Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 09/21/2004 6:11:00 PM PDT by kingattax
Bill O’Reilly of Fox News last night observed plaintively, “everything has changed” in the field of journalism “because of the Internet.” The result he feared is the “redefining” of politics. Everything he says on air, he complained, “is taped by the far left websites” who then try to “trip him up” by quoting what he has said. This unfortunate development is “almost isolating” politicians. His guest, Larry Sabato, agreed that “reporters complain” they can’t get interviews with candidates.
As one of those Internet journalists who refer to what people have REALLY said, rather than simply making it up to fit my views, I admit I had to chuckle at that. I’ve been trying to warn other journalists for almost 10 years that the Internet was going to change politics AND journalism. In fact, I created my website during the 1998 Congressional campaign because I was convinced the time had come when there were enough people accessing the Internet that they should have access to the facts and actual views of candidates, [1] rather than the mostly inaccurate opinions of what they say as supplied by a growing band of professional news commentators and political “handlers” thinking up slogans. That was six years ago.
O’Reilly also complained that the Internet “bloggers” had figured out “within minutes” that the recently released 1972 “documents” supposedly “proving” George W. Bush didn’t serve out his 6 year enlistment in the Texas National Guard were forgeries. It seems they were typed in Microsoft Word, which didn’t exist in 1972. O’Reilly seemed a bit threatened by the speed and the knowledge of those mostly youthful “bloggers.”
Those who get most of their news from the Internet simply are not going to vote on what some forged document says about what Bush was or was not doing in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War more than 30 years go. In fact, MOST American voters just are not interested in what was going on 30 years ago in Vietnam.
Let’s take Bill Clinton for example. On December 3, 1969 Bill Clinton wrote to Lt. Colonel Holmes, who headed the University of Arkansas ROTC at the time, to explain why he had not shown up as ordered but had gone to England instead. That letter, placed in the Congressional Record on July 30, 1993 by Rep. Dornan of California, states in Clinton’s own words: “When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against.” So much for duty and honor and for the Vietnam War being of much interest to the voters in 1992 and 1996.
Let’s also take John Kerry for example. He served for 4 months in Vietnam, collected 3 purple hearts, none of which caused him even an hour of bedtime, and requested release from the war theater based on those purple hearts. From April 1969 to 1978, as a reserve officer, Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against War. However, according to the polls, approximately half the voters are supporting John Kerry for President anyway.
While the Vietnam War is still important to baby-boomers, it really isn’t to anyone else. And, now the large baby-boomer generation is fading away as a new generation – an Internet generation – is becoming voter age. The Internet generation just doesn’t believe much of anything people like Bill O’Reilly, Dan Rather or the Democrat or Republican political handlers tell them. They want to know the facts, not some old guy’s opinion. As one young man told me, they are “sick of all the lying garbage” on TV and in the news.
And, today’s young people increasingly know where to find the facts. They have their own opinions and don’t really care what yours are. Sorry, O’Reilly. You, Dan Rather and lots of other 20th century journalists are simply out-dated and obsolete.
Lets not be hasty. Bill O'R is out there looking out for the 'folks.' I know this because he told me so. A dozen times. In the last hour.
All kidding aside, Bill O'R is ok in my book. He is clearly instinctively a conservative, though he contorts himself into odd positions to appear fair and unbiased. I think it's an act.
Bill O'Reilly is lookin' out for Bill O'Reilly. period.
IMHO, everything he says is an act. I don't think he believes a word of it, conservative or liberal.
Whatever advances O'Reilly is the "Talking Point" of the day.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Most people don’t have the analytical skills, aptitude, background, time or inclination to poke around the internet for the majority of their connections to world events. They like the media personalities that feed it to them in easy to digest capsules. It’s part of our base nature as pack animals, and we’re light-years from educating the majority beyond it.
The MSM has lost its grip on the lead, but it’s going to outlive any technology on the horizon as a major player.
Heh...
And IF O'Reilly could tell you himself, he'd reward you with a 'Platinum (or is it 24k Gold?) Membership in his exclusive website, so you don't have to hob-nob with the cavones at his regular website.
"All kidding aside, Bill O'R is ok in my book. He is clearly instinctively a conservative, though he contorts himself into odd positions to appear fair and unbiased. I think it's an act."
O'Reilly's problem IS pandering to peers who lie (Dan Rather) for viewers, and a lack of conviction to principles (NO support for the Swifties).
IOW, he's the perfect RINO from a New Engand state.
We on FreeRepublic are not "mostly youthful".
We are mostly in our 30's, 40's and 50's and our strength come from our collective education and life experience that no single news research department can hope to duplicate.
LONG LIVE THE VERIDICAL POWER OF THE PAJAMAHADIN!
Such adolescent arrogance.
compared to dan rather, grandma moses is youthful
Dan Who and Bill What?
On the other hand, look at Fox News Channel: They have a variety of shows that enable a more in-depth analysis from an economic perspective (Cavuto, et al.), legal perspective (Greta), left-right debate (Hannity & Colmes), cut-the-crap perspective (O'Reilly), and others. Even having more than one person presenting the same news provides different perspective (John Gibson vs. Shep). You don't have a chance in getting differint perspectives seeing Dan, Peter, and Tom with the same producers every night.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this Mary Mostart character beat the drum for sending Elian Gonzales back to Cuba? Even with all his problems, no way is O'Reilly made "obsolete" by a nutty lady like this.
I guess the bottom line is a politician needs to tell the truth. A politician must never forget where he stands on the issues he deems important. And don't get caught with your pants down.
The age of information is taking over. Our obsession with information gives people motives to look for tidbits about people. Realizing nobody is perfect, I hereby disqualify myself from running for President because I stole a tootsie pop when I was 8 years old. LOL
BTW, my mom whipped me for stealing so she is disqualified from running for President also!
All of us together are smarter than any one (or even two or three) of us alone.
Think of them as Dart Boards. They give us something to throw darts at.
Thanks. Yep, she's the one I was thinking of - a nut. Elian must grateful for her "support." I KNOW Castro's grateful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.