O'Reilly on Media Matters: "a far-left swamp pit ... that just attacks people with whom they disagree"
On the January 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing Missouri kidnapping victim Shawn Hornbeck, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly called Media Matters for America "a far-left swamp pit. A disgusting website that just attacks people with whom they disagree and takes things out of context all day long." O'Reilly elaborated that "they'll take an hour discussion we do here on The Radio Factor, and then they'll transcribe two minutes of it and leave out all the other stuff. ... [I]t's a cheap game. They've been doing this for years. And everybody with any intelligence knows it." As with his previous attacks on Media Matters, O'Reilly did not offer a single example of Media Matters' taking his remarks out of context. Media Matters provides transcripts, with full context, and, when available, audio or video clips of O'Reilly's remarks in items about him.
O'Reilly attacked the co-hosts of ABC's The View for allegedly "go[ing] on the Internet ... to a place called Media Matters," and using information gleaned from Media Matters regarding controversial remarks he made about Hornbeck to criticize O'Reilly. On the January 18 broadcast of The View, co-host Joy Behar asserted that O'Reilly "should apologize, in my opinion, to the parents and to the child" for "almost ... blaming the kid" for being held captive for four years. Commenting on Behar's statement, co-host Rosie O'Donnell asserted that O'Reilly had that reaction because "the kid has a pierced lip." On his January 18 radio show, O'Reilly responded by calling O'Donnell "[b]ias[ed]"; stated, "I couldn't care less if the kid has a pierced lip"; and claimed that Behar and O'Donnell are "making it a political situation." Also, on the January 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, after complaining that "[t]he far-left smear websites have vilified me," O'Reilly claimed that O'Donnell's remarks were "completely absurd," and asked, "But what else is new?"
As Media Matters has previously noted (here and here), O'Reilly said of Hornbeck -- who was abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri -- that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances"; that O'Reilly "do[esn't] buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing"; that he "believe[d]" that Hornbeck did not enjoy school; and stated: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."
Further, on the January 15 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly did indeed note Hornbeck's "piercings" in discussing his views on the Hornbeck kidnapping. While discussing the case with fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, O'Reilly stated: "[T]his is why I don't believe in the Stockholm syndrome -- this guy, Shawn Hornbeck, gone four years, 11 to 15, authorities actually say he taunted his own parents on their website. He, you know, has got the piercings. He's -- I mean, this is a troubled kid."
O'Reilly has previously attacked Media Matters as being "smear merchants," "assassins," and "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country," among other things, despite claiming not to "do personal attacks here."
From the January 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK. So, there you go. And I think Miss [Oprah] Winfrey handled it very well. You know, you just don't want to push the kid, who's obviously traumatized. And I think she handled it as well as anybody could handle it. Now, I can't say the same for the View ladies.
You've gotta understand how this goes down. The View ladies don't watch The O'Reilly Factor or listen to The Radio Factor. They don't do it. What they do is go on the Internet, and they go to -- particularly Joy Behar and Rosie O'Donnell -- to a place called Media Matters, which is a far-left swamp pit. A disgusting website that just attacks people with whom they disagree and takes things out of context all day long.
For example, they'll take an hour discussion we do here on The Radio Factor, and then they'll transcribe two minutes of it and leave out all the other stuff. So the total context of the remarks, never know 'em. And it's a cheap game. They've been doing this for years. And everybody with any intelligence knows it. But still, you have people going on there and using this stuff, and it's just one of the bad parts about living in America and being in the media.
[...]
O'REILLY: When I was growing up, I can't imagine that any of my friends or myself or anybody -- because, you know, it never happened and nobody's ever -- but we were pretty tough kids at age 11. Now, this kid, I don't how he was brought up. I don't know anything about him. All right? And the line about Rosie O'Donnell, "You know why? Because he has a pierced lip."
You know, all of that just shows Miss O'Donnell's -- what word --
LIS WIEHL (co-host): Be nice.
O'REILLY: Bias? Is that all right?
WIEHL: That's OK. Yeah.
O'REILLY: You know, yeah. I couldn't care less if the kid has a pierced lip. But this is what they throw out there, all right, making it a political situation.
From the January 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Oprah told her audience there were ground rules for the interview and she could not ask Shawn on camera why he didn't try to escape from Devlin. Off camera, apparently he told her he was too scared to leave the predator.
This case has captivated the entire country and is now becoming political. The far-left smear websites have vilified me for raising questions about the situation, and, predictably, the View ladies took the bait.
[begin video clip]
BEHAR: Bill O'Reilly has said that he does not believe in the Stockholm syndrome. You know, this kid who was kidnapped in Missouri -- isn't it Missouri? Yeah. He says that --
ELISABETH HASSELBECK (co-host): That it rarely happens.
BEHAR: -- that it rarely happens. He doesn't believe -- he thinks that the kid basically was free to roam around and could have gone home and, "Why didn't he?" Almost like blaming the kid. I think it's really abominable.
O'DONNELL: Yeah. Do you know why he thought that?
HASSELBECK: Why?
O'DONNELL: Because the kid has a pierced lip.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: Well, it's completely absurd. But what else is new? Cutting through all the nonsense, the bottom line on this story is that Shawn Hornbeck fell victim to evil, pure evil. And every American parent should use this case to instruct their own children on how to confront evil, because sooner or later, they will have to. Simplistic stuff like Stockholm syndrome and the like get us nowhere.
[...]
O'REILLY: Wait a minute. Can you point to one sentence that I said that placed blame on him? I consistently said he was a victim.
JANE HALL (assistant professor in the School of Communication at American University): I think you said, "Why didn't he escape when he could?" And I think you also said --
O'REILLY: That's not blaming him, Jane.
HALL: -- he might have enjoyed.
O'REILLY: It's doing the job. My job is to be a journalist.
HALL: I think you also said he might -- wait, didn't you also say he might have enjoyed the life and liked not going to school? If -- I mean, that's on a website. Maybe it is not the whole story.
O'REILLY: Of course it's not the [unclear]. And it's ridiculous. I raised the question that there was an element of captivity that the boy just talked about, Bernie [Goldberg, author], where he didn't have to go to school. He didn't have to do anything but sleep and play video games. And, again, that was my reporting. And that's true. I haven't said one thing that isn't true.
From the January 18 edition of ABC's The View:
BEHAR: Bill O'Reilly has said that he does not believe in the Stockholm syndrome. You know this kid who was kidnapped in Missouri -- isn't it Missouri? Yeah. He says that --
HASSELBECK: That it rarely happens.
BEHAR: -- that it rarely happens. He doesn't believe -- he thinks that the kid basically was free to roam around and could have gone home and, "Why didn't he?" Almost like blaming the kid. I think it's really abominable.
O'DONNELL: Yeah. Do you know why he thought that?
HASSELBECK: Why?
O'DONNELL: Because the kid has a pierced lip.
BEHAR: Is that -- what that's got to do with anything? First of all, the kid was kidnapped at gunpoint. Now we know that the guy had a gun. OK.
O'DONNELL: And he also had kiddie porn on his computer.
BEHAR: The guy is a perv and a pedophile.
HASSELBECK: And even if this guy was -- because I believe O'Reilly compared this to the Smart case. And he said, you know, where she was, Elizabeth Smart was with -- you know, kind of surrounded by this guy at all times and kind of capped off and not able to go anywhere. He's saying this young man had some free area to roam.
And even if you have physical area to roam, if you know that the threat is there, that someone may harm your family. We don't know what this man said to him. He may harm his family or, "I'm gonna find you." And, "I found you once, I can find you again." That threat alone is paralyzing enough for someone who's held in captivity.
BEHAR: But he's basically indicting this kid and saying that the kid was -- he didn't have to go to school and he was a having a good time, and that's why he stayed, I don't think so. I think he's probably -- I'm just alleging this -- probably been raped by the guy and abused by the guy. And Bill O'Reilly is off-base, and he should apologize, in my opinion, to the parents and to the child. I really do believe that.
From the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
VAN SUSTEREN: Is that, first of all, you know, we don't know exactly -- we don't know all the facts. But don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and did not. She was on the public street. For some reason, when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults, they are very receptive to what the adults do. So I would not so quickly dismiss the Stockholm. And remember, he was a kid when he was picked up. He was 11.
O'REILLY: OK, but the difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this guy was always hovering around the little girl. And she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was.
Now. What we have learned, and this is why I don't believe in the Stockholm syndrome -- this guy, Shawn Hornbeck, gone four years, 11 to 15, authorities actually say he taunted his own parents on their website. He, you know, has got the piercings. He's -- I mean, this is a troubled kid, in my opinion.
VAN SUSTEREN: I wouldn't -- the piercings -- I mean, look, a lot of kids do piercings and don't do things like that. As far as the taunting goes on the website, I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents.
Now, was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer, then that means either Michael Devlin did it, Shawn did it, or someone with access to the computer.
At least MM shows the original source.
Billy Boy can't stand it when what he claims to do is actually done to him. He's a liar and a coward. He thinks that if he says that he's going to hold people to what they say than he can complain when someone else holds him to what he says.
Of course be prepared for the "Truth Detector" to show up and use the ratings line of BS to defend this walking sack of fecal matter.
...never attacks people with whom he disagrees.
Viewers no longer even ask for citations or what "far left" means.
ANYONE they disagree with is a "leftist"....an anti-concept of ever increasing boundaries.
I post on FPM sometimes and you will read so many rants about "leftists" who ALWAYS do so and so and ALL believe this or that...and I always ask...WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????
David Horowitz has made his superobjective to establish this anti-concept in the mind of every man, woman and child...
All cults need to fear the "other"....
like his stylist brushes off his splotches....with attention to detail
"Swamp pit"?
Once again I am dissed. I beg your pardon Bill, this is not an "exclusively" far left swamp pit.
In the words of Effie, "What about me???"
I just saw it last week and I loved it. When O'Rielly has his final breakdown on air and Fox security is dragging him of the set, maybe he'll break out in his very own rendition of ‘I am telling you I'm not Going.’
It's a swamp pit. And we're swampin' "all day long" baby.
You have been here a long time. I think you got dissed
Is a rotten egg ;-)
if this is a swamp pit then beware the wrath of Swamp Thing.
Now go eat some Falafel before your kid buggery meeting. I bet O'Reilly is old fashioned, so he keeps hard candy in his pocket when he goes to the school yard.
Someone calls you out, and they're attacking you? I don't see any overt attacking on here by the MM staff against their so-called targets. So Bill, what do you think they got wrong? Where do you think they're smearing you? Tell us, and maybe, or maybe we'll not agree, but if you could point out some examples, I'd be more than willing to check them out and see if what you're saying is true or not.
he said that MM only shows part of what he says and not the entire show. So I'd think that if loudmouth can dig up additional footage showing otherwise, then good for him. But I strongly suspect there is nothing in the rest of his show that would back his claim.
there are a number of times that MMFA has been inaccurate and has unfairly attacked Bill.
"MEDIA MATTERS Watch" has some past examples.
Every other post, you link to some hack conservo-troll "SomethingWatch" website that claims to have "the whole story". Do you really think anyone is going to your little websites and reading anything?
(Actually, In all fairness, I'd go there for a laugh. But that's about it.)
I went to that web site and, I have to tell you...it's crap...
I read 4 examples and THEY all were wrong...one talked about the number of times Rush Windbag was cited in the news and the site said it was PROBABLY due to his arrest...it did NOT refute MMFA's claim. Another talked about Ann 'I shall have the Dali Lama's head by sundown' Coutler endnotes where MMFA FACTUALLY pointed out an ERROR in the notes and your site said 'It SHOULD have been something else...'- it does NOT refute MMFA's claim. The other was about global warming, which is a FACT, your site is WRONG!!
and it was about mmfa calling out john stossel and his attempts to minimize man made global warming. and the "author" of the site, who i have no doubt is shoes, says: "it is flat out 100% false that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming". then he goes on to cite a couple scientists who disagree. but he apparently does not understand plain english. consensus does not require every scientist to agree. it just requires the vast majority. which happens to be the case. all that time wasted on that nonsense site, shoes?
that's quite a "consensus" you have going there!
JAMES SPANN: I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. (source and link)
"Consensus"? Only at Laurie David's and Al Gore's homes.
you're making an utter fool of yourself.
You realize that means "weatherman", which means "got too old to act/model before being discovered".
Talk about "quite a consensus". Har!
Next up from shoes89-- financial advice from the chick who points to the prizes on The Price is Right.
Stay Tuned for more upcoming Cartoons featuring SHOES!Brought to you by Florsheim.
If Media Matter was reporting on Mother Teresa I would hold them to her standards.*Now...On the other end of the Spectrum, when MM reports on a cheap, no count, disgusting, attacking swamp dweller like Oh! Really?? Truly IS, - Then I think it should be a no holds barred report. That should get the same medicine he delivers day after day etc. etc.That said, I have not agreed with every single report from MM, but most are very accurate. When a mistake is made corrections are forthcoming.
"Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics"
[link to epw.senate.gov]
and clicked the link.
It was pitiful. To think of the valuable time of someone's finite life wasted on writing that site when they could have better spent it watching Spongebob or building a basement fort with their empty poptart boxes makes me sad.
Your sites are NEVER worth going to and NEVER do what you claim they do.
I actually went to the site just to check it out. If that's the best you've got, MM has nothing to worry about. Besides the facts that your attempts to call out MM have no actual....how do I put this? FACTS so to say.
I love how the title obscures the subtitle. Why doesn't Media Matters have that?
[IMG][link to img.photobucket.com]
[link to img.photobucket.com]
My bad.
the first two items I looked at were pretty weak.
ex; O'Reilly says that Liberal radio hosts are mentioned more in the media than conservatives.MMFA counts decidedly more mentions of cons. Your site speculates that it's "most likely" that articles about Rush were related to his drug problem, rather than positive reports.
"most likely"? Isn't this a research site debunking MMFA?Did they get tired of reading?
ex: MMFA questions BilldO's assertion that newspapers are mostly liberal. MMFA checks Presidential endorsements by paper, sees that O'Reilly is lying. Your site advises their "smart" readers that a presidential endorsement isn't a very good indicator of a newspaper's politics (?!),suggesting these "smart" readers check the Op-ed page, where liberals "permeate".-- Not "dominate", not "outnumber", but "permeate".
Which means ,according to your guys, if a newspaper endorsed GW bush for prez, they may very well be liberals, but if they have any non-right wing editorials, they must be liberals.
Sorry I only had time for a couple, but you get the idea. If you're one of their "smart" readers.
Actually, I want to thank you for this link. I used to hate O'Reilly because I read MMFA everyday and just wrote him off as some crazy right-winger... then one of my conservative friends challenged me to watch him for a week. As much as I hate admitting it, I was wrong. I don't really agree with O'Reilly, but he's not some rightwing Rupug and he bases his opinions on fact. He also respects people who disagree with him as long as they base their opinions on fact. Having a site calling MMFA on their mis-steps and unfair portrayals is needed so that people vilified day in and day out on MMFA can get a fair shake. I still like MMFA and they do get some stuff right, but obviously a site dedicated to pointing out misteps ONLY on the right is going to have some extreme bias and hatred mixed in. The left is just as corrupt and dangerous as the right.
"he actually did point it out he said that MM only shows part of what he says and not the entire show"
And because of this, Media Matters often paints a distorted picture of O'Reilly. They simply post his most controversial comments, and they say nothing about the many good points he makes. I'll admit that O'Reilly makes a view stupid comments from time to time, but he also makes good comments the majority of the time. You guys get a one sided picture not only of O'Reilly, but of self described conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity as well. For example, O'Reilly in the past has repeatedly criticized the oil companies for price gauging, has advocated raising the minimum wage to about $7.50 per hour, and he has advocated support for civil unions for gays. These actually seem like liberal positions to me, but Media Matters doesn't report on this, and you guys get a one sided view of O'Reilly. Don't get me wrong, I still think that O'Reilly is conservative on about 80-90% of the issues, but he isn't an ideologue like Hannity and Limbaugh. He looks at each issue individually and comes to mostly conservative conclusions, but reaches a few liberal conclusions as well. You can's say the same about Hannity and Limbaugh. There are obviously real differences.
So MMfA is supposed to post the whole show, or what? The suggestion didn't have anything to do with other topics. O'Reilly was talking about an hour-long discussion. What's the "total context" that's going to help? He says the kid was enjoying his captivity to stay out of school. What was the context in the show that changes that? Did he preface it with "for this segment, I'm going to say things I don't mean" or "it's opposite day!" or "I'd have to be a total jackass to claim..."? No, I don't think so.
And incidentally, your suggestion seems to be that because he comes to liberal conclusions 10-20% of the time, nobody should report the outrageous comments and flat-out lies that support the rest of his views. That's a rather nonsensical stance, obviously.
you said we get a one sided view of limbaugh and hannity, and then later you say o'reilly isn't an ideoloque like limbaugh and hannity. ?????
Good catch...we're only getting a "one-sided view" of Hannity and Limbaugh because of this site, but then he admits they're total conservatives. What's the "other side" we're supposed to see about them?
My point is that Media Matters only posts the most controversial comments made by Limbaugh and Hannity without any kind of context. 99% of the time, Limbaugh simply talks about the issues from a conservative view point. Every once in a while, he says something controversial that most of you slam as being "sexist," "racist" etc. My point is that you should actually listen to Limbaugh's or Hannity's show sometime rather than simply taking Media Matters word for it.
My point is that Media Matters only posts the most controversial comments made by Limbaugh and Hannity without any kind of context.
Often times, Limbaugh, Hannity, and others aren't just saying controversial things, they are outright lying or using tortured logic. And regardless of whether or not this is typical of every single one of their broadcasts, Media Matters has enough examples to show that these are NOT isolated incidents. Perhaps relatively rare (as you claim), but NOT irrelevant.
Um, you're admitting yourself that the comments are "controversial". How is the rest of the program supposed to provide "context" for that? Again, does he say it's "opposite day" or something?
I have listened to both of them. They're intellectually dishonest, if not plain lying, with alarming frequency. Or am I supposed to listen to both of them every day, by your standard of "the whole picture"?
is going to hurt, I won't do it. Having to sit and listen even if it's as you claim and less offensive is not a good use of my time. Out of context excuses don't apply here. I don't care what they said before or after whats posted at MMfA. I challenge you truthinjector to listen to Randi Rhodes or Ed Schulz, and check out their facts and compare to Limbaugh or any of others. It doesn't compare. One day you may actually detect the truth but so far it has alluded you.
"if you listen to enough lies, they don't hurt as much!"
Other than that unfortunate shooting your husband in the head thing, how did you like the play? Its about misinformation. Even IF what you said was true, which is really just your opinion, it doesnt give him a pass on his misinformation. If someone tells the truth most of the time but lies when it suits them it still makes them a liar. YOU HAVE NO POINT.
For example, O'Reilly in the past has repeatedly criticized the oil companies for price gauging, has advocated raising the minimum wage to about $7.50 per hour, and he has advocated support for civil unions for gays.
The oil companies' price gouging and $7.50 per hour minimum wage are not liberal issues; if you disagree w/ these two issues you're way out of the mainstream. His support for civil unions (if it is true) is surprising.
"His support for civil unions (if it is true) is surprising"
Ya it's true. He also supports gun control, opposes the death penalty, and believes that the government should take steps to stop global warming.
Guess What Truth, It's not MM's objective to cover Oh! Really when he's acting like Mother Teresa. They report on him when he acts like himself.
really helps people lose weight, but nobody ever mentions that.
To Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly. And you're right relative to Rush, Hannity O'Reilly has more varied views. But again that is relative to Rush and Hannity so I don't know how much that is saying.
I stopped listening to them many moons ago. Even before Media Matters came into being I identified them as vastly entertaining but in essence cowards (cannot debate only pontificate or bully), came up with incredibly stupid arguments, were so anti-liberal as to be ridiculous and to boot were consistently dishonest.
Not talking about making mistakes, we all make mistakes. Intentionally misrepresenting facts or making up facts is dishonest.
Truth Detector? NOT!Guess What Truth, It's not MM's objective to cover Oh! Really when he's acting like Mother Teresa. They report on him when he acts like himself.When on Earth are you going to tune in to Reality Truth!
...we change the name to FarLeftSwampPit.org! I love it!
just too subtle.
How about "far left commie pedophile tax-raising America-hater Satan's whorehouse puppy-strangling granny-punching bible-burning flag-desecrating gay-marriage troop-demoralizing swamp pit on a sesame seed bun".
For starters.
We should also add, "cowardly, treasonous, appeasers" as well.
seems a little over-the-top.
care for some cheese with that whine?
Cutting through all the nonsense, the bottom line on this story is that Shawn Hornbeck fell victim to evil, pure evil.
Because Bill is right when he said this.
AFTER HE SAID THE KID WAS HAVING FUN.....get it,
That sentence doesn't really mean anything. Does it say Stockholm syndrome or that he is strictly a victim or that he is evil himself?
Nobody is debating that. Do you give bill a pass on the rest of the crap he said about the kid?
Sprinkling sugar on top of poo does not make it edible.
If we all cared about this kid, we would report less on O'Reilly and try to force politicans to come up with better solutions to protect our children. MMFA is helping defocus the issue of this poor boy and so is everyone here who is harping on O Reilly and not the ordeal of this poor kid.
So nobody should be calling bill out on what he said. This case has had national atention for days now.
Do you excuse what o'reily said?
Of course I dont excuse what O"reilly said , but I watched what he said and I dont get the impression that this site is giving that he is a child molester and supports this evil psycho who kidnapped this boy.
Could you please clarify what you are trying to say ? No offense, but I couldn't quite follow your last post.
The purpose of Media Matters is to expose conservative misinformation in the media, not cure all the ills of society.
They're doing their job by pointing out O'Reilly's statements.
Child kidnapping is not a conservative or liberal issue, its a national tragedy. To say that MMFA is reporting it because Conservatives support Devlin is disgusting and unproductive.
O'Reilly is a social conservative, and he is making a conservative, authoritarian "spare the rod, spoil the child" argument.
No one has said that conservatives support child molesters... but there is irony to the fact that O'Reilly's position trivializes this child's suffering.
Where did I say child kidnap is a conservative or liberal issue???
I also never claimed that MMFA is reporting this because conservatives support Devlin.
You really need to check your reading comprehension skills.
You questioned why MMFA is focusing on Bill O'Reilly's comments instead of on the situation with this child, and I tried to point out to you that Media Matters exists to point out outrageous and/or untrue comments by conservatives, and O'Reilly made outrageous comments about this case, which he later tried to backtrack from.
Of course Media Matters is going to focus more on the comments by O'Reilly. That's all I'm saying. Media Matters is not a news website. They're not a child advocacy website. They are a media watchdog.
For that matter. If this shouldn't get any attention, why are you paying attention to this in the first place?
If it's so disgraceful, where is your outrage about what bill actually said? If you're so concerned why not address what could be done to better protect children in this country?
I have a feeling not accusing a kidnap victim who may have been molested from the age of 11 to 14 of actually liking his situation would be a good start.
Stop spending your time trying to convice not to take an objective look at the disgrace that is o'reily.
And stop trying to make this a political issue.
What was political about my statement?
What's your point in posting on this topic if you don't think anyone should be paying attention to this?
tot the topic the topic is Shawn not Bill OReilly and his stupidity.
stupidity and sensitivty to this child's circumstances. Apparently Dr. Doofus has declared stockholm syndrome a lie and pretty much saying that it's the kids fault that he didn't escape.
We are in support of Shawn. Bill is the one blaming him and we are outraged that he is shifting the blame on this "child". Why is that wrong?
and read;
Most of us here can do very little to help the kid who was kidnapped.That's a tragedy, and huge for that child, but it's the little picture.
The big picture? Blaming victims for the crimes commited against them is not a very effective way of preventing that crime from happeneing to others in the future.
While it's too late to prevent this most recent event, by pointing out Billdo's pinhead remarks, the same type that would blame women for being raped, it's possible somebody might be educated enough to play a part in preventing another occurence of this type of crime.
Somebody who has the guts to stop defending, deflecting and fabricating, and LISTEN (read).
Nobody ever, anywhere should EVER try to point out the LIES and SMEARS and PERVERTEDNESS and BLAMING THE VICTIMNESS that NEWS figures say to HUNDREDS of people...that, that...is just PLAIN WRONG!! We are helping the kidnappers win the WAR on child abductions!!
Please try to forgive all of us, Dearest, we were blind and have now SEEN THE LIGHT!!
Your sacrasm is roaring and unnecessary.
another troll. new day, new name.
"Your sacrasm is roaring and unnecessary."
-----
First off, there is no such thing as "sacrasm." Maybe it's a holy fissure. (And ye shall be fissures of men?)
Second off, it was precisely on the mark. Your post is nothing more than Dan Quayle saying, "That was totally uncalled for, Senator" after Lloyd Bentsen skewered him and let all the air out of him. You have been similarly deflated, Doris.
As I understand it, this site is specifically geared toward watching various media sources and reporting the inaccuracies or outright fallacies therein. Mr. O'Reilly has stated that he did not say what MMFA has accused him of. MMFA uses exact transcripts from his own shows and also includes video and/or audio when possible. The simple fact is that Mr. O'Reilly has not included any examples of bwing taken out of context. Besides, MMFA was not created to be a means of creating legislation or policy changes, particularly those affecting children. We have our own legislators for that (Mark Foley, anyone?)
MMFA isn't an actual news outlet to my knowledge. News is more like a byproduct, such as light from fire. I was pretty sure that the intent of MMFA was to display the bias of the current media and point out the glaring contradictions made by the people that are supposed to be giving us the news without spin.
Do you make your plumber stop plumbing to do an electrical job because its more pressing? MMFA has a specific agenda, they do a specific thing. There are other child advocacy groups that do what you suggest. MMFA is doing THEIR job, showing what a callous, piece of garbage O'reilly is. Doing THEIR job is not stopping anyone else from doing what THEY do. MMFA is not defocusing anything by focusing on THEIR job.
Oh yes he does.
Think I'll have some falafel for dinner tonight, then shower with my loofa. I have spectacular man-boobs.
O'Reilly covering his rear? Please.
As a member of the far left swamp, I say "ribbit" on his BS.
Oh my God! That has to be the funniest line Bill O'Reilly has ever uttered. Just one of the many hats worn by the brilliant and talented Mr. O... just ask him. Too funny...
I rarely ever watch Billdoe, but I watched last night because I wanted to watch Steven Colbert whoop his ass (which he did), but when Billy said, "My job is to be a journalist," I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard.
well, he *was* in combat..."with a pen"
I don't give a hoot about the kidnapping thing... which as I scanned down the transcript, I see has a sub-drama about "piercings" to it...
But as to that other pervert, not the kidnapper but the one on Fox News Channel:
I remember when there was a day when the guy refused to say MMFA's name... when he railed against it and it's mission to watch him and all the others, on behalf of the overwhelmingly great part of an American People who have not the stomach to do it themselves (such as me).
And I think he makes a mistake now, the pervert does... his initial instinct was better, not to mention MMFA by name.
Because what could happen, except that somebody who'd never heard of this website, might be made curious at the perv's suggestion, and visit it...
...and then BANG!, they would see...
How orderly and well-documented are the many citations of bias and lies and hatred there are, in this awful thing that goes by the strange name of "media".
Especially how well-documented are the citations... how accurately transcribed, and backed up with clips and recordings of the things cited.
Everybody who comes to this website, and becomes a fan of it, comes here by way of some referral or some recommendation...
...so what if it's the referral of a pervert, at least you'd have discovered the website.
The right wing-nuts are scared shiftless by this website.
Just posting what these weak, contemptible hacks say (and having a paper trail a mile long on every one of them) is their worst nightmare.
It's really a David vs. Goliath story. And it seems like Goliath is starting to leak some stuff out of his pants.
Yeah... and it's so unfair that MMFA quotes them verbatim.
...could Bill point out MMFA taking stuff out of context, as he and the other right wing liars always claim.
We lood forward to seeing your evidence loofah man.
Then he realized what liars and depraved cretins the GOP faux moralistic "Culture Warriors" were, and he fights them with their own words.
Chill out O'Reilly, and apologize, that will get you to about .00001% human.
If hypocrisy were a crime, BO would be in for multiple life sentences - and would be sharing the same cell with Hannity.
Why would you torture the rest of us by putting that mental image in our heads? The two of them in prison together? You know what goes on in prison...*Shudders* There's an image that's going to keep me awake tonight.
Donald or Billdoe?
What's a "swamp pit?"
It seems to me that there are "swamps" and there are "pits." A pit in a swamp would be... what? A deeper swamp?
I raised my hands in front of the angry mob and asked them, Who amongst you is qualified to cast the first stone against their option swamp pit?' There was a moment of silence, a moment of peace. People stopped and looked at each another. Then the air was filled with stones.
He's mad at MM because people can get his shock shtick online without seeing the ads. It's all about ratings and demos.
Too bad for Billy, the money demo watches Keith with the commercials and reads MM without the 'mercials.
You mean flinging insults to people you don't like on your website, cable show, books and Radio show, Mr Bill-O???? Gee, it's not like you use the media for a battering ram against your enemies.
Oh yeah Bill, and you never villified Howard Dean, John Kerry, the hurricane victims, UNICEF, Maureen Dowd, Jimmy Carter, kidnapped victims, Neal Gabler, George Soros, Paul Krugman, Cindy Sheehan, Media Matters, Hollywood, Madison WI, the people of Iraq (in general), Europe, Bill Moyers.
[link to www.youtube.com]
I keep hearing O'Reilly cry foul if MMFA or anybody quotes anything he says without proving the transcript for his every show since 1999. How much context does this -
O'REILLY: OK, but the difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this guy was always hovering around the little girl. And she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was.
Now. What we have learned, and this is why I don't believe in the Stockholm syndrome -- this guy, Shawn Hornbeck, gone four years, 11 to 15, authorities actually say he taunted his own parents on their website. He, you know, has got the piercings. He's -- I mean, this is a troubled kid, in my opinion.
- need?
O'Reilly, as quoted, is using the kid's pierced lip as a rational assessment of why this boy is not suffering from Stockholm syndrome, and because O’Donnell brought it up, again without devoting an hour of The View to O’Reilly, she is therefore a “leftwing slime artists”.
But when O’Reilly and the entire Fox News bullpen quoted the punch line of John Kerry’s botched George W. Bush joke out of context, that was OK, Kerry was obviously insulting the troops, never mind that all the comments before that line were about George Bush.
And there is the principal difference: the comments before the piercings comment are about the boy in question, not about some piano bar floozy Bill-O is sleazing after. In or out of context, he was attributing the piercings as proof that the boy stayed with his captor willingly.
You just attack people you disagree with. Leave the FACT MMFA is showing, lying, deciet, hypocrisy and outrageousness. I keep seeing the meme repeated in true propaganda parrot fashion on this website, no attempt to SHOW that is the reason, no showing of ANYTHING whatsoever, just repitition.
"...(Media Matters)... just attacks people with whom they disagree..."
LOL! If O'Reilly didn't have PROJECTION, he couldn't live!
'Attacking people he disagrees with, is O'Reilly's M.O. ...t's his STOCK IN TRADE for gosh sakes!! LOL
But if you really want to hear a beautiful moment in radio broadcasting, go to Ed Schultz.com, and click on the link at the top about Ed's recent comments on the Fairness Doctrine.
At the end, Ed just drills Sean Hannity. ... It's really a beautiful thing.
If you don't want MMfA "taking your remarks out of context,"
DON'T SMEAR, CALL PEOPLE NAMES, OR OUTRIGHT LIE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Have a nice day.
You guys shouldn't have been so quick to villify O'Reilly. It turns out that he was probably right about this whole thing. New reports have just come up. You should all feel very sheepish right now.
[link to www.foxnews.com]
From the article: "The report says Hornbeck identified himself to police officer Christopher Moss as Shawn Devlin and gave police no indication that he had been kidnapped. He told police the bike had been taken from outside the apartment where he lived with his alleged captor Michael Devlin."
It is irrelevant if Bill O'Reilly is dead on the money. The kid was 11, he could of done all kinds of stupid and seemingly contradictory things. The bottom line is the situation was an illegal one for a reason. O'Reilly's comments are innapropriate and insensitive and naive. He is not only claiming the kid "wanted" it, he's judged him for it too. I don't care how accurate you are with facts. In a polite society, and we are in the public sphere, such suggestions are rude. Just because a jerk is truthful doesn't make him any less a jerk.
The fact that after years he had been dominated by his captor to the point he didnt take any chance he had to escape means NOTHING. Do you know what kind of threats he had been subjected to? What kinds of humiliation that left him feeling like he COULDNT go home? No, you dont. Neither does O'falafel. It is YOU who should be embarrassed by your lack of decency, not giving the VICTIM of who knows WHAT kind of abuse the benifit of the doubt. Just because YOUexhibit no decency and O'reilly HAS no decency doesnt make you both right.
Even if Bill's assumptions do turn out to be correct it still doesn't remedy the fact that Bill made those assumptions based on 1. The fact that he allegedly had opportunities to escape and didn't and 2. The fact that he has piercings. Bill believed this kid was troubled because he has piercings, and that's the real issue that I have with Bill O. He's so stuck in the 50's that he still wants to equate physical appearance with some sort of anti-social, alienated, anti-establishment ethos.
i dont think the piercings have anything to do with anything.
Do you know anything about the psychology of child abduction? If you do, then please, do tell?
Geez. Do you liberals blame every mistake individuals make in life on some type of mental illness? You need to face the fact that there are truly ignorant and messed up people in this world. Also, did you even read the article I posted? I doubt if you did, considering that it came from Fox News. The article even stated that the kid had a girlfriend during the time he was kidnapped. Do you really think this kid was emotionally distressed when he even wanted to date a girl? It doesn't seem like he was to depressed. It seems like he liked the situation that he was in. He went to the police while he was "captive," and he didn't even tell the police he had been kidnapped! How much more proof do you need to convince you that this kid didn't want to go home? All the kid had to do was tell the police he had been kidnapped, and he would have been reunited with his parents. He was obviously content with the situation he was in.
Did the man threaten to KILL his family if he ran away? Did the man sexual molest the kid and mess with his head till he didnt think his family would want him back? YOU DONT KNOW. The VICTIM deserves the benfiti of the doubt here. You are sick for just assuming the kid LIKED being abducted and whatever was done to him. SICK
I really don't like using personal attacks, but I don't really like being called sick either. You're a complete as*hole. I simply looked at all the facts of the situation, and the only conclusion that made sense is that the kid was comfortable with the situation was in. All the evidence points to that. I don't care if that's "cold" or not. All the kid had to do was tell the cop where his captor lived, and the police would have arrested his captor. I don't care about all the "mental illness" excuses you come up with. And what about the fact that he had a girlfriend while in captivity? Doesn't that mean anything?
No, it doesn't mean anything at all.
I don't mean top sound rude, but you (and O'Reilly) are simply ignorant. Neighbors call the police on a domestic distrurbance, and cops show up to find a woman with a bloody lip cowering before her husband and she still may not let them arrest him, go with them or press charges. Sometimes a person's circumstances make him/her feel utterly helpless; sometimes circumstances alter his/her perceptions of reality or mental/ emotional state.
No one has suggested that all of any individual's bad decisions are due to mental illness, but some are. And for you and O'Reilly to claim otherwise is woefully ignorant. O'Reilly blamed a child victim for his situation, how could anyone defend that?
ChiCat
I'm not defending what the kidnapper did here. He is obviously an evil man who should go to jail for a long time. They should probably lock him up and throw away the key. My point is that there is simply an INCREASING POSSIBILITY that the boy may have liked his new life better than his old life. I'm not saying that I know that for sure, but it's becoming more and more obvious with each news story that comes out about the story. People like O'Reilly and myself shouldn't be vilified for stating the POSSIBILITY that is becoming more and more likely with each new news report on the event.
you should certainly be criticized for believing it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everything FOX says is a lie. But most investigative journalists require at least two sources before they run with a story. And anyone following the news should do the same. If more than one news broadcast is reporting the same thing I have a greater tendancy to believe it (even if one of the two is FOX) And if three are reporting it I figure it's probably true. So if you have an additional source other than FOX, now's your chance. Because I'll tell you now, FOX is the only network I've ever heard running with a story that no one else was talking about, and if they should stop talking about within two days, it was probably a lie to begin with. Their track record in this area is dismal. If it helps just think of the FOX News crew as the victim and O'Reilly being the kidnapper. After he sticks his foot in his mouth what else are they going to do???
Obviously logic doesn't work on you. So ket me try the direct approach: YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!
"So ket me try the direct approach: YOU ARE AN IDIOT"
It's pretty funny that you call me an idiot, and yet you don't even know how to spell the word "let." That's priceless.
You are still an idiot simply because you don't understand the difference between being an idiot and being illiterate. That's what I am. But at least I have the good sense not to insert myself into the mind and emotions of a young boy. From age 11 to 14 I was a happy carefree youth. I was never kidnapped or abused so I cannot begin to fathom how someone in that situation might react. AND NEITHER I MIGHT ADD DO YOU OR BILL O'REILLY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW???
"The article even stated that the kid had a girlfriend during the time he was kidnapped. Do you really think this kid was emotionally distressed when he even wanted to date a girl?" (The truth detector)
Emotionally distressed people don't want to date? The first thing most disturbed people do is try to find someone to share it with.
If I'd known that someday I'd be arguing with somebody that mentally distressed people don't want to date, I would have videotaped some of my 20s for you.I dated the emotionally distressed almost exclusively.
It made no mention of a girlfriend. It spoke of a Kim Evans who was a friend of his family...HIS REAL FAMILY!!! But not one word about Shawn having a girlfriend. This makes me wonder how this person can detect the truth when he can't even tell it? He calls me "not very bright" and yet he is dumb enough to make a statement of fact that is easily checked out and shot down. And before he gets a chance to mention the reference to Shawn's statement to the police officer who stopped him that he was returning home late after visiting "a friend" It makes no mention of the friend's gender. Furthermore, in that same encounter he lied about his name and his birthdate so is it really a stretch to think he lied about where he had been?? Try using your head. When you can't even tell the truth it makes it pretty hard to take you seriously. However, in all fairness maybe you didn't read the article either. Maybe FOX was the one that lied about this girlfriend and you just took their word for it like you seem to with everything else.
Just when I think that you couldn't get any dumber, you say something like that, and make a total as* of yourself. From the article:
"The already bizarre kidnapping case of two Missouri boys took an even weirder turn when it was reported one of them, Shawn Hornbeck, had actually met with police and was carrying on a relationship with a girl."
What part of the word "relationship" do you not understand? Also, here's more:
The paper also reported that Hornbeck, while kidnapped, carried on a relationship with a girl at one of St. Louis' most elite private schools. Students at Visitation Academy, an all-girls school, say Hornbeck dated a freshman there for several months. The students said Hornbeck and the girl were even spotted holding hands at an area mall. The couple even went to what's described as the "social event of the season," the Visitation-Priory Dance, at the St. Louis Priory school."
What exactly were you reading? The "family friend" was not his girlfriend, but someone who was shocked that he had been seen by police 10 months after his kidnapping.
"Kim Evans, a friend of Shawn's family who has been speaking for them, said she was "speechless" that Shawn was seen by police 10 months after his kidnapping. "You would think someone would have recognized him," she said. "But it's hard to say."
At least someone is here to point out the truth amidst all the lies.
What I am reading is the original SOURCE!! article from the St Louis Post Dispatch which (once again for those of you who are braindead.) makes no mention of a girlfriend What YOU are reading is FOXnews.com website which is giving you their interpretation of the source article (obviously l0aded with embellishments.) That's what I meant when I say checking the source, a point that is obviously over your head. When FOX claims to be quoating a source and then adds things to their report that are not stated in that source, that's what we call making stuff up which most reasonable people equate with LYING. If you are truly the truth detector then you should be offended to your core when you're lied to and made a fool of. If, on the other hand, you don't have the good sense to check things out for yourself instead of being a sheep, then it isn't necessary to make a fool of you. You already are one.
I appeared on O'Reilly's show in 2000 and knowing I would be live and only have one chance to get it right in 90 seconds, I asked their producer what question Bill would ask. After the on the air light came on, and in front of blinding stage lights, in an otherwise pitchblack control room in Washington DC, I was confronted with a different question than the one I had rehearsed in my mind to answer.
It was the longest 2 seconds in my life, other than the first two seconds of my first skydive. Despite what appeared to be an effort to make me appear foolish, my friends thought I did pretty well...
I considered it a dirty trick, though, perhaps it was just a simple mistake.
Richard Behar, on the other hand, is the equivalent courage wise and integrity wise in journalism to a skydiver. Amongst skydivers, a level of honesty develops because your life depends upon it.
Behar took on the mob's monoply for collecting trash in manhattan... that takes nerves of steel, and later took on Scientology, with The Thriving Cult of Power and Greed..in ,Scientologist Greta Van Susteren's judgement.
I doubt is was "a simple mistake" when you appeared on O'Reilly. You're very generous to even give them the benefit of the doubt.
Get a little better acquainted with this website and I think you'll become aware of one thing for sure: these filthy, hateful, lying morons on Fox News will do anything to further their sole objective: make Democrats look weak, and make the Cons look good.
This is all that matters to them. It is just that simple.
I appeared on O'Reilly's show in 2000 and knowing I would be live and only have one chance to get it right in 90 seconds, I asked their producer what question Bill would ask. After the on the air light came on, and in front of blinding stage lights, in an otherwise pitchblack control room in Washington DC, I was confronted with a different question than the one I had rehearsed in my mind to answer.
It was the longest 2 seconds in my life, other than the first two seconds of my first skydive. Despite what appeared to be an effort to make me appear foolish, my friends thought I did pretty well...
I considered it a dirty trick, though, perhaps it was just a simple mistake.
Richard Behar, on the other hand, is the equivalent courage wise and integrity wise in journalism to a skydiver. Amongst skydivers, a level of honesty develops because your life depends upon it.
Behar took on the mob's monoply for collecting trash in manhattan... that takes nerves of steel, and later took on Scientology, with The Thriving Cult of Power and Greed..in ,TIME Magazine and survived 7.5 million dollar's of Scientology litigation and beat scientology's lawsuit. I trust Richard Behar, and more than that, I trust his judgment .
I don't trust O'reilly or Scientologist Greta Van Susteren's judgement.
Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Can you beleive that O'Reilly is supposed to be their keynote speaker next month? I just wrote to them and ask them please to reconsider. Sheesh.
Above and beyond his cruel, insensitive and ignorant remarks as of the last few days, the guy is an alleged sexual ahrasser! Unreal.
If you are not a right winger or really care about America, I suggest you may want to think about subscribing to Times Select - the editorial page of the New York Times. Rich, Kristoff, Dowd, the Editorial Page writers, and even Friedman are finally firing on all cylinders again to expose the incompetence at the highest levels of our government.
This development is long overdue after a very dark period in which Judith Miller trumpeted Bush's frantic, unsupported claims that Iraq had WMD, and columnists like Tom Friedman justified the invasion of Iraq with idiotic explanations like "America just had to hit someone."
[link to www.nytimes.com]
"Lying Like It’s 2003"
By FRANK RICH Published: January 21, 2007
THOSE who forget history may be doomed to repeat it, but who could imagine we’d already be in danger of replaying that rotten year 2003? _______
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Hang Up! Tehran Is Calling TimesSelect Hang Up! Tehran Is Calling
Instead of disengaging from war, President Bush could end up starting another.
_______
Editorial Page Retreat and Cheat
President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program was once deemed so vital to national security that it could not be subjected to judicial review. Last week, the White House said it was doing just that.
In 2005, the White House would not even comment on news reports about the C.I.A.’s prisons because Americans’ safety depended on their being kept secret. In 2006, Mr. Bush held a photo-op to announce that he was keeping them open.
The administration has repeatedly insisted that it was essential to the American way of life for Mr. Bush to be able to imprison foreigners without trial or legal counsel. Now the administration claims it was trying to bring those detainees to trial all along but was stymied by white-shoe lawyers.
By now, this is a familiar pattern: First, Mr. Bush and his aides say his actions are so vital to national security that to even report on them — let alone question them — lends comfort to the terrorists. Then, usually when his decisions face scrutiny from someone other than a compliant Republican Congress, the president seems to compromise.
Behind this behavior are at least two dynamics, both of them disturbing.
The first is that the policies Mr. Bush is trying so hard to hide have little, if anything, to do with real national security issues — and everything to do with a campaign, spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney, to break the restraints on presidential power imposed after Vietnam and Watergate. And there is much less than meets the eye to Mr. Bush’s supposed concessions.
Generally, they mask the fact that he either got what he wanted from Congress or found a way to add some other veneer of legitimacy to his lawless behavior. The campaign to expand presidential power goes on, at the expense of American values.
Mr. Bush’s aides don’t try very hard to hide it. The day the shift on domestic wiretapping was announced, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a speech in which he sneered at the idea of allowing judges to review national security policies. The next day, he was in the Senate refusing to turn over the agreement that he said would provide judicial review for the wiretapping. And his lawyers were in court arguing that a lawsuit over the warrantless eavesdropping should be dropped because Mr. Bush said he would stop the operation.
[snip]