O'Reilly still touting Factor producer's uninformed analysis of IU study
On the May 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again criticized the Los Angeles Times for not publishing Factor producer Ron Mitchell's op-ed in the print edition of the newspaper. O'Reilly asserted that Times columnist Rosa Brooks "used a bogus Indiana University study to attack me" and claimed that Mitchell's op-ed refuted the study, which found that O'Reilly engages in name-calling during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his show every 6.8 seconds. As Media Matters for America documented, however, Mitchell misrepresented the study's methodology, falsely claiming that researchers adjusted it until a desired result was produced.
In his op-ed, 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." But Mitchell misrepresented the techniques of content analysis, in which an instrument is refined and/or the coders receive more training if measurements are found to yield unacceptably low levels of reliability between coders. The IU researchers explained this in their methodological note.
As Media Matters noted, O'Reilly touted Mitchell's op-ed on the May 10 edition of his program during his nightly "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" segment, claiming that Mitchell "blew the lid off the study." O'Reilly again plugged Mitchell's column on the May 11 edition of The Factor and stated: "Also on billoreilly.com, Factor producer Ron Mitchell's analysis of that bogus Indiana study that says I call people names every 6.8 seconds in my 'Talking Points' memos. I think you will find Ron's take funny and illuminating. And just remember all the dishonest media peddling that study."
From the May 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." I don't want to belabor this L.A. Times thing, but you should all know what's going on out there. The Times pays a columnist, Rosa Brooks, who is actually a lawyer representing George Soros' Open Society Institute.
But the L.A. Times has not told its readers that. That's amazing.
Now, Ms. Brooks, obviously a far-left person, recently used a bogus Indiana University study to attack me. Not fair, not good. So we contacted the L.A. Times with the facts, and asked them to run a column explaining the dopey study. The Times agreed. But instead of putting it in the paper, the column wind [sic] up on their Internet site. By the way, billoreilly.com, our Internet, has that column if you want to check it out.
The bottom line, all we want is fairness from the L.A. Times and every other media organization. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, in L.A., it is. And it's ridiculous. It's going on all over the country, these people, they hire people, and they don't tell you who they are. It's just dishonest.
From the May 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Also on billoreilly.com, Factor producer Ron Mitchell's analysis of that bogus Indiana study that says I call people names every 6.8 seconds in my "Talking Points" memos. I think you will find Ron's take funny and illuminating. And just remember all the dishonest media peddling that study. OK? That's on billoreilly.com.
Remember the dishonest media that's trying to refute the study. No luck so far.
Man, if you want to read delusional thinking, click on the link to his producers op-ed in the LA Times.
Wow. Producer guy's defense seems to contain a lot of name-calling. Apparently I'm not supposed to believe the story because it was written by bad, bad people who lie all the time.
Actually, that producer WORKS for a bad, bad person who lies all the time.
Everyone should also now read the study author's refutation of the O'Reilly producer's blog comments.
The link is here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-conway16may16,0,3767872.story?coll=la-opinion-center
O'Reilly is simply making an even bigger fool of himself yet again. Clueless.
Actually, the point about them changing their "coding instrument" seems damning, but the fact is that the instrument did not change; the coders, according to the methodological note, were not doing their jobs correctly.
That said, I don't fully agree with the rubric, but even if it is on the harsh side, maybe some modification would be necessary for Mr. O'Reilly.
It probably exploded 1st time around!
Actually though, as the team who did the study said, they made adjustments to the terms to ensure a 99% accuracy level. No surprise there.
"Changing the coding instrument" doesn't seem damning in the least. Well, not if you have any idea what you are talking about, it doesn't. As explained over and over again (and what O'Reilly's producer couldn't grasp) is that the coding instrument was changed to improve consistency and reliability among coders. This doesn't mean data or essential methodologies were changed. Essentially, they refined their coding instrument so that, ideally, two coders could watch the same footage and rate it the same. To better explain, it would be like trying to measure the square footage of a room with by counting footsteps. People have different size feet, so this is not a very reliable instrument. A tape measure, on the other hand would represent an improvement in the instrument of measure, because it would yield much more reliable results no matter who was measuring.
I have a modest background in research methodologies, and I can say with absolute certainty that if any researcher were to actually admit in a scientific paper that they fudged the data (as Mr. O'Reilly's producer alledges) he would become the Pete Rose of the scientific community. He would lose all scientific credibility, would likely be fired from his position, and would probably never work in a research setting ever again. That is just how dense these guys are. And their audience is even more dense, which scary when you think that shows like O'Reilly's are meant to be "informative."
That is just how dense these guys are. And their audience is even more dense, which scary when you think that shows like O'Reilly's are meant to be "informative."
So the millions of viewers and listeners to O'reily's programs are all dense? Got another IU study to back that up?
Gross generalizations like this do nothing to further a debate on anything. I probably disagree with 90% of the comments and material on this site. That said, I'm not going to call the all of thewriters, bloggers, contributors and members of Media Matters "dense." That would be unfair and I'm quite sure, untrue.
Plenty of name calling in these comments though. Which of you will be the first to step up and call me a name? Let's see who's ready to lower the level of discourse another notch.
I'm not sure how calling O'Reilly, his producer, and his audience "dense" constitutes "name-calling" on my part when I spent the entire previous segment of my post detailing how O'Reilly et al are just plain wrong on this one. Name-calling by nature is not supported by evidence. Sure, maybe O'Reilly isn't always wrong, but someone as self-righteous and unyielding as O'Reilly had better never be wrong.
And it would be one thing to make a mistake, have the mistake explained to you, and then stop making the mistake. That is simple human nature. But Bill and producer have made a mistake, had the mistake explained to them, and continue to make the mistake! That is the very essence of intellectual density.
And, while I don't have another IU study to throw at you, I do have the Oct. 2003 study conducted by the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks (HERE). It shows a very real correlation between being a regular Fox News viewer and holding incorrect beliefs about the Iraq War and pre-war intelligence. So, true, the study was not conducted at IU, so, technically, you got me there. But what's the point of trying to get rational with you guys. I know, that's just another "liberal" university out to get conservative "Patriots" like O'Reilly. The point of the study was not to "get" O'Reilly, but to shine a light on the propaganda techniques currently employed in the mass media, something I hope would interest most Americans.
"I don't want to belabor this L.A. Times thing..."
...But I will anyway because I'm a grouchy, insecure, thin-skinned crybaby that just doesn't know when to let something go.
MMFA needs to stop spending so much time on these silly matters and start holding their fellow liberals accountable for their hatred. See http://www.liberalavenger.com/
Do we have to point to the Mission Statement again?
This is a website to review and expose conservative misinformation. They make no bones about it. If you want a website that exposes both left and right, this isn't the place to whine about how MMFA isn't talking about liberals.
Good point! That said, if you're going to look to any "media" organization to dispell misinformation, shouldn't that organization be considered unbiased? It's like asking atheists to find fault with the bible. If you're going to present one side of everything how can you be taken seriously on anything?
I used to agree with that logic and perhaps unbiased sources can claim more credibility. MMFA's stories don't really rely on their credibility. Their articles should be evaluated on their own merits as all information from partisan sights.
The thing that makes me disagree with your point is that often adversarial relationships work best to keep the opposite side honest. Many times a commitment to being unbiased or objective can cow people into being non-confrontational when it might do some real good. That does not seem to be as much of a problem in adversarial relationships. If someone can support their argument, then the argument stands on its own.
MMFA fills a void on the left that was created by right-wing groups like mrc.org aim.org and later newsbusters.org and some other Scaife projects. Surely you don't suggest the left unilaterally disarm by always committing to being unbiased, while the conservatives mentioned above would likely feel no compulsion to do the same?
No, MRC already does the same thing to the left only they dont do it as well. It is fine for a website to limit itself to one specific area to highlight what they think important as long as they arent claiming they are something they are not. MMFA makes no such claim.
Yes, you're right. Then you would have a forum where you could spend your days trolling for attention by commenting that they should spend more time examing the misinformation from the right.
Would kind of break up the monotony, huh?
Do you really want me to post a link to the most heinous Rep. site I can find?
That would be too easy; it would be much more impressive if you could point to a Rep. site that isn't heinous.
Har Har! Thanks for the link, Kevin. Jerry's really getting it from the Teletubby! Nice fate for a miserable man who used the death of so many to promote his hate-filled agenda.
I got the laughs, where's the hate?
ps, just kidding.
I can't find joy in Jerry's demise, but I'm pretty sure that he's got some 'splaining to do about now. I'd love to see the dancing he's doing while he tries to worm his way through the gate. .
He'll probably have a lot of regrets too, for preaching his Christianity instead of living Christ's Christianity.
Golly... I hope Jerry's death didn't have anything to do with him angering his Lord and Savior.
I just feel that if you can't say anything nice about somebody after they've died, you should say nothing.
(nothing)
Why only after they've died?
Out of respect for they cannot defend themselves.
But I get your point, saying something unkind about anybody, dead or alive, is nothing to be proud of.
Tommy, you're right... I will not say another word about that fat, hypocritical, divisive, Bible-thumping, sleazebag again. (Doesn't mean I wanted him dead, though...)
Irony you better pray you are right...the consequences of of faulty logic could, shall we say, burn your butt. Now that would be IRONY.
I don't find joy in anyones death, King, even the worst of them.
Only amusement at those who can ignore or agree with the irresponsible and evil statements of Falwell and the like. then get offended by a cartoon about him.
I'm just wondering how long it will be before Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh blame Falwell's death on liberals.
I agree with the posters who have declined to speak ill of the dead. I think death is a time to focus on the positives that people have done.
I disagree with nearly everything Falwell has stood for politically, but Falwell has worked to help build homes for unwed women and a home for alcoholics. I am sure his family misses him very much and I am saddened by what they must be feeling right now on a human level.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you found joy in Jerry's death.
I couldn't agree more. I find Falwell's accusations during his life a lot more damaging than any cartoon after he's gone.
So, in your eyes, a single crazed liberal blogger deserves the same scrutiny as the national news media or a coast to coast radio program?
What planet do you live on?
Its more fun to hold you morons acountable for your stupidity. When any liberal pundits call for killing one hundred million people, or poison a sitting Supreme Court justice or beat conservatives with baseball bats or make torture a telivised event or drop daisy cutters at random somewhere you can get back to us about LIBERAL hatred until then it is only to laugh at your ideological blindness. That is telling us about the MOTE in our eyes while looking through the Redwood LOG in yours.
Bill-O continues to bring up this so-called errant study which makes him look bad. Bill, listen carefully, your entire show makes you look bad. You and "your" producer keep going 'round and 'round with this trying to prove the study is a setup. Bill, when you and your staff keep going round and round, it becomes a circle,JERK.
Okay, you are right, it has been 10 seconds and none of your sheep have baa'ed at me. You win...Happy now
I saw a Bill O'Reilly show on television once. It didn't have anything of substance. I think the real reason people watch his show is because they're waiting for his head to explode. Then what is Ron Mitchell going to do replace Bill with Hitler impersonators?
Bill O'Reilly continues to reinforce the narcisistic notion that, ultimately, his show is all about... well, Bill O'Reilly. It's really not about news, politics or current events.. it's about the great and wonderful Bill.
It is true. When he started his show it was all about holding powerful people in this country accountable for their actions where it concerned the "folks".
It has now evolved into a whining, bratty, schlocky affair of selective outrages against anyone he can accuse of some nefarious "far left" scheme, or exploit in hopes of promoting his latest book....and if anyone dares to criticize him they get caught in his crosshairs and are accosted as they retrieve their morning paper from their driveway.
What riveting television!
Tommy, his show has become more like a reality series... "Watch Bill react to his enemies!"
Great description. I used to watch him because he did seem independent and not so "in the pocket" of the GOP.....but either he was a phony then, or is just pimping himself to Fox's audience now.
or B0TH!!
And your point is.....
Notice how the far right portrays this.
Taking money from Soros is treason,
Taking money from Murdock is patriotic.
Where are all the usual "concerned" posters here cautioning O'Reilly that--by talking about IU and its study--he's only giving them "more publicity"?
Hmm? Hadn't thought about that angle here, but you make a very good point. Thanks for being concerned enough to bring it up.
As always: experience has proven there is no point in responding to you, Tommy, with all due respect.