Bill O’Reilly

Fox News In Critical Condition

Posted by on April 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm. 15 Comments :

In the first quarter of 2008, Fox News was the slowest growing cable news network (10%), behind MSNBC (66%) and CNN (87%). For the first time in six years they finished in 2nd place. Now, in the first month of the 2nd quarter, the diagnosis is even worse.

Ratings April 2008

Notably, Fox is showing a 14% decline form their year-ago numbers, while their arch nemesis, MSNBC, posts a 9% increase. This comes in the midst of a contentious election year when demand for news is uncommonly strong. Why then is Fox waning? The same dynamics I wrote about a month ago are still in play today:

“The stagnation of Fox’s audience can be traced in part to the downward spiral of the Bush presidency. Fox has long tethered its fortunes to a conservative ideology that has fallen out of favor.”

Mainstream audiences are less interested in the partisan cheerleading of right-wing zealots. They may also be tiring of the Crossfire-style tongue lashing engaged in by the modern punditocracy. A case in point is Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, which has been criticized for avoiding confrontation by declining to book adversarial guests. But its strategy is validated by consistently being the fastest growing program on cable news. The numbers for April show that it is the only program to grow (+21%), compared to CNN’s Campbell Brown (-23%) and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly (-12%).

MSNBC also benefited from the contributions of the rest of its lineup (Race For the White House, Hardball, Verdict) which were all either stable or higher, while their competition was uniformly lower. Even Countdown’s repeat contributed by improving on last year’s Doc Block by 10%.

What is particularly disturbing is that, in this environment where Fox News is gasping for air, the Democratic candidates for president chose this week to succumb to the howl of publicity hounding. What we already know about the narrow-minded nature of Fox’s audience, combined with the evidence that it is shrinking precipitously, should be enough to convince rational Democrats to remove Fox News from their itinerary.

This is not the time to surrender. The Democratic embargo of Fox News has almost certainly played a part in the network’s decline. Their programming has suffered by being over-weighted with right-wingers and Republicans. They have resorted to whining on air about the kids who won’t play with them. If it wasn’t hurting them they wouldn’t mention it. Now, with Fox on the ropes, Democrats should stay strong and resist whatever urge it is that compels them to act against their own interests by accepting invitations to a party from a host that seeks only to diminish them.

Let’s hope that now that the thrust and parry of the Obama/Clinton appearances on Fox are history, they can manage to rein in their impulses and get back on the team. Fox is hostile territory and our generals should not be giving them aid and comfort.

Hillary Clinton To Suck Up To Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm. 11 Comments :

Clinton on O'ReillyHillary Clinton is following in the futile steps of Barack Obama after his appearance on Fox News Sunday. My analysis of that affair applies in spades to Clinton’s announcement that she will fraternize with the noxious Bill O’Reilly this Wednesday. This is what I said about Obama’s lapse in judgment:

“A strong performance will net him nothing because the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity. It will end right there. But the slightest misstep will be magnified a hundred fold throughout the Murdoch empire.”

It’s even worse for Clinton. The number one priority for O’Reilly is to applaud his own magnificence. The boundaries of his ego are approaching a state that is becoming an imminent danger to Earth’s orbit. The number two priority for O’Reilly is to bash Democrats. In pursuit of that he will have an ally in Sen. Clinton. She is likely to use this opportunity to assail Obama on tangents like Rev. Wright. And if she doesn’t volunteer to do so, O’Reilly will provide her with the opening. O’Reilly’s obsession with Wright is a near fetish. He has featured the ex-pastor in 19 of his 26 Talking Points Memos since the story broke last month.

Clinton’s friendliness with right-wing media is nothing new, of course. She attended a fundraiser thrown for her by Rupert Murdoch, then was endorsed by his New York Post. She sat down with Richard Mellon Scaife, who had accused her of murder when she was still First Lady, then was endorsed by his Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Her campaign’s General Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, appears in Fox News promos lauding their fairness and balance. And now she will sit across the table from the 21st century’s Father Coughlin.

As I’ve said many times before, no good can come of this. In Clinton’s case it is even more foreboding because she has demonstrated a willingness to collude with conservative opponents for her political gain. Obama promised to “take Fox on” prior to meeting with Wallace. He didn’t. If Clinton gives O’Reilly a hard time, he will hit back, but not until after she has left the stage, and for days after that. But he will come close to endorsing her if she throws him enough red meat about Obama.

There is just no upside. Fox only exists to defeat Democrats. When will these people learn?

Tony Snow Goes Over To The Dark Side – CNN

Posted by on April 21, 2008 at 2:23 pm. 3 Comments :

The “liberal” media is at it again. CNN has just announced that it has hired former Bush press secretary, and Fox News anchor, Tony Snow, to be a conservative commentator.

Snow: “I’m delighted to be able to join CNN during the most exciting and unpredictable political year in memory. The big challenge in 2008 is to develop deep, creative and aggressive analysis of both political parties, their candidates and campaigns. I’m eager to get started, since this race is sure to shape American politics for years to come.”

If this is CNN’s answer to the Fox News signing of Karl Rove it is yet another blunder on the part of their programming staff. The last time they went after the Fox model was the acquisition of Glenn Beck, who is now the lowest rated evening pundit on any of the cable news nets.

CNN’s press release on Snow failed to mention that he is presently the permanent guest host for Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor. Which raises the question of when, precisely, O’Reilly’s aneurysm will erupt. Remember this…

“O’Reilly: “But you can’t go over to CNN. I mean, that’s the devil over there. You can’t. You know. You’re a religious guy. You can’t go into the pagan throne over there.”

Score one for Satan.

Progressive Media vs. Freedom’s Watch

Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 1:57 am. NO Comments :

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™ is revving up its media machine in response to news that Democrats intend to run a campaign for president against Republican John McCain. What gall! Unable to tolerate such impudence, Republicans, and their patrons in the press, are brewing a full-scale whine with a pungent aroma of fear and a nose for hypocrisy.

The object of their dread is the announcement of a new fund created in part to counter the media’s love affair with McCain. Progressive Media USA (PMUSA) was revealed in an article by Politico and described thusly:

“Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist.”

As evidence of the trepidation with which the GOPress has received this news, here is a sampling of the headlines generated since the story broke this afternoon:

Politico: David Brock, Dems plan $40M hit on McCain
Fox News: Dems Plan $40 Million Anti-McCain Ad Blitz
USA Today: “$40M hit” to be aimed at McCain
UPI: Democrats planning for new McCain attacks
CBS News: Democrats Plan $40M Hit On McCain

Without exception, the headline writers all adopt a negative tone that focuses on the group’s alleged mission to attack McCain, despite the fact that the group’s organizers have laid out a much broader, issues-oriented agenda.

Bill O’Reilly joined the chorus by devoting a major chunk of his program to the story including his Talking Points Memo, an interview with Politico reporter Jim VandeHei, and an extended segment with Stepford Pundit Laura Ingraham. His long-time obsession with Brock and PMUSA backer George Soros explodes all over the screen. He repeatedly calls Brock, president of Media Matters, a “vile assassin” and, when VandeHei suggests that the right has similar groups, O’Reilly says that he’s not aware of any (more on this lie below). He pretends to ask VandeHei to provide more info, but then just continues his non-stop ranting without providing an opportunity to do so. In the course of his coverage O’Reilly describes the Soros/Media Matters connection as…

“…the most frightening thing I have ever seen in American politics.”

Really? More frightening than the election debacle of 2000? More frightening than Watergate? More frightening than the McCarthy Hearings? More frightening than the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King? Does O’Reilly really believe that an organization that demands honesty from the media is evil, as he says on the Factor? Does he really fear a wealthy individual who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to promote democracy around the world? More likely he is afraid of being repeatedly shown to be a lying gasbag who is more aligned with theo-corporatism than traditional American liberty.

Earlier in the day, Election HQ on Fox News brought in Republican propagandist Frank Luntz (who is identified only as a pollster without affiliation) to offer his analysis. Luntz argued vociferously that any move by Democrats to attack McCain would fail. He looked straight into the camera to make an impassioned plea that they abandon such plans or suffer at the polls. It was heartwarming to see Luntz display such empathy for his Democratic rivals. Who knew that he was so concerned about the electoral welfare of the party he has fought against his entire career.

The most stunning assertion by Luntz in this interview was his response to a surprisingly reasonable question from Megyn Kelly. She asked Luntz whether the Democrats’ plan was an appropriate reaction to all the favorable press McCain receives. Luntz seemed astonished that Kelly would suggest such nonsense. He disputed her premise and went further to declare that it was Barack Obama who was the press darling. He actually said aloud that:

“The most negative story that they can use on Obama is that he can’t bowl. Give me a break.”

Apparently Luntz has been a coma for the past few months. If the idiocy of this comment were able to generate light, you would be able to see it from space. Anyone with a television has seen the attacks on Obama that range from accusations that he is a Muslim to casting doubt on his patriotism to belittling his experience. And always, always his association with Rev Wright, criticisms of whom could populate their very own cable network. In fact, the segment immediately following Luntz’s interview with Kelly was yet another story about Rev. Wright.

Amidst this conflagration of outrage over the Democrats’ desire to actually mount a campaign, the media is missing a minor development that just might have some relevance to the stories they are advancing. They might want to look into the fact that Republicans are also engaging in this thing called politics. Last year a group of Republican insiders corralled their biggest donors and created Freedom’s Watch (FW). The New York Times trumpeted their arrival:

“Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda.”

At its launch the group announced that they intend to raise $200 million – five times the goal proposed by PMUSA. FW was co-founded by former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who is now its spokes-liar. FW’s new chief is Carl Forti, a former communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, and known for his unscrupulous dishonesty. FW is well off and well connected. And unlike PMUSA, its management is directly tied to Party operatives. Even Bill O’Reilly, who said he was unaware of any such organizations, was, in fact, well aware of FW. He interviewed its founding president Bradley Blakeman just four months ago.

Now the media is aghast at the thought that Democrats are coming to the field prepared to play. But not one of them has reported that the Republicans started this conflict, seeded it with more money, and even now are using it to escalate the propaganda war. Email from the McCain campaign has already gone out pleading with supporters to dig deeper.

“We need to be able to answer whatever smear campaigns the liberal left throws at us. Please help as we combat this base demagoguery with a donation of $50, $100, $250 or even $1000 today.”

It will be interesting to see if any of our observers in the 4th estate ever bother to fairly present the facts in this matter, or even to put it into context. But given the way they’ve misrepresented it thus far, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.

Update: In response to Obama’s request that third party groups not produce anti-McCain ads, Progressive Media USA has become Progressive Accountability. The new group will conduct research and tracking of the McCain campaign, but will not produce ads.

Bill O’Reilly vs. The Race Hustlers

Posted by on April 9, 2008 at 3:31 am. NO Comments :

Bill O’Reilly’s campaign to inculcate racism into society is in full swing. A few days ago, after wondering aloud whether Martin Luther King despised America, he accused millions of African-Americans of hating their country. Today, in his Talking Points Memo, he advances his argument to attack anyone who has the temerity to suggest that racism actually exists:

“As we’ve been reporting, millions of Americans of all colors are fed up with race baiters and accusations of racism.”

Who these millions are, O’Reilly doesn’t say. But he does list some of their “victims.” Here are a few with some related commentary I’ve added.

  • George W. Bush: Will speak at racist Bob Jones University but not the convention of the NAACP (five years in a row).
  • Ronald Reagan: Declared in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” Plus he was a staunch supporter of apartheid in South Africa.
  • Don Imus: Of “nappy headed hos” fame.
  • Trent Lott: Who thinks Strom Thurmond’s segregationist agenda would have solved our nation’s race problems.
  • John Gibson: Pleads with whites to have more children to keep America from being overrun.
  • Glenn Beck: Views the predominately black victims of Hurricane Katrina as scumbags.
  • Michelle Malkin: A Filipina, wrote a book defending the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.
  • Sean Hannity: Benefactor of neo Nazi/white supremacist Hal Turner.
  • Rush Limbaugh: Whose racist ranting about Donovan McNabb got him booted from football broadcasting. And who could forget “Barack the Magic Negro?”

These are the people O’Reilly is defending against charges of racism. He thinks it is inexcusable to label such people and thinking as racist. It makes you wonder how far someone would have to go before O’Reilly would concede that some form of prejudice is present. Instead, he considers these people to be pillars of racial harmony who are unfairly tarnished by those he calls “race hustlers.” He clearly prefers that people refrain from any mention of racism. He insists that even raising the issue will “hurt minorities by inhibiting sincere discussion.” In other words, Shut Up! O’Reilly warns that dire circumstances await those who fail to heed his demand:

“The result of all this garbage is that millions of white Americans will no longer even think about discussing race with blacks. It is far too dangerous.”

Once again, O’Reilly doesn’t offer even a hint of who these millions are. But no matter, O’Reilly’s solution to racial discord is to never mention it. On this he is in agreement with William Kristol’s call for “benign neglect“ on matters of race. And just to be sure you don’t think he’s fooling around, he lays down this threat:

“…you race hustlers out there, you race baiters, you better watch it. We’ve got your number, and the gloves are off.”

O’Reilly loves to throw his weight around. Here are a few of his classic threats from the past:

  • “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.” – Directed at Democrats who decline to appear on his program.
  • “No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.” – Directed at anyone standing between his camera and some object of his infection.
  • “Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down.” – Directed at his legions of enemies in the press.
  • “There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.” – Directed at presidential candidates.
  • “Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born.” – Directed at businesses that deign to wish their customers a Happy Holiday.

And then there’s this old favorite:

For the record, O’Reilly has now referenced Rev. Wright in 11 of the 14 Talking Points Memos he has done since the story broke a month ago. There certainly couldn’t be any racist intent in that. His repeated assertions as to the racism of Rev. Wright, and by extension, Barack Obama, don’t count in his campaign against calling people racist. Or perhaps it only counts when someone other than himself is doing the calling.

Bill O’Reilly Asks: Did Martin Luther King Despise America?

Posted by on April 7, 2008 at 2:59 pm. 6 Comments :

In the event that anyone requires further evidence of Bill O’Reilly’s overt prejudice, he was kind enough to oblige last week with yet another example.

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, O’Reilly distills the legacy of King down to one question. The question O’Reilly considers the key to understanding King’s life-long work is whether or not King despised America. And how does O’Reilly’s respond? “…that question is very difficult to answer precisely.”

There is nothing new about O’Reilly spewing vitriolic diatribes accusing his perceived enemies in the Culture War of hatred and treason. But choosing this occasion to sully King’s reputation sets a new low, even for O’Reilly. However, O’Reilly isn’t satisfied with merely smearing one of our nation’s greatest voices for freedom and equality, he also denigrates the whole of the population for which King fought and died. In discussing African-Americans and others who defended the reputation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, O’Reilly used his Talking Points Memo last Friday to disparage the very people most harmed by the sort of prejudice that is still with us forty years after King’s death.

O’Reilly: “Now there is no question that millions of Americans do despise the USA. I hate to say it, but it’s true. And they see themselves as victims of oppression from a corrupt government and system.”

In context, there is no question that the millions to whom O’Reilly refer, who despise America and see themselves as victims, are African-Americans. These are the same Americans that surprised O’Reilly by how civilized they were when dining at Sylvia’s in Harlem:

O’Reilly: “I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.”

O’Reilly has been hammering the Wright issue ever since it broke. Of the thirteen Talking Points Memos he delivered on the Factor since the pastor became news, Wright was raised in ten of them. That’s 77% of the signature essays he reads at the beginning of every program. Every other issue, from Iraq to health care to immigration to the election, etc., is subjugated to the national catastrophe of a few sermons by a Chicago pastor. This is a pretty good indicator of what O’Reilly thinks is important.

Obviously, what he thinks is important is repeatedly pouring salt into racial wounds and driving Americans further apart. This has become the recognized mission of the O’Reilly Fracture. And just when you thought he could sink no lower, he condemns millions of black Americans for hating their country. In the process he has the arrogance to speak for King. After showing a video clip of John McCain being booed for his opposition to a federal MLK holiday, O’Reilly asserts that…

“Dr. King, of course, would have forgiven John McCain.”

Isn’t it wonderful that we have O’Reilly here to channel America’s martyred heroes? Especially those whom he believes might have despised America.

Tucker Carlson: A True Washington Story

Posted by on March 10, 2008 at 9:22 am. 7 Comments :

Tucker Carlson True Washington StoryMSNBC is FINALLY taking a needed step, and not a moment too soon. David Gregory will replace Tucker Carlson. Now, instead of suffering through election season with an obnoxious dimwit, we will actually have some informed dialog and insight. I would have preferred Rachel Maddow, but MSNBC is trying to put forth more clout from NBC News, and she will almost certainly be a regular guest on the new program. Also, keep in mind the name of Gregory’s show: “Race for the White House.” What happens to this timeslot after November?

Gregory, as Senior White House Correspondent, knows there will be little happening on that beat for the remainder of the year. So he’s settling in to cover the campaign and he can return to the White House with the new president. Then maybe Maddow or David Shuster will get another shot at a show.

With news of the cancellation of trustfund pundit Tucker Carlson, it seems like a good time to look back on the events that led to this profound conclusion. (See Tucker Carlson Canceled for links to his dismal program performance).

It all started in a little mansion in San Francisco where the spawn of Republican ambassador and public broadcasting chief Richard Warner Carlson, and TV dinner princess Patricia Caroline Swanson, was ingloriously hatched. Thirty-eight years later it all comes screeching to a halt. Well, it actually just sort of peeters out, but that doesn’t sound quite as dramatic.

The writing has long been on the wall.

In October of 2006, Tucker responded angrily when asked about his future at MSNBC and whether he had already been cut:

“It’s bullshit. It’s total bullshit. I talked to Abrams last night. I’ve got another year on my contract. That’s my comment: Bullshit.”

I’m not entirely sure, but I think that Tucker considers this report to be some sort of bullshit. I could be wrong. This would have have placed his contract expiration some time in October of 2007. So in November of 2007 he signed off his show saying:

“That does it for us. Thank you for watching as always, we mean that sincerely to all eight of you.”

Sounds like he knew something. Maybe that’s why he chose to embarrass himself on “Dancing With The Stars” and taped a pilot for a game show called (I kid you not) “Who Do You Trust?” If he didn’t know something was up, he ought to have. After all, his boss, Phil Griffin, bragged to NPR about the network’s personalities saying:

“Keith Olbermann is our brand; Chris Matthews is our brand. These are smart, well-informed people who have a real sense of history and can put things in context.”

But when he was specifically asked whether Tucker Carlson is also their brand, he pauses and says:

“He is right now.”

There’s a real vote of confidence. And, predictably, the effort to Save Tucker fell flat on its face, even after he reportedly took a 50% paycut.

As far back as December, the rumors of Tucker being replaced were circulating. Prominent among them were reports that Rachel Maddow and Bill Wolff had taped a pilot that would fit nicely in the slot that Tucker was wasting.

Now that Tucker has bombed on on PBS, CNN, and MSNBC, some may think that it’s off to Fox News for him. But he has some history there that would need to be smoothed out first. In 2003, Tucker was asked on air for his home phone number. He thought it would be funny (in an infantile sort of way) to give out the number for Fox News instead. Not surprisingly, Fox was besieged by anxious Tucker “fans.” So Fox did what only Fox would do. They posted Tucker’s home number on their website asserting that they were merely correcting Tucker’s poor journalism. In a snit that ignored every trace of irony, Tucker called Fox News:

“…a mean, sick group of people.”

For those who think Tucker provided balance on the network, note that MSNBC already airs, in addition to Tucker, 3 hours of conservative Republican Joe Scarborough, and another two hours of Chris Matthews’ orchestrated hostility for Democrats. That’s five hours of right-wing propaganda against the one hour that Olbermann occupies. Where’s the balance in that?

Congratulations to David Gregory.

Tucker Carlson: The Biggest Loser

Posted by on March 3, 2008 at 3:06 am. 1 Comments :

Somebody tell me why Tucker Carlson still has a television show. Seriously! Is there anyone at MSNBC who reads News Corpse? I want an answer. I just can’t figure out what’s going through their heads.

Tucker has been the worst performing program on the MSNBC primetime lineup for as long as he’s been on. And he rarely notches anything above last place versus his competition. That record of defeat has predictably repeated itself for February 2008.

Tucker February 2008

What does it take to get canceled by this network. Does Tucker have to insult a women’s basketball team to get the ax? There are many examples of him insulting women, like when he said about Hillary Clinton that, “there’s just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary.” Then there is the time he said Obama “seems like kind of a wuss,” and “sounds like a pothead.” Now he has taken to inviting the most repugnant guests he can dig up. Last month he hosted Jonah “Liberal Fascism” Goldberg and Roger “C.U.N.T.” Stone.

But the network doesn’t need a scandal to ditch Tucker. They just need a desire to get better ratings and make more money. Isn’t that what they’re in business for? Tucker’s show is an expensive flop and it is bringing down the shows adjacent to it. As I’ve said on many previous occasions, there is simply no business case for keeping this show on the air. And yet it’s still there.

It’s not like MSNBC doesn’t have some recent experience with success on which to draw. Keith Olbermann’s Countdown continues to surge and is the fastest growing program on cable news. Last Thursday it even scored a #1 ranking, beating its nemesis, Bill O’Reilly. But even when it doesn’t come out on top, it’s a more valuable asset. O’Reilly’s audience is not particularly appealing to advertisers. Only 17% of its total viewers are in the coveted 25-54 demographic. Countdown’s audience in the demo is 40%.

So what’s wrong with MSNBC? Why don’t they want to emulate their successes and eject their failures? Since there are no arguments from a business perspective for keeping him, then what are their arguments? There is good cause to suspect that their motivations are not wholly reputable. Either someone is doing someone else a favor, or some political bias is being exerted, or Tucker has photographs of an executive in a compromising situation. It’s worth remembering also, that Tucker is the son of Richard Warner Carlson, a former U.S. ambassador, director of the U.S. Information Agency, and president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. There is plenty of room for salacious speculation, but what there is little supply of is reason.

Any half-way sane television professional would have canceled this loser long ago. I think it’s time the viewers get involved and demand that MSNBC account for themselves. If, as I suspect, they are protecting Tucker due to some unsavory and secret compact, then they are violating a public trust and they need to come clean. Write to MSNBC and ask them to explain why Tucker is still on the air despite his dismal performance. Ask them why they are protecting a program that has never delivered for them. Feel free to cite the data in this article and ask for specific answers. In the pursuit of journalistic ethics and transparency, we have a right to know.

MSNBC Viewer Services

Bill O’Reilly: Beyond Absurd And Wildly Inaccurate Says Fox PR

Posted by on February 29, 2008 at 11:19 am. 4 Comments :

This gave me a scare:

Fox News eyes O’Reilly for election night.

“Sources within Fox News say the channel is planning to spice up its coverage of the Texas and Ohio primaries next Tuesday night by putting its popular conservative talker Bill O’Reilly in the anchor seat.”

That’s from the Crain’s New York web site. As it turns out, it isn’t true. Fox spokesperson Irena Briganti told TVNewser that:

“The notion that O’Reilly would anchor election coverage of any kind is beyond absurd and wildly inaccurate.”

Please note that that’s the official position of Fox News. Personally, I think that O’Reilly is beyond absurd and wildly inaccurate in any context, but this is still a fairly enlightened view coming from the Fox VP of Media Relations.

Update: Despite Briganti’s proclamation that it would be “beyond absurd” for O’Reilly to anchor election coverage, Billo did join anchor Brit Hume and used the time to bash NBC.