The Hypocrite of the Week award goes to ... Bill O'Reilly.
Bill earned the award for spending most of this week denouncing attack and smear journalism, yet he himself often is guilty of attack and smear journalism.
O'Reilly on Media Matters: "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country."
O'Reilly on the ACLU: "fascist organization" and "the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now."
O'Reilly on Paul Krugman: "Krugman and his vicious ... far-left pack ... - wants to control the USA by diminishing their opposition and allowing judges to make rather interpret the law."
O'Reilly on Ivins, Maher, Moyers, and David: "Molly Ivins; Bill Maher, Bill Moyers; and Larry David. Why don't you get Che Guevara on that, oh, he's dead. How about Fidel Castro? Come on, they are the far left fringe."
O'Reilly on David Corn: "David Corn is so beneath what we do here, it's a waste of my time. Number two, no one knows who he is. Number three, he's an irrational leftwing bomber that why would I bother with him?"
O'Reilly on Eric Alterman: "another Fidel Castro confidant"
O'Reilly on Bill Moyers: "Bill Moyers on PBS, he's -- hides behind the label of objectivity. He's about as objective as Mao Zedong, all right. I mean he's a Far-Left bomb-thrower who actually runs a foundation that funds left-wing organizations. I mean the guy's a joke. Get out of the news business, Bill."
O'Reilly on The Guardian: "it might be edited by Osama bin Laden"
Et cetera.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I thought Darth Vader's claim in Episode III that from his point of view he's the good guy was a little far-fetched. But that was before I heard Bill O'Reilly declare he needs bodyguards to protect him from evil. So, it really is possible to be have that twisted a worldview.
I have watched Bill O Reilly for years and I do not agree with this characterization of him on this blog. And for the record, I am not a narrow-minded Christian automaton. In fact I deny the deity of Christ and have a Phd in Philosophy.
I don't think you guys appreciate the difference between smearing (which akin to slander and libel) and accurate criticism (which is based on evidence and truth). The ACLU, for example, does act in a fascist manner and this empirically verifiable if you examine their legal actions over the last 20 years or so.
Perhaps you disagree with Bill's characterization of the groups listed but that is a different issue.
The essence of a "smear merchant" is a person who wants to assassinate someone's character with no regard for the truth. Bill O Reilly is not such a man. Mistaken at times? Sure. A Smear merchant, though? No.
The problem with politics today is that there is so much hatred on both sides for the other that logic and reflective thinking often are lost. Sadly, often people just hurl venom at each other.
I wish it were not so.
Caller:But the point that I want to make today is, you've been talking a lot about far-left smearing websites. I actually went to one of those websites a couple of days ago. They have your audio, they have your video. And I'm kind of surprised that you're still challenging them on their material. So why don't you invite them, like Media Matters, to your show and debate the issues?
O'Reilly:OK. Number one, [caller], you're a dishonest person. Because you're not a big fan of mine. You're not anything, OK? What you are is one of these little Kool-Aid-drinking, left-wing idiots who calls up and under the guise of "Hey, you know, Bill, I like you, I listen to The Factor" -- yeah, yeah, yeah. You're a liar. You want me to legitimize a website that is 100 percent dishonest, that takes things out of context, that feeds them to fanatical people like Macarena Hernandez, which is where she got her garbage. You want me to put them on and legitimize them. All right? Give them notoriety and all of that. See, look, I know your game. You're a weasel, and you're in with other weasels. You're exactly where you should be. Those people will never, ever -- I don't deal with dishonest people. Don't call here again.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510240010
O'Reilly at his finest.
I think what you don't understand is the following scenario. Suppose you had a talk show. And people who just hate your views constantly quote you out of context (intentionally), constantly lie about you, constantly attack you. In other words they don't play fair--they have another agenda. The agenda could be character assassination, supporting their political cause--which might mean destroying their opponents at all costs and by any means that will work no matter how dishonest or dastardly--etc. Now suppose these people invited you to a debate. Would you go? I hope not because that is walking into a trap. They are setting you up. It is more prudent to avoid such people. That is O reilly's point above. I know a guy who agreed to debate a woman about abortion on a radio station and on the day of the debate she showed up with a friend and asked if the two of them could debate him... she changed the rules last minute to get an ufair advantage.... and there are people who are willing to do worse. In this day and age poltical parties often try to smear those who stand in their way. And there are many who want to shoot down O Reilly because he is very popular. I'm sorry but I disagree with your assessment of this whole situation.
That scenario only exists in his own mind ... anyone who visits Media Matters can see that when they quote O'Reilly, or anyone else, they provide the context of the quote.
Nevermind you ignoring the inexcusable rudeness O'Reilly directed towards the caller.
Post a Comment