PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Deadly Hamster on January 10, 2005, 11:22:13 AM
-
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/10/DDGE5AN1QG1.DTL
Perhaps Jon Stewart can stroll over to Fox News next and clean house there.
In the past week, media critics across the country have had to face the fact that inches upon inches of fine prose -- filled with salient points and passion -- were no match for Stewart telling Tucker Carlson that he and "Crossfire" were hurting America.
-
Viva Kalifornia :rolleyes:
-
Yea, didn\'t expect much less from San Fran
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Viva Kalifornia :rolleyes:
Are you criticizing the decision to cancel Crossfire, or the article about the decision?
Did you read the article? It is somewhat critical of CNN\'s decision.
-
I see my weather control device hasn\'t completely finished the job of drowning Kalifornia. Damn! ;)
-
My underwater laboratory can sustain life for up to three months. :) Back to the subject...
-
First, it is an article with a strong left slant... "Stroll over to Fox..."
Secondly, it is an article to make the left feel good about themselves since they don\'t really have anything to feel good about post 11/2/04... unless you count the Boxer Rebellion Tear Fest Extravaganza that happened last week in Congress.
EDIT: Klein is right about one thing Crossfire is irrelevant now - its ratings are terrible when compared to Fox\'s lineup. Taking advice or denying defeat?
Oh and I reset my weather machine to make it keep raining for another 4 months. ;) Better start watching Waterworld to take notes.
-
It\'s amazing how you read "LEFT vs RIGHT" and "US vs THEM" concepts into everything that passes in front of you. If you review it again, you\'ll find that the article was about CNN\'s proposed discarding of pundit argument shows and head-butting in favor of more genuine news reporting. It also questioned their wisdom in doing so, when audiences seem to like these pudit shows.
There was no mention in the article of this being an ideological victory for either side of this alleged Left/Right struggle you see everywhere. It was simply an analysis of programming style on various cable news networks. If you see a "strong left slant" in that article, then you\'ve seriously gone around the bend and over paranoia hill.
-
Paranoia is only a heightened state of awareness.
-
What\'s different from that show and something like the McLaughlin Group? More mud slinging?
I like Bill O\'Reilly because he asks tough questions and doesn\'t care about being politically correct. If Fox News did the same thing as CNN I wouldn\'t like it.
-
Errr, Can\'t we just take the general concept out of articles instead of reading into the politics? :\\
-
The article is about politics or didn\'t you pick that up? Crossfire is a political show.
-
Originally posted by THX
What\'s different from that show and something like the McLaughlin Group? More mud slinging?
I like Bill O\'Reilly because he asks tough questions and doesn\'t care about being politically correct. If Fox News did the same thing as CNN I wouldn\'t like it.
Bill O\'Reilly is a f**kin a$$hole...whenever he has a guest on his show, he never gives them time to answer his questions or rather he will answer the question for them...seems like this cat is never wrong and always states "well what i would is blah blah blah"....damn if you\'re gonna conduct a constuctive interview at least let your guest answer the question without your mightier than tho position....he is entertaining tho, i\'ll give you that....
-
I like O\'Reilly, but when he starts with his moral superiority crap, I just think back to the suit posted on The Smoking Gun - Bill O\'Reilly using a dildo.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I like O\'Reilly, but when he starts with his moral superiority crap, I just think back to the suit posted on The Smoking Gun - Bill O\'Reilly using a dildo.
And the assumption is what... that it\'s undoubtedly true?
clips- you\'re right, he is a ****ing asshole. But not for any of the dumb reasons you stated. He doesn\'t cut mics/guests off unless they\'re bullshitting. And that\'s good. Maybe you like some retard spewing their respective agenda without care for common sense or facts, but that might be why you don\'t have the #1 rated political talkshow in North America.
I actually hate O\'Reilly myself, he\'s too centrist, has too many liberal stances for my liking. But I felt the need to defend the one thing he does do right. And don\'t bother laughing at me labelling him too far left, if you don\'t see that he\'s really in the middle and not a neocon, then you\'re too far left to see straight.
-
Well when you have detailed conversations quoting him - my guess would be she taped all of his phone conversations. So yes I do indeed believe he is a pervert and that is why I can\'t stand him preaching morals to people when he is guilty of exactly the same thing.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Well when you have detailed conversations quoting him - my guess would be she taped all of his phone conversations. So yes I do indeed believe he is a pervert and that is why I can\'t stand him preaching morals to people when he is guilty of exactly the same thing.
You couldn\'t make up a conversation? That\'s pretty sad. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I\'ve made up fake AIM convo\'s plenty of times, its not hard...
-
Please... have you even read the court files? If you had and had any objectivity, you would know the man likes his toys.
And some of you thought I was ultra conservative?
-
So what\'s the verdict? He says he\'s innocent, she says she\'s guilty. Did they just settle out of court?
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
You couldn\'t make up a conversation? That\'s pretty sad. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I\'ve made up fake AIM convo\'s plenty of times, its not hard...
If the conversation is made up why settle out of court for millions of dollars a little while after saying you would fight all of the ridiculous accusations?
If there is no tape or evidence of harrassment her case is garbage. So why then was Bill so quick to settle the lawsuit and get the story off the air?
O\'Reilly REEKS of guilt.
[EDIT] Giga is arguing a position to the left of someone else. This thread has officially become the Twilight Zone.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
If the conversation is made up why settle out of court for millions of dollars a little while after saying you would fight all of the ridiculous accusations?
If there is no tape or evidence of harrassment her case is garbage. So why then was Bill so quick to settle the lawsuit and get the story off the air?
O\'Reilly REEKS of guilt.
[EDIT] Giga is arguing a position to the left of someone else. This thread has officially become the Twilight Zone.
If he did it, why would he say he\'d fight it at all before settling? Innocent people who can afford it settle all the time because it\'s easier and costs less in the long run. Here\'s a better question: if the money seeking whore had a real case, why did she settle so he could go on to \'harrass\' other women? Why did she leave CNN to come back to Fox after the fact? Yea... he was found guilty of nothing, and you can\'t back up anything you\'re saying. O\'Reilly reeks of nothing.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Please... have you even read the court files? If you had and had any objectivity, you would know the man likes his toys.
And some of you thought I was ultra conservative?
O\'Reilly isn\'t a conservative, and I\'m not defending anything except what deserves it. You \'know\' nothing except something a woman said, nothing more. I\'m completely objective, you are the one ignoring all sense of fairness or the American legal process. He was convicted of nothing, the woman returned to Fox after the fact, she settled. There is nothing in those documents that rises above the level of \'she said\'.
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
If he did it, why would he say he\'d fight it at all before settling? Innocent people who can afford it settle all the time because it\'s easier and costs less in the long run. Here\'s a better question: if the money seeking whore had a real case, why did she settle so he could go on to \'harrass\' other women? Why did she leave CNN to come back to Fox after the fact? Yea... he was found guilty of nothing, and you can\'t back up anything you\'re saying. O\'Reilly reeks of nothing.
If there is no evidence, the case does not even go to trial. There is no long run. Read the court documents it is an open and shut case. If there are no tapes she has no case. If it actually goes to trial it is his word against hers and the fact that she left the job and came back AFTER he had supposedly harassed her hurts her case even more. A TV Lawyer could argue this case successfully. The only trump card is the audio tapes.
From thesmokinggun.com
OCTOBER 20--Claiming that Andrea Mackris and her lawyers have intentionally transcribed secretly recorded conversations in a "misleading manner," lawyers for Bill O\'Reilly and Fox News are seeking copies of these recordings, claiming that they will back up the cable news star\'s contention that he was set up by his former "O\'Reilly Factor" colleague. After lawyers for Fox and O\'Reilly filed the below court petition, a New York judge ordered Mackis and her attorneys to appear at a hearing Friday to disclose whether such tapes exist (and why they should not be turned over to the O\'Reilly camp). In an affidavit, Fox lawyer Dianne Brandi cites detailed quotations (and transcribed "um\'s" and "you knows") in Mackris\'s sex harassment complaint as evidence that the 33-year-old associate producer was rolling tape when O\'Reilly delivered his steamy loofah soliloquy.
Do you really expect someone as pompous as O\'Reilly to go on his show and own up to something like this? PUH-LEASE.
-
Originally posted by EThuggV3
And the assumption is what... that it\'s undoubtedly true?
clips- you\'re right, he is a ****ing asshole. But not for any of the dumb reasons you stated. He doesn\'t cut mics/guests off unless they\'re bullshitting. And that\'s good. Maybe you like some retard spewing their respective agenda without care for common sense or facts, but that might be why you don\'t have the #1 rated political talkshow in North America.
I actually hate O\'Reilly myself, he\'s too centrist, has too many liberal stances for my liking. But I felt the need to defend the one thing he does do right. And don\'t bother laughing at me labelling him too far left, if you don\'t see that he\'s really in the middle and not a neocon, then you\'re too far left to see straight.
ethugg do you even watch his show? you\'re a f**kin idiot if you think he just cuts off guests that are bullsh*ting. i\'ve seen alot of times when he had democratic guests on his show and he would just rip them and not give them time to answer the question if they didn\'t concur with his views...even if it\'s a republican guest, if they don\'t agree with his views to some degree, he always interupts them..do me a favor bro, watch at least more than one show before makin a dumbass comment..
-
clips- I don\'t watch it religiously, but I would say I\'ve seen plenty. I\'ve been watching Fox News since I was in HS still, and O\'Reilly I\'ve watched irregularly for what... 5 years now? I\'m not sure. Point is, I\'ve seen no less than a hundred shows. He doesn\'t just cut off ppl for no reason. Maybe once in a great while he does, but usually Bill has asked a question, and the guest (Democrats especially like doing this) start to reply with something that has nothing to do with what he asked. Other times they are simply talking out of their asses. Both of those reasons seperately account for much more of Bill\'s interruptions.
Black- I don\'t see how Bill is any more pompus than anyone else, but you\'re right, I don\'t see him just admitting it if he did it. That hardly proves the supposed audio was authentic. If you were trying to BS a public figure in an extortion scheme, would you not spend awhile doing things to make what you claim was said sounds authentic? If I wanted to, I sure could. I don\'t say he didn\'t do it, I say we don\'t know, and his actions aren\'t proof he did. If there is no evidence, there is no trial? I guess you missed Michael Jacksons prior trial, in which there would have been a trial with a complete lack of evidence if he hadn\'t settled? Or the Blake trial coming up in which again, there is NO evidence? Or the fact that Kobe was going to trial with no evidence? These things get dragged through the mud for a long time when you\'re rich and famous, settling out of court is usually the best way for even an innocent person to deal with it because it gets it off the front pages and people move on. I don\'t know how you guys are missing this, but its precicely because of O\'Reilly\'s moralistic attitude that he would have settled regardless, this type of thing true or not could ruin his reputation and very livelyhood.