As Don Imus said. If I worked for a outfit that tells me how to report. Thats when I would leave. More at WWW.Outfoxed.org/ Have to agree with him. Even if your given talking points every day on how to answer questions is ducking. Folks will catch on.
Fox New's Fair ??
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
are we talking about dan rather?...katie couric?.....ted koppel?......chris bury?....nightline?.....judy woodruff?...aaron brown?....cnn?....the bbc?.....
surely ,djv,you realize this is a double-edged sword....
surely ,djv,you realize this is a double-edged sword....
Liberal Hatred of Free Speech
The liberal view of free speech is fascinating: People promoting liberal principles must speak freely and people promoting conservative principles must feel free to shut up.
This viewpoint is behind the silly notion that the Fox News Channel offers a conservative news product. Of course FNC makes a concerted effort to present both sides of every issue, liberal, conservative and in between.
Why do liberals find this so disturbing? I suspect they think they stand a better chance of folks siding with them if their point of view is all anybody gets to hear.
Conservatives, on the other hand, know the value of "fair and open debate": (a) The conservative viewpoint is shared, explained and understood and (b) The liberal viewpoint is shared, explained and rejected as mean-spirited, arrogant, condescending claptrap.
Two songs about the war on terror came out this summer and major media response illustrates my point. ABC invited and then uninvited Toby Keith to sing "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" on their 4th of July special - reportedly because Peter Jennings thought it inappropriate. And while NBC?s Today thumbed their noses at Mr. Keith?s song, they were pleased to showcase Steve Earle and his strange tribute, "John Walker?s Blues".
Let?s put the lyrics of these two songs side by side. Tolerance and free speech for one and not the other? How is it possible for ABC and NBC to be so disconnected from the public they claim to serve?
*Can't take credit for writing this but I agree with every point.
The liberal view of free speech is fascinating: People promoting liberal principles must speak freely and people promoting conservative principles must feel free to shut up.
This viewpoint is behind the silly notion that the Fox News Channel offers a conservative news product. Of course FNC makes a concerted effort to present both sides of every issue, liberal, conservative and in between.
Why do liberals find this so disturbing? I suspect they think they stand a better chance of folks siding with them if their point of view is all anybody gets to hear.
Conservatives, on the other hand, know the value of "fair and open debate": (a) The conservative viewpoint is shared, explained and understood and (b) The liberal viewpoint is shared, explained and rejected as mean-spirited, arrogant, condescending claptrap.
Two songs about the war on terror came out this summer and major media response illustrates my point. ABC invited and then uninvited Toby Keith to sing "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" on their 4th of July special - reportedly because Peter Jennings thought it inappropriate. And while NBC?s Today thumbed their noses at Mr. Keith?s song, they were pleased to showcase Steve Earle and his strange tribute, "John Walker?s Blues".
Let?s put the lyrics of these two songs side by side. Tolerance and free speech for one and not the other? How is it possible for ABC and NBC to be so disconnected from the public they claim to serve?
*Can't take credit for writing this but I agree with every point.
djv- just turn the channel. Lots of programming I don't agree with or like, so I don't watch/listen. Does it bother me they are on- no.
You remind me of a Bible Thumper who constantly extols the evils of that vile vice pornography. You keep watching it and telling us how obscene and tasteless it is.
You remind me of a Bible Thumper who constantly extols the evils of that vile vice pornography. You keep watching it and telling us how obscene and tasteless it is.
I haven't heard much about O'Reilly, but I did see this...
Published on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 by The Nation
My First (and Last) Time With Bill O'Reilly
by David Cole
It started innocuously enough. On Monday, June 21, a producer from Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor called to ask me to appear as a guest that
evening to comment on a front-page story in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration had overstated the value of intelligence gained at Guant?namo and the dangers posed by the men detained there. I'm
generally not a fan of shout-television, and I had declined several prior invitations to appear on O'Reilly's show, but this time I said yes. Little
did I know it would not only be my first time, but also my last.
I sat in the Washington studio as the taping of the show began in New York with a rant from Bill O'Reilly. He claimed that "the Factor" had
established the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and then played a clip from Thomas Kean, head of the Senate's 9/11 Commission, in which Kean said, "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or
Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts
between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."
I was impressed. O'Reilly, who had announced his show as the "No Spin Zone," was actually playing a balanced soundbite, one that accurately
reported the commission's findings both that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11, and that there was some evidence of contacts (if no
"collaborative relationship") between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Maybe all those nasty things Al Franken had said about O'Reilly weren't true after all.
But suddenly O'Reilly interrupted, plainly angry, and said, "We can't use that.... We need to redo the whole thing." Three minutes of silence later,
the show began again, with O'Reilly re-recording the introduction verbatim. Except this time, when he got to the part about Kean, he played
no tape, and simply paraphrased Kean as confirming that "definitely there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda." The part about no link to 9/11 was left on the cutting-room floor.
Now it was my turn. O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guant?namo detainees were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions holding the detainees at Guant?namo."
I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed
to be low-level and had provided little valuable intelligence.
That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not
dangerous. I replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk television.
But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago
as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
Apparently O'Reilly does not like being called "the pot." He exploded, repeatedly called me an "S.O.B." and assured me that he would cut my
accusation from the interview when the show aired. He also said I would "never ever" be on his show again. At this point, I wasn't sure whether to
take that as a threat or a promise.
Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired later that night, both Thomas Kean's statement about 9/11 and my charge about O'Reilly deleting it were
missing. All that was left was Bill O'Reilly, fuming at the liberal media's lack of objectivity and balance, and ruing the divisive effect "spin" has on our national unity.
David Cole (cole@law.georgetown.edu), The Nation's legal affairs correspondent and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, is the
author of No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System (New Press), co-author, with James X. Dempsey, of Terrorism
and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties for National Security (New Press) and author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and
Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (New Press).
Published on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 by The Nation
My First (and Last) Time With Bill O'Reilly
by David Cole
It started innocuously enough. On Monday, June 21, a producer from Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor called to ask me to appear as a guest that
evening to comment on a front-page story in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration had overstated the value of intelligence gained at Guant?namo and the dangers posed by the men detained there. I'm
generally not a fan of shout-television, and I had declined several prior invitations to appear on O'Reilly's show, but this time I said yes. Little
did I know it would not only be my first time, but also my last.
I sat in the Washington studio as the taping of the show began in New York with a rant from Bill O'Reilly. He claimed that "the Factor" had
established the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and then played a clip from Thomas Kean, head of the Senate's 9/11 Commission, in which Kean said, "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or
Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts
between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."
I was impressed. O'Reilly, who had announced his show as the "No Spin Zone," was actually playing a balanced soundbite, one that accurately
reported the commission's findings both that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11, and that there was some evidence of contacts (if no
"collaborative relationship") between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Maybe all those nasty things Al Franken had said about O'Reilly weren't true after all.
But suddenly O'Reilly interrupted, plainly angry, and said, "We can't use that.... We need to redo the whole thing." Three minutes of silence later,
the show began again, with O'Reilly re-recording the introduction verbatim. Except this time, when he got to the part about Kean, he played
no tape, and simply paraphrased Kean as confirming that "definitely there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda." The part about no link to 9/11 was left on the cutting-room floor.
Now it was my turn. O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guant?namo detainees were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions holding the detainees at Guant?namo."
I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed
to be low-level and had provided little valuable intelligence.
That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not
dangerous. I replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk television.
But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago
as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
Apparently O'Reilly does not like being called "the pot." He exploded, repeatedly called me an "S.O.B." and assured me that he would cut my
accusation from the interview when the show aired. He also said I would "never ever" be on his show again. At this point, I wasn't sure whether to
take that as a threat or a promise.
Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired later that night, both Thomas Kean's statement about 9/11 and my charge about O'Reilly deleting it were
missing. All that was left was Bill O'Reilly, fuming at the liberal media's lack of objectivity and balance, and ruing the divisive effect "spin" has on our national unity.
David Cole (cole@law.georgetown.edu), The Nation's legal affairs correspondent and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, is the
author of No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System (New Press), co-author, with James X. Dempsey, of Terrorism
and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties for National Security (New Press) and author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and
Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (New Press).
Chan I believe I said what Imus said. And would agree if true. If I'm a reporter and told how and what to say. I'm gone. It's not about what ever the subject is. But there are those who like being told why and how. Nothing against them. I just agree with Imus. It showed in how they handled the movie 9/11. They laughed and said it would not make 25 million.They stopped telling you how much it's made. It's like there afraid of it.
Last edited:
