Grab yourself a large, economy size bottle of Pepto-Bismal and listen to this:
If O’Reilly can say that Robert Reich is a communist who adores Marx, then I can say that O’Reilly is a Nazi (or a racist, or a pedophile) who adores Hitler (or Manson, or Satan). The funny (or sad) part of this is that there is more evidence to affirm my sarcastic statement than O’Reilly’s earnest one.
The truth is that O’Reilly is a disgusting, hyperbolic, dishonest purveyor of lies and slander (or a scumbag fuckwad). And Lou Dobbs aint much better.
Sensing that his O’Reilly Factor was losing the competition for most ludicrous punditry to his old nemesis Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly has just uncovered the conspiracy of the century. It’s a convoluted scheme that has confounded all other pundit participants. O’Reilly laid out the basics in his Talking Points Memo segment tonight.
O’Reilly: “As we reported last night, the Factor believes the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after pill.”
Did you catch it? The Factor (Bill’s pet name for himself) believes that Fluke was sent (by Obama? Soros? Fidel?) to divert attention away from the perilous issue of health insurance coverage for contraceptives by – get this – talking about health insurance coverage for contraceptives. What could be more devious? It was a brilliant subterfuge, but not brilliant enough to fool O’Reilly. The Obama team should never have tried to outsmart the Factor. Especially with lame antics like this one.
O’Reilly: “Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom. So it seems there is a powerful presence behind Sandra Fluke.”
Only O’Reilly could have figured out that Rush Limbaugh was one of the conspirators. The plan would never have come so close to success were it not for Limbaugh’s ham-handed incivility toward Fluke, or so it appeared. And it was O’Reilly who recognized that Limbaugh was the powerful presence behind her.
In hindsight it seems obvious that this whole affair was designed to benefit the President, as O’Reilly observed. Somehow the President’s strategists concocted a plot wherein an unknown law student would manage to manipulate the Republican chairman of a congressional committee to refuse to let her participate, and then she would trick the country’s top radio talk show host into verbally assaulting her. What could be simpler?
O’Reilly even nailed down a suspicious connection. Apparently Fluke is now represented by the PR firm of former White House director of communications, Anita Dunn. And even though that relationship began after Fluke had become embroiled in this national controversy, O’Reilly still thinks there is something significant about her hooking up with a Democratic affiliated firm that employs someone who left her job at the White House over two years ago. A lesser mind might have mistakenly thought that Fluke would sign with a GOP PR firm. And it was a stroke of genius for Dunn to wait almost two and a half years before executing this plot so that people might forget about her presidential resume.
You have to hand to O’Reilly for persevering in his quest to pierce the cloak of secrecy surrounding this chicanery. After all these years the old boy still has it.
Every media organization has had to, at one time or another, discipline staff who crossed an ethical line. If a reporter loses his or her cool and becomes offensive in the course of their work, they must be held accountable to some set of professional standards. Ideally the standards would be a set of objective criteria that focused on verifiable breaches of honesty or civility. A credible news organization must never tolerate a reporter lying or engaging in personal attacks. I repeat, a “credible” news organization…
Unfortunately, there is a disturbing lack of oversight in this regard. Often offenders are excused without consequence or, conversely, punishment is meted out to an innocent party. For example, NPR terminated their relationship with a couple of executives who were victims of false allegations in a video produced by James O’Keefe, the criminally convicted, right-wing activist best known for deceptively edited videos.
This past week presented a revealing lesson in contrast as to how different media enterprises deal differently with anchors and other editorial personnel who fail the test of principles that ought to govern all journalists.
CNN was put to the test this week when Roland Martin posted a Tweet that appeared to advocate violence against gays. Martin pointed out that it was not meant seriously and wasn’t even directed at gays, but at the sport of soccer. Nevertheless, CNN acted quickly to suspend Martin indefinitely.
By contrast, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta delivered a commentary on Sunday berating women in the military for complaining that they get raped too much (Trotta did not define what an “acceptable” amount of rape is). The news that triggered this revolting commentary was a Pentagon report that rape and sexual assault had increased 64%, a statistic that Trotta cavalierly dismissed. She further asserted that servicewomen should “expect” to be raped because they work closely with men. Fox News has had no comment on this matter despite fierce criticism from women’s groups and veterans offended by the assertion that male soldiers are innately animals and female soldiers should quietly accept assault as a part of military life.
These two examples illustrate the differences between a news enterprise that attempts to act responsibly and one that disregards such restraints in order to forge ahead with a sensationalistic approach and to pander to the scandal-lust of their viewers. CNN has faced this dilemma in the past by meting out punishments for ethical infractions to Lou Dobbs, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, Susan Roesgen, Peter Arnett, and Eason Jordan. MSNBC has done the same to Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, Mark Halperin, Markos Moulitsas, and Pat Buchanan. Some of these chastisements were warranted (Dobbs, Buchanan), and some were executions of petulant grudges (Markos), and CNN still inexplicably employs miscreants like Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch. So CNN and MSNBC should not necessarily be held up as models of morality. But at least there is some evidence of an internal criteria for ethical behavior of some sort.
Fox News, however, has yet to make any news staffer pay a price for professional indiscretions, despite the fact that things got so bad at Fox they had to distribute a memo asserting a “Zero Tolerance Policy” that warned of “letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination.” The memo was issued after numerous, embarrassing on-air blunders by Fox reporters and producers. But rather than undergoing discipline, Fox News bent over backwards to reward reporters who behaved badly. In fact, while other networks were firing such violators, Fox seems to be on a mission to recruit them. For instance: Juan Williams, Don Imus, Doug McKelway, and Lou Dobbs were all put on the Fox payroll after having been terminated for cause at other networks. Even Glenn Beck who, while no longer hosting his own program, appears regularly with Bill O’Reilly and others.
Fox maintains a clubby environment for recalcitrant reporters, and there remains a full stable of them on the air. Here is a selection of some of the more obviously repulsive people that Fox News should have fired for their absence of morality and professionalism, but to date have not even had their wrists slapped. And make no mistake, the job security enjoyed by these weasels is not due to carelessness on the part of Fox News. Controversy, hostility, and rabid right-wing advocacy are the hallmarks of Fox’s business model. It’s how they cultivate and reward the loyalty of their audience. What other explanation could justify this:
Todd Starnes: Unsurprisingly, Fox News has smeared the Occupy Movement from its inception. They have disparaged them as everything from unfocused to unclean to un-American. But it took Starnes, the host of Fox News & Commentary on Fox Radio, to equate them to mass murderers by asking, “What should be done with the domestic terrorists who are occupying our cities and college campuses?” By comparing Occupiers to the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Starnes is engaging in rhetorical terrorism and insulting hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans.
Cody Willard: This Fox Business reporter brazenly exposed his bias when he attended a Tea Party rally and feverishly barked at the camera this call to arms against the U.S. government, “Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?”
Andrew Napolitano: The “Judge” is a notorious 9/11 Truther who believes that the attack on the World Trade Center towers was an inside job, orchestrated by agents of the United States government. That’s a position considered so crazy by Fox Newsers that it was instrumental in their campaign to get Van Jones fired from his post as a green jobs adviser to President Obama. But, in typical Foxian hypocrisy, it has no impact on the employment of Napolitano. [Note: The entire primetime schedule of the Fox Business Network, including Napolitano, Eric Bolling and David Asman, was recently canceled. But it was due to poor ratings, not content. And all remain active Fox News contributors.]
Bill Sammon: The Fox News Washington managing editor was recorded admitting to a friendly audience on a conservative cruise that he would go on air and “mischievously” cast Obama as a socialist even though he didn’t believe it himself. In other words, he lied to defame the President and rile up his gullible viewers. That would be cause for termination at most news networks, but probably earned Sammon a bonus at Fox.
Eric Bolling: Hoping to sustain Fox’s leadership in inappropriate Nazi references, Bolling accused President Obama of engaging in class warfare that was “forged in Marxist Germany.” And if that wasn’t asinine enough, he sided with Iran against the U.S. by accusing the American hikers who were held in an Iranian prison of being spies and said that Iran should have kept them.
Bill O’Reilly: Dr. George Tiller, a family physician in Kansas, was murdered by an anti-abortion extremist who may have been incited to violence by rhetoric like this from O’Reilly: “Now, we have bad news to report that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies.” O’Reilly regards the acquittal of a doctor for performing legal medical services “bad news,” and the services themselves “murder.” But he never took any responsibility for fanning the flames of violent incivility that led to the actual murder of Dr. Tiller.
Col. Ralph Peters (Ret): In a rant that argued that the United States should fight back against our enemies with the same tactics they use against us, Peters turned the media into military targets: “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. And like Bolling, Peters also took the side of our foes by suggesting, without evidence, that a missing American soldier was a deserter and that “the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” presumably by killing him.
Michael Scheuer: This former CIA analyst was concerned that the American people were not sufficiently afraid of future terrorist attacks. He regards that absence of fear as dangerous complacency. But he has a solution: “The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”
Roger Ailes: The CEO of Fox News proves that a fish stinks from its head. In response to NPR’s firing of Juan Willimas for bigoted remarks about Muslims, Ailes let loose a tirade wherein he viciously attacked the NPR executives saying that… “They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism.”
Liz Trotta: Ending up where we began, this abhorrent attempt at comedy simply could not be left off of this list. What started out as a verbal stumble became a call for assassination when Trotta said, “Now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, umm, Obama. Well, both if we could.”
It’s difficult to believe that anyone could retain a job in the media after making statements like those above. These were not mistakes or misunderstandings. They are not out of context. They were considered, deliberate expressions of opinion that represented the reporter’s views at the time. Yet all of these people are still employed and active at Fox News.
To be fair, there is an example of Fox News firing reporters who crossed a line that even Fox could not abide. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre investigated a story that detailed the health risks posed by the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive manufactured by chemical giant Monsanto. Fox objected to the story’s negative portrayal of a major advertiser and ordered the reporters to make modifications that they knew were false. When the reporters refused they were fired. In the subsequent litigation Fox argued in court that the network had a right to determine the content of their stories, and even to lie, and that employees who declined to comply could be terminated as insubordinate.
So while Fox News has no problem with their analysts advocating terrorism against Americans, they draw the line when it comes to suppressing their Constitutional right to lie. Fox has taken great care to set their priorities and to draw their ethical lines in sand that is always under the prevailing tide.
[Update] This week racist Pat Buchanan was sacked by MSNBC and radio schlock jocks John & Ken were suspended for calling Whitney Houston a “crack ho”. But Liz Trotta, Eric Bolling, et al are still happily working at Fox.
Posted by Mark NC on January 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm.
NOComments :
The campaign trail is fraught with hazards. Sometimes you’re moving so fast you miss important turns and signals. That must be the explanation for the disconnect that just occurred between Rick Santorum and the News Corp CEO, Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch recently joined Twitter (Interestingly, just a few days after his pal and business partner Saudi Prince Alwaleed invested $300 million dollars). Among his first few tweets are two that reference Rick Santorum approvingly:
January 1: Good to see santorum surging in Iowa. Regardless of policies, all debates showed principles, consistency and humility like no other.
January 2: Can’t resist this tweet, but all Iowans think about Rick Santorum. Only candidate with genuine big vision for country.
That was nice of him. I wonder how he’ll feel after he hears what Santorum said about his Fox News Channel:
“The media has just completely tried to shape this race. And not just the liberal media. It’s even Fox News. You know, Bill O’Reilly has refused to put me on his program. As far as he was concerned I wasn’t a worthy enough candidate to earn a spot to sit across from him and be on his program. Here you have folks supposedly in the conservative media who are saying, “You know, we’re gonna choose who are gonna win.” And then complain that the mainstream media does the same thing.”
Santorum is raising the curtain on Fox’s carefully maintained deceit that they are a fair and balanced news enterprise. He acknowledges that Fox is “the conservative media” from whom he expects special treatment distinct from the other so-called liberal press. I can’t believe that Murdoch will like that. I suspect O’Reilly won’t particularly like this either. Santorum paints O’Reilly as part of a biased cabal with an agenda to harm those he views as outside the approved cast of characters.
But, for once, Santorum has said something that is undeniably true. Fox News wants to pick the electoral winner. They wanted to in 2008 as well, but that didn’t work out too well for them. They will certainly try again this year with a relentlessly negative assault on President Obama. But they may have to work a little harder at getting their stories straight.
Something Santorum neglected to mention about the conservative media that he says is trying to shape the race, is that Fox News has had him on 54 times since June. That’s about twice as many bookings as Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. For the record, the most frequent guest was Herman Cain, with 73 appearances. Talk about a wasted investment.
Media Matters reviewed the content of Bill O’Reilly’s December programming and discovered something that reveals the truth about his long-standing “War on Christmas.”
“Every year, ‘Culture Warrior’ Bill O’Reilly devotes considerable time on his Fox News show to the ‘War on Christmas.’ This December, O’Reilly has covered the imaginary ‘War on Christmas’more than three times as much as the actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.“
That should tell you something about O’Reilly’s priorities. But it’s not really a revelation about his sanctimonious persona and fixation on pretending that Christmas is under attack.
If Christmas actually was at risk from clandestine secular-progressives bent on deposing Santa, O’Reilly would be amongst those responsible. His own concept of Christmas is a perverse vision of greed and consumerism. This is how he expresses the meaning of Christmas:
“Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable.”
Heartwarming isn’t it? It’s a sentiment that just oozes with the season’s warmth, joy, and humanity. He seems to believe that Christ died on the cross for your net receipts and a favorable business environment. That’s a far cry from the guy who threw the moneychangers out of the temple.
O’Reilly is not much of an advocate of the values that Christmas represents to so many Americans. Neither is he much of an advocate for those who are burdened with fighting real wars. His idea of supporting the troops is sending them free copies of his unreadable books.
The senior eminence of Fox News, Bill O’Reilly, demonstrated yesterday just how tender his thin skin is. O’Reilly was surprised by a chance encounter with a “fan” who wondered whether he was attending a fundraiser for Newt Gingrich (he wasn’t). But the encounter got a little out of hand when O’Reilly’s inner bully emerged.
The funny thing about this episode wherein O’Reilly physically assaults someone who did nothing more than ask him a question, is that this is a tactic that O’Reilly has championed for years. It was O’Reilly’s own producer, Stuttering Jesse Watters, who was so often dispatched by O’Reilly to ambush unsuspecting folks in an attempt to embarrass or harass them. When criticized for this cheesy debasement of journalism, O’Reilly steadfastly defends it as rooted in the proud historic tradition of Mike Wallace and 60 Minutes (it’s not).
However, subjected to the same sort of reporting that he favors, O’Reilly proves that he can dish it out but he can’t take it without lashing out and whining to a nearby law enforcement officer. And as the video shows, the only person who engaged in potentially unlawful violence was O’Reilly himself. He deployed his umbrella with such force that he broke it.
On his Fox “Spin Zone” program tonight, O’Reilly sought to portray the curious citizen as a threat who was “armed” with a cell phone camera. O’Reilly said that the man was “running at [him] in the dark, screaming.” Of course the video tells an entirely different story. And for some reason O’Reilly didn’t bother to play the video. I wonder why.
O’Reilly followed his self-serving defense with a discussion of the event with a former police detective. The two of them brazenly misrepresented the video that they refused to play. Clearly they didn’t want the audience to know what they were talking about. And, of course, his guest absolved O’Reilly of any wrongdoing.
At one point O’Reilly conceded that he and his minions have used the same tactic to get interviews, but he lied by asserting that if a subject asked them to leave they would do so. Here’s some pretty conclusive evidence that that was not the case:
So what we’ve learned from this is that O’Reilly is a liar, a bully and, like most bullies, a coward. It’s too bad the fellow who suffered the wrath of O’Reilly’s umbrella doesn’t have his own TV show to set the record straight. However, if any of O’Reilly’s friends watched the video, they now know what to get him for Christmas.
Salon’s Justin Elliot reports that the National Park Service’s bookstore at the Ford Theater has recommended that Bill O’Reilly’s new book on Abraham Lincoln not be carried in the store “because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.”
It should come as no surprise that O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln” would be a trifling, fact-challenged version of historical events. The Fox News host, who recently blew a gasket over $16.00 muffins that don’t exist, cannot be expected to accurately convey historical events that occurred 150 years ago when he can’t produce factual accounts of last week.
Amongst the errors in O’Reilly’s book are his multiple references to Lincoln in the Oval Office, which was not built until 1909. That’s typical of the sloppy reporting for which O’Reilly is famous. After all, this the same man that insisted that there are no homeless veterans in America. And that’s why we should be grateful for O’Reilly confessing his contribution to the debasement of journalism:
The Occupy Wall Street movement has had a profound effect on changing the topic of debate in this country. A couple of months ago the only subject the media would entertain was the national debt and federal spending. Today the conversation has veered to economic inequities and the abuse of corporate power.
An ancillary to the Occupy agenda that arose a few weeks ago is the call for Americans to Move Your Money from big, impersonal banks, to local community banks and credit unions. That initiative climaxed last Saturday as the day designated “Bank Transfer Day.”
By any measure it was a resounding success. The Credit Union National Association reports that $80 million was moved into their member institutions on Saturday alone. For comparison, the CUNA notes that on an average day in 2010, they opened 1,643 new accounts. On November 5th, they opened 40,000 new accounts. Could anyone have predicted this level of success?
One person whose predictions were typically some distance from reality was Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. Last Friday he engaged Geraldo Rivera in a debate that ended with a brief discussion of the Bank Transfer Day.
Rivera: “Tomorrow there’s a Bank Transfer Day. This is a concrete thing. They are saying ‘Take your money out of the Bank of America. Take your money out of J. P. Morgan Chase. Take your money out of these big banks and put them in small credit unions.’ What if that comes out to tens of millions of dollars in bank transfers?”
O’Reilly: Let me just tell you something. Nobody’s gonna do that. Number one, those people don’t have any money and nobody’s gonna listen to them because they lost credibility.
Ya think O’Reilly will acknowledge his error now that he has been proven to be a lousy prognosticator? Do you think he will address the fact that 650,000 new accounts were opened in the month prior to Bank Transfer Day? That’s more than the total number of new accounts opened in all of last year. Do you think the big banks will stop pretending they don’t care about customers fleeing because they aren’t profitable customers? Yeah, me neither.
If there is anyone in the media whose experience and integrity has earned them the respect of their peers and the right to provide guidance to others – well, it isn’t this guy:
Indeed, Bill O’Reilly is proof that journalistic standards have waned. It’s nice of him to admit it. He is perhaps best known for telling guests to “Shut up,” and for declaring imaginary wars against holidays. Last night on his Fox News program he decided that he would promote himself to professor and lecture a guest on the standards of journalistic conduct, a field he has studiously avoided.
The guest was liberal commentator Leslie Marshall. In response to O’Reilly’s diatribe against Occupy Wall Street protesters, Marshall noted that the Tea Party had many of the same problems that O’Reilly assigned to the Occupiers. Specifically she raised the issue of the Koch brothers and their role in creating and promoting the Tea party.
Incensed, O’Reilly demanded to know whether Marshall had any direct evidence that the Koch brothers had bankrolled the Tea Party:
“Leslie, you are a Fox News contributor, you have a responsibility. Can you prove that the Koch brothers are tied into the Tea Party financially? Can you? […] I want to remind you not to make statements you can’t back up on this network. We don’t do that on this network. Other networks do. We don’t.”
The involvement of the Koch brothers in the Tea Party is not a secret. They flaunt it. Their Americans for Prosperity pays the expenses for speakers like Sarah Palin to travel the country on buses painted with Tea Party logos. Unfortunately, Marshall was ill-prepared to respond. She stumbled and conceded that she had no “check in hand.” That led O’Reilly to declare his hollow victory and tell her, in effect, to shut up as he turned to another guest with whom he agrees.
More interesting is O’Reilly’s arrogant scolding that making statements that cannot be backed up is not permitted at Fox News. Of course, there are warehouses full of documentation that reveal the absurdity of that assertion. From death panels to birth certificates to global cooling to monkey mercenaries (I’m not kidding), the list is too long to condense here. However, for convenient evidence to the contrary, all you would have to do is rewind your DVR to watch O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” delivered at the top of this program. In it he castigated the Occupy movement as pawns of nefarious behind the scenes power brokers:
“These people are being exploited by powerful radical organizations. They are being used in the hopes of embarrassing the USA. The Occupy Wall Street movement is not – is not – a spontaneous protest against inequality. It is a well thought out campaign to bring down the infrastructure of this country. To turn us into a Western European type entitlement state. That’s what George Soros, MoveOn, the SEIC (sic), and many far-left journalists want. And they are using the protest to that end.”
And what did O’Reilly have to back up any of that? Not a dang thing. MoveOn and some unions (including SEIU) have expressed support for the movement, but they were not involved in organizing or directing it. Soros has no association with it whatsoever. And the allegation that the the goal of these clandestine conspirators is to “bring down the infrastructure of this country,” must be O’Reilly’s attempt to fill Glenn Beck’s shoes now that Beck has descended into Internet purgatory.
It’s rather astonishing to watch O’Reilly pivot from hurling a load of nonsense like this in a prepared segment, without backing it up, to chastising a guest for not having reference materials to affirm comments made extemporaneously in a live debate. But that’s not even the worst of it. O’Reilly’s opening segment also attacked MoveOn for producing a video to solicit support for a Marine who was seriously injured by police at the Occupy Oakland demonstration.
“Enter the radical MoveOn organization which is funding some of the occupiers. It took just hours for them to produce this video. [MoveOn Video] Now it’s obvious that MoveOn was ready to exploit any violence so that they could portray the USA as a police state. That is part two of the Occupy movement. First demonize capitalism, tell the world how unfair the U.S. economic system is. Then show the world the cops are fascists. Disgracefully the mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, caved into the radical left. [Quan Video] Nice job Mayor. Throwing your entire police department under the bus. That’s what real leadership is all about.”
For some reason O’Reilly is surprised that MoveOn was able to post a one minute long video within a few hours of a breaking news event. That shows how little O’Reilly knows about the news business. But in telling this story, O’Reilly criticizes the video only after cutting out 22 critical seconds – the entire portion that showed Scott Olsen, the injured Marine, and the police assault on the demonstrators who tried to help him. (See the whole MoveOn video here). Removing that footage distorts the context of Mayor Quan’s statement. She was not apologizing for the police behavior, or throwing them under the bus. She was expressing regret for the grievous harm suffered by a veteran who was demonstrating peacefully.
O’Reilly’s objective here is to characterize the Occupy protesters as violent thugs itching to incite a riot. Rush Limbaugh posited the same theory on his radio show:
“They are hoping some sort of Kent State type massacre is gonna take place. They are hoping that there’s gonna be some kind of civil disobedience. They are hoping that general unrest is gonna take place, a riot is gonna start, the cops are gonna go in there to try to quell the riot, and I think that’s what they’re hoping for. This is the chaos that everybody is looking for.”
The irony of Limbaugh articulating such a devious plot is sublime. A few years ago he expressed his hopes for the Democratic National Convention in Denver saying “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!”
“[T]he dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”
Let’s face it, it’s miscreants like Limbaugh and O’Reilly who are hoping for chaos and violence. The protesters of the Occupy movement have been consistent in their insistence on peaceful behavior. That contrasts with Tea Partiers who carried guns to rallies or signs saying that “We came unarmed THIS time.”
Bill O’Reilly does not have the moral standing to criticize other people’s intentions or behavior. His personal history is rife with examples of low character and shamelessness. And so far as lecturing others on making statements that are not backed up, he really needs to shut up. In fact, that would hold true for everyone on Fox News.
If you thought that Glenn Beck was nuts when he had a daily program on Fox News, get a load of him now that he’s been unleashed on his own web site that he thinks is a TV network.
Last night Bill O’Reilly hosted Beck to hear his ruminations on the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Beck began his tale spinning by asserting that this is the start of a global revolution orchestrated by those two internationally powerful provocateurs, Code Pink and a union of service employees (SEIU). These monolithic enterprises, according to Beck, are funding the omnipresent Working Family Party to perform some unexplained treachery aimed at “collapsing the system.”
For his part, O’Reilly is upset that MSNBC is “promoting” the movement, perhaps with the consent of Comcast, the new corporate parent of NBC. Surprisingly, O’Reilly was never the least bit upset at Fox News for promoting the Tea Party, even to the extent of branding their rallies as Fox events and sending their anchors across the country to serve as MCs.
In response to O’Reilly’s inquiry as to “the George Soros factor,” Beck advanced the discredited assertion that Soros money was funneled to the movement through one of Beck’s favorite instigators of evil:
“George Soros is connected to this through the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation, his Open Society, and Code Pink are involved in what is called the Wall Street Journal…Occupied Wall Street Journal. And it is a full color newspaper. You know what it costs to print a newspaper. Huge money.”
Actually, newspapers are one of the least expensive publications to print. And Beck’s assertion that the Occupied Wall Street Journal is a project of Soros and Code Pink is hysterical and, of course, false. It is well known that the satirical newspaper was produced by pranksters, The Yes Men, and funded by donations. But it is probably asking too much to expect Beck to present arguments based on facts.
In summation Beck illuminates his theory that the Occupy movement is growing like a tree with two branches: a Marxist, revolutionary, angry branch, and a more peaceful, Tea Party like branch that will be run by Van Jones. Then this mutant tree will somehow produce chaos and violence in the streets. And don’t forget that “the President knows everything that is going on, he knows everyone that is involved.” So the conspiracy is almost complete. Now all Beck needs to do is unify this theory with his global caliphate of Muslims and western progressives and we’ll have the makings of his long promised Perfect Storm.