Bill O'Reilly

[Cicero]

Rupert Murdoch

That's it? So up until 1996, the predominately liberal media had carte blanche in printing and broadcasting their news through their ideological prism. Now because a conservative entrepreneur has a cable station, The New York Post, and most recently, The Wall Street Journal, the sky is falling?

Liberals are allowed 98% of American media outlets, but a conservative is vilified for getting into the media business.

Expecting David Brock to provide you with any accurate information on the liberal media bias is equivalent to getting a 911 "truth" grunion to provide evidence of a Bush/Israel/Media conspiracy.

 

[JoeEllison]

Media Matters provides as much documentation as Media Research Center. However, Media Matters also supplies the the actual video, audio, and/or link to the original article, which Media Research Center does not. You cringe at finding a particular episode of a particular show, try finding an MRC reference. They provide no way to verify if what they are saying is true. Media Matters, on the other hand, does.

Even though Media Matters expresses its opinion, they provide enough transparency so that you can draw your own conclusions. MRC doesn't, especially not in that Notable Quotables section.

What's bizarre is that anyone would claim that the political leanings of Media Matters would somehow alter unedited videotape, audio, and transcripts. It is that odd view of reality that is probably the most disturbing thing about this thread. The underlying impression I get is that for some people, reality isn't "real"... it is a collection of opinions, and somehow facts should shift and bend to fit the opinion, and not the other way around. If Bill O'Reilly says something, and they agree with it, then it cannot be a lie, even when the facts don't come close to supporting what he says.

 

[Cicero]

Well, there is Lowry Mays, founder and chairman of Clear Channel. He's a friend of both President Bushes and was named to the Texas Technology Council when the younger Bush was governor.

Would that be the same Clear Channel that had Howard Stern, before he left for Sirius, on the air campaigning for John Kerry six months before the 2004 election? Wow! Mr. Mays certainly was on top of that double cross of his buddy Bush 43......

 

[Cicero]

What's bizarre is that anyone would claim that the political leanings of Media Matters would somehow alter unedited videotape, audio, and transcripts. It is that odd view of reality that is probably the most disturbing thing about this thread. The underlying impression I get is that for some people, reality isn't "real"... it is a collection of opinions, and somehow facts should shift and bend to fit the opinion, and not the other way around. If Bill O'Reilly says something, and they agree with it, then it cannot be a lie, even when the facts don't come close to supporting what he says.

More bizarre then how David Brock, once the scorn of liberals during his tenure at American Spectator, is now the their darling at Media Matters.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's it? So up until 1996, the predominately liberal media had carte blanche in printing and broadcasting their news through their ideological prism. Now because a conservative entrepreneur has a cable station, The New York Post, and most recently, The Wall Street Journal, the sky is falling?

Liberals are allowed 98% of American media outlets, but a conservative is vilified for getting into the media business.

Expecting David Brock to provide you with any accurate information on the liberal media bias is equivalent to getting a 911 "truth" grunion to provide evidence of a Bush/Israel/Media conspiracy.

Still ignoring the evidence I see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would that be the same Clear Channel that had Howard Stern, before he left for Sirius, on the air campaigning for John Kerry six months before the 2004 election? Wow! Mr. Mays certainly was on top of that double cross of his buddy Bush 43......

Fox isn't particularly conservative when it comes to money making porn either.

Clear Channel boycotted the Dixie Chicks after Natalie Maines made her infamous comment abut being embarrassed by George Bush and Clear Channel claimed it was due to the fans' request. Then it turned out every one of the DC's concerts on the ongoing tour remained sold out and there was only a handful of protesters at their concerts which were in the heart of the right wing South. In other words, Clear Channel made up the excuse and they were also caught in the act (by a memo) of directing their monopoly of radio stations to all boycott the DCs again claiming it was each individual radio station making the decisions independently.

I'd say that reflected conservative bias.

 

[corplinx]

Even though Media Matters expresses its opinion, they provide enough transparency so that you can draw your own conclusions. MRC doesn't, especially not in that Notable Quotables section.

I showed pretty clearly how MMFA omitted context to the point of it appearing to be deliberate deception during the Rush Limbaugh controversy. The "context" MMFA provides is so very selective. (refresher, they printed context in one article earlier in the day that had they included in a later article on the same day would have undermined the point of that article)

The only thing MMFA does better than MRC or any other wingnut partisan news watch organization is pretending to be legit.

Edited to Add: OReilly has no place on primetime news with his track record.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The question isn't how liberal Media Matters is, they are. The question is do they get their facts straight. They do. There is scant evidence Media Matters doesn't present the facts. David Brock is on a mission, but that doesn't mean his mission is one against conservatives, rather it is against the ever growing conservative influence on the reins of the propaganda machine that is the major broadcast media in America.

Media Matters

David Brock

In his book The Republican Noise Machine, Brock writes that in the last 30 years hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in building a right-wing media infrastructure that "has penetrated, pressured, co-opted, and subdued the mainstream media into accommodating conservatism."

He continues: "A deliberate, well-financed, and expressly acknowledged communications and deregulatory plan was pursued by the right wing for more than 30 years--in close coordination with Republican Party leaders--to subvert and subsume journalism and reshape the national consciousness through the media, with the intention of skewing American politics sharply to the right. The plan has succeeded spectacularly."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I showed pretty clearly how MMFA omitted context to the point of it appearing to be deliberate deception during the Rush Limbaugh controversy. The "context" MMFA provides is so very selective. (refresher, they printed context in one article earlier in the day that had they included in a later article on the same day would have undermined the point of that article)

The only thing MMFA does better than MRC or any other wingnut partisan news watch organization is pretending to be legit.

Edited to Add: OReilly has no place on primetime news with his track record.

Hard to believe MM would have to slant anything to criticize Rush. Care to link to something we can actually see for ourselves?

 

[Cicero]

Fox isn't particularly conservative when it comes to money making porn either.

Clear Channel boycotted the Dixie Chicks after Natalie Maines made her infamous comment abut being embarrassed by George Bush and Clear Channel claimed it was due to the fans' request. Then it turned out every one of the DC's concerts on the ongoing tour remained sold out and there was only a handful of protesters at their concerts which were in the heart of the right wing South. In other words, Clear Channel made up the excuse and they were also caught in the act (by a memo) of directing their monopoly of radio stations to all boycott the DCs again claiming it was each individual radio station making the decisions independently.

I'd say that reflected conservative bias.

You have FOX NEWS confused with MSNBC. They are the outfit that schedules the creepy "To Catch A Predator" under the guise of consumer protection.

The Dixie Chics? They embarrassed themselves by criticizing the President in a time of war on foreign soil. Good for Clear Channel in taking a stand.

But as far as the liberal media being "accurate," how quickly you forget NBC's Dateline surreptitiously rigging cars to explode to show faulty gas tanks. CBS's 60 Minutes also rigged the Jeep CJ5 to roll over thereby ending the manufacture of that vehicle in 1982. Need we even mention Dan Rather and his phony documents? The Washington Post and Janet Cook? The New York Times and Jayson Blair?

Or the classic 2004 election night liberal cry fest when Wolf Blitzer, Larry King and Jeff Greenfield showed their scorn and repulsion on air over Bush 43 winning.

 

[Cicero]

The question isn't how liberal Media Matters is, they are. The question is do they get their facts straight. They do. There is scant evidence Media Matters doesn't present the facts. David Brock is on a mission, but that doesn't mean his mission is one against conservatives, rather it is against the ever growing conservative influence on the reins of the propaganda machine that is the major broadcast media in America.

Media Matters

David Brock

Sure. And Brock was your hero when he was writing about Anita Hill's peccadilloes.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Then again..

Classy fellow, that O'Reiley.

 

[pomeroo]

The question isn't how liberal Media Matters is, they are. The question is do they get their facts straight. They do.
There is scant evidence Media Matters doesn't present the facts.

There is overwhelming evidence that Media Matters distorts and lies.

Try actually reading the article I refer to in post # 373.

David Brock is on a mission, but that doesn't mean his mission is one against conservatives, rather it is against the ever growing conservative influence on the reins of the propaganda machine that is the major broadcast media in America.

Media Matters

David Brock

READ the article cited in post # 373.

 

[skepticalbeliever]

I like Bill O. He has done a lot in helping protect children. He has been a big supporter of Jessica's Law. Now, many states have enacted this law since he campaigned for it.

Bill O also showed the pictures of two child pornographers on his show. These were people who taped them selves hurting children. Well after they were shown on his show they were found dead in a car.

Keith Olberman, or any far left pundit can't claim to of have campaigned for any law as important as this. And I don't think any liberal pundit can claim to of have taken two child pornographers off of the streets. So I give Bill O a lot of credit for his work and admire it.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I like Bill O. He has done a lot in helping protect children. He has been a big supporter of Jessica's Law. Now, many states have enacted this law since he campaigned for it.

Bill O also showed the pictures of two child pornographers on his show. These were people who taped them selves hurting children. Well after they were shown on his show they were found dead in a car.

Keith Olberman, or any far left pundit can't claim to of have campaigned for any law as important as this. And I don't think any liberal pundit can claim to of have taken two child pornographers off of the streets. So I give Bill O a lot of credit for his work and admire it.

So you favor a media personality who promotes vigilantism?

1. If this fool O'Reilly had information on the identities of these two alleged child pornographers - why didn't he inform the local law enforcement authorities or even the FBI? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

2. After these two alleged child pornographers were found dead - did this fool O'Reilly take credit for their killings? Did he express approval for their killings? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

3. What if there was a snafu and this fool O'Reilly showed the WRONG pictures on his program, and these misidentified persons were then killed and found in a car: Shouldn't this fool O'Reilly take some responsibility for their murders? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

This fool O'Reilly is a reckless, arrogant, egotistical, self-aggrandizing blowhard who relishes shaping weak minds to his distorted view of the world.

 

[pomeroo]

So you favor a media personality who promotes vigilantism?

1. If this fool O'Reilly had information on the identities of these two alleged child pornographers - why didn't he inform the local law enforcement authorities or even the FBI? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

2. After these two alleged child pornographers were found dead - did this fool O'Reilly take credit for their killings? Did he express approval for their killings? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

3. What if there was a snafu and this fool O'Reilly showed the WRONG pictures on his program, and these misidentified persons were then killed and found in a car: Shouldn't this fool O'Reilly take some responsibility for their murders? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

This fool O'Reilly is a reckless, arrogant, egotistical, self-aggrandizing blowhard who relishes shaping weak minds to his distorted view of the world.

Please note the workings of the liberal mind: the pornographers taped themselves hurting children. Is there anything--anything at all--that they could do that would raise their status from "alleged" to "actual"?

This same poster regards Osama bin Laden, the head of a worldwide organization with thousands of operatives and a complex network of financing, as a law-enforcement problem.

 

[JoeEllison]

So you favor a media personality who promotes vigilantism?

1. If this fool O'Reilly had information on the identities of these two alleged child pornographers - why didn't he inform the local law enforcement authorities or even the FBI? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

2. After these two alleged child pornographers were found dead - did this fool O'Reilly take credit for their killings? Did he express approval for their killings? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

3. What if there was a snafu and this fool O'Reilly showed the WRONG pictures on his program, and these misidentified persons were then killed and found in a car: Shouldn't this fool O'Reilly take some responsibility for their murders? Is this fool O'Reilly a supporter of laws, or not?

This fool O'Reilly is a reckless, arrogant, egotistical, self-aggrandizing blowhard who relishes shaping weak minds to his distorted view of the world.

Bad people, man... because weak-but-good people would hopefully find someone a little more decent and a little less slimy to take their cue from, don't you think?

Certainly, they can't claim to support O'Reilly AND the law, can they?

 

[Lonewulf]

Just remember: Vigilantism and murder are a-okay as long as those murdered are alleged child pornographers.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Bad people, man... because weak-but-good people would hopefully find someone a little more decent and a little less slimy to take their cue from, don't you think?

Certainly, they can't claim to support O'Reilly AND the law, can they?

Big Joe, in that context, I'd hope "weak" people would glom onto somebody decent and wise and respectful - someone like our own James Randi.

However, I reject the entire concept of "weak" people, out of hand. There are no weak people - not really. There are only those who have been fooled into thinking they themselves are weak. There are enablers of the "weak person" self-image - people such as O'Reilly and Oprah - who draw power from those who erroneously accept belief in their own weakness. That's why I despise them. O'Reilly and Oprah (and others) are telling their flocking audience: "You need me. You can't make it without me." And many in their audience believe them.

People are actually strong, tough sumbitches. With a thousand times more potential than what some of them perceive about themselves. That's why I like JREF so much. Or any organization that is truly empowering - that underscores the tremendous strength of individuals.

 

[Upchurch]

You're being remarkably silly. I told you that some guy representing Media Matters on a Fox show (I think it was Hannity & Colmes) described the group as an objective watchdog group. Why not haul out Old Reliable and call me a liar?

(From Richard Poe's blog)
"The bloggergate scandal has spewed forth a new culprit — David Brock’s Media Matters for America. Brock’s group, which poses as a non-partisan media watchdog, has been implicated in payoffs to leftwing bloggers."

Do you not know that "non-partisan" and "objective" are, in fact, two different words with their own meanings?

We get the idea that however many times I answer your question, you will continue to make a fool of yourself by acting as though I haven't. Media Matters is a far-left advocacy group. I suppose you can cut-and-paste the previous sentence the next time you repeat your inane question.

Okay, let's take this in baby steps:

Media Matters is a different group from Media Research Center. The names are not interchangeable.

When I ask you a question about the Media Research Center, I am expecting a response that relates to the Media Research Center.

When I have asked you a question about the Media Research Center, you reply with a response that relates to Media Matters. (Remember that Media Matters is a different group from Media Research Center.)

Because your response relates to Media Matters and not the Media Research Center, you are not actually answering my question.

If you still don't understand the problem, let me know.

Media Matters quickly took issue; a few hours after my article appeared on National Review Online, a posting on the group’s website declared, “Media Matters is not, as the National Review claims, ‘an avowedly political institution,’ but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate.”

pomeroo, "non-partisan" means that they are not affiliated with a specific party. This is true. Media Matters is not affiliated with a specific political party. They identify themselves as a progressive organization. There are several progressive parties in the US, of which the Democratic and Green parties are probably the largest.

All of that aside, it still doesn't mean that "nonpartisan" means the same thing as "objective".

I showed pretty clearly how MMFA omitted context to the point of it appearing to be deliberate deception during the Rush Limbaugh controversy. The "context" MMFA provides is so very selective.

As I recall, you had to be rather selective in your own context in order to "pretty clearly" make that case.