Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Only O'Reilly has mentioned it as far as I know.
I'm not sure Fox wants to report it. What purpose would it serve for them to do so? It's not really a news items, tire slashing rarely makes the news. Sometimes when striking union members slash the tires of scabs and management it makes local news, but rarely national.

It would have been reported.  It hasn't been mentioned anywhere, local or national.  I checked a few New Hampshire papers, as well.

I'm still curious as to whether or not you believe O'Reilly's "rights" were being violated, and whether his response was appropriate.

bratboy wrote:

Are you asserting that O'Reilly suffered a constitutional violation of the press?  That the First Amendment requires that the view of a politician must be unobstructed by his staffers at a campaign rally?  Further, are you asserting that the proper response was for O'Reilly to push the man and call him "low class?"

I'm still curious as to whether or not you believe O'Reilly's "rights" were being violated, and whether his response was appropriate.

Yes, and no.
The individual should not have blocked the fox news camera.
O'Reilly should not have tried to physically move him. Instead, he should have had the camera rolling, asked the guy to move, and filmed the jerk demonstrating how much the left really believes in all the tolerance of other viewpoints that they preach.

You're really something else...

Gatchaman wrote:

resedit wrote:

They give a different perspective on some stories,

That's an understatement...

http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/libby_verdict.jpg

http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorkt … oley_3.jpg

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3207/p … foxnz9.jpg

http://markmaynard.com/media/FoxOReilly … 100306.jpg

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/i … 0224-1.jpg

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/i … 0224-2.jpg

http://home.neb.rr.com/rph/fox.news.civil.rights.jpg

Sadly. only one of these is a parody.

No different than mistakes that happen on any news channel.
There just isn't a vitrol of hate with people who have nothing better to do than to record them and post them on blogs.

resedit wrote:

Yes, and no.
The individual should not have blocked the fox news camera.
O'Reilly should not have tried to physically move him. Instead, he should have had the camera rolling, asked the guy to move, and filmed the jerk demonstrating how much the left really believes in all the tolerance of other viewpoints that they preach.

O'Reilly was screaming and hollering, trying to get Obama's attention.  Frankly, I don't blame his staffer (and I'm not quite sure what rock you've been living under, but this happens all the time during such events.  Do you think people like Michael Moore get access to whomever they want at the exact moment that they want it?).

I do find it interesting that you feel this demonstrates a characteristic of "the Left" in general, based upon the act of one staffer.  Is it your contention that those on the "the Right" would never attempt to impede a screaming member of the media from getting a shot for his show?

I sure hope I never catch Resedit complaining about generalizing in another thread again!

resedit wrote:

Are you saying it didn't happen because it wasn't reported?

Who is going to report it if Fox News doesn't want it reported?

Uh, I would imagine that true acts of "vandalism" would have been reported to the police, and the media.

Of course, "vandalism" here could mean just about anything.  I would imagine this is probably yet another situation in which O'Reilly is greatly exaggerating, if not simply fabricating an incident out of thin air.

The left was already having a field day posting Sean Hannity being chased, why would Fox want to add to the feeding frenzy of immature cackling that was sweeping the left blogs and websites?

A "field day?"  "Immature cackling?"  Where?  There's that term "the Left" again....odd that you're referring to behavior of the followers of a Republican candidate.

You do seem quite upset about all of this.....

resedit wrote:

...how much the left really believes in all the tolerance of other viewpoints that they preach.

Now that you mention it, I do recall a fairly prominent political website barring any mention of the candidate Ron Paul.

Now which site was that?

You know... here's the deal.  Trusting any source, with an obvious extreme bias in any direction, to give you the straight goods on information relevant to their agenda does not help you in any way in terms of intellectual development.

Sure, watch FOX, listen to Hannity, etc.  Nothing wrong with that, but consider the bias.  Watch with the same level of skepticism as you would when partaking in a stinking Michael Moore "documentary."

Then fact check.  Listen to moderate viewpoints.  Listen to shrieking opposite viewpoints.  Weigh each.

And, you know what?  Suddenly you'll find yourself identifying with neither extreme - and perhaps not even with the moderates.  You'll find a way to carve out your own intellectual niche that is not dictated to you by some idiot talking head on the boob tube (or the YboobTube)... and you'll find some rather interesting people who are already in your newfound niche with whom you can also converse and learn.

(And, be aware that your new niche could also become a toxic trap, over time - but that will be a lesson for another day/thread)

resedit wrote:

No different than mistakes that happen on any news channel.
There just isn't a vitrol of hate with people who have nothing better to do than to record them and post them on blogs.

Res, you really do yourself a disservice by mimicking O'Reilly's shrieks of "HATE" simply for reporting their inaccurate reporting.  Really, showing stills of FOX's unusual number of 'mistakes' accounts to "hate?"  I challenge you to find "HATE" on the media matters site, one of O'Reilly's chief targets.

What exactly does "hate" mean, anymore?

resedit wrote:

Are you suggesting that Bill made it up?

Without him producing a police record - or with no second witness in the media we can only assume that this was simply a case of fine radio entertainment in the tradition of the illustrious Orson Welles.

resedit wrote:

I watch a variety of news sources, and since I'm not a liberal, I see the liberal bias on the other stations, including NPR, and it is every bit as biased as most of you claim Fox is to the right. Most here just don't see it because they agree with it.

Yeah, and I recall at least a half dozen times someone has made that claim and not a single time has anyone backed it up with anything resembling evidence. The only time someone has even tried to show NPR Bias, we got this work of art.

resedit wrote:

I think he specified that tires were slashed, which is vandelism.

No, he didn't.

Reporting it to the police would have required officers come out and the vehicles remain there while the police do their thing, which means the vehicles couldn't be used for what they were intended for - mobile news vehicles - during that period of time.

Are you suggesting that Bill made it up?

Why would he need to make it up?  Nearly anything could be "vandalism" in the mind of a man who believes someone standing in front of his camera was somehow an assault on the freedom of the press.