The Hypocritical nature of Bill O'Reily

Remove all ads!

I was linked to this video from the Daily Show, which highlights the massively hypocritical view that Bill O'Reily has towards Right to Privacy.

I found it hilarious, thought many here might aswell.

 

I hope you don't get all of your political information from Comedy Central.

I have never seen the O'Reily show, but just from watching that clip I can surmise the differences that John Stewart seemed to miss. O'Reily's people seem to be trying to get interviews from people who are making decisions that effect others. Trying to get interviews from politicians and I think the other case was an editor of national magazine is a lot different then trying to get a picture of Brittney Spear's reproductive organs. Of course pointing that out, wouldn't make it that funny. I also don't think that anyone would ever consider John Stewart to be non-partisan.

 

No one with half a brain would consider Bill O'Reilly non-partisan, either.

 

I agree

 

The Great Snook: I tend not to follow US politics, I just found the video exceptionally funny, but due to the opposing view points of the 2 people in question, I figured it was safer to post it here.

 

While comedic, I'd argue that the daily show is actually a fairly decent source of news. They cover current events and put a funny spin on them. I agree that you shouldn't rely on the Daily Show to get ALL of your news, but to suggest it's devoid of political commentary would also be incorrect.

 

I thought I'd come back to this because it still strikes me as odd. It appears that you are arguing that it's OK to stalk and harass politicians who refuse to give your shamelessly partisan cable talk show -- a talk show which, to put it delicately, is not exactly known for giving a fair hearing to people who disagree with its host -- an interview, but not actors. The target doesn't justify the tactic, Snook.

 

You don't say, TGS? Show us in the Constitution where it states that some people have rights and others don't, based upon how they earn their living. Really, I'd like to see this part that the Founders somehow "missed," regarding basic privacy rights and respect for individual dignity. Let me save you some time, TGS -- It's not there.

No, no, TGS! In fact, it's hilarious.

 

OK, I'm having trouble seeing the clip, and from what I have heard from O'Reilly in the past the guy is a great big jerk.

I believe that politicians need to expect that people will ask them to justify their decisions given that those decisions impact the public. However, I don't approve of stalkerish tactics or deceptive ones -- I'm gonna assume that O'Reilly crossed that line in the video, yes? I've gone on record as saying that I lost all respect for Michael Moore when he shanghaied Charlton Heston in his own home under false pretenses in his sanctimonious "Bowling for Columbine". If O'Reilly is stooping to Moore-ish tactics, then he should be publicly pilloried.

 

Haha, I like the part where it goes from them harassing the guy on the bus to Bill saying something about Paparazzi scum... all I can say to him is: **** it, we'll do it live.

 

A friend showed me a clip from o'Reilly's show, in which he had a 'specialist' describing Amsterdam and the Netherlands. It was an extremely insulting talk about how A'dam was some kind of dangerous, hedonistic cesspit, where seriously criminal pimps were calling the shots, women were being legally abused as prostitutes, drugs were everywhere, and junkies ran amok.

It's fine that he can say such stuff about people, in the light of freedom of expression. But one thing worries me: It was being brought in an aire of legitimate journalism. Like a news report, which at least seems to be reporting on a situation objectively.

I don't know much about the show, because i couldn't stomach more than a few minutes of such right-wing propaganda. But my friend was kind enough to describe it: Basically, he has hot looking blondes who agree with him, and occasionally an actual expert appears on the show. Whenever the expert disagrees with o'Reilly, they get talked into the ground by 100% debating tactics, 0% real discussion.

Now I've heard before that you americans actually think your freedom of expression is more safeguarded in the States, but let me ask you this: Does his show get preceded by a disclaimer, like Jon Stewart's? "The show you are about to watch is a news parody. Its stories are not fact checked. Its reporters are not journalists. And its opinions are not fully thought through." It is made atall clear that he is making a news parody?

Every time a show is aired on TV, that may have interesting left-wing opinions or perspectives, the makers must prefix a disclaimer, probably to protect them from getting sued by a bunch of intolerant and anal-retentive right-wingers. Anyone recognize this one:
"All characters and events in this show --even those based on real people-- are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated ... poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone."

- only in America -

 

Maybe he was meaning Rotterdam instead.

Jokes aside, Bill O'Reilly is one of the most arrogant right wing nutcases. Anyone seen his 'debate' with Richard Dawkins? The one he claims to have 'won'? Hilarious...

 

Wow. This guy seems pretty special I may have to look up some more stuff from him, I'd heard of him before but never really had the interest to look him up.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. People have different rights to privacy depending on how public/private their lives are. For instance, Stewart's "funny bit" about O'Reilly wouldn't be considered slander as O'Reilly is a public figure and put the videos out there for the world to see (however, it could be a copyright infringement). O'Reily doesn't have the same rights to privacy as I would. If someone followed me around with a video camera and put the results on the internet (without my permission) for the purpose of mocking me, I'm pretty sure that would count as slander and character assassination.

Now as to politicians, the free press has an obligation to report on the matters that the citizens want to know. Politicians are making decisions that affect our lives and if they are making decisions that people don't understand or agree with, the citizens have a right to question them. No matter how sensationalist O'Reilly is, he is still a member of the press as opposed to a comedian.

Another big difference is that O'Reilly's people were going after their "victims" in public. It wasn't like they were breaking into their houses or going through their garbage (classic paparazzi tactics).

As to not getting what some consider a "fair interview" from O'Reilly, all they have to do is go to one of the main stream networks and they will get all the "softball" questions they want. I would actually have a lot more respect for a Democrat if they went on O'Reilly's show and actually answered his questions. At least it would show the courage of their convictions. Does anybody here think Obama would ever have the guts? I don't he would much rather make Chris Matthew's leg vibrate (If you don't get that, then google is your friend)

 

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. We don't have a tiered system of privacy rights.

Absolutely, but they needn't blitz people at their mailboxes, either. The politicians ambushed by O'Reilly's people refuse to go on his show for good reason. O'Reilly has a habit of over screaming over his guests as they try to answer his questions (he calls this debating) and making up his facts. On top of that, he routinely refuses to retract his factual errors when they are brought to his attention. This, unfortunately, happens quite often since a lot of the guests on his show are experts in their fields and actually know the facts and statistics about the given subject matter (and therefore also know when O'Reilly is making his facts and statistics up).

 

1. I believe the courts have found differently
2. I find this amusing. I as a conservative have never seen the show, so I have to defer to your knowledge. The funny party is how you (who I think I can safely say are a liberal Democrat) appear to watch the show enough to actually know what O'Reilly does.

 

Unless I'm very badly mistaken Obama has allready done an interview with O'Reilly during his campaign and I think I even watched it on youtube.

 

If he did, the good for him. However, I would like to see him do that now that he has won. I would actually watch that to see him questioned on his first month.

 

If you are saying that the courts have found that an individual's profession has something to do with how much of his privacy the government protects, you would be wrong.

O'Reilly has been around for a long time, and I wasn't always liberal. Or a Democrat. I was, in fact, one of the Sailors who lined the streets during Bush's inauguration in 2001. It was volunteer duty and at the time I considered it an honor.

 

Actually both Hillary & Obama went on the O'reilly show & had interveiws that republicans called far too soft.
If o'reilly was the right-wing monster that left-wing nuts tried to portray him as would he have had such a reasoned discussion with these 2 individuals?
I personally don't think so.