Bill O'Reilly-Principal vs Money?

Upton · #1 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 03:25 PM

Mark Cuban responds to Bill O'Reilly's attacks on the movie Redacted.

Quote:

Bill OReilly - Principle vs Money ?

Nov 16th 2007 5:45PM
To say Mr OReilly has had it in for me the last month or so would be an understatement. Every day he seemed to take pride in calling me every name in the book and questioning my patriotism. I've already covered my feelings on that subject in blog posts here and here. I've talked about what I, or anyone can do to serve their country here.

What I was curious about was whether this really was important to Mr OReilly, or whether he was just a ratings whore and would say whatever he needed to say to get more people to watch.

I needed to design a very simple test to determine Mr OReilly's motivation. It occured to me to see if FoxNews would take an ad for the movie Redacted.

I had someone call FoxNews and tell them specifically, unequivocally that we wanted to run an ad for the movie Redacted. The same movie Bill OReilly was so upset about.

They said no problem. Do you want to run the ads in both the live show and the repeat ?

Our first reaction was that this was just the sales department and at some point , someone at FoxNews would step in and stop the ads from running. The call to say they were stopping the ads never came.

The ad ran in both shows. Here is a link with Bill's smiling face at the end.

So Mr OReilly , the king of the OReilly Factor, the man who called this movie Anti American and said erroneously it could cause harm to American Troops, was willing to overlook those points and take our money to promote the movie.

We aren't talking about an ad in a show that Mr OReilly has an interest in. This is an ad in the TV show that bears his name. This is a show that he controls from top to bottom. He knowingly took multiple ads for a movie that he he hasnt seen, but believes to be vile. What does that say about Mr OReilly ?

Of course Mr OReilly can make the argument that he is not involved in the sale of ads, he leaves that to other people. OK, but lets think about the scenario at Fox News if that is the case.

If Mr OReilly doesnt know about the ads, I would think that the people at his show would know and care about his positions, wouldnt you ?" So the question is, do they know that Mr OReilly is all about the money first , last and every bit in between and thats why they took the ad ?

Or is it that they know exactly what Mr OReilly stands for and hate him for it, or could care less what he thinks and they took the ad to spite him ?

Is it that no one involved with Mr OReilly actually watches the show ? Which is why after the ad ran in the live show, no one caught it and had it replaced in the replay ?

its about responsibility Mr OReilly.

And while Im on the subject of Mr OReilly and his ethics, let me add a couple thoughts:

In response to Mr OReilly's comments that "he is going to be my worst nightmare". Well you have succeeded Mr OReilly. The people who take you literally took it upon themselves to call my businesses with bomb threats, threaten employees, myself and others with physical harm and wish every manor of death , injury and illness on us all. They also managed to fill up the telephone lines of the Fallen Patriot Fund so that we couldn't conduct business, and maybe its coincidence, but the fund's website went offline for the first time ever yesterday.

What say you Mr O'Reilly ?

Bill OReilly - Principle vs Money ? - Blog Maverick

Still Dizzy · #2 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 04:31 PM

The point went WAY over your head. O'Reilly was stating HIS opinion. He respects your's enough to give YOU the chance to air your commercial.

See THAT is what is known as BALANCED, a word totally unfarmiliar to Liberal/Socialistss.

Teak · #3 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

So Mr OReilly , the king of the OReilly Factor, the man who called this movie Anti American and said erroneously it could cause harm to American Troops, was willing to overlook those points and take our money to promote the movie.

I hate to imagine the diatribe that would have followed a rejection of the ads.

36shadow · #4 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 06:03 PM

I smell BS here can't prove it but you know the lengths radicals will go to even lie.

Upton · #5 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

I smell BS here can't prove it but you know the lengths radicals will go to even lie.

You "can't prove it" ? Typically right wing.

justme · #6 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Dizzy

The point went WAY over your head. O'Reilly was stating HIS opinion. He respects your's enough to give YOU the chance to air your commercial.

See THAT is what is known as BALANCED, a word totally unfarmiliar to Liberal/Socialistss.

Peak is also correct...if O'Reilly had somehow banned the commercials, can you imagine the crying that would be going on?
Also, in Uptons usual one-sided, one-dimensional view, he will never get the point if it involves any intellectual honesty.
He probably really just believes anything his chosen web-sites tell him. Pretty common among the "deep, independent" thinkers in here.
Otherwise, he might question whether Olbermann and other left-leaning talking heads support and approve every ad showed during their shows.
Oh yeah, hypocrisy only exists on the right.

But beyond that...imagine the horror to find that commercial television SELLS ADS for revenue!!!!! And to really top it off, I did some research and guess what, I know this will not sit right with Upton and his "ilk", but I also discovered this practice has been going on for YEARS. It even precedes the Bush administration!!!!

Upton · #7 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justme

Peak is also correct...if O'Reilly had somehow banned the commercials, can you imagine the crying that would be going on?
Also, in Uptons usual one-sided, one-dimensional view, he will never get the point if it involves any intellectual honesty.
He probably really just believes anything his chosen web-sites tell him. Pretty common among the "deep, independent" thinkers in here.
Otherwise, he might question whether Olbermann and other left-leaning talking heads support and approve every ad showed during their shows.
Oh yeah, hypocrisy only exists on the right.

But beyond that...imagine the horror to find that commercial television SELLS ADS for revenue!!!!! And to really top it off, I did some research and guess what, I know this will not sit right with Upton and his "ilk", but I also discovered this practice has been going on for YEARS. It even precedes the Bush administration!!!!

You're effort to defend O'Reilly is almost funny. Ads ran, during his show, for a movie he claimed would be responsible for the deaths of American servicemen. Think of it what you like.

justme · #8 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

You're effort to defend O'Reilly is almost funny. Ads ran, during his show, for a movie he claimed would be responsible for the deaths of American servicemen. Think of it what you like.

Never defended O'Reilly. In fact, I rarely watch his show. He's too self-important to me. But contrary to what you believe, he has as much right to speak his mind as do Oprah, Olbermann, Colmes...Take your pick.
But the medium of television uses advertising to pay the bills. The talking heads have little to no control over what is sold as advertising. Real world business, check it out.
Unlike you who would "free" us all by "controlling" what was broadcast, I was merely pointing out that some of your heroes may also be on shows that have advertising they may not agree with.
Your silly little attempt to make it appear as though its unique to O'Reilly is, well, silly.
Think of it what you like.

Upton · #9 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justme

Your silly little attempt to make it appear as though its unique to O'Reilly is, well, silly.
Think of it what you like.

Then I must assume you are accusing Mark Cuban, of being "silly", as well.

Your point about ad revenues is not without merit. I do, however, have a sneaky feeling that if this was Kieth Olbermann in a similar situation, you would be no where near as understanding.

36shadow · #10 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

You "can't prove it" ? Typically right wing.

Thank you for proving my point, just because I don't by it for face value you peg me as a Rep. and I'm not either bright one. I am not a O'Reily supporter but I don't see the man letting something like this go on. Especialy with the contempt he has for the film and the man. I am not the one that needs to prove it you are the one attacking someone don't you think it your responsability to confront the one you acuse and prove it. Oh no that would make you believe in the constitution.hmmmmmmmm