Bill O’Reilly vs. The USO & Drowning Pool
Drowning Pool respond to Bill O'Reilly's claims that no-one - other than himself and Toby Keith - ever bothers to visit the troops.
The truth has such a Liberal bias...
Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.
Tags:
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Drowning Pool respond to Bill O'Reilly's claims that no-one - other than himself and Toby Keith - ever bothers to visit the troops.
What he claimed was that in the location(s) he visited, as far as he knows nobody has visited them within the past year accept himself and Toby Kieth.
When I watched his segment on the subject (the whole thing, with my own eyes, without having to rely on a two minute YouTube clip), as I recall he seemed to primarily be referring to Hollywood types. Also, his purpose for the report was because Dr Laura or someone claimed that the USO turned down her offer to go over there.
I know from personal experience that the USO has done a decent job with their mission, but I also know that I never saw any USO tours when I was in Southwest Asia or Bosnia, and to the best of my knowledge nobody ever came while I was there.
Let's face it, for an operation that has gone on since 2001, the number of acts listed at the end of the video is pretty miniscule. If more people go over because O'Reilly is pushing the issue, that can only be a good thing.
Let's face it, for an operation that has gone on since 2001, the number of acts listed at the end of the video is pretty miniscule. If more people go over because O'Reilly is pushing the issue, that can only be a good thing.
I presume the list of acts at the end is not conclusive.
And how many times has O'Reilly gone that he gets to preach to others?
The point Drowning Pool were making was that they were there three times before Billo thought it safe enough to show face. Did they make a noise about how others should emulate them?
Because Bill is not "pushing the issue", he's shamelessly promoting himself, saying that others should be as brave and selfless as he imagines himself to be.
This is self promotion disguised as concern for the troops.
He was pushing the issue before he went over there. Near as I can tell he began pushing the issue when Dr Laura stated that she offered to go but the USO turned her down. At that point he started harping on the USO. To the best of my knowledge it was after that when he went.
He gets on these kicks with certain issues where he keeps hammering them into the ground in order to draw attention to them. One of the most effective of these has been his campaign to bring attention to Megan's Law. He kept a running tally of states that state politicians that refused to pass Megan's Law. He would have state governors on from states where the law was being held up and press them on the issue. It is probably fair to say that his hounding and the constant media pressure he helped drive had much to do with the fact that just about every state now has some version of Megan's Law on the books.
He has taken on a similar crusade for Jessica's Law. Likewise he has been using his position to keep focus on the travesty of the Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean convictions. These campaigns of his are the same thing he is doing with the USO. People who watch the guy, whether they agree with him or not, know that this is how he operates and that his campaign to get more people over to see the troops is completely consistent with how he has attacked past issues. The self-promotion argument doesn't hold up to how he has actually conducted himself on this issue.
People should care about their literal next-door neighbors. Better yet: people should care about their spouses, kids, parents, friends. Most people can't even handle that, let alone "care" for a band of hired guns.
The self-promotion argument doesn't hold up to how he has actually conducted himself on this issue.
Why not? A man with an audience whose average age is 71 promotes causes likely to appeal to that target audience; the more he appeals to them, the more money he makes through increased viewers and advertising.
He himself admitted on the Carson show that he finds it hard to remain angry all the time, which suggests - at least on some level - that there is an element of artifice to his rage.
He's simply a performer at the end of the day.
Why not?
Because his actions are consistent with how he has attacked similar issues in the past.
A man with an audience whose average age is 71
Heh, they weren't serious. Nobody's average audience age is 71. Given it's reportedly the most watched show on cable news, it's statistically impossible for the average age to be 71.
Contempt me, Jason, I feed on it. It only makes me stronger, and bigger, much, MUCH bigger, RAWWWWWWWWRRRR!
Heh, they weren't serious. Nobody's average audience age is 71. Given it's reportedly the most watched show on cable news, it's statistically impossible for the average age to be 71.
Once again, you state your own opinion as fact without doing so much as a Google search:
"MSNBC’s research claims that the median age for Mr. O’Reilly’s audience is 71, while Mr. Olbermann’s is 59. (Fox and CNN both report that the only figures they get for median age of shows with older audiences is “65 plus,” and that Mr. O’Reilly’s audience falls into that category.)"
So even Fox are conceding that his audience median age is 65 plus. If Olbermann's audience can average out at 59, why is it "statistically impossible" for O'Reilly's average audience member's age to be 71?
And do you have research which contradicts that of MSNBC? No, you assumed it was a joke because that fit in with your personal belief system; you didn't even check the facts before you decided that your own opinion was right and that anything else would be "statistically impossible".
"And do you have research which contradicts that of MSNBC? No, you assumed it was a joke because that fit in with your personal belief system; you didn't even check the facts before you decided that your own opinion was right and that anything else would be "statistically impossible"."
Right you are, mate.
Once again, you state your own opinion as fact without doing so much as a Google search
While I admit that I did not bother to search for what was obviously a bogus stat, I will thank you for posting the text that shows me why I was correct in thinking that an average age of 71 was a ridiculous and unrealistic number.
MSNBC’s research claims that the median age for Mr. O’Reilly’s audience is 71
So basically, you, new mexico man, and Drowning Pool apparently aren't quite grasping the mathematics here. A median is not the same as an average.
Let's say that I have a sample of 101 people. Of that sample, 50 of them are 24, one of them is 71, 15 of them are 73, and 10 of them are 75. The median age of that sample (ie, the number in the exact middle of the distribution when arranged in age order) is 71. The average age however is 30.85. So while I don't think the average age of O'Reilly's audience is anywhere as low as my sample distribution, it would be almost mathematically certain that it is below 71.
No, you assumed it was a joke because that fit in with your personal belief system; you didn't even check the facts before you decided that your own opinion was right and that anything else would be "statistically impossible".
No, I thought it was a joke because I have enough education to realize that the number was statistically unlikely. Your quote of the NYT article merely confirmed that I was correct.
Obviously I shouldn't be trying to do math at 2:00 am.
Unless your math failed you again, you will have seen that the number in my sample did not add up to 101, so let me try this again.
Let's say that I have a sample of 101 people. Of that sample, 50 of them are 24, one of them is 71, 25 of them are 73, and 25 of them are 75. The median age of that sample (ie, the number in the exact middle of the distribution when arranged in age order) is 71. The average age however is 49.21.
Mathematically, it's almost certain that the average age of O'Reilly's audience is below 71, as average is more easily influenced by extremes than median. Given population age distribution, that means those extremes must lie in greater abundance on the lower end.
For example, it's extremely unlikely that there is a statistically significant number of 90 year olds who watch as opposed to say a statistically significant number of 16 year olds who watch. Therefore, the number of 16 year olds would be an extreme that would have a greater influence on the average, and very little influence on the median.
Dear God,
Look at the amount of waffle you are throwing about to claim you were right whilst still not providing any link to any page which actually gives an average age!
The median age is the number in the middle rather than the average of all numbers. However, O'Reilly's median number is still 71.
And I agree that there is a chance that the average may very well be lower than the median, but you have provided no proof, only - once again - supposition which you use to claim proves you are correct.
For example, it's extremely unlikely that there is a statistically significant number of 90 year olds who watch as opposed to say a statistically significant number of 16 year olds who watch. Therefore, the number of 16 year olds would be an extreme that would have a greater influence on the average, and very little influence on the median.
I doubt very many sixteen year olds watch an old fart spout off about politics, but again, neither of us have figures for that and I would not presume that my supposition was fact. You take supposition and claim victory based on that supposition.
Your own opinion and fact seem constantly blurred in your world.
Your own opinion and fact seem constantly blurred in your world.
You again aren't getting the whole "math" thing. I use probabilistic terms, not certainty, when throwing out examples like the 90 year olds versus the 16 year olds when attempting to illustrate the effect of statistical extremes on average versus median. And as far as population age distribution goes, I find it beyond obtuse that you would even attempt to argue that there are more people in a population younger than 71 compared to those older than 71, which is a fact that has baring on the statistical outliers (ie, the extremes).
There is no supposition here. It's called "educated analysis" (I'm glad to see I didn't suffer through nearly 30 credits of undergraduate math and statistics for nothing). The numbers make it extremely unlikely that the average age of the audience is 71, which is why MSNBC used the median and not the average like you and Drowning Pool claimed.
It's funny the extremes (statistical joke there) you would go to in order to try to show that you didn't screw up your math, instead of just saying, "oh yeah, I was wrong, the average age of his audience is not 71". And while nobody can seem to find MSNBC's numbers that they used to come up with their median, I will not argue the point that the median age of O'Reilly's audience is 71 as that does not sound statistically unlikely.
Post a Comment