anyone have this oreilly NPR thing thats not in streaming format?

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: smashp
NPR is a balanced show that focuses just as much on global social issues, politics, news, and current events as much as they focus on things of importance in the LOCAL community. That is balance. Yes, they have commentators and hosts that lean to eacch side of the spectrum. The Oreiley interview, which i have listened on, is another case of Oreiley filing to admit he made a fib, or fibs. Franken called him out to be a man and own up to his "Journalistic Mistakes". But In Oreileys mind, he is always right. He buys his Own Bullsh!t. Franken Book is Political Satire and is commenting on the Political Group in power right now and used their Own Words and ideologs against them. It painst them as Hypocrits as a whole ( Which isnt difficult) and shows errors in their logic. the book is satirical in the pure sence that it is written in the style of Those conservative bestsellers such as Bias, slander, and Hannities crap but in a comical nature with humor as the weapon.

Oreiley is upset mainly because franken made fun at his attempt of a Fiction novel and repeated the paragragh that oreiley worte Which goes against the core of Some of Blowhard Bills supposed beliefs.

Face It Bill Oreiley is a propagation tool, meant to draw in watchers on Fox at the Pretence that he is a Independent. After his show you are assalted By Hannity and his views which ironically (Purposely of course) are the same as the So called independent. This is a very very effective method of Brainwashing the non alert viewer.



Also I find it Ironic that The Reich, I mean right ONLY way to answer questions that are hard regarding statements is to paint them as Bias.

According to their logic, Anyone That opposes their Beliefs is Bias.

That alone makes THEM Bias.

Its a deflectionary method that gets them out of telling the truth or answering questions.

first of all i can't stand Rush libaugh or Hannity (im as conservative as they come). So your assumption about the consipiacy is just ludicris.
Second of all, I find it ironic that the democratics consider themselfs to be tolerant to everyone else but are the first to name call.
Third of why is oreilly so popular? Thats the question you should be asking!!! I'll give you a hint people listen to those they agree with.
Fourth of all its Hannity AND Combs.

Like my post says and what oreilly said ppl in this thread are reviewing oreilly NOT the NPR interview!!! Christ listen to it again.

 

[preslove]

Bill O'reilly claimed to have received two PEABODY awards when he was on inside edition, which is a lie! Franken called him on it on a talk show, and he was seen by everyone to be the liar that he is. O'reilly later claimed he received a different award (i forget which one). Now, the Peabody award is just about the most prestigious award in journalism. In fact, its more prestigious than the pulitzer. O'reilly claiming to have received a peabody, let alon two, is like Pauly Shore claiming to have earned an oscar for Biodome.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: preslove
Bill O'reilly claimed to have received two PEABODY awards when he was on inside edition, which is a lie! Franken called him on it on a talk show, and he was seen by everyone to be the liar that he is. O'reilly later claimed he received a different award (i forget which one). Now, the Peabody award is just about the most prestigious award in journalism. In fact, its more prestigious than the pulitzer. O'reilly claiming to have received a peabody, let alon two, is like Pauly Shore claiming to have earned an oscar for Biodome.

Refer to my previous point post. Jesus you people are funny you proved my point AGAIN. One more time here it is:

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: PatboyX
well, listened to it. he pretty much threw a tantrum. wish i got to hear the other moments from before the clip he posted.

edit:
i think he would have looked better if he played what had gone on before. as it stands, it looks like the host had a point to make by reading a comment and then he just jumped down her throat. also i noticed that she really didnt get to talk too much...so...i feel like he talked himself into a state and then just left.

"threw a tantrum"?
He got the host to admit that she is bias for Frankin and was out to get Oreilly. He never raised his voice.
The irony is she proved what oreilly's new book is about: who's looking out for you?: The host was looking out for Frankin--not fair and balenced reporting AKA THE PUBLIC/VIEWERS.

The host said Frankins book was satire--even though it is political mud slinging--and Oreilly's book is a how to book on how to help you determine if someone is trying to Fuq you over. Which deserves to have more critisim? According to the "non-bias" NPR host Oreilly needs to be critized more. If you're a liberal you can name call and slander people and NPR gives you a free ride. If you're not a liberal, then everything you say should be critized.

Conclusion, Oreilly and the NPR host battled with wits and the smartest person won--Oreilly. For those who don't believe that, listen to what Oreilly got the host to admit:
1.) she was soft on Frankin
2.) she called frankin's book satire , but its obvious to a non-bias person it is political mudslinging
3.) she admitted she treated Oreilly differently (much more harshly)
Therefore, Oreilly proved she was bias and therefore not looking out for you, the viewers, or fair and balenced reporting.

NOTE: Mudslinging is mudslinging, Frankin is a mudslinger. So it that annoying Rep blonde (dont know her name off the top of my head--but the one who wrote Slander) I can admit that ever though im a republican, why can't you admit that Frankin is a mudslinger and once you realize that, listen to the NPR-Oreilly interview again and you will see the truth--NPR=bias against non-liberals and Oreilly proved it on NPR. (If i was the host, I'd feel like an idiot.)

Just like to point out that NOONE has proven me wrong with requards to what Orielly got the woman to disprove. Or proven that Frakin is a mud slinger and when you take that into effect; OReilly makes strong and vaild arguments. And untill they do they are spinning and dodging the question. Like Oreilly pointed out instead of discussing the interview they are discussing Oreilly's character and this is suppost to be a post on the interview. (NOTE THE PERIOD)

I will record this; however, i dont have my own website to share this; if someone tells me how to host it, i will host the interview.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: preslove
Bill O'reilly claimed to have received two PEABODY awards when he was on inside edition, which is a lie! Franken called him on it on a talk show, and he was seen by everyone to be the liar that he is. O'reilly later claimed he received a different award (i forget which one). Now, the Peabody award is just about the most prestigious award in journalism. In fact, its more prestigious than the pulitzer. O'reilly claiming to have received a peabody, let alon two, is like Pauly Shore claiming to have earned an oscar for Biodome.

It was a Polk award - which isn't just some lame award either. His claim is that he mixed the two up when he mispoke.
OK, so you have one *maybe* accusation against O'reilly. Anything else? or is it just your partisan hatred of him?

Oh, and Big Jelly - Rush Limbaugh is at the top of Talk Radio. "I'll give you a hint people listen to those they agree with." - You. I wonder why other talk radio programs aren't as successful? Most people misunderstand Rush while listening to him because they have a preconcieved bias against him. If you identify and look past the bluster he has quite a bit of good to say. I've said this before - he's a tad over the top at times but also he is dead on the rest of it.

CkG

 

[PhilsPhan]

""threw a tantrum"?
He got the host to admit that she is bias for Frankin and was out to get Oreilly. He never raised his voice.
The irony is she proved what oreilly's new book is about: who's looking out for you?: The host was looking out for Frankin--not fair and balenced reporting AKA THE PUBLIC/VIEWERS.

The host said Frankins book was satire--even though it is political mud slinging--and Oreilly's book is a how to book on how to help you determine if someone is trying to Fuq you over. Which deserves to have more critisim? According to the "non-bias" NPR host Oreilly needs to be critized more. If you're a liberal you can name call and slander people and NPR gives you a free ride. If you're not a liberal, then everything you say should be critized.

Conclusion, Oreilly and the NPR host battled with wits and the smartest person won--Oreilly. For those who don't believe that, listen to what Oreilly got the host to admit:
1.) she was soft on Frankin
2.) she called frankin's book satire , but its obvious to a non-bias person it is political mudslinging
3.) she admitted she treated Oreilly differently (much more harshly)
Therefore, Oreilly proved she was bias and therefore not looking out for you, the viewers, or fair and balenced reporting.

NOTE: Mudslinging is mudslinging, Frankin is a mudslinger. So it that annoying Rep blonde (dont know her name off the top of my head--but the one who wrote Slander) I can admit that ever though im a republican, why can't you admit that Frankin is a mudslinger and once you realize that, listen to the NPR-Oreilly interview again and you will see the truth--NPR=bias against non-liberals and Oreilly proved it on NPR. (If i was the host, I'd feel like an idiot.)"

I am curious Jelly did you hear the entire interview or jsut what O'reilly has on his site?

 

[Witling]

Big Jelly, we may be funny, but at least we're honest. Terry Gross, the woman who hosts Fresh Air, is a dynamite interviewer. I heard her interview Tim LeHaye (the very Christian old guy). He was talking about how he hopes Christ comes before either he or his wife die so they can ascend together. She gave it a straight eight interview, no cheap shots. Same with O'Riely (sp?).

He started in on her about did she treat Franken the way she was treating him? Was Franken's interview the same as mine? She said, "No, Franken had a different interview." And she went on to elaborate on why his interview was different from Franken's. The big O has been attacking people who reviewed his book unfavorably. He claimed that the reviewers were reviewing him, not the book. That may be true, I wouldn't know. But, he's made personal attacks (in the media) on several of the interviewers and now Terry has apparently been added to a long list. To hear the show, go to the Fresh Air Web site and look under archived shows. I presume it's the whole interview, not just a 30 second shot, but I haven't listened to it. I think you'll agree that Big Jelly is full of . . . . uh, what's that word . . . oh yeah . . . full of emnity. The web site offers transcripts but you pay for them.

Fresh Air

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: PhilsPhan
""threw a tantrum"?
He got the host to admit that she is bias for Frankin and was out to get Oreilly. He never raised his voice.
The irony is she proved what oreilly's new book is about: who's looking out for you?: The host was looking out for Frankin--not fair and balenced reporting AKA THE PUBLIC/VIEWERS.

The host said Frankins book was satire--even though it is political mud slinging--and Oreilly's book is a how to book on how to help you determine if someone is trying to Fuq you over. Which deserves to have more critisim? According to the "non-bias" NPR host Oreilly needs to be critized more. If you're a liberal you can name call and slander people and NPR gives you a free ride. If you're not a liberal, then everything you say should be critized.

Conclusion, Oreilly and the NPR host battled with wits and the smartest person won--Oreilly. For those who don't believe that, listen to what Oreilly got the host to admit:
1.) she was soft on Frankin
2.) she called frankin's book satire , but its obvious to a non-bias person it is political mudslinging
3.) she admitted she treated Oreilly differently (much more harshly)
Therefore, Oreilly proved she was bias and therefore not looking out for you, the viewers, or fair and balenced reporting.

NOTE: Mudslinging is mudslinging, Frankin is a mudslinger. So it that annoying Rep blonde (dont know her name off the top of my head--but the one who wrote Slander) I can admit that ever though im a republican, why can't you admit that Frankin is a mudslinger and once you realize that, listen to the NPR-Oreilly interview again and you will see the truth--NPR=bias against non-liberals and Oreilly proved it on NPR. (If i was the host, I'd feel like an idiot.)"

I am curious Jelly did you hear the entire interview or jsut what O'reilly has on his site?

I have the WHOLE interview and would love to host it, if i knew how.
If you could tell me i'd love to host it.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Big Jelly, we may be funny, but at least we're honest. Terry Gross, the woman who hosts Fresh Air, is a dynamite interviewer. I heard her interview Tim LeHaye (the very Christian old guy). He was talking about how he hopes Christ comes before either he or his wife die so they can ascend together. She gave it a straight eight interview, no cheap shots. Same with O'Riely (sp?).

He started in on her about did she treat Franken the way she was treating him? Was Franken's interview the same as mine? She said, "No, Franken had a different interview." And she went on to elaborate on why his interview was different from Franken's. The big O has been attacking people who reviewed his book unfavorably. He claimed that the reviewers were reviewing him, not the book. That may be true, I wouldn't know. But, he's made personal attacks (in the media) on several of the interviewers and now Terry has apparently been added to a long list. To hear the show, go to the Fresh Air Web site and look under archived shows. I presume it's the whole interview, not just a 30 second shot, but I haven't listened to it. I think you'll agree that Big Jelly is full of . . . . uh, what's that word . . . oh yeah . . . full of emnity.

Fresh Air

i have the WHOLE interview. And like i said NO ONE has proven my main points wrong. NO ONE.

Once again thanks for not attacking me personally

(if by amnity you mean anmity--NOTE i can't spell worth sh!t, so im not tring to be a spelling nazi, just want clarification)

 

[PhilsPhan]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: PatboyX
well, listened to it. he pretty much threw a tantrum. wish i got to hear the other moments from before the clip he posted.

edit:
i think he would have looked better if he played what had gone on before. as it stands, it looks like the host had a point to make by reading a comment and then he just jumped down her throat. also i noticed that she really didnt get to talk too much...so...i feel like he talked himself into a state and then just left.

"threw a tantrum"?
He got the host to admit that she is bias for Frankin and was out to get Oreilly. He never raised his voice.
The irony is she proved what oreilly's new book is about: who's looking out for you?: The host was looking out for Frankin--not fair and balenced reporting AKA THE PUBLIC/VIEWERS.

The host said Frankins book was satire--even though it is political mud slinging--and Oreilly's book is a how to book on how to help you determine if someone is trying to Fuq you over. Which deserves to have more critisim? According to the "non-bias" NPR host Oreilly needs to be critized more. If you're a liberal you can name call and slander people and NPR gives you a free ride. If you're not a liberal, then everything you say should be critized.

Conclusion, Oreilly and the NPR host battled with wits and the smartest person won--Oreilly. For those who don't believe that, listen to what Oreilly got the host to admit:
1.) she was soft on Frankin
2.) she called frankin's book satire , but its obvious to a non-bias person it is political mudslinging
3.) she admitted she treated Oreilly differently (much more harshly)
Therefore, Oreilly proved she was bias and therefore not looking out for you, the viewers, or fair and balenced reporting.

NOTE: Mudslinging is mudslinging, Frankin is a mudslinger. So it that annoying Rep blonde (dont know her name off the top of my head--but the one who wrote Slander) I can admit that ever though im a republican, why can't you admit that Frankin is a mudslinger and once you realize that, listen to the NPR-Oreilly interview again and you will see the truth--NPR=bias against non-liberals and Oreilly proved it on NPR. (If i was the host, I'd feel like an idiot.)

Mr. BigJelly after hearing the entire interview, I'll play along, but only briefly I do have things to do tonight and would also like to watch some of the baseball games.

Point 1: I never remeber Terry Gross admiting she was out to get him? If I am incorrect please tell where she says this in relation to other aspects of the interview.

Point 2: Did O'Rielly throw a tantrum? Um...would leaving an interview before the interviewer has had a chance to reply be considered a tantrum, maybe to some, personally I find it rude.

Point 3: Al Franken satire?

Well lets look at the definition of satire: A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. (simply used dictionary.com)

Now compare this to mud sligging, which is simply attack one's reputation. Now maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that if Franken's book truely were "mud-slinging" he could have been sued for ruining O'Reilly's reputation. However, that did not occur.

I have not read Franken's book, however do I believe it is damaging to O'Reilly...Yes, the reason for this is O'Reilly's actions. This then falls under "mud-slinging"? No, I don't believe it does. My understanding of Franken's book is that it is factually based and he uses irony and sarcasm to prove his points. I thus believe his book to fall under the category of satire NOT "mud-slinging".

Point 4: "Which deserves to have more critisim? " is a question you raised. Well growing up in a household of a publisher, I tend to believe that both books should be reviewed, if the reviewers believe that they should include critisims that is not something the author can not control and so be it. Thus I believe it is unfair to value one topic over the other. To a satirist I believe Franken's book could be valued more. To a Political pundit maybe O'Reilly's book.

Point 5: Since when did an interview become a contest? "Conclusion, Oreilly and the NPR host battled with wits and the smartest person won--Oreilly." This is also your opinion. By staying with the interview and with O'Reilly leaving early I tend to believe he hurt himself in this regard. To me it looks as though he could not stand tough questions and then got on a soap box and then left without leaving a chance for Ms. Gross to have discourse.

Point 6: I don't believe she said she was soft on Franken. If she did again please tell me where. My understanding was that she said it was a "different interview". Personally it seemed to me that O'Reilly began attacking Ms. Gross. If this is the case I wonder if Franken also attacked her. If not I would tend to believe it would be a very different interview, I am thinking pleasent.

Point 7: I think we covered the difference between satire and "mud-slinging" and hopefully now that the definitions have been given you may be able to see the difference and in my opinion that Franken's book is satire.

Point 8: This was discussed early but I believe what she meant by differently in the contect of how O'Reilly was treated was not what you claim "much more harshly" but defensively, and only after O'Reilly attacked her for reading a review of his book.

My overall impression was that Ms. Gross may have read a review that she knew O'Reilly would not like. If this were the case, no matter who the author, I believe it is their role to defend their position. They should be able to do this without name calling or going on the offensive with the interviewer. It is very easy to defend your book if believe in what you wrote. If someone critizes something in the book you can discuss it point for point. I believe that the way O'Reilly handled the interview, at least in civilized way. He complained about not being interviewed for his first book. I highly doubt Ms. Gross would enjoy him for a third interview.

I chose to respond to this post because I have listened to Ms. Gross many times over the years. I feel that she is a very fair interviewer, and maybe some others agree, she has won a Peabody award. I have heard many different types of people on Fresh Air. Including an ex-pres. Bush speach writer recently, it was a very good interview and he was a fantastic guest. He showed his side of the argument without using rhetoric and he defended his position civily when needed. I do not believe this to be a liberal gloating program, or a conservative bashing one. I dislike bashing either party in my opinion both have good points. However, I would like to show a new study that shows people that listen to NPR tend to know what are lies and what are not in a much larger percentage then those who get the majority of their news from FOX NEWS. I am not sure why this is maybe in your response Mr/Ms. BigJelly you could make a hypothesis. Link to the study to which I alluded
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm

 

[dpm]

I'm listening to it now, and I was interested to hear mention of his interview with Jeremy Glick, the son of one of the sept 11th victims, who he infamously told to shut up. O'Reilly says that the interview transcript published in Harpers was taken out of context, and that the full transcript would show that Glick called the 911 attacks "alleged attacks" amongst other things.
He said that the full transcript is freely available -I'd love to read it. Does anyone know where its available?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: dpm
I'm listening to it now, and I was interested to hear mention of his interview with Jeremy Glick, the son of one of the sept 11th victims, who he infamously told to shut up. O'Reilly says that the interview transcript published in Harpers was taken out of context, and that the full transcript would show that Glick called the 911 attacks "alleged attacks" amongst other things.
He said that the full transcript is freely available -I'd love to read it. Does anyone know where its available?

You can watch all the fun here

 

[PatboyX]

was the interview on today?!?! damn, i missed it.
i really do want to hear more of it. i stand by my opinion that bill was out of line. i also believe franken is a humorist by trade and so, it is par for the course that he is treated less harshly than "our humble correspondant"

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Big Jelly, we may be funny, but at least we're honest.

OMG, ROFL, Cant get up. Must stop. can't breathe.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
was the interview on today?!?! damn, i missed it.
i really do want to hear more of it. i stand by my opinion that bill was out of line. i also believe franken is a humorist by trade and so, it is par for the course that he is treated less harshly than "our humble correspondant"

7pm. its noton yet here atleast.

 

[0roo0roo]

It was a Polk award - which isn't just some lame award either. His claim is that he mixed the two up when he mispoke.
OK, so you have one *maybe* accusation against O'reilly. Anything else? or is it just your partisan hatred of him?

lol, you are too niave. if you give him the benifit of the doubt and say he mispoke about recieving a peabody instead of a polk fine. really..... fine. but then you add the fact that he didn't even win a POLK!! the tabloid news show inside edition won the award AFTER HE LEFT THE SHOW!! not to mention he claimed this in 4 separate incidents. i'm sorry, where theres smoke theres fire right? after franken tells him about his slipup, he continues to use the lie about having won awards!! this isn't just joe bumpkin we're talking about here, but a person that considers himself a journalist that holds others to exacting standards for the truth and hosts a show called the NO SPIN ZONE. i'm sorry, 3 4 5 6 strikes? is this a person with integrity? a shred of honesty? what do you do as a fair journalist when confronted with a mistake, do you blow your top? or do you retract. guess what oreily did, he knew he was lying from the beginning. he lied and got caught continueing to LIE ABOUT A JOURNALISM AWARD. kinda funny huh.

not to mention he wouldn't admit inside edition was a tabloid show..lol atleast springer has the balls to admit what he does is a circus and nothing else.

not to mention he claims the polk awards he never won are as prestigeous as peabody's. don't think i need to remind you that INSIDE EDITION won a polk

and i can't believe someone brought up hanity AND colmes. colmes is hannity's lapdog, he doesn't call hannity on the most obvious fallacies, he talks maybe 20% of the time, but what do you expect from a rigged show.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segID=3856&schedID=216

watch franken rip oreilly to shreds.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

It was a Polk award - which isn't just some lame award either. His claim is that he mixed the two up when he mispoke.
OK, so you have one *maybe* accusation against O'reilly. Anything else? or is it just your partisan hatred of him?

lol, you are too niave. if you give him the benifit of the doubt and say he mispoke about recieving a peabody instead of a polk fine. really..... fine. but then you add the fact that he didn't even win a POLK!! the tabloid news show inside edition won the award AFTER HE LEFT THE SHOW!! not to mention he claimed this in 4 separate incidents. i'm sorry, where theres smoke theres fire right? after franken tells him about his slipup, he continues to use the lie about having won awards!! this isn't just joe bumpkin we're talking about here, but a person that considers himself a journalist that holds others to exacting standards for the truth and hosts a show called the NO SPIN ZONE. i'm sorry, 3 4 5 6 strikes? is this a person with integrity? a shred of honesty? what do you do as a fair journalist when confronted with a mistake, do you blow your top? or do you retract. guess what oreily did, he knew he was lying from the beginning. he lied and got caught continueing to LIE ABOUT A JOURNALISM AWARD. kinda funny huh.

not to mention he wouldn't admit inside edition was a tabloid show..lol atleast springer has the balls to admit what he does is a circus and nothing else.

not to mention he claims the polk awards he never won are as prestigeous as peabody's. don't think i need to remind you that INSIDE EDITION won a polk

and i can't believe someone brought up hanity AND colmes. colmes is hannity's lapdog, he doesn't call hannity on the most obvious fallacies, he talks maybe 20% of the time, but what do you expect from a rigged show.

LOL - I wish I could read

Did you even read what I posted? or did your bias filter out relevant words. "His claim" - is what I said- Now again does your bias preclude you from comprehension?
Also your statement of what he said also seems incorrect. His comments about the Peabody were in reference to the show he was once on. As far as I remember(from when we had this discussion in the past) is that Franken's accusation was something along the lines of "O'Reilly claimed in a C-SPAN interview that the show he once anchored, Inside Edition, had won a Peabody award." Note the context. O'reilly didn't claim HE won the award - the show did - and Franken even seems to acknowledge that fact. Now I understand he made reference to it other times but again I think that those also referenced the show - not himself. And also don't you think it'd be easy to mix the two up if you weren't actually part of the cast when they won? I know it's fun to pick on people, and heck - I don't really "like" O'reilly as I never watch(as I don't pay for TV) so I could give a rats ass about him or his shows, but to sit here making claims like you are - is rather misleading. I don't "defend" O'reilly for being a bully or whatever - but to twist the info to fit your bashing agenda is wrong. IF you can provide proof he stated "HE WON" the award - IN CONTEXT, I'll be more than happy to call him a lier and hypocrite, but up till this point all you have is a *maybe*.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

you be the judge

In February, O'Reilly gave a speech seemingly taking credit for winning a coveted Peabody award while an anchor at the tabloid TV show Inside Edition. After comedian Al Franken pointed out that the show never won a Peabody, O'Reilly retorted, in Mamet-esque syntax (O'Reilly Factor, 3/13/01): "Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago, 'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it."

But on his May 19, 2000 broadcast, he repeatedly told a guest who brought up his tabloid past: "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?" (Inside Edition won a Polk Award, not the better-known Peabody, for reporting that was done after O'Reilly left the show--Washington Post, 3/1/01.)

Don't have time to verify. Shouldn't be too dificult...they list the dates of the articles and shows. (Alas, my wifes Spanish soap is almost over so I can turn on the Boston/NY game. )

 

[0roo0roo]

its too bad that in that cspan interview oreilly's exact words were "we won two peabodys" when confronted with the fact that it was a tabloid show. he then endlessly lies about it being the most prestigious award in JOURNALISM. the man misrepresents himself whenever convenient. such is a liar and hipocrite. i guess you must love grabbing your ankles for the likes of oreilly.


oreily: "i beg your pardon, but the Peabody is only the most prestigious award in journalism,"

cspan host: "but you have to admit, inside edition was something of a tabloid show"

oreily: "so you want us to give the peabodys back?" "we won two peabodys, the most prestigious award in journalism"



Oreilly factor august 30 1999 - "i Anchored a program called inside edition which has won a peabody award"

may 8 2000 - "well, all i've got to say that is inside edition has won, i--i believe two peabody awards, the highest journalism award in the country"

may 19 2000
neville: "you hosted inside edition"
oreilly: "correct"
neville: "which is consdered a tabloid show"
oreilly: "by whom?"
neville: "by many people"
oreilly: "does that mean..."
neville: "and even you..."
oreilly: "...we throw the peabody awards back?...we won peabody awards."





sounds like a lying liar to me

 

[Moonbeam]

Terry Gross starts in San Francisco right now. KQED 88.5 KQEI 89.7? North Highlands Sacramento.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: smashp
Oreiley is a blowhard that cant handle not controlling a situation. He isn't a debater, or out for intelligent discourse, but only Out for Him as the title of his book states. He yells louder and louder until the other person just says "Screw this".

He is a classic bully propagator.

Why does this sound so familiar?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its too bad that in that cspan interview oreilly's exact words were "we won two peabodys" when confronted with the fact that it was a tabloid show. he then endlessly lies about it being the most prestigious award in JOURNALISM. the man misrepresents himself whenever convenient. such is a liar and hipocrite. i guess you must love bending over for the likes of oreilly.


oreily: "i beg your pardon, but the Peabody is only the most prestigious award in journalism,"

cspan host: "but you have to admit, inside edition was something of a tabloid show"

oreily: "so you want us to give the peabodys back?" "we won two peabodys, the most prestigious award in journalism"



Oreilly factor august 30 1999 - "i Anchored a program called inside edition which has won a peabody award"

may 8 2000 - "well, all i've got to say that is inside edition has won, i--i believe two peabody awards, the highest journalism award in the country"

may 19 2000
neville: "you hosted inside edition"
oreilly: "correct"
neville: "which is consdered a tabloid show"
oreilly: "by whom?"
neville: "by many people"
oreilly: "does that mean..."
neville: "and even you..."
oreilly: "...we throw the peabody awards back?...we won peabody awards."

sounds like a lying liar to me

Sounds like he was talking about the show to me. He was being associated with Inside Edition - hence the "we". He never took personal credit for it as people have tried to accuse him of. I guess you like to spin things as you wish. Yes he was wrong with the polk/Peabody thing - and he addressed that - wether you believe him or not - I could care less. But to accuse him of taking credit for them is stretching it just a tad too far.
Like I said - I don't give a rats ass about O'reilly but what I dislike is people spreading their misinformation and accusations as the only "truth".

CkG

 

[0roo0roo]

he misrepresented himself on numerous occasions. "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?"he used "we" over and over in a context which he knows would imply that he won it. not only this but he gets the award wrong. he's not a scared 12 year old getting grilled by bad bad scary journalists, he's a cold calculating spin pundit who makes his money off the impression he gives through the tv camera, he is a master of the language and knows how to manipulate, he knows very well what he's doing. he doesn't say that the show won the award after he left, no, he claims the award for himself. he hosts a show called the no spin zone, he should know better. instead of retracting when confronted he digs his little fox hole and defends his lies. he still denies the charge to this very day in the terry gross interview today.

he can't even admit inside edition was tabloid. talk about not being able to call a frog a frog.

a true man of integrity huh?

your bending over backwards to defend him is rather pathetic, and this is not an isolated case where he's been caught in lies.


and from the previous fair link

In March, Slate.com editor Michael Kinsley infuriated O'Reilly by suggesting the Fox host's background was less proletarian than he lets on (Washington Post, 3/1/01). O'Reilly makes much of his "working class" upbringing in Levittown, Long Island. His book's dust-jacket bio begins: "Bill O'Reilly rose from humble beginnings to become a nationally known broadcast journalist," and O'Reilly says his father, who retired in 1978, "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life."

But O'Reilly's mother told a reporter her son actually grew up in Westbury, Long Island, a "middle-class suburb a few miles from Levittown," where he attended a private school (Washington Post, 12/13/00). His father's $35,000 income in 1978 is equivalent to over $90,000 today in inflation-adjusted dollars.

seems oreily accidentally wrote that he came from humble upbringing?

seems like your a very poor judge of character huh?

 

[0roo0roo]

lol, he couldn't take the heat, esp when she was about to read a people magazine exerpt he didn't want to hear(it pointed out blatant hipocrisy), had a hissy fit attacking the show instead of defending himself and then walked out

 

[Moonbeam]

Unfortunately O'Rielly didn't know anything about Terry Gross or her program. She is probably the best interviewer in America. Her interview of him was typical of any one she might do. Up to the point where he blew he had been accorded a perfect opportunity to shed light, his light, on all the various charges. I thought that both he and she acquitted themselves admirably. I guess though, deep down, some Catholics have a persecution complex.