E2 wrote:
] Right on Rattle, I think this might be a hint at something:
]
] ] ] And creeps gossiping about celebrities in
] ] ] the crudest of ways.
]
] Perhaps ol' billy dosn't like people talking when he can't
] interrupt them/change the subject/commercial break/ etc.

The man is a master of crafting a skewed argument.. Take this snippit for a few examples:

] In truth, The Chronicle's story [is] small stuff compared
] to other Internet sins. The child molestation people have
] now figured out a way to chat about their crimes without
] being charged with obscenity. And the Supreme Court
] actually helped these people by ruling that virtual child
] porn, computerized images of kids being raped, are legal,
] an extension of free speech.

First off, The Chronicle is the newspaper with the largest readership in Northern California.. Yet, this article is an attack on the Internet. This is clearly because the damage to Bill did not come from the Chronicle article, but rather the discussion about the Chronicle article on the net. "So which is the bigger threat to America? The big companies or the criminals at the computer? Interesting question." Indeed. Discussion can be dangerous. But in the context of that quote, I think its Bill's America that is threatened, not mine. Anyway, onward.

Next, he ties in child molesters, and later in the article, NAMBLA. Everyone hates child molesters. He makes it related, not because its particulary relevant, but because it creates an emotion reaction in the reader/listner/watcher which brings them closer to O'Reilly.

And then with the virtual child pron thing, he again breezes over any free speech implications. The Supreme Cout did not help child pornographers, they protected free speech. That court case would have been a very dangerous precident. Bill is an educated man, he likely sees this. But he also sees his large soccer-mom viewership, and in order to keep them glued to the TV, he needs that emotional reaction. Its in his best interest to be closer to that viewership then to the truth. He wants angry people behind him. If you watch his show enough, it becomes very clear that he panders to his viewship, while keeping them angry at all times about some topic where he can easily keep up the appearence of having the moral high ground. It appears to be his "forumla"..

This all supports the assumption that the root of the problem is an issue with control of the discussion forum. You see, its easy to air feedback when you can pick and choose. You get to narrow it down to the dominate viewpoints, and pick the ones that are small enough to read in 10 seconds and display on the TV.. You can keep it simple, and never address any of the hard parts of the topic.. You can keep it emotional. You can put the comments in an order where they address each other in a way that supports your views. Its funny.. Somehow, the comments that oppose Bill's views always seem to be badly written, and easy to confront. It seems to be Bill's style to pick at least one every day that says "You will never air this".. He likes to appear to be an open forum, yet he spews un-American dribble like this, and manages to do it in a creative enough mannor to get his audience to buy it lock, stock, and barrel..

I say again, this man is really dangerous.

RE: FOXNews.com | Bill O'Reilly still an idiot