as dumb as them.


----------



## Makai Guy (Feb 28, 2015)

I think everyone has said all there is to be said in this thread by now -- several times over.  Let's give it a rest and reestablish the friendly atmosphere we try to maintain on this board, eh?

The only redeeming quality I can see about these harangues is that they deflect attention from _other_ harangues de jour and let _them_ die.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 21, 2018)

It's funny looking back at this silly thread from 2015. We all know how this story ended and what happened to Bill O'Reilly. The rest of the comedians and news reporters mentioned are still working, whether you like them or not. There is no comparison to Bill O'Reilly anymore - he went down in flames.


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 21, 2018)

TravelTime said:


> There is no comparison to Bill O'Reilly anymore - he went down in flames.



Matt Lauer, Al Franken, and Charlie Rose would be some pretty fair comparisons.  And thanks for choosing to bring this thread back to life after several years.


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 21, 2018)

ace2000 said:


> Matt Lauer, Al Franken, and Charlie Rose would be some pretty fair comparisons.  And thanks for choosing to bring this thread back to life after several years.



Yes, I agree. I was just reading through the posts and looking at the people who were being compared to Bill O'Reilly. It is ironic how time can tell the truth!


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 21, 2018)

TravelTime said:


> Yes, I agree. I was just reading through the posts and looking at the people who were being compared to Bill O'Reilly. It is ironic how time can tell the truth!



I'd be curious to know what kind of "truth" you are seeing.  Anyway, to be fair, this thread was about news anchors that embellished the truth when telling stories.  It was well before the #MeToo scandals that took down several prominent names.  That's what took O'Reilly out, as well as the other names I mentioned above.


----------



## Makai Guy (Jun 21, 2018)

Really?  It was necessary to resurrect this old dead thread?


----------



## TravelTime (Jun 21, 2018)

Makai Guy said:


> Really?  It was necessary to resurrect this old dead thread?



It was just interesting to see how history has evolved and what happened to O'Reilly after this silly thread debate.


----------



## dagger1 (Jun 21, 2018)

I think O’Reilly is coming back on an Internet Station...


----------



## WinniWoman (Jun 21, 2018)

I miss watching O'Reilly. He is on Glenn Beck radio once per week so I listen when I can if I am driving for work.


----------



## Makai Guy (Jun 24, 2018)

This thread has largely morphed into one about bias in news reporting and whether one does or does not watch national news.  These posts have been split off into their own thread found here.


----------

