• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Does O'Reilly Have an Agenda?

B

barneyb3

Guest
Does Bill O'Reilly have an agenda....and should he? Does Fox News signoff on his agenda if he, indeed, does have one? And what would happen if one of his agenda's happened to lean a little to the left? Would Fox intervene and would his audience object? Also, does O'Reilly aim his stances toward his audience? His TV show is on Fox and his radio show for the most part is on conservative stations. These are my questions...does anybody know the answers?
 
> Does Bill O'Reilly have an agenda....and should he? Does
> Fox News signoff on his agenda if he, indeed, does have one?
> And what would happen if one of his agenda's happened to
> lean a little to the left? Would Fox intervene and would
> his audience object? Also, does O'Reilly aim his stances
> toward his audience? His TV show is on Fox and his radio
> show for the most part is on conservative stations. These
> are my questions...does anybody know the answers?

O'Reilly does not have an agenda, other than what's good for O'Reilly. Contrary to what many misinformed or ignorant people believe or wish to believe, O'Reilly isn't a conservative. He may well be a Republican, but the two terms are not synonymous. O'Reilly is a populist: he supports whatever the wind picks up and blows in his direction; or he may invent something merely because he thinks the wind will blow that way. At times his stances have leaned to the "left"--and you know what? Fox still broadcast his show, and Westwood One still syndicated his show.

Fox News doesn't adopt his agenda any more than it adopts the agenda of Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes or Greta Van Susteren. Each of those people are opinionists--that is, their shows are opinion/analysis shows, not news, per se.

Your badly veiled attempt at blatant partisanship failed, bucco.
 
> > Does Bill O'Reilly have an agenda....and should he? Does
> > Fox News signoff on his agenda if he, indeed, does have
> one?
> >

Of course he has an agenda. That agenda is to get as much attention as possible and make a lot of money. That, by the way, is the agenda of everyone in broadcasting. No attention = no money = no job = the poorhouse.
 
> Does Bill O'Reilly have an agenda....and should he?

Duh... :)

He calls himself a "traditionalist" which is an invention of his own mind. He's really a conservative but doesn't admit to being one and occasionally takes on a token non-conservative bugaboo so that he has something to point to occasionally, but he doesn't fool anyone.

He can have an agenda if he wants. All of Fox News has an agenda and with the ongoing and more effective exposure of the agenda, more and more of America realizes it, despite the "fair and balanced" nonsense they toss around.

If people know what they are getting, nobody should have a problem with the channel existing.

> Does Fox News signoff on his agenda if he, indeed, does have one?

We already know from former exployees that Roger Ailes follows the White House
"item of the day" plan, which means certain issues are given extra exposure by all Fox News talent, right down to quotes that get repeated by their on air talent. That's why you heard every host saying things like "the criminilization of politics" over Tom DeLay and Karl Rove.

O'Reilly, like all of the other shows, takes his cues accordingly.

> And what would happen if one of his agenda's happened to
> lean a little to the left? Would Fox intervene and would
> his audience object?

As long as his ratings stay high, nothing. Would his audience object? A lot of them would because the channel is the darling of the conservative right.

The bottom line - Fox slants to the right quite a bit. The people viewing it know it and don't care. O'Reilly's radio show is not doing well and is being dropped in several markets because he doesn't do as well on that medium. His radio show is distributed by Westwood One I believe.
 
> O'Reilly does not have an agenda, other than what's good for
> O'Reilly. Contrary to what many misinformed or ignorant
> people believe or wish to believe, O'Reilly isn't a
> conservative.

The truth and those who speak it are hardly misinformed or ignorant. The only truth in your message is that O'Reilly's ego is far bigger than planets, along with his sideshow attempts to make everything about him - hence the fake War on Christmas.

> He may well be a Republican, but the two
> terms are not synonymous. O'Reilly is a populist: he
> supports whatever the wind picks up and blows in his
> direction; or he may invent something merely because he
> thinks the wind will blow that way. At times his stances
> have leaned to the "left"--and you know what? Fox still
> broadcast his show, and Westwood One still syndicated his
> show.

Right away on your first point, O'Reilly claimed -FOR YEARS- that he was not a Republican and was independent (part of his "traditionalist" nonsense). Then Al Franken exposed him as a liar and reprinted his voter registration information, as a registered Republican. He called Franken a liar, but the records revealed the truth. Who was misinformed and ignorant here?

He's not a populist either, especially considering how unpopular the current administration has been for a year now. Yet all we hear from Loofah Man is an endless defense of the Bush Administration. If he was a populist, he would be saying something else. Who was misinformed and ignorant here?

O'Reilly also has claimed, not less than six times, that the Fitzpatrick investigation into Scooter and Karl, the scandal with Tom DeLay, the resignation of Duke Cunningham, and the Jack Abramoff scandal "don't resonate with the folks," "aren't being followed by the folks because they don't understand it," and "is of limited interest and won't draw much attention." Oh really? Who was misinformed and ignorant here?

> Fox News doesn't adopt his agenda any more than it adopts
> the agenda of Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes or Greta Van
> Susteren. Each of those people are opinionists--that is,
> their shows are opinion/analysis shows, not news, per se.

Despite attempts by Fox personalities to label van Susteran as a liberal along with, get this, Morton Kondracke(!) and Alan Colmes as a fair balance of conservative and liberal opinion shows, Helen Keller can see the truth. Ms. Aruba has been confined to covering infotainment and crime, Kondracke appears as a panelist and takes the conservative position just about always, and Alan Colmes is kept on a tight leash.

Fox blurs the distinction between news and opinion all the time, and even journalists who should know better like Brit Hume fall all over themselves inserting their personal political views into their news programming (and -always- on the conservative side).

There isn't a washing machine that can spin fast enough to change these fundamental facts.

> Your badly veiled attempt at blatant partisanship failed,
> bucco.

As did your hardly insightful analysis.
 
And Phil, I guess you are all knowing, and you know what is best for everyone.

Time to change your tampon., Phil...or has the string broken?


> > O'Reilly does not have an agenda, other than what's good
> for
> > O'Reilly. Contrary to what many misinformed or ignorant
> > people believe or wish to believe, O'Reilly isn't a
> > conservative.
>
> The truth and those who speak it are hardly misinformed or
> ignorant. The only truth in your message is that O'Reilly's
> ego is far bigger than planets, along with his sideshow
> attempts to make everything about him - hence the fake War
> on Christmas.
>
> > He may well be a Republican, but the two
> > terms are not synonymous. O'Reilly is a populist: he
> > supports whatever the wind picks up and blows in his
> > direction; or he may invent something merely because he
> > thinks the wind will blow that way. At times his stances
> > have leaned to the "left"--and you know what? Fox still
> > broadcast his show, and Westwood One still syndicated his
> > show.
>
> Right away on your first point, O'Reilly claimed -FOR YEARS-
> that he was not a Republican and was independent (part of
> his "traditionalist" nonsense). Then Al Franken exposed him
> as a liar and reprinted his voter registration information,
> as a registered Republican. He called Franken a liar, but
> the records revealed the truth. Who was misinformed and
> ignorant here?
>
> He's not a populist either, especially considering how
> unpopular the current administration has been for a year
> now. Yet all we hear from Loofah Man is an endless defense
> of the Bush Administration. If he was a populist, he would
> be saying something else. Who was misinformed and ignorant
> here?
>
> O'Reilly also has claimed, not less than six times, that the
> Fitzpatrick investigation into Scooter and Karl, the scandal
> with Tom DeLay, the resignation of Duke Cunningham, and the
> Jack Abramoff scandal "don't resonate with the folks,"
> "aren't being followed by the folks because they don't
> understand it," and "is of limited interest and won't draw
> much attention." Oh really? Who was misinformed and
> ignorant here?
>
> > Fox News doesn't adopt his agenda any more than it adopts
> > the agenda of Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes or Greta Van
> > Susteren. Each of those people are opinionists--that is,
> > their shows are opinion/analysis shows, not news, per se.
>
> Despite attempts by Fox personalities to label van Susteran
> as a liberal along with, get this, Morton Kondracke(!) and
> Alan Colmes as a fair balance of conservative and liberal
> opinion shows, Helen Keller can see the truth. Ms. Aruba
> has been confined to covering infotainment and crime,
> Kondracke appears as a panelist and takes the conservative
> position just about always, and Alan Colmes is kept on a
> tight leash.
>
> Fox blurs the distinction between news and opinion all the
> time, and even journalists who should know better like Brit
> Hume fall all over themselves inserting their personal
> political views into their news programming (and -always- on
> the conservative side).
>
> There isn't a washing machine that can spin fast enough to
> change these fundamental facts.
>
> > Your badly veiled attempt at blatant partisanship failed,
> > bucco.
>
> As did your hardly insightful analysis.
>
 
I couldn't have put it any better.

> > > Does Bill O'Reilly have an agenda....and should he?
> Does
> > > Fox News signoff on his agenda if he, indeed, does have
> > one?
> > >
>
> Of course he has an agenda. That agenda is to get as much
> attention as possible and make a lot of money. That, by the
> way, is the agenda of everyone in broadcasting. No
> attention = no money = no job = the poorhouse.
>
 
> I couldn't have put it any better.

I agree. It called common sense. Well put.
Now it's time for Phil to put his spin on it.
The Spindoctor (ironic ain't it)
>
> > > > Does Bill O'Reilly have an agenda....and should he?
> > Does
> > > > Fox News signoff on his agenda if he, indeed, does
> have
> > > one?
> > > >
> >
> > Of course he has an agenda. That agenda is to get as much
>
> > attention as possible and make a lot of money. That, by
> the
> > way, is the agenda of everyone in broadcasting. No
> > attention = no money = no job = the poorhouse.
> >
>
 
> You're off-topic, Phil.

Amazing that when someone counters the "facts" you put forth in your message, it's off topic.
 
> And Phil, I guess you are all knowing, and you know what is
> best for everyone.

Another empty reply. How about discussing O'Reilly instead of me? Nothing to say?

> Time to change your tampon., Phil...or has the string
> broken?

Charmed.
 
You've found the (not) secret agenda! Get ratings and make money! That's the ONLY agenda.<P ID="signature">______________
Have a Happy New Year!
http://www.thebig8.net/have_a_happy_new_year_with_cklw.mp3</P>
 
> > You're off-topic, Phil.
>
> Amazing that when someone counters the "facts" you put forth
> in your message, it's off topic.

Amazing that YOU can turn a politically-charged original post about Bill O'Reilly's act into a anti-Fox News Channel (TV) screed.

You could have left it at the first part of your reply, which did provide information for the original poster to digest--if he hadn't already made up his mind, but you had to continue.

Sigh.
 
This started off as an interesting discussion and then......My questions are not politically motivated....I am not a political person...more interested in the media aspect of this question. O'Reilly say he anaylizes the news...but lately it seems he is more interested in making news. I think he likes for people to attack him like Letterman did ...so he can use it to make it seem like the leftwingers are out to get him (and ofcourse maybe they are). Instead of new anyalsis..it seems he is developing an agenda that he hammers his listeners and viewers with day after day.

The man is entertaining...but how much power should a Bill O'Reilly have?

One thing that amuses me about ole Bill....On fridays he sometimes is not at his anchor desk....and instead of saying Bill is taking a long weekend....The substitute host always says, "Bill is on assignment." Now tell me thats not spin.
 
> Amazing that YOU can turn a politically-charged original
> post about Bill O'Reilly's act into a anti-Fox News Channel
> (TV) screed.

Bill O'Reilly's radio show is distributed by WW1 - the poster mentioned Fox, which is the TV side. You replied on both counts.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom