Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannitty are awesome news reporter

[faminedynasty]

Name a mainstream modern democrat as socially liberal as Bobby Kennedy.

 

[Pacridge]

Name a mainstream modern democrat as socially liberal as Bobby Kennedy.

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Nancy Pelosi.

 

[faminedynasty]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Nancy Pelosi.

Thank you!
Debateable.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Name a mainstream modern democrat as socially liberal as Bobby Kennedy.

Good point, so basically Democrats were more liberal across the board 40 and 50 years ago than they are today.

 

[SixStringHero]

For those of you who are praising NPR news as a fair and non-biased media outlet-- they have specifically stated that they have a liberal bias. The very fact that NPR admits to this and is tax payer funded doesn't sit too well with me.

Personally, I can't stand most pundits and demagogue talking heads such as Rush, Hannity, Al Franken and Randi Rhoads. However, I find myself able to listen to O' Reilly and Ed Schultz from time to time and actually being able to agree with them on many issues they bring to the table. I truly believe that O' Reilly is an independent, and while he may be brash and abrasive at times he tries to remain objective and fair.

 

[Pacridge]

For those of you who are praising NPR news as a fair and non-biased media outlet-- they have specifically stated that they have a liberal bias. The very fact that NPR admits to this and is tax payer funded doesn't sit too well with me.

Personally, I can't stand most pundits and demagogue talking heads such as Rush, Hannity, Al Franken and Randi Rhoads. However, I find myself able to listen to O' Reilly and Ed Schultz from time to time and actually being able to agree with them on many issues they bring to the table. I truly believe that O' Reilly is an independent, and while he may be brash and abrasive at times he tries to remain objective and fair.

When and where did NPR say that?

O'Reilly about as much of an independent as Franken is.

I don't get any stations that carry Schultz. But I read some of his stuff in the local paper. So far what I've seen I like.

 

[Pacridge]

Thank you!
Debateable.

Alright then- debate it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

For those of you who are praising NPR news as a fair and non-biased media outlet-- they have specifically stated that they have a liberal bias. The very fact that NPR admits to this and is tax payer funded doesn't sit too well with me.

Personally, I can't stand most pundits and demagogue talking heads such as Rush, Hannity, Al Franken and Randi Rhoads. However, I find myself able to listen to O' Reilly and Ed Schultz from time to time and actually being able to agree with them on many issues they bring to the table. I truly believe that O' Reilly is an independent, and while he may be brash and abrasive at times he tries to remain objective and fair.

NPR has never stated that it is a liberal biased outlet. In fact, one of the reason’s why their programming can be so dull at times is that they go to ridiculous lengths to present both sides of an issue.

Moreover, less than 1% of NPR’s funding comes from the taxpayer. The vast majority of their funding comes from corporate and charitable sponsors and listener donations.

That said, some of the talk show hosts on NPR are obviously socially liberal. However, when debating issues, they always make sure that both sides of an issue are well represented and the quality of the debate is far better than what you will find with conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh or Hannity. Unlike the shouting matches that occur with most right wing pundits and derogatory comments about evil liberals, even the most liberal pundits on NPR allow conservatives to articulate their positions uninterrupted. Intellectual honesty is a hallmark of NPR and its programming. I think if anything, if one were to say that there is a bias on NPR, that bias would be one against the sensational. Unlike Fox News, they don’t use the National Enquirer as a model for their programming.

Sometimes they cover issues that are largely overlooked in the mainstream media these days like environmental and conservation issues. That’s the problem though, that’s why the right wing cries foul. For example, I remember a couple of years ago they farmers in the upper Willamette Valley were in a water war with conservationists over the Salmon River (I think that was the river). Farmers in the upper Willamette Valley said that they needed water restrictions lifted in order to adequately irrigate their crops (the area they were farming was basically a desert). Conservationists said that if the water restrictions were lifted it would result in massive salmon kills. All the Right Wing media was using this as a poster boy for their claims of the conservationists were destroying the lives of those farmers just to protect some fish. The Bush administration sided with the Farmers and the water restrictions were lifted. This resulted in a huge salmon kill. NPR did a story, they gave the farmers prospective, but they also gave the perspective of the commercial fishermen who had been fishing the Salmon river for several generations. The lifting of the waters restrictions and the resulting salmon kill had destroyed the livelihood of almost all of those commercial fisherman. So basically, when the whole story was told, it came to light that farmers who were trying to farm a desert had destroyed the livelihoods of Fisherman who depended on the salmon in a river and who had been fishing that river long before the farmers tried to farm a desert.

It’s that kind of reporting, where both sides are presented, that has the right wingers screaming bias. You see, they think they are always right, not just right most of the time, but always, so if the facts show that they aren’t right, they just scream bias.

 

[Pacridge]

NPR has never stated that it is a liberal biased outlet. In fact, one of the reason’s why their programming can be so dull at times is that they go to ridiculous lengths to present both sides of an issue.

Moreover, less than 1% of NPR’s funding comes from the taxpayer. The vast majority of their funding comes from corporate and charitable sponsors and listener donations.

That said, some of the talk show hosts on NPR are obviously socially liberal. However, when debating issues, they always make sure that both sides of an issue are well represented and the quality of the debate is far better than what you will find with conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh or Hannity. Unlike the shouting matches that occur with most right wing pundits and derogatory comments about evil liberals, even the most liberal pundits on NPR allow conservatives to articulate their positions uninterrupted. Intellectual honesty is a hallmark of NPR and its programming. I think if anything, if one were to say that there is a bias on NPR, that bias would be one against the sensational. Unlike Fox News, they don’t use the National Enquirer as a model for their programming.

I agree.

Sometimes they cover issues that are largely overlooked in the mainstream media these days like environmental and conservation issues. That’s the problem though, that’s why the right wing cries foul. For example, I remember a couple of years ago they farmers in the upper Willamette Valley were in a water war with conservationists over the Salmon River (I think that was the river). Farmers in the upper Willamette Valley said that they needed water restrictions lifted in order to adequately irrigate their crops (the area they were farming was basically a desert). Conservationists said that if the water restrictions were lifted it would result in massive salmon kills. All the Right Wing media was using this as a poster boy for their claims of the conservationists were destroying the lives of those farmers just to protect some fish. The Bush administration sided with the Farmers and the water restrictions were lifted. This resulted in a huge salmon kill. NPR did a story, they gave the farmers prospective, but they also gave the perspective of the commercial fishermen who had been fishing the Salmon river for several generations. The lifting of the waters restrictions and the resulting salmon kill had destroyed the livelihood of almost all of those commercial fisherman. So basically, when the whole story was told, it came to light that farmers who were trying to farm a desert had destroyed the livelihoods of Fisherman who depended on the salmon in a river and who had been fishing that river long before the farmers tried to farm a desert.

It’s that kind of reporting, where both sides are presented, that has the right wingers screaming bias. You see, they think they are always right, not just right most of the time, but always, so if the facts show that they aren’t right, they just scream bias.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I was born and raised in the Willamette Valley. Use to fish and swim in the Willamette river as a kid. The Salmon and Willamette don't ever connect. They're separated by the Oregon Coastal Mountain range. And neither are anywhere near a desert. It's possible you have the Willamette and Salmon rivers confused with the Columbia and Snake?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I agree.



I have no idea what you're talking about. I was born and raised in the Willamette Valley. Use to fish and swim in the Willamette river as a kid. The Salmon and Willamette don't ever connect. They're separated by the Oregon Coastal Mountain range. And neither are anywhere near a desert. It's possible you have the Willamette and Salmon rivers confused with the Columbia and Snake?

Your right, like I said in parentheses, I wasn’t sure if that was the river name, I was just going by memory. However, they story was pretty much how I presented it though. I think it was 2002 when this was reported.

 

[SixStringHero]

I'm not going to provide a link where a person affiliated with NPR admitted that they had a liberal bias. From what I have seen on these forums, any news source that disagrees with someone's view is simply discredited, and outright dismissed as being biased.

A simple search would bring about plenty of links for you to check out on this subject, and I'll leave it up to your own discretions on which you consider valid. This doesn't change the fact that it was said, and I don't have an axe to grind here. I just prefer my news to be as objective as possible, which seems to be an impossibility anymore with everyone being so cynical in today's media.

I also don't understand how some of you people can go around flailing your arms about Hannity and Rush being abrasive and unhinged, but have no criticism of Randi Rhoads or Al Franken for doing the same damn thing. For the record I can't stand any of the aforementioned talking heads, but I will remain steadfast and be consistent in my criticism of both sides.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'm not going to provide a link where a person affiliated with NPR admitted that they had a liberal bias. From what I have seen on these forums, any news source that disagrees with someone's view is simply discredited, and outright dismissed as being biased.

A simple search would bring about plenty of links for you to check out on this subject, and I'll leave it up to your own discretions on which you consider valid. This doesn't change the fact that it was said, and I don't have an axe to grind here. I just prefer my news to be as objective as possible, which seems to be an impossibility anymore with everyone being so cynical in today's media.

I also don't understand how some of you people can go around flailing your arms about Hannity and Rush being abrasive and unhinged, but have no criticism of Randi Rhoads or Al Franken for doing the same damn thing. For the record I can't stand any of the aforementioned talking heads, but I will remain steadfast and be consistent in my criticism of both sides.

How do you know the NPR employee did not have an axe to grind? The only way to show a liberal or conservative bias at NPR would be to have an independent study look at their guests and think tanks cited and see if there was a balance of liberal, conservative, and nonpartisan guests and think tanks. If there truly were a liberal bias, then any independent study would be able to find that in a given period of time, a greater number of liberal think tanks were cited than conservative think tanks. Anything less is only anecdotal evidence and is extremely subjective.

A lot of people on both sides these days scream bias when a news report makes their side look bad or their position on an issue look wrong. It is the purpose of an unbiased media to accurately report the facts as they are known and the position on an issue from all sides of that issue. The purpose of an unbiased media is not to make both sides look right when the facts show that one side is obviously wrong. However, when the facts show that one side is obviously wrong, ideologues from one side or another (generally conservatives) scream media bias. Personally my ideology is centrist to slightly left of center. I am a fiscally slightly conservative, but I am socially liberal. The problem with a lot of liberals and almost all conservatives, is that they honestly believe that their sides positions on the issues is right on every single issue. At best, in the real world, one side is no more than a hair more right on most issues than the other. Pragmatism will be right a lot more than ideology and it’s the medias job to weed out all the ideology.

 

[PopeyeAtheist]

NOT!

Try this link.

http://www.newshounds.us/

 

[PopeyeAtheist]

When G. W. Bush and **** Cheney are impeached and in jail Billy O-NO O'Reilly will be without a job anyway.

 

[debate_junkie]

Re: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are awesome news reporters

I personally think Al Franken (Air America Radio) has a great show. Not all this yelling or whinning you get from the conservative talk-shows. Plus he takes truth-telling very seriously.

I have watched Al Franken's show that airs weeknights on the Sundance Channel. I find him to be fairly knowledgeable, though his monotone voice tends to make me drowsy.

Bill O'Reilly has an arrogance unmatched by anyone, except for perhaps the current administration. He claims to have the "No Spin Zone" but in order to keep the Far Right appeased, he spins, and we all know it. Rush spins, Al Franken spins. It's done to keep the appeal of their base groups. Would you hear Bill O'Reilly saying the war was a mistake? absolutely not... not even if he felt it was.

Hannity is a whiner, as is Rush. I can't stomach listening to either one of them. Rush reminds me of the little boy/girl crying "Woe is me" because they didn't get their way. And Hannity... let's just say Hannity calling only those who agree with his viewpoint "Great American's" well that speaks for itself!

I do want to say this though. We've allowed men like this to have such a strong impact. The right cries the media is too Liberal ( I am curious where they get their 95% figures, though) to justify their need to have shows such as this. But at the same time, these same men say the polarization of the country is troubling. Yet, everyday when they take the air, they only serve to perpetuate the Dittoheads and the Limp wristed Liberals (as I've heard MANY callers use numerous times in each of Limbaugh and Hannity's shows.).

I myself, personally, am finding PBS (as alot have stated here) to be a better source of news. They cover more than just politics, more than just the feel good stories, or the stories meant to outrage. They get to the heart of matters, and their listeners can then form their own opions, not have them formulated for them by the host.

 

[Schweddy]

Welcome to Debate Politics - debate_junkie!

Would you hear Bill O'Reilly saying the war was a mistake? absolutely not... not even if he felt it was.

He used to say it quite often. Actually, this is one of the main reasons why I stopped listening/watching him.

And Hannity... let's just say Hannity calling only those who agree with his viewpoint "Great American's" well that speaks for itself!

Agreed. I went to see him live here at Big D in Texas and found that he is a joke. He has targeted and toned in on what sells.

 

[Pacridge]

He used to say it quite often. Actually, this is one of the main reasons why I stopped listening/watching him..

Really? Honestly I'm very surprised to hear that. I'm in no way saying your wrong. I don't listen/watch him much these days.

Agreed. I went to see him live here at Big D in Texas and found that he is a joke. He has targeted and toned in on what sells.

I could have sworn you posted you went to see him and it was "awesome." Something change your mind after the fact? I'm only asking because I used to like him and some others as well.

I think a lot of these pundits (yes, Franken included) are simply out to make a buck, That or power?

 

[aquapub]

Hannity and OReilly don't belong in a media bias thread. They are opinion journalists, not objective ones. Hannity's counterpart is James Carville, Begala; OReilly's is Chris Matthews. None of these people should be treated as objective journalists, much less accused of bias, because they don't claim objectivity. And all these liberal counterparts to Hannity and OReilly actually worked as activists/operatives for Democrat presidents-if any opinion journalism is to be held to the same standard as objective journalism, wouldn't it be more inappropriate to have worked in the White House under a partisan administration?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Hannity and OReilly don't belong in a media bias thread. They are opinion journalists, not objective ones. Hannity's counterpart is James Carville, Begala; OReilly's is Chris Matthews. None of these people should be treated as objective journalists, much less accused of bias, because they don't claim objectivity. And all these liberal counterparts to Hannity and OReilly actually worked as activists/operatives for Democrat presidents-if any opinion journalism is to be held to the same standard as objective journalism, wouldn't it be more inappropriate to have worked in the White House under a partisan administration?

You think that Chris Matthews is a liberal? Have you ever watched Hardball?

 

[lamaror]

O'Reilly and Hannitty belong in the realm of New Creators.. they have no right to be called Journalists. They are opinion and propaganda oriented. Their Goal and seems to be to deceive. :spin: :mrgreen:

 

[Pacridge]

O'Reilly and Hannitty belong in the realm of New Creators.. they have no right to be called Journalists. They are opinion and propaganda oriented. Their Goal and seems to be to deceive. :spin: :mrgreen:

Welcome to Debate Politics. Nice to see another Oregonian here.

 

[Schweddy]

I could have sworn you posted you went to see {hannity} and it was "awesome." Something change your mind after the fact? I'm only asking because I used to like him and some others as well.

I think a lot of these pundits (yes, Franken included) are simply out to make a buck, That or power?

It was truely an awesome experience, one that was very interesting and rewarding. Part of thats experience, writing my essay on FoxNews (see articles), and this forum have pursuaded me to rethink the whole situtation.

Since that time, I have found him to be a joke - pure unadulterated bias. Accusing Dems of everything from sicknesses to all the issues that are wrong in America.
That is just silly. It is one thing to be biased, it's another to reek of hatred.

 

[Pacridge]

It was truely an awesome experience, one that was very interesting and rewarding. Part of thats experience, writing my essay on FoxNews (see articles), and this forum have pursuaded me to rethink the whole situtation.

Since that time, I have found him to be a joke - pure unadulterated bias. Accusing Dems of everything from sicknesses to all the issues that are wrong in America.
That is just silly. It is one thing to be biased, it's another to reek of hatred.

Interesting, not that much unlike my personal experience. It's almost become ingrained on both sides. People like Hannity and O'Reilly blame anything and everything on the Dem's and the left. While people like Micheal Moore and Al Franken blame everything and anything on the right and conservatives. IMO, in the end this is having a da*ning effect on the country.

 

[Stinger]

"NOT"A lot you know if you think Bill Reilly or Sean Hannitty are news reporters they are not they are news commentators their is a huge difference.

Who ever said they were news reporters? They certainly have never claimed to be reporters.

I hate to hurt your little bittie feelings, I hope I didn't burst your bubble I know a lot of you think Bill & Sean are gods you think, they walk on water ,

Who on earth thinks that?

They are just like talk show host on the radio a bunch of hot air nothing more

I hate to burst your itty bitty little bubble but both are on radio and very successful at it.

I willing to bet most of Bill & Sean's and fox die hard's never listen to the news .

Well you'd probably lose that bet since both of them appear on news radio stations and a cable news network so I bet everyone who watches or listens to them gets a healthy does of the news everyday, probably a lot more than people who don't.

..........This is why it is so easy for FOX to brain wash a lot of you telling you they are fair and balanced "YA RIGHT"

You know the first sign someone has nothing and any importance to say or at the least can't support any of thier own positions on issues is they begin to demogog the otherside thinking that it makes themselve seem more intelligent and what they say, what little there is, more correct. Silly, but people do seem to believe that.

 

[Pacridge]

Who ever said they were news reporters? They certainly have never claimed to be reporters.

Really? Because O'Reilly's own web page has this as an opening statement for his biography:

Whether it is on television or radio, in books, in newspapers, or here on the web, the name Bill O'Reilly is synonymous with hard hitting, uncompromising No Spin reporting and analysis.

For some thirty years Bill has been a working journalist: a writer, news producer and reporter, anchor, and show host. His numerous awards include two Emmy Awards for Excellence In Reporting and two National headliner Awards for his news reporting for the ABC network. O'Reilly was also honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his reporting and analysis on and after September 11th, 2001.
Sounds like whether you consider him to be a journalist/reporter or not- he most certainly sees himself as a reporter and a journalist.

As for Hannity I believe you're correct in that he reports himself to be a "talk show host."