Thoroughly debunked, O'Reilly dreams up new, apparently sinister Soros-Media Matters link
On the May 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again purported to find a nefarious link between Media Matters for America and philanthropist George Soros. Responding to an Indiana University study that found that "O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the ['Talking Points Memo'] editorials that open his program each night," O'Reilly stated: "But somehow, some way, their research wound up in the hands of Media Matters, the smear Internet site partly funded by enterprises connected to George Soros. And guess what? Media Matters issued a press release about the terrible 'Talking Points Memos.' " The "somehow, some way" that Media Matters found out about the research was through an IU press release promoting the study and its results.
On the May 3 show, O'Reilly filled viewers in on what he called "the back story" on the Indiana University study: "Last week we showed you this chart detailing where far-left billionaire George Soros contributes money and how his propaganda machine works its way through the Internet and into the mainstream media. Soros and his gang were furious with that exposition. So we knew blowback was coming. Thus, the Indiana/Media Matters nonsense."
O'Reilly's self-proclaimed "exposition" was the utterly false claim that Media Matters received money from Soros. After Media Matters noted that Soros had never given the organization money, O'Reilly claimed that Soros funneled money to Media Matters through the Tides Foundation. As Media Matters documented, on the April 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly accused Media Matters of lying about its funding and noted that Tides donated over $1 million to Media Matters in 2005, "[a]nd just by coincidence Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated more than a million dollars to Tides in 2005." He then added: "Figure it out." But O'Reilly's conclusion that Soros donated $1 million to Media Matters through the Tides Foundation is false. OSI's donations to Tides were earmarked for several specific programs, and Media Matters was not included on this list. O'Reilly's reference on May 3 to Media Matters as "the smear Internet site partly funded by enterprises connected to George Soros" represents a complete -- though unacknowledged -- abandonment of his previous claim that Media Matters has received money from Soros. While O'Reilly made that claim, however, on-screen text described Media Matters as "party [sic] funded by George Soros."
O'Reilly purported to complete the Soros-Indiana-Media Matters connection with the following: "By the way, did you know that Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated $5 million to Indiana University? I'm sure that was just a coincidence," suggesting that the study was the result of the donation. O'Reilly is presumably referring to a $5 million donation by the OSI to the school in 2005; in fact, that donation was directed to establish an endowment for the American University of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan, with the U.S. Agency for International Development providing another $10 million. OSI has partnered with IU in other ventures, such as higher education curriculum development in Azerbaijan, preparing Burmese refugees for college, and a degree program for teaching second languages in Kazakhstan.
Further, according to the IU press release on the O'Reilly study, "The researchers received no grant funding for this study."
So the link that O'Reilly was purporting to expose amounts to the following: Soros gave Indiana University $5 million for a project in Kyrgyzstan; researchers in IU's journalism and communications departments produced a study on O'Reilly that has no connection to Kyrgyzstan and received no grant money; and Media Matters learned of the study through the means by which presumably everyone else did -- a press release.
From the May 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Calling people names, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
Did you know that I, your humble correspondent, call somebody a name every 6.8 seconds during my T-Points presentation each evening? Did you know that? That's awful! I should be ashamed. I denigrate somebody nine times every minute. How could I? Now, that astounding analysis, if you want to call it that, comes from three Indiana University researchers. I'm sure they're excellent folks.
But somehow, some way, their research wound up in the hands of Media Matters, the smear Internet site partly funded by enterprises connected to George Soros. And guess what? Media Matters issued a press release about the terrible "Talking Points Memos."
What the press release did not say, however, is that the Indiana researchers consider pretty much every description to be name-calling. Quoting from the study: "The terms conservative, liberal, left, right, progressive, traditional or centrist were treated as name-calling if they were associated with a problem or social ill," unquote. Aha! Now here's the back story.
Last week we showed you this chart detailing where far-left billionaire George Soros contributes money and how his propaganda machine works its way through the Internet and into the mainstream media. Soros and his gang were furious with that exposition. So we knew blowback was coming. Thus the Indiana/Media Matters nonsense.
By the way, did you know that Soros' Open Society Institute donated $5 million to Indiana University? I'm sure that was just a coincidence. Also sure that Soros is very disappointed he didn't get more bang for the buck this time around. Most of the committed left press didn't mention the nutty Indiana paper. Only those truly bought and paid for elements at NBC News and Rosie O'Donnell spit it out there.
[begin video clip]
ROSIE O'DONNELL: Go ahead, Behar, what do you got?
JOY BEHAR: I said do you want to have a fight with O'Reilly because he calls people names every 6.8 seconds apparently. Bill O'Reilly on his show.
O'DONNELL: Yeah, there was an article in the paper. He insults someone or calls someone a name every 6.8 seconds.
BEHAR: Wow!
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: The problem is, Rosie, that no newspaper we could find printed that propaganda. You and Behar got it from Media Matters, your daily source of deception. So once again, it's beyond a reasonable doubt that the radical-left Soros has built a very smooth propaganda machine that has direct access to both the ABC and NBC television networks. Think about that. That is power.
Finally, let's add up the name-calling tonight. Let's see, there was humble correspondent, smear sites, radical left, committed left, nutty, deception, Behar, and Rosie. Wait, wait -- the last two were real names, so that's only six examples of name-calling in three minutes. Far below my average. I must be slipping. That's the "Memo."
Not terribly surprising. The walls have eyes and all that...
Comment abuse - but for those interested in the actual study itself, which is very interesting, you can check it out at [link to journalism.indiana.edu] . The study identified parallels between O'Reilly's show and Father Charles Coughlin's from the 1930s. The focus of the study was on seven propaganda techniques: name calling, "glittering generality", misattributed ideas, the portrayal of "plain folks", bandwagon, "card-stacking", and testimonial. They also give a reason for explaining why words like "left, centrist, conservative", etc. were labeled as derogatory.
As for the mischaracterization of Soros's funding of IU - I hope either Fox News apologizes for it, or Soros sues for libel.
Comment abuse? Now the walls have tongues...
Faux News needs to apologize for existing, then quietly go off the air.....
wow, he knew blowback was coming. Ergo, it was Soros funded. What a maroon!
Exactly. in 2005, Soros used his time machine to travel to 2007 find out that O'Reilly was going to expose his secret plan to dominate multiple organizations to report things against their will. So Soros then travelled back to 2005 and specifically gave $5 million to IU to fund a study to smear O'Reilly with the stipulation to release it a week after O'Reilly exposes Soros' evil plans. Without his time machine, Soros couldn't have possibly warned the three researchers at IU to write the study in order to rapidly respond to O'Reilly's masterful journalism.
sadly there are those who would find that 'reasonable' all to many even post here...
Methinks Billy Boy is ready to crack. Just like a caged liar snickering all the way down the dirty trail of untruths. Billy Boy, your "loyal" followers are falling by the wayside. It is about time that you do something big. How about talking about your escapades with that young lady you sexual abused?
Here, in Pittsburgh, your radio show is carried at 10:00pm on KDKA. Now that is PrimeTime, wow, you are a big man...but not big enough to tell yourself that you are all BS. Billy Boy, keep up your sniveling ways and before long, KDKA will throw you right into that coveted 3:00am slot. Here's to you Bill, you have been a blast. And you used to be good....You should have stayed a MAN and not caved in.
No, O'Lielly has always been cracked. How else a creature shaped like a man, could lie so constantly, insistently, purposefully, and never, ever, suffer pangs of conscience? Gotta be a sociopath.
Widening of the fissures, you say? Not evident, despite the efforts of MMFA and others to debunk his lies, for he continues to receive his wages and the adoration of the acolytes he has gathered. His world remains just fine, thank you, and the only things that change are which lies he tells today. In the eyes of those acolytes, MMFA may even be doing him the favor of providing the "demon / snake-people / mud-people" that every cult must synthesize to provide a rationale for their otherwise aberrant behaviors.
Oh my goodness. O' LIE lly... what a hoot and a holler. You put the word "Lie" into his name to illustrate a point. ROFLMAO. You even figured out how to make it BOLD. Man, you're just getting CaRAZY with that WYSIWYG editor!
The comments in here are like a fourth-grad name calling contest. Some of my favorites:- Bushco.- Darth Cheney- Faux News- O'Lielly
Keep 'em coming. Nothing says social change now like a round of classic banana-nana-fo-fanna.
Deflection unsuccessful. Bill is still a liar, and is projecting paranoid delusion through his show. Try again!
O'Reilly is off his rocker, but he does have a point about that Indiana study.
Does anyone think that O'Reilly is "name calling" when he describes someone as conservative or traditional or centrist? Descriptors of someone's political position isn't necessarily name calling.
Except he uses "liberal" and "far-left" as slurs rather than simple descriptors. He even calls people "liberal" simply for disagreeing with him, No-Spin indeed.
Think back to the judge in Vermont that gave the child molester a very light sentence. He harped on and on about this guy for weeks but he never mentioned his political affiliation. Sure it doesn't really matter but O'Reilly always seems to bring it up. You know why he didn't bring it up? The guy was a Republican. But when the press tried to offer reasons the judge did what he did, what did O'Reilly turn his sights on? "The FAR-LEFT LIBERAL Vermont media!" He couldn't mention the media in Vermont without "liberal" and "far-left" and various derogatory terms tacked on to those. And he would go on and on about the "Liberal media" defending this guy, and why do the "liberals" not care about being tough on pedophiles. If you were to just listen to him, the logical conclusion would be the judge was a liberal.
He does this all the time, "far-left loons" etc. He can't even seem to say the word "liberal" without being apparently angry. But have you ever heard him rail against someone for being a "far-right crackpot" or even being simply too "far-right?"
I even caught part of an episode where an email called him on always attacking liberals but never conservatives. His answer to that was something along the lines of attacking those that deserve it as fairly as possible and it was only liberals at the time that deserved it; this was when the Republicans still controlled the entire Federal government but after they lost the '06 mid-terms.
As an example O'Reilly will take offense to a statement made by a far left loon like say Meg Ryan. Then he will end the segment by saying next up Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.
Here's an excerpt from the study itself to show why they treated those as name calling - which they defined slightly differently as it pertains to propaganda:
"Name Calling gives a person or idea a bad label to make the audience reject them without examining the evidence"
The O'Reilly Factor only quoted half of the excerpt from the study which states fully that "The terms conservative, liberal, left, right, progressive, traditional, or centrist were treated as name calling, if they were associated with a problem or social ill or if coupled with a derogatory term. For example, "kool-aid left" was counted as two cases of name calling. The term "left" is not a derogatory term in itself, but used with "kool-aid", referring to the Jim Jones orchestrated mass suicide, raises "left" to the level of name-calling".
Additionally, they used phrases like "buried headline" as examples of name calling because "in reference to journalistic practice, [the phrase] suggests that intentional journalistic bias has occurred".
"quoted half of the excerpt from the study which states fully that "The terms conservative, liberal, left, right, progressive, traditional, or centrist were treated as name calling"
These still aren't personal attacks. Personal attacks would be calling someone a moron, idiot, duchebag, etc. Calling someone a liberal or "far left" is merely a description of someone's political ideology. There were a few situations in which O'Reilly called various people "far left nuts," and that is obviously a personal attack. But merely calling someone a liberal or a member of the far left isn't a personal attack.
I suggest that you read Omega Hunter's comment, which is just a couple comments above yours, you moronic idiot. Calling someone a liberal can be name-calling when associated with "liberal loons."
Believe me, when I called someone or something conservative, I'm not trying to make friends.
What a douchebag, you are!
"What a douchebag, you are"
Thanks for helping me illustrate my point of what a personal attack really is. I appreciate the help.
To illustrate further, tell us why "douch*bag" is worse than "fa$$ot"? Or, for that matter, worse than "far left nut"? I mean, what is it that makes "douch*bag" objectionable to you?
This is what I said earlier:
"There were a few situations in which O'Reilly called various people "far left nuts," and that is obviously a personal attack"
My point is simply that he doesn't use personal attacks as often as this study suggests. I've also never heard him use the word "fa**ot." If he has, then you can provide a link for that.
He not only uses a lot of personal attacks he SAYS HE DOESNT which makes him a liar.
So, you've counted, and their count is wrong?
Prove it. Go ahead, I double dog dare you.
Go to an NRA meeting, find the biggest guy there, and go tell him to his face that he's a "secular-progressive" or a "liberal".
Connotations associated with words are easily manipulated over the years, especially by the media. If you see your favorite commentator telling all of his enemies that they're "secular-progressives", then over time you will have created a new verbal attack. If millions of people watch the same commentator, then you have successfully created an "us vs. the secular-progressive" mentality.
So who has O'Reilly called a liberal or secular progressive who isn't actually a liberal or secular progressive?
Rino,
I will give you an example. He called Bill Moyers's techniques very "secular-progressive," and Moyers is a devout Christian.
Maybe tone and substance have something to do with it. See my post above. The tone is terrible. But is snively ways something bad?
BilldO is getting loonier and more paranoid by the day.I would be bored if it didn't allow me an opportunity to link to my own chart again.
Excellent!
Scary thing is that the kindest, most generous, almost human character on your chart is Monty Burns.
Also the handsomest.
Absolute clarity tastefully done.
Nothing like a good chart to illustrate the inner machinations of corporate structure. Have you sent copies to O'Really and Hannity yet? Given their level of chart expertise, I'm sure they could appreciate the artisanship.
HBL...your chart is flawed from the get go. it shows, at the top and to the right, a clear divide between 'Satan' and 'Big Dick'. I have it on good information that they are the same person. Ever seen Dick and Satan in the same room together? I think not.
How boring - you linked to your chart again. I'm really offended - that other people will get to see it for the first time and I've had my laugh already.
In that vein, I'm gonna repeat that O'Lielie is channeling Joe McCarthy. For anyone at all familiar with that witch hunt, the recent piece on O's show where he waved the red folder containing unspecified "indisputable proof" of his allegations the intent of which was to "prove" a link that if it existed at all would be perfectly innocent and legal.
Then admitting that he had no evidence whatsoever he tarred John Edwards with the same brush.
I would love to see MMA or any other entity (the Daily Show?) find archival footage of McCarthy and juxtapose it with Orally. Bet it would be a hit on YOUTUBE!
HBL,
Just wanted to tell you that you rock. Very well done.
I recommend you CafePress that one. May need to take Monty off due to copyright issues, though.
What is very funny is that all the crazy billionaire and millionaires that DO fund conservative groups that go after democrats! Scaife comes to mind.
Arkansas project anyone? But of course when the Clinton's talk about it accurately and the 23 million spent to attack them, they are called whiners.
I see this all the time. They assume that since conservatives work this what that this must be how the left works.
Not to mention Fox "News" and Murdoch who fund O'Reilly!
Hey, are you the famous Spocko?
It is the famous Spocko. Click on his name, and you'll be taken to his blog.
"Soros and his gang were furious with that exposition. So we knew blowback was coming. Thus, the Indiana/Media Matters nonsense."
Boy that Soros guy is some great prognosticator!! He started preparing "blowback" for O'Reilly's little red flow chart (Apr '07) way back in January 2005 -- that's when those IU folks began research for their study!! Now that's what I call foresight! No wonder he's so good at making money for people!
O'Reilly is not a stupid man. Biased, yes, somewhat crazy, for sure, but not stupid.
So why would he not know that the Indiana University survey of his behavior was not started or released to respond to his recent charges against Media Matters?
So why would he not know that the Indiana University survey of his behavior was not started or released to respond to his recent charges against Media Matters?
I understand your confusion. You're used to a world where "journalists" do research and make an effort to back up their assertions. Then you come upon someone like O'Reilly and your worldview explodes.
doesn't that picture look like a washer in spin cycle by o'reilly's head?
Seems like Bill O'Reilly is spending more and more time defending himself and attacking others than actually providing comprehensive coveriage of topical issues. His show is increasingly about... well, Bill O'Reilly. Eventually, only cult followers will continue to tune in to a purported political analysis show that is actually devoted primarily to the self-aggrandizement of the abrasive, egotistical host. Check back in a year and let's see how Bill O'Reilly's ratings look then.
The man is simply out to make a buck while he can. You got to hand to him, Fox Nothing Channel has provided the perfect means to market himself during the twilight years of his late-blooming career. His mass marketing prowess comes complete with his own geriatric fashion line and other worthless trinkets, perfectly tailored to that grouchy grandma and grandpa that watch TV all day at the home.
Wow, did I write that?
Must be a Friday night.
I think I'll have another margarita.
Have one for me, too... ;>)
I'll be more inclined to believe a study like this when it comes from a legitimate university (e.g. Harvard, Yale, Penn, MIT, Berkeley, NYU, etc). Indiana is a joke of a school.
Based upon what? Did you attend IU? Have you been there?
Do you doubt their ability to recognize derogatory labels and count how many of them occur over a given time period? Or are you just upset that a university took the time to objectively analyze the #1 cable "news" show?
The fact that the administrators actively allowed porn movies to be filmed on their campus with their knowledge. Haven't seen that at any Ivy's lately..
That's a nice ad hominem attack on the university. Why question the study when you can smear the school?
No I don't think an anonymous poster named "Grhino" on a Media Matters blog has smeared anyone; Indiana has already done that to themselves: http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/10/25/indiana_university_s.php
The fact that the administrators actively allowed porn movies to be filmed on their campus with their knowledge.
Is this link supposed to indicate that Indiana University actively allowed porn movies to be filmed on their campus with their knowledge? Was that the headline on the link from Drudge, NewsMax, or Free Republic? I saw no indication that the University had any prior knowledge of the events, condoned the activities, and was investigating and considering disciplinary action against the students involved.
Talk about a deceptive propaganda machine. Here you have an article in the highly regarded Badger Herald that indicates no involvement on the part of the administration being distorted by right wingers as ammunition to besmirch the reputation of a venerable and highly regarded university. Try to make a better argument against the power of the deceptive liberal media without proving the deceptive power if the right-wing media.Followed the link myself - yawn. When you don't like and can't dispute the message, attack the messenger. Does prove one of two things tho. A poster or two either has serious problems with reading comprehension or no problem telling outright lies. Not terribly smart to lie and provide proof of the lie almost in the same breath.
Interesting Observer: As an alumnus of Indiana U. I can tell right now it ain't a joke, but the school is an oasis in a fairly conservative area of Indiana (and that includes urban but not urbane Indianapolis, 30 miles to the north). For them to volley at O'Reilly shocked me and gave me a little pride. Indiana we're all for you and all that.
Besides, IU would kick the crap out of any or all of the Ivys in basketball or football - which is just as relevant as the "porn" accusation.
Well, not football... =)
I went to Purdue -- the REAL Indiana University. Please don't make me defend IU.
I'm not sure what the "porn" flicks were that were filmed at IU. But students do all sorts of things on college campuses. Heck, Playboy has snapped a ton of pictures of college students over the years.
But the Ivy's aren't without their own interesting activities.
But once again, what we see is an attack on a messenger. Can't fault the study or the facts, so you try to trash the organization that put the data together. We've seen this a lot over the last six years from conservatives. Sadly, it's been effective. But only because idiots choose to put more credence in the attacks on the messengers than in the original message, despite no proof that the message was faulty.
Bitter, this "We've seen this a lot over the last six years from conservatives." attacking the messenger goes back at least to the Nixon WH. The first thing out of Agnews mouth was to attack the messenger that exposed his bribes.
There is nothing at all in the linked article to support the charge. No evidence whatsoever that IU "administrators actively allowed porn movies to be filmed on their campus with their knowledge." Nothing.
It's sadly typical of the smears that are regularly spit-out on right-wing talk shows. And it's sad that so many simply accept the smear as the truth without verifying it, and then parrot the lies around.
The poster uses the O'Reilly Method: accusations based on manipulated evidence, omissions, obfuscation and deliberately excluded facts. He figures we're as stupid as your average O'Reilly fan, but we're not.
Not only that, but the article contains a quote from the university Chancellor: "In the statement, Chancellor Sharon Brehm said, “If such a commercial entity was on our campus filming obscene and lewd activities, the group clearly was there without the university’s knowledge or permission,”
Did the person who posted think no one would actually follow the link and read it? It's immaterial anyway. UI is considered a world class research institution in my area of expertise. For what it's worth, here's a quote:
"According to The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities (2001) by Howard and Matthew Greene, Indiana University is one of America's "Public Ivy" institutions of higher education, defined by the authors as a public institution that "provides an Ivy League collegiate experience at a public school price."
I've never put a stop watch to the frequency of Bill O'Reilly's derogatory remarks but the IU study is certainly consistent with my own observations that O'Reilly devotes an inordinate amount of his words to insulting perjoratives, particularly directed towards what he percieves to be a left wing cabal that personifies evil. The truly insulting part is that his definition of membership in this purportedly evil group ultimately includes practically everyone whose political beliefs do not coincide with his.
It's an old (and dishonest) debate tactic: when your opponant makes a devastating (and accurate) attack, change the subject, smear the opponant. If you do it well enough (and loudly enough), your audience may forget the origional point or doubt the evidence presented. O'Lielie is expert at every unfair and dishonest debating tactic.
Don't be so self righteous. Ad hominem attacks are de rigueur on this site.
In reply to another poster's comments, Elroy said that ad hominem attacks are very common here from the liberals who visit Media Matters. That's just not been my experience in reading this site for over a year and commenting for a couple of weeks.
The poster's comments said that when
"your opponant makes a devastating (and accurate) attack, change the subject, smear the opponant. If you do it well enough (and loudly enough), your audience may forget the origional point or doubt the evidence presented. O'Lielie is expert at every unfair and dishonest debating tactic."
Let's assume that Elroy is right. If he's right...
That would mean that Media Matters opponents make accurate attacks against Media Matters and Media Matters posters, and when those opponents make those accurate attacks, the liberal posters here smear those opponents!
But that would have to mean that Media Matters opponents make accurate attacks against Media Matters. They don't. In order for his meme to be correct, Media Matters opponents would have to be fairly attacking Media Matters and they don't. The liberals here who defend Media Matters would have to be defending the indefensible with ad hominem attacks, but they aren't defending the indefensible. They're defending against unfair attacks, not accurate portrayals.
Thanks for the defense, Not. Wasn't necesary. Elroy simply illustrated my point by ignoring the substance of my comment, changing the subject and calling me a name - self righteous.
People here know better than that - now if they could just learn not to feed the trolls!
It pisses me off that the very same people who participate in unsavory behavior accuse innocent people of doing that very same unsavory behavior!
It's human nature, to some degree, for slimeballs to assume that others are slimeballs. It also seems like really good people think the best of everyone when they should be suspicious and wary of some of those people - that's human nature too.
It's very telling when people accuse others of the very sins they are guilty of committing. My ex-son-in-law accused my daughter of several things during their marriage and during the break-up. He was guilty of all of those sins, and she was guilty of none of them. She thought he was a good guy, because she was a great spouse, and she gave him the benefit of the doubt many times. She married too quickly that first time, without giving enough credence to her inner voice telling her that he was 'too good to be true'. Her next marriage was much more considered, and she married a great guy to whom I am very close.
I guess my personal feelings on this one came out. It's always been a pet peeve of mine that those who behave in the most self-righteous ways and accuse others of sinful or wrong behavior often deserve the most shame! How dare they?
Interestingobserver, you're so elitest!
I attended Ohio State, which is a Big Ten school like I.U., and Harvard. Both are fine schools. Where did you go to school, Interestingobserver?
C'mon. Share. I showed you mine. Now show me yours.
I went to the Rush Limbaugh School for Advanced Consevative Studies. I'm now working on my masters from Bob Jones University. Thank you for asking.
YALE...isn't that where our President got his MBA?? It must be an online school..YALE...what a joke!!! How much do they charge for an MBA? And I don't mean tuition.
Evidently not as much as the University of Texas. They wouldn't even let him bush (lowercase intentional) IN.
Sorry, sometimes I just get to typing too fast and trip all over my syntax.
Sorry the MBA was from HARVARD.
It's common for people with Delusions of Grandure to become more and more paranoid as they think they are so powerful that their enemies are losing sleep trying to bring them down. Poor Bill will crack soon. Very soon. And it will be a huge public humiliation.
It's possible this may be personal to Bill...
In my personal observations there are insecure people who when they become rich and powerful life turns into a "zero sum" game for them... whatever success they obtain, the other guy should get less; or whatever success the other guy gets somehow diminishes their own success, in their minds, that is. I'm beginning to suspect that there may be a subtle subtext to Bill O'reilly's repeated vitriolic attacks against George Soros that goes something like this: "George Soros is a foreign Jew who came to America, made billions of dollars and is a very influential person among people I detest; I'm a red-blooded, flag-waving, American guy from Long Island who's worked hard all my life and kissed all the right a55es to get to where I am, and although I've become rich and famous beyond my wildest dreams I will never have but a tiny fraction of George Soros' wealth and influence."
I dunno... O'Reilly's obsession with George Soros seems so personal. Maybe there's more at play here than meets the eye...
Although entirely speculative, I acknowledge the inquisitiveness and apt deduction displayed by your post.
Thanks, Pete. I know it's speculation and I hope I sufficiently qualified my remarks as such. But, still, you don't have to be a shrink to read people. Although I know that to a certain extent these blustering right wing personalities are role playing on their television and radio shows (it's entertainment first and foremost), at least some aspects of their real personalities must come through. For example, I think Rush Limbaugh is genuinely self-confident in his persuasive skills (he'd be a great litigator, and I don't mean that in a necessarily negative sense). Sean Hannity is self-confident (dumb as dirt, maybe, but happily confident in his millieu). On the other hand, I've always detected that O'Reilly is an insecure guy with a chip on his shoulder. His phony nice-talk during segues in his show are unconvincing. In action, his bluster and bullying does not appear (at least to me) to derive from self-confidence but rather from fear and bitterness. There's just something not quite right with the guy, and I tend to agree with those who believe that one day, possibly, O'Reilly may really blow his cork. Just my opinion...
Nice analysis, Irony.
You assume O'Reilly comes up with this stuff on his own. There are a ton of people working with him and I'll bet he is just the front man for mangements' views. Or to look at it another way, he is just the lead in the morality play they have written.
My speculation is that Bill mistakes the content of the postings for MMFA. The MMFA postings are rather banal attacks, never hateful or personaly diparaging (or at least what anyone who hosts the "NUMBER ONE CABLE NEWS SHOW should expect). The MMFA posters though, ah there is a group that shows no mercy and would make Satan himself insecure.
You have to have some high top boots to wade through this crap that O'Reilly spews.
My favorite parlor game is to find someone who is an avid Bill O'Reilly and Fox News viewer and then question them on events in Iraq as opposed to the latest tabloid news Fox provides their viewers. I have yet to find anyone who watches O'Reilly and Fox News who isn't dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to world events.
A couple of years ago a relative of mine, a fairly conservative person but one who had never displayed any particular interest in politics, announced at a family function how well informed she had become about politics and current events since she began watching Bill O'Reilly, whom she spoke of in awe-struck terms. "Really!" I replied. "What books and other publications do you read to supplement your knowledge of politics and world events?" I asked. "Have you ever read James Fallows' articles in The Atlantic about Iraq?" I inquired further. "How about Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker?" And then I mentioned a few current books and their authors. I was met with a cold silent stare... she obviously read nothing more than the local newspaper. Apparently Bill O'Reilly was all she needed... end of story. Needless to say, our relationship still has not thawed to this day...
Okay, I must now declare this day "Irony is the Best Day."
LOL... Thanks.
Hopefully you won't find that your wing-nut relative turns out to be one of those with a secret fortune in her will.
You people are all missing the point.This is a TALKING POINTS MEMO about his TALKING POINTS MEMOS!
Whenever he gets a chance to eat up 3 minutes of air time talking about himself, that's a good day for Bill O'Reilly.
Considering he has an international audience, in Botswana today, there are people lighting candles for the health and safety of Bill O'Reilly - because he's under attack for attacking people.
Next Fox News will consider his TALKING POINTS MEMOS "Breaking News."
Bill O'Reilly: Repeatedly licking his own things (talking about his talking)...
How does a talking point memo intersect with itself?! I must be at the nexus of the universe!
Says Bill:
". . . so that's only six examples of name-calling in three minutes. Far below my average. I must be slipping."
Says I:
Don't worry, Bill. I'm sure you'll double up on your next T-Point Memo and get back to your normal run rate.
I donate much money to Gospel for Asia and what you fail to mention in your article is that when you specify a donation to go to a certain area... it frees up that exact amount to go anywhere else. For example, If I give a million dollars to GFA and specify it to fund a children's orphanage... a million dollars is freed up to go to another area. In George Soro's case... He donates 5 Million and tells them how to use it... BUT he also tells them how to use the now "freed up" 5 million. Thats what most liberals have a hard time understanding. The best example of this is the FEMA organization. They had the freed up money that got squandered! Next time you should provide the WHOLE truth!
"In George Soro's case... He donates 5 Million and tells them how to use it... BUT he also tells them how to use the now "freed up" 5 million."
--and your proof of this is where again?
PROOF? WE don need no stinking PROOF? We can simply claim it is so because it fits with our preconceived notion of the truth. (Sarcasm)
Let's get this straight: Bill O'Reilly considers a person who funded Solidarity in communist Poland, and Charter 77 in communist Czechoslovakia, greatly contributing to the breakup of the Soviet Union, is "far left". Hmm. What does that say about how far right Bill O'Reilly is to see Soros as "far left"?
John Q.
..... although I suppose giving funds to black students to attend university during the 1970s apartheid South is a more conventional "far left" activity in Bill O's and Fox News' world view.
Poor Bill. A university does an expose on his evil ways and now he has to try to be nice--but only for a moment. I've seen this before. He sounded very condescending, as he did when challenging Bill Maher about his name-calling. If he had had Maher in his studio, rather than on a satellite feed, I doubt he would have acted quite so smug. That's an interview I'd like to see, although it would play out better in a neutral setting.
Better still: have a debate with Soros, Billo. I have a feeling he'd rip you a new one.
Newspapers most likely didn't pick up the IU study because it's a case of "Bill O'Reilly's a name caller? Tell me something I don't know ..." But believe me, plenty of editors and reporters know about the study through Jim Romenesko's media Web site, and it will be cited the next time O'Reilly does something newsworthy by major media standards -- such as settling a sexual harassment lawsuit or being laughed out of court (the Al Franken matter) or having his head explode during a rant (any day now).
But because O'Reilly's crack staff does apparently know how to use Lexis-Nexis these days (he gets a news summary every day of press mentions of him), he undoubtedly saw the excellent op-ed in the LA Times the day after his May 3 tirade about Media Matters. In it, Rosa Brooks tells why she "loves" O'Reilly (she got the LAT op-ed gig, she figures, because of the way she calmly tweaked him during an appearance on his show) ... funny stuff.
Man its easy to confuse, mislead and out right fool liberals. O'Reilly derangement syndrome seems to be almost like a computer virus that can transfer from key pad to user. What intertainment!