Oreilly Owned on the FActor

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!. Over the weekend, I saw Georgetown Law professor, David Cole. I talked to him for a few minutes at Dulles airport just outside Washington, D.C., about his experience being on the “O’Reilly Factor,” with Bill O’Reilly.

DAVID COLE: It was an afternoon in June when I got a call from Fox producer who says, do you want to come on the O’Reilly factor to talk about a story that day in the New York Times about the Guantanamo situation. I generally have declined going on O’Reilly. It’s not the kind of show that I’m a fan of, but I think it’s an important issue; I will go on the show. I went on the show, and I am sitting in the Washington studio. It’s being recorded in New York. They’re recording the intro that O’Reilly apparently always does to his show. It’s an introductory commentary. In the course of this, O’Reilly says – he was talking about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, 9/11, et cetera, and says, the factor – the O’Reilly Factor established the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and here’s what governor Tom Kean, the head of the 9/11 commission said about it this weekend. Then he play as clip in which Kean says something like we have found no evidence whatsoever of any connection between the Saddam Hussein and 9/11. However, we have found some contacts between – and at that point, O’Reilly interrupts very angry and says, we can’t use this. We have to redo this whole thing. So, they – so, there’s silence for three minutes or so. They come back on. They re-record the introduction totally verbatim, except when they get to the Kean part, instead of putting on the sound bite, O’Reilly paraphrases and says over the weekend, the head of the 9/11 commission said they definitely found evidence of the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. So, then we go into my segment, which is about this New York Times story, and O’Reilly’s spin essentially is that the New York Times is lying to us, the New York Times is biased, and that bias is under mining people’s resolve in the war on terrorism. He keeps characterizing the New York Times story as saying that the people in Guantanamo are innocent, there’s no reason for them to be there. I keep saying, no, that’s not what the New York Times story said. It said it was reporting on a C.I.A. Report that had found they had gotten very little intelligence from the people at Guantanamo and there were very few high level people at Guantanamo, mostly low-level people who didn’t actually pose much of a danger. We go back and forth, the usual – you know, very thoughtful exchange that you get on this kind of talk show. Until I keep saying – you know, Bill, you are misleading your viewers by mischaracterizing what the New York Times is saying and you are criticizing the New York Times for mischaracterizing the facts and he says, no, I’m not. At which point I say, I might as well go for it and say, it seems to me, Bill, like it’s the pot calling the kettle black because not five minutes ago I sat here and watched you re-record the introduction to your show in order to take out the head of the 9/11 commission saying there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11. At which point he just went ballistic, screamed at me, called me an s.o.b. at least three times. He said – guaranteed that this part of the segment would not air, and said that I would never ever be called back to the show, which at the time I wasn’t sure whether to take as a threat or a promise. But in any event, that’s where he left it. Later that night, the show aired and there was bill O’Reilly fuming about the bias and spin of the New York Times, but leaving out both governor Kean’s statement and my statement to O’Reilly about his own spinning of the al Qaeda - Hussein connection. That’s the story.

AMY GOODMAN: Georgetown University law professor, David Cole, talking about his experience on the O’Reilly factor. He then had this afterthought.

DAVID COLE: The most smarmy thing about the whole event was that O’Reilly’s opening commentary was all about how terrible spin and how terrible the New York Times’ spin is because it’s dividing the country, undermining the war on terrorism, and the final line was “the spin must stop. Our lives depend on it.” But he had just spun the statement of Governor Kean to serve his own interests.

AMY GOODMAN: Georgetown University law professor, David Cole. You are listening to and watching Democracy Now!. When we come back, we go back over the decades of convention coverage. Stay with us.

2

Almost anyone could own O’Reilly. But only someone like Rupert Murdoch would want to.

3

Anyone heard of this film?

4

Yes. My astral spies say it starts strong but falls apart at the end.

5

Both sides are just trying to make a buck.

If your opinion comes from O’Reilly, The White House, Whoopi Goldberg, Doonesbury or Michael Moore, then you’re an equal idiot.

If you think the New York Times is about something other than selling newspapers, you deserve to be the non thinking drone you have become.

News in America is about selling ad space, it has become entertainment.

The Right is about the wealthy established businesses that have run the country for so long and the Left is about wealthy artists and media giants who are the new money. Both only represent filthy rich people who are so removed from the real world that listening to people like George Clooney and Tim Robbins is as weak as getting your ideology from any White House administration since the Kennedy assassination.

If you think that there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats you have become the consumer that they both want you to be and the non thinking person and dependent drone they need you to be to keep their wealth and power, power neither party has ever shared with the general public.

Instead of getting angry about it we should clean up our own lives, our home towns, pick up trash and love our children.

We should also train hard to better ourselves and not concern ourselves with things we cannot change.

Peace y’all.

6

YAWWWWWWWWN…

:rolleyes: slow news day :rolleyes:

7

The thing is I watch Fox news (boos please) and they mention the documentary “Outfoxed” all the time. They discuss it, ask the viewers what they think, etc. I think they see it as free pubilcity. I’s like to see it, though. Fox news is at war with the NY Times, that much is certain.

8

We should also train hard to better ourselves and not concern ourselves with things we cannot change.

lol, dude, yer not in teh Bush admin are you? hahahaha.

Here’s how you can effect change in regards to the situation in america.

vote the shrub out and vote a new guy in. Things will change.
And you can change them.

No buy in, no interest.

There is a guy in the states who is trying to make a movie called “michael moore hates america”.

The daily show did a thing on the guy last night…let’s just say it was pretty dang funny listening to this guy fishing for support…and getting zilch!

The emperor has no clothes.

And if you look at all sources, you will get some sembelance of the truth. Frankly, most of the press is about journalism when they are allowed to do their job.

For the most part, they do.

9

Canada is a strip of population on the US border. No one outside of it even pretends to belive you are your own distinct entity. You jealousy is painful, as is your ignorance of anything besides bumper sticker politically correct bs. vive le quebec livre, isn’t that what charles de gualle said? even the euro-reds who you worship don’t want anything to do with you. Keep tending our pot crops and shut up about stuff you have no business speaking on.

10

:mad: You know, that White House is looking a little too white… it might be time for us to come down and put you Yanks in your place again.

11

lol @ jun erh

you just wish you were canadian because we are the beautiful people. Honestly, it’s like new york run by the swiss up here.

And we have way less fat people and our prime minister is a successful business man with meaningful university degrees as opposed to gentlemans C’s

:stuck_out_tongue:

12

Speaking well of the Prime Minister!?

Are you sure you’re Canadian??? :confused:

13

well, he doesn’t have the iron grip of a majority parliment anymore, so it’s ok to speak well of him again.

14

everything you say is in reponse to the united states. You’re like Cubans everything is usa this usa that. You are the most patriotic americans ever

15

I can say that I loved Montreal … beautiful, drop-dead gorgeous women and super clean city.

16

“Canadians are like Cubans” . . . that’s pretty funny

17

clearly, this man has been neither to canada nor cuba. :stuck_out_tongue:

we do have similar literacy percentages though.

and our health care systems are similar as well, except that we have more money than cubans and probably a slightly better infrastructure.

speaking of cuba, when is the US gonna move on with that?

If they do find oil, they won’t be so impotent anymore and could become economically strong again.

I guess nothin strikes fear in the hearts of anyone more than well to do commies. :rolleyes:

18

Originally posted by Kung Lek
[B]lol, dude, yer not in teh Bush admin are you? hahahaha.

Here’s how you can effect change in regards to the situation in america.

vote the shrub out and vote a new guy in. Things will change.
And you can change them.

[/B]

I said there’s no difference between the two and you assumed I am for Bush, you’re either not able to read or just a blind Democrat, just as bad as a blindly loyal Republican.

Clinton did nothing to prevent terror attacks and they increased, Bush has his war and the threat increases still, vote for who you like but don’t imagine that’s how change is effected here. Less than half those who are elligible to vote are registered.

Not since Nixon has anyone carried most votes, rather more votes win the prize here.

Our elections are decided by the majority of less than a quarter of those who have the right.

The most powerful people in the country run things here and they are the independently wealthy and public corporations.

I respect how feel but it’s a shame you can’t think for yourself.

You’re a good little drone, keep buying coke and pepsi and believing fairy tales. When you get a chance let me know of some altruistic journalism that’s written by an objective source and not in it for a paycheck.

19

“The very highest is barely known;
Then comes that which is loved,
Then that which is feared,
Then that which is hated.”
(Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17.)

We as Individuals can do nothing less than express the relationship between ourselves and our environment. However, we can choose the level of attention we give to the three factors mentioned above; our selves (earth, Yin,) our environment (Heaven, Yang,) and the potential relationship between the two (Man, Qi.)

Someone who tends solely to themselves ignores their relationship to the environment, and the environment itself. In combat, these people are very defensive, in part due to the fear that comes from not recognizing situations in their entirety. They may also be very physically strong, since they spend a lot of time building themselves up, in part to minimize fear, and may be very inflexible, both phsycially and mentally. They may be very boastful - another form of building up the self.

Someone who tends solely to the environment ignores their own needs and the way the environment relates to their needs, focusing instead on their wants and desires. In Combat, these people will do anything to achieve the results they want, including comprimising themselves and their relationships. They may be manic and zealous, inflexible, but also fearful because they too ignore important aspects of life. They may be very opinionated, but also gullible in regards to things that support their opinions.

Someone who tends solely to the relationship between themselves and their environment ignores themselves and their environment, not caring what kind of environment they’re in or how they fare in that environment, wanting simply to have a relationship, no matter what kind. In combat, these people have no goal or direction other than to maintain the relationship, no matter what the cost to themselves or the environment. They May be very angry or very depressed, but will also be fearful for the same reasons as the other examples above. They may be very indecisive.

Someone who tends to all three is able to function optimally in combat, expending energy only when necessary, intending to do only what must be done. Fear is replaced by instinct as all three factors are tended to and recognized - there is nothing left unrecognized. In combat, these people connect yin and yang with qi in order to maintain natural adaptability. There is no indecision, boasting, or clinging to opinion as truth.

Taking this idea beyond combat and into the realm of communication, one can say that someone who boasts exists primarily in the realm of Yin, and is fearful because they do not know the reality of anything other than themselves. Someone who fervently opines and latches on to other opinions exists primarily in the realm of yang, and is fearful because they do not know the reality of anything other than their environment. Someone who skirts having opinions on anything is fearful because they do not wish to lose their connection by taking a stand.

To those who have an opinions - it is the natural expression of your relationship between self and environment. Your opinion becomes a part of our environment, and we have the choice to

a) recognize your opinion for what it is,
b) feel threatened and attempt to make it something it’s not,
c) feel threatened and attempt to respond by defending,
d) feel threatened and do nothing because it may damage any perceived relationship.

No Matter what country, culture, or gender, there will be fearful people. Canada has fearful people, and they act as such. America has fearful people, and they act as such. However, every fearful person has the ability to choose - fear is a choice, a decision to tend only to part of reality, hence all actions stemming from it are choices as well.

I myself am sometimes fearful. I sometimes tend more to one aspect of reality than to another. Practicing my art allows me to practice tending to all three. As I practice, what once was natural slowly becomes natural once again. I may not always tend to all three, but I tend to all three more often than I did. How do I know? Because I notice it after the fact. When I’m doing it, I don’t care that I’m doing it, I just do it. It is only when I’m not doing it that I realize I’m not doing it, ie I was was doing it but now I’m not.

I encourage everyone who reads this to practice tending to the three factors of Yin (themselves,) Yang (their environment’s influence on themselves,) and Qi (how they relate to their environment’s influences).

Thus ends my expression of my relationship between myself and this thread.

XM

20

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
… a cat will blink when struck with a hammer.

.. hm ? yeah.