News slant

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 13 2004, 10:20 AM
Lastly, we might find our favourite commentators "fair and reasoned" only because we agree with what they say. Hence Lanny latching on to Maher and Bingo onto O'Reilly. They might be preaching to the choir.

I'd agree with that to a point ...

I think I've sent you examples of things O'Reilly says that I don't agree with, but even at that I find him entertaining. I think I see eye to eye with him when it comes to world matters and diplomacy, but he tends to go his own route on some of the social issues and economic matters.

I think another wrinkle in this is whether you like the person in question or not. O'Reilly and I tend to approach things somewhat firm, so that may play to me.

Maher is a very good speaker and an entertaining guy but I have to admit I wrote him off as jerk a while back when he went on Larry King the day after Bob Hope died. He basically made a mockery of the guy saying he slept around and never saw his kids, etc. May be true but it's a very pathetic time to rip the man. Same show he called the only innocent person in the Kobe case (his wife) a whore for wearing that new diamond ring.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 13 2004, 10:20 AM
Might have had something to do with the fact I saw it live, a visual of an overbearing O'Reilly leaning over a smallish, bookish, professorialish Krugman who appeared to spend most of his time rolling his eyes and leaning away from O'Reilly.

I think O'Reilly "winning" that debate between himself and Krugman had alot to do with O'Reilly being a big irish brute and intimidating the smaller nerdy Krugman.

It was an interesting debate nevertheless. Russert let them go back and forth pretty good.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Funny. How Lanny describes Maher is pretty much how I see O' Reilly. He hammers Bush OFTEN. He's certainly a conservative person, but he's got a serious adversion to stupid government no matter who is in the White House and he let's it be known. I don't care for O'Reilly because I find him a little too pompous for my taste, big turn off for me. Same reason I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.

Maher, on the other hand, is clearly a liberal person. However, he is not afraid of opposing viewpoints and is happy to let them be presented. I've gained respect for Bill Maher for a couple of reasons.

The first was his hammering of DNP chairman Terry McAuliffe on his show for bringing up the 2000 election insinuating it was rigged and calling Bush an unelected President. Maher went OFF. Such a pet peeve of mine too. He made McAulliffe look like a 16 year old. It was great.

Secondly, he's never hesitant to invite people on his show who he KNOWS he will not win a debate with. Case in point, Ted Nugent. Ted was a frequent guest on his show and whenever Maher trotted out his anti-hunting stance Ted would hammer him in the debate. Maher continued to invite Ted...certainly he is colorful and good for ratings, but I thinik he also invited him repeatedly because he liked the guy and respected his views.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 13 2004, 04:39 PM

...I think I see eye to eye with him when it comes to world matters and diplomacy, but he tends to go his own route on some of the social issues and economic matters.

I think another wrinkle in this is whether you like the person in question or not. O'Reilly and I tend to approach things somewhat firm, so that may play to me.

Maher is a very good speaker and an entertaining guy but I have to admit I wrote him off as jerk a while back when he went on Larry King the day after Bob Hope died. He basically made a mockery of the guy saying he slept around and never saw his kids, etc. May be true but it's a very pathetic time to rip the man. Same show he called the only innocent person in the Kobe case (his wife) a whore for wearing that new diamond ring.

...I think I see eye to eye with him when it comes to world matters and diplomacy...

Diplomacy? That is a word that O'Reilly does not have in his vocabulary IMO. If a good game of rock scissors paper can't resolve the problem then the military should go in and blow the crap out of who ever stands between "America" and the way "it" sees things. O'Reilly has zero clue about diplomacy and foreign policy and is an embarassment to watch when he bullies a foreign national in the "Spin Zone".

O'Reilly and I tend to approach things somewhat firm, so that may play to me.

I have no problem with firm. Firm is good. Don't take any crap from people is the way I like things. But you have to know when to call horsefeathers and dig your heels in. O'Reilly digs his heels in from the get go (as do most of the wacko right) and never considers the otherside. O'Reilly is an ass when it comes to discussing the middle east and the issues that are surround the problem because he refuses to take the time and learn what the root causes are, and bothers to walk a mile in the shoes (sandles) of an Arab. He's a bigot and is the perfect example of the ugly American IMO.

Maher is a very good speaker and an entertaining guy but I have to admit I wrote him off as jerk a while back when he went on Larry King the day after Bob Hope died. He basically made a mockery of the guy saying he slept around and never saw his kids, etc.

Maher is indeed a very good speaker. O'Reilly could take a lesson from Maher when it comes to public speaking, especially in how to handle guests on his show. Maher at least argues the point in question and does not shout the guest down. Maher was indeed guilty of bad timing in the Hope incident, but I would like to kow if Marher shared this information on his own, or if King promted him for his opinion.

To say that Maher is a jerk and then stand up for O'Reilly doesn't make much sense to me though. You want to talk about being a pompus ass, how about the time O'Reilly told the son of a victim of 9/11 to shut up (repeatedly) and terminated the interview prematurely because he disagreed with his politics?

Same show he called the only innocent person in the Kobe case (his wife) a whore for wearing that new diamond ring.

Seems to me that you're the one sounding like the bleeding heart liberal on this one (you left leaning commie). Hate to say it, but Maher is right on the money. Bryant's wife took a rather LARGE gift from her hubby to keep her yap shut in regards to their marrige problems. She was bought off to be a good little wife and let her "man" bone some bimbo, while still dishing it out at home too. I think that makes her a whore. Bryant's wife essentially took hush money to sit back and accepct her husband's infidelity. If that were you, and you caught your wife screwing some guy on the side (beating him up) would you accept a "gift" in return for your acceptance/obedience? I would hope not. I would hope that you would believe in the sanctity of marriage and would see that as a violation to union you had with your spouse, one that no amount of money should be able to repair?

It's funny, but here I am (the left leaning commie, according to some on this site) defending the sanctity of marriage and base moral values, those same values that the "Republicans" (a party that I am supposedly not even closely aligned with) are the defenders of. WTF??? How is it possible that a "left leaning commie" is in favor of famnily and moral values???

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 13 2004, 07:02 PM
Maher, on the other hand, is clearly a liberal person.

See, I disagree. I think Maher floats, which is why I like him so much. There are issues where he is right of center and issues where he is left of center. I see him as a floater and a true independent. I see Al Franken as a left winger liberal, one who balances off the right wing conservative nature of Bill O'Reilly. When you compare all three, O'Reilly is definitely right, Franken is definitely left, and Mareh is definitely center. If you talk about issues (no one seems to do that any more for some reason) Maher floats from side to side of the dividing line IMO.

[Bingo]

You know what Lanny ... as per usual there doesn't seem to be any point in having a discussion with you.

Your absolute need to go off on extreme tangents and blow everything out of proportion makes it nearly impossible to go any further.

I really don't like Maher, but I gave him a lot of credit for what he does well, and avoided trashing the guy to make a point with you, as you're a fan.

You just mounted a soap box and spun hyperbole after hyperbole about O'Reilly with very little by way of fact or consequence introduced to the topic.

You want to talk about being a pompus ass, how about the time O'Reilly told the son of a victim of 9/11 to shut up (repeatedly) and terminated the interview prematurely because he disagreed with his politics?

Disagreed with his politics? You make it sound like he voted for a democratic mayor in Hoboken. The guy basically blames the death of his father and 3000 other Americans on the United States. I'd be the first to agree O'Reilly went too far, as he does from time to time, but don't make the guy out to be a victim's son with a slight ideology difference.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Up on a soapbox? WTF? And what extreme tangent? Hardly Bingo. Just pointing out the inconsistencies in your story. You painted O'Reilly to be an honest fellow who would not stoop to the levels of a jerk like Maher. I just wanted to point out that he indeed would and has done that. But then you say there was no factual basis. So how about this? Here's the conversation that I was refering to in the above post.

My Webpage

Seems to me that O'Reilly had nothing but an axe to grind with this guy and did nothing but set him up. Glick was ambushed by a professional sleaseball in his best tabloid TV way (really, it should have been on Inside Edition). I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise when Glick hardly got to say anything at all. But that is not just conjecture, that is right there in black in and white.

Is this factual enough for you? Because there are a lot more instances of O'Reilly losing it or out right skewing the facts. None of this is hyperbole but is well documented fact, not only from Fox's own site, but all those others that have "picked" on O'Reilly for being an outrageous buffoon and crossing the line. I'm sure that many other instances can be brought up in short order if you desire to have more fact or consequence introduced to the topic.

BINGO: Edited to remove text and replace with link.

[Bingo]

Two things ...

1) When did I call him honest? He may or may not be honest ... how am I to tell. If you look back you will see that all I ever said was that he was portrayed as further right than many unjustly for the main part. That's it. I said he was right leaning. I said he was bombastic, and that he got carried away. Where am I inconsistent?

2) I've known you for what? 8 years? You know exactly what I'm talking about when I say soap box. You feel the need to belittle and grandstand in almost every discussion you've ever been in. This string was no different.

What did posting the interview do other than possibly get my site sued? Nothing in it refutes my two comments that you were referring to.

a - he did get carried away
b - the guy blames the US for 911

Where did I say anything different?

But that's my whole point? I like that he gets carried away. I like that he's emotional and falls over the edge when combatting someone that I too think is a pinhead. It's not like he's beating up on Mother Teresa here ...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Sorry about the interview Bingo, I didn't think that posting that portion of the transcript as a potential lawsuit. I thought that was a fair use of a quote. Apologies if you think that was too much of quote.

Fair enough on O'Reilly. You like him, I take him with a grain of salt the size of Rhode Island. I don't like the tabloid feel to his show. I guess if he didn't try and pass himself off as doing real journalism, being un-biased (we're all biased) and providing no spin I'd probably like him more. It was definitely not belittling nor grandstanding to point out the fact that he is thought of as a scumbag. There are plenty of sites and opinions that will support that. Just because I say it does not make it grand standing, just like when you say it does not make it right (as opposed to left).

As for beating up Mother Theresa, I think he did that on Inside Edition (the one where he won the Pulitzer).

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 13 2004, 05:45 PM
Fair enough on O'Reilly. You like him, I take him with a grain of salt the size of Rhode Island. I don't like the tabloid feel to his show. I guess if he didn't try and pass himself off as doing real journalism, being un-biased (we're all biased) and providing no spin I'd probably like him more. It was definitely not belittling nor grandstanding to point out the fact that he is thought of as a scumbag. There are plenty of sites and opinions that will support that. Just because I say it does not make it grand standing, just like when you say it does not make it right (as opposed to left).

No worries man ... I don't want you to agree with me if you don't ... just don't make a circus parade out of it.

Plenty of people hate O'Reilly, I understand that, but his show is the highest rated show of it's type in the United States, so it's not like it's just me and a few Alaskans that find him interesting enough to watch.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

O'Reilly has a nose for this crap. It sells. Sort of like Springer. Rolling Stone takes a look behind the program, how it works, and how he chooses his programs. An excerpt

... a tale of two U.S. soldiers who fled to Canada rather than serve in Iraq. Next to stories about abused kids, nothing pushes O'Reilly's buttons like stories about lily-livered, spineless, cowardly, anti-American lowlifes like these two deserters. He brings on a guest to "discuss" the "issue": Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick, who has dared to call the two deserters "fine American men." O'Reilly is not happy. And from the top of the "interview," he strikes that special note of scathing, keening contempt that might be described as the keynote of the entire Fox News Channel, an operation whose professed reason for being is to counterbalance the supposed liberal bias of all other media outlets. Thus the mood of bunkered aggrievement, which animates even the network's ostensibly "objective" news shows and which O'Reilly has raised to the level of an art form.

After verbally abusing Mallick as "anti-American," a "socialist" and someone who writes "stuff that's not true," O'Reilly takes the gloves off. "Now," he says, "if your government harbors these two deserters . . . there will be a boycott of your country, which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting." (He's referring to a boycott that O'Reilly called for after France declined to join the Bush administration in Iraq.)

"I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place," says Mallick. "We are your biggest trading partner -- "

"No," O'Reilly cuts in, "it will take place, madam. In France -- "

"I don't think that your French boycott has done too well -- "

At which point O'Reilly executes his signature move -- the bellowing, bullying, peremptory interruption. "They've lost billions of dollars in France, according to the Paris Business Review!" he thunders.

In short, amazing TV -- the modern media equivalent of witnessing a Christian torn apart by lions, with a touch of opera buffo thrown in. (Boycott Canada?) It mattered not that most of what O'Reilly said bears no relation to the truth. The Paris Business Review doesn't exist, and the "billions" of dollars France supposedly lost reflect figures dating to the 2001 recession, predating by two years O'Reilly's call for a ban on buying French goods (since then, French exports to America have actually gone up).

The story is interesting, and presents a bit of a biography on him, as well.

O'Reilly Article

[Claeren]

When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time) he did a long bit on a CNN show (Larry King i am guessing?) where he did question/answer for a LONG time.

A few people asked why he doesn't run for office because they think he would make a great politician and he went off on long tangents saying his views don't match any party and that he couldn't sellout to the Republicans or Democrats and that he saw them as both corrupt. He said he felt that the Democrats were only better because they didn't have the same war monger tendencies of the Republicans but that he was so far 'Libertarian' (as he put it) that he was completely out of touch politically with any major political party and 99.9% of Americans.

Essentially he said he felt his place was to be the real media and help others see the inconsistancies of logic and to get people to ask the hard questions about what is REALLY important in normal peoples lives, something he was sad to say would be much harder without his show.

Not sure if that qualifies as left? Obviously anything with an academic (as opposed to traditionalist and reactionary) approch is left comparative to right but beyond that... ?

Claeren.

[calf]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 06:20 AM
When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time) he did a long bit on a CNN show (Larry King i am guessing?) where he did question/answer for a LONG time.

Didn't he get driven off the air for suggesting the 9/11 terrorists weren't cowards? Everyone on Politically Incorrect were calling the guys cowards, but he was adament, saying flying a plane into a building is not cowardly. That's just how I recall it.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by calf+Aug 14 2004, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calf @ Aug 14 2004, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 06:20 AM
When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time) he did a long bit on a CNN show (Larry King i am guessing?) where he did question/answer for a LONG time.

Didn't he get driven off the air for suggesting the 9/11 terrorists weren't cowards? Everyone on Politically Incorrect were calling the guys cowards, but he was adament, saying flying a plane into a building is not cowardly. That's just how I recall it. [/b][/quote]
You are right. That was the issue. Not opposition per se to the Iraq conflict.

When Maher was driven off the air for his comments about how silly any notion of a dangerous Iraq was (In hindsight he was correct, and most of us without an agenda and who aren't racist bigots knew it at the time)

So . . . . anyone who supported the conflict in Iraq was/is a racist bigot?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 14 2004, 06:06 PM

So . . . . anyone who supported the conflict in Iraq was/is a racist bigot?

You siad it, not me.

Say, did anyone catch Bill Maher last evening? He ripped Kerry pretty good about his comments from the past week and poked quite a bit of fun at the Democrats for having no spine. For a guy that doesn't like to take a run at the Democrats he sure was doing a tap dance on their heads. He ripped the Republicans for the usual stuff as well, but was pretty hard on the Democrats for most of the show (even when interviewing Hart).

[Claeren]

Anyone who believed Bush's justification for war was FAR more likely to be a racist/bigot. EVERY justification he used (BEFORE the war, he has shifted to different justifications post-war) was countered EASILY by millions of intelligent, open-minded people around the world, the only way you could believe it was if you had a predisposition towards war against the Arab world. And the only way you think that is a good idea is if you are in the arms industry (unlikely) or think we have some inherent right to do so (Which is a racist notion, IMHO). If Iraqi's 'looked like us' i guarantee the case for war would have been a LOT tougher to make and the press would have been more diligent in covering BOTH sides of the issues (Something the Washington Post and NY Times have apologized publicly for recently.). For god sakes, the US government doesn't even bother keeping track of innocent casualties (The telling part) which are believed to be in the 12,000-15,000 range at THIS point in the conflict (The sad part). How many Arab lives do you think Bill O'Reilly or George Bush would trade for a SINGLE "true"(??) American life? I REALLY don't want to know....

In general he was questioning the targeting of Iraq and the Arab world, and the presumption they were an easy target. Comparing suicide attacks (Horrible but with courage) to Bill Clinton (Interestingly?) shooting missiles periodically from the other side of the world (Easy and cowardly). Either way he was pushed off the air by people who figured you can't criticize Americans, ESPECIALLY compared to Arab's. Missing completely one of HIS points that killing innocents with rogue missiles that can't possibly be doing any real damage to America's enemy's is just as bad, if not worse, then a targeted attack, taking your own life, against a pillar of American capitalism (In terms of the measure of innocent life). I think there are STRONG anti-racist/bigoted notions throughout his arguments, or in other words, the beliefs of those supporting war in the region.

I do apologize for being over the top though, i often post on another board, a very political, American dominated one, that is more colourful and over the top then this one. I have to be careful to post here first and there after...

Claeren.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 01:42 PM
Anyone who believed Bush's justification for war was FAR more likely to be a racist/bigot. EVERY justification he used (BEFORE the war, he has shifted to different justifications post-war) was countered EASILY by millions of intelligent, open-minded people around the world, the only way you could believe it was if you had a predisposition towards war against the Arab world. And the only way you think that is a good idea is if you are in the arms industry (unlikely) or think we have some inherent right to do so (Which is a racist notion, IMHO). If Iraqi's 'looked like us' i guarantee the case for war would have been a LOT tougher to make and the press would have been more diligent in covering BOTH sides of the issues (Something the Washington Post and NY Times have apologized publicly for recently.). For god sakes, the US government doesn't even bother keeping track of innocent casualties (The telling part) which are believed to be in the 12,000-15,000 range at THIS point in the conflict (The sad part). How many Arab lives do you think Bill O'Reilly or George Bush would trade for a SINGLE "true"(??) American life? I REALLY don't want to know....

What I find really interesting about leftist ideas these days is the overwhelming hint of intolerance that has long been an accusation against the right. Almost a flip flop.

Have you listened to yourself?

a )Anyone who believed Bush's justification for war was FAR more likely to be a racist/bigot

b )countered EASILY by millions of intelligent, open-minded people around the world

c )the only way you could believe it was if you had a predisposition towards war against the Arab world

I have a different opinion on matter than you, but I would never tell you that you're opinion is wrong, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that you were ...

a ) racist
b ) stupid
c ) a peacenik

which is what you basically did to me - as I disagree with you.

I'd advise a toning down of your stances on issues like this. ... People that disagree with you don't necessarily have to be murderous racist hillbillies. To think so is to be as discrimanatory as you make others out to be.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 13 2004, 11:29 PM
O'Reilly has a nose for this crap. It sells. Sort of like Springer. Rolling Stone takes a look behind the program, how it works, and how he chooses his programs. An excerpt

One has to be very careful of the source on both sides of the fence ... I know I take a lot of care myself.

A left wing magazine (Rolling Stone is certainly one, though not in a political nature) ripping O'Reilly to shreads doesn't hold a lot of water to me - just like Newsmax destroying Janine Garafolo is almost predictable.

Things in the US are so polar these days that it's getting harder and harder to find a true middle point without a clear bias in writing.

[Claeren]

hhmm...

- "FAR more" does not mean everyone.

- There are billions of people out there, all i am saying is that there were millions that had a strong argument against Bush's post 9/11 policies and they, until recently, were not properly represented in AMERICAN media. The reason the American media had that predisposition? A strong emotional and illogical response premised, in my opinion, upon again, bigoted and racist notions of the world.

-As was stated earlier about O'Reilly, people on the right, IMHO, seem to have a habit of having a plan and are looking for a reason to put it into action. The reasoning is second to the action (Intertwined with the very definition of the "right" on the spectrum). There is, in my experience, a common feeling in the States that Arab's "only understand force" and that "America has a right to do what it need to do". Both, in my opinion, are premised upon elitist and subconsciously (or not) racist notions of the world.


I honestly commend you, being on the right and while maintaining the ideals and values of that position being able to separate race and revenge against an entire people, from what you perceive the issues to be. But i stand by my original assertion that the far right wing America, the same that Bill O'Reilly represents, and the same that pushed Bill Mahar off the air are in fact less likely to be able to do so, and are in fact far more likely to be racist or bigoted. I am SURE we have different ideas of what constitutes racism though so... whole can of worms there....

Sorry though, i did not mean to suggest that you fit into that category, just that many AMERICANS on the right of their spectrum do….

Of course you have argued/will argue/could argue that makes ME bigoted, but this is all for the sake of conversation and how does one make ANY assertion in a conversaton without making some sort of presumption.....

Claeren.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 14 2004, 08:52 PM
hhmm...

- "FAR more" does not mean everyone.

- There are billions of people out there, all i am saying is that there were millions that had a strong argument against Bush's post 9/11 policies and they, until recently, were not properly represented in AMERICAN media. The reason the American media had that predisposition? A strong emotional and illogical response premised, in my opinion, upon again, bigoted and racist notions of the world.

-As was stated earlier about O'Reilly, people on the right, IMHO, seem to have a habit of having a plan and are looking for a reason to put it into action. The reasoning is second to the action (Intertwined with the very definition of the "right" on the spectrum). There is, in my experience, a common feeling in the States that Arab's "only understand force" and that "America has a right to do what it need to do". Both, in my opinion, are premised upon elitist and subconsciously (or not) racist notions of the world.


I honestly commend you, being on the right and while maintaining the ideals and values of that position being able to separate race and revenge against an entire people, from what you perceive the issues to be. But i stand by my original assertion that the far right wing America, the same that Bill O'Reilly represents, and the same that pushed Bill Mahar off the air are in fact less likely to be able to do so, and are in fact far more likely to be racist or bigoted. I am SURE we have different ideas of what constitutes racism though so... whole can of worms there....

Sorry though, i did not mean to suggest that you fit into that category, just that many AMERICANS on the right of their spectrum do….

Of course you have argued/will argue/could argue that makes ME bigoted, but this is all for the sake of conversation and how does one make ANY assertion in a conversaton without making some sort of presumption.....

Claeren.

And of course, the average Iraqi male is a renaissance man on racism and bigotry compared to the average American male.

Meanwhile, the average network affiiliate in the USA sounds like a propoganda organ for the Ku Klux Klan in comparison to the mild underpinnings of Al Jazeera or any other Arab media.

I guess it was a real struggle for the Americans to drop bombs on the lilly white Serbians a few years back. Certainly the American media were yelling from the rooftops: "Hold on, them is WHITE folks!! Somebody WORTHWHILE might get hurt!!" Shades of the railroad gang in Blazing Saddles!!

And just think of the moral difficulty in having an itchy trigger finger on thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at the Russians and East Bloc communists during the Cold War. Good grief, white folks might have gotten killed!!

You guys on the left sure got lots of stuff going on. I just can't figure out why they didn't wipe out the Hottentots first.

By the way, I do agree with the premise that the overwhelming majority of bigots will be found on the far right wing.

But I think Americans are equal opportunity killers.

If that helps.

Cowperson