About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Bill O'Reilly hears footsteps, plays defense

February 22, 2010 11:34 pm ET by Matt Gertz

On Friday, Rush Limbaugh took a shot at Bill O'Reilly, mocking O'Reilly for his supposed goal of "giv[ing] socialism a fair shake" and for his criticism of those who "bash Obama." Today, Limbaugh got his response - O'Reilly devoted much of his program to the question of whether or not President Obama is a socialist.

O'Reilly defended himself by stating that "from the beginning, the Factor has criticized Mr. Obama for his socialist tenets, primarily that of income redistribution." In a true Fox News fair-and-balanced moment, O'Reilly subsequently ran a graphic that stated: "Is President Obama a socialist? I say no. Others say yes."

Bill-O went on to ask Newt Gingrich, Brit Hume, and Bernie Goldberg in separate segments whether they think Obama is a socialist.

With two minutes of criticism, Limbaugh was able to direct a large portion of O'Reilly's show. With results like that, I think we can expect this conflict-of-the-egos to continue.

Tags: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel, The O'Reilly Factor

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by ingemar (February 22, 2010 11:40 pm ET)
        7
      How exactly does this correspond to MMFA's creed?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Good Creon (February 22, 2010 11:46 pm ET)
        4  
        It's an example (though a more tenuous one) of how the GOP echo machine operates. Those on the fringe (Limbaugh) make accusations, which the rest of the GOP and conservatives then run with. It's showing how the fringe and minority within the conservative mindset are setting the agenda for the rest of the party.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ingemar (February 22, 2010 11:52 pm ET)
            7
          MMFA, of all people, knows that Billo calls people out and defends himself on air fairly often. How is this any different?
          Billo is defending the President, and that makes him a shill for the Republican Party? What!?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Good Creon (February 23, 2010 12:03 am ET)
            4  
            It's not about whether he defended the president or not. It's about how because Limbaugh accused him of doing so, O'Reily then went full force on the "Is Obama a socialist?" story. Yes he said he doesn't personally think Obama is a socialist, but by virtue of addressing it, and having the guests chime in on it, he implied its a much more serious issue then it is. O'Reily should have just ignored Limbaugh, but because Limbaugh is such a driving force amongst conservatives, O'Reily has to address whatever it is that Limbaugh says.

            If O'Reily really wanted to defend Obama, he would have actively challenged others view on the subject, and made them prove how Obama is a socialist. Saying "I don't think Obama is a socialist, but here's a bunch of people who do" doesn't really cut it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ingemar (February 23, 2010 12:20 am ET)
                6
              Billo used to base segments on stuff brought up by MMFA. What's your point? Ms. Rachel Maddow does the same when she is called out. Am I supposed to believe that Maddow is a puppet of the far right because she bases segments on what they say? No, of course not.

              As for the socialist thing, are you suggesting it is a bad thing to be a socialist?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (February 23, 2010 12:38 am ET)
                3  
                Please don't respond to this troll any more.

                All he's doing is trying to distract us from the article's point.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ingemar (February 23, 2010 12:56 am ET)
                    4
                  ...and the article's point is what? MSNBC devotes many segments on what the far-right says. Does that make them a shill for the Republican Party? No.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by whatIthink (February 23, 2010 1:25 am ET)
                    3 1
                    I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

                    From MMFA's About page (emphasis added):

                    ...the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda

                    I think that the fact that one, unapologetically conservative media figure who is known for inaccuracy, lying and racist remarks can, and routinely does, have such an impact to the point where other conservative commentators feel the need to justify themselves by actions or words to such a point that they are giving tacit approval to that one persons way the conservative agenda should be delivered, even if inaccurate, handily fits within the stated purpose of MMFA.

                    Not that MMFA needs any defending from me.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ingemar (February 23, 2010 1:34 am ET)
                        3
                      Are you telling me that MMFA has not ever responded to attacks from "conservative media figures?" Does that make MMFA a shill for the Republican Party? No. Are you meaning to suggest that MMFA can respond to Limbaugh, but Billo the Clown cannot?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by jediknight65 (February 23, 2010 9:39 am ET)
                       
                    yeah its because msnbc is calling out fox news and the far right.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (February 22, 2010 11:56 pm ET)
        2  
        MMfa has a mission statement. They work to fullfill this statement.

        A creed is a slipperier proposition. How do you define a creed thingie?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ingemar (February 23, 2010 12:00 am ET)
            4
          very well, how exactly does this correspond to MMFA's mission statement?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (February 23, 2010 12:16 am ET)
            2  
            How these folk react to each other is all part of the biz. Bill appeared to break with the rest of the noise machine on socialism. Limbic was critcal, Bill retreats sorta, but there is no depth to his comentary. You'll note no deep investigation of what socialism is historically or currently by him.

            In other cases a talking point will be traced from comentator to comentator.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 23, 2010 12:36 am ET)
        3  
        County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.

        See the "original commentary" part?

        In the paragraph above that was on the right side of the page when you READ the article, they explain this.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ingemar (February 23, 2010 1:01 am ET)
            4
          Why would MMFA be supplemented with a blog that contradicts its mission statement?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Les Philling (February 22, 2010 11:49 pm ET)
         
      Trying to see it from O'Reilly's point of view, I think he handled it well. While O'Reilly himself doesn't hold Limbaugh's fascist political views, much of O'Reilly's audience (and his employer) presumably has a favorable opinion of Limbaugh. Limbaugh put him in a real bind. He could have ignored it which would have seemed weak or towards the other extreme, mocked Limbaugh back. He chose a middle way of ignoring the mocking but still addressing the comment.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by whatIthink (February 23, 2010 12:56 am ET)
        1  
        Or Bill could've said "Last week I said bashing Obama at CPAC was not a productive excercise. Other people have disagreed with me about this. Now, onto other things." -- End of story. He acknowledged what he said, he acknowledged not everybody agreed with him. It should have ended there. I don't kow why he felt a need to devote a siginificant part of his show to this non-topic.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dradeeus (February 23, 2010 4:44 am ET)
          1  
          Some people theorize he is simply preparing himself for an inevitable backlash for when the right goes completely off the cliff. He can somehow claim he was the moderate, fair, voice of reason for the Republican Party.

          Only in comparison, though, and that's not saying much. He's still not worth of respect. Watching any given youtube clip reminds you, he's not a centrist, and not a voice of reason.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 23, 2010 7:40 am ET)
      1  
      Limbaugh is an arrogant bully among the right wing. Despite the public respect afforded him I'll bet he's actually despised among right wing politicians and the right wing media.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by achrispage6992 (February 23, 2010 7:51 am ET)
      1  
      More interestng is how O'Reilly seems to lose his macho bravado when it comes to Limbaugh. I think we can all agree that if anyone else had taken a shot at him like Limbaugh, he would have responded with some snide rebuttal, a Jessee Water's visit, a talking points memo, or "pinhead" designation. We all know this. This just proves that O'Reilly is afraid of Limbaugh, Limbaugh knows it. The reality is that Limbaugh has power over all of these guys' careers. I mean really, does anyone deny that if tomorrow Limbaugh forbid his listeners to watch O'Reilly, then O'Reilly's ratings would plummet? It's a sad commentary when an entire political party and others are led by one man.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MOM (February 23, 2010 9:58 am ET)
         
      This is a tatic played by O'Reilly over and over again. In a few days we'll hear all the fair and balanced" crap and O'Reilly will point to this issue to prove his point. Then the magic e-mails are read where some viewers call out O'Reilly for supporting Obama and now magically Fox and BillO are "fair and balanced".
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RedStateLiberal (February 23, 2010 10:19 am ET)
         
      I was trapped in a restaurant last night that was showing the O'Reilly Factor and I saw him railing against Obama's attempts to cnotroll insurance premium hikes. He said something like 29 states already controlled insurance premium hikes and the government needed to do something that worked, like tort reform. What he didn't mention was that 38 states already have tort reform and it hasn't done jack to lower healthcare costs. In fact, the CBO admits that one-half of one percent of health care cost increases are due to the malpractice awards that would be derailed by tort reform.
      Once again, Bill's lies of ommission indicate where his loyalties truly lie.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.