Bill O'Rilley the partisan hack

PeteEU · 07-30-08, 01:25 PM

Report on media bias that found a John McCain slant sparks fierce debate | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Got to love this

2 years ago he totally agreed with the CPMA as they "proved" there was a liberal bias in the media. He is quoted as calling the head of the CPMA as the "truthteller".

Now that the same organisation has come out with a new study, using the same methodology but this time showing the total opposite, O'Rilley has decided that the CPMA are hacks and partisan and their study is flawed.

Talk about a flip flop for partisan political reasons lol.

Original study link below.

Barack Obama’s lead over Hillary Clinton in the race for good press is shrinking but still substantial, according to a new study of the broadcast network evening newscasts by the Center for Media and Public Affairs

Lightdemon · 07-30-08, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Report on media bias that found a John McCain slant sparks fierce debate | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Got to love this

2 years ago he totally agreed with the CPMA as they "proved" there was a liberal bias in the media. He is quoted as calling the head of the CPMA as the "truthteller".

Now that the same organisation has come out with a new study, using the same methodology but this time showing the total opposite, O'Rilley has decided that the CPMA are hacks and partisan and their study is flawed.

Talk about a flip flop for partisan political reasons lol.

Original study link below.

Barack Obama’s lead over Hillary Clinton in the race for good press is shrinking but still substantial, according to a new study of the broadcast network evening newscasts by the Center for Media and Public Affairs

Sounds like a certain "poll-fanatic" that we all know and love.

jallman · 07-30-08, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Report on media bias that found a John McCain slant sparks fierce debate | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Got to love this

2 years ago he totally agreed with the CPMA as they "proved" there was a liberal bias in the media. He is quoted as calling the head of the CPMA as the "truthteller".

Now that the same organisation has come out with a new study, using the same methodology but this time showing the total opposite, O'Rilley has decided that the CPMA are hacks and partisan and their study is flawed.

Uh...where in that article did you find O'Reilly state that CPMA was now "hack and partisan"?

All he said was that this particular study was "misleading and an enormous mistake" based on some specific complaints he had.

Here's an idea...next time, instead of making your point from a steaming pile of horse ****, why don't you just try to stick to the facts...hard as that is for you.

Middleground · 07-30-08, 01:48 PM

I don't even need to read the article to know that O'Reilly is a partisan hack. All I have to do is tune in and figure it out for myself.

PeteEU · 07-30-08, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Uh...where in that article did you find O'Reilly state that CPMA was now "hack and partisan"?

All he said was that this particular study was "misleading and an enormous mistake" based on some specific complaints he had.

Here's an idea...next time, instead of making your point from a steaming pile of horse ****, why don't you just try to stick to the facts...hard as that is for you.

Okay I admit he did not say "hack and partisan". My bad, but it does not change the facts of the way he has handled this study.

He did attack the study, on the basis that it was flawed based on wrong methodology.. the same methodology he raved about 2 years ago. He had some complaints about certain "questions" the CPMA classified as "negative" towards Obama, and he even gave examples of his issues.. and they were negative leaning towards Obama, but his thick partisan head could not see that.

So as soon as it did not agree with his world view, then he turned on the CPMA and the study. That is what I find funny, and yes that makes him a partisan hack on top of his usual racist homophobic sexist attitude.

jallman · 07-30-08, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Okay I admit he did not say "hack and partisan". My bad, but it does not change the facts of the way he has handled this study.

He did attack the study, on the basis that it was flawed based on wrong methodology.. the same methodology he raved about 2 years ago. He had some complaints about certain "questions" the CPMA classified as "negative" towards Obama, and he even gave examples of his issues.. and they were negative leaning towards Obama, but his thick partisan head could not see that.

So as soon as it did not agree with his world view, then he turned on the CPMA and the study. That is what I find funny, and yes that makes him a partisan hack on top of his usual racist homophobic sexist attitude.

Do you know that it is the exact same methodology or are you just making that assumption so that this issue fits within your view of O'Reilly? What I am seeing is a legitimate gripe about particular questions that were somewhat misleading. I don't find see him railing against the CPMA as a whole, just this particular study.

Psst...in America, we question things all the time. Even studies and especially studies that contradict previous studies.

Zyphlin · 07-30-08, 06:59 PM

I'm not seeing hte issue here PeteEU.

Pollsters can use different methodology to come to different conclussions on different polls.

O'Reily, who most definitely is a good bit partisan, seemed to have issue with what was being considered negative here and that the way the poll was being spun. Primarily, going back to your statements in other threads about "not telling the whole story", news outlets saying that Obama gets the most negative attention...while leaving out that this is a recent swing when before he got a fair bit of media attention, and also that McCain still gets a large portion of negative attention as well.

Not to mention its not the "Exact opposite". The first poll was regarding over all media bias, while the second poll was regarding negative or positive reaction to specific candidates.

Once again, a classic example of a poster over exaggerating the issue to try to make his point, which while doing so causes his point to be washed out and hollow. If you would've just said that Bill O showed some partisanship and inconsistency by critizing the poll by a guy who he previously applauded for his polls, that'd be one thing. But you didn't, you had to score your political points by providing inaccuracies like the "Hack and partisan" comment or stating that it showed "the total opposite" from the earlier poll about all media bias, and thus made your arguement hollow.

Sadly partisans, be them in politics or not, have a habit of spinning things to an over the top, over blown, extreme instead of just providing with legitimate facts.

Kernel Sanders · 07-30-08, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Do you know that it is the exact same methodology or are you just making that assumption so that this issue fits within your view of O'Reilly? What I am seeing is a legitimate gripe about particular questions that were somewhat misleading. I don't find see him railing against the CPMA as a whole, just this particular study.

It's the same study by the same people, and the author himself states that it hasn't changed

Quote:

LICHTER: Well, I think the answer to that is: You can take all my studies or none of my studies. If you use a study, then you admit that the study is valid, and so if you say Obama’s getting bad press, we can quote this study. The same study, the same technique showed he was getting very good press before. And we’re going to be doing this all the way up to the election.

Source [ Think Progress]

The only thing that has changed is O'Reilly's position, because the study no longer agrees with his stance. Do you really think the study has changed to become invalid, or are you just making that assumption so that this issue fits within your view of O'Reilly?

Quote:

Psst...in America, we question things all the time. Even studies and especially studies that contradict previous studies.

It is not contradictory - it simply reflects a change in the media's coverage, which will surely change more between now and November.

Captain America · 07-30-08, 07:10 PM

No matter WHAT comes out of O'Reilly's mouth, you can count on it being bull****. He's worse than a crackhead.

No story here. Move along people.

Singularity · 07-30-08, 08:13 PM

As a slightly liberal person, I see Bill O'Reilly more as an Independent. Yes he is a traditionalist and leans to the right on a few issues, but he doesn't always see eye-to-eye with many Conservatives.

I could be wrong, and that's ok I suppose. But I like watching his show.