Peas in a pod: In LA Times op-ed, O'Reilly producer misrepresented IU study to defend host
SUMMARY: In attempting to discredit an Indiana University study about Bill O'Reilly's name-calling, Ron Mitchell, producer of The O'Reilly Factor, claimed that "the researchers admit they had to make several changes to their 'coding instrument' ... until the results fit the preconceived notion of name-calling on the Factor." In fact, the changes were done in pre-testing in order to deliver accurate results for the study, not to make O'Reilly look worse.
In a May 10 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Ron Mitchell, producer of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, misrepresented an Indiana University study that found that host Bill O'Reilly engages in name-calling once every 6.8 seconds during his "Talking Point Memo" segment. In a purported defense of O'Reilly and to claim that the study is "biased," Mitchell asserted that Times columnist Rosa Brooks, who cited the report in her May 4 column, "failed to tell Times readers that the researchers admit they had to make several changes to their 'coding instrument' because the first attempts generated 'unacceptably low scores.' That's code for: they tried and tried until the results fit the preconceived notion of name-calling on the Factor." Mitchell's claim that the study was changed because it found too few examples of O'Reilly's personal attacks is false. In fact, IU researchers did not make any changes to their coding instrument in order to make O'Reilly look worse. The "low scores" in question were not scores of O'Reilly's name-calling but, rather, intercoder reliability scores of Krippendorff's alpha, a computation used to assess the internal consistency of a content analysis instrument.
In his eagerness to impute malicious motives to the IU researchers, Mitchell displayed a misunderstanding of the techniques of content analysis. In their methodological note, the researchers described the process they went through refining their coding instrument to achieve "intercoder reliability." This term refers to the degree to which different researchers code each text in the same way. Achieving intercoder reliability means that the biases of the individual coders are not coloring the results in any way. In other words, an unreliable instrument is one in which different coders code the same text but produce different results. A reliable instrument is one in which different coders, no matter who they are, code the same text and produce identical or near-identical results.
The process the IU researchers went through, described in their article, is standard practice in most content analysis projects: An instrument is designed, then tested, and if the measures are found to yield unacceptably low levels of reliability between coders, the instrument is refined and/or the coders receive more training to remove ambiguity until an acceptable level of reliability is achieved.
Mitchell wrote the following in his op-ed:
Brooks also failed to tell Times readers that the researches admit they had to make several changes to their 'coding instrument' because the first attempts generated 'unacceptably low scores.' That's code for: they tried and tried until the results fit the preconceived notion of name-calling on the Factor.
Mitchell seems to be under the impression that the "unacceptably low scores" mentioned by the researchers are scores about how often O'Reilly attacks opponents. This is false. The "scores" in question are reliability scores, the measures of how closely matched the coding results of different coders were. This is clearly represented in the study:
Four investigators held meetings to test the original coding instrument and its codebook. These meetings prompted several refinements of the coding instrument. Two of the investigators were appointed as coders and trained to collect data. Coder reliability pre-tests were conducted on surplus episodes of ''Talking Points Memo.'' The first two pretests produced unacceptably low scores (Krippendorff's alpha"/0.67 and 0.51). More coder training ensued.
Furthermore, the researchers used a particularly stringent measure -- Krippendorff's alpha -- to assess intercoder reliability. Their initial tests yielded Krippendorff's alphas between .51 and .67, which the researchers deemed an unacceptably low level of reliability. After further training of the coders, they eventually reached Krippendorff's alpha levels between .84 and 1.00.
As a Temple University website on intercoder reliability and content analysis explains: "Coefficients of .90 or greater are nearly always acceptable, .80 or greater is acceptable in most situations, and .70 may be appropriate in some exploratory studies for some indices. Higher criteria should be used for indices known to be liberal (i.e., percent agreement) and lower criteria can be used for indices known to be more conservative (Cohen's kappa, Scott's pi, and Krippendorff's alpha)." (emphasis added). Because Krippendorf's alpha is an extremely stringent measure of intercoder reliability, a coefficient of .67 would actually be considered acceptable by many researchers. The fact that the instrument used by Indiana University researchers yielded Krippendorff's alphas above .84 means that they were using a highly reliable coding system.
According to the press release about the study issued by IU, the study was "published in the academic journal Journalism Studies," a peer-reviewed journal affiliated with the Journalism Studies Division of the International Communications Association. "All articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymised refereeing by two anonymous referees," according to the Journalism Studies website. The press release added that "[a]n earlier version of the study won a top faculty award from the Journalism Studies Division of the International Communication Association."
Mitchell followed in the footsteps of the host he works for in attempting to discredit the IU study. As Media Matters for America noted, O'Reilly suggested the study's results were somehow tainted because philanthropist George Soros gave Indiana University a $5 million donation, and that "their research wound up in the hands of Media Matters, the smear Internet site partly funded by enterprises connected to George Soros," which then "issued a press release" about it. In fact, Soros' donation was specifically earmarked for a project in Kyrgyzstan, the university has stated that "[t]he researchers received no grant funding for this study," and Media Matters (which O'Reilly has falsely claimed is funded by Soros) learned of the study the way many others did: from the university's press release.
It is always stunning that: 1) people have so little understanding of what social science actually does and 2) given that, people can still be dishonest about such things. I am sure there are legitimate critiques of the IU study, this is not one of them.
I read the entire IU study.
The coding was a joke (Terrorist, far-left, left-wing, right-wing, or radical) was considered a form of name-calling.
There were only two people who were assigned as coderes. The study admitts that they were flawed.
Moreover, the study lumps in "Oil Companies" into the category as "other" because O'reilly has been critical of gouging and they didn't want to show it.
Lastly, at the end of the study, the "scientist" admitt that the whole study is based on Propaganda devices that have been discredited.
There is nothing about the study worth reading.
Take a look at the study before you comment.
THE MAIN ... and essential RELEVANT ... point of this exercise is that, after claiming flat out that the O'Reilly Factor "doesn't DO personal attacks", challenging this study, O'Reilly ADMITTED to committing 6 insults in his Talking Point Memo attacking the study.
Therefore, regardless of testing criteria or anybody's "alpha", the study did an amazing thing: It propted O'Reilly to admit he insults people, regularly, several times a minute, and he LIES when he claims otherwise.
This study did a great service: it put O'Reilly on record as admitting doing what he claims not to do. Brilliant.
No, it didn't do anything.
I was horribly flawed, worse than anything I've read for a social science study. I've read hundreds.
Moreover, these guys are going to get an award in Germany for the study. I could name more flaws if you would like...but if you read the study, you'll see them all for yourself.
IU should be embarrased. The guy is an assistant professor too. What a joke!!
Thanks, MMFA, for clearing up that point.
However, in truth the study itself easily lends itself to criticism... although it's point is valid. One could criticize how the researchers determined what constituted derogatory words... Was it just the words themselves? Or the context? The inflection in O'Reilly's voice? All of these things are subject to being characterized as the interjection of subjective, biased criteria in the study. Nevertheless, that O'Reilly addresses derogatory remarks against liberals and Democrats on a predicatably frequent basis is like saying the sky is often blue in San Diego. I don't particularly care if O'Reilly slings a slur every 6.8 seconds or every 26.9 seconds... my own eyes and ears tell me it's often... too damn often for my taste.
And then again we all know the study was biased because George Soros not only paid for the study, he designed the study... and he personally conducted the study ...and he cheated on the results ...and he's a Nazi ...and he's given Michael Moore 11 trillion dollars ...and he's a danger to the existence of America. ;>)
Oh... and Bill O'Reilly wishes he was as rich and influential as George Soros.
"...how the researchers determined what constituted derogatory words... Was it just the words themselves? Or the context? The inflection in O'Reilly's voice? All of these things are subject to being characterized as the interjection of subjective, biased criteria in the study."
Irony, I believe the study addresses those questions. But more importantly, I think the real headline of this study has been buried. Everyone's talking about the 6.8 second name-calling frequency, but the bigger headline should be about how O'Reilly's program fits the textbook model of propaganda. Name-calling may top the list, but it's the overall picture that's truly damning.
I agree, CC... I know the study addressed those questions but my point was that it still leads to criticism of bias even in the formulation of the criteria. And, the overall tenor of O'Reilly's show, as you point out, is the important point.
Irony, as a social scientist with many years of experience, I wanted to try to clarify:
(a) if a phenomenon were wholly or even largely subjective, legitimate researchers would be unable to obtain high reliability no matter which measure of reliability they used. Raters would simply be unable to agree very often because of the subjectivity.
(b) i am certain that the study itself explains how they dealt with this in great detail. Dealing with subjectivity and describing very clearly how the researcher dealt with it is standard practice in high quality social science research.
Therefore, I don't think it is fair to level criticism at the study without reading the method section of the study.
I'd like to point out what may be the most significant revelation of the study:
they measured the frequency with which O'Reilly linked his "labels" with clear-cut social ills
....accusing "liberal" judges of being soft on child-molesters, for example.
It is a scientific display of his systematic attempts to propagandize and bias his commentary, and thus influence the subconscious reactions of his viewers.
if you say "liberal" and "child-molester" in the same sentance enough times, his viewers are going to develop a reaction to the word "liberal" and all ideas associated.
we're all just pavlov's dog, man...
Sorry if my remarks sounded overly critical of the researchers... that wasn't my point. I was simply trying to say that this type of study tends to lend itself easily to criticism of detractors and accusations of subjective bias are pretty predictable, particularly from a partisan crowd that plays hard ball.. What I was trying to get across was that O'Reilly is such a blatabtly obnoxious name-caller one does not need a study to prove that. No disrespect to the IU study intended...
Thanks, irony, I agree, figuratively speaking. Speaking literally, I think this kind of study is important because it provides a controlled test. Otherwise, the BO supporters will claim that any criticism of BO reflects left-wing bias, that reality is simply a matter of perception, etc.--sort of the problem that MMFA was created to address.
Well described and documented. Any time you score a writing prompt at any level, the first thing you do is conduct training so that your scoring is consistent. Scores need to be consistent, and a scorer's bias, whatever it may be (not necessarily political but based on level or subject matter, etc.), can only be removed through practice. That way scoring is standardized.
Of course, it is always interesting to watch the propaganda machine ramp up for a smear. They always end up exposing their own tactics. Soros is their boogeyman. Don't even get me started on mega-rich propagandists like Scaife and Moon, who have poured more money into destroying Progressives than Soros or anyone else could conceive.
Don't forget the main guy behind FOX... Rupert Murdoch — he makes no apologies or leaves no question whom he supports and why.
MMFA failed to tell readers that Rosa Brooks was a member of the Clinton administration. It's quite clear that IU, Media Matters, and pro-Clinton columnists worked together to promote this bogus study.
What is evident is you pulled that baseless assertion directly out of your ass and have NO HOPE of substantiating it. Then again why should this time be any different?
Rosa Brooks? Ha...!
Solon, you know how mush admiration i usually have for the unfailing wisdom and acuity of your posts. Therefore, it is with great reluctance, and not without remorse, that I must publicly expose the inaccuracy of your biased assumptions expressed above. It is a well-known fact that Rosa Brooks is merely a pseudonym used by George Soros... one of his many from what I understand. A master of disguises, Soros did, in fact, work in the Clinton White House. One of the alter-egos he assumed while controlling the Clinton presidency was that of a presidential advisor known as "Dick Morris." Later, when Soros no longer had any further use for Bill Clinton, after a falling out with Clinton over a drug deal and murder gone awry, Soros assumed a female identity and called himself "Monica Lewinsky". George Soros, or whatever he calls himself at any given moment, must be stopped now in order to save our country from his evil. Do you want our children to grow up in the United States of Soros? From reliable sources I've learned that at this moment Soros is funneling money to AlQaeda, laundered through bogus "campaign contributions", using a closet-Islamic terrorist known as Barak Hussein Obama as his conduit. I'll tell your what... Bill O'Reilly should be given the Medal of fFreedom.. perhaps in a joint Rose Garden ceremony with Karl Rove. ;>)
I humbly take my well deserved criticism on this one. I forgot the Dr Evilsoros factor and will throw myself into a tank with filled with sharks with fricken laserbeams on their head as penance
You're being way too hard on yourself... ;>)
The GOP really is looking for a guy called George Tsouris, for all the grief he seems to be causing them.
What is your evidence of this wild conspiracy theory?
Since when have the wingies ever produced any evidence to back up any of their rants?
Kevin, honey give it a rest. You hate any and all thing MMFA
WE GET IT!!
I don't mind engaging in honest conversations with people who don't always share my point of view but you seem to only have one point of view.
Everything and every time you post it's MMFA either failed or lied didn't tell the complete truth. Since that's the case you should have no problem not posting on such a dishonest and reprehensible site. I'm sure there are conservative sites just waiting for your brand of honesty and integrity.
Go forward young man!
And here I thought Kevin was trying to be funny. Really: I thought it was a joke, a deliberate absurdity; I suspected someone else was posting using Kevin's name and we were supposed to laugh.
Shows what I know....
5. LOST WAGES
_____________ was employed at the time of this traffic collision and lost time at work as a result of his/her injuries suffered from the impact. During the period of ________, 2001, through _________, 20001, __________ missed _____ hours of work from his/her employment at _________________________ resulting in $________ in lost wages.
We enclose herewith Wage Loss Verifications from __________.
Damn that cut and past function -- it has a mind of its own!!
Damn that cut 'n paste feature, it has a mind of its own!
Now if I just had a mind of my own and the sense to click "Next" to check comments 21-40 for my correction! Aaargh!! This day is not looking good for me!!
Hey, Kevin1007, you left some folks out of that paranoid delusion you and O'Reilly and Mitchell are nursing -- the editors at "Journalism Studies", the peer referees who evaluated the study before acceptance for publication, and the folks at the Journalism Studies Division of the International Communications Association who conferred a top faculty award on the authors of the study. Clearly, they're all in cahoots with IU, Media Matters and Rosa Brooks trying to make O'Reilly look bad. Strange waste of time don't you think, since time and again, O'Reilly's has proven himself more than capable of making himself look bad without any one's help or encouragement. All the man has to do is open his mouth.
i have to admit, it's nice to see everyone on o'reilly's show is consistently ignorant, when it comes to statistical analysis. not that it really makes much difference. the choir will believe whatever bill o tells them too, truth be damned.
"i have to admit, it's nice to see everyone on o'reilly's show is consistently ignorant, when it comes to statistical analysis. not that it really makes much difference. the choir will believe whatever bill o tells them too, truth be damned."
Oh my, you just used a derogatory term. That is ten demerits to you. You generalized a characterization with your name-calling, and then you attributed a religious term to the followers of O'Reilly in a derogatory way. Tisk Tisk..... lol the irony of irony....
"Oh my, you just used a derogatory term. That is ten demerits to you. You generalized a characterization with your name-calling, and then you attributed a religious term to the followers of O'Reilly in a derogatory way. Tisk Tisk..... lol the irony of irony...."
-----
"Ignorant" is not derogatory when is is factually descriptive, as it is in this case.
"Choir" is not always religious, it only means voices in concert.
The followers of O'Reilly are religious in nature. They are worshipers of willful ignorance.
"Tisk" is not a word in the English language. There is a word that sounds like it, which is an onomatopoeic usually spelled "Tsk."
On political forums, "LOL" is usually an Internet shorthand term used by wingnuts and Freepers when they laugh nervously at their own inadequacies while trying desperately to cover them up.
And finally, "irony" should never be used by one who is so seriously deficient in same to describe others whose posts were in no way ironic. Did you get your definitions from Alannis Morrisette? There were no ironies in her song, either.
"Did you get your definitions from Alannis Morrisette? There were no ironies in her song, either. "
WOW! And here I thought I was the only person who caught that.
Thank you for the English lesson. It was very enlightening and added a lot to this conversation.... really... :)
My use of the word irony was because I believed at the time that I was responding to someone named "irony," which was my mistake. Irony had made another post that I had responded to, and I had hit reply in two different windows.
I should have immediately corrected the mistake, but this board does not offer an edit feature and I hate to spam the board with corrections but I will attempt to do so in the future.
The question I have about this study is not its use of statistics, but rather I have a problem with the criteria.
"The question I have about this study is not its use of statistics, but rather I have a problem with the criteria."
So we're to assume that in the last forty minutes you've read the methodology section of the study? In that case, what are your specific gripes with the criteria?
My problem with the criteria is that I feel it is subjective, despite the claim that Krippendorff's alpha showed the judgments of the coders to coincide.
The above article states that the pre-tests yielded alphas that were lower than they thought acceptable, so they gave the coders further training.
I am curious how the training was conducted to produce more consistency. The article states that O'Reilly's Talking Points Memos were used in pre-tests, were they also used in training? Did the training consist of researchers showing coders statements by O'Reilly and stating, "This is an example of criterion X, and anytime you see x you should mark it as such?"
Furthermore, how were the coder's chosen and what were their political affiliations? Were there an equal number of people from different ideologies, and what were their pre-conceived notions to the definition of propaganda and name-calling? For instance, would a coder who considered themselves a liberal see the use of the term as derogatory while a conservative coder would not, or vice versa?
The root of this test is someone's subjective assessment of how Mr. O'Reilly disseminates his opinions. How does the coder know that O'Reilly is card-stacking, and what source did they use to prove that statements were half-truths, or not factual?
I think much of the criteria in this study was subjective and dependent upon coders with an unknown history and affiliation. Was the training leading, and was were the facts checked correctly?
Dain... I've been involved in some social science studies and we have ALWAYS tried to be as objective as possible. The fact that they used multiple coders is to ensure there is LESS chance of bias because if the study only had ONE coder, bias would be inherent. Also, to suggest political affiliation and 'history' of the coders may color their coding is a smack in the face to researchers who try their BEST to keep everything honest, concise, bias-free and reliable. EVERY ONE has biases, but those TRAINED well enough to not let their biases get in the way of research make for better researchers AND better studies... Also, I would bet that the coders did have to refine their definitions of what constituted 'name calling' and the like precisely BECAUSE of the context they are used on O'Really's show- a slur in one sentence may be humorous in another, thus, more training to decipher what IS 'name calling' would be appropiate and justified...
I believe the histories of the individual coders is important. From what pool were they randomly drawn? Was this a university setting in which there might be an unusually high number of people who's politics skew to the left?
What I want to see is the training that was involved for this exercise. Showing a statistically coherence between the varying coders only shows that the training was effective. What it does not show is what the training was? How was a half-truth to be determined? What constituted band-wagoning?
Does a source exist where the actual training process can be reviewed?
This study would have lent more credibility had it not been done with just one source. For instance, it would be interesting to see how the coders interpret other commentators and forms of media. How would Olbermann or Matthews score in this categorization?
What we need to see is how the coders interact with varying forms of media in order to see if any inherit bias exists. Bias could even exist in the specific criteria used or in the construct of the test.
It would have been more beneficial if the coders had been trained on the words of Father Charles Coughlin and then applied lose lessons to several different members of the media. Perhaps they were, but I can't find any information in either direction.
WHOA!! Dain.... coders are NOT randomly picked from a pool of regular people- the coders are the people DOING the study. You have to be taught and trained how to code. And bringing up Olbermann and other media personalities for comparison is something ANY group COULD do- but the focus of this particular study is O'Lielly and propaganda. If you are suggesting they decode ALL news outlets and personalities with the same exact code, you would have too many extraneous variables to keep the study statisically reliable. A study does not have to be compared to a number of others if they are just looking at ONE personality and comparing him or her to propaganda...
And by the way, the WHOLE study is linked under methodological notes above... And 'left leaning people' in a university has nothing to do with watching and reading transcripts from a news show...
The study itself seems to agree with some of my concerns:
"While our study does heed Carey’s suggestion of a return to case studies, concentrating on O’Reilly continues the IPA tendency of focusing on right-leaning communicators. Future studies should act upon another Carey (1989) suggestion to look at left-leaning communicators. In a post-modern media environment, every communication zone*from opinion to hard news*has a spin."
It is quite possible this study contains an inherit bias. This study needs to be applied to left-leaning communicators, as stated above.
Furthermore, I must continue to press that the backgrounds of these individuals is important. According to the bio Kein Grieves:
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/people/fullbio.php?ID=84
"I began my career in television news in 1989, joining CNN in Germany for several years in a variety of functions. After moving to Atlanta, worked for CNN in a number of capacities, including writer and producer for CNN International newscasts and for CNN World Report."
He has worked for a rival news corporation to Fox News, and CNN is criticized by many on the right as being a left-leaning organization.
Maria Elizabeth Grabe has published a favorable study of one Democrat in particular, Jerry Springer. She put forward the notion that his show could actually teach lessons in morality.
http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101B&L=aejmc&P=20257
She has even made statements that are complementary towards Clinton: "but Clinton was positively gifted in his ability to work the camera. He demonstrated a wide range of facial displays that were presidential and emotionally appropriate—sadness at a state funeral, harshness in a debate and so on"http://www.homepages.indiana.edu/102204/text/grabe.shtml
In another instance Grabe spoke only of how Democrat presidential nominees were being unfairly portrayed by the media, and ignored Bush. You would think Bush as 'stupid' would have popped in there if there wasn't any inherit bias in Miss Grabe:
She said she is curious to see how journalists decide to frame the candidates. "As we know, every presidential candidate, whether it's John McCain being labeled as 'crazy' or Howard Dean as 'angry,' gets framed in a certain way," she said.
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1233.html
She has even written a paper defending liberal bias in the media:
Betsi Grabe-- The liberal bias accusation against journalism: Contradictory evidence from a visual perspective. (Top Paper Award)
http://www.indiana.edu/~telecom/news.html
---
The backgrounds of these people is very important. Who were the actual coders in this scenario. Was it Betsi Grabe, or Kevin Grieves?
The more I look into the background of this study, the more it starts to smell to me.
But have you READ the study? If not, you should not be criticizing its methods.
I would like to have an actual link to the entire study if available. Thus far I have only found a methodology page, and a table of data. Perhaps my Google searches have been misguided, or I missed a link above.
M, the link is on the same page with the tables, etc. it is the first link, to a .pdf file.
So the whole time you've been arguing about this, you hadn't yet found the link to the entire study?! Amazing. Boy, some of the conservatives on this board are really showing their asses on this one. Was it really too much to ask that people actually read the study before attacking it?
You are so right. Its a really good song except here inability to tell something unfortunate from something ironic.
Bill O pick's a bone with Retired General Wesley Clark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NimlV-hZnyA
All comments welcome....
I saw the Gen. Clark interview (although I didn't watch your clip that is linked above) and, as i recall, Clark told O'Reilly something to the effect that his beef with Soros was "personal". That's what I've been saying...
I so love it when Billo gets in over his head like this. I think even his own followers would have a hard time taking him seriously if he really tried to argue war policy with a highly respected four-star general, so instead he had to make 90% of the interview about Soros. I'm rather surprised he didn't accuse Clark of being in with MMFA as well. "Did you know that the vile commu-fasco-nazi venom-spewing Media Matters lefties quote people directly?" he would have asked. "And these Soros-funded scumbags are running the government. Do you agree with direct quotes, General? Are those the sorts of people you want to take $75,000 from? Do you also drown kittens in your spare time, General? Because Soros does. I have irrefutable evidence."
"I'm rather surprised he didn't accuse Clark of being in with MMFA as well."
No, no, no, no... Bill O'Reilly does know where to draw the line sometimes when he's dealing with an intelligent, well-respected person who could eat his lunch. Wesley Clark is nobody's fool and he wasn't about to play one for O'Reilly. Now, if O'Reilly senses weakness in a lesser opponent (which is usually the case on his highly stage-managed show) he goes in for the kill. Don't you just love the dignified decorum of his show when he starts calling a stunned guest "crazy"? But usually it's directed at someone you've probably never heard much of before.
very good point
Not only did he argue war policy the former Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe ( a FOUR star general), he actually LECTURED him a bit on what it means to support the troops. To Gen Clark's credit, he DID NOT deliver a backhand chop across Billdo's throat, he simply offerd a patronizing little smile and calmly refuted him.
That's the problem in argueing with a propagandist like O'lielly - when you hit him over the head with a fact, he can come back with an obfuscation too complicated to quickly refute. His listeners - like Kevin - are more interested in clinging to their delusions than facing facts. Most are too stupid to care if it's true or not.
Kevin I must admit, is more intelligent than that. He knows that well over 90% of his attacks are completely specious, but since he is in posession of a "higher truth" and enjoys the attention he gets here, has no problem making them.
What difference would it make if the entire staff of the study was a "card-carrying-liberal?" Would it change a single fact in the study? Should everyone who has ever worked for a Democrat remove themselves from the public eye and never express an opinion? I'm sure Kevin and O'lielly would love that. Sorry Kev - ain't gonna happen.
Don't let that stop you from continuing an unbroken string of irrelevancies though - we find it amusing.
Hell, just watch O'Reilly's show one night to see if O'Reilly is an obnoxious name-caller... Who're you gonna believe, O'Reilly's defenders or your lying eyes?
I see more of the jerk than I want to here and on Keith's show. Gonna take a lot of raw force to make me watch more than that.
So Olberman calling O'Reilly a Nazi, and the other bits of name-calling Olberman has engagement in mean nothing to you? If you truly have moral compass that points you towards the media you consume, then surely you have to stop watching all political commentators. I mean, when Keith calls someone the most evil person in the world, isn't that name-calling? LOL, he is just as much a propagandist as O'Reilly.
The truth is that you dislike O'Reilly because you disagree with his political ideology. You are using this study as an excuse to bash him when your own pot is black.
The comments to this topic have made me laugh more than anything ever posted on this site.
WRONG! We dislike Billdo because he is a lying egomaniac masquerading as an objective journaist. Think about it for a while.
But you like the lying propagandists that espouse your ideology?
LOL, this is good, please continue...
Please name a few. I'll be checking back.
Keith Olbermann ,John Stewart, Stephen Colbert...
LOL.
I can't wait to see examples of each of those individuals being "lying propagandists", especially the latter two.
And no, I won't accept jokes that you didn't get as examples.
Keith Olbermann obviously leans to the left. He admits it. Nevertheless, he practices journalistic integrity, unlike the propagandist bull&*it coming from the likes of Billdo, Insannity, and Limpballs who all take their daily talking points directly from the DNC while claiming to be either "fair and balanced", or a comedian. Stewart and Colbert are ACTUAL comedians, who parody the likes of the right-wing shills previously mentioned, and who often take shots at the left as well. Any more?
OOPS! That should have been "RNC".
A cursory look at Olbermann's website just now revealed a couple of examples. Olbermann's coverage of the O'Reilly/Media Matters/Soros argument is entitle:
HOPE THIS ISN'T TOO COMPLICATED FOR 'THE FOLKS'
This is obviously a derogatory way to describe the viewers of O'Reilly's show and it implies that they are simple minded and unable to grasp complicated arguments.
RUSH CAUGHT HUFFING PAINT
This is a misleading and demeaning title to a news story regarding the vandalism of a billboard featuring Rush Limbaugh.
Aside from participating in name calling and vilification of political opponents, Olbermann is a propagandist. His message is consistently tailored to propagate a political message that is pro-Democrat party and the left ideology. He is the left's versions of Bill O'Reilly.
1) Re: denigrating Billo fans, if the shoe fits, how is it dishonest for Keith to point that out? MMFA (and Olbermann) have pointed out NUMEROUS instances of misinformation or other bad behavior from BO. Anyone with sense and/or integrity would either demand that O'Reilly stop engage in such stupid behavior or stop watching the show, i.e., would not remain a fan. So what does that say about those who do remain fans?
2) And if anyone clicks on that link, the first words he/she will read are:" Ok, not really ". So how exactly is Keith lying?
3) People WHO ARE GIVEN A RADIO/TV SHOW and do things like lie, sexually harass others, say bigoted things, and engage in other disgusting behavior ARE FAIR GAME for being made fun of by Keith Olbermann or anyone else. It is one small way to counteract their abuse of the airwaves. For someone with little power and no bully pulpit, perhaps a more restrained approach is called for.
"He is the left's versions of Bill O'Reilly."
Without the lying and misinformation and cutting off of mikes and talking over people and bulldozing his way through conversations and RNC a$$ licking and disortion of facts and non existence sympathy and blatant hypocrisy.
You've listed two example from Olberman that are trivial at best Volumes can be written about what a whackjob BO is.
Olberman:
User of name-calling and fear mongering:
[Withing the first 20 seconds of this commentary] "a past president bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster..."
Here Olbmermann was participating in name-calling when referring to Chris Wallace's interview with Bill Clinton. Olbmermann also participates in fear monger a few seconds later as he refers to the administration as being as big a threat to the U.S. as Al Qaeda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60
I unfortunately do not have time to do a IU study on any of the people listed, but this was of course the easiest to find.
OK...so what?
Your making a comparison between BO and Olberman. You just listed two more examples that are opinions. You comparison still fall way short.
Still wating for:
the lying and misinformation and cutting off of mikes and talking over people and bulldozing his way through conversations and RNC a$$ licking and disortion of facts and non existence sympathy and blatant hypocrisy.
(BTW Chris Walace is a Monkey posing as a journalist and this administration is reponsible for the death of 3000+ soldiers like it or not and for what?)
Indeed, volumes HAVE been written about him. See SWEET JESUS, I HATE BILL O'REILLY or Al Franken's LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM, A FAIR AND BALANCED LOOK AT THE RIGHT.
I love that site.... that's how I stumbled upon MMFA...
It was a good book too
There is no such thing as a Democrat party. There is a DemocraIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party
Here's your assignment, if you want to convince anyone that you are right:
For each of the people you name, describe ONE instance in which they professed to be providing facts AND the evidence shows they were incorrect. Now, if you don't have evidence of multiple instances demonstrating a consistent pattern, provide evidence that each person was intentionally providing incorrect information to advance a position.
Make sure you realize that two of the individuals you named are COMEDIANS. Points will be taken off if you confuse satire with journalism.
Ready? Go!
I'm not sure what your definition of propagandist is, but I am referring to someone who dissemenates messages with the purpose of assisting a cause or political party. Clearly, the subject matter of the shows of Olberman, Stewart, and Colbert all are to promote one side of the political spectrum.
The two comedy shows in question are unfortunately news sources for almost 2 million people daily. Many polls have shows that people get their news from these so-called comedy shows.
The nature of the comedy shows is to generalize the political positions of opposing opinions, and vilify their actions. Often with Colbert the position of the right is straw manned over-simplified to imply a motive which is untrue. Colbert often makes outlandish statements using buzz-words of the right to transfer his satirical misunderstanding of an issue onto the image of the right.
I was not a media major, so I fear me wasting a few hours of my life in order to please your definition of a propagandist will be fruitless for both of us.
I'm not sure what your definition of propagandist is, but I am referring to someone who dissemenates messages with the purpose of assisting a cause or political party. Clearly, the subject matter of the shows of Olberman, Stewart, and Colbert all are to promote one side of the political spectrum.
Clearly, you don't watch the shows, or understand the nature of the business of comedy. Stewart and Colbert are professional comedians, and were before their respective shows, and before the bush administration came to power. What you fail to understand is that they make fun of everybody, while they both lean liberal, they have no sacred cows or reverance for the Democratic party. For the better part of the past six years, the Republicans have been in complete control of the executive and legislative branch, and has influenced the judicial branch. When you have all the power, you are going to get the lion's share of the scorn and mocking, deservedly so if you do stupid things, and things go wrong on your watch. Since the Democrats have taken Congress back, The Daily Show has not shown them mercy, but Bush is still President, and the Dems only have a slim majority, so the Republicans are still going to get most of it, again, when they deserve it. Or do you think they've been unfair in their criticism? and if so, where?
The two comedy shows in question are unfortunately news sources for almost 2 million people daily. Many polls have shows that people get their news from these so-called comedy shows.
I'd say that says more about the dismal state of mainstream news in this country, than it does about the people watching the shows.
The nature of the comedy shows is to generalize the political positions of opposing opinions, and vilify their actions. Often with Colbert the position of the right is straw manned over-simplified to imply a motive which is untrue. Colbert often makes outlandish statements using buzz-words of the right to transfer his satirical misunderstanding of an issue onto the image of the right.
Do you understand satire? You think Colbert doesn't understand what he's mocking? I think you're underestimating him. Sometimes he's not bombastic enough to sufficiently mock his targets. But I assume asking for a specific example of where Colbert ascribed a false position to his target is asking too much of you.
I was not a media major, so I fear me wasting a few hours of my life in order to please your definition of a propagandist will be fruitless for both of us.
Yeah, especially since your definition probably doesn't conform to any media majors accepted criteria for a propagandist. You've already leveled ad hominem attacks against Stewart and Colbert, without any concrete examples of how they are "lying propagandists", and you don't seem to have a good grasp on satire. You probably haven't yet recognized the irony in YOU calling them "lying propagandists", have you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfiL2hpnmZ0
Check out the above behind the scenes view of Colbert meeting with Kerry before his appearance on the show. Within this clip Colbert relates to Kerry that he will be playing the idiot (conservative) and will pretend to be happy that Kerry is running for office. Furthermore, Kerry thanks Colbert for his behavior at the White House Correspondence dinner.
I wonder if Colbert gives the kid gloves appearance to all of his guests, or just to the ones he supports ideologically.
Colbert has propagandistic agenda to make conservatives appear overbearing and stupid. He offers interviews of people across the political spectrum, but he shows his agenda in this video by telling Kerry ahead of time what he will be doing in the show.
The Colbert report is news to many people, and when Colbert treats one side as good while vilifying another, he is participating in propaganda. He is reinforcing the stereotype of the loud-mouth-conservative, while allow guests who share his ideology to "win" against the stereotypical conservative.
Colbert is a fraud. Not in his satire, but in his presentation of conservative politics.
"He is reinforcing the stereotype of the loud-mouth-conservative"
"Colbert is a fraud. Not in his satire, but in his presentation of conservative politics."
SO what are o'Reily, hannity, limbuagh, malkin, slchussel, Snow, Beck, Faux news ETC etc doing in there representation of the Left?
At least Colbert is on "COMEDY" central. These guys are on actual "NEWS" channels.
Give me a break. You might as well be condemning Pee Wee Herman.
So are you gonna cough up those LIES anytime soon that are a prerequisite of being a LYING propagandist? Or are you going to admit you are a LYING poster who hasnt a hope of backing up his accusation?
"'A lot of my personal world view is unmistakably sympathetic to things in a liberal play book,' he said, 'but honest to God, I have been called a reactionary by some on the far left, a liberal by some on the far right and I'm insulted by both terms. My point of view is about delivering information and context. It has nothing to do with a political point of view.'"
"My advice actually to a viewer is to listen because what we're about, ultimately, is the content. I'm asking questions, as you do, I think, to get information. I don't -- I'm not trying to elicit a political opinion or stance. I want to know what's going on. I want to know what I don't understand about this story, what this person can explain to me."
- Keith Olbermann
Others here have admitted that Olbermann is biased, and some have even said he admitted to being biased. Yet, he claims above that he is not. LIE.
"No one in 1998, no one accused me of being a liberal in 1998 because I was covering the Clinton-Lewinsky story and whatever I had to do about it, I tried to be fair and honest and as accurate and informed as possible, and allow my viewer to be the same way. And nowadays it's the same way. Now, all of a sudden I'm a screaming liberal."
But in 1998 he said:
"Can Ken Starr ignore the apparent breadth of the sympathetic response to the President's speech? Facially, it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses. If he now pursues the President of the United States, who, however flawed his apology was, came out and invoked God, family, his daughter, a political conspiracy and everything but the kitchen sink, would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?" -- Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Big Show, to Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief James Warren, August 18, 1998.
Keith Olbermann is even lying to himself...
I don't have a first hand account of this (as I obviously don't own an archive of all of Olbermann's shows), but this is from the Huffington Post. Olbermann was interviewing Hillary Clinton, and she made the statement, "I opposed the pre-emptive war with Iraq." which is completely untrue. Olbermann did nothing to refute this statement, and as he almost always does, continued to support the party ideology.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/hillary-clinton-lied-to-k_b_39580.htmlOlbermann once made Barbara Bush his Worst Person in the World: "You'd think if a woman has reached her 80th birthday she'd understand that if you make a donation to charity, then make the charity give the donation to your son, it's not a damned donation anymore! Barbara Bush, today's 'Worst Person in the World'!"Yet he failed to acknowledge that the Bush family had given various other donations to Katrina that did not require a purchase form anyone. Furthermore, Obermann claims that he is not biased which is a lie, and that what he says "has nothing to do with a political point of view," Yet there is an 8 to 1 margin of conservatives he has chosen as the "Worst Person in the World."According to Media Reality Check: " Olbermann has thrown nearly all of his punches at conservatives. Of the 197 politically-salient designees, nearly nine out of ten (174, or 88%) attacked conservative targets or ideas, compared with 23 nominees (12%) in which liberals were on the receiving end of Olbermann’s ire. Among those attacked by Olbermann: Bill Frist, Donald Rumsfeld, Antonin Scalia, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson (four times). Never targeted: Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, or even William Jefferson"
Check out the above behind the scenes view of Colbert meeting with Kerry before his appearance on the show. Within this clip Colbert relates to Kerry that he will be playing the idiot (conservative) and will pretend to be happy that Kerry is running for office. Furthermore, Kerry thanks Colbert for his behavior at the White House Correspondence dinner.
How dare they prepare for a television show? You write this like the audience doesn't get it. If so many pundits hadn't been speculating whether Kerry was running before, this might not have been so funny, but given that almost every appearance by Kerry in the media before he announced he wasn't running was followed by speculation of whether he was running, and he got asked that pretty frequently, that's where the humor comes in. This was one of his first appearances after saying he's not running, and Colbert used it Ya know, if it has to be explained, it's not funny anymore.
I wonder if Colbert gives the kid gloves appearance to all of his guests, or just to the ones he supports ideologically.
Not to all, but not exclusively to those he doesn't support. Some of his interviews with liberals are some of the ones he is most legitimately challenging to, even while in character, and some conservatives don't get lambasted ironically by his mock support. If you watched the show, you'd know that. You'd also know that his first goal is to make the audience laugh, and that the lying and propanganda come second (that's a joke, since you apparently don't have a sense of humor.)
Colbert has propagandistic agenda to make conservatives appear overbearing and stupid.
They don't need his help. (Cheap shot, yes, but he set it up so nicely)
He offers interviews of people across the political spectrum, but he shows his agenda in this video by telling Kerry ahead of time what he will be doing in the show.
Again, they don't go out there and WING IT, and the audience gets it. It's satire of the talking head shows, most especially Bill O'Reilly, and we've been exposed to him long enough to know he's full of crap, and of himself, and those are the elements Colbert is exploiting to the fullest. You act like people wouldn't understand that, but we get it very well. It's the reason we keep watching.
The Colbert report is news to many people, and when Colbert treats one side as good while vilifying another, he is participating in propaganda. He is reinforcing the stereotype of the loud-mouth-conservative, while allow guests who share his ideology to "win" against the stereotypical conservative.
You just proved to me that you don't watch the show. He is reinforcing the stereotype of the loud mouth TALKING HEAD, (and stereotypes exist for a reason, most of them do not appear out of nowhere), many of whom use fallacies and bullying techniques, the way Colbert does. That his character is conservative reflects the landscape of TV punditry, where Olbermann is the only liberal with his own show. And if you are not sophisticated or mature enough to understand that, I can't help you.
Colbert is a fraud. Not in his satire, but in his presentation of conservative politics.
So are you, concern troll, in your mock outrage over the name-calling, yet you say nothing about Bill O'Reilly's continued lies and misinformation broadcast on a regular basis, which is much more problematic. Take it somewhere else.
Not to mention, this is one incident that your extrapolating to say this is how every show is run. Not exactly a good sample size, eh?
Yet patrol this site, which you probably haven't yet, for topics on O'Reilly misrepresenting, or outright lying, and see why we feel how we feel about him.
Can you tell me how many back-stage videos I am supposed to have of Colbert? I'm not a media researcher, I am simply giving the proof I have that everything is not right with the world of the left either...
That a fair point. So you can't address any of my more valid points above?
I noticed you hit and run a lot on this thread, why don't you try to address the more valid arguments throughout, like why Bill O'Reilly is held to the same standard as anonymous posters on a website? Or what he's exposing, with who Georger Soros gives his money to? (Hint: it's not Media Matters. Bill is lying when he says that)
But you also haven't provided any evidence of Colbert or Stewart LYING about anything. And why do you want to hold satirists in the art of satire to as high a level as people who describe themselves as JOURNALISTS?
I have no problem ranking Colbert and Stewart in a separate category from Olbermann and O'Reilly. Yet, many people consider Colbert and Stewart sources of information which is why I see them as equally dangerous disseminaters of misinformation.
I am really the only person defending my opinion on this site so I apologize if it appears that I hit and run. I have several people to respond to, on several different threads, so it is not my intention to ignore anyone. I am also completely jobs in between posts. I generally try to respond to the most credible arguments and ignore the ones I believe most people will discount upon reading.
I have shown you that Keith Olbermann is a liar, that he is biased, and that he has an agenda. I have shown a few examples in video and text form of his role as a propagandist for the left. I believe I have backed up the statement that Olbermann is the O'Reilly of the left and I stick by it.
I have also shown Colbert's inherit bias via a backstage video that showed him giving special treatment to John Kerry. He warned him what approach he would take against him, and was thanked for his role in attacking Bush at the White House Correspondence dinner
My assertion was that Colbert uses conservative buzz words when arguing against liberal guests to straw man the position of the right. He purposely makes weak arguments that are easily defeated by his guests, which makes his uninformed audience assume that the argument against the issue is just as weak. He uses transference to transfer his character's lack of credibility onto the bastions of the conservative ideology.
I have not written anything about Stewart because honestly there hasn't been time. I have allowed this topic to distract me enough from real life that I did not feel like dedicating another few minutes digging through Stewart videos.
My goal in this discussion is two fold. I want to show the possibility of bias in this study, and I want to show the hypocrisy of the left that claims absolution from propaganda while bashing O'Reilly.
I have no problem ranking Colbert and Stewart in a separate category from Olbermann and O'Reilly. Yet, many people consider Colbert and Stewart sources of information which is why I see them as equally dangerous disseminaters of misinformation.
But they do not PRESENT themselves as purveyors of information. They have always portrayed themselves as entertainers, so they cannot be blamed for it. I also said earlier that this reflects more poorly on the mainstream media who are not doing their job, not on the public.
I have shown you that Keith Olbermann is a liar, that he is biased, and that he has an agenda. I have shown a few examples in video and text form of his role as a propagandist for the left. I believe I have backed up the statement that Olbermann is the O'Reilly of the left and I stick by it.
Well I have not checked those sources (I'm working, too) so I have nothing to say to that.
I have also shown Colbert's inherit bias via a backstage video that showed him giving special treatment to John Kerry. He warned him what approach he would take against him, and was thanked for his role in attacking Bush at the White House Correspondence dinner
Colbert obviously has contempt and disdain for the conservative talking heads in general and I say, so? I do, too. They talk out of their butts most of the time, about subjects they know very little about, and make far too many mistakes, and show their own bias. Colbert mocks them. You act like they deserve respect. I have seen far too many incidents on this site for you to convince me that is so. And if I can ever meet Stephen Colbert, I'll tank him for the White House Correspondence dinner, too, because he did what no one in the press has the balls to do: Call out the administration to it's face. And it was hilarious at the same time.
My assertion was that Colbert uses conservative buzz words when arguing against liberal guests to straw man the position of the right. He purposely makes weak arguments that are easily defeated by his guests, which makes his uninformed audience assume that the argument against the issue is just as weak. He uses transference to transfer his character's lack of credibility onto the bastions of the conservative ideology.
You're assuming a lot that is not in evidence. Colbert's audience is better educated on average than O'Reilly's, and better informed than those who access mainstream press exclusively (except for PBS) They get the joke. Apparently, you still don't. WE get that not all conservatives are blowhards and douchebags, just like not all liberals are milquetoast and spineless, like the character David Cross has played multiple times on the Colbert Report. We just long for the day when those aren't the only ones shown on TV. And one more time, he's a comedian, exaggeration is one of his tools to go for the joke.
I have not written anything about Stewart because honestly there hasn't been time. I have allowed this topic to distract me enough from real life that I did not feel like dedicating another few minutes digging through Stewart videos.
More likely you won't find much, especially post 2004.
My goal in this discussion is two fold. I want to show the possibility of bias in this study, and I want to show the hypocrisy of the left that claims absolution from propaganda while bashing O'Reilly.
No one here claims that liberals are saints, while demonizing the cons, that's a strawman. And you've been attacking the posters on this site, comparing us to the talking heads, that's a false equivalency. And you have still shown NOTHING from Stewart and Colbert where they lied or misrepresented anything. You keep pointing to the video of Colbert and Kerry, but that assumes that we think Colbert is being genuine on TV and not playing a character, that we don't understand what he doing. We don't think that, we're more sophisticated than that, so your "proof" is worthless. And since you have yet to back up your claims of their being "lying propagandists", the label still fits you, and not them.
If it talks like a duck and goosesteps like a duck...
If I made a point of advocating collectivization of all the farms in this country and the various other tools employed by the Soviets or Chinese, you would be quite justified in calling me a communist, whether I was a party member or not. Similarly, anyone with more than a passing familiarity with naziism and the positions it espoused is quite safe in referring to Billious as a nazi. No other characterization suits him more aptly. Similarly, I have referred to him as a bully and other apt appelations. Providing a fair and discriptive label is, to be sure, name calling. Sometimes it's important to label a tyrant exactly that - as Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence.
So that is your justification for comparing KO to O'lielly? You have called my guy who lies incessently a liar, so your guy also lies? False equivilency is just a rhetorical trick of a dishonest debater without a leg to stand on, as you have so often proven to be. I won't bother to defend Keith here - waste of time. Call him a liar all you want. We know better - and so do you.
That's the problem in argueing with a propagandist like O'lielly - when you hit him over the head with a fact, he can come back with an obfuscation too complicated to quickly refute. His listeners - like Kevin - are more interested in clinging to their delusions than facing facts. Most are too stupid to care if it's true or not.
The hypocrisy of your post is quite entertaining. Let's see, you called O'Reilly a propagandist. You called O'Reilly's viewers delusional and stupid.
You are here lambasting a man for being a name calling propagandist while doing the same in your own post.
That is truly priceless. Thanks for giving me a good chuckle this morning.
Do you even know what propaganda is? Because it doesn't seem like it.
Describing the posters here as propagandists was inadvertent, though the name-calling charges clearly stand.
Don't you think someone who portrays himself as an objective journalist on a news channel, and is paid very well to do so, should be held to higher standards than anonymous posters on a website posting their opinions for free?
The hypocrisy of this study as wielded by the commentators here is hilarious. I suppose calling O'Reilly a liar, his fans stupid and ignorant, is somehow different?
The people here use and fall for the same propaganda techniques that are being attributed to O'Reilly. Politics is a brutal sport and ad hominem attacks are wielded by extremists from both sides.
The study appears designed to state the obvious, that O'Reilly uses labels to categorizes his political enemies to his viewers. This isn't unlike the countless leftist bloggers and media commentators who have used terms like neo-con, Bushies, and cons to demean opinions and those who have written them.
You all are too silly for words.
The difference is that none of us has a national televison show where we can spew idiotic nonsense to millions of viewers every day while pretending to be "fair and balanced". Who's being silly here?
BTW, the term Neo-Con is not used as a slur, it is a valid description of far-right conservatives who favor military action first and foremost in practically any situation.
So, by your argument the use of the term liberal, or anti-american is not derogatory as well if O'Reilly since the terms can be justified?
Please forgive the typos in the previous post. I hope the meaning is somewhat clear.
No problem, we all trip over the keyboard from time to time. Your comparison of the usage of the terms "liberal" and "neo-con" is really not valid. The right has sought to use the term "liberal" as a bludgeon for nearly three decades. It is often used to attack those with whom they disagree, generally spoken in a contemptous tone, or in conjunction with negative stereotypical phrases such as traitorous, crazy, or troop-hating. I don't recall the term "neo-con" ( a comparatively new term in common usage) being used in such a dramatic fashion, though I concede there may be limited exceptions. The right has been very successful in co-opting the term "liberal" as a derisive term, to the point that the left has had to actually start using the more appropriate term "progressive" to describe our ideology.
I fully admit the term liberal is now a label of scorn and ridicule. However, I do not see a difference from it's co-opted form and the malformation of the word conservative as seen in the term neo-con.
Clearly, name-calling is a symptom of politics wielded by both sides.
"Somewhat clear" is the main problem with conservative thinking. Full clarity would be the cure for it, but, as you just admitted, partial clarity is your intention.
Liberal is not a derogatory term, despite Limpaughs efforts to portray it as such. He has used it for 20 years to define one side in the high-contrast, binary world in which he so comfortably fits. I doubt there's anyone here on the left side of the political spectrum who would feel insulted if you called them a liberal. So there's no need to substantiate the term "liberal", though I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to do so due to your "somewhat clear" method of rationalization.
Anti-american is an over-used, and easily dismissed attempted slur. It's easily dismissed because anyone can claim that their particular statement of dissatisfaction with America is driven by the intention to improve the country, not because they're against the country. And for that reason, it should only be used when applied to a critic or enemy whose ultimate goal is to see America cease to be a country. That's a rare occasion, far outnumbered by the instances when I've heard it applied to war critics, administration critics, and political partisans.
Finally, calling you a putz is merely an editorial comment by me, and while unprovable, accurately reflects my perception of your character as reflected in your attempts to change the subject- that subject being O'Really?'s loud, obnoxious, and demonstrably false claims that he NEVER smears people or refers to them with derogatory terms. I can call you a putz with impugnity, because I don't claim to never refer to some commenters in derogatory terms. To the contrary, I admit that I kind of enjoy it.
I am impressed that you can take two words of my statement, "somewhat clear," and misconstrue them for four paragraphs. I wouldn't be surprised if you told me you were a writer for Seinfeld, as that was the longest post "about nothing" I have read in days.
If you want to debase yourself by name-calling that is not my concern. I am a pseudonym here and a collection of a few posts to the general public. Certainly I won't be walking with my head down today after being admonished by someone who fits the diagnosis for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Personally, I believe that the use of the phrase, "anti-American" is underused in our daily lives. I find the actions of some Americans completely un-American. Such as Americans who think there exists a moral equivalence between terrorists who want to end the basic freedoms of humanity and soldiers who are fighting to instill democracy.
And yet it is also used to denigrate people who criticise the president, policy dissent and basically any deviation from total conformity to rightwing propaganda. I think the term moron is underused for instance to describe people who engage in that sort of divisive rhetoric.
"Politics is a brutal sport and ad hominem attacks are wielded by extremists from both sides."
-----
Since ad hominem is a well-known logical fallacy, it appears you need a refresher course in logic, rhetoric and reasoning, because you have demonstrated woeful deficiencies in all three.
Your life must be dull as dishwater if "the most you have ever laughed" as you said in one post, turned out to be a "chuckle," as you said in another.
I think the "disdain" you feel cannot be mutual, because we do not feel disdain for you, we feel pity. And your disdain seems to be turned inward, which is probably a good place for it to be while you try to make your life better.
Good luck with that, let us know how it goes, even if the sharpest thing the doctors let you write with is a crayon. Too bad that even the dull point of a crayon is sharper than your wit.
LOL, what is so illogical about demonstrating the old adage, "The pot calling the kettle black?"
You seem a bit uptight. Relax a bit, and then respond to the actual points in the posts.
"The study appears designed to state the obvious, that O'Reilly uses labels to categorizes his political enemies to his viewers."
Apparently you didn't actually read the study. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, O'Reilly use of derogatory labels is just one part of a much larger picture that this study presents. It just happens to be the part that MMFA is focusing on.
I've read through the documents that were linked in this report, but have not searched for the study in its entirety.
The points the study seems to make is that O'Reilly is a persuasive speaker. He champions causes that he believes in, making those a agrees with heroes while vilifying those whom he disagrees with. It is his opinion and he gets paid to give it.
I fail to see the alarm factor in all of this.
He absolutely has the right to say whatever he wants. The problem is that he LIES, while claiming to be "fair and balanced" on a network that is SUPPOSED to an objective NEWS NETWORK, but has been widely discredited as a propaganda arm of the RNC. Hey, if they would just admit that they are a bunch of right-wing tools, we would have no complaint. Until then, they are just a bunch of TRAITOROUS, AMERICA-HATING LIARS.
From the IU press release:
"Using analysis techniques first developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Conway, Grabe and Grieves found that O'Reilly employed six of the seven propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute in his editorials. His editorials also are presented on his Web site and in his newspaper columns.
The seven propaganda devices include:
The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin."
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html
O'falafle DOES namecall, which I dont have an implicit problem with, and SAYS he doesnt. That makes him a liar. Of course that is just one of many examples of him lying. He also has a weird habit of saying something then later denying he said it, which might not be a lie just some sort of delusional impairment. I dont care if Olbermann calls people names. Until the side which has Weiner, Coulter, and Limbaugh clean up their side of the aisle they are flat out hypocrites to snivel about namecalling. There is no left equivelent of Coulter for example
A bot off topic, but I really don't understand what's wrong with Soros giving money to Media Matters, NEWSHOUNDS or any other group????
RIght wing philanthropists give money openly to Heritage Fdn and other rightr wing groups. What's so sinister if Soros does the same???
Don't be intimidated! DOnating money is freedom of speech. Don't let anyone take away that right. It's a slippery slope from there to banning those views the establishment doesn't like.
There's nothing wrong with it, just like there is nothing wrong with O'Reilly exposing it on his television show.
Uh, exposing what exactly?
His A$$.
"There's nothing wrong with it, just like there is nothing wrong with O'Reilly exposing it on his television show."
Then whats is he trying to expose?
There ISNT anything wrong with it. Which is why its strange O'falafel keeps LYING about it. If it were true there would be no problem. O'Reilly exposed NOTHING except his strange prediliction for lying. If Soros wanted to give MMFA money he would write them a check which he can obviously afford to do and which Billy O never showed he did. If you were taken in by the big O on that one it says volumes about your cognitive shortcomings.
You just supported Bill in having an inherit right to lie on cable news program. Thank you very much, it relieves me of the necessity of reading further your wordy but empty comments.
By the way you certainly are quite amused with yourself. Do you often sit at home alone laughing and cajoling with your cleverness?
There's nothing wrong with his giving money to whatever causes he wishes to support. What's wrong is for O'Reilly and friends to LIE about whether Soros has given money to Media Matters.
Can somebody explain to me why this whole "George Soros" thing is such a big deal. I guess I'm wondering why Bill "No More Tears Baby Shampoo" O'Reilly keeps brining it up like it is some sort of damning evidence towards something. I mean, even if it were true, Soros, doesn't seem like that bad of a guy, and has unselfishly gone out of his way to better the lives of people all over the world. Why does BNMTBSO think that a George Soros connection affects MMFA's credibility, and in reality, would it?
I think that as with everything in O'Reilly's world, it boils down to a personal grudge. Whether it's Rosie O'Donnell, MMFA, Paul Krugman, some newspaper in Kansas, or George Soros, O'Reilly's vendettas and smear campaigns can almost always be traced back to someone daring to invoke the name Andrea Mackris. I don't imagine that Soros ever brought up Mackris, but he must have said something to bruise O'Reilly's ego. O'Reilly's hatred of Soros is so irrational that it just has to be personal.
Bill "No More Tears Baby Shampoo" O'Reilly
You've been reading Maddox. :)
My belief, which I base solely on a reading of Mr. Mitchell's article, is that Mr. Mitchell has a striking inability to differentiate between factual evidence and unsubstantiated but unquestioned assumptions on his behalf. The "evidence" he presents to back up his statements seems to be based exclusively on his assumption of the disingenouousness of others. And this assumption of his seems based solely on the fact that others may (or may not--he fails to bother proving even this) hold one or more beliefs and/or ideologies in opposition to his own.
The insinuatlon that Mr Mitchell makes repeatedly is that the Indiana University researchers, as well as Ms. Brooks, are liars. But all he presents as evidence is ideological characterization. The conclusion, for me, is inescapable: Mr. Mitchell believes that the ideologies (and employers?) he cites are somehow self-evidently "bad" and are therefore proof enough.
I'd expect that such an inability to differentiate between facts and one's own assumptions would disqualify one to be employed by, much less be a producer for, a legitimate news outlet.
If I were his employer, I'd be embarrassed that this article was in any way associated with me.
Form your own conclusion. I've formed mine.
Without offering a single fact to back up his allegations, Mr. Mitchell attacks the integrity of Illinois University and its researchers by grossly misrepresenting a routine reconciliation of Krippendorff's alpha in a research study and expecting us to assume without substantiation that they would fail to perform standard anti-bias due diligence or, more speciously, to insinuate purposeful distortion of their research based on personal belief or past employment. And then he goes on to attack columnist Rosa Brooks as, for example, a "confirmed" leftist. By whom, Mr. Mitchell, and using what criteria?
What I fail to find in Mr. Mitchell’s article is any citation of factual evidence to support a single one of Mr. Mitchell’s points. He even fails to cite a single fact to support his insinuation that there was in some way something wrong with the “framework” used for the study. In short, Mr. Mitchell attempts to refute the claim that O'Reilly calls people by doing nothing but name calling. How very convincing. This was a joke, right?