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.
Here's a list of regulars on Fox News that are to the left that I can think of: Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, Kirsten Powers, and Jane Hall.
Considering the other networks, who would you say leans to the right to balance out the perspective of the left?
Not only that, but they have guests with opposing viewpoints simultaneously far more than any other channel in the time that I've spent watching, and yes I watch all the stations. Unfortunately the opposing views simultaneously just leads to a lot of back and forth exchanges that don't accomplish anything, much like this board.
As we can see, some portions of this document were redacted prior to posting. We have the street address followed by a comma, then a long blank space followed by a parapraph that for some reason begins with a long blank, then another comma, then Levittown, New York. And there is something very interesting about Levittown, New York, namely its font. Unlike the street address, it was not a variable that was typed into the document at the time of its preparation, but rather a fixed part of the boilerplate that was included in the preprinted form. So, did The County Trust Company have thousands of copies of a mortage agreement printed up with the words Levittown, New York already included in them just in case people from Bill's old neighborhood happened to drop by for a mortgage? Or did Bill O'Reilly simply white-out everything (such as a typed-in Westbury, New York) between his street address and the next occurrence of Levittown, New York, in a hapless attempt to make it look like he actually grew up in Levittown? We report. You decide.
To assist in such decision-making, here is an image of the O'Reilly entry in the 1958 Nassau County phone book.
Something tells me that Wstbry was not Ma Bell's abbreviation for Levittown.
Strangely, once O'Reilly produced the deed (showing Levittown as his hometown), the questioning stopped- except by you.
Again, on the A&E Biography program, his parent's former house is shown and it is in Levittown.
No, only every seven seconds on average. While he himself was speaking. Over 115 shows.
I listened to his radio show this morning, like I usually do. He called one guy (who said that some rapper donates to charities) an "idiot" (which fit in this instance). He was talking, not including commercials and callers at least for 45 minutes during his 2-hour show. That is NOT name calling every 7 seconds. Do you actually listen to his radio show or watch his TV show?
There is another myth out there that he constantly says "shut up" to other people. He has said it about 10 times in the 9 years he has been on TV, and half of those times it was in jest.
Really, now, this pounding of O'Reilly is going nowhere because rational people know there are hundreds of inaccurate claims going around of him.
Quote:
No, he didn't. He repeated this empty Peabody Award boast over and over again for a year and a half. Finally, he claimed that he had merely confused a Peabody Award with a Polk Award. Inside Edition did indeed win a (far less prestigious) Polk Award. That came a year after O'Reilly left the show, and for reporting that O'Reilly had nothing to do with.
He corrected the error... what else do you want, blood? I would like to see you do a two-hour radio show or a one-hour news show and never make errors.
Quote:
Yet again no answer to the question. In last Thursday's show (July 26), O'Reilly claimed that vile speech against Hillary Clinton had been removed from his website. Was that a truthful statement?
I can't answer because I don't know. I didn't check that on his website. Besides, any vile speech against Hillary is well-deserved!
No Hannity, O'Reilly Rush, Pat Robertson, etc etc don't tell people how to think. Nah.
Those are commentators, not news reporters.
When a claim is made that a news channel reports fairly, it means the actual reporters, not the commentators.
Hopefully, I won't have to point that out again.
Your definitions of the terms are apparently quite different from those in common use. With all of the data at hand, you deliberately cherry-picked the most favorable numbers you could find, then smugly used those to create the impression of an overall situation that was entirely contrary to fact. That is disinforming, and you are left holding the smoking gun.
No cherry-picking here. Just stating a fact... the poor were better off under Reagan. They paid less in taxes compared to the Carter administration and the wealthly paid more (percentage-wise).
Yeah, the blow-hard who was significantly instumental in getting Jessica's Law passed in 40 of 50 states and who donates all profits from his Factor gear to charities. I wish more people were as blow-hard as O'Reilly.
Right. Strange how many people overlook that.
Also, when his investigation revealed that some of the money donated to the Red Cross after 9/11 was not going where it was supposed to.
Also revealing judges who let child molesters off with little or no jail time.
So, with all of the above, I say we need MORE O'Reilly's out there!
Those are commentators, not news reporters.
When a claim is made that a news channel reports fairly, it means the actual reporters, not the commentators.
Hopefully, I won't have to point that out again.
Very well said.
These anti-O'Reilly people are just too much. Using wacko left-wing sites as a source of their "information."
But they don't say a thing about Dan "Ratherbiased." Who went ahead and reported the Bush military record story without waiting for documentation and validation because he knew it would make Bush look "bad."
I thought I did.
The actual news reporting (which means not opinion shows like Hannity & Colmes and O'Reilly) is no more biased on Fox than the actual news reporting at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or CBS.
Stop calling O'Reilly names
A Fox News producer takes issue with a Rosa Brooks column.
By Ron Mitchell
May 10, 2007
Armed with propaganda, and dangerous with ideological fervor, Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks stated flat-out that the anchor of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly, calls people names every 6.8 seconds in his opening monologue.
Anyone who watches the Factor knows that's nonsense. But some don't watch, and may believe our Ms. Brooks.
The information Brooks used to make that incredible statement of alleged fact came from an Indiana University study. But what Brooks did not tell Times readers is that the study defined name-calling as terms such as "buried headline." Researchers actually defined political terms like "conservative," "liberal," even "centrist" as name-calling if the term was somehow connected with "a problem or social ill." I hope you're catching on here. Anything other than reading directly from the phone book is apparently name calling.
Brooks also failed to tell Times readers that the researchers admit they had to make several changes to their "coding instrument" because the first attempts generated "unacceptably low scores." That's code for: they tried and tried until the results fit the preconceived notion of name-calling on the Factor.
But wait, there's more. The Indiana researchers used a framework based on a 1930's study of infamous anti-Semite Father Charles Coughlin. This "content analysis" was developed by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Talk about starting with the answer and working backward!
In 2006, one of the study's authors is quoted as saying that it's "obvious" that the Fox News Channel is "part of the Republican Party." Another author's claim to fame is a paper on the "morally conservative" Jerry Springer. A third used to work at CNN. Sounds like a fair and balanced group to me.
Finally, let's step back a moment and look at what Los Angeles Times readers were presented on the op-ed page. Rosa Brooks is a confirmed leftist. Did you know that she is counsel to George Soros' Open Society Institute, perhaps the most far-left think tank in the country? Did you know that? Certainly that does not disqualify her from writing an opinion column, but when you make your living in a far-left environment, it should be known.
While it is true that the opinion forum in every newspaper and on The O'Reilly Factor as well is designed to present provocative views and thoughtful analysis, it is also true that when the analysis is not based on fact, it can deceive the reader. Spitting out propaganda from any ideological concern is not valid opinion.
Los Angeles Times readers are entitled to the finest journalism in the country. That includes an honest opinion page. Rosa Brooks' column on Bill O'Reilly was based on a biased study and laced with far-left propaganda. The Times can do better.
Stop using logic and reason you "conservative buried headline"!!!
Oops, called you 2 names already, don't tell the teacher or she'll send me to the office.
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.
