Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1.    #1  
    ....granted it was published on Think Progress, but I found the study interesting and frankly, probably true. Hobbes I think you once asked why I think Fox is so biased....well, Bill O is one very big reason.

    Article is below:

    STUDY: Bill O’Reilly Uses Derogatory Names ‘More Than Once Every Seven Seconds’

    A new study by Indiana University media researchers finds that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly calls “a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.”

    The study documented six months worth, or 115 episodes, of O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” editorials “using propaganda analysis techniques made popular after World War I.” Researchers found that O’Reilly “was prone to inject fear into his commentaries and quick to resort to name-calling. He also frequently assigned roles or attributes — such as ‘villians’ or downright ‘evil’ — to people and groups.

    Some findings from the study:

    – Fear was used in more than half (52.4 percent) of the commentaries, and O’Reilly almost never offered a resolution to the threat. For example, in a commentary on “left-wing” media unfairly criticizing Attorney Gen. Alberto Gonzales for his role in the Abu Ghraib scandal, O’Reilly considered this an example of America “slowly losing freedom and core values,” and added, “So what can be done? Unfortunately, not much.”

    – The researchers identified 22 groups of people that O’Reilly referenced in his commentaries, and while all 22 were described by O’Reilly as bad at some point, the people and groups most frequently labeled bad were the political left — Americans as a group and the media (except those media considered by O’Reilly to be on the right).

    – Left-leaning media (21.6 percent) made up the largest portion of bad people/groups, and media without a clear political leaning was the second largest (12.2 percent). When it came to evil people and groups, illegal aliens (26.8 percent) and terrorists (21.4 percent) were the largest groups.

    The techniques used by Indiana University researchers to study O’Reilly were also “used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini.” The researchers note, “O’Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin.”
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    ....granted it was published on Think Progress, but I found the study interesting and frankly, probably true. Hobbes I think you once asked why I think Fox is so biased....well, Bill O is one very big reason.

    Article is below:
    As you already recognized....think of the source. But even if taken at face value...it is a host of a single program. I usually don't agree him majority of the time myself. So as I have stated before in other threads, I personally don't watch Bill's show, or listen to this radio show. There are also some hardliners on CNN that I never agree with, but I don't discount that news room because of they are allowed to voice their opinions or host their own shows.
  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    As you already recognized....think of the source. But even if taken at face value...it is a host of a single program. I usually don't agree him majority of the time myself. So as I have stated before in other threads, I personally don't watch Bill's show, or listen to this radio show. There are also some hardliners on CNN that I never agree with, but I don't discount that news room because of they are allowed to voice their opinions or host their own shows.
    Understood about Think Progress. Then again, they were reporting on a study done by a University who arrived at these conclusions. Whether they've been reported accurately or not, who knows. Still, having watched his show a few times (with a vomit trough close by) I doubt it's much of a stretch.

    But on a serious note - what is your take on talk radio/TV shows in general? Are they dominate by one side of the aisle? What about the MSM? I truly wish I could find unbiased stats on this on this as I cannot imagine it would difficult to track who has more Dems vs. Repubs vs. Lefter-wingers vs. Right-wingers, etc. etc.
  4. #4  
    Nothing more than a personal perspective with no official source or stats.

    Talk Radio is predominately right wing. Left wing have tried it many times over, but cannot maintain the ratings as they were never able to develop and maintain a loyal listener base. The Right Wing talk shows continue to have a large and loyal base that I would easily believe continues to grow.

    MSM. I will look at this in two ways, stereotypical generalization and individually. If I had to reply with a stereotypical generalization I would say that the majority of the media is Left leaning more than right. I have noticed trends where the media has completely overlooked offenses by a liberal and then relentless hounded on a conservative for the same or lesser act. Again, this is generalizing and acknowledging huge exceptions to this.

    But I myself personally look at the MSM more individualized. In other words each newsroom has an Editor in Chief, staff members, reporters, columnists, etc... The same management team oversees those who are hired for their specific newsroom. They are people. People of like mind work better together. Hence, each newsroom, i.e. newspaper, local news station, national news org, etc... certainly has it's own political leanings (and even agendas). Some to the left and some to the right.

    I certainly lean to right but I am fairly central. I do not have any political affiliation or loyalty. I read all sorts of news articles from a wide variety of newspaper newsrooms on the same topic. I watch all 3 major news networks. That is why I will not just watch CNN or just Fox. Both are valuable and neither should be ignored. Otherwise I only get one perspective from only one political side of the fence.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/02/2007 at 11:10 PM.
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I usually don't agree him majority of the time myself. So as I have stated before in other threads, I personally don't watch Bill's show, or listen to this radio show.
    How can one have an informed opinion if one does not take in this talking-head's self-righteous, self-serving diatribes?
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But on a serious note - what is your take on talk radio/TV shows in general? Are they dominate by one side of the aisle? What about the MSM? I truly wish I could find unbiased stats on this on this as I cannot imagine it would difficult to track who has more Dems vs. Repubs vs. Lefter-wingers vs. Right-wingers, etc. etc.
    It's not the published/broadcast media that is the real issue, IMO. The public is missing the forest for the trees. It's their ownership which has the real power and is universally conservative and sways the FCC.
  7. #7  
    My observations of Bill have been that it's mostly a persona and one that he is somewhat tired of playing and only continues to do so for a paycheck.
  8. #8  
    Bill and Rush reflect what their audience wants.

    My favourite political (and sometimes not political) talk shows are Charlie Rose on PBS and Fresh Air on NPR. Whatever subtle bias they may have, at least they are not shouting matches and one learns a lot form these shows where people talk in complete sentences.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    ....granted it was published on Think Progress, but I found the study interesting and frankly, probably true. Hobbes I think you once asked why I think Fox is so biased....well, Bill O is one very big reason.

    Article is below:
    I don't like Bill, and except for Stephen Colbert's recent appearance, I don't watch the O'Reilly Factor. He's obnoxious and often unreasonable.

    Regarding FoxNews, keep in mind that there's news and then there's editorial. Much of the editorial is far right. That includes O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, and others. The political analysis (e.g., Brit Hume) is generally conservative, but not extreme. And the news itself leans only moderately to the right, but IMO, no more than NYT news articles lean left. You can tell the Fox news reporters are conservative, just like you can tell NYT journalists are liberal.
  10.    #10  
    Thanks for the replies. They're not too far from my observations. Talk radio is dominated by the right. I think Editorial talk shows are more spread out, however, I am sorry but most of the shows on the right seem far more angry and aggressive than those that lean left. For instance, George Stephanopoulos' was a Clinton aide and yet I find that he tries very hard to be balanced compared to Glenn Beck, Hannity, and even Brit Hume.

    As far as the MSM, I think there is always going to be bias but as I alluded to in an earlier post I lean more left here simply because I want a press skeptical of the government and not one that is a mouthpiece. That said, what has made matters even worse is tabloid journalism whereby sensationalism rules and the American people seem to eat it up.
  11. #11  
    Sigh... it's too bad that this "study" passes as both objective and as journalism. Here are some things to chew on (no particular order, and all emphasis mine):

    Quote Originally Posted by p. 198, 2nd paragraph
    In the 1930s, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis unveiled seven devices for detecting propaganda in speech. Moreover, Harold Lasswell (1971) as well as Bernard Berelson and Morris Janowitz (1953) identified the use of fear appeals as well as the three-prong construction of evil enemies, the virtuous ‘‘us,’’ and innocent victims as central themes running though propaganda messages of several nations. The study reported here employed these techniques in a content analysis of O’Reilly’s communication strategies.
    Evil vs Good has been a central theme throughout all of human history. Of course people speak/think/write/behave in these terms, it's second nature. If this definition is true, then 99.9% of written history is propaganda.

    Watch as the researchers themselves speak in such terms:

    Quote Originally Posted by introductory paragraph
    The results show that O’Reilly is a heavier and less nuanced user of the seven devices developed by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in the late 1930s than the notorious radio commentator of that time, Father Charles Coughlin.
    "Notorious" is not a neutral description. (seems to be propaganda on the part of the researchers)

    Quote Originally Posted by p. 99, 5th paragraph
    Father Charles Coughlin’s mix of religion and politics delivered with an authoritative broadcasting style had been one of the most popular programs on radio during the 1930s. But Coughlin’s broadcasts became heavily anti-Semitic and he was one of the few apologists for Adolf Hitler and the reign of terror brought about by the Nazi party in Germany.
    They appeal to the idea that Hitler & the Nazi party was evil and exhibited a "reign of terror". Wouldn't this qualify as a "fear appeal" on the part of the researchers.

    Side note: when conducting a study and a control group is needed, using an anti-Semitic, Hitler supporting broadcaster as your only control doesn't count.


    The paper quotes a source of influence (Harold Lasswell) as it delineates the propaganda tool of defining the "Villains, Victims, and the Virtuous"

    Quote Originally Posted by p. 201, 4th paragraph
    History is the story of the struggle of devils and deliverers. This primitive pattern of thought leads to the interpretation of war as the struggle between a good and a bad collective person.
    The article then goes on to talk about the various themes of "good vs evil", "us vs. them", "devil-angel interpretation". Unfortunately, at no point, does the article differentiate between propaganda and reality. I believe in propaganda, but I also believe in good and evil. If no distinction is made, then the belief that "Adolf Hitler and the reign of terror brought about by the Nazi party" and the subsequent World Wars were wars between forces of bad and good is merely a "primitive pattern of thought". To call Hitler, Nazi Germany, the concentration camps, gas chambers, mass graves (etc. ad nauseum) evil, or bad, or devilish then qualifies as nothing more than propaganda.


    Quote Originally Posted by p. 203, 3rd paragraph
    The terms conservative, liberal, left, right, progressive, traditional, or centrist were treated as name calling, if they were associated with a problem or social ill or if coupled with a derogatory term.
    1) Really???
    2) Criticizing the "right" or "traditionalist" or "conservative" presidential administration for causing social ills in Iraq would then count as name calling.
    3) Why is O'Reilly singled out for propaganda for using these terms? Nearly everyone in the MSM (and perhaps anyone at all) have used these terms in association with problems or social ills.


    Quote Originally Posted by p. 198, 2nd paragraph
    Taking these old propaganda analysis tools to investigate O’Reilly might seem heavy-handed. At the same time, his rhetoric has been criticized severely for fueling hatred and promoting politically conservative ideals.
    Justification for heavy-handed propaganda analysis is based on the the fact that O'Reilly has been critiziced for two things:
    1) fueling hatred (this wasn't defined, sited, or validated)
    2) promoting politically conservative ideals (would promoting politically liberal ideals count as well?)

    Quote Originally Posted by p. 199, 2nd paragraph
    ...O’Reilly begins the program with a brief commentary...
    Exactly. It's nothing more than commentary.

    Now for my soap-box moment:
    Whatever your views on the media, politics, Bill O'Reilly, please do yourself a favor: use the gray matter you've been given. No one should fall for this garbage. Please don't 'stupify' the important issues that are at stake in the realm of politics with stuff like this.

    And here's my name-calling advice:
    Self-proclaimed Liberals: please don't quote this study as if it has any validity.
    Self-proclaimed Conservatives: please don't quote this study as if it represents self-proclaimed Liberals.


    p.s. woah, sorry for the long response. I'll keep them shorter next time.
    p.s.s. here's the link to the "study" (warning: pdf)
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by doctorbri View Post
    Sigh... it's too bad that this "study" passes as both objective and as journalism. Here are some things to chew on (no particular order, and all emphasis mine):


    Evil vs Good has been a central theme throughout all of human history. Of course people speak/think/write/behave in these terms, it's second nature. If this definition is true, then 99.9% of written history is propaganda.

    Watch as the researchers themselves speak in such terms:


    "Notorious" is not a neutral description. (seems to be propaganda on the part of the researchers)


    They appeal to the idea that Hitler & the Nazi party was evil and exhibited a "reign of terror". Wouldn't this qualify as a "fear appeal" on the part of the researchers.

    Side note: when conducting a study and a control group is needed, using an anti-Semitic, Hitler supporting broadcaster as your only control doesn't count.


    The paper quotes a source of influence (Harold Lasswell) as it delineates the propaganda tool of defining the "Villains, Victims, and the Virtuous"


    The article then goes on to talk about the various themes of "good vs evil", "us vs. them", "devil-angel interpretation". Unfortunately, at no point, does the article differentiate between propaganda and reality. I believe in propaganda, but I also believe in good and evil. If no distinction is made, then the belief that "Adolf Hitler and the reign of terror brought about by the Nazi party" and the subsequent World Wars were wars between forces of bad and good is merely a "primitive pattern of thought". To call Hitler, Nazi Germany, the concentration camps, gas chambers, mass graves (etc. ad nauseum) evil, or bad, or devilish then qualifies as nothing more than propaganda.




    1) Really???
    2) Criticizing the "right" or "traditionalist" or "conservative" presidential administration for causing social ills in Iraq would then count as name calling.
    3) Why is O'Reilly singled out for propaganda for using these terms? Nearly everyone in the MSM (and perhaps anyone at all) have used these terms in association with problems or social ills.



    Justification for heavy-handed propaganda analysis is based on the the fact that O'Reilly has been critiziced for two things:
    1) fueling hatred (this wasn't defined, sited, or validated)
    2) promoting politically conservative ideals (would promoting politically liberal ideals count as well?)


    Exactly. It's nothing more than commentary.

    Now for my soap-box moment:
    Whatever your views on the media, politics, Bill O'Reilly, please do yourself a favor: use the gray matter you've been given. No one should fall for this garbage. Please don't 'stupify' the important issues that are at stake in the realm of politics with stuff like this.

    And here's my name-calling advice:
    Self-proclaimed Liberals: please don't quote this study as if it has any validity.
    Self-proclaimed Conservatives: please don't quote this study as if it represents self-proclaimed Liberals.


    p.s. woah, sorry for the long response. I'll keep them shorter next time.
    p.s.s. here's the link to the "study" (warning: pdf)
    Welcome to the forum - quite a long winded first post. Perhaps you missed my caveats in each of my first two posts in the thread? Or where you too stupified and missed them?

    Now here is my commentary on Bill O'Reilly - he is a bully that spews right-winged rhetoric and outright lies to boost/maintain ratings.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Now here is my commentary on Bill O'Reilly - he is a bully that spews right-winged rhetoric and outright lies to boost/maintain ratings.
    I essentially agree with your assessment of O'Reilly; he certainly comes across as a bullying self-adulating commentator with little patience for the opposing point under the guise of "looking out for you".

    However, if I understood correctly, the point of doctorbri's was the need for unbiased assessments. There are a number of commentators that are equally hateful bullies, making a career out of spewing left-winged rhetoric and outright lies just as O'Reilly; intellectual integrity can only conclude they are just as wrong.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  14. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #14  
    ....granted it was published on Think Progress, but I found the study interesting and frankly, probably true. Hobbes I think you once asked why I think Fox is so biased....well, Bill O is one very big reason.
    O'Reillys show is an Editorial program in which he gives his opinion. It is not, and is not advertised as a news show. People that scream "bias" when they dont agree with what they see on fox news, really need to get out more, or just turn the channel.
  15. #15  
    As far as the MSM, I think there is always going to be bias but as I alluded to in an earlier post I lean more left here simply because I want a press skeptical of the government and not one that is a mouthpiece.
    Soooo, following your logic, would you become an avid Fox News viewer if the Democrats regain power? By your own reasoning, MSNBC being left-tilted would then become just a mouthpiece of the government.

    I truly believe that for anyone to have an objective and informed position about any issue in this country, information from different leaning needs to be reviewed and analyzed, otherwise you run the risk of becoming just another narrow-minded mouthpiece for whatever point of view you select to embrace.

    what has made matters even worse is tabloid journalism whereby sensationalism rules and the American people seem to eat it up.
    That is sad but true.

    Lately people appear more diligent learning about American Idol contestants before voting, than politicians.

    “in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.” Alexis de Tocqueville
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 05/04/2007 at 10:37 AM.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Welcome to the forum - quite a long winded first post.
    Thanks. Actually, I didn't realize this was my 1st post. Guess I've been a lurker for a while.


    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    However, if I understood correctly, the point of doctorbri's was the need for unbiased assessments... intellectual integrity can only conclude they are just as wrong.
    Exactly. I don't understand all the hoopla over O'Reilly when every other commentator does the same thing. Some people actually consider the Daily Show as a news show. Does that mean we subject John Stewart to a heavy-handed propaganda analysis? (I'm not sure he'd fare so well)


    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Lately people appear more diligent learning about American Idol contestants before voting, than politicians.
    Well put, and very true.


    @moderateinny: I have no problem with people disliking O'Reilly (or John Stewart, for that matter). You said the article was intersting. Sure is. Then you said that it is probably true, and that was where my real concern fell. I'm sure you have valid reasons not to like O'Reilly, but I wouldn't base them in this study because the study isn't unbiased or logical.
  17. #17  
    Is it possible for a hard core conservative and liberal to exchange ideas and values with an open mind in the mutual intention of shedding false beliefs and exposing shallow rhetoric finding strength in the truth that unites all life ? what might I ; a far left guy have to lose and gain by letting down my guards and truly considering the conservative narrative ? Funny , asking myself this the first thing I realize is all of my competitive unproductive anger driven behaviors are basically reactions to the threat of losing the freedom to have them . I'm thinking that the left is protecting freedom they see as threatened and the right is doing the same thing . But even if it was for "the best" I couldn't put all of my lower natures to the chopping block some lower life form would just use me to fuel its pilgrimage . No I guess personal attacks are best done by ones self . But it seems we could come together on universal or ultimate values like love , honesty , interdependence , health , fairness , freedom and responsibility . I think Bill Moyers is doing a good job in promoting healthy dialog . O my *#*! I just googled Bill Moyers and found his blog . Very cool http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/bl...ef.html#c14812
  18. #18  
    Is it possible for a hard core conservative and liberal to exchange ideas and values with an open mind in the mutual intention of shedding false beliefs and exposing shallow rhetoric finding strength in the truth that unites all life ?
    I hope for this to be true, is the only way we will move forward as a Nation.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  19.    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by doctorbri View Post
    @moderateinny: I have no problem with people disliking O'Reilly (or John Stewart, for that matter). You said the article was interesting. Sure is. Then you said that it is probably true, and that was where my real concern fell. I'm sure you have valid reasons not to like O'Reilly, but I wouldn't base them in this study because the study isn't unbiased or logical.
    I also acknowledged the source - openly agreed that the University may not be reporting things truthfully - and openly stated my left-leaning position when it comes to the media. To start off on this site with a ...sigh...followed by a diatribe about "stupified" people like me that takes these studies seriously leaves me to believe you have deep issues yourself with overrationalized positions on why someone on the left can dare doubt the obvious anger amongst right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly.

    You may have also noted that I was soliciting opinions on whether or not there were any independent sources that points to more accurate facts about right vs. left in the media. Yes, my guess is that shows like Bill O's are pretty far right....far enough that a few that consider themself to the right find him offensive....so I am guessing my suspicions aren't too far off base about big Bill.

    PS....a little secret for you. The Daily Show is "fake news" and while I would agree that there may be those that take the show too seriously, I don't think Jon Stewart or the Daily Show have ever done anything but present themselves as a comedy show on a comedy channel. Bill O'Reilly markets his drivel as "fair and balanced" on a real news network not a comedy channel.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    To start off on this site with a ...sigh...followed by a diatribe about "stupified" people like me that takes these studies seriously leaves me to believe you have deep issues yourself with overrationalized positions on why someone on the left can dare doubt the obvious anger amongst right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly.
    Sorry moderateinny. I meant no personal offense. Was only trying to be light-hearted about the study. Sorry to make such a bad first impression.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions