The O'Reilly Factor

[LCBOY]

Bill likes to say he only argues with facts and evidence and that he never spins. What say you, JREF Forum?

[hgc]

I think that "arguing with facts and evidence" and "spinning" are NOT mutually exclusive. O'Reilly usually has a point of view, and advocates stongly for that point of view in discussions with his guests. He does it by his selection of questions and assertions, by voice inflection (e.g., sneering tone), etc.

edited to make sense

[Sundog]

O'Reilly wouldn't last ten minutes here. We'd tear him to pieces.

:D

Drooling just thinking about it.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by hgc
I think that "arguing with facts and evidence" and "spinning" are NOT mutually exclusive. O'Reilly usually has a point of view, and advocates stongly for that point of view in discussions with his guests. He does it by his selection of questions and assertions, by voice inflection (e.g., sneering tone), etc.

edited to make sense

I agree. He has his views and uses certain facts to support his views. This doesn't mean that his conclusions cannot be true, though. The topics he discussions are usually complex political or social issues so in many cases there may not me one right answer.

[renata]

I do not like him- he is a blowhard. For the reasons, I will reference old threads that talked about him, I hope you do not mind.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6673

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=254134

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=379331

Links on O'Reilly

O'Reilly Among the Snobs (http://slate.msn.com/?id=101760)
The Mystery of the Departing Guests (http://slate.msn.com/?id=1007343)
http://reason.com/0208/co.cy.spin.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62722-2000Dec12?language=printer
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/oreilly.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/oh_really.html
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ (for some reason, unavailable- exceeded quota)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/column.billpress/
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/o'reilly.html [/B][/QUOTE]

[hgc]

LCBOY:

I agree. He has his views and uses certain facts to support his views. This doesn't mean that his conclusions cannot be true, though. The topics he discussions are usually complex political or social issues so in many cases there may not me one right answer.
No, I'm not saying above that he's wrong on the issues, but that his "no spin zone" policy is a fantasy. It's like Foxnews saying "we report, you decide." It's just not true.

[LCBOY]

I don't mind news analysis. It justs seems it's getting harder and harder getting just hard news (facts) on TV. Maybe because someone just stating events of the day is too boring now for the TV audience. I dunno?

[Denise]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Bill likes to say he only argues with facts and evidence and that he never spins. What say you, JREF Forum?

Love the factor myself. He makes people stick to the argument and not go into unrelated things when they are uncomfortable with the subject. Do I agree with everything that Bill says? No, but he's pretty good.

[corplinx]

One of the best O'Reilly segments I've seen was where he interviewed Peter Jennings. They had a very good talk about straight news versus news analysis. I came out with a new respect for Peter Jennings (although I still loathe ABC news).

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Denise


Love the factor myself. He makes people stick to the argument and not go into unrelated things when they are uncomfortable with the subject.

By doing things like cutting off their microphones. Nice guy.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Sundog


By doing things like cutting off their microphones. Nice guy.

It's his show, if he asks them to talk about the topic and they keep talking about everything other than the topic than good for him.

[Denise]

Ps. I'd like to see a little of that in political debates with candidates.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


Love the factor myself. He makes people stick to the argument and not go into unrelated things when they are uncomfortable with the subject. Do I agree with everything that Bill says? No, but he's pretty good.

I think that sums up how I view Bill O'reilly too.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Denise


It's his show, if he asks them to talk about the topic and they keep talking about everything other than the topic than good for him.

I could never defend a liberal who used such tactics. I think it speaks to his character and inability to countenance dissent.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Denise

It's his show, if he asks them to talk about the topic and they keep talking about everything other than the topic than good for him.
Only Bill decides what's relevant to the topic. Hey, it's his show, so I don't have any argument about that. But it ain't fair and balanced. It ain't a "no spin" zone. It's a "no spin against my spin" zone.

[Denise]

Originally posted by hgc

Only Bill decides what's relevant to the topic. Hey, it's his show, so I don't have any argument about that. But it ain't fair and balanced. It ain't a "no spin" zone. It's a "no spin against my spin" zone.

Maybe they should call it stick to the topic zone.

[LCBOY]

I'd like to see Bill debate someone is a structured debating format, with Q&A.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Sundog


I could never defend a liberal who used such tactics. I think it speaks to his character and inability to countenance dissent.

Dissent? How is bringing up a different topic when you have no argument for the first topic dissent?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Denise


Dissent? How is bringing up a different topic when you have no argument for the first topic dissent?

It's a different topic in O'Reilly's opinion. He uses this unbelievable tactic sometimes simply to shut people up. I've seen him do it.

It's a reprehensible practice. Civilized people do not conduct a debate - or themselves - in that manner. I have nothing but contempt for the man.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Sundog

It's a different topic in O'Reilly's opinion. He uses this unbelievable tactic sometimes simply to shut people up. I've seen him do it.

It's a reprehensible practice. Civilized people do not conduct a debate - or themselves - in that manner. I have nothing but contempt for the man.
I have to agree with Sundog here (not that there's anything wrong with that). The best that can be said is it's bad manners. The worst is that its a dishonest debating technique, enforced by his control over the forum.

My favorite of his tactics: when he's up against a hard wall of disagreement with a guest he says, "well that's your opinion," and cuts off the discussion.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Sundog


It's a different topic in O'Reilly's opinion. He uses this unbelievable tactic sometimes simply to shut people up. I've seen him do it.

It's a reprehensible practice. Civilized people do not conduct a debate - or themselves - in that manner. I have nothing but contempt for the man.

Unbelievable tactic ie sticking to the subject? Please,:rolleyes:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Denise


Unbelievable tactic ie sticking to the subject? Please,:rolleyes:

By that phrase I quite obviously mean turning off people's microphones, as you know perfectly well.

I think you are letting your political views affect your judgement. What would your reaction be to a liberal host who used the same tactics? Honestly?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Bill likes to say he only argues with facts and evidence and that he never spins. What say you, JREF Forum?

O'Reilly is a blowhard, a self-important egomaniac. He is always ABSOLUTELY SURE he knows a LOT more about ANY issue at all than his guests. Never mind that he only was briefed on the issue in question for fifteen minutes that morning and the guest spent all their lives studying it.

He "wins" most of the debates with the invited expert on his talk show, a person supposedly there to share their views on some subject, by the simple method of not them get a word in edgewise. Why he bothers to invite them at all--and why they agree to come--is a mystery to me.

On the whole, I like O'Reilly. He is very opinionated, but at least he admits it. Sometimes he annoys me when he says, "I'll give you the last word" and then doesn't. I've never listened to his radio show, so I don't have a full picture of him. I've only seen his TV show.

I've also seen him get his butt kicked on his own show. He had the President of NOW on there once, and she wiped the floor with him. Instead of letting it go, he had her back, and he had stocked up some big ammo. And she killed him again.

Now, I hate the NOW, and I was rooting for O'Reilly, so I didn't like it that the woman beat him badly, but it was like watching a train wreck, and thus memorable.

I agree with most of O'Reilly's opinions, but strongly disagree with some others of his. I have emailed him some material to use on his show a couple of times, on conditons of anonymity, and he has. It made me feel like Albert Brooks in Broadcast News when he says, "I say it here, it comes out there. :)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Skeptic


O'Reilly is a blowhard, a self-important egomaniac. He is always ABSOLUTELY SURE he knows a LOT more about ANY issue at all than his guests. Never mind that he only was briefed on the issue in question for fifteen minutes that morning and the guest spent all their lives studying it.

He "wins" most of the debates with the invited expert on his talk show, a person supposedly there to share their views on some subject, by the simple method of not them get a word in edgewise. Why he bothers to invite them at all--and why they agree to come--is a mystery to me.

We make a lot of assumptions? As well as sweeping generalizations?

[Denise]

Originally posted by Sundog


By that phrase I quite obviously mean turning off people's microphones, as you know perfectly well.

I think you are letting your political views affect your judgement. What would your reaction be to a liberal host who used the same tactics? Honestly?

Yes, honestly. If someone can't debate the actual issue I have no respect for them.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog


By that phrase I quite obviously mean turning off people's microphones, as you know perfectly well.

I think you are letting your political views affect your judgement. What would your reaction be to a liberal host who used the same tactics? Honestly?

You know you use these same arguments when ever a talk show host or spokesmen for the right comes up in a thread using this its not my politics talking it’s the person is getting very old.

[Tony]

The only time O'rielly has cut off someone's microphone is when they are either rambling uncontrollably, giving a speech, or acting irrationally.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Sundog

I think you are letting your political views affect your judgement. What would your reaction be to a liberal host who used the same tactics? Honestly?

What does effect your judgement? Apparently politics doesn't. :rolleyes:

It is odd that no liberal host manages to keep enough viewers to survive. (LOve that Donohue, huh?) Could it be that many people actually prefer to take a moral stand on specific issues that they are not interested in "debating"?

Must be an interesting life to logic out every issue from first principles every time you see it anew. ;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tony
The only time O'rielly has cut off someone's microphone is when they are either rambling uncontrollably, giving a speech, or acting irrationally.


The only time I saw that is when someone tried to "hijack" the show. Its a q/a show, the person kept going into loud speeches and not stopping. Probably was a good idea to cut off their mic.

[Baker]

Originally posted by corplinx



The only time I saw that is when someone tried to "hijack" the show. Its a q/a show, the person kept going into loud speeches and not stopping. Probably was a good idea to cut off their mic.

Same here that was the only time I saw him do it also was for the reason you just described.

[crackmonkey]

The O'Reilly show is entertainment. That sort of thing shouldn't be confused with actual journalism... even though I agree with him much of the time, his 'debating' skills are questionable at best. Insightful exploration of the issues isn't even attempted. The Fox 'news' shows are nothing more than the Jerry Springer show with a political facade.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Sundog
O'Reilly wouldn't last ten minutes here. We'd tear him to pieces.

:D

Drooling just thinking about it.


Maybe we already have. Has anyone ever seen JK and O'Reilly in the same room at the same time?

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01moreilly.phtml

I've posted this before, if you haven't read it, please do - and don't drink anything while doing so.

An excerpt:

Bill O'Reilly: And now for a look at our Viewer Mail, about a story on overcrowding in kindergarten classrooms.

Janet Miller of Park City, Utah writes: "Bill, normally I'm a fan of 'The Factor's' hard hitting style, but your interview with the five-year old girl about class size was a little too rough. Telling her she was 'out of her mind' was simply uncalled for."

Janet, here at The Factor, we pull no punches, When you come on the show, you gotta know that.

Ed Gekas, Emhurst, Illinois: "Bill, your tough, incisive questions had that five year old girl squirming. The bottom line is, you had the facts. She didn't."

And finally, Paul Jemino of Islip, New York writes: "Bill, even though the girl hurt her case by crying, she was right, and you were wrong. Albany, not New York City, is the capital of New York State."

Well, Paul, I thank you for watching. But I still say New York City is the state capital. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The O'Reilly show is entertainment. That sort of thing shouldn't be confused with actual journalism... even though I agree with him much of the time, his 'debating' skills are questionable at best. Insightful exploration of the issues isn't even attempted. The Fox 'news' shows are nothing more than the Jerry Springer show with a political facade.

I, too, often agree with O'Reily, but he's still a egomaniacal loon. As G. B. Shaw once said, thought, "I'm not responsible for every idiot who agrees with me."

[Baker]

Does any one notice the liberal poster’s have been making almost none stop threads attacking any conservative spokesman or talk show host they can think of?

[Denise]

Originally posted by Baker
Does any one notice the liberal poster’s have been making almost none stop threads attacking any conservative spokesman or talk show host they can think of?

Yep. But they would disagree with that!

[a_unique_person]

You haven't noticed all the threads with attacks on liberal commentators?

[Denise]

On the first page in Politics, I only see one by Jedi. And it's new.

[Lurker]

I always enjoy when a guest of Bill's presents a statistic of some sort and Bill replies, "Well, that is just your opinion." He doesn't argue the substance of the stat, why or why not it is valid or invalid, he just dismisses it and continues to provide his own opinion as fact.

Great stuff.

Lurker

[Tony]

Originally posted by Lurker
I always enjoy when a guest of Bill's presents a statistic of some sort and Bill replies, "Well, that is just your opinion." He doesn't argue the substance of the stat, why or why not it is valid or invalid, he just dismisses it and continues to provide his own opinion as fact.




When has he done that? The Factor is one of my favorite shows and I have never witnessed this.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01moreilly.phtml

I've posted this before, if you haven't read it, please do - and don't drink anything while doing so.Oh come on! That skit did not get it right at all. Can’t snl just get a few facts straight? Anyone who watches the show knows that The Most Ridiculous Idem of the Day comes BOFORE Viewer Mail.

[Tmy]

No Spin, HA what a joke! Of course he is also on Fox News where the motto is "fair and balanced".

I find him entertaining but he bothers me when he goes on these witch hunts. Like when he attacks rap music. He'll pull out a couple of lyrics as "proof" of the harm they cause. As if he's ever sat down and listened to any of the music. Plus he targets rival news outlets in an attempt to take out the competition.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
It is odd that no liberal host manages to keep enough viewers to survive. (LOve that Donohue, huh?)

Leave it to hammegk to provide us with a pointless observation about popularity.

:rolleyes:


Could it be that many people actually prefer to take a moral stand on specific issues that they are not interested in "debating"?

Yes, sadly, there is no shortage of people who will sound off with poorly thought-out opinions that they cannot defend, and who mistake that for taking a "moral stand". And your attempt to spin this as something other than a failure should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with your posts.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Tony


When has he done that? The Factor is one of my favorite shows and I have never witnessed this.

Perhaps you need to watch more. Some examples:

1. When one Factor interviewee remarked (3/1/02) that "60 percent of all people will live in poverty for one year of their life," O’Reilly shot back: "Not in the United States. . . . No, that’s bogus. I mean, that’s a socialist stat. You can believe it if you want to, but it’s not true." When the guest explained that the number comes from research at Cornell University, O’Reilly shot back: "Well, what more do I have to say?"-- as if any information coming from an Ivy League institution had to be wrong.

(Did O'Reilly attempt to debunk the stat? No. He dismissed it.)


2. When Greenpeace's John Passacantando asserted that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only yield six to nine months of oil (5/1/01), O'Reilly was not impressed. "That's your opinion!" he retorted.

(Did O'Reilly provide any evidence saying how much oil was in ANWR to rebut John? No.)

3. When a journalist mentioned Israel's "illegal settlers" (7/18/00), O'Reilly replied: "All right, that's your opinion!"

(Perhaps O'Reilly meant opinion in regards to illegal. I don't consider this one to be such a big deal but perhaps O'Reilly should have been more specific.)

4. When a drug-policy advocate said marijuana impairs driving less than alcohol does (1/3/00), the answer was, "Well, that's your opinion!"

(This was based on a study. Does O'Reilly debate the merits of it? No.)

Lurker

[Tmy]

I used to watch Hannity and Combs, until they finally stoned the libral guy to death and then dragged his lifeless body thru the FoxNews studio.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hammegk


What does effect your judgement? Apparently politics doesn't. :rolleyes:

It is odd that no liberal host manages to keep enough viewers to survive. (LOve that Donohue, huh?) Could it be that many people actually prefer to take a moral stand on specific issues that they are not interested in "debating"?
;)

Answering a question with another question is not a response.

I put it to you directly. If a liberal host had come up with this tactic first, you would personally find it objectionable. True or not?


Must be an interesting life to logic out every issue from first principles every time you see it anew.

At least it avoids the fallacy of sloppy thinking.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Sundog


Answering a question with another question is not a response.
Sure it is; just not the one you were hoping for.

I put it to you directly. If a liberal host had come up with this tactic first, you would personally find it objectionable. True or not?

I would probably find 98% of things a "liberal" host does personally objectionable; 100% for Bill Mahre. Luckily, none seem to long maintain an audience and a show-place for their pap.


At least it avoids the fallacy of sloppy thinking.
That depends on your acceptance of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as an axiom that mirrors reality.

[Tmy]

Im listening to Bills radio show right now. The big story "Hilliary Clinton didnt attend the funerals of any 911 victims". LOW BLOW. Who the hell wants a politician at the tragic funeral of someone they never knew or met?

[renata]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im listening to Bills radio show right now. The big story "Hilliary Clinton didnt attend the funerals of any 911 victims". LOW BLOW. Who the hell wants a politician at the tragic funeral of someone they never knew or met?

That's funny, because I remember a show a few months after 9/11 about a Democrat attending a funeral of a firefighter, and the conservative host ( I think it was O'Reilly, don't recall) was railing how that Democrat was usurping other people's grief for their own political gain.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hammegk

Sure it is; just not the one you were hoping for.
[b]
I would probably find 98% of things a "liberal" host does personally objectionable; 100% for Bill Mahre. Luckily, none seem to long maintain an audience and a show-place for their pap.

[b]
That depends on your acceptance of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as an axiom that mirrors reality.

I see you don't wish to actually answer the question. I expected more from you, but that's fine.

I hope you'll play the "media bias" game with us.