Catch O'Reilly's talking points memo

[Wake]

His ratings will go up after that speech.

If you mean the one last night, I was watching it and was startled by how well he delivered his message. Very intense and to the point. One reason why Bill O'Reilly is #1.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

His ratings will go up after that speech.

If you mean the one last night, I was watching it and was startled by how well he delivered his message. Very intense and to the point. One reason why Bill O'Reilly is #1.

His passion is what took me by surprise. He's clearly tired of the political game being played.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

O'Reilly nailed it.

 

[OKTexas]

Bullshit. You and I have not discussed race so how the fuck am I demonizing you for your position on it? All you've done is obfuscate and posted off topic bullshit.

Negged

You are such a pussy. How about you use the reputation system like a grown up?

I was referring to the comment you said about the left not wanting a discussion. Not about our conversation.

unless the discussion begins with a list of grievances against white people both past and present and ends with it's whitey's fault what are you going to do about it , it's racist.

Obama and Holder called for a conversation, now they are getting one. Be careful what you ask for.

PS

Obama sure as hell did not speak out on Paula Deen's behalf now did he?

The race profiteers have no interest in a conversation, and I include Maobama and Holder in that group. In a real conversation issue have to be discussed and not demagogued, should that happen real solutions might actually happen and that would cost them everything. Division is the only way they survive.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

A blinding glimpse of the obvious...

 

[LogikAndReazon]

These good folk need themselves some unbiased objective news like cnn, pbs, npr and the network newscasts...lol

 

[Vox]

Here is another fun fact. MSNBC is honest about its bias. Fox News flat out lies about its bias:

"Lean Forward"

"Fair and Balanced News"

except that study by study showed that Fox news is actually the LEAST biased news outlet
first it was UCLA:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Then Harvard:
THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY?INVISIBLE NO LONGER: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)
Study Finds Democrats Given Preferential Treatment by the MSM | NewsBusters
and finally PEW:
Winning the Media Campaign 2012 | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

In writing about the Pew study released today, I was struck by the big story of how negative coverage on several levels of presidential politics had become.

I think this is big trouble for democracy, especially the hostile level of discourse in social media. And that it's something the media need to address collectively after the election.

But here's one of several fascinating smaller findings of the study that are kind of stunning -- even if they seem obvious and ho-hum to some of my more jaded, postmodern, aren't-we-cleverly-ironic colleagues:

ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.

That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin's title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propaganist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.

I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC.

The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6.

Read more: MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study - baltimoresun.com





MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study - baltimoresun.com

 

[RandallFlagg]

There never has been, and there will never be a frank "discussion" on race in America. No one (white, black or Hispanic) wants to hear the truth. No one. Back in the 70s when I was a young Warrant Officer in the Army, we all had to attend "race relations" class on Post. After about 3 weeks they cancelled the classes. Inevitably, they ended up in fist fights.

Race in America has always been a huge "profit maker" for blacks AND whites. Anytime you can keep one group of people "afraid" of another group of people, there is a cottage industry of profit waiting to be made. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson learned how to profit from it years ago. They are two of the most evil men on the planet today.

Whites have profited in a more "non-descript" way with gated communities and college classes designed by liberal, communist professors who claim to "educate" about black and white relations when, in truth, most have never spent a night in the "hood" yet claim to "know it".

The reality of it is fairly straightforward. Hate is hate no matter how you "brand" it. It has always been with us and it will always be with us. Beating your liberal chest and gnashing your conservative teeth will NOT stop human behavior.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

How could blacks lose by following gifted scholars like reverends jackson and sharpton...embarrassing

 

[BobPlumb]

You call BO hateful and divisive and inflammatory. I say he is angry but passionate. Why is he angry? The root cause -- the break down of the family -- is not being addressed. And usually when some not black says what BO said he is branded a racist, while if a black man says it he is branded an uncle tom.

What I am saying is that it does no good for O'Riley to identify the problem as such. The people that can and must solve the problem don't give two shits about him. They think he is a corporate shill and a schmuck. And they are right. He has no experience and no credential in this area, no platform to speak from. THEY DON'T CARE WHAT HE SAYS. And they are the ones that must solve this. How do you convince the president to speak this way? By getting his allies to say these things. Dr. Cosby is one of his allies. Mr. O'Riley? Not so much.

Sure, you may say that Dr. Cosby is an "Uncle Tom," but let's be candid, and call a spade a spade, that's just sour grapes. Dr. Cosby even addressed such criticisms. You can grouse all you want about such things, but that still doesn't address the decay and lack of accountability for what they have done to themselves.

I'm not calling BC an Uncle Tom.

Are you saying that white people like BO don't have a right to be part of the so called conversation about race?

 

[Billy000]

Bullshit. You and I have not discussed race so how the fuck am I demonizing you for your position on it? All you've done is obfuscate and posted off topic bullshit.

Negged

You are such a pussy. How about you use the reputation system like a grown up?

I was referring to the comment you said about the left not wanting a discussion. Not about our conversation.

What is your opinion on what Bill said? What specific do you disagree with him on?

Give me a link to the clip itself. Not a full episode clip. A transcript of what he said. I will be happy to give my opinion on what he said.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I accidently caught part of Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC.

Of course he was ranting, along with his guest, how O'Reilly and Whites in general can't speak to black crime because they aren't black.

Sould Familar?

 

[Billy000]

Here is another fun fact. MSNBC is honest about its bias. Fox News flat out lies about its bias:

"Lean Forward"

"Fair and Balanced News"

except that study by study showed that Fox news is actually the LEAST biased news outlet
first it was UCLA:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Then Harvard:
THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY?INVISIBLE NO LONGER: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)
Study Finds Democrats Given Preferential Treatment by the MSM | NewsBusters
and finally PEW:
Winning the Media Campaign 2012 | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

In writing about the Pew study released today, I was struck by the big story of how negative coverage on several levels of presidential politics had become.

I think this is big trouble for democracy, especially the hostile level of discourse in social media. And that it's something the media need to address collectively after the election.

But here's one of several fascinating smaller findings of the study that are kind of stunning -- even if they seem obvious and ho-hum to some of my more jaded, postmodern, aren't-we-cleverly-ironic colleagues:

ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.

That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin's title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propaganist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.

I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC.

The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6.

Read more: MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study - baltimoresun.



[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-pew-study-suggests-msnbc-really-is-more-partisan-than-fox-20121102,0,7266571.story]MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study - baltimoresun.com

It's interesting, but it is hardly representive of Fox News overall bias.

 

[blackhawk]

The lefties who have responded here seem more interested in attacking the messenger or the network of the messenger then actually talking about the content of the message not surprised and so much for a frank discussion about race in America.

 

[dilloduck]

I accidently caught part of Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC.

Of course he was ranting, along with his guest, how O'Reilly and Whites in general can't speak to black crime because they aren't black.

Sould Familar?

Oh God yes----You can't speak about abortion unless you have a vagina......bla bla bla.
If a white person were stupid enough to enter into this "conversation" he had better be prepared to listen because he does not have the credentials to speak.

 

[deltex1]

Krauthammer was just on O'Reilly...saying we need policy changes not conversations. He also said cultural change will take generations. Everyone has a different take on the way forward. My input would be that policy changes begin with conversations...lets get on with it...for generations.

 

[Yurt]

how is it the left is all over zimmerman for supposedly being racist....yet they say absolutely nothing about CREEPY ASS CRACKER?

 

[Big Black Dog]

I was watching O'Reilly's show last night and heard the talking points. Didn't hear him say anything that wasn't true and not a good idea. He hit the nail right on the head.

 

[blackhawk]

I posted the following on this thread last night.

I'm sure the far left will have it taken out of context and be calling him racist by this time tomorrow.

I just flicked over to MSDNC and the latest host they have in this slot who O'Reilly crushes in the ratings was trashing him and the talking points I called that one granted it's like saying the sun will rise in the morning .

 

[Vox]

Here is another fun fact. MSNBC is honest about its bias. Fox News flat out lies about its bias:

"Lean Forward"

"Fair and Balanced News"

except that study by study showed that Fox news is actually the LEAST biased news outlet
first it was UCLA:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Then Harvard:
THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY?INVISIBLE NO LONGER: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)
Study Finds Democrats Given Preferential Treatment by the MSM | NewsBusters
and finally PEW:
Winning the Media Campaign 2012 | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

In writing about the Pew study released today, I was struck by the big story of how negative coverage on several levels of presidential politics had become.

I think this is big trouble for democracy, especially the hostile level of discourse in social media. And that it's something the media need to address collectively after the election.

But here's one of several fascinating smaller findings of the study that are kind of stunning -- even if they seem obvious and ho-hum to some of my more jaded, postmodern, aren't-we-cleverly-ironic colleagues:

ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.

That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin's title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propaganist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.

I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC.

The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6.

Read more: MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study - baltimoresun.



[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-pew-study-suggests-msnbc-really-is-more-partisan-than-fox-20121102,0,7266571.story]MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study - baltimoresun.com

It's interesting, but it is hardly representive of Fox News overall bias.

"oh, yeah, the snow is white, but for me its red"