|
Post by dickt on Feb 27, 2015 11:54:45 GMT -5
Liberals who hate O'Reilly are wasting venom on an allyasshole. There, fixed it.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 27, 2015 12:41:23 GMT -5
I'm not wasting much time on this. Any "lies" or "mis-statements" made by O'Reilly appear to be minor next to Williams' story so since the real networks didn't make much of the story and CBS's videos seem to support O'Reilly's story, I'll just assume it's a stretch by the left to find a villain somewhere, anywhere to lessen the blow from learning about Williams and Fox is their prime target always.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,878
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Feb 27, 2015 13:02:08 GMT -5
Evidently no one here noticed but according to a little window in the lower right corner of this page, Oprah lied too. Where will it all end?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Feb 27, 2015 15:05:49 GMT -5
"I wouldn't piss on O'Reilly if he were on fire." Russell, that is an impressive phrase. I'd really like that on a t-shirt. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Feb 27, 2015 17:32:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't piss on O'Reilly if he were on fire. I don't remember who he was talking about, but James Carville once said: "I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart was on fire." Of course, that is biologically flawed since the throat does not lead to the heart.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Feb 27, 2015 17:56:13 GMT -5
I can't take any credit for the pissing/on-fire saying--I think it came, as do most of my best lines, from my father, which means it probably came from his father or maybe from his time in the Navy, which is a rich source of irresistibly vulgar and scurrilous remarks.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Feb 27, 2015 21:25:49 GMT -5
Has anybody else noticed the resemblance between James Carville and the creature from the Alien films?
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 1, 2015 6:42:27 GMT -5
We expect too much from guys like Williams; they're not journalists, even if some of them once were. They are handsome actors playing journalists on TV. The networks would all be better off if they never spoke on the record without a script and a teleprompter. O'Reilly? The world would be a better place if guys like O'Reilly never spoke at all. They are not, as has already been pointed out -- actors, news men, journalists, reporters -- or, really anything remotely respectable. From the left or the right, intentional or otherwise, their role is nothing less than blunting the intelligence of the American people, lowering the quality of our political discourse and seeding the division that keeps the country from accomplishing anything. As a result of this thread I tuned into FOX, then MSNBC, for a few minutes each, for the first time in a few years. It has, if anything, gotten worse. That crap makes The View look like hard news. Turn it off. Read a newspaper.
The elimination, in 1987, of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, made all this opinion journalism possible. I'd love to see it come back snd wash out the damned spot.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 1, 2015 11:03:51 GMT -5
We expect too much from guys like Williams; they're not journalists, even if some of them once were. They are handsome actors playing journalists on TV. The networks would all be better off if they never spoke on the record without a script and a teleprompter. O'Reilly? The world would be a better place if guys like O'Reilly never spoke at all. They are not, as has already been pointed out -- actors, news men, journalists, reporters -- or, really anything remotely respectable. From the left or the right, intentional or otherwise, their role is nothing less than blunting the intelligence of the American people, lowering the quality of our political discourse and seeding the division that keeps the country from accomplishing anything. As a result of this thread I tuned into FOX, then MSNBC, for a few minutes each, for the first time in a few years. It has, if anything, gotten worse. That crap makes The View look like hard news. Turn it off. Read a newspaper. The elimination, in 1987, of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, made all this opinion journalism possible. I'd love to see it come back snd wash out the damned spot. Tim I'm not stupid enough to require the press to determine truth for me. Particularly these days with wide open competitive news. I've read before that the idea of a fair and balanced press is historically a recent idea. The rough and tumble of Internet journalism is the very definition of the importance of freedom of the press. The FCC's Fairness Doctrine has no purpose in our world any more. I couldn't care less about the fate of either Brian Williams or Bill O'Rielly. That's up to their employers. And it seems to me that the folks who eternally whine about Fox News just appear to have a serious case of sour grapes because their ideas don't seem to hold up in the light of day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 11:19:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 1, 2015 13:55:54 GMT -5
Without the press how do you get informed? Where else would information about stuff you are not personally involved in come from? Seems to me that almost all our opinions on national and world events are based on what we read in newspapers/magazines or hear/see on the radio or TV or Internet.
The only option would seem to be getting actively involved in whatever process you want to have an opinion on.
I think there are thousands of ethical journalists out there that take their job very seriously and report as accurately as possible. Most of us are old enough that we can figure out where to find them. Our bullshit meters are well calibrated.
People like Rachel and Bill are just professional entertainers that have found a great way to make a lot of money. Deep down they probably don't really believe half the venom they spew. I don't see them as news professionals in any sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 1, 2015 14:16:49 GMT -5
Without the press how do you get informed? Where else would information about stuff you are not personally involved in come from? Seems to me that almost all our opinions on national and world events are based on what we read in newspapers/magazines or hear/see on the radio or TV or Internet. The only option would seem to be getting actively involved in whatever process you want to have an opinion on. I think there are thousands of ethical journalists out there that take their job very seriously and report as accurately as possible. Most of us are old enough that we can figure out where to find them. Our bullshit meters are well calibrated. People like Rachel and Bill are just professional entertainers that have found a great way to make a lot of money. Deep down they probably don't really believe half the venom they spew. I don't see them as professionals in any sense of the word. +1
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 1, 2015 14:49:08 GMT -5
Hand-washing for surgeons is an historically recent idea. As are journalistic ethics and concern for accuracy. Or women voting. Or indoor plumbing. I wouldn't minimize the usefulness of any of them, given the alternatives.
BTW, Terry--do you really see Rachel Maddow as operating in the same mode and manner as O'Reilly? She is certainly a left-of-center partisan, but I don't recall her ever engaging in the kind of abusive, bullying behavior that is SOP for O'Reilly. Hell, Lawrence O'Donnell is more rhetorically aggressive than Rachel.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 1, 2015 14:52:04 GMT -5
Without the press how do you get informed? Where else would information about stuff you are not personally involved in come from? Seems to me that almost all our opinions on national and world events are based on what we read in newspapers/magazines or hear/see on the radio or TV or Internet. The only option would seem to be getting actively involved in whatever process you want to have an opinion on. There's plenty of places to get informed about anything including the press if you so choose. Read a book, take a class, watch a movie, talk to other people, etc. And why do I want to be informed about things that don't involve me? I don't have any problem forming my own opinions. Of course you might not agree, but that's pretty much what makes the world go round.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 1, 2015 15:27:36 GMT -5
She is certainly a left-of-center partisan, but I don't recall her ever engaging in the kind of abusive, bullying behavior that is SOP for O'Reilly. She's your bully. She's over the top. Quite. She is as nasty as anyone in broadcasting. Nastier than most.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 1, 2015 15:27:55 GMT -5
But, then, you were asking Terry. Not me.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 1, 2015 15:50:47 GMT -5
As are journalistic ethics and concern for accuracy. I wouldn't minimize the usefulness of any of them, given the alternatives. The availability of alternatives renders journalistic ethics and accuracy only as important as it is in the rest of society. Lie to your employer and take your chances, just like anywhere else. If I don't trust what someone's saying, it's inconsequential. I can just turn the channel.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 1, 2015 15:54:18 GMT -5
John, we clearly have vastly different calibrations for "bully" and "nasty" and different notions of where the top is located. I detest bullies and all their works and have an exquisitely sensitive bully detector. (It shares some circuitry and a power supply as my bullshit detector.) O'Reilly and Hannity have bully all over them; Rachel is a sometimes-overenthusiastic lefty policy wonk. I do sometimes catch her pushing her analyses and edging a thumb onto the scales, but nothing like the overt aggression and falsification I see from the Fox boyos. (And the notion that she's "my bully" is just a wee bit offensive, carrying as it does the suggestion that I might forgive actual bullying in a cause I support.)
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 1, 2015 15:55:25 GMT -5
She annoys me. I think she is over the top. I'll admit she does it in a kinder gentler way. Sorry Russ. O'Reilly annoys me more but quite honestly I don't watch either one very much so I may not be qualified to make the definitive post.
A book or class on the formation of the modern Middle East or the Muslim religion, or getting to know a Muslim family would be extremely helpful in forming an opinion about what is going on there in real time but you still need accurate reporting to find out what actually is going on in real time to have something to form an opinion on.
You need the facts as best as they can be presented sans editorial embellishment. I find the extremely well edited Minneapolis Star Tribune to be a good factual source as well as BBC World news on NPR and PBS.
Would anyone challenge the fact that a free press is an absolutely critical part of any democracy?
I think the truth is no one including the press really knows what is going on in world affairs behind the scenes. We usually have to wait years for the definitive data
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 1, 2015 16:43:39 GMT -5
(And the notion that she's "my bully" is just a wee bit offensive, carrying as it does the suggestion that I might forgive actual bullying in a cause I support.) Not meant that way. It's that we monkeys don't recognize bullying when it's gittn'er done for the cause. "No extreme in the cause..." and all that.
|
|