O'Reilly claimed his producer's specious op-ed piece "destroyed" IU study
On the May 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed Factor producer Ron Mitchell "has blown the lid off" an Indiana University (IU) study that found O'Reilly engages in name-calling in his "Talking Points Memo" segments once every 6.8 seconds. Referring to an op-ed Mitchell wrote that appeared on the Los Angeles Times website, O'Reilly told viewers that Mitchell "just destroyed" the study, and criticized the Times for posting Mitchell's op-ed online and not publishing it in its print edition. But as Media Matters for America documented, Mitchell's op-ed contains a significant falsehood.
Mitchell claimed: "[T]he 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."
In fact, 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." The process the IU researchers used is standard practice: An instrument is designed and 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. The researchers did not "try and try" to fit any "preconceived notion." They refined the coding instrument in conformity with standard practice.
From the May 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Time now for the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." I was all set to compliment the Los Angeles Times, and they hosed us in the end.
Last week, their far-left columnist Rosa Brooks -- who works for George Soros, if you can believe it, but the Times doesn't tell its readers that -- harpooned me about this bogus Indiana University study that says I insult people once every 6.8 seconds. Well, Factor producer Ron Mitchell has blown the lid off that study, and you can see it on BillOReilly.com. I mean, we've just destroyed it.
So, we called the L.A. Times and said this is a bogus study, you gotta print Mitchell's article. They said they would, and they put it on their Internet site. Not good, you guys. You guys really gotta be more honest. The Los Angeles Times strikes again.
Up is down in Bizarro world, so this must mean that "blowing the lid off of the story" means that what his producer wrote really means that the study was spot on.
O'REILLY: Time now for the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." I was all set to compliment the Los Angeles Times, and they hosed us in the end.
That's why I dumped my scrip to the Times, wasting all that money on enemas for BilldO.
Have a heart. He needs to clean his special place, lest the vibrating "billdo" of fame become unsanitary, does he not?
Keeps his hair clean, too. Less shampoo time = more loofah time !
You know, before I regress completely back to a 12-year-old and butt-humor, I would just like to say that Bill is the one who said "hosed us in the end".
I don't blame you...
N0w, 0n w1th th3 r3&r35510n. 1m' f33l1n& 4b0ut 15 r1&ht n0w. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!11!!1!!!
This whole thing is just ridiculous to begin with, in my opinion.
For some publicly funded university in this country to spend one red cent to find out how many times Bill O'Reilly opens his big mouth and insults someone is the biggest waste of money since the AMC Gremlin.
Now I haven't really payed much attention to this, but someone please tell me that taxpayers had no part in forking over any money for this idiocy?
I agree, Tommy, the insult-count is a bit frivolous.I don't want to limit anyone's name-calling rights. In my own daily Talking Points Memo, recent studies have shown that I use four-letter words, Pig Latin or Klingon once every 3.2 seconds.
If you'd like to verify this, I'm in front of the liquor store at the corner of Beach Blvd. and Joliet Ave. at 6pm everyday.
(lol)
I live in LA county and rarely make it down your way, but I can be in front of any liquor store on the west side any day at 6pm if that helps.
I didn't know you were in L.A.Maybe I'll load up my shopping cart and take the talking points on tour.See you at WeHo Liquor, Tommy.
I'll be in the Tanqueray aisle......be careful on the 405 steering that shopping cart.
Tommy, been to Sylmar lately? I grew up there. Am in Ky. now and just a couple of years ago they discovered bell bottoms. It is obvious that b.o. is an educated deralict. He is against progress and keeping the "church" out of the state hence his pet slogan "secular progressive" which he uses in a derogatory way. Of course as a "traditionalist" he has never washed his loin cloth as he could lose his power (see sumo wrestler). It is a tradition afterall. Traditionalist is such a nebulous term. To me, tradition is the game of fools. To do things because others do them makes one a sheep. It is disgusting how the "lock-step" right wing talking heads have attached a negative connotation to the terms: Liberal, Progressive, Left wing which is actually the "RIGHT way wing" and others. On faux news, the word democrat is voiced with an inflection suggesting it is bad. These sick right (wrong) wingers have been doing this too long. I have started calling our treatment plant the "bush plant" and the garbage trucks as the b.o. trucks. This should spread world wide within a few days don't you think? FACTOID: 2% of the population are leaders and the rest are followers. I wonder what would happen if I opened a Budist temple her in this spot in the road town in W. Ky.. Would tolerance be the word of the week around here? Grease, sugar and bleached white flour have constipated the minds of the masses in this country, not allowing the synapses and the neurotransmitters to function properly. b.o. and bush are examples of this problem. bush of course has "WET-brain" (too much alcohol) and his neurons were 95% wipped out from cocaine and alcohol use. Another way to say this is that bush's brain is fried. I am looking for a skid row alcohlic to interpret his speaches for me. I know the republicans can go dumber though, I have heard some of their prospective presidential candidates. 3 of them don't believe in evolution. PLEASE........give me a break!!!!
Djasper
I've lived in Sylmar for the last 12 years. It's a fairly pleasant working-class neighborhood, though its old open spaces are noe filling in at a fearful rate. That said, I think that's what Kurt Vonnegut termed a Grand Faloon... a shallow & artificial connection between people. We may both have lived in Sylmar, but does that actually reflect any significant & meaningful connections between us?
I suppose not. UI find a stronger connection in your rejection of all things Dubya'. He is without question the worst President in American history. Virtually EVERYTHING that he has done has resulted in significant injury to our nation. When you ascribe is intellectual deficiencies to his long term heavy abuse of alcohol & other drugs, I think you are being too kind to the chimp. He was, from birth, a spoiled, arrogant, & over-privileged dumbsh*t. His over-consumption of various illicit substances only served to lower what was... as a result of an appallingly unexercised intellect...an already abysmally low I.Q., &n a tragically underdeveloped social consciousness.
To the Bush Dynasty, Noblesse Oblige is a concept for suckers who don't understand how the system is supposed to be worked.
God... will it be a relief to finally see the back of their swelled heads.
Mescal, I am a saleman. Normally everybody I meet I have a connection to. We are all created from star dust. I lived on Rossiter off of SanFernando Rd and Laurel Canyon Bl (I think). Anyway, I am convinced baby bush is the progeny of his grandmother and his father (a professional liar. CIA) Look at barb and geo. sr. side by side. barb is sr.'s mother. baby bush has "high-functioning Downs-Syndrome. I am convinced he is an unsuccessful abortion. His first playpen was built on the railroad tracks. He does have a nauseating sense of self importance=arrogance. They know I kid them and know I love them though. I have empathy for the developmentally challenged. Whats up with Olive View Hospital these days?
Signed laura... Just kidding. Is baby bush a Copra-Phagic-Hebra-Phrenic? I am sickened and sadened by the current situation. Help fund retroactive birth control.
I think you may be a little cynicle here. Isn't it students that do the work? don't they do it as part of some thesis or something? Don't students still get to pick their own study subject, and have to put together a case that has to be presented and reviewed prior to starting? That's the way it worked when I was getting a degree, I don't believe anything has changed.
Snoop,
I have no clue, it just says that no grant money was used. And I still maintain, that for any student spending their time on this idiotic study would be better spent at a frat house keggar.
Tommy, maybe your right, but I'd have to say if they followed the same methodology that I was taught at Texas A&M, they had to make a compelling case for the study to be approved in the first place. That they completed it is secondary in my humble opinion.
Any student that would be able to manufacture a compelling case for monitoring Bill's poddy mouth, worthy of a university funded study, deserves a 4 year scholarship and a new BMW.
That's the best one yet! Reserve a patron tequila bottle for me, please!
I like Tommy's approach: Slam the messenger. Discredit them however possible and ignore the dialog that he/she/it is trying to bring forth.
...all the while maintaining complete ignorance of the subject at hand.
Isn't the AMC a Gremlin a vintage collectible car these days?
Could be?........no doubt this in-depth study will take it's rightful place alongside it one day.
And to think there are researchers wasting time in laboratories trying to cure diseases at other universities, when they could be doing important work like this.
Where have we lost our way?
While I admit that counting how often O'Reilly engages in name-calling is not quite as noble as developing cures for disease, isn't this part of the documentary record necessary for analysis of the operation of media? To be able to consume media with a (properly) critical approach, we must study and understand it. Studying the methods and tactics of figures with the viewership numbers of an O'Reilly or anyone else for that matter, is valid and necessary. It seems to me that the only other approach is dazed, passive acquiescence.
I don't really see the necessity for some publicly funded study of the operations of the media, what for? But even if I accept that, O'Reilly is not a newscaster, he is a commentator - one of hundreds who spout their analyses and opinions every day. I see no need to study their slur quotients or invective frequencies whatsoever, or anything else for that matter.
When you say "publicly funded," what do you mean? Has it been determined that it was publicly funded? Or are you syaing that because IU is a state school that automatically this study was "publicly funded?"
If you can demonstrate to me that no public, i.e. university, funds were used in this inane exercise, I would be grateful.
I can't demonstrate the absence of university funds in relation to this study. Frankly, the issue doesn't concern me. I was just trying to pin down what your problem with the possibility that university funds were involved. It seems that because of your viewpoint on the issue, public funding is inappropriate for such a study. Well, I could provide you a grocery listing of all the publicly funded programs I have problems with. But that's not the point. The point is that neither of us have the information that would enable us to say with certainty what the relative value of this study actually is. However, I see that it has value in that it sheds light on a specfic pattern of behavior through a systematic study. Aren't patterns the very reason that humans develop ideas about how things actually work? Obviously the results are unflattering towards O'Reilly, but those were HIS words. He has no one to blame but himself. Complaining about public funding seems to be a little disingenuous. Would you think there would be LESS bias if the study had been funded by private interests?
Lets see if Geo. Soros has time to undertake that task. I am personally too busy teaching pigs to fly and breading a new chicken with teeth. Maybe Regent "University" will undertake a study and search for inteligent life elsewhere in the Universe (they were unsuccessful finding it in the White House).
As this ridiculous spat continues to explode, questions remain…
With tuition accounted for, how much public money would it take for a group of students to endure episode after episode of Billdo’s “Here’s What’s P***ing Me Off Today Memo”?
How much does a TV and a DVR cost these days, if they were unable to procure existing ones from the school’s A/V inventory?
Did the students get further compensation for their time?
How does the public cost of such a study compare to the public cost of having KBR provide our troops with 3 flavors of ice cream at a mess hall in Iraq?
What can such a study tell us about the state of discourse in the American media today?
When you’re conducting such a study, would you target a show that’s residing in the ratings toilet? Or do you go after the biggest kid on the block?
According to an undisclosed source:
My first car was a Gremlin...
<bg music src=doobie_brothers; takin' it to the streets>
Those were the days, back when a guy could fix his own car with nothing more than a beer and a big cottonwood tree to park it under...
They should bring the Gremlin back, with a hybrid engine or something - seems like it'd be the perfect car for the days of $4 gas...
Why not the Pacer? I it didn't run it made a wonderful terrarium.
Chick magnet.
Those who couldn't get one settled for a black Trans Am with a bird decal on the hood.
You guys, When I teach these pigs to fly, Ill sell you some. My first car was a 62 XKE (Jaguar). You needed an order of porrage pie and a bunch of metric tools and the patience of Moses.
I was thinking of the XKE as competition. Another would be an Aston Martin DB-6. I'm working on a replica of a 330 P4 Ferrari which has possiblities here. For the time being I'm stuck with a 1980 911 with over 250,000 on the clock.
I am going to put 20" wheels (low profile tires) on a 1990 yugo. Am also going to put a 50" plazma in the dash with 8 15" subs in the sound system powered by 4 100,000 watt amps. Now that is what I call a chick magnet. My second car was a 58 mark 8 Jag and I want another one. Or a 61 Silver Cloud (single headlights). Going to get one too.
You don't think a Tetra would work? 2CV,Nash Metropolitan,3wheeled Meshersmitt.
Did that Jag have trafficators?
Never had one but I think I want a Zepplin.
then I am going to put a 427 in an Isseta. Isetta (spelling) so I can tote around my Vespa drag scooter. It is difficult to be serious when the conversation degenerates to the b.o. level. His is a show where profundity is left waiting in the wings. Whatayagonado. He needs to know that when he passed thru LALA Land, on his way to the land of Oz, he drank ALL their coolaid. They made him more.
As I understand it is a simple validation of an old test criteria. A study like this wouldn't seem to cost much money.
I think it is valid for a publicly funded university to occasionally produce analyses in order to understand better how such things work. It is merely an academic enterprise. Most pundits would produce similar results, IMO. They are almost all worthless dilitants. What we need are more experts and less pundits.
The same people who were so wrong about Iraq -- and that definitely includes O'Reilly, Kristol, Krauthammer, Hannity...&al. -- are the same folks we see today on TV and radio, who somehow expect us to forget all of the times (and to the degree) they were wrong before.
Call me crazy, but I have no interest in paying, even if it's pennies, for some student to monitor Bill O'Reilly's name calling habits and then cloak that in some serious academic study on the state of our media.
Tommy, you should probably READ the study before offering your opinion. The study didn't just count the times O'Reilly insults people, it also analyzes and historically compares O'Reilly to other propagandists. How can you say cutting through and deciphering propaganda is not important for students? And believe you me there are far more atrocious examples of colleges wasting tax and student fee dollars besides ACADEMIC STUDIES. In fact, at my school they just spent 30 grand on a video game room. No lie.
Crazy.
You have yet to show that any "public" money was used in this study. Universities get funding from a variety of sources, state funds and government funds being--depending on the university--less than half of a universities operating budget. You do not get to decide what gets funded and what does not. You simply do not have the competence to evaluate research proposals (the evidence for that are your posts).
Second, it is a canard to compare a social science with finding a cure for cancer. These students do not have the expertise to engage in such research. Nor, I might add, should they. They are engaged in legitimate research and they are attempting to answer a research question. You may disagree with that, but then that is a giant "so what." If the project aids in the understanding of the human experience and follows the rules of research and scholarship, then it is a worthwhile project.
Third, the very doing of this research is of course a learning experience. It is an attempt to learn methods, develop a research question, and analyze data. All of which builds a quality scholar. Part of being a student is to learn the appropriate methods, the kinds of questions that can be asked, and how to analyze that data.
Your comments strike me as ignorant of how academic work is done. No, actually, they strike me more as intentionally dishonest.
God forbid we spend a few bucks on something which shows scientific evidence that a right wing blow hard is insulting, a liar, and uses many disinformation tactics. Didn't we learn anything from the Nazi propaganda machine? And if we didn't, maybe we should have more studies like this--studies on both sides of the isle. Or maybe you are like many right wingers who don't care if you're lied to.
Restoration of the fairness doctrine is one good reason for this kind of study.
The wingnuts haven't tried to make the claim that talk radio is "fair and balanced" - yet. Fox noise makes that claim tho ("we report, you decide") and any data that proves otherwise could be useful. I would like to see more ongoing studies of media bias - finally with good studies we could put the old "liberal media bias" canard to rest.
Are you against higher education in general then?
But, Tommy, the study was not just about name-calling. There were other components, also. The researchers were studying O'Reilly's use of propaganda techniques. The author's of the study compare O'Reilly's use of propaganda to that of "Father" Charles Coughlin. Coughlin was a virulent and vocal anti-Semite who rallied the American public against a quick to the danger faced by European Jews. O'Reilly is a propagandist for the current idiocracy.
Sorry - that should have read "response to the danger . . . "
Thank you. This is what I've been saying in past threads. Obviously, some people are just reading the "name-calling" headline and assuming that that was the scope of the study. It's not, and it's not even the most damning part fo the study.
Tommy's complaints about the study are wrong on two premises. One, the three researchers have already said that they received no funding, and two, he's mischaracterizing the study itself. Tommy, read the study and then come back with some legitimate complaints about it.
the KAKI-IDIOstacracy. I learned that word 30 years ago and and am now able to acurately apply it. (Kakistocracy that is)
Exactly -- a kakistocracy! And the story of this failed regime is indeed told by idiots (like Limbaugh and O'Reilly), full of sound and fury.
I have often thought about what I would be capable of saying for 13 million a year. I might even be able to say: Bush, An American Hero during Vietnam and The greatest president in the history of the world. I would have to be on Vicodin though. This sean Hannity wackjob (his gene pool is a solids settling tank at the treatment plant. Some how he got out) is DANGEROUS. He would have been a great judge at the inquisitions. How hard do you have to hit your head to think that way. Wish they would speed up retroactive birth control research
Tommy, the study was not about the frequency of O’Reilly’s use of personal attacks. Name calling is only 1 of 7 propaganda devices used for detecting propaganda in speech. O’Reilly excelled on all of them. Explaining the genesis of the study, the authors noted that "…O’Reilly is unquestionably an important voice in American political discussion…[and] [t]here is no shortage of critiques and comments on his work.… But analyses of O’Reilly tend to devolve into arguments of political left versus right and name calling—the same type of charges that are leveled at O’Reilly himself." They concluded that "[a] systematic and dispassionate approach that focuses on his rhetorical strategy and presentation of people and ideas is much needed" and found propaganda analysis to be "[o]ne promising area." After all, Tommy, O’Reilly does advertise himself as "looking out for you" and his show as "the no spin zone." What better approach to critique O’Reilly than a propaganda analysis?!?! He’s not really a journalist, but he plays one on TV. His viewers have come to actually believe that he is a journalist, and that’s scary. (The study refers to a 2005 poll where 40% of respondents thought of O’Reilly as a journalist. Whereas of the journalists polled, only 1% thought O’Reilly was "very close" and 10% thought him "somewhat close." Sixty-five percent said "not close at all.") O’Reilly, and those like him, need to be exposed for what they are — propagandists. Do yourself a favor, Tommy, read the study.
As for public funding, I believe you're wrong on that. The IU press release announcing the publication of the research paper in the prestigious Journalism Studies states that the researches received no grant funding. It's the world of academia, and professors (like the authors of this study + one doctoral student) publish for the sake of publishing (and for tenure), not because someone hired/paid them to do it.
Is it just me, or is a picture of O'Reilly next to a poster saying "Most rediculous item of the day" darn funny?
It is not just you! It's hilarious.
I'm confused (as usual, when loofah bill is involved).
Is Bill criticizing the Times for putting something up on their website, something that was in response to something he says is up on his website?
6 years ago I figured out how to make sense out of b.o.'s gutteral utterances: Drink 2 40 oz malt liquors. smoke a big bowl of killer bud and drop a hit of orange sunshine. I agreed with everything he said that night. Maybe that was a dream or flashback from the early 70's. Am still not sure. Am going to ask I.U. to undertake a new study....oops, they are already. Here in W. Ky.: Proof Columbus did not sail far enough.
Orange sunshine?
Hey, man.... you holding?
We need to talk.
Hey window-pane, I mean Mescal. No I am not holding. One more hit and I would have to change my name to Archie Leach. It's been years. I live in the land of fast women and beautiful horses. Ky. One of these days I am going to vist my old haunts in the Valley. (the center of the known universe as I call it) Ky. IS strange. We have 2 churches for every man woman and child and every other person is a preacher. Stapled to every birth certificate is a drivers license, marriage certificate, high school diploma and a months supply of food stamps. The food staples are: grease, sugar and bleached white flour. We have our own marathon. It is 10 laps around the white bread isle and the finish line is at the donut rack. First place receives a gallon of hydrogenated vegitable oil and a gallon of high fructose corn syrup (which they use as an IV drip feed in nursing homes back here) I kid this place. It is beautiful country and am pretty sure b.o. believes America haters feel the way they do as a result of the smoky mountains and Ky. blue grass. There are a lot of sweet people back here and am blessed in many ways, but I do like to kid around as laughter will increase your life span by 10 years and gwetting cell ready minerals and vitamins will increase it even more. I am into nutrition which makes me unique back here. Ky is second only to W. Virginia as far as people letting their teeth rot right out of their heads. We continue to strive for #1 however.
Hoy! Well ya see Bill says his producer blew the I.U. study on his nastyness out of the water. mmfa says this is bogus(what else). Mmfa seems to be correct. Tommy of course is wonderring why the college would study this and was any public money used. Up to speed?
Yeah, kinda. But loofah bill is obviously upset about something. I assume because it's ridiculous. From what he said, I gathered that it had something to do with the Times' website. It's all so confusing.
If I only had a map. Or a graph of some kind. Maybe a drawing showing the intricate connectivity of all these elements. Maybe that would help.
Neon, I think my significant other was rambling on to me about yard work or finishing glazing the windows or something in the garage this weekend. She may have to wait, if charts are needed.
They are not only needed but necessary!
Sorry for the delay in the research dept. I was distracted with trivial household chores, but finally had time to develop the unassailable new chart.
'Bout time! I'm still chuckling - and I probably got to see it first!
Let's get this straight:
We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on an unnecessary war that has killed countless thousands while profoundly and perhaps irrevocably damaging the US, and Tommy is upset that some public funds might have been spent studying one of the pundits who continues to poison public discourse?
Oh get over yourself......this is basically tongue in cheek about the funding, if you can't see that by what I've written, that's your fault.
It's those that are defending it as some serious academic study that is even more hilarious.
Why its as clear as the nose on my face! Wait a minute, its gone! No here it is in my hand.
"It's those that are defending it as some serious academic study that is even more hilarious."
This statement is all the proof we need to know that you don't know the first thing about academic study. Obviously you don't understand the purpose of research projects like these, so your criticisms have been completely invalidated. Go to school, then get back to us.
No, you're absolutely right. I missed "Idiotic liberal funding up the wazoo of every inane study that comes down the pike 101".
And who wouldn't want to fund an important "academic study" to find out how many times a slurring insult comes out of a cable news commentators mouth every hour? What's next? > a study on how many times Keith Olbermann utters O'Reillys name every broadcast?
And your attempts to characterize this silliness as some research project is undoubtedly one of the most hysterical defenses, of your many indefensible positions, in a looooooooong while. Carry on mighty liberal!
Tommy
Did you read the study or not?
Tommy's backpedaling is most amusing.
I am glad to have tickled your funny bone.
I wish I could stick around and drive forth through the cavernous holes in your Iraq/foul-mouthed O'Reilly analogy - but I can't stop backpedaling.
Tommy, be careful to watch where you're going when you're backpeddling. Look over your shoulder now and then. Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself by running into a big ol' pile of truth. ;-)
The only thing Mitchell's op-ed piece "destroyed" is any credibility anyone connected with The O'Reilly Factor might ever have had.
Putting the word credibility in the same sentence with...well, you know. What courage! I'm surprised your keyboard didn't explode!
I googled bill o'reilly and it took me to a do-it-yourself frontal lobotomy site.
This just in!That sermon he gave is 40 seconds long.He managed to issue 6 INSULTS within it.By my calculation he just uttered an insult every 6.6666666667 seconds.MY MTHODOLOGY?O'Reilly's own words!Another good day for O'Reilly. He gets to talk about himself, while using the words far-left, George Soros and the LA Times.
There are 2 possibilities as to why b.o. says the I.U. study was bogus: Either he does not believe the labels he uses to describe people he does not agree with, used with a deragatory inflection, IS name calling, or he is not mentally capable of understanding this simple concept. There is a third possibilty, He actually believes his sycophants don't understand this concept and whatever b.o. says muat have been etched in stone tablets hand carried down from a mountain. In any event, b.o. speakith with a forked tounge and for me, if he says something, I can almost gurantee it is not true.
I am sure that no public money was used for this study. It had to be commissioned by the Clintons and funded by George Soros! Isn't that what the liberals do for everything the right-wing nutcases don't like?