Fox, Hannity & O'Reilly: does anyone believe these guys?

Out here in LA, there are 4 different AM talk stations catering to the conservative crowd. 640 is the biggie, with Rush in the AM & Dr. Laura in the afternoon. 790 has O’Reilly in the AM followed by Hannity in the PM (and then Larry Elder who has gone completely insane) later in the day. 870 has the also rans, including the ever humorous Michael Savage in the evening. All good fun.

Anyway, John & Kent (2 local libertarian commentators) on 640 AM last night were on a terrific rant: they brought up some 20+ instances of outright lies & misrepresentations that Hannity & O’Reilly were spouting on their radio & tv shows + the false POV of Fox News over the previous 24 hours (all regarding the Shiavo case). Hannity had about 15 instances, and O’Reilly had about 5. Fox News had 3-4 faleshoods. These weren’t minor instances either–Hannity was all about the nut-job Dr. alleging that Terry is in a condition similar to “mild Cystic Fibrosis” or something to that effect, constantly referring to him as a “nobel prize nominated physician”, and ignoring the fact that he is pretty much insane (Quack-watch has him as one of their featured nutcases). O’Reilly completed distorted the truth regarding her wishes, completely ignoring all the court transcripts as they didn’t help his position. In each instance they offered hard evidence, often accepted court transcripts, that completely contradicted what they were alleging. Their overall point was that basically FOX was outright misrepresenting the truth of the situation (nothing new there) yet the MSM was ignoring it, while on the flip side Rather was crucified for not digging deep enough, not outright lying.

If the MSM is really “controlled” by the left, as they all so often allege, why are these so-called journalists allowed to keep proferring their lies?

And, does anyone really believe what is coming out of Rush/Hannity/O’Reilly/Medved/Savage’s mouths anymore?

You have missed the obvious distinction that none of the Fox or other personalities you mentioned present themselves as news broadcasters or journalists. They are all commentators, and they present themselves as such. They have a point of view, it is well known what that point of view is, and they present agruments to buttress their point of view.

Those arguments are, for the most part accurate, but they are often incomplete.

I did see O’Reilly last night. I don’t see how he was wrong about anything. He didn’t present the whole story, though he had guests that had that opportunity. O’Reilly made the point that no one can know for certain what Shiavo would have wanted in this situation. That is technically true, but it would be nice to add the fact that multiple courts in multiple trials have examined the evidence and all come to the finding of fact that she would not have wanted to be kept alive in these circumstances. I don’t see a lie here, or even a distortion, but it sure looks like spin in the “No Spin Zone.”

I have heard essentially the same thing from Rush. None of the callers I have heard have made the obvious point about the Court’s findings of fact, though perhaps some of them did. I only catch bits and pieces of his show.

I have given up on Hannity and Combs since it has just become another Firing Line. Your sound bite and gotcha presentation description sounds like Hannity these days, unfortunately. What he says is usually accurate, but incomplete and misleading.

Are you Dan Rather trying to get your old job back?

but are they really just “commentating” or are they trying to shape public opinion? aren’t they at least basing their commentary on supposedly factual assertions?

i think it’s too simplisitc to dismiss a distorted or misleading point of view on the grounds that these are “commentators” rather than journalists.

people turn to these commentators as a means of helping them interpret what they see and hear on the news. isn’t there harm being done if the commentators are knowingly stating views that aren’t based on some solid facts?

I think there is harm being done, in the sense that many people want to be told what to think and believe, it’s easier than thinking for themselves. So “commentators” like this really do a great job of getting FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) out there, getting people fired up and in many cases over incorrect or incomplete information. Let’s face it, if we can’t have something important summarized in a 30-second clip or in a factoid ™ side panel, most folks just tune right out. Part of it is that rational thought requires time and energy, something most people don’t want to spend on something so trivial as, oh, their civil liberties or personal rights. Part of it is that we have been conditioned to receive information this way.

Sorry for the mini-rant, but I strongly believe that most people are sheep, not because they want to be, but because they have been trained to be sheep-like. And our leaders (gov’t, media, business) like it that way.

AP

Did you watch O’reily last night? He stated up front he didn’t believe anything that was being said because everyone was saying such diffrent things. I trust him more than anyone else in the media which is not that great since I trust my my kids with Michael Jackson more than any information on the TV, radio or newspapers.

Sean Hannity is a knuckle dragging bufoon who is better at calling names then finding out any facts.

They are stating and advocating opinions. That is their right. They don’t present themselves like the MSM as disinterested objective observers with no agenda to push. The people you cite are presenting nothing other than editorials.

For example, Rather and company bristle when anyone suggests they are biased. Limbaugh and company would respond “of course.”

Hopefully they are factual. The cases I have seen are factual, but not complete or particularly balanced. Distorted? Well, maybe.

There are “commentators” on both sides.

No one I know would consider Jerry Springer, Paul Begala or james Carville as unbiased journalists. They are commentators who take the facts that fit their point of view and ignore anything that contradicts. Both sides have these people and that is why I don’t watch or listen to any of them. Of course they are trying to shape public opinion. However, anyone with a double digit IQ should be able to grab the remote and change the TV to the history channel or the radio to NPR(which is biased but at least presents an intelligent rather than an emotional argument)

They are entertaining, always good for a laugh. But for information, no.

Take both arguments and split them down the middle. There you will probably find the truth.

They are stating and advocating opinions. That is their right. They don’t present themselves like the MSM as disinterested objective observers with no agenda to push. The people you cite are presenting nothing other than editorials.

For example, Rather and company bristle when anyone suggests they are biased. Limbaugh and company would respond “of course.”

Hopefully they are factual. The cases I have seen are factual, but not complete or particularly balanced. Distorted? Well, maybe.
But… but… “Fair and Balanced”… Ooo, I’m so confused.

Mop -

Do yourself a favor and please don’t listen to any of that stuff. It’s bad for your soul. (not to mention the ridiculous and annoying sound quality of AM radio.) life is too short. put on some good music instead (KCRW in the morning or indie 103.1). art is good for you. if you want to listen to talk, listen to people who are actually trying to convey information instead of just ranting and pontificating. NPR is a good choice for this. Even if you think NPR is biased, it is informative. Educate yourself and form your own opinions Nobody has ever learned anything from Rush Limbaugh.

This is one of my favorite examples of O’Reilly being caught BSing on his radio show:

O’Reilly: I’ve been in combat I’ve seen it, I’ve been close to it, and if my unit is in danger and I’ve got a guy captured, and the guy knows where the enemy is and I’m looking him in the eye… he better tell me. That’s all I’m gonna tell ya. He better tell me, if it’s life or death he’s going first…

A little while Bill got a caller from someone who was wondering what most of you are wondering right now.

Bill: We go to Roger in Portland, Oregon, what say you, Roger?

Roger: Yeah hey Bill first thing’s first you just said you’ve been in combat, but you’ve never been in the military have you?

Bill: No I have not.

Roger: Then why do you say you’ve been in combat?

Bill: Why do I say that because I was in couple of fire fights in south and central America.

Roger: Yeah but you were a media guy…

Bill: Yeah a media guy with a pen and not a gun, and people were shooting at me Roger…
(later)
Roger you can take your little fair and balance snit remark and shove it okay your not getting on this and you mr macho man would have never come close to anything I’ve done down where I’ve been so take a walk and… well, nough said.

If you take out the commentators and judge the Fox News solely on reporting you can not prove they are not fair and balanced. Here is a story just today that looks at both sides of the Schiavo situation and President Bush.

Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws   Friday, March 25, 2005 **By Jane Roh**![http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif](http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif)  

NEW YORK — While Americans were riveted by dramatic events unfolding in Pinellas Park, Fla., a five-month-old Houston baby took his last breath after a hospital let him die despite his mother’s objections.

Sun Hudson (search) was born Sept. 25 with thanatophoric dysplasia (search), an incurable and fatal form of dwarfism. Doctors said his tiny lungs would never fully grow and that he would never breathe on his own.

Hudson’s mother, Wanda, put up a fight when doctors advised removing Sun from a respirator. She said she did not believe in sickness or death.

But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson’s wishes.

While the battle over Terri Schiavo (search) has drawn dozens of outraged protesters to her Florida hospice, Sun’s story made nary a bleep on the nation’s radar. The few media outlets that picked up his story predictably drew parallels to the Schiavo case, and some experts have charged the president with hypocrisy.

“The Texas statute that Bush signed authorized the ending of the life, even over the parents’ protest. And what he’s doing here is saying, ‘The parents are protesting. You shouldn’t stop ,’” John Paris, a medical ethicist at Boston College, told Newsday.some experts said the two cases are quite different.

As is true of other state laws, Texas’ Advance Directives Act of 1999 (search) privileges the input of the patient’s spouse over that of adult children, followed by the parents if there is no written directive.

But ultimately, the decision to extend treatment is made by the doctors and hospital.

“I think her rights were violated,” Mario Caballero (search), Wanda Hudson’s attorney, told FOX News. “These are decisions that the mother ought to make, and what really happened here is not an ethical issue.”

John Robertson, professor of bioethics at the University of Texas School of Law (search), said the Schiavo battle would have played out similarly had it taken place in Texas.

“The Schiavo case does not involve if medical treatment is inappropriate,” Robertson told FOXNews.com. “It’s just, is it a treatment she would have wanted? It’s a case of what the patient would have decided.”

Doctors at Texas Children’s Hospital unanimously agreed that Sun would never breathe on his own, was in pain and would eventually die from his condition. But Wanda Hudson objected, telling doctors that her baby was a gift from the sun and would not die.

“I was told what to do by Sun,” she told a judge on Feb. 16. “I don’t understand all this legal stuff. But please give Sun time to allow Sun to create Sun.”

The doctors brought the case before a hospital ethics committee, which sided with them. But because Wanda Hudson disagreed, they were obligated to seek treatment for Sun elsewhere. Every facility they tried agreed with their prognosis.

“The provision in the statute indicates if doctors think treatment is futile and the relative doesn’t want to take the patient off life support, then they can try to make provisions for care in another facility,” Maxine Harrington, an associate professor at the Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (search), told FOXNews.com. “They tried about 40 other facilities, and finally petitioned the court to authorize removal of life support.”

Harrington agreed that while the Schiavo case was different, her battle would have been as protracted in Texas as it has been in Florida.

“The laws aren’t that different,” she said.

While Robertson conceded it was probably unfair to label Bush a hypocrite over the Advance Directives Act, the professor added that other contradictions had surfaced this week.

Referring to Bush’s backing of an unprecedented House maneuver to prolong Schiavo’s life on Monday, he said: "In 1999, as governor, he had more faith in our state court processes than he appeared last week to have in the Schiavo case."s bothe sides of the Schiavo case and President Bush.

If you take out the commentators and judge the Fox News solely on reporting you can not prove they are not fair and balanced. Here is a story just today that looks at both sides of the Schiavo situation and President Bush.

Shall we take out the anchors, too?

(from mediamatters.com)

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum identified Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist who claims he can help Terri Schiavo, as a “Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist,” despite the fact that Hammesfahr was never actually nominated for a Nobel Prize.

We can go tit for tat with “outlier” examples of mistakes just like the Rathergate memo. Your example does not make them biased.

“Your example does not make them biased.”

That one example does not make them biased, but they clearly are biased. Just like some agencies are clearly biased towards the left, FOX News is clearly biased toward the right. The problem with all these agencies is that since they’re on 24 hrs a day, and people don’t have the patience to watch simple reporting of fact all the time, they have to fill their broadcasts with commentary and editorial. Unfortunately, many Americans are too uninformed or too lazy to distinguish reporting from commentary, and they take what Bill O’Reilly(or other similar commentators) says as factual, instead of as what it is, opinionated editorial, with little to no regulation for factual accuracy.

Don’t listen to the hate!

I used to listen to conservative radio all the time, then 2 weeks ago I lost all AM reception in my car.

It’s been the best thing that’s happened to me.

But Wanda Hudson objected, telling doctors that her baby was a gift from the sun and would not die.

Me thinks Wanda has spent a little too much time out in the Texas heat.

I wonder if she know’s Mr Tibbs :wink:
.

We can go tit for tat with “outlier” examples of mistakes just like the Rathergate memo. Your example does not make them biased.
The most interesting part of the “Rathergate memo,” as you put it, is that the memo was never proven to be a forgery - and its substance was corroborated by numerous credible sources. The Republicans raised suspicion regarding the memo, and CBS shouldn’t have used it if they could not authenticate it - but its mesage, that Bush didn’t meet his military obligations, was corroborated by other undisputed documents, and by several people - even the secretary who might have typed the “memo.” She couldn’t authenticate the memo, but said that what it said was true. There’s no question that Bush didn’t meet his military responsibilities. Sadly, the attention of the public was successfully diverted from that very important point to a BS story about a forgery that was never substantiated.

We can go tit for tat with “outlier” examples of mistakes just like the Rathergate memo. Your example does not make them biased.

Is referencing an issue of another media organization your best defense?

Go to www.mediamatters.com, look up “Fox News”, and tell me that they are not totally biased. Furthermore, the mere fact that Fox News allows those idiots to continue appearing on their network, despite the blatant lies, misrepresentations and denials of bias by the selfsame idiots lends credence to the observation that Fox News is wholly untrustworthy.