Bill O’Reilly’s Lynching Party

In what seemed to begin as a defense of Michelle Obama, Bill O’Reilly still manages to stick his foot in his fat racist mouth.

O'Reilly Lynching Party

A caller to his radio program started to offer some uncorroborated gossip about Ms. Obama’s personality. O’Reilly stopped her, saying that whatever she was about to say was unfair because it had not been checked out by, I suppose, him. He proceeded to detail the precise circumstances under which it would be acceptable to spread uncorroborated gossip. Then he let loose with this:

“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.”

How is this not worse than what David Shuster said? O’Reilly is saying flatly that he wants to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama if he is satisfied with some vague notion of evidence of something or other. Of course, I don’t believe for a moment that he’s in his Long Island garage practicing tying nooses, but this comment is so repulsively insensitive that there is just no justification for it.

Will he be reprimanded by Fox News? Will he be suspended? Will Fox News even report on the remarks? I’m not holding my breath.

Update: O’Reilly smirked through a pseudo-apology last night. As usual, it was not an expression of regret for despicable remarks, but an excuse to placate those who were offended, as if it were their fault for being too sensitive.

Bill O’Reilly Brings His Freak Show To Los Angeles

O'Reilly Fear FactorBill O’Reilly is broadcasting his “O’Reilly Fester” from Los Angeles all this week. We don’t particularly want him, but hey, it’s a free country – despite O’Reilly’s best efforts to promote authoritarian rule via his bullying brand of demagoguery.

The question I have is, “Why is he here?” Seeing as Billo is unlikely to return my calls, and I don’t have a producer like Stuttering Jesse Watters to ambush him at his hotel, I’m left with speculation.

One possibility is that the Academy Awards are being broadcast this Sunday. O’Reilly, well known narcissistic attention whore that he is, may want to rub shoulders with the celebrities he is so fond of bashing. It would not be the first time he has attempted to skim off some glory from those he routinely disparages. Two years ago, at the height of the Dixie Chicks controversy, he tried to shmooze Natalie Maines at a Time, Inc. party. She smacked that down in short order, but the same parasitic tendencies may have brought O’Reilly to Hollywood this week.

Newshounds theorizes that O’Reilly may have come to attend the winter retreat of the Republican National Committee at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. This $15,000 (minimum) per head affair featured appearances by Party big wigs including Karl Rove.

It should also be noted that we are in the middle of Nielsen’s February sweeps, one of the most important ratings periods of the year. O’Reilly may be hoping to goose his program’s performance by glitzing it up with Tinseltown glamour. Of course, the Oscars and the RepubliFest could both contribute on this measure.

But if the foregoing isn’t enough to hype the Nein-Spinster, it appears he is planning another event that can only be described as deliberately provocative and profoundly insensitive. O’Reilly is scheduled to appear at the Brentwood Theater on the grounds of the West LA Veteran’s Administration. That’s right – the Veteran’s Administration. The federal agency responsible for, amongst other things, programs to assist veterans who are homeless due to finances, emotional or physical disability, substance abuse, or other hardships. The agency that reports that there are a couple hundred thousand such veterans who are homeless. Now O’Reilly actually has the gall to show up at a facility whose purpose is to aid people who O’Reilly is on record as saying do not exist.

If anyone is in the Brentwood vicinity tomorrow, you might want to visit the VA and give Mr. O’Reilly the welcome he deserves. I wish there were more time to organize a proper reception, but a spontaneous turnout of some patriotic Americans (and hopefully some vets) to let O’Reilly know how we feel would be great. Here is the information:

Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008 – 7:00pm (get there early)
The Brentwood Theater.
West LA Veteran’s Administration
11301 Wilshire Blvd
Brentwood, CA 90049
Tel: (310)479-3003

Partisan Pied Pipers Part Republicans From Reporters

A new Harris Poll was released that purports to identify the most and least favorite news personalities. Harris’ definition of both “news” and “personalities” stretches credulity just by including names like Tucker Carlson. Nonetheless, there are still some interesting results.

Far and away, the consensus loser is Rush Limbaugh who was voted least favorite by 42% of respondents. He was first amongst the least of both Democrats and Independents. Plus, he was even the #3 choice for worst amongst Republicans.

Bill O’Reilly was the favorite choice of 23%. But he was also the least favorite of 23%. His place atop the favorites list was fueled by a block 42% of Republicans who prefer him. That’s about twice the number of any other choice on the list for Democrats or Independents.

This poll, however, tells us something more than the obvious popularity contest drivel. It tells us something about the perception gap between the right and the left with regard to what constitutes news.

The top three choices amongst Republicans are Bill O’Reilly (42%), Rush Limbaugh (28%), and Sean Hannity (27%), none of whom would be described as journalists by neutral observers. They are partisan commentators with well known biases. The top three choices amongst Democrats are Anderson Cooper (22%), Brian Williams (20%), and Charles Gibson (19%), all of whom are bona fide news professionals. They may have biases of their own, but they are also practicing journalists who at least attempt to keep their reporting opinion-free.

Keith Olbermann barely registered in the poll. What’s notable about that is not his standing. He is neither loved nor hated by the poll’s respondents, although there are predictable up/down ticks by party. What’s interesting is the conspicuous absence of anyone else like him on the list. He is the only subject in the study that is remotely progressive. Every other name is either a nonpartisan journalist or a right-winger. This comports with the ideological makeup of the television news community overall. Olbermann stands alone as voice for left-leaning viewers.

In the end, it’s the perception gap that is the most significant insight provided by this poll. When Republicans favor their ideological Pied Pipers over the more reputable Town Criers, you are left with villagers that are less informed, even misinformed, and unable to distinguish fact from fiction (see The Cult of Foxonality). While much in the mediasphere requires reform, it appears that there is an important flank that has been neglected. More work needs to be done to educate news consumers as to what really constitutes news. That does not mean that Republicans need to be re-educated into Democrats (although it wouldn’t…no, never mind). It means that they need to learn to differentiate commentary from journalism. Bill O’Reilly, whether you agree with him or not, is not a journalist. Anderson Cooper, whether you agree with him or not, is not a blathering, egomaniacal, browbeating purveyor of distortions and lies.

Bill O’Reilly: Dodge Us At Your Peril

One of the last acts of the utterly desperate is lashing out with impotent threats. Well, many at Fox News have reached that stage of desperation. They have entered an apoplectic orbit as a result of the embargo that some Democrats have engaged in toward Fox.

Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly called in to Fox & Friends for a brief and ego-laden discussion about who will pay their “respects” to him and to Fox News. He topped off the call with this warning: “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.”

This isn’t the first time O’Reilly has issued threats. Most recently he lashed out at an aide to Barack Obama and defended his hostility by saying:

“No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.”

In October of last year, O’Reilly went ballistic attacking his perceived enemies in the press:

“[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.”

He is clearly obsessed by his rabid, paranoid, self-absorption. But he is not alone. Fox News chairman Roger Ailes also bashed Democrats for slighting the network:

“The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda. And that’s what’s coming.”

And Chris Wallace sunk to juvenile insults of Democrats because they wouldn’t play with him:

“I think the Democrats are damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News.”

There is a clear pattern developing here and, if anything, it affirms the decision to stay as far away from Fox as possible (read Starve The Beast for a detailed dissertation on the shunning of Fox). Hillary Clinton’s recent capitulation to Fox with her agreement to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate is not the sort of retreat that we need when we are plainly winning this war. Obama has yet to release a decision as to whether he will join Clinton’s surrender, but by declining he could leave both Clinton and Fox in the lurch. The decision to deny Fox would be both tactically and principally correct.

We still have to wait to see what Obama’s decision will be, but we know now that Clinton’s move is already working against the interests of Democrats. Chris Wallace appeared on A Daily Show this week and bragged to Jon Stewart about Clinton succumbing to Fox. He also used the occasion to hail it as a victory over the most vociferous of the Fox critics:

“The dam is broken now that John Edwards is no longer in the contest […] We like to say that he was the panderer and the demagogue”

Well, the dam may have sprung leak, but it is far from broken. If Obama holds steady, all Fox will have is an outdated press release. They will certainly persist in their attacks and will likely escalate them, as all wounded animals do. But as they lose more and more credibility, their punches will be like swats from butterfly wings – and only the right wings at that.

Bill O’Reilly Can’t Stop Bashing Homeless Veterans

On tonight’s edition of the O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly resumed his repulsive assault on homeless veterans. This would be a despicable act under almost any circumstances, but O’Reilly engages in his slander in an attempt to defend his own tattered ego.

The trigger for his onslaught was the delivery of a petition signed by 17,000 people who believe that O’Reilly should apologize for his misstatements and disrespect for homeless veterans. The signatures were gathered by producer Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films. In the plaza in front of the News Corp. headquarters, the group was met by O’Reilly’s producer, Stuttering Jesse Watters. They were not allowed into the building to deliver the petitions.

On his program tonight, O’Reilly led off by mocking Greenwald for a film he made 30 years ago. Admittedly Xanadu was not a box office bonanza at the time of its release, but it has since become something of a cult classic and it didn’t lose money either, earning $22 million and ranking #28 amongst all films released in 1980. That put it between Raging Bull and American Gigolo. Its soundtrack, however, was a bona fide hit reaching #4 on the album charts and spawning 5 top 20 singles. A stage adaptation is presently in its 7th hit month on Broadway where it broke opening day records for the Helen Hayes Theater. Consequently, O’Reilly’s snide sarcasm about Greenwald not being able to find a job is really just another example of his own mean-spirited and dishonest boorishness. And that’s aside from the fact that it is entirely irrelevant to the sad and serious matter at hand.

O’Reilly goes off on another tangent to criticize Steve Capus, President of NBC News, because his office couldn’t (or wouldn’t) respond to a query as to why NBC sent a crew to cover the event. O’Reilly then advised Capus to “pay attention to his job.” However, the job of the president of a news network is not to trace the steps of hundreds of news personnel in the field. Maybe O’Reilly should ask Roger Ailes if he knows where all of his crews are at any given moment. Then O’Reilly asserts that the reason that Capus is “going after” Fox News is because “we’re kicking their butt around the block.” That is, of course, an unmitigated lie. NBC News is currently the #1 news network with the #1 nightly news program and the #1 morning news broadcast. O’Reilly may have meant to limit his hyperbole to cable news networks, but he specifically referenced only NBC, which he has maligned in the past as a failure even though the opposite is true. He never mentioned MSNBC, which is trailing Fox News in the ratings, but is growing much faster. But again, how does this help homeless veterans?

Eventually O’Reilly got around to expressing his true feelings by seeking to ridicule the participating vets because they did not watch his program and didn’t hear his offensive remarks themselves. It must not have occurred to him that homeless vets may not have televisions or cable TV subscriptions. To the contrary, he believes that they all have color TVs and DVD players and air conditioners and cars and more. He said as much on his program last month in a diatribe riddled with falsehoods and faulty analysis. So because these troubled vets were told about O’Reilly’s insensitive and false comments, rather than seeing it for themselves on their nonexistent sofas in their nonexistent homes, O’Reilly now claims to feel sorry for them. Not because they are living on the streets of a country that seems to have forgotten them, but because he thinks that they are being exploited by the people who are, in fact, trying to help them.

O’Reilly has stated several times now that he would provide help for any homeless vet if only he knew where one was. He has since had numerous responses, including one from Keith Olbermann that included a precise location in New Orleans where more than 200 suffering souls could be found. I wouldn’t put much faith in O’Reilly’s empty promises, though. I hope they’re not waiting for him to show up with blankets and sandwiches and vouchers for shelter. I would rather rely on the incompetence of FEMA than the sanctimony of Bill O’Reilly.

Colonel To O’Reilly: Stop Saying You Care For Soldiers

Col. David Hunt is a Fox News analyst and the author of the Colonel’s Corner on FoxNews.com. His most recent column addresses the debate over homeless veterans that has erupted between John Edwards and Bill O’Reily.

From the outset he is clearly upset with the plight of former soldiers who are now suffering from both physical and psychological hardships. He passionately denounces the circumstances that have led to this sorry state of affairs, as well as those who are not sufficiently outraged:

“…if this does not piss you off, finally get you off your butts, run outside naked while screaming mad, make you paint your face and do a protest dance in front of the White House, then my friends, you are dead from the neck up – and you need to forever stop saying you care for soldiers…”

Are you listening Bill O’Reilly?

The bulk of the article summarizes the gravity of the challenges that homeless vets face and the insufficiency of society’s resolve to respond. On the whole, it is a heartfelt plea from an old war horse to end the smarmy and disingenuous demagoguery and hammer out some practical solutions. Unfortunately, Col. Hunt can’t bring himself to direct his aim at the most abundant source of misinformation on the subject. In his column he doesn’t even distinguish between who is the advocate for homeless vets and who is the denier.

“On his radio and TV shows, Bill O’Reilly commented on Sen. John Edwards’ remarks on the plight of homeless veterans […] The commentary of Bill O’Reilly about John Edwards at least had the issue on the front pages and on TV.”

The problem is that what O’Reilly was putting on TV was entirely contrary to the facts. O’Reilly began his malicious mutterings on the issue by flatly asserting that there were no homeless veterans. From there he was forced to concede that the problem was real but he still insisted that it was trivial because it only affected those who were mentally ill or substance abusers, as if that disqualified them from gratitude or compassion. And never mind that those conditions were probably a direct result of their military service in the first place.

I don’t know if Col. Hunt’s timidity is based on O’Reilly being a friend, or if he is just reticent to squabble with a colleague at Fox News, or if he just wants to keep the focus on the issue, but he is making a mistake by letting O’Reilly off the hook. Two and half million people watch the Factor every day and O’Reilly’s lies are likely to impact the resolve of his audience to seek solutions. If Hunt really cares, he should call his pal and insist on appearing on the program to set the record, and O’Reilly, straight.

Email Col. Hunt and tell him not to let O’Reilly’s lies go answered.

Giuliani and McCain’s Nightmare On Pennsylvania Ave

Rudy Giuliani, the leader of the 9/11 Generation, and John McCain, the Beast of Baghdad, are starring together in this election year’s most TERROR-ifying fright fest. Nightmare On Pennsylvania Avenue is certain to scare the daylights out of everybody who sees it – especially Democrats who are already shuddering at the thought.

Nightmare on Pennsylvania Ave

Don’t miss the extravaganza that has Bill O’Reilly saying:

“There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.” ~ Bill O’Reilly

Here is John McCain’s new ad boasting that he is the Democrat’s worst enemy:

Here is Rudy Giuliani’s earlier ad boasting that he is the Democrat’s worst enemy:

News Corpse will maintain it’s neutrality and simply concede that they are both pretty awful and they are both enemies.

Their heroes are looking more pathetic with every passing day. Huckabee props up Chuck Norris, a 68 year old high kicker who is supposed to make us vote for Rev. Mike or he’ll beat us up behind the cafeteria during recess. McCain has his own 62 year old relic who will challenge Huckabee’s champion ala Gamera vs. Mothra at the Monster Leisure World in Boca. What’s next? Illegal Alien Vs. Terrorist Predator?

Not much we can do but sit back and watch as they threaten to destroy us or each other or whoever is their enemy of the moment. It’s not art, but with a bucket of popcorn and a large soda it might just be some fun.

Dishonesty In Politics And In Media by Bill O’Reilly

No one can compound stupidity like The Fester, Bill O’Reilly. Last week he assailed John Edwards for his remarks about homeless veterans. O’Reilly, without making any attempt to ascertain the facts, claimed that Edwards “had no clue” and that, if there were any homeless vets, there weren’t very many.

The proof of the veteran’s plight was so easily attainable that O’Reilly had to concede that the problem did indeed exist. But being O’Reilly, that didn’t mean conceding that he was wrong or apologizing. To the contrary, after embarrassing himself with comments that he admits are immature, he demanded an apology from Edwards, the guy whos was right in the first place. His reasoning was based on an element of the debate that he had to invent.

O’Reilly: “Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it’s not because of the economy. It’s mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about.”

However, Edwards never claimed that the economy was to blame. He only raised the issue of homeless vets to bring attention to the situation and to assert that America can do better. He was looking for solutions, not blame. But even O’Reilly’s made-up excuse exposes his dishonesty and/or stupidity. First of all, if government can do so little about addiction and mental illness, why do they invest so much in programs for precisely that? Secondly, according to experts, mental illness is only one of the contributors to homelessness:

“Mental illness, financial troubles and difficulty in finding affordable housing are generally accepted as the three primary causes of homelessness among veterans, and in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the first has raised particular concern.

Iraq veterans are less likely to have substance abuse problems but more likely to suffer mental illness, particularly post-traumatic stress, according to the Veterans Administration. And that stress by itself can trigger substance abuse. “

So O’Reilly was wrong about the problem’s severity, he was wrong about Edwards’ positions, and he was wrong about the causes. And sadly, O’Reilly seems only to be concerned about veterans if they are having financial difficulties. If the problem is psychological or drug related, then to Hell with them. But even on the financial front O’Reilly can’t help but deceive and distort. He claims that amongst those living below the poverty line…

“Ninety-seven percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.”

That nonsense was lifted from the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector who for years has been peddling the notion that America’s poor are living large on the taxpayer’s dime. O’Reilly and Rector are using faulty analysis and outright falsehoods to attempt to reincarnate Ronald Reagan’s fictional welfare queens. On August 27, 2007 Rector wrote an article that included the statistics above and arrived at this conclusion:

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.”

Rector has been shoveling this garbage for some time and he even plagiarizes himself because the exact same paragraph appears in a nearly identical article he wrote for the Heritage Foundation three years earlier on September 15, 2004. But Rector has bigger problems than self-plagiarism or propagandistic redundancy. His analysis must be purposely deceitful, as it is so far off from even the sources he cites. The tip off was the 97% of the poor who supposedly have a color TV. In fact, that is the percentage of ALL Americans with a TV (does anyone have a black and white TV?).

The statement that “the typical American defined as poor by the government has…” all of the items Rector lists is profoundly ignorant. The survey says only that these items are owned in these percentages, not that all of the poor own all of the items. So some may have a car, and others may have an air conditioner, etc.

The actual stats, according to the Department of Energy study Rector himself footnoted, are 40% have a color TV, 32% a VCR/DVD player, 27% an air conditioner, 27% a car or truck, 26 percent cable or satellite TV, and 13% own their home. That’s a long ways from the lies O’Reilly and Rector are spewing.

On some level though, you have to admire O’Reilly for having the audacity to be so monumentally wrong and still maintain his air of pompous superiority. His ability to acknowledge that Edwards was right but that he, O’Reilly, wasn’t wrong is classically egomaniacal. And using this occasion to expand on his lies about homeless vets and the poor overall perfectly embodies the meaning of the title of his screed: Dishonesty In Politics And In Media by Bill O’Reilly.

Bill O’Reilly’s Homeless Helpline

In his speech thanking supporters for a second place finish in Iowa, John Edwards raised a sensitive subject that is rarely discussed in contemporary politics.

“…tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We’re better than this.”

The next day, Bill O’Reilly mocked Edwards saying:

“As for John Edwards…good grief… this guy as no clue […] The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy’s brain.”

What a callous dismissal of the plight of citizens who deserve something more for their sacrifices. Homelessness amongst veterans is not an emerging crisis that might have caught O’Reilly by surprise. It is an enduring and heartbreaking reality that is well documented. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans was founded 18 years ago to seek solutions and promote awareness of the problem. The National Alliance to End Homelessness released a study last year on Ending Homelessness Among Veterans. Among their findings:

  • In 2006, approximately 195,827 veterans were homeless on a given night-an increase of 0.8 percent from 194,254 in 2005. More veterans experience homeless over the course of the year. We estimate that 336,627 were homeless in 2006.
  • Veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people. They represent roughly 26 percent of homeless people, but only 11 percent of the civilian population 18 years and older. This is true despite the fact that veterans are better educated, more likely to be employed, and have a lower poverty rate than the general population.

But O’Reilly, not content to be merely an ignorant and insensitive jerk, he expands on his dearth of compassion a week later by sarcastically designating himself as a lifeline for troubled vets, saying:

“They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK. So if you know where there is a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”

I imagine that O’Reilly would respond to the situation exactly as he says. He would send Stuttering Jesse Watters, or some other Fox Security goons, to forcefully remove any recalcitrant bridge squatters from the area, making sure that nobody blocked the shot of his ambush camera crew.

I say we call him on his offer and direct as many homeless vets as we can to The Fester and to Fox News and see what they do. I expect they will find the problem a bit more complex than presumed by their small-minded preconceptions. While O’Reilly doesn’t believe the problem exists, to the extent that it might, he believes he can resolve it by himself. I would like nothing better than to see this problem show up on his doorstep and watch him squirm.

This is the same guy who fashions himself an advocate for children and writes books on the subject, but claims that kidnap victims prefer life with their captors rather than with their parents. This the same guy who complains that not enough celebrities visit the troops in war zones, even though many have gone multiple times to entertain them. O’Reilly only seems to go when he has a new book to promote.

This is a man who says that John Edwards is a phony and who disputes the all too sad reality that many veterans and their families are struggling through. Yet he also seeks to fortify his dimwitted position by saying that…

“My determination is based upon what is real and what is hype. I believe John Edwards is hype.”

This is a man who raises hypocrisy to a new level. Let’s show him what is real and what is hype. There are thousands of pictures of homeless vets online – Flickr, Google Images, etc. Find one and send it to O’Reilly with a request that he make good on his pledge.

O’Reilly’s email: oreilly@foxnews.com

[Update] Edwards responds to O’Reilly:

“And the fact that this talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, is willing to speak out that blatantly, when he has no idea what he’s talking about, is an example of how America doesn’t understand the problem, doesn’t understand how serious this issue is.”

Favorite TV Personalities of 2007

Harris Interactive has just released their survey of America’s Favorite TV Personalities. The list was topped by Ellen DeGeneres in a surprise win over Oprah Winfrey. The remainder of list contains some characters who are familiar faces in the news media.

1 Ellen DeGeneres
2 Oprah Winfrey
3 Jay Leno
4 Hugh Laurie
5 Jon Stewart
*6 Stephen Colbert
*6 David Letterman
8 Bill O’Reilly
*9 Homer Simpson
*9 Ray Romano
* = Tie

I am happy to congratulate Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on their honors.

As for O’Reilly, I would just like to note a few salient facts. First of all, he dropped 5 places this year, from #3 to #8. That may be partly because his fan base is dying off. The evidence of that is illustrated by his support amongst those over 62 for whom he was the #1 choice. It’s also notable that O’Reilly finished just one spot above Homer Simpson (D’oh!), who is making his first appearance in the top 10. My money says Simpson overtakes O’Reilly next year (Woo hoo!)