I do, in fact, occasionally catch O'Reilly's radio program. My judgement stands.
That sounds like a description of Hannity.

Hannity is an annoying blowhard.

O'Reilly does shallow populism... not as annoying.

I wouldn't count on either of 'em for more than a point of view

Try reading some Molly Ivins (ahem).

When you reveal your sources like this, it makes it easier to refute your misstatements. Should I take it up with O'Reilly and Hannity about their mistakes? I will instead correct your misunderstanding, since you repeat their ignorance as your own.

Because they, or you, cannot understand an indictment and its proper formatting is irrelevant.

I read their comments, their exclamations of indignant ignorace, and I found it perfectly congruent with all their remarks that have come before. They are entertainers--not newsmen. Editorialists, not journalists. Spouters of opinion, not speakers of facts. I do in fact dismiss them, and you, not out of hand, but specifically because of what they say. I do not find them entertaining and I disagree with their opinions. You correctly, perhaps ironically and accidentally, pointed out the truth of GIGO. Because I do not wish to put garbage out, I do not put their libelous editorials in.

V, now let's try a little correction of your misstatements. Were those commentators libelous, they'd get sued for it. Were they habitually libelous, they'd get sued a lot and fired, or they'd very firmly be obliged to change their tone, so corporate management doesn't have to keep footing legal bills. Yes, I am aware O'Reilly's caught some kind of legal trouble because somebody alleges he talked dirty to her.

Do you see that tone change occurring? I didn't think so. Time for you to quit ingesting garbage, I should think. Since I'm not as stupid as you hope, best you consider why somebody as bright as I am whether you like it or not would trust them over you. Come on, BigV; you're "some guy on the Internet." It takes wise posting to hurdle that bar. Yes, I know not all one's postings are equally wise, but I am always willing to give a guy a fair shake.

I like both of them, on radio and TV, but I think O'Reilly is far more annoying. He projects an arrogant smugness, while Hannity comes across more like a guy with whom you sit in a bar for a few hours, figuring out the best way to run the world once someone gives you the keys.

Besides, Hannity's cuter.

A point of view is exactly why they are on the air. They are not news. There is plenty of news out there. They are commentators, not newsmen. You may choose to take their comments wholeheartedly or with a grain of salt.

Most people don't consider the NYT Opinion page to be news. I often wonder why they make the mistake of considering television opinion pieces as news.

That only happens to real reporters not editorialists.
Not if they're following the corporate agenda. :headshake

I like to read Molly, Because she's a redneck. Do I rush and change my mind because I read her? NO. I also read other commentaries such as NY Post Columnists, Washington Post Editorial, National Review Online, LA Times Op Ed, SF Chronicle Editorial, molly and A H. Who needs to be bitch slapped, from what I saw on the great Larry KIng joke show other night.
Do I understand the crap that most spout? NO! And not sure that they do.
But I think I'm leaning way towards TW's view of the MBA's.

A H. Armand Hammer? Isn't he dead?

Molly Ivins is interesting in this curious contradiction in her philosophy: she writes anti-2nd Amendment editorials, yet she is firmly pro-1st Amendment. If she fully understood what she's in favor of, that being individual civil rights vis-à-vis government, she'd be in favor, and writing in favor, of the 2nd Amendment also.

Bruce, would anyone truly interested in fair and balanced (tm, just about) actually have the least problem with a corporate agenda that opposes and counteracts and counterpoises that of the New York Times? You can do worse than to lean opposing biases against each other and drop a plumb line down between them to find something that satisfies you as to the truth of the matter(s).

The left-of-center monopoly on the channels of information to the American people is at an end, and loud is the squalling of those left stranded by this shift. Frankly, it's a disgusting noise, and the sooner quieted, the better. It's a new game now, and if you can't adapt, you die.

I didn't realize that the left-of-center had a monopoly to begin with...this is news to me. Last I saw, the media was fairly sensational and hyperactive, and people play/have played to it (most recently, Ray Nagin and Tom DeLay)...but bias? I don't think so. After all, the NYT and WP were practically hyping the 2nd Iraq war before it began.

Actually, I think Molly Ivins never expected to be anything more than the diarist of the Texas Legislature. It was already a strange beast when she started, but since then it has swelled and morphed and spawned the most terrifying evil empire this country has ever seen when it launched GWB on the world. Frankly, I don't think Molly is up to the task anymore once she steps outside the Texas state line. The horror is just too great, she begins to come across as a bit hysterical. Nevertheless, she does make some dead-right observations. I can understand why many people would not take Molly Ivins seriously, believing she is "too liberal"; what I can't understand is why 50+% of the electorate is not taking seriously so many others who have much more impressive credentials and are pointing out the same disasters in the making.

The A.H. above is Arianna Huffington

What I said was;Fair and balanced? Why can't somebody, anybody, just report the god damn facts without telling me what I should think it means? News not spin. :mad:

So, are you proposing suspending the First Amendment? And if so, as a veteran who took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution', does that mean we get to watch you shoot yourself? If so, can I have the pay-per-view rights?

BTW, just because the monied elite have figured out a way to get a vocal minority of the public to sign on to a plan to let them rape the national treasury doesn't automatically make them right.

This "We'll let you have tax cuts, completely fuck up the books, and trample our rights if you'll keep gays from marrying, appoint a 'right wing' activist to the Supreme Court to take on the 'left wing' activists, and turn public school into Sunday school" mentality is beginning to get on my nerves. It's bad enouch watching people line up to burn the Constitution for the illusion of safety. It's way too depressing to watch them sell out for the promise that the goverment will pander to their ideology.