Congressman Ron Paul

[Swift]

Of course, FK. But, when a news network is >50% commentary, it is a commentary network, not a news station.

My point is that there are very few shows left where the host is actually moderating. There's always a side being played by the network itself.

Ok, so since Bill Oreily didn't let RP give a history lesson of Iran and simply answer the question that was posed, he's biased? I saw the interview. He does the SAME thing with everyone. No matter the party or stance. Anytime anyone tries to filibuster, he cuts them off. Because politicians, generally speaking, don't answer questions directly and he's looking to cut through that mess. I don't always agree with O'Reilly, but I do like the fact that he doesn't let people make false statements like on a lot of other stations.

 

[Azuremen]

Ok, so since Bill Oreily didn't let RP give a history lesson of Iran and simply answer the question that was posed, he's biased? I saw the interview. He does the SAME thing with everyone. No matter the party or stance. Anytime anyone tries to filibuster, he cuts them off. Because politicians, generally speaking, don't answer questions directly and he's looking to cut through that mess. I don't always agree with O'Reilly, but I do like the fact that he doesn't let people make false statements like on a lot of other stations.

Yes, but those questions he was asking of Dr. Paul where not Yes or No questions, but O'Reilly wanted a yes or no answer.

And it went something like this...

Bill: "Do you fear Iran?"
Paul: "Well... (attempts to explain)"
Bill, interrupts: "Do you fear Iran?"
Paul: "Well, yes, but there..."
Bill, interrupts: "How can you justify the US removing itself then?"

And he doesn't want to here an explanation, or answer. I'm sorry, but I hate O'Reilly, Hanity, and those types. They are masters of getting one liners they can toss around like fire to burn politicians. As Jon Stewart said, those types "are hurting America"

 

[Swift]

Yes, but those questions he was asking of Dr. Paul where not Yes or No questions, but O'Reilly wanted a yes or no answer.

And it went something like this...

Bill: "Do you fear Iran?"
Paul: "Well... (attempts to explain)"
Bill, interrupts: "Do you fear Iran?"
Paul: "Well, yes, but there..."
Bill, interrupts: "How can you justify the US removing itself then?"

And he doesn't want to here an explanation, or answer. I'm sorry, but I hate O'Reilly, Hanity, and those types. They are masters of getting one liners they can toss around like fire to burn politicians. As Jon Stewart said, those types "are hurting America"

Yeah, uh, you're wrong.

If you agree to come on someone's show, especially someone as big as OReilly, you have to KNOW how he does things. RP knows how Oreilly does interviews. Again, he does the same thing to everyone. Including left wing loons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. So he's not picking on RP. That is NOT bias. That's the way he does interviews.

Can you give me a case where that is not the situation?

And "do you fear Iran?" is a yes or no question. "Why do you fear Iran" is a question that needs explanation.

 

[Azuremen]

Oh, I know O'Reilly and the other clowns do it to everyone, and you see Ron Paul was prepared for it.

But how am I wrong exactly? That was effectively the exchange, just dragged out a bit more. Did I say he ONLY does it to Ron Paul? No. And did I say that was the bias? No. The severity of the questions varies from person to person and topic to topic. But a political commentator will have his own biased bits. More perhaps what i was trying to say is O'Reilly's "interviews" aren't interviews, and trying to pull info from a commentators "interview" to prove a point is a terrible idea.

 

[FoolKiller]

My point is that there are very few shows left where the host is actually moderating. There's always a side being played by the network itself.

When is there ever any kind of commentary with a moderating host? If they were moderating it wouldn't be commentary, it would be debate/discussion.

If you dislike certain commentary shows the only people you can blame is the audience. Do you think Bill O'Reilly stays on the air because Rupert Murdoch thinks he is a great guy or because he brings in money and ratings? Before you answer let me point out that Rupert Murdoch has only made one political contribution this year and that was to Hillary.

As for more commentary than news: turn off the 24 hour news channels if you want to avoid that.


I'm not defending Fox News as being better than anyone else, but I also won't say they are any worse. My job involves watching news from all over and trust me when I tell you that Fox News is no different than CNN or MSNBC. They just have more popular commentary.

 

[Swift]

Oh, I know O'Reilly and the other clowns do it to everyone, and you see Ron Paul was prepared for it.

But how am I wrong exactly? That was effectively the exchange, just dragged out a bit more. Did I say he ONLY does it to Ron Paul? No. And did I say that was the bias? No. The severity of the questions varies from person to person and topic to topic. But a political commentator will have his own biased bits. More perhaps what i was trying to say is O'Reilly's "interviews" aren't interviews, and trying to pull info from a commentators "interview" to prove a point is a terrible idea.

So, how is the interview supposed to go. Oreilly's got 7 minutes for that segment. How is it supposed to be done?

I'm really trying to understand what you would call an "interview".

 

[Azuremen]

So, how is the interview supposed to go. Oreilly's got 7 minutes for that segment. How is it supposed to be done?

He doesn't interrupt them every time they say more than 10 words? 💡

This is just in general, for anyone that goes on that show. You don't hear what they have to say, just what O'Reilly feels like saying and small hints at what anyone thinks before he interrupts them. Perhaps I just hate the whole format...

And FK, I think we are all aware that every news source is biased. CNN and MSNBC and just about any other network. We were more overly commenting on how Solid Fro claimed to be presenting unbiased info, when everything was coming from Fox. If he pulled for several sources perhaps, it would have been as much an issue.

 

[Omnis]

When is there ever any kind of commentary with a moderating host? If they were moderating it wouldn't be commentary, it would be debate/discussion.

That's exactly my point. Most shows are only commentary with no discussion. It's not about Fox or Bill O'Reilly or Ron Paul.

The viewer, watching a news station, would benefit greater from debate/discussion than mere commentary. Instead, the networks have more and more become an amalgam of different commentary and punditry. They still fly under the guise of news media, however.

All of this comes to the point in which there is so little discussion that the viewer is no longer getting the background information needed to make their own opinions. That's what creates what happens on Bill'O's show where he demands yes or no answers from questions that are far more complex and are in need of deeper discussion.

 

[Azuremen]

Read what Omnis said, as he got alot of more my sentiments summed up in a much better post. He tends to do that alot.

Omnis - +rep I hadn't too recently

 

[Swift]

That's exactly my point. Most shows are only commentary with no discussion. It's not about Fox or Bill O'Reilly or Ron Paul.

The viewer, watching a news station, would benefit greater from debate/discussion than mere commentary. Instead, the networks have more and more become an amalgam of different commentary and punditry. They still fly under the guise of news media, however.

All of this comes to the point in which there is so little discussion that the viewer is no longer getting the background information needed to make their own opinions. That's what creates what happens on Bill'O's show where he demands yes or no answers from questions that are far more complex and are in need of deeper discussion.

That's all well and good. But, it's not a debate show. It's not even a news show. It's a commentary show. No matter the network, that's the format. Look at the "nightly news" on the major networks. They are failing horribly, why? Because people don't LIKE that format as much as the commentary format.

I see lots of discussions on Oreilly and Hannity and Colmes. I've seen it happen. But it's TV, they simply can't let the guest go on forever because of time. If you want a more open discussion, try talk radio where things aren't quite as restrained by time.

You can make the argument that getting all your information from one source makes you biased by default. That's fine. But to say that an interview format is biased, when the person accepts the invitation, is just not accurate.

 

[Omnis]

No, I'm not attacking the show or the interview format. Commentary can be good, given the viewer has enough background information on the subject of commentary. I'm saying the network jeopardizes its integrity because it is comprised of or built mostly around the same type format-- one which does not serve the interest of delivering information to the viewer without influence or with equitable influence from all philosophies.

 

[Swift]

No, I'm not attacking the show or the interview format. Commentary can be good, given the viewer has enough background information on the subject of commentary. I'm saying the network jeopardizes its integrity because it is comprised of or built mostly around the same type format-- one which does not serve the interest of delivering information to the viewer without influence or with equitable influence from all philosophies.

Ok, but it's not about presenting all philosophies. It's about presenting the facts. Once the facts are out there, one can apply their own philosophies. In all honesty, I think Oreilly is very much about the facts and doesn't let people spin things in either direction. Granted, not everyone does that but after listening to the radio and watching the show I can make that honest assessment.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's exactly my point. Most shows are only commentary with no discussion. It's not about Fox or Bill O'Reilly or Ron Paul.

The viewer, watching a news station, would benefit greater from debate/discussion than mere commentary. Instead, the networks have more and more become an amalgam of different commentary and punditry. They still fly under the guise of news media, however.

All of this comes to the point in which there is so little discussion that the viewer is no longer getting the background information needed to make their own opinions. That's what creates what happens on Bill'O's show where he demands yes or no answers from questions that are far more complex and are in need of deeper discussion.

You have hit the problem of any kind of political medium on teh head. It is up to the viewer to have to find the full story. The pure fact that most voters don't do this is why people come off sounding like blathering idiots when you attempt to have a discussion with them about their political views. It is why many people still think that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and why many people still think George Bush was involved in 9/11.

I see lots of discussions on Oreilly and Hannity and Colmes. I've seen it happen. But it's TV, they simply can't let the guest go on forever because of time. If you want a more open discussion, try talk radio where things aren't quite as restrained by time.

You can make the argument that getting all your information from one source makes you biased by default. That's fine. But to say that an interview format is biased, when the person accepts the invitation, is just not accurate.

OK, I do have to slightly disagree here when it comes to this primary. I have seen O'Reilly let people he fully supports go on at length. He only interrupts them if there is more than one person in the interview. I've also seen him hang up on guests on the phone. But it is his show and his prerogative.

Example of him letting his guests ramble. Notice he only interrupts when he hits the halfway mark so that he can let his second guest speak.


And O'Reilly interviewing McCain. He gets to ramble and then O'Reilly politely interrupts to clarify his question. What's the difference? Oh, Bill likes McCain.


A better example of bias here would be how Sean Hannity deals with guests, especially in this case.

Example: Let's look at Sean Hannity interviewing Fred Thompson.


Careful you don't get hit by the snowballs or distracted by the cute bunnies. It was all straightforward and Fred Thompson was given so much time to answer that it was pre-taped and then split up and aired over multiple nights.

Now, look at the video that Sold Fro had posted where Hannity goes to town on Ron Paul, constantly interrupting. You cannot tell me you don't see the difference there.


Now, you can put up clips of Ron Paul on Bill Maher and Bill Maher does the same thing to Ron Paul that Hannity does to Fred Thompson by letting him explain his positions at length.


Pick your poison, but when an interviewer doesn't allow someone to fully answer they do them and their audience a disservice.



Of course, it is understandable considering too many politicians want to ramble without actually answering a question. But to say that Hannity was treating Ron Paul the way he has the other candidates is wrong.

 

[Azuremen]

I like how McCain doesn't actually answer the first question for a bit. Instead, he talks about immigration reform, not changing legal system problems with bail and sanctuary laws. And Bill lets him go on and on...

FK is right, regarding that. And this in particular...

...when an interviewer doesn't allow someone to fully answer they do them and their audience a disservice.

 

[Swift]

Wow, you guys really want a "perfect world" don't you?

I still maintain that Oreilly, generally speaking, keeps things equal and fair. Did you see what happened with Ann Coulter?

I see what you guys are saying, but it's commentary, not debate. I also refute FK's statement.

but when an interviewer doesn't allow someone to fully answer they do them and their audience a disservice.

It's not a debate it's an interview. Politicians filibuster, it's what they are trained to do. When an interviewer interrupts someone, generally speaking it's to get an actual answer.

But all in all, I see where you guys are coming from. But what you're looking for is open forum every night. That's boring and gets no ratings. That's why things are the way they are.

 

[FoolKiller]

I still maintain that Oreilly, generally speaking, keeps things equal and fair. Did you see what happened with Ann Coulter?

If by equal and fair you mean he treats everyone with a differing viewpoint the same way. I'll agree that he doesn't pick favorite peopel or even a favorite party, but he treats people that agree with him differently than he treats those that don't agree. He doesn't let the opposing view give their reasoning, that is not a debate.

I see what you guys are saying, but it's commentary, not debate. I also refute FK's statement.

OK, not all interruptions fall under my comment but when it goes like this:

Bill: You said, "blah blah." How can you say that?
Guest: I say that because first of all X and then there is.....
Bill: Wait a second! How can you think that way?
Guest: I am trying to explain that it is because....
Bill: No you want to talk about yesterday and I am talking about today. How can you say that today?
Guest: Because yesterday is still relevant and shows that....
Bill: No, it is irrelevant because it was yesterday. Please explain today. You have the last word.
Guest: Look, Bill, you have to understand that when this happened yesterday we......
Bill: Well, we are out of time and obviously you are wrong. Thank you and goodbye.

That is a disservice to everyone.

It's not a debate it's an interview. Politicians filibuster, it's what they are trained to do. When an interviewer interrupts someone, generally speaking it's to get an actual answer.

Keeping them on track is good but look at the McCain interview. He asks McCain about an obvious failure by a local judge and McCain starts talking about Border Security. I understand the guy is an illegal immigrant, but that doesn't address the same kinds of situations with AMerican citizens committing crimes, which is a big point for O'Reilly. After McCain turns it into an immigration issue, even though that is not the main problem with the court case, O'Reilly follows his lead and asks about it.

But all in all, I see where you guys are coming from. But what you're looking for is open forum every night. That's boring and gets no ratings. That's why things are the way they are.

I understand it is because it gets ratings and everyone does it, but I can't agree that it is fair and balanced from anyone.

 

[Omnis]

Wow, you guys really want a "perfect world" don't you?

Aiming for less is not worth it.

But all in all, I see where you guys are coming from. But what you're looking for is open forum every night. That's boring and gets no ratings. That's why things are the way they are.

Good.

There's always that damn phenomenon, though. When a show is actually constructive and informative, the ignorant whom it would help never tune in. I guess that's why Fox News is the only one left in that movie Idiocracy.

 

[Swift]

Aiming for less is not worth it.

Good point! 👍

Good.

There's always that damn phenomenon, though. When a show is actually constructive and informative, the ignorant whom it would help never tune in. I guess that's why Fox News is the only one left in that movie Idiocracy.

yep, so while you guys have somewhat of a point, I think
Fox is doing a pretty good job.

 

[Omnis]

yep, so while you guys have somewhat of a point, I think
Fox is doing a pretty good job.

 

[Swift]

Ok, if that's laughable Omnis, who IS doing a good job?

 

[Omnis]

Fox is doing the best job with ratings, yeah. All of the networks suck, though. 20/20 is pretty good most of the time, and Dateline would probably be great if they based their shows on things that matter instead of stupid porn and sex offenders.

This goes back to what I said before, however. These are mere shows on entire networks. I'm just using fox as the example.

 

[YSSMAN]

To be completely honest, no one is doing a good job anymore. Fox always seems too focused on towing the Bush line a bit too much, MSNBC is working far too hard to disprove that, and while CNN means well, I really only like their International programing.

I guess I rely on foreign news outlets a bit too often, the BBC and whatnot. Then again, I do get a fair bit of my news from Digg.com as well, so that can only say so much...

So gun to my head, the top three:

1) CNN: The work done by Anderson Cooper has really been quite good, I have to give him that. Amanpour does wonderful work as well. They have a good meaning behind most of what they do, and under most circumstances, seem to be moderately "balanced" if you will.

2) ABC: They're an old favorite, I'll admit it. They always seem to be a bit more objective in their stories, not always towing a line per-se, more or less trying to show that the government can (and often is) wrong, and letting people know when it effects them.

3) Fox: As the balancing network to most other channels, I do trust them for bringing a different perspective to the conversation. Problem is, I just hate how "fake" everything seems. It just all feels so cheap, all the time, and the ranting and raving just has to eventually see an end.

 

[FoolKiller]

2) ABC: They're an old favorite, I'll admit it. They always seem to be a bit more objective in their stories, not always towing a line per-se, more or less trying to show that the government can (and often is) wrong, and letting people know when it effects them.

ABC seems good one day and then the next Ted Koppel is standing in barber shop in Baghdad talkling about how rebuilding is not happening (or taking too long) and how this particulat area has no electricity, while in the background the barber is using an electric razor plugged into an outlet.

Of course this was a couple of years ago, so they may have changed a bit.

 

[YSSMAN]

Wow, Fox denies another win for Ron Paul?

Fox News media star Sean Hannity once again contradicted a clear victory by presidential candidate Ron Paul of Fox’s own post-debate poll in the aftermath of Sunday night’s Fox-sponsored GOP presidential debate. The post-debate poll showed that Ron Paul won with 34 percent of the viewer vote.

At one point, with results showing Ron Paul winning the informal “cell phone” poll, Hannity burst out with a definitive statement, “Ron Paul did not win the debate tonight,” even though the poll showed that he was winning by a wide margin. Hannity also said bluntly that Ron Paul supporters were “stacking” the poll. This is the same sort of statement he made during a previous Fox sponsored debate which Ron Paul also won.

Hannity later interviewed Ron Paul and asked if he would support Hillary Clinton. He also asked a question that seemed to imply that Ron Paul sided with one fifth of Democrats polled who hoped the US would lose the Iraq war. He spent a good deal of time investigating whether Ron Paul would support the Republican candidate for president, if it were not to be him. Ron Paul, however, declined to provide a blanket endorsement.

Ron Paul also indicated, during the same post-debate TV interview that the reason he was not scoring well in polling was because the pollers were not “including” him. He also said the campaign had a good deal of work to do to raise his profile, and that he intended to spend down at least some of the $5 million he had raised in the third quarter and funds he expected to raise in the 4th quarter – an amount he seemed to imply might come to about $10 million.

Huh. Well, here we go again...

 

[Swift]

Well, that's a bit biased. But it was personal bias and Colmes could be right there to contradict. Unless this was a one on one interview. I haven't seen it yet.

However, I do know of Ron Paul supporters "stacking" the calls to the Mark Levin show. To the point where Mark won't even take any more calls on it.

But yeah, Sean was really trying to push RP into a corner and get him to choose a side. So, there you go. Like I said before, you guys had half a point. But I don't doubt for a second that RP supporters stacked the polls.

I mean RP won a straw poll in Maryland. It was at the State Fair and didn't even cover 1,000 people. I don't care who was the "Winner" of that poll. It wouldn't mean a thing of to me at all. It's 1,000 people. I'm not saying it wasn't legitimate. I'm saying that it's a useless statistic.

 

[FoolKiller]

I am curious how Ron Paul supporters stack the polls. Are they all calling in because they care? Are they trying to get his name out? Honestly, that same mindset in an election can win an election. If your supporters are saying, "Meh," when polls are being taken to see how the debate went you cannot be sure they won't act the same way on election day.

And when you factor in the hive mind mentality to those who truly don't pay attention, them seeing someone winning all the polls could have an affect on their opinion.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, I'm not certain as to how exactly they are "cheating" when they text-in on these polls. Fox should have a system in place in which each phone can only vote once, so in theory, each one of those Ron Paul votes are indeed legitimate.

The thing is, statistically speaking, only people who really have an opinion over the debates are going to text-in, and as it seems in most cases, those who are backing Paul are far more enthusiastic than those backing Romney, Rudy, Thompson, etc.

Interestingly enough, they talked about Ron Paul on the Free Beer and Hot Wings Show for a few moments this morning, all of the hosts saying that what he says is what they like best... Limited government, following the constitution as it was written, using capitalism as a weapon for peace, not war... But all of them said that because "Ron Paul never has a chance," they would never support them. Making things even more interesting, we discussed this further in one of my Poli Sci classes today (pros and cons on Paul and Clinton for several minutes), and several people came to the exact same conclusion.

The thing is, if all those people who keep saying "I like Ron Paul" would continue to back him even if he "never has a chance," I'd care to bet that he'd have a far better chance at getting it. People need to realize that their vote counts, no matter what, and picking a candidate you like best will certainly determine your level of happiness with the government.

Alas, I can't convince everyone to do so...

 

[Swift]

You're not totally wrong Yssman. But what you have to remember is that what, 30% of registered voters vote in a primary, maybe? And about 75% of them don't follow politics closely. Meaning unless there is a scandal or something from a political they don't see anything. Or very little. That's what we all and those commentators are saying. Sure, RP says good stuff. But his name simply isn't big enough to get the "mass" of voters needed.

 

[Solid Fro]

Ron Paul's 'fans' padded the Fox News txt poll last night, as they have done on MSNBC's debates and conservative blogs in the past. What I mean by 'fans' is not people like Omnis who are truly committed towards Ron Paul, but those who want to derail the Republican party and are unhappy with the Democrat's flip flopping stances.



Sorry, no one liners from me.

 

[Azuremen]

I am just curious how they are stacking the polls for Fox and such. People say it, but I see no evidence except he does exceedingly well in them.

Could it just be, like suggested above, that the Ron Paul group simply cares more and so they react? I don't watch the news much, but a friend notified me via AIM about the poll, I quickly checked some issues, and sent a vote in via my mobile. If that is what you mean by stacking - caring - then yes, the Paul supporters are stacking the vote.

Because we aren't apathetic about the issues. We are educating ourselves, and we try to spread awareness of this man that is actually conservative.