O'Reilly: "The print press does not care about the children"
SUMMARY: Relying on his distortions and mischaracterizations of the positions of the "left-leaning" newspapers he targets, Bill O'Reilly claimed, during a discussion on his radio show about child abuse, that "[t]he print press does not care about the children."
On the March 24 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly made the sweeping claim that "[t]he print press does not care about the children." He made the comment in the context of a discussion on child abuse and a "left-leaning press."
O'Reilly has repeatedly attempted to paint the media as "left-leaning" and sympathetic to judges who give light sentences to child abusers. He maintains a list of newspapers he deems "soft on child predators" and "are not actively supporting Jessica's Law." However, many of his claims rely on distortions and mischaracterizations of the positions of those newspapers he targets.
For example, O'Reilly recently mischaracterized a March 19 Dayton Daily News editorial that addressed the sentencing of a convicted pedophile to probation instead of prison. On the March 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated: "The editor of the Dayton Daily News, Jeff Bruce, apparently believes [Judge John] Connor should not be sanctioned for giving probation to a child rapist and is smearing anyone who disagrees with that." In fact, the editorial argued for Connor to receive due process in any proceeding and called on O'Reilly, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro to "realize on a very personal level the importance of a legal system not inflamed by the politics of the moment." It also pointed out the past personal legal problems of each as examples where "[a]ll three men could have been destroyed by a rush to judgment of the kind they are now inciting." Media Matters for America President and CEO David Brock discussed the case on the March 22 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Click here for video; the transcript is below.
O'Reilly also took a quote out of context to falsely accuse a Massachusetts judge of condoning child abuse and, in another instance, quoted a San Francisco Chronicle editorial out of context in order to misrepresent the Chronicle's objections to a proposed bill regarding child molesters and to claim that "the protection of children in America" from sexual predators has become "a liberal versus conservative issue."
Further, Media Matters for America has documented additional attacks by O'Reilly on newspapers regarding child abuse. He attacked a Hartford Courant editorial that he falsely characterized as opposing mandatory minimum prison sentences for child sex offenders. In fact, the editorial did not take a position on mandatory minimums. O'Reilly also admitted to misquoting and mischaracterizing a Houston Chronicle editorial when he claimed the piece criticized a new sex offender law in Florida as "too harsh."
From the March 24 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: A couple of things I'll give you that are on my mind. The print press continues to disgrace itself by supporting Judge Connor in Ohio. The latest is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Far-left newspaper. You guys in St. Louis know it. Not a fair paper. You don't get balanced coverage there. It's, you know -- it's a pitiful situation in America when we have such a left-leaning press. And certain papers just outright far-left, and the St. Louis Post Dispatch is one of them.
But the Toledo Blade, I have to say, did say that Connor was wrong, and so, buy that paper. But most of the news media in Ohio has sided with a judge who sentenced a child rapist to probation, and we had the victim on [Fox News'] The Factor, and he said that the man forced him to do these acts when he was 11 years old. The print press does not care about the children.
From the March 22 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: It was the philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche who suggested for every man there exists a bait which he cannot resist swallowing. For Bill O'Reilly, that bait is anyone who disagrees with him or mentions anything that he considers offensive.
Our third story on the Countdown: the latest lure to catch his eye? No, not us for a change. Rather, the local newspaper in Dayton, Ohio. His outrage started with Andrew Selva pleeded guilty to child molestation in Franklin County, Ohio. As part of the plea bargain Judge John Connor gave him five years probation. The governor, the attorney general and O'Reilly all called for the judge to be taken off the bench immediately.
But an editorial in the Dayton Daily News asked the government not to ignore the evidently inappropriate lightness of the sentence but just to remember to go through the proper judicial channels, noting that, quote, "Governor Taft, Attorney General Petro and Mr. O'Reilly should realize on a very personal level the importance of a legal system not inflamed by the politics of the moment. Mr. O'Reilly was sued by a female colleague for allegedly making sexual harassing telephone calls. Governor Taft recently had his own run-in with the law for ethics violations. Mr. Petro has been accused of soliciting political contributions from lawyers who receive state contracts. All three men could have been destroyed by a rush to judgment of the kind they are now inciting." That editorial elicited this response from the Big Giant Head:
O'REILLY (video clip): Time now for the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" and perhaps the most vile and irresponsible editorial I have ever seen in an American newspaper. The Dayton Daily News personally attacked the governor of Ohio, the attorney general of that state, and myself for calling for the ouster of Judge John O'Connor [sic]. The editor of the Dayton Daily News, Jeff Bruce, apparently believes Connor should not be sanctioned for giving probation to a child rapist and is smearing anyone who disagrees with that.
OLBERMANN: To which Jeff Bruce clarified: "They say only two things happen when you wrestle a pig. You get muddy and the pig enjoys it. ... Here's what's really happening: Mr. O'Reilly is upset with the newspaper because in an editorial we referred to his recent legal history in which he was accused of sexual harassment. His producer threatened that unless we published an apology they would resort to their 'bully pulpit.' That's what they've done. This isn't about being soft on child molesters. It's about Bill O'Reilly getting even." Surprisingly enough, Mr. O'Reilly had to respond -- again.
O'REILLY (video clip): The consequences of child sexual abuse, The Factor is now going to list on billoreilly.com the media organizations we deem soft on child predators. We saw Vermont newspapers in Bennington and Rutland protect Judge Edward Cashman, and now in Ohio, the despicable Dayton Daily News has actually launched personal attacks on the Ohio governor, the attorney general and myself for calling for the ouster of Judge John Connor who gave a child rapist probation. The editor of the Dayton newspaper, Jeff Bruce, is also lying about a conversation he had with us and has called me a pig. He's quite a guy.
OLBERMANN: Many of us have had the fickle falafel of fate pointed at us -- Al Franken, Andrea Mackris [former O'Reilly Factor producer who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill O'Reilly], even me; lots of historical facts, of course. But perhaps the combatant who has lasted longest in the joust joins us now. Bill O'Reilly would probably think me his best friend when compared to David Brock, the president of Media Matters for America. And David, I'd hope that you would take that as a compliment. Thanks for joining us.
BROCK: Thanks for having me on, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Is this typical for O'Reilly? Mischaracterize what someone said, smear them and then when they respond smear them and mix in some righteous indignation and insist, "I never resort to personal attacks"?
BROCK: Yeah, absolutely, Keith. As you know, we at Media Matters closely monitor the O'Reilly shows, both the television and radio shows, and this is absolutely part of a pattern. In this case, there is a gross misrepresentation by O'Reilly of what the paper said; they didn't say what he said they said. And this is a part of dishonest pattern of media criticism on his part. And we've documented other cases of, particularly attacks on local newspapers, on this subject of child sex offenders -- saying that the Houston Chronicle, for example, thought a child-sex-offender law was too harsh, when that's not what the Chronicle said, and O'Reilly had to admit he was wrong. Saying that the Hartford Courant in Connecticut opposed mandatory minimums; when you look at the editorial, they didn't even mention mandatory minimums. So this is part of a pattern -- and also, the attacks on his critics. We have him on the record, and we have a video on our website at mediamatters.org where he is on the record saying he doesn't do personal attacks, and then we have several clips of calling [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] a sissy, saying [Sen.] Barbara Boxer [D-CA] is a nut, and calling Media Matters vile and despicable.
OLBERMANN: As I pointed out here before, if he didn't do personal attacks, he'd be a mime. Do you think, having watched this as carefully as you do, that something is escalating within him? I mean, first there was the threat to the callers to his radio show who mentioned my name -- they are gonna get the Fox police after them. Then, the threat to the Dayton Daily News demanding an apology. We didn't even mention the fact that he gave out the email of this man, Jeff Bruce, on TV on Monday. This stuff is bordering on harassment now. Does the emergency brake on the O'Reilly Express seem to have broken off to you?
BROCK: Well, you know, it's always hard to explain what goes on in Bill O'Reilly's mind, so --
OLBERMANN: If anything.
BROCK: -- I'm not really going to try to do that. But I think it's fair to say in the past couple of years that Bill O'Reilly has gotten more scrutiny. More people are aware of the dishonesty, the serial lying that goes on on that show, and that he's systematically is misinforming the public, and he doesn't seem to have a lot of humor about that criticism. But the criticism is entirely valid, and people can go to our website and see that we reproduce the audio and the video transcripts of every item we do, and it's so it's all there for people to see, and it's all documented. And clearly, he doesn't -- he's not comfortable with the scrutiny.
OLBERMANN: Here on this program, we have probably spent too much time chronicling what he does, but he does just toss up these softballs at us, and it's too much fun. But give me the serious answer to this: Why does it matter? Why does he merit monitoring or scrutiny? What threat does he pose?
BROCK: Well, I think the serious answer is The New Yorker has a profile of the show this week called "The Fear Factor," and they say in there that O'Reilly today occupies in cable news world the same position that Walter Cronkite occupied for network news. So. clearly. he has an impact, he's affecting the public debate, he's the face of Fox, which is the top cable-rated channel. You know very well that studies have shown that Fox viewers were systematically misinformed on really important things. They falsely believe that Saddam was tied to 9-11. So, all this matters. And by the way, Bill O'Reilly has popped up lately on the Today show. So this is not just a matter of Fox; it's a matter of really documenting that he's misinforming the public, and we think media matters.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, we heard about that Today show thing. That got around the building. But give me -- just so people know in case they don't, your history with him, or the Media Matters history with him. When he refers to the rest of us echoing left-wing smear merchants, he's referring to your site, isn't he?
BROCK: He is, yeah. And on three occasions last fall, he specifically talked about our site as the worst political smear site in America and has called our staff vile and despicable ankle-biters. And it is the case that it is our mission to document the falsehoods on that show, and we post all of that to our website at mediamatters.org, and we view ourselves as a resource, but our research can be checked by others. We have never said that he said anything that he didn't say, so we're very accurate in that. And so, that's really the history, I think, that he hasn't been systematically, in this way, monitored and analyzed before, and it's clearly getting to him.
OLBERMANN: And it's clearly for the public benefit. We thank you for it. And it's a good thing he didn't use any personal attacks in describing Media Matters for America. David Brock of that organization. Great thanks.
BROCK: Thank you.
they'd sell our children for food to other countries.
Fake outrage over our children.
From what I've seen of the articles so far, these 'vile far-left' papers have simply stated that when it comes to dealing with rogue judges, there should be organized due process instead of a dramatic, media-based 'Falafel Boy Fatwa'.
In the case of the Dayton Daily News, I have yet to see Mr. O quote the articles or post any links to them. All his audience gets is his interpretation of what the DDN wrote. Could it be that Papa Bear doesn't want his audience to know both sides?
TV News is way too important for 1/2 hour shots in the evening -- and way too important for FAUX News, too. FAUX News sells stupid to the happily stupid. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and house liberal Colmes, Brit Hume, the FAUX fake journalist - the only one worth a damn is Chris Wallace and I'd say he's skating on thin ice. Say what you will about MSNBC and CNN - but they are GENUINE news outlets, not the parody that is FAUX News.
I live here in Dayton and know many people that work at the Dayton Daily News. As usual, O'Reilly is spinning the argument to make it sound the way he wants.
Here is the original article: [link to www.daytondailynews.com]
They do not agree with the judge's decision as O'Reilly claims, but think that "Ohio is best served by a court system governed by due process — not gutless politicians egged on by a cable television crank." Unfortunately, most of O'Reilly's listeners are either don't know how to read or are unwilling to question anything he says. Editor Jeff Bruce later said that he was threatened by producer's of O'Reilly's show. Hopefully he doesn't get a visit from "Fox Security."
Here's a link to editor Jeff Bruce's blog: [link to www.daytondailynews.com]
"Unfortunately, most of O'Reilly's listeners are either don't know how to read or are unwilling to question anything he says." O'reilly and others like him know exactly what they are doing. If you listen to him and actually check his "sources” for these stories, the pattern becomes quit clear. He mostly attacks papers on either coast, and will use op/ed columns to "show" the bias in the paper. Forget that the purpose of an op/ed is OPinion. Forget that these papers have people doing columns for the other side of the argument. He know that most of his middle America audience have never and will never see these west coast or east coast papers. With the internet, more people can actually look up these papers and read the articles he uses, but remember the average age of his audience. Most 60-year-old people are not internet savvy. So he can continue to tell his listeners/watchers about the evils of these papers and be sure that most of them will be none the wiser.... about anything.
I'm a little uneasy whenever I hear Keith Olbermann do a BO impersonation using his Ted Baxter voice.
After all, even though he was most often a superficial blowhard jerk, deep down, Ted was really a nice guy.
O'Reilly uses the buzz phrase "activist judges" without exploring the details behind the case. Sounds like "bloviating" to me.
... these guys -- O'Reilly as the loudmouthed hood ornament -- are getting antzy...
I mean, come on. The press is liberal?? You have got to be kidding! But, these neocon propagandists are getting a sense that the PEOPLE are starting to get wise. So, we're hearing a lot of 'liberal media', blah, blah, blah.
Keep at it. We'll either enter WWIII or there'll be some change for good. It's a toss up.
Is the group that passes laws, and they passed a law about this kind of activity with minors, and they also set the potential punishments for those crimes.
So, if giving someone probation for this crime is so bad, is it not the Ohio State Legislature that is to blame for making it an option?
For those who might not know it, the reason this guy got probation was because it was deemed the best solution to protect the public.
In reality, a whole lot of why we 'punish' offenders is to protect the public, and we remove them from freedom to keep them away from the public they hurt with their crimes.
This guy got probation with mandatory counseling because it was thought that this was the best way to protect the public from him doing it again. A jail term would not have given him counseling that would prevent it happening again.
And that's really what we want. We cannot undo the damage he has already done. We can hopefully prevent it from happening again. Punishment, or discipline, is intended to teach someone to not commit that same offense again.
First, we have Lou Dobbs chiding his guests for daring to disagree wih him on the correct terms to frame a debate about immigration.
Then we have O'Reilly blasting away at newspapers for not being as full of righteous indignation as he is - even as he mischaracterises what thy wrote.
The moral?
The news is merely a tool for these guys - it only serves as a medium through which they can spew their sanctimony upon us.
Building their images and Q ratings is far more important, in their eyes, than building our national dialogue by informing the public and fostering rational debate.
Where is O'Reilly's outrage over MySpace.com, which provides pedophiles with easy access to personal information on young teenagers? The silence is deafening? I don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace.com? Naw... couldn't be that...could it? Plato
Are you against making a profit? Are you a Socialist?
They were showing a Fox "News" segment on a serial killer in the Daytona area prying on prostitutes. Horrible to be sure. However, the officer discussing the case was in one of the small cutaway boxes. While half dressed, sometimes less than half dressed co-eds , wiggled in a larger frame. Should parents be concerned, of course.
But one might also be concerned that Fox aired the footage of spring breakers right before the "Girls Gone Wild" cameras started to roll. Fox is worried about exploiting children, they seem to be doing it in prime time with an audience. Protectors of the public morality, unjiggling, my middle-aged out of rhythm backside.
The fact that this is a story that has nothing whatsoever to do with Spring Break - yet the pictures shown were about Spring Break -- is the stuff that should get a producer called on the carpet. Especially since it made The Daily Show. I'm betting that producer gets a nice attaboy or attagirl.
Meanwhile, this weekend on Fox and Friends Weekend, the host and hostettes devoted much of their airtime to a story about some woman's breast enlargement, and the subsequent legal fall out from remarks made when she returned to the office following her surgery. That became one of those dopey questions of the day!
Fox News continues to freely guffaw anatomy and sex (Neil Cavuto and his Victoria Secret stuff), while it seems to want to take a sidelong glance at sex for anything but procreation.
They repeatedly rail against the goings on during Spring Break. Yet they show it every chance they can get!
I wish they'd make up their minds. I wish they'd stop trying to make up mine!
Remember when O'Reilly used to just discuss the news, not sling dirt at his competition? He has completely lost it. He spends more time talking about the New York Times than he does the War in Iraq or the Epstein-Barr Virus.
Nobody watches The Factor for the News.
"Remember when O'Reilly used to just discuss the news, not sling dirt at his competition?"
-----
No, I don't. Mudslinging has been his stock in trade long before he ever made it to Fox.
Why has he become obsessed with this topic lately? Or is it a way to get back at judges for some reason? It appears his next agenda is to watch what judges do to see if those who engage in car pursuits ( those escaping of course) will be prosecuted or how the judges will handle their sentences which he will make a running report to his viewers. I would say this is close to bordering on harrassment against the judiciary.
But then again he seems to be becoming more violent in his own way. The other night he responded to an email from a man in Australia, that there was a bus leaving in 15 minutes for the Opera House and he should be "under" it. Then when talking with Mrs. Beth Twitty, he told her that if she wasn't getting the info she needed from Aruba, would she like him to send peope down there to rough them up a bit.
Isn't there a standard on TV for this?
It has long been the fallback position of the "law and order" Rightwing to use DUE PROCESS as a jumping-off point to identify "sympathizers".
Law and Order calls for the identification, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of CRIME. MOB RULE calls for lynching parties, leaping to judgment, reacting violently, and "SOLVING" a problem without any due process. MOB RULE requires neither LAW nor civilization.
So, whoever attempts to apply DUE PROCESS, by this rightwing tactic, becomes guilty of whatever crime is being discussed. O'Reilly has decided his latest crusade will be "FOR THE CHILDREN" (ironic, this is often used by the rightwing as a sneer against the "liberals"). Because DUE PROCESS is demanded by those who support the Constitution for ALL citizens accused of crime, this includes Child Molestors (and "enemy combattants"). Perfect for O'Reilly's application of MOB RULE: Liberals = Child Molestors.
The bonus is, every minute spent talking about Child Molestors, is a minute O'Reilly DOES NOT have to spend defending the Bush Administration.
"Tex" notes:
Let's not forget where another of K. Rupert's media outlets--his British Sunday gazetta News of the World, to be exact--had their "For Sarah" campaign against paedophiles living in close proximity to schools, child-care centres, youth clubs and suchlike between Land's End and John O'Groats actually backfire (yes!!!) on them when Angry Pitchfork-Wielding Mobs Singing the Old Horst Wessel, "Die Stem von Suid-Afrika" and Suchlike By Torchlight attempted "vigilante" campaigns as wound up only hurting innocent people in response.
Is THIS what Bill O'Reilly actually wants in the end, let alone Faux News, under the guise of "acting for the children"?
And would he only be drooling in envy if it turned out such "campaigns" resorted to sadistic vigilantism (including lynching, tar-and-feathers, usw.) in the name of Law and Order?
Hence, the need for restraint and caution, letting calmer heads prevail.
O'reilly is always the FIRST guy to jump when he feels some corporation like Walmart is being attacked. He's the first to call other people communists because they don't want those law-breaking corporations to make money.
Weel, news media is just as much a corporation. They don't care about anything but making money and selling something to their readers/viewers. Corporations don't care about children anymore than they care about anyone else that doesn't read their product. That's life. Funny how B.O. believes that a corporation should not report news or world events but should be in the business of caring. How much money is there in that Bill? NONE. That's why we have non-profits and charities and other groups you routinely bash as being far-left liberal communist groups.
But I guess it is okay for a corporation to care about the children, just so long as they don't care about saving the troops's lives, caring enough about the country to expose the governments lies, etc. NO, you only want them to care about the things that YOU say because you think you should control everything as a means of having power over them. That is just sick on a seriously mental level.
Or maybe you just want them to stop reportign your lies and sex-related legal issues?
I don't know all the particulars about this case nor am I criminal lawyer but a few facts about this incident are evident. If, as O'Reilly claims, this child was (1) forced or threatened with force; and (2) was 11 years old at the time; and (3) the defendant actually engaged in sexual contact; and (4) the conviction was for that conduct then current Ohio law mandates a life sentence. It is obvious that the defendant plead to a lesser charge for an unknown reason. My local paper, The Akron Beacon Journal, also did an editorial on this case and indicated that the case had complications and an issue with the expiration of the statute of limitations. My paper also supported Judge Conner.
It is apparent to me that we are not getting the full story on this matter from Mr.O'Reilly(no big suprise there). The use of child predators as a wedge issue is a new low for O'Reilly. He uses the issue to advance the consertative attack on the indepenence of the judiciary and for the obvious difficulties that progressives will have when we are put in a position where the defense of a larger principle may involve the due process rights of an accused/convicted child predator.
Mandatory sentences were tried and shown to be a collossal failure. We had life sentences to starving homeless persons for stealing a small amount of food, parents imprisoned for not turning in their children for simple drug abuse; persons losing their life savings without committing a crime themselves. Republican federal judges were among the most highly vocal critics of the old mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.
I'm the father of five and have no sympathy for those who would prey upon, exploit or take advantage of any child. Nevertheless, I realize that there are different gradations and degrees of child abuse. I also acknowledge that those who commit these crimes require an individual assessment to determine an appropriate punishment and the possibility of recidivism.
a plea bargain for probation is better than nothing.
We need to get ahead of right-wingers on issues.We need to show rational solutions where there are real issues and show the folly of made -up ones.We need cogent sound bites to counter right-wing bromides.
man in the mirror.
I think this could be the new eye off the Iraq ball, Gay Marriage type scare tactic and rally round the flag topic for the righties via Rove’s central planning and propaganda ministry. Notice the fight Google just put up for info concerning the same general subject. But don't confuse false insincere concern and finger pointing with real assesments or solutions from these self-righteous pundits of fear and loathing. Here we go again.