Bill O’Reilly Supports Abolishing Freedom Of The Press

Once again, Bill O’Reilly has proven that what he said two years ago regarding his lack of journalistic standards is still true:

In his most recent editorial, O’Reilly has exposed both his ignorance and his appreciation for officially-sanctioned speech. It should come as no surprise that the top “personality” on the Fox Propaganda Network would harbor such notions given their reputation as the media mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

The column began by thoroughly misrepresenting the philosophy of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. While any free-thinking observer of the press would keep a watchful eye on the media and retain their right to criticize it, O’Reilly flatly states that Jefferson “didn’t much like the press.” However, the truth is that Jefferson regarded the press as an essential component of a free society. He said:

“…were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

With that disinformational kickoff, O’Reilly set about to discredit a poll by the New York Times that found that a majority of Americans would prefer healthcare reform that covers everyone, even if it means paying more in taxes. Never mind that most polls reveal the same preference, O’Reilly’s only real purpose was to dispute the validity of a poll with which he disagreed.

The gist of O’Reilly’s complaint was that the Times oversampled Obama voters, producing a skewed result. The problem with his typically shallow analysis is that 50% of Republicans in the poll expressed the same preference as Democrats. What’s more, as a pollster testing the mood of the nation, the goal is not to balance respondents by political affiliation. The goal is to have a representative sample of the public at large. By that standard, the sampling of the Times poll was accurate.

Nevertheless, O’Reilly can’t contain his disdain for anyone who disagrees with him. His outrage is so intense that it led him to say this:

“The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The Times has an ombudsman, but he’s a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does.”

Stop the presses! You mean to say that a newspaper can do whatever it wants? How the heck did that happen? Why isn’t there an outside agency that has power over these papers? No wonder O’Reilly is tee’d off. He would be much happier if journalists all had to have their work approved by editorial boards that could certify the conservative purity of the message before being disseminated to the people. You know, like the way Fox News does it.

This is a man whose daily delusions can’t be summed up simply by describing them as paranoid. A new word must be coined to encompass the naked madness he embodies (Paranoxious?). His perception of enemies lurking in every shadow is enough to warrant institutionalization. Yet, instead, this is a man who has his own TV show and millions of viewers to whom he can peddle dangerous ideas like “outside agencies” that have power over the press.

This isn’t the first time that O’Reilly has expressed a desire to control the press. He frequently rails against it and ferociously attacks it. It is nearly impossible to go a day without hearing him besmirch the media as a bastion of hate that poses a very real risk to society:

“Knowing that partisan hostility is boiling over in America, the Secret Service is tense because the candidates are exposed when they campaign in public. Hatred is definitely in the air and the media is partially to blame.

You have to give O’Reilly credit for his superhuman capacity for denial, in that he doesn’t recognize himself in that statement. He even refutes it entirely in his recent defense of his provocative comments regarding the murdered doctor, George Tiller. In that case it is not, to him, the least bit inflammatory to refer to someone as a “baby killer” who “has blood on his hands”.

This is also a man who has a severe fear and hatred of the media – that’s right – the media that he works so hard to demolish despite his prominent role in it. Take, for example, this brazen threat to journalists everywhere:

“[T]here is a huge problem in this country and I’m going to attack that problem. I’m going to attack it. These people aren’t getting away with this. I’m going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down […] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed…I would.

That’s what we’re up against. That’s the sort of mindless hostility that is being spread throughout the mediasphere. And it isn’t just O’Reilly. It is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. It would be tempting to ask what can be done about these freaks. But that would just be adopting their response that promotes censorship and suppression. The real question is how do we educate the people who watch and listen to this garbage? How do we replace those sensationalistic rantings with honest and deliberative discourse? And how do we do it before it erupts into (more) violence?

That’s a difficult assignment, as snarling shoutfests seem to make for more popular viewing than rational dialogue. But it’s an assignment that we need to complete for the sake of our country, if not for our mental health.

Barney Frank Falling Into Bill O’Reilly’s Trap

Will these people never learn?

So soon after Joan Walsh’s education about the purposeful abuse that is doled out to guests of Bill O’Reilly, Barney Frank is now scheduled to appear later today.

What could he possibly hope to achieve? There is simply no point to submitting oneself to a dishonest and sensationalistic pundit with psychotic tendencies.

You can’t win if your opponent is intent on humiliating you, and he has complete control of the environment – the audio, the visual, the editing, and any access to supporting material that he can display for the audience, but you can’t see or respond to in kind.

You can’t win if your opponent is unethical, and has no misgivings about lying or raising tangential issues with the goal of catching you off-guard and making you appear foolish.

You can’t win if your opponent’s strategy is to yell louder than you, and to goad you into a shouting match that makes you look insane, but doesn’t impact him negatively because it is just a part of his persona that his audience loves, and upon which he trades.

The only thing that can explain why people like Frank would lend O’Reilly their credibility is that they have egos so large that they believe that they can overcome a fixed fight and come out on top. They can’t! It has nothing to do with their ability or intelligence. It’s just an unfair forum.

What’s more, they are only validating O’Reilly and Fox News and, like lambs to slaughter, they permit him to boast about another victory which he will hype for weeks. He is still cashing in on Frank’s last embarrassing performance.

After her ill-advised appearance, Joan Walsh wrote that she, “was sandbagged, but that’s the O’Reilly game plan.” It is about time that these people recognize that there is nothing to gain by accommodating O’Reilly and Fox News. Even in the unlikely event that you achieve some relative success, you still come away empty handed because the audience couldn’t care less about you or your positions.

Stop it already. Now I’m going to have to follow this up tomorrow with a column about how miserable Frank was made to look. Would you people just Stay the HELL off of Fox News!

[Followup] As I expected, the interview was a complete waste of time. While it didn’t devolve into a verbal mosh pit as the last episode did, it was nonetheless pointless because O’Reilly’s audience isn’t going to be persuaded by anything that Frank says.

One notable exchange occurred wherein O’Reilly revealed the true nature of his programming philosophy:

Frank: Can we have a rational discussion without interruptions?
O’Reilly: No, no, there’s always going to be interruptions. You’ve seen the program.
Frank: No. I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that. This is more complicated than your yelling would make it look like.

At least O’Reilly is honest about his blatant trivialization and sensationalism of the issues he pretends to discuss. Frank seems to be aware of O’Reilly’s strategy, but still subjects himself to it. That is collaboration, as far as I’m concerned. It only helps O’Reilly and the effort to dumb down public discourse.

Re: Joan Walsh On Bill O’Reilly: I Told You So!

Earlier today I warned Salon editor Joan Walsh against appearing on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the controversy surrounding the murdered abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. I argued that there was no possible upside because Bill O’Reilly would just turn the interview into a shoutfest wherein O’Reilly would seek only to harangue and ridicule.

Guess what?

This was a pathetic display of bullying by an ignorant, dishonest, and obsessed man. O’Reilly deftly validated my long-held position that no Democrat or progressive should EVER appear on Fox News. O’Reilly loaded the segment with quotes and video clips to which Walsh had no prior access and could not reasonably respond with any authority. She, however, had no opportunity to do likewise, or even to respond to his questions. When he wasn’t hollering at her, saying that “You have blood on your hands,” he was bellowing at her to “Stop talking!” That is the natural state of an O’Reilly interview. It is a format in which he excels, but others can be made to look foolish. So even though Walsh has been an effective and articulate presence on other TV programs, it was easily predictable that she would be jostled and beaten here. Walsh herself seems to agree with me after the fact:

“If I’m sorry I did the show — and I’m not yet sure I am — it’s only because of one thing: He used me to try Dr. Tiller again, postmortem.” […] “I’m a little embarrassed because they make me look like a liberal Pollyanna, a lamb ready to lie down with the lion — to be eaten! Live and learn.” […] “Epic fail! What was I thinking?”

You ought to be sorry, Joan. But you’re right, he did use you. He used you to attack everyone who believes that private, personal medical decisions should be between the patient and the doctor. He used you to bash everyone with liberal values that are rooted in free choice and freedom from groups or governments that seek to impose their moral standards on you. He used you to validate himself and to reinforce the falsehood that he and Fox News are “fair and balanced.”

You should be embarrassed, too. And I hope that you have learned. I hope others can learn from your unfortunate experience. The deck is stacked against anyone who wanders into that lair. It has nothing to do with your debating skills or subject knowledge. It is fixed from the outset. O’Reilly is, as you said, “driven by demons.”

I simply cannot say this enough: Stay the HELL off of Fox News. The only thing they care about is ginning up the rage and hyping the resultant conflict. Just take a look at how they are already promoting the Walsh episode just hours after it was taped:

Notice they proudly plug the flaring tempers in part one. And, worse, part two is pitched as “O’Reilly’s Dr. Tiller shoot-out.” Remember, this is about a man who was just shot to death. This is all you need to know about Fox News and how they will gleefully exploit you in the most repulsive manner imaginable.

[Update – 6/21/09] Joan Walsh wrote another followup to her O’Reilly misadventure. She seems to have learned her lesson.

“I didn’t expect to go into a debate on late-term abortion, or the details of Dr. Tiller’s practice. I was asked to discuss my reasons for criticizing O’Reilly’s crusade against Tiller, and why I hoped he would turn down his rhetoric. I was sandbagged, but that’s the O’Reilly game plan.” […] “I should have been prepared for him to hit me again Monday, when I couldn’t defend myself, with selective re-editing that took out my criticism of him and made me look evasive and/or stupid.”

I can’t imagine why she didn’t expect to be sandbagged and ridiculed. She should have read what I wrote before her appearance. I predicted precisely what would take place. I just hope that others will learn from her mistake. When you go on Fox News you are abandoning the world of responsible media and volunteering to be victimized by unscrupulous practitioners of self-righteousness and deceit. Just say no!

Joan Walsh Falling Into Bill O’Reilly’s Trap

[Note: See my post-broadcast update here}

Yesterday on Hardball, Salon editor Joan Walsh quite correctly called right-wing media to task for being provocateurs who openly engage in inflammatory rhetoric that paranoid, racist, lunatics feed upon. She said:

“When Bill O‘Reilly goes on TV every night and calls Dr. Tiller a baby killer and a Nazi and a Mengele, and shows where he works, why do we put up with that? Why is that entertainment in our culture? It‘s demonizing a private citizen for doing a lawful job? Why are people doing that? Why is that acceptable?”

Why, indeed? Why are these people given platforms to spew such thinly veiled rationalizations of violence and hatred? Why are their baseless rants regarded as acceptable in the discourse of controversial issues? Why are their words not associated with the all too predictable consequences wrought by the entranced disciples who congregate on the ledge of sanity? And why do otherwise reasonable editors persist in lending their credibility to these media malignancies, as Joan Walsh has agreed to do?

After her remarks on Hardball, O’Reilly invited her to appear on his program to debate the issue. She inexplicably accepted. It is beyond ridiculous for her to agree to participate in what will surely be a manipulated exercise in justifying O’Reilly’s incitations and massaging his bloated ego. What can she possibly hope to accomplish? She won’t change his mind or those of his brainwash followers…er…viewers.

I have previously documented the multitude of reasons why all Democrats and progressives should refuse to appear on Fox News (Starve The Beast parts One, Two, and Three). O’Reilly, in particular, is well known for bullying his “guests” and for using his editorial control to dismiss and humiliate them. He isn’t interested in winning an argument on its merits when he can just shout you down and exploit the resulting chaos to enhance his ratings. Here is a simple primer for an encounter with O’Reilly:

The O’Reilly Interview 101
Ask direct yes or no questions where one answer is clearly reprehensible and the other is totally meaningless, and bully your guest into responding.

“Do you want the U.S. to lose in Iraq? Well, do you?”

Create an association with an unpopular (preferably mischaracterized) opinion with the broadest attribution possible.
“Do you agree with Harry Belafonte, and the rest of the liberal establishment, that Venezuela should take over America?”

Never concede on substance, even if your arguments are demonstrably false.
“Saddam Hussein did too meet with Osama Bin Laden at Michael Moore’s compound in Libya – Twice.”

Employ ad hominims liberally.
“Why should anyone listen to a radical, Kool-Aid drinking, far-left loon like you?”

Shout louder than your guests and interrupt frequently, especially when they are making a good point.

Walsh is making a mistake by sucking up to this demagogue and she should seriously consider canceling the appearance. She is not merely placing herself in a position where she will be disparaged and diminished, she is creating an opportunity for O’Reilly to project his venom on everyone with whom she presumes to represent. She is willfully doing harm to all of us who are fighting so fiercely against the sort on poisonous rhetoric that O’Reilly dispenses on a daily basis.

It’s not too late to tell Walsh to back out of the booking. She asked for advise on her Twitter stream. Let’s give her some. And you can speak out at her blog as well.

Update: Well, after the taping, Walsh blogged about the experience. It wasn’t pretty.

Even though she has already gone through with it, we can still let her know that it was a mistake.

Lying Is Easy, Comedy Is Hard

Anyone who has ever tried to make an audience laugh knows how deceptively easy a talented comic can make their job look. The truth is, it is so difficult to do well that there is a famous (but difficult to source) quote reportedly made from an actor’s deathbed: “Dying is easy, comedy is hard.”

It’s going to get a lot harder for people like Jon Stewart. The competition is heating up with some of the most hilarious, and unexpected, entrants into the field of funny. Republicans from around the country are trying out their best material in an effort to amuse and deceive audiences nationwide.

First up is Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, who cracked up a room of College Republicans with his famous “Hat” routine. The premise is that it doesn’t matter how you wear your hat (to the side, backwards, etc) so long as it is a GOP hat:

I’m asking you to go out and ask your friends to wear our hat. The hat of an idea.

For this bit, Steele had four students stand so that he could pretend to put imaginary hats on them. Steele intuitively knew that the bit would be much funnier with audience members standing there for no purpose other than to grin and display their naked heads. And I have to admire the deeper meaning of the invisible hats of ideas that obviously represent the GOP’s absence ideas.

The setup included a dire admonition that Barack Obama “has asked your generation to wear his hat.” I must have missed that speech. But I did see Steele’s previous speech where he promised to deliver “change in a tea bag.” How does he keep coming up with this brilliant material?

And then there is Bill O’Reilly. In a sidesplitting debate over torture and abortion, O’Reilly challenged Juan Williams to explain why liberals object to torture but defend abortion providers like Dr. George Tiller. Williams attempted, through O’Reilly’s interruptions, to answer saying that torture is against both domestic and international law, but Tiller’s work was entirely legal. To which O’Reilly responded:

“You can dance the law dance all day long. And laws are passed by men. Laws can be revoked. They can be passed.”

The joke, as O’Reilly sees it, is the law itself. It’s just a dance and we don’t really need to comply with it because it’s just stuff that some people came up with in legislatures and courtrooms. Just imagine the comical scenarios that would ensue if we extend O’Reilly’s view of the law to burglary, rape, and terrorism. I can see O’Reilly now, defending Osama Bin Laden before a military tribunal, doing a jig while testifying that he can “dance the law dance all day long.” After all, the laws against flying planes into buildings could be revoked.

Almost as funny as his legal pirouettes is his contention that “the attorney general ruled waterboarding was not torture. It was legal.” As if the attorney general has the judicial standing to make such a ruling. He isn’t a judge. The best he can offer is an opinion, and you would think that O’Reilly has enough of those of his own. And to compound the laugh factor, O’Reilly seems perfectly satisfied to accept the constraints of the law (as he misinterprets it) with regard to waterboarding, even though he dismisses the law as it applies to abortion. Who’s dancing now?

This brings us to Newt Gingrich who made this declaration last night:

“Let me be clear. I am not a citizen of the world!”

I’m going to guess Plutonian, because he is just so out there, stretching the comedy envelope. He is objecting to a part of Obama’s speech wherein he referred to himself as “a citizen of the world.” I wonder if Gingrich knows that John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and even Ronald Reagan used the very same phrase. Gingrich also mined comedy gold by railing against the “fact” that our nation’s school curriculum doesn’t include American history. Makes you wonder how closely he was paying attention.

It’s going to be hard for working comics and satirists to compete with the new Republican Rubber Chicken Society. Not many people are better at spinning lies…er…stories than desperate Republican politicians and pundits. It may be too much to ask our professional laugh-smiths to create humor from scratch when the GOP can just pull it out of their butts. I mean, how can you compete with headlines like:
“Fox Newser Accused of Dragging Cyclist Through Central Park.” And:
“Peter Doocy [Steve’s boy] Joins Fox News.” And:
“Sarah Palin Mystifies and Annoys the Republican Establishment.”
“Coburn’s STD Lecture to Congressional Interns Put On Hold Due to Pizza Dispute.”

Yes, those are real. And so is the danger that reality will make comedians obsolete. Thanks GOP.

Rothenberg Dunks Hardball

Stuart Rothenberg is the very model of a modern major political pundit. He has his own newsletter and contributes to Roll Call, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and is a regular commentator on television news programs. He has a reputation as an astute analyst. Which makes me wonder why it took him so long to come to this realization:

“America’s cable ‘news’ networks have concluded – on the basis of considerable research and evidence, I’m sure – that most viewers don’t want straight news and analysis as much as they want to hear what they already think or to watch predictable partisan attacks.

“The three big cable ‘news’ networks don’t exist to provide a public service, after all. They have corporate officers and stockholders to answer to, which means they need more and more eyeballs to generate more advertising dollars.

“Their answer: talk radio on TV. Forget about the serious implications and political fallout that follow an event or policy, and instead attack your opponents repeatedly using half-truths, glittering generalities and inapplicable analogies.”

With that, Rothernberg announced that he will no longer be a guest on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Very little of what Rothenberg says should surprise anyone who has been paying attention. So either he is not as astute as he pretends to be, or he just preferred picking up his paycheck and indulging in denial. Rothenberg complains that Hardball has evolved into “a partisan, heavily ideological sledgehammer” and he is upset that Matthews made reference to some Republicans as crackpots. But that seems like a pretty petty reason to pound on a news culture that has plenty of legitimate flaws.

I’m not sure what his objection is to the crackpot remark. With characters like Michele “Let’s investigate Congress for Socialists” Bachmann, and Michael “It’s a Hip-Hop GOP, Baby” Steele, crackpot seems like a rather reserved assessment. And as for being a partisan sledgehammer, I can’t think of any other program that regularly hosts the disgraced former Republican leader, Tom DeLay, and treats him with such deference and respect.

Rothenberg’s assertion that viewers aren’t interested in straight news is really a form of attacking the victim. There is surely a segment of the market that prefers to only hear those things that validate their preconceptions, but part of the problem is that they haven’t been given a real choice in the first place. If the audience currently has no place to find neutral reporting, how can we conclude that they would not watch it if it were available? The truth is that viewers are drawn to programming that provides either information or drama. Since there is presently no compelling source of informational programming, viewers are stuck with the dramatic variety.

Rothenberg’s observation that the media has abandoned public service in favor of profit is irrefutable, but hardly a revelation. And while he describes the corporate response to conditions in the marketplace (talk radio on TV), he doesn’t bother to offer any suggestions for reversing the trend and restoring a commitment to quality and public service in cable studios and newsrooms. He seems to lack the courage to declare that it is the iron grip of the monolithic media conglomerates that is responsible for the greed-driven state of today’s news providers.

While Rothenberg comes down pretty hard on Hardball, he says that Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz, are even worse. To his credit, he attempts to seek some balance by making a couple of obvious, yet still notable (for a mainstream pundit) comments about the Fox News all-stars, including…

“O’Reilly’s obsession with General Electric and that company’s CEO is bizarre, though any program that treats Dick Morris seriously as an independent analyst obviously has major problems.”

So Rothenberg’s epiphany has led him to eschew Hardball for good. He doesn’t say whether he will do likewise for the rest of the cable asylum. That would certainly make a dent in his wallet. However, he does suggest that his fellow pundits reconsider their own fraternization with the compromised world of cable news. He regards it as a matter of integrity in the name of journalistic ethics and says that…

“Trying to be an unbiased reporter or neutral analyst on a heavily biased television program is incredibly awkward and uncomfortable. Either you end up fighting the host’s premises and rephrasing loaded questions, or you are tacitly accepting the way the host defines a situation, making yourself an accomplice to a political mugging.”

That’s about the truest thing I have ever heard a member of the political mugging class admit to. On one hand, I admire Rothenberg’s honest appraisal, though I still can’t imagine what took him so long to arrive at it. On the other hand, he isn’t exactly an innocent bystander. He’s more like the stoolie who’s giving up his pals to save his own skin. Time will tell whether this is a genuine revelation or merely a tantrum for some perceived slight in the Hardball green room – or retaliation for Matthews calling his Republican buddiess crackpots.

Bill O’Reilly Lies About Army Recruiter Shooting

Ordinarily it would not be news to report that Bill O’Reilly lied about something. But in this case he is layering lies on top of lies as he squirms to extricate himself from his lies.

On June 1, Pvt. William Long, was fatally shot at an Army recruiting office in Arkansas. This was the day after Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed at a church service. Both of these tragic events deserved attention from the press and sympathy from the public. And that is just what they got.

Never the less, O’Reilly sought to politicize the matter by falsely claiming that there was a deliberate distortion in the news coverage in favor of Dr. Tiller. He delivered an outraged rant in which he asserted that Tiller’s murder was over-emphasized in the media, while Long’s shooting was virtually ignored – except, of course, by himself and Fox News. The problem with O’Reilly’s tantrum is that he was completely wrong on the facts. Rick Sanchez of CNN took the time to set O’Reilly straight:

The next day, O’Reilly recognized that he could not ignore the blatant factual errors in his screed. So he issued an apology of sorts. But his apology just revealed more of his arrogance and dishonesty. He starts off with a condescending declaration that this is a “rare” correction he is being forced to make. What he doesn’t say is that it is only rare because of his reluctance to admit his frequent errors, not because he doesn’t make any. He goes on to describe the person to whom he is supposedly apologizing as a “snide and surly guy.” This is the sort of graciousness O’Reilly offers when he is apologetic:

In addition to the crude and self-serving remarks noted above, O’Reilly based his entire apology on another fundamental lie. He sought to excuse himself for his mistake by saying that he was only “talking about primetime” but neglected to say that. But in his original remarks he specifically said:

“Only Anderson Cooper at 10 o’clock covered this. Nobody else. So all day long it wasn’t news to cover an Army recruiter gunned down in Arkansas.”

O’Reilly did not forget to mention that he was only talking about primetime. He explicitly stated that CNN’s failure to cover the Long shooting occurred “all day long.” So his so-called apology was just another obfuscation of the truth.

The whole premise of this segment was based on a trumped up controversy from the start. O’Reilly, and much of the right-wing media, were up in arms about what they perceived as a disparity in coverage between the Tiller and Long shootings. But they fail to grasp some basic realities of news coverage. While these were both tragic events, they were also different events.

Tiller was a well known public figure whose position as a lightening rod for controversy guaranteed scrutiny from the press. Long was unknown and, without further investigation, there was no cause to suspect that his murder was anything other than a personal dispute that got out of hand. So the immediate reaction from the media was understandably different. For better or worse, the death of an Anna Nicole Smith will always generate more buzz than the death of a Jane Doe.

Even after it was discovered that Long’s killer was a convert to Islam, and the shooting might have a political component, it was still not controversial in that all Americans would abhor such an act. In Tiller’s case, the overriding debate about abortion stirred conflicting reactions. And if there is anything that the media loves, it’s conflict. That’s the explanation for any disparity in reporting, not some imagined preference for Dr. Tiller’s life over Pvt. Long’s.

There are two things that we can learn from the aftermath of these events. First, that the press will always fan the flames of controversy. And second, that O’Reilly can always be counted on to be a lying jerk.

Update 6/9/09: After making such a big fuss about CNN not giving enough coverage to the army recruiter shooting, Fox News failed to cover today’s press conference given by the survivor of the attack. Both CNN and MSNBC covered it live. Fox chose, instead, to broadcast remarks by Newt Gingrich from the night before.

NARAL Spokesperson Rejects Bill O’Reilly

Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York, was asked to appear on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the murder of Dr. George Tiller. She gave him the only answer that is acceptable and then explained why in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

In her column, Carr movingly described why she believed that Bill O’Reilly bore some responsibility for the heinous shooting death of a doctor at a Sunday church service. She pointed out how O’Reilly repeatedly taunted his viewers with thinly veiled messages that Dr. Tiller was an evil practitioner who had to be stopped. On his program, O’Reilly had labeled the doctor “Tiller, the baby killer.” He said that Tiller has blood on his hands and that anyone who doesn’t stop him has blood on their hands as well. Carr recognized that it was disingenuous for O’Reilly to pretend that his words have no effect, particularly after boasting about how influential he is:

“O’Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O’Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.”

Nonetheless, Carr had a moment of introspection wherein she considered accepting his recent invitation to appear on his show:

“But then I realized I just couldn’t. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn’t enough to make Bill O’Reilly repent, what hope did I have?”

She made the right decision. And it is not just the right decision for Carr, it is the right decision for anyone asked to appear with O’Reilly or any other Fox News demagogue. It is long past time for Democrats and progressives to come to the same realization that Carr did. You cannot win an argument with these people. Their minds are locked shut and they are doing their best to see to it that their viewers suffer the same malady.

I have written extensively on the need to Starve The Beast: Just stay off of Fox News. There is no reason to help them by lending them our credibility. There is no reason to give them cover as being “fair and balanced.” There is no reason to help them to prop up their ratings by permitting them to fabricate the sort of melodrama upon which they thrive.

Mary Alice Carr did the right thing. Now we just need to get everyone else to realize what she did: that there is no reason – ever – to go on Fox News.

Republicans Flub The Double Reverse Alinsky

For degree of difficulty, I’ll give them a ten, but Republicans are far too incompetent to have risked the political Jujitsu required by their recent exercise.

Saul Alinsky was an activist and author who has been called the founder of modern community organizing. He is said to have been an early influence on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. His book, Rules For Radicals, outlined a program for effecting social change by building organizations that restored the balance of power from the elite to the people.

Early in last year’s presidential campaign, Republicans sought to exploit Clinton and Obama’s connection to Alinsky, implying that there was something frightful about his advocacy of empowering the poor and middle classes. More recently, his name has begun to reappear in a new, seemingly coordinated assault on the President, the press, and any stray progressive activist that might saunter along. The problem is that these conservatives swing so wide of the mark that they only succeed in making asses of themselves. Their approach is so pedestrian that not only do they fail to make their point, the point they make is often antithetical to what they intended. For example…

Jim Geraghty wrote an article for the National Review, The Alinsky Administration, that seeks to associate Obama with the first of Alinsky’s rules: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. But Geraghty’s limited comprehension distills the concept down to nothing more than the allegation that Obama is a politician who seeks to attain power. Shocking, isn’t it?

Geraghty: “As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it.”

In addition to missing Alinsky’s point entirely, Geraghty also contradicts the vast conservative confederation that has been hammering away at Obama precisely because of his intransigent liberalism. So while everyone else on the right is trying to convince us that Obama is taking us down the road to Socialism, Geraghty contends that the ideology is expendable in the pursuit of power.

Then Geraghty turns up on the Hannity show and invokes his version of Alinsky’s fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. But in making his case, Geraghty has uncovered a heretofore unknown conspiracy that is under the direction of Obama:

Geraghty: “[H]e’s got everything from ‘The Daily Show’ to ‘The Colbert Report’ to, you know, liberal bloggers, entertainers, Bill Maher. He kind of outsources that aspect of the Alinsky operation.

It may come as a surprise to Jon Stewart et al, to learn that they are mere puppets of the White House Overlord. The administration’s army of comedians must keep a lot of Republicans up at night. And, Heaven knows, the President himself loves to laugh. Bill O’Reilly also picked up the ridicule angle and added NBC as an instrument of Obama’s plot:

O’Reilly: “Enter far-left philosopher Saul Alinsky […] Before he died, Alinsky wrote a book called ‘Rules for Radicals,’ and here is where the politics of ridicule was defined. According to Alinsky, in order to change America into a far-left bastion, traditional Americans must be marginalized.”

Of course, O’Reilly made up virtually all of that. Alinsky not only did not advocate for marginalizing “traditional Americans,” he was their biggest advocate. Then again, O’Reilly’s definition of a traditional American is a wealthy, white, Christian, corporatist, social Darwinian, who gets off on torture and loofahs. But my favorite part, personally, is where O’Reilly says, “Before he died, Alinsky wrote a book…” As opposed to the books he wrote after he died? Thanks for making that distinction, Bill.

If the Republicans are sensitive to being ridiculed, it is only because they make it so easy. However, their disingenuous sniveling is hard to take seriously when they are just as guilty of the practice as the left. O’Reilly has a daily feature on his show wherein he calls people pinheads. The RNC repeatedly cranked out campaign videos mocking Obama as a celebrity, a media darling, or “The One”. Glenn Beck has a recurring series on the “March to Socialism”. Rush Limbaugh devotes most of his daily three hour rant to nothing but ridiculing one Democrat or another. The Internet is awash with images of Obama as everything from a terrorist to a Messiah to Hitler.

The flood of references to Alinsky is threatening to drown out all other political discourse. It has been taken up by everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Michelle Bachmann to Karl Rove. When you hear Republicans condemn Democrats for some breach of civility, you can lay odds that they are doing the very same thing. Their capacity for projection is legendary. This is no less true with regard to their allegations concerning Alinsky’s rules. But their execution is atrocious. They are so bad, in fact, that they are even contradicted by their own side. Last year, John J. Pitney Jr., also writing for the National Review, penned a column entitled, “The Alinsky Ticket,” wherein he exposed the real perpetrators of this pinko scheme:

Pitney: “Radical activist Saul Alinsky has had quite a season, especially for somebody who has been dead for 36 years. The two Democratic finalists had Alinsky links […] But the candidates who have most effectively applied Alinsky principles are John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Well, now the cat’s out of the bag. Pitney dropped the dime on the GOP. How can they assail Obama and the Democrats for a strategy that they are employing themselves? Actually, they can do it very easily. In fact, it is rule number one in Karl Rove’s Rules For Reactionaries: Conduct a campaign of dirty tricks, but accuse your opponents of doing it first.

Rightists are now trying to adapt that rule to Alinsky’s teachings, and to disparage Obama and the Democrats. Unfortunately, their ineptitude is so advanced that they can’t execute a successful program. All they are accomplishing is a reaffirmation of their own desperation and lameness. Nothing illustrates this better than the recent proposal by the RNC to rebrand Democrats as the Democrat Socialist Party [shakes head and sighs].

Watch for more hilarity as Republicans continue in their quest to complete the perfect Double Reverse Alinsky – no matter how many times, or how miserably, they fail.

Top 10 Crazy Political Commentators

According to AskMen.com, the Top 10 Crazy Political Commentators are:

  1. Bill O’Reilly
  2. Keith Olbermann
  3. Ann Coulter
  4. Michael Savage
  5. Rush Limbaugh
  6. Sean Hannity
  7. Chris Matthews
  8. Geraldo Rivera
  9. Dennis Miller
  10. Glenn Beck

Somehow I missed this list when it was published back in February. On the surface it doesn’t seem particularly groundbreaking. After all, the personalities enumerated are mostly deserving, although the order could inspire much debate.

The funny thing about this list is that AskMen is owned by Fox Interactive, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. So it’s interesting to note that five of the top 10 crazies, including number one, are actually employees of Fox News. Three more (Coulter, Savage, and Limbaugh) are Fox-aligned right-wingers. That’s eight out of ten Foxies, with the remaining two from MSNBC.

What we have here is one Fox affiliate acknowledging that another Fox affiliate is dominated by pundits who are patently insane. Will the editors of AskMen be punished for this eruption of honesty? Will they be admonished for insulting their corporate cousins? Of course not. This is exactly what Fox intended when they hired these lunatics. They were pursuing a programming strategy that leaned heavily on exploiting madness for its entertainment value. They were convinced that nothing excited the American viewing public as much as a live, on-air, mental train wreck.

Well, they are sure getting their money’s worth.