O'Reilly ignores Haiti to cover whaling, wild horses and Jon Stewart
January 14, 2010 1:40 pm ET by Brian Frederick
As the full scope of the devastation in Haiti was just beginning to be understood Wednesday, MSNBC and CNN devoted extensive coverage to the crisis, including during their primetime coverage. Fox News did cover the aftermath of the earthquake in its dayside programming, but the Three Musketeers -- Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity -- couldn't be bothered.
Beck devoted his entire show to an interview with Sarah Palin. He didn't mention Haiti once but instead chose to read her his diary. To be fair, Beck's interview may have been taped prior to the Haiti crisis, but he certainly wasn't obligated to air it Wednesday. It's not as if Fox News viewers won't hear her views now that she's a Fox News contributor.
On his show Hannity did mention Haiti in the first two minutes and offered this segue:
We're going to continue to update you as new details become available on the very tragic situation that is unfolding in Haiti tonight. Now, meanwhile all eyes are on the Senate race in Massachusetts.
No, actually, most eyes are on the Haiti tragedy.
But Hannity felt it more important to break down a reporter getting shoved on the streets of Washington, D.C.
Tens of thousands are dead in Haiti with some victims still clinging to life under toppled buildings, and Hannity devoted the first segment of his show to a political reporter getting pushed down on the sidewalk (and helped back up).
He should be embarrassed.
But how did the top-rated prime-time news program address the crisis?
O'Reilly mentioned Haiti in his "Talking Points Memo" -- "Haiti, Liberalism, and America" -- arguing that the U.S. will do more than any country to aid the people of Haiti but that much of that aid will be stolen. But then it was on to business as usual -- attacking President Obama. O'Reilly discussed polls on Obama's approval with Dana Perino - obviously much needed political analysis in a time of great tragedy.
O'Reilly used his second segment to attack Jon Stewart because he had made fun of O'Reilly and his Factor guests for their discussion of Obama's reaction to the underwear bomber. Attacking the media (and anyone who makes fun of him) is O'Reilly's shtick -- it's easy. O'Reilly even brought on a political analyst to break down the comments a comedian made on a comedy show -- rather than, say, a political analyst to explain how and whether Haiti's government would respond to the crisis.
The third segment brought another attack on the Obama administration (and the Clinton administration) - this time from former CIA agent Michael Scheurer, who once said, "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States." Scheurer spent most of the interview again trashing Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan. Here's a suggestion -- how about a segment on the implications of the crisis in Haiti to the national security of the U.S., as well as to the Dominican Republic and other nations.
It was during the fourth segment that O'Reilly's obtuseness was on full display. While many Americans clamored for more information on the crisis in Haiti (with some even turning to such coverage because of loved ones back in Haiti), O'Reilly brought on actress Bo Derek to discuss Japanese whaling and the possible roundup of wild horses in Nevada. How about just directing viewers to Whale Wars and instead discussing the impact of the earthquake on Haiti's natural resources?
One might think that bringing on comedian Dennis Miller to crack jokes while survivors of the earthquake were still trapped under rubble might be just a little insensitive. Not O'Reilly. Sarah Palin, Harry Reid and Leno/Conan were far more important topics of discussion Wednesday night. Miller might have provided insight on how comedians consider humor in times of great tragedy - but then again, Miler hasn't been funny since the "Off-White Album."
O'Reilly then discussed an attack ad produced by Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe. After airing the ad in full, O'Reilly said:
Very slick. That was one of the slickest pieces of propaganda - and I say propaganda because it is. It's designed to make President Obama look bad by a group that opposes the president.
Well, good thing he devoted prime-time coverage to it rather than anything else related to Haiti.
It should come as no surprise that more Leno/Conan, more Palin and Tiger Woods were the subjects of the rest of O'Reilly's show. Visitors to PerezHilton.com on Wednesday would have learned more about the crisis than from watching O'Reilly's top-rated prime-time Fox News show.
That's not a joke.
O'Reilly and his fellow Fox News cohorts should be ashamed of themselves.
And now all the other hypocrites who post here will come and defend them and attack Fox. Watch. And shortly I will have lots of thumbs down for telling the truth.
Try this link to the list of charities supported by O'Reilly...don't miss the Haitian Health Foundation that he was supporting before the earthquake.
Maybe you'd like to provide some charitable work by his rival Olbermann?
Olbermann's main page is ALL ABOUT Haiti and "How To Help"
O'Reilly's main page simply has a statement saying that financial support will be stolen and won't do any good.
Are you clinically insane?
How you can defend the man and attempt to portray him as offering aid to Haiti because of a link somewhere on his site when he says -
"No matter how much charity is given, no matter how many good intentions there are, Haiti will remain chaotic until discipline is imposed... the USA will once again pour millions into that country, much of which will be stolen. Once again, we will do more than anyone else on the planet. And one year from today, Haiti will be just as bad as it is right now."
is beyond me. Clearly, you have to admit that this would discourage people from giving aid to Haiti. Surely, you can at least admit that. Not you, fakeliberal, we know what alternate Paris Business Review world you live in.
It is not a portrayal...it's a fact that O'Reilly was supporting efforts in Haiti before the earthquake...along with a multitude of other charities. How about the charitable contributions by Olbermann?
As to his statement...he's pretty much right on the money...check back with me in a year and let me know how Haiti is making out.
So you mean to tell me Bill supports giving money to causes he feels are hopeless? I must have missed something. Do you ever stop simply absorbing the steady stream of garbage streaming from your TV and computer screen to consider the blatant contradiction right before your eyes???
I'm going to have to cut back on my weekly hours at the Ronald McDonald House and put some links to charities on a webpage saying I support them - a real A+ effort!
Is that truthful enough for you, or can you refute it?
http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/
http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/index.php?id=6166
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Liberal are quite generous with other peoples money, not their own.
Media matters are a bunch of hacks who have no right to criticze anyone. They present a one sided view of every story they cover, they are not a media watchdog site, they are a conservative watchdog site. They couldn't care less about the lies and distortions told by the left and more specifically the Obamanation. That is undeniable and perfectly acceptable to the liberal mindset. After all, who needs both sides of the story, surely not the libs.
By the way, given his penchant and history for spin,distortion,omission,and outright falsehoods (Remember The Paris Business Review?),I'd like to see some actual hard proof that Bill O'Reilly actually gives of his money to the charities linked. For a man who has a reputation for being the model tightwad, I really find it hard to believe that this man gives a dime of his multi-millions to anything unless it's for ulterior motives that line his pocket even further.
But then you'd just whine like the rest of the wing-nuts about Obama trying to collect your information by providing you with links to NGOs you can donate to.
Your whine about "one sided view" is much less valid. It would only be valid were MM to dishonestly present themselves as "fair and balanced" when in fact they are quite open about the purpose of the organization and the web site. In fact a quick look around (hint: it is hidden behind the "About Us" link at the top of every page) finds this:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"
...which pretty much begs the question of "what the fox are you on about?"
I'm curious as to who you would say the conservative site that functions in a similar manner to Media Matters to expose these lies and distortions you allude to made by progressive news organizations and furnish the actual facts to back up their exposure of those lies.
I don't mean faux news sites and reactionary blogs that repeat the same old tired lies and misconceptions with no accurate citation of fact to back up their claims, I mean an actual well researched and written site that makes claims about progressive lies and then point by point shows how they arrived at the conclusions they are printing.
Every single point I see made on Media Matters is backed up immediately by either video or transcripts of actual interviews or statements that right wing media persons really did say. There is no denying that the site has a liberal bias, but there is also no denying that every point they make, every lie they expose, and every untruth they bring to light is documented and attested to by fact.
Where exactly is the conservative version hiding?
Also they focus on a War on Xmas- but ignore a biblical tradgedy where Christian values could be emphasized
---------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Olbermann covered it and it did not go so well. He should also stick with what he is good at which is calling out these white wing politihacks for the lying scum bags that they are.
You would have to be a blind, deaf-mute to have missed the wall-to-wall coverage of Haiti by the other networks if you are so concerned about the situation...but apparently Frederick pines for the analysis by O'Reilly.
This article is pure silliness...but maybe it's a good way to break in the newbie writers.
there was an earthquake.
people are suffering, people are dead.
they need our help.
how much more coverage of those 3 items under the guise of compassion do you need?... perhaps you relish body count updates or enjoy the site of total devastation from the comfort of your living room via your home entertainment system, complete with surround sound and popcorn... i love a good earthquake, hurricane or plane crash as much as most people, perhaps a shooting spree of some kind as well... but after hours of repeated coverage you're more likely to learn something by watching drunken skanks with boob jobs and spray-on tans fighting over celebrity has-beens on vh1...
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that, unless O'Reilly and co. devote their entire program to the disaster in Haiti then they're terrible people. But you'd think a tragedy of that scale would deserve just slightly more mention than a discussion of whether or not Jon Stewart is a liberal.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that, unless O'Reilly and co. devote their entire program to the disaster in Haiti then they're terrible people. But you'd think a tragedy of that scale would deserve just slightly more mention than a discussion of whether or not Jon Stewart is a liberal.
and anyone who disagrees with me hates america... and puppies...
Y'know, there are a lot of "new developments" in Haiti. Missing people are being found constantly. Unfortunately many of them are dead. Aid is arriving, but it's very difficult to coordinate, with the infrastructure so damaged. Some groups have had to rely on Twitter and Facebook to communicate. There will be constant new developments in this tragic story. Call me crazy, but I think that's newsworthy. Whining about John Stewart... not so much.
"No matter how much charity is given, no matter how many good intentions there are, Haiti will remain chaotic until discipline is imposed... the USA will once again pour millions into that country, much of which will be stolen. Once again, we will do more than anyone else on the planet. And one year from today, Haiti will be just as bad as it is right now."
He covers it in order to discourage aid. But, then the other networks are covering the aid part. So, it's probably a spot-on point to have someone to argue the other side - against aid.
That just speaks volumes about the lack of humanity that the average fox news watcher has. You would rather watch people suffer and die for your entertainment which is just downright sad.
as for 9-11, simply comparing death tolls does not speak to it's uniqueness and subsequent ramifications thereof... i'm certain once the rebuilding is underway that living in a "post-haiti" world will not become part of the lexicon...
Haiti and Haitians will certainly define their lives for years to come by "before" or "after" the "earthquake of 2010", just as so many residents of the Gulf Coast of the U.S.A. define their lives by "post Katrina".
Your problem is that your complete lack of compassion, much like that of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and even Beck, despite all his (unintentionally) hilarious theatrics and crocodile tears, makes it impossible for you to consider the suffering or hardship of anyone aside from yourselves in your conception of what is right or wrong. What is or isn't a part of YOUR lexicon is really inconsequential to the vast majority of humans on this planet.
After all. . .
"They are just a bunch of brown skinned people who contribute and produce nothing, nada, zilch...we have more important things to consider."
if constantly watching news coverage of haiti is your definition of compassion, then have at it... i had a really crappy day yesterday, as if the stars were aligned from the second i woke up to thwart me until i finally returned home from my ordeals, the details of which i'll spare you from... feeling down and sorry for myself, i soon realized that at least i haven't been buried under rubble for 3 days... but i didn't have to turn on cnn or msnbc to realize this and prove i'm compassionate by watching them, or watching fox news with my compassion-o-meter counting the amount of coverage they're giving...
Apparently you have learned your discussion techniques from the likes of Glenn Beck and Liz Chaney. Never answer a question or address a point, just slip slide sideways and slither away.
Your use of "post haiti" and "post 9-11" as if they are analogous is completely flawed. "Post earthquake" would be the term analogous to "post 9-11", not "post Haiti".
Your assumption that "post 9-11" is any more of an international term than "post-earthquake" would be is symptomatic of your narrow world-view. "Post 9-11" may well be a part of the American lexicon, however, I'm pretty sure that survivors of Indonesia's 2004 Tsunami, for instance, don't define their lives by your own narrow world view.
People in other countries don't define their lives by events in your country, no more than you define your life by tragic earthquakes that happen in another country. Trying to argue from such a narrow America-centric viewpoint is absurd.
Of course nobody has to turn on MSNBC to know that they personally haven't been buried for three days. You demonstrate a lack of compassion by your inability to comprehend any other reason why people are interested in an ongoing view of the situation following such a terrible disaster. A human with compassion may want to know if any more survivors have been found, to know if the death toll has climbed beyond the impossibly horrible level it already is at, to know if any of the humanitarian aid that has already arrived at the airport has made it out to the people, to know if any of the orphans in the collapsed orphanages have been found alive, to know if any of the money they have freely and compassionately donated is actually making a difference to the people affected by the tragedy. To learn the answers to these compassion based questions, they would want to tune in to a network where these and many other ongoing aspects of the disaster and (hopefully) the recovery from the disaster are being covered. If a person totally lack compassion then you are right, all they have to do is arrive home and look at themselves in the mirror and pat themselves on the back for surviving another crappy day that was not their fault but that of the alignment of the stars.
If you think the alignment of the stars can be blamed for your crappy day, no wonder you can't muster a cogent argument.
People will argue about the usefulness or otherwise of lengthy and in-depth coverage of Haiti, but that's not entirely the issue with Fox. It's about priorities - priorities we can discern by looking at the issues they choose to cover at the expense of the Haiti story. Somehow, I think that Haiti would have featured more prominently on Fox if perhaps William Ayres was in Port Au Prince when the quake hit. I think that's pretty obviously the point being made in this article where Hannity is quoted as saying "meanwhile all eyes are on the Senate race in Massachusetts."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34835478/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/ a direct link on Countdowns front page
http://www.billoreilly.com/ mabey I missed it somewhere, can you find anything that directs you away from Bill pocketing $$$
I'm not even gonna get started with the 700 club and their theivery in the name of God.
Exposed Rush for his distain of the Haitians people in their time of need ,and his HATE for President Obama!
Exposed Robertson for his Understaning of the Teaching of the Son of GOD to bring aid and comfort HAITI and her people !
Exposed Maddows who Politicies the disaster!
All three were WRONG!! WRONG!!
The sad thing is that all day on Fox NEWS 1/15/10, Fox will only use the Maddows part of the segment!
WATCH AND SEE, if I am wrong with this prediction!