digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Tell Bill O'Reilly: Stop Pretending to be a Journalist

secure.freepress.net — Rupert Murdoch and his on-air bully Bill O'Reilly launched a laughable attack against the media reform movement, and quality journalism everywhere. Take action!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alienlovesong, on 06/10/2008, -23/+147O'Reilly is not only an illiterate bully, but he's delusional.
    • TheWorm, on 06/11/2008, -7/+15Illiterate is a stretch. The strange thing with O'reilly is that he is a smart guy, who still manages to be incredibly ignorant.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 06/11/2008, -9/+8I dislike O'Reilly as much as the next guy, but seriously, he graduated from Harvard.
      • mrfunktastic, on 06/11/2008, -7/+15Bush graduated from Yale. So, what's your point again?
        • Digger1123, on 06/11/2008, -22/+5The only talking points you libs have are total *****.
        • metaliq, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5Damn, Digger, you don't even know how to argue.
        • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3yale and harvard.
        • Neovos, on 06/11/2008, -1/+8no no no, let me help you. Arguments are met with COUNTER-arguments. Mrfunktastic made the point that where you graduate or don't graduate (in say Bill Gate's case) doesn't determine your intelligence or competency. So the fact that O'Reilly graduated from Harvard doesn't guarantee any type of intelligence or insight. Book smart is different then intelligence, Bush is book smart too but I can argue against his intelligence. O'Reilly claims to be a journalist, and when held to any journalistic standards, falls short on everything. He has the debate skills of a 10 year old and can't eloquently make any point unless he has a script, a rehearsal, and no one on the other side opposing him. At least Jon Stewart regularly says his show is fake news. Thats funny because he's actually closer to the truth then most. News is always served best with a bit of humility.

          So lets try again, how bout a COUNTER argument?
        • datastorageguy, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2And earned better grades than John Kerry.
        • giveer, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1@ Neovos
          "Look, If I ~argue~ with you, I have to take up a contrary position!"
          "Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't'"
          "Yes it is."
          "NO IT ISN'T!"
      • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Thus proving that college educated != intellectually honest.
    • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -23/+3obama is a socialist and will take away your liberties

      http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/09/obama-among-su ...

      that's just for today. check out his limited voting record, the man is a socialist
      • Jawsh91, on 06/11/2008, -2/+9oh noes.

        He believes in equality. Be afraid, very very afraid.
      • metaliq, on 06/11/2008, -2/+10What's wrong with being socialist?
        Iceland, Norway... they've all done it. And they have a much higher standard of living then we do.

        Maybe you should make decisions for yourself before blindly swallowing the idea that socialism is evil. I know Bill told you it is, but really, pick up a ***** book.
        • literider, on 06/11/2008, -3/+0Yea, cause socialism is sooo perfect and the answer to all our woes ( /sarcasm ).

          If you admire those country's government so much, why don't you move there?

          Now I'm just as much in with the next guy who thinks the US government is run by blithering idiots right now, but that doesn't mean the system is broken - just the people who are running (Bush admin).

          Come on dude, socialism sounds good on paper... like a perfect utopia... but where is the ***** incentive to fuel innovation and work hard in a socialist society? By no means is it evil... but holy ***** dude, you really want your government to carry to craddle-to-grave? That sounds absolutely horrible and pathetic.; I hope that's not the case.

          The capitalist, free society the US Founding Fathers envisioned works better than socialism, hands down, any day... but only when there are competent offials running the show (definitely not our current officials).
        • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Nobody implied that.

          What is implied is the truism that no ideal free market exists, and that countries like Norway have struck a good balance between capitalist and socialist sectors.

          In the end, it's a relatively easy balance to obtain. Mind you, you have to drop the idea that any socialism is inherently bad to even think clearly about a basic concept in economics; that market failure requires government correction. For example:
          1) markets with monopolistic tendencies (airlines, software) need constant regulatory reform (regulation / deregulation cycles); when you keep the rules changing, you can't get one company in power over an entire market

          2) markets to provide public goods (telecom, utilities, healthcare) need government involvement to insure delivery regardless of profit margins, and constant revisitation by the government to ensure efficiency (without profit motive, artificial efficiency motive needs to exist)

          3) markets that tend to be deceptive (loans, pharma, etc) require transparency laws to ensure balance of information

          No one's assuming government support cradle to grave - but a government depends on its people to be healthy and successful, so has an interest in helping them out.

          There are two basic fallacies when it comes to government: (1) Systems of governance are black and white; there are no gray areas; (2) The long-term interests of government and the short-term interests of politicians are necessarily aligned.

          If (1) were true, you couldn't get the hybrid systems we have in place today. Personal and corporate welfare couldn't exist (and I agree, they shouldn't exist) in what is, at its essence, free market capitalism. If (2) were true, we wouldn't be having this debate; politicians would have figured out the right balance of economic systems already, as that balance is essential to the long-term interests of a government (health and success of its people). As it stands, politicians are normally out to make money and collect power and influence for their own personal goals.

          So yeah. I don't immediately reject a candidate because one of his reforms seems a bit socialist; there's potentially merit in limited socialism. Mind you, it doesn't work well as a band-aid; it's best used as part of an integrated strategy with market and personal incentives, as well as a set timeline for eventual privatization.
        • metaliq, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2literider-

          The capitalistic free market innately requires there to be poor in order to allow for the rich. With a limit supply of money, it is only fully equal if it is distributed so, and, when people are given the opportunity to have more money (be rich), they take it, thus creating a larger gap between the poor, the middle class, and the rich.

          And, here you will argue that those who are excelling are doing so because of a drive to do so, and that the poor are poor because it is their fault. They should try harder, and it's their fault because they are lazy. This is completely incorrect, especially when one studies this case from a socio-economic standpoint.

          Sure, there is an equality of opportunity if everyone begins with the same tools and in the same situation. As I am sure you have noticed, this is not the case. There are people born into rich families, as well as people born into poor ones. Now you will say that their ancestors should have tried harder, and it is their fault for this situation, just is the case with innate sin from the Christian theology. If we trace this back a bit, we can see that the genealogy of the poor and the rich are continuously poor or rich, aside from a few anomalies, where people have gotten good breaks or so. Great.

          But what is the case of the slaves? A while back, as I am sure you heard, the whites took blacks as slaves, depriving them of any ability to be economically strong. Then the reformation came about and now they are free --- free, but not economically equal. The playing field begin, in their instance, from an unfair advantage: The whites have had money and land since the beginning, and now the blacks are given the opportunity to have theirs. But where will they get it?

          See, the case is not that capitalism is perfect, it's just that people are lazy. It's that neo-liberalism, capitalism, is fine in theory--- everyone gets what they deserve--- but flawed in implementation. Equality is not innate. We are not born into the same situation: I am where I am because I have been fortunate and have noticed places where I could take advantage of the system and move up. It's a game, but we are not taught that: we are taught that poor people are lazy and rich people are hard working. We are told that prescriptively, not descriptively.

          So how do we level the playing ground and help those we have abused? Surely it isn't by keeping the same social structure. Because, by default, our social structure requires the poor in order to allow for the rich. We cannot eliminate poverty under capitalism. This is why socialism, or, in a more realistic perspective, a social democracy (look it up, wikipedia even), offers a glimpse of utopian ideals, regardless of how unachievable they are, they are something to reach towards.
        • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2@mettaliq:
          Of course it doesn't help the case for pure capitalism that money can buy tools for creating wealth. The phrase 'the rich get richer, the poor get poorer' may be a bit played out, but in pure capitalism, there's no way for it to be untrue.

          Add a dash of socialism, and you can consider it to be the gravity that ensures that the towers of cash building up on one side can't reach a certain height without falling.

          What pure capitalists can't seem to understand is that (1) we're all in this together, and (2) gathering wealth is zero-sum. Some concentration is necessary to create large projects such as buildings, airlines, industry, etc - but by overconcentrating wealth, you end up limiting the consumer class' ability to use these great feats of society - kinda defeating the purpose.

          Of course, a lot of people thing that you become wealthy for the sake of being wealthy. That makes me sad.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6Oh no!! Not the scary socialists!!!

        Seriously, what the ***** are you afraid of? You can't have much faith in your vaunted capitalist democratic system if you have to form ***** lynch mobs for every commie that appears on the horizon. Grow a pair.
        • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2In most American minds, Dogma > Reason.

          These things happen. Fortunately, they're a result of McCarthyism, and most of those old enough to be influenced by Cold War politics are dying out.
    • Dylson, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BURN!
    • crsd36, on 06/11/2008, -8/+3The same could be said of Olbermann. Lets /political bias, please?
    • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -5/+2I think you are delusional. Conservatives dominate political thought:

      http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_c ...

      I see 3 liberals here and 17 conservatives in the top 20.
      • vibrate, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3How is that in any way relevant to alienlovesongalienlovesong's point?
      • cheeselord, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Notice the complete lack of Coast to Coast AM on that list. No Art Bell Or George Noory
    • rpgmaker, on 06/11/2008, -6/+4It's funny how on the video on the website they show us the angle from which we can't see how Moyers physically assault the Fox reporter.
      • dinostabOMG, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1You are referring to when he put his hand on his shoulder, I guess? I think technically that's battery - but really, how embarrassing would it be for that pathetic mouse of a man if he were to complain about that? He already had to run off to the corner to lick his wounds; he looked like he was about to cry for a minute there.
    • callinthelaw69, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5Does anybody have footage of Murdoch promising $20/barrel? I'm dying to see it so I have something to show people if they question me...
    • JointVenture, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5Blame Harvards JFK School of Government.

      Im not saying the guy isnt a douchebag, but he makes Olberman look like a colostomy bag. Maybe the real reason Olberman is so jealous is the fact that Orielly actually came close to a pro sports career instead of just talking about it.

      O'Reilly attended Marist College. While at Marist, O'Reilly played punter in the National Club Football Association,[4] and was also a writer for the school's newspaper, The Circle. An honors student, he majored in history. He spent his junior year of college abroad, attending Queen Mary College at the University of London.[5] O'Reilly received his B.A. in History in 1971. He played semi-professional baseball during this time, as a pitcher for the Brooklyn Monarchs. He unsuccessfully tried out for the New York Mets. O'Reilly later earned a master's degree in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University (where he attended school with Howard Stern) and another Master of Public Administration from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    • Goodfeeling32, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Don't mess with O'Reilly, the guy was in the military(no rick) :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObY922U-Ms
    • spankaccount, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Bill O'Reilly ISN'T a journalist and doesn't claim to be one. He hosts an opinion show. Grow the ***** up Digg kids.
      • callinthelaw69, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Hosts an opinion show? The show is labeled the "no-spin zone." Jackass.
  • cbmtrx, on 06/10/2008, -14/+67This adulterous, posturing, self-presuming opinion McHuckster has no business calling the kettle black.
    • Mootabolife, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5After deciphering your sentence, I unflaggingly agree.
    • ADHD, on 06/11/2008, -5/+2I disagree...

      He does have the right to say call you whatever he wants. He has the right to say whatever he wants.

      Just because faux news doesn't report neutral doesn't mean its not free press, it just means that its corrupt...change the channel...

      thats a problem in america I see nowadays, if you dont like what someone says you MUST prove them wrong. O reily is a mental patient, we all know that...its still no less a reason why you must harass him, just take the remote and change the channel
      • Jawsh91, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4Really? You think that people are so opposed to Fox News because they are just trying to prove them wrong? I believe that what people are so opposed to is the fact that there are people who watch Fox News, believing that they are watching unbiased, factual news, and then making their voting decision based on that, affecting the ENTIRE country. Those that are opposed to Fox News, myself included, believe that Fox News is a poison to the minds of the country, we're opposed to the literal brainwashing of the right-wing population, what Fox News is wrong, there is no doubt about it, and no lack of evidence proving this. Your solution of ignorance is bliss is wrong, when there is a problem, you don't ignore it, you take action against it.
      • shaelen, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5cbrtrx didn't say Bill didn't have the "right," he said Bill "has no business," meaning, he has no ground to stand on regarding attacking something he practices himself.
    • skyscape, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Attack on O'reilly is an old attack on conservative free speech.
      It is idiots from NY and LA who are anti-family, have a problem with him.
      The rest of the nation does not represent the opinion of idiots on Digg.
      • stattek, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1^ Hey, look, I found one of the idiots on Digg he was talking about.
      • stattek, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1That was a pretty slick gross generalization there. I have a problem with O'Reilly, and I don't live in NY or LA. Plus, wouldn't you know it, I'm not anti-family (what the hell does that even mean? I've never met anyone that was against families. It doesn't make any sense, I assume everyone here has at least a biological mother and father). Just so you know for the future, pro-choice!=anti-family.
  • purdueAl, on 06/10/2008, -23/+134"fascist", "unstable", "lunatic fringe" - Bill was just describing himself
    • infinitus64, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3and some of the names of my favorite "The Used" songs
      • lolinyerface, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2He reminds me of that douche nozzle talking head from V for Vendetta.
    • skyscape, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1no, he was describing you. It's a shame you didnt get it.
      • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2If you don't agree with Bill, you're a bad American and should move out of the country. That sounds pretty fascist.

        If you disagree with Bill on his program, he cuts your mic and yells at your helpless ass. Sounds unstable.

        Lunatic fringe - well, unfair accusation on either side, but Bill comes a lot closer than Free Press. If he was talking about Greenpeace or Limbaugh, I'd understand, but he wasn't.
  • fredricktoo, on 06/10/2008, -26/+83I think Bill O'Really is a dangerous man and needs to be stopped. And he's fascist.
    • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -8/+26So wait a minute. You're saying that BoR's views should be suppressed, but you're calling HIM a fascist?
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/11/2008, -8/+7Yep, fascism isn't equal opportunity, and since this is nothing close to a truly free democracy or even a functional republic, i can proudly say that O'Reilly should be forcibly kept from talking :D

      • oldhick, on 06/11/2008, -4/+9This is sad... Calling someone a fascist in the same breath as trying to suppress their speech... Only on Digg.
        His have to be protected so that ours can be protected. This country was founded on the idea that even assholes are allowed to speak. It gets harder and harder to be hopeful that our Constitution will ever mean anything again.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/11/2008, -8/+3Its sad because the constitution ALREADY doesn't mean anything, so I'm not gonna pretend O'Reilly should benefit from something I apparently won't be benefiting from anymore.
        • oldhick, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2So rather than fix things, simply ride the wave of self destruction? That seems a bit fatalist. Liberty and freedom are ideals that must be fought for at all costs. We can't give up simply because its easier or it benefits us in the near term.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Nope, i agree, i just think if anyone is going to be silenced in the mean time, it might as well be O'Reilly :D
      • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2PROTIP: Democracy does not have anything to do with individual liberty.

        PROTIP: Just because something can be oppressed does not mean it should be
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3PROTIP: In a true democracy or a functional republic one would assume the people would support their own interests and provide for liberty.....
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2IT is true that they would support their own interests, but their own interest do not necessarily line up with liberty, and that is where tyranny comes from. Their 'own interests' are often something that THEY specifically desire, for example, much of america supports socialized healthcare- however it is directly contradictory to liberty.
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Paying for the fire department is contrary to liberty, according to that logic.
      • thealec, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Stop questioning his intellectual superiority!!!
      • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2they shouldn't be suppressed, they should come with a warning label. Fox Views.
    • EastCoastBlue, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6I don't think his views should be suppressed, but I do have a problem with him distorting the truth, lying, and trying to pass himself off as a legitimate journalist.
  • jeffbw, on 06/10/2008, -23/+72-- "fascist", "unstable", "lunatic fringe" - Bill was just describing himself --

    It's called "projection" - an ability to do which is the most important requirement for being a member of the right wing.
    • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -12/+7Freud is facepalming you right now. I don't see how projection is.... at all related to the 'right wing'. This isn't even an honest use of the term in BoR's situation.
      • shaelen, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7I think jeffbw DID use "projection" correctly, here. He's saying that Bill was projecting the very things he hates about himself onto others to keep the negative spotlight off of himself. jeffbw is also suggesting that the ability to project is the most important requirement for being a member of the right wing.. That's how he's relating projection to them. Whether he's correct or not is a different story.
      • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2Maybe if, for some reason, he (consciously or unconsciously) believes he's a lunatic, unstable, or fascist. I find that incredibly doubtful because the only real reason for calling him such things are, for the most part, differing opinions (which he does not have himself). If there were something more solid (like infidelity, not taking very good care of your kids, or the like) it would be a different story. As for "That's how he's relating projection to them. Whether he's correct or not is a different story.", well no, not really, considering thats my primary complaint.
    • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -9/+4How do we know you're not 'projecting' yourself right now? By your own logic, you are.
    • IntentionalBlog, on 06/11/2008, -9/+0Fascism is a form of socialism. I don't think O'Reilly is a socialist.
      • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4 "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." ~ Benito Mussolini
      • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Actually, while in practice, full socialism often requires fascism, fascism and socialism do not conceptually include one another.

        Capitalism implies that individuals are solely responsible for their own wealth, based on free markets. Great idea, but there are market failures that cause major sustainability issues.

        Socialism implies that the government has the responsibility of maintaining even wealth distribution. Great idea, but corruption and inefficiency tend to bloat the system out terribly.

        Fascism implies that the government holds ultimate authority over the individual. Generally a bad idea, but has its merits in corporate regulation as market failure correction.

        Ultimately, a capitalist / socialist balance is the ideal, with a minor peppering of fascism, but must be continuously and diligently revised in order to prevent abuse of governmental power, bloat of resources, and extreme concentration of wealth.

        It should be noted that we've been failing to do this for a while now. You may disagree with me entirely - but you have to be aware that there are numerous political movements happening right now.

        I'm sure some of you think that it's just that "some people just love to complain about *****." Well, that's true enough - and if it were just PeTA and other groups with frivolous demands, I'd agree. I can't agree, however, that the decided unhappiness of Americans over their treatment by the government is just arbitrary whining.

        Whatever that balance is, be it 90% capitalism, 10% everything else, or 65c-30s-5f (which is around what I guess the sums to be, but distributed on a per case basis over a wide variety of issues), we're not there, and we haven't been there since McCarthy decided unilaterally that anything other than capitalism is devil magic.
  • nokdeez, on 06/10/2008, -11/+23hmmm O'Really, fascism and instability - its the myspace of journalism!
  • choochee, on 06/10/2008, -24/+37Olbermann is the new King of prime time news. This is the reason O'Reilly is whining like a good little fascist.
    • OffPiste, on 06/11/2008, -4/+13Viewer statistics show your opinion to wildly inaccurate.
      • choochee, on 06/11/2008, -9/+6O'Reilly knows his show is starting to buckle under the weight of Olbermann. See link...

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown ...
        • Digger1123, on 06/11/2008, -6/+8Ya, because for the first time in over 7 years O'Reilly was beating, by a mere 5,000 viewers, Olbermann had a full .6% mire viewers. Damn, Bill O is defiantly buckling.
        • notoneofus, on 06/11/2008, -4/+8@Digger1123: I checked your profile to see if you were from a non-English-speaking country, but it turns out that no, you don't have an excuse to mangle the language so badly.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6Did he pass BO, yes or no.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3O'Reilly is worthless, so perhaps large numbers of TV viewers are as well?
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -5/+4O'Reilly is not stupid. He panders to a group of functionally illiterate and intellectually bankrupt chickenhawk viewers. His use of vitriol and hyperbole just shows that he knows his audience will only respond to the lowest common denominator of hatred and blind, rabid nationalism.

          He should go back to Access Hollywood, and stop perpetuating the cult of ignorance, or at least stop politicizing the cult of ignorance. We're better off when the stupid folks focus on celebrities, and not politics.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2I said worthless not stupid :D
        • Infidelcastr0, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1You're asking if Fox News viewers are worthless? No Human being is worthless, even if they are functionally retarded.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1mrsteveman1, I wasn't disputing what you wrote. I thought I was expanding on your comment.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3No i agree :D
    • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -3/+9Ok, this makes you look like an idiot. As far as ratings, the factor has been the number one cable news show on television for years. Fox holds something like the top 8 shows... The fact that you guys make such a big deal about and exaggerate Olbermann passing O'reilly in one age demographic is pathetic.
      • choochee, on 06/11/2008, -6/+3You forget that Olbermann started with barely ANY audience at all. Like a race horse, he has started surpassing O'Reilly in the ratings. This is a good sign. It shows that Fox is starting to become a "has been." Enjoy the downfall, SUCKAH! hahahahahahaha!!!!
        • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3It's not gonna happen because largely, right wingers get their TV news from FOX whereas left wingers ratings are divided my CNN and NBC.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3masterm1nd, the world doesn't consist only of right wingers and left wingers.

          Right wingers watch Fox News. The rest of the political spectrum watches everything else.

          In other words, the other 75% of this country watches the other news outlets. Conservatives, moderate conservatives, conservative libertarians, liberal liberterians, liberals, moderate liberals and left wingers.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3"masterm1nd, the world doesn't consist only of right wingers and left wingers."

          What made you infer that? I said: "largely, right wingers get their TV news from FOX whereas left wingers ratings are divided my CNN and NBC."

          That does not say nor imply all people who watch FOX are right wingers, CNN NBC etcetera, and all americans are right or left wingers?. Honestly PhilLesh, do you just like to waste my time explaining stupid ***** on the internets?
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Since it is a series of tubes, yes, I do ;)
    • MikeFallopian, on 06/11/2008, -6/+5Olbermann and O'Reilly are two sides of the same diseased coin.
    • Chuckyd, on 06/11/2008, -1/+0Olberman is funny but he is the same as O'Reilly with YOUR point of view.
  • lattethunder, on 06/10/2008, -15/+37Lefty Loon, reporting for action.
    • infinitus64, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2"Way left" was created by "Way right" in opposition and the latter are former of the former.
  • CurtisLow101, on 06/10/2008, -15/+34Bill O'Reilly.. What a jerk!
    • infinitus64, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Were going to do it live!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • OptionsTrader, on 06/10/2008, -18/+57***** O'reilly.
  • laudyms, on 06/10/2008, -11/+33He's very well paid ...for a shill. No one really thinks he's a journalist, even those whose emotional wounds and feelings of helplessness make them enjoy his rants. To them I say: try citizenship! get out in your local community and make a difference. You'll find many interesting and likeable people who may not all agree about everything- but they're there to help and they are your neighbors.
    • TheWorm, on 06/11/2008, -1/+10What I always find odd about O'Reilly is how readily he tells people that he makes a lot of money. I rarely listen to his radio show, but on the few occasions that I have, each time he has mentioned how much money he makes.
      • Digger1123, on 06/11/2008, -7/+4Bill O'Reilly even says that he is not a journalist, he is a self proclaimed commentator, and he still managed to put less spin on any given story than any given reporter.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5Less spin?

          Oh, I get it. If you hear "No Spin Zone" often enough, you begin to confuse his vitriol and hyperbole with unbiased reporting.

          Classic propoganda technique -- tell a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.
    • infinitus64, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Motion to have the "he's a journalist" remark stricken from the record.
  • kws7114, on 06/10/2008, -13/+35Bill is in the same bubble as Cheney and Bush. He blithers and conducts himself like a teenager throwing a tantrum. If he does not like what his guest say, he goes to break. That is not a journalism or good entertainment. Billy is a person with a point of view that he doesn't want people too know the truth. Welcome to the "No Spin Zone Billy Boy" cause we are looking out for you! Faux News, where panderers and weasels go for their daily injection of a far-right wing propaganda, I mean news.
    • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -5/+2Not good entertainment? Oh come now. You might not like him yourself, but that doesn't mean alot of people, who might think differently than you do, don't enjoy what he does. He's no different than the other pundits, like Keith Olbermann and the like.
  • alapoet, on 06/10/2008, -15/+29Bill O'Reilly's fuming and ranting because his entire hate-filled worldview is crumbling down around him, and with it his erstwhile "media empire."
  • marabout40, on 06/10/2008, -18/+25We have got to get rid of these right-wing, xenophobic, mysoginistic, racist, dictatorial, terrorist (yes, that's what I said) thugs who we've allowed to hold us hostage to our fears - or their fears - for far too long!
    • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -3/+9How.... in the world.... is he holding you hostage? Is he the host of a state run institution? No- you don't have to watch Fox News. Do what I do, and don't. We should NOT oppress free speech, even if you find him to be disagreeable.
      • PrintScrn12, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4Fear holds hostage, not specifically just a media source (or any form of communication/information). Fear doesn't disappear by a flick of the channel even the program might.
      • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2You mean like the fear that these right-wing, xenophobic, mysoginistic, racist, dictatorial, terrorist thugs will control us? I mean come on, you're sort of appealing to fear too. It's just a method of persuasion, not necessarily bad (so far as persuasion goes).'
    • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2yes, louis farrakhan's secret service is at you and obama's disposal to get rid of us.
    • damnmonkey, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1no way! you said that! how inspirational...
  • rudeboyskunk, on 06/10/2008, -8/+44What's sad is all the people that report on Fox News and CNN and MSNBC still think that they're journalists. They report what the owners of these stations want them to (who are billionaires, by the way). They don't report what they think is news and what the people should hear anymore. They've forgotten why they went to journalism school and started writing stories for the school newspaper in the first place.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -0/+8Ever wonder why all three nightly news programs on the three networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) report the same exact stories each day?

      In Washington DC, CBS and ABC airs at 6:30, and NBC airs at 7:00, so I can watch two of the three broadcasts, and they have always reported the same 6 or 7 stories. I have access to a raw newsfeed at work consisting of just about all wire services (xinhua, reuters, AP, UPI, PR Newswire, Itar-Tass, AFP, and another dozen or so news outlets) and I know that on any given day, there are over 1,000 news articles reporting on an average of 300 distinct news events each day. Yet the networks (and even the cable news channels) seem to all focus on the same half dozen stories.

      Who's scripting their reporting? How can three different news organizations all end up reporting on the exact same 2% of the news?

  • Howiedog, on 06/10/2008, -13/+16A hypocrit just like the rest of the right-wingers: points the finger at someone else for what HE does. Watching O'Reilly is great for dieting ... it automatically activates my gag reflex.
    • OffPiste, on 06/11/2008, -4/+8All right wingers are hypocrites? Really every one of them? Hmmmmm my critical reasoning skill detector reads a Zero point Zero when I point it at your name.
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -6/+3Kudos for skiing out of bounds (if that's what your name means.)

        Not all conservatives are hypocrites, but right wingers are. So are left wingers, but not all liberals.

        Extremists do not think rationally, and they will contradict themselves any time they need to.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4That doesn't even make sense.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -3/+5really? maybe I can speak slowly so it makes sense to you.

          Conservatives are not right wingers. liberals are not left wingers.

          Right wing is the extreme right. Left wing is the extreme left. Being a conservative does not make one a right winger. I'm a conservative. I despise neocon right wing fascism. I'm not even a moderate, so much, unless compared to a right wing nut.

          If that still doesn't make sense to you, perhaps you are on one of the extreme ends of the political spectrum, and just assume that you can only be "either with us or against us".
        • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4I guess I'm just confused how you can classify people, who are not you, into these little groups and then make absolute statements about them like they're all the exactly the same. Maybe you just said it wrong.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4I am not classifying people into those little groups. I didn't invent the terminology that describes the various points along the political continuum.

          Extremists are hypocritical. Again, I am not the one who has made this observation originally, it has been stated for years by political commentators and observers.

          Pro-lifers are against abortion, but support going to war. Regardless of any ideological debate about the merits or war, it is hypocritical to claim to be "pro life" just because you are against abortion, but then to support wars.

          I don't think I said it wrong. I think you are struggling to dismiss what I wrote. You are welcome to dismiss my ideas, that is your prerogative.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2"Extremists are hypocritical. Again, I am not the one who has made this observation originally"

          Ok, first of all your original 'observation', was that ALL extremists are hypocritical. Show me one internet page that ever even remotely links 'extremists' and 'hypocrites', let alone says ALL extremists are hypocrites. Don't even try because you can't do it. You must have been trying to say something else.

          "Pro-lifers are against abortion, but support going to war. Regardless of any ideological debate about the merits or war, it is hypocritical to claim to be "pro life" just because you are against abortion, but then to support wars."

          This just shows you have a different point of view. Maybe the way they see it going to war is to saves more lives than would die not going to war. Think about it, Iraq, Saddam killed so many freaking innocent people. The two choices presented are let Saddam kill people or kill Saddam. No magical 'world peace' option where everyone just chills out. Since the reality is that there is no 'prolife' choice, they are utilitarian and choose to support the choice they feel has the least amount of death or maybe morally justified death. Or maybe compare the moral equivalence of murdering innocent people vs killing the people murdering innocent people.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1"Right wing is the extreme right. Left wing is the extreme left."

          Actually right wing = aligned with the political right/conservative. Left wing = aligned with the political left/liberal. Extreme sides of the political spectrum are reactionary and revolutionary. So, I hate to break it to you, but if you're conservative, you're part of the right-wing in the political world.

          Guess that means it's time for two new parties to emerge to make it easier to sort it all out: Neo Conservative and Progressive Liberal. Although I'd argue that this is exactly what the Democrats and Republicans have morphed into at the hands of their leadership. These two new parties could then be devoted to the people that want to either spare no expense to "avenge the evils of 9/11" and the people that feel the government should spare no expense in playing nanny to the people.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3masterm1nd, I never said "ALL" extremists are hypocritical. However, once you are lumped into the extremist group, there is very little room to be "moderate extremist" or anything like that.

          You try to put words in my mouth. But it doesn't change what I wrote.

          PolishLogic, wings are the extreme end of each side of the political continuum. Being conservative does not make one right wing. Being liberal does not make one left wing.

          right wing+----------------------right--+-middle-+--left+---------------+left wing

          Those two new parties you describe constitute the extreme right and the extreme left, or the right wing and the left wing. Conservatives, true, traditional conservatives are not rabid haters of "islamo-fascists" who believe we need to nuke Iran. True, traditional democrats do not believe we need to create a government that controls every action, thought and behavior of the people. The good conservatives just want a country that is stable enough to conduct business with a reasonably but not oppressive regulatory system, so that they can operate under a system that does not change radically from administration to administration. Good democrats or liberals just want government to control enough of the system in order to not disenfranchise large groups within the population.

          Amazingly, if we could get beyond this "left/right" false dichotomy, the reasonable people on both sides would find that they have a common ground, that all they really want is a fair and stable system where we can all find success with few barriers preventing us from achieving a level of comfort and financial self-sufficiency.
        • Ramble, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Phil do you know anything? Wings are not the extreme sides of the spectrum. Left wing is anything left of centre and right wing is anything right of centre.

          Also being liberal of fascist has nothing to do with left or right wing affiliation.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Phil:

          Again, extreme right = reactionary and extreme left = revolutionary.

          "Being conservative does not make one right wing. Being liberal does not make one left wing."
          Yes it does. If you're not in the middle, you're either on the right side of the spectrum or the left. Apparently you just seem to have a bad psychological reaction to the terms left and right wing. Sorry, can't help you there.

          Here I'll try to diagram it:
          l---------------------Left Wing----------l----------Center---------l--------Right Wing---------------------l
          revolutionary.....left...moderate left....moderate.....moderate right.....right.....reactionary

      • tkstock, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Think of wings of a bird.

        The body of the bird is the moderates.

        The left wing has all the liberals / democrats.

        The right wing has all the conservatives / republicans.

        You can be at various points in the wing, but you're still in the wing.

        The tip of the wings are the extremists. If they get too powerful, they can screw up how the bird flies. Right now, our country is in a left-wing spiral. :)
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1No, think of the political continuum as a line. The middle is the dividing line between left and right. The extreme ends of each side of the line are the wings, and those that fall closer to the middle are not left or right wing.

          The political world does not consist only of moderates, left wing and right wing. It consists of a whole range of political beliefs. The extremes of each side are what constitutes the left or right wing. Being conservative does not make one a right winger. Being liberal does not make one a left winger.

          Left wingers tend to be extremely socialist and support welfare, inheritance taxes, unlimited and unrestricted abortions, and nationalised health care. More moderate liberals might support one or more of those things, but do so in a more rational manner, and are willing to compromise on any or all of those ideas.

          Right wingers tend to be extremely against abortion, to the point where some of them might even support the bombing of abortion clinics. They tend to view all government as bad, and every form of taxation and regulation to be evil and unamerican. They tend to believe that the government should be drowned in a bathtub.

          But that does not define either side, other than the extremists, or the wings of both parties.


          If you really believe that there are only three points on the spectrum, left wing, moderate and right wing, you must be watching way too much Fox News or reading way too much on Thinkprogress.com.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1By the way, tkstock, I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that "right now, our country is in a left-wing spiral".

          The last 7 years have been dominated by a neocon, or right-wing, administration, and up until 2006, a right dominated congress and senate.

          We are in a right-wing spiral, in case you didn't know.
    • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5Anyone else see the irony?
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/11/2008, -5/+6I love all these comments claiming "all right-wingers" ... followed by some insult. Your leftist's rhetoric is SO much more enlightened the intellectual garbage from the likes of O'Reilly.
  • yetiwisdom, on 06/10/2008, -11/+16To everyone who thinks "no one really thinks he's a journalist" - you are, sadly, dead wrong. There are still many Americans that see a NEWS label and think "if it's NEWS, it must be NEWS ... and if they say FAIR AND BALANCED, it must be FAIR AND BALANCED." I pity them in their naivete but you have to admit that there have been powerful fearmongering forces at work since 2001 to whip up support among those that have been convinced that FAUX NEWS is, in fact, NEWS. Do the world a solid - next time you're in a public place with FAUX NEWS on TV, ask to change the channel to ... anything else.
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2Can all you 'intellectual' lefties stop using "FAUX" while you're insulting the stupid red necks (the non-union labor ones anyways)? Faux is pronounced nothing like Fox, so it makes no damn sense. Why not just say FALSE news, it rhymes just as well as FAUX? Or does using another language make you even more of an enlightened elitist? How about Falso News, or Falsch News?
      I'm sure you will not sound like such a smug prick if while bashing those clearly below your intellectual level you don't type FAUX in all capitals.
      Now go back to reading your liberal rag, THE NEW YORK TRAÎTRE!!!!
      • pagno, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Ah, you tricked me. I thought you were making a valid point about the use of "FAUX" when describing Fox(It actually does make sense, saying it like that, but it doesnt need the "emphasis".), but then you go an ruin by being just as smug and prick-like as the liberals youre trying to bash.
      • PrintScrn12, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Faux certainly sounds like Fox, though they are not identical in pronunciation. Perhaps it depends on one's accent. I am not sure how using such a word makes one an enlightened elitist nor smug. It's common English even if it may be a loanword like 'cafe', 'whiskey' or 'music'. Are you suggesting that using words like those makes one an elitist?

        What exactly are you complaining about then? Should people limit their vocabulary to something close to Basic English that aren't loanwords, so someone like you won't feel intimidated? Good luck. Better to just take it easy.
        • twomeyw23334, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Faux is pronounced foe, which doesn't sound like fox.
          I'm not stating anyone who uses faux is an elitist. I use it for instance when talking about a false finish, "faux finish."
          It is elitist, however, to say things like
          "I pity them in their naivete" in reverence to "many Americans" who are clearly below the intellectual level of yetiwisdom while using the word in what would be a clever way were it to pronounced the way its spelled.
          What are you complaining about? Should I make believe people bashing those who don't agree with their political outlook on life and questioning their intelligence in such a smug manner aren't elitists? Or should I change the way words are pronounced (adjust my accent perhaps) to make their insults make sense?
        • PrintScrn12, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1You said "Or does using another language make you even more of an enlightened elitist?" in reference to the term 'faux'. So that is what asking you about. Now you are stating something different.

          As for calling people naive, depending on the context, it does not deem the receiver as generally less intelligent. It may simply be too trusting, inexperienced or positive for a given realm. Certainly some positions held politically can be criticised as naive without having to be criticised as elitist, any more than other types criticism. After all when one holds a position one generally believes his opponents to be wrong in their views and short/misguided in their thinking.
        • twomeyw23334, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0"So that is what asking you about."
          I'm asking what is the point of using the word FAUX. It doesn't rhyme or sound like FOX so I was speculating to the reason. I think it is very clear what I'm asking. What is the damn point of using the word FAUX in the place of FOX? Can you really not understand such a simple question. I pity your naivete.
        • PrintScrn12, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1It sounds similar depending on ones accent, and it looks similar. That is likely why it is more popular than say false news. Anyway false news doesn't have that zing or catch to it. I am not sure how you would apply the term 'naivete' here though. Is the use of a French loanword contrasting with your criticism of loanword use an attempt at irony? Is calling me unsophisticated or inexperienced after calling other's elitist at the tip of a hat the second jab of irony? Or is that just fool's luck?

          Though comments on pronunciation were not all that you were posting. You were also stating "Or does using another language make you even more of an enlightened elitist?". That was what encouraged me to reply.
        • twomeyw23334, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0As I already mentioned, my "or does using another language.." comment was speculation as to the use of the word, as it doesn't sound like fox, except according to you apparently.
          What type of accent makes foe sound like fox? An elitist accent maybe? Or maybe it was used without an understanding of how it is correctly pronounced (most likely) which I find amusing in the context of the original comment.

          My calling you unsophisticated and my using THE NEW YORK TRAÎTRE line in my first comment were just stupid luck. I just realized what a hypocrite I am. I'm sooo stupid! I'm basically just jealous, I want to be able to pity the naivete of people below me. I hope you weren't offended.

          I'm just glad someone on digg is protecting those who are called elitist, after skipping over the "***** O'reilly" "Faux News, where panderers and weasels go... "We have got to get rid of these right-wing, xenophobic, mysoginistic, racist, dictatorial, terrorist (yes, that's what I said) thugs.." (LOL! I like that one) comments. Anyways, I'm sure you have some BS apologetic excuse for everyone of those other comments, but how dare someone refer to an elitist comment as elitist!!!
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3It's funny that people are so susceptible to marketing.

      First off, many people believe that tv ads, and tv news programs are regulated by some government body that prevents them from overstating or misrepresenting a product or an issue.

      Second, they fail to realize that both ads and news are selling something. Someone who is selling you something will only tell you the things they think will get you to buy whatever it is they are selling.

      When they hear "fair and balanced" they believe that some government organization approved that tag line, that they couldn't claim to be fair and balanced unless they actually were. They don't understand that marketing is about selling your weaknesses, not your strengths. You don't need to advertise the things people can easily see as a positive, you advertise your negatives in the best positive light. If you are a biased news outlet, you need to convince people that you are not biased.

      Miller Light's "Tastes Great, Less Filling" ad campaign is a classic example. It doesn't "taste great", it tastes okay if not a little watery. But if you shout "Tastes Great, Less Filling" often enough, people might eventually overlook the facts and buy a six pack and try it themselves. Then, when it tastes marginally okay, they are already primed to believe it is better than it really is.
  • danfive555, on 06/11/2008, -20/+8***** Oreilly with a ten foot pole and Michelle Malkin with a *****-caked roto rooter.
  • chubbybubba, on 06/11/2008, -36/+23Bill O'Reilly is a good man. Keep up the good work! The more hate there is, the more it just proves you're on target.
    • metaliq, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3haha
    • tyleredw, on 06/11/2008, -3/+10That's just nonsense. Even if you agree with his views, I don't see how anyone can possibly agree with the methods of which he displays them. Assume for a minute that Bill O'Reilly has perfectly reasonable views on everything he talks about, and debates with people on his show, and he's still a complete douchebag for screaming at the people he interviews, cutting their mic's, blatently taking clips out of context, lying, etc.

      Bill O'Reilly is NOT, in any sense of the word, a good man.
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3Yes, because as demonstrated here, his detractors clearly have no hate.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4So he's actually trying to propogate hate?

      There certainly is more hate. But why do his viewers want to hate so much?
    • tk0680, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2So terrorists are on target, right? They seem pretty hated.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2I guess by that logic, Hitler's world view was dead on balls accurate then eh?
      • ZeRux, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3By invoking Godwin's Law, your side has lost this discussion and Bill O'Reilly has won. Better luck next time, leftwing losers.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Typical of a Bill O'Reilly fan, to declare himself the victor when he is obviously wrong.

          I'm not sure that Godwin's law makes any assessment of the validity of the comparison to hitler, nor does it postulate that by making that comparison is the discussion "lost".

          You lose for using a fallacious argument.
  • chrissku, on 06/11/2008, -20/+14I bet Bill Oreilly thinks everyday about how much he wishes digg never existed. Too bad it does, and we're not going anywhere Billy boy.
    • R0am3r, on 06/11/2008, -5/+10"we're not going anywhere"... Sheeple alert.
    • Digger1123, on 06/11/2008, -4/+13I doubt he really cares that a few thousand stoners that live in their parents basement hate him. If I were him I would actually laugh at people like you who think you affect him.
    • damnmonkey, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5oreilly doesnt know about digg nor should he care. digg's significance in his life is appropriate whereas its significance in yours is concerning.
    • ZeRux, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2I think that he has far more important things in life to think about than what people on some far-left website are saying about him.
  • ybfree, on 06/11/2008, -13/+15I pray for the day Americans have the right to a la carte cable. FOX News will be the first station to go!
    • Digger1123, on 06/11/2008, -7/+5hence FOX News getting the best ratings consistently. NBC will be the first to go and CNN will follow.
    • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -1/+217 out of the top 20 say you are and liberalism are the one's in the minority:

      http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_c ...
      • jhelmer, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2Oh boo fricken hoo... The right owns talk radio, Fox news, and the Wall Street Journal.

        Pretty much everything else is left leaning (MSNBC, CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, Daily Show, New York Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Rolling stone, etc... In addition, entertainment TV and movies are just filled with left wing messages.) The complaints about right wing talk radio are more than a little silly.

        (And, no. I'm not some right wing radio junkie. I don't even like talk radio. The only radio I listen to is Adam Carolla in the morning followed by books on tape or downloaded music for the remainder of the day).
    • MikeHawwk, on 06/11/2008, -3/+0LMFAO!!!! Check out the ratings sometime, moron.
    • kickelephant, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I love to hate Fox News. Thats why I watch it (the Howard Stern effect). I wonder how many viewers are liberal.
  • hardom, on 06/11/2008, -13/+16God Bless these people. Take down O'Riley, for years hes been degrading the quality of the word 'News'
  • Soulprint, on 06/11/2008, -14/+41***** IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
  • XedLos, on 06/11/2008, -16/+13***** Bill O'Reilly
  • PolishLogic, on 06/11/2008, -5/+19Sadly, there is very little journalism left, if any in today's news channels. Yes, I'm referring to Olbermann too when I say that.

    (although that will lead to a bury-fest for this comment)
    • EllenO, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Very true.
    • tk0680, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Today's AMERICAN news channels. Seriously, watch the BBC some time. It's not perfectly neutral but American news is absolutely hilarious by comparison.
      • Ramble, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1BBC television news isn't all that much to shout about. Try listening to BBC Radio 4 news or the world service, probably the best news in the world.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I do watch BBC on occasion. Although, that's few and far between, as it my "watching" of the news in general. I prefer reading the news as opposed to 10-second clips appearing over a scroll bar and intro'd by wacky swooshing noises.

        Between Google and a wire service like Reuters, my needs are met much better than via the TV.
  • rentmitchum, on 06/11/2008, -16/+11***** O'Reilly sucks. He can ***** it live for all I care.
  • callingshots, on 06/11/2008, -13/+14ugh O'Reilly's comments made me sick. What a dirtbag... he really is delusional. Let's just spout names at one of the best movements in recent memory
  • rentgrrl99, on 06/11/2008, -12/+8He just can't handle that we can DO IT LIVE!!!!!
  • bry0000000, on 06/11/2008, -13/+12Wait... he still thinks he's a journalist?
  • SgtCedar, on 06/11/2008, -16/+19Bill Moyers shows what a real journalist looks and sound like. Bill O' is nothing but a punk and a joke. Long live Bill Moyers.
    • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4Lol, because looks and sound are the most important qualities of a "real journalist".
      • why3th, on 06/11/2008, -1/+0He didn't mean the quality of his voice, but the words he speek.
  • Kalior, on 06/11/2008, -8/+11I didn't even know he was considered a journalist
    Journalists report the facts (presumably), Bill O'Reilly distorts them for a living
    • tk0680, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Yep, he's essentially a PR man for the right wing. Unfortunately, a pretty successful one.
  • shekissesfrogs, on 06/11/2008, -11/+7Robert Murdock is also buying up Television companies in 3rd world countries.
  • whatthefu, on 06/11/2008, -5/+22All pundits need to stop pretending to be journalists. Diggers think it's fine when Keith Olbermann says 'good night and good luck," but how is he not as biased as Bill O'Reilly, just with a different slant? I don't understand why people are so quick to defend pundits. They blow.
    • Digger1123, on 06/11/2008, -8/+8Lefties hate those that don't agree with them. If you have read more than 3 comments on digg, you should know this.
      • whatthefu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+8I'm not a conservative or a "lefty" for the most part, and even then it's irrelevant. It is hypocritical to loathe Bill O'Reilly for being a "propagandist" and "not a true journalist" but love Keith Olbermann for being "the only one in the media who speaks the truth." They are two sides of the same coin.
      • EllenO, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3agree with all three of you.
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5I like how people who equate Olbermann to O'Reilly seem to not be able to distinguish commentary based on fact, research and quotes v.s. commentary based on being a terrorist appeasing douchebag.

      I hate the fact that O'Reilly doesn't realize that the stupid things he says gets American soldiers killed everday. People like him *are* the enemy.
    • Ramble, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I agree. I'm left wing (more left wing than American left wingers anyway). And I dislike bias of any kind.
  • OffPiste, on 06/11/2008, -5/+24Neither Oreally nor Fauxberman are journalists, they're commentators.

    Neither one of them is fair or balanced. That's why they appeal to their audience.
    • nastronomical, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3Like Cnn, abc and msnbc?
    • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -1/+9*points to Olbermann's giant "Fair and Balanced" logo*

      Wait, where is it? You mean he isn't claiming to be the embodiment of impartiality like O'Reilly is?
      • plhearn, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1I don't see a giant "Fair and Balanced" logo on Bill's show either. The lackies on Fox usually only use that slogan on their news reporting anyway. O'Reilly's show is supposed to be an opinion piece. Just like Olberman.
        • why3th, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3No Spin zone. I always found the irony in that statement.
        • plhearn, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Yea. I gotta give you that one.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4@nastronomical
      Get ready for something mind-blowing: I'm going to agree with you for once. I'm well aware that those stations have a liberal bias. You know it, and I know it. The issue I have with Fox specifically is that they are obviously biased toward the right yet the slogan of the channel itself purports that no such bias exists.
  • leonidas333, on 06/11/2008, -8/+2WHAT THE HELL!!!
    Why is it any video with John McDick taken down as soon as they are put up??
    Any one got a mirror
  • unpolloloco, on 06/11/2008, -0/+11Do any TV news outlets have anything to do with journalism?
    • TheLoneHoot, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Yes, "Democracy Now!", with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.
    • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3check out pbs. now and frontline are great examples of quality journalism.
  • imakeholesinu, on 06/11/2008, -9/+4Digg this to see Bill fall on his face once he leaves the comforts of Faux News studios.
  • dtaylor379, on 06/11/2008, -10/+10Idiots - He does not claibm to be a journalist. Have you ever seen his show?
    • EastCoastBlue, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3From billoreilly.com:
      "Four-time #1 bestselling author and veteran television news journalist Bill O'Reilly has more than 5 million copies of his books in print to date!"
      Notice the use of the word journalist.
      • EllenO, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1On his show he says he's a commentator of sorts. He acknowledges plenty of times that his show is to express HIS opinion and he usually says something to that effect when talking to someone. It's usually like : "Now this is my viewpoint and I may be wrong but..........what do you think?"
  • UsedToVacation, on 06/11/2008, -6/+0Don't ***** ruin Hot Chip dammit.
  • ericdano, on 06/11/2008, -10/+8Ogermann needs to be told this as well. I think Bill O balances out Ogermann quite well......
  • nastronomical, on 06/11/2008, -11/+5You may want to also tell every OTHER REPORTER THAT AS WELL....DOUCHE!
  • nastronomical, on 06/11/2008, -18/+15You know you are telling the truth when the weak, cowardly, effeminate, beta-males of Digg are riled up. Keep up the good work Bill!!
    • oldhick, on 06/11/2008, -3/+8I'd love to meet you face to face and see what a strong, brave, masculine, alpha-male looks likes then...
      If you're so brave, bring something to the table. Toss up an idea to be debated. Provide some supporting facts and make an argument. Your tough guy routine is laughable if not embarrassing. This is the Internet in case you forgot, we're all tough guys on the Internet.
      You speak of words and know not their meaning. Weak, cowardly, effeminate, and beta-males certainly exist. The funny thing is that someone who was truly strong, brave, masculine, and an alpha-male wouldn't need to insult and diminish someone weaker than them. They would establish their strength and dominance by example, not wasting time to hurl insults and demean those around them.
      Passion is important and its abundantly clear that you are passionate. Use that passion to develop a fierce intellect. Use your passion to express ideas and debate ideas with facts and research, not hurl insults. Your strength should enable you to deal with those that you consider weaker and unworthy. For only someone who is weak would shy away from some discussion preferring instead to attack with worthless and meaningless insults.
      Insults won't change the world. But the exchange of ideas can reach people. Open debate can help us all learn from each other.
      • swrostmore, on 06/11/2008, -5/+6Debates and ideas are for effiminite liberals, real Men argue with their gut.
        • oldhick, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Ha! Now I'm guessing the swrostmore forgot the /s.
    • metaliq, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6You know you spotted an O'Reilly lemming when they use a lot of adjectives to insult their opposition.

      And good work? I am glad you support the person that is lying to you through their teeth. I am glad you support other people's agendas so blindly.

      Hell, it seems like you support Bush.
    • Juice7, on 06/11/2008, -5/+4You know there are a bunch of O'Reilly trolls patrolling these comments when "keep up the good work Bill" has +5 Diggs.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3Do not feed the troll - check his comment history.
      And by the way, for a guy who denigrates folks on Digg, he sure spends a lot of time here.

      The pattern of digg-downs in this thread is very telling - early on virtually all the anti-Orally comments are dugg down about 3 or 4 times each... gee, it's almost as if the regular as clockwork right wing trolls have an alert network set up.

      If they're so devoted to the right wing agenda, why do they spend so much time here? Clearly nobody takes them seriously, and their comments are obvious troll work EVERY TIME. If I were in there shoes, I'd consider my time here a complete waste. Do they think they have a chance at all of swaying the opinion of those of us who think for ourselves? Their hive mind mentality is at once pitiful and frightening.
      • ZeRux, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1I would ask you to explain how could having different political opinions than your own be called "trolling", or where in digg's terms of service is stated that right-wingers shouldn't participate in discussions here. But you can't explain that since you're a self-righteous crook who lives in a self-righteous world where everybody who disagress with you is marked as "evil" and targeted for extinction. All you can do is to digg me down without arguments, so enjoy all the little fun you can.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1"Trolling", since you don't seem to understand the concept, is making comments designed specifically to elicit outrage and passioned emotional replies. That is what I, and pretty much the rest of the world, refer to as "trolling" I invite you to view my comment history and note the multitude of comment/response transactions that cross political bounds with no mention of trolling at all. I only use the term where it applies, as I have here.

          Next: "...since you're a self-righteous crook..."
          "Crook"?!?!?!??!!!! where did THAT come from? Please explain your choice of that term. It typically is used to describe someone guilty of illegal acts (presumably from the word "crooked"). I don't recall my legal record entering this thread at any time.

          Then there's this gem: "...everybody who disagress with you is marked as "evil" and targeted for extinction."
          WTF?! Are you on the crack? Are you smoking the drugs? Does the doctor know you're not in your room?

          And finally: "All you can do is to digg me down without arguments..."
          Um, you're (apparently) responding to my argument, dumbass.

          Jeebus
    • ZeRux, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Well put Sir!
  • ewagnerjr2000, on 06/11/2008, -8/+8media reform? We live in a capitalist society. Foxnews is there because people watch, and they drive business. If you don't like it quit watching it. Media reform one more step to state media.
    • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5there is no such thing as capitalist truth or information. for entertainment, it's fine. but we have a situation where 6 corporations control the vast majority of the information that people receive.
      • Orwell007, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Perhaps you tell us knuckle draggers which Marxists state owned and controlled media provides fair and balanced news?
  • dadadigg, on 06/11/2008, -9/+17What am I reading here?...the comments of junior-high grads?!

    Out of 61 comments to this story thus far, ONLY ONE of you SORRY S.O.B.'s had enough brainpower to recognize the one simple truth about Bill O'Reilly:

    His role on Fox News is a COMMENTATOR, NOT A JOURNALIST. If you all can't tell the difference, then truly, there is no hope for the United States. WE'RE DONE. Imagine---the one People on this planet with the most opportunity at their fingertips, and they choose to be IDIOTS.

    The only thing anyone can do is laugh. You people are beyond words.
    • mattboyslim, on 06/11/2008, -5/+6I generally never comment on Digg, but you sir, have quite possibly just posted the only comment I haven't just shaken my head at. I literally had to read it twice to convince myself you weren't one of the crazy leftist Digg kids who simply had a moment of clarity.

      Thanks.
    • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5he presents his views as news. most people can't tell the difference. maybe there should be separate news channels and views channels.
    • babyimreal, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Even though he is a "commentator" there still needs to be some objectivity there.

      I can't wait to buy an island, a yatch, and ship off with my friends into nothingness. Possibly an artic wilderness if the other option is too fund consuming.

      Have your escape plan ready folks....
    • starkruzr, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4He calls his program a "newscast." He presents himself as news.
    • tk0680, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Using the phrase "sorry S.O.Bs" pretty much nullifies the credibility of anything else in the post. I have a fixed image of a fat guy with a shotgun, thanks to that.
    • why3th, on 06/11/2008, -1/+0CAPS IS COOL.
      And while he may not be a journalist or an unbiased source of information (along with the other news networks), O'Reilly and his "No Spin Zone" on the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News network tries to pass it off as such.
  • miketh01, on 06/11/2008, -9/+5Bill O'Reilly is the best man (idiot) in news media. His points are well thought out (*****) and everything he says (lies) is honest and upstanding. My only wish is that we could all learn to (ignore) appreciate him for the great (stupid) guy he is..
  • kd1s, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4I would have liked it more if I could have edited the message since I wanted to call O'Reilly a bully.
  • munen123, on 06/11/2008, -7/+3bill odumass is a big pile of stinky *****
  • eker, on 06/11/2008, -3/+8Not that I disagree with this (although I'm not sure Bill-O even calls himself a journalist anymore), but the article turns around and uses Keith Olbermann as some sort of journalistic saint!? I think anyone with a hint of an objectivity could realize that him and O'Reilly are 2 sides of the same coin. They're both demagogues.

    More substance, less speculation/partisan ranting. More Tim Russert, less Olbermann/O'Reilly.
    • EllenO, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Even though I watch both of them to get traditionalist and progressive views about something, I agree with you.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2"traditionalist"?!
        "progressive"?!

        you're stuck in a two-page paradigm, I'm afraid.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3Olbermann is certainly biased. There's no denying that. There's also nothing wrong with having a bias if you temper it with honest facts. Still, we expect our journalists to at least be more professional than some of Olbermann's clownish segments, such as "Worst Person in the World" (although, I often agree with his choices in that category).

      Nonetheless, sophomoric and biased as Keith Olbermann may be, he is head and shoulders above Bill O'Reilly in his writing, speaking, interacting with guests, and (above all else) the one area in which O'Reilly consistently fails: FACT CHECKING.

      Bias is fine if you report facts, are honest with your audience, and are willing to acknowledge alternative viewpoints without sinking to the level of O'Reilly's "lunatics", and "crazy" labels.

      Give me Amy Goodman, Jeremy Skahill, Juan Gonzalez, Bill Moyers, and Robert Fisk
  • BannedTwice, on 06/11/2008, -14/+9he's a million times a better "reporter" then those ***** ***** who post "Breaking....." news articles on digg, that won't on the front page for hours or days. Plus it's always the obamatard fags who do it. ***** buried. Been a busy night burying this *****.
    • ciaran036, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't know where to start with you.
      • herbertstrasse, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0how about "won't on the front page"? I'm still struggling to decipher that one.
    • why3th, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Epic post. Bad epic, but epic nonetheless.
    • ryan3364, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2finally another normal person on digg. digg is going to far to the left. not fair and balanced here
      • ciaran036, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1That's a ridiculous thing to say. If digg is going left, it's because there's more lefties than righties. If your a righty digg some righty articles then!

      • tatis44, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1I guess you don't like things control by people (I feel really bad for you slave of propaganda)...
        and Obama is not left, I think you might like him later on he is an other right winger like you!
        • ryan3364, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1by the people. Are u crazy the Democrats want more government control not less.
  • NHeerDesign, on 06/11/2008, -6/+3Their form is broken for Canadians. They let us put in province, but our postal code is rejected.

    Anyway, screw Bill O'Reilly. Up the ass.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.