In list of "left-wing papers," O'Reilly included five that endorsed Bush for president
SUMMARY: In listing examples of the "left-wing media" that "dominates the newspaper industry," Bill O'Reilly mentioned five newspapers that endorsed George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly alleged on the February 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, The Radio Factor, that "left-wing media ... dominates the newspaper industry." O'Reilly then listed a number of alleged examples of "left-wing" newspapers -- including five that endorsed George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.
Those include:
- Hartford Courant, which O'Reilly described as "left-wing"
- New York Daily News, "pretty much left-wing"
- Houston Chronicle, "left-wing"
- The Dallas Morning News, "drifting left"
- The Denver Post, "left-wing"
O'Reilly made these comments during a segment celebrating the upcoming 10th anniversary of Fox News Channel, which produces and airs O'Reilly's nightly cable television broadcast, The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly named the Fox News Channel, along with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as "the only bulwark against this [liberal media]." He then added The Washington Times to his "bulwark," but qualified that, saying, "[T]hat's a lesser paper. Their circulation isn't big."
Concluding the segment, O'Reilly stated:
O'REILLY: Now, if we live in a country where all the media is left-wing, and before the Fox News Channel, that's pretty much it, then we are in trouble. So, everybody should be celebrating the Fox News Channel as it approaches its 10th anniversary in October. Are we celebrating? I don't think so."
From the February 13 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Anyway, Fox News has risen up to become a major force -- factor, if you will -- in America. And it is a counter to the secular progressive, left-wing media, which dominates the newspaper industry and is very sympathetic in the television industry. And everybody knows that. That, that's provable. The studies have shown it. Newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper where you live.
I mean let's run down the list. We got the Boston Globe, far left. Hartford Courant, left-wing. New York Times, left-wing. New York Daily News, pretty much left-wing. New York Post is right-wing. Okay, Albany [New York] paper, left-wing. Syracuse, New York, paper, left-wing. Philadelphia Inquirer, left-wing. Washington Post, left-wing. Baltimore Sun, left-wing.
I mean on and on and on and on. And I'm just going down the coastline. Atlanta [Journal-] Constitution, far left. St. Petersburg Times [Florida], far left. Miami Herald, left-wing. Houston Chronicle, left-wing. Dallas Morning News, drifting left. Kansas City Star, left-wing. San Francisco Chronicle, off-the-chart left. L.A. [Los Angeles] Times, left-wing. Oregonian, left-wing. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, left-wing. Denver Post, left-wing. I mean on and on and on and on. You're never going to get the truth from those newspapers. They're always going to skew it their way. So the only bulwark against this is the Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. And, you know, The Washington Times, but that's a lesser paper. Their circulation isn't big.
You see? Now, if we live in a country where all the media is left-wing, and before the Fox News Channel, that's pretty much it, then we are in trouble. So everybody should be celebrating the Fox News Channel as it approaches its 10th anniversary in October. Are we celebrating? I don't think so.
There's a little midwestern burg named Chicago whose major newspaper is called The Tribune. They heartily endorsed Bush in '00 and '04, and haven't backed a Democrat for president since before "Dewey Defeated Truman".
On of the great letters to the Chic Trib after their blase endorsement of GWB in 2004, "the Republicans could run a dead chicken for president and the Tribune would endorse it and tell us how great a stew it would make."
This is why MMFA got it so wrong in its analysis of Sunday broadcasters (to hear the broadcasters describe it): anyone to the left of Falwell is a liberal, and MMFA failed to accept that as true in its categories of conservative, progressive and neutralist. The true categories are neo-con and liberal. Had the number crunchers properly labelled the territory, the liberals have long outweighed the sadly mistreated folks on the waaaay faaaar riiiiight.
The attempt to characterize the Newspapers mentioned being one thing, but as to the other...
Self-Promotion is a management principle at Fox News Channel: they know well that fame is something you begin to get, by first beginning to claim you have it.
Just keep crowing about how much fame you already have, as a tactic to growing what little there is.
But in the 'news' game, who cares about fame?
It's all about the CREDIBILTY baby; and FNC has little, and Bill has even less.
All this Self-Promotion (when it's CREDIBILTY that counts) from a 'news' outlet that not only edited out from their interview the Vice President's admission of drinking when he shot his pal, they edited it out of the transcript too...
All this from a guy that David Letterman publicly (and accurately) assessed as being...
60% CRAP
I had the distinct pleasure of subscribing to the Oregonian for three years, during which time it won two Pulitzer prizes. It is a fantastic paper. Now granted, the Pulitzer is no Peabody (or is it Polk?), but nonetheless, some in the newspaper industry consider it something of an honor.
For far rightwingers such as O'Reilly, anything left of Attila the Hun is too Left-wing in his warped insignificant little world.
...about one thing. The Washington Times is a lesser paper. With just over 100,000 subscribers (googled) it is soundly defeated by viewers of the invisible "Situation Room" which has 145,000 viewers (googled).
BO: So everybody should be celebrating the Fox News Channel as it approaches its 10th anniversary in October. Are we celebrating? I don't think so.
Response: I wonder if Kool and the Gang will be the guest entertainers at the big FOX Anniversary bash.
If this far right-wing clown O'Reilly really is the "Independent" he professes to be on his show, and really dishes it out to both sides as he constantly reminds his critics, why oh why is he always consumed and concerned with papers and other media he perceives as having a left-wing slant ? When was the last time one heard O'Reilly criticize what a right-wing publication had to say, or the monopoly that right-wingers have of hate, er, "talk" radio ? Has he even heard the latest slop from his friend Ann Coulter ? If she isn't a bombthrower, Jesus, what is ?
Substitute the words buzzwords 'left' and 'liberal', as used by the commentators you mentioned, with the word 'Democrat', and then you easily see what it is they do, what it is their job is...
(Highly) Paid Advocates for the Republican National Committee
He has called Ann Coulter viscious on several occasions. I think what people forge is it's all about who is in power at the moment. If it's a Republican the left is going to be throwing noticable shots at the white house, if it's a Democrat then the right will be more active.
Didn't O'Reilly get the news? The WallStreet Journal is a the most liberal publication out there. He should be thanking NPR as well(although it, like Fox, is not a newspaper). According to the UCLA study right-wingers including O'Reilly himself have touted, NPR is the only other right-wing news source.
Are the conservatives not even paying attention to their own stupid studies anymore?
Apparently you didn't...because it analyzed the news pages of the WSJ....NOT the editorial page, which was what O'reilly quoted "..and the Wall Street Journal editorial page." the news pages = liberal; editorial page = conservative; get it???
Where was the left-wing media during the days of Monica Lewinski and Whitewater? Did it go into hiding?
The last guy who was so crazy about these kinds of lists was Senator Joseph McCarthy back in the 1950's. Bill is getting more and more like him every day.
Hopefully, America has grown a lot since then and won't be bullied by our current Listman Bill O' Looney
"[Fox News] is a counter to the secular progressive, left-wing media, which dominates the newspaper industry and is very sympathetic in the television industry. And everybody knows that. That, that's provable. The studies have shown it. Newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper where you live... Now, if we live in a country where all the media is left-wing, and before the Fox News Channel, that's pretty much it, then we are in trouble.
Unfortunately for O'Reilly, Editor & Publisher has tracked newspaper endorsements in every presidential election since 1932, and in all but three of those years, American newspapers have endorsed--and endorsed overwhelmingly--every Republican ticket. Bush went into office in 2000 having lead in newspaper endorsements over Gore by a more-than-2-to-1 margin. Even after the four years of relentless disaster that was Bush's first term, John Kerry managed to squeak by with only a small majority of those endorsements in 2004--only 19 more papers than Bush. This info provides a useful historical perspective on O'Reilly's ranting
that more newspapers did not say george bush is absolutely and completely unqualified to be president. how anyone endorsed or voted for him in 2004 shows the degree to which propaganda works. after the disasters this man inflicted on this country, we are going to be many years recovering.
Good Catch MMFA, Not only did the Houston Chronicle endorse Bush, but made support and assertions in its endorsement have proved too be ridiculous. The article is good reading to see how off the mark a newspaper endorsement can be.
Next time you hear Faux News saying they are "fair and balanced", just throw up O'Lielly's comment: "Fox News has risen up to become a major force -- factor, if you will -- in America. And it is a counter to the secular progressive, left-wing media, which dominates the newspaper industry and is very sympathetic in the television industry. " Unless I misunderstood, I think he admitted that Faux News is a right wing mouthpiece.
....they also contributed to the disinformation behind the non existent Saddam Hussien/Osama bin Laden links as did all of the other Knight Ridder news outlets. -Scott
move so far Right. If supporting George the II for president does not get you a seat on the right hand I can imagine what would. I guess it would have to be something like supporting huge tax breaks for the rich, torturing prisoneers, and warrantless domestic spying but I can't believe anyone would support... Oh that's right never mind.
I live in KC and was just thinking what a worthless right-wing rag the Star had become... Bill should get out more.
IMHO, nothing more than a tabloid, in the Anglo-Australian stylee, as is basically no better than a hybrid of:
("Page Three" refers to the softporn cheesecake pinups common among British and Australian tabloid gazettas, usually stopping short of outright full-frontal nudity.)
Especially when the target audience is the Lower Classes, who can easily be pacified with deliberate sensationalism (a/k/a "prolefeed") emphasising little more than sport, crime, astrology and celebrity goss--or so conservatives think. (That, and the requisite Page Three pinup.)
Every paper that endorsed Kerry is a left wing paper.
So the fact that more papers endorsed Kerry indicates a left wing bias in the media. Not only that, 43 papers switched from Bush to Kerry and 18 went from Bush to Neutral and only 8 went from Gore to Bush.
Since this is MMFA's own standard on judging which papers are left and right-wing bias, it shows a major shift to left wing bias.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
MMFA isn't saying these five papers are right-wing; they're just pointing out that five of the papers O'Reilly characterized as "left-wing" endorsed Bush. This fact contradicts O'Reilly's assessment. While one might imagine a far-out scenario in which a "left-wing" paper endorses Bush for president, rational people understand that it would be highly unlikely.
The small shift in endorsements away from Bush between 2000 and 2004 does not necessarily reflect bias. In 2000 Bush had been president for zero years. In 2004 he had been president for four. The shift in endoresments away from Bush probably reflects on his poor job performance and not a change in "bias."
another non-answer to a non-claim.
O'Leilly claims to be a "tradionalist" down the center "kind of guy" and faux claims to be "fair and balanced". So, where is the list of reich-wing papers and reich-wing organizations? Wouldn't that information be "fair and balanced"?
I thought lists went out with Joe McCarthy?