Bill O'Reilly Selectively Edits Joan Walsh Interview
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jun 16, 2009 8:00am
How do you know that you've made Bill O'Reilly feel like a chump? When he decides that he's going to re-run his interview with you, without you there to defend yourself, and then selectively edit the footage and ignore large swaths of actual fact-based information (as opposed to the largely non-fact-based "reporting" so prevalent to Fox News). Such is the case with Salon.com's Joan Walsh, who so thoroughly humiliated Billo on Friday that I'm sure he stewed over it all weekend and decided that he had to reassert his lost manhood by bringing on sycophantic Mary Katherine Ham and Juan Williams to reassure him that Billo was still da man.
Note Bill's disingenuous framing of the whole interview: it's all about how the crazed liberals have no regard for the rights of the unborn from being murdered for callous reasons. Never mind that his producers sandbagged Walsh by telling her that she was on to talk about right wing violence. Never mind that the procedure that Dr. Tiller performed was not only legal, but highly regulated, and exceptionally rare. The 60,000 casual late term abortions that Billo cites is pulled from his rather constipated posterior region and doesn't pass even the most basic math logic test (That would mean that Tiller performed 16 late term, casual, abortions every day, 7 days a week, for TEN YEARS). Never mind that Dr. Tiller was acquitted by a Kansas grand jury for not violating the law (after only deliberating for an hour) and that the principal expert cited by O'Reilly, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, has his own controversies that call his agenda to question (McHugh, a former member of Bush43's Council on Bioethics, is a Vatican witness called to dismiss claims of DID in victims of priest molestation and has publicly scorned transsexuals and called for the end of gender reassignment surgery).
Yet for Bill, it's all about the babies. These poor, non-existent, viable fetuses that are being thrown out by their mothers (no doubt liberals) and enabled by the insidious Dr. Tiller. Doesn't Joan Walsh understand how wrong it is to blame Bill O'Reilly for his inflammatory rhetoric over completely fabricated and untrue circumstances that may have resonated so much with someone with only a tenuous grasp on ethics that he may have actually taken an innocent man's life? How dare Walsh be so intolerant?
By the way, Walsh herself had a little fun on Twitter over Billo's antics:
Login or Register to post comments.
It would be a waste of time to complain about O'Reilly's lack of journalistic ethics and integrity.
than BOR!
What a goddamn nutsack.
This is just like them. Look, folks that watch FOX believe what they want to believe. Just like Hannity did to Obama's speech in Egypt. I agree its a waste of time. They just give their readers what they want to hear and get the ratings. Its just entertainment to me now unfortunately.
your correct it's entertainment but it's not without consequences. i can rarely listen to o'really i guess it could be said because i don't fit the demographics or i'm not wired that way. actually i understand others listening to this knob. why? because the extreme right and some not so extreme
really do listen to this guy. he uses linguistic framing and it's very effective. it's important that know the opposition strategy. like it or not there are people that only listen to o'really for news/info.
he's a master of negative linguistic framing. it's somewhat important to counter his nonsense.
I find its best for me not to look at FOX. FOX is just down right mean and think you are stupid. I get upset. Life is too short. I am turning down MSNBC too. I watch PBS and love the Daily Show.
calling it that is buying into their BS way of gettin away with being fascist propagandists.
They're fomenting violence against anyone that isn't one of them.
This is NOT entertainment.
It's hate speeech.
But I do agree with you that O'Really is extremely good at using language frames to make his point across, which to many non-critical thinkers makes him sound convincing and even rational. Add to that his personality type and bully-like behavior and you got yourself an audience completely fooled by what he says. Guests need to be very careful when appearing on this buffoon's show and come prepared to counter O'Really's style with calm and assertive statements. The more they give in to his explosive temperament the better O'Really looks. For a good example of how to handle BillO check out the interview with Phil Donahue about the Iraq war here
He was a no shit takin SOB.
And I mean that in the good way.
And that's exactly why NBC got rid of him: so the military-industrial complex could go to two wars, one at least based on lies, and bankrupt us all.
if he wanted to make a comeback.
they do group testing. they know their listening/watching demographics. some of these watchers want to be lied to at any cost. they can't/don't want the truth. that would possibly
spoil their culture club beliefs. wedge issues are a strategy that i'm sick of. o'really is just the messenger to get "we the people" further divided and to vote against their best interest.
that's what obama was getting at when speaking of guns and bibles when he spoke to a group in san francisco. o'really wants to hang on to this demographic in fear that they might realize they are being had. they want us to be opposing and to say hateful things back toward them. walsh really didn't do that. that pisses o'really off. he wants conflict for his BLACK and WHITE thinkers. they want their dose of false righteousness. they were used
by BUSH/rove and now gingrich/o'really.
it's entertainment for haters. the cultural/subcultural divides are so deep some people want
reasons/obvious conflict to rationalize their cultural existence. theres a big "i hate them because they(perceive) hate me mentality". this continuation/dependency on pop culture wedge issue(s) info to rationalize ones subculture at the expense of another. it's manipulation/propaganda to continue false two party system. without these two wedge issues abortion and same sex marriage the (r) would/could get even smaller.
I agree, but for me it's not even entertainment any more. It's the same old spin/lies on every issue. So whereas I used to occasionally watch just to see the stupidity, now it's not even unique stupidity.
But I can see why the 23%ers watch - it continually supports their own stupidity.
Bill O the Clown at it again... too bad he doesn't just STFU and fade off into the sunset, like the loser he is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKYCjbBDcmY
they are looking for a sound bite, they will get it, and they will throw it back at ya.
Any liberal going to that channel is delusional, or a fool. They are only providing FOX not only a certain level of validation as a news organization, but at the same time they are providing sound bite fodder for their audience of knuckle draggers...
If liberals ignore FOX news altogether, eventually they will run out of soundbites and the audience ratings for their perennial conservative circle jerks will start dropping...
My only problem with your point is that it's obvious to me that Fox News already has problems getting Liberals on their show. That's why they have taken to ambush reporting even more than before. They are hoping to get new talking points from Liberals by ambushing them and hoping they say something that Fox News, can use.
... just don't acknowledge them. Do not talk to them. Do not even give them the time of day.
Eventually they will go away, or will perish in some freak circle jerk accident. These right wingers are into some freaky sh*t, so if you leave them alone... it is guaranteed to degenerate into something weird, awful, and utterly destructive. So the trick is to not get stained when their bullshit reaches critical mass and collapses into itself.
they just make it up out of a fabric of lies, distortions and Exaggerations - Hey it worked for Joseph Goebbels!
Liberals need to learn how to handle crackpots like O'Reilly. You can know two things about FOX in advance:
1) They will ask a simple-sounding question (e.g., "Do you believe late term fetuses should have any protections?") that gloss over all the important details that make the issue difficult for most rational people; and
2) They will then obfuscate ANY valid point you make by pointing out that you never answered their "simple question."
So here's what you do:
1) Answer their dilettantish question with YES or NO (here, Joan Walsh's answer should have been an emphatic "NO"), then stop and stare at them while they gather themselves;
2) After their next set of stammers, offer an equally silly rationale that exposes the naivety of their question (e.g., "To afford fetuses equal protection under the law, we would have to award citizenship and social security cards in utero. I don't know how or when to do that." Or alternatively, "The problem is that with such protections, stillborn babies would technically count as manslaughter cases, which would require the whole CSI thing with the chalk outlines and stuff in the labor room. It would probably be messy." Or even better, "With such protections, pregnant women who smoke or drink wine would, by definition, be contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I don't think we can police all that.")
Get it? Make it clear that the interview is idiotic, rather than just leaving to the d-bags who watch FOX to NOT figure that out for themselves.
just look at his face! He's such a wanker and a total jackass!!
Never mind that so many late term abortions is to retrieve the corpse of a foetus which died in utero.
The most utterly revolting thing about this is the phony outrage about "casual abortions". No woman enters the third trimester of a pregnancy and then just "decides" she'd rather not have the baby. The assertion is utterly ludicrous. What appalls me the most about O'Reilly, Beck, et al is that they get paid millions to talk shit and bluster to a camera but rationalize that they're standing up for the defenseless...Nauseating, reprehensible, little men.
To the whole late-term abortion situation, but upon doing research on the subject I did find it disconcerting that any woman in this country can demand an abortion of a healthy 6 month fetus simply because she "didn't know she was pregnant"?, "didn't have the $400 for a 12 week abortion"?, "couldn't make up my mind!!?"?
I sympathize with a doctor who will abort a late term pregnancy because the fetus is dead and is a toxic danger to the mother, or because the fetus has been discovered through amniocentesis to have no brain, no arms and legs, severe birth defects, open spine etc.
But to willingly abort a healthy six month gestated fetus because the mother is an idiot baffles me as a medical professional. "First, do no harm." Right?
Obviously I would never condone the murder of any doctor for doing what he is allowed to do under the law, yet I do find it troubling that any physician in the United States is legally allowed to murder a healthy fetus (that could be saved in a Neonatal ICU) simply on the whim of a "mother" who "just doesn't want it".
And just for the record, I am pro-choice...although my choice begins at contraception and ends with the aborting of healthy fetuses.
Abbybwood, R.N.
Women can not abort a late term pregnancy on a whim. Late term abortions are highly regulated and performed by very few practitioners. In fact, Dr. Tiller's murder reduced the number of practitioners in this country by a third.
Women must get the written recommendation of two separate physicians that this is the best therapeutic course of action. This is done when the health/life of the mother is in danger or the fetus is considered non-viable.
This is NEVER done because the mother is no longer interested in being pregnant. These are false conditions given by O'Reilly and McHugh and do not actually exist in reality.
The example Billo gives just doesn't exist.
Here's the website I read by a woman who is pro-choice and who worked in a hospital that performed every type of abortion. Here's the link and a few pertinent comments she made:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/02...
"I could go on and on, but want to now focus on Mercy Abortions.
These are abortions past 24 weeks.
Who are the women who delay into the second and third trimester? There are several characteristics:
In general, they are younger.
They are less educated.
They are more rural, where healthcare is more inaccessible.
They tend to be poorer than women who get early abortions.
And they have more lifestyle and emotional issues. Oftentimes, the unintended pregnancy is the easiest of their problems to solve.
Now, I'm sure your first concern is Why. Why would a woman wait so long? Here's a few of the many reasons why women delay getting abortions:
Money. Many women don't have $400 sitting around in a savings account to pay for an early abortion. Delay happens in raising the money, borrowing it, pawning stuff for it, etc.
Denial. Many young women especially so want not to be pregnant that they deny their obvious symptoms of pregnancy and attribute them to other causes. They're missing their period because they're irregular. They're gaining wait because they've been eating too much. They've got the flu. Many young women even hide their pregnancies from their parents with big baggy shirts, fake periods, etc.
Fetal anomalies".
End quote.
I understand that the vast majority of these "late term" 24 week abortions are medically justified and require the signatures of two doctors.
What I am confused about is how two doctors could sign a statement agreeing that a woman (and her fetus) are candidates for a 24 week abortion when there is NO danger to the mother and the fetus is normal.
I'm not "agreeing" with Bill O' Reilly. I just think it behooves all of us to get our stories straight.
For me, one fetus being aborted at 6 months gestation for no known medical reason is wrong.
Just my opinion.
does not research make, abbybwood.
Why do you think that two doctors are signing off on these late term abortions for no known medical reasons?
First off, looking at her blog, she makes the point that LESS THAT .02% of the abortions performed in the US are late term abortions--that's a very small number.
She then says that most of these were due not to the two reasons listed first, but due to fetal anomalies.
Again, I have no problem with women opting not to carry a non-viable fetus to term.
But what you're focusing on is less than .02% of the abortions as somehow being the problem? That's a little like blaming marijuana for driving while intoxinated deaths because .005% of those deaths had a joint in the car. Yes, it's a sad fact of life, but it's not by a long shot an overriding problem.
The rightwingers in Kansas went after Tiller with this kind of thinking, saying he was too casually signing off on late term abortions. A Kansas grand jury took only one hour to deliberate before exonerating him of all charges.
Still think it's a big problem?
So long as one single late-term abortion is being performed "legally" in this country where the woman's health is NOT in danger and the fetus is normal all it's doing is giving jerks like Bill O' Reilly the ammo they need to raise a stink.
I am only stating my opinion.
Sadly I do realize that Dr. Tiller would have probably lost his life even if he'd NEVER performed that one late term abortion of a normal fetus to a woman whose health/life was not in danger.
For the record, I would work along side any licensed OB/GYN and assist him/her with a 24 week abortion if I knew it was medically necessary for the mother or the fetus had a congenital anomaly, and all the paperwork was in order.
But if the situation was otherwise, I'd have to excuse myself from the room.
but at the same time, I think it misses the forest for the trees.
We're talking about more than 99.98% of abortions performed legally and for legitimate reasons.
Is there any law that you can think of that is respected 100% of the time?
Abbybwood,
It is not legal for a woman to get an abortion after 24 weeks unless there is an extenuating circumstance. (The supreme court in Roe v. Wade said that the state has a legitimate interest in the protection of the life of the fetus post-viability, the states are free to make their own laws regarding how that interest is protected - the majority of states only allow post-viability abortions if the health of the mother is at risk or the baby will not be viable.)
I.E. it is illegal for a doctor to abort a post-viability, healthy fetus if there is no risk to the mother's health.
This is exactly what Tiller was accused of and acquitted of.
PS. I've been meaning to inquire if one of these two women are you.
I vaguely recall a video you pointed out some time ago with regard to our "Right to Bare Arms" though that's not to be confused with the right to Bare a babies arms. :P
I was impressed with your clip and the weapon displayed, obvious by this inquiry.
Though I can't retrieve the aforementioned clip unfortunately, the related comment, I'm sure would be in the C&L's archives... at some point around the beginning of this year. What caught my minds eye as well, I believe at one time you claimed to reside on Long Island, for which I've spent a great deal of time. If I'm mistaken as to the [Name, Abbybwood], please except my sincere apologies.
As I would of additionally been mistaken, when I attempted to introduce another Long island NY resident to your presence for commonality purposes. And that one was related to a Maddof thread. In short, the assumed gentleman had stated his opinion on Maddof, claiming to be an attorney I believe, from a somewhat affluent part of the island on the western end.
So after that detailed preface... My question remains, I've been meaning to inquire if one of these two women are you? Hence the Name [Abbybwood]
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AON76RDCAE )
PS. Is that a "Ron Paul" sign on the utility pole near the mailbox, at approximately the (0:53) second mark? "Not that there is anything wrong with that." :P I try to be a good listener, but I phuck up, just like everyone else!
Yes, tis I in the infamous dog walking video. I'm the one in the red jacket who can't throw a snow ball and hit a freakin' tree from 15 feet. That's when I was living in East Haddam, CT. I was routing for Ron Paul because I was hoping he would shake things up in the Republican camp. It certainly made watching the Republican "debates" more fun! I actually attended the Republican Straw Poll in Middletown, CT and Ron Paul came in third. The Hartford Courant refused to post the results. Ha!!
And yes, I did live in Westhampton Beach, New York and ended up working for Obama and actually had a big Moveon.org party at my home there for him.
But this is the video I'd like to be remembered for. I did it a few weeks before Halloween and it shows my "comedic" side":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj5PI0NKe0U
Your integrity is commendable... If I must say so myself! "Westhampton Beach" Ooh La La ;)
Middletown, CT... Ya don't say; then maybe you overheard me yelling "Oh Yea" during our presentation? I believe Mr. Paul went on the next day or so to hedge out Ms. Clinton in an simulated general presidential election, straw poll.
I admire Ron dearly and myself own his first ever autographed copy... [In CD format) of his book, Revolution a manifesto. Was signed down at Boarders in the city April of last year.
Though as an atheist, I was alarmed at the religious passions of the bulk of his other admirers and was resigned to endorse President Obama as the best for my country. Hoping some of his Parents beliefs bubble to the surface and I think they have.
In ending... we all want, what's right and just, it's simply how we get there thats the problem. :-/ I just don't want somebody's "True beliefs" guided by faith to rule my country or world, I admire facts. Thank you for your time and as I said before... be careful on that L.I.E. (Long Island Expressway) the traffic can get horrendous.:P
Happy you liked the Palin clip...
I'm actually away from the L.I.E.
I'm in the Berkshires now, at least until October. Then it might be back to L.A. where all my boys are.
So far I really like it here! It's hard core four seasons, but that's kind of cool. We had a rip-roaring thunder and lightning storm yesterday afternoon with hail!
You just don't get that kind of cosmic weather in Venice, Cali.
I really admire Ron Paul for trying to get legislation passed to demand an audit of the Federal Reserve! He has 100 co-sponsors in the House so far. Yet I see where today the Obama Administration wants to give the Federal Reserve yet MORE power! (Plus I love Kucinich and he and Ron Paul are very close on many issues):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/...
Great Barrington, MA is a quaint little town, only a short drive to (Tanglewood Music Center) across the road from some strange spiritual retreat, known by the name of [Kripalu center for yoga & health]... Don't get me wrong, the people are extremely friendly and well to do if ya catch my drift. they're located on the outskirts of Lenox, another quaint little town.
From there it's just a skip and a hop to [Guido's] in Pittsfield, MA, where I met the "Time to make the doughnuts" guy shopping! So many nice spots up there.
If ya take RT. 2 with its "hairpin-curve" you'll travel through "Florida, MA", on your way to "Bill Cosby's" neck of the woods and the beautiful town of Shelburne Falls. Nice scenery indeed!
As for Mr. Paul's legislation to audit the FED. [HR 1207], if his peeps' are correct, they claim he has 229 co-sponsors? :-O
Anyway, if ya stay for the autumn foliage, lookout for the leaf-peepers' they tend to get preoccupied with the beauty up there. :) Hope your eye is better... Chow! ♥
Ref. note the "Hair-pin" curve on RT.2 west of Florida...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=fire...
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...
http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/img/valle1...
http://www.thesunblog.com/entertainment/23233...
Thanks for the heads-up on day trip destinations.
You'll probably never see this since it's buried now, but I do appreciate it.
I happened to attend a "Select Board" meeting last night in Lee about the quagmire happening at Laurel Lake. It's only about a 20 minute drive from here and much prettier than Lake Onato.
Everything was cool at Sandy Beach (called the Jewel of the Berkshires) until some sawmill sold a piece of property in a dirty deal to a guy for $50k (appraised at $160k) and this was after a huge farm offered to purchase at full price and GIVE it to the city of Lee.
Now the jerk is trying to shake down Lee for $7000 this summer to drive on the road to get to the beach. Otherwise it's a 15 minute walk. Obviously the handicapped etc. wouldn't be able to go to the beach.
I suggested they KEEP the $7000 and build a dock at the beach and purchase a small pontoon/ferry and charge $3/person for a round trip boat ride to the beach!
The guy's such a jerk that he's making people leave the beach now a half hour BEFORE SUNSET! (The most beautiful sunset view in the Berkshires).
Eminent Domain is looking better and better to these folks I think.
I'll check out your links.
Thanks! (I'd put a heart, but I have no idea how you do that!)
In brief... If ya recall the soap in the eye remark ya made? One of the stores I delivered to, was at that time named "Avaleens" or sumpin like that? Now as I look... the name seems to be, "Sunflowers Natural Foods & Clover's Organic Market"?... not to far from the super 8, MA pike and even closer to what I believe would be considered, "The town green"? The two Sisters who owned the store in Lenox, had a nice little Biz aka Clearwater.
Anywho, I'll keep an eye out for ya... pun intended ;)
PS.My secret... OS=XP → Start → Programs → Accessories → System Tools → √ Character Map! Good luck ;)
The long and short of it really just comes down to wanting to control women (ain't gonna happen!!!)
They are not "men". They are sissy boys.
these utter idiots to understand the complexities of the female reproductive system!!!!!
O'Reilly still talks that "far left" bullshit as if it's a bad thing.
Hilarious. The guy has to "doctor" up his interview with Joan Walsh to make himself look good and then brings Juan "toby" Williams out from the slave quarters for personal vouching.
What a punk.
n/t
Wasn't Toby Kunte Kinte's slave name?
as Kunte Kinte was not one to be easily broken.
In Bill's defense, he knows his listeners are a bunch morons and will believe this crap. Who needs integrity when you millions.
..those listeners.
is the matter with Juan Williams? This guy has been sitting around with the fox news nuts far too many times. He doesn't seem to realize he's no longer the "left's" representative. It's disgusting to watch him grovel in front of the bully.
The only time Juan is allowed to make a serious comment on FOX is when the issue is not serious. The rest of the time he sits their and gets bitch slapped.
Why on earth were you operating under the assumption that he was?
He is the token minority conservative...
As soon as Juan tries to talk, he is shouted down by the nasty Bitch O'Reilly. Juan needs to grow a couple. The bottom line is he was part of the club. The strategy is make a point for the whennies liberals but don't be too forceful. See, FOX is fair and balance.
Juan's co-memmbers are:
Michael Steele
Larry Elder
Angela McGlowan
Jason Whitlock
Jesse Lee Peterson aka Sambo
Armstrong Williams
Clarence Thomas
Thomas Sowell
Gary Franks
Alan Keyes"
I always thought of him as a guy unafraid to be his true self when he worked at ESPN.
Fox has, instead, abused its authority, every step of the way. With the employment of the most reactionary commentators money can buy, Fox has set an insurmountable precedent in attacking anyone on the other side of its neocon agenda. Seeking to broaden its capital in the living rooms of millions around the world, Fox News publicly embraces black commentators, but, as many readers and viewers have noticed, most black commentators and analysts who appear on Fox News are of a very hawkish, right-wing, self-loathing orientation.
Those blacks (and non-blacks) who have the intellect, poise and emotional stability to withstand the sophistry of its anchors are verbally abused and disrespected on the air. It is for this reason that Juan Williams, Larry Elder, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Angela McGlowan, Michael Steele, et al., play the game as safe as possible.
After all, the rewards of doing the master’s wishes are enormous! No, you don’t get your own show, but you get to share the stage, for 4 to 6 minutes (occasionally), with some of the world’s most fascistic-minded pundits ever seen.
Juan Williams, in this field of play, is a veteran athlete, and one of the most skilled.
Williams has, over the years, found it very hard to dissent from Fox News’ unregulated hatred of black people. His ability to remain at the service of his bosses has earned him a special place in O’Reilly's and Hannity’s hearts. A frequent analyst, he is prone to say what he feels is compatible with Fox News’ racist identity. As the African American go-to guy for black-bashing, immigrant-bashing, Iraqi-bashing, Williams knows his role and plays it well. A couple of nights back, on the O’Reilly factor, Williams showed why he’s, after all, Fox News’ golden black boy
Simply put, this is the "Yassuh, boss" syndrome.
I think I've noticed something about Juan Williams. When he is on NPR, he seems to be a bit more reasonable. When he is on O'Reilly's show, he seems to change into someone who supports BillO's views. Yes, he will sometimes push back a little, but I think overall, he caves to BillO. I may be wrong, but I do think he has a different personality while on NPR vs. BOR's show.
But I think he's spent too much time amongst the evil one, and has become tainted.
I like that...."the evil one!"
Only problem is, there are a number of "evil ones"....BOR, Insannity, Limpballs, Beck, Malkin, Coulter.....on and on and on.
Maybe we should start calling them all the "axis of evil"!
but I've been itchin to call them Teh Legion of Doom.
And cheney is Lex Luthor...
bor is Solomon Grundy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Legion_of_D...
Intergang?
Sounds kinda familiar....
must use teh google
Ah...I never got into DC Comics much.
I'm more inclined to refer to them as 'The Assholes of Evil'
"It's evil! Don't touch it!"
was your reference!
As soon as I saw the link...GREAT friggin movie.
These idiots at Fox continuously ignore the presence of YouTube. They just keep thinking that past programs have disappeared into the ether, never to be shown again. This is why Joh Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow can constantly make O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh look like such raving idiots and buffoons. And, it's just so EASY!
The problem is, the 20% of the population that still listen to BOR probably have FAUX NEWS as their prime source of news and are either too poor or too old to have a computer or the internet to find another source of news.
This is who this piece of shit O'Rielly is playing to, and he and the right-wing are trying to stir up into a race and class war against Obama and the majority of Americans who just want a fair shake.
since these viewers of billo's that are so poor, lost teevee reception when the switch to digital happened...now, they'll have to settle for making up their own lies and misinformation.
if a frustrated eliminationist who is both a Storm Front contributor and Troother goes beserk and shoots a pregnant cop in Texas and it is discovered he only had analog reception.
they won't have any reception at all now.
But somehow...it will be the fault of the librul media.
... in going after Billo for lying (or pulling out dubious facts and biased research), or editing a video to make himself look righteous. That would be like persecuting a mouse for scurrying.
It's just what he does. You can point it out all you want, but don't ever act suprised or shocked by the depths of Billo's scurrying. It's just what he does.
after his ratings tank and he is deemed irrelevant by all. Until then, hammer.
with the red meat diet of C&L, here is another view from someone who is less than a Bill O. fan.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061509.shtml
I tend to think Somerby hits the mark about the right wing media better than most but be sure and do more than "skim" his comments before joining the "concern troll" chorus.
YOU CONCERN TROLL, YOU! I READ THE ARTICLE'S ENTIRE HEADLINE! :)
The article makes a valid point - Walsh shouldn't have just played into Billo's spin, she should've challenged him (on the points made in the article.)
I saw the interview and thought "Why doesn't she call 'bullshit' on his arguments, rather than equivocate?"
Walsh wasn't on the show to discuss late term abortions. She had no way to prepare herself for the onslaught by O'Reilly and couldn't refute the claims in the McHugh interview, which, for all she knew, could have been prepared from heavily edited remarks taken completely out of context and given the stunt that O'Reilly pulled in editing his interview with Walsh, wouldn't have been a stretch to assume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU-qtxgn06s
you imagine helping Bill (I think of him as Dill d'Oh Reilly, but really, there's nothing wrong with dildos) edit this lying little tantrum? Faux News people must either be utter tools or whores; no one else would be able to stand the work.
for the bush administration.
O'Reilly is pushing the boundaries of what is legitimate freedom of speech, as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers, and what is blatant character assassination, stalking/harrasment, incitement to violence or even sedition.
I'm all for 1st Amendment rights, but it comes with responsibility. It is time to take O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and FOX propaganda News to task for their abuses (in pursuit of the almighty $) of this basic right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKmQW7JTb6s
The Alien & Sedition Acts were finally repealed a century or so ago.
O'Reilly is as constitutionally protected saying what he says as Mike Malloy is or you or I would be if we possessed the same (noin-regulated) forum.
There's ain't any such thing as "some" freedom of speech. It either is or it isn't. The people who control O'Reilly's speech are his employers. He's no more or less than a puppet for Murdoch's News Group. They own BOR, and without them, he'd be a minor annoyance in some ass-hole town in fly-over country.
The way to break the power of Murdoch, et al, is to rescind all those media buy-out deals that started with Raygun but were abetted by Clinton in '94s "reform" of the Communications Act.
Or pass a constitutional amendment limiting the size of any media enterprise operating in the public sphere.
Since neither one of those things is gonna happen, if you wanna change BOR's mind, find out where he goes to drink...
I don't think he should be immune from consequences of his speech, though, either. I think there is a right for some one who his speech offended to pick a fight with the vapid shitheel in a bar and kick his teeth into the street. That is, after all, the level of discourse where O'Reilly lives.
A bar fight is the easy way forward. All one needs to do is call him what he truly is ("PUNK") to his face and he'll likely lose it. I'd be very happy to oblige, if I wasn't a law abiding, peacable citizen.
Yet, a well lawyered court case against him, even if it had little chance of winning, might highlight what the true motivations of these FOX scum are and lead to toning down the rabble-rousing for $. Might. It could also be almost as fun as the bar fight, but legal (and peacable).
... if they can show that the libeler showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
It wasn't until roughtly the 1940's or 1950's that businessmen (some crooked) regularly sued those who they felt publically libelled or slandered them, thus making reform impossible.
There was always a sub-category of commercial speech, with lesser protection, and almost gone but still present here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM
The way to break the power of Murdoch, et al, is to rescind all those media buy-out deals that started with Raygun but were abetted by Clinton in '94s "reform" of the Communications Act.
Or pass a constitutional amendment limiting the size of any media enterprise operating in the public sphere.
Right to the point. If the media weren't totally controlled by right-wing corporations, then we'd see these wingnuts effectively rebutted by intelligent, sane broadcasters. And, yes, Clinton WAS to blame in part for the right-wing media takeover.
Ever heard of a little thing called Libel?
He's NEVER identified as Bill-O/Murdoch's pet, tame, boy-by-the-door when he appears on NPR. The NPR news-readers NEVER identify his divided loyalties (to the extent that they are, in fact, divided). He's just 'NPR Senior Political Analyst, Juan Williams," when "Juan Williams, NPR Senior Political Analyst and Fox News lap-dog/sock-puppet/tame black man" would be far more accurate and helpful to the listeners...
..and I ask them: Do you think your daughter should be raped because of the clothes she wears? Do you think your son or daughter would enjoy being kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a sexual predator? ..if it meant they wouldn't get to go home ever? ..if it meant they got to play video games in between sexual assaults?
The look of horror on their faces that I would suggest that. Then I tell them, well, BOR knows. Then they are dumbfounded and don't believe me. I wonder, why are they supporting him if they don't know what he believes in. I guess they missed those 'talking point memos'.
Joan should be happy that she caused him so much grief. If he had to edit the interview, it just shows how bad he knows it made him look. Good for Joan for her very lovely ass kicking. She should be chosen as best person of the week or month. Anyone who can give Bill a pain in his old ass is fine with me.
Of course BO selectively edited the interview. He made an ass out of himself in the unedited version.
caused him to appear to lose the argument to Walsh.
can you make an ass out of an ass?
and O Reilly has years of experience making an ass of himself.
I don't know, but I do know 2 bald men who put their heads together and made an ass of themselves.
(I just love that old joke....)
not so much.
};)>
walsh was the victor in the original interview. walsh stood her ground and presented her side with confidence and knowledge/facts. although, i don't follow these people especially o'really i know he has
an ego the size of texas. we all realize that o'really is pandering to a faction/demographic of his ROUTINE
watching audience(evangelicals). there was criticism of walsh's interview with o'really to me she knocked it out of the park. there actually was a person on this blog that stated that walsh was probably guilt ridden from having at least one abortion. i'm personally amazed at what comes out of peoples' mouths to have it their way. tiller was killed in cold blood. some people question why tiller is considered a hero. well if you understand late term abortion dr. tiller was often saving a life. beyond that he provided a LEGAL medical procedure for which tiller,his family and staff were threatened routinely for providing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QltlctqfY4E
You know it. I'm sure his maids were keeping a low profile and keeping the battery in his black marital aid fully charged.
It's not going to happen, but I'd like to hear from some right-wing mothers who have been to see Dr. Tiller. They've got to exist, otherwise we'd be seeing a lot more deformed babies. I would even venture to say that some of the most vocal with Billo are hypocritical enough to have done the "okay for me but not for thee."
The right wing is full of cowards, Billo being their leader.
..won't that make Rush mad?
I demand an apology!!
..but I'm LMAO.
proponents. If you're on the other side, you are magically either pro-death or support killing babies. Late term abortion is just a small part of their agenda but a great propaganda tool.
They have changed the language of the debate and have gotten away with it. What they are supporting is forced reproduction and their opponents oppose forced reproduction and support reproductive freedom. The argument really should clarify that O'Reilly and those on his side, want FORCED reproduction.
is a sexist plot by those who worship a Male God figure.
..its Anti-Choice! At least it would be if it were framed in a logical fashion. These people who are Anti-Choice are not Pro-Life especially if they supported the illegal war in Iraq and/or the Death Penalty. They called Dr. Tiller a baby-killer, how is that Pro-life?
The lauded the actual killer: Roeder; how is that Pro-life?
These people are sick and without real compassion.
Many of these folks are also pro-death-penalty and pro-war. How are either of these "pro-life?" Once the baby is born, they criticize unwed mothers and their being on welfare that helps support them both. What hypocrisy.
Pro life, pro death, it's all just a matter of timing.
in the funeral home industry.
n/t
That's what I meant to say.
I like the Media Matters clip on Joan's Salon page where she talks about the interview. In that clip, it very clear shows examples of where BOR talks about "Tiller the baby killer," without saying that that's what the media is calling him.
As bad as O'Reilly is, one thing that really goads me is when he lies about things he has said. He claims that he is only reporting what the locals called Tiller, and that is patently false.
Good for Joan Walsh....I wish more people would stick up to BOR like she did. I really, really hope that the next time one of BOR's stooges ambushes someone that that someone starts asking the stalked about Andrea Mackris and loofahs!
are appropriate responses to Bill O's stalking "reporters." However, I thought the advice here was for people like Walsh to boycott O'Reilly. Does her appearance make Walsh an intellectual "scab?"
Update..After rereading John's boycott piece, he was calling for pro-choice group representatives to stay away from Bill O, not pro choice writers looking for air time and audience.
Hope this isn't a duplicate post of mine....accidentaly "fat fingered" something, and my post disappeared.
Anyway, I have mixed feelings on whether or not liberals should boycott BOR's show. I see both arguments.
I myself am one of those who actually has watched BillO often. It's not because I like him. It's because 1)I know people who think like BOR, so it helps to see how the "other side" thinks before I hear acquaintances spew the same crap that O'Reilly does....and 2)I take great satisfaction in sending BOR emails, telling him how wrong he is.
In the past, BOR has used the argument against his detractors that they don't watch him, and they only get their talking points from liberal blogs. So I often point out to BOR when I send him emails that I do watch him, so my thoughts are my own.
Before Bush invaded Iraq, I sent BillO a number of emails, telling him that if we invaded, Iraq would become another Israel....that is, daily car bombs. After the invasion, whenever I heard BOR making positive comments about Bush invading, I sent him more emails about Iraq becoming another Israel. About 2 or 3 years ago, at the height of the violence, BillO actually said on air that Iraq had become another Israel.
Now, did my repeated emails cause him to say this? Perhaps not, but he has read at least a half a dozen or so of my emails on air over the years. So I know he has seen some of them and knows how I feel.
Anyway, I am currently boycotting BOR's show, at least for awhile, because of Keith Olbermann's request a week or so ago....and am not sending the jerkoff any emails. But, when I see him on C&L, I get quite infuriated and want to send him another nastygram!
The US used to execute traitors like that clown.
I'm going to start turning off Public TV every time I see juan Williams on.
Completely unprofessional and unnecessary. There was no need to yell and attempt to intimidate Walsh like he did. This man clearly doesn't know how to treat a lady who won't submit to him.
with staffers as sex is so dirty, especially with women who have had children, especially O'Reilly children.
Why and how is FOX news still number 1, 3 times over? 1 million dedicated viewers every night. They are crushing the rest. I can come up with all kinds of reasons why, like only dumb people watch TV for news anymore or America is actually as hateful and racist as FOX.
The system is working perfectly, God Bless America and the far right.
.
Chickenfeed.
There are 325 MILLION people in this country.
.00031 percent of the population.
It is a laughbably small number of people, even if they are all ass-wholes. At least they're all in the same place...
Actually ass-holes
Or as I prefer them ass-ho's.
stop to watch accidents
Fox is number one for only two reasons:
1) it is an apples and oranges comparison with other networks. Fox has higher average views because of the way averages are defined. CNN for example has more total views as many of their views only watch the channel for like 5-10 minutes to do a quick catch up on the news, whereas the average FOX view watches longer because of the personalty based programming. The way average are defined skews the numbers toward FOX. I believe a viewer only counts if watch for 7 minutes or more. By the way advertisers prefer higher total viewers rather than higher average views, so CNN probably makes more advertising dollars and is more profitable than FOX.
2) FOX has cornered the right wing market, where as all the other channels split the left and moderate viewers. FOX has a larger captured right wing demographic and has no competition on the right wing side. They have effectively cut out a big niche, while the other 2/3rds of viewers are split between MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, etc.
By the way there are many surveys that suggest that the average age of a Fox viewer is like in the 60s/70s and that the audience is the least well informed on current events (dumber). Not a particularly strong advertising demographic. The average age of the O'Reilly shows is something like 72 and for John Stewart is like 35.
that too
Bringin your science and logic in here?
because of all the flashy colors...
My guess is that intelligent people tend to get their news from a wide variety of sources, rather than just one. I, for example, don't have TV service, but do have access to it nearby if I need/want to watch something. So I don't have a set routine of watching (whatever) News iach night. I get most of my news from the internet, newspapers/journals and radio, and I occasionally cruise right-wing sites for different views and "to see what the enemy is up to."
I'm sure the 23%ers only watch Fox and listen to Rush (and his ilk) and swear they're the only ones giving them the "truth." Hence, Fox's higher ratings.
They have a concentrated audience. The type of people that watch FOX can't get their hate on anywhere else (on TV). The rest of us have many choices of what news sources to view.
With one caveat, we're looking for accuracy and balance, not one-sided propaganda.
i understand that the fox news demographic is pretty much the
23%er, hyper-conservative crowd. considering that they consist mostly of older viewers, what's going to happen to fox new's ratings as their viewers die off? will their viewers be replaced ? do people naturally turn into 23%ers as they age, thus replacing the pool as they die off, or are the 23%ers doomed to die a dwindling, shaker-like death along with fox new's ratings?
why it's watched & heeded so much--b/c many working-class people go to bed early & don't wait for the later local news. It's a simple factor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAnU9zT87j4
... why on June 12, 2007 O'Reilly played this part of McHugh, then when he confronted Joan Walsh, he excised 10 seconds from the middle.
I don't see any reason, but why take out 10 seconds? Anyone out there have a clue?
The part in brackets was excised:
"I didn't think that those records supported the idea that these women were likely to suffer a substantial irreversible impairment [which was required by law here in Kansas for their abortions since - this - they were late term abortions]. They highlighted certain kinds of things - which a-a-a-a context were hard, of course to appreciate, but were sometimes of a most trivial sort from saying that won't be able to go to concerts or I won't be able to take part in sports to more serious ones such as I don't want to give my child up for adoption
because it gave substantiation to already existent legal/medical "controls" in the very state of the most recent killing of a women's health physician??
There is an estimated 1,000 late term abortion per year in the entire country so tell me how Dr. Tiller could have performed 60,000? O'Reilly is using his favorite tactic again, making shit up.
Which would constitute medical malpractice. Slandering a murdered man...classic O'Reilly.
a 3rd party who is among the patients of Dr. Tiller could actually sue BillO. It turns out that if Dr. Tiller did not disclose that figure, then it follows that BillO obtained it via illegal means, furthermore... disclosing such figures without the permit of the surgeon's office... it is also illegal. So Dr. Tillers former practice could join the suit.
In fact, f*ck it... I hope some idle lawyer picks this up pro bono.
I make my living in information security and disclosure of health information is expressly prohibited under the Health Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Violation of HIPAA privacy caries very strict penalties....
over 1 decade and a half, performing 10 late term abortions on a daily basis, without taking any vacation... to reach the 60K figure.
Telling lies is second nature to these assholes, so I am not surprised the number did not trigger any red flags in billo's feeble mind, since he was more interested in the lie than wether or not the figure he was pulling out of his ass made even remote sense.
Ladies, you have Bill looking out for your viable fetus. You feel better. Your fetus feels better too.
Honestly, how do these turds sleep at night? Yeah, yeah...bor, you're looking out for the people. MY ASS!
Every once in awhile I gain a tad bit of respect for juan williams, but then he does something like this where he looks like he is licking the boots of his master, and he sinks back down to the basement of "tools for hire".
bor is bor. Just a scourge on the earth. Someday he will die and some other ass hat will jump into his chair...like beck or savage or lars larson, etc. All ass hats. The world is full of them.
We finally did prove that MORE THAN half our country are not morons. That's a mark I thought we'd never reach. Such a shameless, ignorant, ass-back wards country we live in.
According to the Falafel King it was the reporting of the Times of Bush regime abuses that lead to anti-American sentiment not the Bush regime's abuses themselves.
Fox is number one for only two reasons:
1) it is an apples and oranges comparison with other networks. Fox has higher average viewers because of the way averages are defined. CNN for example has more total viewers, as many of their viewers only watch the channel for like 5-10 minutes, to do a quick catch up on the news, whereas the average FOX viewer watches longer because of more of the personalty based programming like O'Reilly. The way averages are defined in the ratings are skewed to help FOX. I believe a viewer only counts if watches for 7 minutes or more. By the way advertisers prefer higher total viewers rather than higher average viewers, so CNN probably makes more advertising dollars and is more profitable than FOX.
2) FOX has cornered the right wing market, where as all the other channels compete and split the left and moderate viewers. FOX has a larger captured right wing demographic and has no competition on the right wing side. They have effectively cut out a big niche for themselves, while the other 2/3rds of viewers are split between MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, etc.
By the way there are many surveys that suggest that the average age of a Fox viewer is like in their 60s/70s and that the audience is the least well informed on current events (dumber). Not a particularly strong advertising demographic. The average age of the O'Reilly shows is something like 71 and for John Stewart is like 35.
At least self respecting women. I won't ever watch fox, I am not giving them any ratings numbers.
The Tiller Killer known as Biller is also a sexual predator.
Not as fun as self-googling.
i merely deleted fox products from my cable channel selections. no muss, no fuss.
in the Video Cafe...much better than bor and his hatred of women.
that BOR and his ilk are AFRAID of women - cretins like BOR are bullies, and strong women in particular make him fearful. Women see through kreeps like this in a heartbeat - it comes with the territory.
comes hatred...the two go hand in hand...
as she made Orally get really angry, thereby raising his blood pressure, thereby increasing the odds that some little piece of plaque in an artery will break off in the near future and slam off the circulation to his pea-brain. Now that would be news.
Billo the clown is a DEEPLY disturbed individual...Since he clearly can't handle the truth and has equally hard times defining even fairy tales, maybe he should just excuse himself from the daily chatter to get some professional help. Either that, or soon enough, real stream will start streaming out of his ears. That'll be fun to watch..
Stupid perpetuates stupid....
Plain and simple. Boycott his fucking show--every time. Don't watch it. Don't support it. Don't go on. Don't buy shit from his advertisers.
Boycott. Period. And this won't happen.
If so, they must not have believed anyone who told the truth about how O'Reilly (and Faux "News") acts.
I don't understand why Walsh (and any other non-right-winger) ever goes on Fox. I truly don't. And I have been saying this for years. What O'Reilly did -- Yawn. Standard Operating Procedure.
I'm wondering why and or how you encapsulated the time frame to only include 10 years.
Mr.Bill claims to have pulled that 60,000 number from the times. I brought this to light on a couple recent occasions and I'm interested in your math formula.
The following, is one occasion; Beginning with...
Don't be afraid to chime in...
Tue, 06/09/2009 - 03:00 — Truth_Critic
►[ http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/all-pro-... ] Thanks for any help you may provide. ♥
Login or Register to post comments.