@omae:
I make it a point never to assume. You know what that ends up doing.
Let me rephrase that then:
Is the average person supposed to think that a clip they see on a news show that is introduced using the phrase "on-going" is supposed to think that clip is recent when no knowledge to the contrary is provided?
No folksy or pithy sayings, please. Just whether or not you think the average person would believe that clip was recent in nature.
Well, how many people does Jon Stewart take a shot at each night? Is there a double standard?
Not really; one of them pretends to be a balanced and fair news program while the other is open about the fact that it's a parody of news shows. It's kind of his job to make fun of people.
On the other hand, Stewart rarely ever prohibits his guests from speaking even when they have a differing viewpoint. His show usually has about as many conservative guests on it as it does liberals, so he has quite a few people on there that he doesn't agree with. If nothing else, I've never seen him have somebody's mike cut off because his guest contradicted him.
Much like Bush's statement or any quote from any figure political, non-political, media, non-media, etc. tends to be replayed for making some kind of point or something that sounds good.
Well, again, any such clip is going to be used as a commentary on the person saying it. Jon Stewart did not appear in the clip and O'Reilly singled him out by name. Why exactly?
After his attacks on George Soros, I can't help but think that it's because Stewart is Jewish.
Have they ever made a public announcement appologizing for any of those jokes?
Stewart once apologized to Barry Bonds on behalf of the media.
Democrat, Republican or human being, if you believe you see at face value without asking questions, you're just plain dim.
Can I ask why a person shouldn't accept something they see on a news show at face value? Why are journalism standards so low that such an idea if even acceptable?
I think you can call O'Reilly on a number of things but that seemed kind of weak. Have they changed their opinion since then? If so then he's totally wrong.
Changed their opinion on what? Christmas? Point blank, it's true. It's the only religious holiday that is also a Federal holiday, which strictly speaking violates the seperation of Church and State.
The entire notion of a War on Christmas is just Fox's way of making money off of rightwing nutjobs.