replacement link:

Bill O'Reilly Flips out - EatMyShorts.net

The Factor is an opinion show and it is and entertainment show.

But I do think O'Reilly sets out not only to regergetate and comment on news.....he sets out to make news and create exclusive news content.

It's a poor attempt at investigative journalism and his staff that carry it out are pitifully inept, but nonetheless, this is a thrust of his show. It's not done with a satirical pretense as is the Daily Show. O'Reilly actually expects to be taken seriously.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

agreed, but lets remember that the tiffany network gave their anchorship too Katie Couric, so frankly, I don't think any of them have any journalistic chops left. Its all a circus.

__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile....

Farbeit for me to defend Katie Couric, but she does do straight news and not commentary.

She's less than interesting to watch IMO, but she's not an opinionated blowhard who deserves comparison to O'Reilly.

If you had pulled out Chris Mathews or Keith Olbermann as a left-wing counterpart to O'Reilly, I would have had no quarrel..

I agree that the general state of the news media is pretty sorry. About all we get on tv is pre-packaged editorial news. But apparently, that's the entertaining and engaging format that most Americans prefer.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

It is about sensationalism.

O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Matthews, Olbermann, and, yes, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert use sensationalism openly - they wear it on their respective sleeves.

I do not have a problem with this because, to use a worn out term, "it is what it is". No deception involved. They are part of the "alternate" media and deserve to be taken seriously only to a point.

Contrast this to other programs that actually sell themselves as "straight news" outlets, but utilize sensationalism with a [semi-]hidden political agenda driving the coverage? Night and day.

Katie Couric does do commentary - just listen to any of her miserable "Page Out of My Notebook" segments. They are reliably done from a liberal perspective...although she would doubtlessly deny it.

But even her news coverage is tainted. It starts with story selection (do I need to start listing the various things the Big Three didn't bother to cover until the "alternate media" forced them to the forefront?). It continues with one-sided representation, half-truths, and coloring of the verbiage. Some broad examples: You'll never see the following...

- An articulate 2nd Amendment advocate presented to balance the conversation when, say, they spend 8 minutes playing an anti-gun rant from some grieving mother whose kid got shot.

- Olga from the trailer park, mother of 8, crying (as usual), claiming she "could sure use the [Stimulus Package] tax rebate" mitigated by somebody given equal time to mention and explain that Olga didn't pay any taxes in the first place.

- Cessation of the complete horseshit pussy MSM news cop-out line of, "Some people say..." to take shots at conservatives, over and over. Listen for it. It's prolific. Substitute "This reporter, yours truly, believes..." for the actual meaning. It goes something like this, "Recent parolee John Smith killed his family and himself in a bloody mess...[insert back story, yada, yada, yada]...Some people say that the cutting of [insert prison program here] leads to released criminals being more prone to violence..." WHO SAYS? Put some motherfucker on the screen with a name and a title of some, ideally, non-partisan outfit (or provide a counterpart for balance) and let them be quoted, FFS. Same goes for the various bullshit "anonymous sources" who are usually mid-level hacks with partisan motivations. They resort to "Some people say..." and shitty anonymous sources because if the actual people were revealed, it would be clear to even Joe 18-pack that they were nothing but partisan schmucks.

- Rick Santorum (or the like) referred to as simply [former] Senator...or even [former] Republican Senator. Nope...it's always "[extreme] right wing" or "[ultra-] conservartive". Meanwhile, the likes of Obama and Kennedy get generic introductions even though they are - by any measure - the most liberal/leftist members of the legislature. It's all code and coercion to shape people's thinking in lieu of just reporting the damned news.

I find this to be much more troublesome than any of the aforementioned sensationalist blow-hards.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

It's all a by-product of "for-profit" news. Sensationalism sells and those who do refuse to employ it suffer in the ratings and in the bottom line.

At the root of it all, it's our collective fault since we determine the market. It's hard to complain about that.

This is what our desires have evolved the news into... an information outlet that feeds us the predigested story to fit our own bias. We can each embrace our own partisan channel.

The problem is that when you apply that market model to what we see... you have to say that the middle... or the center largely determines the market. If there are so many news outlets that are considered to be "left leaning", I would argue that the center of the country has moved to the left.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

That is the tail wagging the dog. Just because the major media centers in this country (Hollywood included) are leftist in nature, doesn't mean the country is. It is decidedly not. 90%+ people in our country believe in G-d. What are the %'s in the aforementioned "media centers"? Exactly.

Smart people find good TV news sources - hence the popularity of C-SPAN and, for the most part, the reasonably balanced Sunday morning programs. They are far from "entertaining" in the classic sense - as my wife would agree. This does not mean people can't watch/enjoy the others - but having actual knowledge allows me to pretty much laugh at any given MSNBC program in lieu of being persuaded by them.

Ideally, PBS would be in this category as well, but since it is infested with leftists, it is not. One would think a tax-payer subsidized network would strive for balance. One would think.

As far as media being partisan - I, again, have no problem with them being openly so. NYT leftist? Sure is. Don't deny it, NYT, just go on with your bad self. That is the true tradition of media (newspapers, in particular) - dating back to before the American Revolution. Just don't pretend to be something you ain't, NYT - just because 9.9 of 10 people in your newsroom feel certain way doesn't me that is actually representative of the country, let alone the world. Remember, your staff lives in the damned Village, FFS.

If the Left/Right balance at the NYT was anywhere near as equal as it is on, say, Fox News, well, they might actually have a claim about being nonpartisan. They do not.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.