Hall on O'Reilly's accusation that cable news is ignoring Medal of Honor: "It's not true"
On the October 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, in response to the accusation, which host Bill O'Reilly has made repeatedly, that the media are ignoring the Medal of Honor ceremony for Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy SEAL killed during a rescue mission in Afghanistan in 2005 and the first service member to receive the honor for the war in Afghanistan, Fox News contributor Jane Hall said, "I've got to tell you, CNN covered this at 7 o'clock. MSNBC covered it live. You all covered it live. CNN covered it multiple times." Hall added, "I don't think it's fair to say what you're trying to say about cable. It's not true," and later stated, "They must have covered it 10 times during the day, Bill." O'Reilly responded, "OK, Jane, you can stop talking now. The segment's over."
On his October 23 and 24 programs, O'Reilly accused the media of ignoring the Murphy story and specifically criticized MSNBC and CNN for not covering it in prime time. In the introduction to his "Weekdays with Bernie and Jane" segment on the October 25 edition of the program, O'Reilly asserted, "In prime-time TV land, only Fox News covered the story on cable." However, while neither MSNBC nor CNN covered the story in prime time, both networks aired numerous reports on the ceremony throughout the day on October 22, the day it was awarded. MSNBC reported on Murphy at least five times -- including broadcasting the award ceremony live -- and CNN covered the Murphy story on at least seven distinct occasions, as Media Matters for America noted.
Later, O'Reilly asserted, "Now, this was brutal, this Lieutenant Michael Murphy thing, Jane. I mean, come on." Hall responded, "I disagree with you." When Hall noted the MSNBC and CNN coverage of the story, O'Reilly asserted, "Not in prime time, where the audience is." Hall responded, "I think -- you're saying they didn't cover it in the slice you defined. They covered it a lot." O'Reilly responded, "We did the right thing. The prime-time cables didn't mention it. Prime time, where the audience is. That's where the eyeballs are, Jane." When Hall protested, "But the newscasts covered it, Bill," O'Reilly repeated, "Sorry, the eyeballs are there."
Also during the segment, Fox News contributor Bernie Golberg asserted, "If anything that's going to make the military look good, or the commander in chief by extension ... they're not going to do it." Similarly, on the October 23 edition of the program, O'Reilly asserted, "The hard truth is that MSNBC and CNN are not going to report stories that reflect well on the American military because those people over there despise the Bush administration and believe anything positive like American heroes in war zones detract from their negative assessment of the administration."
From the October 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.
In the "Weekdays with Bernie and Jane" segment tonight, two hot stories. First of all, The New York Times did 63 front-page stories about the Abu Ghraib atrocity but buried coverage of Lieutenant Michael Murphy receiving the Medal of Honor. In prime-time TV land, only Fox News covered the story on cable.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, this was brutal, this Lieutenant Michael Murphy thing, Jane. I mean, come on. I've got to tell you what --
HALL: I just really --I disagree with you.
O'REILLY: The only Medal of Honor winner in Afghanistan. The only one. The subject of a best-selling book, Lone Survivor. And you don't mention it in prime time? And you bury it in The New York Times?
HALL: Bill, I've got to tell you --
HALL: I've got to tell you, you know, I think The New York Times should have put it on the front page. But I've got to tell you, CNN covered this at 7 o'clock. MSNBC covered it live. You all covered it live. CNN covered it multiple times. I mean, there was also the California fires.
O'REILLY: Not in prime time, where the audience is.
HALL: No, wait, wait. Let me finish. Hannity & Colmes and Greta [van Susteren, Fox News host] didn't cover it. I mean, does that prove something? No, I don't think so. I think -- you're saying they didn't cover it in the slice you defined. They covered it a lot.
O'REILLY: Look, I'm not saying -- I'm saying we led with it. We did a responsible coverage with it.
HALL: Right.
O'REILLY: We did the right thing. The prime-time cables didn't mention it. Prime time, where the audience is. That's where the eyeballs are, Jane.
HALL: But the newscasts covered it, Bill.
O'REILLY: Sorry, the eyeballs are there.
HALL: So, are Hannity & Colmes --
O'REILLY: They had three hours. Both networks had three hours, Bernie, and they passed for garbage. They had nothing else.
HALL: But -- so Greta has some sort of left-wing agenda?
O'REILLY: Greta is not a political program. Greta does prime stories and this kinds of stuff.
What do you say, Bernie?
GOLDBERG: Bill, You can always tell what a newspaper thinks is important by what it puts on Page 1 and how many times it puts it there.
As you said, The New York Times put Abu Ghraib on Page 1 over 60 times. And it put it on Page 1 over 30 times in a row. That would make Abu Ghraib just about the most important story of all time.
That's not news coverage; that's -- that's an editorial masquerading as news.
And now -- and now the most important newspaper on the planet relegates the Medal of Honor story to the Metro section? You can tell -- and by the way, and CNN doesn't put it on in prime time or MSNBC.
You can tell what a news organization thinks is important by how it covers a story, and you can tell what it finds trivial and unimportant by what it ignores. And this is a good example.
O'REILLY: All right.
GOLDBERG: But there's one extra, very brief point. If anything that's going to make the military look good, or the commander in chief by extension --
O'REILLY: Right. They're not going to do it.
GOLDBERG: -- is not going to get -- they're not going to do it.
O'REILLY: And that's the bottom line, Jane.
HALL: I agree with you about The New York Times, but I don't think it's fair to say what you're trying to say about cable. It's not true.
O'REILLY: Come on. All right, Jane.
HALL: It's not. I mean, they gave a lot of coverage to it.
O'REILLY: Jane, there's nothing I can do. I can't do anything. I can't.
HALL: I agree with you about The New York Times, Bill, but not this.
O'REILLY: I can't. I've tried. Week after week, Jane, I've tried. But I respect your opinion, Jane.
O'REILLY: Three hours -- each of them had three hours.
O'REILLY: And they couldn't give it 10 seconds in prime time. They had three hours, each of them. Bernie, Jane, everybody. There they are.
HALL: They must have covered it 10 times during the day, Bill.
O'REILLY: OK, Jane, you can stop talking now. The segment's over. We'll see you guys next week.
I like Jane, she never puts up with OReillys lies. I am waiting for her to be banished from his program. He does not like different views.
"...cut her mike! Cut her mike!"
The Intersection of Bill O'Reilly's universe and Reality is the Null Set.
I like the line, "You'd think Abu Ghraib was the biggest story ever."
I'm not sure about EVER, but, hey, let's think about this: AMERICAN SOLDIERS tortured, humiliated, and killed prisoners of war. Don't you think this is a pretty big deal?
O'Reilly and Goldstein, as people who love the military, aren't you outraged that your beloved military has been so defiled? Don't you want to get to the bottom of it and make sure that it never happens again so that our military will reflect the best of American ideals?
If you don't think Abu Ghraib is front-page news, then you don't love the true values of the American military. You just love militarism that acts in the interests of America.
GoldBERG, sorry! I don't know what I was thinking!
So O'Reilly runs the story and I say good for him. But did he run the story just so he could harp on this primetime issue? Neither the 9PM show or 10PM show on FOX covered it, I wonder if O'Reilly knew that would be the case? One segment on his 8PM show means CNN & MSNBC hate the sacrifices of the American military? Is this wingnut logic or what? Also, the argument that they would not cover this story because they hate the Bush administration and the MOH reflects positively on Bush is perhaps the stupidest conclusion one could draw from the situation. BOR has taken his cheap, blowhard tactics to another level and the shame is people that don't know any better believe him. Oh yeah, doesn't Bill always say that no one watches CNN or MSNBC in primetime? What a divisive, egotistical, ignorant douche bag.
Excellent points. I mean, seriously, according to his (as you call it wingnut) logic, Sean Hannity (who didn't report on the story) doesn't support the troops, dispises the Bush administration, and, yes, clearly wants us to lose in Iraq. Of course, it's just as transparent, too, what he's trying to do here. That, and he thinks we're idiots!
Thanks. I thought the last line was the most accurate point I could make, even if it was a bit over the top.
O'Reilly is spinning himself into a pretzel over this.
The fact is his is the only cable show to cover it in prime time.
So what?
There was extensive coverage throughout the day on the cable news channels.
He's trying to spin this into CNN and MSNBC hating the military and he's dead wrong.
Furthermore, is it common for Medal of Honor winners to be on the front page? Are Medal of Honor winners usually mentioned in prime time?
Is it in any way a noticeable omission?
A given person may think this SHOULD be front page news, and they would be entitled to their opinion, but it is not any significant political comment on this case or on this war if it is not usually front page news anyway.
I really have no recollection of Medal of Honor winners being on the front page or topping the news in other cases. Am I wrong? How would I go about comprehensively looking into past coverage?
Maybe in the local press, especially a hometown newspaper, its big news.
This was the first given out for Iraq so maybe that's the national angle but certainly every one hasn't been front page or evening news.
I think CNN should build a statue at their HQ for this guy, and while they're at it, why don't they rename their building for him or use his image in the CNN logo?
Maybe that will appease O'Lielly.
I love this. Jane points out the facts and Billy Blotch simply denies them. I guess because he can shout louder, he's right, eh? What an absolute waste of air.
I have a bigger problem with BO calling Lieutenant Michael Murphy a Medal of Honor winner, he is not. Lieutenant Michael is a Medal of Honor RECIPIENT. You can not "win" the Medal of Honor.
Good point. Bill's mistake may be the result of his "winning" two Peabody Awards.
DELUSION OF GRANDEUR
O'Reilly: "We did the right thing. The prime-time cables didn't mention it. Prime time, where the audience is. That's where the eyeballs are, Jane."
O'Reilly thinks cable news is really all that and a bag of chips?
I look at this list of the top 50 basic cable shows (Aug-Sep07) and I DON'T SEE ONE SINGLE CABLE NEWS SHOW ANYWHERE.
Every time Bill-O says that Fox News dominates cable news, it really isn't saying much at all.
In reality, the Culture Warrior is really proud to be getting the most prime time table scraps.
Bill0's show, if you are actually tuning into that show, what are you not tuning into? Of the 50 choices I have, there is always something more informative or entertaining or enlightening than watching the factor. His ratings are the best of the worst essentially. Sometimes I pause when channel surfing on FOX news and my wife immediately insists that I move on, as she knows withing moments I will be ranting at some lie, or one of his cynical snearing putdowns like "that little twerp".
Gawd, he is so full of himself, he is so self righteous and sanctimonious. And yet will air videos of young women topless for minutes on end.
I can't believe he gets away with being so dishonest. Isn't there anything he can say or do that'll stick? It seems he's done everything short of murder at this point.
Dear Bill,
Please give it a rest or we'll have to keep seeing thread after thread, day after day about this topic.
I'm sure you can think up something else to say about any number of other issues so that MMFA can feature that here instead.
Thanks,
jeter2
Well Jeter it is getting close to Christmas again, maybe he can start discussing the war on Christmas?
Shhhh Doris, it's still only October, let's not give him any ideas! Maybe we won't have to hear about that till after Thanksgiving ;-)
Jeter,
As I was driving home from work yesterday, as in 25-Oct-07, I saw at a mall that I pass on the way home, the work crews out there erecting a Christmas Tree on top of the mall entrance. Yes, it isn't even Halloween yet, and they are putting up their gigantic mall Christmas Tree. It just gets earlier every single year. And I'm sure it won't be long before we start hearing about that town hall in some small town in the middle of Buttsylvania that took down their manger scene because someone was "offended" by the Christian symbology behind that whole thing.
Bill and Gibson, together again. I can hardly wait.
That's nothing. Home Depot and Lowe's here in Austin had their christmas trees on display for 2 weeks now. So much for celebrating Thanksgiving, a real american holiday that's actually all inclusive.
Mag,
My wife & I were leaving her Aunt's house last night when we noticed one of her neighbors already had Christmas lights up and ON!! We couldn't believe it!
I love Christmas, it's my favorite holiday, but even I wait till after Thanksgiving [a few days after in fact] before I start thinking about even putting up lights & a tree. BTW, it's a Christmas Tree, not a Holiday tree. Just thought I'd voice my opinion on that before Halloween ;-)
Aww, c'mon, jeter. Can't it be a wicca tree until holloween is over?
It's so sad.
The War on Christmas starts earlier and earlier every year. Soon enough, we'll be warring on Christmas in July.
Maybe if we didn't cut and run from the War on Xmas every January, we wouldn't have to start it again.
I say we keep fighting this year until we've accomplished our mission.
I know where we can get a used "Mission Accomplished" sign, cheap.
King, I'd like to see a day when Christmas is just a nuisance.
And Christo-fascists like Jeter aren't shoving their Yule log agenda down my S.P. throat.
nah, I say we build up some manufactured ourtrage of our own. Let's start with Laura Bush putting on a muslim scarf in a terrorist sponsoring country. C'mon, righties, it was OK to bash Pelosi for doing it, let's hear the howls loud and clear!
Why can't MMFA have a normal dog like everyone else???
What are you saying, pete? That I bark too much? ;)
P.S. It's friday! I've got the brisket and boddingtons!
They are indeed rabid and attack their own kind. Thinkprogress currently reporting....
“This is Sheikha Laura, yesterday, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia … Laura Bush [is] butt-kissing Saudi King Abdullah.” — Debbie Schlussel
My bet is that Laura and George are too much of a coward to lash back at the right wing for dishing her. 10 to 1 odds, who's in?
Snoopy, how much is that in kibble?
Shoulda taken the bet, Laura lashed back! I'm impressed!
O'REILLY: Jeter, there's nothing I can do. I can't do anything. I can't.
J2, I think most posters on this site pray for the day that this site doesn't have to exist. That will be the day when a blatantly partisan "news" operation stops promoting it itself as "fair and balanced." And also stops snowing people -- sorry but they comprise the most gullible audience -- with branding like the "No Spin Zone."
Fox as no decorum or ethics guiding it. What other network or media outletattacks its fellow colleagues on daily basis. This is classic propaganda. What other media outlet delivers an 88 percent vote for GOP candidates. Not ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC.
Am I only one that remembers O'Reilly asking some made-up GOP strategist if he "was going to lose his audience if gave Kerry a fair shake" after Kerry won the primary. For any commentator to say that is outrageous.
If Fox didn't exist, someone would invent it. And likely they would be a foreigner who cared less about the nation than they did about filling a lucrative media niche (i.e., Mudoch creating a haven for the ignorant to have their ignorance reinforced). I never thought I'd long for the days when W.F. Buckley and Goldwater held sway, but at least that's when conservatives were rational and principled.
O'Reilly occasionally mingles with the truth, very occasionally, but he fell short again this time. Daivid Letterman may have captured it best when he told O'Reilly: "I believe 60% of what you say is total crap."
I think it's closer to 90-95%... and that's being generous.
when did letterman say that? that's hillarious
search YouTube for the clip
Pieper, if you haven't already found it, it's at the very end of thisclip.
blo'reilly can't even get his own freakin' guest hosts to sign on to his lunacy.
"OK, Jane, you can stop talking now. The segment's over."
When oh when will we be able to say this if reference to that no-talent gas-bag's career?
This is a perfect esample of BullyO's standard proceedure. He had Jane Hall and Bernie Golberg, both contributers to Faux News, on his show to "discuss" the "fact" that the major news media did not cover the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Lt. Michael Murphy. Of course the very topic itself was a LIE. I, personally saw Headline News, CNN, and MSNBC report this item many times during the day. When BullyO invites Jane Hall to speak, it is obvious by her initial statement that she disagreed with our BullyO. He immediately be= gan to talk loudly over her statement, making it dificult for any of his viewer to hear what she was saying. At no time was Hall allowed to be heard. However, when Golberg was asked his opinion, he was allowed to "agree" with BullyO without ANY interference from the host. Obviously MMFA has seen O'Rielly (is that his real name?) pull this trick, not often, but EVERY time his guest disagrees with one of his lies. This is a typical ploy of a boor. Ask a question and if he doesn't like the response just talk over it until his opponent gives up. MMFA's word-for-word transcripts of this kind of thing is, while valuable, not able to convey the full power of that ploy. One has to watch and listen to the video. Rusty Limppaw and the others do exactly the same thing. "See, I'm welcoming a different opinion, folks. I invite a contrary point of view, 'cause I'm "fair and balanced. I didn't say they have to be HEARD."
Jane was right. Bill was wrong and continued to lie. One of these days maybe Jane will just say "Bill, you're a lying sack of cr*p." But, that will never happen.
That's would be rich wouldn't it?
Right up there with Alan Combs finally asking Ann Coulter if she gets paid well to sound that stupid.
Oh well. We can dream can't we?
I saw that episode and I wanted to through something at the TV.. If Jane had any integrity, she's quit Fox News rather than put up with this. O'Reilly spins the topic before, during and after the debate and then the next day or two, he'll read emails and get the last word and have the body language lady interpret everything for us so we can decide. WTF. He said he was furious at the corruption in the media not realizing he's talking about himself.
He'd be better off with the Log Lady from Twin Peaks.
My moment of Zen: Spongebob Square Pants shows up on two cable channels with far better ratings than any cable news program.
Maybe we could change all that by calling O'Reilly Loufa Bill Foxpants.
Why is it that Keith Olbermann never mentioned anything about Lt. Michael Murphy receiving the Medal of Honor? He was more than happy to talk about Abu Ghraib on a daily basis.
Are you sure he never mentioned it or are you just spewing talking points?
I bet you wish all the cable news shows were "rah rah Bush" and "Go war go!".
I think thats a bit out of line.
The media did over use the Abu story as propaganda to its audience, thats a fact. Its no question that the Abu allegations and what happened are trajic and uncalled for.
However, then the New York Post places the Abu story on its cover page for about 30 days straight, and 60 days in total...then places the Lt. Murphy story on the Metro section, it really is a slap in the face for the "support the troops" message.
You dont have to like Bush, or agree with the war to acknowledge that the first person in the Iraq war to be awarded the Medal of Honor for willingly sacficing his life for his team and mission should be on the front page. Everyone in the US should support and back Lt. Murphy's legacy and his family. If you do not agree, with this, then you do not support the troops at all.
"However, then the New York Post places the Abu story on its cover page for about 30 days straight, and 60 days in total...then places the Lt. Murphy story on the Metro section, it really is a slap in the face for the "support the troops" message."
There's one for the typo Hall of Fame.
I'm quite certain Murdoch's NY Post did no such thing.
There's not too many people on this planet who confuse the Post with the NY Times.
Ok, well it was a good correction, i give you that.Seeing as how I dont get either paper, it was an honest mistake on my part.
However, when you guys are outright rude, it really does go to prove that liberals are mean hearted people as well.
If you don't get the NY Times why do you think the Lt. Murphy Medal of Honor story was run in the Metro section?
Come on, who told you that?
Internet news sites that post accurate information about the other political parties, just as MMFA does. Im sure the paper itself is sold here, but I choose to read my news online, with exception to the WSJ. I have also seen examples of this exact topic on news channels as well. Its a fact, you know it and I know it....but its not a bash on the liberal left, just that specific paper & its agenda.
Can you provide a link?
Sure
Successive front page Abu Ghraib stories on NYT: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1145998/posts
Im still trying to search for the article I read about Lt. Murphy on the Metro section - and it was also on Hannity & Colmes with a picture of the article. Lt. Murphy was from Long Island as well...
You do realize the NY Times was covering the story back in March right? 23 paragraphs worth of coverage:
[link to www.nytimes.com]
OK, so Free Republic and Sean Hannity are your "accurate" sources?
I'm starting to understand why you typed NY Post when you meant NY Times.
Are you blind or retarded? Thats not even the right person. That was 2005. The person in this topic is Lt. Murphy.
"However, when you guys are outright rude, it really does go to prove that liberals are mean hearted people as well."- MRDINGYREID / Friday October 26, 2007 07:43:12 PM EST
"Are you blind or retarded? - MRDINGYREID / Friday October 26, 2007 10:04:55 PM EST
Hoist by your own petard bud.
MrDumbassBush linking to the freerepublic sewer proves nothing except your lack of judgement.
I'll help you out.
Bernie Goldberg said it on The Factor. It's quoted right here in MMFA's post.
And he's right. In the NY METRO AREA it was on the front page of the Metro section. But rather than attributing it to the Times being anti-American attribute it to the recipient being a native of Suffolk County in the NY METRO AREA.
However, outside of the NY METRO AREA (the Times is published in several locations for national distribution) it was in the National News front section.
Front page or Front section?!
Front section.
You know, the part of the paper reserved for important international and national news.
Now let's put this in context.
How many Medal of Honor recipients have made the front page/evening news?
Will O'Reilly or Hannity put their "story" into that context?
Of course not.
Your "accurate" journalists have an agenda and that's to take anecdotal evidence and try to prove the NY Times hate America and the Military.
"The media did over use the Abu story as propaganda to its audience, thats a fact."
It's not a fact.
It's your interpretation of what the media's motivation was.
But you're not alone with that interpretation. It's straight from the talking points of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity et al.
God help us when the day comes that Bill O'Reilly and that crew are setting the agenda for national news coverage.
Well, that day has come my friend. That could be a reason why Fox has such a large viewer audience, as well as Rush Limbaugh (which is why you libs want him off the air, fairness doctrine? LOL)...and exactly why the "C"orrupt "N"ews "N"etwork has lost its viewing audience.
Fox and Rush?
I suggest you look at the sheer numbers of people who still watch network nightly news.
The ratings are declining for sure but Fox and Rush aren't even in the same ball park.
Yet another example of ignorance. The talk radio/fox news phenomenon is based on a "narrowcasting" as opposed to "broadcasting." Its a a fact that narrowcasting where you target a very specific psycho/demo is capable of delivering a static audience, in the case of Rush and O'Smelly it's between 4-5 million people weekly. The thing is they're the same people. Fox and Limbaugh are incapable of growing audience since that's the market cap. We live in a nation of 300 million so are you surpised that their audience comprises less than 1 percent of the population. Clear thinking Americans rely on a variety of sources and express no loyalty to any particular media outlet. That's purely a talk radio and FNC phenomenon period. Face it. Your side is not as bright and is loathe to question authority.
Rush and O'Smelly it's between 4-5 million people weekly. The thing is they're the same people. Fox and Limbaugh are incapable of growing audience since that's the market cap. We live in a nation of 300 million so are you surpised that their audience comprises less than 1 percent of the population.
Actually, you are quite wrong. Rush Limbaugh's radio show attracts 13.5-22 million listeners a week. In fact, its the #1 talk show on radio right now as far as statistics. I tried looking up statistics for Oreilly online, but cannot find any.
So instead of throwing out figures in which you have absolutely no evidence or idea of the real numbers, at least do some research on them to prove your point.
Dingy, do you think it speaks well of America, if your figured are correct and this guy is that popular?
Yes, I personally do they people are better off listening to those people - however I wouldnt expect you to agree - especially on this site.
However, my point was based on the actual statistics of his popularity. Typical liberalism is to change the topic of discussion when you cannot prove a conservative wrong. So in this case, you could have just said "yes, those are the statistics" - because this site, according to you liberals who post here, is about accuracy is it not?
Typical liberalism is to change the topic of discussion when you cannot prove a conservative wrong.- MrDingyReid
I'm not sure what reality you're in right now, but the topic of your post was Rush's ratings.I simply asked if you thought it was a positive that a few million people are hypnotized by a drug-addicted pedophile.Your answer seems to be "yes".
I agree that I failed to prove you wrong.If that's your opinion, you're welcome to it.
MrDumbassBush you have been outed as a moronic hiveminder. The day has NOT come when people other than you brainwashed cretins take Rushingdownthedrugaddictionmountain
Or Sean, dumber than a shag carpet Hannity seriously. It is NOT a fact just because either of them or YOU say so. Ya got nothin.
Says the moron whose VERY NICK is a rude personal attack on the Senate Majority leader. Just how hypocritical are you anyway. And does that show how hypocritical, and flat out dumb you crybaby conservatives are? We dont speak for liberals. We speak for ourselves. That would be obvious to a six year old. So are you really this dumb or are you really a left winger trying to make rightwingers look dumb?
No that is not a FACT MrDumbassBush. See facts are not established by you SAYING something is so. We all get that to you hiveminders it becomes a fact when YOU are told what to believe but for those of us in the reality based universe THAT is not how it works.
Personally, BO was not correct when he first stated that the other news channels were ignoring the story - because they did in fact play the story during certain times. It was also BO's opinion and choice of when he aired it himself.
However, I will agree that it was in poor taste not to put a story like this on primetime - which we know is the hours of air that are targeted towards the most viewers. If a news channel is going to air a certain topic 4-7 times per day, then it proves it was important enough to show on prime time. Regardless of the news channels intentions - not showing a story like this on primetime does not show a "support the troops" message - regardless your viewpoint on the war.
"...primetime - which we know is the hours of air that are targeted towards the most viewers. If a news channel is going to air a certain topic 4-7 times per day, then it proves it was important enough to show on prime time."
If the primetime audience is less than 4-7 times as big as those other combined audiences (and I don't know if it is or not) wouldn't the non-primetime airings be more effective?
Or are you saying it should have been aired all day and during primetime?
And does the fact that infomercials for Ronco rotisserie cookers may be on 4 - 7 times a day prove that they are important enough to be on primetime?
I'm not trying to belittle the Medal of Honor here, just your logic.
If the primetime audience is less than 4-7 times as big as those other combined audiences (and I don't know if it is or not) wouldn't the non-primetime airings be more effective?
Or are you saying it should have been aired all day and during primetime?
And does the fact that infomercials for Ronco rotisserie cookers may be on 4 - 7 times a day prove that they are important enough to be on primetime?
I dont know what the audience total is for Primetime vs. day time either. But what is fact is that Primetime covers the most important news of the day during a time period in which the most viewers are present. There would not be "Primetime" news & tv episodes if this logic were not true.
I am not suggesting anything of the sort, as far as how many times it should be aired. What I am suggesting is that the story itself was very very important. Whether you deem it more important or less important than the wildfire coverage should not take away from the fact that it was in poor taste NOT to air during Primetime.
The example of your rice cooker, or what ever it was lol, is not a very good example. The cooker is an paid advertisement so the television station can make money. In no way, shape, or form can that even be any comparison to what we are talking about. I know you are throwing that out there to try and prove a point, but in all honesty, it really a sour comparison.
So you think that TV stations are trying to make money during the commercials, but don't care about it during all of their other programming?
Thank you.
MrDumbassBush THIS SITE covers media misinformation. Bill was flat out wrong. THAT qualifies. What YOU think is in poor taste for the media not doing what YOU think it should does not. They covered the story, mulitple times. It was covered at 7 pm, I thought primetime was 7 to 10 they werent hiding it. I wonder if they had covered WHEN the right wanted that the right wouldnt be snivelling about it not being covered on Sunday.
No where in my message was i subjective of the left or the right. I was objective in saying that the medal of honor is a huge story, and seeing how all the democrats say that they "support the troops", your personal argument proves otherwise.
No it doesnt MrDumbassBush, its just that you are REALLY stupid. The whole POINT was it isnt up to YOU to decide what constitutes proper coverage and that Since it WAS covered at 7PM and several times morons like you are just DETERMINED to find something to snivel about. I support the troops in my way, trying to get my representatives to bring them home. I imagine you support them in YOURS trying to get as many of them as possible killed. I base that on the exact same thing you based your snivelling accusation of me on. That is nothing.
MMFA wrong again--This site is the BEST MISINFORMATION and a FREE LOGIC ZONE-O'REILY is correct
Forest Fire Rehash More Important Than Medal of Honor CeremonyBy Matthew Balan | October 22, 2007 - 15:25 ET CNN decided to not to break away from its almost non-stop coverage of the California wildfires as President Bush formally awarded a Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan the Medal of Honor, as its competitors Fox News and MSNBC aired the ceremony at the White House live.
The ceremony started at 2:23 pm Eastern, and both of CNN’s rivals carried President Bush’s remarks, as well as the presentation of the medal to the deceased SEAL’s parents. It wasn’t until 2:43 pm Eastern, eight minutes after its rival networks concluded its live coverage of the award ceremony, that CNN aired a 3-minute long segment
Yes because forest fires that are devasting the state, the economy and killing people is just such an unimportant story.
Rehash? You could say the same about the MoH ceremony using that logic seeing as how it's been documented that the story was aired betwen 4-7 times during the day.
No Bucc however it does seem to attract the most ignorant and moronic rightwingnuts imaginable so you OUGHT to feel right at home.
Seems odd that there has been only one Medal of Honor recipient in all the years of Afghanistan and just two for Iraq. Over two hundred medals were awarded for Vietnam. In the past seven years, are there only three people who acted with "gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty?"
The civilian war leaders discourage drawing attention to the realities of war. They are rarely seen at funerals and they won't allow coverage of the coming home ceremonies for the fallen. They completely rewrote the account of a soldier accidentally killed by his fellow soldiers. They like to see the rosy side and a Medal of Honor ceremony every month or two might be bad PR for their policies.
It could be that the nature of Iraq and Afghanistan warfare doesn't lend itself to conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity that previous wars had provided. But does it seem likely?
Hey Dave Why is it odd or seem odd -You may make a comparison or are you stating this is equivaleny to VietNam ??? and thats why it is odd??All these soldiers serve w/Gallantry,Intrepity and Risk of Life but some events that do occur ,this is the occasion when these individuals act in a matter that considefed above protecting their own lives which is rewarded -To say the civilian learders discourage the realities of war--Please tell me your realitiess vs the civilian leaders which have been discouraged.As far as coming home coverage I see it -the Church group tries to disrupt and act as the person who died for his country was wasted and they are just anti-war -they have no consideration for the loss-actually there is court case convening his month
the Church group tries to disrupt and act as the person who died for his country was wasted and they are just anti-war -they have no consideration for the loss-actually there is court case convening his month
That church group is NOT antiwar, they are anti humanity. Their protests have nothing to do with them being against the war and more with them being against homosexuality!
THEY ARE NOT ANTI WAR!
The virulently homophobic Westboro Baptist Church recently began picketing the funerals of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a way of venting rage at a government that they believe is tolerant of homosexuality. The group has used the same tactic against the gay community at hundreds of events nationwide
Yes, and being a religious person myself, I find what that church did utterly disgusting.
I dont care what your beliefs are on the war or society, you do not disrupt a funeral and make his grieving family the target of your (insane & sick, IMO) agenda of your church.
Yeah, I certainly agree with that MrDumbassBush
Comon ground Mreid, a good feeling.
Pearlene_Scott1602--I apologize -MYBAD--You are 100% correct--
Hey SI_W YOUR IN THE "FREE LOGIC ZONE" HERE-I was showing you what an outside source was saying --an unbiased arbitraitor-MMFA hates -DETAILS, DETAILS ,DETAILS-They follow the "DON"T CONFUSE ME W/ THE FACTS-Make it up as we go along -FAKE IT TILL YOU MAKE IT
You moronic hiveminders wouldnt know an objective fact if it bit you on the butt.
What a strange statement Bucky.
SI_W is more familiar with this site than you are, and he's English.
Thank you for monitoring this egotistical meglomaniac so I don't have to listen to him . What troubles me most is that so many people actually believe him. No wonder the country is where it is.
Hey Gentlemen -you want to go off topic amd make comments ?? OK -Bring them on-But as normal SOP for MMFA -they leave your comments and delete mine -You know as long as your on the team wearing knee pads and theire circled around your -OK--Is this to difficult to follow--You donot have to use any logic here-you know how to act
Well thats pretty confusing so far. But if you think we're confusing now you haven't seen anything yet. And you may not. Not unless you stick arround for the rest of this afternoons show time favorite "Anythang ayou Want to." Its by Shakaspear and its here on TV Monster Channel nine.
Now watch this comercial message and then come back because you can risk everything if we call you on our great game "Look at it Who Are You?" So Watch Carefully.
Hello friends I'm Gerry Firesign for mister Yamamoto's..of Hollywood.
And for a working man like myself, the price is right.
Yes our triple yearend sale is going on now, and my name isn't mine.
Or mine.
Or mine.
Ya see I don't think you can run a business like this without satisfaction to the custermer.
It flops on its side like..a crippled minow.
People say to me Eddy , " The sincerist form of flatery..I guess you call it, is imitation.
To bad Steve,but thats just our little joke.
Tha dog isn't for sale.
Not since Ralf was arrested have I been able to offer you a Demon at this unbelievable Price.
The President says,"Sell Those Demons!"
And golly we just can't afford not to.
Ok YOU are a moron. A troll who only comes here to attack the site because you are too ignorant to understand, well, virtually anything. I use more logic in my SLEEP than you will ever be able to comprehend because you are stupid, ignorant and brainwashed. All that on a GOOD DAY.
Wow. Bill's been on this site a lot this week! I love how he says Dumbledore will indoctrinate kids! What century is this guy in? He's attacking MSNBC. I wonder if Keith Olbermann and and Joe Scarborough are going to go after Bill-o over this.
"CNN decided to not to break away from its almost non-stop coverage of the California wildfires as President Bush formally awarded a Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan the Medal of Honor. It wasn’t until 2:43 pm Eastern, eight minutes after its rival networks concluded its live coverage of the award ceremony, that CNN aired a 3-minute long segment"
You are condemning CNN because they were eight minutes later than other channels in broadcasting an award ceremony - because they chose to coverthe uncontained raging fires that forced the evacuation of 1,000,000 Americans, destroyed hundreds of homes and an (unknown) number of deaths?
You guys are desperate to find something to gripe about aren't you?
I would like to see how many of those Reich Wing shows (or anyone's actually) honored the 40th anniversary of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty on June 8th, 1967. The Liberty crew certainly qualifies as one of the most highly decorated for a single ship action. With one Medal of Honor, two Navy Crosses and36 Silver or Bronze Stars for little over a one-hour action, few crews have been so courageous. The Medal of Honor that was not even awarded in the White House as is usually the case.
http://www.ussliberty.org/pdf/vfw_ussliberty.pdf