|
|
Don't Quote Me: O'Reilly's Fear FactorSo on the July 9th Factor, Bill threw Wheeler under the bus in a discussion with GLAAD's Senior Director of Media Programs, Rashad Robinson. "We don't want to make mistakes, and we don't want our analysts making mistakes," said O'Reilly. "Detective Wheeler apologized and put it on his website." O'Reilly's apology? Don't hold your breath, because according to Bill, Wheeler was not entirely off the mark. "I'll grant you that Detective Wheeler got a little carried away," he told Robinson. "But here in New York City a group of lesbians attacked a man. Then in Tennessee there was a lesbian gang, another one in Philadelphia. There's no question there are some gay gangs, primarily lesbian, causing trouble. We reported it, and we should have reported it." Oh, I get it. You're traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind … Twilight Zone; No Spin Zone. Same thing. I admit, The O'Reilly Factor is entertaining — so entertaining, in fact, that I truly believe that Bill O'Reilly has a future in Vegas opening for Criss Angel: Mindfreak. But — and I hate to keep harping on this — it's far from a respectable news program. Yet I can't tell that to Bill's fans. Despite pages and pages of proof that Bill O'Reilly repeatedly sensationalizes and misinforms, and that he has nothing but contempt for journalistic ethics, his fans are convinced that he's a credible newsman who is committed to making America safe for them. They believe him when he says that our country is embroiled in a culture war fueled by a liberal media plot, and that Fox would never air a story that was not fact-checked. And that makes my skin crawl. I itch from the inside out, just like I did when the verdict was read in the O.J. Simpson trial. Night after night, O'Reilly chokes the life and purpose out of journalism, and Fox News chief Roger Ailes does nothing but pucker his chapped lips as Bill bends over. Ailes' failure to insist that O'Reilly report every story accurately, comment responsibly and honor even the most basic standards of ethics is a shameful and grotesque abuse of power. But, hey, the sky is falling! Be afraid, people. Be very afraid, because the minute you don't feel terrorized is the minute you'll stop tuning into The O'Reilly Factor and get a life — one that isn't dreadful. And there will be none of that. |
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
by
"terror," "terrorize,"
"terror," "terrorize," "terrorists," "evil," "harmful," "harm's way," "chilling," "un-American," "they want to kill us" and "they hate us."
----------------------------
Do you doubt there are actually terrorists out there who indeed hate us and want to kill us? I'm referring to islamic terrorists.
No....
My point was simply to
My point was simply to remind Kim that we really do have enemies that mean us harm, and that pointing this out as O'Reilly has done, doesn't make one hateful or crazy, as she seemed to imply when quoting his comments regarding terrorism.
Read carefully...
I don't think she was denying that there are probably people in the world who wish us harm (who they are/where they're from isn't necessarily important, it's the fact that they wish us harm in general), I think what she was getting at was that he blows things way out of proportion.
~
"Most beautiful but dumb girls think they are smart and get away with it, because other people, on the whole, aren't much smarter." -Louise Brooks
that's a plainly offensive comment
To refer like that to "Islamic terrorists" is as offensive, ignorant and pointless as referring to "Catholic terrorists" in the context of the IRA atrocities in England. There is a vast number of criminal thugs who wreak terror on others (including plenty of Islamic people - take the Bali boming for a start) in the "name" of Islam. They aren't thus by definition "Islamic terrorists". To refer to them as such simply shifts our focus dangerously from the real issue of what actualy drives them to commit their terrorist acts, while defaming the millions of Islamic people in the world who don't adhere to or support the terrorists' cause(s) and are in fact repulsed by terrorism. Just like plenty of Catholics (including in Ireland) don't adhere to or support the IRA's cause...
If that's all you have to address Kim F's article, I think she can happily rest her case.
Not Only But Also
I'm sorry, LL, but I feel
lesbian without borders
real terrorists
before blindly accusing islamic 'terrorists' e.g. extremists, one should consider the terrorists within one's own country. please look up the school of the americas as well as refreshing your memory of the countless, violent coups in south and central america that have been carried out by american cia forces.
peace and love, elee the great
very good point...
O'Reilly's not the only one
I have tried to watch Mr. O'Reilly's show a couple of times. My sister is a devoted follower. I can't get through ten minutes before the overwhelming need to change the channel takes over. Sadly, O'Reilly is not the only one out there. They're all over the place on each side (look at Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Hannity and Combs, Keith Olberman, Scraborough... ugh, too many) O'Reilly is simply the best at it. I think he was a tabloid show announcer (like Extra or Inside Edition or something) before the Fox thing, but that doesn't mean people are going to take his stuff with the grain of salt it deserves. It is presented as a news program and not (as it should be) a commentary program.
I see where LL is coming from. She's right, there are loads of organized, evil people who have and will use terrorism against us and anyone friendly with us. I guess Ms. Ficera was saying that O'Reilly leans on these scare words to try to keep people from more critically reviewing his program, especially on first viewing.
wow
comparing keith olbermann to bill o' reilly...i think i am more offended by that than bill o' rly himself.
olbermann's commentaries are some of the smartest, heartfelt and dead on commentaries i have heard in my 35 years of life, honestly.
yep...
totally agree. Maher and Olbermann are 2 of the best out there right now (tho Maher’s not a “newsman” proper).
Maher and Keith could outhink, outwit O’Really in their sleep. In a drunken, valium-soaked, dead-to-the-world kind of sleep....
I don't think it's that
I don't think it's that hard to outwit O'Reilly actually. Personally I thought David Letterman did a fine job too! Especially when O'Reilly tried his yes/no ploy!
call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
Kim Ficera,
Thanks for that very funny review of Bill O'Reilly. And how interesting to see a certain point immediately proven too! That would be even funnier if it wasn't so simultaneously scary!
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
rolling my eyes
Do you doubt there are actually terrorists out there who indeed hate us and want to kill us? I'm referring to islamic terrorists.
I see where LL is coming from. She's right, there are loads of organized, evil people who have and will use terrorism against us and anyone friendly with us. I guess Ms. Ficera was saying that O'Reilly leans on these scare words to try to keep people from more critically reviewing his program, especially on first viewing.
please do not justify anything that man says by bringing up Islamic "terrorists" because one it is out of contest becuase if you are going to start down that path then there's a whole lot of issues to be dealt with here namely the fact that we are also "terrorizing" people as you typed those words.second i just hate that the media promotes propaganda and then us ordinary folks pick it up and run with it.
p.s O'Reilly is an ass
well put, dykedrama
I think one of the points here is that O'Reilly conflates truth - so the hugely complex, loaded issue of terrorism is boiled down to something that can be used to terrorize the public into following certain political agendas - that there is a simple to identify 'us' and them' and an 'evil' that attacks - not a human being. Simple, full of symbolsim and rhetoric that fits nicely into a speech.
Of course this has been happening for some time. The lack of complexity (or you know, research, integrity etc) from Fox/'insert media conglomorate' simply breeds disinformation and halts any kind of education on foreign policy/historical context that would otherwise improve things or show them as they truly are.
People like O Reilly make me so furious. But people who willfully believe this kind of propaganda make me angrier.
Good article.
Totally.
You are so right. I think it's funny that the US has done several horrible things to other countries (just like other countries have done several horrible things to other people), but we're not terrorists AT ALL. *cue eye roll*
~
"Most beautiful but dumb girls think they are smart and get away with it, because other people, on the whole, aren't much smarter." -Louise Brooks
A horse's ass
Ack!
Can we please not have his face staring at us until this article falls off the front page?
I'm glad to see the article but isn't there a nice picture of a cow pasture or something we could put up there?
Keith's bitch
I think O’Reilly’s base is pretty stagnant at this point, and has been shrinking over the last year or so – at least dropping younger viewers. Bill’s fans are largely from the 65+ demographic (and white males, if I had to guess). Keith Olbermann’s, on the other hand, increased 30% in the coveted 25-54 year old group. Keith’s ratings have been attributed, at least in part, to his relentless ridicule O’Reilly campaign.
This NYT link is a year old, and I’m sure there are more current stats out there but I don’t feel like looking for them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/arts/television/11keit.html?ei=5088&en=d333137dac65612c&ex=1310270400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
I have yet to see anyone take down O’Reilly like Keith, god bless that man.
If anyone hasn’t seen him skewer Bill, go to youtube and search for “Olbermann O’Reilly”.
Good guess, zee. O'Reilly's
the Gimp
Yep, MSNBC lags behind Fox, because their “news” is total crap. Keith's the only thing they’ve got going for them. Chris Matthews, for example, is a simpering, sycophantic suck ass.
And yeah – Bill’s a huge crybaby. That’s why he’s Keith’s bitch. Seriously, I get waaay more pleasure than I should from watching him abuse Billo.
If Bill were in the movies, he’d be the Gimp from Pulp Fiction.
I saw his interrogation of
I'm not really into fighting...
on the OT & thanks
Yes, there are terrorists out there. There were terrorists out there 10 years ago, and people simply weren't as scared as they are these days. Spin, spin, spin the bottle...
I sometimes think the thought about 'fear and love', popularized by Donnie Darko, is very true.
Great article. I really want to spoof this. It's so absurd, it's got seemingly endless comic potential.
o'reilly fan here
i wanna raise my hand and say that i absolutely love bill o'reilly. when i happen to be home, i love to catch his show. on one hand, sometimes he says the most atrocious bull-shit that make me spit out bemused laughter; on the other hand, believe it or not, he sometimes says things that i actually find ring true with me and make me realize that perhaps i'm more conservative on some issues than i thought. sorry, i don't have any specific examples of things i agree with him on at the moment. but those ah-ha! moments when i realize i have just as much in common with o'reilly as i don't -- those help me remain a part of his audience.
even if he thinks that dykes constitute a domestic terrorist group.
but really, how can anyone really be offended by that? it's more laughable than anything!
i love watching him with michelle malkin or geraldo rivera or with both together. god, it's soo riveting! it's like watching a terrible car accident unfold before your very eyes; you don't really want to see all the blood and gore and yet you can't take your eyes away.
------------------------------
'twas brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
all mimsy were the borogoves,
and the mome raths outgrabe
Fox News is the real
Fox News is the real terrorist organisation. They indoctrinate, brainwash, incite fear and promote bigotry. And they cause sincere psychological damage and hurl abuse at minorities and act like they are the most humane people in the world. Bill O'Reilly is just a puppet, and every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie. There is no way he believes most of the crap he spins, he just enjoys his paycheck.
Even though I feel a bit guilty, I still find it entertaining to watch.
"Terrorists"
Have been around since the dawn of time and they will be here until the end of time! It's ppl like O'reilly, your right wing evangelists, your President that make ppl around the world think the U.S is full of crackers!!
911 was a terrifying, unimaginable event resulting in the loss of many sacred souls, I will never say anything to refute that...but I will say that it has been happening around the world for thousands of years! Hello? can anyone say Rawanda?? No body cared...but 911 happened on U.S soil and the ppl woke up. Unfortunately they didn't know where to turn for the truth and your government with the help of the media took full advantage of this catastraphe for it's own benefit, to line it's own pockets and are using your fear to blind you. It's time to re-awaken and take off the blinders ppl.....I can't believe for the life of me how Paris Hilton gets more news coverage than yet another perished soldier!
ok...I'm done ranting....I'm sure I will be broadsided with all the hate....I'm a big girl...I can take it .
PEACE!
"Hello? can anyone say
"Hello? can anyone say Rawanda?? No body cared...but 911 happened on U.S soil and the ppl woke up. "
You don't even need to go that far abroad, terrorist attacks have been going on for years in Europe, I remeber several bomb scares as a child during the first Iraq war. Nor is terrorism confined to Islam, it was only a decade or so since the IRA were carrying out significant number of attacks, against civillian targets I must add for those who may be of the opinion that they were legitimate 'freedom fighters' both on mainland UK and in Northern Ireland. I would actually be quite curious to know O'Reillys opinion on the IRA, I know they have (or at least had until 911) a lot of support in the US, including funding from the CIA.
Terrorism has always been a threat and it's not liable to go away, but realistically, you're more likley to die in a car crash, you can't live your life in fear of it.
Can anyone say Unionists?....
thank you siofra
the people who have used the IRA as examples of terrorism need to give their heads a shake and remember that people who defend the rights and freedoms of their own country are not terrorists in the truest sense of the word; using them as examples in this context put you in the same company as Bill O'Reilly, as you have neglected to get your facts straight before commenting, just as he does...and yes, the English Government are the true terrorists, as they have been since the beginning of 'civilized' life;
I spent quite some time
I spent quite some time writing and rewriting this reply, because I don't really want to get into a political discussion about the NI, the troubles in Ireland is a very complex and difficult topic, which it is impossible to hold unbiased views on if you are a) British or b) Irsh/of Irish descent. Being a Brit, I am, I admit quite touchy on the subject (like most americans are understanbly about 9/11), so I hope my reply comes accross as rational and not a gut-reaction. Firstly, I did use the IRA as an example of the fact that terrorism and terrorist tactics are not unique to Islam. I could have equally have used ETA, in the Basque region of Spain as another good example, but let's face it IRA is the better known.
Yes the IRA was formed to fight for independance of Ireland, this happened with the anglo-irish treaty in 1922 and was cemented after the second world war with the formation of the Republic of Ireland (as opposed to the prior-existing Free Irish states). However, a considerable number of IRA spliter groups (Provisional IRA being best known, the Real IRA being the most notorious) carried on fighting after this and were opposed, yes by UK forces, but more frequently by the Unionists, who were Irish protestants. It was a mess, bad things happened on both sides and we could probably have a very very long argument as to who was in the right, though really, as in the vaste majority of the wars, both sides were probably in the wrong.
But a number of the more notorious of these splinter groups, particularly the Real IRA can very much be considered terrorist organisations. Why? Because they have consistently targetted civillians, and set bombs in civilian shopping centres/railway stations and the like. The most infamous of this being the Omagh bombing (which happened 1998), as well as numerous bombings in London (which only really stopped after the 7/7 bombings by al qaeda). I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned there is no justification in the deliberate bombing of non-legitimate civilian targets (we're talking Shopping centres and railway stations here!) and that is the line that seperates freedom fighters from terrorists.
Completely agree
The 'Real" IRA can be described as nothing but complete terrorists and have carried out organised crimes against the Irish state itself. The Omagh bombing and Manchester bombing were of course Terrorist acts. That is what I was implying when I said the IRA is now redundant. I wasn't attacking you mentioning the IRA it's just people easily forget that they were once needed, as harsh as that may sound.
Thanks for posting this...
...Black Gem. It's the best synopsis, written so a layperson like myself could understand, that I've ever read of this very complex subject. I'm an American of Irish descent and have always been fascinated, not morbidly so I assure you, just at the divsion of the people in this conflict. Here's a people who shared the same homeland, the same language, the same ethnicity, the same race and yet still they battled against each other with an animosity no different than foes who fought and shared none of things I've listed. Yes, religion separated them as the most obvious facter, but no less than their definition of nationality.
This pretty much convinced me, more than any other world conflict, that war is a natural condition of man. How sad.
Kim, great article!
lesbian without borders
Bill O'Reilly IS the true terrorist here
what has he ever done but propagate ignorance, fear and hatred?
Can't believe this guy is still on the air!
If it wasn’t for lies and
If it wasn’t for lies and hate spewed by media quacks like Bill O’Reilly and the like, there would be no bottom of the barrel, no scum in the pond, no sludge in the sewer. And nature always has a place where all the shit settles. There’s no use trying to make sense out of hate. It’s just shit, and so far beneath all of the good. Moving on….
Very Well Written Article
Never Mind
"Ridiculous"
O'Reilly does my head in. He never stops bitching, he overuses the word "ridiculous" and he never fesses up when he's been called out for reporting something wrongly.
It's not the first time he's been blatantly homophobic either.
Here's a link to his newest Talking Points memo. The virulent bigotry and homophobia in that piece is truly shocking. Among the choicer bits:
Urgh. I think it's the mingled with straight families line that is the most vile and hateful and wilfully ignorant part. Does O'Biley seriously believe that hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians don't mingle with straight people every hour of every single day of the goddamn year, but rather lock themselves in their homes and sodomize each other until it's Gay/Lesbo day down at the local ballpark?
__________________
"The world will not greet you with open arms, but with a clenched fist."
I watch him too
Abba Girl, Since you admitted it too--I will fess up. I also watch the Factor from time to time--it often is so hysterically amusing. One time there was this 16 year old kid from some High School. At the school there had been a presentation where the discussion was unsafe sex. O'Reilly apparently had previously covered the story and told how the evil progressive secular progressives had come up from LA and were encouraging the kids to have unnatural sex.
This kid had a transcript of the assembly and actually read it-- trying to put the comments in context. He tried to show that what O'Reilly had quoted was just a portion of a story --they were not urging the little ones to go out and get it on. When he got to reading the pertinent line it was too much for the no-spin meister and he cut him off.
The kid then tried to read a portion of O'Reilly's book where, if taken out of context, it appears Bill was advocating the use of cocaine.
This was deemed to be spin and cut off--cos it WAS OUT OF CONTEXT.
O-Reilly knew he had been had by a sixteen year old and physically looked like one stupid wilted flower--I loved it.
Sign me up.
O'Reilly is so disgusting
Watching his "apology" to GLAAD'S Robinson really made me so irate. I know I ought to lighten up, but this is truly one of those moments that I could... gahhh.... okay, won't say anything further. WHAT A FILHO DA PUTA MAL CRIADO IDIOTA MISERAVEL CRETINO DA PUTA QUE LHE PARIU!!!! (ok, i feel better)
He's like...
fingernails on a chalkboard. Seen him babbling twice and that was it. The Gag Factor would be a more fitting title for his show!
"a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants." Chuckles the Clown
ha
"The Gag Factor!" I like it....
Hate is in the eye...
...of the beholder. I caught the O'Reilly Factor one night and they were bull rushing a San Francisco columnist who had written that O'Reilly "spewed hate" on his show and was "a racist". She ducked and she danced and...finally she proved her point! He had referred to illegal aliens as...gasp...illigal aliens. Yep, folks, TO HER this was hate spewing racism. He was supposed to call them "undocumented workers" it turns out.
I watch O'Reilly a few times a week, but never for news. He doesn't present himself as a journalist, he's a political commentator. He's been a driving force for the passage of Megan's Law in now over 35 states. Since I'm anti-child molester, I'm very pro-Megan's Law. Twenty five years minimum for child rape - no questions asked but did he do it.
O'Reilly beives that there is a radical Islamist assault on Western Civilization, and I believe it, too. Sorry, but killing an abortion doctor a decade ago isn't in the same catagory. Neither is Oklahoma City or Columbine. Lone Freaks, that's what they are. Beheading living people, including jounalists and aid workers, blowing up car bombs in front of girl's schools and markets filled with women and children - and doing it again and again and agian. That is terrorism. And when you scream "Allah Akbar" as you set yourself on fire in Glascow or fly planes filled with people into buildings filled with people, well I'd say you have a religous motivation, hence the term Islamic Terrorism. Oh, we should keep an eye on the Fundamentalist Christians, too, but so far the Amish have been very quiet lately.
It amazes me how many of you all will offer excuses to these murderous bastards, especially considering that under Sharia Law the punishment for homosexuality is death..by stoning. You may think you're terrorized by the "God hates Fags" signs held up by one group of religous fanatics (and they are well within their rights to do this no matter what you "feel" about it), but I hope you never find out what life will be like under those you defend so strongly. We'll be the first ones removed from their concept of a pious society.
Bill deserved the egg on his face on this one. But that don't make him evil, and it surely doesn't make him wrong about either child molesters or Islamofacist Terrorists.
Peace Out!
Islamo-huh?
The whole “who’s a terrorist” debate is such a politically loaded one. Our collective notion of “terrorist” has changed radically here in the US since 9/11. It used to be (back in simpler times, for better or worse) that “terrorists” were crazy political groups in other countries who blew shit up. Since the US had been largely sheltered from this kind of madness, we blithely applied the term to any group around the world whose interests/politics weren’t aligned with ours. When it struck here on 9/11 tho, our entire awareness and fear of terrorism, naturally, grew (and was shamefully, and naturally, exploited by BushCo and other neocons like O'Reilly).
I agree with the other posters here - terrorism has been happening all over the world since the beginning of time. Americans have been lucky that, historically, we’ve been exposed to so little of it in our own country.
But I really hate the term “Islamofascist terrorism.” The phrase is nothing but a meaningless soundbite, politically expedient and overly simplistic. And it slanders an entire religion. “Fascism” has become a catchall kind of phrase since 9/11 – one that’s carelessly tossed around and infers a vague notion of “totalitarianism.” How ironic to hear the word out of George Bush’s mouth.
And that doesn’t mean there aren’t groups who wanna to bomb the shit out of us. Clearly there are. We just disagree on what to call them.
I’m not sure who you think is “offering excuses to these murderous bastards” or defending them. As far as comparing groups like Al-Qaeda to Christian fundamentalists, that’s a stretch. The only commonality is religious fanaticism. I know we’ve got fundies as radical in their beliefs as Al-Qaeda are in theirs. And given the chance, they might well wanna impose religious law that’s as strict as Sharia. But I haven’t seen any bible thumpers blow up buildings or bomb innocent civilians, so any comparison between the 2 is specious, IMO.
And of course they’ve got the right to hold up “God Hates Fags” signs. Just as groups like Patriot Guard Riders have the right to show up and counterprotest fundie hate. And thank god they do.
That O’Really rails against child molesters doesn’t mean a damn thing. He certainly doesn’t merit a gold star for it (is there anyone out there actually advocating FOR pedophiles)? Who in their right mind doesn’t hate pedophiles? Hell, I hate them and I don’t even like kids...
But since you concede that the egg on Bill’s face here is deserved, don’t you see all the other egg on his face? That this is a pattern with him? Constantly distorting and manipulating news and presenting it as “fact” in a wholly biased way.
Hey, is that kid gloves...
...you've wearing? If so, I'd wager it won't be long before you rip them off and fling them away from you against the wall. ;-)
"The whole “who’s a terrorist” debate is such a politically loaded one. "
I agree. I also think gali does a great job defining terrorism in her post below so I'll pass.
"I agree with the other posters here - terrorism has been happening all over the world since the beginning of time. "
Yes, but these people have taken terrorism to a whole new level of sophisticaion. No one had ever brought down multiple passenger jets simultaneously, much less four of them....and then to fly them into occupied structures so symbolic of our military and economic might. This revealed a level of hatred, understanding, sophitication and organization that, I think, stunned the American people. All of a sudden what seemed impossible, unimaginable even...a dirty bomb exploding in a major American or European city...now seemed not only possible, but probable. Most Americans think this will happen in their lifetime. This is what they really fear. This is what terrifies them. Not O'Reilly's opinions on the matter. He's just giving voice to their concerns, IMO.
"That O’Really rails against child molesters doesn’t mean a damn thing. He certainly doesn’t merit a gold star for it..."
I mentioned this in response to NorthernStar's post "Bill O'Reilly is the true terrorist here: What has he ever done but propagate ignorance, fear and hatred." Well, he did this. He was a driving force for the enactment of Megan's Law from coast to coast. The oppostion to this law (and it's real, see Vermont) has nothing to do with anyone being pro-child molester. It is over whether or not these people need to be locked away from society (25 years minimum for first offense child rape, life with no parole for anything more) or sent to treatment with a chance to re-enter society if one behaves. The recidivism rate for pediphiles is 100%. None have ever been "cured" and if given the opportunity they re-offend. I think he deserves a gold star for this.
"But since you concede that the egg on Bill’s face here is deserved, don’t you see all the other egg on his face? "
Yes, I do, although probably not "all" of it, as defined by you. The most notable is his hyping up the "secular progressive" threat to American (read judeo-christian) values and traditions. The whole "War on Christmas" is bunk. Absolutely rediculous. I don't watch much O'Reilly in December, as you migtht guess! ;-)
"Constantly distorting and manipulating news and presenting it as “fact” in a wholly biased way."
This is a step too far for me. He isn't a newsman, he's a political and social commentator. He has on people to debate the news of the day,or what he deems to be relevant to the society at large, like Michelle Malkan and Kirsten Powers. This is opinion and opinion by definition is biased. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
One quick question of my own. You call him a neo-con in your post and you're the second poster to use that term for him in this thread. As I understand it, neo-cons (aka new-conservatives) are ex-liberals who changed parties back in the Reagan years, largely becasue of their stand on national defense and what they perceived as a weakness on the left on this subject. They are essentially Blue Hawks. Was O'Reilly really once a liberal?
no, they're velvet paws....
...I’m typing with tonite.
"As I understand it, neo-cons (aka new-conservatives) are ex-liberals who changed parties back in the Reagan years, largely becasue of their stand on national defense and what they perceived as a weakness on the left on this subject."
The roots of neocons go back earlier than that, to the 30s, actually – but yes, there were a core group of Reaganites - strong on defense, global dominance, unilateralism that established themselves in govt.
And I sometimes use the word loosely – I don’t consider Billo a neocon proper. I actually have 2 understandings of the word – in the strict political sense, I see today’s neocons as derivative of their 30s roots – the intellectual, Jewish, Depression-era Trotskyites. People like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, of course Irving and William K, and groups like AIPAC.
In a broader social sense tho, I use the word much to signify certain conservatives, esp since W took office. In a way, his administration has conjoined the religious right/social conservatives with political neocons, and the result is what I consider Dubya’s support base over the past 7 yrs.
Back to O'Really:
"This is a step too far for me. He isn't a newsman, he's a political and social commentator. He has on people to debate the news of the day,or what he deems to be relevant to the society at large, like Michelle Malkan and Kirsten Powers. This is opinion and opinion by definition is biased. You're comparing apples and oranges here."
This gets a little hair-splitting for me. I don’t care if he’s considered a “newsman” or not – he’s got his own show, he sits at a desk, so technically, he’s a journalist. There are still journalism ethics (well, at least in theory...). Even if he’s a commentator, it doesn’t matter. And yes, there’s a difference between ‘news’ and commentary (well, at least in theory...), but the issue for me isn’t whether he’s ‘reporting the news’ it or ‘opining’ on it – it’s that he sits on tv and makes shit up. Even if it’s only commentary, it should be based on facts.But I hafta ask this: if you know that Bill goes around the bend during Christmas, and with his whole SP spiel, and the lesbo gang story, how can you possibly give him any credibility? On anything?
As I typed that last graf, I realized some of my Billo hate goes back to the sexual harassment suit by his producer. That whole story speaks volumes to me about the man and his character (and not just loofah/falafel, tho that never fails to makes me laugh). So I’ll admit, my bias against him is more than just his crappy ‘commentary’ and propaganda.
Therefore, I must leave you with this:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html
Damn, zee, you are nuts, girl...
...see i stopped using "gal" just for you since you told me you city girls don't like it! But you are NUTS if you expect me to believe that you really believe this:
"This gets a little hair-splitting for me. I don’t care if he’s considered a “newsman” or not – he’s got his own show, he sits at a desk, so technically, he’s a journalist. There are still journalism ethics (well, at least in theory...)."
Do you really expect me to believe that you believe this nonsense? Jon Stewert has his own show, sits at a desk....and he's not a journalist, is he? This is ridiculous. Especially from you. It does matter if he's a commentator vs. a journalist. Journalists are supposed to keep their opinion out of the story (I know, I laugh, too). Just the facts, ma'am - that's what a reporter or journalist is supposed to supply. A commentator will present an issue and debate it or pronounce his opinion on it. It shouldn't be confusing. When you see debate and "talking points", you're seeing opinion and you're not watching the news.
yes, but that's beside the point....
You are NOT going to seriously compare Jon Stewart with O’Reilly, are you?! TDS is SATIRE. And you’re wrong about facts and journalism here. But even if you wanna argue that commentators aren’t subject to journalistic ethics (a strange argument, I’d say), the FACTS on which Billo bases his opinion should be correct.
Ironically, both TDS and Colbert are a hell of a lot more accurate in their stories, even when they’re spoofing them. That's right - even "fake news" is more accurate than fucking O'Reilly's show. Either Billo won’t hire factcheckers or the ones he hired are a bunch of illiterate crackheads.
Please go back and look at O’Really’s lesbo gang piece – can you tell me what “facts” he based that story on? Cuz everything I saw there was based on goddamn lies.
And are you really gonna argue that because his show is considered "opinion," Billo can just make shit up? Cuz in that case, I'd say he's a “storyteller” and not a “commentator.” And that his show should be called "The O'Reilly Fables."