Analyzing Bill O’Reilly…
Indiana University media researchers did a study of Bill O’Reilly’s O’Reilly Factor program which will no doubt be controversial. But will O’Reilly comment on it? I’m sure Olbermann will…(via Romenesko)
Bill O’Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the “No Spin Zone,” but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.
The IU researchers found that O’Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.
“It’s obvious he’s very big into calling people names, and he’s very big into glittering generalities,” said Mike Conway, assistant professor in the IU School of Journalism. “He’s not very subtle. He’s going to call people names, or he’s going to paint something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint.”
Maria Elizabeth Grabe, associate professor of telecommunications, added, “If one digs further into O’Reilly’s rhetoric, it becomes clear that he sets up a pretty simplistic battle between good and evil. Our analysis points to very specific groups and people presented as good and evil.”
Academia slamming O’Reilly? I can’t believe it!!!
Next thing you know we’ll see someone in the print media praising Olbermann.
Comment by Missy — May 2, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Duh, the show is an opinion show. Why don’t they do the same study on a MSM “hard news broadcast?”
Got to love these professors.
Comment by steve L — May 2, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
I guess Keith what’s-his-name nevers engages in name calling either at the same hour
(with far, far fewer people watching). This is just more liberal clap trap from the folks who turn out these left wing Democrat agenda-minded “journalists”.
Comment by PF — May 2, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Well, I for one am just shocked. An opinion show, that has a struggle between “good and evil”… and the host paints which group is “good” and which group is “evil”… wow… UNHEARD OF!
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH.
Oh, and the Spin part of the “No Spin Zone” refers to the fact that he’ll let BOTH POV’S express themselves, even if he has his own POV on which one is right.
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
HAHAHHAHAHHA…
READ THE STUDY! They only analized THE TALKING POINTS MEMO! The begining segment where O’Reilly reads an editorial! And they’re shocked there’s an opinion! That’s like reading KO’s “Special Comments” and being shocked that there are opinions in it! HAHAHAHAHAHA.
They don’t even mention that the Talking Points Memo is only one segement, only lasts about 5 minutes of the total broadcast, and that it’s PURPOSE is to be an editorial.
Hilarious BS it is.
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Wouldn’t you just love to see a university or organization do a similar type of study on Keith Olbermann? Of course THAT will never happen, not in the liberal-loving world of academia.
Comment by Alison — May 2, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
This study is absolutely ridiculous.. O’Reilly is always speaking about outrageous people like judges that let child molesters loose, terrorists, etc… so do these professors support those kinds of people??? If so, they are sick
Comment by Chet — May 2, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Actually, Chet, I believe they do. And that’s the problem, and thank God O’Reilly is going after these loons.
Comment by Missy — May 2, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Wow…It’s tough to take the truth about your hero, and this comment thread proves it. As fans of O’Reilly (who calls himself a journalist) you can’t ignore the cold hard facts. He is cable’s biggest, most vicious, and loudest smear merchant (and sadly, most watched). Does this really come as a surprise to anyone?
Comment by Roscoe — May 2, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
How the hell do you people get that they’re supporting child molesters? Do you think before you type?
Comment by Steve — May 2, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
If it’s an opinion show, why are they playing it on Faux (excuse me, FOX) News? Isn’t it supposed to be a news channel?
The media’s screwing up America, whether it’s liberal or conservative.
Comment by Erika — May 2, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
well since BO calls people ‘villains’ and ‘evil’… those people are child molesters, terrorists, radical left wing people who bash America and traditionalists in America.. so if this study is criticizing Bill for saying those things about those kind of people.. then what is the conclusion from the study?? Answer: the professors think it isn’t right to refer to those people as ‘villains and evil’… therefore, the liberal elite supports child molesters, terrorists, illegal aliens, george soros, etc…
Comment by Chet — May 2, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
And you get that type of sentiment from the liberal elite — professors, media, hollywood, teachers.. those are the biggest groups that try to brainwash people into this liberal, secular mindset which hurts America…
seen it first hand many times at my college in Boston
Comment by Chet — May 2, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Will these cowards come on The Factor to explain themselves? Want to bet they’re all registered RATS?
Comment by Lurker — May 2, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
As funny as the report may be, the reactions I’m reading here are even more hilarious. Has there ever been a case reported where someone had a heart attack while violently mashing at their keyboard as they angrily type a response to a blog posting? If not, it’s bound to happen soon enough.
Comment by lightswitch — May 2, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
It is funny isn’t it? Spud knows how to generate traffic.
Comment by Mr A — May 2, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Sorry, lightswitch, but I haven’t even come close. People here are pretty civil, even when we disagree. Most of the time, anyway.
Comment by Missy — May 2, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Yeah… you’re right. I’ll go read some blue blogs… those people are super civilized.
At least we’re not wishing for anyone’s death.
________________
Rule 1: If you can’t defend the topic at hand, change the topic.
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Indiana University, tell it to someone who cares.
Bill continues to be a burr under the saddle of the loony left wingnuts. Way to go, Bill!
Comment by cella — May 2, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
You’re right Missy, the posters around here are generally pretty civil to one another, especially when compared to other areas around the blogosphere. I still can’t help but chuckle when reading so many outraged comments at once, which was all I was sayin.
Comment by lightswitch — May 2, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
May 2006 …Playboy ranked Indiana University #4 party school ,Lay off the boozzzzz and quit watch’in TV Kids.
Comment by mike — May 2, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Indiana Univ.,
Tell us something we didn’t already know about that dick… Vice Pres. Cheney that is.
Comment by elmonica — May 2, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
IU,
Don’t y’all have better things to do with your time? Get a life.
Comment by ChrisM — May 2, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
For years I watched Olbermann and thought O’Reilly’s show was boring. I watch MSNBC 3x as much as FOX or CNN, but now I NEVER miss O’Reilly, his show is great! Comment #1 Missy is so correct and what is funny is that O’Reilly is “FAR MORE” hated than Olbermann is loved. The far left hates O’Reilly so bad that they would embrace “ANYONE” that calls O’Reilly WPITW every night!
Comment by Aunt Mary — May 2, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
I just love it when liberal professors try to defend one of their own by attacking the target of their hero. In this case, KO is loved by the pot smoking conspiracy kooks who lurk around college campi (notice that the VT killer sent his video to (MS)NBC?), and since KO has “punched up” for years at BOR (of course, with MSM help), attacking the target of their hero makes sense.
The IU report is as truthful and accurate as anything that Media Matters (KO’s source for much of his show) does. Which is to say, not very.
Comment by eddiebear — May 3, 2007 @ 1:29 am
Mike: Also a few months ago, I believe that O’Reilly did a story either about prostitution or some other sexual matter on the Indiana University campus.
Comment by Ira — May 3, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
To quote ImNotBlue:
HAHAHHAHAHHA…
READ THE STUDY! They only analized THE TALKING POINTS MEMO! The begining segment where O’Reilly reads an editorial! And they’re shocked there’s an opinion! That’s like reading KO’s “Special Comments” and being shocked that there are opinions in it! HAHAHAHAHAHA.
They don’t even mention that the Talking Points Memo is only one segement, only lasts about 5 minutes of the total broadcast, and that it’s PURPOSE is to be an editorial.
Hilarious BS it is.
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
I read the RESEARCH PAPER. Where it clearly states that:
This study updates methods of communication analysis popular in the period between the world wars in an effort to analyze news commentator Bill O’Reilly’s ‘‘Talking Points Memo’’ editorials.
…
Billed as a mix of ‘‘news analysis (and) investigative reporting’’ (Fox News Channel, 2006), O’Reilly begins the program with a brief commentary, then engages guests in an interview-style format that can be described either as incisive or as combative, depending upon one’s perspective.
And the study further states:
Taking a snapshot of O’Reilly through the propaganda analysis lens provides historical comparison with what was designated as propaganda more than 70 years ago.
So, the fact that it is called an editorial in the study somehow ends up meaning that it isn’t an editorial? And then there’s the description of the show’s format. “… a brief commentary, then engages in an interview-style format …” And as for the time length of the TPM segment, well that’s covered in Table 1 - O’Reilly (duration 248.65 min).
I included the bit about comparisons so that you would have an historical reference. The purpose of the study was not to bash Mr. O’Reilly, but to see how past rules apply to modern times. This allows social comparison and provides a marker for future studies. Oh, and Mr. O’Reilly was not “chosen” to be the subject of this study before it began. If you will read the Introduction to the study you will see the methods used to determine who to study:
Introduction
In the spring of 2005, the Annenberg Public Policy Center polled Americans on 10
prominent media figures and asked if they thought each person was a journalist. Four out
of 10 people (40 percent) responded that multimedia commentator Bill O’Reilly was a
journalist. By comparison, former Washington Post and Watergate reporter Bob Woodward
was identified as a journalist by only 30 percent of respondents. In the same study,
journalists were asked how close the same 10 media figures came to their idea of a
journalist. Only 1 percent of journalists thought O’Reilly was ‘‘very close,’’ and another 10
percent thought he was ‘‘somewhat close.’’ A majority of journalists (65 percent) felt
O’Reilly was ‘‘not close at all.’’ Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy
Center said the poll results are ‘‘disturbing evidence’’ that the public and journalists have
widely different definitions for the profession (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2005; Kurtz,
2005).
So I suggest that you all read the report, not just the press releases. Sheesh! This is why you need to know what you’re talking about, people!
Comment by Reverend Lee — May 4, 2007 @ 1:16 pm