|
|
knowthis
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 21
|
O'reilly Factor..........
 Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:52 pm
|
 |
|
The Factor Sponsor Boycott List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Boycott These Advertisers Who Support The O'Reilly Factor
Mail Boxes Etc. (might be UPS now), Miramax Films, Metrokane, Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Subaru, Fidelity Investments, Total Cereal, Ameridebt, America's Lending Partners, Allstate, Hotel.com, Ameritrade.com, Ameriquest.com, Fitnessquest.com, Centrum, Hummer, and Cheerios.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Boycott has been expanded to all of FOX News, and all of MSNBC. You should watch FOX and MSNBC, see who sponsors them, then boycott their products until they start reporting the news in an objective manner. They are both far right biased conservative propaganda news channels. They pretend to be fair and balanced, when in reality, they are far right and unbalanced. And CNN is close to being added to the boycott list, they are just slightly better than MSNBC.
They are ALL corporate, conservative, biased, right-leaning news outlets. They are no longer the free press, they are the profit press, who only care about ratings and profits. They pander to the White House, Bush, and the republicans because they are in power now. If you want real news, go to the BBC or the Guardian in the UK etc. The American media has become a joke, they are no longer objective, and they are no longer the free press our founding fathers wanted them to be. I love America, and I want it to be a great country, but I am ashamed of what our media has become. I don't want right-leaning news, or left-leaning news, I want straight news that is objective, fair to both sides, and accurate.
If you believe Bill O'Reilly is an Independent, fair and balanced objective news analyst, you truly need serious mental help. If you believe FOX news is fair and balanced, you truly need mental help. If you believe MSNBC has not become MSRNC, you truly need mental help. If you believe CNN is not slightly better than MSRNC, you truly need mental help. The whole media runs as if they work for the White House, they should just cut out the middleman and hire Ari Fleischer to do the news.
If you see a sponsor who is not on the list, please e-mail me and let me know. The contact link is on the front page.
|
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:00 pm
|
|
|
Looks to me that its so much that you percieve a bias that is the problem, its when the bias is not in your favor, that you get upset.
Left leaning bias would be just fine with you.
|
| |
|
|
knowthis
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 21
|
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:44 pm
|
|
|
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcchesney05162003.html
This article say alot........
Since the vast majority of the news coverage is overtly republican spin, it would seem only fair.........
Many republicans are even speaking out against the attempts to monopolize the media.
If their opinions are so truthful, why fear the opposing view? |
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:05 pm
|
|
|
How can be the news be Republican spin when journalists are overwhelmingly Democratic/left leaning?
How often do you ever hear a journalist use "left wing" as derogatory adjective? Rarely to never. But you hear "right wing" often...
There is a difference between being against bias, and being against right wing bias.
The news could be nothing but guardian and workers world weekly and you would be just fine with it
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003 11:05 pm
|
|
|
I'm really starting to take a shine to you msu...
now if we could just transfer that avatar with the beer taps over here....
 |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:32 am
|
|
|
You guys do know what news analyst shows are, right? You aren't complete morons, right? They are *supposed* to be opinionated, that's why they get ratings!
And yes.. there is a right-wing tendency for a majority of the analyst shows, but who cares? Think for your selves, and stop complaining.
Maybe if the left wingers were right more often there would be more bias in that direction 
That said.. There are way too many analyst/opinion shows around.. A problem with three 24/h news networks.
Rambling on, news paper editorials have a big tendency to be liberally biased, it's just a lot easier to watch a TV editorial instead of read a paper.
Erm.. hope I made sense, I'm dead tired.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:22 pm
|
|
|
The O' LIE-ly factor?
Ah...let the windbag has his little forum...
Should be called..."All the news that's fit to suit the needs and agenda of the Illuminati/Globalists/NWO".
MSU94...shouldn't YOU be back at that ONE-SIDED
EGO FEST known as pub31..aka MAV'S?
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 02-26-2004] |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:45 pm
|
|
|
Actually, O’Reilly is fairly moderate. I don't consider him a very right wing conservative, and some of his political leanings such as on the subject of taxes might even be considered liberal, although his main focus are social issues. He is probably one of the most if not THE most "fair and balanced" investigative reporter out there. And yes, I said investigative reporter. O’Reilly is the last of a dying breed of dinosaur reporter who does his own investigation into stories, rather than lazily repeating something from the UPI or AP, or a Lexus Nexus search. And he asks the tough questions of his guests regardless of what side of the political isle they may be on. He goes after right wing people with the same energy, because his focus is actually truth, not to convert anyone to his way of thinking.
Now having said this, I should also say I'm not a big Bill O’reilly fan...precisely because he is so moderate. I am a Sean Hannity fan, however, who tends to be center right. Even in the case of Sean Hannity however, the argument that Fox News is right leaning is absolutely ridiculous. In case you didn't notice, Hannity's views are countered by a very leftist guy, and an overly positive representative of the left named Allen Colmes....Colmes is not as popular as Hannity however, because he is wrong on about 90% of the issues...because the left is wrong on 90% of the issues. Like I said, he's an overly positive representative of the left. In fact, I think choosing Colmes to represent the left was generous of Fox....because most of the left tends to be more negative and bitter.
The problem is, any time you get something that really is "fair and balanced" just like their motto claims....the leftists have to go out and rant that it is right wing. Like everything else the left spouts...the idea that Fox is right wing, is complete bull, of course. Foxnews is "fair and balanced"....because it gives the left equal time with the right. The whole mainstream media, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN is radical left wing in their bias, however, trying to pretend to be objective. (That’s a main difference between the right and the left. Leftists have to pretend to be something they are not….such as objective…, whereas, conservatives will readily admit their bias)
We have one network named Fox, that dares to present a conservative perspective as well as the left...and suddenly the leftist/liberal whiners have a problem with that...(Proof that what the left really wants is censorship of conservative ideas). Now talk radio was born out of a rebellion against the left's domination of the mainstream media. Conservative talk radio started as a sort of rebellious counter culture movement. In other words, it balances the left, and makes no excuses for openly admitting it‘s bias. Liberals have been having trouble getting a radio show started precisely because very few people will listen to it…and because people don’t listen to talk radio to hear what they can get from the mainstream news. They want the truth…they want to rebel against the assault the left has made on American culture. The free market doesn't support left wing talk radio because the majority of the country actually tend to be conservative…They seek truth, not leftist propaganda, and conservatives give their audiences what they seek.
People just don't listen to leftist talk radio because they get enough spin and propaganda from mainstream sources. The only way the left seem to have to get people to accept their views is to force them down their throats with government help while pretending to be something other than what they really are. NPR radio is a great example of this. Here the left already have a tax payer funded radio station with an extreme leftist bias...and that's not good enough for them. NPR is a great example of the only way the left can succeed. Because the free market does not support leftist or liberal views, they must rely on bilking the taxpayers, to jam those views down our throats....It's extreme hypocrisy any way you look at it. The left doesn't want fair and balanced...they want to suppress and censor conservative views altogether. |
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Fri Jul 11, 2003 6:34 pm
|
|
|
Oh Mech, is that a veiled attemped to tell me to leave? 
There are people of all political stripes, who are not happy unless they hear their particular politcal slant, as the news, or else they cry Bias.
But I do think the average journalist/reporter is going to be left of center. Che Guevara and Castro would be held in higher esteem in a journalism school than George Washington or other founding fathers of the country.
Often they do not go into journalism because they want to accurately report what is going on in the world, but they go into it with an ax to grind for some particular agenda. I think the last poll I heard about for them, was 90-95 percent vote Democratic. Its typically that way for most of the creative fields, where analytical thought is not requirement, but a certain degree of creativity is. (Art, music, etc)
However that does not stop lefties from hooting and hollering anytime they see a conservative on tv. It can be a show with 4 lefties, 1 conservative, and they will not like it one bit because there are too many conservatives then
But the complaint about a company being run by right wingers is rather comical. How can a leftist run a company, when they do not believe in the private sector, profit, or companies to being with?
That would be like letting an atheist be pastor of a Church.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by msu94 on 07-11-2003] |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:01 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fastwalker:
Actually, O’Reilly is fairly moderate. I don't consider him a very right wing conservative,
O'really screaming "Shut up!" at the family member of the WTC victims who 'blamed Bush' for letting his family die was a real classic.
especially when it ordered the aggrieved survivor's mike cut off and security dragged the man offstage.
Zieg!
FW
spoken like a person who considered Hitler too left wing for your taste!
Supression of free speech is the only hope of neo-con fascists.
Truth will destroy your pathetic attemps at world domination.
There are perhaps 14 'left wing' radio or TV talk shows, to balance the thousands of rightwing shows.
Even NPR and NPTV has a rightwing bias with their emphasis on rightwing analysis shows.
eg: Tony Brown's Journal, on which he interviews all 43 rightwing blacks over and over.
MCNeil Lehrer news hour with two wealthy rightwingers giving the slant of the moneyed class.
Even John McLaughlin has begun expressing opinions about the Bush dictatorship going over the edge in extremism.
www.mclaughlin.com/
blogs.salon.com/0001946/ www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/ news/opinion/6075525.htm
jimfocus.blogspot.com/
[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 07-11-2003] |
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Sat Jul 12, 2003 1:41 am
|
|
|
Well there are many attempts at leftist talk shows, and the vast majority fail. And most are not even funny anyways.
Why? No one wants to listen to them. Who wants to hear about why they should have higher taxes, why the private sector is bad, why we need more welfare, why we need federal funded abortion and nationalization of health care.
You are free to start your own left wing talk show if you want. Go for it..
Do you even know what Neo-con or fascist means, or do you just use those words as labels?
Speech codes are the darling of the left. And why does FW thinking O Rielly is a moderate somehow align him with Hitler? Think you can do better than that?
You are linking FW with hitler because of a disagree with you? Isnt that along the lines of what you have been accusing the right of?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by msu94 on 07-11-2003] |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:44 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by msu94:
Well there are many attempts at leftist talk shows, and the vast majority fail. And most are not even funny anyways.
Why? No one wants to listen to them.
I lived 39 years as a rightwing insider,
& accuse them of being against the first amendment.
against habeus corpus,
against honest dissent,
against the teachings of Christ.
All because I was a rightwing insider
and know that the words are hollow
and the goal is total domination of the individual by a rightwing police state.
Liberals support and believe in freedon of and for the individual.
That is what Conservatives once stood for.
Way back when Conservatives also respected and supported the US Constitution,
like Liberals do now.
It wasn't Clinton that suspended the US Constitution by signing the USA Patriot Act.
It was Bush who suspended the US Constitution by signing the USA Patriot Act.
By their fruits ye shall know them, the Bible says.
suspending the US Constitution and bill of Rights is very rotten rightwing fruit indeed!
Conservatives have put their hate of our sacred Constitution into legislation.
Only a few brave (doomed) Liberals have stood up to the rightwing dictatorship.
Most are already dead!
[Edited 2 times, lastly by shatoga on 07-11-2003] |
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Sat Jul 12, 2003 5:17 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shatoga:
[B] I lived 39 years as a rightwing insider,
& accuse them of being against the first amendment.
against habeus corpus,
against honest dissent,
against the teachings of Christ.
All because I was a rightwing insider
and know that the words are hollow
and the goal is total domination of the individual by a rightwing police state.
yep, you found us out! We will have to send Special Agent Larry Lawson after you!
quote:
Liberals support and believe in freedon of and for the individual.
If your the leftist idea of freedom is higher taxes on everything, government controlling your health care, speech codes, and the rule of emotion over the rule of law, well you can have your idea of freedom.
/ quote:
It wasn't Clinton that suspended the US Constitution by signing the USA Patriot Act.
It was Bush who suspended the US Constitution by signing the USA Patriot Act.
That a silly argument. For that matter, Clinton did not veto the USA Patriot Act either
quote:
By their fruits ye shall know them, the Bible says.
suspending the US Constitution and bill of Rights is very rotten rightwing fruit indeed!
Conservatives have put their hate of our sacred Constitution into legislation.
Only a few brave (doomed) Liberals have stood up to the rightwing dictatorship.
Most are already dead!
Oh come on, liberals are being killed if they dissent? Then why are the liberals not bringing this up? How come you are still alive then?
|
| |
|
|
knowthis
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 21
|
|
Sat Jul 12, 2003 5:42 am
|
|
|
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
"Once again on the US "free press"
"Fox News chief doubled as political adviser to Bush
By David Walsh
25 November 2002
The revelation that Fox News Channel Chairman Roger Ailes sent a secret memo offering political advice to George W. Bush after last year’s terrorist attacks illustrates one of the fundamental facts of American political life: the utterly dishonest and politically incestuous relationship between the mass media and the government.
The Ailes-Bush episode came to light through a passing reference in Bob Woodward’s new book, Bush at War. The book is an account, based on insider information, of the first 100 days in the Bush White House following the September 11 hijack-bombings. Woodward reports that on October 7, 2001 Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, delivered a “confidential communication” from Ailes to the president.
Woodward continues: “It had to be confidential because Ailes, a flamboyant and irreverent media executive, was currently the head of Fox News, the conservative-leaning television cable network that was enjoying high ratings. In that position, Ailes was not supposed to be giving political advice. His back-channel message: The American public would tolerate waiting and would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced that Bush was using the harshest measures possible. Support would dissipate if the public did not see Bush acting harshly.”
Thus the head of one of the nation’s major news outlets coached the president on how best to manipulate public opinion. In doing so, Ailes was carrying out through his top-level political connections the job that Fox newscasters and commentators do on a daily basis—peddling lies, half-truths and government handouts as news, in order to misinform and dupe the public.
Ailes issued a statement after the release of Bush at War claiming that he had merely written “a personal note to a White House staff member as a concerned American expressing my outrage about the attacks on our country.” He refused, however, to make public the contents of the letter. Ailes said that he and Woodward had talked the incident over and that it was a “non-issue.”
Ailes’ secret memo and his brazen defense of his conduct have provoked barely a murmur of protest from the media at large. The New York Times merely suggested that “as a top executive of a news organization he [Ailes] should know better than to offer private counsel to Mr. Bush.”
The Times and the rest of the establishment media have good reason to play down the significance of Ailes’ flagrant partisanship and conflict of interest. The Murdoch-owned Fox News simply exhibits in the most shameless and overt manner the cynical and corrupt relationship between the media and the American state. The main difference between Fox and its rivals is that the Murdoch news outlet is more openly tied to one of the two big business parties, the Republicans, and barely makes a pretense of impartiality.
Ailes’s own biography is a case in point. He became media adviser for Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and is widely credited with the latter’s political resurrection. He scripted Ronald Reagan’s second debate with Walter Mondale in 1984 and created the notorious Willie Horton commercial for the senior George Bush in the 1988 election (which featured a black man convicted of murder who had been paroled by the administration of Bush’s Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, and was later arrested for rape and assault).
In 1992 Ailes claimed that he had finished with politics and that his contract with the short-lived Rush Limbaugh television program prevented him from political consulting. However, according to New York Daily News business columnist Paul Colford, Ailes “privately urged Bush’s reelection campaign to get rough, and he helped the president prepare his acceptance speech at the Republican convention.”
Along the way Ailes has made a fortune with his own media production and consulting firm. He has been chair and chief executive officer of Fox News and the Fox News Channel since it began in January 1996.
The Fox cable channel is a hotbed of right-wing ideologues, including talk-show host and demagogue Bill O’Reilly (who writes for the extreme right WorldNetDaily.com), Brit Hume (a contributor to the American Spectator and Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard), David Asman (formerly of the Wall Street Journal editorial page), Tony Snow (a former speechwriter in the first Bush administration), Sean Hannity (a radio talk-show host), Fred Barnes (editor of the Weekly Standard) and numerous others.
The connections between Fox and the Bush administration, as the confidential communication between Ailes and George W. Bush indicates, reach the highest levels. On Election Day 2000, John Ellis, a first cousin of Bush, headed Fox’s “decision desk.” After a series of telephone consultations with the Bush headquarters in Texas, Ellis called Florida a win for Bush in the early morning hours of Wednesday, November 8, sparking a stampede of similar calls by the other networks. A Bush victory in Florida gave the Republican candidate the electoral votes necessary to secure the presidency, even though Bush had lost the popular vote. Subsequently, the networks revoked their declaration of a Bush win and labeled Florida “too close to call,” sparking the two-month struggle over the Florida vote that ultimately led to the Supreme Court ruling handing the White House to Bush.
Even though it was later revoked, the Fox projection created the public impression that Bush had won the presidency, helped legitimize his subsequent claims and played a material role in the successful campaign to steal the election and place the Texas governor in the White House.
State manipulation of the news is by no means unique to Fox. Every television network engages in it. During the US war in Afghanistan last autumn, executives of CNN instructed their reporters to downplay civilian casualties and damage done by US military attacks, on the grounds that such reports might weaken popular support for the invasion. CNN Chairman Walter Isaacson told the Washington Post it seemed “perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan.”
“We’re entering a period in which there’s a lot more reporting and video from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan,” Isaacson said. “You want to make sure people understand that when they see civilian suffering there, it’s in the context of a terrorist attack that caused enormous suffering in the United States.”
A watershed for CNN came in its capitulation to the military and right-wing forces over the “Operation Tailwind” affair. In 1998 the cable news channel broadcast a program reporting allegations that the US military had used chemical weapons in Laos in 1970. The program provided substantial evidence that the military had used sarin, a deadly nerve gas, in Operation Tailwind.
When former civilian and military officials, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, among others, denounced the program, CNN officials capitulated unconditionally. Ted Turner apologized profusely and the network fired the two producers of the program.
The US media, which has turned sharply to the right along with rest of political elite, has been conditioned over the course of several decades to function as the conduit for Pentagon misinformation and lies. Fox, CNN and the major networks are willing and eager to play that role in an invasion and colonial-style occupation of Iraq."
I really enjoy the assumptions that have been made about me. For instance, by criticizing the the "news" and labeling it right wing agenda, I immediately become a left winger? I'm actually not that politically driven at all, I don't have much faith in either side. You only have to be an idiot though, not to notice the unbalance in the "news" coverage. So call me a "lefty" all day long, it doesn't apply to me. Sensationalism makes for good entertainment, but lousy news. This messageboard could drive any neutral party into becoming a dem though.......just out of spite. |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Sat Jul 12, 2003 6:00 am
|
|
|
msu94
comments that Clinton (who was out of office) did not vote against the unconstitutional usa patriot act (which bush signed gleefully)
msu,
Learn something about the government and learn to appear a lot more informed.
Out of office means they cannot vote.
'Stupid is as stupid does.'
Liberals are not all being killed if they dissent.
Only one Liberal senatorial candidate every election cycle.
Remember Missouri voters (those who know him best) voted for a dead man (Mel Carnahan) rather than herr John asscroft.
Proof even a dead liberal can defeat a soulless conservative in an honest election.
Others (Condit et al) are merely discredited with false charges and unsubstantuiated innuendo.
Why are the liberals not bringing this up?
Probably you don't notice the liberals bringing this up because you only pay attention to the rightwing owned and controlled media of the US.
Those not wealthy enough to own and control newspapers radio and TV stations, bring the murder of Liberal opponents of herr bush up almost daily.
The RNC Team Leaders should really be better informed before they give out your talking points.
My sympathy.
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 10:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
