Bush on Bill O'Reilly

[Pangloss]

Starting Tuesday night and split over three days. (O'Reilly airs on Fox News Channel weeknights at 8pm Eastern time, re-running at 11pm and 4am. Not sure how that varies by time zone.)

 

To some extent it'll be softball, but I expect a few interesting questions. More to the point, you will not likely see any more challenging questions asked of the president between now and the election.

 

(From what I've seen of the debate format, that's looking pretty tame as well.)

 

He's reportedly trying to get John Kerry in for a similar interview.

[Dave]

Should be interesting. I shall have to watch that on Fox News over here.

 

Thanks for pointing this out, would never have known otherwise

[budullewraagh]

that's kinda sketchy; i know o'reilly will glorify bush and give him easy questions while intentionally trying to mess with kerry

[Pangloss]

A lot of people think that. Others think he'll give Kerry a free pass and mess with Bush. Neither is really his style.

 

That's the funny thing about O'Reilly. I think he's a little right of center myself, but only a little, and he's imminently fair to the other side of any argument.

[budullewraagh]

foxnews is conservative media. o'reilly will screw over kerry

[Dave]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. I don't listen to it because it's full of trashy trash most of the time, and they just don't shut up about Iraq and the "war on terrorism".

[budullewraagh]

of course. i checked it out once and they were constantly flashing "TERROR SECURITY RATING: ORANGE"

[Dave]

I guess it's true what they say then: Fox is the devil

[Pangloss]

So what impeccably objective source do you get your news from, budullewraagh? ;-)

 

Personally I agree with Dave that FNC shows bias, but no more so than any of the other major outlets. Just in a different direction. (chuckle)

 

At any rate, BOR is not a news program, it's commentary, so isn't bias to be expected? But as bias goes, BOR seems like a pretty independent guy. He may be slightly to the right, but he's no Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. (Ugh, Ugh, Ugh!)

 

For what it's worth, I'm a fiscal/economic conservative and social liberal type, and overall slightly to the right, but I go back and forth a lot (I'm helping campaign for a Democrat in a major race this fall). I voted for Bush in 2000 but opposed the war in Iraq and have been trying to decide what to do in 2004. So I've been hitting a lot of web site discussion boards over the last few months to try and get some perspective. (Sadly, mostly I just encounter a lot of ideological bias.)

[budullewraagh]

So what impeccably objective source do you get your news from

bbc, 60 mins, associated press

[Pangloss]

Ah, some of my favorite sources as well. But all three of those have demonstrated bias, and two of them have recently been mired in serious, credibility-challenging controversies. Q.E.D.

 

Thanks for answering my question, though.

[Sayonara]

Ah, some of my favorite sources as well. But all three of those have demonstrated bias, and two of them have recently been mired in serious, credibility-challenging controversies. Q.E.D.

Even if that wasn't an exaggeration, it would still not be QED.

[budullewraagh]

ah, speaking of bill o'reilly, anybody seen the maddox on him?

 

(Sadly, mostly I just encounter a lot of ideological bias.)

say, did you ever go to "conservatives for freedom"?

(url is:http://p222.ezboard.com/bconservativeweekly )

 

they HATE Me there. i joined it and challenged their political ideals...every day...in many threads. eventually they banned me. it was amusing while it lasted. they're so incredibly closed minded and neoconservative so i couldn't convert any of them.

[Douglas]

Ah' date=' some of my favorite sources as well. But all three of those have demonstrated bias, and two of them have recently been mired in serious, credibility-challenging controversies. Q.E.D.

Thanks for answering my question, though. [/quote']

Pangloss, I think "budullewraagh" is pulling your chain.

[Pangloss]

say, did you ever go to "conservatives for freedom"?

(url is:http://p222.ezboard.com/bconservativeweekly )

 

Hehe, now there's a forum where you and I would be on the same side. (grin) That's horrid. I need a shower now. That's as bad as Democratic Underground. (shudder)

 

 

Even if that wasn't an exaggeration, it would still not be QED.

 

The recent BBC and CBS controversies are quite well documented. The part about all three sources showing bias was, of course, opinion, but it's opinions we're talking about here, so "QED" is valid -- I've backed up my assertion to an equal degree as the person I was providing counterpoint to. "Thus it is demonstrated" that I had a valid point (but nothing more than that).

 

Whether it was exaggeration or not, of course, is a matter of opinion, and I respect your (and budullewraagh's) right to disagree.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, I think "budullewraagh" is pulling your chain.

 

Doh! Forum newbie alert (me), bweet bweet....

 

(Goes to the chalkboard)

"I am only an egg"

"I am only an egg"

"I am only an egg"

[budullewraagh]

nah i wasn't pulling your chain. i understand the bias in all of those sources, but i will also add that they aren't all that biased

[Sayonara]

The recent BBC and CBS controversies are quite well documented.

I have not followed the CBS controversy, however the ill-judged actions of a few individuals at the BBC in a single event hardly cast a huge shadow of doubt across the reliability of a service which has served the public with objective, comprehensive and frank reporting for decades. This is why I call "mired in serious, credibility-challenging controversies" an exaggeration - the BBC controversy did virtually nothing to challenge the credibility of the service whatsoever, in either the domestic or oversea sense.

 

The part about all three sources showing bias was, of course, opinion, but it's opinions we're talking about here, so "QED" is valid -- I've backed up my assertion to an equal degree as the person I was providing counterpoint to. "Thus it is demonstrated" that I had a valid point (but nothing more than that).

QED can only apply here if you are using it to highlight that the sources cited have been shown to be non-objective. If you're purporting that their objectivity is a matter of opinion, then ending with QED means nothing and could be misleading.

 

 

Whether it was exaggeration or not, of course, is a matter of opinion, and I respect your (and budullewraagh's) right to disagree.

But of course

[Pangloss]

nah i wasn't pulling your chain. i understand the bias in all of those sources, but i will also add that they aren't all that biased

 

Fair enough. I try never to find fault in people's honest opinions.

 

You're welcome to pull my chain, though -- I'm here for the humor as well. (grin)

 

 

I have not followed the CBS controversy, however the ill-judged actions of a few individuals at the BBC in a single event hardly cast a huge shadow of doubt across the reliability of a service which has served the public with objective, comprehensive and frank reporting for decades. This is why I call "mired in serious, credibility-challenging controversies" an exaggeration - the BBC controversy did virtually nothing to challenge the credibility of the service whatsoever, in either the domestic or oversea sense.

 

Fair enough as well, and well put. I suppose I'd have to agree that I did exaggerate a bit at that.

 

Wow, I thought we were headed towards an ideological brick wall, and I come back to find reasonable points and open minds (and a little embarassment on my part). I'm starting to have a good feeling about this forum.

 

 

QED can only apply here if you are using it to highlight that the sources cited have been shown to be non-objective. If you're purporting that their objectivity is a matter of opinion, then ending with QED means nothing and could be misleading.

 

Yah, I understand your point here. I just meant "QED" in the general sense of having demonstrated my point about another perspective. QED does have that connotation in general, I agree, so it was a bad choice of words on my part.

[LuTze]

Isn't Bill O'Reily they guy thats always telling people to "Shut up" a lot? He's the one who actually *likes* Anne Coulter, probably the most right wing venomous author in the USA today.

 

Al Franken has some good bits about him in 'Lies and The Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at The Right".

 

http://www.ohthethingsiknow.com/lies.html

[Douglas]

Isn't Bill O'Reily they guy thats always telling people to "Shut up" a lot? He's the one who actually *likes* Anne Coulter' date=' probably the most right wing venomous author in the USA today.

 

Al Franken has some good bits about him in 'Lies and The Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at The Right".

 

http://www.ohthethingsiknow.com/lies.html[/quote']

By reading your statement, it seems that you've never seen/listened to O'reilly. You should listen, then judge for yourself.

He does *NOT* support Ann Coulter's political views.

It's clear that you know nothing about O'reilly's books

[LuTze]

Big Bill: "we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

 

Annie: "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"

 

This is quite good: -

 

http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov

[Douglas]

Big Bill: "we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them' date=' just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

 

Annie: "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"[/quote']

"MoveOn.org" is a pathetically far left wing web site. Anything they say can be taken with a grain salt.

Seriously, watch Fox News, then judge for yourself.

[Dave]

And you're saying Fox News isn't at all biased to the right?

 

Heh.

[Douglas]

And you're saying Fox News isn't at all biased to the right?

 

Heh.

No Dave, I'm not saying that. O'Reilly clearly tends to lean to the right, though he supports a few liberal views, E.G. he does not support the death penalty etc.

The fox news evening lineup starts with Brit Hume who is probably a moderate right wing. Followed by...Shep

Shepard Smith is strictly a news caster. No overt leanings left or right.

O'Reilly, as said above.

Hannity and Colmes, one a righty, the other a lefty

Greta Van Susterun.....Left wing, as she was on CNN and still is on Fox