The O'Reilly in question. His innate decency is inversely proportional to his physical size.
Dateline: Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:16:58 AM EST
Originally posted at ePluribusMedia.com (an admirable fraternal site to which we offer our gratitude) from newscorpse.com equally formidable informational resource for those who seek to strengthen democracy on the basis of truth.
Researchers at Indiana University have published the results of a study that documents the intimidation and propagandizing employed by Fox News' resident bully, Bill O'Reilly. The study, sub-titled, "Revisiting World War Propaganda Techniques," finally paints an academically verified picture1 of O'Reilly's repulsive modus operandi. Contrary to O'Reilly's assertion that he doesn't, "do personal attacks," the IU study spells out the truth:
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. Brought to you by... News Corpse, The Internet's Chronicle Of Media Decay.
Commentary :: ::
This may not seem like news, but we now have data that is backed up by the reputation of researchers from a respectable American university. While it may appear that O'Reilly is a cartoonish character, he is following the model of Father Charles Coughlin, the early 20th century American racist/fascist. There were probably those who thought Coughlin was cartoonish at the time. And like Coughlin, O'Reilly does have a huge audience of blind ducklings that take his word as gospel. The lesson we must learn is that this sort of evil cannot be ignored.
O'Reilly is man that cannot say the word "left" without appending modifiers like "far," "ultra," "committed," or "looney." He is a man who is convinced that every critic is a "smear merchant." And his opponents are never merely disagreeing with him, they are "vile."
While the researchers never overtly associate O'Reilly with the work of his propagandisitc predecessors (i.e. Goebbels, Coughlin), they do point out some more subtle connections. The study itemized seven propaganda devices as defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. O'Reilly was found to have employed six of them nearly 13 times each minute:
Name calling - giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence.
Glittering generalities - the opposite 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.
Testimonials - involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.
Sound familiar? Every now and then, an academic institution will conduct an exercise in the obvious. It would not take much in the way of intuition to have predicted the results of this study, but it is still useful to have compiled an accurate and scholarly paper on the subject to wave in the face of skeptics, not that O'Reilly's minions will pay much mind. They will likely respond with the indignation of Stephen Colbert and proclaim that they don't care much for "book-learnin." And we know, because Colbert has told us, that the truth has a well known liberal bias.
[1] I have also painted a picture of O'Reilly's repulsive modus operandi. Actually, it is an interactive artwork that documents O'Reilly's attempts to demean and belittle his perceived enemies. Unfortunately, the piece is a day or two from completion. I was surprised that this study from IU was released so close to my completion of this artwork. Coincidence? I'll have the artwork posted at News Corpse by Saturday.
DOCUMENTED PROOF: Bill O'Reilly Is A Profane Purveyor Of Propaganda | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)
• We always knew it... (5.00 / 1) (#1) ...but now we have proof.
• I am so (5.00 / 1) (#2) pleased that NewsCorp's offer for the Wall Street Journal was rejected. Can you imagine how much worse the editorial pages would be were O'Reilly to gain access to them?
• Actually, disagree with my predecessor. I believe that the WSJ's editorial pages are already so bad, so full of venom and lies that O'Reilly's presence would not be...noticeable. They are doing a great job at spreading misinformaiton and scarcely need O'Reilly to teach them how or assist them.
• O'Reilly in some ways is not, or should not be the whole focus of our critiques. Look at the men behind the curtain...the plutocratic puppetmasters...those almost always amoral media barons and overpaid top executives who think nothing of putting such cryptofascist excrements and their effluvia in front of millions...while so many issues go begging for lack of honest reporting and focus. Ask the owners of Viacom,. CBS, Fox (we know who that scoundrel is, of course), CNN's big wigs, and so on. They are all alike. As in the case of Imus, it is they who are ultimately responsible for these fascists-on-the-tube "power to shape consciousness" and they should be brought to account.
[Note: this article has been slightly edited to conform to CJO's formats and standards.]