ABC's "Boston Legal" to address Fox News bias without using the words "Fox News"

[Ladewig]

Miami Herald (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/11105076.htm)
When the ABC drama "Boston Legal" takes on the issue of alleged media bias in Sunday's episode, it doesn't name names - specifically Fox News Channel.

In the original script, a high school principal blocks Fox News from airing on campus television sets because he considers it biased and inflammatory, according to the network.

But ABC asked executive producer and writer David E. Kelley to remove references to Fox; instead, there is criticism of TV news in general and one network, which is unidentified, in particular.

"We did make some changes to the script per ABC's request, but managed to tell the same story in what we believe is an even more subversive and provocative way," Kelley spokeswoman Stacey Luchs said Thursday.

The story also references the "Foxblocker" a device (http://mambo.foxblocker.com/) which prevents Fox News from being shown on particular televisions.


I considered putting the thread in the TV and entertainment section, but I figured media bias and reaction to alleged media bias is more about current events than television in general.

Other sources are reporting that Bill O'Reilly's name was also removed from the "Boston Legal" script.

Lastly, just to be fair and balanced, here is the NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/11/144400.shtml) version of the story.

[American]

The show's theme is not news bias, it's about the school principal censoring the channel from students. A fact you would have had straight if the channel in question involved pinko-commie-faggots like Dan Rather and Larry King.

[RussDill]

in·flam·ma·to·ry
adj.

1. Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.
2. Characterized or caused by inflammation.


Gee, we certainly don't want a news station that shows stories that arouses passion, strong emotion, or even anger. Better word our news carefully, remember, if someone blows up a funeral procession, they are insurgents, not terrorists, the word terrorst in inflammatory. People watching the story might become angry to know that terrorists blew up a funeral procession...

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by RussDill
Gee, we certainly don't want a news station that shows stories that arouses passion, strong emotion, or even anger. Better word our news carefully, remember, if someone blows up a funeral procession, they are insurgents, not terrorists, the word terrorst in inflammatory. People watching the story might become angry to know that terrorists blew up a funeral procession...

That's right...and on the same note doctors should be forbidden from making inflamatory statements like 'You have cancer', and no one should ever be allowed to yell 'Fire!', even if there is one.


And I think to myself....What a wonderful woild....
Louis Armstrong

[Ladewig]

When a news source's desire to be inflammatory exceeds its desire to be accurate, the usefulness of the news source is diminished e.g. Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by crimresearch
That's right...and on the same note doctors should be forbidden from making inflamatory statements like 'You have cancer', and no one should ever be allowed to yell 'Fire!', even if there is one.


And I think to myself....What a wonderful woild....
Louis Armstrong

Course, I think the author's meaning was, intentionally inflammatory.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RussDill
Gee, we certainly don't want a news station that shows stories that arouses passion, strong emotion, or even anger. Better word our news carefully, remember, if someone blows up a funeral procession, they are insurgents, not terrorists, the word terrorst in inflammatory. People watching the story might become angry to know that terrorists blew up a funeral procession...

Of course, in some parts of the world, terrorists are called freedom fighters.

That certainly pisses some people off. Job well done, I guess.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Of course, in some parts of the world, terrorists are called freedom fighters.

That certainly pisses some people off. Job well done, I guess.

I find that statement infammatory and I demand that the mods remove it at once :p

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ladewig
When a news source's desire to be inflammatory exceeds its desire to be accurate, the usefulness of the news source is diminished e.g. Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly.

True, but Bill O'Reilly is running a TALK SHOW. So far as I know, he doesn't claim it is news. It's crap, indeed, but news?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Skeptic
True, but Bill O'Reilly is running a TALK SHOW. So far as I know, he doesn't claim it is news. It's crap, indeed, but news?

From Mr. O'Reilly's website (the biography page):
TELEVISION: "The O'Reilly Factor," seen weeknights on the Fox News Channel, continues to dominate the television news ratings, consistently ranking as the highest rated cable news show for more than two years. It is also carried in dozens of foreign countries.

[Ed]

I asked on another thread where O'Rielly shows bias, or at least enough to justify the "biased" label. As I think I said, he is very opinionated and has hot buttons but overall I don't see bias, per se.

He does choose his stories, as does the NYT and NBC, etc. and that shows a bias toward issues that he thinks are either important or ratings worthy as it does for those outlets.

It seems that there is a developing mantra of "bias" when it comes to Fox but I tend to think that this is largely sour grapes on the part of the Nets who are getting hammered (and were destroyed when it came to election coverage).

Edit: O certainly characterizes his show as being commentary and not hard news so I would accept that (it's obvious anyway) over a corporate description. I suggest that the segment that O'Rielly's show competes in and is reported on in the Nielsen ratings is called "News" and that is a characterization used for sales for commercial time.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Skeptic
True, but Bill O'Reilly is running a TALK SHOW. So far as I know, he doesn't claim it is news. It's crap, indeed, but news?

'News' and 'entertainment' have been interchangeable terms for a while now haven't they?

[Ed]

Originally posted by crimresearch
'News' and 'entertainment' have been interchangeable terms for a while now haven't they?

I don't have the references at hand but I am pretty sure that the "news" classification is "news and magazine programming" and includes 60 min, the news news, O'Rielly, Larry King et al. So calling O'Reilly "news" is true and reflects the Nielsen Media Research Company's classification system. It is, however, a definition of convience and if one wants to, tiresomely, refer to O'Reilly as "news" one must really refer to the classification as stated by Nielsen. Therefore a correct statement would be "O'Reilly is a News and Magzine Programming show".

Clear now?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ed
I asked on another thread where O'Reilly shows bias, or at least enough to justify the "biased" label. As I think I said, he is very opinionated and has hot buttons but overall I don't see bias, per se.

He does choose his stories, as does the NYT and NBC, etc. and that shows a bias toward issues that he thinks are either important or ratings worthy as it does for those outlets.



Perhaps. But then again, I cannot recall even a single instance of a New York Times reporter or an NBC reporter interupting an interview by saying, "Shut up! Shut up!"

If you don't think there is an undesirable bias in statements that claim that Hitler and Stalin would be memebers of the ACLU, then I wonder what you would consider undesirable bias.

[Bob Klase]

If you don't think there is an undesirable bias in statements that claim that Hitler and Stalin would be memebers of the ACLU, then I wonder what you would consider undesirable bias.
How about rushing to the air with a story using forged documents and not taking time to find out they were forged? And then saying something like "sure- all our evidence was forged and fake, and we really don't have any other evidence, but the story's true anyway".

No- guess that wouldn't be bias, just stupidity.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Perhaps. But then again, I cannot recall even a single instance of a New York Times reporter or an NBC reporter interupting an interview by saying, "Shut up! Shut up!"

I have no idea whatsoever what goes on in a NYT interview. The "shut up" stuff that I recall was directed at a guy that was on shortly after the WTC attack and was uttering pure drivel. I have seen him lose it with various pedophile apologists but I think that you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that that particular level of rudeness is a regular characteristic of his broadcast. As I said, I hear this stuff but I am coming to the conclusion that it is simply a line thrown out by people who don't like his position on various things. If you have examples that would suggest that the "shut up" thing is characteristic please post them.

If you don't think there is an undesirable bias in statements that claim that Hitler and Stalin would be memebers of the ACLU, then I wonder what you would consider undesirable bias.

He hates the ACLU. That is indeed a biased position but I can see his point though I don't entirely agree with it. I will note that the ACLU has never deigned to appear on his show (that I have seen) I will also note that when he has an ACLU story he does attempt to get people on to explain and support the ACLU position. It is that aspect of his show that blunts accusations of bias. He certainly has opinions and makes those clear. I guess that the point is that his guests tend to represent different sides of an issue and as such provide an unbiased view.

[Skeptic]

From Mr. O'Reilly's website (the biography page):
TELEVISION: "The O'Reilly Factor," seen weeknights on the Fox News Channel, continues to dominate the television news ratings, consistently ranking as the highest rated cable news show for more than two years. It is also carried in dozens of foreign countries. [/QUOTE]

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that--officially--bowling and professional wrestling are classified as "sports" for TV's purposes, as well...

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ed
He hates the ACLU. That is indeed a biased position but I can see his point though I don't entirely agree with it. I will note that the ACLU has never deigned to appear on his show (that I have seen) I will also note that when he has an ACLU story he does attempt to get people on to explain and support the ACLU position.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

"'Talking Points' firmly believes the ACLU wants to undermine the military effort in the war on terror. The ACLU opposes the Patriot Act, Guantanamo detentions without lawyers, military tribunals, coercive interrogation, the war in Iraq and pretty much all aggression action against terror."

"That being said, 'T-Points' also believes that the ACLU is the most dangerous organization in the country and is trying to paralyze the federal government by suing over a bevy of anti-terror strategies. The ACLU is putting all of us in danger by its fanatical opposition to fighting the war on terror."

"But the ACLU is flat-out dangerous. It panders to its far-Left base by portraying the USA as a bad country, giving terrorists aid and comfort, as it holds America to an impossible standard."

O'Reilly criticizing the ACLU's involvement in Abu Graib "What do torture and war atrocities have to do with civil liberties, anyway?"

None of these statements was followed by "people [who went] on to explain and support the ACLU position." But, perhaps I cherry picked these instances. Can you provide examples of the ACLU's position being explained in any news story covered by Bill O'Reilly?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I have no idea what you are talking about.

None of these statements was followed by "people [who went] on to explain and support the ACLU position." But, perhaps I cherry picked these instances. Can you provide examples of the ACLU's position being explained in any news story covered by Bill O'Reilly?

His "memo" is a formal editorial. Opinion.

While I watch him regularly, I don't take notes. My recollection is that he has opposing sides to each story, or tries to; people won't always come on.

In any event, you made the allegations of bias so I think that it behooves you to do the digging. I do not think you will find much, however.

Do you watch him regularly? Perhaps we could deconstruct a weeks worth of shows here.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Miami Herald (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/11105076.htm)


The story also references the "Foxblocker" a device (http://mambo.foxblocker.com/) which prevents Fox News from being shown on particular televisions.


I considered putting the thread in the TV and entertainment section, but I figured media bias and reaction to alleged media bias is more about current events than television in general.

Other sources are reporting that Bill O'Reilly's name was also removed from the "Boston Legal" script.

Lastly, just to be fair and balanced, here is the NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/11/144400.shtml) version of the story.

I heard Terri Gross interview Arie Fleisher (former Bush press secretary) on NPR. She asked him about bias on Fox news. He made the point that you have to distinguish between news journalism on Fox (about 2% of the programming in my opinion) and op ed stuff and that the actual news broadcasting was not anymore biased than any other news. I think he is full of it. An example would be the way news broadcasters on Fox insist on using the expression "homocide bomber"- the point of which escapes me. Isn't any bombing a homocide bombing if someone is killed? If a suicide bombing is a homocide bombing what do you call a non-suicide bombing? I'm guessing that they don't like the term "suicide bombing" because it sounds too apologetic for the bomber. It is just an example of the kind of axe grinding and agenda driven approach of Fox News overall.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by billydkid
I heard Terri Gross interview Arie Fleisher (former Bush press secretary) on NPR. She asked him about bias on Fox news. He made the point that you have to distinguish between news journalism on Fox (about 2% of the programming in my opinion) and op ed stuff and that the actual news broadcasting was not anymore biased than any other news. I think he is full of it. An example would be the way news broadcasters on Fox insist on using the expression "homocide bomber"- the point of which escapes me. Isn't any bombing a homocide bombing if someone is killed? If a suicide bombing is a homocide bombing what do you call a non-suicide bombing? I'm guessing that they don't like the term "suicide bombing" because it sounds too apologetic for the bomber. It is just an example of the kind of axe grinding and agenda driven approach of Fox News overall.

"Homicide bombers" is a Bushism, and a really stupid one at that.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleon
"Homicide bombers" is a Bushism, and a really stupid one at that.

Accurate though. Would you prefer the term "maryter"?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Cleon
"Homicide bombers" is a Bushism, and a really stupid one at that.

It's misleading, as well. It makes me think the bomber survived, and will do it again.

Anyway, if the point is to make the practice seem crazy and awful, "suicide bomber" works far better, because it reinforces that these people are maniacs willing to blow themselves up to make a point. "Homicide bomber" suggests less dedication, a willingness to only go so far, and therefore some degree of rationalism is left and it's not so scary.

"Suicide bomber" is only nicer than "homicide bomber" if you think that suicide in a cause is a good thing. I think the "homicide bomber" wording is aimed at the perpetrators, not the rest of the public. Which is stupid, because they're not going to suddenly say "Oh my gosh! We're killing innocent people! Let's stop!"

[Ed]

What about "murderer"?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ed
Accurate though. Would you prefer the term "maryter"?

No, it's doublespeak. Calling someone a "homicide bomber" is like calling someone a "flying pilot."

"Suicide bomber" is a distinction. It is more accurate than "homicide bomber," because the word "homicide" is a redundancy. "Suicide" indicates a particular tactic.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ed
What about "murderer"?

Which lumps them in people who rob liquor stores and shoot the attendant. The term is technically accurate, but fails to reflect the manner or scale or madness involved. In the same fashion, you could call Ted Bundy a murderer, or a serial killer. Specialized horrors deserve specialized terminology.

And "homicide bomber"...well, what kind of bomber isn't trying to kill someone? Saboteurs?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Cleon
"Homicide bombers" is a Bushism, and a really stupid one at that.

Actually, like many other "Bushisms", it is a term that should have existed before and is quite accurate. It conveys the crucial information that the REASON for the act is to kill as many "infidels" as possible, not the alleged "desperation" or "no choice" of the (usual type of) suicide.

"Suicide bomber", in context, implies not so much the tactic of the bomber as his suicidal act, suicide being associated with desperation, hopelessness, no-choice actions, and so on. It's like calling someone a "miusnderstood roober", "controlled by unconquerable desires rapist", "poor thief", etc. The term itself implies the excuse for the act.

This "Bushism", once it took root, sure helped stop a lot of misguided sympathy of the "it's an expression of desperation" explanation of suicide bombing (whose bottom line that, in order to stop the desepration, we should give the suicide bombers or their senders what they want), by putting the focus on the victims of the act instead of the alleged problems and psychological state of the bomber.

Mere facts--like, for instance, that the vast majority of suicide bombers, including the 19 hijackers of 9/11, are neither poor nor uneducated but just the reverse, and are motivated not by "desperation" but by idealistic dedication--failed to stop that nonsense; but Bush's conscious decision to use "homicide bomber" DID help.

In other words, this "Bushism" is considerably more intelligent and purposeful than the criticism of it--as often happens, incidentally.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Actually, like many other "Bushisms", it is a term that should have existed before and is quite accurate. It conveys the crucial information that the REASON for the act is to kill as many "infidels" as possible, not the alleged "desperation" or "no choice" of the (usual type of) suicide.]

As opposed to other types of bombings, which are just a different way of saying "hi." :rolleyes:


This "Bushism", once it took root, sure helped stop a lot of misguided sympathy of the "it's an expression of desperation" explanation of suicide bombing (whose bottom line that, in order to stop the desepration, we should give the suicide bombers or their senders what they want).


Oh, yeah, absolutely, I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "Gee, I used to think suicide bombings were marks of desperation, but now that Our Dear Leader has told us they're 'homicide bombings,' I understand that these are simply hate-filled murderers who need to be hunted down like the dogs they are." :rolleyes:


Mere facts--like, for instance, that the vast majority of suicide bombers, including the 19 hijackers of 9/11, are neither poor nor uneducated but just the reverse, and are motivated not by "desperation" but by idealistic dedication--failed to stop that nonsense; but Bush's conscious decision to use "homicide bomber" DID help.

In other words, this "Bushism" is considerably more intelligent and purposeful than the criticism of it--as often happens, incidentally.

I love it when you post. It's always fun to see someone unashamedly make up "facts" as they go along.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Ed
Accurate though. Would you prefer the term "maryter"?

Not the point. Suicide bombing is just as big an abomination as any other form of murder. What distinguishes a non-suicide bombing from a suicide one? If there is no distinction why not just call it a bombing? What is the point of calling a suicide bombing a homicide bombing?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Actually, like many other "Bushisms", it is a term that should have existed before and is quite accurate.

Can you give examples of these "many other Bushisms" that are "quite accurate"?

It conveys the crucial information that the REASON for the act is to kill as many "infidels" as possible, not the alleged "desperation" or "no choice" of the (usual type of) suicide.

"Suicide bomber", in context, implies not so much the tactic of the bomber as his suicidal act, suicide being associated with desperation, hopelessness, no-choice actions, and so on. It's like calling someone a "miusnderstood robber", "controlled by unconquerable desires rapist", "poor thief", etc. The term itself implies the excuse for the act.

This "Bushism", once it took root,

Can you explain what you mean by "took root"? If Fox News is the only news outlet using it, has it really taken root?

sure helped stop a lot of misguided sympathy of the "it's an expression of desperation" explanation of suicide bombing (whose bottom line that, in order to stop the desepration, we should give the suicide bombers or their senders what they want), by putting the focus on the victims of the act instead of the alleged problems and psychological state of the bomber.

If there was any misguided sympathy out for folks like the 9/11 hijackers, then it certainly came from grade-A kooks. Folks that kooky are not going to be swayed from their kookiness by President Bush using special language to describe deluded religious fanatics, so the goal of reducing "misguided sympathy" is not acheived. Instead we lose the distinction between homicidal bombers like Timothy McVeigh and homicidal bombers like the Hamas killers who blow themselves up as well.

Mere facts--like, for instance, that the vast majority of suicide bombers,

Your arguments against using "suicide bomber" would be strengthened by your not using the phrase "suicide bomber" when describing the people we are talking about.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ed
His "memo" is a formal editorial. Opinion.

While I watch him regularly, I don't take notes. My recollection is that he has opposing sides to each story, or tries to; people won't always come on.

In any event, you made the allegations of bias so I think that it behooves you to do the digging. I do not think you will find much, however.

It will take some time for me to review the material

Do you watch him regularly? Perhaps we could deconstruct a weeks worth of shows here.

Perhaps

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladewig
It will take some time for me to review the material



Perhaps

Might be interesting. I sorta "watch" him, that is I am entertained, not participating. Given a different attitude, we might both learn something.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ed
Might be interesting. I sorta "watch" him, that is I am entertained, not participating. Given a different attitude, we might both learn something.

I am torn between my fervent dislike for the man and my desire to consider myself open-minded.

I'll go so far as to make an effort to watch this week's shows.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I am torn between my fervent dislike for the man and my desire to consider myself open-minded.

I'll go so far as to make an effort to watch this week's shows.

But, if you don't watch him, how can you have an opinion?

Do you consider yourself very liberal? Is it that liberals must hate him?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ed
But, if you don't watch him, how can you have an opinion?

Do you consider yourself very liberal? Is it that liberals must hate him?

I come across quotes from him in my internet reading and my radio listening. I also catch glimpses of him on TV and radio as I pass by. I have read books that talk about him.

[Skeptic]

Can you give examples of these "many other Bushisms" that are "quite accurate"?

Well, perhaps the most famous one is him calling the people of Greece "Grecians". Which is quite correct, if archaic, despite the league of critics "explaining" to everybody how wrong he is.

Can you explain what you mean by "took root"? If Fox News is the only news outlet using it, has it really taken root?

Yes. The president is the most famous man on earth, Fox News the most popular news channel in the USA. Them using it has quite an effect--everybody knows what the term "homocide bomber" means.

At least, I keep hearing about the enormous and nefarious influence of Fox News when they publish something the left doesn't like. Imagine, if you will, that Bush called Muslims in general "ragheads" in a speech and Fox News kept repeating the term. Would you still say that it is inconsequential because, after all, only the president and Fox News are using it so the term didn't really take root?

If there was any misguided sympathy out for folks like the 9/11 hijackers, then it certainly came from grade-A kooks.

Such as Susan Sontag, which, in an infamous article shortly after 9/11, exalted the "bravery" of the hijackers. Or half the tenured professors in the country (it seems), explaining to their classes how the USA had it coming and, sometimes, rushing into print with books "explaining" this "blowback theory" in detail (Chomsky, White ('The Middle Mind'), etc.) And of course there are the numerous lesser lights (perhaps I should say "lesser darks") of the Ward Churchill type. The left's collective amnesia about all those "brave" souls from its ranks who "dared" to tell Americans the "truth" about 9/11 is rather amusing.

Folks that kooky are not going to be swayed from their kookiness by President Bush using special language to describe deluded religious fanatics, so the goal of reducing "misguided sympathy" is not acheived.

But the point is not to convince the kooks. Chomsky will go to his grave thinking he is correct no matter what happens. The point is, rather, to convince others who might have listened to the kooks that the kooks are wrong. And in this "homocide bomber" worked quite well. After all, the fact that Bush uses the term "African American" instead of the N-word would not make any KKK member join the NAACP, but it probably means something to those who are not KKK members but might be tempted to use the N-word.

But, let me ask you this. I am not claiming any magical powers to Bush's term. I am merely claiming it has SOME effect, and a positive one, because it is a better term. What I am surprised about it is that it is precisely the progressives who, for many years, had insisted that one must "watch one's language" since the terms used to describe people have effect. Some of the progressives' claim in this regard are reasonable (one should not use the N-word) some are nuts (that using any term for any ethnic group except for the one newly invented by the MLA's conference last weekend is the same as being a KKK member or a nazi.) But surely the underlying idea--words have consequences--is uncontestable.

So why is it, that all of sudden, when Bush finds a better term to describe someting ("Homocide bomber" vs. "Suicide bomber") do we have this enormous skepticism of whether using the term has any effect at all? Seems spiteful to me--depreciating a term simply because it came from Bush.

I have no doubt that if, say, Sontag or Miller or Chomsky (etc.) had coined the term, it would have been accepted quickly a far superior and, in fact, the only term that must be used, with dark suspicions of "racism" or spreading "right wing propganda" being raised against those (like Fox News) who won't follow suit.

That is, for instance, precisely what happened when for some strange reason the "progressive" camp decided recently to change the word "terrorists" to "insurgents" or "fighters", etc., and then claim that Fox News & co., who refused to follow this disingenous change, are suspect.

[Bob Klase]

None of these statements was followed by "people [who went] on to explain and support the ACLU position." But, perhaps I cherry picked these instances. Can you provide examples of the ACLU's position being explained in any news story covered by Bill O'Reilly?

I don't watch O'Reilly often, but I do recall a number of times where he stated that the ACLU had turned down an invitation to explain their position. If they don't care enough to explain their own position, why should someone else try to speak for them? And why don't they come on the show to speak for themselves?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That is, for instance, precisely what happened when for some strange reason the "progressive" camp decided recently to change the word "terrorists" to "insurgents" or "fighters", etc., and then claim that Fox News & co., who refused to follow this disingenous change, are suspect.

Perhaps from their perspective the habit of classifying everyone who's fighting you as "terrorists" is the disingenuous bit. Some may merit the term. Others may not. Use it too often, and it loses meaning.

Of course, all of this is profoundly silly. It doesn't matter what something's called, it only matters what it is. You may call them terrorists, homicide bombers, islamofascists, islamosocialists, explodey-stupids, or anything else. The only things that a terminology change effects are the opinions of people too foolish to know what's going on, and who think there is some deep difference between "glorious martyr", "maniac killer", and "idiot bastard".

I would have thought the activity of blowing oneself and others to pieces in order to make a political point of some sort was self-evidently evil and stupid, and wouldn't require wrangling over terminology to express this. What are we, six? We need to use particular names or else we'd see it wrong?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes. The president is the most famous man on earth, Fox News the most popular news channel in the USA.

What? You obviously make it up as you go along. Fox is #4 after CBS, NBC, and ABC. FoxNews is top CABLE channel but still trails the big three by quite a bit.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Ed
Might be interesting. I sorta "watch" him, that is I am entertained, not participating. Given a different attitude, we might both learn something.

You can go to the FoxNews website and then to his show where he posts transcripts of certain segments. I think that would be a good place to analyze O'Reilly.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Bob Klase
I don't watch O'Reilly often, but I do recall a number of times where he stated that the ACLU had turned down an invitation to explain their position. If they don't care enough to explain their own position, why should someone else try to speak for them? And why don't they come on the show to speak for themselves?

You know, perhaps the ACLU is not a huge fan of O'Reilly attack style of interview. He does not bring any intelligence to the debate in my opinion. He controls how much people talk, volumes and so forth. Not an environment in which an intelligent discussion can take place.

Lurker

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by billydkid
I heard Terri Gross interview Arie Fleisher (former Bush press secretary) on NPR. She asked him about bias on Fox news. He made the point that you have to distinguish between news journalism on Fox (about 2% of the programming in my opinion) and op ed stuff and that the actual news broadcasting was not anymore biased than any other news.

Interesting assessment from Arie Fleisher, that Fox is not any more biased than any other news.

Remember when Fox started, their claim was that they were _NOT_ biased like the other news. "We report, you decide."

I guess they have given up any pretense of that.

My favorite example of that is when the Iraqis signed their constitution. Other news networks were having headlines like, "Iraqis sign constitution" and "Iraqis create government." Fox News, the one who says "We report, you decide" has as a headline: "A Historic Moment"

[hgc]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Interesting assessment from Arie Fleisher, that Fox is not any more biased than any other news.

Remember when Fox started, their claim was that they were _NOT_ biased like the other news. "We report, you decide."

I guess they have given up any pretense of that.

My favorite example of that is when the Iraqis signed their constitution. Other news networks were having headlines like, "Iraqis sign constitution" and "Iraqis create government." Fox News, the one who says "We report, you decide" has as a headline: "A Historic Moment" Don't be such a stick in the mud. If black and be white and up can be down, why in the hell can't subjective be objective?

[C.J.]

Though it's a bit OT, I would suggest that if the term "homicide bomber" is indeed a more accurate one, as Skeptic has claimed, we should go the whole nine and only use the term homicide bomber when people other than the bomber are actually killed. If people are injured, we might use "attempted homicide bomber" or "assault w/a deadly weapon bomber." If no one is hurt but property is damaged, maybe "willful destruction of property bomber" would be more appropriate.

Yet,
Originally posted by TragicMonkey
...You may call them terrorists, homicide bombers, islamofascists, islamosocialists, explodey-stupids, or anything else....
I think explodey-stupids is the best all-around term to use. Love it, TM!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ladewig
When a news source's desire to be inflammatory exceeds its desire to be accurate, the usefulness of the news source is diminished e.g. Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly.

Could you provide an example of Bill O'Reilly's perfidy? I'd like to see what your example would be....'cause I bet I have a better one for CBS and Dan Rather. :rolleyes:

-z

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Could you provide an example of Bill O'Reilly's perfidy? I'd like to see what your example would be....'cause I bet I have a better one for CBS and Dan Rather. :rolleyes:


And his fondness for battery-powered adult novelties shouldn't count.

Because I hear O'Reilly likes those also.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And his fondness for battery-powered adult novelties shouldn't count.

Because I hear O'Reilly likes those also.

Precisely!

ewwwww

now I have this mind-picture that's making me gag.
thanks.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Precisely!

ewwwww

now I have this mind-picture that's making me gag.
thanks.

Must....resist...temptation...to say...


If you're gagging, you're using the wrong end.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Cleon
"Suicide bomber" is a distinction. It is more accurate than "homicide bomber," because the word "homicide" is a redundancy. "Suicide" indicates a particular tactic.

I think the homicide part is to indicate that the victims were innocent, as apposed to japanese suicide bombers that were crashing into carriers.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Could you provide an example of Bill O'Reilly's perfidy? I'd like to see what your example would be....'cause I bet I have a better one for CBS and Dan Rather. :rolleyes:

-z

I'm not covinced that Rather's motivation was to be inflamatory, but I will agree that because his accuracy was overshadowed by other factors, his usefulness was diminished.

As for O'Reilly desire to be inflamatory exceeding his desire to be accurate, the "I saved Christmas from the heathens" thread that O'Reilly talked about all through December is a good example.

As for quoting inaccurate sources, Rather made the mistake of believing someone else's BS. O'Reilly has made up BS on the fly and cited it as truthful. April 2004:

O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserters, doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.

MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...

MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...

O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."

MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.

There is no such thing as the Paris Business Review. He didn't falsely attribute statistics to a real journal - he simply made up a source!

I consider quoting someone else's false statements (as Rather did) is not as bad a making up false statements on the air (as O'Reilly did).