Who is a journalist OR Americans ARE getting stupider...

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by David

You didn't understand what I said.

Can you explain it?

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

Of course they don't know who Woodward is. Like most of the planet, anything after a few years will be forgotten. Woodward and Nixon was over 30 years ago. Just ask anyone in high school to talk about WW1 or WW2 and they know very little. And those had a much bigger impact on the world than Woodward. Even worse ask about the Korean War. If MASH hadn't been a TV show it would be even more obscure to people. Don't blame the public, they are still the same as they have ever been throughout history. If it didn't effect them directly, history fades away.

IMO, even Sumatra's history affect us, we only aren't aware how, and that's our fault. To prefer to live in a small cozy world doesn't cut the rest out.

Romy

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

Of course they don't know who Woodward is. Like most of the planet, anything after a few years will be forgotten. Woodward and Nixon was over 30 years ago.

OTOH, I was all of two months old when Nixon resigned, and I knew who Woodward was in high school.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

So, if I understand that sentence, you're saying that regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with O'Reilly, he or she is ignorant?

David was saying that we can go after Bill O'Reilly's method of calling himself a newscaster, when his show is amost exclusively his own social commentary. However, most people will discuss his commentary instead of his method, which is a pointless waste of time, as one side is never going to change the other's point of view.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

David was saying that we can go after Bill O'Reilly's method of calling himself a newscaster, when his show is amost exclusively his own social commentary. However, most people will discuss his commentary instead of his method, which is a pointless waste of time, as one side is never going to change the other's point of view.

Not only that, but B.O. ( ) says he is presenting the facts in a clear and straight forward manner, but he really does not do that. For instance, he concludes (or did at the time) that SH and OBL had contacts that justified the war in Iraq a la Bush's reasoning. On closer inpection however, these contacts were mostly insignificant and hardly rose to the level on immediate danger that W set as the bar for going to war. Here is a great site with the goods on B.O.

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/23/bill-oreilly-lies/

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/

fair and balanced indeed