Bill O’Reilly

Will Bill O’Reilly Demand An Apology From Glenn Beck?

Posted by on August 6, 2007 at 7:03 pm. 24 Comments :

Last week, Bill O’Reilly, Fox’s Father Coughlin, ranted riotously about the “vile hate site”, DailyKos, because of what he deemed an offensive picture that he found there.

I wonder if he’s going to spend this week lambasting Glenn Beck for this obscene swipe at Helen Thomas.




Keep in mind that no one affiliated with DailyKos posted the image that angered O’Reilly so much. It was posted by one user in a comment thread that never appeared on the site’s front page. The image here was featured as the “Picture of the Day“ on Beck’s home page.

O’Reilly wouldn’t turn out to be a hypocrite, would he?

Email Glenn Beck at his web site.
Email Glenn Beck at CNN.

Another Runaway Quarter For MSNBC

Posted by on July 4, 2007 at 2:34 am. 5 Comments :

The 2nd quarter of 2007 (PDF) has delivered another in a string of victories for MSNBC. The network’s growth of 50% over its 2006 performance far outshines CNN (4%) and Fox (5%).

The chart below tells the story for the past four quarters. While still in third place, there is no cable news network that is growing faster than MSNBC in primetime (Mon-Fri).


And, as usual, MSNBC’s growth is powered by a surging Countdown with Keith Olbermann. The most recent quarter continues a pattern of Countdown battering away at The Factor’s lead, just as it has been doing for the past year. The numbers for the 25-54 demo show the same trends.


It is no wonder that Olbermann is drawing crowds. His “Special Comments” are an inspiring rarity in television news. And the latest one delivered last night is no exception. In fact it may be the best yet. Calling on Bush and Cheney to resign, Olbermann spells out the universal disconnection between this president and the people he is failing to serve.

“In that moment [the Libby commutation], Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens – the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.”

Media Gangs Up On John Edwards

Posted by on June 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm. 2 Comments :

In the past couple of weeks, the press has taken a decidedly negative turn on John Edwards. The ferocity of the attacks and the diversity of their origin is curious, to say the least. Their obsession with housing and haircuts and speaking fees has become all-consuming. This media phenomenon was apparent to media critic and author Jeff Cohen who wrote:

“The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media. One we’ve long known – that they elevate personal stuff above issues. The other is now becoming clear – that they have a special animosity toward Edwards.”

Edwards is receiving treatment that is generally reserved for front-runners like Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani. Here is a sampling of the assault:

Jonah Goldberg: “[Edwards] gives new meaning to the term “poverty pimp.”

USA Today: “Edwards, most prominently, has undermined his passionate advocacy for ordinary Americans by seeming to be anything but ordinary himself. Expensive haircuts reinforce the elitist image of a wealthy trial lawyer…”

Sean Hannity: “[Edwards isn’t] up to the task of understanding the nature in the battle in the war that’s being waged against us.”

Jim Cramer (on Hardball): “[Edwards is] public enemy #1.”

Bill O’Reilly: “The former vice presidential candidate has sold his soul to far left interests […] Edwards is running a preposterous campaign. He lives like a sultan in a 30,000 foot North Carolina house […] Talking Points tries to respect all of those who want to serve their country, but Edwards is an exception. I have no respect for him. He’s a phony and is in the tank for special interests to damage this country.”

As an added bonus, O’Reilly offers swag for sale at his web site about which he says, “remember, when you buy anything on BillOReilly.com, a good portion of what you spend goes to charities, send a lot of kids, poor kids to camp this summer.”

Is O’Reilly a hypocrite as well because he is a multi-millionaire advocating help for poor kids? I might have a little more sympathy for these arguments if any of Edwards’ critics placed even a fraction of the effort on behalf of America’s poor that Edwards does. Edwards himself posed this question in response to these criticisms:

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

This whole line of attack seems preposterous to me. First of all it is implying that you cannot be wealthy and concerned about the poor at the same time. If that’s true, it exempts about 90% of Congress and every presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, except for Dennis Kucinich. Secondly, it is a rejection of the American Dream that holds that everyone can share in this nation’s prosperity; everyone except John Edwards, who is to be pilloried for the audacity of being born poor but achieving great wealth through hard work and determination.

You have to wonder why Edwards is getting hit so hard from so many directions. Jeff Cohen believes it has something to do with Edwards’ criticism of corporate-driven trade policies. Certainly that position would anger the captains of industry that wield so much influence in American government. And remember, many of those captains are at the helm of media conglomerates. It was probably not lost on those folks that Edwards was the first Democrat to refuse to participate in the Fox debate.

But I think that just brushes the surface of their objections. I think it goes much deeper into the matter of the class distinctions raised by Edwards’ “Two Americas” campaign. They are ultimately afraid that the populist appeal of a movement that truly seeks to bring economic opportunity to every citizen, instead of just the elite, could catch on. That’s why it has to be strangled in the cradle of a candidate who is running third in national polls. The risk extends beyond Edwards himself. If voters responded positively to the issue, the other candidates would adopt it. So even if Edwards does not become a contender, the issue stays on the table. This fear has already been articulated by Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine to Brit Hume on Fox:

“Well, I think the most interesting thing about these speeches was the extent to which both candidates borrowed from the No. 2 candidate we saw there, John Edwards […] to me it’s like they’re all joined at the hip on domestic policy”

It isn’t Edwards that they are all afraid of. It is economic populism, fair trade, and, in the end, the American Dream. That’s what the media and their mouthpieces in politics and punditry are trying to kill.

The Cult Of Foxonality™

Posted by on May 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm. 7 Comments :

The Republican presidential primary debate threw off some interesting bones for chewing. I’m not talking about Rudy Giuliani’s exploitation of 9/11 at every turn, especially his smack down of Ron Paul’s refreshingly rational attempt to offer up a more complex explanation for terrorism than, “they hate us for our freedom.” I’m not talking about Mitt Romney’s pandering to sadists with his applause-bait on Guantanamo and torture. I’m not talking about John McCain’s ludicrous and insensitive promise to be “the last man standing” in Iraq, as if he were volunteering for active duty. And I’m not even talking about the graphics and sound effects that seem to have been lifted from broadcasts of professional wrestling.

What I find interesting is that 2.4 million people watched the GOP debate that aired on the Republican News Network (aka Fox).That is just slightly more than the 2.3 million viewers who watched the Democrats debate on MSNBC. But when Republicans debated on MSNBC, they only managed to pull in 1.7 million viewers. Maybe that was because it was on opposite the O’Reilly Factor which itself snared 2.3 million. So Fox drew the same size audience for their Republican debate as O’Reilly did when Republicans were debating elsewhere.

What this tells us is that a little less than two and half million viewers will show up to watch Fox in that timeslot whether there is a debate on or not. It also tells us that Fox viewers will turn out to get their O’Reilly fix even if there is a Republican debate on another network. [See update in comments].

What this does not tell us is why O’Reilly performs 35% better than a Republican debate on MSNBC. And we can only speculate as to why the Republican debate on Fox performs no better than their daily scheduled program. My speculation to both questions is that Fox viewers are married to the channel and couldn’t care less what’s playing down the dial. Their hypnotic attachment filters out all other sensory stimulation, even if it’s something that would ordinarily excite them.

One way of looking at this would be to acknowledge the success of Fox’s marketing strategy for having developed a powerful brand that inspires loyalty. But I prefer a more paranoid analysis. Most liberals (and objective observers) recognize the tight-knit relationship between Fox and the GOP. However, while we fret about the Murdoch/RNC cabal, we may be missing an even more frightening scenario. Fox viewers appear to be more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism. This misdirected allegiance bestows a far more influential authority onto a media entity than ought ever to be considered. It suggests that the bombastic demagogues that Fox has shaped into celebrity anchors truly do weigh down their transfixed disciples.

Are Fox viewers more attached to their tele-mentors than to the party and politics they profess? The evidence suggests that this may be so. People who might ordinarily be considered reliable party stalwarts are straying from the pack to trail behind Fox pundits who have come to criticize the administration on issues like Iraq, immigration, and the federal budget. Granted, the criticism is emanating from an even further right stance than the DC GOP has taken, but the result is the same: It’s the Foxebrities that are leading, not elected representatives of the people.

Some may take the view that the people are voting with their remotes, but you have to wonder where all of this could end. Television personalities are still built by marketing and promotion, not principle. If Paris Hilton can command the chunk of media real estate that she does, then clearly intelligence, insight, talent, and vision, are irrelevant in determining who viewers admire. And when admiration swells to idolization in the political realm, how far down the road will fans follow the flickering object of the affection? And how far will the Pundicrats ask their flock to go?

Bill O’Beale: “I’m mad as Hell!”

Paddy Chayefky’s “Network” introduced us to Howard Beale, a new model newscaster that implored his audience to cast off their docility and think for themselves. But today’s Fox version would likely produce Beale’s polar opposite who would only inspire a feverish fealty to himself and his omnipotent infallibility. That is indeed a foreboding picture of a bleak future. Do we have the time and/or will to steer away from it? Or is it already upon us?

Villains And Victims In Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone

Posted by on May 2, 2007 at 11:35 am. 1 Comments :




Researchers at Indiana University have published the results of a study that documents the intimidation and propagandizing employed by Fox News’ resident bully, Bill O’Reilly. The study, sub-titled, “Revisiting World War Propaganda Techniques,” finally paints an academically verified picture1 of O’Reilly’s repulsive modus operandi. Contrary to O’Reilly’s assertion that he doesn’t, “do personal attacks,” the IU study spells out the truth:

The IU researchers found that O’Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night. [See the Stalking Points Memos].

This may not seem like news, but we now have data that is backed up by the reputation of researchers from a respectable American university. While it may appear that O’Reilly is a cartoonish character, he is following the model of Father Charles Coughlin, the early 20th century American racist/fascist. There were probably those who thought Coughlin was cartoonish at the time. And like Coughlin, O’Reilly does have a huge audience of blind ducklings that take his word as gospel. The lesson we must learn is that this sort of evil cannot be ignored.

O’Reilly is man that cannot say the word “left” without appending modifiers like “far,” “ultra,” “committed,” or “looney.” He is a man who is convinced that every critic is a “smear merchant.” And his opponents are never merely disagreeing with him, they are “vile.”

While the researchers never overtly associate O’Reilly with the work of his propagandisitc predecessors (i.e. Goebbels, Coughlin), they do point out some more subtle connections. The study itemized seven propaganda devices as defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. O’Reilly was found to have employed six of them nearly 13 times each minute:

  • Name calling – giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence.
  • Glittering generalities – the opposite of name calling.
  • Card stacking – the selective use of facts and half-truths.
  • Bandwagon – appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd.
  • Plain folks – an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are “of the people”.
  • Transfer – carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept.
  • Testimonials – involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

Sound familiar? Every now and then, an academic institution will conduct an exercise in the obvious. It would not take much in the way of intuition to have predicted the results of this study, but it is still useful to have compiled an accurate and scholarly paper on the subject to wave in the face of skeptics, not that O’Reilly’s minions will pay much mind. They will likely respond with the indignation of Stephen Colbert and proclaim that they don’t care much for “book-learnin.” And we know, because Colbert has told us, that the truth has a well known liberal bias.

[1] I have also painted a picture of O’Reilly’s repulsive modus operandi. Actually, it is an interactive artwork that documents O’Reilly’s attempts to demean and belittle his perceived enemies. Unfortunately, the piece is a day or two from completion. I was surprised that this study from IU was released so close to my completion of this artwork. Coincidence? I’ll have the artwork posted by Saturday. It’s posted now: Bill O’Reilly: Propaganda Pimp
Contine reading →

Fox News Implementing A Slow Growth Strategy

Posted by on April 6, 2007 at 2:22 am. NO Comments :

Continuing a pattern that goes back more than a year, Fox News is again underperforming its peers. The latest Nielsen data comparing the first quarter of 2007 with the same period of 2006 shows Fox growing at the slowest rate of any of the cable news nets.


This comes at a time when much of the Cable news community was obsessed with the death of Anna Nicole Smith. The concentration of reports on overtly tabloid subjects such as Smith is often justified by the media as providing the audience with what it wants. Wolf Blitzer told an exasperated Jack Cafferty on air that…

“I know a lot of people are complaining about [the Smith coverage]. But a lot of people are also watching.”

Bill O’Reilly, a creation of tabloid media himself, ironically mused…

“I’m looking at her and seeing a media creation.”

That wasn’t enough to prevent him and Fox from airing by far the most coverage of all things Smith. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has the details:

“The Fox News Channel spent about 400 minutes or 32% of its airtime, on this case. This was 50% higher than MSNBC which devoted 21% of its airtime to the story and more than double CNN’s coverage of 14%.”

Fox’s Smith habit even exceeded it’s coverage of that little distraction over in Iraq by 2 to 1. That’s right, for every minute Fox spent covering the war in Iraq, the soldiers, their families, the political skirmishes, etc., Fox spent two minutes probing the Smith affair. But if the public is clamoring for more Anna Nicole, it isn’t reflected in the ratings, since every other network devoted less time to Smith but grew more. One could make the argument that the public is actually thirsting for more relevant content that has a true impact on their lives.

Taking a look at Fox’s top personality reveals the same patterns as for the network as a whole. While still drawing far more viewers than his competition, O’Reilly is also still growing far slower.

But O’Reilly’s troubles extend beyond his competition. Although his gains are far below those of his arch nemesis, Keith Olbermann, they are also lower than his prime time colleagues on Fox, Hannity and Van Susteren. And the pressure seems to be getting to him. In the following clip, he exhibits the unrestrained rage of man who has totally lost control of his senses. Even his buddy Geraldo knows a meltdown when he sees one and tells O’Reilly not to, “obscure a tragedy to make a cheap political point.” But, of course, that’s typical O’Reilly.


Bush Names Bill O’Reilly To Fill In For Tony Snow

Posted by on April 1, 2007 at 3:34 am. NO Comments :

Tony Snow’s recently diagnosed recurrence of cancer could not have come at a worse time for the Bush White House. Any president always has a need for a spokesperson that can present his vision and keep a disorderly flock of reporters in line. But current events are weighing on this administration with domestic scandals at the Department of Justice, a new and hostile Congress, foreign affairs heating up over Iran’s arrest of British soldiers, and, of course, the long-running and unpopular war in Iraq.

If there were ever a time that a president depended on an agile and articulate spokesman, it is now. And that is why the White House, looking to the bench that produced its previous stars, introduced the press gathered in the briefing room today to his new press secretary, Bill O’Reilly.




“Bill will be a valuable addition to our team,” said Bush. “He’s going to help us to prevaricate our agenda to the American people.”

O’Reilly didn’t waste any time taking the reins of his new post. With a gentle elbow jab, O’Reilly subtly nudged the President from the podium. Facing a curious and expectant press corps for the first time, he confidently assured them the President would be alright just as soon as he caught his breath. When David Gregory of NBC asked if the President could use a little help getting back to his feet, O’Reilly defiantly objected to Gregory’s negativity.

O’Reilly: “The President is in great shape and doesn’t need liberal media kooks like you implying that his administration is falling down on the job.”

Gregory: “I just thought he might…”

O’Reilly: “Oh, don’t give me that crap.”

Gregory: “…need a hand.”

O’Reilly: “Cut his mic. Somebody cut his mic right now. Lester, do you have a question?”

Les Kinsolving of WorldNetDaily: “Thanks Bill. Yesterday Matt Drudge reported that a homeless veteran accused someone that he thought looked like Nancy Pelosi of running off with his Persian cat. Is the President planning to have Speaker Pelosi arrested and is he at all concerned about the presence of Persian felines, that may in fact be Iranian, prowling the back alleys of America?”

Before O’Reilly could respond, Helen Thomas rose to leave the room, presumably to answer her ringing cell phone.

O’Reilly: “And just where do you think you’re going?”

Thomas: “I have to take this call.”

O’Reilly: “Sure you do. It’s typical of all you secular-progressives that can’t take the heat. They’re afraid to come on ‘The Fact…’ um, to come to the press briefing because they’re afraid to confront me. Go ahead, take your call you little baby. Any other questions?”

Gregory: “Is the President breathing? Don’t you think he should see a doctor or…”

O’Reilly: “I thought I told you to shut up. If that’s your microphone he’s using, Norah, you’re in big trouble. You know what? This press conference is over.”

With that, O’Reilly left the room. Gregory and Fox News correspondent, Carl Cameron, helped Bush up and leaned him against the podium.

Bush: “There see,” wheezed the President. “A valuable addition to our team. You didn’t get any more out of him than you did any of our other press secretaries, did you?”

Get well soon, Tony.

O’Reilly’s No-Spin Green Zone Holiday Tour

Posted by on December 17, 2006 at 3:05 am. NO Comments :

From the official web site of the Multi-National Force – Iraq, comes this nausea inducing press release:

Camp Striker dining facility becomes ‘No-Spin Zone’

“In a war that has perhaps been even hotter in debates than it is on the streets of Baghdad, the one constant in the media has been ‘spin.’

“It was fitting, then, that Bill O’Reilly, host of the Fox News talk show “The O’Reilly Factor” – dubbed the ‘No Spin Zone’ – came to visit the Camp Striker, Iraq dining facility Dec. 15.”

As if our long-suffering troops don’t have enough hardships to endure, now they have to eat with Bill O’Reilly. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a mad rush to volunteer for patrol duty that evening. The streets of Baghdad may indeed be a lower risk assignment. At least they would offer some relief from The Fester who is unlikely to ever venture out onto them.

O’Reilly also visited Kuwait where he spoke to soldiers and signed autographs. The caption to this photo (click to enlarge) describes a special treat he bestowed upon his audience:

“Some of the servicemembers asked O’Reilly about his own tour of duty in Kuwait during Desert Storm.”

Retelling these stories might have been a source of pride for Bill, comparable to when he received his Peabody Awards for journalism. It would have been, were it true. But Bill never served in the military and thus, there was no tour of duty during Desert Storm. Just as there were no Peabodys. I have a certain empathy for O’Reilly because I know how hard it is to build a mythology around oneself when all you have is a good imagination and a resume of lies. (I still can’t convince people that I painted Van Gogh’s “Irises”, taught Hemingway to fight, and fathered Angelina Jolie’s baby).

While O’Reilly was regaling the troops with flights of fiction and signing copies of the book he’s currently promoting, Al Franken was entertaining them along with the rest of the USO performers. This is Franken’s seventh USO tour. As Franken is fond of saying:

His wife doesn’t like him going to Iraq so she always says, “Bill O’Reilly doesn’t go to Iraq,” and he says, “Honey, that’s not fair. Bill O’Reilly doesn’t have any talent.”

It seems O’Reilly and Franken missed each other in Kuwait by a day, which may be for the best because there is already too much sectarian disharmony in the region. Perhaps the best way to keep those two from encountering each other would be to end this disgraceful war so that neither will ever have to make these trips again.

T-Warrior In The House

Posted by on September 25, 2006 at 3:15 pm. NO Comments :

Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Culture Warrior, comes out today. OK, just sit your butt back down. There’s plenty of copies for everyone.

I tried desperately to get a pre-release copy, but they had the distribution pretty locked-up. That didn’t stop Media Matters, who did get a copy and have published a comprehensive debunking. Here’s some appetizers:

“My goal is to expose and defeat people who have the power to do you great harm. My weapons will be facts and superior analysis based on those facts”

If his weapons are facts and superior analysis, he is entering the battlefield unarmed.

“If you are on the traditionalist side, the S-Ps [Secular-Progressives] will reject you and perhaps try to inflict pain upon your person.”

“…inflict pain upon your person?” Who talks like that? No wonder Bill feels rejected. He even told Newsweek that he doesn’t get invited to parties and that, “Nobody Wants Me.”

“I don’t have to be a culture warrior. I could make millions doing straight anchor work or just writing books. But I’m on a mission.”

He’s on a mission to make millions of dollars as a mercenary in his invented war on culture.

The Media Matters article goes into great depth citing the falsehoods, mischaracterizations, slanders, and delusions in this book. They have carefully documented every assertion they put forth while pointing out that O’Reilly seems to have an aversion to doing so. For those of you who don’t have the stomach to read the book itself, Media Matters is providing a valuable public service.

Bill O’Reilly On Al Qaeda Death List

Posted by on September 20, 2006 at 6:12 pm. 1 Comments :

Bill O’Reilly will be interviewed french kissed by Barbara Walters on Friday’s episode of 20/20. In the course of the cooing, O’Reilly reveals that al Qaeda has issued a death threat against him.

Personally, I think al Qaeda is just using this as a fundraising ploy. They may be evil, but they know a profitable appeal when they see one. I predict their receipts will skyrocket, and they will tap donors from the west that previously would have nothing to do with them.

If true, al Qaeda is merely replicating the stategery of the Bush administration: conflating unrelated emotionally charged issues. Bush is doing it with 9/11 and Iraq; bin Laden with infidels and douchebag TV bloviators. Bin Laden comes a little closer to articulating a plausible relationship. Douchebag TV bloviators are statistically more likely to be infidels than Iraqis are to be terrorists.

The disclosure of this threat might just possibly be promotional for O’Reilly, too. He has just releast his book, “Culture Warrior.” He’s in a very hostile state of mind these days. In the interview, O’Reilly also refers to himself as a “T-Warrior,” short for “traditional warrior.” What he apparently means is that he is a warrior for traditional values, opposing the forces of the dreaded Secular-Progressives. Obviously, this chickenhawk has never been what is traditionally referred to as a traditional warrior.

He also believes that were it not for the media, there would be no ongoing debates over gay marriage or references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. He intends that to be criticism of the media. He is therefore arguing against open and democratic discourse and is incensed should the media happen to facilitate it once in a while.

He refuses to criticize Don Rumsfeld even though he says that:

“war is a performance business. And Iraq is a mess. Now, I think he is a patriot. And I think he did the best he could. It’s not working.”

Right. Tell that to the families of the 2,600 American casualties; or to the thousands more who were injured and maimed; or to the tens of thousands more Iraqi civilians. Sorry, it’s not working.

I’m glad I saw this preview of the 20/20 program so that I don’t accidently tune in thinking something worthwhile would be on.

Update: Radar Magazine is reporting that the FBI has denied that any notification of an al Qaeda threat was given to O’Reilly or anyone else at Fox. Could O’Reilly lying? And Fox’ Media relations director, Leah Yoon, made this astonishing comment:

“We shouldn’t be shouldering the burden of something he said on someone else’s network.”

You know rock-bottom is near when the Fox PR department won’t even back up its most-watched personality.