O'Reilly told his "ombudswoman" to ignore the "pinheads who want you to try to embarrass me"
On the November 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during his weekly "Dhue Point" segment -- in which Fox News anchor Laurie Dhue acts as the Factor's "ombudswoman" -- Dhue asked: "So what do my peeps need to ask you in 'The Dhue Point'?" Host Bill O'Reilly responded: "No.1, there are pinheads who want you to try to embarrass me. Those people come from the far-left precincts. Ignore them." Dhue then stated: "I'm getting an awful lot of email saying I'm too easy on you." Bill O'Reilly replied: "[I]t's all coming from the haters on the left. Just throw it in the garbage." O'Reilly continued: "But the regular folks who really enjoy this program, what we want you to ask Laurie is why we do things, why we do them. All right? Or 'we didn't really like that.' But not policy things, because I'll deal with that in the mail segment."
O'Reilly also said that "if you feel strongly about something we do, you didn't like it, fine, we want to know. And if you have a question about why we do it or what the situation is, Laurie Dhue is your gal."
From the November 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
DHUE: All right. Last question. We here at "The Dhue Point" obviously want to make this segment as highly effective as possible.
O'REILLY: OK.
DHUE: So what do my peeps need to ask you in "The Dhue Point"?
O'REILLY: First of all, there's a couple of things going on with "The Dhue Point" everybody should know, because we depend on your questions to Laurie. No. 1, there are pinheads who want you to try to embarrass me. Those people come from the far-left precincts. Ignore them.
DHUE: Yeah. I'm getting an awful lot of email saying I'm too easy on you.
O'REILLY: It's all coming -- it's all coming from the haters on the far left. Just throw it in the garbage. But the regular folks who really enjoy this program, what we want you to ask Laurie is why we do things, why we do them. All right? Or "we didn't really like that."
But not policy things, because I'll deal with that in the mail segment. All right? But if you feel strongly about something we do, you didn't like it, fine, we want to know. And if you have a question about why we do it or what the situation is, Laurie Dhue is your gal.
DHUE: Yeah. And we're getting very intelligent emails. We're getting thousands of emails. And, again, I'm getting them saying that "you're too easy on him." But I suppose that being seen as easy on you is better than being seen as the female Bill O'Reilly, which somebody said I was.
O'REILLY: Yes. All right. Laurie Dhue, everybody. She's very, very tough, and there she is.
DHUE: I'm tough, but tender. I'm fair.
O'REILLY: Tough but tender. Very good.
And this is at all relevant to anything like............?
I know it's fun to take gratuituous shots at O'Reilly, but this is ridiculous.
I felt the same thing, when is enough enough?
I do not really understand the point of this either, other than again to give an example of OReillys narcasistic, paranoia?
Well, there is not one mention of Hillary or Bill so it helps idefuse the right wing talking point that MMFA is only a Hillary campaign vehicle.
Plus, it's fun to poke Bill0 with a stick and see what he does.
And speaking of the "pinheads who want you to try to embarrass me***from the far-left precincts:" Would they be the kind which certain specimens of conservative Zealotry and True Belief would like resettled in the likes of, say, Podunk Center, Iowa, excusing such as one with "social betterment" not unlike the last years of Romania under the Ceaucescu regime?
(Marked, as they were, with destruction of whole villages outright and their replacement with banal-looking "agro-industrial complexes" of identical-looking apartment towers--a blasphemy, as it were, of the "new towns" movement and concept.)
The POINT is, an "ombudsperson" is there to question the VERACITY of what his or her employer has said.
An ombudsperson for O'Reilly would, if doing the job properly, be addressing EVERY issue raised here by MMFA ... because they involve HIS OWN WORDS, and how the "audience" is reacting TO those words.
But O'Reilly chooses to CENSOR his ombudsperson, limiting her scope to ONLY how people "feel" about him. He says HE will handle the "substance" in the letters section.
This is tantamount to having someone come on each day and tell him how she likes his hair. It's pointless, useless, and DISINFORMATION, because she is being PORTRAYED as presenting hard-hitting concerns of viewers and listeners; SHE IS NOT.
Also, this gelded position is used by O'Reilly to claim he subjects himself to criticism. HE DOES NOT. He dismisses valid criticisms by (1) a blanket claim that any such comments come from the "loony left", and (2) his ombudsperson should thus just IGNORE them, dismiss them out of hand.
The misinformation thus is that O'Reilly claims to be held to standards by person he calls an "ombudsperson" ... and she is not doing that job at ALL.
Laurie is no "ombudswoman", and MMFA proves it.
This directly makes light of Bill-O completely disregarding what the function of an ombudsman truly is by citing this statement:
"But the regular folks who really enjoy this program, what we want you to ask Laurie is why we do things, why we do them."
This is not what an ombudsman's function is.
A true ombudsman will address complaints without the prejudice stipulated by Bill-O.
An ombudsman is supposed to act independently, and this MMFA item makes it obvious that Laurie is far from independent.
So, in short, Laurie Duhe's role on Bill-O's show is nothing more than 'tool', not ombudsman.
So, in short, Laurie Duhe's role on Bill-O's show is nothing more than 'tool', not ombudsman.
Well said Pete, she is a joke just like OReilly. He refuses to be held accountable for anything he says from sexual harrasment to Shawn Hornbeck.
Exactly. And you made the point here much better than I do, further down.
Maybe this thing will carry over into the HANNITY(&colmes) show, in which Hannity will be challenged by probing ombudswoman Ann Coulter.
Saracasm
You can not go an entire thread without discuussing Ann Coulter ? She has nothing to do with this thread, neither does Hannity
Saracsm off
Do tell, Sue.
What did your "Olbermann" comment have to do in any way with the actual topic of an ombudsman (as in O'Reilly and his ombudsman-the actual topic of this thread), Sue?
Do tell, Dave
What did your "Coulter" comment have to do in any way with the actual topic of an ombudsman (as in O'Reilly and his ombudsman-the actual topic of this thread), Dave?
It was a comparison to show the silliness of proclaiming "Dhue" as an obsbudman. I understood it just fine.
Bra, I understood the Olbermann reference fine also.
What was the comparison regarding Olbermann? There wasn't one.
Bra I said reference , not comparison. I have no issues with it , just like when I raise Rushs drug use, in posts about Rush that have nothing to do with his drug use. I do not belive we should be told what we can and can not make a reference to on our post.
Talking about Rush's drug addiction on a Rush thread is different. I think it's largely unnecessary most of the time, but I see why people do it. That's not the same as bringing up Olbermann all the damn time, on any number of completely irrelevant threads. If there's some connection to the topic, fine, but she's not making any relevant point whatsoever most of the time she brings him up.
We disagree and I have to concentrate on the thread about the Tip in Iowa with Hillary. I am in a heavy debate. I have made my opinion on this topic known.
Thank you Doris again .
Another example of you can not say anything that may be critical of Keith Olbermann or the posse attacks. Most fair posters understand the comparison and relationship. MMFA does , that is why they post the Olbermann references to OReilly.
Sueeld, I support your right to post the relationship, allthough I do understand some of the posters on here who question your constant references with him. They are all valid.
__"Another example of you can not say anything that may be critical of Keith Olbermann"---
Oh brother.
NO ONE said you "can't say anything critical of Keith Olbermann".
The criticism you are getting is for your swipes at Olbermann being gratuitously dropped-into any number of threads that have had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Keith Olbermann.
That fact is simple and obvious.
Of the 75 most recent Media Matters headlines (Oct. 31-Nov. 10):
"Olbermann": 2 (.026 percent)
"O'Reilly": 5 (.067 percent)
Wow! That O'Reilly>Olbermann "Ugh" cycle is just absolutely relentless.
Sueeld, the sky is blue and YOU mention KO. Water-boarding and YOU mention KO. YOU and only YOU have a fixation on KO and YOU subject each and every one of us to YOUR fixation when you mention him. Get off YOUR high horse and cut the crap. Dave and Solon and Rick are not picking on you just pointing out your fixation on KO. You remind me of the Lombo and Bill'O nuts, they mention Hillary if someone says the sky if blue, just like you do with Keith. YOU have the problem and YOU become bitchy when anyone points out YOUR problem.
--"Bra, I understood the Olbermann reference fine als0"---
The Olbermann comment (that "Olbermann is so predictable-Ugh") clearly had NOTHING to do with this topic.
There was no attempt to reference his name with this subject --O'Reilly, show hosts, ombudsmen or anything.
Your Olbermann comment had *nothing* whatsoever to do with an ombudsman, Sue.
Nothing.
My comment, which you are disingenuously likening to yours, refers to an ombudsman, Sue. An ombudsman and a show host. As in O'Reilly and his ombudsman.
That's probably not simple enough for you, but it'll have to do, Sue.
Dave that is your opinion. I see it differently so do others. We get it , you do not like Olbermann being criticized. Understood.
Sue, you're being ridiculous.
The MMFA article is here because O'Reilly is being dishonest by pretending to have an "ombudswoman," who is then specifically instructed NOT to do the job of an ombudswoman/man:
--
OMBUDSMAN, noun (pl. -men). An official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints against maladministration, esp. that of public authorities.
ORIGIN: 1950s: from Swedish, "legal representative"
--
You start complaining "WITH?!" without even stopping to think critically for a moment, hmmm......why might it be here?
Your constant Olbermann references are not only off-topic but they are illustrative of this basic fact that you haven't even taken a moment to THINK about a particular item before you complain about it. Just because an item's innaccuracies and/or implications are not immediately apparent to you does not mean they are invalid or unworthy of being discussed.
Fact: my comment was on topic.
Yours wasn't.
Your gratuitous swipe at Olbermann had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Nothing. That's a fact--not an "opinion".
I think the point is that she's not "fair" if she rejects all criticism of his behavior. Also, "Independent" O'Reilly doesn't say anything about right-wingers criticizing him.
Anyone who criticizes him is "far-left", a "pinhead", not "regular people".
It's no big surprise, just another example of how he's a right-winger who refuses to be held accountable for anything he does.
It's an O'Reilly obsession on an O'Reilly segment opining on an O'Reilly show contributor asking O'Reilly questions about O'Reilly.
I fail to see what relevance it has beyond his ego.
If that's the impression you're determined to have, then don't ask the question. It was a perfectly reasonable answer.
I was asking the question looking for any possible reasonable answer, yours was hardly that, but you tried.
Then address what I said and explain how it wasn't reasonable, please.
What, so 100 posts later you can still be arguing this silly point. I already answered it, you disagree, fine.
Alot of people on here do not like other views, this is a prime example. Did it ever occur to some that opinions are diverse? That is what makes up America?
Did it ever occur to you that opinions should have a basis to them?
For example, I could say "I think you're an idiot for saying that" on any given thread. Wouldn't you expect some justification for that?
I think you would, instead of celebrating the diversity of opinion.
And the opinions expressed do have basis, yet you feel your the judge and dismiss anything that goes against your belief. Two way street buddy.
Tommy's comment about my answer being unreasonable has a basis? What is it? I asked, and he refused to answer. Perhaps you can look into your crystal ball and explain it for him.
Do you know what ISNT an opinion? The function of an Ombudsman. The very function O'Reilly dismissed. So you can have the opinion that the unicorns are coming in at night and eating your blankets, however if you express that opinion here it is not unreasonable for us to say we find that opinion very hard to believe. That is not saying we dont like other opinions only that we prefer reasonable opinions.
So you're afraid of having a discussion? Since when?
You throw out garbage that you can't defend. Thanks for the demonstration of your character.
Because you don't have enough convictions in your own arguments is the reason you have such diffuculty accepting differences of opinion, that is the truth. Get over it.
I have complete conviction in my own arguments. That's something that should be obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with my posts. If you can say the same about yourself, you should be able to explain your comments.
What part of opinion is so threatening to you? I have stated I think this thread is ridiculously placed and not relevant to any misinformation, serious or otherwise. You think it is, fine. I accept our disagreement because we have different points of view.......you don't accept it because different points of view obviously rankle you. You need to work on that.
"I accept our disagreement because we have different points of view......."
No, you obviously don't, or you wouldn't have made the comment about "hardly reasonable". If you want to cling to your opinion, no matter how many people explain the thread to you, that that's just typical Tommy. Whatever. But if you want to challenge what I'm saying as unreasonable, then you have to have a basis for that. Saying that my explanation is unreasonable simply because it doesn't jibe with your opinion is anything but "accepting", obviously.
It's the difference between saying "I happen to see it this way" and "your opinion is unreasonable". Is that clear?
What's clear is I have no intention of going another 100 posts circling round and round with you simply because you can't accept another point of view. Do you realize how panicked and ridiculous you appear in your twisted quest for me to adequately challenge your "opinion". Sorry, my opinion stands as stated, as does yours. If that's not good enough for you, tough.
Perhaps you should find other more "attentive" alternatives to satisfy whatever it is that is missing?
What part of my post are you having trouble comprehending? You can't claim you're "accepting" a difference of opinion when you call it unreasonable without explaining why.
Not even 24 hours ago you criticized Pete for taking "potshots to feel better". What exactly are you doing when you make a baseless criticism?
The next time someone accuses you of being a racist, you shouldn't expect an explanation. It's just an opinion, after all.
Do you think I expect an explanation when I am called a racist? Are you serious? From here? HaHa.
And Poodle, one can always hear the seething desperation in your posts when you're forced to link back to, or mention previous comments of mine, to make some point. Right on cue.
Somebody got a widdle bit angwy......oops.
You don't expect explanations for accusations of racism? Really?
"And your ridiculous blanket accusations of racism against conservatives needs no accountability, right? Got it."
That wasn't even about you specifically, just conservatives in general. You demanded accountability for the accusation. But when you make a comment, then you don't have to explain it.
I think that's called a "double standard". I'm not "angwy", because this is nothing new. It's just worth the time to point out your irresponsibility and childishness.
Good thing you avoided that long exchange by simply explaining how I was being unreasonable, huh? Nice work.
You are really weird.
I suggest you go rent an adult movie, 'cause I am done with you now.
Wow.
In other words, you have no defense, no relevant or meaningful response at all. My post was weird, even though you don't say why, but bringing up adult videos is perfectly natural.
Again, nice job demonstrating your character. We're all very impressed at how reasonable a poster you are.
I read the whole thing.
Classic.
I commend you for your tenacity.
Thanks, but it's really nothing. Tommy makes himself look stupid, I'm just the magnifying glass.
He is far from panicing. You made the comment that HIS observation was hardly reasonable and you havent even TRIED to say why then come in and said HE has a hard time accepting YOUR opinion. YOU are the one dancing and I see why. Remember the first rule of holes.
TOMMY:
In the fable, "The Emperor's New Clothes", the head guy is huckstered by smooth talking salespersons to believe he was wearing the most elegant set of clothes in the world.
One might observe that it then became the "OPINION" of the Emperor that he was INDEED wearing these wonderful clothes.
Because of his position of power, others would not dare contradict him, for fear of incurring his wrath or disfavor.
Tommy, you're no emperor. Your "opinion" is thus dissembled in here every day. Everyone's "opinion" is not A-OK just because they HAVE it, and are ENTITLED to it. OPINIONS can be dead WRONG, as yours are regularly.
Being an "opinion" does not negate the FACTS.When the FACTS dispel your opinion, you don't seem to care, because it's your opinion (and doesn't have to be informed by reality, truth, or common sense, I suppose).
You say "we might disagree" and have a different opinion; this presupposes that all opinions are equal, and equally valid. You are just WRONG.
That's exactly right. It's like claiming that the 2003 Tigers were the best baseball team ever. Someone can have that opinion, and you can't take that away from them, but it's obviously utterly baseless. Someone else could argue the 1927 Yankees were the best team of all time, and the response of "well, we disagree" is obviously lacking.
Unfortunately, Tommy has neither the self-awareness to realize this on his own nor the maturity to accept the message from others.
Anyone that seriously argues that the opinions of this thread topic are generated by some set of "facts" is absurd, and that is the point that you and Tex and the others can't seem to understand.
It would be like me saying I think blue is the prettiest color, and you demand facts from me to back it up....I say this topic is misplaced here, you want facts?, absurd....that is why your credibility doesn't extend beyond your fellow liberals. If you think I need rabid leftists such as you or Tex to validate my opinions, you are delusional.
So keep demanding facts to backup preferences and opinions, and continue to look foolish in the process. Now, grow up.
Your preference of color is purely subjective. There's no basis at all there, so that comparison is completely without merit. What we're talking about is being able to explain the basis for your opinions, which you seem unable to do here. If someone were to just tell you "you're wrong" on any given thread, that's not worth anything by itself. Someone could just say flatly "this article belongs here" on every thread, and I'm pretty damn sure you wouldn't accept that without some explanation. You wouldn't find it credible, at any rate.
After your display yesterday, you really have no place telling anyone to "grow up". And you certainly have no room to talk about anyone's credibility. You made an ass out of yourself, and you only make it worse and making thoughtless comments about your favorite color, as if that had any relevance.
Thank you for validating my comments about your lack of self-awareness and maturity, though. Very nicely demonstrated, again.
Yes it was a reasonable answer as has been noted already an Ombudsman has a specific function. O'Rielly basically told her to do something that would render her incapable of BEING an Ombudsman. What part of that arent you understanding?
Tommy needs a nap today, apparently. What's amusing is that many people have explained this, and he refuses to accept it, but then when he has one or two people agree with him he says "It makes perfect sense - why some can't, or refuse to see it, is curious, but not unexpected."
Tommy we have been reading this site for years, this is what they do. OReilly is being exposed in many different segments. I think it is silly but its nothing new.
You also fail to see the government's interest in protecting a group of it's citizens from discrimination simply because they're exercising the rights guaranteed to all of us so I'm not surprised you fail to see what's going on here also.
It's relevant because Bill has one of the most highly rated shows on a "Fair & Balanced" network.
On this particular segment of this show he more or less says that he's interested in hearing from anyone, yet, he also implies that anyone who disagrees with him, is a far-left pinhead.
It seems that his lead in the ratings might be owed to a lot of us "far-left pinheads" who are watching and responding to O'Reilly's psychotic rants.
I don't watch, but then again, I don't watch any of those reality shows where the contestants eat bugs.
Bill O'Reilly is little more than a geek, or bug eater. He doesn't literally bite the heads off the live chickens, but his routine is pretty similar.
I'll take a real geek anyday, at least they're not as pretentious as BO.
I don't see a problem with this thread.
Oh, so it's news and threadworthy when O'Reilly calls those he disagrees with "pinheads".......well, of course.
He's calling liberals "pinheads", not just those that disagree with him. It was partisan.
As I told you above, it's not a surprise. Not every thread has to be some new insight into someone's behavior.
So O'Reilly is not entitled to be partisan on his own program? Wow.
Olberman can spew out his "Special Comments" and call for the President to resign, that is fine but Oreilly is not allowed to have an opinion. Fairness is just not accepted at 8pm on cable news.
Olbermann is a citizen. He has every right just like we all do to tell the President we think he ought to resign. A public figure has no expectation of any other treatment when in government THEY WORK FOR US. O'Rielly is pretending he has an Ombudsman who he instructs NOT to do an Ombudsmans job. He also uses OUR airwaves to insult US and we are NOT public figures who take on the onus of being attacked by morons like O'falafel. He can do so if he wants. Since no one has called for him to be arrested your hyperventilating about not being able to have an opinion is frankly dumb. He can certainly be CRITICISED for insulting us however, which is known as us and MMFA giving THEIR opinion. Why is it some people think that the freedom to have an opinion is only afforded to the rightwing screechmonkeys and doesnt extend to US having an opinion about what they say? YOU have no problem with criticising Olbermann for HIS opinion about the Worst person in the world and yet attack US for criticising O'falafel for his. You dont really think that makes sense do you?
I could be wrong, but I've never heard Olbermann market himself as "independent", "no spin" or "fair and balanced".
This laughable attempt at 'ombudsmanship' is just another example that shows he is not the independent, spin-free saint that he claims he is.
Sure, he just shouldn't call himself "independent". The point is that it wasn't about extremists on both sides who disagreed with him, it was just liberals. It's a simple but important modification of what you said.
Yes he has the right to be a partisan jerk. Have you seen anyone say he should be arrested? Then WE have the right to criticise him FOR BEING A PARTISAN JERK. What is it about this simple concept that alludes you?
O'Reilly is perfectly entitled to be partisan. Olbermann (whose relevance to this thread is based solely on other's repeated invocations, but I think at this point he's pretty well entrenched into the volkgeist) is also partisan.
What O'Reilly is NOT entitled to be is a LIAR. By all means, express whatever views you have on TV. But, those views should be grounded in honestly-presented fact (Olbermann can at least get his facts straight).
Because O'Reilly's partisanship is based on LIES and his own self-annointed doctrine of infallibility, it becomes offensive and in need of exposure and correction.
Here, he is being a liar: he says he has an ombudsman and he doesn't. He is showing not only that he is lying in this instance, but that he intends to have no accountability for all his other numerous lies.
No, it's threadworthy because he asks for viewer input, he pays someone to pose as an ombudsman, yet completely disregards the input of the ombudsman.
There may be many conservative viewers who have legitimate issues with something O'Reilly has said or done. By telling his "ombudsman" to ignore them because they're all far-left pinheads shows the hypocrisy of not only O'Reilly but the entire ombudsman system in place at our beloved, "Fair & Balanced" Fox News.
Worrier, Do you believe she is an independent ombudswoman?
No, I don't But anyone familiar with the term understands that the title implies some degree of impartiality.
What would be the proper term for a person doing this job for O'Reilly?
Shill, glad hander, apologist, filter, lackey, pawn?
Use any term that describes the job, but don't use the term ombudsman.
No, I don't But anyone familiar with the term understands that the title implies some degree of impartiality.
You make a good point, that term means something in journalism and in business. OReillys use of it should stop if he is not using it as intented.
along with "fair," "balanced," "no spin zone," "independent," "progress," "freedom," "torture," "mission," and "accomplished."
If she isnt independent she is NOT functioning as an Ombudsman its just that simple.
By the very definition of the word, an ombudsman is independent. You really should bother to learn the definition of the words the grown ups are using before you try to enter the conversation.
Worrier, Do you believe she is an independent ombudswoman? Tommy
THAT is what Bill is using her for, as an independent party, but that is NOT what she is. Bill'O tells his viewers that he has an ombudswoman, which we all know should be an independent party, but then Bill tells her what to pay attention to and she does. She is there to give credibility to Bill as an independent which she clearly IS NOT.
She is a FOX tool, its not a true Ombudsman program
Thank you Sue, of course she is.
And that's exactly the point of this posting by MMFA isn't it.
I'm in awe, Sue. You gave the same answer as I did earlier, only I elaborated much more, but you earned the praise.
Yes, it is also misinformation when he has someone on he CALLS an Ombudsman who he instructs to ignore the function of BEING an Ombudsman
Do you understand the job of an ombudsman/woman?
Dhue is O'Reilly's self proclaimed ombudswoman.....he can call her a potted plant for all I care, everyone who has watched it knows her role, don't be naive.
So because we know she's a phony O'Reilly shouldn't be called on it?
I'm not buying that.
I don't think the question was "Who is Laurie Dhue?"
OK now we are at the meat of the issue. She is being misrepresented which you freely admit. This somehow DOESNT constitute misinformation IN WHAT WAY?
Every thread it takes about 50 posts to make certain posters see the light.
Tommy (and Sueld and anyone else with the question "why is this here"):
Of course this is relevant. This is Bill "No Spin Zone" O'reiily. Thia is the guy that calls people "cowards" for not coming on his attack show to "face him." Yet, he openly admits that any question that seeks to "embarass him" (i.e., to ask him tough questions about his b.s.) should be tossed in the garbage. How can you possibly say that something that so completely undercuts the entire premise of his show ("no spin") is irrelevant?
Because I do not think Bill OReilly is relevant. That is just my opinion, why feed his ego?
Your argument could be made about ANY of the bloviators MMFA covers and your logic would make MMFA shut down. That isnt going to happen.
Yes, he feeds off criticism, no doubt about it. He spends boat loads of airtime whining about how people are out to get him and then wears it like a badge of courage.
As far as relevancy, I'm mixed. Bill-O's show, like all cable news, doesn't even place in the top 50 of basic cable, meaning he competes for crumbs. But he sells books and makes his fair share of media appearances outside of Fixed Noise.
Allow his bull**** to go on without exposure and debunking? IMO, no.
Because I do not think Bill OReilly is relevant. That is just my opinion, why feed his ego?
DON'T comment on O'Reilly threads if you think he's irrelevant!
"I know it's fun to take gratuituous shots at O'Reilly, but this is ridiculous."--Tommy
One can never have too much fun at the expense of O'Reilly.
The word from on high. Ombudsmans everywhere can ignore anyone who tries to embarrass the speaker they are supposedly supervising. Pinheads they are! BO's guardian angel is only for questions about motives, not for complaints about content. Yeah that should work.
I think the pinhead who embarrasses Bill O'Reilly the most is Bill O'Reilly.
I was thinking the exact same thing! BO doesn't need any help to embarrass himself.
om·buds·man (ŏm'bŭdz'mən, -bədz-, -bŏŏdz'-)
1. A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.
2. A government official, especially in Scandinavian countries, who investigates citizens' complaints against the government or its functionaries.
The point is the idea of Dhue being some kind of genuine ombudsman is a joke.
O'Reilly is telling her what kind of questions she can handle.
He should call her his secretary instead.
O'Reilly is pretending to work for a genuine news organization
Most major news organizations have ombudsmen, even ESPN has one, but they're given free reign to do their job as they see fit even if it embarrasses the organization they work for.
Most major news organizations have ombudsmen, even ESPN has one, but they're given free reign to do their job as they see fit even if it embarrasses the organization they work for.
The New York Times has one als, OReilly and FOX are making the Ombudsmen a mockery. They are truly disgusting.
I've been so busy with my War on Christmas shopping, I keep missing these brilliant rants by BillO.
I only shop at stores that say "Happy Holidays".
I hate how the War On Cristmas starts earlier and earlier every year. It's not even time for the War On Thanksgiving!
Can't you see O'Reilly using Dhue to try to short circuit criticism from sites like this?
O'Reilly: We had our ombudsman Laurie Dhue look into the complaints of MMFA and she found them to be totally without merit. Isn't that right Ms. Dhue.
Dhue: Pass the loofah, Bill.
O'Reilly: "Sorry fresh out, have some falafel."
Duhe: "Where's the yogurt sauce?"
O'Reilly: "Ohhhhh, behave!"
(note: parody, not meant to be taken seriously)
---Dhue: "We here at "The Dhue Point" obviously want to make this segment as highly effective as possible."---
Difficult, since O'Reilly the only "effective questions" O'Reilly wants are from viewers who "enjoy the show" (his words).
Regular viewers who actually "enjoy" the show are already accustomed to "enjoying" the misinformation and assorted garbage O'Reilly spews daily. With those low standards and low expectations, I'm sure there'll be a lot of probing inquiries.
It's funny that Bill calls everyone a "Pinhead" but we know who the real "Pinhead" is-Bill. Hey Bill, have you asked what News Corp. employees think of you? Several words come to mind: Arrogant, thorn, pain in the a--, boar, wife cheater, to name a few.
Calling Dhue an ombudsman is like calling a professional wrestling interview an interview.
I'm sure it's all scripted.
I notice too that Fox has no problem quoting Clark Hoyt--the Times ombudsman when he does his honest ombudsman thing at the Times.
BTW, anyone here remember Arthel Neville? A few years ago she played a kind of ombusman role on O'Reilly and asked some pointed questions. Funny, she's not doing that anymore.
Ya, some ombudswoman? Usually, the purpose of an ombudsman or -woman of a media source is to represent the viewers or readers. Here we have Bill O' appointing an ombudswoman and telling her to ignore a whole category of comments. Her task seems to be more to protect him than to represent the viewers. I suspect her real function is to feed his ego.