Bill O'Reilly [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

View Full Version : Bill O'Reilly

10-18-2005, 11:55 PM

Saw him on The Daily Show. He's such a douche. Why can't he lighten up?

HopeydaFish

10-18-2005, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Saw him on The Daily Show. He's such a douche. Why can't he lighten up?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0038-0408-0616-3044_SM.jpg

cbfair

10-18-2005, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Saw him on The Daily Show. He's such a douche. Why can't he lighten up?

[/ QUOTE ]

He needs a shower with a nice falafel.

battschr

10-19-2005, 12:01 AM

[censored], I missed this, wanted to watch. [censored].

10-19-2005, 12:03 AM

Rerun coming up in less than an hour.

[censored]

10-19-2005, 12:03 AM

Hating Bill O'Reilly is similar to hating the villian in wrestling. He's playing a part so that you and other people will get upset and make noise. He wants you either like him or hate him. He doesn't want you to not care.

10-19-2005, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hating Bill O'Reilly is similar to hating the villian in wrestling. He's playing a part so that you and other people will get upset and make noise. He wants you either like him or hate him. He doesn't want you to not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm... excellent point. I understand why Bush ran for President.

JaBlue

10-19-2005, 12:08 AM

yep, he's great at his job and he makes tons of money doing it. I think I remember seeing him explicitly say that he plays a part on air.

PS speaking of wrestling I saw some new wrestling organization on Spike after Ultimate Fighter last night and it was pretty sweet. Overacted but entertaining

[censored]

10-19-2005, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hating Bill O'Reilly is similar to hating the villian in wrestling. He's playing a part so that you and other people will get upset and make noise. He wants you either like him or hate him. He doesn't want you to not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm... excellent point. I understand why Bush ran for President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude are you looking to be start over again with an exile this time?

This isn't politics keep that crap out of here.

10-19-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hating Bill O'Reilly is similar to hating the villian in wrestling. He's playing a part so that you and other people will get upset and make noise. He wants you either like him or hate him. He doesn't want you to not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hateful...

Hmmmm... excellent point. I understand why Bush ran for President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude are you looking to be start over again with an exile this time?

This isn't politics keep that crap out of here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops... no prob. Sorry about that.

Fratony

10-19-2005, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Saw him on The Daily Show. He's such a douche. Why can't he lighten up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what a great guest to have on the show. I loved when Jon Stewart used a Charlie Brown analogy to prove a point on France, where does he come up with this stuff? O'reily's reaction to it was also priceless, he had this sort of "what the [censored] are you talking" about look on his face.

KneeCo

10-19-2005, 01:20 AM

Don't mess with Poppa Bear!!

Xelent

10-19-2005, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hating Bill O'Reilly is similar to hating the villian in wrestling. He's playing a part so that you and other people will get upset and make noise. He wants you either like him or hate him. He doesn't want you to not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm... excellent point. I understand why Bush ran for President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude are you looking to be start over again with an exile this time?

This isn't politics keep that crap out of here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this isn't politics, why the hell are we talking about Bill O'Reilly?

w_alloy

10-19-2005, 02:31 AM

The part where Jon Stewart told O'Reilly there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and O'Reilly said something to the effect of "you dont buy into that liberal bullshit do you?" Then called Jon a "pinhead" made me kinda mad. Jon cracked up and basically dropped it. This is part of what makes him a great interviewer, that he can touch on good topics but not push them to the point of being confrontational (it is a comedy show after all). Still, I wanted Jon to deck him, or at least persue it a bit further.

That French tirade was pretty rediculous too. Ii doesnt matter that he is playing a charcter; it discourages me that people have watched him for 9 years.

bdohaney

10-19-2005, 03:31 AM

I like O'reilly. Sure, he is confrontational, opinionated and quite arrogant. But at the same time, is usually pretty smart on his subjects. Obviously it isn't just him, he has to have a terrific research team that helps him know what he does. But, his facts are usually pretty well right, his opinions and arguments are based on evidence, and he does a good job (though loud and arrogant) of destroying other people's fallacies. But, then again, I definitely tend to the right end of the political spectrum. At the same time, Jon Stewart rules. He does a fantaastic job with his show. Personally, I think that it is one of the funniest things on tv.

10-19-2005, 03:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hating Bill O'Reilly is similar to hating the villian in wrestling. He's playing a part so that you and other people will get upset and make noise. He wants you either like him or hate him. He doesn't want you to not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm... excellent point. I understand why Bush ran for President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude are you looking to be start over again with an exile this time?

This isn't politics keep that crap out of here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this isn't politics, why the hell are we talking about Bill O'Reilly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he was on a comedy show.

bawcerelli

10-19-2005, 04:04 AM

How can anyone like bill oreilly? i mean COME ON. THE GUY SHOVED A DILDO UP HIS ASS WHILE TELLING AN INTERN ALL ABOUT IT OVER THE PHONE. what a nasty [censored].

[censored]

10-19-2005, 04:19 AM

I watched it and thought the entire segment was hilarious. Him and Stewart were clearly playing off each other and they did a great job in putting together an entertaining segment. He may be a blow hard but this interview is not reason in itself for saying he needs to lighten up.

Matty

10-19-2005, 04:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I like O'reilly. Sure, he is confrontational, opinionated and quite arrogant. But at the same time, is usually pretty smart on his subjects. Obviously it isn't just him, he has to have a terrific research team that helps him know what he does. But, his facts are usually pretty well right, his opinions and arguments are based on evidence, and he does a good job (though loud and arrogant) of destroying other people's fallacies. But, then again, I definitely tend to the right end of the political spectrum. At the same time, Jon Stewart rules. He does a fantaastic job with his show. Personally, I think that it is one of the funniest things on tv.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you joking? O'Reilly will flat out lie on his show. Browse around http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=The%20O'Reilly%20Factor

There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

Fratony

10-19-2005, 04:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I watched it and thought the entire segment was hilarious. Him and Stewart were clearly playing off each other and they did a great job in putting together an entertaining segment. He may be a blow hard but this interview is not reason in itself for saying he needs to lighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]
There should be a spinoff of PTI (ESPN sports show) where Stewart and O'Reily argue their respective points against each other daily, thats entertainment.

siccjay

10-19-2005, 05:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There should be a spinoff of PTI (ESPN sports show) where Stewart and O'Reily argue their respective points against each other daily, thats entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great idea. I would definitely watch this.

thatpfunk

10-19-2005, 08:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There should be a spinoff of PTI (ESPN sports show) where Stewart and O'Reily argue their respective points against each other daily, thats entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great idea. I would definitely watch this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they could both reign it in to be civil and fun it would be an amazing show.

canis582

10-19-2005, 08:08 AM

Classic O'Reilly (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html)

Xelent

10-19-2005, 08:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There should be a spinoff of PTI (ESPN sports show) where Stewart and O'Reily argue their respective points against each other daily, thats entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great idea. I would definitely watch this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they could both reign it in to be civil and fun it would be an amazing show.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is the problem. It is a good idea in theory, but on PTI, they are at least on the same wave length and can agree on lots of topics. O'Reilly would eventually jump over the desk at Stewart. And anyone that says the Daily Show isn't political or doesn't have a political agenda is flat out stupid.

thatpfunk

10-19-2005, 08:19 AM

i agree that it would never be possible, but fun to entertain the thought.

Patrick del Poker Grande

10-19-2005, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There should be a spinoff of PTI (ESPN sports show) where Stewart and O'Reily argue their respective points against each other daily, thats entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great idea. I would definitely watch this.

[/ QUOTE ]
One might even give it a confrontational name... like... Crossfire!

AngryCola

10-19-2005, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There should be a spinoff of PTI (ESPN sports show) where Stewart and O'Reily argue their respective points against each other daily, thats entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would watch it.

BottlesOf

10-19-2005, 10:51 AM

I was really surprised by this appearance. I generally stop watching the show when the guest comes on, but for some I need to watch and this was def. one of them.

Xelent

10-19-2005, 10:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was really surprised by this appearance. I generally stop watching the show when the guest comes on, but for some I need to watch and this was def. one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

tonypaladino

10-19-2005, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Saw him on The Daily Show. He's such a douche. Why can't he lighten up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jon Stewart is a bigger douche.

He has mastered the art of sounding smart, while actually being an idiot. Instead of presenting facts and logical arguments when his guest says something he disagrees with, he makes a sarcastic jab and rolls his eyes at the camera.

tonypaladino

10-19-2005, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

drewjustdrew

10-19-2005, 11:04 AM

Xelent

10-19-2005, 11:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

And Fox doesn't make up facts? Or for that matter, who doesn't make up facts? 99% of statistics are not true including the one I just mentioned.

AngryCola

10-19-2005, 11:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Jon Stewart is a bigger douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether or not I agree with Stewart's politics, the above quote is one of the most untrue things I've recently read.

It's extremely difficult to be a bigger douche than Bill O'Reilly, and Jon Stewart doesn't even come close.

tonypaladino

10-19-2005, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

tonypaladino = Bill O'Reilly

[/ QUOTE ]

You caught me /images/graemlins/blush.gif

cdxx

10-19-2005, 11:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Classic O'Reilly (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

this deserves a "Would You Do Her" poll.

cdxx

10-19-2005, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saw him on The Daily Show. He's such a douche. Why can't he lighten up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jon Stewart is a bigger douche.

He has mastered the art of sounding smart, while actually being an idiot. Instead of presenting facts and logical arguments when his guest says something he disagrees with, he makes a sarcastic jab and rolls his eyes at the camera.

[/ QUOTE ]

jon stewart is a comedian. if his act is rolling eyes, and the act is funny, he's done his job well. if his act is sounding smart while saying idiotic things, he's done his job very well. if you think he has a political agenda because you counted the number of republican jokes vs. democrat jokes... well... his show is clearly not for you.

o'reilly is a self-proclaimed reporter/journalist. (even though he's said that it is a "news analysis" program which i can only imagine excuses him from covering anything he doesn't like.) if he says something that's demonstratably (word?) a lie, it's not comedy, it's the definition of being-a-douche.

cdxx

10-19-2005, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

And Fox doesn't make up facts? Or for that matter, who doesn't make up facts?

[/ QUOTE ]

facts-shmacts. you can prove anything with facts that's even remotely true.

tonypaladino

10-19-2005, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saw him on The Daily Show. He's such a douche. Why can't he lighten up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jon Stewart is a bigger douche.

He has mastered the art of sounding smart, while actually being an idiot. Instead of presenting facts and logical arguments when his guest says something he disagrees with, he makes a sarcastic jab and rolls his eyes at the camera.

[/ QUOTE ]

jon stewart is a comedian. if his act is rolling eyes, and the act is funny, he's done his job well. if his act is sounding smart while saying idiotic things, he's done his job very well. if you think he has a political agenda because you counted the number of republican jokes vs. democrat jokes... well... his show is clearly not for you.

o'reilly is a self-proclaimed reporter/journalist. (even though he's said that it is a "news analysis" program which i can only imagine excuses him from covering anything he doesn't like.) if he says something that's demonstratably (word?) a lie, it's not comedy, it's the definition of being-a-douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't thing Stewart had a political agenda, then you are in idiot. It has nothing to do with "counting jokes"

To set some things straight:
1. I never said Jon Stewart wasn't a good comedian, he's hillarious, and I find him very entertaining. He's also a douche.
2. I'm not defending Bill O'Reilly.
3. I am defending fox news viewers.

cdxx

10-19-2005, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

are you actually challenging someone to provide a random sample of 10 FoxNews viewers and a random sample of 10 NPR viewers and quizzing them on current political events? are you actually arguing that the NPR viewers would do worse?

or perhaps you are arguing that Comedy Central viewers (http://press.comedycentral.com/press/pressreleases/release.jhtml?f=09_28_04_daily_show_bill_o_reilly. xml) are douches who don't get the real story.

cdxx

10-19-2005, 11:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't thing Stewart had a political agenda, then you are in idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you are equating opinion with agenda. if you are a voting (or non-voting) american, and your name is jon stewart, and you don't have a political opinion, you are an idiot. i would agree with that. i expect most people have opinions, which they sometimes argue, and hence giving the impression of agenda to their audience.

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with "counting jokes"

[/ QUOTE ]

what is your reason to thinking he has an agenda then? he is not undermining either party by pointing out fairly hillarious aspects of current political events.

drewjustdrew

10-19-2005, 11:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

are you actually challenging someone to provide a random sample of 10 FoxNews viewers and a random sample of 10 NPR viewers and quizzing them on current political events? are you actually arguing that the NPR viewers would do worse?

or perhaps you are arguing that Comedy Central viewers (http://press.comedycentral.com/press/pressreleases/release.jhtml?f=09_28_04_daily_show_bill_o_reilly. xml) are douches who don't get the real story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why NPR? Why not Loveline listeners?

cdxx

10-19-2005, 11:41 AM

cbfair

10-19-2005, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can start here (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf). Page 15 (of the pdf) has some interesting graphics.

Here's a quote from page 14 (of the pdf) introducing the graphics.
[ QUOTE ]
The table below shows this clearly. Listed are the breakouts of the sample according to the frequency of the three key misperceptions (i.e. the beliefs that evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that WMD have been found in Iraq and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq) and their primary news source. Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

tonypaladino

10-19-2005, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can start here (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf). Page 15 (of the pdf) has some interesting graphics.

Here's a quote from page 14 (of the pdf) introducing the graphics.
[ QUOTE ]
The table below shows this clearly. Listed are the breakouts of the sample according to the frequency of the three key misperceptions (i.e. the beliefs that evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that WMD have been found in Iraq and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq) and their primary news source. Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So your evidence that fox news viewers are less knowledgeable is based on one survey conducted on one issue 2 years ago? Good job.

tonypaladino

10-19-2005, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

or perhaps you are arguing that Comedy Central viewers (http://press.comedycentral.com/press/pressreleases/release.jhtml?f=09_28_04_daily_show_bill_o_reilly. xml) are douches who don't get the real story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to ask you to stop attributing opinions to be that I haven't stated.

Where did it seem like I implied I though Comedy Central viewers were douches? In your warped mind, because I support FNC viewers then I must be against some other network's viewrs that's not even related?

[ QUOTE ]
are you actually challenging someone to provide a random sample of 10 FoxNews viewers and a random sample of 10 NPR viewers and quizzing them on current political events? are you actually arguing that the NPR viewers would do worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it be any wronger (more wrong?) to argue that the NPR viewers would do worse than to argue the fox news viewers would do worse? I don't know who would come ahead in that survey and neither do you. Besides, 10 people is cetainly an issufcient sample size.

Oh, and I'm totally shocked that Comedy Central's own research showed it's viewers are smart. Very convincing.

Dudd

10-19-2005, 12:31 PM

cdxx

10-19-2005, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
3. I am defending fox news viewers.

[/ QUOTE ]

i wish you defended them by plugging them off fox news. that's what i would do.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and I'm totally shocked that Comedy Central's own research showed it's viewers are smart. Very convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, i didn't see that one coming. in retrospect, comedy central really was trying to appear smarter. i didn't even know that comedy central had its own research department, conveniently called 'Nielsen Media Research', in order to appear impartial.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask you to stop attributing opinions to be that I haven't stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is your opinion? you are clearly slamming jon stewart for being a bigger douche. although he is an admitedly-hillarious comedian who is good at his job (making jokes), as opposed to a pundit who is bad at his job (informing people of current events) since his viewers (and viewers of that network) are less educated and more misinformed (at least were misinformed two years ago).

KneeCo

10-19-2005, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But at the same time, is usually pretty smart on his subjects. Obviously it isn't just him, he has to have a terrific research team that helps him know what he does. But, his facts are usually pretty well right, his opinions and arguments are based on evidence, and he does a good job (though loud and arrogant) of destroying other people's fallacies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is flat untrue and frankly disappointing to read. Let me clear on this point, this isn't a matter of political disposition, this is a matter of fact. Saying the O'Reilly's arguments are sound and based on reliable evidence is factually incorrect.

O' Reilly constantly lies, makes arguments that have no basis in logic and is notorious for getting the facts wrong. He often (very often!) simply makes things up on his show if he thinks they will help his cause.

Also, his arguments are full of logical fallacies (most obviously of the ad hominem and poisoning the well variety, but many other ones as well). If I were a getting a masters in philosophy, I could easily write a thesis just on logical fallacies in one month of 'The Factor'.

This report (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html) from CBC (can watch in whole online), contains some "classic" O'Reilly. My favorite moment is when he not only makes up a statistic which is false, he also makes up a non-existent publication and names it as the source.

imported_The Vibesman

10-19-2005, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't thing Stewart had a political agenda, then you are in idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you are equating opinion with agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. What is it that you think Stewart is attempting to accomplish in regards to politics?

cdxx

10-19-2005, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't thing Stewart had a political agenda, then you are in idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you are equating opinion with agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. What is it that you think Stewart is attempting to accomplish in regards to politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

wild guess: make fun of it with like-minded people.

J.A.Sucker

10-19-2005, 02:44 PM

KneeCo

10-19-2005, 03:20 PM

Here's the interview (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/StewartvOReilly.mov) (QuickTime).

astroglide

10-19-2005, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the interview (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/StewartvOReilly.mov) (QuickTime).

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks

theghost

10-19-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27061-2003Oct14?language=printer)

From the Washington Post:

Fact-Free News

By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, October 15, 2003; Page A23

Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on your mastery of such arcana as who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is?

Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong.

Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way toward explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction.

In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

Now, this could just be pre-sorting by ideology: Conservatives watch O'Reilly, liberals look at Lehrer, and everyone finds his belief system confirmed. But the Knowledge Network nudniks took that into account, and found that even among people of like mind, where they got their news still shaped their sense of the real. Among respondents who said they would vote for George W. Bush in next year's presidential race, for instance, more than three-quarters of the Fox watchers thought we'd uncovered a working relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, while just half of those who watch PBS believed this to be the case.

Misperceptions can also be the result of inattention, of course. If you nod off for just a nanosecond in the middle of Tom Brokaw intoning, "U.S. inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction today," you could think we'd just uncovered Hussein's nuclear arsenal. So the wily researchers also controlled for intensity of viewership, and concluded that, "in the case of those who primarily watched Fox News, greater attention to news modestly increases the likelihood of misperceptions." Particularly when that news includes hyping every false lead in Iraq as the certain prelude to uncovering a massive WMD cache.

One question inevitably raised by these findings is whether Fox News is failing or succeeding. Over at CBS, the news that 71 percent of viewers hold one of these mistaken notions should be cause for concern, but whether such should be the case at Fox because 80 percent of their viewers are similarly mistaken is not at all clear. Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and the other guys at Fox have long demonstrated a clearer commitment to changing public policy than to reporting it, and an even clearer commitment to reporting it in such a way as to change it.

Take a wild flight of fancy with me and assume for just a moment that one major goal over at Fox is to ensure Bush's reelection. Surely, anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were in cahoots, that we've found the WMD and that Bush is revered among the peoples of the world -- all of these known facts to nearly half the Fox viewers -- is a good bet to be a Bush voter in next year's contest. By this standard -- moving votes into Bush's column and keeping them there -- Fox has to be judged a stunning success. It's not so hot on conveying information as such, but mere empiricism must seem so terribly vulgar to such creatures of refinement as Murdoch and Ailes.

theghost

10-19-2005, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason FoxNews viewers score the absolute worst in surveys on public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source, or is this one of those "it's ok to make up facts because it supports the liberal media agenda" things?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can start here (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf). Page 15 (of the pdf) has some interesting graphics.

Here's a quote from page 14 (of the pdf) introducing the graphics.
[ QUOTE ]
The table below shows this clearly. Listed are the breakouts of the sample according to the frequency of the three key misperceptions (i.e. the beliefs that evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that WMD have been found in Iraq and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq) and their primary news source. Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So your evidence that fox news viewers are less knowledgeable is based on one survey conducted on one issue 2 years ago? Good job.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked for a source for the statement, you got it. Not that anyone thought it would change your mind on the subject, but whatever.

I like this part:
"Now, this could just be pre-sorting by ideology: Conservatives watch O'Reilly, liberals look at Lehrer, and everyone finds his belief system confirmed. But the Knowledge Network nudniks took that into account, and found that even among people of like mind, where they got their news still shaped their sense of the real. Among respondents who said they would vote for George W. Bush in next year's presidential race, for instance, more than three-quarters of the Fox watchers thought we'd uncovered a working relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, while just half of those who watch PBS believed this to be the case."