Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for suggesting Soros funded IU study
On the May 7 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News' Bill O'Reilly the winner of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, suggesting that a recent Indiana University study -- which 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" -- was funded by philanthropist George Soros.
As Media Matters noted, Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI) donated $5 million to Indiana University in 2005, but the 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 $10 million. OSI has partnered with IU in other ventures, such as developing higher education curriculum in Azerbaijan, preparing Burmese refugees for college, and developing a degree program for teaching second languages in Kazakhstan. According to the IU press release about the study, "The researchers received no grant funding for this study."
During the show, Olbermann said of O'Reilly: "Bill just made the Soros stuff up. And as if you needed to spend [$]5 million to know Bill-O insults people."
As Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, and here), O'Reilly is a frequent finalist in the "Worst Person" competition.
From the May 7 broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: And our winner? Bill-O. Remember that Indiana University study that, while he claims he never does these personal attacks, he in fact calls a person or a group a derogatory name once every seven seconds during those yakking notes memos that he does? He's now claimed that this is just another smear by George Soros, who apparently owns the University of Indiana. He claims Soros donated $5 million to Indiana University.
Well, Soros did donate $5 million to IU, but not to study O'Reilly -- rather to fund Indiana's educational outreach in Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, and Burma. In fact, the university says, the O'Reilly study got no funding. Bill just made the Soros stuff up. And as if you needed to spend [$]5 million to know Bill-O insults people. Bill "Orally": today's Worst Person in the World!
Is this the guy who has LESS diversity on his show than O'Reilly according to MM's own research?
But, to address the article, O'reilly does seem to grasp at a lot of straws with Soros.
Yeah, if you ludicrously call making s#!t up as "grasping at straws".
Yes... and apparently, the straws are up his rear end...
...which is where Bill O'Reilly gets his "facts".
More evidence for "The Fudge Factor".
I'll keep saying it until it becomes the hip new phrase that all the cool kids are using. Like "drive-by media"...
Not really. Soros does fund Media Matters indirectly. He funds various liberal websites that then turn around and fund Media Matters. There's no denying this, and if you're a proud liberal then you shouldn't be ashamed to receive money from Soros.
Rino,
I agree with you that no proud liberal should be ashamed of getting Soros' money.
On the other hand, for O'Reilly to continue to put forth this scenario of some stealth, nefarious funding operation out to disseminate lies and smears against him and the "traditionalist" do-gooders, is ridiculous.
Pride is a sin.
Past a certain point O'Reilly should put up or shut up. And, I mean, why would Soros openly fund groups like MoveOn and CAP but hide his hand when it comes to this (IMHO) kind of mickey-mouse, fringe website? It literally makes no sense to me.
Mickey-Mouse, Fringe??? Geez Val I thought you were a TRUE BELIEVER.
;-)
I'm only here for the beer.
........and check out the shrimp at the end of the buffet, to die for.
when it comes to this (IMHO) kind of mickey-mouse, fringe website?
Yikes!
Val, I hope you don't expect to be invited to the Moonbat Ball after a remark like that!
Where's the beer & buffet? Damn, I didn't know there were refreshments served here.
Jeter,
I have found a lot of baloney around here, but not many gourmet items.
Excuse me, sir, but would you mind putting your pants back on?
Is Michigan J Frog performing?
Really? Can you imagine the wrath that one of us would be subjected to by the loyal brethren here if we even breathed "mickey mouse" or "fringe" as descriptors of this website?
oops, scratch brethren......if Holly sees this, I'm toast.
I don't think toast is what Holly will have in mind, Tommy!
You often pontificate on things you have imagined that never happened. Why would this instance be any different?
We would undoubtedly be told to start up our own web site if we don't like this one. Oh, you have been told that already numerous times. Sorry.
But Val has street cred around here so it's all good.
And yet he still whines incessantly about what the owners of the website (the only ones who get to make those decisions) decide to publish.
Some people are incapable of learning.
Val <----(sitting in the corner, drinking beer)
Jeter <----[sitting next to Val in the corner, drinking beer]
I found the bar! Now where's that buffet?
Sorry, shrimp is gone. Once the liberals saw me eating it, they wouldn't go near it, so I had it all to myself.
What happened to Duncan? I want to buy him a beer.
Jeter is a warmonger Yankee fan.
Aw Beach feelin a bit low cause we got Roger?
A beer over here for my bud Beach, he needs to drown his sorrows.
Don't know where Duncan is...one of your comrades probably got him banned.
Why would I care that you got Roger Ailes? ;0)
And why is Tommy sitting in the corner where all the silverfish... used to be?
It's an attempt to fabricate some kind of evil subterfuge or underhanded dealings on the part of the "vile" Media Matters "smearers" and the right-wing whipping boy of the month, the "Nazi" (yep, another one) collaborator, George Soros.
Maybe it's projection on the part of the fabricators.
As Media Matters itself said a week or two ago (paraphrasing):
If Soros wanted to fund Media Matters, he'd simply cut a check, payable to Media Matters.
Not that this means much to you, but it's been said time and again here: As previously indicated, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization.
Maybe you have some hard, factual evidence, and maybe you ought to present it here. But just saying it's so, or saying 'there's no denying it', is really not much in the way of "proof". It's about as much proof as O'Reilly's PowerPoint chart.
"Soros does fund Media Matters indirectly."
-----
This has been debunked many, many times now, and yet you still bring it up. This chestnut must be covered in crap now, considering the number of times you have pulled it out of your butt.
Before you make this ludicrous claim again, please find and report reputable proof that Soros has mandated or even suggested that money he gives to institutions be given to MMfA.
Because your ass-ertions aren't worth the roll of paper it would take to clean them off otherwise.
Rino
I agree that mmfa receives Soros money...and find it strange...their abject denial.
They have done nothing...except for releasing financial info from OSI for one year...to debunk the trail of Soros money to mmfa headquarters.
Strange indeed.
"I agree that mmfa receives Soros money"
-----
How does one agree with a lie? The statement is either true or it isn't. In fact, it isn't true, as has been demonstrated many times.
It would be the same as if I agreed that you were a thoughtful person who is capable of reasonable thought.
That statement has been demonstrated to be false, also.
Many times.
- That statement has been demonstrated to be false -
Prove it...
Do your own homework. It has been proven to you specifically several times already.
The incapacity to comprehend on your part does not necessitate any more work on my part.
Nope...
The only proof shown by mmfa was one year of OSI/Tides funding...nothing else...nada.
Here's my proof that you fund communist China:
Wesley-->IRS/US Government-->China
Pinko!
You could disprove my FlowChart (TM) by proving you do not pay taxes.
And the only proof shown by O'Reilly is -- none at all.
Again, though: why would he do it this way? Why give openly to the liberal CAP and liberal MoveOn but secretly to liberal Media Matters? I mean, if Soros is afraid of being labeled a liberal, he's sure not going about it the right way.
Agreed...O'Reilly has not exhibited any proof. Yet, I don't base my opinion on his "expose".
It is my opinion that mmfa receives Soros money...directly or indirectly...it doesn't matter to me. mmfa has previously waffled and played wordsmith when responding to this charge.
The only "proof" that they have offered is the one year financial records of OSI/Tides...the rest has been "we do not" statements with no evidence to support the claim.
I don't care if mmfa receives Soros money. But I do find a couple of things strange...that Soros would throw around millions of dollars and expect nothing in exchange...and why mmfa continues to try and distance themselves from Soros...a kindred soul.
The issues is that it hasn't stopped you from throwing around false claims by BOR as if they were fact.
What proof do you have that MMFA gets funding from Soros?
Maybe if O'Reilly wasn't a... --what's the word?....
Chicken? Coward? Fabricator? Liar?
Then he'd actually have Media Matters on his show.
However:
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.
lying moron's agree to lies everyday, one example when anyone agree's with Flush or O'Lielly
If you agree with Rino on that, I know a bridge in Brooklyn that the two of you might be interested in purchasing.....
RINO!!! You of the thick hide.... please give FACTUAL EVIDENCE as to how Soros funds MMFA... Hey, did you know the word 'gullible' is NOT in the dictionary... I know- IT'S CRAZY, but I LOOKED IT UP!! And... and, when I DID LOOK IT UP, I realized 'gullible' ACTUALLY IS in the dictionary... thus, I had TO CHANGE my original FALSE assumption BASED ON FACTS!! You should try it sometimes...
Rino -
It has been PROVEN that there is NO MONETARY LINK between Soros and MMFA - either directly or indirectly. What's it gonna take for you to understand that??
When MMFA says they have received no direct money from Soros, I can believe that. They most likely have a list of donors in alphabetical order, check it, find there is no Soros, and say so. I can accept that.
When MMFA says they have received no indirect money from Soros, I still have doubts. To properly make that statement, they would have to know not only their own finances, but also know they would have to know where every dollar of contribution to every one of their sources came from. Not one dollar unaccounted for. No pass the hat dollars. Soros sponsors conferences, interns and the like. None of the MMFA crowd have received any of that benefit?
If you have it, show the proof that MMFA receives no indirect money from Soros--and remember, they already backtracked and had to admit that they have received free office space, at least in the past, from a Soros sponsored group.
A bit off topic, but illustrative: At one point, Greenpeace USA said that Exxon had not spent one dollar on alternative energy research! Think about it: This presumes that Exxon tracks their research expenditures at all of its worldwide facilities down to the dollar and tracks what is spent on alternative energy as a category. And....they were kind enough to share the info with Greenpeace! Extremely doubtful...
You misunderstand the burden of proof here. It is not MMFA's job to prove a negative. It is Bill O'Reilly's burden to back up HIS positive argument. I believe that what O'Reilly has produced so far is insufficient to back up his claim.
Open,
I set my own burden of proof and stated my opinion.
O'Reilly has not proved his point to my satisfaction either. But this is an MMFA forum, not a Bill O'Reilly forum. If I had more interest in this, I would send Bill an Email, but I don't.
No you dont. The rules of rhetoric and debate were set centuries ago. It is always up to the accuser to prove his accusations. YOU can demand anything you want but you DONT get to unilaterally change the rules. I say you molest small furry animals and unless you can PROVE to me you dont then I say you do, its just flat doesnt work that way.
Rhino, As a proud LIBERAL I'm happy that Soros or anyone else gives money to create MMFA's forum for FREE thinking and speaking. Is that enough?
Please, give facts and figures not just opinions. You are doing the same thing as Bill O'Reilley. O'Reilley saying something does not make it a fact. Neither does your saying anything make it reality. Where are your amounts, dates, and recipients. What liberal groups are funneling money from Soros to Media Matters?
Apparently, since we no longer have the Russian Bear or the Chinese Dragon to scare ourselves we need a new bogey man to keep the sheep afraid and fawning over the current protector.
I dont care about Soros funding MMFA. However WHY would he INDIRECTLY fund MMFA? If he wanted to fund MMFA he would write them a check. Its really that simple. He funds umbrella organizations, some of them give MMFA money that is NOT funding MMFA. Keep trying this dumb talking point but it makes no sense. Its like saying if I give money to my Church and they give money to an anti abortion rally that I funded the anti abortion rally. Its ludicrous, once the money is given to another organization ITS THEIR MONEY. Unless you can cough up some evidence that Soros gives money to these organizations and DIRECTS them to give some to MMFA then your assertion is pure garbage.
Geeez.... I don't think KO has much input on the hiring at the network
Is this the guy who has LESS diversity on his show than O'Reilly according to MM's own research?
But to address the article, O'reilly does seem to grasp at a lot of straws with Soros.
Is this the guy who has LESS diversity on his show than O'Reilly according to MM's own research?
Yes.
When Olbermann or another liberal host has less diversity, it's a systemic problem. When it's a conservative, it's racism and sexism.
You mean the woman who sits in on his show when he is gone isn't diverse enough for you?
To be fair, O'Reilly does show some diversity in color on his show. Like when his face turns red with apoplexy, when he screams nonsense until he is blue in the face, when he turns green with envy of all who have more money than he does, when the yellow streak on his back gets amplified whenever he cuts the mic of anyone who has the gall to challenge him, and when the brown stuff he says every day gets so high he has to put on the hip-boots to wade through it.
Bill O'Reilly: a very colorful character.
Bill of Many Colours? Hmmm...
Tommy, in a race against Glen Beck to be the MMFA rodeo clown. Distract much?
Got me Julia, I should stick to non-distracting devices such as limericks.
It's better than talkin' trash with a troll, baby.
What? Her limericks are always relevant to the topic.
Thanks Monknj80, but then you have reading comprehension skills.
a poet named JuiliaJayne
posted limericks, to voice her distain
while most cheered her on
a few wished her gone
but on issues her rhymes were germane
That was good, Jeter.
Thanks open_mind :-)
I figured I'd give it a shot just for sh#ts & giggles.
I can see it now.... next, Bill is going to say that MSNBC is funded by Soros because of all the negative attention he gets from Olbermann...
I was impressed with Olnerman naming Dobbs " worser ". Dobbs messing up the figures and compressing 30 year data into three years was the real news here. Brilliant, combining humor with real news in onje award.
Kyrgyzstan, isn't that where Borat is from?
No, I think the Kazakhs look down on the Kyrgyz, with their lack of vowels and everything.
Maybe in the real world, but not the Scrabble world.
Can we use proper nouns in Scrabble? Maybe that's why my fiancee keeps beating me...
Careful there, lad or the Welsh will be coming after you.
As Colbert pointed out, the truth has a liberal bias.
Check out this partial list of derogatory names counted in the study:
Oh, yeah, O'Reilly is the worst person in the world....NOT!
Could you please point out which of the premises you neglected to state led to the conclusion that emerged full-blown from the country called Moon-don't-shine-istan?
Your post should be in every Logic textbook, under the chapter entitled "This is never correct!"
doubtless that little scream fom mo. was just copy and pasted from freeperville, and in freeperville if you even dare to check their 'facts' you are kicked out :)
Can you provide a link that shows definitely that those words you just listed were counted as "derogatory" in the study?
I ask because that list -as far as I can see, and correct me if I'm wrong- does not appear in either the article or on the study paper itself.
Dave,
The words up throught "buried headline" are on page 203 of the study. The remaining words are in later text.
Are you sure you are looking at the study itself? It is a pdf document, obtained by clicking three times:
The "study" link in today's MMFA post.
That takes you to the summary, with a link to the "full study".
They fool you here: You have to click again; the full study is the first choice you see, in blue, a pdf file.
Your referring to the statistical charts that accompany the text of the study. Did you read the report itself?
Sorry -- I meant "you're", not "your." Very tired English teacher.
Missouri--
If you read the study,you will see that the words you list are considered derogatory in the context of their association with negative concepts or by being paired with other words (like "Kool-Aid left", for example). The word "left" by itself was not deemed derogatory.
So you have listed random words out of ontext and used them to shore up a faulty argument. Did you really think that no one would read the actual text? I would say "no one else", but you clearly did not read it. Skimmed it at best and then tried to give a valid, rational criticism.
Missouri--
If you read the study,you will see that the words you list are considered derogatory in the context of their association with negative concepts or by being paired with other words (like "Kool-Aid left", for example). The word "left" by itself was not deemed derogatory.
So you have listed random words out of context and used them to shore up a faulty argument. Did you really think that no one would read the actual text? I would say "no one else", but you clearly did not read it. Skimmed it at best and then tried to give a valid, rational criticism.
Sue,
...considered derogatory in the context of their association with negative concepts...
I did read the study, and while Easy did not, it is clear you at least viewed it.
Take "left" as an example. The IU folks were bright enough to discount uses of that word in the directional sense or what remains. They counted the phrase "Kool-Aid left" as 2 instances of name calling.
You copied the phrase considered derogatory in the context of their association with negative concepts, then ignored it.
BOR's talking points memos are about issues that concern him, about what people are not doing that they should be doing or about things they are that they should not be doing. I do not recall any that are congratulatory in nature, but there may be some.
So they essentially are complaints, so most likely, a use of any of the terms from that list from the study would therefore be considered derogatory in the context of their association with negative concepts.
I am surprised you did not comment on "buried headline" as one of the study's examples of name calling.
Thank you for posting and for viewing the IU paper.
As Susan points out, your original post here, with the list of names the IU Study says are "derogatory", was misleading--either inadvertantly or on purpose, I don't know.
Your list suggests that those words, standing alone, were thought of as "derogatory".
They are not.
You interestingly omitted the part about using them in conjunction with other words.
Maybe you figured no one would check.
If the omission was deliberate on your part, then you're guilty of the same deceptive techniques O'Reilly employs.
Thank you, Dave!!
Dave and Susan,
High five each other as much as you want. Either neither of you read my response to Sue up in this chain or if you did take the time to read it, somehow did not understand it.
I will try another tack: I frequently watch Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points. The IU study claims that he called a person or group a derogatory name at least once per 10 seconds, I thought of what I would consider a derogatory name. I came up with 3 quickly:
Pinhead
Kool-Aid drinker
Illegal alien
Then I thought that he could not possibly have said those words (or similar) every 10 seconds, even in a border story. So I clicked through 2 nights ago to the full report, as I wrote above; if you read it Sue, it is a pdf. If you look at the full report, you have Adobe stuff on your screen borders, either Acobat itself, or the Reader. I even gave the page number from the full report. I do not see how I can make it any clearer.
The list of terms is from the study as I reported it, not from my body cavities as suggested in another post.
Change: MY INTERPRETATION FROM HERE ON, NOTHIING TO BACK IT UP--
My reading of the report is that if O'Reilly, commenting on Jessica's Law, said:
"The CONSERVATIVE governor has yet to sign the bill."
CONSERVATIVE would count as a DEROGATORY NAME, even though the governor would not be offended in the slightest.
When I read the part about BURIED HEADLINE being considered an example of derogatory name calling, I knew that the IU study's numbers on the name calling charge against O'Reilly were inflated.
I do not see how I misrepresented anything.
I believe (NO DATA!) that most of Olbermann's viewers thought of derogatory name calling words and phrases used by O'Reilly were other than CONSERVATIVE and BURIED HEADLINE. I believe I informed people. Obviously, I inflamed you two. I try to keep it clear what are my citations and what are my opinions. Ugh!
I hate to disappoint you but you did not "inflame" me -- you sort of amused me. And now you are just boring me.
High five, Dave!!!
Missouri,
Actually, it's Susan. And thanks for the patronizing attitude. I READ the study -- I did not "glance at it."
And I did not "copy the phrase 'considered derogatory in the context of their association with negative concepts'"; it's a paraphrase of a longer section of text that you seemed not to understand. It seems that you still don't. Likewise, I did not "ignore" the phrase that you imagine is part of the original text of the report. I was trying (clearly a futile attempt) to use a paraphrase of the text to point out to you that your random list of words was senseless taken out of context. This is a 27 page report on an academic study of propaganda techniques and you chose a list of 10 words to prove that O'Reilly is "not" the WPITW. That is what I was responding to -- not the study itself.
If you had done more than glance at the study you would have understood that the word "left" in and of itself was not considered by the researchers to be a negative term, and neither was "Congress", "liberal" or the others.
Regarding the my random list of words taken out of context:
"Name Calling gives a person or idea a bad label to make the audience reject them without examining the evidence. This is, by definition, a negative device. 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..."
If you are an teacher of English, surely you know what the words "random" and "or" mean.
I hate to be mean, but here goes. You seem to possess a deadly combination of ignorance and hubris. My response -- again -- was not to the content of the study itself, but to YOUR list. In posting your list YOU did not provide the context in which the words were considered derogatory by the researchers. This was an obvious attempt to imply some bias or weakness in the study. I am sure that you assumed that others would just accept this without reading the text itself.
This is getting boring. It's no fun to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
"YOU did not provide the context in which the words were considered derogatory by the researchers."
So why don't YOU do us all a favor and post the context in which the words were considered derogatory by the researchers--after all this is a forum, not an English class assignment. You are not the teacher here, even though you think you deserve "front of the room" respect without giving it back in return.
I don't care if you are mean--I also post at the Radio Equalizer, and between Hashfanatic and the Minister of Propoganda, you have to see how mean some people can be. Also, as an aside, you should read some of the nicknames given for the Minister of Propoganda.
So Olbermann and MMFA are using the UI study & its "unusual" counting of what gets listed as name calling. I pointed this out, and when asked, pointed to my source in the study, (not the charts alone as you seem to still think).
Susan, have an enjoyable life.
Umm . . Miz? I don't have to provide the context. It's right there. On the IU website. You posted a link to it. The report is the context fin which the words are embedded. That's what "context" means.
What's with Slobermanns man crush on O'Reilly? Thats just not right. Maybe Quief has O"Reilly derangement syndrome to which there is no cure or that's what I hear. (speaking of crushes according to "karmabites" Quief has a little manhood problem....I think a thumb tack was mentioned)
Could you please translate your gibberish into the language called "Coherent"
Or are you using the new wingnut language called "Feeble?"
Wee Skeeter likes talkin' the babble
Of the kind neocons like to dabble
Throw a strawman or a distraction
Into neocon action
And what you have left is just gabble
Attn; MONKNJ80 - please explain topic relevance?
Well wee Tom, I was just trying to live up to the billing you were giving me.
Why Tommy, I was just trying to live up to the billing you were givin' me.
Sorry, didn't see it posted before. And thanks below Susangee. I love your very well thought and salient points.
Julia -- you are indeed MMFA's poet laureate.
WTH does "Quief" mean? Is this supposed to make some sort of satirical sense, like "Orally" (get it?) or "O'Leilly" (again, get it?)?
Susan, I can't think of a way of describing it that wouldn't violate either the Terms of Use, or decent conversation, or both, so I'll just post a link.
I feel all dirty now.
Ooh -- and I feel all silly and naive.
But -- How dare this clown refer to my secret love KO in this shameful manner???
Its Quief Sloberman "news speak" Its like when Sloberman says "orally" (read the last sentence on this mmfa post) Keep studying you will get it.
Quief Slobermann is built like a tac
I hear he's lousy in the sac
Karmabites know her stuff
She rarly speaks of the cuf
And Quief likes to smell his own crak
Oh I can do it to Wheeeeee
Skeeter, did some man not call you back the next day ? Go ahead take it out on Olbermann, those men are all alike.
That's what happened to all the beer, Skeeter drank it!
Me and Jeter are going out for more. Anybody need anything?
I'll take a Guinness.
And WE pretty much live in the same place too. What do you have against gay people HBLefty? Are you one of those "homophob...type...guys?"
Ah, Skeeter, Still talkin' the gabble.
I'm sorry, Skeeter, did I write something you took as anti-gay? I'm not sure what you mean.
Im getting to drunmk to typeee, need to goe lay don..opps... lay down.
OK, thought I'd check back to see where the anti-gay thing came in.Skeeters still passed out.
It's really quite simple.
George Soros' Open Society Institute ----->Tides Foundation ------->Democracy Allience ------->Center for American Progress ----->Keith Olbermann ----->Kevin Bacon ----->MMFA.
You moonbats have been exposed!
The only thing you have exposed is bone stupidity on your part. Your ignorance is appalling.
Um, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic (note the Kevin Bacon reference).
Although, I've thought that before about people who claim to be totally serious (Ann Coulter comes to mind).
Easier to link Bush to Swift Boat vets than to link Soros to Media Matters ... and the first one's actually a violation of law. I wish Bill-O cared about that, but IOKIYAR.