Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for shutting down co-host, who correctly named WH conditions for staff interviews
On the March 23 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the winner of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment because, as Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly "had his radio engineer turn off the mike of his own co-host, Lis Wiehl, because she said Gonzales-gate mattered and because she reminded him, under the president's offer to Congress, [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove and company would not have to testify under oath." Olbermann then observed: " 'Stop talking,' he yelled at her. 'It's not about you, and you're misleading the audience. Stop talking.' He then had her mike shut off for three minutes, and asked rhetorically about Wiehl, 'What can we do to her? What can we do to her?' "
O'Reilly ordered Wiehl's microphone turned off after she asserted accurately that the Bush administration had offered to allow White House staffers to be interviewed privately by members of Congress investigating the controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys only if no transcript of the interviews is produced. O'Reilly called her claim a "lie" and maintained that Wiehl "did not do [her] homework."
As Media Matters has noted (here, here, and here), Olbermann frequently includes O'Reilly in his "Worst Person" segment, and O'Reilly recently received the "gold" for blaming the deaths of those killed in a March 7 fire in New York City on the "pro-amnesty, open-border crowd." O'Reilly also has a history of treating his female co-host in an offensive manner, such as suggesting that Wiehl should protest outside CBS News headquarters in a bikini.
From the March 23 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But our winner, Bill-O. Had his radio engineer turn off the mike of his own co-host, Lis Wiehl, because she said Gonzales-gate mattered and because she reminded him, under the president's offer to Congress, Karl Rove and company would not have to testify under oath. "Stop talking," he yelled at her. "It's not about you, and you're misleading the audience. Stop talking." He then had her mike shut off for three minutes, and asked rhetorically about Wiehl, "What can we do to her? What can we do to her?"
Bill-O, she has to sit next to you for two hours a day. You are already doing just about the worse thing you can do to her. Bill Orally, today's "Worst Person in the World."
Thanks for the link to the "bikini" post... this in my opinion is why MMFA posts things that seem a little fluffy at the time. It's all about having the history right there, on your own site - external links have a way of aging out.
I have sympathy for Wiehl but not much... Harvard law degree or not, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Why did Keith name himself as "Worse Person"?
Keith- giving himeself won worse person award.
For saying Roger Ailes had a fat a#@. He then went on to say he had one as well.
O'Reily is just such a TOOL! Not one to let facts get in the way of his "no spin zone."
you misspelled "spine"...
I like KO's rationale for giving himself a bronze (he gave Glenn Beck a silver for calling Rosie O'Donnell a "fat witch"; remembered that he called Ailes "fat ass"; and that HE has a fat ass).
Also worth noting Ron Mexico's (aka Michael Vick) silver for that postscript on last month's water bottle incident.
I heard Olbermann give himself a "Worst Person" award a few weeks back for twice being a guest on late night network talk shows and neglecting to mention his sports radio show partner, Dan Patrick.
Liz Wiehl is a respected professor of law and came from the University of washington. I have no idea why she even appears with this putz other than the paycheck is good.
The word your grasping for is "whore."
Let's face it. We're all whores in some sense. She's just got less self-respect than the rest of us if she continues to be a co-host without getting an on-air apology.
"Whore" is the right word. Look at Alan Colmes. I would be willing to bet that his contract restricts how much he can say to contradict Sean Hannity on the air. The money must be damn good...
Contract or no, Hannity would just talk over Colmes anyway.
H&C is ostensibly divided to give face time to both Hannity AND Colmes. Colmes never speaks during Hannity's time. Conversely, I have not seen a single episode of the show where Hannity did not stick his bully-boy face into Colmes' bid'ness during Colmes' time on the show.
I would have socked the guy long ago. Colmes is clearly a better man than both myself and Sean Hannity.
Check out Crooksandliars.com and Newshounds.us for examples.
"'Whore' is the right word. Look at Alan Colmes.""Whore" is absolutely the wrong word, and it's a little skeezy of anyone to try and shoehorn it into a description of the incredibly smart, classy and super, super-fine Uberfrau Lis Wiehl...who will one day sit slightly behind and to the left of me on a jeweled throne resting on the (many) skulls of my (many) enemies. Ha!"I would be willing to bet that his contract restricts how much he can say to contradict Sean Hannity on the air."LOL! You'd be willing to make completely foolish and incorrect statements, then. Wait, past tense. Sorry!Colmes is a genuinely nice, mild-mannered guy who has a much deeper commitment to issues and causes than people like you whining about him in blog comments ever will. The problem is that you don't WANT a nice person to represent your side; for all you complain about him, you seem to be desperate for some kind of Hanniclone/liberal attack cyborg instead.Yeah, he doesn't talk as much as Hannity, he doesn't rant and rave and he doesn't throw words like "whore" around to describe people with which he has disagreements. It's called "class," dude. There's a lot to be said for the way that Colmes carries himself, and there's a much better illustration of the sort of values I see people here purporting to hold in what he DOESN'T say or do than there ever could be in a million pages worth of lockstep MMFA reader whining, sadly.
You make a good point. The argument is about the TACTIC. Now I think Colmes who really isnt a liberal but a self described moderate IS nice and DOES have a committment to issues. I like the guy. IS it a good tactic to have a mild mannered always polited moderate to balance a rightwing flamethrowing baiter like Hannity? Does it make the left look weak does it frame the debate as between mid left and far FAR right. I also like Liz but she takes an awful lot of abuse by O'falalfel. It is a valid point to wonder why. There are flamethrowers on MMFA, I am one of them, there is also a whole lot of intelligent and civil discussion, many of the lefties here never engage in harsh polemic and I have been taken to task by more then a couple of them for my vitriol. We AGREE on the issues, and disagree on the TACTIC. I wouldnt call Liz a whore, I think she has decided a different tactic is more effective, you seem to agree. That is a valid topic to discuss. In the end I will choose my tactics and she will choose hers and it will all come out in the wash. I DO like to avoid the circular firing squads the left engages in far too often. I save my vitriol for RIGHTWING flamethrowers. Thats me, its MY tactic.
"Bittermarv"? Come on, I think you might have sold yourself a little short with that username.
Isn't there some other way to better represent your tendency to lash out at people simply because they choose to be employed by organizations you - gasp! - don't approve of? How about something which could also be taken to reference the basic linguistic errors you make while doing so? Better still, is there any name that suggests the fact that your target in this case is clearly superior in an intellectual, financial and even karmic sense?
...okay, "Bittermarv" it is! More thought went into that than I had first assumed, obviously.
being a grammar-troll is still being a troll.
and calling yourself " hollowpoint " fairly well describes the post.
"and calling yourself " hollowpoint " fairly well describes the post."
You're right! Wow, it's almost like there was some sort of intentional element to it that I had been previously unaware of! Boy, it's almost eerie when you realize that I definitely did not choose the name for that reason. Creepy!
"being a grammar-troll is still being a troll."
Come on, let's give Bittermarv the benefit of the doubt. I believe those errors were simply genuine/ignant, and not intended to deliberately deceive anyone. Be nice!
Right On
Just more buffonery on Bill O. Amazing how any scandals involving the GOP are too boring or complicated! But half s dancing on a beach, no problem. Where is Bill's vaunted investigation at Walter Reed? He is afraid to go after Bush. By the way, anyone catchcthat News Corp has a partner in it's new anti-You Tube site. Guess who? NBC!! Think we will here a peep from Bill about Rupert getting in bed with left wingers? Huh?
Has is been verified that there would have been absolutely no transcript at all? I mean, was O'Reilly lying completely, or what? If there would have been a private transcript available just to the senators and not to the public, then there is a valid point there.
see the original thursday article. no transcript period.
Yeah, I did read that, but that doesn't answer the question. Let me preface this by saying, I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but I think what he was saying is that even though they said no transcripts, there is a standard recording process, which provides transcripts for the senators, but not to the public. I'm just trying to find out if anyone has looked into this or ever heard of this.
perhaps you could give us the evidence of what you're saying. i have seen or heard nothing that would indicate there would be any transcript at all. you can speculate all you want but that's all it is.
I shouldn't have even had to show you the following link to prove there are no transcripts. The Fielding letter that Weihl was reading, alone, should have been enough evidence. The letter also does not specify that Brad Pitt will not get a transcript either. Are we supposed to now go find proof that Brad Pitt will not get a transcript?
If you read this press briefing by Tony Snow from the day before O'Reilly shut Wiehl up, it is very clear that there is no transcript whatsoever of any kind not even for one senator.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070321-4.html
Quotes from the above briefing:
Q Tony, many lawmakers say they understand the under oath deal of this offer, but not the transcripts -- no transcript deal. I mean, the President said he doesn't want the testimony of the top aides to be used to score political points. But if you have senators coming out and characterizing what was said behind closed doors, don't you get into a "he said, she said" kind of deal?
MR. SNOW: A couple of things. First, keep in -- this is not a hearing, it's not a trial, it's an interview. The second thing is that there are going to be plenty of members there who are going to be able to listen to what administration official -- White House officials have to say. And there are going to be plenty of different ways for people to cross-reference. The real question is -- and what you've hinted at a little bit here, Bret, is a fundamental decision members of Congress are going to have to make -- do you want to get at the truth, or do you want to create a political spectacle? Those are the options that are laid out.
What we think is possible is that we've come up with what we think is an amicable and respectful way to enable the House and Senate, in their oversight responsibilities, to get access to everything they need to understand fully the process that led to a decision to replace eight U.S. attorneys.
Q This is the final offer? This is it?
MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q But, Tony, in the interest of getting at the truth, in the interest of accuracy, why not have an official, indisputable record of what was said -- a transcript?
MR. SNOW: Well, first, Jonathan, you're jumping way ahead and I think -- but let's lay out some of the things that go on. This is a decision that was made at the U.S. Department of Justice. What we have said is, all the key officials are available; sworn testimony, whole bit. Furthermore, the email traffic is available. You will also have available an exhaustive rendering of email from the White House on the outside. And you've got the fact basis there. The question you need to ask is what do you gain from the transcript? And the answer is, not much, because --
Q You gain accuracy.
MR. SNOW: No, no --
Q -- what was said, not a characterization of what was said, but you know exactly what was said.
MR. SNOW: Well, no, what you're trying to do is create a presumption of a hearing or a trial. And what we're saying is --
Q What we're saying is --
MR. SNOW: No, this is an attempt to get fact. These are, in fact, interviews. They will have specific fact questions. I don't know how you make this --
Q Tony, the Senator --
MR. SNOW: Let me finish the answer, Ed, and then I'll get to you.
You start with a decision made at the U.S. Department of Justice. This is where you've got the deliberations, the analysis, all these things taking place; you have full access to everything there. The question is, okay, do you have any further questions that may involve the White House? If so, then you also have external communications from the White House elsewhere. That ought to -- and if there are other specific questions of fact that have to deal with anything that's unresolved, you can ask. And, frankly, when it comes to a fact answer, people there are going to be able to get it right, just as I think you get it right when you take notes based on a conversation with me for your reporting, without a transcript.
(Snow basically listed a bunch of resources that senators will have access to in their investigation and NONE OF IT INCLUDED A NON-PUBLIC TRANSCRIPT.)
Actually Snow went out of his way to point out that people that take notes are expected to get it right. Why would they need to take notes at all if they will have a non-public transcript?
My message was directed to Scorpion.
No transcript. No recording. No oath. No public.
Equals no truth.
What Wiehl was going to read: "interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or subsequent issuance of subpoenas". BillO clearly knew all of this but did not want her to read it to his moronic audience so he shut her mic off.
I too have no idea why this allegedly intelligent woman would continue to act as the stooge for this misogynistic ass. It makes all women, educated or not, look like idiots. I understand she has written a book about how women are the literal majority but are still failing to make any headway as far as being "in charge"in all fields, and I do hope she included herself as one of the reasons we are still not ahead in this country.
Typical O'Reilly...
When O'Reilly is caught in a mistake or ill-spoken words has anyone ever seen or heard him apologize or even admit his faux pas? The only thing I've ever seen him do is to defend what he said by twisting the import of his prior words to imply a different meaning. And then he usually follows up by trashing his critics for "smearing" him. It's difficult to have any respect for someone like O'Reilly. He's always right... even when he's wrong.
Ahh, to be a republican...never wrong...never sorry...
[link to www.kentucky.com] this story is offtopic, a bit, but maybe has an indication as to how republicans can ignore truth.
this is something i've pointed out several times. the majority of republicans do not believe in human induced global warming, and a lot of them cite "natural changes" in the past millions of years, and at the same time they think the world is 6000 years old.
You think the majority of Republicans think the world is 6000 years old?
where do most of the controversies over posting the ten commandments come from? you had the instance in alabama where the federal court had to order them removed from the entrance of a local courthouse. there is a controversy in the florida panhandle now, a strongly republican part of the state, because the county commission allowed them in a public building. in general red state=bible belt.
So I take that's a yes?
was i not clear? yes.
Okay. If you ever find any concrete evidence for that opinion I would like to see it. I haven't found anything in my searches. Thanks.
Maybe. A majority being 50.1%. But given the following quote from the article above, is it so far fetched to believe that an even larger percentage, or a majority, of republicans believe in a young earth?
"When the Gallup Poll asked people about their views on the subject last March, 47 percent of Americans polled said that God created humans pretty much in their present form some time in the last 10,000 years. That belief was strongest among those with less education, regular churchgoers, people 65 and older, and Republicans."
I don't give much value to polls and this one seems to focus on the origin of man, not the universe or even this planet. The origin of man and the origin of the universe however, are not mutually exclusive, not in literal biblical sense. It would follow that those who believe man was created as written in the book of Genesis would believe that heaven and earth were thusly created the same.
What is a certainty is that the overwhwhelming majority of the people who believe the earth is 6000 years old are republican.
Again, O'Reilly has shown his ignorance and lack of any honest opinion when it cocerns the scandals of this current administration. How anyone can take him seriously anymore, is a joke. I wouldn't even categorize this vermin as a buffoon. Funny, though, years ago I used to have much respect for this person,and I've always considered myself a liberal.
Irony:101
Never. He never apologizes or admits error. It's almost a fascinating case study about @sshole human behavior.
Take the Shawn Hornbeck thing. If he'd just come out and said "I jumped the gun there, perhaps there was something to the Stockholm Syndrome issue but I don't believe it in adult cases. Here, this child was clearly affected psychologically by this man. I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions." I would've had a lot of respect for him, at least during that saga. O'Reilly was clearly wrong, then not only did he not admit mistake, he accused OTHERS of speculating before "all the facts were in".
He's a punk altogether; it's more his audience, knowing there is information out there that contradicts their great leader, that should be ashamed.
But I've watched him off and on for 5 years - never seen anything resembling an apology or admission of error.
I agree totally about respecting someone who can admit a mistake. That's why Bush was such a big disappointment after the protective shield of 9/11 wore off. I hoestly would have respected the man had he admitted the obvious mistakes made in planning for Iraq and fired Rumsfeld early on.
And just to add an exclamation to what you just made me think about:How is that possible?! How could his audience believe that this man is never ever wrong? Unbelievable.
Perhaps there's one positive aspect to Elizabeth Edwards cancer. The mud slinging will finally cease and the likes of the O'Really's, Limbaughs, Mathews, Coulters and Savages will be flushed into the sewers along with it. Now there's a lovely thought!
I've never understood the attitude here regarding Mathews. I guess it's just one more of life's mysteries I'll never figure out. Unless the idea is that he worked for Tip O'Neil and Jimmy Carter so therefore he should be an advocate for the Democrats. But if that's the rub, then Stephonopolous seems more of a turncoat than Mathews and he is rarely brought up here in a negative light.
The cursory listener to O'Reilly could assume he is a reasonable commentator, till his big foot flies in his mouth, which it does on a regular basis.
Condemnation of O'Reilly for his mistreatment of Lis Wiehl is misplaced. I blame Lis Wiehl for her lack of self respect and personal integrity. How can any woman with a shred of dignity co-host a show with Bill O'Reilly when he defecates on her day after day? Wiehl displays the mental pathology of a chronically abused housewife. Wiehl is an educated and accomplished woman. There is no justification for subjecting herself to this...she is better than that.
Apparently 'ol Liz is NOT better than that. Perhaps she will evolve one day and become better than that, but I won't hold my breath. I agree with you, her bad. I too place the blame directly with her since she's a grown woman.
Aren't you all blasting O'Reilly for simply doing something that Rosie O'Donnell does consistently on a day-to-day basis? Rosie does one better, though, she shuts them up with constant interruption and insults, telling them that they 'can ask a question but you cannot blather on....'. Isn't the show called "The View"? Sounds like hypocrisy to me, and that shouldn't be what this is all about.