|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Media |
|
Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our "unbiased" Media. |
Current rating: 3 |
by Fox News (via Sascha Meinrath)
Email: sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (verified) |
02 May 2003
|
|
This was sent to me by a good friend. Occasionally, someone so utterly and blatantly exemplary of the problems in our existing media manifests itself. This is a MUST READ for anyone who's concerned about the state of our dominant media. |
|
Is It Right to Use Economic Clout to Influence Policy?
Friday, April 18, 2003
This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, April 17, 2003. Click here to order the complete transcript.
Watch The O'Reilly Factor weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the Radio Factor!
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. Is it right to use economic clout to forge policy? Joining us now from Washington is Dr. Mark Weisbrot, co-director for the Center of Economic and Policy Research. What say you, Doctor?
MARK WEISBROT, PH.D., CENTER OF ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH: Yes?
O'REILLY: What say you about my Talking Points Memo? What do you think?
WEISBROT: Yes, I think it's wrong. I mean, first of all, you have to remember that the whole world is against this war. Even the so-called coalition of the willing, which is really a coalition of the badgered and the threatened and the weak. You had large majorities in every one of these countries that's against the war.
And so they very much hate the Bush administration for waging this war. They see it as illegitimate, illegal, and a war of conquest. That's how the world sees us. So, many of them are blaming our government, but not us personally.
If consumers try to use another weapon, another economic weapon against them, that just makes it look like the American people are just as bad as their government and are just trying to use their economic power, as well as their military power, to try and rule the world. That's how the rest of the world would see it, and I think they're right.
O'REILLY: I think you're right. The rest of the world wouldn't like us using our economic clout. Now, 75 percent of the American people believe the war was just. So, you are in a minority, and you are not smarter than every one of those people. So, you could be wrong...
WEISBROT: But these people were given...
(CROSS TALK)
O'REILLY: But wait a minute. Doctor! All right. Doctor, Doctor!
WEISBROT: Half the people in this country believe...
O'REILLY: Cut his mike!
All right, Doctor. Now, you either going listen to me, or you are going to get knocked off the air right now. Ok? That's the deal.
Put your mike back on. All right, Doctor? I talk, you talk. That's the way we do it.
You say we've been given false information. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I don't believe that. And I'm as smart as you are. And 75 percent of the American people disagree with you. So, if 75 percent of the American people come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein is a threat to them, or was a threat, and they resent the fact that other countries are putting they and their families in danger, i.e. France, all right? Don't they have the perfect moral right not to buy French goods?
WEISBROT: Well, it would be a moral right in certain circumstances, but again, half the people in this country believe that Saddam was responsible for September 11th. So, they're basing this decision on false information.
O'REILLY: That's propaganda, and you know it. They say he might have had something to do with it on a peripheral level. Look. He was training terrorists. They just found Abu Abbas there. Abu Nidal, you know, was discovered there.
WEISBROT: He was living there.
O'REILLY: They have the guys in the north. You could do it all day long. Now look, Americans have boycotted governments in the past like South Africa.
WEISBROT: That's a good example.
O'REILLY: We helped bring that government down. Now you would say that would be a legitimate action, correct?
WEISBROT: Yes, because in that case, first of all, the people there were asking for the boycott, and we were helping them to remove an oppressive government, a government that did not give the majority of the people the right to vote.
Here it's the opposite. In this case, we have all these countries where democratic elections and majority pressure was telling these governments not to support this war. And they responded to the pressure. In Europe and all over the world. In Chile and Mexico, everywhere, people refused to support this war. They were against it.
O'REILLY: And you think that they got all the...
WEISBROT: And the governments responded to that pressure.
O'REILLY: And you think, Doctor, that in Chile and Mexico and Russia, and in all of these countries, they've got all the information, too? Their press wasn't tilted in any way or controlled, right?
WEISBROT: They got both sides unlike us.
O'REILLY: Oh, they did. Yes, the did. Sure they did. And didn't you say they were perfectly accurate, right?
WEISBROT: More accurate information than we've gotten from our media here, absolutely.
O'REILLY: So, we've distorted things purposely here on the media, have we?
WEISBROT: Our media has -- I wouldn't say it's purposely. But what they tend to do is report the administration's point of view and then very occasionally, as on this show, they give...
O'REILLY: ABC News is reporting the administration's point of view? And CNN? ABC and CNN are reporting the administration's point of view?
WEISBROT: Absolutely. Over and over again they gave all the reasons why the Bush administration said they were going to war including false ones like the story about...
(CROSS TALK)
O'REILLY: That's the information. And we have the other side as well. All right, you're basically saying, in your opinion, if the government's oppressive, i.e. South Africa, then it's ok to use your economic clout.
WEISBROT: Especially if the people...
O'REILLY: But in my opinion, if I feel that France is undermining the United States, has sent -- has sold missiles in violation of the UN mandates against Saddam Hussein, as we know they have now because we captured them, then I don't have a right, in my opinion, to boycott France. You're saying that, right?
WEISBROT: Well, also there you have to remember the French government was responding to an overwhelming majority of their people.
O'REILLY: No, no. They sold missiles in violation of the UN mandate. So, I don't have a right not to buy their stuff now?
WEISBROT: Oh, you have a right. You cannot buy anything you want.
O'REILLY: Yes, and I'm morally right in that, am I not?
WEISBROT: I think anybody should not buy whatever they don't want to buy. But you have to remember the other side can do that, too. They are going to be deciding whether to buy Microsoft or have free open-source software. Open-source software, for example...
(CROSS TALK)
O'REILLY: All right. I'm willing to take that chance. I'm willing to take that chance. See, I think the American consumer, number one, isn't as stupid as you think he is because we don't have the information here, a bunch of crap.
WEISBROT: I didn't say they were stupid. I said they were deceived by bad information.
O'REILLY: Yes, I know. But I say that you're crazy, that this is the most open society in the world. They weren't deceived about anything. They got both sides, and they made up their mind, which was opposite from your point of view. So, now you say they're deceived. That's ridiculous.
But anyway, Doctor, we respect your point of view. Thanks for coming on.
WEISBROT: Thank you.
|
Comments
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -8
02 May 2003
Modified: 08:14:37 PM |
Dear Sascha,
I watched this live and Weisbrot would not shut up. He was very confrontational from the beginning. O'Reilly tore him up. I should point out, that I am not a huge O'Reilly fan. He leans to the left on several issues. BTW, this is a talk show. O'Reilly makes no claim to be objective, unlike Rather, Brokaw and Jennings who all reside from the left yet claim to be objective.
WEISBROT: Yes, because in that case, first of all, the people there were asking for the boycott, and we were helping them to remove an oppressive government, a government that did not give the majority of the people the right to vote.
Of course Weisbrot was speaking of South Africa although other than the boycott (for which Iraqi's would be killed) they had no more right to vote than the South Africans. Additionally, his reason above would be an excellent reason to invade Cuba.
The simple matter is, that Weisbrot came unprepared, was rude, and failed to make his point.
Jack |
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -7
02 May 2003
|
You folks seem to have a problem with FOX. I believe it is the number one rated cable news network in country right now. BTW, How's Donahue doing? If you would, please name for me five conservatives that work for CNN other than "Crossfire". Secondly, other than George Will, could you name three conservatives that work on any of the three networks. Finally, I would be happy to name more than five liberals, leftists or complete nutbags that work for FOX.
Let me know,
Jack |
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
03 May 2003
|
|
By the way, nutbags is a subject that I'm quite an expert on. |
|
Fox's Bias |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (verified) |
Current rating: 11
04 May 2003
Modified: 02:26:52 PM |
Hi Jack,
Certainly it's been widely established that Fox is a highly biased News source. There's a fairly thorough and documented analysis of this phenomenon at: http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html
As for O'reilly himself -- check out:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/oreilly.html
There is also an in-depth study of who has been an invited guest on Fox -- the researchers studies 19 weeks of programming and found (among other things):
"Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats."
"On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1."
"Only eight of Special Report's 92 guests during the study period were women, and only six were people of color -- making for a guest list that was 91 percent male and 93 percent white. Wolf Blitzer Reports was hardly a model of diversity either; its guests were 86 percent male and 93 percent white."
But see the report for yourself:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html
If you want to see the guest list for yourself (in case you want to forward a different analysis), it's available at:
http://www.fair.org/reports/fox-cnn-guest-list.html
Hopefully this helps contextualize the rationale for mentioning Fox's bias.
--Sascha |
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
04 May 2003
|
Jack said
"By the way, nutbags is a subject that I'm quite an expert on."
Of course you are Jack. Can't spell nutbags without "u" in it! I thought you could probably appreciate that one. |
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
04 May 2003
|
Sascha,
You expect me to believe such a biased cadre of left-wingnuts as FAIR? You must be more deluded than I thought.
It's getting to the point where I wonder why I waste my time on this site? If only the Free Republic guys would take me seriously.
Jack |
|
An Invitation To Jack Ryan: |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (verified) |
Current rating: 3
04 May 2003
Modified: 08:22:08 PM |
Hi Jack,
I'm not asking you to simply trust FAIR -- since it's quite obvious that you have a strongly suspect of certain sources and organizations. If you'll read through the information I posted, it contains links to primary sources (e.g., the guest lists) upon which FAIR's analyses are based. So, if you disagree with FAIR's assessment, please put forward a contrary, empirically backed analysis of your own. The data is all there, and is freely available for you to use to formulate a different perspective. The strength of an open-publishing system is the possibility for discussion and dialogue from different points of view.
I'm not asking you to blindly agree with FAIR's statements, but the data are all there for your use, so I would hope that you would put forward a contrary assessment that you are willing to stand behind.
--Sascha |
|
Don't Feed The Troll Which Calls Itself Jack Ryan |
by Don't Feed the Trolls
dont (nospam) feedthe.trolls (unverified) |
Current rating: -1
04 May 2003
|
Flattering as it is that the UC IMC has its own personal troll, I say let's stop feeding it.
I also offer the hypothesis that this troll is on a payroll somewhere and is watching us for more that its own personal yuks. |
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
05 May 2003
|
Why do you liberals keep trying to brush me off as a troll? I'm a mysogynist, racist, arrogant and self-deluded asshole, sure. But I'm no troll.
I get more attention here than I ever got by throwing spitballs or beating up weaklings in high school.
Jack |
|
Actually |
by wxm
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
05 May 2003
|
The most appalling thing about this article is that O'Reilly seems to have added the tactic of cutting off guests' mics on a regular basis. When he did that to the family member of a 9/11 victim, it was a big deal. But he's exerting his power as anchor/producer to actively censor his guests when things get a little too hot to handle.
No self-respecting guest on the O'Reilly show should take that shit, nor should the American people. "Fair and balanced," indeed.
-wxm |
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
06 May 2003
Modified: 10:36:37 AM |
Dear Sascha,
Please forgive the Jack Ryan imposter. He has no individual identity so he must take on the image of someone he admires.
I do not dispute your numbers at all. I would suggest, however, there are several reasons why Fox interviews more conservatives rather than liberals. First, conservatives hold all branches of government, so naturally they would want to talk to the people who are currently advancing the agenda. Secondly, liberals are afraid of the man. How many times has invited Hillary on? She, so far, has ducked every invitation. Finally, if you think Fox is so biased, my suggestion to you is not to watch it. There are plenty of Liberal only point of views on the major networks. Meanwhile, most of us will continue to watch shows that we consider to be fair and balanced.
BTW, how many current political shows currently have as their hosts, or commentary, former folks who worked in a democratic administration as opposed to a Republican administration. I think those numbers would stagger you a little bit.
Jack |
|
Re: Bill O'reilly Vs. Mark Weisbrot -- Threats, Name-calling, And Our |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
09 May 2003
|
Dear Sascha,
It's been several days with no answer. Is it possible that you gave up? I don't think so.
The ultimate answer is that the free market always decides who wins and who loses. Once again, you and your leftist friends lose.
Jack |
|
