One way to tell you’re famous is when universities do studies on you.
O’Reilly uses name-calling more than once every seven seconds in ‘Talking Points Memo’
Bill O’Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the “No Spin Zone,” but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.
The IU researchers found that O’Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.
The seven propaganda devices include:
* Name calling — giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
* Glittering generalities — the opposite of name calling;
* Card stacking — the selective use of facts and half-truths;
* Bandwagon — appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
* Plain folks — an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are “of the people”;
* Transfer — carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
* Testimonials — involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O’Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin.
Bill’s response? It’s George Soros’ fault.
I could only watch the first quarter of this video before I had to vomit.
This is one sick individual and I never want to either see his face or hear his voice, ever again.
When my reaction to a person is this visceral, which generally only happens when I’m confronted with politicians and lawyers (usually the same thing), I just take it for granted the opposite of anything they say is the truth.
I don’t consider myself either liberal or conservative but if this is an example of a conservative, I might have to become a card carrying liberal, if there is such a thing.
That’s exactly what the regular media does in there news stories to put a liberal spin on things. They use the label conservative far more than liberal, and also staunch or arch conservative as well as other labels. Use of half-truths and selective use of facts, check. Testimonials and calls to authority, check,without labeling various groups as liberals of course. Plain folks in a crowd selected for endorsing the reporter’s viewpoint is very common, and when they can’t find anyone reporters will write, ‘people say’ or ‘many people think.’ Citing polls when they are in favor of what the media wants while ignoring them the rest of the time, very common.
when thinking about bill o’reilly and his news cast, i’m reminded of another controversial show that’s been aired on the fox network for over a decade, the jerry springer show. While it may be that the jerry springer show has diminished in respect to its shock value (time does this to everyone, i think), i can remember when it held the same taboo as bill o’reilly’s show, that it was immoral and degrading to it’s guests, audience, and itself. Of course jerry springer wasn’t the only one in the game, other networks had shows of the exact format, with the exception that their hosts were of a different persona (i.e. the calm and comforting Maury, from the show of the same name).
While i’m not saying that o’reilly is doing what these nation wide group ‘therapists’ did in creating a carnaval spectacle out of an honest and helpful service, i should think it isn’t the personas of these shows that should come under direct fire, as they are there mainly to direct the appeal of the shows to certain demographics (again, Maury and Springer), but the belief that bill o’reilly is to the media what milton freedman was to the economy, rest his soul.
On a last note, i’d like to point out to anybody still reading a certain line in this article which i misread the first time through, maybe you did too, but the paragraph
“The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O’Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin.”
is refering to the techniques used to *study* bill o’reilly and to study father coughlin, not the techniques used by the two, which would imply that bill o’reilly is a fascist.
O’Reilly gives me a headache, and I’m a rather conservative Conservative, but he is doing exactly what the Liberals do. Just going after George Soros instead of George Bush….
Nobody is forcing you to watch or listen to this guy….
(Can we get rid of those roll-over ads? It’s getting old.)
Regards,
Stu.
Now why on earth are we taxpayers giving money to universtiy researchers for these kind of hatchet jobs? And how about that not so subtle link between Hiltler, Mussonli, and O’Reilly? An obvious tactic taught by Soros in Character Assination 101.
2-
Really? You honestly think there is a ‘liberal media’? Really? Is that the best you can do? When these media companies are huge, huge multinational companies who enjoy massive tax breaks and are the very backbone of the right wing ‘elite’ and their so-called ‘base’.
Look at who owns these companies: ultra-rich conservative people who push the right-wing agenda at every opportunity.
The ‘liberal media’ is simply a myth perpetuated by the right in order to hide their massive media bias.
As far as billo goes, he’s a blowhard neocon who caters to the lowest of the low. As was mentioned above, he’s more akin to Jerry Springer than honest journalism. At least Springer tells you up front what kind of show you’re getting; with bill, he perpetuates the myth that he’s ‘fair and balanced’ and a ‘journalist’, when all he does is yell at those who disagree with him and fill the airwaves with lies and deceit.
The WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD.
#5: “character assination”
I think this is an example of that:
Hmmm.. where did I see another listing of Neocon techniques, going back to the mid 1990’s?
[cough, cough]
J/P=?
Watching Oreilly is like an audio track to a blog. Sometimes there are good arguements sometimes ther are not but generally it isn’t boring. It is always funny to hear people talk like he is about hard news when all he does is throw out opinions and verbally spar with people.
#6, I don’t care who owns what. The media went haywire that Bush might have used cocaine, but have ignored more evidence of the same from Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. Also, if someone accuses Bush of having raped her in 1984, I think it would get more than one question from Sam Donaldson.
#2, 5, & 11, Mike & Smith
I really like the way the conservatives like to point out that “liberals” do it, or that once upon a time (specific “liberal”) did something bad too. Therefore, whatever nasty thing their heroes do is now just peachy.
Bullpoop. Fox News is not fair, it is not balanced, and it is not responsible. Are the other main news outlets better. Yes. Are any of them perfect? No. But damn it, they do clean their houses when they find unethical reporting, plagiarizing, fabricating,and fudging. All thing which Fox apparently encourages its “personalities” to do.
Fox news is great for promoting responsibility in others. They, of course, are exempt.
***
#5, … An obvious tactic taught by Soros in Character Assination 101.
Comment by Smith — 5/5/2007 @ 8:37 am
A great example of what this study points out.:
Somehow George Soros is not allowed to support a cause.
Somehow if George Soros does support a cause, that cause is now tainted.
George Soros is a subversive.
George Soros, the subversive, teaches subversive tactics.
Whatever George Soros teaches is not only obvious but also anti-American.
George Soros is possibly gay with a fascination on studying character’s asses.
George Soros is enough of a master to teach others about Character’s asses.
The biggest lesson would be how humorous the right wing nuts can be when they don’t use spell check.
That radical right, nutty, millionare, propganda master Bill O’Reilly claims it was only six names tonight… here’s what I counted:
1) “Media Matters, the smear Internet site.”
2) “Nutty Indiana Newspaper.”
3 & 4) “Far Left Billionaire George Soros”
5) “Media Matters nonsense”
6) “[Soros’] propaganda machine.”
7) “Soros’ gang.”
8) “Committed left press”
9) “Nutty Indiana paper”
10) “bought-and-paid-for elements at NBC news”
11) “Media Matters, your daily source of deception.”
12, 13 & 14) “the radical left Soros has built a very smooth propoganda machine”
If that porn-writing, sexual harassing, hypocrite, blow-hard O’Reilly wasn’t such a shill for the ideologue, mean-spirited right, he’d understand that ANY name calling disqualifies you from claiming you’re “fair and balanced”
No matter that is just “left” for “right’ — it slants the news.
I’ve heard many conservatives complain bitterly when the “liberal press” puts the labels “conservative” or “right wing” in front of the names of people who are conservative, right wing and proud of it.
I actually agree with this point but not with their head-in-the-sand refusal to admit that the right wing press does name calling far far more than CNN, New York Times, the networks, etc.
Who is the right wing press? You have talk radio, which isn’t a real news outlet, a few minor newspapers, and a cable network, albeit the top rated one. The broadcast news media still get most of the ratings and they are liberal. Plus they get their news stories from the New York Times which is liberal. Even the Wall Street Journal has a liberal news section to go with its conservative editorial page. OReilly isn’t even part of Fox’s hard news, he’s an opinion writer. I’m not sure if Rupert Murdoch has anything that counts as hard news, but their news stops at 8pm. Oreilly, Hannity and Colmes, and Greta are all olpinion shows with maybe some news thrown in. In my experience people love OReilly for about 2 years, and then the effect starts to wear off.
>>Who is the right wing press?
Any of the media owned by big corporations.
I’m sure those big corporations are really monitoring those news operations, outside of adding entertainment to hold down the losses.
Fox News has tied it’s diaper straps to the so called Christian Right, and yes, during the course of the Bush administration they have done well serving up basic, simple minded fare for the righteous. But the pendulum has reached the end of it’s swing, and in the coming years I suspect Fox will shed it’s high dollar talking heads and revert to serving up reruns for the catatonic couch brains.
I guess he was lying in his response when showed where the money came from for the study. What a terrible man he is to make you more informed.