O'Reilly agreed with guest's false claim that Boston Globe did not cover child-rape case
On the February 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly agreed with attorney Wendy Murphy's false claim that The Boston Globe "didn't cover" the Massachusetts case of Patrick Doyle, who was given a one-year jail sentence for failing to stop the repeated rape of a 9-year-old girl. Murphy, who is a frequent O'Reilly Factor guest and the former assistant district attorney for Middlesex County, Massachusetts, attributed the purported lack of coverage of such cases to the media's "classic liberal left ideology. ... It's always bad to lock somebody up. Punishment is bad." In fact, the Globe did report on Doyle's case and the reaction to his sentence. In a February 17 article, the Boston Globe reported:
The one-year sentence in a house of correction given a man who did nothing to stop the repeated rape of a 9-year-old girl has prompted a state senator to draft a bill to increase the maximum penalty in such cases.
"This is outrageous, and someone has to do something," said Senator Bruce Tarr, Republican of Gloucester, reacting to the sentencing Monday of Patrick Doyle, 42, of Salem.
Doyle was sentenced after being convicted of child endangerment in connection with accusations that a Beverly woman, Mary Jean Armstrong, allowed two men to have sex with her daughter in exchange for cocaine. Doyle was accused of doing nothing to stop the assault taking place several feet away from him.
From the February 20 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
MURPHY: Well, I think, from a political media perspective, it is absolutely right. You say it all the time that the classic liberal left ideology is anti-state, anti-prosecution. It's always bad to lock somebody up. Punishment is bad. That ideology trumps almost everything else. But what I dislike about the media's political bias is they're also supposed to be minding the business of the government, right? And the government has a responsibility to protect, especially defenseless kids, who have no power, no voice, no money -- they don't vote. And that the media has fallen down on the job about.
And you really are the only one in the media stepping up to the plate. But I condemn, especially the print media, for overindulging this classic liberal left ideology that it's always bad --
O'REILLY: But, it's not over an overindulging, they're involved in it. The Boston Globe didn't do one report on Vermont, as far as we know. Not one.
MURPHY: They also didn't -- they also didn't cover that Doyle case last week. The Boston Herald did --
O'REILLY: Right.
MURPHY: -- and the Globe didn't touch it, and that was an outrage.
O'REILLY: Right -- where a man stood by and watched a 9-year-old girl get raped, and the judge, Lila Kern, in Massachusetts, gave the man one year in prison for allowing --
MURPHY: Wait --
O'REILLY: -- allowing a little girl to be raped. The guy stood there and watched it -- he gets a year.
Expecting O'Lielly to fact-check is like hitting your head with a hammer and hoping it will eventually feel good...
Well, I think MMFA is stretching on this one. Here are the facts:
Murphy said, "[The Globe] also didn't -- they also didn't cover that Doyle case last week. The Boston Herald did --"
The verdict of the case came down on Monday, February 12. The Globe's short article, mostly about the anger in the aftermath of the case, did not appear until FIVE DAYS LATER, on Saturday, February 17. Is this really an instance of the Globe "covering the case"? The article, by the way, is actually entitled, "Increased penalty sought for child endangerment."
Another dubious post by MMFA, IMHO.
My 2 cents. Thank you.
Murphy said "the Globe didn't touch it" but the Globe DID touch it.
Another valid post by MMFA, objectively.
Rusty,
Murphy said, They also didn't -- they also didn't cover that Doyle case last week.
How utterly incompetent of Murphy, assuming that since the Boston Globe did not cover it on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday that they did not cover it! I mean, she appeared on O'Reilly's show knowing full well that MMFA would be looking for the slightest error. How could she set herself up as such a dismal failure? Why did she give up on them so soon??
it's not a slight error. she was attempting to make some point about the liberal media not printing this story. she was incorrect. it's very simple. don't say untrue things and you will not be challenged.
The horribly lenient sentencing in the case caused such a huge public uproar that lawmakers called for tougher sentencing guidelines.
It was only after the uproar (again, a long five days after the sentence was handed down) did the Globe print its first syllable even mentioning the case! The title of the article is called, "Increased penalty sought for child endangerment." Does that title sound like "coverage" of a court case? Of course not.
Sorry, but I think it's a pretty weak case by MMFA, IMHO.
Thank you.
plain english means nothing to you, again, the contention was "the globe didn't touch it". they did, and did discuss the specifics of the case. it's right there to read.
Hey Dis-Info Guy:
Has MMFA ever presented a strong case, IYHO?
"classic liberal left ideology. ... It's always bad to lock somebody up. Punishment is bad."
I must have been sick and absent when the above topics were covered in my Liberal Left Ideology training course. Unfortunately I no longer have the texbook... I believe I may have used it as kindling at a flag burning party. So if anyone has a copy of the text book I would really like to borrow it so I can study up on what is obviously absent from my liberal training. By the way, the text book was made from recyclable paper...
See pp. 23-24, in between subsections "The Only Good Parents are Gay" and "Hate America First".
Shame on you, Irony. We shall now have to purge you from the Marxist-Clintonist collective.
"We shall now have to purge you from the Marxist-Clintonist collective."
Christopher, that sounds like punitive action is being applied to me. Wendy Murphy, the well know authority on liberal ideolgy, says that liberals believe "Punishment is bad." So who are you... and why are posing here as a liberal? ;>)
Wow Wes,
"See pp. 23-24, in between subsections "The Only Good Parents are Gay" - Wes
I didn't know you kept up with current parenting research. Because, more and more studies indicate that childern of gay and lesbian parents are actually more likely to be well cared for. (Since gay parents have to plan for a child, and usually make sure they have the finances and resources availible before hand. Unlike heterosexual parenets.)
Damn... I wish I would have had gay parents. ;>)
Sorry - another lame attempt at humor on my part.
No Wes, that was funny! I laughed anyway. If you can't laugh at yourself then you're in big trouble.
Wes, i agree with Bing...
This item supports my assertion in an earlier thread that O'Reilly's real motivation in striking his child advocacy pose is to bash liberals. I don't think he gives a rat's behind about kids.
Rusty,
I am not sure if it's his only motivation, but he certainly enjoys making this a political issue in which he can bash those he doesn't like......you may have a point. I would sincerely hope that an issue this important is treated with more upstanding motives by everyone - but with O'Reilly, who knows?
You're right Tommie. O'Reilly needs to learn that he'll gain credability by telling the truth. Unfortuneately for him, it may be too late. Many (most?) of us feel the need to check his facts, even when we agree with him, because you never know when he's making things up.
O'Really uses any excuse to bash liberals. My hypothesis about his focus and obsession about this topic, is that he gets some sort of pleasure from talking about these stories. In other words, it is a form of porn for him.
True. He seems to truly relish telling the lurid details. I wonder what that says about him - and his audience.
O'Reilly and Murphy should issue a public apology to the Boston Globe for this inaccuracy. Will they?
his normal behavior is to bluster and whine about how he was taken 'out of context' no matter how much context is provided.
Take action. Pick up your phone and call your cable company, tell them you do not want to pay for FOX anymore. (I'll have to put The Simpsons and other FOX entertainment on my Blockbuster list). I can catch reruns of King of the Hill on other channels. Despite his purported popularity, how many people would actually choose the factor over Dirty Jobs or other quality cable shows? If we keep the pressure up for a few years we can bring this jerk down!!
"...his child advocacy pose is to bash liberals."
I really don't think it's much of a stretch to say that O'Reilly's continuing underlying message is that liberals condone child abuse. Wow...! Certainly, if you look, you can find isolated court cases in which justice appears to have not been properly dispensed. But you also have to consider that in reporting court cases the media often get the gist wrong and what you read may be quite different from the realities of the harmful incident or the realities of the litigation of the case. More likely, I've found, the media latch on to a sensational aspect of a trial and miss what was really going on. For example, when you read that a criminal was allowed to plead to a lesser offense and/or received a seemingly light aentence often it is because there was a serious problem with the case which jeopardized a conviction. I don't know all of the circumstances in the case here that was being discusssed by O'Reilly so I can't tell what happened other than what is in this report. So I don't know if the reporting was accurate.
However, speaking as a liberal I'd like it to be known that we don't condone child abuse. Child abusers should be fully prosecuted and punished. But why the hell do we even have to say that? Because of people like O'Reilly and others... particularly Rush Limbaugh. I once heard Limbaugh state on his radio show that liberal were happy when the Columbine school massacre occurred... liberals loved it, Limbaugh said, because it gave liberals an opportunity to argue against gun control.
O'Reilly and Limbaugh are both sick people, in my opinion. To suggest that liberals either condone or enjoy harm being done to children is reprehensible. You wonder why this country is so divided and full of hate... and why there is an absence of intelligent debate?
I doubt we will see an apology to the Boston Globe. Who is this moron Wendy Murphy?
this is off topic and im not trying to catch anyone out but i am curious to knowwhat the conservative thinking people here think of the sentence the american serviceman got for raping killing and burning the 14 yr old iraqi girl and her family he was sentenced to 100 years but will likely be out in 10
I have seen nothing about him "getting out in 10"? His 100 year sentence avoided the death penalty because of a guilty plea. The 100 years is just.
Sentenced to 100 years..eligible for parole in 10 years.
I would be willing to bet he is out at 11-15 yrs. The worth of an Iraqi life is continually going down in the eyes of the American public...natural consequence of current frustrations.
I agree, the overall feeling among Americans in my opinion is that Iraqis lives are worthless. They guy should rot in jail for 100 years but he wont.
I worry about what heinous acts a person like that might be capable of doing after he gets out of jail. Obviously, this guy has some serious pathological issues...
from what i saw there was a plea agreement he can be out in 10
O'Reilly is just trying to deflect attention away from the egregious statements he made concerning the abducted boy that O'Reilly claims had "fun" during the ordeal. Attacking the Boston Globe conveniently distracts from his statements and the resultant boot he got as the keynote speaker for the exploited children's conference.
Time once again for another episode of:
“That darn liberal media, they’re always trying to bury the story!”
Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/17/increased_penalty_sought_for_child_endangerment/
Boston Herald:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=183082
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=182891
The Salem News:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=182891
WCVB TV:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/11026496/detail.html
Ok, now que the righties who insist that Doyle was protrayed as a victim by the liberal media.Oops, wrong link for the Salem News.
Here it is:
http://www.salemnews.com/local/local_story_047064605?keyword=secondarystory
I would not read too much into this....
So O'Reilly's guest says the Boston Globe did not carry the story last week, but they actually did on Saturday (historically the best day to bury announcements, so I guess it would be a good day to bury an "unpleasant" story).
And their lauded competitor, the Boston Herald, carried the story on both the preceding Wednesday and Thursday.
MMFA is correct to point out the error and expect a correction from O'Reilly.
But unless someone can cite a Boston Globe story on this from Thursday, it does appear to me they sat on it until low readership Saturday even after their major competitor wrote about it on Wednesday.
Yeah, nobody reads the paper on Saturday.
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty,
Fewer newspapers are published and read on Saturdays.
One example, Philadelphia (2005 data, but now they lump Saturday with M-F as "daily" in open publications):
M-F: 387,692
Sunday: 744,242
Saturday: 320,265
So if you want to bury an article, publish on Saturdays.
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2005/05/02/daily13.html
it's not like there are a total of 5 papers printed on saturday. the claim was that the paper did not print the story. all your baloney does not change the fact they did.
it's not like there are a total of 5 papers printed on saturday. the claim was that the paper did not print the story. all your baloney does not change the fact they did.
MEFIRST: At least your nickname is descriptive.
Why not read what I wrote rather than skimming it and rushing out with "baloney" of your own?
If you and Rusty read my posts, you would have noted that I said that Saturday is the best day to bury something since the fewest number of people buy papers that day: Not none. not 5, fewer. I also said a retraction is in order due to the error.
You folks are perturbed that Shoes and I (among others) have minimized the significance of MMFA's gotcha.
Ever wonder why they are called newspapers? Reporting something several days after your main competitor is rather pathetic.
"it does appear to me they sat on this til low readership saturday". your proof, other than conjecture? if they want to "bury" a story, then they don't print it. and exactly how did you and shoeless minimize the significance of this? you called for a retraction, so therefore you're saying mmfa is correct in what they said. i think that settles the argument. all the rest is your endless troll hot air.
Maybe they had better things to write about?
Was this the most important story of the day, do you think?
Classic example of right wing talking heads saying this and that about the so-called liberal media, when they haven't even looked at the media they are criticising. I see this all of the time. I see in another forum that I post in where right wingers will post some story they think is relevant, and then ask after they cut and paste something if, "I wonder if the NY Times is going to print this??" which, completing either a Google search, or searching the NY Times website always proves them wrong 100% of the time. When someone says to me, "I can't believe that such and such media outlet didn't cover this story." I take it with a grain of salt, because almost 10 times out of 10, said media outlet has covered the story, it's just that they never bothered to look, and probably believe (rightfully so) that the people listening to them won't look either. They'll just feign some indignant outrage over what the "liberal media" isn't covering.
It's sad that people will listen to folks like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, et all, and take what they say hook, line, and sinker, and won't go and look for themselves. That's just pure laziness and ignorance.
By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff | February 17, 2007
The one-year sentence in a house of correction given a man who did nothing to stop the repeated rape of a 9-year-old girl has prompted a state senator to draft a bill to increase the maximum penalty in such cases.
"This is outrageous, and someone has to do something," said Senator Bruce Tarr, Republican of Gloucester, reacting to the sentencing Monday of Patrick Doyle, 42, of Salem.Well, but listen to the bleeding-heart liberal tone of it! And, they must have burried it deep inside the paper, unlike the Downing Street Memo.
Damn liberal media!
Well maybe if they stop locking up people for smoking weed us liberals wouldn't have such a problem with the criminal justice system.
Hey Rusty and MMFA lapdogs,
I find it hillarious that MMFA says that Wendy Murphy "falsely claimed" that Boston Globe did not "cover" the case. Yet, in their description, they can't bring themselves to say BG covered the case. "In fact, the Globe did report on Doyle's case and the reaction to his sentence. "If Wendy's claim is so false, then why did they say BG reported it, instead of saying BG covered it?????
MMFA is back to its old tricks of arguing over semantics.
murphy: "the globe didn't touch it". as in they didn't cover it, report it, whichever way you want to put it. it's your semantics game that's on display here. do you disagree that is what she was saying?