Bill O'reilly put NPR in it's place!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Code101, Oct 10, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Code101 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #1
    So much for "Fresh Air" what a joke!

    Talk about a weard no feeling program, fresh air is it. It can put you to sleep fast. Not when Bill O'reilly was on it. He put Terry in her place.

    People say Fox News is a right wing station. It's true it does swing more to the right, but it has a private ownership. It has the right to do that. Fox does give the left a fair chance to make it's point. That's alot more than other organizations like NPR does for the right.

    CNN (Clinton News Network) can swing more in favor of the left/UN. CNN is private as well.

    NPR on the other hand is owned by the public when the federal government poors over a billion dollers into it. It's time to cut all funding to PBS in general. Time to kick them out on the street and let them make it the way all the other private media organizations do. According to the chairman on the senate Committee that oversees the spending on PBS, they are going to try to stop funding some time next year. Lets hope they cut it all along with all state owned public broadcasting as well.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Funny how conservatives want to kill public arts funding, public radio and television, yet want to use government funding for "faith based" organizations. Hypocrasy at its finest.
     
  3. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
  4. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #4
    -Code101

    Aak no! I love my WTTW channel 11!

    Some of the best stuff comes from PBS - Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact, Nova, Mystery, Monty Python :D

    Killing PBS and NPR would be a giant mistake as it would silence a very important voice.

    We need all the voices we can get our ears to listen to.

    -mactastic

    I feel that brush may be a bit wide though.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Perhaps. You get my point though.
     
  6. Flowbee macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #6
    Re: Bill O'reilly put NPR in it's place!

    Yeah, who needs "Nova" when the private networks are giving us "Joe Millionaire," "Fear Factor," and "The Man Show?"
     
  7. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #7
    Re: Re: Bill O'reilly put NPR in it's place!

    -Flowbee

    What's wrong with "Joe Millionaire"?


    ;)
     
  8. Code101 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #8
    It's funded by the public!

    So what! I understand that Nova and a few other programs are good but, what about all the 95% pro Democrat/pro UN/Anti American stuff they put out with my money. I'm Republican, when I hear a government funded organization puting out all this liberal stuff, I see that as the government sponsoring the left wing and not the right!

    I don't want to pay for it. I'm not saying that PBS and NPR should be forced off the air. They just shouldn't receive public funding. NPR can say all the Pro UN, Pro Democrat, Anti American stuff all day long for all I care. They should just become "National Private Radio" if they are going to do it. They should have to compete with the rest of the private media organizations. If the public likes what they have to say, they will remain in business, if they don't then, sorry. The way it is now is bad. People like to hear that their country is good and some of the positive things going on. That's where Fox News comes in. CNN is going down hill fast. NPR stays the same because they don't have to worry if their listeners stop listening. They still get money from the government. That's wrong!
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Re: It's funded by the public!

    Code, what about that f***ing war I just had to pay for? I didn't like it, didn't support it, yet MY tax money went to pay for it. Unlike you, I recognize that some things my government does, I won't agree with, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't do those things. Yes you have to listen to NPR, just as I have to watch Dubya put restrictions on aid programs that contain abortion or contraceptive information, or initiate government funding of faith based organizations. Life's a pisser sometimes.
     
  10. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #10
    Re: It's funded by the public!

    The things people WANT to hear rarely coincide with the things they NEED to hear.

    Calvin's Dad once said that what's popular isn't always what's right. Bill Watterson said it was a commentary on the fact that poilitical campaigns are often run on polls. His complaint was that he sees little correlation between what the people want and what they actually need.

    Any government should be in the business of ensuring that its citizens get what they need.

    I am in support of PBS and NPR because they, like the BBC, are probably the most responsible broadcast news source in the world. You are so pissed off that PBS and NPR are often in favor of left-wing policy that you don't want to hear--did you ever stop to think that perhaps they're RIGHT? What you WANT may not correspond with what is RIGHT.

    I don't care whether my news is coming from a "conservative" network or a "liberal" network as long as the information presented to me is true. At that point the network can analyze it however it wants as far as I am concerned.

    Another thing I love about PBS is the historical, scientific, and hobbyist programming available. There are three things I watch anymore: sports, David Letterman, and PBS. I love quality programming such as The American Experience and Ken Burns' masterful documentaries. You can take Bill O'Reilly and keep him for all I care--I've read his opinions and am thoroughly disgusted with his spiteful and--quite frankly--hateful treatment of dissenters.

    If it's entertainment programming you want, you can take "Girls Gone Wild" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine for all I care, I'm watching Ken Burns.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    I like watching Norm Abrams and his "leftist agenda" on the New Yankee Workshop too. I wish I could be anti-American in that fashion.:p
     
  12. Code101 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #12
    Re: Re: It's funded by the public!


    And they are right according to who...? dems at our liberal anti American Universities? Come on!!!
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Re: Re: Re: It's funded by the public!

    Perhaps you should read this thread.

    Something about how misinformed FOX viewers are about the truth vs NPR listeners.

    I suppose you aren't including Liberty University, or Bob Jones in your anti-American university slurs are you?
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    There's a reason that radios and TVs have channel selectors, not to mention the on-off switch.

    About the only place my feathers get really ruffled about public funding of the arts is the arena of photo/painting/sculpture. I have rather a Heinleinian view of art, and at least mildly agree with him that those artists who partake of government money are prostitutes. While I don't say that sculpture ended with Rodin, the man at least had his statuary tell a story, rather than just "be".

    And while I don't care for public support of the liberal message of NPR and PBS, they certainly rise far above Mr. Minow's view of the wasteland that is so much of private-sector TV. I just shrug it off as part of the price I must pay for higher quality TV and remember to keep fresh batteries in the clicker. :) TANSTAAFL.

    :), 'Rat
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    Re: Bill O'reilly put NPR in it's place!

    so you're back. time heals all wounds. i wish it healed shrillness, too.

    you should actually listen to NPR sometime. you might accidentally learn something.
     
  16. Macmaniac macrumors 68040

    Macmaniac

    #16
    I'm 17 and my favorite radio station is NPR, yes I should be listening to music but I enjoy a good news cast, and NPR does that. You complain about it being t liberal, well we do have a republican president so why don't u fire em and put ur own agenda in there???
    NPR does what few other stations do and it gets views from everywhere, they have a very good world view because they show what the world thinks of what we do, I think if we viewed ourseleves in a more global sense we would be able to pursue policy better. Their the most fair and balenced radio out there, at least they devote equal time to democrat and republican thoughts on an issue. Even if one is favored more the imbalence is far less then that of FOX.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Re: Re: Re: It's funded by the public!

    Can you think outside a stereotype for like one ****ing minute?
     
  18. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #18
    I would have to give the award for that title to the BBC, but NPR comes in a very close second.
     
  19. Code101 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #19
    Re: Re: Bill O'reilly put NPR in it's place!

    I'm back? No, it just means that I don't sit around here all day and night like you saying bad things about my country that I love. It means that I have better things to do with my life. There has been no healing. You think you have hurt me? What a joke. Mabey to the extent of making me laugh real hard at the stupid things you say or making me nauseated.

    You don't make sence most of the time. Like your what ever troll crap = "Code 101" on the other thread. Pretty stupid sounding to me. I think it's called hate!

    Your problem is that you have listened to NPR too much. BRAINWASHING!!!

    FYI, I listen to NPR almost every day, I feel clean again after I listen to O'reilly and Hannity.
     
  20. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    Re: Re: Re: Bill O'reilly put NPR in it's place!

    i'm not sure what's funnier -- that you bothered to write that or you felt it important enough to go back and edit.

    i give you points for correct use of "nauseated".
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    WOW

    i listened to the whole thing. what happens at the end is amazing. o'reilly had a meltdown. this is the first i've ever heard him (never seen his show), and he came across as a paranoid egomaniac.

    he confused a paraphrase as libel, refused to even hear a question, then left the interview in what i thought was a childish manner. he obviously cannot stand to have people disagree w/ him.

    he's very clever, though, in the way he paints himself as a victim. he's also constantly reminding the listening audience how fair and helpful he is and how everyone is out to get him. it's interesting to hear him all but accuse NPR, the NYT and Harper's of all being in cahoots.

    and he was condescending to ms. gross from the get-go. he's smooth, in a way, but i think he's a real *******.
     
  23. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #23
    -zimv20

    Well, NPR really didn't talk about his book, as their invitation said the interview was about.

    I'm not justifying his actions, but I understand his reaction to being interviewed under pretenses that can considered false.
     
  24. Code101 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #24
    I thought calling people names on here is against the rules. When you attack Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity or President Bush with the name you used, I consider that a personal attack on myself.

    Bill's book, "Who's looking out for you," isn't even about politics. It has nouthing to do with Right and Left. It's a book that helps people to be successful in life. NPR gave him a hard time because they just flat out don't like him because he works for FOX and has more Republican views. She didn't even want to talk about his book.

    To be fair, Why don't you go back to NPR and listen to the Al Franken interview. They treated him like gold. Why, because they love his book. It makes fun af the President, Fox, Bill, Sean and other good people. Terry said she was hard on Bill but not Al and then made a lame excuse as to why she was easy on Al.

    Time to pull the public funding on NPR, Unfair, Liberal and full of hate.
     
  25. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    i thought it was o'reilly who sidetracked it. once franken was mentioned (as a lead-in), o'reilly immediately went down some "how-frankens-book-was-treated cum how-all-smear-books-are-treated" path, which led ms. gross to start talking about how o'reilly's book was treated in the press.

    honestly, i thought she was being patient and non-inflammatory. her questions were fair and it wasn't until o'reilly really started trying to control the interview (e.g. by refusing to let her read the excerpt from the people magazine review) that she finally got a little indignant at his behavior, and rightfully so.

    his ensuing rant was uncalled for and, imo, embarrassing. i'm accostomed to hearing grown-ups on NPR. o'reilly was petulant and, in the end, did exactly what people accuse him of doing (cutting people off when he disagrees w/ them).

    his BS was good, for a while, but it unraveled pretty quickly. though i only got a small taste, i'm having trouble understanding how people can listen to him day in and day out.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page