Bill O'Reilly cuts mic of US Colonel Ann Wright
I know O'Reilly is a nutbag, but his style of arguing is simply unbelievable. He turns what this woman says into an apparent attack on the US saying "Oh, it's all our fault is it?" Ann Wright actually makes no such charge.
The sight of O'Reilly demanding that anyone should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions, after his support of Guantanamo Bay and his definitions of what constitutes torture (losing a finger is the starting point if I remember correctly), is simply surreal. He doesn't agree with Geneva being applied to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and yet he wants it applied between Iran and the UK, two countries who are not at war with each other?
My favourite moment is where she says, "That's why I spent 29 years...." to which O'Reilly interrupts, "No, you didn't."
This guy transmits but does not receive...
Somebody tell me again why it's a good idea to have Faux Noise in charge of the Presidential Debates?
10 comments:
Somebody tell me again why it's a good idea to have Faux Noise in charge of the Presidential Debates?
Just out of curiousity, have you watched Fox News at length? And I don't mean via clips on the Internet.
Why is it a bad idea for Fox News to host Presidential debates?
Which news organization would be a better choice to host Presidential debates?
Why do you feel Fox News consistently has higher ratings (numbers of viewers) than the other cable news networks?
Regarding O'Reilly, how is he any worse than political commentators like Bill Maher?
No, I only see clips of Fox News, although I have also watched the movie Outfoxed. It appears to me that Fox is a ridiculously biased station with people who watch Fox being more likely to believe lies (Saddam had WMD) than if they watched any other channel. That would appear to me to be a terrible indictment of any news organisation, as they are supposed to inform, not to simply propagate one side of a political argument.
And O'Reilly is much worse that Maher because Maher does not pretend that he represents the middle ground, nor does he pretend that he does not have an agenda.
O'Reilly, from the vast majority of clips that I have seen of the man, invites people on with the express intention of shouting at them. He rarely listens to them, and often goes on to claim that they said things that they never actually said.
I've also never heard him refer to any progressive opinion without first labelling it "far left" or "extreme left". There is no equivalent on the right, certainly none that I have ever heard him mention.
And I suspect that Fox News gets higher ratings because, as you pointed out the other day, many Americans are right wing.
Any other channel would be a better choice as I can think of no other channel that is as biased as the Fox News network.
First, Hussein did have WMDs, that's a fact. Where they went to, that's another question. If he got rid of the weapons that the inspectors could not account for from past inspections, he did not use the means of verification that was mandated and that he had used when destroying other weapons. That would certainly be odd for a regime that kept records as meticulously as his. If however that's we he did, likely he did it so that his neighbors would believe that he still maintained a capable threat. All the major intelligence agencies in the world certainly believed it, including France, Russia, and Germany. The other alternatives are that he sent them somewhere else like he did his air force in the first war, or he buried them like he has buried many of his other military assets (aircraft for example). That doesn't mean that there wasn't plenty of bad intelligence to go around, however just because we can't find something doesn't mean people lied about anything. Absence of proof is not proof of absece. If you are going to continue going around calling everyone a liar, you have to back up your assertions with some kind of facts.
Back to the subject at hand... If you enjoy reading about US media bias, you might also enjoy Bias by Bernard Goldberg. But here's the thing, the left getting their panties in a twist over Fox's bias is hypocritical at best. CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC... They are all at least equally biased as Fox is, just towards the left.
American news media is dominated by left wing perspectives. This is understandable since that's where the sympathies of most journalists are. In that atmosphere, the audacity of the far left whining about media that doesn't subscribe to their view is almost amusing. The fact that smear campaigns are used against right-biased media to promote censorship and stifle free speech is even more amusing, particularly given that the left likes to think of themselves as champions of free speech. I guess they figure folks can have any opinion they want, as long as it agrees with theirs.
So, given that all the news media is biased in one way or the other, and Fox no more biased than its competitors, the cry against Fox by the far left for wanting to host Presidential debates is disingenuous to say the least. The real problem they have with Fox is simply that it doesn't share the left-bias that the majority of US media holds (I won't even get into the even more extreme bias in European media).
As for Fox's success, I suspect it has something to do with people yearning for another perspective than that which was being rammed down their throats by the other networks.
You have to back up your assertions with some kind of facts? Even Bush, at the White House Correspondents Association dinner, joked about the fact that we never found any WMD's. Is this still even in question? Sure, it's possible he destroyed them. But it's equally possible that he never had that capability to begin with. You can't choose one side of that argument and then blame the other side for not having facts. It's all nothing more than speculation.
As for the interview, Wright brought up several very reasonable points and was blasted as hating her country. Anyone with her level of knowledge about international affairs (particularly the Geneva Convention) and with that kind of service record should at least be accorded some kind of basic respect. My grandfather served in WWII and I would certainly never speak to him the way Bill does to this woman. Nothing she said was particularly polarizing or controversial so I don't understand the source of his aggression in the first place.
Looks like you got a live one there, Kel. WMDs: a fact. Booyaa! And Bernard Goldberg! icing on the cake!
Good, grief. I couldn't even make it through that ridiculous 2 minutes. O'Reilly is a churlish twat.
First, Hussein did have WMDs, that's a fact. Where they went to, that's another question.
That's the singularly most stupid thing any person has ever posted in the comments section here. You are taking your belief and refusing to adjust that belief to any reality that contradicts it. Are you sure you're not a member of the Bush administration?
The fact that Saddam once possessed WMD has never been in question, although people like myself - never mind what public stances were taken by Russia, France and Germany - never believed it feasible that he could have still possessed them at the time of the invasion. This is because even a cursory google check revealed that top quality WMD (which Saddam never had) had a shelf life of just 5 years. We had Saddam under punitive sanctions for 12 years before the invasion. They would have to have been mush by that point. But for you to insist that you somehow know that he had them, despite voluminous proof to the contrary, is not something I am even going to debate. It's simply too insane. As Joel rightly points out, you have to back that assertion up with some kind of facts. You sound like Bush trusting "your gut" on this one.
Bhc, who is Bernard Goldberg?
You said the fact that Hussein had WMDs was a lie. The fact is that he did have them, and we knew he had them because he used them on the Kurds and Iranians, not to mention the inspectors saw them. So, Hussein had WMDs. Now if you want to place a timeline on it, we did not find any when we went in so he didn't appear to have had them at that point. Parse your words more carefully.
"Top quality WMDs have a shelf life of just 5 years" is a ridiculous sweeping generalization. Sure, some chemical/biological weapons do, but some have been sitting in our arsenals for quite some time.
You said the fact that Hussein had WMDs was a lie.
No, I didn't. I said that people who watched Fox were more likely to believe things that weren't true. A recent survey found that a considerable number of Fox viewers believe that WMD were found in Iraq by the US forces after the invasion. That is simply a lie. And yet the viewers of this "fair and balanced" TV station have somehow come away believing something that is false. And if you watch Fox you are far more likely to believe falshoods like this than if you watch any other channel.
I think you have jumped the gun without fully understanding the point that I was making.
"Top quality WMDs have a shelf life of just 5 years" is a ridiculous sweeping generalization. Sure, some chemical/biological weapons do
Were we ever looking for any other kind? We claimed he had chemical and biological weapons, those were the WMD we were looking for! And, as you admit, they have a shelf life of around five years.
No, I didn't. I said that people who watched Fox were more likely to believe things that weren't true.
What facts back up this assertion?
A recent survey found that a considerable number of Fox viewers believe that WMD were found in Iraq by the US forces after the invasion. That is simply a lie.
Is it? While not being the shiny silver cannisters marked "WMD" in big glowing green letters, munitions found do fit the WMD classification although certainly not in the numbers we expected and not the "missing" weapons from the UN reports.
And if you watch Fox you are far more likely to believe falshoods like this than if you watch any other channel.
And the facts to back up this wild assertion are...
And, as you admit, they have a shelf life of around five years.
Some munitions have a shelf life of around five years depending on their type and the form they're in. For example, binary chemical weapons (precursor chemicals stored separately), which Iraq had, have a much longer shelf life than when the precursors are already mixed. There are other ways to extend the life of a chem weapon but that's one example. The shelf life of bio weapons also varies depending on the type of bio agent, the form its in (liquid or dry powder for example), as well as some other factors.
And if you watch Fox you are far more likely to believe falshoods like this than if you watch any other channel.
And the facts to back up this wild assertion are...
The facts that back "this wild assertion" are:
"The study polled over 3,000 people on their perceptions about international support for the Iraq War, ties of Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, and the Discovery of WMD's in Iraq. What they found, incredibly, though not surprising, was that the more people got their news from TV, the higher the frequency of their misperceptions.
Out of all the news networks, of course, Fox News ranked highest among misinformed viewers. The lowest was PBS. The ramifications of this study are far reaching. For one, it confirms the long held suspicion that corporate controlled television networks are not only failing to provide necessary information to viewers, but are in fact providing false information. It also confirms that, at least among the news networks, liberal bias is a complete fabrication which, because of this report, is easier to believe since a significant percentage of viewers believe liberal media bias exist because they heard it on TV news."
Some munitions have a shelf life of around five years depending on their type and the form they're in. For example, binary chemical weapons (precursor chemicals stored separately), which Iraq had, have a much longer shelf life than when the precursors are already mixed.
And what shelf life do they have when stored in this way? Be specific.
Post a Comment