TV host should be fired for comments about city, Daly says

[UpInArms]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/12/COIT.TMP

Not everybody took Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's on-air comments this week about terrorists bombing Coit Tower as the hyperbole that fills the talk-radio ether. One of the ticked off was San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who Friday called for O'Reilly to be fired.

"For an anchor on a major station, Fox News, to be saying those kinds of things, it's just not OK," Daly said Friday. "It was just over the top."

Agreeing with Daly was San Francisco firefighters union president John Hanley, and not just because the hose-shaped tower is a tribute to firefighters.

"Who is this guy, O'Reilly?" said Hanley, who identified himself as both a third-generation San Franciscan and military veteran. "I've got guys fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm a veteran myself. What's he talking about?"

...more...

[geckosfeet]

1. Good. O'Reilly is a fool if he thinks FOX will bankroll this. n/t

[MagickMuffin]

33. Well, we all know that Fox would find it hard

to dismiss one of their favorite pie holes

[geckosfeet]

34. I wonder how talks so much with his mouth full of Ruppert Murdoch?

[bahrbearian]

2. and Tortured

[tanyev]

3. "Who is this guy?"

That will annoy him more than any of the other comments. :rofl:

I AM BILL O'REILLY!!!FEAR ME!!!!!

[Rose Siding]

4. Great remarks from Hanley- He bats O'Bull away like the bug he is

:D

[sellitman]

5. Imagine if Frankin had said something like this ?

The right wingnuts would of had a field day. Good thing we have a Liberal press.

End of sarcasm.

[Clark2008]

6. John Hanley - my new hero.

"Who is this guy, O'Reilly?"

:rofl:

Makes me laugh my ass off!! :7 I'm gonna send this story to Keith Olbermann. Hee hee.

[fshrink]

7. You would think

that the first thing that would have come to mind was a sky-scrapper or the Golden Gate. No, the individual went for the Coit tower. Penis-shaped building with a name that also means sexual intercourse. Unconsciously, due to the heat of the moment and to his exhibitionistic tendency, the indidivual let a personal issue escape his control. Now we can certainly hypothesize that repressed homosexuality is for the individual a very active problem, which seems likely to impair his judgment and to invade a large portion of his life. The violence of the statement, the image of terrible castration it conveys on a symbolic level, gives a measure of his homophobic defense.

[Clark2008]

8. You probably weren't meaning to be funny,

but your comments, which are so-very true, still made me :rofl:

Good call!!

[bluedeminredstate]

9. Wow.

Very interesting. I read your post several times because it makes so damn much sense.
How about analyzing the incorrect use of fallafel instead of loofah? That has always creeped me out, not to mention made me laugh my ass off.
:popcorn:

[Maraya1969]

13. I think that is an interesting observation. But all men get turned on

by phallic symbols I though - hence the need for Jaguars. So I don't necessarily think it is a homosexual thought. He just seems like he isn't getting any.

Whatever it is the man seems obsessed.

[fshrink]

15. Yes, but it's SF...

Homophobes' Sodome.

[Window]

37. LOL!

I don't think you meant that to be funny either...it's serious...but still funny.

Peace

[imouttahere]

10. Well, we've already seen what can happen to a city....

that isn't "repuke approved"

No federal assistance, but they sure as hell want to intervene when gays want to marry!

[DrZeeLit]

11. Hellloooo... it's t.v...... it's about $$$.... he's gotcha in the seat....

and they are NOT going to fire his ass..... It's about ratings and q-quotient (or whatever)...

Look! Everyone's watching him again because of this stunt.
DUH!

People... you wanna get rid of this garbage?
Take it out, put it on the curb...and... FORGET IT!
Ignore him.
Turn off the tube.
Let him rot on the air. Alone. Rant into thin air. Yada yada yada.
Don't go on his show.
Don't give him headlines, negative or positive.
Give him NOTHING.

With all this attention, his ego is fed and so is the Fox channel.

[geckosfeet]

12. Praise be and pass the ammo. I agree 200%. Every time you

tune in to FOX and O'Reilly you are "PUTTING CASH INTO THEIR POCKETS". I don't think people get that.

Whines and moans include the timeless "you have to know thy enemy" etc. etc. Everyone has their own reasons for paying these bastards.

Mostly I think that its hard for people to make the connection that simply by tuning into those channels (FOX, CNN etc.) you are helping them.

If you can't completely cut the cord with the infotainment industry at least stop watching AND PAYING those who despise and ridicule you.

[Garbo 2004]

26. I don't watch Billdo or Fox, but unless you're a Nielsen participant how

does having your TV on a channel put money in their pockets? How does that work? My cable fee may indeed provide bucks for Fox, etc channels but that happens regardless whether I watch a Fox station or CSPAN. But please explain how just watching any channel while not participating in the Nielsen rating system specifically "puts cash" in that specific network's pockets? Some people keep saying this but don't say how that works. So please explain your contention.

Advertising rates for broadcast/cable TV ratings are based on Nielsen ratings results. As a viewer one has to participate in the Nielsen surveys either via diaries or a Nielsen meter box in order to count towards ratings. Do you have other info to indicate how ratings are derived otherwise?

Murdoch didn't like his Nielsen results a couple years ago and went after Nielsen, unsucessfully, to block expansion of Nielsen's use of people meter boxes. If Nielsen ratings in the industry weren't a big deal in terms of audience measurement and advertising dollars, doubtful that Murdoch have bothered. Despite all the hype about Fox News Channel's ratings, Sponge Bob still beats Fox and Billdo.

[geckosfeet]

28. Look , you pay a bill every month, you pay for a subscription to

keep that stuff streaming into your home.

My personal suspicion is that the cable companies need to monitor loads on any given channel and can see which shows, channels etc. are being watched.

This can't be traced back to any particular viewer (that would be illegal of course) but to keep the system up and running they need to have some idea what kind of usage to expect.

No I have no hard evidence or data that cable companies monitor usage - but if your had to run a cable system wouldn't you want to have some idea what was going on?

When you pay your bill every month - some that goes to yours trully. You pay your cable bill, you pay Bill O'Reilly.

on edit: spelling and added 2nd to last para.

[Garbo 2004]

29. So exactly as I said regarding the cable fee, it doesn't matter what

a cable viewer watches as long as the viewer isn't participating in Nielsen surveys or monitoring. The licensing agreement contracts pay out per system subscriber not specific viewers. It's built into the base and it really doesn't matter what station is viewed, which was my contention.

Fox when it began lowballed the licensing fees, signed 10 year contracts and also provided financial inducements (money) up front to get cable companies to carry them. Fox will of course ask for higher per subscriber fees and more favorable terms in its new contracts with cable providers but its demands will be backed by its Nielsen ratings. Your personal suspicion notwithstanding, licensing fees are not based on cable systems' monitoring of viewers usage. Nielsen is still the standard for determining a program's appeal to viewers. That's why ratings are still a big deal on cable when licensing contracts are up for renewal.

And advertising dollars still are a major source of revenue and those also are based on Nielsen ratings and demographics.

So again, unless a cable subscriber is a Nielsen participant it really makes no actual difference whether the subscriber actually watches Fox or not. Thus simply tuning in the channel does not provide FNC with additional revenue as you contended.

[geckosfeet]

32. Ok. I overstated. Thanks for keeping me honest.

I do feel that every time a subscriber pays their bill they are voting to support the channels that they are subscribed to. If its piped to your box - you are a subscriber whether you change the channel or not.

What options do viewers have, besides voting with their feet? Many are not willing to make the commitment of opting out. This amounts to implicit support of the conservative talking heads they rant about.

[girl gone mad]

22. He won't be fired..

and I'm afraid he's just getting tons of free publicity.

[NanceGreggs]

25. Agreed!

It's the same with all of these people. Imagine if Ann Coulter suddenly turned into a soft-spoken, intelligent, well-informed author who looked at both sides of a political story?

Who on earth would book her for a TV appearance?

Nobody, that's who.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. O'Lielly should get his ass sued off. He's such a jerk.

[msongs]

16. its all just PR to get "people" to watch and promote him - its working nt

[progressoid]

17. "Who is this guy, O'Reilly?"

That statement is enough to drop a year off O'Lielly's life. His ego won't allow him to think there is someone out there that doesn't know him.

nya nya nya nya nya

[SomewhereOutThere424]

18. It should be taken as treason

Nothing more, nothing less. He's inciting terrorists to attack it -- as terrorists do watch american media for vulnerability. He also basically made the administration look worse in the fact he's making it sound like they'd be willing to leave fellow americans high and dry (not that we don't know they're like that, but to your average gullible o'reilly watcher, maybe they'll get the message FINALLY).

[LisaL]

31. Exactly. He even gave terrorists a specific target.

He should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law. What gave him an idea terrorist will listen to what he have to say? Sure sounds suspicious to me.

[LiberalFighter]

19. San Francisco local and area residents should boycott FOX and

their local advertisers.

[cliss]

20. My personal theory:

There are certain people who are controversial, who are always pushing the envelope. They always try to go to the extreme, but they stop just short of the limit. They're always standing on the edge of the abyss, flirting with disaster. Sometimes, however, they go too far.

Take Michael Savage, for example. He hit his zenith about 1 year ago. He told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die". At that point, Savage went over the abyss. His show was cancelled on several stations. At this point, he is old news.

Once you hit your zenith of fame, it's all downhill from there. Same thing with O'Really.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

21. I hope so

Maybe he'll go the way of howard stern, if any liberals get in an uproar like all the conservatives do nowadays...

[Oceansaway]

36. Best Post i've seen today !! Thanks !!

[lenegal]

23. Bill Oreally need to have the shit kicked out of him

in a dark alley.

Hopefully soon. Very soon.

[POAS]

24. Yep, invite him to SF and introduce him

to a dark alley full of evil Californians with baseball bats.

[Ken Burch]

41. Make it evil GAY Californians with baseball bats, while you're at it

nt

[Brundle_Fly]

27. He was caught red handed sexually harrassing a staff member...

like this will stop his continued freak show, need some boots on the ground in NYC and SF making noise, big noise.

[skooooo]

30. I agree!

O'Reilly is a terrorist.

[Beaverhausen]

35. Kicking this...

[LSDMTMA]

38. He SHOULD have been Fired.

Long ago.

[Deja Q]

39. Any one of us saying that would be hauled off to jail.

[Rainscents]

40. Maybe his rating is going down is why he doing pulling this stunt.

It's been a while since cable rating came out. I would like to see new rating.