"Papa Bear"'s take on the Palin Hack

"Papa Bear"'s take on the Palin Hack

Summary: Thanks to Dan at the Register and Mark at BoingBoing, I found this little gem in my RSS reader this morning. Bill O'Reilly is attempting to understand the liabilities faced by news organizations that report on improperly obtained data.

TOPICS: Browser

Thanks to Dan at the Register and Mark at BoingBoing, I found this little gem in my RSS reader this morning. Bill O'Reilly is attempting to understand the liabilities faced by news organizations that report on improperly obtained data. You know, like the Pentagon Papers.

Not only do I find it interesting to see how the mainstream media's take on the Palin event, I also must salute the superhuman patience of the interviewee.

Topic: Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • LOL

    Bill O?Reilly is such a self-righteous idiot, I can't believe anyone actually [b]wants[/b] to listen to him.

    Just another example of him and his ilk trying to ignore the law for their own best interest.
  • Patience

    "I also must salute the superhuman patience of the interviewee."
    Me too, Mr. O'Reilly is rather aggressively opinionated!
  • O'reilly is not MSM

    MSM are the one going on and on about the contents of the
    emails and not the fact they were hacked. The same MSM that
    went on and on about how the emails were hacked and not their
    contents when it was Miguel Estrada.
    • O'Reilly is MSM, by definition.

      Fox News is the market leader in cable news. He is, therefore, a member of the "main stream media".
  • RE:

    He is the vocal example of the neocons in power. I have watched several of his shows, simply to understand him and the bottom line is he is a mouth piece for the Bush administration using the same tactics they use. Typical republicans.

    During my packing trip I came to realize that republicans are brave only when they have someone they can sacrifice for their cause. In other words they use any power they have to hide behind, or in the case of the Iraq war, our honorable troops. SO in essence they have no spine. All bluster until they have to step up.

    Democrats are just gutless and spineless, looking for handouts and government care.

    Libertarians... we should be running this damn country. ]:)
    Linux User 147560
    • Don't go calling him a "Republican"...

      The true Republican Party was shot between the eyes in the
      aftermath of FDR's New Deal; the carcass staggered on for
      another three-plus decades, when it was put out of its
      misery by Nixon's "Southern Strategy" that whipped up the
      good-ole-boys to tear down anything that smacked of
      "Yankee elitism" - you know, subversive things like
      education, public welfare, public health and so on. The
      money that had been spent on that was given to the arms
      dealers ("defense contractors") and various "consultancies"
      by the post-Nixon "Republicans".

      Go back and read any speech by Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt,
      or Taft -- and then imagine John McCain or Mitt Romney
      giving the same speech today. The price for the short-
      term successes in '72, '74 and especially '80 was the long-
      term death of the Republican Party as anything more than
      a Southern anti-everything party latched firmly to the
      rotten teat of corporate welfare.

      That whirring sound that keeps GWB and the other
      usurpers up at night is Teddy Roosevelt spinning in his
      grave. The low, basso rumbling along with it is Taft... it
      takes a lot more effort to spin that much mass. Come to
      think of it, O'Reilley's show should provide more than
      enough spin for a thousand Tafts.

      The Democrats? These days, they're just the other wing of
      the "American" Corporate Party.
      Jeff Dickey
      • While I mostly agree...

        Roosevelt was a great president and few have come since who have done as well. But if you read up on the Roosevelt Corollary, you will likely find that he had similar interests in interfering with other countries. Roosevelt was a superior candidate because he didn't trust the corporations and tried to gut them the second they tried to abuse their status.

        Last President that tried to take down a major corporation was Bill Clinton, a democrat. To me, that is insulting to have once considered myself a Republican and say that.

        Don't think that I will instantly stand with the libertarians either. They still lack corporate controls to keep the corporations in line. While they do want to reduce government red tape, which I agree with, some of that red tape is there for a reason.
  • I like O'Reilly

    I like Bill O'Reilly and I think he is a straight-shooting man. These are hard to find today in the Main Stream Media! NBC self-admitted that recently by pulling off some of their main anchors on BSNBC's coverage of the election.

    In response to: "Fox News is the market leader in cable news. He is, therefore, a member of the "main stream media".

    Fox news is the market leader and Bill O'Reilly is also viewed by more than any other cable news program.

    In response to: I have watched several of his shows, simply to understand him and the bottom line is he is a mouth piece for the Bush administration using the same tactics they use. Typical republicans.

    You obviously didn't watch enough of his shows to understand him yet. He is not a republican and is quite hard on the Bush Administration. He is a self-proclaimed Independent. He does not press his own agenda, only a fair shot for those portrayed in the media. His main purpose is to point out instances in the MSM where people were not treated fairly. He calls out those public figures who don't punish repeat offenders of child sex crimes. Mr O'Reilly debates with facts not personal smears like the far-left wing media. I think it would be quite a reach to call Bill O'Reilly a Neocon.

    The bottom line is that O'Reilly holds both sides accountable and will call anyone out who unfairly reports false things in the media. Of course, any of you who actually have watched his show already know that! :-)
    • Agree

      O'Reilly gave Obama a tough fair interview, as opposed to the anointing he got on the other networks. He calls the McCain camp on it when they exaggerate on Obama's record and Obama's camp when they exaggerate on McCain's record. He calls the MSM on the major networks and CNN when they gush for Obama.
      He does espouse a personal philosophy of accountability instead of victimization. Does that make him a Neocon or just reasonably intelligent?
      Hillary Clinton has called him the most fair in coverage for the way that he reported on the primaries. As maintained above his show is the most watched show on the most watched network. That must mean something.
      • Wait

        I'm not going to argue your points. I don't watch the show, as I just simply ignore the televised news altogether. I just wanted to throw something out there that I found to be entirely untrue.

        [i]As maintained above his show is the most watched show on the most watched network. That must mean something.[/i]

        No, it doesn't. It doesn't at all. I cite Reality TV in all its forms as the proof positive that popular != quality.
        • Valid point but...

          Laura, that is a valid point, but I think it would be hard to compare the audience that would boost ratings of reality TV to those who would boost ratings of a political news show. I would venture to say that those watching the news shows are likely more engaged in America's political process and that the others are simply looking for entertainment to block out the real world around them!

          Not to say I haven't watched some of it, but I'd prefer to engage myself in something that is dynamic, not staged, and relevant to the future of our country.

          I can definitely see where you are coming from on your point, but I think it is like comparing apples to oranges.
  • Did the word "merchandise" bother anyone else?

    According to Webster's Merchandise is "the commodities or goods that are bought and sold in business".

    Hacking and releasing someones "personal" email doesn't qualify, nor did they deprive her of property so it wasn't stealing either.

    I'm sure papa bear wasn't trying to shade his argument at all though.

    - Sam
    • Maybe this logic is applicable to the RIAA.

      • where do you think I got the idea?

  • "If you steal $50 and give it to someone...

    they're guilty too!"

    That pretty much sums up the colossal pile of condensed stupidity that is Bill O'Reilly.

    The man is a black hole of intellect. Simply watching his show makes you stupider.
  • RE: jerk journalists

    The "I like O'reilly" entry is probably one of his
    paid staffers who comb the internet to spiff up his

    O'reilly, Olbermann, Beck, and the other "jerk
    journalists" are what's wrong with this nation.
    Rather than have an intelligent rationale conversation
    about an issue, what you have is someone who
    interrupts, demands that they're right, uses poor
    analogies, and browbeats and intimidates. Sad that
    these shows are on tv and people (who must have no
    life) waste time watching them (I will defend their
    right to be as stupid as they wanna be).

    Fox news is mainstream (Republican). Anyone who
    doesn't believe O'reilly is a Republican is fooling
    themselves. And as far as O'reilly being tough on
    Bush, that's gotta a joke. NBC leans to the left, and
    Olbermann is over the top. I'd much rather spend my
    time doing my own thinking and scanning the web for
    ideas...of which both of these gentlemen are
    • Paid Staffers? Ha! I wish.

      I'm not trying to stand up for him to protect his image; only to voice MY opinion. I don't possibly see how you could combine O'Reilly, Beck and Olbermann in the same category? 1 of these is not like the other! They similar 2 are hardly what's wrong with this nation.

      Did you happen to see O'Reilly's interview with Obama? What about Sen. Clinton? Both of these individuals received the most fair treatment on the issues they will receive from any media outlet. The questions O'Reilly asked Obama were those that an actual informed voter would be interested in like Iran, the economy, and his affiliations with the extreme left. This is not only fair for the candidate, but also for the voters who want to know. The left shies away from questions that may be touchy like Iran. Many argue that O'Reilly didn't ask hard enough questions to Obama.

      O'Reilly is certainly an interrupter, but most political debate on TV has plenty of this...even when O'Reilly isn't around. He does it primarily to keep people from wandering off from the actual questions.

      I have my own life and I'm certainly not wasting my time by watching O'Reilly or Fox News. I feel like I am far more informed than those who may get their news from Coblert, Maher, or Olbermann. At least O'Reilly can give everyone on both sides a fair shot to make their point and not use personal smear tactics to make a point.

      O'Reilly has questioned Bush's strategy in Iraq from day 1 and he also criticizes that it wasn't the right thing to do. He is not a Bush supporter and he certainly isn't a Republican. He is an objective journalist which is hard to find in today's main stream media.

      It seems to me that your defending of stupid people's right to watch what they want may end up helping you out more than you may have imagined!
      • Lol...

        How can you possibly say he's not like Beck and Olbermann? No rationale. Look at the youtube item again. He says its wrong. Doesn't say why..what legal basis, just self-righteousness. He's a jerk.

        You're showing your political favoritism. If you don't think BO backed GWB in Iraq then you seriously are deluded.

        My mistake in my previous post was giving these...*I almost said gentlemen* the title of journalists, of which they are not. They are opinionists, and its sad too many people can't think for themselves. They're like Rush Limbaughs dittoheads.
        • Totally missed it dude

          The 1 who isn't alike is Olbermann, not O'Reilly!!! He's so far left it's hard to believe NBC even likes him. I think that both Beck and O'Reilly are straight-shooting guys who aren't afraid to tell the truth and say what they think is right.

          About the YouTube clip, he is clearly passionate about this. I don't think it is irrational for someone to think that hacking into someone's email and having the contents posted in a public place is wrong. This kid who hacked into Palin's email probably won't get more than a slap on the wrist, but what O'Reilly is saying it that the websites who post these types of things should be held accountable. Unfortunately, under current law they are protected by the 1st ammendmedment. Now this will spark all types of 1st amendment debate but you and I know both know that if it was our personal email posted on that website, we would also want it to be pulled down and those responsible for it prosecuted. That is all O'Reilly is arguing for.

          Can we agree on that?

          I'm not showing my political favoritism, I'm only showing that I am an informed person who obviously does think for their self and not just someone posting on the internet that certain people are stupid and certain people have no lives.

          How can you be so sure that O'Reilly backed GWB in the Iraq war if you don't waste your time watching the show?

          And how does watching/listening to a news show make someone unable to think for themselves? Is that your opinion on TV in general? News shows? Or just the ones that don't align with your political views?
  • RE: Bill Should stick to what he knows

    I'm an IT pro, in security. I wouldn't dream of telling him how to produce a show. "O'REALLY?" should shut-up and learn something new instead of thinking he knows it all.