This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Fox News and Bill O'Reilly Accused of Airing "Distorted" Re-Creation of Florida Man's Email

Fox News and Bill O'Reilly Accused of Airing "Distorted" Re-Creation of Florida Man's Email - Comments

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 1 by Stevehill

In Britain you'd have a right of redress and, probably, you'd end up with the TV station having to eat humble pie on air and broadcast an apology.

In America. it's free speech.

Go figure.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:07:52 UTC | #880183

Sjoerd Westenborg's Avatar Comment 2 by Sjoerd Westenborg

Of course it isn't how it should go in an ideal world, but the representation doesn't exactly distort the message of the email in a massive way. Just another slick trick within the mazes of the law by Faux to cast a slightly meaner light on someone who doesn't fit in their narrow-minded view of the world. Not surprised, don't think a case would be practical, just another reason to try to educate the world. Sigh.

Edit: In an ideal world, Bill O'Reilly wouldn't exist, but that's another story.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:08:09 UTC | #880184

pkerrigan2002's Avatar Comment 3 by pkerrigan2002

Is anyone really surprised by this?

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:12:45 UTC | #880186

dunstar's Avatar Comment 4 by dunstar

lol. Wait.....I thought Fox news was fair and balanced and has been for the past 15 years. They say so every chance they get. lol.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:19:24 UTC | #880188

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 5 by Vorlund

Oh really O'reilly? So much for your investigative perspicacity.

Tide come in tide goes out. ya dumbass.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:21:24 UTC | #880190

Skinny_White_Sinner's Avatar Comment 6 by Skinny_White_Sinner

It's Bill'O. He distorts facts to affirm his massive viewership's prejudices and fears. And he makes a boatload of money doing it. He will never stop. The halls of Fox News are barren of integrity. Nothing should be expected of them. This story is not news.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:23:45 UTC | #880191

thpoc's Avatar Comment 7 by thpoc

Why not fabricate an email in it's entirety? Why bother at all responding to an email sent by no one of importance? The only probable answer would be that Fox news, or at least O'reilly is sincere in wanting to answer his critics and simply edited the email removing whatever was trivial in his eyes. I can understand why he would edit out the sentence mentioning 'the god delusion', not wanting to give free publicity. The "while completely discounting the critical thinking of atheists" is obviously untrue and while I don't know O'reilly, i probably think he thought it to be unecessarily harsh to air nevemind respond to. The last bit "truth will stand up to any scrutiny" is something he probably agreed with 100%, truth being Jesus ofcourse. I think it would be more accurate to accuse fox news or O'reilly of (deliberately) misusing the quotation marks.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:33:26 UTC | #880193

david k's Avatar Comment 8 by david k

I always thought it obviously blatant that Fox chooses "not the best " emails that run counter to their view in the guise of fair and balanced.

Kind of like the usual Liberal caller on Rush Limbaugh who always seems a little kooky.

But I'm a little surprised at the manipulation. No I'm not..

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:33:53 UTC | #880194

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 9 by Rich Wiltshir

"I'm siding with Jesus," he said in one interview. So are we surprised that such a cult member resorts to misrepresentation.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:37:27 UTC | #880197

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 10 by Rich Wiltshir

"I'm siding with Jesus," he said in one interview. So are we surprised that such a cult member resorts to misrepresentation.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:38:59 UTC | #880198

Lucyloveschampagne's Avatar Comment 11 by Lucyloveschampagne

About 7 years ago I wrote in to the Factor and he did exactly the same thing to me. The comments I made were entirely different to those he read out, attributed to me.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:39:31 UTC | #880200

BroughtyBoy's Avatar Comment 12 by BroughtyBoy

Everyone assumes Bill O`Reilly is a dumb reactionary with too much power, but I suspect he is far more cynical than we imagine. He has an audience to pander to, and an income to maintain. His notion that religion acts as a constraint against the worst excesses of human nature is easily understood, and plays well in a lot of quarters. Professor Dawkins may have far better points to make, but he also has an income to maintain, and in this instance, a brand new book to plug. Why are people getting worked up about this short, shallow interview?

If you truly believe that religion is a necessary evil, then presumably you feel vindicated in using every underhand trick in the book to validate your point. And if you don`t, well, everybodys got to bring home the bacon somehow.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:45:10 UTC | #880203

stellier68's Avatar Comment 13 by stellier68

Bill O'Reilly and his audience deserve each others. They are borderline illeterates and they will fight for their right to own a gun, beat their wives and praise the Lord...Any form of attention given to them is a total waste of time. Next time send an email to RD and let him know you liked his book.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:19:09 UTC | #880211

GPWC's Avatar Comment 14 by GPWC

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it come to the media - and I'm talking about pretty much all media, pretty much all of the time. Certainly the newspapers in the UK are a disgrace and so is the BBC. Media types are excellent at rearranging the information they have to make a headline. You can listen to an interview on The Today Programme (UK Radio 4, politics and current affairs) and then find them quote-mining it for a headline which has the effect of distorting, sometimes quite seriously, the spirit of what was said. People complain that politicians won't answer questions - that's because they can't risk going off a vetted soundbite.

There was also the famous case during the miners strike when the BBC showed the striking miners throwing stones at the Police, then the Police charging them on horseback. The implication was that the miners caused the Police to charge and therefore got what they deserved. But actually, it was the other way around. The BBC were called on it, but continued to deny any errors for years. Tony Benn took this up and I never found out what finally happened.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:21:36 UTC | #880212

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 15 by mirandaceleste

Although O'Reilly's actions are indeed sleazy and are a perfect example of the "spin" that permeates his so-called "No-Spin Zone", Jeremy Kopchak, the man who sent the email, is incorrect in his claim that O'Reilly didn't have "right to change [Kopchak's] words to fit [O'Reilly's] faulty interpretation of them". Like most news organizations, Fox retains the right to do pretty much anything they want with any content sent to or posted on their site. From their Terms of Use (emphasis mine):

By posting any User Content on, through or in connection with the FOX News Services, you hereby grant to FOX News and our Affiliated Companies, licensees and authorized users, a perpetual, non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable (in whole or in part), worldwide license to use, modify, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and compilations based upon, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such User Content on, through or in connection with the FOX News Services or in connection with any distribution or syndication thereof to Third Party Services (as defined below), on and through all media formats now known or hereafter devised, for any and all purposes including, but not limited to, promotional, marketing, trade or commercial purposes. FOX News’ use of such User Content shall not require any further notice to you and such use shall be without the requirement of any permission from or payment to you or to any other person or entity.

(Right before this passage, they make it clear that this does include "email transmi[ssions]")

So, yes, although this is a clear example of O'Reilly's hypocritical habit of "spinning" and framing every bit of his show, no rights were violated here.

The lesson? Always check out a media outlet's Terms of Use before you email them or post any content on their site. Most media outlets do retain the right to use and/or modify your intellectual property in all sorts of ways. Sometimes that's worth the risk. Sometimes it's not. Either way, if you've read the Terms of Use, at least you'll be able to make an informed decision.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:59:33 UTC | #880223

genjokoan's Avatar Comment 16 by genjokoan

This is not news. Newspapers reserve the right to edit letters to the editors, for instance. Pompous? Yes. But it is not very news worthy or unexpected.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:01:04 UTC | #880224

Capt. Bloodeye's Avatar Comment 17 by Capt. Bloodeye

I was physically sickened by this clown shoe and his 'interview' with the Prof. Dawkins showed characteristic patience in the face of astounding imbecility.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:20:37 UTC | #880229

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 18 by Steven Mading

Comment 15 by mirandaceleste :

Although O'Reilly's actions are indeed sleazy and are a perfect example of the "spin" that permeates his so-called "No-Spin Zone", Jeremy Kopchak, the man who sent the email, is incorrect in his claim that O'Reilly didn't have "right to change [Kopchak's] words to fit [O'Reilly's] faulty interpretation of them". Like most news organizations, Fox retains the right to do pretty much anything they want with any content sent to or posted on their site. From their Terms of Use (emphasis mine):

But notice what you did there that Bill did NOT do. You used the brackets to SHOW the changes. This is something that has been considered proper journalism for a long time - you can edit the quotes but ONLY if you explicitly show where you did so.

This Bill did not do.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:27:59 UTC | #880230

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 19 by mirandaceleste

Comment 18 by Steven Mading :

But notice what you did there that Bill did NOT do. You used the brackets to SHOW the changes. This is something that has been considered proper journalism for a long time - you can edit the quotes but ONLY if you explicitly show where you did so.

This Bill did not do.

Right. But just because he should have done so doesn't mean that he had a legal obligation to. This is an ethical issue, not an issue of rights.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:44:23 UTC | #880239

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 20 by Mr DArcy

Listen you moaners!

With Jesus on your side, it's impossible to do any wrong!

(Oh bugger, where does that leave Allah?)

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:51:56 UTC | #880240

                                   ike's Avatar Comment 21 by ike

It's showbizz. The more you argue the more he laughs. Personally he doesn´t bother me. He's a troll, and he loves it. Why bother, eh?

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:17:32 UTC | #880243

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 22 by Mark Jones

This is just a subliminal message sent out by O'Reilly for his minions to attack Dawkins! He says it at 9s and has it in large type on the screen! Report him to the appropriate authorities!

(that's enough paranoia - Ed)

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:32:04 UTC | #880248

s.k.graham's Avatar Comment 23 by s.k.graham

Much as I cannot stand Bill O'Reilly, I think this was actually fairly innocent. No doubt, he has underlings read all the emails and provide him with edited/shortened blurbs cut down for time. So in this editor's mind "discount..." is roughly equivalent to "attacking..." (as in "attack the arguments/position of Dawkins [who is an atheist]"). This then gets shortened to "attack Dawkins".

Then Bill reads that and says "I did not 'attack'...", apparently interpreting the word "attack" in a different way (verbal abuse).

Unlike the tides, "never a miscommunication" does not apply in the no-spin zone.

But the most important points of Jeremy's email are included -- that Jeremey thinks Bill is pompous in his faith, lacks guts, and has not studied both sides, none of which are flattering to Bill.

On the other hand, the net effect on-the-air misrepresents Jeremy as claiming Bill verbally abused Dawkins, and the failure to use ellipses and brackets to make omissions and paraphrasing clear is sloppy if not unethical journalism.

Maybe if Bill receives a flood of email complaining about this, we will see a reaction.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:34:02 UTC | #880250

alf1200's Avatar Comment 24 by alf1200

Bill O'reilly and Fox news,.....What a pair of BOOBS!

They are both.........Oh never mind...............

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:43:43 UTC | #880254

TheBroadRoad.com's Avatar Comment 25 by TheBroadRoad.com

Thanks for posting my story Richard Dawkins! I'm Jeremy. :)

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:52:10 UTC | #880257

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 26 by drumdaddy

Falsification, polarization, and insults are the grains in Murdoch's daily bread. O'Reilly is merely one of his prostitutes.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:01:06 UTC | #880259

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 27 by Neodarwinian

Not sure this is all that.

I would assume Fox News has the right to edit submissions as do all news outlets. If they edit them in their " favor " I do not see what can be done about it except doing exactly what Kopchak and Hendley are doing. Making it public.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:04:01 UTC | #880262

TheBroadRoad.com's Avatar Comment 28 by TheBroadRoad.com

Comment 7 by thpoc :

The last bit "truth will stand up to any scrutiny" is something he probably agreed with 100%, truth being Jesus ofcourse.

Actually the 'truth' I speak of is general. That the truth, whatever it is, should not fear scrutiny.

The truth for me personally is atheism.

I also simply claim that from an journalistic integrity point of view, this is unethical. I did not say he attacked Dawkins, I said that he discounts atheists. Furthermore did his shortening of my email even make it shorter than his normal emails posted? Not at all.

If had only remove the first and last sentences I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But he shouldn't (ethically) be posting people's emails to say something else without even noting that it was edited. He used quotation marks around it after all.

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:09:38 UTC | #880264

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 29 by ukvillafan

At the end of the day we can rest happy that when this excuse for a human being finally shuffles off, we'll have the last laugh. Not that he'll know it. And even if there were a heaen - he'd not be heading there

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:22:11 UTC | #880268

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 30 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:37:39 UTC | #880272