Here is Total Proof O'Reilly Has a Right Wing Bias

I have a new forum that I started at the 1st of the year. I count the O'Reilly attacks on the left and on the right, it's called the left to right factor imbalance forum. I count the attacks on the left and the right every night, and for the week, then I total them for the month.

In the 2 months I have been doing it O'Reilly has 74 attacks on left leaning groups, and 92 attacks on left leaning persons, yet no attacks on right leaning groups, and 3 attacks on right leaning persons. I plan to record this data for 1 year, then everyone will see how much bias O'Reilly really has. And if some right winger says O'Reilly is fair and balanced you can show them the data I have in this forum.

What is really stunning is that the Republicans have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. Bush is at a 34% approval, Cheney is at 18%, and the Republican Congress is at 28%, yet O'Reilly is doing nothing but attacking left leaning groups and persons who have no control of anything and no power. Somehow O'Reilly can not find any reason to attack anyone on the right for anything, even though they control everything and have all the power.

Here is the data I have so far:

January 2006 -

Total attacks on left leaning groups for January - 43
Total attacks on left leaning persons for January - 52
Total attacks on right leaning groups for January - 0
Total attacks on right leaning persons for January - 2

February 2006 -

Total attacks on left leaning groups for February - 31
Total attacks on left leaning persons for February - 40
Total attacks on right leaning groups for February - 0
Total attacks on right leaning persons for February - 1

Left to Right Factor Imbalance:

http://69.73.163.60/oreillysucks/viewforum.php?f=11

The oreilly-sucks.com forums:

http://69.73.163.60/oreillysucks/index.php

Proof occurs the minute he opens his pie hole.

see this about Ted Baxter

Thank you for compiling this information, although I'm sure it's tough listening to his vile hate speech and rhetoric every night. I know I couldn't do it. Great work! :)

I do not watch the craptor every night, nobody could handle that. I watch it 2 or 3 nights a week, on the other shows I just read the transcripts the next day to get my data.

Even when I do watch, I still read the transcripts the next day to count the attacks and to make sure I did not miss anything.

I'd leave the O'Reilly dirty work to Olbermann now. Looks like Keith's in his head and O'Reilly keeps going more postal as Olbermann's ratings rise.

These days I find Faux highly amusing to watch. It's TV from the parallel universe and O'Reilly is their poster child. Franken blew away the concept of "fair and balanced" years ago to a majority of American TV viewers and now with the right wing agenda discredited, this network provides a rare window into the implosion that is taking place within the Repugnican party.

As some blogger aptly pointed out, Faux's viewership represents only 1% of the total TV viewing audience at any given time. 10 times more people watch the late night comedy shows now than catch O'Reilly's treehouse.

Bias? Right now it's the best advertisement we could get. The more out of touch and frantic the rhetoric gets in the right, the more they marginalize themselves as being able to be trusted.

Cheers...

I am documenting the right wing bias from O'Reilly, then it will be there for anyone to use. So when some right wing idiot says O'Reilly does not have a right wing bias you can show them my data.

It will be a record of his bias, not just someone saying it. From what I have heard so far about 99.9 percent of the people who find out about what I am doing support it. If you don't like it Kharma, don't look at it.

Some people want actual proof that O'Reilly has a right wing bias, and I provide that.

If someone needs any proof by now that any Faux, not Facts, talking head isn't a Rove meatpuppet, my friend, you'll never convince them.

Media matters has tons of material that documents right wing bias...so does F.A.I.R....who did a great study on the bias on C-SPAN (one that many people still don't realize exists). Faux is like shooting fish in a barrel...it's finding where the Rovian talking points infiltrate so-called "independent" media...such as C-SPAN and the major television networks that we need to really keep an eye on.

If anything, the best thing to do with O'Reilly is to keep winding him up and sending him crashing into a wall. It's his ego that will be his downfall...and the best service we can offer the man right now is more rope to hang himself.

Stewart, I've been a longtime supporter of your site and appreciate all you've done...I'm just saying the fun now is to grease the skids...O'Reilly is going down...I'd think it'd be more interesting to chronicle how it's happening.

Cheers...

Maybe track the number of threats of violence as a separate category?

I'm curious to know how often he wishes US soil to be bombed.

Let's see - during the interview, he:

- Mentioned something about how we should watch what we say

- Only to then go and verbally attack Cindy Sheehan for no reason other than the fact that she's "controlled by far left groups"

- Mentions numerous right-wing diatribe about supporting our troops, which prompted Letterman to say "I think what 60% of what you say is crap."

Letterman was underestimating.