Racist,ignorant, or misunderstood? O'Reilly remarks

[Patch'sD]

No, But I what hope that they would discuss how sterotyping is wrong. Against any person regardless of Religion, Race, or Origin.

 

[Patch'sD]

For you to put it out about the People of China Town, Little Italy, Muslims of Michigan, and the Indians of New Jersey. Then there has to be people out there that feel that way. Then more shows about what is wrong about thinking that way are needed. Hopefully, Others will also do shows on the Subject.

 

[cardaway]

So O'Reilly still having a job is proof that he did nothing wrong? Ridiculous.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

What a load of what the bull left in the barnyard! O'Reilly is what-60 years old and change, which makes his grandmother O L D. The woman has been around for many, many years but we're to believe that she has formed her opinion of black people based on rappers and rap music. Unbelieveable!!!

Lastly, Juan Williams' example of disrepect for education is, unfortunately, a serious problem hampering the black community and it existed well before the emergence of rap.

So do you think the rappers being discussed have helped people's perception of African-Americans and their culture?
Do you think they've had a postive or negative influence on young African-Americans?
Those were some of Juan's points.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Why would Bill and Juan have brought it up at all if they didn't think the audience needed to know how civilized the patrons of Sylvia's were compared to the black rapper culture?

It was a statement of contrast. It was a statement of criticism of (most) rappers and on how phony and different they are from reality, yet they do influence youth and perceptions. Bill and Juan weren't pretending to tell a secret or acting surprised. Psst-- the patrons of Sylvia's are civilized, wow, can you believe it.

 

[Patch'sD]

Taking O'Reilly position on the conserverative side, if he was trully guilty of Being a Racist, the calls for his head would be heard loud an clear and would continue till action was taken. So, Ridiculous No. (Insert Shaking No Head Here).

Many articles have been written in support of what he was trying to do. Many opinions on what he was trying to do. Two Guests Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have came on his show to understand what was said. I have not heard any negative comments from them on the subject.

So no, O'Reilly still having a job is proof that he did nothing wrong. ( Another No Shaking head here.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Can we look forward to other educational discussions on the show? Such as "not all Irish are belligerent drunkards?"

After all, there are people out there who don't understand those things, what with the cultural saturation of the Notre Dame and Boston Celtics logos...

What if a segment of the music industry consistently portrayed Irish people as "bellingerent drunkards"? Would that have some negative influence on young Irish people and other people's perception of Irish people in general?

 

[daisax]

For all that people keep saying that O'Reilly was trying to perform some educational public service for those who DO think that way (even though he doesn't) -- his exact words were:

"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. It was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks [and has a] primarily black patronship," O'Reilly said. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea!'"

He couldn't get over the fact ... that's not learned Bill helping to move race relations forward because he doesn't think his viewers are as sophisticated as he is. That's a guy who was truly flabbergasted by the disconnect between his expectations and reality.

He was surprised that Anita Baker's band was dressed in tuxedos. If he'd ever seen Ella Fitzerald or Duke Ellington he'd probably have dropped dead on the spot. And race relations were sooooo great in those days!

 

[Charade]

Yanno, I'm gonna have to stick with the two people who were actually having the converstation than those who *think* they know what they were talking about.

 

[SeeVee]

When a black person speaks on TV, like Al Sharpton, it is assumed by many that they are speaking for ALL black people.

Gasp! Why would you say such a thing? Are you telling me YOU assume that? How do you know that Al Sharpton speaks for ALL black people?

Oh, you really didnt, but you did. I merely took your quote out of context.

Here is what you really said:

When a black person speaks on TV, like Al Sharpton, it is assumed by many that they are speaking for ALL black people. WHY? When black people hear O'Reilly, I hope they don't think he speaks for all white people!!

I don't think Al or any other black person speaks for all black people any more than I would assume that any person of any race or religion is speaking for ALL members of that race or religion. They only speak for themselves and for those who have chosen to identify themselves with them.

That is quite a difference, huh?

In an earlier post, you claimed the MM just took quotes or transcripts and repeated them. Just like I did to you, MM takes "quotes" and unfairly twists and repeats them in order to convery THEIR OWN meaning instead of the meaning of the ORIGINATOR of the quote.


Whenever I hear outrageous quotes from either side of the aisle presented by someone with an obvious agenda, I reserve judgement until and only until I can see the entire transcript presented in its entire context. Anything less is unfair at the very least, and dishonest at most.

 

[SeeVee]

A hundred pages or so ago we floated the idea of the Bill O'Reilly Enlightenment Tour. He could go to Little Italy and find out all Italians aren't Tony Soprano, to Chinatown to find out that all Chinese people aren't doing karate moves all day, then off to the Muslim areas of Michigan to find out that they're not all terrorists and into the Indian communities here in NJ to find out that they're not all living in squalor. Now we can add the Irish section of Boston!! It could be very educational for his audience.

I guess the irony of your post in lost on you, huh?

 

[SeeVee]

. And you see nothing wrong with that picture? I'm sure O'Reilly didn't either.

That is where you would be wrong. He has gone on record opposing the "overcharging" in the case. Furthermore, he has gone on record calling for the kids who hung the noose to be charged with a "federal hate crime."

Sorry for trying to confuse you with the facts.

 

[JPN4265]

I see nothing wrong with his statement. If he had never visited a restaurant owned and operated by blacks, he could be surprised at what he saw. Maybe this is a new and eye opening expericence for him?

 

[chobie]

Yanno, I'm gonna have to stick with the two people who were actually having the converstation than those who *think* they know what they were talking about.

You never had a problem with the statements to begin with. It's not like you had an epiphany when you read Juan's editorial.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Gasp! Why would you say such a thing? Are you telling me YOU assume that? How do you know that Al Sharpton speaks for ALL black people?

Oh, you really didnt, but you did. I merely took your quote out of context.

Here is what you really said:



That is quite a difference, huh?

In an earlier post, you claimed the MM just took quotes or transcripts and repeated them. Just like I did to you, MM takes "quotes" and unfairly twists and repeats them in order to convery THEIR OWN meaning instead of the meaning of the ORIGINATOR of the quote.


Whenever I hear outrageous quotes from either side of the aisle presented by someone with an obvious agenda, I reserve judgement until and only until I can see the entire transcript presented in its entire context. Anything less is unfair at the very least, and dishonest at most.

Except Media Matters also includes the actual video or audio from the original broadcast, and they include a few extra sentences at each end as so not to do exactly what you are accusing them of.

One has to love the irony here that an established poster did not want to post as themselves and instead chose to create a totally new identity in order to falsely claim that deliberate deception was involved with something else. Care to tell us who you really are?

O'Reilly truly has the audience that he deserves.

 

[Charade]

You never had a problem with the statements to begin with. It's not like you had an epiphany when you read Juan's editorial.

You're right. I *understood* the context of his statements from the beginning which was obviously lost on others before and after Williams' latest piece. Even with that those same people didn't get it and further dug their heels in claiming he was doing a CYA.

It's interesting that there isn't a thread (maybe it's gone unnoticed as of yet) about Rush's comments about "phoney soliders" along with the usual suspects hammering away at him (and of course with the usual suspects "defending" him). You guys are slipping.

 

[Charade]

Except Media Matters also includes the actual video or audio from the original broadcast, and they include a few extra sentences at each end as so not to do exactly what you are accusing them of.

Even if they do that, the subject at hand is still open for subjective opinions. MM just doesn't post stuff like this and let the readers draw their own conclusions, they outright make the claim of racism. They set the stage. It's hardly objective on the part of MM right down to the point of bolding text they want to emphasize to bolster their point. The readers comments tell the rest of the story.

O'Reilly truly has the audience that he deserves.

Gee, is that another dig at his listeners? How nice of you. FTR, I don't listen to his radio show or watch his TV show.

 

[salmoneous]

If he had never visited a restaurant owned and operated by blacks, he could be surprised at what he saw.

You see nothing wrong with assuming that blacks cannot be civilized in restaurants?

 

[salmoneous]

You're right. I *understood* the context of his statements from the beginning

And yet you haven't been able to explain how that context changes the meaning of the statements. He said it was surprising that blacks could behave civilized in restaurants. How does the context change it????

 

[Charade]

And yet you haven't been able to explain how that context changes the meaning of the statements. He said it was surprising that blacks could behave civilized in restaurants. How does the context change it????

Well, it would be like someone on the DIS stating "X Y Z" and someone else following up with a "I'm shocked!" with a smiley after it. IOW, they really weren't.