Fox News Options

[hi-C]

Sometimes I wonder about changing my party affiliation but then I watch Fox News and silently thank God that I was raised a Democrat.

Who's with me?

[NoSex]

Then, I want to figure out how Fox News' statisticians come up with their numbers.

are you kidding me? they poll their viewers. it's selective sampling.

O'Reilly actually has dissenting voices from intelligent people, like Christopher Hitchens. I trust neither one of them for news, especially since the BBC comes on after their timeslots, so if I look at them purely as opinion shows, I'd much rather watch O'Reilly than Olbermann for the diversity of views, since both of the hosts themselves give me a headache.

for one, hitchens, in that instance, had a barely dissenting voice. to begin the interview by affirming his support of a war in iraq is a tad laughable. further, the interview was actually rather atypical in that bill rarely cut hitchens off, didn't cut his mic, & didn't scream like an ape @ him. when bill o'reilly has a "dissenting" view on his station it's a lot like kent hovind (or some equally infamous creationist) debating richard dawkins (or some equally infamous evolutionist) in a church flooding over the sides with self-described "sinners." bill o'reilly knows that it doesn't matter what he says in the debate or the interview, insofar as his flexes his moron muscles & barks like a dog... everyone watching his show has already decided who they disagree with & who they agree with. there is a good reason richard dawkins refuses to debate kent hovind.

[Reidar]

for one, hitchens, in that instance, had a barely dissenting voice. to begin the interview by affirming his support of a war in iraq is a tad laughable.

Disagreeing with the intrinsic point of what the topic is even about is not "barely dissenting". Ah, but you said "a barely dissenting voice". Yes, the tone of the exchange was not knee-jerk and reactionary. If I want that kind of a circus, I'll watch something that doesn't have Hitchens debating on its matter.

further, the interview was actually rather atypical in that bill rarely cut hitchens off, didn't cut his mic, & didn't scream like an ape @ him. when bill o'reilly has a "dissenting" view on his station...

Which is every program, so either he's calm and rational on every episode (a hearty "hahaha" to that notion), or he's not akin to doing so against an opposing view. Also, Dawkins has both debated and interviewed people just as fundamentalist as Kent Hovind. Hitchens himself is on record in saying that he's usually disappointed in the degree of alignment that theists try to reach---it's the ones that "really believe this stuff" that make for a more interesting contrast. After Dawkins' The Root of All Evil? documentary, I wouldn't put the same inclination past him, unless you think Ted Haggard is a far more reasoned and conversable fellow.

[NoSex]

Disagreeing with the intrinsic point of what the topic is even about is not "barely dissenting". Ah, but you said "a barely dissenting voice". Yes, the tone of the exchange was not knee-jerk and reactionary. If I want that kind of a circus, I'll watch something that doesn't have Hitchens debating on its matter.

hitchens, honestly, is nothing spectacular. i haven't heard him, ever, say anything that a million people hadn't said before him, more eloquently & more poignantly. but that's against the point...

i'm simply saying that the tone of the interview was atypical. it was a bad example if you wanted to show what "dissenting voices" look like & or are treated like on bill's show.

Which is every program, so either he's calm and rational on every episode (a hearty "hahaha" to that notion), or he's not akin to doing so against an opposing view. Also, Dawkins has both debated and interviewed people just as fundamentalist as Kent Hovind. Hitchens himself is on record in saying that he's usually disappointed in the degree of alignment that theists try to reach---it's the ones that "really believe this stuff" that make for a more interesting contrast. After Dawkins' The Root of All Evil? documentary, I wouldn't put the same inclination past him, unless you think Ted Haggard is a far more reasoned and conversable fellow.

interview vs. forum style debate. not the same at all. further, it doesn't really matter, i was just drawing an analogy for the sake of argumentation, it's not designed to be scrutinized on its factual merits.

[Reidar]

hitchens, honestly, is nothing spectacular. i haven't heard him, ever, say anything that a million people hadn't said before him, more eloquently & more poignantly. but that's against the point...

i'm simply saying that the tone of the interview was atypical. it was a bad example if you wanted to show what "dissenting voices" look like & or are treated like on bill's show.

It wasn't "against" the point but beside it, and of all the things you can direct at Christopher Hitchens, bearing repetitious and tired views isn't one of them, or else he wouldn't be frequently mislabeled as either a staunch conservative or a committed leftist on the programs he grants interviews to. Hitchens rules.

So then---how coincidental that out of the myriad of examples, I just happened to choose the elusively rare one. Even if that was the exception instead of the rule, that would be all I need to say, "There are instances of debate to the point where I can actually identify what words are being enunciated, which is more than the other show", since it only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference. But now I wonder how far my luck can go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-4P7lDIvbA

Wasn't very hard, especially since I don't particularly like or watch Bill O'Reilly a whole lot.

interview vs. forum style debate. not the same at all. further, it doesn't really matter, i was just drawing an analogy for the sake of argumentation, it's not designed to be scrutinized on its factual merits.

You first brought up any notion of a formal debate, and Ted Haggard wasn't an example of that. Dawkins interviewed him face-to-face in the documentary after a church service.

Also, anything that must be granted a pass on the examination of its "factual merits" isn't a real point.

[NoSex]

It wasn't "against" the point but beside it, and of all the things you can direct at Christopher Hitchens, bearing repetitious and tired views isn't one of them, or else he wouldn't be frequently mislabeled as either a staunch conservative or a committed leftist on the programs he grants interviews to. Hitchens rules.

So then---how coincidental that out of the myriad of examples, I just happened to choose the elusively rare one. Even if that was the exception instead of the rule, that would be all I need to say, "There are instances of debate to the point where I can actually identify what words are being enunciated, which is more than the other show", since it only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference. But now I wonder how far my luck can go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-4P7lDIvbA

Wasn't very hard, especially since I don't particularly like or watch Bill O'Reilly a whole lot.
You first brought up any notion of a formal debate, and Ted Haggard wasn't an example of that. Dawkins interviewed him face-to-face in the documentary after a church service.

Also, anything that must be granted a pass on the examination of its "factual merits" isn't a real point.

you're the kind of person that doesn't like house-rules because they aren't in the instruction manual.