• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bill O'Reilly: Fair or Unfair

Is Bill O'Reilly Fair or Unfair in his interviews?

  • Yes (seen the show more than 5 times)

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • No (seen the show more than 5 times)

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • Yes (seen the show less than 5 times)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No (seen the show less than 5 times)

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Total voters
    16

pwo

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
205
Reaction score
1
Location
Illinois
In another thread, some people were calling Bill O'Reilly unfair. To me, he seems like a strongly opinionated host. Yes, he does come off as a jerk sometimes, but I think he is willing to give the other side a fair chance. He gave Micheal Moore a completly unedited interview. Yet, a lot of the liberals he invites to be on the show don't want to show up. Hmmmm.....I think because Bill O'Reilly will expose them, others say he doesn't give give him a fair shot (I don't know how)?

So, is the O'Reilly Factor, Fair or Unfair, and how many times have you watched the show?

Explain
 

Kyle

New member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Location
Florida, USA
He can be a bit of an asshole at times I suppose, but I find him entertaining to say the least. I'd say he's pretty fair, though I think he has been caught making up statistics on the spot quite a few times. But who hasn't :lol:
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
He is entertaining, yes, but he is too strongly opinioned to be fair. I have watched it more than 5 times, and while I find it entertaining, it isn't fair and balnanced.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
O'Reilly is a rude, jerk most of the time. When he has his mind made up there isn't anything the guests can say to change it. He is fair in that he lets them say what they want as long as they don't "bloviate", but he always tells them how wrong they are.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I voted other. I have seen the show many times (much more than 5, but less than 50) as well as heard his radio numerous times.

He attempts to sound fair, but in the end he sells entertainment.
Not much different than his old 30 minute magazine shows - where he started from.

Consistancy is not his strongest point.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I've watched the O'Reilly everyday since the beginning of the school year. I like Bill. My favorite is Mikeal Savage. Bill's fair, but yes he is sometimes a jerk. Sometimes you've got to be to get your message across.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Even when you message isn't fair like Bill's is not fair? I don't agree with that at all...see what he did to those kids from Hamilton and tell me he is fair.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
pwo said:
Please explain ShamMol.
Easily,
There were reasons aplenty not to have invited Churchill and, once he was invited, to have rescinded the invitation. Hamilton would not do so. It flung around the First Amendment with abandon, as if Churchill was a faculty member whose job was at stake. Then Bill O'Reilly struck. The Fox TV commentator went to town on the controversy, finding the usual liberal idiocy at the usual liberal college perpetrated by the usual liberal morons. Having rounded up his usual suspects, O'Reilly ended a segment about Hamilton by providing the name of the college's president, Joan Hinde Stewart, her e-mail address and the school's phone number. Then, blood dripping from his evil heart, he asked his deranged viewers to "keep your comments respectable."

The school caved. Stewart reported getting 6,000 or so messages, and I know, because I get them all the time, that many of them were vile and obscene and even threatening. But this is the true cost of free speech. It is not some rarefied principle, not some slogan, not some trivial right for professors to abuse in comfortable distance from the targets of their ideas, but the most powerful and dangerous right of them all. And because O'Reilly had, in effect, organized an Internet lynch mob, a collection of cyber-goons -- one of whom threatened to bring a gun -- the school simply junked the program. It chickened out. Source-WashPost
Am I being unfair to this Churchill guy?

PAUL CAMPOS, UNIV. OF COLORADO PROFESSOR: No, I don't think so. I think it would be very difficult to be unfair to him actually.

O'REILLY: But what is his agenda? What is he trying to do? I mean, it's so over the top and so hateful, it's hard to believe.

CAMPOS: Well, it is incredibly over the top. And I would encourage everybody who's interested in this debate to actually read his essay, which is widely available on the Internet so you can decide for yourself whether these characterizations of it are accurate or not.

Once I actually went and read the entire thing, I was so appalled, that I wrote a column about it, decrying and denouncing the idea that the University of Colorado would have as a tenured member of its faculty somebody who could be spewing this kind of disgusting nonsense in the context of a supposedly academic environment.

O'REILLY: But then you go over to the — you know, I want to tell everybody you do write a column for "The Rocky Mountain News." But then you go into the freedom of speech area. And that's where all these academics are hiding.

They're basically saying OK, we all deplore what Professor Churchill says, but it's freedom of speech. He has a right to do it and all of that. How do you answer?

CAMPOS: Well, yes, he does have a right to do it in the sense that the government does not have the right to stop him from publishing what he wants to publish. And in that sense, yes, he has a First Amendment right, like all other Americans do, to say what he wants to say.

That does not mean that if he engages in conduct, including publishing things that bring into question his professional competence that the University of Colorado, his employer, cannot sanction him for behaving in that fashion.

O'REILLY: Well, that will happen on Thursday. After our report on Friday, professor, all hell's breaking loose across the country, both in Boulder and in Clinton, New York, where Hamilton College is.

The board of regents for the University of Colorado are going to meet on Thursday. I fully expect they will sanction the professor, but that doesn't mean anything to him. He's an American hater.

But here's the really bad thing about this. And here's why I'm involved with this. There are people at Hamilton — and I don't know if there are any at U.C. Boulder — but at Hamilton there are, who lost loved ones on 9/11.

I mean, this guy, this is just cruel to say these people deserved it, they were little Nazis, which is what Churchill says that these people in the World Trade Center (search) and the Pentagon were little Nazis.

And you know, there's — one of their sons is at Hamilton. How brutal is this?

CAMPOS: Well, there's a real irony here, which is that Ward Churchill was acquitted a couple of weeks ago by a jury in Denver for, I believe, disturbance of the peace in regard to interfering, along with some other people, with a Columbus Day parade. And the claim of the defendants in that case, including Churchill, was that the Columbus Day marchers didn't have a First Amendment right not to have their march disrupted because Columbus Day celebrations are an incitement to genocide and are therefore hate speech.

So in other words, this is a guy who goes around claiming that a Columbus Day Parade is hate speech and can be interfered with, but at the same time, is claiming that when he writes an incredibly hateful and just basically deranged sort of rant as a scholarly paper.

O'REILLY: OK, so this guy — you know, we — it's funny, professor, because as soon as we started doing this story, then as I said, the whole country became engaged.

This just happened. It just came across the wire that Churchill has resigned his chairmanship of the Ethnic Studies Department at U.C. Boulder. So he's under enormous pressure now.

But here's the big issue. Number one, why is Boulder sanctioning a guy who hates his country the way this man does? And number two, why is Hamilton College, which is just as guilty, all right, inviting this man to come to spread the hatred? See, I'm not getting why this is happening.

CAMPOS: Well, I can't speak to why Hamilton College is doing what it's doing, but I think the University of Colorado is doing absolutely the right thing at this point to launch an investigation to ask why is this person a tenured member of the faculty?

O'REILLY: Yes, but they knew this for years. We — they're only doing this because we started reporting on it last Friday. They knew for years this guy was doing this kind of stuff. He's not a subtle guy.

CAMPOS: Well, actually, the administrators and as far as I can tell, almost all of the faculty at the university were unaware of this essay. And that that, I think, is really quite unfortunate.

O'REILLY: Yes.

CAMPOS: And I think one of the things that needs to be investigated is why were we unaware that this person was publishing this sort of thing? And what should we do in regard to making sure the procedures so we know about what something is doing?

O'REILLY: Yes. You know what this is all about? This is about political correctness once again. That's what this is about. This guy is a native American. He feels that genocide was perpetuated on his race. And therefore, he can hate his country and say anything he wants.

The people bought into this in Boulder. And yes, he's a native American, we're not going to talk about it.

And then in Hamilton College, they basically oh, yes, we want another radical in here to shake it up. We don't care what he says.

And you know, it's an epidemic across the country in college campuses. Professor, I'll give you the last word.

CAMPOS: Well, I think what you're seeing right now this week at the University of Colorado is that, in fact, standards are going to be enforced. And we're not just simply going to shrug our shoulders and say...

O'REILLY: Well, we'll see.

CAMPOS: ...First Amendment, free expression.

O'REILLY: Right.

CAMPOS: And there's nothing that we can do about it.

O'REILLY: We'll see what happens when the regents meet on Thursday. Professor, thank you.
Thats just a little excerpt from what he was saying about the subject.

What he personally did to hamilton may be irreversable. They have lost substantial donor money, have lost many student applications and this was completely overblown by him. HE caused thousands of letters, many of which were threats to be sent to the president of the school and made many on the campus (some of whom I am friends with-I almost went there but am going to Colby instead) scared for their lives with the media frenzy and the nut jobs that came onto campus to protest who they had to pass. Tell me that is fair. And just as an ironic note, at the bottom of the Fox page i took that script from, Real journalism: fair and balanced. That's why we're No. 1 — FOX News Channel was there, lol.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What he personally did to hamilton may be irreversable. They have lost substantial donor money, have lost many student applications and this was completely overblown by him. HE caused thousands of letters, many of which were threats to be sent to the president of the school and made many on the campus (some of whom I am friends with-I almost went there but am going to Colby instead) scared for their lives with the media frenzy and the nut jobs that came onto campus to protest who they had to pass. Tell me that is fair. And just as an ironic note, at the bottom of the Fox page i took that script from, Real journalism: fair and balanced. That's why we're No. 1 — FOX News Channel was there, lol.
O'Reilly just reported a story like the rest of the press did. Churchhill did the damage to Hamilton. He should have thought of the school and students before he shot his mouth off. It was on the internet for a while before Fox picked it up, so why do you want to blame Fox?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
O'Reilly just reported a story like the rest of the press did. Churchhill did the damage to Hamilton. He should have thought of the school and students before he shot his mouth off. It was on the internet for a while before Fox picked it up, so why do you want to blame Fox?
I don't want to blame Fox, I want to blame him for the death threats and major attention, because before him, it was just token attention. that is fair, is it not?
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't want to blame Fox, I want to blame him for the death threats and major attention, because before him, it was just token attention. that is fair, is it not?
I don't think so. I heard Howie Carr talk about it, Rush had a story on his web site about it, Hannity was talking about it. It was all over the right wing blogs and radio. You can't point to one medium and say "it's all their fault". Air America put some ad on that advocated assassination of President Bush. That is a direct threat promoted by the media. There is a big difference.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
I don't think so. I heard Howie Carr talk about it, Rush had a story on his web site about it, Hannity was talking about it. It was all over the right wing blogs and radio. You can't point to one medium and say "it's all their fault". Air America put some ad on that advocated assassination of President Bush. That is a direct threat promoted by the media. There is a big difference.
Key word there ad-meaning not paid for by them only someone who wanted their message put out there. But that isn't protected speech-advocating for murder. What I believe Billy boy did was just that, though to a much lesser degree. He said, why don't you write her and tell her she is a complete and total idiot and that she should go down in flames...but keep it nice. BS. He caused all those death threats, threats of violence, and it wasn't until HIS story came out that the main media aside from opinion writers caught onto to how big a story it was. Did Hamilton back down with all the radio righters, no. They did it afte Billy boy did it.

In O'reillys own words-he caused it.
O'REILLY: Yes, but they knew this for years. We — they're only doing this because we started reporting on it last Friday. They knew for years this guy was doing this kind of stuff. He's not a subtle guy.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Squawker said:
I don't think so. I heard Howie Carr talk about it, Rush had a story on his web site about it, Hannity was talking about it. It was all over the right wing blogs and radio. You can't point to one medium and say "it's all their fault". Air America put some ad on that advocated assassination of President Bush. That is a direct threat promoted by the media. There is a big difference.
They did that?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Pacridge said:
They did that?
Two things, it was an ad and doesn't mean they support what it says, just that they are a greedy corporation who wants money. And two, i have never heard of this, but honestly don't doubt something to this nature (because if it had said we want him dead, those people who made it would be arrested) was created.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
ShamMol said:
Two things, it was an ad and doesn't mean they support what it says, just that they are a greedy corporation who wants money. And two, i have never heard of this, but honestly don't doubt something to this nature (because if it had said we want him dead, those people who made it would be arrested) was created.
I was listening to them over the net for a while and then some thing came up and hadn't been for several weeks. I certainly never heard any thing close to a call to "kill Bush." They make no bones about thinking and saying he's and idiot, moron and all that other stuff-worst President ever! Basically the same stuff right wing radio had to say about Clinton. But no calls for his head on a stake. Not that I heard.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Pacridge said:
I was listening to them over the net for a while and then some thing came up and hadn't been for several weeks. I certainly never heard any thing close to a call to "kill Bush." They make no bones about thinking and saying he's and idiot, moron and all that other stuff-worst President ever! Basically the same stuff right wing radio had to say about Clinton. But no calls for his head on a stake. Not that I heard.
Oh, of course, saying he is an idiot and it being truthful (sic) is protected first amendment spech (plus there isn't even a libel suit if you get what i mean...).

The Righters did the same to Clinton and Air America, they don't come on in LA :( , has the right to do that with Bush. But to say that you are going to kill, advocate to kill, or anything kill the president, that is a crime and they will be arrested if it proven that they meant it seriously and it was not heat of the moment.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is where I would have posted this Source if I could have remembered where the thread was. :doh
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
ShamMol said:
What he personally did to hamilton may be irreversable. They have lost substantial donor money, have lost many student applications and this was completely overblown by him. HE caused thousands of letters, many of which were threats to be sent to the president of the school and made many on the campus (some of whom I am friends with-I almost went there but am going to Colby instead) scared for their lives with the media frenzy and the nut jobs that came onto campus to protest who they had to pass. QUOTE]



Well it seem to me the blame should be placed squarely on Churchhill. He was obviously trolling for publicity and got what he wanted.

If you kick the dog and dog bites you who do you blame for mangled foot?

"On an average day 7 minutes of news happens. Yet there are currently 3 full-time, 24-hour news networks." -Jon Stewart
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
akyron said:
Well it seem to me the blame should be placed squarely on Churchhill. He was obviously trolling for publicity and got what he wanted.

If you kick the dog and dog bites you who do you blame for mangled foot?

"On an average day 7 minutes of news happens. Yet there are currently 3 full-time, 24-hour news networks." -Jon Stewart
No, it is not their fault for wanting to provide his viewpoints in a program that brought controversial speakers to campus. That is what it did. It was successful for many years until one man decided to make a stink about it. Then it died. Thank you Bill.

If he had not brought it up, the news media in the country would never have known about it. If he had not done the malicious thing to it, then Hamilton would not have lost millions in donations that it gets. I blame him.

This is not a dog and shoe or whatever ordeal. This happened. He did it and without him, this entire thing would have just gone over the public, they wouldn't have known about it and Hamilton and its students wouldn't have had to suffer. It is his fault. Hamilton was doing what it always did, and one man made a stink. Seems pretty straightforward.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
ShamMol said:
No, it is not their fault for wanting to provide his viewpoints in a program that brought controversial speakers to campus. That is what it did. It was successful for many years until one man decided to make a stink about it. Then it died. Thank you Bill.

If he had not brought it up, the news media in the country would never have known about it. If he had not done the malicious thing to it, then Hamilton would not have lost millions in donations that it gets. I blame him.

This is not a dog and shoe or whatever ordeal. This happened. He did it and without him, this entire thing would have just gone over the public, they wouldn't have known about it and Hamilton and its students wouldn't have had to suffer. It is his fault. Hamilton was doing what it always did, and one man made a stink. Seems pretty straightforward.

Well do you not you think the supporters deserve to be informed about what they were supporting?

If I were unknowing funding some nutballs program I would like to have the option of tossing money at it or not as I felt. The informed people donating seem to have made their positions clear concerning the Hamilton College and the Ward Churchill Controversy.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
ShamMol said:
If he had not brought it up, the news media in the country would never have known about it. If he had not done the malicious thing to it, then Hamilton would not have lost millions in donations that it gets. I blame him.
It's pretty simple:

Ward Churchill has the constitutional right to spew his vitriolic nonsense.

Bill O'Reilly has every right in the world to whine about it.

After that point, let the court of public opinion decide. Seems to me to be "fair and balanced."
 
Top Bottom