Fair and Balanced.... right

[daybreaker2]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/oreilly-lies/

Bill O'Reilly denounced the New York Times for not showing the arrests of the JFK plotters on the front page. He emphasized this by *showing* the NYT front page, where there was no mention of it...

Oh, except that THERE WAS. O'Reilly intentionally folded the paper to HIDE the front page story of the JFK arrests, and blamed democrats for using the NYT to hide any mention of terrorism in order to get a Democrat elected.

Who's the one hiding things, Bill? This isnt just some error in fact checking. He INTENTIONALLY LIED.

But hey, I guess when a fair and balanced news reporter like Bill O'Reilly intentionally lies, it's fine. Because he's fair and balanced, and his lies denouncing the democrats are in no way meant to support the republican party...

Bill knows most of his audience is so stupid and brainwished that they will just take his word for it. And so now they all think the NYT is just a democratic puppet who hid the JFK terror plot story. When that isnt actually true. But the truth doesnt seem to be an important aspect of the fair and blanced fox news channel.

[Guisslapp]

Eh? Who watches Bill O'Reilly anyway?

[MattB]

Eh? Who watches Bill O'Reilly anyway?

Anyway on the subject of the NYT, they actually did a nice article on Black rifles the other day that was pretty damn fair and to the point. I almost fainted.

[CARTEK]

IT WS BELOW THE FOLD, YOU IDIOT!

[Choudawg86]

Eh? Who watches Bill O'Reilly anyway?

Very Very Very Cool Moral Peoples do, thats who

[Guisslapp]

Very Very Very Cool Moral Peoples do, thats who

You know that feeling you get when you eat ice cream too fast or when you drink alot of cheap red wine or when you listen to a Mariah Carey falsetto? That is the feeling I get when I listen to his visceral pontifications. I honestly do not understand how anyone can listen to that.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[Dirtydawg]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/oreilly-lies/

Bill O'Reilly denounced the New York Times for not showing the arrests of the JFK plotters on the front page. He emphasized this by *showing* the NYT front page, where there was no mention of it...

Oh, except that THERE WAS. O'Reilly intentionally folded the paper to HIDE the front page story of the JFK arrests, and blamed democrats for using the NYT to hide any mention of terrorism in order to get a Democrat elected.

Who's the one hiding things, Bill? This isnt just some error in fact checking. He INTENTIONALLY LIED.

But hey, I guess when a fair and balanced news reporter like Bill O'Reilly intentionally lies, it's fine. Because he's fair and balanced, and his lies denouncing the democrats are in no way meant to support the republican party...

Bill knows most of his audience is so stupid and brainwished that they will just take his word for it. And so now they all think the NYT is just a democratic puppet who hid the JFK terror plot story. When that isnt actually true. But the truth doesnt seem to be an important aspect of the fair and blanced fox news channel.

Let me help you out here. I'm not an O'Reilly apologist because, quite frankly, I don't really care for the guy, but you and that website have it all wrong. O'Reilly didn't say a thing about the NYT not showing the JFK plotters on the front page. His complaint was that the STORY was not on the front page and the NYT, instead, ran a story about Indians making bricks. The headline on the front page was basically a paragraph directing the reader to page 37. O'Reilly didn't lie. It's just that you and others are so eager to prove him wrong, that you, instead, accuse him of things he didn't do and make yourselves look foolish. In case you think I'm making this up, here's the transcript as provided by your link. Now show me in here where he says the NYT makes no mention of the terrorists on page 1.

Transcript:

O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Relax, the war on terror is not that big of deal. That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo.
Over the weekend, four Muslims were accused of planning to blowup JFK Airport here in New York City. That comes on the heels of six Muslims arrested for planning to kill U.S. soldiers in New Jersey. But hey, don’t be alarmed. According to John Edwards and The New York Times, this is no big deal.
In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.
Now apparently The Times isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11. On page one of Sunday’s New York Times was this story. Some poor people in India making bricks.
Now I’m not making this up. You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact. On page one, The New York Times instead of the JFK terror arrests we saw some Indian people with bricks.
Now why did The New York Times do that? It’s not hard to figure it out. The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts.
Since The New York Times desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, The Times is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again. Then The Times will say despite the fascism of the Bush administration, it could not protect us.
So The Times wins both ways. The paper diminishes the war on terror by putting it on page 37, but if something bad ever happened, it can attack President Bush.
Now this is the hallmark of the far left. We saw it again last night in the Democratic debate when the far left candidate John Edwards once again called the war on terror a bumper sticker.

[saltydawg]

Taking about the alleged terrorist plot to attack Kennedy airport, how credible was the threat anyway? Did any of the alleged gang have any military or terrorist training? Access to explosives?

[9701Dawg]

Taking about the alleged terrorist plot to attack Kennedy airport, how credible was the threat anyway? Did any of the alleged gang have any military or terrorist training? Access to explosives?

[saltydawg]

^ They were planning on hijacking an attack helicopter?????

[Bigdog13]

You know that feeling you get when you eat ice cream too fast or when you drink alot of cheap red wine or when you listen to a Mariah Carey falsetto? That is the feeling I get when I listen to his visceral pontifications. I honestly do not understand how anyone can listen to that.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

That Veronica Vaughn is one nice piece of ace.

[GonzoDawg]

Yeah, those guys trying to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. That's no big deal, it'll never work. We shouldn't worry about that.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Taking about the alleged terrorist plot to attack Kennedy airport, how credible was the threat anyway? Did any of the alleged gang have any military or terrorist training? Access to explosives?

Salty, you have either truly lost it or are just kidding. Right?
And you are glad they caught these guys aren't you?

[Spinoza]

Eh? Who watches Bill O'Reilly anyway?

I often watch O'Reilly......
(as well as most others on Fox)
and I do so for several reasons.

First reason......
And prepare yourself for a shock!
I have not found it necessary to be RIGHT...... Or to PROVE anything to anyone for close to four decades.
But I personally believe that whenever one begins to IGNORE the honest (or even dishonest) opinions of others...... One begins to walk a path of ingorance toward the cul-de-sac of stupidity, and little grey cell exhaustion, and mental death.

Second reason......
Even when I suspect I may be on or near any intelligent and rational path......
I find it exceedingly interesting to watch and LEARN how the mind's of others recognize and interpret the same basic reality that confronts the lives of ALL mankind.

Third reason......
I believe it folly to turn my back on any possible enemy with a weapon.
I like to know how many bullets are in their assault rifles, and how sharply their sabers are honed.

Fourth reason......
My adherence to a principle of TOLERANCE FOR EVERYONE.

Fifth reason......
I agree (FWIW) with O'Reilly at times.
Just tonight during a segment with evangelical blowhard, Bill Keller...... O'Reilly questioned Keller's "religious"" attacks on Mitt Romney and Mormans, and concluded by catergorizing Keller's stance as "irresponsible, UNCHRISTIAN and just plain wrong".

During his next segment......
O'Reilly waltzed democratic congressman Anthony Weiner into a Immigration Bill corner by pointing out that if 12 MILLON illegal immigrants became LEGAL and sponsored ONLY THREE
family members for citizenship (rather than the 278 family members currently allowed)......
12 MILLION x 3 = 36 MILLION.

And as for FAIR AND BALANCED......
PURE POPPYCOCK!

The idea that any "subject" IS "objective" is a contradiction of even the most base human
logic.
MY NHO is ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE!
YOUR "objectivism" is nothing but a convenient SUBJECTIVE sham.
And I dare anyone to even pretend that America's fourth estate are anything more than sheep in WOLF blitzer profile.

Merely food for all subjective thought! :icon_wink:

[9701Dawg]

^ They were planning on hijacking an attack helicopter?????

I'm thinking it has more to do with the color of the helicopter.