O’Reilly study generates national attention

[JTFrog]

http://journalism.indiana.edu/news/oreilly-study-generates-national-attention/

The research team analyzed 105 segments of O’Reilly’s "Talking Points Memo," a segment that opens his nightly show on Fox News Network. The segments were recorded from shows airing between the first week of January to the last week of June 2005.

In these segments, they looked for the seven elements of propaganda previously identified by the IPA: name calling, glittering generalities, transfer, testimonial, plain folks, card stacking and band wagon. Techniques were measured by the number of times they occurred in a minute, a strategy Conway said he thought would counteract the different lengths of the two men’s broadcasts.

The data shows that O’Reilly used all seven of these techniques. Most prominent in his verbiage is the use of name calling, occurring an average of 8.88 times per minute, or close to once every seven seconds.

A pattern also exists in the subjects of this name-calling. The "left-leaning media" led the pack, receiving 21.6 percent of the name calling during the studied time. Illegal aliens and terrorists also held prominence, receiving 26.8 percent and 21.4 percent respectively, with academics rounding out the top four, the study stated.

[izquierdista]

1. I hope they don't feel slighted

That they, as academics, only rank #4 on the list of vile and evil. But I guess since they were in the journalism department, they can claim to be #1 evildoers as well. And if you were a visiting professor from a foreign country, then you could claim to be single-handedly destroying Billo's world. :rofl:

[get the red out]

2. This will inspire Glen Beck

Glen Beck will now have to work harder to catch up to O'Reilly's propaganda standards. I am sure this will be a source of pride for Fox.

[gratuitous]

13. It's "Glenn" Beck

The extra "n" is for his superior knowledge!

[get the red out]

15. I figured it would be for "Nonsense"

[RoBear]

16. Wouldn't that be Nowledge???

n/t

[gratuitous]

18. Glenn isn't very s-m-r-t

If you know what I mean, and I think you do.

[MiniMe]

19. You beat me to it

:hi:

[WeDidIt]

3. Looking at the study, I'd like to see them do the same to Olberman

I'd bet you'd see similar results.

[baldguy]

4. .

:eyes:

[Kalyke]

5. Probably not.

He does some name-calling - and even has a whole segment just TO name-call - but he doesn't really speak in glittering generalities, play to "jus' folks," or band-wagoner (have you seen the complaints regarding Olbermann's questioning of Obama on this board?).

So, nope - probably not.

[WeDidIt]

10. I was thinking his worsts and bests segments. n/t

[Kalyke]

20. And I reference those... but those are the only ones - the name-calling.

He doesn't do all the other stuff on that list.

[HopeHoops]

6. Olberman religiously does something O'Reilly almost never (if ever) does.

Olberman backs up his claims with REFERENCES! They even appear on the screen under the claim or quote. O'Reilly just sucks some random "fact" out of his ass and expects his sheep to accept it as true.

As for name calling, Olberman does use labels but he carefully selects the terms he will use. The exception, of course, is when he is having fun with someone like O'Reilly and THEN, oh yes, he likes that name calling thing! I view that more as humor than anything.

Still, I agree that it would be interesting to see the same set of metrics applied to Olberman.

[KittyWampus]

7. Is Olbermann part of an organized political network? O'Reilly is part of a network that extends

from:

1. Grover Norquist who holds weekly meetings
2. Strategists like Rove who help shape and distribute the decided upon talking points from Norquist's meetings
3. Media conglomerates owned and managed by people who want those talking points repeated
4. Media personalities who disseminate the talking points
5. Willing accomplices in Far Right pulpits
6. Willing accomplices in Far Right organizations who receive talking points and act on them

ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE PART OF AN INTENTIONALLY CREATED NETWORK.

Where is the same network behind Olbermann?

[Robb]

8. I'd like to see that too.

Although I don't think it would be the same, I do have a bias. :shrug:

[lxlxlxl]

9. Yeah but first you'd have to balance the number of years Bill has on Fox, plus his 3 hour radio show

there is no equivalence.

[Winterblues]

12. I would venture just the opposite so yes I would also like to see an analysis

I watch Countdown often and I don't feel like I am being fed propaganda but I do feel like exposure happens consistantly. Propaganda is usually based upon falsehoods. I have yet to hear anybody left or right say what Keith says is untrue.

[DaveinJapan]

17. msnbc engages in propaganda as well

no doubt there. I find it difficult to take ANY of it seriously (seems we have two extreme channels, and then a whole bunch in between...but it's all propaganda as far as I'm concerned and it's pretty much impossible to find a truly OBJECTIVE news organization any more). *sigh*

[lxlxlxl]

11. wordle analysis of transcripts

I'm surprised no one has run Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity, or whoevers transcripts through Wordle...

I dont even know if Rush allows transcripts actually...

[RandomThoughts]

14. I think the day will come when children are taught how to avoid

the tricks of tyranny, by watching in classrooms, the techniques used by some of the talk show host we have today.

On a side note, if there was time travel(which I do not believe in), that would explain why they do not like fox news either :P

[SpiralHawk]

21. Chickenhawk O'Reilly is an overpaid Republicon propagandist

Nice that they did this study, but anyone paying attention already knew O'Reilly is an overpaid Republicon propagandist Chickenhawk Pharisee (getting in some reciprocal name calling propaganda to be FAIR and BALANCED).

[glinda]

22. Is Rove getting paid?