Basically, it looks like Bill O'Reilly took an interview in which Joe Biden had this to say about the Guantanamo detention camp:
quote:Back in January I introduced a bill saying we should have an independent commission go take a look at this, not only Guantanamo but Abu Ghraib, the rest of the prison system, make a recommendation to the United States Congress and let's deal with this openly, because this has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world. And it is unnecessary to be that, in that position. We should have an independent US commission take a look at it, make recommendations to the Congress. That bill I introduced is going to get a hearing in the judiciary committee in the next couple of weeks.
...
(Off Camera) So we should shut it down?
SENATOR JOE BIDEN: I think that should, I want a commission to make a recommendation so everybody is saying that it's not just me or others just, you know, espousing a point of view but there's a rationale for it but the end result is I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners, those that we have reason to keep, keep and those we don't, let go.
In the hands of O'Reilly's editors, Biden's words became this:
quote:BIDEN: ...has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world. And it is unnecessary to be in that position,
[CUT]
but the end result is I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners. Those that we have reason to keep, keep. And those we don't, let go.
Then O'Reilly "disagreed" with Biden by advancing the following position:
quote:O’REILLY: The Bush administration should set up an independent commission to investigate American detainee policy across the board. The president must take the offensive on this, or else the country's image will continue to suffer and the jihadists and their enablers will win another victory. And that's "The Memo."
If that isn't dishonest, I don't know what is. "No spin zone" my arse.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
If you expected anything more from O'Reilly, then you need to be paying more attention.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Seriously. Biden should have known better.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sorry, I wasn't clear... O'Reilly didn't interview Biden himself, he edited clips of a press conference or some such.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah, that makes more sense.
That is far more underhanded, but then I don't expect any better from someone as inflammatory as O'Reilly.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't think it's more underhanded. It's just more blatant. He must have known someone would call him on this.
Anyway, perhaps some of the people who consider O'Reilly to be an honest source of "straight talk" will learn of this and wise up.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hmm.
I don't watch 24-hour networks much anymore. If I want to see news, I'll watch Headline News (all news, no shows like O'Reilly or Crossfire), and in the evenings I'll watch BBC World on the local public station.
Don't get me wrong-- I still watch those types of shows, but I take everything I hear with a grain of salt and make sure I know the "unspun" version (and, as a note, I hope the O'Reilly clip turns up somewhere so I can see it).
That said, I think this is really bad journalism, but hey, what can you do?
--j_k
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I hope the O'Reilly clip turns up somewhere so I can see it
Al Franken? Wow…. And I get accused of posting biased sites!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The only things from Franken that I posted were direct quotes from Biden and a transcript of the O'Reilly Factor. Seems unlikely Franken could've forged either of those.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep, Jay, anything truthful is extremely biased against neo"conservative"s.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Ummm, you don't think that all news shows do this? Conservative and Liberal???
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There's no such thing as a conservative or liberal news show. If a show can be characterized by appeal to a political viewpoint, it's not news, it's propaganda.
In any case, there are plenty of news shows and propaganda shows that get along perfectly well without selectively editing to take quotes out of context, then stealing ideas from the person they're reporting on. So no, I don't think all shows do this.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, I think most news do not deliberately edit people speaking so as to steal their ideas. Would you care to cite one instance of it on a news show not traditionally considered conservative?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Biden clearly wants it closed. While I wasn't able to find the video of the interview that Stephanopoulos did with Biden on ABC's web site, I did find an article regarding the interview. Here is the link to it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=821293 You will find that they have entitled the article: "Biden: U.S. Needs to Close Cuba Prison Joseph Biden Says U.S. Needs to Move Toward Shutting Down Military Prison Camp at Guantanamo Bay" Did you expect him to show the entire interview on his talking points? Everything else Bill said was his point of view. You have a point of view and share it, and he has one as well. So I'm curious, why did you not write an article entitled, "ABC news misleads the public with their headlines"? You do have Bill O'Reilly on taking his quote except for the fact this wasn't the first night he "opined" the independent commission idea. Perhaps Biden really stole it from Bill?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
These certainly look unethical, but none of them goes as far as O'Reilly did. In none of the cases you cite did the "reporter" remove lines from a source's quote and then represent the ideas he removed as his own. That seems a bit worse, doesn't it? Not only did O'Reilly mis-quote, he basically plagiarized Biden.
I know from experience that university ethics hearings punish plagiarism far more harshly than mis-quoting.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
While that was quite bad, it was naught more than inadequate fact checking -- perhaps due to bias, but hardly the willful plagiarism that O'Reilly engaged in.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I like that, they certainly look unethical but are not as bad as what O'Reilly did. How about the CBS memo fraud? Was that as bad? Not as bad?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So if Bill had said the commission idea before this would it all be ok? I hardly see Bill leaving out some statements as bad as faking and making things up. Two totally different critters.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Oh, and by the way, Bill is a commentary guy. Supposed to have an opinion. These others were news, where they’re supposed to be reporting things. There is a difference there too
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Look, this linking one-upmanship is retarded.
A) Dan Rather didn't plagiarize his source either, probably because Rather doesn't express opinions on his show.
B) Even if he had, the fact that there are five or ten instances of similar bad behavior over the last few years of TV reporting surely doesn't make it OK or forgiveable that Bill O'Reilly did it.
C) My point was never that all TV "journalists" except O'Reilly are honest, the point is that O'Reilly is demonstrably dishonest. Maybe that makes him a rogue among a throng of them, whatever, he's still not being ethical.
Only in the world of partisan politics can two or more wrongs appear to make a right.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:So if Bill had said the commission idea before this would it all be ok?
No, because he deceptively portrayed himself as disagreeing with Biden by proposing the commission.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Bill O'Reilly is not a journalist, nor is Al Franken. They both are very explicit about their views, so either one of them engaging in unethical behavior is far more acceptable than Dan Rather posing as a reputable newsman providing unbiased journalism.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m still confused on why not putting something in is so wrong. He didn’t lie about anything (unlike some news places). How is him not showing Biden’s commission making it seem that they disagree? Maybe Bill wants a commission to keep it open.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I’m still confused on why not putting something in is so wrong.
Because he reversed the meaning of the man's quote, and used that as an opportunity to steal his position.
If you don't understand how removing words from a quote could be unethical, imagine this exchange:
quote: Reporter: President Bush, are you a child molester? Bush: How dare you?! I am not a child molester, have never been a child molester, and am appalled by your question. I should hit you, but you're just not worth a moment of my time. The nerve.
Reporter (later, on TV): Let's play it back. Clip: I am ... a child molester. Your question ... hit ... a ... nerve.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
But that is not what happened here at all. Bill used the quotes about closing down the prison in context to support the thought of a commission to help in the efforts of repairing the negative image these calls are making. He didn’t switch anything. He didn’t change any meaning. He wanted to talk about the commission in another way, in his own words. So…. Again. What he did is not like your example at all Tom. Let’s try and stick to same game.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Taking quotes out of context, or making them out of context is unethical? Posing as journalist and rushing to print stories specifically because they are going to be seen as damaging is far worse than this is
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Bill used the quotes about closing down the prison in context to support the thought of a commission to help in the efforts of repairing the negative image these calls are making.
So why not go ahead and include the senator's call for the same commission? If he and the senator are on the same side, why disguise the fact?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
He didn’t disguise anything! He just said the commission stuff differently. I think you all are really grasping at straws here.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"So why not go ahead and include the senator's call for the same commission? If he and the senator are on the same side, why disguise the fact? " They are not on the same side because Biden is already calling for the base to be closed and he is not waiting for an independant commission to find out anything... "But the end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners," he told ABC's "This Week."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They are not on the same side because Biden is already calling for the base to be closed and he is not waiting for an independant commission to find out anything... "But the end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners," he told ABC's "This Week."
So the complaint, then, is that Biden has already formed an opinion on the issue, whereas O'Reilly has not?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Hummmm….. No. We don’t have a complaint. You all are grasping at straws trying to find a complaint that doesn’t exist. Good luck with that though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: No. We don’t have a complaint.
By "complaint," I mean "reason for deceptively editing Biden's statement to remove the part O'Reilly agreed with."
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I've seen O'Reilly a few times...though I'm not a big fan. But in this case, I don't see the big deal. The "talking points" I have seen Bill do, are always just snipits of quotes that Bill then talks about. In this case, he took the main point out of Bidden's quote (that Bidden wanted the camp shut down) and talked about how he didn't agree with it. Bidden's quote made it clear that what he wanted was not simply an independent investigation not because he thought the findings could go either way...but he just wanted an investigation to agree with him, so he had more rationale for the closing.
quote:so everybody is saying that it's not just me or others just, you know, espousing a point of view but there's a rationale for it but the end result is I think we should end up shutting it down
Bidden did NOT say he wanted a comission to investigate whether or not it should be shut down...or to look at policies. He specifically said that he wanted a commission to support his views, but in the end it should be shut down. That is not an 'independent commission' to investigate policy, which is what Bill wants.
ABC news also pointed out that while Bidden did call for a committee review, he believes the end result should be that the camps are closed down.
He didn’t deceptively edit Biden’s statement! How can you say that? You saying that is deceptively editing what was said.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, no such thing Lupus:
quote:Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed that an independent commission take a look at Guantanamo and make recommendations.
Note: independent, and make recommendations. Sure sounds like he's asking for a committee to look at it impartially.
Biden thinks he knows what those recommendations will be, yes, and that he thinks he knows what the appropriate course of action will be. But that does not mean he doesn't really want an independent commission, especially as he has explicitly called for one
But you know what? I bet O'Reilly thinks he knows what the recommendations will be, too.
As for why this is worse than what was done with the Bush guard documents, it is worse because the Bush guard document incident was not malicious. It was negligent. This is malicious, where by malicious I mean intentionally discrediting in manner known to be contrary to fact (the notion that Biden would disagree with there being an independent commission).
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"So the complaint, then, is that Biden has already formed an opinion on the issue, whereas O'Reilly has not?"
Now that you mention it, Yes. Biden has formed an opinion on the issue from an alleged FBI agent's report (has anyone else seen it?) and has made some pretty over the top statements. He has not been down there, he has no first hand information, just a report that no one else is commenting on. I would expect a responible politician to do an investigation first before making comparisions of what is alleged to have happened, and a deathcamp.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would rather think that Biden may have been paying attention to the situation for a while, it having been in the news for quite some time on various issues, and furthermore to have access to numerous contacts who would know assorted details.
edit: where's your evidence that that's the only thing Biden is forming his opinion based on, given that plenty of us have been able to find lots of other news on which to form our opinions?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Biden specifically mentions an alleged FBI agent's report. This is probably just like the FBI report about the US flushing a Koran down the toilet which was never proven. Most likely an FBI agent wrote a report just telling what a detainee has claimed happened to him. Nothing is proved, the agent just wrote down what the detainee had said. Al-Queda knows that any outrageous accusation against the US will immediately be thought of as true and whisked around the world by people like Biden
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Biden specifically mentions an alleged FBI agent's report. This is probably just like the FBI report about the US flushing a Koran down the toilet which was never proven.
So you admit that you're speculating?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So you admit that you're speculating?
I'm confused about what you are asking?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
Using a report to help form an opinion and using it as the sole basis for an opinion are two extremely different things.
Second, pardon me, but did you even look at the extreme leap of illogic you just made with regard to the report Biden talks about?
Especially as there have been several reports from the FBI, and that one doesn't at all evoke the scenarios Biden mentioned, whereas others do (such as the one from 2003 that talks about a prisoner being smeared with fake menstrual blood).
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
He was not using the report to help form an opinion, his opinion was already formed and he is using unconfirmed parts of a report to justify a partisan attack on the President. You should read those reports for yourself to see what they actually contain. Are they an account of what happened, or are they an account of what detainees claimed to have happened? There is a huge difference. How did I make an extreme leap of illogic?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You've asserted you know which report Biden was using, when there are plenty of reports he could have used, and which the evidence points to being more likely to use (simply due to being, well, worse). That's incredibly bad logic.
IIRC, the female soldier who did the fake menstrual thing was put up on charges. And I do read what parts of the reports I can get access to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: He was not using the report to help form an opinion, his opinion was already formed and he is using unconfirmed parts of a report to justify a partisan attack on the President.
Says you. Seriously, prove it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, she was only verbally reprimanded, according to the military. See this story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6876549/ (it references the verbal reprimand by the military).
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Your extreme leap of logic was that you didn’t immediately assume that the evil Bush administration and the right wing had some sort of plan to take over the world! I mean come on. It all makes sense when you put on your alphabet goggles (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) and throw everything that makes sense out the window. Just assume the worst, and if you can’t get to the worst make it up (New York Times). Blame the other guy and remember that conservative bashing is cool (Michael Moore).
While in reality the leap of logic that it takes to say that Bill O'Reilly is some how the evil one on this is amazing.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Prove me wrong
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
oops, got a little click happy there Show me one instance where Biden has supported anything the President has done? He just attacks whatever he can to get the attention of the willing press
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're the one making the positive claim, you have to prove it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, it doesn't matter if Biden has supported Bush or not as to whether or not O'Reilly did something very unethical.
Second,
quote:Biden, Carper often vote with president For all the complaining that Delaware Republicans do about Biden, he ranked in the top 20 of Senate Democrats who sided with President George W. Bush on roll call votes in the last session of the Congress.
U.S. Sen. Tom Carper placed in the top 10 in presidential support among Senate Democrats. U.S. Rep. Mike N. Castle scored in a different sort of top 10 – as one of the House Republicans who broke most often with their party’s president.
The voting record of the state’s three-member congressional delegation for 2003-2004 was compiled in a biennial analysis by Congressional Quarterly, a respected publication that covers Capitol Hill. The results were included in Politics in America 2006, a comprehensive guide to the workings of the Congress.
Both Biden and Carper reflected the White House’s position more than half the time with their votes, Biden at 54% and Carper slightly higher at 57%. It was enough to make Biden 19th in presidential support and Carper 8th among the 44 Democrats who make up the Senate minority.
Wow, wasn't that ridiculously easy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"While in reality the leap of logic that it takes to say that Bill O'Reilly is some how the evil one on this is amazing."
Did Biden misquote O'Reilly at some point? I must have missed it.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Did O'Reilly misquote Biden at some point? I must have missed it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Your extreme leap of logic was that you didn’t immediately assume that the evil Bush administration and the right wing had some sort of plan to take over the world! I mean come on. It all makes sense when you put on your alphabet goggles (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) and throw everything that makes sense out the window. Just assume the worst, and if you can’t get to the worst make it up (New York Times). Blame the other guy and remember that conservative bashing is cool (Michael Moore).
I suppose everything has it's polar opposite then doesn't it Jay? I'd throw out the network news shows, I don't think they are skewed one way or the other mostly. Fox News is more of a NeoCon mouthpiece than most anything else. Ann Coulter is the the Neocon version of Michael Moore, so every time you attack Moore, you should also apologize for Coulter, otherwise your argument seems a moot point to me.
Check your own party before attacking the opposition for the exact same thing. Makes you look a little silly.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Wow, wasn't that ridiculously easy?
Indeed as is posting the headline of that article... Biden could run for both president and Senate in ‘08 Sounds to me like someone is just trying to get some press time
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I notice you completely neglect the point of what I quoted, which completely demolishes your notion that Biden never agrees with the President. I'm glad you're so honest with yourself.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Fox news is the polar opposite of say, CBS, for example. Shouldn't you be apologizing for Rather/CBS since you just attacked Fox News? Perhaps you don't think network news shows are skewed because they fit your world view? Just as Fox News fits my world view?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, Fox is not liberal (like the other news networks) but it certainly isn’t GOP TV. Just because it isn’t what you’re used to getting in the liberal press doesn’t make it the conservative press. I call it more what the press is supposed to be. Ann is so wonderful. She hasn’t returned my marriage proposal yet though…. Ann, I’m sorry those mean guys tried to throw pies at you. Glad you’re quick and they missed….. Does that work as an apology for Ann? I do check my party. Each Election Day! And I like to be silly every now and then. Or else you all would think I’m a big stick in the mud an dislike me even more!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Fox news is the polar opposite of say, CBS, for example.
Do you really believe this?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Fugu13... You are right, and I was wrong. I was typing another response at that time. Sorry for the delay. I do still believe that Biden is just being a politician and following the blowing wind which is currently blowing away from the President. But you are correct that he had, slightly over the majority of the time, agreed with the President. I was incorrect about Biden never agreeing with the President and I should have done more fact checking.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Watch out for Tom's trap!!!!!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Do you really believe this?
I believe that the general trend on CBS news is towards the left while the general trend of Fox is towards the right
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Do you believe the left and the right are polar opposites, then?
Because I'll admit that this is the vibe that I get from you -- that it's all about partisan gameplay.
But I think basic journalistic integrity isn't and shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thank you
I didn't need something quite so explicit, btw
Also, note that its not just agreeing with the President more often than not on bills, but that he agrees with the President more often than about half the other democrats do.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
There is no trap, no news channel is completely left or completely right. There are just general tendencies
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, I'm not talking about partisan leanings. I'm talking about actual integrity, which is independent of party.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
That's OK, I did need to be explicit because I usually do better homework than that Although if you asked my teachers in school they would disagree and think that is just about right for doing my homework, and a special thanks to Mike R. who let me copy his Trig homework during English class! Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
and I am just talking about the actual 'evening' news shows, not like 60 minutes or Hannity
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, I don't think that CBS is anywhere near the polar opposite of Fox News. The difference is that most often the network news shows only report the news, they are actual reporters, they aren't commentators, they don't usually show their opinion.
That having been said, I honestly don't watch every single network news every night, as I highly doubt any of you do. I watch CBS most nights. Dan Rather nine times out of ten only ever reported the news and left the rest for you to form your own opinion. Sometimes I didn't like what he had to say, but it was hard to argue with him as a reporter.
If you want to argue about the cable news shows, that is a different story. Fox News is by no means a simple projector of the unbiased truth. It is incredibly skewed towards Neocon philosophy.
CNN at times has a liberal tilt, but I find I disagree with them about as often as I agree, so I'd call it fair.
MSNBC I used to consider libereal, but I don't consider it as such anymore, anything they say has to balanced with the words of Scarborough.
But even this is a moot point, liberals all call the media neocon, neocons all call it liberal. In truth, television media falls somewhere in between. Radio media is a neocon bastion, for neocons to claim otherwise is laughable. And print media is also a mix of the two.
Ann Coulter is one of the most inflammatory people I've ever seen speak the English or any other language. If you support her, good for you, but don't pretend she is in a separate category from Michael Moore. They're two sides of the same noisy little coin. And I think you can check your party in more ways in the ballot box, I'm a vocal critic of things I feel my party does wrong, I don't just blindly support them and attack the opposition.
And I don't dislike you. Much of the time I find your arguments cogently put together, though from time to time lacking in substance. It's possible to dislike someone's politics, but still like the person.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I don’t see Fox as right. I see them as being neutral on the news. Just like their motto “We report, you decide.” Unlike the CBS motto: “We fake it, we slant it our way.” Sure, there are shows that have opinions, but the news is just that. News. What it’s supposed to be.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hard to argue with that kind of rock hard logic. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you support her, good for you, but don't pretend she is in a separate category from Michael Moore. They're two sides of the same noisy little coin.
You know, I disagree with this. Moore, for all he's irritating and biased, hasn't suggested crashing any planes into buildings for the good of the country.
quote: Just like their motto “We report, you decide.” Unlike the CBS motto: “We fake it, we slant it our way.”
I suppose, given this quote of yours, there's really no point to discussing journalistic integrity with you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: You know, I disagree with this. Moore, for all he's irritating and biased, hasn't suggested crashing any planes into buildings for the good of the country.
Yeah, I actually agree with you, but I was trying to be a little hard on Moore and soft on Coulter for the sake of making myself look more unbiased. There, I admit it. I don't think he is anywhere near as bad as she is. He doesn't seem to like Neocons, but he doesn't call them traitors and haters of America.
When did Coulter say that bit about crashing planes into buildings being good?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Oh yeah, the right is doing great in the radio wars! The poor left wing radio just can’t seem to make it. Boo-hoo. Sure, Ann is inflammatory, but she tells the truth, unlike Michael Moore who just makes things up for his documentaries. Biggest bunch of lies put together since the OJ defense.
And ok, I’ll admit it. I also don’t blindly follow the GOP. I actually disagree with the NRA on a lot of things. Sure I support gun rights. But there is nothing wrong with waiting periods and assault rifle cop killer bullet bans.
And thanks (now if I can just get Tom to admit he likes me!)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And ok, I’ll admit it. I also don’t blindly follow the GOP. I actually disagree with the NRA on a lot of things. Sure I support gun rights. But there is nothing wrong with waiting periods and assault rifle cop killer bullet bans.
I don't think there's a Republican in office who'd be willing to disagree with that statement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Sure, Ann is inflammatory, but she tells the truth
Interesting, it does seem that Franken misrepresented O'Reilly in his own report. He declined to include the "Once again" in the following O'Reilly quote:
quote:Also once again, the Bush administration should set up an independent commission to investigate American detainee policy across the board.
This doesn't ameliorate the wrongness of mis-representing Biden's position (which he certainly does by saying "Now over the weekend, Senator Joseph Biden joined the abuse chorus and called for the shutting down of Guantanamo Bay ... it's amazing to me that he and others actually believe that closing Gitmo would accomplish anything") and then chopping down the quote to fool viewers into thinking that he and Biden disagree. But I would not have been quite so incensed in the first place if I'd known that O'Reilly had called for independent commissions previously, and wasn't just stealing Biden's idea.
It really is nearly impossible to avoid getting manipulated in today's news environment. I fear for all of us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jay -
I haven't read any of Michael Moore's books.
Though I'd be curious to see any proof you have that the information in Bowling For Columbine is false. Or Fahrenheit 9/11.
It's been proven on here that Ann Coulter lies, now it's your turn.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Columns and polemics and essays aside, when I watch the news I want just that. News. Information. Generally the closest I can get is to read as many different news venues as possible to try and derive a gestalt truth.
I don't read Coulter, don't watch Moore, don't listen to Franken or Limbaugh. They do not give me information, they only offer opinions and invective-laden diatribes, and I can do that myself.
The fact of the matter is most news shows are driven by ratings, and most people apparently want opinions fed to them.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The fact of the matter is most news shows are driven by ratings, and most people apparently want opinions fed to them.
It's sad how right you are.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, I’m not sure you’ve “proven” your case against Ann. Especially since your case against Bill wouldn’t even make it past the grand jury.
I have watched Fox News exactly once in my life. I've never been to the web site.
First, it reminded me of why I have always hated television news. Seriously dumbed-down bedtime stories for people who like their social myths packaged and pastuerized. I've never seen a television news story that didn't do it, although I admit I have limited my intake in recent years as much as I possibly could.
Secondly, this may be true of all news stations - I don't know. I've seen Fox News once in the past few months, but I've seen the others not at all. Don't freak out.
Third:
Holy crap, what glorified pulpit. I have decided that Fox News works because there is usually a hero in every story, and the hero is The American People. What The American People are is wonderful and heroic, and in order to be heroic, there needs to be things up with which The American People will not put.
No wonder it's popular - everyone likes being the hero.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Especially since your case against Bill wouldn’t even make it past the grand jury.
I don't know if you're joking, but this statement is symptomatic of what I see as a high tolerance for truth-twisting. It doesn't need to be something we could prosecute in order to be unethical.
You should be more willing to admit that dishonesty abounds on both sides of the "left-right divide" that has somehow entered into our TV news media in the last decade and a half. And perhaps realize that there's a reason this goes hand-in-hand with the new trend of editorializing on television while claiming (as O'Reilly does) to be a "journalist."
As for Coulter, I don't see how her crap even came to be brought up in this thread. I could see a thoughtful Republican considering her work a "guilty pleasure," but people who stand behind her through thick and thin amaze me. The same goes for Michael Moore, of course.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Well, I’m not sure you’ve “proven” your case against Ann.
I can.
Any time she -- or any other commentator -- starts a statement with "Liberals want you to..." or "Conservatives always...", that commentator is lying to you. They are deliberately labeling an imaginary group of people the commentator can then safely debate, accuse, and ridicule, even though no such collective body exists.
After that imaginary enemy is established, any individual who voices opposing concerns can be easily dismissed as being a member of that group, regardless of the context or any other opinions that individual may hold, or the actual facts or reasoning behind the voiced concern.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I fear for all of us.