O'Reilly spins again!

[Lurker]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96012,00.html

In this segment, O'Reilly changes his inital premise in the face of contradictory evidence. Then ignores further evidence against his newly created premise.

O'reilly spins big time on this one.

Lurker

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Lurker
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96012,00.html

In this segment, O'Reilly changes his inital premise in the face of contradictory evidence. Then ignores further evidence against his newly created premise.

O'reilly spins big time on this one.

Lurker


could you please be more specific and use qoutes ?


Im begining to think O'reilly simply does a lot of his "evils of pop music and films on kids", because he's trying to push these artists where no one else is pushing.

I'm starting to think that Bill is goading issues in order to get discussion and possibly set an example that shows artists that there are people in the media that want to debate what they have to say (will oppose them for the purpose of debate instead of just sitting back and letting it go). I actually think its healthy in a sense.


anyway....

[clk]

Originally posted by Lurker


In this segment, O'Reilly changes his inital premise in the face of contradictory evidence. Then ignores further evidence against his newly created premise.


I think that's why the interview was so short. O'Reilly probably figured out that he didn't know what he was talking about, so he spun his way out of the interview. Remember, "The No Spin Zone" means that nobody can spin except O'Reilly.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Lurker
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96012,00.html

In this segment, O'Reilly changes his inital premise in the face of contradictory evidence. Then ignores further evidence against his newly created premise.

O'reilly spins big time on this one.



I love the way he interrupts the speaker because it is the "no-spin" zone, but then goes on to try to spin the data, which blatently contradict his premise, to try to get it to support him.

Isn't the claim that "Those data are misleading because..." the most obvious indicator that some sort of spin is going to be applied?

Once again, its the "no-spin but mine" zone.

[Lurker]

OH MY GOD!

I find I am in agreement with something NTW has written. Somebody, quick check the temperature of Hell.

I do not think O'reilly should be intellectually dishonest by ignoring contrary evidence. He always is willing to do this when it contradicts his position.

That being said, I do consider MTV to have a bad influence on our youth. But this is subject to debate. I also agree that O'Reilly is discussing something that perhaps should be discussed mroe prominently.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I love the way he interrupts the speaker because it is the "no-spin" zone, but then goes on to try to spin the data, which blatently contradict his premise, to try to get it to support him.



Yes, this is a real howler! Question. Do you think O'Reilly recognizes his own spin or is he so self-absorbed that he thinks he is not spinning? Or is there some other explanation?

Lurker

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Lurker


Yes, this is a real howler! Question. Do you think O'Reilly recognizes his own spin or is he so self-absorbed that he thinks he is not spinning? Or is there some other explanation?

Lurker


I think O'Reilly's response isn't as hypocritical as you're saying it is. She began to use statistics in a manner that could lessen the significance of teen pregnancy to the audience and Bill was trying emphasize that it is still a problem (from which bad pop music could be connected).

[The Don]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



I think O'Reilly's response isn't as hypocritical as you're saying it is. She began to use statistics in a manner that could lessen the significance of teen pregnancy to the audience and Bill was trying emphasize that it is still a problem (from which bad pop music could be connected).

And the purpose of the professor's use of statistics was to attempt to demonstrate that the key measures were in a downward trend.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



I think O'Reilly's response isn't as hypocritical as you're saying it is. She began to use statistics in a manner that could lessen the significance of teen pregnancy to the audience and Bill was trying emphasize that it is still a problem (from which bad pop music could be connected).

Yes, the stats were provided to shwo a downward trend. If the trend were upward would that prove O'reilly right?

Further, O'Reilly wanted to mine his data to prove his thesis when he switched to poor black girls. But don't all socioeconmoic groups watch MTV? My guess is white girls watch it just as much as black girls. And even if we limit it to the group he mentioned, the stat is trending down. If we are holding MTV responsible then would that not mean that MTV has been an improving factor over the last ten years?

Lurker

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Lurker


Yes, the stats were provided to shwo a downward trend. If the trend were upward would that prove O'reilly right?

Further, O'Reilly wanted to mine his data to prove his thesis when he switched to poor black girls. But don't all socioeconmoic groups watch MTV? My guess is white girls watch it just as much as black girls. And even if we limit it to the group he mentioned, the stat is trending down. If we are holding MTV responsible then would that not mean that MTV has been an improving factor over the last ten years?

Lurker


If the trend were upward it would only prove (still) that there is a big problem. All socioeconomic groups watch mtv, but stats show that far more poor blacks girls are pregnant at an early age....even though there is a downtrend....it's still a major problem......it has nothing to do with Bill making a "racist" statement if that is what you're implying.

the downtrend could be for several reasons beyond MTV, but it isnt significant enough for us to say "oh, there is a downtrend, we can stop worrying about the problem now"

I dont think we're holding MTV responsible as much as we're trying to solve a social problem that is being encouraged by dumb artists.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



If the trend were upward it would only prove (still) that there is a big problem. All socioeconomic groups watch mtv, but stats show that far more poor blacks girls are pregnant at an early age....even though there is a downtrend....it's still a major problem......it has nothing to do with Bill making a "racist" statement if that is what you're implying.

.

So, is it being black, poor, or young which is the most important influencing factor ?

I suggest that it's being female.

How does any of this relate to O'Reilly's point about MTV ?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by The Don


So, is it being black, poor, or young which is the most important influencing factor ?

I suggest that it's being female.


great observation, Don. Your contribution is so valuable.




How does any of this relate to O'Reilly's point about MTV ?


because popular culture is usually what helps young people decide who they are and what social groups they want to fit in with. When you're poor, aren't adequately educated, or live in an environment in which you can either fight hard to gain a good direction in your life or just copulate and dance, artists can become a significant factor to your social decisions.

most people want to fit in and be accepted and in order to do that with your peers, it usually involves what is popular. In most cases they end up copulating and having babies because they're too stupid to find anything else to do.

anway....

[The Don]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


because popular culture is usually what helps young people decide who they are and what social groups they want to fit in with. When you're poor, aren't adequately educated, or live in an environment in which you can either fight hard to gain a good direction in your life or just copulate and dance, artists can become a significant factor to your social decisions.

most people want to fit in and be accepted and in order to do that with your peers, it usually involves what is popular. In most cases they end up copulating and having babies because they're too stupid to find anything else to do.

anway....

But I thought that the figures were showing positive movement in the key indicators demonstrating that either MTV was providing positive role models or that MTV wasn't influencing young people to any great degree.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by The Don


But I thought that the figures were showing positive movement in the key indicators demonstrating that either MTV was providing positive role models or that MTV wasn't influencing young people to any great degree.


the figures demonstrate a decline, but nothing near an end to the problem. MTV I think is basically being used to describe pop music and culture in general and because it is a heavy market influence on the directions of pop trends.

the statistic decline isn't significant enough to claim popular culture isn't influencing young people to do really stupid things.

that's sort of absurd.


if the problem exists someone needs to be there to acknowledge it and possibly fight it.

[Skeptic]

I think O'Reily might save money by using cardboard cutouts as his "guests" instead of actual people. Since he never lets his guests get a word in edgewise anyway, the show will be just as good (or bad).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think O'Reily might save money by using cardboard cutouts as his "guests" instead of actual people. Since he never lets his guests get a word in edgewise anyway, the show will be just as good (or bad). Or maybe he could just go ahead and script out what he wants them to say. He all but badgers them into arguments they might have not otherwise gone in to. I'd love to see O'Reilly in a moderated debate where he wasn't both a debator and the moderator.

[jj]

This sounds for all the world like the anti-D&D guy who would cite stats on teenage suicide as in: DID YOU KNOW THAT 1 of every N TEENAGERS WHO PLAYS D&D COMMITS SUICIDE? IT'S DANGEROUS I TELL YOU!

His statistic was right.

The spin was that if you bothered to look, the suicide rate for people who play D&D is also about 1/4 of the same demographic who doesn't.

People who do things like that are purely evil, and consummately dishonest. Lying by omission is still lying.

And O'Reilly is the biggest spinner of the lot. What's he had to say about the ruling in "Fair and Balanced", anyhow?

[Ricomise]

the statistic decline isn't significant enough to claim popular culture isn't influencing young people to do really stupid things.

I think this is backwards. The statistic doesn't have to make a claim that pop culture isn't influencing young people. Young people have been doing really stupid things for centuries, simply because they are young.

A quick look at "pop culture" throughout history shows that it reflects a fairly universal theme that youths act impulsively and sometimes not in there best interests. The important word is "reflects"; it does not cause this behavior.

It is incumbant on those claiming that there is a causal relationship between a media and behavior to demonstrate that relationship.

[jimlintott]

So, would it be safe to conclude that third world countries without access to MTV don't have the teen pregnancy problem?

While it is tempting to correlate many factors to teen pregnancy, the only actual causal factor of teenage pregnancy is teenage sex.

[dsm]

Why does this discussion remind me of the discussions our parents had when Elvis shook his booty or the Beatles shook their moptops on the Ed Sullivan show?

:crazy:

[jj]

Originally posted by dsm
Why does this discussion remind me of the discussions our parents had when Elvis shook his booty or the Beatles shook their moptops on the Ed Sullivan show?

:crazy:

Because it seems a whole lot like it's the same conversation, there's trouble, that's right you've got trouble, right here in river city! And that starts with 't' and that rhymes with 'p' and that stands for Pool!:rub:

[nightwind]

Yep, O'Reilly is probably the biggest spinner of anyone. I think that he just is so absorbed with identifying others that are spinning that he does not recognize his own spin.

I have noticed that he relishes getting to do the stories on sexuality, nudity, etc. always trying to put a spin of evil on it, even though there may be no evidence at all that the acitivity is harmful.

I remember he did one not too long ago on "teen nudist camps". Something that has been going on for years and years without any problems surfacing. If it's not evil, then O'Reilly will make it so. Snore, snore.

A wise minister once told me that "a preacher would preach the loudest about his own vices."

[dsm]

I remember seeing an interview of Jenna Jameson (the porn star) on E! where she talked about the interview she did on the O'Reilly Factor. During the interview, although Jenna held her own, O'Reilly did a spin on things to make it look like he was tough on the porn industry. Then, after the interview, Jenna said that O'Reilly talked to her and asked whether he could get a copy of some of her movies. Jenna thought that was fuel to use against him in any future interviews...

:roll:

[Skeptic]

A wise minister once told me that "a preacher would preach the loudest about his own vices."

Are you sure he wasn't a talmudic sage? The talmud has a saying, "Ha'posel be'mumo posel"--literally, "he who criticizes, criticizes his own vices". Then again, most cultures probably have some similar saying.

Yeah, O'Reilly, you're a "no spin zone" where "the objective truth" is what matters. Sure. And I'm Frank Sinatra.

[Skeptic]

I remember seeing an interview of Jenna Jameson (the porn star) on E! where she talked about the interview she did on the O'Reilly Factor. During the interview, although Jenna held her own, O'Reilly did a spin on things to make it look like he was tough on the porn industry. Then, after the interview, Jenna said that O'Reilly talked to her and asked whether he could get a copy of some of her movies.

I would take that claim with a BIG grain of salt. O'Reilly might be a spinner, but he's not THAT stupid.

I have to admire O'Reilly's "bravery" and "fearlessness" in "exposing the truth". After all, it takes courage to go on national TV and and openly attack all those things his viewers support so fiercely--you know, like porn stars, child pronographers, terrorists, Jesse Jackson, "liberals" and/or "feminists" in general, etc...

[dsm]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I would take that claim with a BIG grain of salt. O'Reilly might be a spinner, but he's not THAT stupid.


Then again, maybe he is (http://www.eonline.com/On/Holly/Shows/Jameson/Timeline/index2.html)


August 2002: Jameson spars with Bill O'Reilly about the business of pornography on The O'Reilly Factor. After the interview, he requests copies of some of her films.


If you'll check the rest of the bio, you see that Jenna, although a porn star, is a smart porn star (note November 2001 ;) ) and it would be pretty stupid of her to make this up!

:wink8:

[clk]

Originally posted by dsm


Then again, maybe he is (http://www.eonline.com/On/Holly/Shows/Jameson/Timeline/index2.html)



Hmm. I guess it comes down to which source is more legitimate, Fox "News" or E!. I'm betting that E! is more legitimate.

[Skeptic]

Hmm. I guess it comes down to which source is more legitimate, Fox "News" or E!.

Which is a bit like deciding which is better for your health, AIDS or cancer...

[clk]

O'Reilly looks like a hypocrite when he complains about raunchy programming on TV. He thinks that we would be better off if MTV would stop putting so much sex in their programming, but yet he doesn't say anything about his own network, Fox. He has yet to give his opinion on shows such as Temptation Island, Joe Millionaire, Married with Children and Melrose Place. I wonder why? :rolleyes: