Bully Bill O’Reilly’s Contact Journalism

“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.”

Bill O’Reilly directed that threat toward figures in the press whom he considered his enemies. In light of the obvious hostile intent O’Reilly harbors, the statements in his recent column sound even more ominous:

“There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.”

The chance of that increases the more O’Reilly is involved. By now most people have heard about O’Reilly’s assault on an aide to Barack Obama at a recent campaign event. O’Reilly’s column goes on to say…

“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.”

The Secret Service has cause to be tense with boorish media demagogues like O’Reilly fomenting partisan hostility and hatred. And yes, he is partially to blame.

But the column sinks even deeper into disinformation as O’Reilly seeks to exalt himself and his delusional view of the world. He brags about the success of Fox News as if that’s an affirmation of their credibility. Quality is not measured by sales receipts. If that were true, then McDonald’s serves the highest quality food in America. But that doesn’t stop O’Reilly from making misleading statements such as his inane analysis of GE’s stock price:

“General Electric, which owns NBC, has seen its stock price remain stagnant for the past six years, a humbling fact for the corporate giant.”

First of all, NBC represents about 10% of GE’s revenue, and that includes properties like Universal’s movies and theme parks that have nothing to do with television or news. So the suggestion that NBC is responsible for GE’s fiscal woes is ridiculous. Secondly, O’Reilly arbitrarily picks a six year time frame for his analysis. Obviously he did this to manufacture the results he desired. 2002 was the year of the first Bush recession and GE, along with just about every other stock, declined significantly. Had O’Reilly used a five year span, he would have had to report a 40% increase in GE’s stock. Would NBC get the credit for that?

O’Reilly spends much of the rest of the column making excuses for Fox News’ failure to garner respect as a news provider. He laments the disinclination that some Democrats have to appear on Fox or participate in their debates (note: the more he complains about this, the more proof that it is working). He heaps the majority of the blame for this on the all-powerful Internet lefties:

“The reason the Democratic candidates boycotted Fox News was that the far-left Internet crazies told them to do it. Websites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters, which spit out anti-conservative hatred every day, made it clear to the Democrats that anyone dealing with Fox would be punished. The creepy radical-left organization MoveOn, which raises serious money for liberal candidates, seconded the motion.”

Isn’t it quaint how O’Reilly condemns hatred by calling those with whom he disagrees “crazies” and “creepy” and characterizes them as spitting radicals? However, I would agree with the warning that “anyone dealing with Fox would be punished.” By Fox! Any Democrat appearing on Fox News can expect to be treated with disrespect and disdain. Sometimes not until after they have left the studio so that they cannot respond (note to Dems: Stay the HELL off of Fox News).

O’Reilly is still tormented with the affair in New Hampshire where, in defense of the Constitution, he had to “remove” an Obama staffer. Only now he is complaining that nobody is on his side:

“In the subsequent coverage of the story, not one media outlet criticized the Obama staffer, not one.”

Presumably that includes conservative media outlets like the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, etc. It never occurs to O’Reilly that if no one else sees the incident as he does, perhaps he is the one who is not seeing it correctly. But asking O’Reilly to see things from a perspective other than from his natural state of egomaniacal paranoia may be expecting too much. The results from a poll on his own website asking whether he was right to shove Obama’s aide were 57% Yes / 43% No. That wasn’t good enough for O’Reilly who dismissed the results as having been tainted by (again) thousands of far-left loons who were “instructed” to vote “No.” And if the research by NewsHounds is accurate, the loons received their instructions from ME! Tremble in awe of my omnipotence, I command thee.

It is mind-boggling how a man so filled with rage and hate can ascribe these traits so cavalierly to others; how a man so predisposed to lying can accuse others of it so blindly; how a such a partisan ideologue can complain about the partisanship of others. He seems to have no self-awareness whatsoever, save for self-importance. In some respects, his conjured up enemies and his overtly threatening tone make him an easy target for ridicule. On the other hand, it’s hard to find humor knowing how potentially dangerous he can be. I hope he gets the help for which he is so clearly crying out. Maybe a room next to Britney’s at the asylum (humor…I found some).

The O’Reilly Meltdown Will Be Televised

Today on the Factor, Bill O’Reilly played his videotape of the Clash in Nashua. It was truly disgusting listening to that belligerently egotistical megalomaniac barking orders at Obama’s aide, who was just doing his job. I don’t understand how The Fester can show this video and think that it makes him look sympathetic. I’m a little surprised he showed it all (though he did censor the part where he called the aide a “son of a bitch” and he ends it before his talk with Obama). Perhaps he had no choice but to show it after saying publicly on Saturday that he would do so. (Here is CSPAN’s version that contains the exchange between O’Reilly and Obama)

The video does clear some things up. For instance, it was clear in the video that O’Reilly lied when he said that there was no physical engagement. O’Reilly can be seen pushing the aide several times. It was also clear that O’Reilly lied when he said there was no intervention by the Secret Service. The video plainly shows an agent getting in between O’Reilly and the aide, and making sure that O’Reilly stayed back.

Perhaps the funniest part of this sorry escapade is O’Reilly’s attempt to characterize this as a defense of the Constitution. On his radio program today he made that argument twice:

“…in the tradition of the freedom of the press, I had to remove the man from blocking our camera shot – which I did.” And… “This guy’s clear intent was to block The Factor. And he knew it was me – he knew I was standing there – from getting any shot of the Senator and that’s against the Constitution.”

Then on TV he cast himself as a reluctant champion of the First Amendment:

“Well that’s a total violation of press freedom so I had no choice, ladies and gentlemen, but to uphold the Constitution.”

That’s right…O’Reilly thinks he has a Constitutional right shove his way into a crowd and demand that everyone make room for him and his camera crew. Can you imagine what O’Reilly would have said if Keith Olbermann was caught shoving an aide to John McCain so he could get a better shot? And what journalistic principle was O’Reilly fighting for? Did he have an issue of critical interest to the public to raise with Obama? Well, not unless you think that sucking up to the Senator to try to get him to appear on his TV show is high on the list of the American people’s concerns, because that’s all O’Reilly did.

When O’Reilly finally caught Obama’s attention, it sounded like Obama agreed to appear on The Factor sometime after the New Hampshire primary. I will be very disappointed if that occurs. First, because I have long been advocating that Democrats stay off of Fox News as a matter of principle (see Starve the Beast). And second, because after learning what led up to O’Reilly’s invitation, Obama would be foolish to reward him with an interview.

This is a point also made by NBC’s David Shuster, who couldn’t hold his tongue any longer. Shuster breaks loose and calls O’Reilly a “jerk” and a “buffoon.” And he adds that…

“Fox News ought to be so embarrassed with this guy.”

That’s not likely to happen as O’Reilly epitomizes the Fox News ethic of blustery ignorance. But this video is a rare example of a newsman speaking candidly and honestly about a repulsively demagogic colleague.

I sincerely hope that a lot of people watch O’Reilly tonight, and I know many more will see this affair on YouTube. After catching this little slice of strife it may just start to sink in that this guy needs Dr. Phil’s help more than Britany. And we may have a sound bite that can supersede last year’s “Don’t tase me, bro.” That would be O’Reilly hollering…

“Don’t block the shot, got it? Don’t block the shot!

By the way, O’Reilly has a poll at billoreilly.com asking if he “was right to remove the guy that was blocking the Factor’s shot?” Feel free to go and vote.

Developing: O’Reilly Tangles With Obama Aide

O'Reilly Fear FactorThe Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Bill O’Reilly had a less than cordial encounter with an aide to Barack Obama at a New Hampshire campaign event. Apparently The Fester wasn’t getting the preferential treatment to which he was accustomed. Here is Lynn Sweet’s account of this developing story:

The incident was triggered when O’Reilly–with a Fox News crew shooting–was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson “Move” so he could get Obama’s attention, according to several eyewitnesses. “O’Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face,” a photographer shooting the scene said.

O’Reilly grabbed Nicholson’s arm and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6’8, said O’Reilly called him “low class.”

“He grabbed me with both his hands here,” Nicholson said, gesturing to his left arm and O’Reilly “started shoving me.” Nicholson said, “He was pretty upset. He was yelling at me.”

Secret Service agents who were nearby flanked O ‘Reilly after he pushed Nicholson. They told O’Reilly he needed to calm down and get behind the fence-like barricade that contained the press.

Obama had his back turned at this point and did not see any of this.

O’Reilly yelled “sir” at Obama and Obama walked over, not aware of what happened and told him he had an overflow crowd to visit.

This part is a little creepy:

Mr. O’Reilly said he thought Sen. Obama was great and that he loved him and loved to have him on the show and said he would think about coming on after the primaries.

O’Reilly “loves” Obama? With friends like that, who needs enemas? For all of O’Reilly’s obstreperousness, his only purpose in forcing his way up to Obama was to beg him to appear on The Factor. He didn’t even try to ask a substantive question. Since Obama and Edwards have refused to appear on Fox, I guess they feel they need to go out and stalk them. And I certainly hope that after Obama thinks about it, he will continue to decline to appear on Fox and particularly on O’Reilly’s program.

A few minutes ago (approx. 12:05pm), O’Reilly called in to Brian Wilson anchoring the Fox News broadcast. He denied that there was a scuffle but said, laughing, that he might have used profanity (called the aide an SOB). At the end of the call he menacingly warned mankind that “No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.”

Wilson, said that there will be limited video later today and that O’Reilly will show the whole thing on his show on Monday (presumably after having had time to edit/alter it).

I will try to stay on top of this and post video if it becomes available.

Update: Now Wilson says that the video will only be available on The Factor this Monday. Since when does a news channel withhold newsworthy video for two days? Since the video features their #1 personality and can’t be cleared for airing until they make sure it doesn’t reflect badly on him.

Update: For good measure, O’Reilly also crashed a Clinton campaign event (YouTube) earlier the same day and attempted to plant a question with a member of the audience. The woman stood up and fingered O’Reilly who Clinton then pointed out before answering the question.

John Bolton Blames America First

nullThere is a Society of Conservative Demagogues (SCD) who specialize in spewing a sort of Patriopathic™ zeal that is really not much more than low grade sanctimony. They are descended from Crusaders and Witch Burners and the defective souls who have convinced themselves of their own infallibility. Their contemporary Cardinals are TelePundits preaching from their TelePulpits of the heathens (i.e. Liberals) whom they dismiss as traitors. They rally the faithful (i.e. fearful) with liturgies expounding on the Infidels whom they say always blame America first.

Yesterday, a charter member of the SCD helped to prove the old saying, “If you hate something enough, you become it.”

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton made the rounds at Fox News to offer his assessment of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and to point his accusatory finger at the U.S. of A.

On Hannity & Not Hannity (video): “I think by acceding to Benazir Bhutto’s desire to get back into the game in Pakistan, seeing her as somebody who is an alternative to Musharraf we, in effect, helped precipitate this dynamic which has led to her tragic assassination.”

On Fox News (video): “I think that in part the United States is responsible for this by pushing Musharraf, trying to cut a deal with Benazir Bhutto, by encouraging her to go back in the country, by trying to act like we could have a democratic election campaign in a situation of great instability”

I never heard Bolton express such an aversion to democracy with regard to Iraq where there is a fair measure of instability as well. While Bolton blamed America, Bhutto blamed Bolton’s pal, Musharraf. He continued his analysis by recommending a “timeout” that would “require a period of martial law.” What a great way for the U.S. to promote freedom throughout the world.

The conservative taunt of “Blame America First” appears to have originated with Ronald Reagan’s UN Ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, in a speech before the Republican nominating convention for Reagan’s second term:

“…the San Francisco Democrats didn’t blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first.”

Four years later Reagan himself used it at the RNC’s anointment of George H. W. Bush to tarnish Democrats for…

“…policies of tax and spend, economic stagnation, international weakness and accommodation, and always, always, always, blame America first.”

In the interim it has been employed by everyone from House Minority Leader John Boehner to Culture Warrior Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly even adopted Kirkpatrick’s swipe at “San Francisco Democrats”, which at the time was a reference to where the Democratic National Convention was held the same year, not a regional insult as is intoned by O’Reilly.

However, you never hear rightists complain when one of their own resorts to blaming America. For example, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson wasted no time in assigning the blame for 9/11 to a broad swath of American citizens and institutions:

Falwell: I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way…I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’

Robertson: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

But I’m sure this will all be rectified when O’Reilly returns from vacation and lets John Bolton know that such irresponsible rhetoric will not be tolerated and that America-haters like Bolton should either straighten up or shut up. That’s right…I’m as sure of that as I am that O’Reilly will kiss Keith Olbermann full on the mouth the next time he runs into him at Sylvia’s restaurant in Harlem.

The pseudo-rectitude of the “Absolve America Always” crowd flies in the face of our nation’s traditional values. This country was founded by rebels who felt so passionately about the right to dissent that they enshrined it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. And true Americans will always prefer to align themselves with those who condemn torture and tyranny, as opposed to those who condone it in the name of patriotism.

Fox Pews: The Right Before Christmas


The Right Before Christmas

Twas the day before Christmas
And all through the news
The networks were vying
To peddle their views

The Secular Media
Pretending to care
Broadcast their services
Over the air

CNN’s query for
Me and for you
Was what would Lord Jesus
Himself really do

MSNBC
Wants to share with us all
The party from Radio
City Music Hall

But one network more
Than the others declares
Its devotion to
Christianity’s prayers

From 24 hours
Its schedule was sliced
To give almost half
To the glory of Christ

Which compels one to wonder
Regarding Fox News
T’would be better to hail
The net as Fox Pews

On this holiday eve, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the programming served up by the big three cable news networks. Not surprisingly, they all offered specials related to Christmas. It is, of course, entirely appropriate to produce programs that will be of interest to such a prominent percentage of TV consumers on a day of great national significance. But it was nonetheless a little jarring to discover the extent of Fox News’ sermonizing.

Christian content consumed nearly half (11 hours) of the 24 hour period pre-Christmas. The programs included an airing of “Miracles: Facts, Fictions, and Faith,” two airings of “One Nation Under God” hosted by Newt Gingrich, three airings of “The Birth of Jesus,” and five airings of “The Rick Warren Christmas Special.”

Despite the declaration of victory issued by General Bill O’Reilly, the War on Christmas is still raging and Fox doesn’t appear ready to stand down. After all, both Rupert Murdoch and the White House sent out “holiday” greetings this year. So as an extra measure of security, Fox is implementing its own surge strategy by scheduling nine straight hours of Gen. O’Reilly himself on Christmas day. Who better to spend the Lord’s birthday with than the man who proclaimed that:

“Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable.”

Now that’s Christmas spirit! I wasn’t even aware that companies had knees. But it is uplifting to know that Jesus was born to increase profit margins. Never mind those moneychangers in the temple.

Bill O’Reilly’s Fair And Balanced Presidential Poll

Bill O’Reilly is currently polling his audience on the presidential candidates. He has completed a survey on the Republican field in which Mike Huckabee prevailed over Giuliani and Romney. Now it’s the Democrats turn. The poll includes only Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

Needless to say, this poll will have absolutely no significance to any campaign and will be illustrative of nothing but O’Reilly’s monstrously disturbed ego. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun with it anyway. After all, it’s not as if we would be violating any of BillO’s journalistic standards:

Throughout the past year, The Fester has been hammering John Edwards as a phony who has sold his soul to the far left. O’Reilly is apoplectic in his ravings about how Edwards is intent on destroying America. I wrote about the media Ganging Up On Edwards last June and it has only intensified since then. For more detail, check out this brand new video from Brave New Films that also features Fox News’ attacks on Barack Obama.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to venture to the Forbidden Zone itself and vote for John Edwards. Vote for Edwards whether or not he is the candidate you are supporting. An Edwards victory could be just the thing to send O’Reilly over the edge of the precipice upon which he has been teetering for so long.

The poll is on the front page of BillOReilly.com. I would suggest that you go to Google, or some other neutral site, and type the URL in from there so that O’Reilly’s web minions don’t get curious about a lot of voters coming from this site.

It will be interesting to see how O’Reilly will handle the announcement of an Edwards victory provided by the visitors to his own web domain. He said that he will be announcing the poll results on Thursday (tomorrow), so waste no time in placing your vote. And feel free to enlist your friends and family. We may all finally get to see that vein on his forehead burst.

I can’t think of a better Holiday gift than getting to stick it to The Fester one more time before the new year.

Update: Poll results: Obama – 58 / Edwards – 27 / Clinton – 15.
Second place aint too shabby for Edwards on O’Reilly’s show where he is bashed incessantly.

Somebody Alert Bill O’Reilly And Fox Security

From The White House:

MRS. BUSH: Barney and Beazley, I’m so proud that you all wanted to become National Park Junior Rangers. Our national parks are so important. And in fact, the lawn where you play is part of our national parks.

President Bush and I wish everyone a very happy holiday.

What? No Merry Christmas? Is this evidence that The First Lady is offering aid and comfort to the Secular-Progressive enemies in the War on Christmas? Has the President cut and run? Have the terrorists won?

No need to fear – T-Warrior is here. Have no doubt that before you can slide down the MoonBat-pole, Bill O’Reilly will step forward and denounce this insult to America’s favorite religion: Christmasism. Never mind that only a couple of days ago O’Reilly declared victory in the War on Christmas, crediting himself with the glory he feels he so richly deserves. We have already seen those “Mission Accomplished” banners that didn’t really mean that any mission had been accomplished. So now, as always, the goal is to stay the course. Because surrender to the far-left, gay, flag-burning, pot smokers who murdered our savior, is not an option.

Bill O’Pedia: Journalistic Standards

Bill O’Reilly describes his ethical deficiencies, in his own words, far better than I ever could. From yesterday’s Factor:


“There are few journalistic standards left these days as we’ve proven on this broadcast again and again.”

You certainly have proven that. I can’t think of another program that proves it more conclusively, day after day. The complete absence of journalistic standards that you exhibit is truly a valuable lesson by example of what not to do in journalism. And it shows real courage to point out this lack of standards when the company you work for is one of the biggest media enterprises in the world and one of the worst offenders.

Thanks Bill.

Bill O’Reilly: Censorship, Lies And Plunging Popularity

A couple of days ago Bill O’Reilly again demonstrated his aversion to free expression as well as his penchant for dishonesty. An op-ed that appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (a paper that O’Reilly regularly castigates as “far-left loons”) laid out a case for Impeachment: If not now, when? The column was accompanied by a political cartoon that had Bush and Cheney dressed up for their mugshots.

That was more than enough to set O’Reilly off on a rant that amounted to a call for censorship (YouTube):

“Look at this. This is ridiculous […] It’s based on nothing […] I want you to excoriate them. Let them have it […] It’s wrong though for them to do it. Don’t you think that showing a mug shot of a sitting president, a sitting vice president is irresponsible?”

O’Reilly is outraged that anyone would exercise their First Amendment rights to express an opinion about the criminality of this administration. He believes that such open expression “diminishes intelligent conversation,” (as if O’Reilly ever engaged in one) and his response is to shut down conversation entirely. Note that O’Reilly is complaining about the cartoon, not the content of the article. Although he does say that the cartoon is “based on nothing,” despite the fact that it is attached to a well-documented column that enumerates specific justifications for investigating the President and his administration.

After once again calling the paper “loons,” (an example of his idea of “intelligent conversation”) O’Reilly attacks the paper’s credibility by smugly declaring that it has lost 40% of its readers in the past ten years:

“Almost half of their readers have said ‘We don’t like you anymore, we’re not going to read you.'”

What O’Reilly leaves out is any actual context that would enlighten his viewers. The truth is that almost all major newspapers have suffered sharp declines in circulation over the past ten years. But more to the point, in only two years (Sept 2005 to Sept 2007) Bill O’Reilly himself has lost 33% of his total viewers and a whopping 59% of viewers in the all-important 25-54 age group. That’s more than half of his viewers saying, “We don’t like you anymore, we’re not going to watch you.”

This brief exchange reveals much about O’Reilly. It shows that while he is vociferously objecting to the free speech rights of others, he will use his own platform to misinform his viewers. No wonder they don’t like him anymore.

Tucker Carlson Gets A Vote Of No Confidence

MSNBC has been accused by many rightist pundits of adopting a liberal editorial policy. The sole basis of this charge appears to be the existence of Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. In an interview with NPR, MSNBC Sr VP Phil Griffin denies the charge saying that it is the host’s personalities, not their positions that make them popular. So Tucker’s already starting at a disadvantage. Griffin acknowledges that the network is trading on the audience identifying with the program’s anchors.

“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.”

That is an unequivocal expression of the faith Griffin has in Olbermann and Matthews. But when he is specifically asked whether Tucker Carlson is also their brand, he pauses and says…

“He is right now.”

Not exactly a vote of confidence. Griffin seems to be hinting that his answer might be different if you ask him again in a week or two. Looks like the only thing Tucker has to be thankful for is his well-connected family and a contract for an upcoming TV game show pilot. I still can’t get over this project – a remake of “Who Do You Trust?”

The remainder of the segment featured a couple of choice comments from Olbermann:

On his righteous cynicism: “We gave these people every benefit of the doubt. Our naturally contentious political arrangement in this country was silenced for well over a year after 9/11. We got hosed. We were manipulated. That trust that we put in these people, they did not deserve.”

On O’Reilly’s dementia: “As usual, Bill-O’s King Lear act, in which he threatens somebody with terrible consequences and boycotts and plagues of locusts, has produced nothing tangible other than making the object of his impotent rage richer.”

Speaking of Bill-O, his frantic efforts to disparage NBC and his nemesis Keith Olbermann (whom he refers to as “the smear guy”) are butting up against reality. O’Reilly has been falsely bashing NBC as a network in total decline, but the truth is that NBC News beat ABC and CBS in total viewers for the 2006/2007 season. And on the heels of Brian Williams’ appearance on Saturday Night Live, NBC has won the 25-54 demo for the month of November so far. O’Reilly’s analysis, as usual, is worthless, unless you’re really into childish fiction.