O'Reilly responds to "pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters" who "attempt[ed] to blame us" for Tiller's murder
June 01, 2009 8:36 pm ET
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
On Reliable Sources, Kurtz and Shister take on Kilmeade's "special debriefings" of Muslim officers
November 08, 2009 2:47 pm ET -
-
Gail Shister: Limbaugh interview is "Fox saying directly to the White House, 'Eff you!' "
November 08, 2009 1:38 pm ET -
-
-
Misleading talking point that Owens "ran against the health care bill" spreads from right-wing blogs to Fox
November 07, 2009 12:06 pm ET
-
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
by Karl Frisch - November 06, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
by Greg Lewis - November 06, 2009 -
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
by Eric Boehlert - November 03, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
So even though there was no suggestion of violence on O'Reilly or anyone on Fox's part, the consensus here is that Fox News and O'Reilly are culpable for the death of Dr. Tiller at the hands of a mentally ill individual because of the stance that O'Reilly took against partial birth abortions and the rhetoric used against Mr. Tiller, and that it was unequivocally the deciding factor in the killer's insane decision to murder Dr. Tiller.
Then using that logic, anyone who has a public forum and strongly criticizes what they consider to be an injustice (such as partial birth abortion, or an unjust war) has blood on their hands if something then happens to the person or thing they criticized, no matter if there isn't a direct connection to the actual person who committed the act of violence.
Its a pretty convoluted conclusion don't you think?
Oh wait, this is Media Matters- You don't actually think here! Sorry.
I'll carry on in lockstep with the rest of the comments.
Democrats good! Neocons Bad! I agree with anything George Soros wants me to think!
there is that better? We now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda...
EVERY second, your words, not mine, and your emphasis also.
Try and alter the conversation all you want to Hillary, or Jeremiah Wright, or whatever your other favorite red herrings are. It makes you seem more than pathetic (downright sick) at a time when a man was murdered. Not a viable fetus, but a man.
So anyone who's feels they are innocent does not have a right to defend themselves if they feel unjustly attacked?
By defending himself he MUST be guilty right?
The truth is this is the connection you want to make, regardless of the facts or what the law even considers culpability.
It's not that he's guilty because he's defending himself. He's guilty because he's guilty.
Now, flash forward to this past Sunday. You have an obviously easily persuaded propoganda container in Tiller's shooter. Ask yourself the reasonableness of this man being influenced by O'Reilly's incessant one sided attacks on Tiller. We know there is a precedent for this type of violence by others. The man who shot those people in Knoxville was a huge O'Reilly fan and he wanted to kill the 100 people identified by one of O'Reilly's frequent guests as dangerous to the country. The man who shot the police officers in Pittsburgh was under the impression that Obama was going to take everyone's guns away. Where do you think he learned of that little plot??? Look, if you refuse to accept culpability on the part of O'Reilly then fine. I'm guessing then that you have no belief in the ability of hate filled rhetoric to influence easily influenced people then.
Ask yourself this: Does Bill O'Reilly infuence people? He sure seems to think so. Brags about his clout all the time. Seems to me his narcissism in the past almost serves to help indict him in this situation.
So OReilly cant criticize anyone for fear a wacko might blow them away?
There was never an incitement of violence, that we know. Yes OReilly attacked Tiller often. But OReilly attacks lots of people often.
The truth of the matter is, there is a far right wing who thinks that killing abortionists is God's will. That is sick and stupid, and no one, not Bill OReilly and Fox News, has ever advocated that.
And these people came to their conclusion long before OReilly has been around. Killing abortion doctors is nothing new.
Maybe OReilly's ego makes him feel the need to defend himself, but that doesn't indict him at all. All that proves is that his is egotistical- but that been long established.
Ask yourself this: Does the NY Times influence people
Unless you can show where the NYT attacked the recruiter by name AND used language like O'Reilly did, your analogy fails on its face.
What does Soros have to do with reich-wing teabagging terrorism supported by you and O'Racist?
It's the conservative behemoths like Fox News that receive their strict marching orders and talking points each day.
Seriously deranged.
Whenever I see posts about him on this site or comments elsewhere, it just seems people are doing it as a diversionary tactic or to call into question the validity of an article or a videotape of a conservative saying something stupid. As if Soros allegedly funding MMFA has anything to do with how stupid the quote maked the conservative look. It simply has no bearing.
I am sure you like to talk about Soros and that's super, but there are many places you can go to find others who enjoy it just as much as you do and where it is actually germaine to the topic.
This is simply a gotcha website to give a one sided view of whats going on. Therefore anyone who gets the bulk of their information from one side is a lemming.
And no, the same cant be said of me. Im on a site posting on something I disagree with, not posting at a place that validates my opinions like everyone else here.
That's "credibility," o enlightened one. I swear, sometimes I think that George W. is posting incognito. Moreover, as RABBITLUVR pointed out, their goal (not an outcome) is totally laudable. If you think this means you have the right to engage in name calling, then clearly you are beyond the reach of logical argumentation.
This is simply a gotcha website to give a one sided view of whats going on. Therefore anyone who gets the bulk of their information from one side is a lemming.
Or a Fox News viewer, which means an underachieving lemming.
And no, the same cant be said of me. Im on a site posting on something I disagree with, not posting at a place that validates my opinions like everyone else here.
Oh, poor little you, facing all of us big bad meanies all by yourself. It would be nice if some of the many other neocons who have made this site home over the years would come in and correct you. In the meantime, do you think you could learn how to use an apostrophe? Making your output readable is a great service to others. Thanks!
I take it then that, in your muddled mind, commentators such as O'Reilly have ZERO influence on those who watch him? Absolutely none?
If you believe that then here's the question: Why is O'Reilly (or any commentator) even in business then if they have no influence?
Hitler clearly incited violence. Do I even have to explain the difference?
Please don't drag stupidity into this argument.
thanks!
Too late, you already did when you refused to recognize O'Reilly incited violence against the doctor. But feel free to explain how your opinion of what O'reilly said means he didn't.
Then I hope ya got a good lawyer, you'll need it.
You're either an idiot or just being willfully ignorant if you can't see this.
What's more, I have no idea what George Soros wants me to think, and don't really care. What's more, none of your lot have ever adequately explained why he's so evil anyway. (Votes democratic, I guess that's enough for you morons.) YOU on the other hand CLEARLY get your propagada and talking points from Ruppurt Murdoch and Fox News and YOU really ought to try thinking for yourself for a change. It might hurt a bit a first, but you'll get used to it and find that it feels pretty good after a while.
But do you really want to get into an argument about partial birth abortion being legal, therefore its ok? Is that what you really believe?
I really feel sorry for people who need to defend things that they know in their heart to be wrong, just because its convenient politically to do so.
I ask you to search your soul, and lets not let the death of this doctor be a pawn in a political game but a chance to have an open and honest dialogue about what we need to do to fix something that's clearly broken.
You mean like defend the things O'Reilly says because O'Reilly and Fox News must be defended at all costs? I agree with you. I feel sorry for you. And yes I do believe that abortion is legal and is therefore OK - and by OK you mean equatable to murder or slaughter or death mills, etc. since that is the argument.
This makes perfect testimony for the Tiller family to sue Bill O’Reilly and FOX news, I hope they do;
Frank Schaeffer
My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as “murderers.”
And today once again the “pro-life” leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I’d like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for preforming abortions that I — and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.
I am very sorry.
Frank Schaeffer is a writer. He is author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html
If that's what you mean by "connection" then ummm duh?
The comparison was (I thought) obviously not on the two people, but of the contents of the speech directed at them.
I may just be paranoid, but I am beginning to suspect you are being intentionally dense here.
How about holding the NY Times culpable for the killing of the soldier in Arkansas. the killer said that he killed and would kill more because of the way that the US treated Muslims. The Times ran about 40 front page stories on Abu Ghraib, which certainly could have inflamed this nut and others for that matter. It is even predictable that this would be inflammatory. Do you disagree?
Again, you're conflating the way something is presented with the fact that it's discussed at all. Abu Ghraib is a legitimate story, so there's no way to argue that it shouldn't be covered because someone might react to it. The tone, phrasing and framing of the issue used by O'Reilly is a completely different matter.
They describe themselves as pro-life when in fact they are only pro-fetal life. They are usually pro-death penalty and pro-war.
And most support protecting the unborn while abandoning anyone who has been born by not providing funds for health care, education, etc. for poor children.
And you can bet your ass that if abortion were outlawed today, the same people would be in the streets tomorrow trying to outlaw contraception.
I know quite a few of these people personally and they prove my argument.
By the way, out of all these "presidents" of these pro-life groups all over the news....you know the ones who are either condemning the murder of Dr. Tiller or those who are justifying it, how many of them have put their money where their mouths are and adopted a child? Out of all the right wing talking heads (O'Reilly, Hannity, LImbaugh, Coultier,etc) how many have adopted a child? Out of all the conservative politicians who are beholden to the evangelical right and the pro-life lobby, how many of them have adopted a child? Out of all the conservatives who post here, call in to talk radio, etc, etc, how many of them have adopted a child? Adoption is the best alternative to abortion....right.....isn't that what they preach endlessly? Hypocrites...each and every one of them who are unwilling to act upon their convictions.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that an abortion procedure takes an hour for preparation, the procedure, and recovery, and Tiller supervised those phases of the operation. A typical work year is usually called 2,000 hours (40 hours/wk, 50 wks/yr). That means if Tiller worked with no breaks at all, and every working day was filled with procedures, he would be able to do 2,000 procedures a year. O'Reilly says he did 60,000 procedures. That means that for 30 years, for every hour of every work day, Till was performing abortions.
That, of course, is patently ludicrous. Tiller's clinic, which has been called an "abortion clinic" (that means your local hospital should be called an "appendectomy clinic" as if no other work is ever done there), was a women's health center. He provided pre-natal support and care for women who were carrying their fetus' to term, as well as cancer screening and other vital health services. So, with that other work going on, it would take even longer than 30 years, working every hour of every work day to do what O'Reilly ignorantly accused him of doing.
If nothing else, Tiller's family has a civil case for defamation, if not accessory to wrongful death.
Forget the “far left loons”. Your connection to this assassination is being noted everywhere – in the MSM you despise, all over the internet, and by the public.
Take a look at google news. In the past 24 hours, upwards of 100 news articles have been published associating you with the doctor’s murder. The number continues to increase. Your obvious attempt at distraction by attacking those who are calling you on your behavior is feeble, but I understand it’s all you’ve got.
I hope the Tiller family sues you and your employer. Shame you weren’t more perspicacious about the inevitable result of your incessantly-spewed vitriol.
He blames rapper lyrics for inciting street violence and violence against women. He blames antiwar movies for getting our soldiers killed. He blames Cindy Sheehan for getting our soldiers killed. He blames Immelt for getting our soldiers killed.
If he can say that rappers', movies', Sheehan's and Immelt's words are responsible for inciting violence and deaths, then why shouldn't his own words against Tiller be held to the same standard that he uses to blame liberals? Or is O'Reilly nothing more than a hypocrite?
And how hypocritical is it to be so opposed to corporations that you perceive to be connected with the conservatives but obviously support a corp that was actually doing bisiness with the enemy. Indirectly yes, but Immelt admitted it. O'Reilly was not speaking out against his words but his actions. I guess you think it is OK for Immelt to continue to do business with our enemies.
And Sheehan, I do not recall that he said her words were getting troops killed. I know he thought she was being used by the far left and he noted how her position had changed, presumably from the influence from the left. I know he also was sympathetic for her loss and said she had every right to her beliefs and positions
But Tiller never "exterminated babies". O'Reilly spewed incendiary lies about Tiller over and over and over, right up until the man was assassinated.
Last night O'Reilly could not bring himself to call Tiller a "baby killer" because he knows that Tiller was murdered by a guy who falsely believed that Tiller, in O'Reilly prior words "exterminated babies".
The point here is that O'Reilly thinks that what he did couldn't have incited violence towards Tiller. Yet, he thinks what other people have done DOES incite violence. He's using a double standard. If something a rapper, Sheehan or Immelt has done can incite violence towards others, then what O'Reilly has done can too. O'Reilly's inability to admit this is hypocritical.
Your inability to recall isn't doing you any favors either. O'Reilly said, "I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous." It's even documented right here on MM.
You will get no honest admission from "fair"-liberal. That is how these people operate and that is how O'Reilly is able to run this kind of grotesque sideshow with such high ratings.
And pointing out that lots of people have called Bush names is irrevelant, lots of people had also called Tiller names and protested his actions, long before O'Reilly even heard of the guy.
Again, can you show us media personalities who said that supporting Bush meant you had blood on your hands? You can't do it. Can't.
Wright is not a racist.
Ayers, if such an unrepetent terrorist, how come he never served any time in jail? Are his actions despicable? Yes. But he has also turned his life around in the last 30-40 years, and done great things for his community.
Hillay, a politician lied about her experience? Where?
What a narrow-minded twit you are.
Run along now and please pay attention in the future.
Chris was very specific as to the scope of his analogy. Your apparently childish attempt to change the scope of it does not change the validity of Chris' original analogy.
When you realize the folly of your argument a simple "I'm sorry" will suffice.
It sure makes it easier to wrap the murder up in a nice neat bow---the guy is nuts, case closed.
Here's the problem with that. If this guy is insane as our friends on the other side hope, then people like Bill potentially bear a greater responsibility for their careless words.
Did Bill incite this 'lunatic' to murder on his own? Probably not. It took many people writing and speaking hate to propel this man into that church.
What I find revealing is Bill panicked response. I think he's actually afraid that this time he did indeed go too far.
Personally, I support the death penalty in theory, but as the practice of trying people is absolutely NOT accurate enough in determining guilt, it should be suspended until we're better at it. The government has a lousy track record; it's been wrong too often when determining guilt, which is unacceptable. We must fix the system, especially when determining life or death. Realistically, I think life imprisonment without parole is a better option, although it is arguably less merciful than a quick and painless death.
Personally, I think it should be reserved for more extreme cases, such as serial killers or mass murderers, if it's used at all.
There are few people in this nation who are more disgusting than this gasbag.
You may not have pulled the trigger, but you are as guilty as the bastard that actually did.
This is not a left-right ideological issue... you did rant against Dr. Tiller, incessantly and you damn near demanded that this man be killed by calling him a murderer!
Whether you or any other right-winger likes it... Dr.Tiller worked within the law... and the man with the gun... is the murderer!
You suck! and so does all the right-wing bugs that crawl along within the borders of America.
Your moronic attempts at trying to deflect calling the criticism of your ideology as trying to shut you down...
Stop it please, you arrogant insect!
As for any of you FoxNews trolls... go ahead... QUOTE ME! Let BillO know what I have said here. He needs to know he has fans.
Great point mikehuck1976 it most definitely has changed hands.
Check out this article from The Huffington Post.
Juan Williams tried to 'excuse' O'Reilly by saying that O'Reilly has never directed anyone to stage a protest at an abortion clinic or told anyone to murder an abortion doctor.
What you've done, O'Reilly, is much worse. You gave an air of credibility to calling a doctor who provided medical care a murderer. You said that if a woman had $5000, they could get a late-term abortion for any old reason.
You are scum, O'Reilly.
As usual. Juan Williams is O'Reilly's go-to-guy to defend all things O'Reilly. No matter how horrendous the consequences, O'Reilly can pull Williams out his pocket, using him as a Get Out of Jail Free Card on any situation. To excuse O'Reilly's behavior in this situation is beyond contempt. It makes Williams just as guilty as O'Reilly.
So called pro-lifers ignore two major things. Number one: criminalizing abortion drives it underground. They always pretend that reversing Roe v. Wade will magically eliminate the practice.
Number two: What we are really talking about is when does the human soul enter the body? They presume to know. They don't.
The only argument against abortion there is that the soul is going to hell. As I've said before, if you believe in a God that would do that, good luck to you.
Because the anti-abortion zealots have so gotten IN THE WAY by trying to criminalize abortion, we're not having the real abortion discussion that we should be having. The real issues don't get brought up at all.
It does not seem to be a coincidence that "breath" just happens to be the only significant difference between a fetus and a baby.
Just another tidbit I think is interesting. Hope you do, too.
Whoever you are, please come forward and explain to me why you think it was appropriate to do so?
If you think I'm wrong about any part... the least you can do is give a reason or two as to why?
I'm not so troubled by the negative as much as I am that you gave it to me and did not at least offer up an alternative to my post.
Are you afraid to speak up or are you as pathetic as BillO or like many of the right-wing fanatics that troll this site?
If I wanted any crap from you, I'd squeeze your head, okay!
I have 10 times the intellect than you will ever know! My rant is wholly justified and no need of specific intellect... just humanity.
Say what you will about the abortion issue, but suffice to say, Dr. Tiller worked within the framework of the law. Period.
The lunatic that used a gun took the law into his own hands. And Bill O'Reilly, whether you like it or not may very well be as culpable. Is this what you intend on defending, simply because you disagree with a woman's right to choose her own fate?
Over three years Bill ranted and bloviated on about "Tiller the baby Killer" ... even called him a murderer... by who's standards? His own? Yours? The fractional minority called the right-wing?
This alone proves beyond doubt that BillO is a worthless 'news' guy, using his own personal feelings permeate his 'news' hour dressed up as satire.
Of course, you know that as well as he does. He is a comedy skit... the problem being is that it seems there are a few people out there that take his insane verbiage as some kind of truth.
Your comment about squeezing my head sheds some light about your support of Tiller, that is exactly what he did to thousands of unborn babies.
And by the way, I am not an anti-abortionist but as the parent of a very premature baby I do disagree with late term abortions. Perhaps you should read up on the precedure. ...http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html
I could "read up" on the procedure till hell freezes over but it wouldn't change the fact that some woman need a late term abortion, period!!!
And once again, you folks seem to think that a woman schedules her abortion like nail appointment. THEY DON'T!!!!
Why don't YOU imagine going to have an ultrasound with your wife, thinking about the future of your child, excited about whether it's a boy or a girl. Sitting next to your wife while the technician rubs jelly on her stomach and moves the monitor back and forth. She remains silent for over 20 minutes, then tell you to get dressed, the doctor will see you. Both you and your wife wonder what happened. Why didn't the technician ask you if you want to know the sex of your baby. And then you find out, from your doctor that the sex of your baby is not important. What is important is your child, the one you've dreamed about has has triple chromosome 18 or anencephaly. Now its a personal decision, one that doesn't involve the folks standing outside clinics, screaming and holding signs or your senator promising to ban abortions. YOU and YOUR wife and family are the ONLY people who matter. It's a personal decision, PERIOD!!
So the next time you think about posting a link to show what this procedure is about, remember IT'S A PERSONAL DECISION,and since it's NOT YOUR decision, SHUT UP!!!!
I can't understand how anyone could think that losing the child you dreamed and hoped for is an easy decision.
I'm afraid it won't work.
I've found the folks who stand outside clinics, screaming and holding signs and folks like fairliberal (not!) don't think in shades of gray.
These folks don't understand "walk a mile in my shoes".
And let me say I'm really, really happy to have you back!!!
Those who oppose partial birth abortion are not murderers, and it is insulting for you to assume anyone else bears responsibility.
Really.... please then... enlighten us with your vast repertoire of facts then and tear my post apart bit by bit instead of claiming that just one statement in your opinion, is the only accurate one?
You may not want to call yourself a hypocrite, but you certainly use their tactic.
</pedantic mode>
(That's my impersonation of a Republican, deflecting blame away from myself.)
What is the common thread here?
LEF?
Thank God POV and Fair liberal were not on that jury, because according to their logic, Manson was not guilty of anything since he wasn't there when those people were killed.
Look up the Kansas law and read about the safeguards put in place to ensure that no late-term abortions are performed for frivolous reasons. Bill O'Reilly didn't, and every word out of his mouth is a lie, and that includes the words "a," "an," and "the."
Now, take your rant here and suppose you are thehost of the #1 rated cable news show in America. You reach millions of people each night. Millions of anti-choice people. Let's assume that in that audience there are some who subscribe to these wild conspiracy theories about black helicopters, the government in collusion with people to harm you, etc etc. Surely we can agree that such people are....let's say..easily persuaded. So, with the understanding that you have mentally unstable and easily persuadable persons in your audience, you go on a rant saying an American citizen operating within the law is as bad as a person who is responsible for the deaths of countless people in WWII. And then you point out that if nothing is done to stop this person, then everyone has blood on their hands. Lo and behold, some time later something is done. The person you said is worse than a nazi ends up murdered. Do you really think you are absolved of any culpability in that situation? Really???
Let's take issue with Fox News for keeping someone on the air who is divisive and crrosive.
Let's take issue with people who watch Fox News because they believe that it is entertaining.
And, let's see Bill O'Reilly unemployed.
It seems to me that many conservatives were very concerned with anti-war talk because it would demoralize the troops, the enemy would be emboldened, and therefore that was dangerous to our soldiers. But when a right-winger is emphatically condemning a specific person on the air, then that person's death is the killer's fault and nobody else's.
Either people's words can influence others, or they can't.
I'd like to know which of our fearless resident neocons gave you a "thumbs down," and ask him/her to explain, carefully and cogently, why. I honestly don't think it can be done by anyone with any sense of fairness.
I think it would be a nice feature if you could find out who voted which way on a post. That would discourage the drive-by downers, since they would be identified as people who can't justify their opinions. Maybe MMfA can work on that for their next format change, along with bringing back the "unthreaded" option.
As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words have meanings." And as I say, "Talking out your ass has consequences." I hope O'Reilly learns both lessons, and that the education costs him dearly in the pocketbook.
Not prosecuting something you are certain of but only bitching about it incessantly at every opportunity makes you look cowardly. Far more cowardly than the man you accuse.
That's pretty funny.
Now, O'Reilly who has been going after this guy, saying he'd like to do something to him, for years on end gets shot and killed. Yeah, I'm sure you had nothing to do with it Bill. Look, you may not be directly responsible, but as folks have said before, and I'll write it here again, words have consequences. When you talk about taking the law into your own hands and doing "something" to this guy, calling him Tiller the Killer, and so on and so forth, there is a segment of society that might take up your call, and lo and behold. Here is one that did. I'd be interested to see if he was a fan of yours.
FoxNews is getting a body count as the year rolls onward.
Yeah, OK.
Wanda Sykes doesn't brag about how much influence she has. She doesn't have the #1 rated cable news show in America. She hasn't used her pulpit to condemn a person as a murderer and say that if nothing is done about it, then people who do nothing will have blood on their hands as well. Are you getting it......yet?
Wanda Sykes doesn't brag about how much influence she has. She doesn't have the #1 rated cable news show in America. She hasn't used her pulpit to condemn a person as a murderer and say that if nothing is done about it, then people who do nothing will have blood on their hands as well. Are you getting it......yet?
There's also been criticism of her behavior from both sides. I think the hypocrisy in this case is more arguably that Limbaugh defenders dismiss any criticism against him with "he's an entertainer", while Sykes is as well.
No, Bill. There is no Fox "us" being blamed. The condemnation is being targeted squarely where it belongs, on you, Bill O'Reilly.
No one at Fox was remotely as obsessed as you were in reviling and smearing a doctor whose practice broke no laws. Yes, Ailes allowed it to go on, but it's not his face and voice that will take the brunt of the criticism.
That's all for you. Time to man up and acknowledge your culpability, if you even can.
"I believe Ludacris is dangerous. Scores of grammar school teachers in the inner cities of America have written to me detailing horror stories spurred on, they say, by rap music. One fifth-grade teacher told me that it is common in her class for 10-year-old boys to call little girls "bitches." And those little boys can quote the lyrics of Ludacris with amazing accuracy....Another teacher, who works in a Los Angeles ghetto, has a once-a-week "real talk" half hour in her classroom. She told me that some eighth-grade girls now say they want to become strippers and some boys pimps. When asked why, the kids say it looks like fun in the rap videos. Nobody in her class mentions Ms. Spears at all...Now, I'm sure there are little girls who can sing Britney's songs about young love all day long as well. And some of these girls inevitably will want to dress in a manner inappropriate for their age because of the Spears influence. That is not good. But it is a million miles away from a handgun, a crack pipe and selling sex."
So a rapper can make young boys and girls turn to a life of crime and decadence because of his lyrics, but O'Reilly can't possibly be responsible in any way for saying that "Tiller the Killer" is killing thousands of babies for money and needs to be stopped.
Again, either people's words can influence others, or they can't. Which is it?
So, yeah. Either people's words can influence others, or they can't. Which is it?
Bravo, Barbantio, bravo! The hypocrisy of O'Reilly is downright appalling. I pray that someone in our media -- hopefully Olbermann or Maddow -- uses an example like this to showcase Mr. Culture Warrior's laughable double-standards. You can't have it both ways, O'Reilly.
He has a LONG history of pointing fingers at the entertainment industry for the decline of American civilization due to the entertainment industry's presumable debauchery. I can't see how anyone can defend him here when he has a long history of doing EXACTLY what he's accusing his critics of: connecting a known entertainer to enticing and influencing behavior among vulnerable citizens.
Now we have him taking a position about late term abortions and a lunatic with a long history of anti-abortion actions kills a doctor who had been attacked long before O'Reilly even heard of him, someone who has long been a target of the anti-abortion crowd. First off, there is no evidence that this guy had ever even listened to O'Reilly's reports on this doctor. Secondly, this guy is an adult who is supposed to know better, not a child.
Are you suggesting that pundits should not be voicing any opinions because there may be some lunatic out there who will act irrationally in response to an opinion he hears. Would you blame the left if someone murdered Bush or Cheney because of a left wing pundit who called them murderers and war criminals?
There is a huge difference in blaming someone for the actions of another as many are doing here and speaking of the influence of someone's words on children.
If you claim that there's influence, then there is responsibility that comes along with that. O'Reilly is blaming Ludacris for the behavior of the children. "Danger to the republic" is pretty clear in the implication that Ludacris is responsible. My point isn't that people should be restricted from saying anything at all, it's that there is a moral responsibility involved at the very least. We all know that there's a fringe element out there. If someone were to say that Bush was killing our troops, nobody else is going to do anything about it and he must be stopped, then there would be some degree of responsibility for any resulting violence.
However, there is some legitimate debate as to whether Bush's actions are criminal, so there is also a need to have that discussion. That's my issue with the "emboldening the enemy" example I listed above as well. You can't abandon that serious of a concern over such a possibility. The question is how you express that concern.
Some may feel this was an issue that needed to be discussed, but Tiller's actions were legal, so calling him a "killer" is based on emotion and is highly inflammatory. If the problem is with the law, then argue to do something about that, as opposed to saying the individual must be stopped.
No. What we are suggesting is that people with the ability to influence and reach millions of Americans be more responsible with their words. When O'Reilly compared this man to a Nazi and Mao and indicated that if nothing is done then we all have blood on our hands, that is simply irresponsible. Pure and simple. With power comes responsibility. Are you trying to say that O'Reilly's fixation with Tiller and the way it was presented is responsible? Certainly he has no specific control over a persons actions, but common sense dictates that there are mentally unstable people in the world. O'Reilly's words are and were irresponsible therefore there is culpability which can be applied to him. Seriously now, how many people in O'Reilly's audience had ever heard of Tiller before O'Reilly told them about him. Based on O'Reillys irresponsible words, how do you think his audience perceives Dr. Tiller? Now he is dead at the hands of some crazed right wing kook. Connect the dots.
Do you disagree that O'Reilly may be even partially responsible here?
- Frank Zappa
Bill O. you better get on your knees and hope this rightwing murderer doesn't come out and say he watches your show. From that point forward, you will be known as "Bill the Tiller Killer".
Can't wait to see how Dr. Tillers' family reacts? The doctors' attorney has no use for Bill. He was more or less telling the weasel producer that calling someone a killer is not sensible.
To simulate FoxNews,"Did O'Reilly Baby Killer rants work?"
If we all took a deep breath and stepped back , perhaps many on these posts would be able to understand why the vast majority morally object to a doctor thrusting a needle into the head of a nine month fetus and sucking the brains out.
If you are killing a fetus that is capable of breathing and living if allowed to be born,to many, it does not matter that it is 'legal'.... they consider this to be murder.
That doesn't happen, and you know it.
Or you would if you actually knew a scintilla of the information you stupidly rant about.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/
Are you denying that O'Reilly basically said that anyone who doesn't stop this man is a murderer? Now how in the H$ll can you believe that such words from a man who brags constantly about how much influence he has is not inciting unstable people? How?
The 70% nor Obama spend hours on television calling Dr. Tiller a murderer, baby killer, or comparing him to Nazis killers.
That's what Bill did and he should be held responsible for his rabid hate speech against a physician who was simply doing his job.
And why done YOU step back and take a deep breath and deal in reality!!! IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO AS LONG AS IT'S LEGAL!!!!!! And ABORTION IS LEGAL!!!!!!
How quickly Mr. O'Reilly changes his tune now that Tiller has been gunned down: "...[W]hat he did was within Kansas law." And: "Every single thing we said about Tiller was true. My analysis was based on facts."
This all boils down to two basic questions:
1. Was Tiller doing anything illegal
2. Was Tiller's murder inspired or instigated by O'Reilly.
The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second depends on who you ask. If you ask me, the answer is yes. When you have a platform such as O'Reilly's you have a responsibility to be circumspect about what you say and how say it. Calling people Nazis, murderers, and baby killers is incendiary by any measure. O'Reilly didn't do the shooting, but he sure as heck helped load the gun.
Scenario #1
[Left-winger kills some Chirstian or whatever]:
O'Reilly would want an investigation on MSNBC, CNN, Media Matters, Move On.org. and demand that they be shut down.
Scenario #2
[Crazy nut goes on a shooting spree at a liberal church, he who apparently had one of O'Reilly's books, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage / Crazy Nazi kills 3 cops because he feared Obama was going to take his guns away, who apparently was a FOX news viewer.]:
O'Reilly shrugs his shoulders and asks: "What'd I do?" and goes on his "They-hate-use-because-of-our-ratings!!" rant like he always does.
Conservatives keep making it sound like late-term abortion is that you force an early delivery and once the head's out you cut it off and that's the "abortion", and that this is something that happens at least 10 times a day, that the far left just loooves to do.
They keep talking about terrorists being the scum of the earth, and that there's no excuse for terrorism, and terrorists deserve everything they get, but where's the anti-terrorist hate for this man?
When it comes to bashing terrorists, conservatives are as pragmatic as it gets!
INGRAHAM: Are we now going to look at the websites that he frequented to see if he was on some of the crazy left-wing anti-war websites, Win Without War, George Soros-funded websites, DailyKos, all the crazies. … The way they are reporting on the George Tiller murder, all of talk radio was responsible for that. … Did he frequent MSNBC, did he like to watch it? [...]
O’REILLY: Since they have been unrelenting in describing their country as a torture nation, I’m sure that set this muslim guy off to kill one and wound another of our military and I’m sure that’s NBC’s fault. Look, the absurdity of this is beyond the pale.
The guy who shot the soldiers at the recruiting station is a lot more like the anti abortion crowd than any liberals that I know.
Radical fundamentalist for his religion, just like the guy who shot the doctor.
That said, I hope O'Reilly doesn't continue trying to argue this. As we can see just by looking at the other comments here, everyone already has drawn their conclusions; by now any time it gets brought up, it's just dragging an all-around ugly issue back into the light to fester.
What O'Reilly did is very similar. He knew that anti-abortion zealots already hated Tiller (as evidenced by his clinic being bombed in 1986, his being shot in the arms at his clinic, and the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests outside of his clinic). In fact, Tiller spent large amounts of money on security guards at his clinic and home to protect himself. He must have thought he was relatively safe in the confines of his church on a Sunday morning!
O'Reilly knows that he spewed hate filled rhetoric that could incite the zealots to act in a violent manner and he did it for ratings. He also knows that he is "legally" covered because he did not specifically say "go kill Tiller The Baby Killer." Bill O'Reilly is morally bankrupt and is just playing damage control. Also, what a nice added bonus that he can now try and portray the left as off their rocker for merely suggesting that he might bear some responsibility for his hate-filled speech.
Bill is claiming, clearly without any fact-checking, that Tiller performed 60,000 abortions.
Abortion was legalized 36 years ago, in 1973. There are 13,140 days in 36 years.
In order for Dr Tiller to have performed 60,000 abortions, he would have had to done at least four every single day for the past 36 years with no days off. No weekends, no vacations.
Never happened.
The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as "murderers." And today once again the "pro-life" leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I'd like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for preforming abortions that I -- and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.
I am very sorry.
Frank Schaeffer