O'Reilly cited Hunt interview to rebut criticism of Fox News' Iraq coverage -- but Hunt agreed with critics
During the June 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that his program does not cover "the explosion du jour" but rather "report[s] honestly on the Iraq war and bring[s] you reports that advance the story." O'Reilly was responding to criticism of Fox News' Iraq war coverage stemming from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that Fox News spent far less time covering the conflict than CNN and MSNBC. As evidence of his program's "honest[]" reporting on Iraq, O'Reilly cited comments made by Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt on the June 12 edition of O'Reilly's nationally syndicated radio show: "[E]arlier this week on The Radio Factor, Colonel David Hunt said that the surge has improved things in the Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold, but not yet in Baghdad." However, O'Reilly failed to mention that, during the June 12 interview, Hunt disagreed with O'Reilly's assertion that "[t]here's no news value" in reporting on "the latest explosion" in Iraq.
During the interview, O'Reilly asked Hunt: "When you're watching the news cruising around, is there any value to you, as an American, not as a military analyst, to see the latest atrocity du jour, the latest explosion du jour? Do you want to see that?" Hunt responded: "Yeah, we've got to disagree on this one. ... I care about the bomb in Tikrit if it kills American soldiers. That's why I think it's important, and I -- we've got guys in combat -- we seem, as a nation -- I'm not hitting the press, but as a nation, we've turned our back on this." O'Reilly went on to assert: "I think Americans understand that soldiers and Marines are dying. I think they know they die in explosions." Hunt replied, "It's too easy to forget, Bill. Look at the people in VA hospitals," to which O'Reilly responded, "I'm not buying it. ... There's no news value to it, Colonel. There's just no news value to it. Just trust me on this."
Additionally, O'Reilly continued his attacks on NBC during the June 14 O'Reilly Factor. He stated that the "latest NBC News indignity is trying to convince their few viewers that Fox News is negligent because we don't cover every terrorist incident in Iraq." O'Reilly continued: "NBC News is, of course, entitled to its opinion in the commentary realm, and the results of said opinion are seen every day in their disastrous ratings. However, for these clowns to say Fox News is insulting military families because we don't show every bombing is dishonest in the extreme, which is what we've come to expect from that organization." He also stated: "NBC News correspondent Jane Arraf blogged that Iraqis who have lost loved ones during the war were scarred much more than they were under Saddam. Well yeah, but what's the point? Millions of Iraqis were given the chance to have freedom, madam."
O'Reilly's comments are just his latest attack in an ongoing feud between Fox News and NBC/MSNBC, as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here).
From the June 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Supporting the troops in Iraq. That's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
As part of their business plan to woo left-wing viewers, NBC News consistently attacks Fox News, as you know. Well, it hasn't worked, as they're losing ratings. And there is big trouble at that network.
Now the latest NBC News indignity is trying to convince their few viewers that Fox News is negligent because we don't cover every terrorist incident in Iraq. Somehow we're insulting military families if we don't run in the explosion du jour. As everybody knows, Al Qaeda's strategy is to break the will of the American people to fight the jihad. Osama bin Laden has stated that in writing.
So blowing things up and hopefully getting the carnage on TV is what the terrorists want. Here at The Factor, we report honestly on the Iraq war and bring you reports that advance the story. For example, earlier this week on The Radio Factor, Colonel David Hunt said that the surge has improved things in the Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold, but not yet in Baghdad.
And we believe that analysis is accurate. NBC News, on the other hand, has, well, let's say just their Iraq coverage has been questionable. Item: NBC News analyst William Arkin called troops mercenaries and disparaged the sacrifice they're making to bring freedom to that country.
Item: NBC News correspondent Richard Engel filed a report that said one American combat unit, quote, "all told me it's time to end the war," unquote.
Well, The Factor received emails from some soldiers in that unit saying that was absolutely false.
Item: NBC News correspondent Jane Arraf blogged that Iraqis who have lost loved ones during the war were scarred much more than they were under Saddam. Well yeah, but what's the point? Millions of Iraqis were given the chance to have freedom, madam.
An NBC commentator also called funding for the war in Iraq "asinine." NBC News is, of course, entitled to its opinion in the commentary realm, and the results of said opinion are seen every day in their disastrous ratings. However, for these clowns to say Fox News is insulting military families because we don't show every bombing is dishonest in the extreme, which is what we've come to expect from that organization.
And that's the "Memo."
From the June 12 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK. So there's some progress in the western part of the state, the country, but Baghdad is still chaotic.
HUNT: Yeah, and we've lost -- the last two months were the largest fatalities of the American soldiers in the war combined.
O'REILLY: Right.
HUNT: And we've got over 33 young great guys already gone now. There was never going to be a battle in which the American military moves into Baghdad and kills all the bad guys. It was an idea to create some security to allow some breathing room for the Iraqi government, military, and police to actually pick up the fight. We give them that street. They keep it.
O'REILLY: All right.
HUNT: That's when -- so at this moment --
O'REILLY: So my analysis --
HUNT: -- it's not working.
O'REILLY: So my analysis that the Iraqis are primarily at fault for their chaos in their own country is correct.
HUNT: You bet. You bet.
O'REILLY: All right. So, OK, and that's the best we can get; that at this point, time's running out for the Iraqis. I believe that. I'm not real optimistic that they're going to be able to do anything. I think we'll probably have to pull back in the fall and let them do whatever they have to do, because I don't think we can sustain this level of casualties. Do you agree with that?
HUNT: Yeah, I think at the end of the summer, I think -- I think -- the politics of our presidential election are going to dictate a lot more. We -- we're -- yeah, we cannot keep going -- getting it done like this.
O'REILLY: No, if they Iraqis aren't going to help themselves in Baghdad, then we have to pull back and let them -- whatever happens, happens. We can't abandon the region. We have to stay there to make sure the Iranians and the Al Qaeda don't run wild, but Baghdad is Baghdad, and they gotta sort it out.
Anything else? Let me just ask you this. When you're watching the news cruising around, is there any value to you, as an American, not as a military analyst, to see the latest atrocity du jour, the latest explosion du jour? Do you want to see that?
HUNT: Yeah, we've got to disagree on this one, Bill, and we're friends, because we're gonna disagree. I care about the bomb in Tikrit if it kills American soldiers. That's why I think it's important, and I -- we've got guys in combat -- we seem, as a nation -- I'm not hitting the press, but as a nation, we've turned our back on this.
O'REILLY: All right, now do you believe that the strategy of the terrorist is to have that happen so it will be shown on American television, just as the Vietnamese strategy was to break the will of the American people?
HUNT: Yes, I do, and it worked -- it work its way -- some in Vietnam.
O'REILLY: It absolutely worked there.
HUNT: And it worked that way here, but we've got a bigger government, and we're smarter, and we ought to be able to push back on public relations. There's so many good stories that we're not doing.
O'REILLY: Nah, that's not gonna work.
HUNT: Well, we're not trying. All I'm suggesting is that -- you asked.
O'REILLY: No, I know. We disagree on this. I mean, I think Americans -- I think Americans understand that soldiers and Marines are dying. I think they know they die in explosions.
HUNT: It's too easy to forget, Bill. Look at the people in VA hospitals.
O'REILLY: Ahh. Ya know. I don't -- I'm not buying it.
HUNT: It's too easy to forget.
O'REILLY: I don't think so.
HUNT: They're not our sons and daughters. They're somebody else's. Look at the treatment in VA hospitals. It took The Washington Post to bring that up. I want the American public -- I want -- and I don't think they don't care. I want them to see it to know that Private Johnson from Bat Cave, North Carolina, or Long Island is out there doing this, and were not, and that's not a hit on Fox or NBC or anybody. I think as a nation --
O'REILLY: Look, if you did that in World War II or even in Vietnam, the people would have been so horrified that the war would have been a different situation. People's capacity to absorb other people's pain is limited, and on a big thing, yes. But every day, the same thing; here's another explosion. There's no news value to it, Colonel. There's just no news value to it. Just trust me on this. I know you're an ex-soldier. I know you feel for the guys. I feel for the guys, too. You know, our audience, in 48 hours, sent 25,000 phone cards over there. Did you know that?
HUNT: Yeah, yeah, I think it's great.
O'REILLY: OK, so our audience, here, they know -- they know -- what's going on over in Iraq. Colonel David Hunt, buy his book, On the Hunt. We'll be back with your calls and comments in a moment.
Sure, why spend time covering the "explosion du jour"? Explosions going off in public places and killing dozens of people every day in Baghdad? It may be news, but it's not the right message.
We can still win this thing if we follow the lead of O'Reilly and Laura Bush: stop telling everyone about the thousands of deaths each month. We just need to close our eyes, trust our leaders, and everything will be fine.
We've tried a surge, we've tried redeploying troups a few times, now we're arming the Sunnis who have been attacking US troups. We've tried all these things and they haven't worked. If we can't change reality, then we've got to change our perception of reality.
"I'm not buying it".
No but you'll sell it you lousy piece of excrement.
Eyes wide shut, anyone?
The audio of the exchange between BO'Reilly and Colonel Hunt should be added to the end of the video. I know you guys have it.
Mr.E.
Interesting. It looks to me as if O'Reilly is essentially advocating the Murtha plan...redeploy to a nearby friendly country and try to keep Bush's ClusterF*ck from boiling over into the whole region. He just doesn't want the Media covering it, apparently. That way, Bush doesn't have to be too awfully embarassed by his monumental blunder. We can just keep it "quiet", and hope nobody notices.
I still think the most telling statement from O'Reilly is when he said that the other networks were covering Iraq because they wanted to make Bush look bad. So using that logic the reason Faux does not cover Iraq because they want to make Bush look good. Faux is a Republican tool just like right wing talk radio and right wing think tanks. Soon Faux and O'Reilly will turn on Bush, they will start claiming that they have always disliked Bush but (who ever is the Republican nominee) is exactly what this country needs at this dangerous time. Be afraid, BE AFRAID!!!
Imagine what it would be like if we followed O'Reilly's line of reasoning in the past:
The only thing great about this depression is the number of couch potatos looking for a handout.
It's not a stock market crash, it's just a minor correction. They're to be expected.
Holocaust? What holocaust? I wish they'd report more of the good coming out of those camps.
Dust bowl or soil redistribution? Why are we expending resources towards something that happens naturally?
How in the hell can you make bush look good? (careful now) His supporters are either on the payroll or incapable of clear, rational thinking. b.o. is educated however, memorizing facts from text books has little to do with intelligence and b.o.'s ignorance is only overshadowed by is ego. b.o. is clearly dangerous and is responsible to a degree for American troops being killed. His religious superstitions are antiquated and I am sure if he could, he would bring back the inquisitions. He HATES America, that is why he wants to change it using his rediculous culture war concept. I think he was a forcep baby. b.o. is a silly stupid man
Unfortunately, that is the Democrat plan. Keep the war going, and going badly, so everyone blames Bush and votes Dem in 2008. And then the Dems will keep it going anyway. A short term political tactic designed for short term gain, while having no intention of actually fixing the problem. Been done over and over again in many lands thru-out democratic histories. Usually indicates a slide towards anarchy and then dictatorship.
"There's no news value to it, Colonel. There's just no news value to it. Just trust me on this."
Faith-based Journalism 101 as taught by Billy Boy.
As a proud liberal, I love it when I get a chance to quote Marx: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
What has being a proud liberal got to do with quoting Groucho Marx? Did you think this was a quote from Karl Marx?
"Just no news value to it"?
He means it won't do anything for his ratings. Now, immigration? That's another story.
This is a two fold assault from the two faced master of spin who regularly spouts out of both sides of his mouth.
On the one hand, he can continue his nightly rag against NBC by calling them anti-American, or anti-Bush, or pro-terrorist or whatever for showing all these bombings. On the other hand, he can keep on the Bush suck-up defense by limiting the amount of carnage he displays on his program - and then cloak that in "well, if we did it that is what the terrorists want and it serves no purpose".
He is pretty damn clever, you have to give him that.
O'REILLY: You know, our audience, in 48 hours, sent 25,000 phone cards over there. Did you know that?
HUNT: Yeah, yeah, I think it's great.
O'REILLY: OK, so our audience, here, they know -- they know -- what's going on over in Iraq.
This is infuriating. All it takes to find out what's going on in Iraq is a few thousand phone cards, and yet, as O'Reilly stated earlier this week, Fox "can't know what's happening over there"? I would think that with their assets, Fox could afford enough phone cards to know what's going on in Iraq, maybe even enough cards to bring home some of the reporters on the ground there. Yet they choose to remain in the dark and keep their journalists in harms way. This is willful ignorance, I say. Willful ignorance, and I'm damned disgusted that FoxNews would deny us information and choose to save a few dollars over a few lives.
I'm also a little pissed about that "O'Reilly taking Hunt's statements out of context" thing, too. But this phone card thing REALLY makes my blood boil.
To me, this seems very parallel to the strategy espoused by Bush:
Bush "I listen to the commanders on the ground."
Zinni "We need 300,000 troops to pacify Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50730-2004May23.html
Bush's actions: "Trust me we don't need 300,000 troops."
O'Reilly (made up): "I'll bring on Colonel Hunt to tell everyone that Fox doesn't need to show casualties, it helps the terrorists."
O'Reilly: Anything else? Let me just ask you this. When you're watching the news cruising around, is there any value to you, as an American, not as a military analyst, to see the latest atrocity du jour, the latest explosion du jour? Do you want to see that?
HUNT: Yeah, we've got to disagree on this one, Bill, and we're friends, because we're gonna disagree. I care about the bomb in Tikrit if it kills American soldiers. That's why I think it's important, and I -- we've got guys in combat -- we seem, as a nation -- I'm not hitting the press, but as a nation, we've turned our back on this.
O'Reilly:There's no news value to it, Colonel. There's just no news value to it. Just trust me on this.
Both claim they listen to military guys, until the military says something they don't want to hear.
The media would rather having us obsess over Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. O'Reilly works for that agenda. The troops want us to see what they go thru, to empathize, to not feel forgotten. But our media is actively trying to make us look the other way. That's why the producers are showing nothing but celeb gossip 24/7.
The whole world sees exactly where America's attention lies, which way the herd is pointed. Cindy Sheehan complained of those who care more about American Idol than the dead and maimed sons and husbands that return from our little Crusade. The arabs see it, they see how disinterested we are in the misery we cause them, just makes them angrier.
I hope our troops are seeing it, and realizing they've been mere pawns in a huge corporate piracy raid. I hope they finally understand how little their lives mean to those who run this nation. Those who keep pointing us at some starlet's meager cleavage while the killing and the crimes go on.
I try to use this analogy with people I argue with over this myth that the "media" is losing the war in Iraq.
If a bomb went off in say, Charlotte, NC almost every day for the last few years, and took out 10-100 people per bomb, what would be the reaction of the media to that or those incidences? I'm sure it would be wall to wall coverage of said bombings for years on end. I mean, look at the coverage that 9/11 STILL gets, and it was 6 years ago. Of course what happens in Iraq on a daily basis is important, whether or not American troops get killed, it's still important. The more innocent Iraqi people die, as a direct result of the US invasion into Iraq, the more they are going to get disgruntled with us as a country. The more they are going to hate us, and blame the US for the bad things going on in Iraq right now. We are formenting a whole nation/region of people to grow up hating the US, and unlike in the past where it was just rhetoric echoing from the leaders of some of these countries (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and others), they can actually point to the Iraq war and say, "See we told you they wanted to take over. See! We were right all of this time."
I think that is the real danger of this so called "war". If we had actually kept it to attacking terrorists, and taking them out, most, if not ALL of the Arab and Persian world would have been on our side.
Remember the coverage of the Va. Tech murders? I think it was Jon Stewart, when interviewing an Iraqi guest, who made the point that the Iraqis suffer that many casualties EVERY DAY, not to mention our own soldiers that are also killed EVERY DAY! And O'Reilly thinks this unworthy of his attention?
You neglect that fact that innocent Iraqis died at a pace greater than the war during the Saddam regime yet the media didn't cover every Uday and Qusay rape and every body put into the mass graves, did they? Everything is relative. As far as wars go, this war has low casualty rates and is barely different from the killing saddam did as his pleasure.
Then to try to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people we should be telling them, that yes, we're killing them but on a far smaller scale than they're used to. We should explain, that this is what we in America call progress.
Right, I hate the argument that, yes we have joined the evil doers club, but we arent as bad as the other guy
On the number of deaths pre and post Saddam, you can pick your article and year for whatever works with your beliefs. There’s a whole assortment of expert opinions and no lack of "legitimate sources" that have compiled conflicting data. I don’t think there will be a clear picture of death counts for the next 10 years but I agree that none of them are much of an advertisement for the "hearts and minds" tactic in winning converts to democracy.
Yeah, how's Darfur working out for you, pal?
Not true, Leather.
In late 2002 and early 2003, Saddam was not killing thousands of Iraqi's every month.
There were some Iraqi's who were afraid of him. Now the majority of the citizens of Iraq are scared of everything that goes bump in the night because of the years of unrest.
An out and out lie. According to human rights groups Iraqis there were no mass killings going on in Iraq by Saddam at a rate of about 300 a year, that is a good WEEK in Iraq now. Now that makes him a butcher but YOUR characterization is an out and out lie. The mass graves are for the most part the Iran/Iraq war and the putting down of the rebellion Bush Sr advocated before betraying those Shiites who took him seriously. Lets see you cough up a single example AFTER Halabja of a mass grave. Of course while he was actually doing his worst killing WE were his strong ally and didnt care BEANS about how many of his people we killed and I bet YOU were loving him right along with Raygun and Rummy back THEN. Now they are supposed to be an excuse for an invasion stop it you are making my stomach hurt. You dont fool anyone. AND you never know what you are talking about.
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
(So while you probably could have gotten myself AND HRW onboard for a humanitarian invasion WHILE WE WERE STRONGLY SUPPORTING HIM)
In considering the criteria that would justify humanitarian intervention, the most important, as noted, is the level of killing: was genocide or comparable mass slaughter underway or imminent? Brutal as Saddam Hussein’s reign had been, the scope of the Iraqi government’s killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention. We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein’s vicious inhumanity. Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. In addition, one must consider such abuses as Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. However, by the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein’s killing had ebbed.
(By the time of Bush's invasion this was no longer happening)
But on the eve of the latest Iraq war, no one contends that the Iraqi government was engaged in killing of anywhere near this magnitude, or had been for some time. “Better late than never” is not a justification for humanitarian intervention, which should be countenanced only to stop mass murder, not to punish its perpetrators, desirable as punishment is in such circumstances.
100 Iraqis are killed on average a day, by official estimates. That's 36,500 a year. And much of it done by the government army and police. Looks like the new boys we installed really have outdone Saddam. He was killing only a few hundred a year in his prisons. It's said the US has a lot of control over the Iraqi security forces. Looks like Negroponte's El Salvador Option is in place. But could we really expect more out of old Reaganites. They're still fighting Central America in their heads. We're funding and "advising" death squads again, America! Ain't it great!
That statement isn't going to fly without backup, Kennedy. Show some figures and sources. Also, be sure to itemize, and show how many deaths were due to the actions of the regime, and how many were down to the sanctions.
This comment by O'Reilly is absolutely galling. Fox News demands to be treated as a legitimate news source, but here is O'Reilly saying that Fox deliberately makes decisions about what will and will not be reported based upon the reaction the audience may have. Informed Americans are supposed to make their political decisions based upon facts, which are supposed to be reported in the news. In the world of Fox "News", the facts are filtered to make sure that the viewers will not reach a conclusion that Fox "News" does not want them to reach. After this admission by O'Reilly, anyone who suggests that Fox "News" should be treated as a legitimate news source should be laughed at.
They are being laughed at but between Limbaugh, Savage, Drudge, Scarborough, Coulter, Malkin, not to mention Fox news millions of people are being lied to everyday. I just hope someday people don't wake up in a totalitarian fascists state and wonder how did we got here.
Have you read the May 9, 2007 National Security Directive? It's past time to wake up.
This is so sad, it's pathetic. OT too, but I couldn't go back to the Savage thread to post - it would just get lost at this point...
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/15/savage-cspan/#comments
and this threat: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/gma_office_receives_letter_mentioning_anthrax_area_closed_down_61114.asp?c=rss
but liberals are the nazi's? We're the ones most likely to attack our fellow americans?
It just kills me every time I see a rightwing chickenhawk try to preach the gospel of war to someone who's been there. Oh, silly me, I almost forgot, O'Reilly was the soldier wielding a pen back in '82 on the Falkland Islands.
Of course Fox has to spent less time on reporting the news in Iraq. They were the ones that helped Bush lie this country into this war.
Now that it turns out that Bush was never man enough to talk straight to the public, now that it turns out that Bush was a real coward hiding behind fake WMD's scare rhetoric, hiding behind Saddam boogeyman rhetoric, the phony terrorism rhetoric and now currently hiding behind support the troops rhetoric, Bush as it turns out is nothing more than a little man who thought he was going to be a great war president; this truth Fox can never report and they keep that report from the public by making sure the public never knows what is going on in Iraq.
The truth is Iraq is not a war against terrorism. It's an adventure without rhyme or reason and Bush at this point can only attack reason.
It's not nation-building building, remember?
Nation stealing. In the old days, they called it Conquest.
I wonder if O'Reilly will also refuse to cover the latest missing person or celebrity trial.
Just wait until Rosie lands her next TV gig. Bill's going to have a 2x4 with her name on it.
Bob Barker wants Rosie for The Price Is Right.
Whatever became of Bill's nephew that he mentions here?
[link to www.youtube.com]
Bill's got his panties in a twist over MSNBC who effortlessly debunk his pathological lies and unmitigated partisan horse balls on a daily basis.
Someone should should fire the big sissy.
Well I guess if NBC is the peacock network than Fox is the ostrich network.
As fox is his boss, I don't see it anytime soon. MMFA's coverage of him might send him over the edge first. Its a race, any other tracks seem viable? Vogon poet's death, nixon symdrom, alien abduction.Sorous buys fox, or somebody sic's Joe Mama on him.