I'm surprised O'Reilley hasn't invited the L.A. Times on his show to duke it out over this study. Editorial should request some air time.
Keeping this fight active will sell more papers. Escalate it!

7-day subscriber

I understand O'Reilly has offered air time, but no takers on his show. Typical. He actually complained the correction was on the Times website, but not in print. It is easy to lambaste from a distance, tougher face-to-face. O'Reilly may be pompous, but I like the effort he puts towards keeping the children safe. When was the last time a liberal actually wanted to help our children from predators instead of making excuses for their behaviour?

The bottom line is that Rosa Brooks tried to discredit and insult O'Reilly with a clearly contrived study. I am under the belief that if take enough polls or do a study and adjust the way the study is conducted over time you can always come up with the results you are looking for. It was weak and it was lightweight. If you think I'm full of it turn on Fox News at 8PM tonight or tommorrow night and make a check every time O'Reilly insults someone. A monkey could tell you that the math doesn't add up and the study has zero credibility.

The authors of the study could easily clarify their methods by posting a few sample Talking Points memos, complete with the markups or coding that shows which words were interpreted as insults every 6.8 seconds.

It would be interesting to apply the same technique to an LA Times editorial.

Anyone who thinks Fox News is news is delusional. I'm an independent voter, and I don't believe most things I hear from Democrats or Republicans, but be serious, Fox is ridiculous in its wordplay and propagandizing. Leading the charge is the biggest know-nothing on television, Bill O'Reilly. No one wants to go on his show because he yells at you then cuts your microphone off. He throws out falsehoods and cuts off your responses. That's the Fox idea of fair and balanced. It's like saying "why doesn't George Bush go to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and look for Osama Bin Laden by himself?" it's a place that a fair discssion will never take place in. Bill O'Reilly is a lying, bullying, inaccurate, disingenuous, sexually harassing blow-hard. Protecting our children? Be Serious, ask Andrea Makris how Bill offered to protect her with a falafel.

O'Reilly is a joke. He preaches only to the choir, no one outside the bubble of self-denial that supporters of the current adminstration and its illegal, immoral war even take him seriously enough to want to attempt an appearance on his show, which only ends up with the person sitting there being yelled at with their microphone turned off and no way to respond. I'm surprised O'Reilly doesn't just put interviewees on a dunking stool.

Bill O'Reilly doesn't need to fear Rosa Brooks discrediting him, he has zero credibility to start with. He's laughable.

Rosa Brooks should know you can't say "from whence." Bill O'Reilly never says "from whence." Sheesh -- leftists.

No one wants to go on his show because he yells at you then cuts your microphone off.

I want to go on his show! I've already made my demand for airtime on The O'Reilly Factor, but he won't do it! Why won't O'Reilly have me on his show? What is he trying to hide?

I'll donate $100 to the charity of O'Reilly's choice if he invites Tim Cavanaugh on his show.
He'll never do it. Not even for charity. Too afraid.

Tim

The study mentioned counts words like liberal and conservative as name calling. Can you admit that saying he calls someone names every 6 seconds inaccurate?

The study mentioned counts words like liberal and conservative as name calling. Can you admit that saying he calls someone names every 6 seconds inaccurate?

The reliability of the study is not our responsibility; the accuracy of Brooks' column is. In the event, however, your claim appears to be contradicted by the methodology section of the study:

The terms conservative, liberal, left, right, progressive, traditional, or centrist were treated as name calling, if they were associated with a problem or social ill or if coupled with a derogatory term. For example, ‘‘kool-aid left’’ (O’Reilly, 6 May 2005) was counted as two cases of name calling. The term ‘‘left’’ is not a derogatory term in itself, but used with ‘‘kool-aid’’ (referring to the Jim Jones orchestrated mass suicide) raises ‘‘left’’ to the level of name calling.

Again, Brooks' column (which just to remind you, was called "I love Bill O'Reilly") was fully supported and accurate. O'Reilly's debate with the authors of the study is a separate matter, though we have been happy to provide a forum for that debate: In addition to Ron Mitchell's column, you can read the response from the authors here.

Rosa Brooks cannot convice mainstream Americans to enlist in Socialism based on its own merits. So she and her brother spend their efforts tring to belittle and discredit people like OReilly. Why Rosa? The constant nitpicking and condescending dismissal of OReilly without confronting him on the important issues at hand exposes the Left as a weak and childish. If you want Socialism why not tell us how great it will be Rosa? Of course we all won't have the benefit of a Gillete trust fund like you and your brother, will we?

Help me out, here. I don't have satellite or cable tv.
Is Bill O'Reilly on Dancing with the Stars or on American Idol?
From reading these comments, I don't think I am missing out
on anything.