Help me here!...Please! Relative on phone conversation says O'Reilly

can educate me. This person says he is the only person speaking political truth today.

Person who said this isn't an "Asscroft Fundie." But, since I don't ever watch Faux Network...I didn't have an answer as to why O'Reilly is bad.

BTW: This family member went to all Catholic Schools and says that O'Reilly speaks to them. I didn't go to all Catholic Schools...so I don't have his frame of reference, here. :-(

BUT! This person is wavering in support for Bush but clinging to Faux..how can I reach them in a way that isn't offensive, given that I'm close to bordering on "Socialist Dem" given what's going on in America, today? :shrug:

...what exactly the "political truth" is. You need specifics....not a "grand idea". Its impossible to argue some grandiose idea - ask what 'truth' he/she is referring to.

"the o'reilly factor"

basically he's a conservative asswipe that talks over people and never admits when he's wrong.


stick to the facts.

Them"

It's a classic

Reading "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" should clear up any misconceptions they have about O'Reilly.

(I am Catholic and my entire family went through all Catholic Schools and we collectively say he is an idiot!)

My family are strong Catholic democrats.

Go here

http://mediamatters.org/

It will give you all kinds of information about Faux, O'Reilly, Hannity et. al.

Edit: Second story on the left is in reference to O'Reilly.

$8.95 Buy it and save someone you love.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158322601X/qid=1085354577/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1920774-1172966?v=glance&s=books

Another recommendation for Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them. Franken systematically goes through the many lies of Bill O'Reilly.

FOX the more ignorant you become. Here:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

This is a serious, scientific study - your relative should NEVER watch Fox!

he took a lady out on a date - sat down at the resturant, ordered, and 10 minutes later told her she was boring, and stood up and left - leaving her with the bill and a need to find a way to get home!

WIERD - OR NUTS, YOU DECIDE!


Before Fox put Howie Carr (WRKO/BOSTON HERALD) on its payroll, Howie would tell of his time working with Bill O'Reilly - and the above story was - I thought - one of the most interesting.

This was several months ago. Why would someone lie about where they are born? It's such an easy fact to check out.

And remember the Jeremy Glick episode? Jeremy was on O'Reilly's show, wanting answers about 9/11. O'Reilly went into a rage and basically threatened to "tear his head off." That's sure some sympathy, isn't it?

Also, he promised he would apologize to the American people and never trust the bush administration if no WMD were found in Iraq. Well, guess what. He gave an apology which wasn't an kind of real apology, it was full of rationalization and BS, (a month or so ago), and he is still supporting (and trusting) the bush administration.

He sued Al Franken for using the phrase "fair and balanced" when in fact "fair and balanced" is a phrase which has been used for a long time by the FDA. It relates to people who must give the full details of a drug's effectiveness and all its side effects, so the doctor can make a good decision whether to prescribe that drug for her/his patients. O'Reilly basically got laughed out of court by the judge.

The man has what is called cognitive dissonance; that is, what he wants to see and what he tells people he is seeing has nothing to do with reality.

He's just plain mean-spirited.

Don't let them get away with generalities and slogans. Start by pinning them down to specific factual claims, and ask them to state them directly (as a precondition for further discussion). None of this "lefties are the devil, therefore O'Reilly must be right" crap. Don't let them get away with substituting an on attack someone else in place of an affirmative argument for their own position. Demand that they cite specific, positive, verifiable factual claims -- along with verifiable primary sources to back up these claims -- and that they lay out in specific terms any arguments that they believe follow from these claims (as in: "A, therefore B, therefore C"). Then take it apart, line by line, source by source.

The one thing you'll find almost invariably is that VIRTUALLY NONE of these wingnuts can put together an argument that stands up to this kind of basic scrutiny. At best, they'll try a bunch of cheap sleight-of-hand tricks -- citing talking heads like O'Reilly and other RW front-groups as "unbiased sources", trying to get away with gargantuan leaps of logic, etc, etc, etc -- tricks that may give a shallow appearance of validity but fail rapidly the moment you start to scrutinize them in any detail. And, of course, they'll hit you with talking points, slogans and -- above all -- attacks, attacks, attacks. But, again, if you ask them to state and defend their own "reasoning" in positive, verifiable terms, their shallowness of thought quickly becomes apparant -- which is why they invariably prefer personal attacks, smears and insinuation over reasoned dialogue.

As to whether it's really worth it to go through all this only to have your relative run back for another helping of the Fox Kool-Aid -- which is almost certainly what will happen in the end anyway -- well, I guess that's up to you.


MDN

is how he was characterised by "The Buffalo Beast"

least watching or listening to a little of O'Reilly. Radio may be easier, when you're just sitting in the car or something.

Basically, the guy is a pompous blowhard and bully. One of the original "stars" of the current RW blowhard school of shouting down/interrupting people with opposing viewpoints, when it's YOUR show. That's why most of these guys like Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly never engage their opponents in a neutral format, where they can't control the mike and commercial breaks. The rare times when this does happen, like when O'Reilly and Franken were at a book event together (and Franken had called attention to some things O'Reilly had lied about), fireworks results, typically with the RW blowhard losing composure completely or leaving the forum.

If you watched/listened to 2 or 3 shows of his (as unpleasant a prospect as that is) that should be PLENTY to get a sample of the guy's tactics. If you have a hard time dissecting why it's bad, to explain to your relative, then the Al Franken book you've been referred to is a good source explaining the methods of the right wing blowhards. But honestly, I would say it's not fair to just ask us why he's a "bad man" and read some book without at least sampling the man's foul wares.

In some ways, O'Reilly is a little more dangerous than Sean Hannity, the other Fox blowhard star, because he masquerades as an "independent" (i.e. non Republican) thinker whereas Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have clearly identified themselves as being on the Republican "team" more. Franken's book successfully debunks O'Reilly's lies about this -- he's a registered Republican, and lied/avoided the topic when confronted about this. He actually is somewhat intelligent (unlike Hannity) but seems unstable emotionally (i.e. he's a psychotic).