In the Abramoff test of "Fair and Balanced," O'Reilly and Hannity fail

D

dennis_t

CAGiversary!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

Does the Right Know Jack?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 6, 2006; 8:27 AM


This is a real test for conservative commentators.

The Jack Abramoff guilty plea this week puts the crooked lobbyist smack in the center of what could balloon into the biggest congressional scandal in decades. Abramoff happens to be a Bush Pioneer, a DeLay pal, and generally someone who was deeply embedded in the Republican power structure.

What's more, Abramoff is a symbol of a capital awash in tainted cash and legislative favors, a system that turns on golfing trips to Scotland and congressionally earmarked bridges to nowhere--in short, a very fat target for editorial disapproval.

But even though Abramoff steered some client cash to Democrats, this is, for the moment, a largely Republican scandal. So do folks on the right unload on Jack and his enablers, or stick to the defensive party talking points?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that, according to Nexis at least, Fox's Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly uttered not a word about Abramoff this week. And if this was a convicted lobbyist who funneled big bucks to Hillary Clinton, they'd be just as bored by the story.
 
I didn't realize Hannity and O'Reilly were reporters, journalists, managing editors or anchors that had to give any consideration to objectivity.

Hmmmm, wow, learn something every day here from the short bus riding, hockey helmet wearing, chronically masturbating wonder tards.

So tell me dennis, do you hold Al Franken and Randi Rhodes to journalistic standards?

Thought not.
 
Still using the same insults as you were 6 months ago, are we? Limited in your ability to produce a cohesive argument, and a worthy insult for someone who just cut & pasted a story...
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Still using the same insults as you were 6 months ago, are we? Limited in your ability to produce a cohesive argument, and a worthy insult for someone who just cut & pasted a story...[/QUOTE]

OUCH! A two-fer slap! A tip of my hat to you, sir....

For my part, I will admit the cut & paste was prompted by a combination of (1) the feeling that the piece spoke for itself and (2) pure and utter laziness.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't realize Hannity and O'Reilly were reporters, journalists, managing editors or anchors that had to give any consideration to objectivity.
[/QUOTE]

O'Reilly holds himself up as a fair and balanced guy though, doesn't he?
 
In all fairness to Hannity he has stated repeatedly that any member of Congress that is found to be guilty of accepting illegal money, gifts, favors or perks should be gone regardless of party. That's from his radio show. I never watch Hannity & Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor or listen to O'Reilly on radio so I can't speak to any positions they may have declared on those programs.

On this I agree with him.

You didn't hear anyone say boo over what happened to Rusty Cunningham.

I completely believe that we'd have a better Congress with more common sense if we picked names out of a district phone book and had 150-200 people at random elect someone from their midsts to represent the district in Congress.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Metal Boss sit down and shut up before you trip over your own tongue and hurt yourself.[/QUOTE]

Wow....not harboring much of a sense of humor about yourself, are you?

It's okay, I know how scared you are, seeing all your notions of reality crumbling around you. The big daddy who was supposed to protect you from the evildoers instead lied you into a bad war that made things worse. Your most beloved leaders are being indicted under corruption charges. Poll after poll shows you out-of-step with everyone else. The world seems to be coming off its hinges.

But no matter how nasty you get, know that I sympathize with you and wish you the best in achieving balance in your view of the world.
 
Like i've been saying to anyone who puts out more than one paragraph of dialogue into this jokers posts, don't bother, this guy's proved his hypocrisy on many, many pathetic levels.

Gee pad, we're all so shocked once again...yawn...

It seems like only one or two people will bother with his crap anymore anyways. I'm sure he's found a home with many people's ignore button.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't realize Hannity and O'Reilly were reporters, journalists, managing editors or anchors that had to give any consideration to objectivity.

Hmmmm, wow, learn something every day here from the short bus riding, hockey helmet wearing, chronically masturbating wonder tards.

So tell me dennis, do you hold Al Franken and Randi Rhodes to journalistic standards?

Thought not.[/QUOTE]

You finished? Get a new schtick seriously. Also, are we sure PAD's a real person and not just a stupid bot created by elprinciple or bmulligan for their amusement when we respond to "him"?
Myke O'Reilly has got to be one of the weirdest sexual perverts ever. Seriously S&M is weird but this Falafel shit, wtf?!
Also one last response to PAD regardless, the soldiers put themselves out there and civilians don't, there's a differenc.

PAD bot post: RAGHEADS! Burn them ALL! Yaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!*
*see imitation of Howard Dean's scream. /end PAD bot.
 
Don't know about a BOT, but he definatly is trolling for response, he proves it with posts like that.


PAD, it really just reflects your true farce nature. You act as though you want everyone to take you seriously but you have the manners of a silverback. When someone points out a flaw in your "logic", you stop posting and hope it goes away, or come back with a childish quip.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Myke O'Reilly has got to be one of the weirdest sexual perverts ever. Seriously S&M is weird but this Falafel shit, wtf?![/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if you know the backstory to it, but he merely has no clue about the difference between middle eastern food (no surprise there) and bathing implements. He was telling this woman how he wanted to rub a loofah sponge over her naked breasts, but he used the word "falafel" instead.

A comedy of errors, and one that prevents me from even being enticed by friend chick pea balls in a pita bread.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']You finished? Get a new schtick seriously. Also, are we sure PAD's a real person and not just a stupid bot created by elprinciple or bmulligan for their amusement when we respond to "him"?[/QUOTE]

I'm curious as to why I'm mentioned in this thread at all (even if my username is spelled incorrectly). Are you trying to categorize me with the others on the board who are not ultra-liberal?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm curious as to why I'm mentioned in this thread at all (even if my username is spelled incorrectly). Are you trying to categorize me with the others on the board who are not ultra-liberal?[/QUOTE]

Well I just figured one of you would prank us like this and enjoy it. Sorry I just keep reading it as principle. I don't consider myself an Ultra Liberal and I consider you one of those Pseudo Libertarians who call yourself a Libertarian just for us to take you more seriously in argument. Seriously I have two friends who are Libertarian, one Right leaning and the other I don't know how to describe but both of them are staunchly Liberal when it comes to the issue of Civil Rights for the most part and you defend Bush WAY too often. I would say you're like maybe at most 1/4 Libertarian and 3/4 Conservative though you're a bit lower tone than some others on this board.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Well I just figured one of you would prank us like this and enjoy it. Sorry I just keep reading it as principle. I don't consider myself an Ultra Liberal and I consider you one of those Pseudo Libertarians who call yourself a Libertarian just for us to take you more seriously in argument. Seriously I have two friends who are Libertarian, one Right leaning and the other I don't know how to describe but both of them are staunchly Liberal when it comes to the issue of Civil Rights for the most part and you defend Bush WAY too often. I would say you're like maybe at most 1/4 Libertarian and 3/4 Conservative though you're a bit lower tone than some others on this board.[/QUOTE]

I think you are making one of the following two mistakes in your attempt to pass judgment on my viewpoints.

1. You haven't read much of what I've posted on this board or are in other ways ignorant of my views; or

2. Your comprehension of the political spectrum is so colored by the extreme left skew of this forum as to consider my views conservative (at least more than mildly so).

You think I defend Bush a lot; it's only because most of the posts in here are made by ultra-liberals bashing him, and therefore to defend him at all is highly unusual here. I don't like classifications in any case. But if you really want to know what I think of Bush you should read more of what I've written, the most recent example being on the domestic wiretapping issue.

Oh, and I just don't have the time or desire (or ability) to set up such a prank in any case.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Well I just figured one of you would prank us like this and enjoy it. Sorry I just keep reading it as principle. I don't consider myself an Ultra Liberal and I consider you one of those Pseudo Libertarians who call yourself a Libertarian just for us to take you more seriously in argument. Seriously I have two friends who are Libertarian, one Right leaning and the other I don't know how to describe but both of them are staunchly Liberal when it comes to the issue of Civil Rights for the most part and you defend Bush WAY too often. I would say you're like maybe at most 1/4 Libertarian and 3/4 Conservative though you're a bit lower tone than some others on this board.[/QUOTE]

You imply being on the same side of an issue is defending Bush, and not realize one may be defending positions on issues themselves on individual bases. Then you assume defending Bush makes you a Bush lover. You have made two incorrect assumptions in one shallow thought, bravo! Typical, coming from a brainwashed Bush hater.

I think we all know who the 'bot' is here and it's not any of the pseudo-libertarians. We seem to be able to come to our own conclusions and not automatically react with kneejerks and barbaric yawps according to our party programming.

Keep it up, though, because you'll make a good strawman for one of us to slice into pieces.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you are making one of the following two mistakes in your attempt to pass judgment on my viewpoints...[/QUOTE]

Yeah elprincipe is the local religious dupe. Although the new term for his ilk seems to be "whacko"

The whackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees. ... Simply put, we want to bring out the whackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

Michael Scanlon
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You imply being on the same side of an issue is defending Bush, and not realize one may be defending positions on issues themselves on individual bases. Then you assume defending Bush makes you a Bush lover. You have made two incorrect assumptions in one shallow thought, bravo! Typical, coming from a brainwashed Bush hater.[/QUOTE]
Y'know, you had some momentum going; then you had to fuck it up, delightfully, by making the precise mistakes you accuse Sarang of making in that last sentence there. Reading that made my morning.
 
I'm just trying to get a rise out of him. I'm hoping it doesn't take as long to find his hair trigger as it does to find yours.
 
That implies it took some time to find mine; at least, only in the sense that you think you can get to others faster. That's a peculiar compliment, and even if not meant as such, is taken that way. Thanks!
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm just trying to get a rise out of him. I'm hoping it doesn't take as long to find his hair trigger as it does to find yours.[/QUOTE]

BMuls, ever ask yourself why you get turned on by angering others?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't realize Hannity and O'Reilly were reporters, journalists, managing editors or anchors that had to give any consideration to objectivity.


So tell me dennis, do you hold Al Franken and Randi Rhodes to journalistic standards?

Thought not.[/QUOTE]

You and I are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But I agree with you 100% on this point... None of the Air America, FOX news, or the cable tv political punditry are journalists....
 
O'reilly likes to think he is such smart shit, but he gets outspoken by john stewart and david letterman of all people, too bad they didn't go on his show otherwise they could have just edited the interview and cut off their microphones as usual.
 
[quote name='camoor']BMuls, ever ask yourself why you get turned on by angering others?[/QUOTE]

Anger is not the the goal, camoor, but obviously you wouldn't understand that.

And yes, myke, it was a compliment.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']orly?[/QUOTE]


well played, sir.

and to you:
c200_orly.jpg
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Anger is not the the goal, camoor, but obviously you wouldn't understand that.[/QUOTE]

Obviously. ;)

What is your goal then? Usually libertarians are very open about how they reached their opinions, but you always feel the need to cloak your reasoning with stale talking points and willful ignorance. What happened Bmuls, why are you always so overly contentious and vitriolic?
 
[quote name='Kfoster1979']You and I are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But I agree with you 100% on this point... None of the Air America, FOX news, or the cable tv political punditry are journalists....[/QUOTE]

The problem is, Fox News brays on and on about being "Fair and Balanced." Hannity and O'Reilly beat this point all the time, about how fair they are. And, as shown here, it is demonstrably false.

At least the radio folks on either side of the spectrum don't have any pretenses about their biases. I wouldn't level this same complaint about either Limbaugh or Franken, because neither is selling themselves as "Fair and Balanced."
 
Fox News yes.

Hannity and O'Reilly are not news people. Do you really think either one has no bias?

You are one dumb fucking piece of trash not to know the difference between political commentary and personal opinion and hard news. Of course you just want to ruffle feathers and bray like the jackass you are that Fox News has commentators that don't act like news people.

Oh BTW dennis, I found the perfect sponsor for you to pay for your ISP service so you can continue your invaluable insight as to why commentators are in fact news people.

buyinprivate_1870_3275428
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You imply being on the same side of an issue is defending Bush, and not realize one may be defending positions on issues themselves on individual bases. Then you assume defending Bush makes you a Bush lover. You have made two incorrect assumptions in one shallow thought, bravo! Typical, coming from a brainwashed Bush hater.

I think we all know who the 'bot' is here and it's not any of the pseudo-libertarians. We seem to be able to come to our own conclusions and not automatically react with kneejerks and barbaric yawps according to our party programming.

Keep it up, though, because you'll make a good strawman for one of us to slice into pieces.[/QUOTE]

Nice but I consider myself a Liberal first and foremost and I'm one of the old fashioned radical one's, see I identify with a lot of what the old Forefathers were putting out. Also if you're not a Bush lover you need to switch up how you present it. Honestly about the Pseudo Libertarians it just feels like it's around. I swear it seems like the ONLY people who can judge Bush reasonably are Moderates, Liberals, Libertarians and Greens which is pretty much at least 50% or more of this country I'm hoping. Yes there are some Republicans who will honestly look at it and there are others you could show a whole shitload of proof Bush is this or that and they still wouldn't believe it, see PAD if he's not a bot. You call me a brainwashed Bush hater, first look at the build up of media on him, all the shit that's hit the fan then see why I can't give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time of at all.
edit: PAD bot repeat typical insult to disagreement with PAD by taking a shot at masculinity or intelligence. /end PAD bot.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']The problem is, Fox News brays on and on about being "Fair and Balanced." Hannity and O'Reilly beat this point all the time, about how fair they are. And, as shown here, it is demonstrably false.

At least the radio folks on either side of the spectrum don't have any pretenses about their biases. I wouldn't level this same complaint about either Limbaugh or Franken, because neither is selling themselves as "Fair and Balanced."[/QUOTE]

True but I was talking more along the lines of the "entertainers " . FOX news as a whole is crap much like most cable news but uhhhh I hate to think I am even giving them any complment but we know were Hannity and O'Reilly stand so I know what I'm going to get from them. But I dont watch Cable news well Olberman and Hardball sometimes
 
Speaking of Cable news can someone explain to me what the fuck happened to CNBC? They use to have Mackinrow(I know I spelled his name wrong) and Miller now the only person around is Donny Deutsch. Also can someone explain to me why MSNBC even bothers to operate when we all know they're not making a profit.
 
CNBC and MSNBC are usless spaces on the cable dial. Especially MSNBC.

There are rumors abound that MSNBC is going to end up switching names and going to an all entertainment outlet for old NBC and Universal shows, movies and second runs of prime time programming. With the clearences it has on expanded basic it would do very well.

Expect to see it gone by the end of 2006.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Fox News yes.

Hannity and O'Reilly are not news people. Do you really think either one has no bias?

You are one dumb fucking piece of trash not to know the difference between political commentary and personal opinion and hard news. Of course you just want to ruffle feathers and bray like the jackass you are that Fox News has commentators that don't act like news people.

Oh BTW dennis, I found the perfect sponsor for you to pay for your ISP service so you can continue your invaluable insight as to why commentators are in fact news people.
[/QUOTE]

It's okay, PAD, let all that fear and loathing out. Learning that the people you've listened to for truth are actually paid propagandists is a difficult and scary thing, but I'm sure you'll come through this with a better understanding of yourself and others. Let me know if you need a buddy hug to help you feel more grounded.

You know well and good that O'Reilly in particular refers to himself constantly as unbiased and hard-hitting. Well....we now see how hard-hitting he is when it's a Republican scandal at hand. Not a single mention of something that's burning up the airwaves.

And you also know that Fox News itself has blurred the line between political commentary and hard news. Who can tell which is which on that channel anymore? Even the morning show has an ideological bias. So why not just drop the "Fair and Balanced" tagline and admit they have an axe to grind? It would be more honest....
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']CNBC and MSNBC are usless spaces on the cable dial. Especially MSNBC.

There are rumors abound that MSNBC is going to end up switching names and going to an all entertainment outlet for old NBC and Universal shows, movies and second runs of prime time programming. With the clearences it has on expanded basic it would do very well.

Expect to see it gone by the end of 2006.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but I like having three news talk channels I can pick from, what with Olberman on if I wanna watch him and I don't bother watching CNN though I might if Crossfire was back on.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm sorry you can't distinguish news and commentary dennis.

Blame the public schools for your lack of knowledge and education.[/QUOTE]

Given your continued use of NewsMax and other dubious "news" sources, PAD, I think it might be you who has a hard time separating fact from partisan fantasy.

Someone with more time than I might want to take a trip back through thread memory lane to count the number of times you've pushed right-fueled falsehoods that were spoon-fed to you by such sources. I'm sure the number is an embarrassment.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']CNBC and MSNBC are usless spaces on the cable dial. Especially MSNBC.

There are rumors abound that MSNBC is going to end up switching names and going to an all entertainment outlet for old NBC and Universal shows, movies and second runs of prime time programming. With the clearences it has on expanded basic it would do very well.

Expect to see it gone by the end of 2006.[/QUOTE]

I have that Universal Channel and thats what it is but mine is a HD channel it shows reruns of HD NBC shows and Universal HD movies..
 
Pad, O'reilly is billed by the network as fair and balanced, as well as by himself. While you may be an idiot for believing it, the network still makes an attempt to show he's essentially unbiased.

[quote name='Sarang01']Nice but I consider myself a Liberal first and foremost and I'm one of the old fashioned radical one's, see I identify with a lot of what the old Forefathers were putting out. Also if you're not a Bush lover you need to switch up how you present it. Honestly about the Pseudo Libertarians it just feels like it's around. I swear it seems like the ONLY people who can judge Bush reasonably are Moderates, Liberals, Libertarians and Greens which is pretty much at least 50% or more of this country I'm hoping. Yes there are some Republicans who will honestly look at it and there are others you could show a whole shitload of proof Bush is this or that and they still wouldn't believe it, see PAD if he's not a bot. You call me a brainwashed Bush hater, first look at the build up of media on him, all the shit that's hit the fan then see why I can't give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time of at all.
edit: PAD bot repeat typical insult to disagreement with PAD by taking a shot at masculinity or intelligence. /end PAD bot.[/QUOTE]

That's funny. Anyone who is conservative and/or supports bush can't view him reasonably, yet the entire left wing (plus some moderates) look at him reasonably? Considering all the bush=nazi etc. things I see that's pretty hard to believe.
 
Alonzo the whole reason for "Bush=Nazi" is they look at Gerbels and compare Bush's actions and draw that up but the problem is most of the time Liberals just shout it looking like rabid dogs but some valid comparisons can be drawn up I'm sure.
PAD let's forgot Bill O'Reilly and the "Fair and Balanced" bit because he still calls his show the "No Spin Zone", what about that? There dennis, gave you one.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']You know well and good that O'Reilly in particular refers to himself constantly as unbiased and hard-hitting. Well....we now see how hard-hitting he is when it's a Republican scandal at hand. Not a single mention of something that's burning up the airwaves.[/QUOTE]

Because, as we all know, all responsible hard-hitting journalists should be crucifying those mentioned in relation to the scandal (other than Abramoff of course) before any indictments are handed out...
 
Who the fuck is Gerbels?

I really love it when people, who aren't smart, try and act smart.

Joseph Goebbels was the Nazi Minister of Propganda. What is you indigent!?!? :rofl:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Because, as we all know, all responsible hard-hitting journalists should be crucifying those mentioned in relation to the scandal (other than Abramoff of course) before any indictments are handed out...[/QUOTE]

Yep, just like they crucified Clinton, far before any articles of impeachment were issued....
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Yep, just like they crucified Clinton, far before any articles of impeachment were issued....[/QUOTE]

Your problem is you see things in a way that if someone already did something wrong from an opposing political viewpoint, it's okay for "your" side to do the same. Although I'm sure you wouldn't waste any time in ripping into Bush for pardoning someone like Marc Rich, for example. Or maybe that's a bad example since I'm sure you wouldn't waste any time ripping into Bush regardless of what he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top