Without acknowledging error, O'Reilly modified false Abramoff claim; attacked "organized terror" from "far-left websites"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly modified his previous false claim that lobbyist Jack Abramoff donated money to both Republicans and Democrats, saying: "His personal donations were to Republicans." However, O'Reilly made no admission of his previous error, and went on to attack "far-left websites" for "put[ting] out a fatwa" against him and Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell, further claiming the websites engage in "organized terror."
On the January 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly modified a false claim he made three days before that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff donated money to both Democrats and Republicans, saying: "His personal donations were to Republicans." In modifying his claim, however, O'Reilly made no admission of his previous error, nor did he apologize for having berated a caller to his nationally syndicated radio show for correctly noting that Democrats received no money directly from Abramoff. O'Reilly went on to attack the "far-left websites" for "put[ting] out a fatwa" against him and Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell and and to claim that the websites engage in "organized terror."
O'Reilly was addressing the controversy surrounding Howell's January 15 Post column, in which she twice falsely claimed Democrats had received contributions from Abramoff. As Media Matters for America noted at the time, no Democrats received any contributions directly from Abramoff. On January 19, the Post's editors disabled the comment feature on the newspaper's post.blog weblog, claiming that readers responded to Howell's column with "personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech." Howell acknowledged her error in a January 22 Post column. The Post later announced that it had reposted "all comments that meet washingtonpost.com's standards for community interaction."
From the January 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight: We've been telling you for years that the far left in America is very organized, very vicious, and will stop at nothing to intimidate people with whom it disagrees. Enter Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell. She suggested in a column that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties. Well, that is true in the sense that Abramoff directed contributions to both parties. His personal donations were to Republicans. Well, apparently, some far-left websites didn't like Miss Howell's reporting, so they attacked her personally. And editors of The Washington Post had to shut down the comment section of their website. Nice. Joining us now from Washington: Juan Williams, a Fox News analyst and former Washington Post correspondent.
We couldn't track down Deborah Howell. You know, if she wants to come on, I'd like to talk to her. But here's what she said, quote: "It is profoundly distressing that political discord [sic: discourse] has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy." Now, as you know, Juan, because I deal with this every day, these smear websites, this is what they do on a daily basis. They put out a fatwa against O'Reilly or anybody else they don't like, in this case Deborah Howell at The Washington Post, usually sympathetic to the left. All right? And then their overexuberant readers go in and, you know, do this kind of personal attack. And there's nothing we can do to stop it, but I think the exposure of it is worthy.
O'Reilly's claim that Abramoff "directed" money to Democrats and Republicans is a departure from comments he made on the January 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, in which he attacked a caller as "fallacious" and "a Kool-Aid drinker" for correctly noting that Democrats received no money directly from Abramoff, and presented "the facts on Abramoff," falsely claiming: "So, there the plurality shifts to the Republicans, but, big money by Abramoff to both sides."
On the January 23 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly went on to further attack "far-left" "smear sites," claiming they engage in "organized terror":
O'REILLY: But there's an intimidation factor here, and that's what they're after. Don't say anything against us, don't say anything against the left or the right, or we'll come after you and we'll smear you, and we don't care what we say. And that's what's going on.
WILLIAMS: I couldn't agree more. That's exactly what's going on. My only point to you is it's happening on both sides, that when you hear --
O'REILLY: The left is much worse.
WILLIAMS: Well, I -- look --
O'REILLY: We've done an analysis of the websites.
[...]
O'REILLY: It's organized terror. That's what's going on. And you say it happens on the right. Not nearly to the extent that it's happening on the left.
loves being defended by Bull O'Really?
Wow!
Have you ever seen the American flag lapel pin for sale on old Bull's website? And "The Buck Stays Here" American flag logo on his website? Gee - I thought it is not only is abysmal bad taste to use the American flag for an advertisement - or on an article of clothing, or displayed with something else like his pin - IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!
I'm sure our Attorney General is going to look right into this one...
I have always said that if the nutjobs got a flag amendment past, they would be the ones going to jail for everything that they do with the Flag.
That phrase used to mean taking responsibility. O'Reilly here admirably states the correct facts (as we know them) that Democrats did not receive payments directly from Abramoff. This directly contradicts what he has been saying for the past week or so. Does he make any mention of this? No.... we have always been at war with Eurasia.
I thought we were at war with Europa! I forgot that was last week. We have always been allies of Europa.
It's "Eurasia" and "East-Asia."
Get your 1950's, oddly-prescient literature straight!
Heheheh... :)
He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other.
1940s, actually. 1984 was first published in 1949; the title is an anagram of the year it was written.
Exposing lies.
The item cites the misinformation...
O'REILLY: "...Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties. Well, that is true in the sense that Abramoff directed contributions to both parties. His personal donations were to Republicans."
...the FACT of the matter being that Jack Abramoff DID NOT give money to both political parties, but to Republicans EXCLUSIVELY; and the nonsense about 'directing contributions', and the distinction as to what a 'personal donation' is, requires more information as to what such nonsense and distinctions mean, on the part of the one who speaks them; which isn't going to happen, seeing as Bill O'Reilly is not in the 'information' business, but in the 'misinformation' business; that is, he is a (highly) paid advocate of the Republican National Committee (you know, the ones who are likely to receive such 'directed contributions' and 'personal donations').
Expect no more from him than you would expect from any (highly) paid advocate (did you expect any more from Johnny Cochran during the O.J. trial?), but identify him as such...
David Letterman did, when he said Bill was "60% crap". Don't overestimate Bill's credibility with the American People; and don't overestimate his ratings, as he and FOX do regularly, as a matter of self-promotion; relatively few People actually watch (or listen to) their shameless Johnny Cochran-style advocacy of the RNC; and even amongst those who do, they consider it...
60% crap.
Dem - I for one do often appreciate your commentary on subject matters in the comments here, but I just want to express my disdain for you equating Johnny Cochrane to what O'Reilly and his Ilk are doing.
First of all, Cochrane was doing his job with his defense of OJ (Yes, I know, OJ is the big bad boogey man with regards to the judicial system, never mind the fact that many many many others have "gotten off" for crimes that happen to be wealthy. I won't go any further in suggesting any kind of racial issue with that)
Second of all in terms of humanity, I'd dare say Johnny Cochrane was a better human being than O'Reilly etc. I base that on what I've read about Cochrane and his history/involvement with civil rights and other noteworthy endeavors.
just expressing my $.02
I agree, and it was not my intention to slander Mr. Johnny Chocran by mentioning him in the same post as Bill O'Reilly: a man who publicly invited terrorists to kill San Franciscans, over a matter of disagreement concerning anti-war activism.
But in truth, I neither 'equated' those two men, nor even compared them; I was merely trying to point out that the buffon Bill O'Reilly is a (highly) paid advocate, like a lawyer, who does not necessarily even believe the (60%) crap that he or she says on behalf of their client, but is simply (and highly) paid to do so: like a lawyer.
Nevertheless, I make here any apologies due to the Spirit of Mr. Johnny Cochran, whom I'm sure has never invited terrorists to kill San Franciscans (nor has even slandered and publicly insulted a fallen soldier's mother for becoming an anti-war activist); just as sure as I am that the (highly) paid advocate (of that war) Bill O'Reilly has.
did you expect any more from Johnny Cochran during the O.J. trial?...
I should have expressed do you expect any more from lawyers, on behalf of guilty clients?
...and instead of...
shameless Johnny Cochran-style advocacy of the RNC
I should have expressed shameless Bill O'Reilly-style advocacy of the RNC
...as being sufficient.
Apologies.
"We've been telling you for years that the far left in America is very organized, very vicious, and will stop at nothing to intimidate people with whom it disagrees."
Yes, so when someone tells a lie, these vicious people let their "disagreement" known. And when someone calls in to your show, it's not "intimidation" to call them "insane" and say they don't know what they're talking about. That's not vicious at all, especially when the person happened to be correct. Meanwhile, when a newspaper article concludes through analysis that Alito is conservative, its credibility is immediately attacked by right-wing sources. But that's not organized, or vicious intimidation at all. I see.
As for the Post being forced to shut down their comments, that's bull. The vast majority of the comments I saw were certainly angry (I myself posted in part "let's be done with this woman, and try some real journalism, shall we?") but were not obscene at all. If they're not capable of weeding out a few over-the-top posts, then they have no business trying to run such a thing.
...and regards the 'organized terror' crap (not 60%, but 99 and 44/100's percent pure crap):
Any day now, I expect a video tape to surface, with an 'al qeada' bogeyman proclaiming praise and admiration for Media Matters for America ('we log on every weekday night, to pass away the time in our caves; we love them!')...
...any day now, that is, when Bill O'Reilly can find a proper fake beard and turbin, and get the accent down just right.
O'REILLY: We've done an analysis of the websites.
ROTFLMAO!!!
“We've done an analysis of the websites.” That quote is funny on so many levels.
I'm sure it's as detailed, and painstakingly researched as his pathetic attempt to make good on his threat to call out everyone who was unfairly smearing everyone. Last I checked, his efforts amounted to a page on his website that merely listed four organizations he didn't like, and a request not to watch, listen to or read them because they were unfair. One of them was MSNBC. Thanks, Bill. You're one heckuva watchdog.
I figure his "analysis" will be a post-it note, with a line drawn down the middle. On the top left will appear the words "Left Smears," and on the top right will be written "Right Smears." The left side will be filled with scratches - one scratch for each smear (with every fifth scratch drawn diagonally across the previous four) to count the number of left-derived smears. The corresponding right side will be barren, but for a few scratches that can be counted on the fingers of two hands. This will, of course, be offered as irrefutable proof that the left smears more than the right.
After all, as we all know, it's only left-wing smear sites like Media Matters that do silly things like offer a transcript in context, the actual video or audio clips in question, several paragraphs describing their complaint with the clips, and a forum right underneath for people to debate about it.
WILLIAMS: Bill, do you think there is life on other planets?
O’REILLY: No, we did an analysis of the cosmos O.K.? Got a telescope. Nothing going on out there, all right?
WILLIAMS: I concur. Bill, you are brilliant!
I get the feeling this is the kind of analysis O’Reilly and his team of fact checkers do.
A fatwa? Organized terror?
Like he did with his make-believe War on Christmas, O'Reilly uses words like "fatwa," "war," and "organized terror" so loosely that he dishonors the sacrifices of our troops. Our troops endure war. They die via organized terror. They lose limbs and eyes to fatwas.
How dare O' Reilly use such words, as if he, in his cushy, cushy life, can't begin to comprehend their implications.
Agreed, the overblown use of these war and battle metaphors displays an insultingly ignorant grasp of what's truly going on right now; and it's not limited to O'Reilly, but is quite common at FOX (I've heard Matthews do it also); and is nothing accidental to the trade, but quite intentional...
...in addition to being the tools of that trade (to the 'tools' of that trade): ignorant and insulting.
Holly is right.Too many times do we here words used that are clearly beyond the useage that these morons use them for.WAR...on christmas? If you have to resort to this kind of language to "get" someones attention it is very disappointing to this insane,koolaid drinker.
Agreed again to the specific example of 'war on Dec. 25', which was not a casual misuse of the word 'war', but a calculated and deliberate choice of words, meant to distract from that real War in Iraq (which the vast majority of the People disapprove of), and meant to minimalize the debate on that real War, by minimalizing (and trivializing) the word 'war'.
Make no mistake about it, these (highly) paid advocates (of War) are very clever in their use (and choice) of the words that highlight their Public Relations campaign.
the right wing-nutz stopped! Well said - I could not agree with you more!
Three Resolutions for the New Year for these idiots:
I. No more "war" similies or metaphors. No "battle," no "seige," no "warrior" - in politics or sports. As long as we have American men and women fighting and bleeding and dieing in a real war, it is an insult to them to misuse these terms.
II. No more "Nazi" references - unless one is speaking of a real Nazi. To use this term lightly is to insult millions and millions of innocent dead.
III. No more Kool-Aid Kliches.
III 1/2. Get over Bill Clinton.
I'll bet we can see a lot more of this in the months to come. This is how the Authoritarian Bush administration works. They don't merely circulate "talking points," and have everybody in the party and on tv parrot them. They start these little memes, clandestinely....it starts out subtle, maybe Rove'll have some phrase slip out in a little-noticed speech, or McClellan will mention a label of some sort, and the phrase or label kinda catches and grows slowly, until ultimately everyone is saying it, and everyone is thinking it. (Like "tax relief"....frame it like that, and once it's the phrase everyone is using, how exactly does one come out and say, Oh, I'm against relief?)
For now, and since the last Osama tape came out, the meme is Democrats and Terrorists say the same kind of things. It'll always be just subtle enough so that if they're called on it directly, they can say "No, I'm not actually saying that Democrats are terrorists, just that they sound incredibly alike when they talk, and that's troublesome." (Well, 'cept maybe O'Reilly. He's never subtle, and has no problem pretending the next day that he didn't say what he said.)
Of course, the manipulation of language doesn't always work - like when they're confronted with an obvious crisis (remember "Blame Game?"). And perhaps we've caught them early this time. But this isn't just over-the-top metaphore. When Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer and the lot all find a way to slip something in somewhere about left-wingers "sounding like" or "behaving as the counterpart of" or "using the same phrasing as" terrorists, they know exactly what they're doing.
"the far left in America is very organized, very vicious, and will stop at nothing to intimidate people with whom it disagrees."
And the far right, via Fox News and all the neocon websites, is different in what way?
Does Bill honestly believe that his desk-pounding soap box brand of 'journalism' is somehow 'morally above' what the far left does?
O'Reilly and his egocentric ilk call that moral relativism. What they don't realize is that they are the real relativists.
The only measuring stick they have is themselves. Everything else is relative to their own whimsical world-view. Absolute principles mean nothing. Either your on his team or you're not.
O'Reilly wouldn't know a Fatwa from a Falafel
"But there's an intimidation factor here, and that's what they're after. "
If the truth is intimidating then perhaps you shouldn't engage in the misinformation that is your specialty Bill. All I want it the bs to stop. Period.
and demanding that those that are wrong admit their falsehoods is a new form of terror. Yeah, I would be proud to be a member of the press orgainization pushing that line.
I hope Juan Williams sleeps well at night. I seem to remember a time when he was a serious journalist - now he plays straight man to O'Reilly and Hume, giving them credibity as a reasonable men.
Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Jim Angle - even Alan Colmes and Greta Van Sustren: these used to be at least somewhat serious people with a somewhat serious perspective. Now they are paid to be a patina of milqetoasty "reason" in an insane asylum.
They must know it; how do they live with it? Is the money THAT good? Can you really buy a soul with it?
Truth, to O'Reillly, seems to be like sunlight to a vampire. Wait a minute...
Oh please, the guy is delusional as usual. He is his own worst enemy. Pathetic.
Any bets on whether the Post blog kept track of exactly how many comments to Howell were - not merely angry, disgusted, etc - but actually obscene, inappropriately insulting, etc.?
Psychological over-generalization happens easily when, interspersed among many negative and emotional-but-legitimate comments, are a few others that cross the line. To make what might be potentially a half dozen comments made by anonymous Internet denizens representative of the authors of websites which reported Howell's mistake is ridiculous.
Is it just me or does everytime a Democrat or Progressive prove a point and press that point Bill O'Reilly says that we are waging a fatwa on someone. Does this man not understand that it is a religious term used by the muslims? Of course he does, that's his way at insulting all of them for something a small majority are actually doing
BOR's hypocrisy (and inaccuracy) knows no bounds.
BOR says the far left in America is very organized, very vicious, and will stop at nothing to intimidate people with whom it disagrees.
The truth: BOR is very organized, very vicious, and will stop at nothing to intimidate people with whom HE disagrees.
BOR says they put out a fatwa against O'Reilly or anybody else they don't like.
The truth: BOR puts out fatwas against anyone HE doesn't like.
Pot, kettle, black.
Give me a break. Is O'Reilly trying to create a boogyman on the Left? The thing I love about the Left is its diversity, which makes it very hard to organize.
The only part of the Left that is remotely organized are the unions and much of their membership votes Republican.
I am glad the Left is not organized like the Right. Those guys crave conformity and idiological purity at the sacrifice of empirical reality. I hope I am never like that.
the clintons went through eight years of hell from these lying right wing flacks, but let someone tell the simple truth about them and they're "terrorized". how did ahnald join the party of girly-men?
I swear this guy is devolving into a walking talking contradiction faster than Stephen Colbert can parody him. I really enjoy watching the Colbert Report at 8:30 and switching back and forth between the Report and O’Reilly. The sad thing is that the real thing is more absurd than the parody. Please join me in sending e-mails with embedded pictures of bears under the “Title Details of Hillary’s Extra Marital Affair Revealed” and “Krugman admits the economy is benefiting from Tax Cuts”.
This is the same guy who within the last month has concocted his own war on Christmas, made threats to get into the lives of New York Time columnist with whom he disagrees, issued his own Fatwa on the same journalists, and advocated a boycott of Vermont and now he is claiming that his opponents are organizing to threaten opponents with harm. How can anyone in his right mind watch this self-important jerk and not recognize that he is fearing the same tactics that he uses? Not to mention the fact that the Ombudsman at the Washington Post and O’Reilly were both wrong and are making themselves look like the victim to distract from that point.
By the way, the Family Values Crowd at Free Republic did not respond very pleasantly to any of my three posts to their web-site that I placed before I was banned for life.
I'm looking out for Bill here: he complains of the negative reportage coming out of Irag, so maybe big bad Billy boy should go over there and turn the green zone into the No-Spin Zone. Some battlefield Factor reporting.
But then us smear merchants will be left unchecked and "organized terror."
terrorist... next to Nazi/Hitler, the most oftenly used and least applicable comparison in public discourse... these guys need an encyclopedia or something...
I love irony:
Posting someone's own words and giving detailed, supported rebuttal=smear.
Comparing your political enemies to terrorists and jihadists=reasoned discourse.
And it's just that simple....
He is continuing the GOP theme of
Lib'ral = Terr'rist
BOR is either terminally stupid or just insane. "We've done an analyzis of the websites", yah sure.
Typical reaction for O'Reilly however, it's not only him. Whenever you have a misinformer cornered by facts, they immediately pull the 9/11 card. They'll either mention 9/11 directly or use 9/11 related terms such as "organized terror" and "fatwa" or "weapons of mass destruction". These terms have good poll results.
Keep up the good work MMFA. You must be doing something right!
Center_of_left, I think you're got it (I'm having a Henry Higgin's moment here.)! I think you've got it!
I think the reason words like "terror" and "fatwa" are used so loosely is to remind us, again and again, of 9-11. The Bush regime lived on past '04 because of 9-11. So, using the words of that day reminds people of that day (and using queer folks as Jews du jour)...and keeps them afraid. When we're afraid, we revert to our ancient impulses: to conform and submit to authority.
But for me, it makes O'Reilly seem like a drama queen. A Chicken Little. And a plain, old chicken.
With such hyperbole and with his plethora of make-believe enemies, O'Reilly would do well in a clique of catty 9th grade girls.
BOR and others are always calling liberals the far left. Who is near left, or moderate left? Joe Lieberman? Arlen Specter? Christie Whitman?