“What good would more monitors do when O’Reilly’s people search for strings of characters with no regard of context, for example a poster might mention Cushitic as an Afro-Asiatic language — O’Reilly complains of four letter words on FR. Good example of that is the O’Reilly charge of “hate” when his people found the string of characters, “I hate blacks” on FR. Never mind that it was a substring of a column title (”Why I Hate Blacks”) in a San Francisco Asian publication. The FR thread was discussing the column and its author. Fox News John Gibson interviewed the author, cannot it be said that Fox News is a “hate” organization? Go figure.” 201 posted on 08/03/2007 7:21:57 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael
To the extent Bill’s comment arose out of something like that described in post 201 then Bill’s investigative and validation skills are wanting. While this does not reflect well on him it is miles short of indicating that he is intellectually compromised.
The test therefore is whether he would repeat said comment and whether, should the opportunity present itself, he would clarify said comment after realising his mistake born out of inaccurate information itself the result of improper investigative techniques.
Yes....BO boobooed. And the booboo is a much bigger one than all previous BO booboos before it.
Well for me the test is not just that he would acknowledge his mistake. It is also about his investigative skills.
How many other things has he investigated and gotten totally wrong.
I doubt he will ever stand up and acknowledge he shouldn’t have just used FR as an example of an internet hate site.
Also I never thought he would be an advocate of making new laws to censure/police the freedom of speech on sites such as this.