O'Reilly launched "smear merchant" campaign, claimed "the smear stops here"
Bill O'Reilly launched a "campaign to hold the smear merchants accountable," because "some media people" allegedly "have been using personal attacks and smears to try to marginalize people with whom they disagree."
During the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly launched a "campaign to hold the smear merchants accountable," because "some media people" allegedly "have been using personal attacks and smears to try to marginalize people with whom they disagree." O'Reilly declared that "the committed left-wing media hates Fox News, along with me ... because we provide a balance to the overwhelming secular presence in the media." O'Reilly cited the Dayton Daily News and the Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York, as examples of newspapers that have recently "smeared" him, and added that he has posted "contact numbers" on his website for "[t]he villains at" the Post-Standard -- publisher Stephen Rogers and editorial writer Mark Libbon, who O'Reilly called "unprofessional" and "incompetent." Concluding, O'Reilly stated: "Any media person who uses smear tactics in any way ... will be featured on The Factor and inducted into the billoreilly.com 'Hall of Shame.' ... [B]eginning today, the smear stops here."
O'Reilly also referred to his "don't buy, don't advertise list," which he has repeatedly touted on his television and radio shows in recent months. While O'Reilly's website has no "Hall of Shame* ," it does contain a "media defamation" section, to which O'Reilly was apparently referring, listing eight media outlets that allegedly "have regularly helped distribute defamatory, false or non-newsworthy information supplied by far left websites." After the list, the website states, "We recommend that you do not patronize or advertise with the above."
In an April 15 Post-Standard editorial, the paper wrote, "O'Reilly put his spin on current events as the keynote speaker for Wednesday's Boypower fundraiser for the Boy Scouts." The editorial then offered a quiz on O'Reilly's discussion, writing:
The Fox News personality was especially critical of:
a) The American Civil Liberties Union, for pointing out flaws in the United States of America.
b) Liberal newspapers and other "secular progressives" for urging tolerance and generosity.
c) Syracuse University, for denying organizers the use of campus facilities because of the Boy Scouts' prohibition of openly gay members.
d) Former associate producer Andrea Mackris, for making him about $10 million poorer when he settled the sexual harassment lawsuit she filed against him.
O'Reilly added the Post-Standard to his "media defamation" list on the April 17 edition of his television show, declaring that "the ultra-liberal Syracuse Post-Standard newspaper didn't like" his Boy Scout speech, "and personally attacked me in its pages for absolutely no reason whatsoever. ... Its disgraceful lack of professionalism is not worth your time up in upstate New York."
Though he did not officially list it on his "media defamation" webpage, during the April 24 broadcast, O'Reilly included the Dayton Daily News as an example of newspapers that have "smeared" him. A March 19 Dayton Daily News editorial that addressed the sentencing of a convicted pedophile to probation instead of prison mentioned O'Reilly's recent interest in impeaching the judge responsible for the sentencing. The editorial advocated due process in any proceeding against the judge, arguing that "O'Reilly should realize on a very personal level the importance of a legal system not inflamed by the politics of the moment," and noting, "Mr. O'Reilly was sued by a female colleague for allegedly making sexually harassing telephone calls."
On March 20, O'Reilly said he was adding the Dayton Daily News to the "don't buy, don't advertise list," stating that the "Dayton Daily News personally attacked" him and accusing Dayton Daily News editor Jeff Bruce of "smearing anyone who disagrees" with him. Bruce responded to O'Reilly's boycott, stating:
"Mr. O'Reilly is upset with the newspaper because in an editorial we referred to his own recent legal history in which he was accused of sexual harassment. His producer threatened that unless we published an apology they would resort to their 'bully pulpit.' That's what they've done. This isn't about being 'soft' on child molesters. It's about Bill O'Reilly getting even.
[...]
"His producer, in a conversation with me, acknowledged the logic of our editorial's argument. But they felt dragging O'Reilly's own legal problems into the article was gratuitous. While I expected O'Reilly to take a shot at us, I was shocked that he would suggest that this newspaper 'has sympathy for child rapists.' That is a deliberate distortion of what we said and what we stand for, and nothing could be further from the truth."
From the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Fighting the culture war in the media, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".
There's no question, the committed left-wing media hates Fox News, along with me and some other commentators here because we provide a balance to the overwhelming secular presence in the media.
Now, every poll of journalists says the same thing. Secular media people outnumber traditional media people by a huge margin. And some left-wing media companies aggressively push their agenda in their news pages.
That is not acceptable, because the press in America is afforded special constitutional privileges. Thus, we have an obligation to be fair and balanced.
For a number of years, some media people have been using personal attacks and smears to try to marginalize people with whom they disagree. They do this because they can't win the debate. So they try to demean and demoralize their opposition.
Well, that's no longer tolerable. And The Factor's now going to launch a campaign to hold the smear merchants accountable. You may remember a few weeks ago, The Factor investigated Ohio Judge John Connor, who sentenced a child rapist to probation, no prison time whatsoever.
The attorney general and governor of Ohio supported the evidence we presented that Connor is unfit to serve. Well, the Dayton Daily News didn't like that. It smeared the three of us. Thousands of you called that newspaper to complain. And it was badly damaged.
Then a couple of weeks ago, I traveled to Syracuse, New York, to give a speech in support of the Boy Scouts, who had been thrown off the campus of Syracuse University after the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] complained.
For my trouble, I was smeared twice by the Syracuse Post-Standard. The villains at that paper are publisher Stephen Rogers and editorial writer Mark Libbon. These men are not only unprofessional, they are incompetent.
Over the past few years, the Post-Standard's circulation has declined nearly 30 percent. It is a disgraceful newspaper, nicknamed "substandard" by some in upstate New York.
Now, we posted contact numbers for Rogers and Libbon on billoreilly.com, should you want to speak with them.
And that is what we'll continue to do. Any media person who uses smear tactics in any way, not just on me, but any way will be featured on The Factor and inducted into the billoreilly.com "Hall of Shame."
We will keep a running list of media smear merchants on the website, in addition to our "don't buy, don't advertise" list.
As you know, we debate issues all day long on this program. I have no objection to any media criticizing my stand on any matters of the day. But beginning today, the smear stops here.
You guys want to do that? We'll let everybody know about it. That's called accountability.
From the April 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." Last week I spoke at a benefit to the Boy Scouts of Syracuse, New York, a very successful event.
Well, the ultra-liberal Syracuse Post-Standard newspaper didn't like that very much and personally attacked me in its pages for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Thus, the Syracuse newspaper joins our "don't buy, don't advertise" list. Its disgraceful lack of professionalism is not worth your time up in upstate New York.
Now, that paper is owned by the Newhouse Company, which also owns the ultra-left New Yorker magazine, also on the "don't buy" list. Last week The New Yorker ran a -- surprise -- pro-illegal alien article, which said, quote, "Bill O'Reilly accused the pro-immigrant demonstrators of intimidation," unquote.
From the March 20 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" and perhaps the most vile and irresponsible editorial I have ever seen in an American newspaper. The Dayton Daily News personally attacked the governor of Ohio, the attorney general of that state, and myself for calling for the ouster of Judge John Connor.
The editor of the Dayton Daily News, Jeff Bruce, apparently believes Connor should not be sanctioned for giving probation to a child rapist and is smearing anyone who disagrees with that. Mr. Bruce can be reached at jbruce@coxohio.com, jbruce@coxohio.com. If you don't get that, it's on -- we're going to have it on billoreilly.com. And we'd like you to give him a little toot and let him know how you feel.
But the larger problem is the Cox newspaper company, which owns the Dayton Daily News, as well as the ultra-liberal Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The CEO of Cox, Jay Smith, routinely allows his newspapers to use smear tactics against perceived opponents. Smith is simply too cowardly to address the situation.
Dayton Daily News now goes on our "don't buy, don't advertise" list, joining the Atlanta paper. Like the good folks in Georgia, the good folks in southern Ohio deserve much better than this. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to cover it.
*At the time of publication, O'Reilly's website had no list officially titled "Hall of Shame;" rather, the website touted a "Media Defamation" list. Since publication, the website has re-named its "Media Defamation" list "Hall of Shame."
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
o'reilly's and other right winger's hypocrisy is what it's all about.
Sexually harassing a coworker is just part of O'Reilly's sexuality?
that's ALLEGEDLY sexually harassing...
Your sloppy censorship has resulted in my reply having no basis.
...but, you are an idiot. Your hangup on 'sexuality' -- rampant in pretty much every one of your posts -- should be looked into. Come out! Or, go in! Or, whatever.... but, get the hell off this site.
That comment about O'Reilly's sexuality doesn't make any sense, unless you're some kind of SORCERER!
This guy's a fake... = sorcerer = leftwingandunafraid = etc... May not be the same guy, but he's trying TOO hard. No one this dumb would have the where-with-all to post his ridiculous inflammatory comments on the web. MMFA is getting wise, apparently canning his posts.
didn't it go something like, "We don't do personal attacks here . . ."?
what else resides in the Bureau of Bill's Butt ???? I can see why Paula Zahn and Rita Cosby left FOX, being professionally associated with this blowhard must be costly to the career. And in reality, Billy Boy is in jail, for where else can he go and be taken serious ?
IRONY. Good lord. Whenever I see a post like this, I can only crack up at the pure dramatic irony that Bill gives us. Wow.
Now, as for Trackerbishop above, this is what happens when truly stupid people decide they know everything. Is this how you get your jollies - calling people names and asserting your own superiority just because you feel unimaginably small? Pathetic.
If irony were dynamite, there'd be a huge mushroom cloud over Manhattan thanks to O'Reilly.
Anyone check his website to see if the Paris Business Review made the list? You know, for not existing?
some media people" allegedly "have been using personal attacks and smears to try to marginalize people with whom they disagree."
So, Bill, stop yourself before you smear again
I blast O'Reilly's fascits tendencies in my song parody. Give my tune a listen at my web site (free download) [link to nukular-waste.tripod.com]
The song is "Hate is in your veins" it's a parody of the theme song to the old Mary Tyler Moore show. I'm working on revamping the vocal (I had trouble doing justice to the song).
Just don't respond to these trolls. C'mon, it's obvious these guys don't have a real agenda (or any connection to reality). Just ignore their dumb comments.
O'Reilly: I don't do personal attacks, you shrill, cowardly, incompetent moron!
O'Reilly: I don't do personal attacks, you shrill, cowardly, incompetent moron!
Crocodile: I don't eat meat. I am a pure vegetarian. :-)
...is some sort of drinking game based on Bill's use of the word "smear."
Suggested rules:
1. Everytime Bill says "smear," one shot or drink!
2. If Bill uses the word "smear" as part of a longer phrase referring to a third party he believes to be "smearing" him, have one shot or drink for each word it contains.
Example: "Left-wing smear sites!" (four drinks, or three if you're driving.)
3. SPECIAL: if Bill accuses a guest of repeating something from a "smear site," ingest one (1) narcotic of your choice!
Example: "You're taking your cues from a far-left smear site, sir." (It would be appropriate to inject heroin here.)
NB: For those who abstain from alcohol and drug abuse (LOL), simply substitute laughter in equal amounts!
Sounds like a great drinking game the only problem I forsee is that you'd be passed out 15 minutes into the program
Is this poster child for immorality, untruths, injustice, and the unamerican way now saying that Faux News is not only the bastion of the right wing but also the voice of god?
Note the small "g" since any god BO and Faux News might worship does not meet the test of being the one most real people claim to worship. I hate hypocrits!!!
"Now, every poll of journalists says the same thing. Secular media people outnumber traditional media people by a huge margin. And some left-wing media companies aggressively push their agenda in their news pages. "
Mr. Bill, I don't remember getting my news from my minister. I got my news from the newspaper and the television. Isn't that how you got yours?
Why does he, and the right, love to say "secular?" I have a few ideas about that. They have already tried pretty successfully to turn "liberal" into a dirty word and now they are trying to use word association secular = liberal.
I realize that those on the right bring up the piety of the founding fathers as there basis for bringing religion, i.e. Christianity into the public square. It just amawzes me that they fail to recognize the complete secular nature of the wonderful document to which we owe our country, the Constitution itself. The founding fathers were English. They saw and learned what happened when religion and government mixed (hello Henry VIII). They deliberately put their religious beliefs out of the text of the document and explicitely put religious freedom and a limit on the government's endorsement of religion as the very first amendment of said Constitution. I don't see how clearer it can get that the good Christian Founding Fathers made certain that government and relgion should be separate for the good of the country. That is the secularism the BO and others are fighting against. Remember that my friends.
It's REAL. He did it.
How do I know? An ordinary guy might pay to just put an allegation behind him, even if innocent, but not Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is endlessly vindictive, and would pass up NO opportunity to "clear his good name." He's a fighter, so he says, and has ZERO TOLERANCE for unfair or untrue attacks on his person ... he tells us this constantly.
So, he's ACCUSED of sexual harrassment. GREAT! This is his meat, his reason for existance, to take such "smears" to the matts, and to expose his attacker as a fraud and a "secularist".
So, what did O'Reilly do about this "SMEAR"? He caved, he cut and ran, he folded like a cheap suit. He did what the GUILTY who have money do: Bought off the victim to gain her SILENCE.
O'Reilly is not a bastion of protection of traditional values, or ANY values. He is neither a good nor decent man. He is a demagogue, a paranoid, and is very, very SELECTIVE about the things he wants "PROTECTED". The main thing he wants protected is not people's rights, or dignity, or justice, or truth, or honest reporting. The main thing he wants protected is his own ass. And he insists on this, when he is GUILTY.
Like all on FOX News, his credibility is shot to hell.
Tex,
Plz to correct me if I am wrong sahib, but is your sole basis for saying that Bill is "GUILTY" (emphasis yours) of sexual harassment the fact that he settled the suit filed against him?
Anyone who has any experience with and/or knowledge of these sorts of legal matters should be well aware of the fact that even completely bogus lawsuits are routinely settled before they make it to trial. There are many reasons for doing so, and, in lieu of a lengthy and technical analysis of them, I will instead include the word "FART", which is more inkeeping with my sophisticated sense of humor/irony. FART!
I suppose what I'm trying to say (other than "FART!") is that there is definitely somewhat more than meets the eye as far as the Mackris incident is concerned.
(If that phrasing causes you to imagine members of warring factions made up of transforming robots from a far-off planet engaging in a complicated psychosexual game of self-stimulation, deceit and vengeance played via the medium of telecommunications, then I apologize for creating such a disturbing mental image.)
So, again, I guess what I'm saying this time (other than "FART!" and "TRANSFORMERS HAVING PHONESEX! IMAGINE IT!") is that it's not quite as simple as everything she said is true and everything he said is false. I'm not sure that disclosing further details would be worth getting sued and/or having to face certain TV personalities in a duel over, but I'm brushing up on my pistol and rapier skills regardless. Be prepared!
...wait, isn't that the Boy Scout motto? Oops.
Well, your statement was clear as mud. But you do know how to spell "fart." Congrats.
While I agree that even bogus cases often settle, I also agree with the comment that o'lielly claims to be a fighter. And if her were a fighter--rather than a liar and constant whiner ("...oh, those liberal media are out to smear my poor, poor butt...") I doubt he'd have settled for a bogus claim. Unless there was something to be found to refute bill's pithy moralisms.
True, that's not proof. But it's awfully convincing. Given that, I'd have found him guilty.
Ignoring (for your sake) that third-rate and somewhat confusing inverted grammar-flame, please permit me to momentarily thank Spuds McKenzie (who I worship mostly with orgies) for the fact that you aren't likely to be deciding anyone's fate anytime soon. Well, other than yourself and the people you interact with on a daily basis, who will henceforth be referred to as "The Damned." (Not the band, although you could do with having someone called "Captain Sensible" in your life, apparently.)
Once again, I hate to be the voice of reason here (just like I hated it when I found myself forced to become a pirate off the coast of Malaysia in '87), but I must point out that failing to live up to one's TV (/print/porn/whatever) persona is not "proof" of any criminal activity.
In addition, your post clearly states that, though you agree O'Reilly portrays himself as a "fighter," you also believe him to be "a liar." What, then, of the fact that you claim his failure to actually act in the way you perceive a "fighter" would is indicative of wrongdoing on his part? You just said he was "a liar," yet treat his claim to be a "fighter" as if it were completely honest. Do I need to actually drive the Arkansas Chugabug through that logic hole, or will you accept my heartfelt assurance that it'll fit through there?
...let me warm up the engine and wake Blubber Bear up. Sigh.
Notably, they are settled if the victim has a recording of the harrassment.
He did it.
That made me laugh. :-)
K-Dawg,
Though I hate to be the voice of reason here (just like I hated it that summer me and the boys found a dead body!), I must remind you that the recordings in this particular case prove two things only: one, that Bill made some sexually-themed comments to a woman over the phone, and two, that he is a somewhat creepy old guy with weird ideas.
This may come as a shock to you (and anyone else who thinks otherwise), but the context in which things are said is often what sexual harassment cases are won and lost over. The fact that Bill is on tape saying things like "you have great boobs" (LOL) and (paraphrase) "I'd like to do things to you with foodstuffs from the Middle East" does not, without significant additional evidence which would provide a clear context for those statements, convict him of sexual harassment. Well, it does in your eyes, but there are also people on the internet who thought "Date Movie" was funny.
One side of this dispute contends that she played along with what Bill was saying, taped it, and then turned it back on him with a lawsuit attached. I don't know whether that's true or not...and, barring some sort of shocking disclosure in your next post, neither do you. All we've seen are some transcripts of sextalk and allegations of wrongdoing. Maybe if it had gone to trial some proof of the latter would have surfaced, but who knows? The only thing I'm sure of is that I wish I'd never read those damn transcripts. MY EYES AND BRAIN, THEY BURN.
I realize that you desperately dislike O'Reilly and want him to be convicted of every possible wrongdoing he's ever been accused of, but the simple fact of this case is that most people who've actually had sex (ask an adult if you aren't sure what that is) have said things to women (or men, or...whatever!) that are at least as ridiculous and icky as Bill's "great boobs...falafel" discourse. Whether or not they were said in a context of consent between two people is what this hinges on, and we just don't know if she had any proof that what he said was harassment or not. It was certainly stupid and cringe-inducing, but we have different laws and statutes to cover those things. Don't we?
(For reference, I argued in support of turning said body over to the police rather than using it as a raft to sail to Pakistan so we could buy methadone.)
An invitation to participate in suggestive or sexual behavior becomes harassment when a supervisor (O'Reilly) persists in repeating it to an employee (Makris) after s/he turns it down. That is the least restrictive definition of any used in state and federal EEOC laws, i.e., the one that conforms most closely to your idea that it is a mislabeling of normal heterosexual behavior.
So your rationalization ignores both the supervisor/supervisee and the persistence aspects of the O'Reilly/Makris exchanges.
...we return to what I've been saying all along, namely:
That nobody has presented ANY proof that the accuser told O'Reilly to stop what he was doing. All we've seen are some transcripts of sex talk which apparently come from tape recordings. No proof that what his side contends - that she didn't tell him to stop - isn't true.
I'm not saying that she wanted him to say those things, and lord knows most people wouldn't, but - and please read this, this time - NO PROOF OF IT BEING HARASSMENT WAS OFFERED. They submitted some transcripts with her say-so that she told him to stop. THAT IS ALL, and not enough to convict someone of sexual harassment alone.
By the way, my last replies have "mysteriously" been disallowed. I suppose it doesn't violate this site's TOS to claim that various media figures are "definitely guilty" of sexual harassment, but pointing out the facts of the case (no proof given in support of that claim, etc.) does. I think that MMFA can provide an important service, but giving people a forum to accuse others of serious crimes without evidence to support such accusations doesn't exactly fall into that category. Go figure!
I want those 60 seconds of my life back for even reading that entire rant.
Don’t forget…O’Reilly filed a pre-emptive lawsuit for extortion first. Once it became clear there were tapes (disgusting, hysterical tapes) he THEN folded, cut and run, hid under his desk, caved, etc.
Well, he's at it again. Here's the guy who's made an institution of constantly smearing those whom he perceives as disagreeing with him, and he's accusing them of smearing him.
My God, if this guy ages to be 13 he might be dangerous. In the meantime, he's just another symptom of media flatulence, i.e., why I take the US media less seriously every day.
WTF?! Is O'Leilly suggesting that the media turn into a theocratic outlet now?! Should the media report only issues pertaining to faith and religion and dogma? When O'Leilly brings porn stars on his program, is that secular or not? OMG, this "man" is such a complete maroon.
Bill O'Reilly attacking other people as "smear merchants" is like going to e leper for a facial.
Keith Olbermann's nickname for Bill O'Reilly is Ted Baxter. I'm sure everyone remembers that empty-headed egomaniac from the "Mary Tyler Moore" show. However, ultimately, Ted Baxter was a sympathetic character which is where the analogy fails.
Sure, Olbermann's unflattering - and admittedly liberal - jab at egomaniacal Bill earns MSNBC a spot on Bill's "media defamation" list. But US News & World Report? Huh? Mort Zuckerman's right of center rag often featuring the likes of John Leo has Bill all in a lather? Amazing. My card-carrying Republican dad got me a subscription for Christmas for goodness sake!
The saddest thing about Ted Baxter... errr... Bill O'Reilly is he's serious, IMHO. Thin skinned to a fault and blinded by his own smoke blowing he truly erupts at the slightest criticism yet sees absolutely no contradiction in flame-throwing all in his path - even calling for some people to get fired or silenced for their contrary opinions.
So if Bill is a hypocrite - and I think there's little doubt he is one on a massive scale - at least he's a sincere one!
When Billy says "secular media" who is he talking about? Clearly he doesn't consider himself such, but by my understanding FOX is not a Spiritual Network...
The guy obviously doesn't check his facts much, often or thoroughly, but to reference media in terms of secular and non-secular is like categorizing flatulence by flavour...what's the point, except to be shocking?