Searching for Bill O'Reilly.

Last week, I had an interesting phone call from a good friend. He said that Bill O'Reilly had a contest he wanted me to enter. It's called "Bloviate with Bill"; people submit an "entry," which is a paragraph of no more than 100 words, outlining a topic which they would like to debate with Mr. O'Reilly. My friend, who is a conservative democrat, thinks that it would be interesting to see Mr. O'Reilly and I debate any topic.

Although I recognize that there is little chance of my being selected, I decided to send in an entry. In considering what topic might be of interest, I recalled two years ago, telling my friend that the case of the White House exposing Valerie Plame would become a scandal of Watergate proportions. I remember his laughing, and saying if it was of any significance, why was I the only person in the country interested in it? I told him some details of the scandal that he agreed would be important if they were true, though he asked why the media had not reported any of it?

In fact, the corporate media had reported about 10% of what I told him two years ago, and they have since reported about 50% more. But there are reasons why the media doesn't report it accurately, and that would seem a topic that should be of interest to Bill O'Reilly and his audience. Surely, when we learn that Judith Miller was working for the Pentagon before the New York Times, and answered to Donald Rumsfeld but not her editor, it betrays the public trust in the media. More, when Bob Woodward feigns objectivity when trashing Fitzgerald's work, when in fact Steve Hadley had taken Bob into his confidence about Plame before Novak exposed her identity, he has compromised his journalistic integrity.

Thus, I proposed that Bill O'Reilly and I talk shop about the media having people comment about the Plame case without being up front about their possible conflicts of interest. As O'Reilly is on Fox, it seems worth debating their using Newt Gingrich. Joseph Wilson raises a few points about Newt's role that it seems unlikely that the former Speaker of the House is objective.

For example, on page 6 of "The Politics of Truth," we read, "There had been a number of anonymous leaks to reporters from the intelligence community during the late spring and early summer of 2003, claiming that Vice President Cheney, his chief of staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, and even former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich had pressured analysts to skew intelligence analyses to back up the administration's preconceived political intentions."

On pages 326-7, we read about the meetings which began four months before Novak's article exposed Plame, where the WHIG began plans to damage Wilson. These meetings, which began in March of 2003 in Vice President Cheney's office, included "senior members of his staff and quite possibly other senior Republicans, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, .... Gingrich actively participated in a strategy session, the objective of which was to figure out how to discredit me."

I'd think that, especially in light of Newt's recent chattering about ethics, and his hopes to be on the Republican ticket in 2008, that Bill O'Reilly will consider this a topic worthy of debate.

in any genuine debate on any subject, why would you believe that your remarks and arguments wouldn't be edited beyond all recognition? I would not trust Fox as far as I could carry all their co-conspirators at the same time.

"How did an idiot like O'Reilly come to know what the word bloviate means? The end."

Or if that's not good enough, ask O'Reilly why there's a war on Christmas, but no war on Easter.

just watch.

THE EASTER BUNNY IS A CHRISTIAN TRADITION THAT'S BEING TRAMPLED ON BY THE JEWISH--I MEAN SECULAR--MEDIA!!!!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

He'll just say your Un-American.

indicate that the show's sponsors maintain total control over what may or may not end up on the program. Hence I agree with you, entirely.

While I realize that there is almost no chance of this happening, I hope that by some odd chance Bill O'Reilly reads my e-mail. If he does, it is possible that he would give it some consideration. I think that it is possible, even likely, that he is not fully aware that Newt was deeply involved in the neoconservative drive to bring the country to war.

However, I believe there was a thread on this yesterday which stated the rules as saying that Fox reserved the right to edit the debate any way they chose or to choose not to air it at all. That, to me, is a caviat worth mentioning.

being selected are probably a little less than one in a million; the corporate control that you mention certainly reduces them even more. However, I could not say "no" to my friend's request.

I've watched Bill O'Reilly from time to time over the years, and think that about 2% of the time, he goes out of his way to try to present the truth as he really believes it. My goal would be to appeal to that side of him.

If by any remote chance it did happen, it would be would be a pleasant experience for both of us. I've enjoyed debating for many years. I have long admired the style of the late Malcolm X, and have, at times, wished he were around to debate fellows like O'Reilly. It would be fun to try to fill in for him.

Even covertly?

It'd be hilarious to hear what the actual tape recording sounded like before the FOX propogandists butchered it for distribution to the (m)asses.

The rules state that if you are selected, your "debate" may be edited or not shown at all.

So if he gets a point in he feels he won the debate, he'll have it edited to fit it, or your time with him won't be shown at all.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

You could, quite artfully, phrase/frame the debate by using many of the points brought up in Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed, without actually naming Captain Loofah and Faux. I doubt he's smart enough to catch on.:dunce:

I have challenged him to debate on any three topics, anywhere in the world, and that i would travel at my own expense. The only catch was that neither of us would know the topics until we got there.

I've never gotten a response. He's a coward.
The Professor

Shut UP!

reinforce his manliness.

But, I'd be glued to the teevee if he did!!! :bounce:

The goverment/corporate/media triangle is really screwing with democracy and the people. ;(

I loved when Stephen Colbert asked one of his guests if Bush is "...a *great* president or *the greatest* president". I just get the feeling that, rather than picking a person who could challenge him and his viewers to think, O'Reilly will pick a person who wants to debate a topic like that (only, unlike Colbert, O'Reilly's opponent will be serious).

Journalists have pointed out in the past that you want ACCURATE news, that the philosophical idea of "fair and balanced" is just plain wrong. Because, for example, on the issue of the holocaust... A "fair and balanced" report requires that you give equal time to all sides, the scholarly professor and the raving neonazi who says the holocaust never happened. And that's just pure nonsense. You don't have to give equal coverage to every side of the issue, because many sides of an issue can be just plain wrong. Like with intelligent design. The proponents of intelligent design shouldn't even BE in the mainstream media, except to be ridiculed. Because they're such a tiny minority of nutcases that giving them a voice essentially validates their nonsense.

And yeah, O'Reilly has to control the debate, or else he might get his ass handed to him, like he did on Letterman. Or like when Jeremy Glick was on his show and he managed to lose control.

Seriously, if I had a dollar for every logical fallacy on the O'Reilly Factor, I could pay off the national debt AND STILL buy out half of the Republican party.

here at DU are very informative and I believe you would do an excellent job debating the topic you outlined in your OP. If you are selected, I would most certainly tune in. However, when I checked the rules governing this contest, there were a few things that really bothered me in addition to the editing of the segment.

that Fox likes to stack the deck!

He'll pick the looniest mofo he can find, and try to pass him off as your "typical liberal".

I had no idea! Why isn't this known?

New York Times. It is a world wide known fact. Where have you been?

Do a google and read all about it.

Somebody has finally dragged Newt from the shadows. He too has been a teflon don. And his life has been ethically challenged. Yet there he was, in the WH as part of the WHIG group. One of the founders of the K Street Project (will he be pulled into that, I wonder). And he thinks he should be president? I've watched the little hypocrite, butter not melting in his mouth, over the last few week, talking about other's ethics problems....Did he have security clearance, wasn't it illegal to tell him?

to oppose O'lielly when it comes to real issues with real facts Bill runs for the hills - look at his media matters war, best of luck and please let us know if you become that one out of a million.

Peace!

You are probably right (as in correct)

Here he is!

That would be the level of debate you'd get coming from O'Reilly. You're WAAAAAY too classy and intelligent to debate him. He couldn't handle you.

That being said, if he accepts your challenge, I'll buy the falafel.

.... this has nothing to do with the thread at hand. I bought a camera to take photos of some artifacts for book #2. I am not a high-tech type of person (more stone-age, in fact), and so these are just tests. My sons will assist me with higher quality work. What are kids for?

What do you think?

that I were talented at this type of thing ....

needs work ....

you can get an idea ....

Did you deliberately arrange some of them (artifacts in photos) to look like faces? Or was that happenstance? You do see it don't you?

Although #45 is not a face .....

that pic is very close to perfect.

from a pyramids in Mexico.

a flat field in upstate New York ....

are from a woodland site in the hills ....

the paleo era ....

from the transitional period ....

We are alive with other life, as clear stones take form in the mountains.

(I just got a book by Rumi, it is too much).

dear friend, who is publishing a new book. (We discussed a chapter he contributed to another book, too, about the power of forgiveness.) It's "The Way of the One-Eyed Man," by my friend & brother Rubin Carter. It will be in the US soon. I may start another thread on it .... It's similar to Rumi. You would enjoy it.

were in the british isles
:evilgrin:

drove many out.

I used to collect crinoids from Lake Michigan.

Indian people collected fossils, too. I have found some outstanding ones on local sites.

like triangles are arrowheads; the willow-leaf shaped point in the middle is a knife; the others are spear/javalin points.

awesome collection.

just marvelous.

I'm thinking you need to checkf or a macro setting on your camera, and go for that. This IS a digital camera, right? Should be no reason they don't nearly surpass reality in crispness and aliveness -- at least, that's the way I feel about things I photograph with my digital -- when they're in focus.

it is digital. It was the first time I touched the camera. My son can use it for anything important; he did the work on the photos for the first book. I'm not a high-tech person .... darned near "stone age," in fact.

You are too fine a person and too profound in your thinking to stoop to such a level. The fact that they have complete editing rights should be all you need to know. I won't have you being cut and spliced for O'Leilly. You are too important to give up editing rights to Faux! :-)

RFK Jr has gone on a few times, and has been treated about as fairly as he is on any of the CNN or MSNBC shows. I understand and appreciate what you are saying. But I've debated some people on tv who are as obnoxious as O'Reilly at his very worst, and was satisfied with how it came out.

I know they would edit to their advantage.

It's funny how the media can manipulate and twist things. Newspapers can take a quote out of context, and make it look like you are saying the exact opposite of what you really say. And they mis-quote as well. I have looked at quotes attributed to me before, and just laughed. You are absolutely right.

I get frustrated just watching the "media" try to report something WITHOUT no fact-checking in place. Take for instance this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/politics/24bush.html?_r=1

An article today in the NY Times about Bush being asked the "Brokeback Mountain" question yesterday in Kansas. Oooh! WOW! Bubble-boy took a "spontaneous" question about a "gay cowboy" movie. It's not so much that whomever is responsible for this piece of fluff got space. What pisses me off is the NY Times has the unmitigated gall to call Bush "The Rancher in Chief."

But I digress.

The point I am trying to make is, our media is so lame, I wouldn't trust them to quote me without a signed, and official court-notarized release ahead of time. Signed in blood.

WE here at DU have this great grass-roots way of communicating our viewpoints without having to sell ourselves out to the falafel boy for a ratings hike. If they want a debate, let him come to OUR forum. :-)

:D

if I could convince him of something that is of great value for the country. I'd enjoy taking a chance of doing that.

war on America. Let Bill defend that.

Good point. It is an error in thinking to subscribe to the idea that we sit on a fence, and that some will "win" and others "lose." That type of thinking is an option, but those "options" are not.