O'Reilly renewed attacks on columnists Hernandez and Rodriguez; claimed Hernandez is "incompetent" and a "Latina ideologue"
On the November 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Bill O'Reilly once again falsely attacked columnists Macarena Hernandez of The Dallas Morning News and Cindy Rodriguez of The Denver Post, accusing them repeatedly of lying. "Hernandez basically attacked me and the Fox News Channel and The Radio Factor for demonizing undocumented workers from Mexico," he said. "That's a total lie. You know, and she doesn't have anything. She took it from a left-wing website," he added, in an apparent reference to Media Matters for America. He went on to say:
O'REILLY: [T]he woman [Hernandez] is incompetent all day long. I mean, she shouldn't be writing for anything. She's just a Latina ideologue who spits stuff that she gets off the internet. But The Dallas Morning News printed it. Now The Dallas Morning News is big enough that I gotta take them on. And then her partner in arms, Cindy Rodriguez over at The Denver Post, says the same nonsense. And just lies, flat-out lies.
O'Reilly's assertions are the latest in a continuing series of false accusations against Hernandez and Rodriguez. In an October 15 column condemning anti-immigrant violence, Hernandez criticized O'Reilly for comments he made during the April 15 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly. As Media Matters reported at the time, O'Reilly agreed with a caller who claimed that each undocumented immigrant who enters the United States is a "biological weapon." O'Reilly added, "I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here." O'Reilly has misleadingly denied that he ever made such comments and repeatedly criticized Hernandez. He also condemned Media Matters as "where she [Hernandez] got her garbage."
Rodriguez defended Hernandez in an October 25 column and further criticized O'Reilly's April 15 remarks. O'Reilly responded by again deceptively denying that he made such comments, dismissing criticism of his remarks as "insane." O'Reilly has also falsely suggested that Hernandez and Rodriguez support open borders; but as Media Matters has noted, neither has written anything of the sort in their columns.
From the November 2 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: I mean, every day I have to deal with insane things that are said about me and the Fox News Channel. And I just can't run them all down for you. Most of them we ignore.
But occasionally, we'll take on somebody who is just grossly irresponsible. And the best example of that is a week or so ago where The Dallas Morning News columnist Macarena Hernandez basically attacked me and the Fox News Channel and The Radio Factor for demonizing undocumented workers from Mexico. That's a total lie. You know, and she doesn't have anything. She took it from a left-wing website. She didn't even know the difference between the radio and television show.
I mean, the woman is an incompetent all day long. I mean, she shouldn't be writing for anything. She doesn't know what she's doing. She's not a journalist. She's just a Latina ideologue who spits out stuff that she gets off the internet. But The Dallas Morning News printed it. Now The Dallas Morning News is big enough that I gotta take them on. And then her partner in arms, Cindy Rodriguez over at The Denver Post, says the same nonsense. And just lies, flat-out lies.
Excuse me, can anybody explain to me what is a "latina ideologue"?
Latina Ideologue:
1. Woman with Hispanic last name who says something Bill O'Reilly does not like.
What BO really said was: "She's just a Latina ideologue who spits stuff that she gets off the internet."
Using a literal translation, the answer would be "A woman of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent who zealously advocates an ideology and apparently buys chewing tobacco from Internet sites."
Why this would disqualify someone from being a competent reporter is not clear, although she may have a rather messy keyboard.
Excuse me, can anybody explain to me what is a "latina ideologue"?
by hardiel ----------------------------------
The opponent of an Irish ideologue
"She doesn't know what she's doing. She's not a journalist."
-----
Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle?
Isn't that more like the Pot calling the Porcelain Vase black?
It's interesting to note that O'Reilly never tries to combat his detractors with facts. Instead, he expects his audience to simply believe that "they've got nothing!". If I were falsely accused of something, I'd certainly pull out documentation to show where I was right. O'Reilly doesn't bother. Curious.
Okay, you're a fan of O'Reilly. You really believe he is looking out for you or some such slogan. He makes a personal attack, without facts or documentation as SJ said above. Do you just buy it? Do you really believe a couple of newspaper columnists are enough to bring the mighty BO'R down? Do you think ever that B would have them on the show so he can be "tough" on them.? Or are you so whitewashed that every attack on BO'R is an attack on you?
More questions, less answers.
Perhaps an intervening message was removed. I'm no fan of O'Reilly. In fact, I've never seen his show nor have I listened to his radio program.
O'Reilly: "He's just a right-wing ideologue who spits stuff that he gets off the internet". Boy, that was easy.
You can't claim that O'Reilly spits stuff he gets off the internet. Those RNC talking points come by email.
Gotcha ;-)
The Bill O'Reilly's Debunking Technique 101 -
Step 1: Call someone a liar. Step 2: Support your claim with distortions and lies. Step 3: Call them a leftist or a loony liberal. Step 4: Look into the camera, so smug and omnipotent that viewers want to barf. Step 5: Declare yourself victorious. Step 6: Repeat as often as desired.
I mean, the man is an incompetent all day long. I mean, he shouldn't be speaking for anything. He doesn't know what he's doing. He's not a journalist. He's just an Irish ideologue who spits out stuff that he gets off Karl Rove's email. But The Fox Channel broadcasts him. Now The Fox Channel is big enough that I gotta take them on. And then his partner in arms, Chris Matthews over at MSNBC, says the same nonsense. And just lies, flat-out lies.
O'Reilly portrays himself as an intellectual, and to his listeners he probably is. Of course his listeners represent those who favor shooting all Mexicans to try to enter the country, hate France and any country who "mouths off" to the U.S., and want Christianity to be declared the national religion. Demeaning Latinos gives him brownie points with these people, many of which likely work on construction sites with these same Mexicans, drinking their sodas in the shade as the Mexicans shingle the roof or mix cement.
O'Reilly portrays himself as an intellectual, and to his listeners he probably is. Of course his listeners represent those who favor shooting all Mexicans to try to enter the country, hate France and any country who "mouths off" to the U.S., and want Christianity to be declared the national religion.
********************
It's distortions like the above statements that has O'Reilly in such a tiff - maybe he has a point?
Since when does cantseefade's personal opinion represent Media Matters? No one's opinion here, including yours and mine, are representative, either. Only the articles themselves, not the opinions attached to them, are representative. And you know this.
Moreover, if you find cantseefade's opinion a "distortion," then tell us why that's so, rather than just making a bald assertion to justify BO's bullying attitude (what you deem merely a "tiff").
LAB
Moreover, if you find cantseefade's opinion a "distortion," then tell us why that's so, rather than just making a bald assertion to justify BO's bullying attitude (what you deem merely a "tiff").
*************************
cantseefade's comments are not his opinions, he is making false accusations against O'Reilly and his listeners saying they want to shoot all Mexican's coming over the border and make Christianity the national religion. Unless he/she can back up those accusations then he is intentionally distorting what O'Reilly says.
As for the proof you wanted me to provide, he has on many occasions discussed his hatred of France. That is very clear. As for the border protection, he has discussed numerous times his belief that the U.S. military should be stationed along the border. He has also had leaders of various "minutemen" groups on his program and expressed his sympathies and support to these armed vigilantes. What exactly do you think these minutemen would do, as they sat in their loungechairs drinking beer, their rifles next to them, if they saw a group of illegals making a run across the border? And as for the Christianity becoming a national religion, O'Reilly has in recent days, discussed how we are a "judeo-christian nation" who should call winter break "Christmas break", and how only Christian holidays should receive Federal holidays. If that doesn't indicate that it is our national religion, what exactly does it indicate?
Since I found this site about a month ago, I have encouraged several friends to use it as a resource.
Bully O'Reilly tries to say that the Hispanic woman in Dallas should not use relevant, reliable reference resources like Media Matters?
What should she use? Republican talking points that have been repeatedly debunked?
Bully O'Reilly did agree with a caller that suggested that illegal immigrants are less than human. He did not reject that statement that a caller made. So the Dallas newspaper columnist got his TV show and his Radio show names mixed up. Her bad. That error does not invalidate the point she made. Her error simply gave Bully a chance to ignore the salient points she made and distract from his actual positions.
BO fears most those with the means and the resolve to rebut his lies and distortions.
Howard Stern was making fun of O'Reilly. They were talking about how he wears eyeliner, mascara and pancake make-up. The last time I saw him I looked closely and I do believe he does wear eye make-up. Of course the pancake is a given. I hope when I die, my mortician does a better job on me than BO's make-up person.
1. MMFA says O'Reilly agreed with a caller who claimed that each undocumented immigrant who enters the United States is a "biological weapon." I couldn't find support for that assertion in MMFA's transcript. Instead of leaving childish comments, could one of MMFA's defenders figure out whether MMFA is lying?
2. A "Latina ideologue" would be, among other things, someone who mainly writes about their race. Could someone please tell me how many DMN columns Macarena has written, and how many of those were not about her race?
3. I already discredited MMFA's other statements in the earlier thread about Cindy Rodriguez.
I encourage MMFA's readers to do some thinking instead of just posting inane comments that take up space without adding anything.
Media Matters had a link imbedded in this article to their earlier story about this comment that included the transcript of the call between Bully O'Reilly and a caller where the caller suggests that illegal immigrants are biological weapons and Bully does not reject that false allegation, but rather agrees with it.
[link to mediamatters.org]
MMFA says O'Reilly agreed with a caller who claimed that each undocumented immigrant who enters the United States is a "biological weapon."
If you look back, you'll see that that's not what he said.
He did not say that each person was a bio weapon.
Look back at the transcript, and see if there's any logical support for MMFA to claim that's what O'Reilly said. You won't find it.
"MMFA says O'Reilly agreed with a caller who claimed that each undocumented immigrant who enters the United States is a "biological weapon." If you look back, you'll see that that's not what he said."
============
O'Reilly did, in fact, agree with the caller, just as Media Matters says, and contrary to what you claim.
CALLER: ...the illegals crossing the border, that are coming across with, say, tuberculosis, syphilis, leprosy -- each one of those people is a biological weapon.
O'REILLY: O'REILLY: You might be right, [caller].
[link to mediamatters.org]
MEDIA MATTERS: O'Reilly agreed with a caller who claimed that each undocumented immigrant who enters the United States is a "biological weapon." O'Reilly added, "I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here.
There are two sentences and 26 words missing from what you quoted.
O'Reilly said, "you might be right", using the word "might". That doesn't indicate strong agreement; some people would even say that just before the word "but..."
And, O'Reilly then compared the crimes committed by all illegal immigrants considered as a whole to 9/11.
Surely, it's more than just a stretch to claim what MMFA claims, it's outright distortion.
And, concerning the general topic, here are some interesting links for you who still think MMFA has any credibility:
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of the outstanding murder warrants are for illegal aliens, as are perhaps two-thirds of the 17,000 outstanding felony warrants... Southern California's largest Hispanic street gang, 18th Street, has some 20,000 members, roughly 60 percent of whom are illegal aliens. (The LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, by comparison, have a combined strength of about 17,000 officers.)... In 2000, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were foreign-born." (link)
"More than 60 alleged murderers, including cop killers, from Los Angeles County alone are in Mexico today." (link)
In 2004, there were 49,000 criminal aliens in federal prisons, 74,000 in state prisons, and 147,000 in local jails (link; more here)
(The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave)
When it comes to illegal immigration, MMFA should stop listening to Mexican-"American" demagogues and start doing some research. What little credibility it has left is at stake.
(Warning: this comment might get deleted, so save it off)
"O'Reilly said, "you might be right", using the word "might". That doesn't indicate strong agreement; some people would even say that just before the word "but..."
=========
Only in the parsing, apologetic little world of those who *heart* Bill O'Reilly would "you might be right" not indicate agreement.
And "some people" might say "but". But O'Reilly didn't. You just look foolish defending the indefensible.
The Lonewacko Blog - Tuesday November 8, 2005 11:56:36 PM EST
Why would I save it, its garbage. You might be right is agreement period. The koolaid has you spinning like a dervish. Whatever O'falafel does AFTER that is irrelevant to the TOPIC, you do remember what a topic is dont you? he DID agree with the caller they fit my definition of demonizing illegal aliens and your post doing the same thing is also irrelevant to the point. Both these posts SHOULD be deleted THEY ARE OFF TOPIC
Yeah right.You should get together with Tommy boy there.Bill is flaming out so bad.Get your head out of your a##!
With O'Reilly, there's always some little quirk beneath the surface that helps explain his irrational rants. In this case, he carries a pretty big chip on his shoulder toward the Dallas Morning News parent company after a disastrous two year stint on their flagship TV station, WFAA in Dallas. He was a weekend anchor, reporter, and even a movie critic (a pretty awful one at that), but never fit in with a newsroom full of people who were known for their friendship and devotion for each other. It was even mentioned in Rolling Stone's article that was written about O'Reilly in 2004:
"But the picture that emerges of O'Reilly from talking to former colleagues at WFAA is very different. They accuse him of lifting stories from the newspaper and undermining newsroom colleagues. "In a business where there are a lot of reprehensible people," says longtime WFAA reporter Byron Harris, "he stood out as particularly dishonest, obnoxious, self-centered."
Yep, that's our Bill.
Why is this on the left column? It's O'Reilly's opinion.