Oreilly to pull a Cronkite?

[Ed]

Some may recall the famous Cronkite broadcast where he went from hawk to dove:

Quote:

Some accounts of television's role regarding this war assign a key role to a special broadcast by Walter Cronkite wrapping up his reporting on the Tet Offensive. On 27 February 1968, Cronkite closed "Report from Vietnam: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" by expressing his view that the war was unwinnable, and that the United States would have to find a way out. Some of Lyndon Johnson's aides have recalled that the president watched the broadcast and declared that he knew at that moment he would have to change course. A month later Johnson declined to run for reelection and announced that he was seeking a way out of the war; David Halberstam has written that "it was the first time in American history a war had been declared over by an anchorman."
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/V/...ietnamonte.htm

I noted with interest a segment on Bill O'Reilly's show this past week:

Quote:

Top Story
What's really happening in Iraq?
Guests: Fox News military analysts Col. Bill Cowan & Col. David Hunt
21 Marines have been killed in the last two days and an American journalist was assassinated after writing an article that said Shiite militia were executing people in the port city of Basra. Colonel David Hunt said some things in Iraq were getting worse, despite what people in the U.S. might think. "What's getting worse is the fact that the Iraqis are not standing up and fighting. Of the ninety battalions that we've trained, only two are capable of independent action, and the rampant corruption within Iraq is hurting everything that we're trying to do." Colonel Bill Cowan addressed other problems. "I was on a year ago talking about unemployment being a factor; it has not gotten much better. The lack of essential services being a factor, it has not gotten much better. We are having a tough time. The insurgents are tough, they are getting smarter. The short answer is we're hanging on." The Factor challenged the Iraqis to get more involved. "Hanging on is not really going to cut it. It seems to me that the Iraqi people are going to have to decide for themselves. It doesn't seem like they're actively involved in their own welfare."
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?acti...w&showID=392#2

This summary does not really capture it, unfortunately. While the military guys were trying to be upbeat, O'Reilly kept coming back to the lack of progress in spite of he enormous expenditures of riches and lives. The end of the interview was downbeat to say the least. His closing observation was that they had "six months" meaning these much vaunted Iraqi battalions had to be doing the job by then.

As I watched, I thought of Cronkite and wondered three things:

1) Does Bill really think that he has the stature of a Cronkite where his opinion would represent the beginning of a groundswell of negative opinion of the war? (I think that he is setting up a portentious "announcement" wherein he, in fact pulls a Cronkite at some point in the future. To which I respond "Bill, I knew Walter Cronkite and you, sir, are no Walter Cronkite")

2) Is the mass of opinion (represented, perhaps, by Bill as a bellweather) beginning a slow but ponderous shift against the war?

3) How badly are the Republicans going to get f*cked in '06? I see Frist, ratlike, beginning to futively scurry to put distance between himself and the neo-cons (whiskers aquivver).

I foresee an interesting 18 months or so.

Thoughts?

[Solitaire]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
(1) Does Bill really think that he has the stature of a Cronkite where his opinion would represent the beginning of a groundswell of negative opinion of the war? (I think that he is setting up a portentious "announcement" wherein he, in fact pulls a Cronkite at some point in the future. To which I respond "Bill, I knew Walter Cronkite and you, sir, are no Walter Cronkite")

Quote:

(2) Is the mass of opinion (represented, perhaps, by Bill as a bellweather) beginning a slow but ponderous shift against the war?

I think it shifted long ago, but that shift has zero political power.
Given the heat, it'll be a decade or two then you might see a thaw.

Quote:

(3) How badly are the Republicans going to get f*cked in '06? I see Frist, ratlike, beginning to futively scurry to put distance between himself and the neo-cons (whiskers aquivver).

The republicans probably will gain a few seats in the house and one in the
senate. I suspect they'll be angry at the Democrats for not getting more.

Quote:

Transcript: July 29, 2005
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question -- before that, however, U.S. military dead in Iraq, 1,792; U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 43,200; Iraqi civilians dead, 113,500. Exit question: Will the U.S. be able to make dramatic troop reductions in Iraq next spring? Yes or no, Pat.
MR. BUCHANAN: Whether we'll be able to or not, I think we're going to do it. That secret British memo that talked about a drawdown of allied forces from 170,000 to 66,000, I think they were on to something.

Not this spring but over the course of three years, maybe,
but the reductions will relect a decline in enlistments, deaths,
and injuries, not a true reduction.

Prediction: a Republican wins the white house in 2008.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Synchronicity


Yes, a good quote. I invented it

I think it shifted long ago, but that shift has zero political power.
Given the heat, it'll be a decade or two then you might see a thaw.

There is a critical mass thing. I think that that is what we are approaching. It occurs when the "statesmen" in DC perceive that they are on the wrong side of an issue. A micro-event happened w/ Terri Schivo.

The republicans probably will gain a few seats in the house and one in the
senate. I suspect they'll be angry at the Democrats for not getting more.

Dunno. I think they may well experience an ass whuppin'. It depends on whether Dean et al. are still in the pay of Carl Rove.

Not this spring but over the course of three years, maybe,
but the reductions will relect a decline in enlistments, deaths,
and injuries, not a true reduction.

Prediction: a Republican wins the white house in 2008.

Right now, who knows. If Clinton runs it will bring out the worst in both parties, in which event I think that you are right. If two non-polarizing candidates are running I would give it to the dems. [/quote]

[Mark]

On the Daily Show the other night, Senator Biden suggested that he would consider a bi-partisan run for the White House with Senator McCain (He didn't say who would be Prez and who would be Veep). I doubt the power brokers would ever let it happen, but it would be a cool move away from this disastrous one party rule we are under now.

[Skeptic]

I always said O'Reilly is an idiot, even when I agreed with what he said. What I want to know is why is this news? If Bush or some other important decision maker changes his mind about the Iraq war, that is news. But why is the fact that a journalist does so any more important than the fact that a choropodist does so? O'Reilly's ego is the size of the galaxy, I swear.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
...O'Reilly's ego is the size of the galaxy, I swear.

Really? That small?

[Phrost]

Or how about just giving O'Reilly credit for being intellectually honest instead of trying to weasel in a snide snipe at the man on an internet forum?

Oh no, it couldn't be that easy could it?

Do skeptics realize how ridiculously dogmatic they sound when discussing their politics?

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark
On the Daily Show the other night, Senator Biden suggested that he would consider a bi-partisan run for the White House with Senator McCain (He didn't say who would be Prez and who would be Veep). I doubt the power brokers would ever let it happen, but it would be a cool move away from this disastrous one party rule we are under now.

Yet another jackass trying to ride on McCain's coattails.

[corplinx]

Its important to know that O'Reilly always tries to position himself as a populist. Right now the war in unpopular. He was asking the same questions some people are asking in their heads.

It seems like the holdup is the Iraqi police and military forces. The nation-building aspect of putting together a government is on schedule, however there is nothing to enforce that government.

We have to admit the strong point of the insurgency has been attacks on their own fellow Iraqis who try to become police and military.

There is a perception that there isn't progress in Iraq. Perhaps the administration needs to do a better job of communicating milestones and progress. Bush calls himself the CEO president. Well, businesses have quarterly meetings where they have glossy charts and presentations showing their strategy, where its working, where it is changing, and of course results.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
...
There is a perception that there isn't progress in Iraq. Perhaps the administration needs to do a better job of communicating milestones and progress. Bush calls himself the CEO president. Well, businesses have quarterly meetings where they have glossy charts and presentations showing their strategy, where its working, where it is changing, and of course results.

Au contraire, Bush's problem is nothing to with communication incompetence, and everything to do with war-fighting incompetence. If he had something positive communicate, we'd know if from every Republican shill in the universe.

The quantitative nature of corporate quarterly reports does not make it a beneficial format for Bush's war accountancy and projection pronouncements. You know, turning the corner and light at the end of the tunnel are a lot harder to grab onto than actual numbers of Iraqi police and soldiers trained, equipped, effectively led and ready for duty, especially when held up to the standard of baseline projections of a few years ago.

[Mark]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Yet another jackass trying to ride on McCain's coattails.

Nice personal attack on him, but it says nothing at all about the concept of a bipartisan ticket.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phrost
Or how about just giving O'Reilly credit for being intellectually honest instead of trying to weasel in a snide snipe at the man on an internet forum?

Oh no, it couldn't be that easy could it?

Do skeptics realize how ridiculously dogmatic they sound when discussing their politics?

O'Reilly? Intellectually honest? Please!
Media Matters

Quote:

Host Bill O'Reilly threatened Canada with a boycott like the one he advocated against France, then cited a phony statistic about the success of the French boycott. The threat came during O'Reilly's April 27 debate with Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick about Canada's harboring of two deserters from the U.S. military who have fled to Canada. From FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:

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.

Add his love of loofahs and subordinates to his loyalty to family values and you have a man who does not deserve the title of intellectually honest.

If you are going to complain of unwarranted attacks, do it in a thread other than one devoted to the man who launched a lawsuit against Frankin that can generously be described as the silliest lawsuit in modern history.

[Mark]

Did anyone make this fairly obvious point yet?

If a Democrat did this it would be called "flip-flopping" and would be evil.

[Phrost]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
O'Reilly? Intellectually honest?

If you are going to complain of unwarranted attacks, do it in a thread other than one devoted to the man who launched a lawsuit against Frankin that can generously be described as the silliest lawsuit in modern history.

He's being honest in this instance. If you consider yourself a skeptic and want to attack someone for what they've done you should do that instead of creating elaborate conspiracy theories or rabid assumptions to explain why they're agreeing with you when they do.

It's infantile and completely evident that your hatred of said person is overriding your reasoning skills.

[Mark]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phrost
He's being honest in this instance. If you consider yourself a skeptic and want to attack someone for what they've done you shoud do that instead of creating elaborate conspiricy theories or rabid assumptions to explain why they're agreeing with you when they do.

It's infantile and completely evident that your hatred of said person is overriding your reasoning skills.

Then you were OK with Kerry changing his own stance on the Iraq war.

[Chaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
Au contraire, Bush's problem is nothing to with communication incompetence, and everything to do with war-fighting incompetence. If he had something positive communicate, we'd know if from every Republican shill in the universe.

The quantitative nature of corporate quarterly reports does not make it a beneficial format for Bush's war accountancy and projection pronouncements. You know, turning the corner and light at the end of the tunnel are a lot harder to grab onto than actual numbers of Iraqi police and soldiers trained, equipped, effectively led and ready for duty, especially when held up to the standard of baseline projections of a few years ago.

What was it the administration told you back then? "Six to twelve months, and then we´re out of there"?

"Our lads will be home by Christmas" is the oldest lie since the invention of...well...Christmas.

[Skeptic]

Or how about just giving O'Reilly credit for being intellectually honest

But that's not the point; I don't think he is dishonestly pretending to change his mind when he didn't. Only--just as I thought, and said, when he agreed with me--I simply don't see why what O'Reilly honestly thinks is more important than, say, what the local hairdresser honestly thinks.

[Phrost]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark
Then you were OK with Kerry changing his own stance on the Iraq war.

If he'd only done it once, completely. I almost voted for Kerry because of stem cell research and to stave off the Christian garbage that Republicans are notorious for pushing.

The thing is though, O'Reilly has stated on his show several times (which leads me to wonder if the original poster even watches it), on this and a few other subjects, that his view on things is subject to the latest information.

Yes, he's a blowhard about a lot of things. But it's asinine to lump him in with the Hannities, Limbaughs, and others, and doing so only demonstrates the ignorance and partisanship of the person doing it.

But with everything, critical thinking goes out the window with Skeptics when it comes to politics. This forum demonstrates that if you create a dichotomy between two parties from which to chose, people line up on one side or another and start sniping at each other like good little sheep.

Ugh.

[Mark]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phrost
If he'd only done it once, completely. I almost voted for Kerry because of stem cell research and to stave off the Christian garbage that Republicans are notorious for pushing.

The thing is though, O'Reilly has stated on his show several times (which leads me to wonder if the original poster even watches it), on this and a few other subjects, that his view on things is subject to the latest information.

Yes, he's a blowhard about a lot of things. But it's asinine to lump him in with the Hannities, Limbaughs, and others, and doing so only demonstrates the ignorance and partisanship of the person doing it.

But with everything, critical thinking goes out the window with Skeptics when it comes to politics. This forum demonstrates that if you create a dichotomy between two parties from which to chose, people line up on one side or another and start sniping at each other like good little sheep.

Ugh.

While I also would not lump him in with Limbaugh, et al (in other words, he is not a nitwit), I think allowing him to change his mind, while denying Kerry's right is unfair.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phrost
But with everything, critical thinking goes out the window with Skeptics when it comes to politics. This forum demonstrates that if you create a dichotomy between two parties from which to chose, people line up on one side or another and start sniping at each other like good little sheep.

Bears repeating.

[Ed]

O'reilly has publicly and vocally changed his mind on the death penalty. He explained why in some detail.

He IS a bit of a blowhard and lets volume compensate for lack of facts in some areas (listen to him on Catholic theology, for example. Most diverting). I think that he is a very media savvy guy who is a tireless self promoter. That said he raises some very good issues and he has actually been pretty consistant on Iraq, that is support tempered by practicle considerations. I don't put him in the same class as Limbaugh or (shudder) Hanniety.

[Phrost]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
O'reilly has publicly and vocally changed his mind on the death penalty. He explained why in some detail.

He IS a bit of a blowhard and lets volume compensate for lack of facts in some areas (listen to him on Catholic theology, for example. Most diverting). I think that he is a very media savvy guy who is a tireless self promoter. That said he raises some very good issues and he has actually been pretty consistant on Iraq, that is support tempered by practicle considerations. I don't put him in the same class as Limbaugh or (shudder) Hanniety.

Fair enough.

He gets paid in direct proportion to the number of people who watch his show. Muhammad Ali was a tireless self-promoter, but he was also a damn good boxer despite how much his trash talking annoyed sports writers.

The main reason why I like O'Reilly, despite where I disagree with him, is that he gets things done and brings up issues that the regular media often lets slip through the cracks.

He does do some good, especially with his on-air outing of terrorist fund raiser Sami Al Arian, and his investigation into the officials who botched the jobs in the investigation of two different child abductions in Florida.

He's a pundit, but one of the least awful of them.

[New Ager]

(Ed)

Does Bill really think that he has the stature of a Cronkite where his opinion would represent the beginning of a groundswell of negative opinion of the war?

(New Ager)

He's never compared himself to Cronkite.

(Ed)

(I think that he is setting up a portentious "announcement" wherein he, in fact pulls a Cronkite at some point in the future.)

(New Ager)

Wild speculation.

(Ed)

(To which I respond "Bill, I knew Walter Cronkite and you, sir, are no Walter Cronkite")

(New Ager)

True. Bill is a lot more interesting. Plus, O'Reilly is a commentator and should be giving his opinion and Cronkite was a newsman who shouldn't have been.

(Ed)

2) Is the mass of opinion (represented, perhaps, by Bill as a bellweather) beginning a slow but ponderous shift against the war?

(New Ager)

Technically, the war is over. This is too keep Iraq a free country from insurgents.

(Ed)

How badly are the Republicans going to get f*cked in '06? I see Frist, ratlike, beginning to futively scurry to put distance between himself and the neo-cons (whiskers aquivver).

(New Ager)

Wild hopeful liberal speculation.

[New Ager]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phrost
He's being honest in this instance. If you consider yourself a skeptic and want to attack someone for what they've done you should do that instead of creating elaborate conspiracy theories or rabid assumptions to explain why they're agreeing with you when they do.

It's infantile and completely evident that your hatred of said person is overriding your reasoning skills.

Amen. And liberals here do the same thing to Rush and Hannity. They are two of the most well-spoken political commentators of their time and their criticized only because they are conservative.

Where is the liberal Rush Limbaugh?

(Ed)

I don't put him in the same class as Limbaugh or (shudder) Hanniety.

(New Ager)

And well you shouldn't. Bill is a moderate while Rush and Sean are conservative.

Plus, Rush is the best.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by New Ager

Wild hopeful liberal speculation.

And I, sir, am no liberal. Simply thoughtful.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by New Ager
Amen. And liberals here do the same thing to Rush and Hannity. They are two of the most well-spoken political commentators of their time and their criticized only because they are conservative.

Where is the liberal Rush Limbaugh?

(Ed)

I don't put him in the same class as Limbaugh or (shudder) Hanniety.

(New Ager)

And well you shouldn't. Bill is a moderate while Rush and Sean are conservative.

Plus, Rush is the best.

Your odd quoteing makes this difficult to understand. My thinking is that Hannity is an ignorant oaf. He really is ignorant or a liar. His twisting of facts during the Schivo thing was sickening. He is enjoying his 15 minutes.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by New Ager
Amen. And liberals here do the same thing to Rush and Hannity. They are two of the most well-spoken political commentators of their time and their criticized only because they are conservative.

Plus, Rush is the best.

Rush is a political commentator? The man made jokes about Chelsea Clinton and wrote comic songs about her as well. That is not the hallmark of a well-spoken political commentator. To suggest that he is criticized only because he is conservative is absurd. He has been rightly criticized for doing drugs while saying that drug addicts are a drain on society and should be locked up.

[Phrost]

You guys will love this:



Yes, it's a comic book where Sean Hannity and G. Gordon Liddy are superheroes fighting for conservatism.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phrost
He's being honest in this instance. If you consider yourself a skeptic and want to attack someone for what they've done you should do that instead of creating elaborate conspiracy theories or rabid assumptions to explain why they're agreeing with you when they do.

It's infantile and completely evident that your hatred of said person is overriding your reasoning skills.

Quote:

The Factor challenged the Iraqis to get more involved.

How out of touch does an American television personality have to be to challenge the Iraqis to get more involved in rebuilding their country? As if that had been the sticking point. As if now they will step up and do what is necessary. Now that Bill O'Reilly has challenged them, they will get the job done.

The man is a braying jackass. This guy has gone on record as saying that he has never told a guest to shut up, despite videotape of his telling people to shut up. As for my hatred over-riding my reasoning skills, I have seen very little evidence before today of O'Reilly displaying intellectual honesty. Perhaps he has turned a new leaf, but it will take more than a single episode of his show before I put creedence in that theory.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phrost
But with everything, critical thinking goes out the window with Skeptics when it comes to politics. This forum demonstrates that if you create a dichotomy between two parties from which to chose, people line up on one side or another and start sniping at each other like good little sheep.

Ugh.

I believe I am not alone on this forum in my hatred of both political parties. I snipe at both of them. For instance, I consider Clinton to be a pin head for starting an affair while he was being investigated by Starr.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I believe I am not alone on this forum in my hatred of both political parties. I snipe at both of them. For instance, I consider Clinton to be a pin head for starting an affair while he was being investigated by Starr.

Cool, I'll be your anchor. I love everyone. Can't we all just get along?

[Atlas]

O'Reilly is just as committed as ever to winning the war - which to him means finding and killing the Islamist leaders and quieting the insurgency. To do less is an invitation to further terrorist attacks on western civilization.

He is commenting that numberswise we're still seeing Americans killed at comparable rates as a year ago. The politicians are doing something wrong. I think he'd be happier if, short term, more Americans were sent in.

Iraq has a constitution due out in about 10 days. Then there will be Iraqi elections early next year. Then there will be a draw down of American forces which will be in time for the American mid term elections.

The time table is important for Republican hopes in the mid term elections. If there is no constitution and no elections it will be a signal that the Americans are being played.

The big factor here is Iraqi troop strength. Plenty of Iraqis have signed up but they remain untrained or feckless. Only a small number are up to the task of fighting the insurgency.

Getting those troops trained and fighting for their own nation is the holy grail. We will be abandoning the Iraqi people if they cannot defend themselves. That would be bad all the way around. I don't know if the Iraqis are afraid of building a strong army for fear it may take over - but the fact is they are in no hurry to get it strong enough to fight the insurgency.

Until the insurgency is quelled unemployment will remain high. If it can be stopped investments from the west will pour in transforming the country. The longer unemployment remains high the more the people will be tempted to try another direction. No one likes to live in a war zone. Saddamlike despotism will be reevaluated if the people's lives aren't improving.

The Iraqi people have to do it though. Americans won't stay fighting their fight forever. They have to stay with the timetable of constitution creation and elections or the people will become even more restless. They have to get their own army trained for rescuing the country from insurgency.

O'Reilly sees all this and is grousing a bit because he doesn't feel the president makes a compelling case for continuing to fight like we have been. O'Reilly also doesn't like the security problem that our pourous southern border represents.

He calls it like he sees it. Democrat or Republican, good policy or bad. Right now he feels like the President's policy in Iraq is not doing enough to keep the country fully engaged in the work we must be about... WINNING the war on terror.

[epepke]

Hey, anybody remember when Bill O'Reilly said that if there was no evidence for WMD, he would take everything he said about it back? And when it turned out that there wasn't, he actually did a mild correction on the air?

No, I didn't think so.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke
Hey, anybody remember when Bill O'Reilly said that if there was no evidence for WMD, he would take everything he said about it back? And when it turned out that there wasn't, he actually did a mild correction on the air?

No, I didn't think so.

Yes I do. That whole discussion was repeated ad nauseum. In effect he said that the president had bad intellegance. That prior administrations, the brits and russians all agreed that Saddam had WMD but the info sucked. He therefore gave Bush a pass.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

March 2005
O'REILLY: The judges in Massachusetts knew they weren't going to be impeached when they said to the state legislature, "Gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts because we say it is. We the judges" -- they knew they weren't gonna be impeached. They knew the legislature didn't care. You get the government you deserve. In California, the prevailing wisdom is marijuana is no big deal, let's legalize it. And since we can't get that through the legislature, we'll do it this way. And they did it! You see?

And 10 years, this is gonna be a totally different country than it is right now. Laws that you think are in stone -- they're gonna evaporate, man. You'll be able to marry a goat -- you mark my words!

April 2005.
O'REILLY: So this is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, of this crazy gay marriage insanity -- is gonna lead to all kinds of things like this. Courts are gonna be clogged. Every nut in the world is gonna -- somebody's gonna come in and say, "I wanna marry the goat." You'll see it; I guarantee you'll see it.

January 2005.
O'REILLY: They won't even tell you in the statement what intelligent design entails. They won't mention a creator, a deity, a God. You know why? Because the ACLU then can haul them into court and cost them $100,000 to defend themselves. Fascism, fascism, fascism. Okay? Ah, drive me nuts! Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong.

June 2004. During a discussion of the ACLU's threatening to sue Los Angeles county over a cross that appeared on the official seal

O'REILLY: Finally, the ACLU -- we talked about this yesterday and I -- and, you know, I have to pick on the ACLU because they're the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now. There's by far. There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Al Qaeda.

He apologized for supporting the government's WMD claim. Good. He points out the problems in Iraq. Great. As I said, I'm going to need more evidence than that before I can give credit to a man who has said and done the things Mr. O'Reilly has.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
He apologized for supporting the government's WMD claim. Good. He points out the problems in Iraq. Great. As I said, I'm going to need more evidence than that before I can give credit to a man who has said and done the things Mr. O'Reilly has.

I don't want to start a fight but your attitude exemlifies something that is wrong in political discourse in this country.

O'Reilly is on TV 5 hours a week. He is on the radio 15 hours a week. He writes a weekly column. That is a hell of a lot of words. Similarly, a politition is "on" 24/7 with every word recorded. To cherry pick what they say and then play gotcha does not move the peanut ahead, IMO. The result is what we have now: polititions that are afraid to say anything whatsoever.

O'Reilly has 2-3 hot bottons. The ACLU is one, pedophiles are another and he can be less than temperate when discussing these issues. I sort of think that I know where he stands. Can you say that about any elected official?

[Chaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
I don't want to start a fight but your attitude exemlifies something that is wrong in political discourse in this country.

O'Reilly is on TV 5 hours a week. He is on the radio 15 hours a week. He writes a weekly column. That is a hell of a lot of words. Similarly, a politition is "on" 24/7 with every word recorded. To cherry pick what they say and then play gotcha does not move the peanut ahead, IMO. The result is what we have now: polititions that are afraid to say anything whatsoever.

O'Reilly has 2-3 hot bottons. The ACLU is one, pedophiles are another and he can be less than temperate when discussing these issues. I sort of think that I know where he stands. Can you say that about any elected official?

Now I want you to go to the same length in defending Michael Moore.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos
Now I want you to go to the same length in defending Michael Moore.

Why? Now you are playing gotcha with me with a question completely off topic whose only purpose is to ... what?

But, OK, I'll tell you what I think.

I think that MM is probably, on balance, more sincere than O"Rielly. He, too, knows his core constituancy and plays shamelessly to it. I think that he, too, is a blowhard that will substitute loud speech for facts if they happen to get in the way of his storyline. The difference, as far as I have been able to discern, is that Moore does not suggest what might be done about the problems that he addresses which leads me to believe that he has a basic problem with our society and that, if true, is where we part company.

MM is a critical part of our democracy and I would rather have him around than not. His area is far more political in his efforts than O'Reilly (who, as pointed out by another poster, addresses many areas that are more people oriented) which makes his complaining less useful than O'Reillys. As far as I have been able to determine MM really does not care to give face time to cogent alternate perspectives except to mock them in the editing room. That is cowardly.

I don't think that either man really needs defense. They are both, at their core, entertainers who are living on the knife edge of public adulation, recognizing that their brand of discourse dates very rapidly. They will play the audience, using their signature routines (like Borscht Belt comedians) until they don't come anymore. They both contribute a bit, they are both in love with themselves. They both have a price.

[Supercharts]

Media newscasts are infotainment. Newscasters and discussion talk show types are successful because their opinions are entertaining - their personnas draw an audience and a large audience sells advertising.

I can agree with O'Reilly on a number of things but not with his reasoning. My general opinion is formed elsewhere.

I would appreciate an opportunity to 'stop in' to a political science class and listen to someone who writes for Foreign Affairs magazine and be able to ask questions and hear debate from experts on opposing sides of the issues.

Substansive questions are never asked or allowed by media news 'journalists' because they do not have the background or subject expertise to formulate one.

This whole process is analogous to a discussion about treating Cancer with a quack on an infomercial selling shark cartilage compared to a discussion with a surgeon at Mass. General. (Think of Matt Laur on the Today Show questioning the head oncologist at Sloan Kettering for example.)

I recall the TV series Max Headroom about 10 years ago where the media had reached such a state of economic stasis that BS becomes the only market. It's not that we cannot know what is really going on but, rather, we just don't care enough to try to find out. Have a Bud Lite and forget about it.

[Ed]

To those that actually raise a sweat over Moore, O'Reilly, Hanniety, Franken and other assorted guys (and gals) I strongly suggest that you rent the film "Network", perhaps it will work better than the meds you are clearly neglecting to take. A sample (all from the IMDB):

Quote:

Plot Summary for
Network (1976)
In 1975 terrorist violence is the stuff of network nightly news programming and the corporate structure of the UBS television network is changing. Meanwhile, Howard Beale, the aging UBS news anchor, has lost his once strong ratings share and so the network fires him. Beale reacts in an unexpected way. We then see how this affects the fortunes of Beale, his coworkers (Max Schumacher and Diana Christensen), and the network.

Summary written by Bruce Janson {bruce@cs.su.oz.au}

A fourth network is struggling for ratings and turns it's News division over to the entertainment division. As one of the ramifications of this move the news Anchor is fired. He goes on the air with a wonderfully daffy rant and rave session culminating in his insisting that people go to the windows and yell, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." His ravings make him an Icon as the need to sell begins to overwhelm everyone touched by the network.

Summary written by John Vogel {jlvogel@comcast.net}

Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is an ageing TV anchorman for UBS who is fired, effective in two weeks, after his ratings have been steadily deteriorating. He reacts to this by sensationally announcing on live television his intention to commit suicide on air. In doing so, Beale becomes a major TV icon and one of the most valuable assets to the Communications Corporation of America (CCA), the company that is gradually taking control of UBS. As a result he is given his own show as `the mad prophet of the air-waves'. He appears live on television every week-day evening to tell the real truth to the people of America. The programme is a huge success but Beale uses his power to make startling revelations about CCA, leaving the company executives with a serious problem.

Summary written by David Claydon {dc6212@bristol.ac.uk}

Some of the dialog sounds like it is out of a documentary about Fox (or MSN and noe, ABC)

Quote:

Diana Christensen: I'm interested in doing a weekly dramatic series based on the Ecumenical Liberation Army. The way I see the series is: Each week we open with an authentic act of political terrorism taken on the spot, in the actual moment. Then we go to the drama behind the opening film footage. That's your job, Ms. Hobbs. You've got to get the Ecumenicals to bring in that film footage for us. The network can't deal with them directly; they are, after all, wanted criminals.


Nelson Chaney: All I know is that this violates every canon of respectable broadcasting.
Frank Hackett: We're not a respectable network. We're a whorehouse network, and we have to take whatever we can get.
Nelson Chaney: Well, I don't want any part of it. I don't fancy myself the president of a whorehouse.
Frank Hackett: That's very commendable of you, Nelson. Now sit down. Your indignation is duly noted; you can always resign tomorrow.

Nelson Chaney: The affiliates won't carry it.
Frank Hackett: The affiliates will kiss your ass if you can hand them a hit show.

n.b. Who does this sound like?

Quote:

Howard Beale: I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad.
Howard Beale: [shouting] You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell,
[shouting]
Howard Beale: 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it:
Howard Beale: [screaming at the top of his lungs] "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

And the denoument?

Quote:

Diana Christensen: By tomorrow, he'll have a 50 share, maybe even a 60. Howard Beale is processed instant God, and right now, it looks like he may just go over bigger than Mary Tyler Moore.

That, my friends, is all you have to know about pundits.

Quote:

Diana Christensen: Look, I sent you all a concept analysis report yesterday. Did any of you read it?
[Aides stare blankly at her]
Diana Christensen: Well, in a nutshell, it said: "The American people are turning sullen. They've been clobbered on all sides by Vietnam, Watergate, the inflation, the depression; they've turned off, shot up, and they've ********** themselves limp, and nothing helps." So, this concept analysis report concludes, "The American people want somebody to articulate their rage for them." I've been telling you people since I took this job six months ago that I want angry shows. I don't want conventional programming on this network. I want counterculture, I want anti-establishment. I don't want to play butch boss with you people, but when I took over this department, it had the worst programming record in television history. This network hasn't one show in the top twenty. This network is an industry joke, and we'd better start putting together one winner for next September. I want a show developed based on the activities of a terrorist group, "Joseph Stalin and His Merry Band of Bolsheviks," I want ideas from you people. This is what you're paid for. And by the way, the next time I send an audience research report around, you'd all better read it, or I'll sack the *********** lot of you. Is that clear?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Christensen: I watched your 6 o'clock news today; it's straight tabloid. You had a minute and a half of that lady riding a bike naked in Central Park; on the other hand, you had less than a minute of hard national and international news. It was all sex, scandal, brutal crime, sports, children with incurable diseases, and lost puppies. So, I don't think I'll listen to any protestations of high standards of journalism when you're right down on the streets soliciting audiences like the rest of us. Look, all I'm saying is if you're going to hustle, at least do it right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Beale: All I know is, you've got to get mad. You've got to say, "I'm a human being, goddamn it. My life has value."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Beale: We'll tell you anything you want to hear, we lie like hell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Beale: You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here, you're beginning to believe that the tube is reality and your own lives are unreal. You do. Why, whatever the tube tells you: you dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even think like the tube. This is mass madness, you maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing, WE are the illusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Beale: Television is not the truth. Television is a goddamned amusement park.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Hackett: Well, the issue is: Shall we kill Howard Beale, or not? I'd like to get some more opinions on that.
Diana Christensen: I don't see we have any options, Frank. Let's kill the son-of-a-bitch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laureen Hobbs: Don't **** with my distribution costs! I'm making a lousy two-fifteen per segment and I'm already deficiting twenty-five grand a week with Metro! I'm paying William Morris ten percent off the top, and I'm giving this turkey ten thou per segment, and another five to this fruitcake! And Helen, don't start no **** about UBS again! I'm paying Metro twenty-thousand for all foreign and Canadian distribution, and that's after recoupment! The communist party's not gonna see a nickel out of this goddamn show until we go into syndication!
Helen: C'mon Laurene. The party's in for seventy-five hundred a week of the production expenses.
Laureen Hobbs: I'm not giving this pseudoinsurrectionary sedentarian a piece of my show! I'm not giving him script approval, and I sure as **** ain't gotten him into my distribution charges!
Mary Ann Gifford: [screaming] You *********** fascist! Did you see the film we made of the San Reno jail breakout, demonstrating the rising of the seminal prisoner class infrastructure?
Laureen Hobbs: You can blow the seminal prisoner class infrastructure out your ass! I'm not knockin' down my goddamn distribution charges!
Great Ahmed Kahn: [fires off his gun through the ceiling] Man, give her the *********** overhead clause. Let's get back to page twenty-two, number 5, small 'a'. Subsidiary rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[last lines]
Narrator: This was the story of Howard Beale: The first known instance of a man who was killed because of lousy ratings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Schumacher: [about Diana] I'm not sure she's capable of any real feelings. She's television generation. She learned life from Bugs Bunny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Beale: I'm gonna blow my brains out right on the air, right in the middle of the seven o'clock news.
Max Schumacher: Well, you'll get a hell of a rating, I'll tell you that. A 50 share, at least.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Schumacher: We could make a series of it. "Suicide of the Week." Aw, hell, why limit ourselves? "Execution of the Week."
Howard Beale: "Terrorist of the Week."
Max Schumacher: I love it. Suicides, assassinations, mad bombers, Mafia hitmen, automobile smash-ups: "The Death Hour." A great Sunday night show for the whole family. It'd wipe that ****in' Disney right off the air.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Christensen: Look, we've got a bunch of hobgoblin radicals called the Ecumenical Liberation Army who go around taking home movies of themselves robbing banks. Now, maybe they'll take movies of themselves kidnapping heiresses, hijacking 747s, bombing bridges, assassinating ambassadors. We'd open each week's segment with their authentic footage, hire a couple of writers to write a story behind that footage, and we've got ourselves a series.

Now, let's have a serious discussion about O'Rielly.