Outfoxed

O’Reilly once found out about a white kids only by invitation prom held by some kids in a central/southern Georgia school. It wasn’t school sanctioned or paid for by any government funds; it was privately funded by a family, and they chose to make it white only. O’Reilly got his hands on some of the pictures of the party, and his crew doctored them to put the name of the school on any and all banners in order to make it seem like the party was school sponsored. Neal Boortz, a libertarian radio talk show host based out of Atlanta and syndicated nationally I believe, saw this episode and got mad. He got his hands on the original photos and, lo and behold, no school logos. He talked to the students at the event and the people who hosted it, and they could confirm it was privately funded. So, he started calling O’Reilly a liar on his radio show. Boortz got invited to one of O’Reilly’s shouting matches, and Boortz did so well that Bill resorted to calling him a bastard on the air.

ANYWAY, with Fox News’ actual reporting reporting, I’ve found no problem with them. There might be a bias that cuts out some parts of the story or ignores other stories entirely, but the on the air reporting, that’s not done in one of the many editorial programs such as O’Reilly; Hannity and Colmes; that round table one with Brit Humes as a moderator guy, I’ve found to be stated in very unbiased terminology excepting the cases of terrorists being referred to as ruthless thugs. Now, the editorials themselves have bias to them, but they’re editorials. The round table one has some Weekly Standard guys, but it also has very solid liberals from what I’ve seen. Hannity and Colmes, while dominated by Hannity’s yelling, does have a nice mix of intelligent conservatives and liberals and doesn’t try to get raving idiots for one side or the other. O’Reilly’s just stupid.

I would like to note, however, that I don’t think Ann Coulter is a fair counterpart to Susan Estridge.

You are wrong, sir! I don’t hate conservatives, which is quite fortunate since there are numerous conservative critiques of the war in Iraq. However, I <i>do</i> dislike people who advocate the mass murder of Iraqi civilians in an aggressive war based on lies, on fucking prime-time TV on a supposed “news channel.”

That’s because his films, particularly Fahrenheit 9/11, show facts in addition to Moore’s own conclusions, often facts that went unreported by the mainstream media. Fahrenheit 9/11 didn’t just magically appear in a political vacuum. It appeared after three years in which practically the whole mainstream media faithfully toed the administration’s line. It was really the first widely-heard response to the rhetoric with which the administration inundated the country every single day.

You just answered yourself. There’s a reason why more viewers of Fox News than of any other news network thought that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. When extremist right-wing views such as O’Reilly’s are constantly presented as “fair and balanced,” that ends up driving public discourse further to the right.

I really doubt this, considering the fact that that film went to great pains to state that guns are not bad. There’s a long segment in it about Canada, in which Moore buys some ammo, visits a shooting parlour, states that Canadians own many guns, and then states that Canada is safer to live in than the United States. The only obvious conclusion that could possibly be drawn from this - in fact, the only possible reason for including this segment in the film - is that all guns and gun owners are <i>not</i> bad, and that the reason why there’s so much gun violence in America must therefore be something other than widespread gun ownership. The whole point of that was to show that just having gun control does not lead to greater safety.

There’s a big difference between someone expressing their opinion in a documentary, without claiming to be a “fair and balanced journalist,” and someone constantly claiming that they’re “objective” and don’t have an agenda while actively pushing that agenda every single day. If O’Reilly positioned himself as just another conservative commentator, as opposed to a “fair and balanced journalist,” he wouldn’t have nearly as much of an “effect on Americans.” In America, people don’t expect “fairness” from commentators so much, but they do expect it from journalists, so the pretense of being a “journalist” is the main source of O’Reilly’s stature.

And yet, that has a great deal to do with the matter. You claim that both of them are “perpetuating a nation of hate.” That comparison holds no water when one of them labels a large amount of Americans as “enemies of the state” (2/26/03), threatens them, and calls for the murder of several million civilians, while the other yells at Charlton Heston and lets Marilyn Manson whine on camera. Those things are not equivalent. They are not equally bad either in terms of “the direction they’re trying to twist America to,” or in terms of “their effect on Americans.” The respective magnitudes of “hate” that they “perpetuate” are incomparable.

I’ve heard your political tirades for over five years, and I’ve never heard you say a single kind word toward conservatives (while I’ve heard you condemn the majority of them constantly). Wrong or not, I don’t think my comment was a big stretch. Although admittedly, my wording was a bit harsh. I should have said that you “hate all conservative points of view”, which you have said is also not true, so I apologize.

Anybody can twist facts to come to their own conclusion. Especially when only part of the story is exposed.

I think 984’s comments on Fox News in the previous post are pretty accurate.

What, is he saying AMERICAN gun owners are bad? America is bad? Canada is good? Does he even know?

Why do you think people make political documentaries? Political documentaries aren’t there just to merely express the creator’s opinion. They’re made to influence the masses. They bring to light a social issue and the maker’s opinion on the issue, hoping that the “newly-educated masses” will now believe what the documentarist has told them to (since only one side of the issue was even brought up). So, in a way, I find political documentaries to be potentially more harmful, since they pose just as “some guy’s opinion”. Although, after seeing how “Farenheit 9/11” was advertised, I wonder if Moore isn’t just trying to be as “contraversial” as possible just so he can make more money.

As I said, I’m not comparing the morals of either of these two individuals. But liberal propagandists are effective in getting the liberal population of this country to hate the conservative population (and conservative propagandists are getting the conservatives to hate liberals). Not the kind of hate that makes somebody go on a killing spree, but I hear hateful things about conservatives constantly EVEN ON A FUCKING RPG MESSAGE BOARD, and hearing hateful things makes most people spiteful, which creates a hateful cycle. Not that Michael Moore is completely to blame for this, but it’s naive to say that he doesn’t play his part.

Anyway, let me just reiterate what I originally meant: Propagandists are bad. Bill O’Reilly is a propagandist. People bitch about this. People should bitch about this. Michael Moore is also a propagandist. People here DON’T bitch about this. People here SHOULD bitch about this if they’re going to bitch about other propagandists.

I’ll even retract my comment that they’re both as bad as each other, because that wasn’t my point, and I feel that my original point is being lost in the shuffle. What WAS my point is that both of them are bad, but people only recognize one side as bad or the other. Is that satisfactory, or do you want to start arguing that Moore is good now?

I’m not buying it! It costs too much!

Ok, now I’m having trouble figuring out wether Bill O’Reilly is an asshat or if he’s jsut acting like one just because he can.

What has this dubious assertion to do with anything? For that matter, I’ve repeatedly heard you complain about how people aren’t nice to each other, but I’ve rarely heard you say “a single kind word” toward liberals. (NOTE: It is relevant to note here that Hiryuu has previously said kind words about me.) Except I don’t take that as a sign that you “hate all liberals,” and I don’t expect you to preface each of your posts with a disclaimer about how you don’t hate all of them.

Once again, if you wanted to hear “the other part of the story,” all you had to do was turn on the TV at any point in time during the past three years. During the rush to war with Iraq, the news was inundated with the administration’s “side of the story,” that being their lies about the “threat” posed by Iraq. Opposing viewpoints were marginalized and the debate over the war was cut short. The administration sure as hell didn’t invite anyone to give an opposing viewpoint after each one of Bush’s warmongering speeches. Fahrenheit 9/11 was first and foremost born of those circumstances - it was the counterpoint that no one had really previously given before a mass audience, and contained the images that the mainstream media had prohibited or ignored. It’s hardly Michael Moore’s fault that Bush took the country to war based on lies; if someone walks away from Fahrenheit 9/11 angry about that fact, which is really the most “hateful” thing that movie can inspire, that really has little to do with Michael Moore. The issue of this war, especially when the administration has worked so hard to couch it in its own terms, is itself divisive and inflammatory. Wars are divisive; wars elicit strong emotional responses. People who disagree about wars are going to be divided.

Except, of course, for the fact that the sources used in Fox’s reporting (e.g. the people interviewed on Special Report with Brit Hume) are aggressively slanted towards Republican and conservative figures. Other news organizations have this slant too, it’s just much greater on Fox.

No on all counts. He doesn’t know, and that was the whole point of the film. In the film, he looked at a whole bunch of different simplistic yet popular rationales proposed to explain why there’s so much gun violence in America: video game violence, “evil” music, not enough gun control, not enough “zero tolerance” in schools, and so forth. He rejected every one of them, including the one that holds that gun control will solve the problem of gun violence. In the end, he didn’t have an easy explanation for gun violence; his opinion was that it arose from greater social problems, such as poverty, and that instead of adopting those simplistic rationales, we should find better ways to address the greater problems. Regardless of the merits of this opinion, writing it off as “propaganda” is just an easy way to dismiss it without actually engaging the issue.

Anyone who expresses any opinion at all in public already hopes to “influence the masses” in some way. If there’s a sound argument behind one’s opinion, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

About “conservatives”? People do complain about the Bush administration, I’ve noticed. Occasionally people also complain about various individual conservatives, such as Bill O’Reilly. This is not the same thing as expressing “hateful things” about “conservatives,” and “constantly” at that.

Actually, what people bitch about is Bill O’Reilly’s reprehensible views. They consider them, and Bill O’Reilly’s bullying tactics, to be appalling, and that is why they condemn Bill O’Reilly. Michael Moore is not relevant to this discussion of O’Reilly’s appalling views because Michael Moore does not advocate similar views or use the same kind of tactics. Bill O’Reilly says hateful things about people who oppose the war and tells them to shut up. Michael Moore does not say hateful things about all people who support the war or tell them to shut up. Instead, Michael Moore attacks the Bush administration and some individuals who are connected with it. Attacking the Bush administration is not the same as attacking all conservatives (especially given that many conservatives oppose the war). Bill O’Reilly’s rhetoric encourages people to view liberals as traitors and supports the murder of civilians. Michael Moore’s rhetoric does not encourage people to view conservatives as traitors and does not support the murder of anyone. Bill O’Reilly throws his false accusations at everyone who disagrees with him. Michael Moore throws his largely true accusations at specific individuals. Bill O’Reilly’s orders that dissenting opinions “shut up” attempt to stifle debate. Michael Moore’s film attempts to spark debate. The two are not comparable.

I think he’s an asshat because he wants to be right. Always right. O_o

I already apologized. What more do you want? You took it better when I was acusatory than when I was apologetic. The reason I don’t have kind words to say toward liberals is that I feel the need to stand up for the conservative side, since nobody else does. It’s not because I’m conservative, because I’m probably the most moderate person I know. And if you NEED an example of a me saying a single kind word toward liberals, in the thread about the first presidential debate, I did mention how you were a very intelligent liberal, and that I wished we had an intelligent conservative to debate you. I’m sure you’ve said kind thinks toward conservatives too, but I was using a bit of a hyperbole, and I didn’t mean any offense. So, AGAIN, I’ll apologize.

And as I stated already, I’m not arguing anything other than that both Moore and O’Reilly are propagandists, and that I (as well as others) should have a problem with propagandists. And I don’t know why we’re picking each other’s posts apart, when we’re arguing different things. Can’t we just be friends?

Hug?

Okay, well, then perhaps you might understand me if I were to say that I feel the need to stand up for the liberal side (or, perhaps, for the antiwar side) because I think that the war is the most important issue of this election and because the administration and the mainstream media in general have actively tried to marginalize and dismiss antiwar views.

Indeed you did. I appreciate the compliment.

Sure, no hard feelings.

Besides, one can always get people to agree on this issue:

The healing power of kittens, puppies and the comparsion of Hitler and Sin triumphs once more! :smiley:

But O Reilly is still a jerk. >_>

And child porn is bad.

The website: http://www.outfoxed.org/

I happened to see it because my friend works for the magazine that was putting on a 3 day film festival at our school…

And Pierson, there’s a whole segment focused on O’Reilly attacking the guy whose father died in 9/11… I found it pretty disturbing. The guy handled it well though. I know I wouldn’t be anywhere near as composed if I had some guy who didn’t even know me yelling at me for signing an anti-war banner, saying I was disgracing both my mother and father for holding the views I did, then telling me after the program ended that he was going to kick my ass unless I got out of the building!

From the perspective of the documentary, every aspect of Fox news is tainted… it makes you think about the way images are presented, why certain sounds are used, and the way words are juxtaposed with those sounds and images… it’s subtle brainwashing. And yeah, I guess that’s the key to advertising in general… But the scary thing about the news is that so many people take it at face value, and from what I saw in the movie, the messages being sold at Fox are pretty damn destructive for society. War is good, arabs are bad, immigrants are bad, go america! america! america!

Anyway, stuff like this is why I stopped watching tv to begin with. I rely on the internet for my news, thank you. ;p

At least I’m not being compared to Bill O’ Reilly.

Some news sources are more conservitive then others, others are more liberal. Thats why some cities have two newspapers, and thats why we can choose what news we watch/read.

Bill O’riley is opinion, he doesn’t state actual “news” but what he thinks about it, but people have been doing that for years, it should’n’t shock you that much to the point where you only trust the internet for news

but I hear hateful things about conservatives constantly EVEN ON A FUCKING RPG MESSAGE BOARD
An RPG Forum whose vast majority of active members aren’t even American.

“Conservatives” don’t need propoganda to make themselves look terrible. They seal that issue on their own. Any Republican vs. Democrat debate can be won in a mere sentece: “Bush arbitraily started the war that needlessly killed thousands.”

I think too many people throw this issue around far too lightly. There are people <b>DYING</b> because of the war. And not just one or two (though any number of deaths is a tragedy), THOUSANDS. This is irrepairable disaster on a grand scale.

I don’t know how it could get any more simple and clear than this :open_mouth: To hell with any other issues, get Bush out of there. Even if Kerry is as bad as or worse than Bush, take that gamble. Bush sets the bar for destructiveness, and there’s more of a chance than not of Kerry being a better leader.

Yeah, Bill O’Reilly’s the one who “shocked” me to only turn to the internet. Whatever. On the internet I can turn to The Guardian or other non-american sources, which are generally alot less biased… And anyway, I guess I can’t say “stuff like this made me stop watching tv”… lack of interest and time made me stop watching tv. :stuck_out_tongue: But irritation at having to see the same material over and over again with a similar slant on every news channel made me stop watching the news. And exactly what channel have you been watching that is more “liberal” or, better yet, unbiased?

I get my news from This Hour Has 22 Minutes, as any liberal fearing Canadian would. :stuck_out_tongue:

I usually watch the CBC news though, when I’m at home. The Dutchevelle when I’m at my omi’s, and the BBC whenever I remember to watch it aswell.

I always thought Fox news was like… SNL. >.>; I never watched it, but the things I’ve heard about it were always so crazy I thought it was comedy.

:kissy:

The BBC

Or, read two newspapers, and see the diference between the two. Its really not that hard…

God I love that Sinistral/Hitler picture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1329436,00.html