Come, Liberals, and Bitch about Bill!

[Michaeloptv]

That's what's wrong with Today's society.

It is dumb people that we love to enjoy as entertaiment. Bill O'Reilley, Jerry Springer, etc.

We need to show the world that we are above and smarter than these dumb a*ses.

However, advertising plays so much in our life these days, and is now going to decide our election probably for Obama because he was able to recieve all of the attention and celebrity status.

Our world doesn't care about issues anymore, we care instead for dumb people to tell us what we should do and why.

[pdfsmail]

Ahhhh... This reminds me of what Stan said on the biggest douche in the world:


(Substitute your least liked person in place of the word "you" - ie Bill-o etc...)

"Because the big questions in life are tough: Why are we here? Where are we from? Where are we going? But if people believe in assh*le douchey liars like you, we're never gonna find the real answer to those questions. You aren't just lying, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind, you douche!"

[Michaeloptv]

Billo: I'm not a DOUCHE!!!

[Just_Jackie]

If he would have actually said that...that may have been funny.

[Just_Jackie]

Maybe not "educational" per se, but it pawns itself off as a "News" show, and many people take it that way. I should have said informative instead.


You're right though... it's TV. It's almost a given that ANYTHING you see on television nowadays, as a rule, cannot be taken seriously.

...save, of course, for South Park.

Dude, I take South Park more seriously than I take a lot of things I see on TV. I know I just lost MnT's respect with that comment, but I mean, if you watch TV now-a-days the reason is obvious.

And Pip-Tweek, hun, the fact that your question was rhetorical, I think kinda answers it, unfotunately.

But, look, in all honesty, I watch Fox News and enjoy it for all it's flaws. My honest to God belief is that people who get pissed off by it don't know HOW to watch it.

You have to keep in mind that Fox News is a 24 hour channel. They have to have something to fill up those hours. The shows that piss off the most people is The OReily Factor and Hannity and Colmes. "z0mg those dudes are unfair!" But the thing is, these are not news shows. They are news analysis shows. It's the job of Bill OReilly and Sean Hannity to take legitimate news and put their own opinions on it. So if you are watching these shows and expecting unbiased facts, then yea you aren't going to find it. It is not Bill OReily/Sean Hannity's job to bring you fair and balanced news. it's their job to be controversial and provocative. Kenneth whats-his-face Oberman and Stephen Colbert both have made names for themselves by going after OReily...which should say something about him. Also, there is news on the channel during earlier parts of the day, and as long as that news is covered in an unbiased way, then they can say they are fair and balanced.

(BTW Does anyone here actually watch the channel during the day when they do have news shows and interviews? Are you making your entire basis of the whole channel based on two or three people?)

This is not something that is so uncommon. I mean, even newspapers have Op-Ed pieces. That's basically what we are dealing with here. That's why people getting so mad at them is stupid. "OMG Bill OReily is expressing his own opinion on his own show made just for that purpose! z0mg! BIASED!"

Oh, and for those who think the channels prime time lineup is made up of nothing but Republicans...Greta Van Sustern is a Scientologist.

[CeeLos213]

Oh, and for those who think the channels prime time lineup is made up of nothing but Republicans...Greta Van Sustern is a Scientologist.

OMG!!! Stop the presses! This is worse than I thought. Those psycho-mind-trip space hippies are using Fox News to brainwash the world into the ways of LRH. XENU help us all!

There's more wrong with Fox News than its opinion shows, but these are problems it shares with "liberal" news networks. I'm sticking to my guns: TV is not the place to get news. Newspapers (whether the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times or the Christian Science Monitor) have better information, and casting a wide net on the web can inform you better on any individual subject than watching CNN, FNC, & MSNBC 24/7 on 3 TV screens.

As for political opinions... I don't care much for the pundits' authority. If I care enough about some current event or trend, I think I'm qualified enough to research it for myself and make my own opinion.

So what's left to value in these shows (O'Rilley's in particular)? There's no informational value, no "artistic" value, nothing. It's a sideshow, like I Love New York or Rock of Love (I won't compare it to Jackass since those guys perform stunts which require actual balls). I guess if you're bored enough with your life you can watch that crap, but I prefer doing this in my down time or, if I'm interested enough or have nothing better to do, catching up on current events.

[Just_Jackie]

I'm sticking to my guns: TV is not the place to get news. Newspapers (whether the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times or the Christian Science Monitor) have better information, and casting a wide net on the web can inform you better on any individual subject than watching CNN, FNC, & MSNBC 24/7 on 3 TV screens.

LOL Oh yea. No bias or corruption at the New York Times.

Did you miss this?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... d-not.html

Obama wrote an Op-Ed to the NYT and when McCain wrote a reply, they refused to print it because they wanted McCain to word his Op-Ed differently. They wanted a direct rebuttal to Obama's Op-Ed.

Here is a direct quote from the Op-Ed editor, David Shipley, "It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

In other words, they wanted to tell a presidential candidate what to write, or they wouldn't print it.

And they didn't.

If you are looking for a "pure" and "unbiased" means of getting information then you are going to be looking for a long time. There is no such thing.

I'm not going to vote for McCain because I don't like him trying to overturn Roe v Wade and I don't like his stance on gay marriage, but that's bullsh*t.

If anyone would like to see what McCain had written, here it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/ ... index.html

[Big-Will]

I'm sticking to my guns: TV is not the place to get news. Newspapers (whether the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times or the Christian Science Monitor) have better information, and casting a wide net on the web can inform you better on any individual subject than watching CNN, FNC, & MSNBC 24/7 on 3 TV screens.

Ahaha, I wouldn't go to the newspapers either. Many an op-ed piece has been printed on Page 1 where hard news should go, and sometimes still does.

[CeeLos213]

The reason I grouped those different newspapers together was to illustrate the different kinds of bias. I know they're biased, but the information you on them get is still better than TV's.

The second part of what I said was more important: research it on your own. Google (even with its "bias") is a far better news source if you know how to use it than any of the popular media. To repeat, 1) cast the net wide, 2) make your own opinion.

If you care that is... Otherwise you're letting someone else, whether Genine Gurafalo or Bill O'Rilley, make your opinions for you. And that's fine if you agree with them, but they're both douche bags with nothing important to say.

If you are looking for a "pure" and "unbiased" means of getting information then you are going to be looking for a long time. There is no such thing.

I agree. The concept of "objectivity" is as achievable in real life as nirvana. Meaning it's not. Everything is coloured by perception and/or circumstance, and will therefore have a bias. You only get to control your bias, and the better informed you are the more likely you are to be right.

[Just_Jackie]

I guess that would depend on how you define "better".

Personally, both have biases, but television, due to it's nature, can react to things sooner than newspapers.

If someone goes go the local courthouse with a gun and starts shooting, you can turn on the TV and see it almost immediately. Reporters at the scene etc...

With newspaper you can't find out about it until the next time the paper goes to print, which isn't usually until the next day.

[CeeLos213]

I guess I don't mind being a day behind... Yes, yes, if you want to catch OJ and AC doing 30mph down the freeway "live", I guess TV's your only option. Of course, you'd need to be watching at the time of the event, or have one of those services that text message you when there's breaking news.

Although I do have to admit, I've been watching a lot of TV nowadays, almost nonstop since last week. I've got it locked between the weather channel and the local station's 24hr storm tracking coverage, taking everything I see VERY seriously.

Alas, TV proves itself useful in news delivery. It would indeed suck to have to wait for the Miami Herald or Palm Beach Post to see the progress of Ike & Josephine (sounds like a sitcom). I could see the headline: "Landfall Imminent: Governor Orders Immediate Evacuation".... *whooshhhhhh*

[Michaeloptv]

True about newspapers, but I feel that sometimes television is so rushed to get on the air, that the facts are not always straight. Many people will speculate about what has actually happened. Fox news does this a lot.

Clip here of Pope John Paul the day BEFORE he died:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0auIRykyg

[triplemultiplex]

Television news and cable news in particular has the unfortunate problem of ratings. And when you have 24 hours to fill on like 5 different cable news outlets, they're going try and fill that time with what ever will keep people watching. And if that means analyzing every single hiccup from a political candidate or wall to wall shark attack coverage, so be it as far as they're concerned.

That's also why we have so many prime time opinion shows on cable news. They get the ratings and occasionally some actual news gets reported. So that's good enough for the networks.

[Just_Jackie]

>reads past posts to make sure her 1337 is correct<

z0mgwtflulzpwnt!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_ ... _olbermann

[Michaeloptv]

WRONG!!!

The New York Times, and Fox News never get the story straight.

Yes, David Gregory is replacing Olbermann and Chris Matthews. However, even though Gregory is the ANCHOR, Olbermann and Matthews both will be there for election night!!! Also, anyalsis will be given during the debates from the two...

*They make it sound like they are losing their jobs when in fact, Countdown and Hardball are both doing better in rankings compared to "Hannity and Colmes", altough the "O'Reiley Factor" usually does about even with Countdown*.

Keith Olbermann is awesome, and Fixed news has no business in what is said...