Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just think it's funny how he invents fake terms like "secular-progressive," then expects people to use his bizarre terminology as though it were part of the dictionary.
O'Reilly is yet another Neocon shill -- a lazy journalist capable of only reading a script, being quick to dismiss the more learned as naive. For example, in regards to outsourcing, O'Reilly has claimed on numerous occasions that it's not actually happening, or that it's nothing to be concerned with, or that it's one's own fault if their job moves to foreign soil. Sadly, this pathetic Faux News moron has quite a large following.
p.s. Let's see O'Reilly mention the sale of 1-3 billion U.S. dollars in T-bills to Asian investors per day. Who's looking out for you? Not Bill!
I believe the problem that most people run into is that they lump shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" or others of it's kind in with hard news programs. It's an opinion show. He chooses the topics that he wishes to talk about, states his thoughts on it, and then discusses it with whoever he has invited to be the counterpoint. He may comment on a major news story but his show isn't set up to go out and do hard hitting investigations of outsourcing of jobs and such.
If you want hard news, whether it be political or economic, there are other options on Fox or the network of your choosing to provide you with that. If you just want to one guy's opinion on something, then watch O'Reilly.
Have to say I've seen this accusation on O'Reilly before, and it is very deceiving to say the least. The only way to possibly come up with the 6.8 second average is to include such horrible insults as liberals, far left, the anti war crowd, the secularist, etc. Not something I would call derogatory considering those same people call themselves the same thing quiet often.
No, the use of terms such as left, right, liberal, or conservative was treated in the IU study as having been an example of positive or negative propaganda only to the extent that the word was paired with a value-laden descriptor (e.g., kool-aid) or linked to a value-laden role or object (e.g., the flag). The techniques used were based on those developed for propaganda analysis between the two World Wars when propaganda from both the left and right was rampant. The nature of those times and the spread of radio may have been factors in the high level of propaganda being produced. The nature of our own times and the spread of television may have played similar roles for us. There are actually seven categories of propaganda, several of which are more subtle than simple name-calling, and per the IU data, O'Reilly engages in all of them to one degree or another. One area where he is not so flagrant is in appeal to heroes. In the 105 episodes studied, he only identified five of those -- the Bush adminstration, Christians, Republicans, Americans as a group, and right-leaning media. But then, maybe just those alone will tell you a little something.
By the way, the matter of intent on the part of Fox to broadcast O'Reilly's show as either hard news or opinion is not so important as how his viewers actually apprise and consume the show. It appears from other research that many viewers do take his show as providing hard news, or as providing the context that is necessary to give meaning to hard news.
Ever since I read that he edits his program before airing to help make him seem more creditable, I stopped watching him. That is false debate.
His shows are live, though some of his interviews are recorded. I'm not sure where you read this charge, but it cannot be true since 90% of his show is live.
Love him or hate him, one must give him credit for his efforts at protecting children.
No, the use of terms such as left, right, liberal, or conservative was treated in the IU study as having been an example of positive or negative propaganda only to the extent that the word was paired with a value-laden descriptor (e.g., kool-aid) or linked to a value-laden role or object (e.g., the flag). The techniques used were based on those developed for propaganda analysis between the two World Wars when propaganda from both the left and right was rampant. The nature of those times and the spread of radio may have been factors in the high level of propaganda being produced. The nature of our own times and the spread of television may have played similar roles for us. There are actually seven categories of propaganda, several of which are more subtle than simple name-calling, and per the IU data, O'Reilly engages in all of them to one degree or another. One area where he is not so flagrant is in appeal to heroes. In the 105 episodes studied, he only identified five of those -- the Bush adminstration, Christians, Republicans, Americans as a group, and right-leaning media. But then, maybe just those alone will tell you a little something.
By the way, the matter of intent on the part of Fox to broadcast O'Reilly's show as either hard news or opinion is not so important as how his viewers actually apprise and consume the show. It appears from other research that many viewers do take his show as providing hard news, or as providing the context that is necessary to give meaning to hard news.
Not true, go re-read your huffinton post breakdown of this. Then when you are done you can look to see how much time you spend disliking O'Reilly simply because he smacks Olbertard and Crissy Matthews around in the ratings on a regular basis.
I dislike all of them, but I will defend O'Reilly in that he is doing nothing different than other "news" cast opinion shows, especially the whining rant maniac Olbermann. I think its actually sad how bent some groups are on seperating O'Reilly's ignorance frome the others simply because they don't like him. My guess is they've never heard the suggestion "get a life".
If you don't like his show, don't watch. I believe there was another study done that dispelled the numbers in the one you name. Funny how people just pick and choose what meets their own agenda.
...go re-read your huffinton post breakdown of this. Then when you are done you can look to see how much time you spend disliking O'Reilly simply because he smacks Olbertard and Crissy Matthews around in the ratings on a regular basis.
No input from HP was involved. If they have a summary that sounds vaguely similar to mine, it is perhaps because someone there actually read the study as well, which, given your intro above, it is readily apparent that you have not. I meanwhile don't pay any attention to any of the individuals named, nor to any of the networks that they appear upon. That anyone extends credibility to them as actual news sources is beyond my ken. Ratings, by the way, are no validation of content. In fact, the inverse may be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
I dislike all of them, but I will defend O'Reilly in that he is doing nothing different than other "news" cast opinion shows, especially the whining rant maniac Olbermann. I think its actually sad how bent some groups are on seperating O'Reilly's ignorance frome the others simply because they don't like him. My guess is they've never heard the suggestion "get a life".
Thank you for ranting and venting. Maybe post again when you have settled down some.
Last edited by saganista; 10-07-2007 at 08:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
