<i>What is the point of an interview if not to get the guest's views?</i>
If The Factor was simply a news show, I would agree. But it's not, it editorializes the news and makes no bones about it. Look at Bill Maher, look at Dennis Miller...similar formats, they can cut their guests off anytime they want. The McGlaughlin (sp?) group as well...they present news, debate it, and you're left to make a decision.
As far as the business of "The Paris Business Review", I remember him correcting himself, saying he got the name of the periodical wrong, but I can't find a transcript anywhere.
I watched the segment with Stewart, I'm an O'Reilly fan, and even I didn't like where he was going with it. O'Reilly is (don't flame me) a bit pompous. It comes across in interviews like this. He kept pounding on Stewart's viewers, and it was unfair in my eyes. Eventually, he did stop, and we'll see if Stewart is the bigger man when he has O'Reilly on his show.
So the facts I ask you to present me with are a Rolling Stone piece, quoting a former coworker that dislikes him. And neither the Rolling Stone piece, nor the coworker, back up these charges with facts.
The Rolling Stone piece starts out disliking him...read the first half of the article and tell me they aren't out to get him. Even the quote you give is prefaced by him saying "I made every possible political mistake." You think people at that station would have liked him?
Again, you can dislike him or his reporting style, but until you show me something he intentionally made up or lied about, you're shooting blanks.
I have watched Outfoxed, it's a complete load of crap masquerading as a serious documentary. From the anonymous sources, to the disgruntled ex-employees, to the single source (FAIR) for all its statistics, to focusing on the editorialists of FoxNews instead of the anchors, to the ridiculously small number of daily memos (33) they reviewed and then didn't show all of them, to using quotes of out context, to using quotes when the anchor *was quoting someone else*...
Come on, Outfoxed was horrible! Give me $300,000 and a few months and I'll take enough clips from Air America to make it look like it has a right wing slant.
The most damning things they showed about O'Reilly were his interview with Glick and him telling people to "shut up" 6 times on his show. The Glick thing was bad, but 1 bad interview in 8 years does not an asshole make. The "shut up" point was ridiculous...if you look at the clips they show, only once was he telling someone on his show to shut up...the other times he was either reading a talking point (as in "why don't they just shut up about xyz") or was talking to someone (like the gay high schooler) asking why they didn't just shut up about an issue when pressed on it. I'm actually surprised they didn't take a clip of him saying someone else told HIM to shut up and use it as an example...because he said the words doesn't mean he was commanding somone on the spot to do that.
Outfoxed is a load of crap, and I'll be happy to slam it point by point if you so desire. The scene that you're referring to, the interview with Jeremy Glick, was certainly not O'Reilly's high point, but to dismiss the 8 years he's had the Factor on FoxNews because of it is ridiculous.
First, this was a taped segment that O'Reilly showed, and apologized for twice. Second, he cut Glick off for multiple reasons; a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda, referring to the Florida election as a "coup", falsely accusing Bush Sr. of training 100,000 moujahadeen, and finally because Glick wouldn't stop talking and pressing his points, essentially filibustering. Third, O'Reilly never once in the interview insulted Glick's parents, not once.
If you have any more accusations against O'Reilly, please, I'm all ears.
Stewart is funnier, but I haven't watched his program since, oddly enough, I was in college. I started watching O'Reilly about 2 years ago and got hooked.
If I get flamed by people accusing him of lying and slanting, please back it up with some facts...plenty of people have taken him on, the most famous probably being Al Franken, and they've come up with nothing except a misspeak on Bill's part. You can hate him for being a blowhard, but don't insinuate he outright lies on his show without proof.
I didn't call him a liberal. I'm not sure what category he falls into, but I do know he's thrown a lot of money into the liberal 527 pockets. If he were such a libertarian, I would expect it to be going towards libertarian 527s.
I don't think that contributing to the world in some manner is grounds for being an informed orator on politics. That's my main beef...by posting this story to Slashdot politics, we're in effect validating this man's opinion on the election. Do I want his opinion? No more than I want Bono's, Hannity's or O'Reilly's.
If we're going to post something by this man, additionally post something else with the opposing viewpoint. Slashdot politics has, so far, been nothing more than anti-Bush. In a country where the current majority is pro-Bush (or at least pro-re-elect Bush, according to polls), I think a little balance is in order.
Conversely, I am *not* a Republican and I *will* vote for Bush. Some of us (50%+, at last count) either don't think he's a warmongering, corrupt, lying, freedom stripping, unelected madman or we don't like the other options.
Personally, I don't feel he's any of those. To stay on-topic, I feel that posting a story about Soros' opinion on Slashdot would be like posting something from Sean Hannity...what the hell does he have to do with the election? He's partisan, just like Soros, and he certainly has an opinion, though, at least he hasn't contributed millions upon millions to left-wing 527s.
I don't think they need a website, professionally designed with widgets and toys, but I would expect a press release or maybe an article in a scientific periodical. Without any of the above, this smells a little illegitimate.
The problem with your logic is that no respectable news source, which CBS was considered before this, would have aired these documents. Calling it a gambit would have been wishful thinking...assuming that CBS wouldn't thoroughly fact check them and wouldn't listen to the experts they DID call on is preposterous.
Liberal 527s DO hit below the belt...look at Outfoxed as an example. That piece of trash they passed off as a documentary is laughable...it's as much a slam on Bush as an attempted slam on FoxNews. Horrible, horrible reporting funded by MoveOn...and I'll be happy to get into it point by point with you if you'd like.
It's good to hear about a 527 that's not bent on demolishing Kerry.
My jaw is simply dragging on the floor. Check your facts, the pro-Democrat 527s have spent about 10 times what the pro-Republican 527s have. MoveOn alone has sponsored not only television ads and protests but a friggin movie this year.
The NY Times article glosses over what they're actually working towards, other than saying they don't want the US "losing the edge" in technology. That's then followed immediately by this paragraph:
Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, disputed that opinion. "I don't know where their accounting is coming from," Mr. Hopkins said. "The president has been a strong and generous supporter of science, increasing federal R&D budgets 44 percent to a record $132 billion."
A quick Googling doesn't show anything for their group's name, either.
What the hell? Are they just a few people that doesn't like Bush and decided to form a soft-money group to campaign against him? This article made it to Slashdot how, again?
You got modded flamebait, which is a shame because I wholeheartedly agree with you. Could we see, maybe, one pro-Bush story on politics.slashdot? How about one unbiased story talking about policy? Throw us a bone, editors!
Iverson says the RNC hired a different Seattle company, Advanced Data Center Systems, to perform work on its Voter Vault.
So they hired a Seattle firm that turned around and subcontracted its work to someone else. It's not government data, it's not classified, and the "leak" could've happened here. I don't see the relevance.
I would object only because they cost too damn much for a college. I think everyone should own, and be proficient with, a hand gun. Voting is free and, like handgun ownership, a right that should be excercised.
How is it possible that such a person thinks that it is OK to force people to do something which should be a free individual decission?
Sort of like reading Moby Dick? Or The Great Gatsby? There are certain requirements you must meet in order to pass a class you voluntarily signed up for. Being "forced" to excercise your Constitutional right and, more importantly, civic duty hardly sounds like a ball breaker.
Here's the link to the NCLB website. It contains tons of information, including state by state breakdowns.
NCLB isn't underfunded...they just didn't appropriate the maximum amount of money that they could. That's standard with almost any government program.
This again raises the question of whether the money is meant to ensure appropriate education for all students, or merely to set minimum criteria beyond which no accountability exists.
Honestly, I don't know how NCLB affects GT programs and the like. The idea behind NCLB is to set a minimum set of standards that the kids have to meet and meet that standard within (I think) 5 years. NCLB's goal isn't to further the education of students who excel, it's to make sure the students on the lower end of the spectrum keep up, but I don't think it hinders GT students either.
If you could come up with some examples of Bush making informed and realistic legislative decisions which benefit the general public, please please please (please!) post them.
Would you accept NCLB? From the first day of his presidency he was working on this program. Democrats like to paint the picture that it isn't funded well enough, but they forget there's a difference between authorization and appropriation. The fact is, Bush has spent more on education than any other administration.
That speech was after Bush's war was already in progress.
Okay, that's just plain wrong. He told Saddam to leave power on the 17th, he declared the war on the 19th. The war was NOT underway at the time of this speech.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
Many people seem to forget that a) war isn't a certain thing, and b) he never said it be "a quickie", quite the opposite.
It is fair if it is true that there are five times as many good things to say about Kerry as there are good things to say about Bush.
And who makes that call? The election, by all scientific polling standards, is just about even at this point. Statements like this are what kill me about Democrats...they think that since THEY hate Bush so much, nobody has good reasons for voting for him.
On character alone I would vote for Bush because, while people love to criticize him on malapropisms, he's a regular guy, not some slick talking politician. Kerry's plan so far has been to promise things he can't pay for and doesn't detail how he'll implement. His war stance is, essentially, that he'll "stick it out" and "bring more countries in" to help us. How? I doubt that France and Germany are itching to jump in just because Bush is gone. He promises jobs based on reducing a corporate tax that affects less than 10% of businesses out there. The president has no real power over jobs, only by changing tax rates and incentives can they try to create jobs. It's really more a factor of the economy.
This is off the top of my head, because I get so steamed whenever people dismiss Bush like there's not reason to consider him. Right now, half the country thinks there is.
Read the news. We're trying to get the Sudanese to do something on their own, and trying to get the UN involved.
Iran is going to be a mess, similar to North Korea, because of the UN. We're trying to do it "The Right Way" and go through UN channels, but I guarantee we will get nothing accomplished. The UN is a broken organization, too much distributed power. No single country should be able to stop resolutions with a veto.
Slashdot Mirror
<i>What is the point of an interview if not to get the guest's views?</i>
If The Factor was simply a news show, I would agree. But it's not, it editorializes the news and makes no bones about it. Look at Bill Maher, look at Dennis Miller...similar formats, they can cut their guests off anytime they want. The McGlaughlin (sp?) group as well...they present news, debate it, and you're left to make a decision.
As far as the business of "The Paris Business Review", I remember him correcting himself, saying he got the name of the periodical wrong, but I can't find a transcript anywhere.
--trb
I watched the segment with Stewart, I'm an O'Reilly fan, and even I didn't like where he was going with it. O'Reilly is (don't flame me) a bit pompous. It comes across in interviews like this. He kept pounding on Stewart's viewers, and it was unfair in my eyes. Eventually, he did stop, and we'll see if Stewart is the bigger man when he has O'Reilly on his show.
--trb
So the facts I ask you to present me with are a Rolling Stone piece, quoting a former coworker that dislikes him. And neither the Rolling Stone piece, nor the coworker, back up these charges with facts.
The Rolling Stone piece starts out disliking him...read the first half of the article and tell me they aren't out to get him. Even the quote you give is prefaced by him saying "I made every possible political mistake." You think people at that station would have liked him?
Again, you can dislike him or his reporting style, but until you show me something he intentionally made up or lied about, you're shooting blanks.
--trb
I have watched Outfoxed, it's a complete load of crap masquerading as a serious documentary. From the anonymous sources, to the disgruntled ex-employees, to the single source (FAIR) for all its statistics, to focusing on the editorialists of FoxNews instead of the anchors, to the ridiculously small number of daily memos (33) they reviewed and then didn't show all of them, to using quotes of out context, to using quotes when the anchor *was quoting someone else*...
Come on, Outfoxed was horrible! Give me $300,000 and a few months and I'll take enough clips from Air America to make it look like it has a right wing slant.
The most damning things they showed about O'Reilly were his interview with Glick and him telling people to "shut up" 6 times on his show. The Glick thing was bad, but 1 bad interview in 8 years does not an asshole make. The "shut up" point was ridiculous...if you look at the clips they show, only once was he telling someone on his show to shut up...the other times he was either reading a talking point (as in "why don't they just shut up about xyz") or was talking to someone (like the gay high schooler) asking why they didn't just shut up about an issue when pressed on it. I'm actually surprised they didn't take a clip of him saying someone else told HIM to shut up and use it as an example...because he said the words doesn't mean he was commanding somone on the spot to do that.
--trb
Outfoxed is a load of crap, and I'll be happy to slam it point by point if you so desire. The scene that you're referring to, the interview with Jeremy Glick, was certainly not O'Reilly's high point, but to dismiss the 8 years he's had the Factor on FoxNews because of it is ridiculous.
First, this was a taped segment that O'Reilly showed, and apologized for twice. Second, he cut Glick off for multiple reasons; a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda, referring to the Florida election as a "coup", falsely accusing Bush Sr. of training 100,000 moujahadeen, and finally because Glick wouldn't stop talking and pressing his points, essentially filibustering. Third, O'Reilly never once in the interview insulted Glick's parents, not once.
If you have any more accusations against O'Reilly, please, I'm all ears.
--trb
Stewart is funnier, but I haven't watched his program since, oddly enough, I was in college. I started watching O'Reilly about 2 years ago and got hooked.
If I get flamed by people accusing him of lying and slanting, please back it up with some facts...plenty of people have taken him on, the most famous probably being Al Franken, and they've come up with nothing except a misspeak on Bill's part. You can hate him for being a blowhard, but don't insinuate he outright lies on his show without proof.
--trb
I didn't call him a liberal. I'm not sure what category he falls into, but I do know he's thrown a lot of money into the liberal 527 pockets. If he were such a libertarian, I would expect it to be going towards libertarian 527s.
I don't think that contributing to the world in some manner is grounds for being an informed orator on politics. That's my main beef...by posting this story to Slashdot politics, we're in effect validating this man's opinion on the election. Do I want his opinion? No more than I want Bono's, Hannity's or O'Reilly's.
If we're going to post something by this man, additionally post something else with the opposing viewpoint. Slashdot politics has, so far, been nothing more than anti-Bush. In a country where the current majority is pro-Bush (or at least pro-re-elect Bush, according to polls), I think a little balance is in order.
--trb
Conversely, I am *not* a Republican and I *will* vote for Bush. Some of us (50%+, at last count) either don't think he's a warmongering, corrupt, lying, freedom stripping, unelected madman or we don't like the other options.
Personally, I don't feel he's any of those. To stay on-topic, I feel that posting a story about Soros' opinion on Slashdot would be like posting something from Sean Hannity...what the hell does he have to do with the election? He's partisan, just like Soros, and he certainly has an opinion, though, at least he hasn't contributed millions upon millions to left-wing 527s.
--trb
I don't think they need a website, professionally designed with widgets and toys, but I would expect a press release or maybe an article in a scientific periodical. Without any of the above, this smells a little illegitimate.
--trb
Yeah, that would work
The problem with your logic is that no respectable news source, which CBS was considered before this, would have aired these documents. Calling it a gambit would have been wishful thinking...assuming that CBS wouldn't thoroughly fact check them and wouldn't listen to the experts they DID call on is preposterous.
Liberal 527s DO hit below the belt...look at Outfoxed as an example. That piece of trash they passed off as a documentary is laughable...it's as much a slam on Bush as an attempted slam on FoxNews. Horrible, horrible reporting funded by MoveOn...and I'll be happy to get into it point by point with you if you'd like.
--trb
It's good to hear about a 527 that's not bent on demolishing Kerry.
My jaw is simply dragging on the floor. Check your facts, the pro-Democrat 527s have spent about 10 times what the pro-Republican 527s have. MoveOn alone has sponsored not only television ads and protests but a friggin movie this year.
--trb
The NY Times article glosses over what they're actually working towards, other than saying they don't want the US "losing the edge" in technology. That's then followed immediately by this paragraph:
Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, disputed that opinion. "I don't know where their accounting is coming from," Mr. Hopkins said. "The president has been a strong and generous supporter of science, increasing federal R&D budgets 44 percent to a record $132 billion."
A quick Googling doesn't show anything for their group's name, either.
What the hell? Are they just a few people that doesn't like Bush and decided to form a soft-money group to campaign against him? This article made it to Slashdot how, again?
--trb
You got modded flamebait, which is a shame because I wholeheartedly agree with you. Could we see, maybe, one pro-Bush story on politics.slashdot? How about one unbiased story talking about policy? Throw us a bone, editors!
--trb
so?
Iverson says the RNC hired a different Seattle company, Advanced Data Center Systems, to perform work on its Voter Vault.
So they hired a Seattle firm that turned around and subcontracted its work to someone else. It's not government data, it's not classified, and the "leak" could've happened here. I don't see the relevance.
--trb
If they aren't measuring in Library of Congresses, I'm not interested...
It's a parody. Laugh.
I would object only because they cost too damn much for a college. I think everyone should own, and be proficient with, a hand gun. Voting is free and, like handgun ownership, a right that should be excercised.
--trb
How is it possible that such a person thinks that it is OK to force people to do something which should be a free individual decission?
Sort of like reading Moby Dick? Or The Great Gatsby? There are certain requirements you must meet in order to pass a class you voluntarily signed up for. Being "forced" to excercise your Constitutional right and, more importantly, civic duty hardly sounds like a ball breaker.
--trb
Here's the link to the NCLB website. It contains tons of information, including state by state breakdowns.
NCLB isn't underfunded...they just didn't appropriate the maximum amount of money that they could. That's standard with almost any government program.
This again raises the question of whether the money is meant to ensure appropriate education for all students, or merely to set minimum criteria beyond which no accountability exists.
Honestly, I don't know how NCLB affects GT programs and the like. The idea behind NCLB is to set a minimum set of standards that the kids have to meet and meet that standard within (I think) 5 years. NCLB's goal isn't to further the education of students who excel, it's to make sure the students on the lower end of the spectrum keep up, but I don't think it hinders GT students either.
--trb
Okay, you got me. Let me clarify because I misspoke...at the time, the war had just begun and he was informing us of that.
--trb
If you could come up with some examples of Bush making informed and realistic legislative decisions which benefit the general public, please please please (please!) post them.
Would you accept NCLB? From the first day of his presidency he was working on this program. Democrats like to paint the picture that it isn't funded well enough, but they forget there's a difference between authorization and appropriation. The fact is, Bush has spent more on education than any other administration.
--trb
That speech was after Bush's war was already in progress.
Okay, that's just plain wrong. He told Saddam to leave power on the 17th, he declared the war on the 19th. The war was NOT underway at the time of this speech.
--trb
> First of all Bush was up front about how long it would take.
When? We were discussing his project proposals before the 2000 election.
I think the parent post was referring to the president's speech of March 19, 2003:
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
Many people seem to forget that a) war isn't a certain thing, and b) he never said it be "a quickie", quite the opposite.
--trb
It is fair if it is true that there are five times as many good things to say about Kerry as there are good things to say about Bush.
And who makes that call? The election, by all scientific polling standards, is just about even at this point. Statements like this are what kill me about Democrats...they think that since THEY hate Bush so much, nobody has good reasons for voting for him.
On character alone I would vote for Bush because, while people love to criticize him on malapropisms, he's a regular guy, not some slick talking politician. Kerry's plan so far has been to promise things he can't pay for and doesn't detail how he'll implement. His war stance is, essentially, that he'll "stick it out" and "bring more countries in" to help us. How? I doubt that France and Germany are itching to jump in just because Bush is gone. He promises jobs based on reducing a corporate tax that affects less than 10% of businesses out there. The president has no real power over jobs, only by changing tax rates and incentives can they try to create jobs. It's really more a factor of the economy.
This is off the top of my head, because I get so steamed whenever people dismiss Bush like there's not reason to consider him. Right now, half the country thinks there is.
--trb
Read the news. We're trying to get the Sudanese to do something on their own, and trying to get the UN involved.
Iran is going to be a mess, similar to North Korea, because of the UN. We're trying to do it "The Right Way" and go through UN channels, but I guarantee we will get nothing accomplished. The UN is a broken organization, too much distributed power. No single country should be able to stop resolutions with a veto.
--trb