• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
pwo said:
Please explain ShamMol.
Easily,
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

They did that?
 
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.
 

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.
 
This is where I would have posted this Source if I could have remembered where the thread was. :doh
 
 
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.
 
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."
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…