Journalism Dept. Attacks Bill O'Reilly, Compares Him to Nazi Sympathizer

Photo of Matthew Sheffield.

Many conservatives don't like Bill O'Reilly. He's an advocate for gun control, amnesty for illegal immigrants, believes in global warming, etc. Still, you have to respect the fact that an entire journalism department just created a "study" which accuses him of being the most vile type of propagandist, going so far as to compare him to a Nazi sympathizer.

You'd think that the Indiana University department has better things to be doing (how about teaching kids about real diversity and fairness in journalism?) than studying a one-hour show on cable, but there it is.

According to the gurus of IU, O'Reilly is eerily similar to Father Charles Coughlin, a Nazi sympathizer during World War II:

"In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin," the geniuses tell us.

I think the operative word is "this study." A more objective department might have compared O'Reilly to a myriad of other media figures such as Bill Moyers or Dan Rather who hardly present the news in an objective fashion, all while saying that's exactly what they do. Click past the jump to read an excerpt.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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. [...]

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."

For their article in the spring issue of Journalism Studies, Conway, Grabe and Kevin Grieves, a doctoral student in journalism, studied six months worth, or 115 episodes, of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" editorials using propaganda analysis techniques made popular after World War I. [...]

What the IU researchers found in their study, "Villains, Victims and Virtuous in Bill O'Reilly's 'No Spin Zone': Revisiting World War Propaganda Techniques," was that he was prone to inject fear into his commentaries and quick to resort to name-calling. He also frequently assigned roles or attributes -- such as "villians" or downright "evil" -- to people and groups.

Using analysis techniques first developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Conway, Grabe and Grieves found that O'Reilly employed six of the seven propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute in his editorials. His editorials also are presented on his Web site and in his newspaper columns.

The seven propaganda devices include:

  • Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
  • Glittering generalities -- the oppositie of name calling;
  • Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
  • Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
  • Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people";
  • Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
  • Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin.

Of course, comparing someone to a fascist sympathizer is not spin, not propaganda. Your tax dollars at work, Indiana residents!

—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't care for O'Reilly, but

I don't care for O'Reilly, but I do get a kick out of the hatred the left has for him. 

Sadly, though, this is an example of how the minds full of mush at the journalism schools are being indoctrinated.

Couldn't agree more RJ...I ag

Couldn't agree more RJ...I agree with BOR about 60/40..but the left going nuts constantly about him and Fox is delicious to me.

msnbc does it every single day and night.

Nothing like free advertizing for FOX, I can't believe they are so simple they can't see that...ah well, wonders never cease.

The group of people that I'

The group of people that I've seen Bill go after with the most passion are sickos like John Couey (sp), Judge Cashman, and Judge Conner. So, according to these educated idiots child molestors and judges that enable them by handing out sentences as low as 3 months, or probation, shouldn't be called names and for Bill to do so he must be a Nazi. I guess they have a soft spot for pedophiles over there.

Isn't calling someone a Nazi a pejorative in and of itself? So Bill is a Nazi for calling people names, but the people calling him a Nazi must be Nazis as well for using such terminology.

<insert something clever>

And you must be a Nazi for ca

And you must be a Nazi for calling them a Nazi for calling him a Nazi?

Let me help you out of the muddle you find yourself in - before you go crazy like a rat in a tin can.

This study did not call Bull O'Really? a Nazi.  Got it?  Now, if you wish to continue to libel the judges he smeared, that's your problem and on your conscience.  You really should get more information before you bad rap in public honest hard-working people who are out there doing the best they can. 

It compared him to a Nazi s

It compared him to a Nazi sympathizer. That is a horrible thing in and of itself, yet they upbraid O'Reilly for namecalling. Comparing a broadcaster to Father Coughlin is namecalling.

The fact that you can't see the hypocrisy is both sad and amusing.

So Bull O'Really? has no resp

So Bull O'Really? has no responsibility for (1.) Doing what he does; or (2.) Lieing about what he does.  The bad guys are the people who fully recognize what he does and call him on it?

The study documents the methodology - introducing it as something that began with the formal study of propaganda in the 1930's.  They identify 7 specific techniques and then document when Bull uses them.  Nutty Father Coughlin used the same techniques.

So that's the fault of the study?

This is like the CIA torturing people and then saying "Hey - don't bad rap us by calling it torture."  If you don't like the name don't play the game.

J. Frank Wilson, middle schoo

J. Frank Wilson, middle school is calling! Hey J. Frank, you do not know how to spell.  "Lieing" is incorrectly spelled-it's "LYING".  So, why should I take any of your leftist views into account when you cannot articulate a reasoned response or one that has the correct spelling in your comments. 

Thank you.  Since you enjoy

Thank you.  Since you enjoy correcting spelling you'll have a field day at NB.  I look forward to seeing all your corrections.  And this vital task will keep you out the way of the adults.  After you're done with the spelling would you please go dust the whiteboard erasers?

White board erasers need dust

White board erasers need dusting?

Anyway, I don't really listen or watch O'Reilly because he gets a little over-the-top for me; but I LOVE how he went after those pathetic, above-the-law-and-the-little-people-judges who coddle the child-molesting predators.  They deserved the attention they received.  Criminals committing crimes against innocent victims, especially the most vulnerable: young children, deserve to get sentences they deserve that are proscribed by the law and the people.  They get away with murder. Literally.  J.Faux Weiner Wilson.  Your sympathies are misplaced, dude. 

" 'Fred's Slacks'  is a winner!!"

Kathleen - I'm with you. I

Kathleen - I'm with you. I don't listen or watch either, but when I used to I loved how he drew attention to what Judges are doing. I think that the general public doesn't have a clue how important judges are and whether they are appointed or elected there is not enough scrutiny and people are not making informed decisions.

You don't listen and don't wa

You don't listen and don't watch but you know all about his good work?  Bull O'Really? is the scum of the earth and it's a shame you can't see it.

PS:  White board erasers needing dusting was a joke!  Too subtle for you?  Obviously...

J. Frank - So why do you watc

J. Frank - So why do you watch him? Kathleen and I obviously did at one time. What is your excuse? Who are your heroes? Why don't you watch them?

My heroes?  Abraham Lincoln.

My heroes?  Abraham Lincoln.  US Grant. George Washington.  My father.

Who do I regularly watch on television?  Nobody.

Who do I regularly listen to?  Pops Armstrong.  Thomas Waller.  Dave Ross.  Bob Schieffer.

Bob Freakin' Shieffer?  HUH?

Bob Freakin' Shieffer?  HUH?

I think they are using a soft-filter lens on that guy these days.  You have low standards...

" 'Fred's Slacks'  is a winner!!"

j frank admits that he does

j frank admits that he doesn't watch O'Reilly after attacking Kathleen because she said she didn't watch him anymore. He thinks he's more qualified to comment when he has only heard and seen liberal talking points and clips whereas Kathleen has actually seen the show. Just like when David Letterman was attacking his show but then admitted he had never seen it.

You're about as subtle as cem

You're about as subtle as cement underwear.  What a card!

" 'Fred's Slacks'  is a winner!!"

It's only the liberals who cannot spell, clean the board

 You are not able to articulate an argument that makes any sense.  Your lack of grammar skills are detrimental to you.  Liberals who are not able to make articulate arguments are not adults.  Ergo-you're a child. 

And conservatives who spend t

And conservatives who spend their time on such important topics as you at least don't get in the way of people actually accomplishing something.

&quot;Ergo?&quot;  Did you f

"Ergo?"  Did you find that on your "Word-A-Day" desk calendar?  What's your word for tomorrow?  Tendentious?  Nope - that's the word for you every day.

PS:  And conservatives who can't muster an articulate argument are adults?

Okay, for the last time J Frank

 The "study" was biased from the start.  You are not able to accept that fact because you do not have the skills to do so.  You are not able to spell correctly nor can you articulate an argument. Sorry big words scare you but that is something I am not able to help.  Please grow up and see things for what they are.  You love the study because you don't like BOR.  I can take or leave BOR but I see the bias in the study for what it is, that is something you cannot do. Have a nice summer in summer school!

The study is inherently fla

The study is inherently flawed because almost all of the "concepts" it attempts to apply to O'Reilly can be applied to anyone engaging in opinion journalism. The fact that they chose to focus exclusively on him is demonstrable proof that the professors have a liberal bias.

Matthew - great article and

Matthew - great article and you are so right. I'd just like to add that not all of these can be applied to O'reilly - specifically the most important one - "Card stacking". How they can claim this one is a mystery because he always has the other point of view presented by someone. ALL of the characteristics are present in most of the MSM not just opinion journalists.

j. frank,As a conservat

j. frank,

As a conservative libertarian, I am not much of a BOR fan, as I don't see him as being all that conservative. Aside from his positions on certain issues Matthew mentioned in his article, the guy went after the Swift Boat Veterans as if they were red-headed step children that had insulted his mother. He also has a tendency toward pompous assness that I find more than a little irritating.

However, while I do not always agree with the man, I have never known him to intentionally lie about anything. Now, I know that for you liberals, anything said that you do not agree with is considered a lie, if not outright hate speech, but I define a lie as when someone says something they know to be untrue.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out a specific lie BOR has uttered on his show.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.

The overwhelming success of h

The overwhelming success of his declared boycott on all French products  - as documented in "The Paris Business Review."

Well at least we changed th

Well at least we changed the name of "french" fries!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Thank God they didn't use a

Thank God they didn't use any facts to back up that comparison!

Frank, I am getting tired o

Frank, I am getting tired of following you around to correct you. O'Reilly was compared to a "Nazi sympathizer". Same thing frank! You were unjustly harsh on
OlFveteran, as calling someone a "Nazi sympathizer" is a prejorative and Ol's point is well taken. Sheesh you are REALLY in form today.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

O'Reilly was compared to a "N

O'Reilly was compared to a "Nazi sympathizer".

You'd think nobody had ever heard of Godwin’s Law, which seems to apply both on and off the internet (including scholarly journals). According to the first corollary, whoever first mentions Hitler or Nazis automatically loses the argument because that is a clear indication that they have run out of rational arguments. Ever notice how often "pundits" and politicians are comparing others (especially GWB, Cheney...) to Hitler? The entire liberal establishment has run into the wall of Godwin's Law.

Seems more like the Godwins L

Seems more like the Godwins Law wall has fallen on then and crushed their skulls.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

&quot;Bull O'Really&quot;, J.

"Bull O'Really", J. Fred? That's so 9/10.

yeah, perhaps Bull O'Reilly (

Yeah, perhaps Bull O'Reilly ( :p ) at times becomes a "bull" when he finds himself taking on bull-s(and 3 more letters) guests!! (and good for him :))

You forgot the &quot;?&quot;

You forgot the "?" - it's "Bull O'Really?"  The "?" is very important because one must question everything that comes out of his mouth - including "and" and "with."

Perhaps you're a fan of his soft-core adult porn.  Have you ever heard Bull read it for his books on tape?  What a performer!

And what precisely makes "Bull O'Really?" so "9/10?"  Is 9/11 such a minor event that just a few years later you make fun of it?  Or is Bull such a sacred cow (well, bull) that to suggest he's a liar is to attack our great country?

Curse you frank for making

Curse you frank for making people defend O'Rielly!!!! Have you no shame?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM,ROFLMAO!You got the no sha

MM,

ROFLMAO!

You got the no shame part right too....

Bull O'Really isn't namecal

Bull O'Really isn't namecalling btw. Just thought you should know.

I never said I don't indulge

I never said I don't indulge in name calling.  I do.  It's Bull O'Really? who says he never deals in personal attacks.

LIAR!

When Bill calls someone vil

When Bill calls someone vile, that's a statement of FACT, boy!

Since when are FACTS the same as name-calling?

:&gt;) !PS:  Please except a

:>) !

PS:  Please expect a post from Prof. Terrig re: your spelling of "O'Rielly."

I believe you're the worst offender here

 J Frank, it is an unfortunate fact that you are not able to make a cohesive statement.   You have a serious problem and spelling is probably only the tip of the iceberg of your problems. 

You are absolutely right.

You are absolutely right. They called him a Nazi sympathizer. Now explain to me what exactly a Nazi sympathizer is. In my mind it is one who agrees with Nazism, and would be a Nazi if the party still existed.

<insert something clever>

I tune into O'Reilly from t

I tune into O'Reilly from time to time if the story appeals to me. I am not a fan of all of his stances, ala gun control, amnesty, but I respect his opinions because he makes a thoughtful argument for the most part, and comes across as a passionate guy especially when he details stories dealing with the safety of kids.

Plus he doesn't let that slick huckster Geraldo get away with anything, a big bonus in my book. I thought Geraldo was gonna get another smack in the face from a chair a couple of weeks ago from O'Reilly.

However, in all fairness when are they going to profile that sinister Anderson Cooper?


"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby

yeah, AC and his AC360 gang,

yeah, AC and his AC360 gang, and the entire CNN regime..... slimey, pseudo news.... I can't stand any of them.... Sandra Gupta (sp?), Christianna Ammapooruadrink :p.... all these fancy sounding names, the accents (Brits, Austrailians) who report from the field.... giving them all this b.s. aura of authenticity and journalistic credibility.

Why did IU focus on Bill O, a

Why did IU focus on Bill O, and exclude all others from their study? It's clear -- they had an agenda and bias that they needed to "justify". By focusing on one person, when there are so many other candidates out there, borders on the insane. Do they really think they are to be taken seriously? Have they never heard of the phrase "this is so obvious"?

I agree -- if I was a parent, I would demand my money back, and get the professor some training before he ever taught class again. This kind of stuff is really anti-learning, in my opinion.

Exactly-they woulda gotten a

Exactly-they woulda gotten a lot more bang for their study buck if they had done the same analysis of Ulbermann's show. But of course on their planet, he's the one who is actually telling the "truth".

In other words, because they

In other words, because they didn't do the study you would have done if you could do a study - there's is flawed?  What's wrong with focusing on one person who claims "No Spin" and assures us he is "fair and balanced?"

Fairly unbalanced, I would say.  Off his rocker.

Have you read the study?  To you have a disagreement with their methodolgy?  Or do you just not like the results?

 J. Frank-first grade is cal

 J. Frank-first grade is calling!  You are not able to articulate a reasoned response.  Your grammar is terrible, consequently your arguments make no sense.  If, perhaps you spent some time trying to articulate a reasoned response that is grammatically correct as well as spelled correctly (there is a preview key) you would not seem to be the joke you are.

A brief review of the posts h

A brief review of the posts here shows a large number of spelling and other errors you have not yet corrected.

Slacker!

j. frank,If Matthew cou

j. frank,

If Matthew counted off for spelling, most of you libs would have flunked out of here a long, long time ago.

And don't even get me started on proper capitalization, a concept that has evaded the grasp of many of you on the left.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.

Most of the posters here don'

Most of the posters here don't spell correctly.  Many of the right wingnutz are very rude and SHOUT.  Keep checking each poster's work - it will keep you out of the way of the adults.

Tone it down

Disparaging the readership doesn't exactly endear you around here.

Tone it down several notches, frank

But he gives us so much goo

But he gives us so much good material, Matthew!!! We could do an entire post on j. frank, titled, "portrait of a deranged liberal"

When the enemy shows you what he is - pay attention!! am i right?

j. frank,Many of us spell wor

j. frank,

Many of us spell words incorrectly at times. Hell, I'm probably one of the worst around here, but we conservatives do not make it an issue like you on the left. The only complaints about spelling I ever see come from libs.

Perhaps it is due to the fact that most of us are busy at work and don't have hours of free time on our hands to analyze our comments, or those of others, letter by letter.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

Dave R:  Apparently you have

Dave R:  Apparently you haven't read the posts on this blog.  "Terrig" is the self-appointed spelling/grammar policeman.  And he probably wouldn't appreciate being called a "lib."  Be careful - NB frowns on name-calling!

Your statement "...we conservatives do not make it an issue like you on the left" is, however, a bit fact-deprived in light of his numerous posts.

j. frank,Lighten up. I

j. frank,

Lighten up. I was just rattling your cage.

Gees.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.

Dave R:  I'm still waiting f

Dave R:  I'm still waiting for my copy of The Paris Business Review that shows the power of Bull O'Really's? boycott...[please see above for details].

PS:  I believe it is spelt "Geez."  Unless you mean the music group, of course.

Again. . .

 J Frank Twit, you are not able to make sense of this study, which had an agenda from the start.  But when one is lacking the skills you are it is easy to see why you are not able to do such a task. 

jfrank -- It isn't that they

jfrank -- It isn't that they didn't do the study I would have done. Studies are ok, even for the topic IU selected. The problem is that they didn't use the proper controls (that studies require), and they were too selective choosing the study objects. There are many ways to make a study successfull -- IU chose not to do so. But, the big problem here is -- IU is a University, and they should know better. To have performed a flawed study like this, and then to advertise their results like they did, and then expect people to applaud -- is beyond comprehension. I can't believe they did this. It's very amaturish.

ThisnThat,That is all I was s

ThisnThat,

That is all I was saying...

You didin't include Bull's cl

You didin't include Bull's claim "I don't do personal attacks here."

To quote from the release about this study:

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."

How is that any different t

How is that any different than what Bill Moyers or Keith Olbermann do?

O'Reilly never throws around terms like fascist, communist, dictator. Both of these jokers do.

It's called selective outrage. The IU profs are full of it.

Hear, hear!!!&quot; 'Fred's S

Hear, hear!!!

" 'Fred's Slacks'  is a winner!!"

If you're happy then I'm happ

If you're happy then I'm happy.

&quot;How is that any differe

"How is that any different than what Bill Moyers and Keith Olbermann do?"

Ah, you broke O'Reilly's #1 rule...You don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. ;-)

"O'Reilly never throws around terms like fascist, communist, dictator. Both of these do."

Never? O'Reilly has used fascist several times when talking about those with whom he disagrees. He has called the ACLU a fascist organization, said that San Fran barring military recruiting in their schools is a fascist measure, accused a guest who thinks public buildings should not have religious displays of talking like a fascist, said that a guest who disagreed with his take on Merrry Christmas was a fascist, said the Oregon court system is engaging in judicial fascism, said Columbia Univ. student used fascist methods when protesting, said that a judge and 2 science organizations objecting to intelligent design were fascists and has used the term Islamofascist.

David Corn said O'Reilly called him a left-wing, liberal, pinko communist and Alterman a Fidel Castro confidant. O'Reilly also compared Soros to the fascist dictator Mussolini.

"It's called selective outrage. The IU profs are full of it."

As is O'Reilly himself (and pretty much all the talking heads, bloggers, posters and, basically, the human race in general ). There, I broke O'Reilly's rule too.

Moyers and Olbermann obviou

Moyers and Olbermann obviously make the mistake of appealling to the wrong crowd. and being all wordy and complicated.

At least we all can understand what O'Reilly is talking about - he keeps it down around teh lowest-common-denomenator, real simple - every regular "joe" can understand.

just like NewsBusters!

Who's &quot;Bull&quot;?As for

Who's "Bull"?

As for the 6.8 seconds comment, I wonder if "liberal" and "progressive" was on the "naughty list"?

Yawn, Frankie. Or, should I say, Mr. Olbermann.

&quot;The IU researchers fo

"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."

Well, that tells me all I need to know about the study, since that statement is complete bull. And unlike you, I do watch, so I know what I'm talking about.

But let's pretend for a moment that it's true. So what? The "Talking Points" editorial portion makes up less than 5 minutes of his show. What about the other 55 minutes? And, what constitutes as derogatory name-calling? Calling an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant? Calling a soft-on-pedophiles judge soft? Calling far left nuts far left nuts? Calling far right nuts far right nuts?

They need to fire this profes

They need to fire this professor...for she is not doing her job.

This is senseless, and it seems the professor is too!

I am so embarrassed...I am a

I am so embarrassed...I am a graduate of IU! I am aware that my University has taken a major turn to the left. When I was there many years ago (I won't say how long that has been) it had some leftist Professors, not to mention that horrible Kinsey Institute, but truly it wasn't that bad. If if had been how did I, my sister and brother come out with our conservative views?

I will tell you what, I am getting on the phone and letting the Alumni Association know that I will no longer support IU as long as these leftist Professors are allowed to make up lies and spread them to the students. This makes me sick to my stomach. I will also forward this story to my friends who have kids that attend IU!

While you're at it why don't

While you're at it why don't you get the janitor fired?  If you'd learned anything at this school you'd attack the study based on the study - not because it hurt your feelings.

frank, stop harassing the d

frank, stop harassing the decent folk. Go over the the forums and start a thread extolling the virtues of communism.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MightMouth,Thanks.

MightMouth,

Thanks.

No problem, I think frank c

No problem, I think frank consumed a bag of Twizzlers and 2 liter of Mt. Dew before he logged on. He's been on some kind of rampage! Probably a decent fellow if you met him at a bar. I on the other hand would most likely lay him out! :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I get the feeling that frank

I get the feeling that frank is very jealous of BOR.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

CT, BOR does something for

CT, BOR does something for frank. I shudder to imagine just what...

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM...Better give frank a bett

MM...

Better give frank a better subject to write about. Writing the virtues of communism will only eat up about 2.5 minutes of his time.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

Whatever Matthew....

Whatever Matthew....

<rolling eyes>

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Hey,What is your problem? Who

Hey,

What is your problem? Who said anything about it hurting my feelings? I won't put my money in a University where lies are being told for the sake of an agenda.

Those seven propaganda device

Those seven propaganda devices look like the MSM journalistic code of conduct.

Those 7 devices...

Are all taught at journalism schools and are equally employed by all of the MSM. They are attacking Bill because they do not like what he has to say, not the way he says it. In fact, the study itself employs some of the devices.

Isn't that ironic?

O'Reilly has never identified

O'Reilly has never identified himself as a objective news reporter on the show. He repeatedly informs his viewers that his is a news analysis show and the he is providing analysis and commentary. He's a TV op-ed show and not a news show.

These same smears noted above can be hurled at Keith Olbermann, someone who calls himself a "news anchor" on a "news show."

But that would be equally wrong. Olbermann is no closer to being a Coughlin than the man in the moon.

 Olbermann's sin, if you will, is his unwillingness to acknowledge his bias.

This is simply three leftwing hack journalism professors engaging in scholarly hackery. Your tax dollars at work.

The sun goes up; the sun goes down. And lefty academics do their thing.

SMG

The seven propaganda de

The seven propaganda devices include:

  • Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
  • Glittering generalities -- the oppositie of name calling;
  • Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
  • Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
  • Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people";
  • Transfer -- carries over the authority,
    sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something
    the speaker would want us to accept; and
  • Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

If I hadn't read that this "study" had to do with BOR, I'd swear they were talking about a liberal.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.

Exactly right, Dave

Exactly right, Dave.  It's all projection.

How sad that the issue is of

How sad that the issue is of the messenger rather then the message. To me the focus should be on the card stacking and testimonials everything else is meaningless and shallow. 

 

 

Geez Matthew, you've brought

Geez Matthew, you've brought J. Frank back from the dead.  Please consider that consequence when writing future blogs.

LOL! Apparently Bill is one

LOL! Apparently Bill is one of his buttons...

Matthew,I believe it was comm

Matthew,

I believe it was my comments about withdrawing my support from IU that made him cranky.

well it's great to see all

well it's great to see all the NB crowd come out of the woodwork for this post! over 90 comments as i write this! That's the first i've seen more than 20 or so in a few weeks.

was wonderin' where you all was? thought maybe we'd lost you to that 73% crowd of lunatics with bush-hatred disorder (BHD).

Please - no thanks are necess

MC Rove:  Please - no thanks are necessary...