O'Reilly continued to attack Daily Kos while ignoring objectionable comments on his own site
During the July 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing the Democratic presidential candidates' decision to attend the YearlyKos convention, host Bill O'Reilly again railed against the purportedly "objectionable" material on the Daily Kos blog, and comedian Dennis Miller agreed, saying: "There's some mean stuff on that site. ... [T]hat's a pretty fetid little orchard over there." But neither O'Reilly nor Miller discussed the content of comments on O'Reilly's own site, including one from July 13 that was flagged in a July 26 Americablog post, in which a user mused: "Maybe it's time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building? Anyone comparing Bush to Hitler has no idea of what the real Nazis were like in the '30s. Ellison is an idiot." The poster was apparently commenting on a remark by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) comparing the Bush administration's response to the September 11 attacks with the fire at the Reichstag building orchestrated by the Nazi party.
On the July 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, in response to the suggestion that his website also contained offensive comments, O'Reilly accused Daily Kos of having "planted someone" on his website. However, according to screenshots of the comments in question (posted by Americablog here and here), this purported "plant[]" would have to have posted thousands of comments to O'Reilly's website, under different aliases. The commenter posting under the name Jack Kincade, who suggested following Hitler's example and burning down the U.S. Capitol, has more than 4,100 posts on BillOReilly.com.
On the July 24 edition of the program, O'Reilly also offered examples of "what Daily Kos posts about Hillary Clinton," calling them "brutal personal attacks." In response, Americablog highlighted several violent statements about Clinton posted in the comments section of BillOReilly.com (here, here, and here). One such comment on O'Reilly's website -- in which a user wrote with regard to Clinton, "If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list" -- caused Huffington Post blogger Lane Hudson to notify the Secret Service, calling the comment "a threat to her life." On the July 25 edition of the program, O'Reilly noted that someone had notified the Secret Service about content on his website, saying to Miller: "I mean, they lie all the time. They -- I don't know whether you know this or not, but they contacted the Secret Service saying that there was somebody on BillOReilly.com threatening Senator Clinton. I mean, this is how insane these people are." He did not acknowledge that the post reportedly prompting the call to the Secret Service was real.
Additionally, O'Reilly again compared the Daily Kos to white supremacist David Duke, stating: "Is [former New York City Mayor Rudy] Giuliani [R] going down to the David Duke convention? I don't think so!" As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here and here), O'Reilly has repeatedly compared the Daily Kos to the Nazi party, the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke.
From the July 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right. Last night you saw Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's main man, adviser, come on The Factor, and I had to read him some pretty nasty stuff that was posted on the Daily Kos about Senator Clinton.
Yet they're still going to the convention to hoo-hoo with them. What do you think?
MILLER: Well, I think if it's possible for a shark to jump the shark, Hillary might be doing it by lemming after these people. There's some mean stuff on that site. They accuse you of cherry-picking, but that's a pretty fetid little orchard over there.
And you know something? At some point when they're slagging you -- like the stuff you read to Wolfson was beautiful. Because Wolfson is -- to me I don't quite get Wolfson. He's the same guy who flinched in the [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] thing and said that Barack was guilty of carpet bombing.
Come on, Howard, the Clintons invented carpet bombing. They have napalm-scented AirWicks in their apartment, for God sakes. These are the people who invented it.
But the thing that I love is that you jump into the fray, and strife is your metier. You love -- you're like the little kid in the swimming pool who everybody is running with the current, and you're the one to take it on the chest.
But give the kid who runs the Daily Kos a little credit. That little guy who looks like Sal Mineo before he had water. He did come out and say that he thought some of the diarists were getting a little too profane.
O'REILLY: Well, OK, but before you -- before you're too kind to the guy who runs it, I want to put a picture up that we took off there today. All right. Put that picture up. And the picture is of the president of the United States with a cow doing an illegal act.
All right. Now this is on the website today. All right. Is that a cow or a sheep? It's some kind of barnyard animal. So they can say whatever they want to say on this website. And they do. I mean, they lie all the time. They -- I don't know whether you know this or not, but they contacted the Secret Service saying that there was somebody on BillOReilly.com threatening Senator Clinton.
MILLER: This is -
O'REILLY: I mean, this is how insane these people are.
But if -- the picture that we show, as objectionable as it is, is on there today. And I'm saying to myself, how can anybody who wants to be president of the United States, you know, go to a convention sponsored by these people? How?
MILLER: Well, all I can assume is Bush is going full bore for the bovine vote there. So --
O'REILLY: Do you get my point, Miller, or not?
MILLER: I get your point, probably not as much as the cow, but I do get the point.
O'REILLY: Oh, man. You know, all I'm saying is we'd like a little decorum here in the presidential election. Maybe some judgment calls. Is that too much to ask, Miller? Is it too much to ask?
MILLER: Mooooo!
O'REILLY: Is Giuliani going down to the David Duke convention? I don't think so!
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
John from americablogs was just banned from billoreilly.com for reporting some hate statements he found on bill's site to the site moderator!
real big of ya bill, you're a real boon to free speach you falafal lover you!
I wonder what Rino Hunter has to say about his hero Bill O'Reilly's suppression of free speech.....
O'Reilly can run his PRIVATELY RUN WEBSITE however he wishes. You don't have the right to write whatever you want on somebody elses website. It's only THE GOVERNMENT that can't censor political speech. And to be clear, I don't think that The Daily Kos should be censored either. I just don't think that it's smart for any Democrat to associate themselves with that website.
Why not?
It's a high-traffic site, with hundreds of thousands of members, most of whom are deeply concerned about the issues facing this country and the consistent bungling by this administration.
It's a damn smart site. I'd wager that 90% of the blogs there are well-researched, brilliant analyses of what's going on, from a real-world (read: non-MSM) perspective.
Just because O'Reilly and his attack dogs managed to find a few objectionable comments by free/anonymous posters means very little to me.
If Kos is responsible for every single word ever written on his site, then O'Reilly has the same responsibility. Period.
It's a damn smart site. I'd wager that 90% of the blogs there are well-researched, brilliant analyses of what's going on, from a real-world (read: non-MSM) perspective.
How much are you willing to wager? And who gets to determine when something qualifies as either 'well-researched' or a 'brilliant analysis'?
I'll wager everything I own against your $100.00 and I get to decide. Ready, GO !
I don't know...everything you own does sound promising. Then again, I don't know that I know you well enough to be impartial. Let me think about it.
DEEZNUTS:
You missed a vital qualifier: We Liberals are ABLE TO DISTINGUISH between the CONTENT of a site, and the comments made by anonymous individuals that are ALLOWED ... by free speeck extention ... into the COMMENTS section OF that site.
We recognize that a builder might make a wall, but cannot be held responsible for any graffiti that is sprayed on that wall by cowardly interlopers. It's not even a fine distinction, but O'Reilly is unable to make it.
The capper is, O'Reilly blames "bad" comments in his OWN website on enemies out to make him look bad. Does he think nobody notices he allows no such possibility in the case of Kos? Oh, that's right. He's in DENIAL over the fact that ALL his examples are from the comments section ... he's tarring the entire site.
P.S> Miller was NO HELP to BillO tonite. Instead of deploring the Bush-on-Calf photo, Miller jumped on the Bovine Bandwagon. Ooops.
"The capper is, O'Reilly blames "bad" comments in his OWN website on enemies out to make him look bad. Does he think nobody notices he allows no such possibility in the case of Kos"--tex
Absolutely brilliant point. I don't know why anyone would even watch such a person as O'Reilly who apparently isn't even capable of recognizing his own abundant double-standards.
I wonder if I can sue O'Reilly for wasting everyone's time. If you added up all of those unused viewer thought cycles, we could have possibly cured cancer by now.
But he does NOT have the right to criticize what's on Daily Kos when HIS OWN SITE has worse comments on it. It's a shame that you can't see the examples of blatent hypocrisy on your side of the political fence, RH. They're all over the place, yet you refuse to see them.
Fox News is reporting that new posting rules are now in effect at Bill O'Reilly's Web site.
Only certified evangelical Christians will be allowed to post. And they must take a loyalty oaf to Billy.
Loyalty oaf?
Oh, wait, you mean they must be a "loyalty oaf" to O'Reilly. I get it now. Good one.
If this isn't redundancy gone amok, well......
We get it. O'Reilly is a major league hypocrite for slamming the DKos for it's hateful poster's comments, while he sidesteps and excuses similar ones on his own website. Indefensible. (god, I hope I got it)
Tommy,
are you referring to O'Reilly's daily rants about the daily kos? They are kinda redundant, aren't they?
Absolutely they are, enough.......who cares!
I know it's old Tommy but I think as long O'Reilly keeps bringing it up we are stuck with it. At least there is new information. Seems Bill has earned the ire of the Secret Service. Since he owns all the comments on his blog and someone wants to blow up the capital and take out Hillary Clinton. But of course it's different because these guys pay for the privilege to threaten Presidential candidates. Kos is free so any name calling garners it a hate site.
It gets better every day!
tommy and......redundant??????? when do we stop laughing? oh, and miller. is there anything that is too obscure for him to make some lame ass joke about? sal mineo? kind of brings back those nail on a chalkboard football broadcasts of his. i guess o'reilly is all miller has to hang onto now. he sold his soul to bush.
The only question left is will Keith award Billo tonight?
No wait, if he does, then the next question will be: will MMFA award Keith a thread awarding Bill?
Oh wait, then the question after that will be: will O'Reilly continue to talk about Kos again tonight.
Damn, then the next question will be: will MMFA cover that.
Geez, then the next question will be: will Keith award Bill...
Forget it. I'm exhausted.
Kos should be happy Billy-Boy has taken an interest in him.
Free publicity, and threads galore here at MMFA.
If he does, I hope he puts up all sorts of examples of statements that appear on Bill's site. That would be sweeeeeeeet!
So, Jeetah:
You don't see anything wrong with O'Reilly's obvious, blatant, and shameful hypocracy? Only criticism for the ones who report about it? It figures.
Isn't it sort of hypocritical, though, to report on the hypocrisy of Bill O'Reilly without taking issue with what appears on Daily Kos when it is deemed objectionable? In fact, MMFA doesn't even admit the (admittedly cherry-picked) portions O'Reilly reads qualify as objectionable or offensive. The content is "purportedly 'offensive'." The only example listed here (though I have no doubt there are worse cases) of objectionable material from the comments of O'Reilly's site seems to make a point O'Reilly himself can't fathom: The it's absurd to liken Americans in the current climate to Nazis. An honest read of the comment gives the clear impression that the poster is not suggesting the capital building be burnt, but is instead contrasting the tactics of the current administration to the Third Reich.
I have to admit, I think this whole argument is ridiculous. I think O'Reilly is a tool, and Daily Kos is oftentimes little more than a forum for ranting. So yeah, this seems nothing more than a circle jerk amongst friends: MMFA, DK, KO, and BO.
Pardon me if you determine the last reference to be too crude.
Isn't it sort of hypocritical, though, to report on the hypocrisy of Bill O'Reilly without taking issue with what appears on Daily Kos when it is deemed objectionable?
Let's see. First, DailyKos doesn't have to do anything about stuff posted by visitors on their site. Perhaps they prefer to let everyone have his or her say. DailyKos never compared Bill O'Reilly or his website to Nazis or the KKK (well, at least not for what people unassociated with the site post on BO.com.)
O'Reilly, on the other hand, has spent a number of segments of his program comparing the DailyKos to the KKK and Nazis and calling it a "hate site" NOT because of anything Kos or others associated with the site have written. Instead, he's calling it a hate site because visitors (who could be anyone, including O'Reilly fans, by the way) write responses that O'Reilly has deemed to be hateful.
And when it's demonstrated that O'Reilly's site also has people posting things deemed "hateful" when posted on other sites, O'Reilly doesn't mention this slip-up. Instead, he shoots the messenger because he doesn't want anyone to know of other such slip-ups occurring on his site.
Now ya get it?
You see, your mistake is to assume I don't get the point in the first place. I never defended Bill O'Reilly in this. Wouldn't want to. He sucks. He's a shill. And a phony. I didn't attack Daily Kos. I said that it oftentimes feels like a place for ranting. I don't waver from that assertion. I did imply some hypocrisy on the part of MMFA, but that's to be expected because everyone's a bit hypocritical--especially when they start picking sides they're not willing to waver from.
I understand why this is here: MMFA doesn't like O'Reilly, and they do like Daily Kos. It helps that Bill O'Reilly is a moron who--like most people in these silly fights--wants to play the innocent victim who we should pity and rally around. As to the mutual masturbation, I was simply backing up a claim made earlier by an earlier poster who stated nobody loses here. Everybody gets publicity. Everybody's happy.
I guess I missed where
a) MMFA argued that Bill O'Reilly's site should take down the posts on his site that MMFA labeled ... (I forget what terms were used, but MMFA agreed they were ugly posts.)
b) MMFA argued that DailyKos should KEEP such posts.
I think we can all agree that these posts were ugly. That's not in dispute for either site. At issue is O'Reilly's response to them. He's purposely blurring the lines of what is "content" at DKos and labeling it in inflammatory terms, and then attempting to hide similar reader posted garbage on his site.
No hypocrisy on MMFA's part in pointing that out.
I didn't argue that either your points A or B were the case. I pointed out an outright hypocrisy in the language (of which I elaborated on in greater clarity after the initial post) and of an underlying hypocrisy of calling someone a hypocrite while you yourself are a hypocrite. (Not you, MMFA)
No you didnt. In your first post you did NOT point out the hypocrisy of the language that came later in your first post you claimed the hypocrisy was calling Bill a hypocrite while NOT criticising the Kos poster, NOT for using different language characterizing the two posters you pointed out ONLY the language used to characterize Bills poster you did NOT compare it to the language used for the Kos poster in your first post.
Again, I've clarified my intent. I've specified where and how I was unclear or negligent in my argument. The hypocrisy is criticizing hypocrisy while using hypocritical tactics. I've explained it in quite a lot of detail. If you don't agree with me regarding whether or not there was display of hypocrisy in the language used(even though you openly have accepted the existance of a double standard), then make that argument. Otherwise, all you seem to be doing is playing gotcha on a point I've already conceded. Only, you've decided not to accept the basis of that concession because if you were to do that, you wouldn't have anything left to defend. Why? Because you agree with the point I'm making! You've admitted as much!
So instead, we're in this circle. Me, clarifying my original intent, and you divining what you would have my original intent be so that you don't have to concede even the most minute form of hypocrisy exists within the realm of MMFA.
With respect, this is simply not an argument you're going to win. You may end up with the last word, but that's just not the same thing.
No it isnt hypocritical since the point ISNT the posts but O'Reilly's hypocrisy of criticising the posts on Kos while ignoring the same thing on HIS OWN WEBSITE. MMFA isnt out there screaming about the contents of anyones site only saying hey Falafelguy where do you get off snivelling about Kos site when yours is just as bad.
Solon,
There's an implicit hypocrisy to everything MMFA does. Simply because it's a hypocrisy that everyone's willing to accept doesn't make it less of a hypocrisy. I personally don't like calling people on their hypocrisy because it's usually a waste of time. People aren't going to recognise their own hypocrisy anyway. But when somebody's calling somebody else a hypocrit, it would be wise for them to first examine their own ways so as to avoid looking foolish and guilty of the very same offense.
Furthermore, when discussing the comments made on Daily Kos, MMFA refers to them as "purportedly 'objectionable'." When discussing the comments on O'Reilly's site, the header to this post calls them simply "objectionable." That's simple-straightforward-good-old-fashion-double-standard hypocrisy.
You have a point with that. MMFA should say the remarks on BillO'Reilly's site are arguably objectionable.
Your other line of reasoning is not quite solid. O'Reilly is the one who put himself into this argument by bringing up what he thought to be objectionable posts on Kos. He made himself a great big target by others who can use the same reasoning Bill employs against Bill. That is simply holding Bill to his own supposedly self-professed standard. Nothing wrong or hypocritical about that.
If you were a militant vegetarian who preached against the evils of all meat, but somebody caught you eating a bison bacon burger, the person who exposes you is not the hypocrite (implicitly or not) whether he/she eats meat or not. He/she would simply be pointing out that you do not adhere to the same standards you preach about.
I don't deny that O'Reilly made himself a target. He's a hypocrite. News Flash: Water runs down hill. To come to his defense was never my intention.
Also, I don't think your analogy is quite apt. It's more like an avid vegan who secretly eats a whopper now and again being called out by a principled vegitarian who doesn't think fish counts as meat. Yeah, the vegan is a hypocrite, but it's kind of hypocritical for another vegitarian who writes their own arbitrary rules to be the one who decides to point out that hypocrisy.
No it isnt. You saying it doesnt make it true
I'm not a egomaniac. I know that my saying something doesn't make that something so. It being so is what makes it so. It being so is also what allows me to recognise it as so. Your denying that it's so, is also a clue.
You are right it is a sign you are wrong. IF it were true PERHAPS you could SHOW it to be true which you have failed MISERABLY to do. Since it is your claim it is your burden to support which you have also failed miserably to do. You post a lot of words but your point, where is it. I dont see it. I see you say the same things over and over mostly that the hypocrisy is there and we know it and other completely unsupportable assertions what I havent seen is a cogent argument nor any substantiation of your claim whatsoever. You have nothing except baseless assertions and accusations you bolster by pretending they are self evident they are not. You have not in any way proven your point.
Can I say with love that your ability to decipher the meanings of words is on par with a paranoid schizophrenic? Again and again and again your defense against my argument has been in two parts: A: You've clung to the initial post which started this entire thread and claimed that because it was more clumsy and less clear than some of my subsequent posts that it has nothing to do with them; and B: You've completely dishonestly framed my subsequent argument into being something I've openly said it is not.
In doing all of this, you've defended dishonest debating tactics, and you've practiced them. You seem intent on making yourself look all the more irrational by your incessant use of caps, and your insistance that you don't see my point. Well, dude, I humbly suggest that says more about you than it does the validity of my point.
I said a long time ago that I find calling someone a hypocrite to be a bit of waste of time. Worse still, perhaps, is calling hypocrisy to the follower of the hypocrite. Because, really, what kind of a fool would blindly follow a hypocrite?
I do not in any way accept this vague accusation you make about an implicit hypocrisy. You danced but made no point. MMFA was NOT being hypocritical by not criticising the poster on Kos since THAT WAS NOT THE POINT of the article it was irrelevant to the point they WERE making that O'falafel was being a hypocrite attacking Kos viciously for the same thing going on in his own website. Your point about the double standard seems more valid though semantically it could be argued that the one statement was purportedly objectionable since O'Reilly was purporting just that. They were not citing anyones objections in the second case they were themselves making the claim. On the whole and at face value I will give you the double standard but in no way the baselessly asserted implicit hypocrisy and flatly deny the original claim of MMFA hypocrisy in the subject of the thread.
Cool, a conversation. I'm glad that we agree on some points. On the other:
I do not in any way accept this vague accusation you make about an implicit hypocrisy.
If I'm too vague, I will attempt to elaborate while still being brief. The mission statement of MMFA classifies the basic mission of the organization to identify 'conservative misinformation' in the MSM and in other outlets. With that statement, the people at MMFA have determined to A: appoint themselves as the deciders for what qualifies as misinformation and to B: ignore all aspects of what could be labeled misinformation with a bias away from the conservative end of the spectrum. It's not difficult, therefore, to argue that this site, by accepting its own mission statement, is taking its place in a flawed system...one that either accepts or ignores a necessary level of hypocrisy. I think they accept it, as I think most of the talking heads in the political dialogue accept that they're hypocrits. I just don't think they'd admit to it. I welcome your response.
NO you cannot define a bias as hypocrisy they are not synonyms. There are already sites that cover ONLY liberal media bias. MMFA is upfront about covering ONLY conservative bias. They have no obligation to be all things to all people and have every right to specialize on the other side of the spectrum to MRC and AIM. To qualify as hypocrisy they would have to be condeming others for what they themselves are doing. Since I have never seen them criticise MRC for example for covering ONLY liberal media bias there is no inherent hypocrisy and since they are not pretending to be a comprehensive media watchdog, that is since they are upfront about covering only conservative media misinformation I see nothing wrong with what they are doing. Certainly your specificity did NOT in any way show hypocrisy on MMFAs part. You did go on to pretend you had when saying either we accept the hypocrisy or not but that is a false dichotomy since a third option exists. I deny there IS any hypocrisy and you have not shown there is.
NO you cannot define a bias as hypocrisy they are not synonyms.
I don't believe I did any such thing. I didn't liken bias to hypocrisy. I simply said that blind bias leads to hypocrisy.
There are already sites that cover ONLY liberal media bias. MMFA is upfront about covering ONLY conservative bias. They have no obligation to be all things to all people and have every right to specialize on the other side of the spectrum to MRC and AIM.
I didn't ask that they cover only liberal or only conservative. Honestly, I don't even know how you would go about making that conclusion from what I said. It seems, instead, that you'd make the conclusion that I was calling anyone who focused on only one side as being disingenuous and hypocritical.
To qualify as hypocrisy they would have to be condeming others for what they themselves are doing.
Actually, that's a misconception. All one has to do is carry the pretense of a virtue they do not possess. By acting as if one stands against misinformation, and then to only focus on one form of misinformation, one is accepting and implicitly condoning that other form. That is a basic hypocrisy. The fact that they're upfront about their bias is neither here nor there. Indeed, saying you're a hypocrite does not absolve you from being a hypocrite.
NO that is not what you said you said they were hypocritical for chastising O'Reilly for his hypocrisy yet not condeming the posts on Kos. This cannot be supported nor HAVE you supported this assertion. You still seem to be equating bias and hypocrisy and you did NOT say that blind bias leads anywhere that is an all new assertion. One that isnt relevant enough to deal with since it is NOT blind bias rather an upfront and aknowleged bias. If you are not equating bias with hypocrisy why do you keep pretending that showing MMFA's aknowleged bias is somehow hypocritical. OK I was oversimplifying yes your definition of hypocrisy is valid but I dont see its relevance what virtue is MMFA pretending that it doesnt have? You are still dancing but I still see no point, and you absolutly have not shown any hypocrisy. Other sites cover liberal media misinformation MMFA is not required to cover ALL misinformation while other sites are covering ONLY liberal misinformation. You are criticising them for not unilaterally disarming and leaving the biased take on this issue to conservatives alone. This is not reasonable nor does it define ANY hypocrisy. When having a political argument I am not required to make my oponents arguments for him while HE is making ONLY his own arguments. NOT doing so is not hypocrisy.
At this point we digress. Your original claim is what I challenged. You moved the goalpost, ingenuously by claiming it was hypocritical because the site is inherently hypocritical. Lets just say your foray is subjective and leave it at that while returning to your original claim. O'Reilly was acting the hypocrite, MMFA called him on THAT. YOUR claim that they were being hypocritical for not also condemning the Kos poster is unsupportable thier POINT was O'Reilly's hypocrisy and they are under no obligation to leave THAT point and broaden the scope of their criticism in order to NOT be acting hypocritically.
Look, I don't care whether they condemn or reward anything anybody said. I said, or at least it was my intention to say (if I was unclear, I apologize) that MMFA was taking this opportunity to chastise BO for what I do not deny was a clear hypocrisy on his part. Still, in chastising BO's comments, they used the example of comments they identify as objectionable on BO.com to prove their point. Put against the way they referred to the comments on Kos as being only "purportedly 'objectionable'" (a far more accurate designation than the way they identified the comments on BO.com), you uncover a clear hypocrisy. One that sheds light on the more fundamental hypocrisy of sites like this one.
As to whether I discussed blind bias: It was a new phrase, I admit, but one that clearly referred (at least in my intention) to the unwillingness for MMFA to shine a light on 'misinformation' that does not fall within the realm of 'conservative misinformation. I meant to imply a blind eye being turned. My point is that one can easily be biased (have a point of view) and then separate themselves from that bias to avoid being a hypocrite. It's MMFA's expressed intent to do the opposite. To only focus on a single side of an argument and to ignore or ridicule the other.
No where did I say Bill O'Reilly was not a hypocrite. I sort of think they're all hypocrites. I've just come to grips with that.
I never claimed MMFA was required or should be required to cover anything but what they want. I'm frankly flabbergasted by your ability to equate being honest with giving up. I mean, I've reread my posts, and I haven't said MMFA should cover only liberal misinformation. That, in fact, goes against everything I've been saying. Reread my posts if you like. I'm not being irrational. I brought up a simple point, and was sort of asked to elaborate.
I never came to anybody's defense in this (least of all Bill O'Reilly's). The fact that you seem to feel MMFA needs to be defended perhaps says more about what you think I'm saying about you then what you think I'm saying about them.
Listen, the people who run this site are not stupid. They know I'm right. They just don't care. It's not their job to care. It's their job to get who are already indignant, moreso. If possible, they would like those people to feel righteous with their indignation, so they present a picture in which one side is to blame for everything.
Yes, it is a response to conservatives doing the same thing. But does that make it righteous?
NO they dont know you are right you just THINK you are right. I dont think you are right either. There is no hypocrisy in covering ONLY conservative media. IF there were NO sites that covered ONLY liberal media I might cede you this point but there ARE. Therfore MMFA is doing THEIR job while AIM and MRC do THEIR job. They arent saying there IS no liberal media misinformation to cover it just isnt THEIR pervue to cover it. THAT job is someone elses. THAT is not hypocrisy, you have made no compelling arguments it is. It is a bias, one they admit, you said that you dont equate bias with hypocrisy but it is the ONLY point you keep making to SHOW this alleged hypocrisy. IF they said they didnt cover it because it didnt exist fine you would have a point. They dont, YOU dont. You are again trying to move the goalposts as to what you claimed so here it is word for word
Isn't it sort of hypocritical though to report on the hypocrisy of Bill O'Reilly without taking issue with what appears on Daily KOS when it is deemed objectionable.
Simple answer no it isnt. You have not in any way supported the claim it is.
As I think I've clarified numerous times, the hypocrisy I was speaking to was twofold. A: It was in the language used to differentiate between the comments made in either website. B: It was in the labeling of the comments as hypocritical while MMFA maintains both blatant and subtle hypocrisies simply to adhere to it's own mission statement.
While the initial post may not have been clear to both points, I think I've been fairly clear that that was my meaning in subsequent posts. So while I do have to take some responsibility for any misunderstanding that may have occured initially, I think I've done all I can to clear it up.
As to the validity of my B, a concept with which you seem to take personal offense, it seems your best response to justify (or even rationalize) the purpose or need for this site's determination to avoid total honesty is that there exists other sites just as dishonest but with an opposing perspective (i.e. Everbody else is doing it, so why can't we?). Is that really the argument you want to make? MMFA isn't hypocritical because somebody else out there is just as hypocritical, so they somehow cancel each other out. Maybe I'm being unfair in how I'm framing your argument. Let's state mine again: MMFA, in being concerned only with the way they determine people are being misinformed towards the conservative side of the spectrum implicitly condones, and plays at the very least a passive role in misinforming the people it claims to be informing. Whether they claim to be bias or not, and whether other people do it or not, it's blatantly hypocritical.
My assumption is that you are offended because you don't want me to be right. Not because of what it would say about MMFA, but because of what it would say about you. You're a regular consumer of the information shared through this site. You see it as a noble defender of something virtuous. You're someone looking for an affirmation of a narrative you already believe in. In short, you're the intended audience. So what would it say about you if it were to be true that there was a flaw on such a fundamental level with regard to this instrument of information?
Personally, I think it would say that you were someone in need of a little perspective. Something this site is desperately lacking in.
Actually in your first post you didnt mention it at ALL. You said directly that the hypocrisy was in not addressing the objectionable posts while taking O'Reilly to task and it was that I challenged. I agree your point shows a double standard. You assume I am offended. I am just talking, we are having a message board conversation I have no emotional investment at all here nor do you have any reason to again try to change subjects by assigning me motives you cannot possibly know to be mine since you dont have any amazing mind reading powers. I think you are wrong, period, I am not offended. Your next argument turns everything around by your framing, I dont think partisanship or in this case highlighting only one side of an argument is wrong at all. Neither side has any obligation to make the other sides arguments for them nor to be completely unbiased. As long as they are not pretending to be what they are not this does not mean they are hypocritical. If I oppose a zoning ordinance that has both good and bad sides to it I am not being dishonest nor hypocritical by not mentioning the arguments against my case. That is for the other side to do. There is nothing wrong with partisanship in political dialogue. There is nothing wrong with making MY case and letting someone else make theirs, this is NOT hypocrisy, which you have NOT shown not even close. You have said bias is not the same as hypocrisy but the only argument you have made to bolster your assertion that this site is inherently hypocritical is to say its biased which it admits. You can keep trying to psychoanalize me if you want but that doesnt bolster your argument either. You flat out have NOT shown any hypocrisy beyond the double standard you mentioned and THAT was not mentioned in the original post I challenged. Your first assertion has not been supported lets be plain MMFA was NOT hypocritical to take O'Reilly to task for hypocrisy by not also criticising the posters on Kos you said they were, it really is that simple.
Hey, if you're not offended, I'm glad. I just inferred from your inability to see reason, your incessant use of caps, and your decision to completely misread most of what I've said to be a sign of some unnecessary emotional reaction. Believe me, no one is more happy than I that I haven't caused you to be offended. Again, if my original post was not clear enough, I apologize. I still maintain that, while perhaps less than clear, there's a clear hypocrisy to this post, and that it's more than just a matter of language. But the language is a clear give away.
I've already stated that I do not equate bias with hypocrisy. While you accept that I've made such a statement, you claim that the only thing I've done is prove bias and essentially equated that with hypocrisy. In fact, I stated quite plainly that one could be both biased and honest even with regard to political dialogue. I simply stated that MMFA's mission statement does not allow them that option. Yes, it's a stated bias. But it's the kind of bias that's willing to turn a blind eye to infractions from which they benefit.
They are very upfront about their desire to identify misinformation and get it out to you, and people like you. That is, as long as it's the kind of misinformation that hurts people who share their bias. As for misinformation that would go to help people who share their bias, they are more than happy to let somebody else report on it, or, better yet, NOT. That's not only an example of a blatant hypocrisy for anyone claiming to be any kind of an information watchdog group, it goes to what is perhaps the most absurd part of your argument: the unspoken agreement between opposing organizations.
You report on this, we report on that. What's your spin? Because this is ours. If there's anything that ever sounded like a conspiracy to undermine the concept of an informed populous, it's your description of how things should and have to be. It's not only irresponsible and unethical, it borders on the immoral.
Any number of platitudes come to mind: What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander; there is such a thing as a sin of omission; we are our brother's keeper; et cetera; et cetera.
I dont think I have shown any such inability to see reason to me that is what YOU are doing stubbornly pretending your first assertion was flat out wrong, which it was, yes you did mention that MMFA only called it purportedly objectionable but in context you seemed to be saying that they were downplaying it not that they were being hypocritical when they then called what was on O'Reilly's site objectionable since you did NOT mention that in your original post you put that together later and I immediatly agreed this was not a dishonest argument in fact all the dishonest arguments have come from YOU not me. You are now slithering away from your self contradiction you SAY again that bias is not hypocrisy and AGAIN say they are hypocritical because of their bias. Its a ludicrous argument so you deny it then make it. You make another baseless assertion you cannot back up, claiming that they leave out talking about liberal media and that somehow helps them and yet since their mission statement makes clear what they are doing and that is exposing CONSERVATIVE media misinformation it is no help or hinderance that there is liberal media misinformation. Has MMFA ever claimed there wasnt? It is irrelevant to what THEY are doing. This is easy enough to see. You again characterise this as somehow wrong. That is your opinion you give yourself wide latitude to state your opinions as facts that we are obligated to agree with. You are not the decider. I disagree I see no hypocrisy in doing THEIR job and no obligation to do everything YOU think they ought to in order to not be seen as hypocritical you have made NO case for hypocrisy dancing the conservative two step changing arguments making the same claim over and over in different clothes you have made no compelling arguments that what MMFA is doing is in any way inherently hypocritical. I am fine with the double standard for calling the one example purportedly objectionable and the other objectionable as hypocritical, I dont know why you would think I would consider a double standard anything else perhaps it is YOU getting emotional here. As for me using caps did you notice that in this venue we do not get to see facial features nor hear tone of voice, in an attempt to add the sort of nuance that is missing from the lack of them I capitalize certain words. Personally I dont care if you like it or not but again you have no amazing mind reading powers so me trying to add this kind of inflection is not any sort of clue to my emotional state only to how I want the words to be read.
Still cover it up all you want it was a lot more than you not making yourself clear your first claim was clearly that MMFA was hypocritical for calling O'falafel a hypocrite, which you admit, but NOT criticising the posters for their objectionable posts, you IN NO WAY made the distinction about the difference between the characterizations of O'Reilly's posters and Kos posters that came later it is a point I concede your FIRST claim has not in any way been supported despite all your dancing around the subject. It really is that simple
Will you, for me, accept for a moment that there's a difference between having a bias towards something, and an inability or unwillingness to recognise the validity of anything that may call into question whatever they're biased towards? You keep trying your best to frame my argument as being something it clearly isn't. And hasn't been. You also question the intent and content of my original post. One where, I admittedly did not explain myself as well as I could have. You even used an adjective comparing me to a snake. I guess that's fair, were it not for my abhorance of cliche, I'm sure I would have called you a sheep four posts ago.
For a moment, can we cast aside the notion that MMFA has a job to do? Or that the very fact that it's called a job somehow legitimizes it? Lots of people have jobs to do. Hitmen, for instance. Money launderers. Drug dealers. No, I'm not comparing the work MMFA does to any of those occupations. I'm simply saying that it being 'their job' doesn't go so far as to absolve them the hypocrisies their job asks them to live with.
I mean, it's pretty clear that an organization devoted to the identification of misinformation, in order to seem principled, would not ignore misinformation simply on the basis that identifying it as such would conflict with some agenda they agree with. That is how MMFA chooses to interpret its own mission statement. Another interpretation is this: Their self-imposed job is to withhold information from you. Why? Because regardless of its relative validity, they don't like that information, they don't think you would like it, and apparently because providing you with that information is somebody elses job. I mean, really, is this not getting through to you? How dirty all of this is?
Clearly not, it's apparently your position that confession of dubious practices absolves them of those practices. The thing is, they don't even confess to those practices. They ignore them. If they said, "there's any number of opportunities for us to identify misinformation of a progressive slant in the MSM, but seeing as this conflicts with our mission statement, we are duty bound not to do just that," then they'd be admitting to what they do. But that's not what they do. They say they're in the business of identifying conservative misinformation, and then they pretend there's no such thing as progressive misinformation. The words never show up next to one another anywhere on the site, nor are there any suggested links available to 'trusted sources of evidence of a liberal bias in MSM.' And why is that again, oh yeah, it's not their job. Oh, and remind me who gets to determine what qualifies as their job? It's them isn't it? Oh well, we wouldn't want them to get in trouble with their bosses now would we?
I share your distaste for cliche or I would have accused you of channelling Bozo the Clown long ago. You can keep trying to frame this in YOUR way but NOT doing something is itself not evience of an inability nor is it an unwillingness to aknowlege its validity. Again you just make baseless assertions. Show me where MMFA has EVER said there is no liberal media misinformation and I will concede your point right now. You cant because THEY DONT. NOT making someone elses case for THEM is not the same as saying they have no case. THAT would be hypocrisy which is why you mischaracterized it that way. That wont wash. YES it is up to them how they run their site or how they limit what they do they are NOT pretending to be a misinformation site they are self described CONSERVATIVE misinformation site. Just like MRC or AIM are liberal media watchdogs, they dont have to link to them either. NOT advocating a site is not the same as hiding they exist in fact MRC has been mentioned here, True in a negative way but no where on those thread was there ANY inference that there was no Liberal media misinformation to cover, only that they do it badly. What does Macy's expect from Gimbels.They do not pretend they are anything else. Your only argument is that YOU think they ought to do things the way YOU think those things ought to be done and since they DONT conform to your strange freakish control issues that makes them somehow hypocrites. It doesnt. Your list of distasteful jobs was a cute bit of hyperbole but they didnt make a point. MMFA says what THEIR job is or more accurately their MISSION it is in their MISSION STATEMENT. They expose CONSERVATIVE media misinformation they dont pretend to do anything else that doesnt make them hypocrites anymore than the maytag repairman is a hypocrite if he doesnt repair my Kenmore washing machine. We understand that YOU would like the right to be the decider on this issue but words have meanings and while I am in agreement it was hypocritical to call the one post purportedly objectionable and the other objectionable there is no inherent hypocrisy in being biased. MMFA doesnt HIDE anything in fact how in the world could they. Do THEY have the power to keep information off the internet or out of the NYTimes the very assertion is ludicrous perhaps I am being unfair to Bozo the Clown to associate him with you. Stubborness you have a POINT you do not. Keep pretending that you somehow MEANT to say the hypocrisy you were talking about in your first post was the differential treatment between the two posters IT ISNT THERE. What was there was stated quite clearly. That MMFA was being hypocritical for NOT criticising the poster on Kos while calling Bill a hypocrite. You can go ahead and repeat that it was what you meant and you didnt say it well a few more times it was in NO WAY in your origianal post. Your origianal claim is as YET unsupported, you cannot change it now to where you have moved the goalposts. They are biased you have shown no inherent hypocrisy. You just claim you have and then pretend it has been shown it has not been shown. You have failed completely to show any hypocrisy other than the double standard in how the posters were characterized. Repeating your original claim does not add ANY credibility to it. Just saying it is true doesnt make it true and you have NOT SHOWN IT TO BE TRUE. It is YOUR claim it is YOUR burden to support this claim and you have failed to do so.
Do you really think it's worse to be called a clown than a sheep? You do realize people slaughter and eat sheep, right? That sheep actually allow themselves to be led to the slaughter. That, after all, is the foundation for the insult. Your cliche, by the way, isn't even really a cliche at all. It's just a tired metaphor.
Regardless...
Show me where MMFA has EVER said there is no liberal media misinformation and I will concede your point right now.
This is the only point I'm going to address here because it's fundamental to the only point you attempt to make in the last post that I haven't already discredited. You ready? MMFA never says there is no liberal media misinformation. Show me where I said they did. In fact, what I said, is that there isn't room in the MMFA universe to even allow for the concept to be recognized as being possible. I didn't say they said these things didn't exist, I said they withheld the very potential for their existance from you. It's a subtle, but important difference. (I'd ask you if you remembered when I mentioned the sin of omission, but I hardly think you've been reading the entirity of my posts.)
The only time opposing positions are even mentioned on this site is when they are being set up for ridicule. There's never a question as to the lack of validity of anyone opposing the 'progressive' agenda. The atmosphere is created that the notion of liberal misinformation in the MSM is ridiculous (that's the whole point of starting the site in the first place!). Therefore, since we live in a world in which there are two sides, conservatives vs progressives, and we've already determined that the notion of progressive misinformation is absurd, we can thereby come to the conclusion that the only form of misinformation out there is conservative misinformation. That, dear Solon, is the world in which you have to live for it to be true that MMFA is not rife with hypocrisy. I have no doubt that many frequenters to the site would like to live in that world. Some probably already believe they do.
Oddly enough, that's not the world you seem to believe in. You seem to believe in the world where you can justify dishonesty with the admission of an agenda. You believe the ends justify the means. And, that being the case, no criticism of the basic means can be stomached. In short, you're neither credible nor virtuous.
Oh and to clear this up:
Isn't it sort of hypocritical, though, to report on the hypocrisy of Bill O'Reilly without taking issue with what appears on Daily Kos when it is deemed objectionable? In fact, MMFA doesn't even admit the (admittedly cherry-picked) portions O'Reilly reads qualify as objectionable or offensive. The content is "purportedly 'offensive'."
That is the primary content of the original assertion of hypocrisy. Where I was unclear was in neglecting (an honest oversight) to mention how the designation of the comments on one site differ from the comments on the other. I didn't mention that that MMFA called the comments on BO.com objectionable, but it was my intention to draw that contrast all the same. Had they not arbitrarily taken issue with one set of comments while leaving doubt to the objectionable nature of the other comments, (i.e. had they classified the comments on Daily Kos as objectionable, or classified them both as purportedly objectionable) the hypocrisy I was initially discussing would not have occurred.
I said the hypocrisy was in identifying one hypocrisy while displaying another. I understand why I was initially misunderstood: I wasn't clear! I wasn't thorough. I didn't proofread my content! That was my fault. And I've repeatedly taken responsibility. When you look at it, there's no reason for you to reject this explanation. So why do you keep doing it?
"Had they not arbitrarily taken issue with one set of comments"--breakerbreaker
Although, I agreed with you about this earlier, I have reconsidered. When MMFA is calling the language on O'Reilly's site "objectionable", they are merely pointing out that some people may object to the language there (which is what objectionable means). MMFA is not necessarily making an assignment of judgement for themselves as it seems you are suggesting. You can call something reasonably "objectionable" even if you agree with it yourself.
On the contrary, that's exactly what they're doing. They specifically refer to the comments on BO.com as objectionable. You seem to infer that their intent is to say the comments are 'arguably' objectionable and you may be right. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as their intent, so if MMFA were interested in a dialogue (or at least in clarity) then perhaps they would include that omission in their corrections page. As of now, no such correction has been made, so I'm left to believe their initial intent was to draw a specific line between the objectionable content on the two sites.
To justify that inferrence, I offer the implicit skepticism that comes with the word 'purported.' With the use of the word 'purported', MMFA allows for the possibility that these allegations made by BO are not simply hypocritical, but false, and that the comments are not in fact objectionable. No such qualification exists for the comments found on BO.com. Those comments are simply 'objectionable.'
I honestly don't see how one could not see the difference between the two implications. Think about Open Mind; I'm confident that you will come back to the path of reason.
I disagree "purported" just points to O'Reilly's original claim. The way I read it, MMFA is neither taking issue with nor confirming BO's claim by using the word "purported". It is simply besides the point. I would think that if MMFA disagreed with BO's take on the DailyKos, they would do so with an argument to that effect. I haven't seen it. All I have is your taking apparent offense at the word "purported", which seems proper as the actual claim itself by BO appears not to be in dispute.
It seems you are simply mindreading here.
Here's a definition for the verb to purport:
To present, especially deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim, often falsely. (www.dictionary.com)
[emphasis mine]
As a point of fact, this has very little to do with mindreading, and is instead a simple case of critical thinking. To say something is objectionable, or even arguably objectionable is grant credence to the notion that it is objectionable. To say something is purportedly objectionable, at best, all one is doing is stating an allegation exists. It is, in fact the same thing as saying something is allegedly objectionable. Within that designation is a clear since of doubt that isn't allowed for in the designations arguably objectionable or simply objectionable. Therefore, to state again, there's a clear and undeniable difference between how the two sets of comments are reported on. A difference that becomes all the more apparent when one considers the difference between the designations in context. Who, after all, is making the initial allegations of objectionable content? Well, it's Bill O'Reilly: foolish blowhard and noted hypocrite. Considering the source, how much credence would you infer MMFA is giving to his allegations?
BTW, the reason MMFA doesn't make the argument that the comments are not objectionable is because it's an argument they know they can't win, or even formulate. But they equally cannot concede the comments as being objectionable because such a concession would be a violation of their mission statement. Or, at least, the way they choose to interpret their mission statement.
Oh, and call the double standard what it is: hypocrisy! A hypocrisy I specifically alluded to in my original post: In fact, MMFA doesn't even admit the (admittedly cherry-picked) portions O'Reilly reads qualify as objectionable or offensive. The content is "purportedly 'offensive'." So please do not suggest any longer that the language side of my argument came later. I know you're of the opinion that you're not ethically bound to make an honest argument, but please don't take me for a fool. While you like to rationalize concepts you haven't a chance in hell at justifying, I don't make arguments I can't support. My original post, while unclear, is correct.
MMFA is chastising hypocrisy while displaying hypocrisy. That's not only ironic. It's hypocritical. Not because I say so, but because that's the way it is.
I agree with much of what you say, but these hypocrisies (to whatever degree) have become necessary.
To not be a hypocrite is in effect to unilaterally surrender a portion of the idiological spectrum. If one side decides they are through with hypocrisy, then the middle shifts further to the opposite extreme.
These hypocrisies exist largely to balance the hypocrisy of the other side.
I just don't buy into that rationalization. I understand it, but as a principle, I can't for a moment recognize its validity.
I am not asking you to buy into anything. I am merely explaining the way things work. I personally don't like it, but if your goal in life is to avoid the appearance of any and all hypocrisy, you are going to have a difficult time with things. Some hypocrisy is a necessary thing.
Hypocrisy is inevitable. It's not necessary. There's a difference. Your explanation justifies hypocrisy. Mine simply accepts it. Your explanation endeavors to establish an ethical and moral necessity for a concept lacking entirely of both virtues.
I'm not trying to tell MMFA how to do business. I'm simply suggesting that while most of us accept MMFA as a fundamentally hypocritical institution, there are ways to avoid the appearance of impropriety while still being entirely improper.
I largely agree to that point and have made it myself in the past. I just don't see how it relates to Bill O'Reilly in this instance. MMFA appears to be using Bill O'Reilly's reasoning against him. I don't see how that makes MMFA a hypocrite as it is quite obviously not their own reasoning.
I said earlier that one of the clear hypocrisies with regard to this particular matter were in the way MMFA labeled the comments posted to either website. They accurately referred to those posted on Kos as being purportedly objectionable, but then referred to those on BO.com as simply objectionable.
Furthermore, the point was that it's sort of silly to call someone a hypocrite when you're guilty of a similar kind of hypocrisy. That was, in fact, the essential point. Of course, the accusation of hypocrisy when turned around on the original accuser needed some elaboration that extended beyond the specific content of the thread. It was a tangent, but one I thought I was being asked to go on.
You don't see anything wrong with O'Reilly's obvious, blatant, and shameful hypocracy? Only criticism for the ones who report about it? It figures.
Gagnnon,
I've already commented on O'Reilly/Kos on 2 previous threads. Should I keep repeating myself or take the easy route & just copy & paste my posts?
Just because MMFA keeps churning out redundant threads on this subject doesn't mean I should keep writing the same thing over & over.
Can I make a humble suggestion? Don't click on the articles that you don't want to read. That way you don't have to suffer through the redundancy. That said, Jeter, I usually enjoy your posts.
Jeetah, here's the key to the article:
On the July 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, in response to the suggestion that his website also contained offensive comments, O'Reilly accused Daily Kos of having "planted someone" on his website. However, according to screenshots of the comments in question (posted by Americablog [link to bp3.blogger.com] title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?[link to bp3.blogger.com] [link to bp3.blogger.com] color="#0052a3">here and [link to bp3.blogger.com] title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?[link to bp3.blogger.com] [link to bp3.blogger.com] color="#0052a3">here), this purported "plant[]" would have to have posted thousands of comments to O'Reilly's website, under different aliases. The commenter posting under the name Jack Kincade, who suggested following Hitler's example and burning down the U.S. Capitol, has [link to bp0.blogger.com] title="http://bp0.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/RqisyXUp-dI/AAAAAAAAAhY/Hyz_jinrtB0/s1600-h/burndowncapitol.jpg">more than 4,100 posts on BillOReilly.com
It's news when O'Reilly continues to repeat his erronious information in the face of these facts, and you know it.
Care to comment about this, other than your utterly repetitive "Why is this news?" BS? Just be thankful MMFA is much more tolerant than any other website, giving you plenty of opportunities to troll at your lesiure.
I don't think it's fair to call THIS thread "redundant." Perhaps the Olbermann threads and whatever that simply take on the original story (O'Reilly calls DailyKos hateful, etc.) could be considered that. (I think that they show different viewpoints.)
But this is a new development. Proof that O'Reilly's site has content of the sort he himself considers hateful. Proof of hypocrisy. And his response? Ban the person that brought the "hateful" posts to the public's attention.
I think it's a new element of the original story, and a new incident of a dishonest right wing media person.
But this is a new development
Marv,
Yes & no. It actually could have been already covered on any of the earlier threads...
My objection or beef if you will is really just about this particular thread. It seems to me that MMFA is now just stretching this out. Why didn't a MMFA researcher comb through the posts at O'Reilly's website for the very first thread they posted on July 18th? Or even on any of the subsequent threads on this topic?
As soon as O'Reilly attacked Kos was the time to go through Billy.com & present the fact that hateful posts were just as prevalent there.
They could have exposed O'Reilly's B.S. from the get go.
Especially when MMFA quoted O'Reilly on the FIRST thread on this topic:
O'REILLY: You know, you - look, I have my own website. We don't -- open forum is bull. All right? You can regulate what's on your website. Now, this kind of a thing has got to be troubling to, I think, millions of Americans when they hear it. Because this is the only, as we pointed out, sponsor. The only one. Everybody else stays way away from this.
That should have sent off a red flag to go check out the posts on his site. MMFA could have included this in the very first thread. Instead they either sat on it, or decided to save it for later.
So, IMO, this thread is just milking the topic.
O'Reilly defends comparison of Daily Kos to Nazis and KKK Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:08PM
O'Reilly continued to compare Daily Kos to Nazis and KKK Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:36PM
O'Reilly named "Worst Person" for defending comparison of Daily Kos to Nazis, KKK Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:45PM
O'Reilly again asserted that "hate-filled" Daily Kos "rivals the KKK and Nazi websites" Friday, July 20, 2007 4:29PM
O'Reilly compared Daily Kos to Capone, Mussolini Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:45PM
O'Reilly asked: "[W]hat's the difference between David Duke" and Daily Kos? Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:04PM
O'Reilly continued to attack Daily Kos while ignoring objectionable comments on his own site Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:50PM
Except that the story wasn't that O'Reilly's site has similarly inflammatory comments by readers on it. It's that O'Reilly ignored this fact after it was brought to the public's attention. THAT's the story. It would not have been in the first story had MMFA done the research you suggest until O'Reilly continued his attacks without pointing out his own site's flaws.
Further, as long as O'Reilly continues repeating or updating the story, it's a new piece of misinformation on his part that is fair game for MMFA to report on.
Then the next question will be, "why is this here?"
This is what happens when people label things as "Hate sites". Now O'Reilly has opened Pandoras Box and is allowing his site to be labeled hate.He has no one but himself to blame. Good Job BO.
Since the DK topic is exhaustably repetetive, I will opine on Dennis Miller instead. Is there a more sickening suckup to Mr. Bill than this guy is?
Apparently if he feels he can get traction on Bill's coattails with a radio show, maybe Bill will put in a good word for him at Fox and get him a TV gig, primetime, too. O'Reilly's ego needs major stroking every night, we all know that, but doesn't he get tired of these wannabes and lapdogs sniffing around his behind at every opportunity. Bill can't be that stupid or naive to think they really think he's that great, or is he?
Miller time becomes channel surfing time for me when he shows up anywhere.
BillO couldn't even get sympathy from that hack Dennis Miller. If Bush was having sex with a cow his approval ratings would probably go up. You know, I mean what you do in the privacy of your own house and between to consenting mammals.
On the news tonight.
The President stated.
That he got off on Russian squirrils.
And he demonstrated.
Oh man it was sick all over this nation.
Nobody liked this new sensation.
It's just the latest on the bad news tonight.
From Red Greenback and the Blueboys. Off Autin's Roller Maidens From outer Space
Wait a g_d damned minute!
This clown and his sidekick are offended by a fake picture of the president of the United States with a cow doing an illegal act, yet neither O'Reilly or Miller has a problem with all of the real, potentially illegal, acts that GWB has perpetrated on the nation?
Of course they aren't concerned, they're too busy waiting for the 2nd coming!
Wow. Now are those people drunk or stoned? I immediately thought "Dead Concert", what with the waving hands dancing, the spontaneous jigs in the aisle, the whole thing reminded me of the one Dead concert I went to at UCLA. That rapture story is for real huh? Just wow.
Speaking of drunk, Miller seems to have snuck a heavy shot of something at the end of the interview; "Moooooo"? I mean, do even Billo's fans take him serously?
As a former Deadhead, at first I felt insulted and I was going to argue. But then I watched the video.
You're absolutely correct. The only difference is that instead of cheering for an encore of "Dark Star" they were cheering for us to nuke Iran.
On a side note, I think I smoked a joint with that woman at the end of the video, in the blue dress, at RFK Stadium in '73.
OH MY GOD!
Are these people for real?
Rino was wrong, the Republican party was not taken over by Liberal-like Arlen Specter, it's been taken over by religious wacko jobs like Delay and Santorum. These nut jobs are scary.
These statements on O'Reillys web site were hateful, and he should have more control over hate speech on his own site before preaching about the Kos site and its hate content program.
Couldn't agree more Sue.
"Hate is hate"
Since one of the Oh oh oh o'reilly posters mentioned nazi's and burning down the capital, y'all may find this interesting. Sorry I couldn't provide the direct link to the BBC report, it's considered streaming media by our IT department!
I saw this over at ThinkProgress too. What do you expect from a guy who profited by selling steel to Nazi Germany? These uber capitalist robber barons just loved Hitler and Mussolini. And the righties have the audacity to cry when someone trots out a Nazi comparison when Bush's grandpappy dealt directly with them. Along line of Bush's aiding our enemies directly.
Wha-wha-WHAT? I thought Bush was helping the sheep over the fence.
By the way - Dennis Miller? The guy's tune is older than Methuselah's jockstrap. He hasn't had a fan since Acrisius locked Danae in the tower without the remote for the tv. He sits in front of the camera like Wilhelm Piek wondering how he got there, watching the world swirl around him like smoke from his tsuge as he tries to remember how his life drifted away like a balangay on the Thames after a tsunami. Stop me before my metaphorisis turns me into a butterfly...
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
metaphors gone wild!
"I never metaphor I didn't like."
- Will Rogers
That was a fantastic Dennis Miller impression. Back when he was sane of course.
As long a BillO has Ann Coulter on as a guest, and her clone Michelle, he has no right to speak about his outrage over hate speech. I do love his take on the Pope being a primate, he is, we all are; that is what humans are.
well he has a right to but he has no credibility when doing so.
The most troubling comment to me bar none was the fact that O Reilly can't differentiate between a sheep and a cow.
God help us.
But I'm a self-proclaimed Miller fan from way back so I better not read the rest of this thread. Bye.
Bruce,
I confess, I used to be a Dennis Miller fan too. But it just seems that as soon as they sit over that "Fox News contributor" positioned on the graphic below their face, they go from objective and interesting, to a fawning and predictable kiss-up to O'Reilly and the rest of his minions on Fox.
Must be something in the company watercooler over there....
Yeah, it's called Kool-Aid, and they drink a lot of it.
How much is Miller getting paid by Fox?
I guess when your comedy career craps out, you just turn some tricks on Fox Noise.
It was Al Michaels! All that time in the booth for Monday Night Football. Al brow beat him into submission.
It matters what Bill O'Reilly says on the Factor, because a lot of people watch.
It matters what is posted on the Daily Kos, because a relatively large number of people read postings there.
As to Billoreilly.com (or MMFA, for that matter), it does not really matter much:
<!-- Alexa Graph Widget from [link to www.alexa.com] --><script type="text/javascript" src="[link to widgets.alexa.com] /><script type="text/javascript">/*<![CDATA[*/ // USER-EDITABLE VARIABLES // enter up to 3 domains, separated by a space var sites = ['flashgot.net oddee.com opengolf.com']; var opts = { width: 380, // width in pixels (max 400) height: 300, // height in pixels (max 300) type: 'r', // "r" Reach, "n" Rank, "p" Page Views range: '6m', // "7d", "1m", "3m", "6m", "1y", "3y", "5y", "max" bgcolor: 'e6f3fc' // hex value without "#" char (usually "e6f3fc") }; // END USER-EDITABLE VARIABLES AGraphManager.add( new AGraph(sites, opts) );//]]></script><!-- end Alexa Graph Widget -->
Oh well, it will not transfer.
Go to www.alexa.com and replace the three examples on the 3-month traffic chart with:
billoreilly.com
dailykos.com
mediamatters.org
to see what I am talking about
I did the Assignment...
Both Media Matters and Daily Kos were ahead of Bill O'Reilly.com.
More proof that O'Reilly is a babbling moron. Even Dennis Miller was laughing at him; that should tell us something.
Yes, so what goes on over there has little importance in the grand scheme of things.
That's true, it's not very important in the grand scheme. However, that has absolutley no bearing on the hypocrisy O'Reilly is demonstrating.
I wonder if the Prez used that condom that Fox news had on the pickle. Better get someone down there to question the sheep/cow. We have it on good authority that is was a ram in sheeps' clothing. Really screws things up for the Moral Majority. I am sorry for being soooo baaaad.
Bill O', mind your own business.
Perhaps O'Reilly learns slowly...he got Fox to sue Al Franken & that drove up the book sales for "Lies & the Lying Liars that Tell Them."
Now he's after Daily Kos, which will drive up traffic to the site even more...(not that O'Reilly fans will learn anything, them being his fans and all...)
Why would anyone care what Dennis Miller has to say. He is a loud mouth who has nothing intelligent to say.
If Bill O'Reilly really believes the drivel he says he would be happy that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the rest of the Democratic candidates are going to the Kos convention. Could it be that Bill really things going to the convention will help the candiates. If he really thought they were shooting themselves in the foot he should be elated. He clearly hates all Democrats who are not to the right of Barry Goldwater.
Anything objectionable on Daily Kos is the fault of the host of the site. Anything objectionable on his own site is the fault of sabotage by Media Matters or Daily Kos. How is that for evenhandedness and fair play?
I am just disappointed Bill O'Reilly has not complained about any of my posts on Daily Kos and Media Matters calling for King George's impeachment. I guess I have to post a lot more to get noticed.
Oh, man. You know, all I'm saying is we'd like a little decorum here in the presidential election
Like purple fingers and chants of "flip-flop" and endless Swift Boat Liars inverviews?
Holy ....! Anyone seen this?
Kos throws in the towel.
Kos, the new king of snark! That was great.
To paraphrase an old Jay Leno joke he once made about visiting his parents home, I think BO’s also frustrated that his 71 year old average main audience age demographic still have the VCR recorders blinking twelve o’clock. And think blogging is jogging with boots on. OK that's my joke.