After attacking "far-left smear websites" again, O'Reilly asserts: "If we make a mistake, we tell you"
On January 3, Bill O'Reilly warned that "far-left smear websites" are "recording every word I say," and, as a result, "we have to record every word I say, because I know they'll distort, they'll lie, they'll take it out of context." He then added: "Of course, I'm gonna make mistakes," but said that: "If we make a mistake, we tell you."
On the January 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly warned that "far-left smear websites" are "recording every word I say," and, as a result, "we have to record every word I say, because I know they'll distort, they'll lie, they'll take it out of context." He added: "I do three hours of commentary a day. Of course, I'm gonna make mistakes and misstatements. Anybody would, except Jesus." Further, he asserted: "[W]e are very methodical in what we do and how we do it. If we make a mistake, we tell you."
From the January 3 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, which also featured Fox News' Fox & Friends co-host E.D. Hill:
O'REILLY: Look, President Bush knows -- he knows -- 75 percent of the American media is out to get him -- not to cover him, not to scrutinize him, not to be skeptical of what he says -- to get him. When you're in a position like that -- and I'm in the exact position -- I mean, we have these nutty, far-left smear websites recording every word I say, so we have to record every word I say, because I know they'll distort, they'll lie, they'll take it out of context. We know what they're doing. So, we are very methodical in what we do and how we do it. If we make a mistake, we tell you. I do three hours of commentary a day. Of course, I'm gonna make mistakes and misstatements. Anybody would, except Jesus. He'd probably be the only one who could get away with three hours of bloviating every day and not make a mistake.
HILL: Bloviating?
O'REILLY: Just -- it's just an example.
[Laughter]
O'REILLY: But, every mistake or misstatement I make is immediately on a [web]blog. You see? Now, everybody knows the game, so it doesn't hurt us. But the Bush administration should have known that somebody was gonna whisper into The New York Times' ear, "Hey, they're eavesdropping," and taken steps to tamp it down, you know, to just -- now, they did, by keeping the Senate and Congress in the loop. That's a big piece of evidence that the Bush administration wasn't trying to hide anything, but they should have done the other thing, in my opinion, if it was practical. And I believe it probably was.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Put your headphones on and listen to this one if you normally read them. There is a visceral hatred in that dog's voice. Then he invokes Jesus.
I guess the corporate press, who's masters have shared interests with the Bush admin, are out to get him.
I can actually hear the veins popping out of his head. I think if they put music to that particular tirade, it would sound a bit like hip hop. [link to 63.162.136.120]
O'Reilly claims "I'm in the exact position" as the President. Yeah right. Is this some sort of lame appeal for sympathy for both himself and Our Fearless Leader?
What O'Reilly fails to consider is that he is responsible for the endless amount of crap that seeps from his orifices. He needs to learn that when he doesn't clean up after himself, others will (sometimes not so politely) point out the mess that he made.
I can't believe that Letterman thinks of BO as anything more than an entertainer (like one half of a comedy team looking for a partner) who has about 2mil followers - some of whom might just tune into Latenight when they otherwise wouldn't. It's like he's Lou Costello - just dripping with pathos. And Letterman was the more than willing Bud Abbott. Great laughs if you like Letterman and hate BO.
Yes, I hate how BO demeans valid discourse but I also can't understand why credible people lend their credibility to him by trying to nail him. Letterman, Stewart, and Franken - ok - they are comedians and BO is a valid target. But seeing Paul Krugman paired with him on Russert - I'm sorry - I just don't understand. BO's a clown imitating a news anchor for christs sake. Doesn't a Princeton professor have better things to do with his time? The way I see it, the guy is an entertainer who has crossed over the line - and I for one am glad to let MMFA be the mongoose that goes after that snake.
Until his shows gets cancelled, there will never be an end to the river of bs that BO unleashes on us. There may not even be enough disk space in the known universe to store the blogs that will start for each and every one of them. Every outrage he perpetrates, like Robertson, Falwell and that ilk - will serve to further his fame (or infamy), raise his public awareness and keep his ratings high. I thought his comment about allowing terrorists to blow up San Francisco might have tripped the switch but no, there he is, happily bloviating like he's always done.
What I don't get is whether he's using MMFA as just another way to amplify his fame or if he's truly concerned that they will erode his popularity. It's pretty obvious that his fans aren't discerning enough to follow his rants and catch him in his own lies let alone go to a website to find out what they are.
Don't get me wrong, MMFA is doing what someone must do to hold BO accountable - but doesn't it strike anyone that by getting all worked up into a froth over him just serves to keep his light on longer?
yeah right. What a martyr. He makes it seem like AS A RESULT of people recording him and "distorting" his comments, he has been forced to begin recording his program as well to be able to deffend himself. As though this is at some great expense to him, and as if he was forced into doing something he wouldn't of done before.
Of course he has ALWAYS been recording his shows, before anyone even knew who he was. But that doesn't work toward his martyr complex.
O'REILLY: "Look, President Bush knows -- he knows -- 75 percent of the American media is out to get him -- not to cover him, not to scrutinize him, not to be skeptical of what he says -- to get him."
Where does the 75% figure come from? Probably from O'Reilly's posterior. And what is meant by saying the media is out "to get him"? Get him? How do they "get him"? Even if true, what would the media gain by that?
I would be very discouraged if I did not know that intelligent Americans understand what this idiot is doing. I value all my colleagues in these response threads, we ought to be able to get him off the air, but I do not know how. Maybe we could "pray against him" like in a Dickens novel. It certainly sounds like something Pat Robertson and his ilk could be capable of doing.
Every time I read one of these O'Reilly transcripts, I can always count on ED to provide a chuckle. She seems almost incapable of getting more than a single word in edgewise.
Unless, of course, one counts "Uh huh" as being two words.
O'Reilly claims that "they'll distort, they'll lie, they'll take it out of context." Has he ever provided an example of this, even once? If he has, then maybe he can salvage a bit of legitimacy. Oh wait, this was the guy who took personal credit for the fall of gas prices. Never mind.
Bill better calm down or he's going to have a stoke. He is funny to listen too. What a dope.
O'Reilly says "the Bush administration should have known that somebody was gonna whisper into The New York Times' ear, 'Hey, they're eavesdropping,' and taken steps to tamp it down."
In the first place, a government doesn't have to worry about undoing or minimizing the damage done to its standing with the public when someone tells the press about its wrongdoing if it eschews wrongdoing in the first place.
But I'm puzzled by the word tamp. Doesn't that mean to press something down, like the tobacco in a pipe? Doesn't that have the effect of concentrating something?
What a putz.
I think what O'Lielly meant by “tamp it down” was to "bring horror" into the life of the potential leaker(s) - have someone show up at their door late at night (like he wanted done to Al Franken in the "Loofagate" court documents). Or maybe he thinks that Bushco should have conducted an "extraordinary rendition" of the leaker(s). No way they could leak if they were being waterboarded by the Egyptians....
I like how O'Reilly describes what he does as bloviating.
Definition: Bloviate - To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner: orate verbosely and windily
He knows himself well
Who really cares or believes what BO or a smear website says? It's likely true that the radical fringes of both parties "believe" what they read and hear from their favorite or single source without question. Perhaps the 75% he was refering to are those of us who doubt the media is telling the ENTIRE story. Like the point made here on MMFA about the NYT's ommision of the entire statement Harman made about the NSA. That does not equal up to "out to get" anyone. It's just what the media does. The remedy is to use many sources and find all the facts.
The remedy is to use many sources and find all the facts. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As long as there reputable sources with a proven tract record for integrity.
>Who really cares or believes what BO or a smear website says?<
Apparently you do as you take the time to visit MMFA and post comments. What are the smear websites that you refer to? Foxnews.com perhaps?
Bill O'Reilly has a TV show that purports to present news or at least information in a news format. Many folks who watch may be influenced by his lies and misinformation. It is important that the distorted view of the world that he presents be countered with facts. This is where MMFA comes in.
>It's likely true that the radical fringes of both parties "believe" what they read and hear from their favorite or single source without question.<
Huh? Are you saying therefore that MMFA should not point out false, deceptive, and misleading information? Foxnews purports to be a news channel, and I doubt 'fringe' types are the only ones who watch it.
>Perhaps the 75% he was refering to are those of us who doubt the media is telling the ENTIRE story. <
That is definitely NOT what he was saying.
>Like the point made here on MMFA about the NYT's ommision of the entire statement Harman made about the NSA. That does not equal up to "out to get" anyone. <
The difference here is that MMFA is pointing out inaccurate or incomplete (and therefore misleading) information. MMFA does not make statements that media figures are 'out to get' them or anyone. They do however point out misinformation and provide supporting documentation. The only one claiming someone (75% of the media') is 'out to get' him, is Bill O'Reilly.
>The remedy is to use many sources and find all the facts.<
The remedy is to have a resource that refutes misleading, false, or deceptive information. For instance, such a resource would refute the statement: "Perhaps the 75% he was refering to are those of us who doubt the media is telling the ENTIRE story." since he did not say that, and it is plain the he did not mean that.
Good for you! O'Reilly is clearly spooked and looking over his shoulder.
He knows he won't be able to get away with the kinds of lies, smears, half-truths, etc. that he got away with for years.
He is on the run!
Bill is going to put MMFA out of business and rat out himself and the balance of the imbalanced, distorted, manipulated, unfounded coverage archetypical of Fox News? Now that's something I'd watch.
The more Media Matters exposes OReilly's lies and propoganda the more he cries "smear!" Waaaa! What a baby. He is scared to death his viewers will read this site and see him for what and who he is, so he lies about his lies, steers them away from the site by trying to discredit it and blames the truth-tellers. What a child-like man he is. Unfortunately, these viewers don't realize what a disservice his program is to them and they follow him like the non-thinking people they are. They need to turn him off and think for themselves. He's a total hypocrite, he's worse than the worst! But you know what they say, "what goes around, comes around" and he will eventually get what he deserves. Mainly.....no audience.
Because there are no examples of distortion here, only the truth. Liberals have the truth and humor on our side and the right wing only has hatred and lies. Also too much pasty make-up Mr. O'Reilly and Falwell along with the rest.
Keep up the good work media matters, O'Reilly trying to smear you just brings more people here.
They would have to do that on a nightly basis.
...it sums up O'Lier-ly so well...
Though what O'Lier-ly has to actually boast about other than his own venomous stupidity I really can't imagine. Keep going, Bill, "dig your own hole" is one of my favourites :)
The quote before the the one you highlighted is far more interesting than the one you choose to remark on. O'REILLY: Look, President Bush knows -- he knows -- 75 percent of the American media is out to get him -- not to cover him, not to scrutinize him, not to be skeptical of what he says -- to get him. This misinformation on the media out to get Bush is nuts. If the New York Times was out to get Bush they would have broken this story before 2004 election. Please concentrate on the lies about Bush and not O"liely. He is to easy.
Bill O'Reilly telling of a mistake he made is like the newspaper that has headlines telling of someone that has been accused of commiting a crime, then later finding out that person was innocent and printing a small article in the back of the paper. Has anyone ever heard of him reporting that he made a mistake?
when he tells his audience, If we make a mistake WE will tell you is to stop them from checking sites like MMFA when they hear something questionable from him. He is saying you dont have to look into this stuff *I* will tell you when *I* make any mistakes, just trust me
"If we make a mistake, we tell you" Bill Orielly ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If one is intentionally lying than lying isn't a mistake. I think Lettermen's estimation was too low.
Wait, isn't Jesus a "philosopher"? Don't philosophers make mistakes?
Why won't big tough phone sex harrassment boy have David Brock on to discuss the matter. I've heard Mr. Brock offer many times to do so. He's not man enough to have him on the factor.....