O'Reilly purported to chart an intricate web leading to "vile propaganda outfit" Media Matters
SUMMARY: On his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly claimed that George Soros has built a "complicated political operation" in which "Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process" by funding Media Matters, which "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people." In fact, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization.
Discussing the political influence of philanthropist and progressive financier George Soros during the April 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked Media Matters for America as a "vile propaganda outfit, which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people," a claim that echoes several of his previous attacks on Media Matters. O'Reilly opened the segment with a "chart" purporting to depict Soros' "complicated political operation" in which "Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process" by funding Media Matters, which "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people."
O'Reilly claimed that Soros "wants to impose a radical left agenda on America" and that he does so by funding organizations that then pass on money to "a variety of radical hatchet men." He asserted: "Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things -- buy influence among liberal politicians, and smear people with whom he disagrees." O'Reilly added: "If a liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be denied funding and brutally attacked. Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman [I-CT] about what MoveOn and Media Matters did to him." O'Reilly also claimed that Soros-funded organizations "don't stop at you. They'll go for your family."
Later in the program, conservative talk-radio host Monica Crowley echoed O'Reilly's attack on Media Matters, stating: "So he [Soros] can finance websites like you mentioned, Media Matters, other organizations, that will go out there and smear right-wing politicians, smear right-wing pundits and commentators and so on."
As previously indicated, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization. If he wanted to fund Media Matters, he or Open Society Institute (OSI), a grant-making foundation he established in 1993 to conduct his philanthropy, could simply write a check directly to Media Matters, as he and OSI do to numerous entities.
O'Reilly also attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, stating during his nightly "Talking Points Memo" segment: "Now 'Talking Points' has reason to believe John Edwards is taking orders from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well." O'Reilly did not cite any evidence for his claim. Later, during his with exchange with Crowley and author Phil Kent, O'Reilly noted that he had no evidence for such an assertion but nevertheless maintained: "Now, we believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros. I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but his actions are pretty much dictated by MoveOn. He's absolutely right in with those people."
As Media Matters documented, during an appearance on the Irish talk show The Late Late Show on April 13, host Pat Kenny asked O'Reilly whether he had referred to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric." When Kenny said he found that information on a "website," O'Reilly responded by calling Media Matters "an assassination website" that frequently takes him "out of context." However, Media Matters provided full documentation of O'Reilly's references to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric." 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."
Despite numerous requests to appear on The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly still has not extended an invitation to Media Matters President and CEO David Brock to discuss his accusations and ad hominem attacks, nor has O'Reilly offered any evidence for his claims that Media Matters has "distorted comments" made by him or any other media figure.
The weblogs Crooks and Liars and News Hounds also documented O'Reilly's April 23 assertions.
From the April 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. We have a powerful and important program, so I hope you stay through the whole thing. You won't be sorry.
Buying political power, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." The Factor has been investigating far-left billionaire George Soros, a man who wants to impose a radical left agenda on America. And under the radar, he is making great progress.
Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things -- buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people with whom he disagrees.
Now, here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with me on this. Most of Soros' political money flows through his Open Society Institute -- you see it there on the left -- which is almost unlimited funding. Since 2001, according to federal documents, the Open Society Institute has given nearly $20 million to the Tides Foundation -- right below that. An astounding amount.
Now, Tides, in turn, funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men, who are all well paid. For example, Tides has donated millions to the vile propaganda outfit Media Matters, which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people. Media Matters is an Internet site, but directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people, including elements at NBC News, columnist Frank Rich and Paul Krugman at The New York Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at PBS.
In fact, as president of the Schumann Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at least a half-million-dollar transfer of money to Media Matters. We'll have more on that tomorrow.
Now, George Soros is also pouring money into the Center for American Progress, run by former Clinton aide John Podesta, and the Democracy Alliance Group, both of which fund Media Matters as well. So you can see, an enormous amount of money this Media Matters has control of.
Finally, George Soros has given the radical left organization MoveOn many, many millions of dollars. This group actively supports liberal politicians like [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting left-wing causes.
So you can see how powerful this guy Soros has become. He can smear anyone he wants in a variety of ways. His organizations can raise millions for politicians, who will do his bidding. Thus, he can demand that politicians running for office do what he tells them to do.
If a liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be denied funding and brutally attacked. Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman about what MoveOn and Media Matters did to him.
Now "Talking Points" has reason to believe John Edwards is taking orders from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well.
The goal of George Soros, [Progressive Insurance chairman] Peter Lewis, [Esprit clothing company founder] Susie Tompkins Buell, and other radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. By that, I mean find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.
In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is the likes of George Soros, an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on.
My book Culture Warrior documents the Soros policy and his tax-evading businesses located in Curacao and Bermuda.
The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This is off-the-chart dangerous, but completely legal under the McCain-Feingold Act.
In the weeks to come, we'll have more on Soros and his operations, including naming more of the mainstream media that is actively helping him, which includes Rosie O'Donnell. And that is the "Memo."
Now for the top story tonight, reaction to our investigation. Joining us now from Atlanta, Phil Kent, author of the book Foundations of Betrayal: How the Liberal Super Rich Undermine America [Zoe Publications, May 2007]. And here in the studio, conservative radio talk show host Monica Crowley.
Monica, begin with you. Did I leave anything out?
CROWLEY: No, I think you were right on. And you know what? This is an incredibly well-oiled, brilliantly orchestrated machine. And as you pointed out, it's also a brilliant way to get around the campaign finance laws in this country.
You have one guy in George Soros. You had mentioned big business had been criticized for this stuff before. Here you've got all of this power in the hands of one guy because he's got a billion-dollar fortune, where he can put his money wherever he wants.
The problem is twofold. Number one, transparency. This guy has been able to fly under the radar for a long time before you just exposed him because the mainstream media protects him, because they're on the same ideological page.
O'REILLY: OK. And also because it's a complicated -- you see where the money flow goes. Can you put that chart up again? Because it goes through three or four places --
CROWLEY: Right.
O'REILLY: -- before it gets to the intended source.
CROWLEY: Exactly. But, you know, this is a web, but it's not a particularly tangled web. Because as you pointed out --
O'REILLY: It's clean.
CROWLEY: -- you can trace it back two or three organizations away from George Soros. He's not even making an attempt to keep his fingerprints off of this.
And the other point, too, Bill, is accountability. So you have transparency, OK, which he's trying to obfuscate with this kind of web, but also accountability. So he can finance websites like you mentioned, Media Matters, other organizations, that will go out there and smear right-wing politicians, smear right-wing pundits and commentators and so on. And there's no accountability because it's floating out there on the Web.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but, we live in a thing of freedom of speech. Now, Mr. Kent, you know, you've got to admire Soros for coming up with this organization. I mean, you know, he's made billions by doing this in business, by being in Curacao and Bermuda and France, where he was convicted of a felony. And he knows how to do this. He knows how to move the money around and use it to gain influence. And now he's set his sights on changing the basic fabric of this country.
KENT: Well, that's right. George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations. In fact, one of his most chilling quotes a few years ago was that the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States.
He really hates this country. And he funds these things, as your chart points out, and open borders and even radical Islamic groups that defend suicide bombers. So this guy is all over the map.
O'REILLY: I didn't have that on there. Now what's the radical Islamic group that defends suicide bombers?
KENT: The American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute is a Soros recipient. And they've actually defended suicide bombers. And I've got this in my book. And how he funds La Raza, the race, the open borders advocacy group.
O'REILLY: Yeah, he funds La Raza. We know that. Now what is the intrusion of the mainstream media? Because you've got some pretty big names. Bill Moyers. Wednesday night, he's going to take a big shot at the press on PBS. We know he's in bed with Soros. Rosie O'Donnell, not taken seriously, but certainly a platform every day on ABC. New York Times, two of their main columnists. Newsweek magazine Jonathan Alter. And NBC News, where it's pitiful, but they have commentators that basically take exactly what Soros gives them and spit it out over the airwaves. That's a lot of power, is it not?
KENT: It's a lot of power. Soros really does believe wealth controls culture. And he wants to really control the political scene in the United States and the media. And as your chart points out, it's very chilling the groups that he is funding through the Open Society Institute.
You know, the assets alone of this private tax-exempt foundation, over $175 million.
O'REILLY: Wow.
CROWLEY: And as you point out, he loves the Tides Foundation, a big left-wing tax-exempt foundation.
O'REILLY: Yes. Oh, I didn't know it was that high right now. $175 million tax-free.
KENT: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: Now, Monica, if you're like Lieberman and you're a moderate Democrat, Soros can put a big hurt on you fast.
CROWLEY: That's right. I mean, I mentioned right-wing commentators, right-wing politicians. But if you are a moderate, responsible Democrat who happens to take a different point of view than George Soros, you are just as much of a target.
O'REILLY: Now, we believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros. I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but his actions are pretty much dictated by MoveOn. He's absolutely right in with those people. Have you seen that?
CROWLEY: I have heard that reported, Bill. And you know, that's the real danger here is that these -- there are campaign finance laws on the books to prevent exactly this, to prevent a politician from being held in the pocket by a fabulously rich guy like George Soros.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean, this is off the chart. It really is.
CROWLEY: Again, if you don't -- that's right. And then if you don't toe the line, you run the risk of being cut off by somebody like this.
O'REILLY: And attacked.
CROWLEY: And attacked.
O'REILLY: And attacked, and attacked. And you know, ripped up --
CROWLEY: And you do not want that danger, not if you're running for president.
O'REILLY: Right. And they don't stop at you. They'll go for your family. They'll go for anyone.
Mr. Kent, I'm going to give you the last word. But are there any Republican or conservative groups that rile Soros' -- rival Soros'?
KENT: You know, I tell you, the research that I compiled in my book, if you take the top three conservative tax-exempt foundations, they're totally dwarfed by Soros and the radical Ford Foundation. It's probably 15 times more the assets. Remember, MoveOn.org and Soros spent $5 million alone in anti-Bush ads in 2004. They have got clout.
O'REILLY: Yeah, it'll be four times, five times that much --
KENT: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: -- in the 2008 election. Monica, Mr. Kent, thanks very much. We appreciate it.
Next on the rundown, once again, the mayor of San Francisco says he will not obey the law.
And later, the Factor did not use the Alec Baldwin tape. We will explain why we decided not to use it, upcoming.
Paranoia much? So Mr. O'Really, how much have you reported on the K-street project?
Someone should sue his ass.
You can't sue someone for telling the truth. Media Matters wouldn't exist without Soros money. What's surprising is the reluctance of MMFA to acknowledge it. What's there to be ashamed of?
There is no need to be shamed and I'd bet MMFA would be proud to accept donations from Mr. Soros. That's what makes conservatives look like unhinged McCarthyesque conspiracy junkies.
MMFA would have NO REASON not to acknowledge Soros has funded it, or NOT funded it. As O'Reilly pointed out ... with a weird astonishment ... that there was "NOTHING ILLEGAL" in the chart he drew up (even if completely accurate).
Soros should take a unique tact here. He should embrace O'Reilly's claim, and say, "Not that I'd MIND having funded Media Matters, and it would be perfectly OK for me to do so, but I'm unaware of sending or authorizing such funding. If Mr. O'Reilly has FACTS for me, it would help me to track my finances, and perhaps adjust how I make contributions. How about it, Mr. O'Reilly? Could you tell me how you have me either giving or authorizing any payments to Media Matters? You state it as FACT, so it must not only be TRUE, but you must have the details and evidence of my actions. Please produce that information for my sake, to enlighten me to uses of my money of which I am unaware."
He should do it very publicly, where it is very clear that O'Reilly is just dreaming this stuff up, and has nothing to back it up. What O'Reilly would LOVE is if there were a lawsuit involved, where it might be possible to dig through Soros' finances on an endless fishing expedition, information that is none of anybody's business.
By asking for O'Reilly's HELP ... Soros would put O'Reilly on the spot to PUT UP or SHUT UP ... or the third alternative (which is more likely), to continue LYING having been exposed as a liar and a blowhard (once again) who cannot EVER be believed.
If O'Really is correct on all this, I'm sending all my donations to Soros today. I'm for an Edwards Obama ticket.
But if O'Really was interested in demonstating that infamous Fox News Fairness and Balance slogan, he would have invited opposing viewpoints instead of this one sided attack on Liberals show.
If O'Really was truly concerned about the influence of the super rich he should have devoted half of his show to his boss, the owner of Fox News.
Letterman was wrong about O'Really, 99% is BullSh#t not 60%.
P.S.
Keep it up O'Really, you and LimpBrain are making Media Matters famous. Media Matters doesn't have to advertise, Bill and Rush are doing it for them free of charge.
OLiar absolutely reads Media Matters. In fact, I guess he reads it more than almost any reader wh visits this site. He has an insatiable appetite for responding to their well founded attacks. He does this because he's on here all the time. he's probably reading this right now. Bill, talk about how you became a school teacher during the height of the Vietnam draft so you could take advantage of the occupational deferment (college Deferments ended before Billo was draft eligible so he had to tak e the teacher route to escape the draft. The 70s were flush with a huge influx of male teachers seeking to avoid the draft). Anyway, Oliar's obsessing over Media Matters reminds me of that scene from Howard STern's Private Parts movie where te radio exec is talking to Pig Vomit and reading the Stern ratings. He says something like this:
Stern Fans listen an average of 1 and 1/2 hours per day. Answer given Most" I wanna hear what he says next" Stern bashers listen average of 2 and 1/2 hours per day. Answer given most, "I wanna hear what he says next"
Only a narcissit would listen or read so much about himself especially the negative stuff. The world must really be all about him in his eyes.
O'Reilly may be "Tommy".
I think the main point is expose the main stream media for what it is - a left wing politcal machine, and the real agenda which is Stalinism.
Huh? Whaa?
Soros DOES NOT FUND Media Matters. And even if he did - so what? The craziness here is off the charts.
Oreilly is stark raving MAD.
This is a democracy- individuals can fund what they want.
Media matters simply prints what the wing nuts say in full context.
They don't make stuff up. And apparently this make Bill-o very very afraid.
Let's look at his own network- nice rich Aussie funding Faux- with very traceable Republican ties- and they DO make things up.
See article above.
How insane can he get?
in any good mystery the standeard line is follow the money
the one that Toney Q. built
What I think is very telling is that BOR does not regularly challenge Media Matters on WHAT it posts about him. He can't and he knows it because Media Matters uses his OWN WORDS and provides readers the CONTEXT in which he spoke. Media Matters is smart enough to let his own words show him for the uninformed talking head, spinner and flat-out liar that he is. BOR has no defense against the truth that Media Matters posts and the only way he has left to defend himself is to attack Media Matters for who may (or may not) be giving them money and by calling them vile. Come on, BillO, what are you afraid of? Your own words?
BOR is playing a clever little distracting game here with his viewers. He doesn't want them to look at WHAT Media Matters posts but look at who supposedly funds them. He repeatedly attacks Media Matter as a vile propaganda outfit who "lies" about him and is "funded by the evil liberal Soros". That's red meat for his core audience who hates anything liberal and automatically believe whatever he says. BOR knows that he can whip up hatred against anyone he wants to given that he presents the target in a particular way (I say dishonest way). His audience is being duped by the "no-spin" spinmeister himself. Hey, people, wake up and read for yourselves! Don't take BOR's word for it. His broadcasting career is dependent on sheeple blindly following him.
"I have in my hand documented evidence....." Wow, this is amazing. The more progressive the country gets, the more neocons revert back in time. But this over the top.
If you look at the ideology, actions and assertions of conservatives, you see all they want is a return to the 50's. This is when our country was the greatest having just won WWII, women were in their place, blacks weren't visible, and we had an identifiable enemy in the form of the USSR and communism. Now that we've become more able to seeing a world in gray, they want to go back to what they perceive as a simpler time of good vs evil, us vs them, and any other situation which they limit themselves to since their small minds are only capable of binary thought processes.
Follow the money
RIIIIIGHT. I am so greatful. I just had an epiphany. Since I didnt GET that argument the first few hundred times it was brought up. I remember now that I paid my gardener, he bought an ice cream from a street vendor, who paid for his tattoo from a guy who had another guy chrome the wheels of his chopper. That guy bought drugs. That means I am supporting drug dealers. Because the money REMAINS mine AFTER I give it to someone else. Or maybe the whole argument is insanely dumb.
Yes your arugement is insanely dumb.
Yes but how is his arugement different from your arugement?
I agree, that was actually the POINT.
Purposely dumb. The Center for American Progress originated with Soros and they funded Media Matters with a $2 million dollar loan. The originated for the sole purpose of funding projects like MMFA. Solon's argument is brick stupid.
I don't understand why you think Soros would give openly to a 527 like MoveOn, which funds political candidates, but hide his hand when it comes to a dumb blog.
He doesn't give to political candidates according to your logic. He only gives to 527 plans which give to political candidates.
What else would the money be used for, besides political advocacy? See, intent is what you're going for. With the 527's, isn't it more fair to say that someone who gives to them clearly has intent to fund candidates through them, than to say that there's some clear motivation to give money to MMfA through several other organizations?
Huh?
I am not quite sure I follow. Of course, Soros gives plenty of money to political candidates directly. I don't think 527's are even allowed to give money to candidates under federal campaign finance law. I think Val was wrong about that. 527's are issue advocacy organizations, but sometimes issue advocacy can blur the lines as to appear to be supporting a particular candidate.
Only to the extent it is supposed to be Leatherhead. The fact is YOU are bone stupid so you just dont get it. Do you have any evidence Soros made a contribution anywhere and DIRECTED that part of it go to MMFA? If you do cough it up. If you dont, and we both know you dont, then give it up. If Soros wanted to fund MMFA he would write them a check. I see no reason they wouldnt take it. I wouldnt think any different from them. You are like a very dumb dog with a bone he just cant seem to understand is made of PLASTIC.
He funds organizations which fund the blogs. It is well-documented and it only makes you and Media Matters look like idiots for denying it. Do you see his money going to right wing blogs?
This is Soro's preferred method of operation.
You can't deny Media Matters has received money from Soro's operations. They have even admitted so.
Nonetheless, you did not address your lack of evidence that Soros has in any way directed these organizations to give money to MMFA.
You are simply engaging in baseless speculation as O'Reilly does without anything to backup what is being said.
You're not addressing the point. He could fund them directly without any issues, if he wanted. And the organizations went from ones he funded to "his" organizations during your post. Does he control where they spend their money just because he contributes to them? Did he contribute to them with the condition that they give money to MMfA, when he could just give money directly?
As Solon might say, I could pay an employee a bonus and he could go buy drugs with it. Unless there's some evidence that I directed him to do that, the police better not come knocking on my door. Just because it was my money doesn't mean I funded the drug dealer "indirectly".
But Solon, on the SS thread (Blitzer) said the 50s were the glory days of this nation. Are you trying to tell me Solon is a closet R?
So far this vast, left-wing conspiracy hasn't been all that effective, if you ask me. More whining and lying from these jokers who obviously have the upper hand.
clarification - ...in regard to the media, dissemination of information/propaganda and the ability to facilitate mass hysteria.
Yeah, this vast conspiracy means Soros controls.....Media Matters!!! Gasp!
So what. Even if it were true, who cares if Soros "controls" Media Matters.
The right-wing groups like the PNAC actually control our current government. Many of the PNAC literally make up the Bush administration. Freaks like Pat Robertson have far more influence over our government than someone like George Soros.
O'Reilly is so self-absorbed, he only cares about some grand conspiracy that "smears" him personally, not the groups doing things like getting us into war based on lies.
pretty much my thoughts. it says a lot that the people making these "charges" rarely want to discuss their [mis]information posted on this site. what prevents o'reilly limbaugh hannity, any of them, from posting on here and saying here's my side to the story. or just writing an e-mail to mmfa and say here's where you're wrong. i think mmfa has printed responses before. the problem for the conservative spinners is that they usually cannot even contest what is in the end their own words, [and yes i know there is some subjective opinion here at times], or they would spin themselves into new misinformation. so instead they cry like babies about how they're picked on and it's that mean old george soros. look over there, don't look at me.
Brian- you make another good point.
The Bush administration is rife with political appointees who have very little in the qualifications department, but are very ties to Pat Robertson and company. The "Justice" Department alone makes one shudder. And so the Rovain dictatorship that has been desperately trying to orchestrate a "one party ruler" has blood all over their hands throughout the corporate media land and all though the government, especially the Executive Branch.
Why O'Lyley (and I do hope he is reading this!) even btoerhs with his propaganda nonsense is beyond me. This dehumanization of Soros is really quite pathological with the wing nuts at all.
They are rally worried that truth, and integrity, supported by money may just be the demise of them all.
And to that all I can do is join Pat Robertson in a hearty chorus of "Hallelujah!"
Wait, is this another right wing joke? They can be very difficult to discern, you know.
This was a pathetic and ridiculous waste of time on O'Reilly's program last night, I got through it, miraculously. If O'Reilly has a shred of credibility left he would have at least had on a guest with an opposing viewpoint on his whining hysteria. He did not.
He had on two mouthpieces who fawned and agreed with his every silly allegation, either to prop up his ego, or make his audience somehow believe his one-sided "investigation".
Any respect I had for Bill for being independent and fair-minded is fast becoming history with lopsided and transparent segments such as this one. Either he is really worried about the effect these people are having on his credibility and career, or he is just so obsessed with them that they are clouding any judgement he has left.
If anything good comes from it, maybe it will be his decreased relevancy.
Rock on, Tom Terrific!
Holly, he just said that because he's afraid MMFA will "come and get his family". Just joking T.
I remember watching the Factor in its earliest days, and Bill has definitely changed. I think the implosion of Bush's agenda is really getting to him and messing with this judgement.
You may be right, he has definitely done a 180 in many ways. I used to like his independent streak, and it was usually very evident back then. He wasn't afraid to take on all ideological wrongdoers regardless of their affiliation.
But now, he is 100% rabid for the "far left", which he pretty much lumps anyone who disagrees with him as part of. He highlights nuts from the far fringes as somehow mainstream, for they are easy punching bags to make his points. If he has a "Fox News contributor" from the left to counter Malkin or Bernard Goldberg, they are so milguetoast it's pitiful........they bend over backwards to compliment him and never challenge him to back up what he says.
His program deserves to slip in the ratings, if it isn't already. I think his ego is his biggest liability, it will be his achilles heel, eventually.
That's right Tom. He also calls them "secular progressives," which is not a bad thing to be in my opinion.
"His program deserves to slip in the ratings, if it isn't already. I think his ego is his biggest liability, it will be his achilles heel, eventually."
I wouldn't bet on it. He still has the #1 rated show on television and also has a popular radio show. Long live O'Reilly and Fox News!
Whoa.
O'Reilly does American Idol?
Damn. See what you miss when ya don't have a TV?
How do him and Simon get along?
Sorry. I meant he has the #1 rated cable news show on television.
Yeah, I hear Hitlers speeches were real popular too. When he outdraws the cartoon sponge get back to us.
Is cartoon sponge your nickname for Keith Olbermann?
I have it on good authority that he does, in fact, live in a pineapple under the sea.
Does he beat O'falfel in the ratings? Speaking of sponges that one that fills the space between your ears needs a tuneup. It never did work properly now its just gone.
Correction: Billy is the headliner/spokesmodel on the number-one-rated cable television analysis/opinion show on cable television. He has said many times that his is not a news show, but an opinion or news analysis show.
I can understand your confusion. His show is cleverly disguised to fool the unwary into thinking they are watching a news show.
That may be true, but his demographic are old, white people. Whereas Olberman's stock is rising and he has the demographic that advertisers want.
Olderman's audience is old, prissy, white churchladies.
Wait. You're calling O'Reilly "Older -Man" now? that's ageist!
Ah, glad to see you again Rino.
I've been dying to hear your explanation about how the poor were happy being poor until the liberals told them to hate the rich.
Also, does Bill-O's whining mean that he's a liberal, too? But what about the nasty things he has to say about poor people? I'm con-foozed.
Notice the arrows on that chart. They all point down, making this a graph of the general direction of Bill O'Reilly's blood requirements.
Randy
I thought it looked like the symbol for female... like a subtle reminder of the left's secret agenda to turn the US into a nation of girly men.
Hey, Bill-O! How do the RAND Corporations and reverse vampires fit into the org chart?
Awesome! Not only do we left-wing smear merchants like to go after conservative pundits and their families, but we want to eliminate the meal of dinner!
Oh, so that's how it works...Media Matters is feeding information to the Mainstream Media. Doh! I thought MMFA actually reported on things appearing in the mainstream media. Wow, they sure had me fooled.
But, if the chart is correct, how do you explain the fact that the mainstream media has yet to call Bush and Cheney to account for their lies about Iraq?
Interesting chart.
Might even be accurate. I'm sure there's a similar web used by Republicans to feed propaganda to the MSM.
And so what if there is?
What has Billy-boy proved here?
Mmmmm, maybe how politics works? And both sides do it?
Unless he digs up some subversive group plotting against the USA and contributing to Democrats, I'm not sure what nefarious conclusion Bill is trying to prove here?
Hey...Fox Noise has the Drudge report and made up stories from the Moonie rag.
Can you think for yourself instead of using the Keith Olbermann line of "Fox Noise Channel"? I call it FAUX like most Americans do.
I can think of worse to call it but I'm a lady.
How about Pox Muse
Vox Ruse, the voice of trickery.
Can anyone please tell me the difference between Soros an Richard Mellon Scaife's funding of right wing organizations and right wing politics (other than the fact they are on opposings sides of the political spectrum). The chart that BO shows could easily demonstrate the right wing's PR structure and tactics for the last 20 years (just put Scaife at the top, and the Heritage Foundation, American Spectator, American Enterprise Institute, Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Federalist Society, Hoover Institution, Judicial Watch, American Spectator (Arkansas Project), and many other right wing organizations in the middle). The only surprise here is that the Left is FINALLY getting organized like the right has been since Reagan (if not before).
Thank you! I just posted that as comment#109.
FYI: Scaife has also given lots of money to Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, the right-wing counterpart of MMfA. And Scaife has many more skeletons in his closet than Soros does.
Here's a blog entry I wrote on this very topic:
The Wingnut Media Meltdown
The difference is the right wing wouldn't deny it.
Thats because its true. Soros on the other hand has NOT given MMFA any money despite your tenacious delusions.
That is perhaps the funniest joke I have heard today. The right wing wouldn't deny it? Woo I need to catch my breath. Because as EVERYONE knows, the right wing never denies anything
"Unless he digs up some subversive group plotting against the USA and contributing to Democrats, I'm not sure what nefarious conclusion Bill is trying to prove here"
He's trying to show that the mainstream media just takes news from MMFA and reports it as such without even doing their own reporting. They're too lazy to do their own reporting, so they just take it from a liberal website. The mainstream media and MMFA are becoming working partners of a sort. The MSM gets a lot of news and information from Media Matters and presents it as a fact. It's just another example of liberal bias in the media.
He's trying to show that the mainstream media just takes news from MMFA and reports it as such without even doing their own reporting. - For every mainstream media outlet with a liberal bias that you can name, I can give you TWO examples of the likes of O'Reilly and Faux News. Rino, you've been here long enough to know that the left-wing bias of the media is a load of falafel.
They're too lazy to do their own reporting, so they just take it from a liberal website. - Yeah, we all know the brave independents at Fox would never stoop to such a tactic. By the way, did you hear that Hilary Clinton spread that nasty rumor about how Barack Obama went to a radical Muslim school?
The mainstream media and MMFA are becoming working partners of a sort. The MSM gets a lot of news and information from Media Matters and presents it as a fact. It's just another example of liberal bias in the media. - That's like saying cancer and chemotherapy are "working partners". Bill-O and his ilk ARE the mainstream media! MMFA is a call for sanity! And somehow you missed the memo and still think that, despite all the lies and distortions on this site, the mainstream media is a big, liberal boogeyman and MMFA is its helper imp.
Great rebuttal. BANG.
Thank you. Though I meant to say the lies and distortions documented on this site. My original wording has an embarrassing lack of clarity.
Got it the first time.
"Bill-O and his ilk ARE the mainstream media"
Wrong. Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are part of the NEW MEDIA! The mainstream media consists of CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. The mainstream media has long been documented to have a liberal bias, and Fox News merely helps to balance it out. I'll admit that Fox has a conservative tilt, but it only helps to balance out the rest of the liberal media.
it only helps to balance out the rest of the liberal media
I really dislike this rationalisation. Look, I am sure that there are some reporters or editors or producers that consciously skew left, but I think (I hope) you would agree that they are a small minority - whatever bias exists otherwise is unconscious or at least unintended.
When you intentionally set out to counter what you see as bias, the only thing you can expect to come out with is opinion masquerading as news. And that is why we have people who still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, that the WMD were found, etc.
I have no problem with opinion; the more the better. I have a big problem when someone puts their opinion out there as fact.
I don't agree at all. All media is skewed one way or another. That is the way it has always been and will always be.
Leather, I don't disagree, but my point is when you set out to skew the news, it's going to have a much bigger effect.
Rino, you must be kidding!
Rest of the liberal media like the Washington Post and New York Times and the three major networks?!?!? Did you see Katie Couric going over the same discredited Madrassa story? Did you see her give a segment to Rush and Hannity? What about the Washington Post editorial board which trashed Pelosi without the facts? What about Judith Miller? What about the NYT keeping the NSA scandal until after the elections? What about Time bringing on Bill Kristol (banking on you saying Time Mag is mainstream too)? What about Chris Matthews having his own show to bash Hillary and gush about McCain on NBC? What about Bush's golf buddy Bob Schieffer on CBS? What about no direct confrontations and investigative reporting with Dick Cheney only taped pre-screened interviews? What about all the press given to Anna Nicole, even on the big three, yet no television for the Tillman/Lynch hearings? What about all of the coverage given to Monica Lewinsky and almost nothing on the disproved 9/11-Iraq link? What about no one calling Bush as he continuously links Iraq and 9/11 as the same enemy?
You must be kidding!
"What about Chris Matthews having his own show to bash Hillary and gush about McCain on NBC? What about Bush's golf buddy Bob Schieffer on CBS"
Chris Matthews is a liberal Democrat. He's more moderate and open minded than some, but he's pretty liberal nonetheless. He used to work as a Democratic operative. Bob Schieffer is unabashedly liberal. It's a complete joke that he tries to masquerade as a neutral journalist. You have to be a complete socialist as well to believe that the Washington Post is a conservative newspaper. The Washington Post and the New York Times are both unabashedly liberal, as are the vast majority of newspapers in this country. 80-90% of reporters are registered Democrats. This is a documented fact. There's no disputing this. You would have to be a complete socialist to believe that there's actually a conservative bias in the media. Even most mainstream liberals agree that there is a liberal bias in the media.
No they dont you pulled that directly out of your ass. I know a whole lot of liberals and not ONE of them agrees the media has a liberal bias. You show you have simply lost all touch with reality saying Matthews is a liberal. Yeah, 30 years ago he was a democrat. and 30 years ago Weinerdog was a radical socialist. The NYTimes has several conservative columnists and led the charge toward invading Iraq, never held Bush accountable for the lies he has told. Had to be drug kicking and screaming to talk about the Downing Street memo and sat on a story about Bush wiretapping Americans without warrants for a YEAR. Only by framing anything not slavishly, propagandisticly and supinely conforming to rightwing propaganda as liberal can that possibly be taken seriously. It doesnt matter how often you repeat it. Repition wont magically make this ludicrous assertion come true.
Chris Matthews is a liberal Democrat. He's more moderate and open minded than some, but he's pretty liberal nonetheless. He used to work as a Democratic operative... You have to be a complete socialist as well to believe that the Washington Post is a conservative newspaper. The Washington Post and the New York Times are both unabashedly liberal, as are the vast majority of newspapers in this country. 80-90% of reporters are registered Democrats...
You better never, EVER accuse MMFA of not going against the lefties/having bias, 'cuz they've grilled Matthews, both of those newspapers, and others. So either you're very wrong, or MMFA is quite balanced, thankyouverymuch.
Yeah and Ronald Reagan was a Democrat and a Union President at one time. So once again, your point about Tweety's Democratic Party past is a dull one.
Reality In Name Only
80-90% of reporters are registered Democrats. This is a documented fact. There's no disputing this.
You haven't documented it. The link you provide below doesn't say it. Therefore it is not a documented fact. Consider it disputed.
I could make up my own statistic (which is much more likely to be true), and ask you to dispute it: 80-90% of editors, publishers, and media owners are registered Republicans. The fact is that reporters are much less likely to be able to sway the opinions of the reader if--as is logically the case--his more-conservative editor has the final say in what gets published.
Rhino:
It appears you really do believe the media skews liberal. Wow. Where have you been? Media matters has documented on this site fairly comprehensive evidence of just how warped the media is with their reporting and truly conservative bent.
Though I for one appreciate the work of Media matters which has been been very well sourced, presented in full context, and objectively. ( I have yet t see them name call even the crazies like O'lyley who smear them all the time not only inaccurately, but viciously)
All one has to do though is to watch a "show" like Chris Matthews who is far from the "liberal" who think he is. As others have already pointed out from the guests he has, to his own continued shout outs, he drools over the likes of Giuliani & McCain. He makes disparaging remarks about the Dem. party and candidates frequently, But there's so much more, and so little time.
Mainstream media has totally sold out to corporate interests in the way the present just about everything. And news is no longer journalism, or reporting- its infotainment.
But you have bought the propaganda- party line- hook, line, and sinker. If one repeats long enough, loud enough, and coordinates with enough media outlets, then the very notion that there is a "liberal media bias" is believed.
The thing is I believe my own eyes and ears. And that one is about as real as the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
All one can look to is sites like Media Maters that is the ray of sunshine. These truly have been the dark ages when it comes to enlightenment. And the article that everyone here is posting about is a prime example.
"Even most mainstream liberals agree that there is a liberal bias in the media"
Source for that:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp
Quote: "Even self-described liberals agree: 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22 percent who find the news to be conservative"
I find that statistic suprising since no liberal I know believes it. However Pew is a decent source. Having said that 41% is less than half therefore NOT most. This only shows the success the rightwing has had turning this nonsense assertion into conventional wisdom.
Solon. if you're going to argue that 41% is not more than 50%, you'd better settle in to debate some of the more subjective of Rino's "documented facts".
Have a good time.I'll be at the bar.
Thats also a ten year old study.
I think you have unwittingly demonstrated how stupid it is to even argue about "bias".
Any determiniation of bias is merely subjective opinion. All of the evidence for and against is anecdotal. There is no known quantifiable measure of "bias".
Apparently you seem to be arguing that "liberal bias" exists because a significant amount of other people are of the opinion it exists. This is a perfect example of the Argumentum ad Populum logical fallacy.
If that reasoning was true, there would have been significant quantities of WMD in Iraq.
No it hasnt. The mainstream media long has been ACCUSED of having a left wing bias and rightwingers have taken that seriously.
Yeah, we all know how liberal ABC is. Parent company Disney dropped Fahrenheit 9/11 like a hot potato, but had no problem promoting the lies in Path to 9/11.
As for the others, you haven't been paying attention. They've all been called out by MMFA on one thing or another.
100% of the MSM is owned by, controlled by the rich. The "liberal bias" BS is a clever disinformation campaign which has put the MSM on the defensive and given employment to hundreds of employees of right-wing fantasy factories ("think tanks") who are added whenever the truth is inconvenient for the right. This false "balance" (spin) is presented as an equally valid viewpoint.
Whatever their political affiliation, reporters are employees who must dance to whatever tune the boss plays. Plenty have been fired over the years for crossing the line.
The MSM gets a lot of news and information from Media Matters and presents it as a fact.- RINO Hunter
Example? And not just the same facts being reported by MMFA and a MSM outlet,but an example of a media outlet using MMFA as a source, and reporting the material as fact.
I'm not sure if it's true or not, but don't CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post all have newsrooms and employ editors, reporters, investigators, journalists and FACT-CHECKERS? Why would these organizations waste so much money hiring these people if they're just going to report whatever MMFA feeds them?
All of the above are primarily, news organizations. Fox is an opinion provider and employs mostly talking heads.
"MoveOn.org and Soros spent $5 million alone in anti-Bush ads in 2004."
Obviously, it wasn't enough. I wonder how much the Swift Boat liars campaign cost?
Who really knows? How much does it cost for someone to change a story they've stuck to for 35 years? Multiply that by the number of SBV sellouts.
Why does the Right hate the super rich?
It's not enough to just be super rich. You have to earn their love by spending your enormous wealth on the right things.
Blanket generalization time, 99.9% of Repub agenda comes from the power money (not that the Dems are any different, sigh). But BO'R loves to create the strawman out of George Soros, a rich boogeyman for the type of conservative Repub class that vote against their own interests because of propaganda like this (the libruls are out to get you).
Reminds me of the guy they used for the Two Minutes Hate in 1984.
Exactly. If Soros gave to Republicans (he did donate to McCain in 2000), think you'd hear anything from the goons at FOX Noise?
I was just about to ask Rino Hunter the same thing. We had a debate going in the Limbaugh "Politicizing Virginia Tech was a joke!" thread about that very subject.
HOLLY:
The rightwing follow a little different philosophy than just greed and getting rich. The operating motivation is, "It's not enough that I WIN. YOU must LOSE."
HAHAHAHAHA........I couldn't make you up in a cartoon.
My favorite part of the whole talking points memo was when he told his audience to "stay with me on this". As if the content of the argument was so complex that it might go right over the heads of his regular viewers if they weren't taking notes or Tevo'ing the program for future reference.
I cannot imagine his audience is made up of such bobbleheads that they would actually watch this and somehow feel fearful of his allegations. It is hysterical the way he pierces his eyes and reaches down to his most serious tone of voice as if he is really breaking news or exposing some real threat to anyone. It is comical.
Now don't go a calling my Mother's husband a bobblehead.
Tommy, quite a pleasant change of tone from your regular input here. I too used to like to watch the Bo'r, but now cringe at his 180. He is so full of mierta that you can smell it across town.
he pierces his eyes
Whoa.
I really do miss a lot without TV...
"This is an incredibly well-oiled, brilliantly orchestrated machine. And as you pointed out, it's also a brilliant way to get around the campaign finance laws in this country."
"organizations can raise millions for politicians, who will do his bidding."
This kind of talk really rich coming from O'Reilly and Crowley. You could take the above statements and apply them even more fittingly to the influence over Republicans that is enjoyed by big oil, big pharmaceutical, big medical insurance, Wal Mart, the gun lobby, defense contractors, the fast food industry, corporate polluters, etc...the list is endless.
When are we going to see O'Reilly's expose' of the influence over conservatives and their agenda for America?
The number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled since 2000, to a total of at least 34,750.
Lobbyists outnumber members of Congress by at least 65 to 1.
And who was in charge of Congress and the White House during this enormous ground swelling?
Rupert Murdoch, for example.
Giggle, giggle. I have to say Fox news has really improved their comedy show. It was the best I have seen. New writers?
And hats off to Michelle Malkin for taking the high road by not wanting to discuss BOR not wanting to air the Alec Baldwin tape. She has kids- I am sure she understands...
Not only that but Soros hates falafels and thinks Lis Wheil would make a lousy pole dancer.
"Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process"
That's so cute. Like you need a funnel!
The "political process" he speaks about with such Civics 101 reverence is like a freaking Shop-Vac for cash.
Some charts I'd like to see:
How the fake Yellowcake memo got to British intelligence.
How the "fake" Texas Air National guard letters got to Dan Rather's producer. (Same source, perhaps?)
How many trips Cheney made to CIA headquarters until he got the WMD intelligence he wanted.
What really happened to all those Karl Rove e-mails.
What really happened to that $9 billion lost in Iraq.
That map where Cheney and his oil buddies were carving up Iraq before 9-11.
Good, but the figure I've heard is 20 billion. This does include 8billion of Iraq money
The "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon.
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.
Oh my gosh, the $20 I gave to MMFA could be the best investment I have ever made. Assembled quotes of various conservatives is propaganda, no truer words ever spoken.
PIT:
You may have uncovered another MOTIVE for O'Reilly's lies. If he can make the world believe MMFA is funded by MANY MILLIONS of dollars funneled in from many sources ... this may discourage individual contributions. "Looks like MMFA has LOTS of funding without MY help," would be the wanted conclusion.
How much DOES it cost to run a website, even with a talented crew of writers and researchers? Does MMFA, as O'Reilly claim, REALLY have an operating budget of MILLIONS? If not, MMFA may wish to reveal some bare bones of their cost of operation, in way of directly contradicting O'Reilly's claim. Unless, of course, this site IS making Brock a multi-millionaire.
Fox News is going to rename "The Factor" to "Just making it up".
"The Fudge Factor"?
Make that Packer and you got it about right.
Wait, hold on just a danged minute...
I see on the MMFA front-page (but not on the page of the item) some kind of chart, like those flow-charts that show us the supposed structure of the 'mafioso' (or whatever)...
A flow-chart that shows the 'path of dollars', leading from 'george soros' to 'mainstream media', through the nexus (the clearing-house) of MMFA...
Is that a joke?
The screen-shot looks water-marked, as "Fox News"...
...you do know you can get sued, for such preposterous slander as that?
It's a joke... isn't it?
George Soros, the "Dr. Evil" of left-wing foundations! What a hoot!!!
This was maybe the most hilarious episode of the Factor I've ever seen, even ridiculous by BilldO standards.The "Demon Red" colored chart, the flow of money being laundered through MoveOn, Cap, etc.
Then, where a real chart would have branched off exponentially, BilldO's converged, forcing all of that money to this site, from which a single, ram-rod straight arrow funneled it directly to the MSM.Comedy genius!
Almost as great was the segment after this, with Dawkins (?), author of The God Delusion.Billdo actually called it a draw, as the authors inability to disprove the existence of God was exactly equal to O'reillys inability to prove existence of same.
I honestly LOLOLOL'ed myself. Especially when he revealed his "chart". Is THIS the work of him and Hannity that he promised us last week? Did they use Hannity's crayons, or Bills Sponge Bob child-safe markers?
Note to Bill: Next time you need a chart, maybe the promise of a trip to Chucky Cheese would be enough to get one of the local elementary school kids to whip something up on Power Point for you.
Almost as good- BilldO's email tonight, with a Factor Fan telling Bill that he put that Atheist in his place by pointing out that the worst killers in history were atheists.
Billdo mentioned Hitler, who the guest pointed out was a Catholic, to which BilldO snapped "No he wasn't!".BilldO also mentioned Pol POt, Stalin, etc., then preemptively added that "of course, you could mention the Crusades and Al Qaeda", effectively ruining his own argument, while convincing himself he had taken these religious killers off the table and won.
I love crazy people, and BO's is one of my faves.
I wish Bill could have used a chart to figure out Bush's connection to the Swift Boat Vets.
That is easy to explain, I am not sure you need a chart. Karl Rove-------> to the GOP ---------------> GOP to the "Swift Boat Vets"------------> . Bush is and was too stupid to deal with stiff like this.
Well Doris, A MissDee posted earlier that people on the left alternate between calling Bush a chimp, and then decrying him as an Evil Genius. I asked her for any examples of anybody referring to Bush as a genius, but I don't think she's come up with that yet.
I'm pretty sure I've heard Stephen Colbert refer to GW as a genius several times. And in response to your post about last nights Factor, I'm sorry I missed it. I was wondering what Darryl Dawkins was up to since retiring from the NBA.
OK, King, I'm pretty lazy, but I'll use the googles.It's richard dawkins, and he's not the guy from Family Feud nor hogan's Heroes.
fear grinn.
I know. I just can't post anything serious in an O'Reilly thread.
I know cabbages that cringe whenever O'Reilly's voice is played within ear shot of their garden. His viewers must be less sentient than your average leaf vegetable.
"The God Delusion" is next on my reading list. I just bought Carl Sagan's "The Varieties of Scientific Experience". So I'm going to read both sides, one book by a scientist who's an atheist (Richard) and one by a scientist, an agnostic who leaned towards atheism (Carl).
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--Of cabbages--and kings--"
I just couldn't resist.
Of why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.
Nice touch with the Gaelic sign off. I missed it first time through.
Too early for me to be thinking.
<SARCASM>
Damn... media matters feeds all mainstream media? MMFA is getting all the credit here. So I guess that means that every news story ever boken has been cited from mediamatters since its inception. Hmmm.... Associated press, NYT, WashPo... ohhh boy... but no O'Really is NOT a delusional, paranoid, egotistical narcissistic maniac with a persecution complex. Nahhhhhhhhh....
<\SARCASM>
Soros is a good guy
And I am not clear as to why MMFA makes it a point to always say they do not take donations from him. I would want him to donate money. I give money to MMFA and would hope they would solicit money from George Soros. Why is MMFA treating him like a leper?
Maybe because:
1) Soros doesn't give money DIRECTLY to MMFA.
2) It's Soros' decision who he wants to give money too.
"That was easy", said the STAPLES button.
KENT: You know, I tell you, the research that I compiled in my book, if you take the top three conservative tax-exempt foundations, they're totally dwarfed by Soros and the radical Ford Foundation.
I liked this too... limiting it to the top three tax-exempt foundations.How about comparing some real big-time GOP contributors?
"the radical Ford Foundation?"
Sesame Street? The Grameen Bank? That radical Ford Foundation?
Yeah, Sesame Street! After all, if we do not start indoctrinating them young, the "liberal" edge in propaganda would vanish, for it would be too difficult to hide the truth without that "Head Start", to cite yet another "liberal" tool!
Sesame Street is just liberal propaganda. It's far-left secular humanist garbage. Look at it. You have Oscar, who's homeless and a grouch but they accept him. Where's the personal responsibility? Bert and Ernie are gay, living together, if that's not pushing gay marriage I don't know what is. All of them are different colors, that's about diversity. I'm telling you it's a commie-pinko-gay-terr'ist plot. They give you a letters and numbers "sponsoring" the show I'm betting if you string them together it's a code they're communicating messages in!
This is Bill O'Savage, signing off...
A GREAT extension of the notion!
- Why is MMFA treating him like a leper? -
That's a heck of a good question. I ,for one, don't care if mmfa is funded by Soros...but they sure have made a career of denying any connection to Soros.
- As previously indicated, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization. - mmfa
Another clever attempt to defuse the Soros connection. mmfa didn't deny that they receive funding from OSI, Dem. Alliance, CAP, MoveOn, or Tides...all funded by Soros. Weak, flimsy, and childish.
I couldn't care less about the whine from BOR about the mmfa "attack machine". He's paid to talk and express and opinion...and occassionally he could provide some facts...so he shouldn't take exception when other media outlets lampoon him in disagreement. That's hardly being attacked.
But, BOR is right on one point...this whole issue...from the right and the left...exposes the rot in Amrican politics and discourse.
Ummmm, this was a partisan attack, BillOmitty omitted any references to any rightwing "rich guys" funding right-wing organization connections, no chart. So his point... you know the one you just said he made... he really didn't. That was YOUR point.
- By that, I mean find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do. In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is the likes of George Soros - O'Reilly
That's the point he made...and the point that I referenced. It's rotten, no matter who does it.
Except its a bad point as the analogy doesnt hold. The business gives money DIRECTLY TO the candidate. So it would be more like saying because some business gives money to the RNC that a specific candidate would do what the business told them. Now maybe someone makes that argument but I havent seen it made.
Sorry Sol, but you're so far behind...you think you're ahead.
The issue is throwing around lots of money to buy influence with politicians...and I don't need to hear the age old crap "that its always been done that way".
I have no interest in discussing the merits or lack of...on O'Reilly. Big money donors seeking to influence weak politicians...from the right or left...is rotten.
If you want to pick a fight with that...knock yourself out.
I agree with your money and politics point Wes. This is the reason we need publicly funded campaign finance...period. If some business, or lobby group wants to give money it goes into a central fund that is used to support any candidate running for office.
People will whine that this will cause our taxes to go up or whatever BS excuse they can think of..like denying freedom of speech blah blah blah.
However, when you look at how much money has corrupted the political process and shut out representation for the common men and women, the current situation has cost us trillions in taxes because the process is one sided and favors the few who donate the most.
Take the money out of politics now and maybe we will get some truly passionate people running to represent all of the interests of the public.
I'll have to think a little on publicly funded campaigns...not sure just yet. I have also never been a big supporter of term limits...but am sliding in that direction.
Politics has nearly always been a nasty business. Career politicians instead of citizen leaders and big money has made the entire proposition a huge dung pile.
We can always hope...and try to cast an educated ballot.
THIS I completly agree with. Money has destroyed the public accountability of politicians. They dont care as much what WE want only what those who fund them want. Forcing politicians to whore for money from the time they run for county commissioner is totally inconsistant with getting politicians who are responsible to the PEOPLE instead of to the influx of money.
"This is the reason we need publicly funded campaign finance...period."
Except that it would be unconstitutional as it would be a violation of free speech rights. If McCain-Feingold would have come to the current Supreme Court with Alito on it, it no doubt would have been declared unconstitutional. The government doesn't have the constitutional right to tell it's citizens how much money they can give to a particular candidate. And they definetely shouldn't force us to give OUR OWN MONEY to candidates that don't share our values! This is just another excuse to create an even bigger government.
In that case, I think whining about where Soros spends his money is a bit unfair, wouldn't you agree? Surely you don't want to limit his free speech rights...
I don't really care that Soros funds this organization. The only thing I've criticized this web site about is it's attempt to try to limit the free speech rights of conservative broadcasters. I could care less who Soros gives money to. I actually think Soros has been detrimental to the Democratic Party.
Yes you have made that ridiculous claim over and over even after having been shown how incredibly ludicrous it is. Have you come up with the name of the conservative broadcaster that has been arrested for speaking his mind? NO? Imagine my suprise. The one that has been stopped from speaking his mind on a streetcorner? In the park? NO ONE has a free speech right to be employed as a broadcaster. MY employer could fire me for being rude to customers at industries I go to and I work under a union contract. This meme is utterly ridiculous. NO matter how often you its repeated it will remain ridiculous. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED.
"The only thing I've criticized this web site about is it's attempt to try to limit the free speech rights[?] of conservative broadcasters." -Rino Hunter
Again. It appears you are confusing a libertarian ideal of absolute "free speech" with the Constitutional First Amendment Right to Free Speech. They are simply two different things. There is no inherent right to the libertarian ideal vision of absolute "free speech".
The Onion said it better than I can.
YOUR frame does not limit MY arguments in any way. YOU dont get to demand we just TAKE your frame as the baseling for what we talk about. YOUR quote conflates O'reilly talking about THIS subject, citing Soros, in the context of THIS sad and pathetic attempt at a point to make this larger point. IF your arguments is based on a flawed premise it is a logical fallacy by definition. My argument is they are apples and oranges for the reason I specified. YOU dont get to tell me what arguments I can make and ones I cant, get over yourself.
It's really simple...I have not impeded your efforts in any way...discuss the merits of O'Reilly all you want...I'm not interested.
What I am interested in is the reason for mmfa's repeated denials of a connection to Soros...strange.
Well here's my theory... I'm kind of going out on a limb with this one, but maybe, I was thinking, it's because... there's no connection to Soros? Maybe?
but....but....there were charts, and everything....
See thats the wrong question. WHY is the right LYING about it? Correcting a mistatement of rather a lie since its been corrected many times isnt in any way demonizing Soros. As they said Soros COULD write them a check. I didnt see them say they would reject that check. If my nieghbor said he saw me at the movies last week its not demonizing the theater to say no you didnt I wasnt there.
Indirect or direct...it makes no difference...Soros money is floating mmfa's boat...and they continue to deny it. They have done little to debunk that fact.
Just a personal note...do you stay in touch with your teacher from the days when you were editor of your high school paper? Slippage.
No. I live in a different state.I didnt when I lived in the same city.
How can anyone prove a negative? MMA has indicated it would be thrilled to get a big check from Soros - or virtually anybody else. I have no doubt they'd be happy to admit it if they had - why not?
Another question: If MMA was entirely funded by Soros, like Fox is by Murdoch why would that be bad?
This whole bit is a McCarthyite guilt by assosciation smear. X is associated with Y (who I suspect of unspecified nefariousness) therefore an evil conspiracy is afoot.
McCarthy's ghost is laughing his ass off.
The transcripts and videos that Media Matters provides is independent of Media Matters which means we can make our own judgements by reading the transcripts and viewing the videos.
Media Matters' comments regarding the transcripts and videos is useful in pointing out that which may slip past us if we were to analyze the transcripts and videos ourselves.
What angers the right is how useful Media Matters can be to the public when it comes to sorting through the bull in our media.
You guys better be careful, you may be getting a little visit from Fox Security.
I hated this show the first time around when it was called "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts.
Gee,
This is funny! This reminds me of the self confessed racist who come here and say "I am a racist and so is everyone else." There's a need to believe that one is not unique in their shortcomings, anyway I think this is some right wing projection going on here. Brock outed some of the right wing bilionares that financed the distortive right wing books and publications ("As a young journalist in the 1990s, David Brock was a key cog the Republican noise machine. Writing for the American Spectator, a conservative magazine funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, Brock gained fame for his attack pieces on Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton. Then, in 2002, Brock came clean. In his memoir, Blinded by the Right, Brock admitted that his work was based on lies and distortion, and part of a coordinated smear campaign funded by" wealthy right wing groups to discredit Clinton and confuse the public.)
so BO asumes that a Liberal with deep pockets must be doing the same, and if Brock did this for them he must now be doing the same for the left. They don't beleive that Brock has been reformed and their feelings about Soros borders on the insane.
Bill reminds me of Professor Wagstaff (HORSE FEATHERS...Groucho)..Isn't this mindful of the comedic song....
BA bay BE bee BI bicy by BO bo BICY by Bo Be BU bickey by bo boo..
Look it up.....Also, if you turn this chart upside down, it could possibly remind you of the lower regions of the male anatomy the top arrow may signify the size of O'Reilly's.....never mind. Okay, I'll say it, his pointing finger.
I can't say I considered turning it upside down, but I thought I recognized that chart from somewhere else. Then it struck me: Bill must have torn his "Diagram of the Female Anatomy" poster off his bedroom wall and had Sean paste "far-left organization" names over the original "fellopian tubes" and "ovaries" labels.
I honestly have never seen anything more ridiculous than that chart on a tv network in my life.
PLEASE ANSWER MY LEGAL QUESTION:
Can a lawyer out there tell me (us) why Soros, Moyers, Alter, MMFA and others libeled in O'Reilly's rant can (even why they won't) be sued??
It's one thing when Bill-O McLOOFA makes sexist and racist comments; I understand that all Hispanics, all Blacks and all Women can't sue him collectively, but I'm appalled that he gets away with outright libel on the airways! Were I Soros, or Moyers et al, I would sue him and FOX until they were reduced to one AM station broadcasting from Hondouras.
Al Franken answered you question a couple years ago. To be successful in a lawsuit, it would have to be proven that O'Reilly lied, and knew he was lying. Well, O'Reilly lies all the time, so it seems to be a pathological trait. In other words, he's not aware that he's lying. If he only lied once in awhile when he had a motive, it could be shown that he knew he was lying. And a suit would possibly be successful. Alas, O'Really can't be successfully sued for lying because he lies too much.
See?
The LEGAL trick here is, to be libel or slander, the target would have to prove DAMAGES. I don't know that Soros could identify any DAMAGE done to him by being falsely accused of funding this website.
Similarly, MMFA being falsely accused of taking money from Soros is not damaging to them. It's OK for Soros to fund whatever he likes, and it's only in rightwing la-la land that being connected to Soros is a horrible thing.
Also, O'Reilly telling us subjectively what he FEARS about Soros is just his opinion, and the opinion of a weak and cowardly man who sees danger which he cannot rationally explain ... he just doesn't LIKE Soros, so Soros SCARES him. There's nothing to be sued over there, unless O'Reilly decided to sue Soros to pay for his frequent change of Depends/Pampers.
Thanks, that makes sense. One should have to prove damage. I do know that FOX won a court case by provinig it was never required to tell the truth.
Soros screwed up by not offering the "Falafel" incident woman one million dollars more than what Bill was willing to offer her. Even Faux News would have had to fire BO if the tapes go out into the open.
Those tapes were out-of-context. It was the vast leftwing conspirators who made those tapes. They drugged Bill O. and made him talk like that. Anybody have a chart on the FUN-ding by Bill?
He has become a big joke. even Geraldo has moved up a notch. And don't be suprised if Billy jumps ship and sees the light and follows the FORCE. Of course, it would be the FROEC...(out-of-context)
Arrows con pollo.
BillO es un pollo....
Billo es un hálcon-pollo muy macho !
Creo que BillO es una zanahoria azul y caliente.
Is my Spanish worse that I think it is, or is that "hot blue carrot"?
Yeah, I think so.
Maybe it's some obscure idiom, or a really bad Google translation...
Hey, cut it out,I'm stalking you !
Yes, yes it is.
yes. and this president believes we're winning in iraq.
I've determined that I want to be George Soros when I grow up.
Slings and arrows sticks and stones on and on and on they drone
This is absolutely priceless.
Screaming at Fox news channel, stressful. Candidate donatation $100.00, Media Matters donation priceless.
keep up the good work!
George Soros ate my baby!!!!!
Please, please,please
The goal of George Soros, [Progressive Insurance chairman] Peter Lewis, [Esprit clothing company founder] Susie Tompkins Buell, and other radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. By that, I mean find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.
Sue him for defamation. They are running scared. Oh and PS - Monica how is the 90th show that you have been cancelled from?
Really - I read Media Matters all of the time but I'm getting alittle tired of this back and forth between Bill and MM.
Please sue the bastard and move on........
"In fact, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization."
This is simply a lie. Soros gave money to the Center for American Progress, which in turn helped set up Media Matters.
The only truthful part of your comment is that Soros gave money to the Center for American Progress.
When you give money to a charity like the Salvation Army, you actually get to tell them where and on what they spend the money on? Cool but it doesn't work that way for most of us.
You are stating every group Soros contributes to, he runs. Theres making stuff up, and then there's evidence. Your claim comes out of the fomer.
I don't know... I kind of like "vile propaganda outfit."
Can we embrace what the haters call us, like the "ditto-head" meme? Media Morons, a vile propaganda outfit has a nice ring to it...
Brutally attacking someone with the truth is not a smear.
It is a public service.
The new theme song for the THE Republican/Conservatin Party...
"CRY ME A RIVER"...by next election, with the number of tears being shed, we will be needing ARKS.
My bullsh-t detector actually melted when I saw that graphic. I can just picture Olbermann, Colbert and Jon Stewart are going to have a field day with that chart.
They might not touch it, PJ. I was crying I was laughing so hard when I watched this- the comedy shows might know when they're beat.What the hell can you do with this to make it more absurd?
Media Matters dose get money from Soros via Moveon.Org
"financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors"
"Media Matters has received financial support from MoveOn.org, Peter Lewis and the New Democratic Network."
Source: Wikipedia
I guess when you give money to a charity or political organization you specifically earmark where you want the money to go. Like $3.25 to Staples for copy paper, $.49. for paper clips, $2.00 towards Bic Pens, etc..
Right thats true, everyone does this?
Uh - this may come as a shock to you, but everything on wiki isn't necessarily true. O'liely fans likely posted that there.
IS THEIR ANY LEGAL WAY TO SHUT O'liey up.I saw that segment last night and said to myself MM has to sue this thing,it was sickening to let him lie like that with them other two saying the same lies.
The only way that occurs to me, to shut O'LIE-ly up (legally) would be to allow him to rant on until he is sufficiently expensive and so outrageous that his sponsors do an Imus on him. He already is becoming expensive, in-demo, at his rather sizeable salary; and he is prone always to outrageousness, the more so as his position at the pinnacle of his profession erodes away beneath him. That may not take forever, but it will surely seem to.
Rock solid proof that Soros controls Jack Murtha, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi's every action. Documented here:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/04/02/tomo/index1.html
"GET PELOSI ON THE PHONE, IMMEDIATELY!" - George Soros
I love those Tom Tomorrow cartoons! And, the laugh was timely!
Thanks!
What Media Matters does is VERY simple, it takes O'Reilly's OWN words and demonstrates his hypocrisy, his distortions and LIES and that's what disTurbs Billy so much. HIS OWN WORDS and by not providing ANY examples or proof of how Media Matters attacks or smears right wing pundits or hosts, shows that he's attacking M.M. not for anything except that they are EXPOSING his falsehoods. It's also no coincidence that he's attacking Bill Moyers now, for his great investigation proving the main stream media were lapdogs for the selling of the war and it's ironic that he criticizes MSM and O'Reilly is bashing Moyers for going after the same people, i.e. CBS, CNN, he has in the past.
So what O'Reilly is left with is to concoct some wild conspiracy of money and funding, shrouded in some devious agenda . Funding groups is not even an issue, it's done by both sides and it's only because the right wing doesn't have Cart Blanche to get away with anything they say or every piece of propaganda they advance, without being challenged, by GREAT web sites like MEDIA MATTERS.
Perhaps he should be asking questions about Richard Mellon Scaife, a right-wing trust fund billionaire who's funded right-wing organizations, publications, and even Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, which could be seen as kind of a right-wing MMfA:
The Wingnut Media Meltdown
But I'm willing to bet we'll never hear about any of this on the All-Spin Zone.
Don't you just love it when a dumbass like O'Reilly gets a pointer in his hand and starts doing graphs.
Billy, you need to see a doctor, or pick out a nice white coat.
Is there any way to sue O'Reilly?
No, troll, now go home.
Yes. Wait for him to try to scrub you with a falafel, then consult a lawyer.
there is a simple solution for alllll these accusations. nbc needs to ask orielly on the morning show and simpley ask him to show his proof.right there on the air not what he belives what it is but what it is. not once did oreilly show proof he just had accusations with his conclusions .and also ask him about who is the right wing most powerful finance man is.
face him with quotes from mm and make him prove it was out of context.
he said nbc has turned left ask him to prove it.
this mans lies and influence must be stoped and nbc must confront him for an hour not just three minutes.
have matt lauer ready with fax !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and dont let him get away without being pithy and spin
COME ON NBC HAVE SOME B____S
What gets me is that creepy chart.
Am I crazy, or is it supposed to resemble a chart of a woman's reproductive organs? The sort of thing that was used in my high-school health classes? The blood-red background is gross, and those little arrows are creepy.
We really need to take him out.
Can we gety him on false information or some other impropriety like Imus? Is there nothing illegal about missleading the public or what ever. We all need this thug to finally go away.
jack
jack, you and the rest of the trolls need to go away.
Well, the problem with bringing a lawsuit to O'reilly is that if something is true he can't be held liable. I'm not saying Soros IS fynding MMFA but if they tried to sue O'reilly and he could back up his allegations with facts it wouldn't work. This is why it's strikes me as funny anytime the left claims that con commentators are all blatant liers....the simple fact these guys are still on the air is a testament to the fact that they back up what they say with documentation. But by all means, if it makes you happy to silence one side of the political spectrum go right ahead and try just remember
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
SSHAW while I'll not avoid humor that laughs at, I much prefer to laugh with. We're stupid and thats funny. Nice mood setting, not much zing.
The Punters continue to maintain a happy and lucrative career(s). This is your statement of proof regarding their accuracy?
I missed the briefing on an attempt to silience one side of the political dabate. Could someone fax me that. I'd hate to cause collateral damage.
I like the quote, I think it would fit well on the oppenning page.
There is no free speech issue involved with holding commentators accountable for how they use OUR airwaves they dont have a free speech right to further employment no matter what they say. And no, it has been shown MANY times that O'fafel for instance LIES. How many times does he make personal attacks then how many times does he say he doesnt? Didnt he say if we didnt find WMDs in Iraq he would denounce the war and never trust the Bush administration again? He lies. Flat out lies. It doesnt get him taken off the air. I dont care whether it does or not but its not a logical claim to say since he WASNT taken off the air he doesnt lie and can back up his statements. Sometimes he can other times he cant. Its that simple. Fox won a court case in Tenessee that SAID they could lie on the air
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy."
Not to punch any Democratic candidate, but the truth is that the FEC reveals Soros has given Obama some funds and max'd out. But no one deserves this kind of mistruth. It was deliberate to single out Edwards dishonestly because Edwards doesn't believe Fox News is a credible news outlet. O'Reilly just proved it with no sources, no facts, even by his own adminission.
Big deal, so George Soros "allegedly" funds various leftist organizations that in turn fund a site who's sole purpose is to stifle conservative viewpoints....SHOCKING!
While this may seem like paranoia from the right it kinda reminds me of the left thnking that Karl Rove is some kind of shadowing puppet master behind every decision the government makes, hillarious.
So those White House emails disappearing was just an accident, right? You believe that? OK.
(Shh. He's talking to himself. He doesn't know we're here.)
(He's pretty far gone with the Republicancer. He even spells "hilarious" with 2 "l"s, like "Hillary".)
I have a sneaky suspicion that Mr. Shaw is "Savagerocks" re-incarnated.
Please keep in mind that our SS friend also thinks that Neal Boortz playing "Hit me with your best shot" immediately after discussing the VT shootings was a coincidence. Best to grab the salt shaker for this one.
"George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations."
Dr. Evil: "I just have one simple request...and that's to have sharks with fricken LASER BEAMS attached to their heads."
Yep, that sounds about right. No offense to MMA, but if the best the all powerful multi-billionaire Soros can muster is an overly simplistic funding scheme for a small website and its little staff, then I doubt Roger Ailes has much to worry about. I don't see Soros trying to buy newspapers (ala Moon)or expand a media empire (like Murdock).
MMA, though usually informative, occasionally funny, and often maddening, is kind of the backwater of media criticism. Those of us who feel as though journalism has become too dependent on talking points and profits find MMA highly informative, but we are the minority of consumers of news.
I'm not so sure about that. There seem to be a lot of attempts to discredit them from Savage, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. Now if they had valid points, if MMfA really was taking them out of context or being otherwise dishonest, I could see why they would find the risk of giving them free advertising worthwhile. But they don't. So why do they bother to deal with MMfA if they are insignificant and accurate in their quotes?
MMFA is being hypocritical in this case. MMFA has criticized global warming skeptics for making studies through companies to which Exxon is a "major donor".Take the example of Patrick J. Michaels. He is editor of World Climate Report, which is funded in large part by energy interests. See link:So why does MMFA think that a chain leading indirectly to a specific donor is irrelevant when it comes to Soros-Moveon-MMFA, while saying it's relevant in the case of Exxon-World Climate Review-Patrick Michaels? I think MMFA made the mistake of being defensive even though George Soros has never commited a criminal or even unethical act in his life. These GW skeptics are obviously tainted, since Exxon and other energy companies have a conflict of interest. But like I said, there is nothing with George Soros.
"These GW skeptics are obviously tainted, since Exxon and other energy companies have a conflict of interest. But like I said, there is nothing with George Soros."
Then they're not being hypocritical. You yourself are pointing out a major difference in the two scenarios which makes all the difference in the world. With Exxon-funded scientists, those are people who would normally be objective, and Exxon's vested interest in downplaying global warming clearly makes them less so. But there's no conflict of interest in this case, there's no reason to believe that the content of the site changes whether Soros donates a billion dollars or nothing at all.
I am aware of the major difference that Exxon is unethical and lies about GW, while Soros is an untainted American citizen.
But that's irrelevant to my point that if we go by MMFA's methodology that if A works for B and B is funded by C, then A has ties to C.
MMFA said Patrick Michaels had ties to the energy industry.
If Patrick Michaels had ties to the energy industry, then MMFA has ties to George Soros.
This issue could be resolved if MMFA does one of these:
1) State that it has ties to George Soros, or
2) Withdraw the claim that Patrick Michaels has ties to the energy industry.
Only then will MMFA be consistent in this issue.
Unless, of course, MMfA has no ties to George Soros. Then, the two cases would be, you know, different.
I guess I just can't understand you guys' reasoning. Soros openly gives money to MoveOn, which supports actual candidates for elective office in the United States. Is your allegation that he gives money on the sly through third parties to a 501(c)3 that runs a blog where me and Tommy bicker about whether the posts are important or not?
I mean, is that really your scary conspiracy theory?
Well said, good point. The idea that Soros is intentionally giving money to MMfA through other organizations is just bizarre. Whereas in the global warming case, the money being transferred has a pretty clear intent, to "debunk" climate concerns.
Does Michaels' publication not receive money directly from energy interests? What is the third party here, the publication itself which Michaels appears to own and run? I admit I didn't read this deeply but it looks like that's a pretty direct connection.
I just don't get it. Should MMfA not point out that this guy is funded by people who have a vested interest in downplaying global warming because they realize "oh, but George Soros gives money to organizations that happen to give money to us, so we're 'connected' too". Even if the methodology is the same, the circumstances make one a clear problem and the other one not so much of an issue at all. So the case that this is "hypocritical" is quite weak, so far.
O'Reilly is dead wrong on the chart. It significantly overstates Media Matters relevance.
He does deserve credit for accurate labeling: "vile propaganda outfit".
Well let ME do some accurate labelling. YOU are a moron.
So, either MMFA plays a significant role in exposing the media's right-wing bias, or O'Reilly is a delusional lair. Not a bad dichotomy, even if it's false.
The way to shut these liars up is (1) demand proof, (2) anybody they lie about, including Mr. Soros, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, etc., should be calling them liars loudly and clearly, and (3) Howard Dean should be out there exposing and refuting every lie.
Even just for the 2006 campaign, that would fill poor Mr. Dean's schedule for centuries; that is one reason *I* contribute occasionally to MMFA - to provide some much-needed assistance to the mission you have assigned Mr. Dean.
Bill O is a great one to accuse anyone of smearing others. His whole"show" is one big smear job.
I found his claim that George Soros set up a complicated system to hide his influence particularly ridiculous. Later in the segment he contridicted himself, like that is anything new, and said Soros was not even trying to hide his hand.
When he claims George Soros gives more money to liberal causes than the "conservaties" give to right wing causes apparently he forgets about Richard Mellon Scaife. According to Wikipedia, "By 1998 his foundations were listed among donors to over 100 such groups, to which he had disbursed some $340 million by 2002." But we all know right wing nut cases are always the victims.
I'm worried about Billo--he's just not the same old OReally, turning more and more into Weiner. I'm honestly concerned about the poor man, maybe we should call Al Franken to check up on him...
Also, he should have used a flowchart, which is cooler.
I secretly gave MMFA $14million so I guess I control it, if anyone does. So I'm Dr. Evil as O'Reilly's guest claims? MMFA points out O'Reilly's lies and distortions, to me that's not evil, it's what I want MMFA to do.
The fact that O'Reilly doesn't ever prove the validity of his assertions that MMFA rebukes and only attacks MMFA for who controls it should be evidence enough that MMFA's claims against O'Reilly are true. O'Reilly is using a strawman argument to convince his viewers he is not a liar, and it probably works for him, since the only people who are his viewers are people that are very susceptible to logical fallacies.
What gets me the most is that he claims George Soros (a felon in France, he duly notes) controls MMFA when in fact I do. But he doesn't know about me...
Dude, I like your writing... plus you have the most bad-ass handle on here! So I will shout it from the rooftops:
I agree with Libtard!!
226 posts (10:00 pm PDT). I smell an Olderman's "Worst Person" straight ahead for Bull OhReally?.
Y'see, here's what I think the problem is.
Since Iraq went "wrong", Bill can't come out and say that he still supports the president without looking like a total doofus. So, he's spent the last few months going after a wealthy foreigner (dum dum duuuuuuuuuuum) who has explicitly said that there are few things he'd like more than to remove Bush from the presidency.
Bill claims to be going after Soros because of purported, yet non-existent, ties to MediaMatters. However, i reckon he's just angry there's a rich dude who doesn't like Bush. DOESN'T HE KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON/TAX-CUTS FOR THE RICH BENEFIT THE POOR/TRICKLE-DOWN REAGONOMICS ETC.?
Seems to me that this type of attitude came up on something I was reading yesterday. Rush's comment on the VT killer being liberal because the killer hated the rich. Those in yesterday's blog wanted to deny that going after the rich was a typical liberal move. You just helped my argument, and I am sure many from yesterday's blog are now in this one.
Actually, I'm still waiting for Rino (and you, incidentally) to sound off on how O'Reilly should stop hating the rich.
It's a Catch-22: if left-wingers criticize the rich, then they're being underhanded. If Bill-O does it, then the righties turn a blind eye.
O'Reilly did not say anything factually inaccurate in this respect. The fact of the matter is Media Matters is little more than a propaganda outlet for that criminal billionaire oligarch Soros. The Chinese call him "the crocodile," because his economic and ideological efforts in China were so insatiate, and because his financial speculation created millions of dollars in profits as it ravished the Thai and Malaysian economies. He once made $1bn in one day by speculating on the British pound, accused of stealing money from the taxpayers. Soros is certainly does not advocate peace manifested by his cheerleading of the barbaric bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Soros systematically worked to subvert socialism in the Eastern Bloc which led to the destruction of the lives of tens of millions of people. Soros has been behind installing proxy regimes in Ukraine, Georgia, and Yugoslavia.
And if erosion didn't fill you in with all the details, go to Townhall for more bedwetting Sorosaphobia.
why is everything hyperlinking? Yikes!
I e-mailed O'Reilly and asked how a website posting audio or video of what someone actually said could be considered 'smear.'
He read it on the air last night and he answered (in a snarky manner of course) "Three little words Madam....out of context."
I think Media Matters goes out of their way to provide context, unlike people like Hannity or other Fox hosts who pull a soundbite from something a liberal might say, and play it on a loop, providing no context at all.
You're missing the overarching context that liberals are evil and wrong and hate America, and all Bill is doing is trying to help American men, women, families, and hot underlings that he'd like to assist between his bedsheets.
oh, so you were the snarky one? LOL. I find interesting the number of comments from New York that he receives and reads on the air.
Have you joined Weiner in bashing New Yorkers?
If it's so easy to take Bill-O out of context that you can fill a whole website, wouldn't that make him pretty lame at getting his point across?
Left Wing radical hatchet men....
You know what?....I'll take left wing radicals like Soros & Moyers anyday over the likes of a Rupert Murdoch & Bill O'Reekly any freekin day of the week.....how dare this man try to label someone as having an agenda....as if FOXnews doesn't try to direct news events.
Try as he may....the public realizes the truth....but sadly, there will be people who will be swayed by this bunk
P.B. Its like a salt filled pancake laid accross the bodypolitic of this great nation. Bitter to taste, bitter to hold. And they were held there not only by their hearts and their minds but by their machines as well of. Up to one half!
D.O. Up to one half!?
P.B. Nor could they dipreciate for four years. It was a time of great ecconomic impression. And all that were near it grew sad, or corn depending upon their want.
P.P. I went down to the chemical corn bank the other day and gave them three ears of corn. And they gave me three beakers filled with chemicals.
D.O. Thats Fair Trade!
P.A. Thats frightening.
P.B. Thats Jubilee Year. Every seven years we come here before the microphones to Anouce the Great Jubilee. Which lasts a full cycle of the sun. In which all slaves are set free.
D.O. Can'tcha hear there feet stomping in the mud?
P.A. Lets get out of this mud!
That I've been up though no ones fault since 4 A.M. west coast yesterday. This might be the second explaination for the above that might occur to you. Things like this exsist in my memory and surface from time to time. Any mistakes of course I'll blame on being tired. Before the hook comes out.
P.B. Peter Bergman.
P.A. Phil Austin.
P.P. Phillip Procter.
D.O. David Ossman.
The Firesign Theater's Album Dear Freinds, side one, somewhere near the front. Allrightsremoved. This concludes our intermission. Thank you.
HUGE Firesign theater fan. I thought I had all their albums except Lawyers in Love but I havent heard of that one.
Maybe more apropos is from Dont crush that dwarf pass the plies when in Korea two soldiers come back from reconnasance and the LT says, did you see the enemy
Sure Lt, there millions of them on all three sides of us, they have pigs and goats...they LIVE here Lt.
Bill your chart is not accurate.
Where is the arrow pointing from Satan to George Soros?
I have no doubt that O'Reilly's chart is correct. Soros is evil, and the more we hear about the truth, the more those involved with him will try to hide from it.
Can anyone tell me how MoveOn acheived non-profit status? I am digging, and I will find out. Sounds somewhat unethical to me.
Keep digging. We'll wait.
Care to share? How is he evil?
We have to remember that Fox Noise isn't so much a "news organization" as it is a right-ring propaganda mouthpeice for Bush and Company. I live in the South and there are people here who watch this so-called news network religiously. I often wonder if they care whether or not what they're getting isn't really news as the rest of us understand the term.
You know Bill O'Reilly keeps saying folks won't come on his show to debate the issues and I know you've said that you've tried to have him bring you on but he won't.
I don't know where his studio is but if there was a big Bill Board close by maybe an add saying "Hey Bill come out from under your desk and DEBATE Media Matters. Call us, e-mail us send us a FAX. We are standing by."
Or some such. Then call Keith Olbermann and let him know I'm sure he'd love to do a piece on it.
I'm sure that these boards are not cheap so maybe you could run a fund drive to pay for it. I'd be happy to help.
Mickh1027
He has stated on his show that he has made attempts to contact MMFA, but they never return his call. I would love to see live person from this website, also.
Why? So he can yell at them, tell them to shut up, and finally cut the guest's mic?
I saw that episode and I was outraged and I think Charles Schumer disgraced himself by appearing in the very next segment on that same vile show where O'Reilly red-baited Soros, almost getting anti-Semitic with it, the Democrats should NOT go on any FOX show.
"This would be analogous to someone clamining that they function perfectly with half of their brains removed."
Functioning with only half of your brain seems to be the ONLY thing you reichwingnuts can do perfectly.
Thats funny, the right-half of the reichwingnut brain seems to function in overdrive: creative (as in: pulls sh*t straight out of there a**), Looks at wholes (as in: can't comprehend slight or even glaringly obvious differences, tends to speak in sweeping generalizations and dichotomies)
Sound familiar D3? No? Gee I wonder why?
lets see... the left-hand side (analytical, objective, rational, logical) of the reichwingnut brain. NON FUNCTIONAL.
It baffles me how Fox and O'Reilly think they're not part of the "Mainstream Media"
O'Reilly is channeling Joe McCarthy
Hasn't anybody else noticed? I've read this entire thread (over 280 comments now) and nobody seemed to make the connection. "I have indisputable proof" - waving a folder. Proves nothing. Hinting darkly at nefarious connections to Edwards that he doesn't even pretend to evidence for. Look back at the McCarthy hearings, you'll see that the similarities must be intentional - or something.
I don't think we can completely exclude the possibility (and I'm very serious here) that O'Reilly has literally gone completely round the bend.
If you can stand to, watch some clips of the witch hunt - then watch this one again. Amazing!
BTW - note that the unspecified "evidence" was in a red folder. Meaningless to you and me perhaps, but signifigant to his wingnut audience.
I want to thank George Soros!! If it's true, I'm greatful that there's money for fight scum like O'Reilly and Fox "news."
With the gun nuts all fired up , after the VA massacre, I am surpised that we don't see more dead pundits, laying in their driveways, as was done in Denver years ago. The press needs to get a pair, and start calling out these neocon dangerous media types, and start calling Bush and Cheney liars to their faces. Broadcast Billo lying, with his own radio and TV tapes, and then use his own, well we tried to call, but got no reply, in time for this broadcast.
This is a very devisive time in America, almost the powderkeg that VietNam became at Kent State and the Chicago Convention. If jerks like O Reilly want to be heard...then the MSM, should go after him and Fox with a vengence to discredit them as nothing more than a waste of your cable dollars. Rupert will not be able to bundle the Simpsons with FNC, and Fox Sports. A nice quartely deficit for NewsCorp will turn that around in a heartbeat.
""wants to impose a radical left agenda on America"
And that's a problem because?
I want to see the chart he makes for ME !
I give money to the Red Cross.
The Red Cross gives a grant to a local emergency shelter.
The emergency shelter gives food money to a crack addict.
The crack addict buys crack from a dealer.
Proof - I am funding international drug cartels !!!!!
It's amazing that O'Reilley continuously denies things he has said and falsely attributes sayings to others. Bill is really the Baron von Munchausen of punditry. His egotistical delusional rants could be called Munchausen by O'Reilly proxy.
"He's not even making an attempt to keep his fingerprints off of this. And the other point, too, Bill, is accountability. So you have transparency, OK, which he's trying to obfuscate with this kind of web,"
Apparently she can't even remember what she said two sentences ago. He's using this diabolical web to hide was he's doing, and he's doing it so shamelessly that he doesn't even attempt to hide it. Huh?
"Now, we believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros. I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt"
I have reason to believe that Bill O'Reilly eats babies. I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but if people ask me to, I'll just call them radical smear merchants.
"George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations."
Soros: I will now give Media Matters: One million dollars!
Sorry, I had to do it. Also, sorry that most of this has probably already been said. This site has a weird comment feature.