Posted on 10/14/2010 5:53:42 PM PDT by Enchante
OBSERVATION: If you read the posted comments on this article, you can’t really tell if Bill was on their show, or the girls were on Bill’s show. Do you see how data gets confused? And people wonder why I consider the “facts” on the eligibility issue to be useless.
? huh ?
While I recognize that much of the thread has consisted of fun invective toward WG and JB (and sometimes BOR), I think the following comments make it pretty clear that the “show” is that of WG and JB, on which BOR was the guest:
1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17, 20, 32
In any case, I don’t see how the posts on this thread could be any good data set for assessing facts and methodology about the eligibility issue. That seems like a huge stretch to me.
Next guest went on to trash O'Donnell. One has to expect this and try not to get too hot under the collar. Just sit back and marvel at what is being shown on CNN. Well, nice to be able to vent and to remind myself to jolly well donate to FR.
Since when is being a paid entertainer and peddler of books a conflict with being a journalist? Journalism has always been entertainment--please check out any major newspaper from the 1800's. Journalistys also peddle books. Any number of conservative columnists and/or journalists sell books, and actually get paid for it.
Journalists get paid, too, and if their journalism isn't entertaining to the reader they won't be journalists for very long--you don't think people reading Woodward and Bernstein were entertained by the revelations about that most serious of stories at thetime, Watergate?
O'Reilly is plenty bold, constantly having on people from different views and challenging them. He is essentially an investigative columnist who is easily as bold as any "real journalist" writing today. (Who are these "real" journalists working for--The New York Times? Washington Post?)
The fact that he said "Muslims attacked us on 9/11" and caused two liberals who couldn't dispute that simple fact shows he's too bold for most people to handle today. Doesn't make him perfect or the greatest ever, but saying he's entertaining and sensationalist (whatever that means, since the word is tossed around so casually today) doesn't mitigate the fact that he is indeed a journalist, and his job is to expose these people, which he does.
He does show opposing views, which is fine; I take issue with people referring to him as conservative - he’s not (I believe he refers to himself as a libertarian).
Real journalists would not deal with the likes of Al Sharpton, the self-annointed King Of All Blacks; if they did, they would ask him some hard questions about finances, Tawana Brawley, “white interlopers” and the resulting murders, etc.
I’m glad he made the comment about Muslims killing people on 9/11; that just makes him someone stating the obvious in a forum where obvious truths are not welcome. Anyone who lives within 100 miles of NYC (millions of people) will never forget who killed all those people that day; our towns have prominent memorials that wouldn’t let us forget even if we wanted to.
'The Spew' (I love that phrase, btw) invites O'really on to boost their viewership.
Bill shows up to boost his.
Justa bunch of TV-media ho's .......................... FRegards
You’re absolutely right; thankfully, less people turn on the TV after dinner. They just turn on the PC (and hopefully visit FR).
As far as the people who watch daytime TV, there is a growing chasm between them and people who deal with reality. I don’t mean people that simply don’t work; a real stay-at-home mother has better things to be doing than watch daytime TV (I believe stay-at-home mothers DO work).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.