Thank You Roger Ebert!

[HDRoberts]

Bill O'Reilly has been brought low by the same process that afflicted Jerry Springer. Once respected journalists, they sold their souls for higher ratings, and follow their siren song. Springer is honest about it: "I'm going to Hell for what I do, and I know it," he's likes to say. O'Reilly insists he is dealing only with the truth. When his guests disagree with him, he shouts at them, calls them liars, talks over them, and behaves like a schoolyard bully.

I am not interested in discussing O'Reilly's politics here. That would open a hornet's nest. I am more concerned about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society. He sets a harmful example of acceptable public behavior. He has been an influence on the most worrying trend in the field of news: The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature, the predictability of two of the leading cable news channels. A majority of cable news viewers now get their news slanted one way or the other by angry men. O'Reilly is not the worst offender. That would be Glenn Beck. Keith Olbermann is gaining ground. Rachel Maddow provides an admirable example for the boys of firm, passionate outrage, and is more effective for nogt shouting.

...

Amen, Roger!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html

[Skyhi]

Pretty much on point. I agree with him that O'Reilly isn't the worst...not even close.

[msmith198025]

I agree that there is some over the top stuff on all of these shows. It is newstainment after all. However, I do think that there is alot there for their respective audiences. There is valididty for their veiwpoints depending on your particular views, even Olberman.
Just take it with a grain of salt.

[Skyhi]

I agree that there is some over the top stuff on all of these shows. It is newstainment after all. However, I do think that there is alot there for their respective audiences. There is valididty for their veiwpoints depending on your particular views, even Olberman.
Just take it with a grain of salt.

No doubt about that. I'm just afraid that there is a large chunk of people who get their "facts" from the likes of Hanity, Limbaugh, & Olberman.

[vurbano]

Roger Ebert knows nothing about what he is talking about. He should stick to reviewing movies. Frankly O'Reilly is one of the fairest out there as proven by his interview of Obama during the campaign. He was soft on him.

[Bear Paws]

Roger Ebert knows nothing about what he is talking about. He should stick to reviewing movies. Frankly O'Reilly is one of the fairest out there as proven by his interview of Obama during the campaign. He was soft on him. As well as O'Reilly's interviews with Hillary and dozens other that brought up his concerns about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society. :rolleyes:
Ebert is just a bitter whiny wishing never was. Siskel carried him for years and He is still lost At The Movies since he got canceled by Disney/ABC. Its interesting that he could donate $1 Million dollars to the University of Illinois so its not the money..

What weight his "expert" opinion carries about the "trend in news" alludes me.. Anyone that watches enough of that much fiction to be a expert reviewer of it strains the credulity factor for reality.. He has a opinion like I do but certainly not news worthy. Its like asking a actor to advise the UN on policy.. Oh... that happens?...Congress too?? Oh...Sigh...

[HDRoberts]

Some of you are missing the point. We isn't talking about politics. He is talking about being a bully. Shouting down those who don't agree with you calling them idiots. Teaching people this is an acceptable method of debate.

He also practices propaganda:


In their analysis, the researchers concluded:

The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin.

What were those "same techniques?" The Indiana team quoted an earlier study:

The seven propaganda devices include:

* Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
* Glittering generalities -- the opposite of name calling;
* Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
* Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
* Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people";
* Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
* Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

These techniques, first listed in the 1930s, paint an uncanny portrait of what you can see and hear any night on the O'Reilly Factor.

Using analysis techniques first developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, [professors] Conway, Grabe and Grieves found that O'Reilly employed six of the seven propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute in his editorials. His editorials also are presented on his Web site and in his newspaper columns.

[cybok0]

Some of you are missing the point. We isn't talking about politics. He is talking about being a bully. Shouting down those who don't agree with you calling them idiots. Teaching people this is an acceptable method of debate.

He also practices propaganda:

But that is what they like, they think IMO that everyone should be a bully.

[msmith198025]

Some of you are missing the point. We isn't talking about politics. He is talking about being a bully. Shouting down those who don't agree with you calling them idiots. Teaching people this is an acceptable method of debate.

He also practices propaganda:

Going by that though, nearly all of the ones we have discussed does the exact same thing.

[msmith198025]

No doubt about that. I'm just afraid that there is a large chunk of people who get their "facts" from the likes of Hanity, Limbaugh, & Olberman.

You are probably correct. They are good for giving a one sided glossed over point of view, but people should really get news from all over to really get the whole story. Things are not always black and white.

[fallout2600]

I could care less what O'Reilly or Ebert thinks....both are actors.

[stevenl]

Going by that though, nearly all of the ones we have discussed does the exact same thing.

That's the point...

But some of you on the right get so bent out of shape when one of your gods bill or rush get talked about in a negative way. At least those of us on the left admit when one of 'ours' is a nut job at times. Like olberman maddow sharpton etc. We admit our faults maybe you guys should to. Or are you guys just so warped you really believe the vcrap rush and bill spew?

[msmith198025]

That's the point...

But some of you on the right get so bent out of shape when one of your gods bill or rush get talked about in a negative way. At least those of us on the left admit when one of 'ours' is a nut job at times. Like olberman maddow sharpton etc. We admit our faults maybe you guys should to. Or are you guys just so warped you really believe the vcrap rush and bill spew?

I agree. I can not speak for others, but I have always been willing to admit when the news heads on either side are wrong, or over the line.

I think more need to do this, but thats just my opinion

[Bear Paws]

I could care less what O'Reilly or Ebert thinks....both are actors. Good point.. Neither should be advising the UN nor Congress. Now that I thoink about it.. The UN and Congress are a bunch of bad actors too, but their decisions effect us.