O'Reilly on "the American press": "blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually"
SUMMARY: On his radio program, Bill O'Reilly declared that "the American press" is the "most damaging institution in the country today, because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually." Later that day on The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly referred to the media as "the forces of darkness" for "working against Jessica's Law [which would institute harsher penalties for child molesters] for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons."
On the March 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Bill O'Reilly declared that "the American press" is the "most damaging institution in the country today because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually." Later that day, during a segment on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly referred to the media as "the forces of darkness" for allegedly "working against Jessica's Law [which would institute harsher penalties for child molesters] for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons."
From the March 27 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Surely, surely, every intelligent person has to say, "You gotta stop the illegal immigration." That's the bottom line. And you know our press does not care. Once again, just like with the kids, abusing the kids, MIA. No solutions, and anybody who puts forth a solution, particularly if it is an effective solution, is a racist. And that's our American press. I think the American press -- and I know you've heard me say this -- is the most damaging institution in the country today because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually. No pressure put upon anybody to solve any problem they don't like. God help you, though, if you don't give welfare and -- and, you know, payments to everybody who comes into the country, legally or illegally. God help you if you don't do that.
From the March 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, featuring criminal defense attorney and Fox News legal analyst Craig Mitnick :
MITNICK: Jessica's Law talks about putting someone in prison if they are proven to be a child molester. Well, guess what? If someone is a child molester, it's not about the judges and it's not about the lawyers, it's about one thing only -- protection.
O'REILLY: I'm glad you're on my side, but I want everyone to know this is a struggle here. The defense attorneys buy politicians off, especially in small states like Vermont where they give a lot of money, and the liberal media working against Jessica's Law for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons. And the folks have gotta know who the forces of darkness are.
MITNICK: And if they realize that Jessica's Law makes the system fairer and protects wrongly accused --
"And the folks have gotta know who the forces of darkness are."
Isn't it great when the great Sith Lord O'Reilly warns us of "who the forces of darkness are" it reminds me of when our beloved leader Bush not so long ago said that we as a country have an addiction to oil.
Irony is a wonderful thing.
O'Reilly was brave enough to come out against child abuse before being against child abuse was popular.
That takes character.
O'Reilly is into anything that he can trumpet about that makes him look good. This whole Jessica's Law thing. He complains about states not enacting it and the liberal media's opposition to it all the time. Yet, when he was told of a solution to the problem he wouldn't have a bar of it. The solution put forward by the democrats, to I think Congress, is to make Jessica's Law a federal law. Meaning, all states would have to abide by it. Why would O'reilly be opposed to this? Could it be 1. that liberals has provided the solution, or 2. that this solution or any solution for that matter, takes way his thunder.
MITNICK: "If someone is a child molester, it's not about the judges and it's not about the lawyers, it's about one thing only -- protection."
O'REILLY: "I'm glad you're on my side, but I want everyone to know this is a struggle here."
So, O'Reilly harassed women. Do we then dispense with judges and the lawyers and believe that it's about "one thing only -- protection"? Is O'Reilly now on my side and the side of all women to put men that harass women behind bars?
If he is, he's about to get a lesson in compassion, for a soft, yippy man like him will be harassed in prison.
"I'm glad you're on my side, but I want everyone to know this is a struggle here."
Yeah, Bill I understand. Everyone I know supports child molesters 100%. And sexual harassers as well. Doesn't everybody?
Liberals, as hateful Conservatives love to exploit, do think that people -- all people -- need be defended in court. (Which is kind of what something called the Consitution of the United States calls for.) Liberals generally do not simply call for "locking up criminals and throwing away the key", they call for things like "due-process" and "fairness".
Unfortunately, when criminals get these things, Conservative bigots cry foul. They always do. Always.
People need due-process and fairness, even "criminals," because in some states being caught pissing in your front yard at night makes one a "sex offender".
(Laws such as "sex offender registries" after your time in jail is up are a violation of the Constitution -- please read the thing before saying that it is not so, hint: it's an Amendment.)
What O'Reilly and his kind want are TWO STANDARDS.
Conservatives only like due process when it involves a sexual harassment suit or when they are caught taking drugs. Bill and Rush know something about this, of course in Bill's case he settled so it wouldn't go to court. Darn those dang recording devices. Oh well, the trial would have been beautiful.
I remember, your hero Al Franken was admiting in his show Air America, (and Public radio) that he survive nights SHL,using free base- COCAINE, what hipocrite- comedian....
Don't fully understand your point, here. What does that have to do with Bill OReilly's attack on the American media?
You're doing what all neo-cons do when they can't think of anything clever to say back. Use a dirty story unrelated to the issue in order to muddy it.
Neocommie, I will not call you stupid for your terrible grammar and spelling as English may not be your first language. The problem with your attempt to bash Franken is that Franken has admitted to his past drug use and does not advocate harsh penalties for drug users. Limbaugh on the other hand, has always advocated stiff prison times for drug users, and then when he was caught with vast quantities of oxycontins, got cushy rehab and somehow avoided any jail time. I have never bashed Bush for his past cocaine use because I do not feel that it has anything to do with his current job as President. I will however, bash him for his ineptitude in performing his job. See the difference?
Sometimes not. Strange.
Thanks Mr. or Mrs. Neocommie for telling me Al Franken is my hero. Can you tell me anything else about myself that I am not aware of? What color is my hair or my eyes.
Thanks.
I thought the ACLU was the most damaging institution in the country. No wait, isn't it far left smear sites? Oh, my bad, it's the secular progressives who want to kill Chistmas...
You can't be too careful these days, thank god (that bearded old white-guy god, not some incense burning lesbo kool-aid drinking goddess) that B.O. is around looking out for the little guy.
Great post. You explain why Rightwingers are SCARED all the time, paranoid, in fear of their persons constantly.
EVERYTHING is the worst danger to them. It's why they can have all the governmental POWER, and yet still claim victimhood on a daily basis. THEY are out to get the Rightwingers, and it's the Liberal's fault. No, it IS the Liberals! Liberals so damn strong while the Rightwing is so weak, and it's just not fair.
Frist says he's been VICTIMIZED by the Democrats, because those demons keep ruining our economy, borrowing and spending like there's no tomorrow. One problem, Frist: YOU ARE IN CONTROL. Not a bill has passed in the past 12 YEARS that your controlling GOP didn't want passed. The Dems have no power.
I can almost see that Frist putz at home, yelling in his mirror, pointing his finger, saying "It's all YOUR fault!" Nah, that would call for a SANE mind.
happened to the Frist insider trading investigation? Has it been postponed until mid-Nov. 2008?
The tired notion of 'liberal media' just never gets old for these clowns. Do people still believe it?
"the most damaging institution in the country today because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually" You got it Bill. Congratulations.
The concept of the MSM as radically partisan towards the left is really the grandaddy of all straw man arguments. It was set up decades ago as justification for the "balanced" point of view presented by Faux News and the many radio demagogues that poison today's airwaves. They sell themselves and their hateful ideological balther as "news you won't find anywhere else" and the "TRUTH", ammunition in the epic struggle against the hated anti-God, anti-American, pro-terrorist, secularist liberals.
And speaking of "the forces of darkness", I think the ones we should fear the most are those that allow a bullying sexual harrasser to have this much power and exposure.
Agreed. The hypocrisy is painful.
Imagine a "liberal" press that is mainly owned by huge corporations, which the last time I looked, weren't very liberal at all. Just the opposite.
Weird.
Liberal Corporation is an oxymoron, sorta like "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.
Corporations here have human status; as the movie shows, if they were humans, they would be sociopaths.
The Coporation is brilliant. I have advised everyone I know to see it.
See "THE CORPORATION". It's just been officially endorsed.
....it's Bill O'Reilly. This guy is the poster child for intellectualy dishonesty.
I think the American press -- and I know you've heard me say this -- is the most damaging institution in the country today because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually.
It was too much to hope that O'Reilly was having a moment of clarity and offering a mea culpa, wasn't it.
"the American press" is the "most damaging institution in the country today, because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually."
O'falafel finally says something I completely agree with and since he had his sense of irony sugically removed at birth has no idea HE is one of the worst offenders. Yeah, Bill. And the best thing you can do to combat the intellectual dishonesty is STOP PARTICIPATING IN IT.
I am still confuse: who is animy of our country: Bill O'Rally or islamofashists....? You latly forget Rush.... I think he is the BIGEST EINIMY OF our future countryUSSA(United States Socialist of America)
I shudder to think what BO's replacement for "the American press" would look like - though it'd probably resemble something Duhhbya and Karl Rove would approve of.
With all of its problems now and over the last few centuries, if there had not been an "American press", there wouldn't be a country called "The United States of America."
America's greatest threats are not external, they are from within and the ferocity of recent attacks on the press are a bad sign.
It'd probably resemble Nazi Germany.
Iran, Syria, North-Korea, China, Vietnam etc.
forgot to include Iraq.
It would probably most resemble Pat Robertson's dream. A christian theocracy. Those re-education camps would sure be fun eh?
... especially with all of them having Madrasas with crosses.
"I shudder to think what BO's replacement for 'the American press' would look like"
-----
O'Reilly should be renaming the "No-Spin Zone" the "All-Pravda Zone" any time now...
There he goes again....
O'Reilly claims that he dosen't do personal attacks. Yet he says: "The defense attorneys buy politicians off, especially in small states like Vermont where they give a lot of money..."
Branding criminal defense attorneys as "buying off" politcians for the protection of child predators sure sounds like a personal attack to me. Also, O'Reilly is the first to slam liberals for making accusations without (what he considers adequate) evidence. Where is Mr. O'Reilly's evidence for this outrageous accusation against criminal defense attorneys?
Typical dishonest, double standard doublespeak we can always be sure of from Mr. O'Reilly
lemme see... could it be Faux News is sthe most damaging institution? Or could it be "The O'Reilly Factor" itself? Perhaps it's the courts who protect his balderdash under the First Amendment??? Of course not, because those of us who truly believe in the Constitution protect his right to spout his special brand of garbage... my hope each and every day that people will soon tire of his lies, his drivel, his nonsense. We can all hope, can't we?
"...liberal media working against Jessica's Law for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons. And the folks have gotta know who the forces of darkness are."
He seems to believe that cons care more about kids than libs. By choice, I taught marginalized children (raped, illiterate, angry, etc.) in marginalized groups (a reservation, inner city, Appalachia, etc.) for 23 years. I'm Harvard-educated and could have converted that degree into cash, but I applied it for compassion. Those who walked into darkness with me and cared for recalcitrant, righteously raging children were all liberals. Every single one. Now, this is empirical data, but it's also 2.3 decades of empirical data in sundry domains. Had I ever looked to my left or right on those battlefields and saw a con, I would have been startled...and I would have embraced that person.
I also, after years of working with problematic children, after my deluge of data about the infrastructure of social and educational inequity, still believe in due process, which O'Reilly seems to dismiss as "crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons."
I know what the forces of darkness are: it isn't libs. It isn't cons. Darkness comes from ignorance. I don't believe that O'Reilly is an evil man, but I do believe that he's an ignorant man. A swaddled man.
I also believe that O'Reilly believes he's doing what's best for children. I think he believes that retribution best serves children. However, he should inform himself before he opines. O'Reilly, you can contact me through MM. I'll share some things. We'll visit a ghetto. We'll go onto a res and into some homes. It will inform your opinions. It will humble you.
O'Reilly is so self-confident that he will not take notice of those people and their situation, but will probaly say that they do not want to work and the liberals by helping them create an environment in which more and more people don't want to work.
That you didn't meet many or any conservatives doing the work you were doing. Just like most artists aren't conservative either. Gee, I wonder why?
Conservative: resistant to change, Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
...datum for that too. I'm now an artist. Artists are agents of change. Unless one is willing to copy the masters, to replicate the same old, same old, being a conservative and being creative might be mutually exclusive. However, con man does have a supple mind, so there are still surprises in the world.
The strategies of the GOP seem to work well and were in the beginning pretty creative, although it seemed all to be to smear based on hatred towards a party that was endorsed by many Americans for approximately 30 years.
It is probably consevatism proper, but also pure hatred towards everything with a label deocrat or liberal on it. By using lies, smears, partial lies and destortions the GOP succeeded in winning the minds of the majority of the voters (i.e., not the American people), possibly supported by fundamental and not-so-fundamental christians that were summoned to vote for christians promoting christianity in politics.
There has been political creativity on the Right in the pursuit of power. It's a pity that it wasn't applied to something finer. Something good for more than those bearing privilege.
projection, projection, projection. Like most of these right-wing bloviators, what O'Really says is mostly just a projection of his own attitudes, beliefs and words.
Most of what O'Bully says about others is just a projection of his own issues and failings.
O'Reilly wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it spit in his face, but then his fans don't exactly tune in for the intellectual discourse.
while reading JEssica's Law, i find that the people writing it truely believe that molestors are strangers lurking in the dark, who have never seen the child before the attack. I have no quantifiable data aside from personal conversations, but i believe, in the realm of child rape, that parents or relatives are often the first to harm a child. And i have talked with many counselors for severly abused children, throughout the years as more and more of my friends revealed that something had happened to them when they were a child and that something was their family. The taboo of child rape must leave us , if we are to truely create appropriate laws that become a true use to america. However, due to the taboo of talking about and creating a painful yet needed discourse or dialog on the subject matter we now have jessica's law, which is rife with portions that remind me of salem. there is too much 'intent to...' I see this law would be used effectively against innocent people ( and even once is not good enough) Further more children arent molested by ' some peurto-rican guy' it is closefriends and family. ( remember i am not talking of the minority of stranger induced incidents. ) I am speaking of the repeated rape by a drunk father, lets say, who tells the daughter/son that a scary monster will eat her or her brother will go away if she tells anybody. and this repeated mind-&$%# programming is almost always repeated or constantly fought against in adulthood. NOW PEOPLE we need to be more open to this discourse so that we can create laws that heal wounds and take away fear and do not create new wounds and new fear
BOTTOM LINE : the idea is right, the execution is wrong due to ignorance of reality
Psychologists have a name for this kind of problem, don't they? It's more specific than the generic "sociopath" and it applies specifically to people who accuse others of exactly what they're doing, of a Goebbels accusing someone else of being a Goebbels, for example.
Bill says the left is "working against Jessica's Law for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons." What reasons could he be referring to? He never specifies. My problem with Jessica's law is that it takes the case out of the hands of judges whom we elect to pass sentences. What's next, an Automated Sentencing Machine (ASM)? The defendant can stand in front of the machine, punch in his crime, and out comes his automatic sentence. What about mitigating circumstances? What about rehabilitation? What about degrees of assault? Not to mention the fact that the mandatory minimum is WAY too long. I'm not in favor of 6months, but the alternative CAN NOT be 20 years. That's "crazy", and "nutty".