O'Reilly asked: "[W]hat's the difference between David Duke" and Daily Kos?
On the July 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during an interview with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign communications director Howard Wolfson, host Bill O'Reilly again compared the blog Daily Kos to white supremacist David Duke, asking: "[W]hat's the difference between David Duke and the hate stuff that he puts on his website with his bloggers and this? What is the difference?" Wolfson responded that, unlike Daily Kos, "David Duke's entire organization is rooted in hate and racism." O'Reilly then asked, "And the Daily Kos is not?" Wolfson replied: "No, it certainly is not ... It is primarily hundreds of thousands, as I said, good American citizens who are participating in our democracy." Wolfson later accused O'Reilly of "cherry-picking comments that are objectionable and attempting to smear an entire community of people. And it's wrong."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here and here), O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Daily Kos, comparing it to Duke, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nazi party. Wolfson appeared on O'Reilly's program to discuss a petition posted on Clinton's presidential campaign website titled "Tell Bill O'Reilly: Stop Smearing Grassroots Progressives."
At the beginning of his interview with Wolfson, O'Reilly offered examples of "what Daily Kos posts about Hillary Clinton," calling them "brutal personal attacks." But the comments section of O'Reilly's own website featured several examples of Clinton attacks, documented by AMERICAblog (here, here, and here):
- "As a woman, I would open the door for her.....now, if there was nothing on the other side but empty space and a 50 foot drop into a moat filled leeches and (gulp) rats...well, I can't be held responsible."
- "If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list."
- "If she wins which hopefully she won't. My guns are loaded for the revolt are yours?"
- "I didn't respect Stalin and I won't respect Clinton. They're both cut from the same cloth."
Later in the segment, Wolfson said, "Bill, even your website has things on it that you would probably find objectionable." O'Reilly responded by accusing Daily Kos of having "planted someone" on his website. However, as screen shots of the above comments show (posted by AMERICAblog here and here), this purported "plant[]" would have to have posted thousands of comments to O'Reilly's website, under different aliases.
From the July 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: This is what the Daily Kos posts about Hillary Clinton. "Hillary George Wallace Clinton, F you and you're A-sucking appeasing any way the wind blows careerist slag. We're looking at President George W. Bush with breasts," only they didn't use the word "breasts." "Hillary is not the answer. She is owned and operated by right wing crazies. She is for more war, more attack, weaponizing Israel. Hillary Rodham Clinton, just trust me, wink, wink, F that and F her. Hillary got stains on her dress, too. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a walking, talking repudiation of everything that Kos and the netroots have worked for over the past four years. I have nothing but contempt for this evil woman, Hillary Clinton. Damn her to hell."
This is what's posted on the Daily Kos that you're sticking up for, Mr. Wolfson. You want to explain that?
WOLFSON: Well, I'm not going to stick up for those comments in particular. In truth, we do come in for our fair share of criticism on the site.
O'REILLY: No, no, this isn't criticism. These are brutal personal attacks --
WOLFSON: Yeah, and obviously --
O'REILLY: -- that the Daily Kos trades in and that you're going to their convention. Now --
WOLFSON: And --
O'REILLY: What's the difference between David Duke's and the hate stuff that he puts on his website with his bloggers and this? What is the difference?
WOLFSON: Well, it's a good question. And the crucial difference is that David Duke's entire organization is rooted in hate and racism --
O'REILLY: And the Daily Kos is not?
WOLFSON: -- and anti Semitism. No, it certainly is not.
O'REILLY: No?
WOLFSON: It is primarily hundreds of thousands, as I said, good American citizens who are participating in our democracy.
O'REILLY: And why do they permit this? Why do they permit it, then?
WOLFSON: You know, I haven't seen those particular posts. There are posts that disagree with Senator Clinton on policy. I think it's perfectly appropriate to disagree with her on policy. We're not --
O'REILLY: These posts -- so do I. You can disagree with anybody -- look --
WOLFSON: Absolutely. We're not going to agree with everything that everybody comes to Daily Kos and comments on.
O'REILLY: It's not a matter of agreeing. This is what's on this website every day. [White House press secretary] Tony Snow deserves to have cancer. The pope is a primate.
WOLFSON: You are -- you are cherry-picking --
O'REILLY: I'm not cherry-picking anything.
WOLFSON: -- comments that are objectionable --
O'REILLY: This is what they do.
WOLFSON: -- and attempting to smear an entire community of people. And it's wrong.
[...]
WOLFSON: And we don't -- and there are things that we don't agree with on Daily Kos, of course. But you are cherry-picking the most extreme examples of inappropriate comments.
O'REILLY: I just read you -- and you want me -- I can read you 30 more.
WOLFSON: Sure. There are millions -- there are millions of comments on that site over the last several years. Millions. Could you find some that are objectionable? Sure you can.
O'REILLY: These are -- every respectable blog in the country --
WOLFSON: You know what? There are people who say objectionable things every day.
O'REILLY: -- every respectable blog in the country -- and you know this, because I think Hillary Clinton's website is respectable --
WOLFSON: Thank you.
O'REILLY: -- every respectable blog in the country does not permit this hatred. The Kos traffics --
WOLFSON: Bill, even your website has things on it that you would probably find objectionable.
O'REILLY: That's bull. Look, we know what you're going to say because the Kos planted somebody in there. But when we see objectionable things, we take it off immediately. They traffic in it. And there's where you're making a mistake.
WOLFSON: No.
O'REILLY: You're pandering to these people by showing up there.
WOLFSON: It is not pandering -- it is not pandering to talk to hundreds of thousands of people who are committed Democrats, committed progressives who are interested in turning this country around and changing it for the better.
Sounds like O'Reilly is a free speech nazi. He wants to silence liberals. Help me out, that's as 'bout as much of the bs Republican-style of argument I committed to memory from previous Savage posts.
Anyway, that Hillary, after hearing those posts, is going to the Kos candidate forum in August; kinda puts the lie to the meat of notion that she and the Dems ran away from the Fox debate.
"Sounds like O'Reilly is a free speech nazi. He wants to silence liberals"
O'Reilly isn't the one advocating bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and silencing those with whom he disagress. That would be David Brock and his anti-free speech friends on the left.
RHINO: ".....and silencing those with whom he disagress. That would be David Brock and his anti-free speech friends on the left."
So, David Brock and his anti-free speech friends on the left silence those with whom they disagree.....and yet they allow you the freedom to speak YOUR mind on MMFA ????
What IS this world coming too.
They don't care about me. I'm insignificant. They just want to silence conservatives who reach millions of listeners like Limbaugh and Hannity.
Guess you missed the cheekiness of my totally farsical line about O'Reilly as a speech nazi. I'll lay it out for you real simple like; I was making fun of all those obnoxious Republican whiners who pop a forehead vein calling us free speech nazi's everytime we draw attention to hateful comments from people like Savage.
I don't care what Bill says, he's wrong. Kos is a fine online liberal/progressive community and they do good work over there. But like any neighborhood or town, you're just going to a few beligerent neighbors here and there. So, what do you do? slash their tires? Organize a beat down? No, you steer clear of them and call the cops when they get out of control.
I think O'Reilly couldn't care less about KOS. He's trying to get back at the Democrats for boycotting the debate that the hate channel--FOX "NEWS" was presenting.
Yeah, I agree. It's sour grapes. And as evidenced by all the links popping up on this thread about the rampant vulgarity and hatefulness posted on BO's site, it's been a been a poor gain for Bill in the short-term.
We should ask ourselves how this plan to smear the netroots communities will play out in the long-term. This is our bread and butter that Bill is coming after. It's the classic Republican tactic of attacking an opponent's strength and if it gets legs in the press (aka right-wing echo chamber), things could get tough.
But I think O'Reilly has picked a fight with the wrong kids. Those kids over at KOS and in the netroots community at large aren't a bunch of John Kerry's. Those kids, these kids, are some stone fisted mofo's and they'll bloody a bully's mouth.
I'm insignificant.
That's the first factual piece of information Rino Hunter has posted on this site.
:-)
No they dont. You are lying AGAIN. They only want to expose their lies and distortions. Strawman alert
Rino.
The Fairness Doctrine is about consequences for blatantly and knowingly presenting lies as factual matters or events, and not about simply voicing opinions....as opinions. Limbaugh and O'Reilley would not have anywhere near the audience they do if the FCC treated their abuse of the peoplewho believe them...people like you....as harshly as they do mere tasteless humor clearly presented as humor.
You grew up with an understanding that the airwaves couldn't be used to purvey blatant, hurtful lies precisely because the Fairness Doctrine was in place! It is the very device by which our airwaves came to be the powerful medium it is. Now it's lack is the how and the why news media is being abused.
Isn't it true that those who have the most to lose would also be the loudest voices against it's return? And who might that be?
One of the intentions of a Fairness Doctrine is to prevent a media outlet with a financial stake in one party or candidate to use publicly-owned airwaves to influence the outcome of an election.
What is it about guaranteeing equal time for reasoned debate that frightens you so much?
People like Rino Hunter are afraid of the truth because the truth proves that their positions are wrong.
So the state universities are public. Do you propose firing 30 percent of the liberal professors and hiring conservatives to even things up?
There's a million cable channels when there was only ABC, NBC and CBS in the Fairness Doctrine days. The whole idea is stupid. Bring back the Edsel and the lava lamp too. It is sooooo 70s.
What are you so afraid of? Bring back The Fairness Doctorine. Then both sides will be heard, instead of only lying conservatives.
Both sides do have the chance to be heard. No one is stopping a liberal from starting a talk show and becoming successful. The liberal radio hosts simply have to find a way to be more entertaining and express views that the American people find to be less extreme.
Sure because liberal talk radio is so much more extreme than Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage? That of course is a ludicrous proposition. You keep pretending that it is the AUDIENCE that determines who is on the air. Even though I keep pointing out that Hightower and Donanhue were fired after KILLING in the ratings. It is business, an inherently conservative portion of society that makes these decisions because it is BUSINESS that buys the bulk of advertising. It is ADVERTISING not listeners that pay for the media. The fairness doctrine would do nothing except mandate that both sides of a public issue be heard and those personally attacked be given access to the media to answer those attacks. Of course what you conservatives are really afraid of is the loss of propaganda exclusive since propaganda is so much more effective when the other side isnt heard.
You accuse conservaties of having exclusive broadcasting rights?? Are you out of your mind (well, yes of course you are, that's right I forgot..you consistently mislead and distort to fit your ideological perspective).
Liberals have 30 years of control when we only had 3 TV stations; conservative media didn't start emerging until the late 80's, earlier 90's
Liberal: NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC
Conservative: FoxNews, talk radio
Yea, real conservative monopoly.
"O'Reilly isn't the one advocating bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and silencing those with whom he disagress."
How will the Fairness Doctrine silence Limbaugh or Hannity?
Because radio stations would be forced to book liberals to come on Limbaugh's show, and after a while they would simply get tired of having to put up with all the red tape, and they would simply go with a neutral political commentator. That's what you had before the Fairness Doctrine was put in place. Radio stations were afraid to put on ideological commentators, because they didn't want to put up with all the government regulations. The end result is that neither side gets the chance to be heard.
"Because radio stations would be forced to book liberals to come on Limbaugh's show..."
Outright lie, ignorance of the doctrine.
"...and after a while they would simply get tired of having to put up with all the red tape, and they would simply go with a neutral political commentator."
Fantasy-based speculation.
"That's what you had before the Fairness Doctrine was put in place. Radio stations were afraid to put on ideological commentators, because they didn't want to put up with all the government regulations."
Lie. Didn't have that problem BEFORE the fairness doctrine. More importantly, didn't have it afterwards, either.
"The end result is that neither side gets the chance to be heard."
Patronizing propaganda based on lies, fantasy, speculation, and ignorance. With all due respect.
Don't get me wrong - I'm no proponent of the Fairness Doctrine. But at least if you're going to argue against it, use truth and facts, rather than parroting the hannity/limpaugh line.
"Lie. Didn't have that problem BEFORE the fairness doctrine. More importantly, didn't have it afterwards, either"
Sorry. I meant to say WHILE the Fairness Doctrine was in place. Thanks for noting my mistake.
they would simply go with a neutral political commentator
Nuetrality?!?!?! Gad Zooks!
The horror, the horror.
And explain, in your simple terms, how enabling the Fairness Doctrine would silence conservative and or liberal talk show hosts on the radio? Oh yeah, wait, it wouldn't, not at all. That is just a nice little scare tactic that Rush et all have been throwing out, because they might actually get called out on their BS for a change, on air. Gosh, that would be horrible now wouldn't it? Wouldn't stifle what they had to say, but they would have to add opposing opinions as well.
That being said, I'm as liberal as they come, and I don't think enabling the Fairness Doctrine again would be a good thing to do. And I dare say, it would be just about un-enforcable anyway. I'm not a fan of it, and aside from that, I think a lot of Americans are now seeing the light of day when it comes to the bloviating pretentious windbags that are the mainstay of conservative talk radio, and are starting to tune out, because even after all of this time, they're starting to learn that they're one trick ponies, who talk about the same things day in, and day out, without really providing any real information, and or solid debate.
You're displaying your utter ignorance once more Rino Hunter.
The Fairness Doctrince does not silence free speech - it assures that those on both sides of an issue have a chance to be heard. It's brain-dead right-wingers such as yourself who want to stifle free soeech - but only left-leaning speech, subjecting the American public to a steady stream of right-wing neo-con pap and propaganda.
Both sides of the issue do have a chance to be heard. You just have to have the talent and resources to become a successful liberal radio talk show host. There's no monopoly on the market. It's a free market, and anybody can enter and compete against Rush and other conservatives. But it's just that the American people have rejected the extremist left wing radio hosts. So you're just going to have to find somebody who's a little more mainstream and a little more entertaining.
Of course. I forgot, the "free" market is the answer to everything.
Except when the "free" market is controlled by very few individual companies who have very conservative agendas. You know, silly little details like that and all.
And the airwaves are already regulated, so this would be just another regulation added into the equation. You know, that whole FCC group who enforces the laws of the public airwaves, which is also something you conservatives (some of you at least) keep forgetting. The airwaves are owned by you, and by me, not these companies. They are licensed to use them, and as such, have to follow rules and laws governing said use.
Fairness Doctrine would not silence anyone, it would just make it so that their fiery rhetoric could be addressed, and answered by someone who opposes, or has a different point of view than say Limbaugh, Boortz, et all, and this scares them to death, because then, they will be exposed for all of their lies, on their own shows instead of in places such as this.
Exactly, Magnolia. More proof that Rino Huinter doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and simply relies on what the Limbaughs, Hannities,and Savages of the world tell him to think.
And that's rather sad....
MAGNOLIA:
This is class warfare. The upper class, the wealthiest, the CEOs, the people with the POWER in business and industry have an agenda they need to push.
For their products, it's ADVERTISING. They spend billions trying to convince the public that their widget is the best. They hope their competition doesn't have the resources to match their advertising budget, so eventually, their product will command a monopolistic "market share". The competition will either go out of business, or be snapped up by the larget corporation(s). With no competition, there are no restrictions on price, and no requirement to maintain quality.
Aside from selling a product, the elitist class has an agenda of controlling their environment completely. This involves goernment regulation, tax structure, trade policy, labor restrictions, and the like. In every instance, the elitist class has a great desire to have every condition of their operation be in their own favor. They cannot be blamed for this; it's actually a REQUIREMENT of business to maximize advantage, profit, and market share (hopefully to the point of monopoly ... being "the only game in town").
About twenty years ago, the rightwing elitists came to the obvious conclusion that they could not win elections, or gain advantage in governmental policy decisions, unless they embarked on widespread propaganda campaigns, to try to convince voters to vote against their own interests, and instead support candidates and policies desired by the elitists.
How could this be done? By time-worn propaganda techniques: lies, fear, catering to prejudice and bigotry, hatred, more fear, more lies, jingoism and nationalistic PATRIOTISM which is identified as supporting the candidates supported by the elites. And, of course, non-stop SMEARS against their opponents.
So, just like advertising budgets, the propaganda budget is considered a "cost of doing business", and has tremendous returns. FOX NEWS, for example, lost tens of millions of dollars for YEARS, but the PROPAGANDA benefit affected public opinion, helped enable Republicans to gain controlling majorities, and then the bonanzas began to flow to those who invested in monopolizing the airwaves. The returns to the elite were in the BILLIONS, in contrast to the mere millions it cost to buy up radio stations, newspapers, etc.
"OWNING" the airwaves proved to be a real winner of an investment for the elites.
The trick to all this is, of course, to SILENCE as much as possible, any opposing views. The tax policy favored by Dick Cheney MUST be broadcast as the very best tax policy for the whole nation. If opposing voices say, wait a minute, Dick Cheney's tax policy is wildly disproportionately favorable to Dick Cheney and his rich friends, and is saddling the rest of America with huge deficits ... this cannot be allowed for the American public to hear. The TRUTH harms Republicans and Rightwingers. So the message MUST be controlled, and it's worth every penny they've spent so far buying up Clear Channel, NewsCorp, etc.
The "fairness doctrine" would mess up this carefully constructed "information monopoly", and so the rightwing must fight such a thing with every fiber of their being.
Tex,
I'm with you on this one.
Just because the majority as you seem to be believe has embraced extremist right winger radio shows doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing. It’s kind of like celebrating the increased sales of bongs, but of course that’s just my opinion I do concede that these winger talk show propagandists are quite popular with your brand of conservatism. They say all the bigoted things wingers embrace as being normal and good, and they tell you exactly what you want to hear. Right Wing extremist seem to need to have their self worth reinforced by being part of what they think is the majority and the mainstream. Most Progressives don't need that type of reinforcement to validate our beliefs and opinions, we don’t care whether you agree with us or not. Consequently Liberal radio doesn’t have a comparable market to tap into on the left. I agree with you about this, right wing radio is profitable because there are millions of folks on the right fringes that crave it and need it. So you’re entirely correct the marketplace is working well. Nevertheless just because there is a sizable wing nut audience tuning into these wing nut programs in no way means that wing nuts make up the majority of Americans, don’t get twisted baby.
"Just because the majority as you seem to be believe has embraced extremist right winger radio shows doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing"
Actually, the reason that the liberals are so adament about silencing conservative talk radio is that conservative talk radio is the one form of the media that liberals don't have control of yet. But they want to gain control of the ENTIRE media, because that's the only way that they can get a liberal Democrat elected President. They have to try to convince the American people that they will be better off with higher taxes, taxpayer funded abortion, government run health care, the elimination of 2nd amendment rights, a weaker national security, and a Terrorist Bill of Rights. That's a very hard agenda to sell to the American people.
RINO HUNTER attempts to portray the Democrat’s “agenda” as unpopular, employing the same tired rightwing talking points. But let’s look at REALITY, shall we?
RH: “They (Democrats) have to try to convince the American people that they will be better off with higher taxes … “
RESPONSE: It’s the Republican’s “no brainer” that in a vacuum, EVERYBODY will want lower taxes. But this is not REALITY; taxes are about CHOICES. When put in context, the American People favor the Democratic approach, and do not mind higher taxes when it means better services (given a choice).
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
For Example: Which party would do a better job with tax policy? 35% DEMOCRATS, 29% Republicans.
Which is your view? A: Recent Federal tax cuts have been worth it, because they have helped strengthen the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their own money. B: Federal tax cuts have NOT been worth it, because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs. Worth it: 39%. NOT worth it: 53%.
RH: “taxpayer funded abortion”
RESPONSE: Right-to-Life: 39%, PRO-CHOICE: 53%.
RH: “government run health care”
RESPONSE: Government Health Care: 64%, YES, 35% NO.
RH: “the elimination of 2nd amendment rights”
RESPONSE: Bogus claim; no Democrat is advocating such a thing.
RH: “a weaker national security, and a Terrorist Bill of Rights.”
RESPONSE: Unsupportable, wild and radical charge. Bogus. Even so, "Who do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism: Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Bush, 39%, Democrats 52%.
RH: “That's a very hard agenda to sell to the American people.”
RESPONSE: If YOU get to characterize the Democrat’s position on issues, it certainly IS a “hard agenda to sell” and that of course is your intention ... to MISINFORM.
Fortunately, your bogus characterizations are NOT operative, and the American People clearly support the Democrats while rejecting the Republicans, on EVERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
Not even a nice try, RINO. Better luck next time.
>>It's a free market,
Controlled by right-wing corporations. I'm really sick of your whiny position that Rush couldn't possibly survive if a liberal also gets three prime hours.
What is it you're really afraid of? That our side would get equal time? What's wrong with that?
Your side already has control of the vast majority of our nation's newspapers, the three major networks, CNN, and MSNBC. The fact that conservatives have control of talk radio just helps to balance things out a little bit.
Absolute BUNK. The left does NOT control the vast majority of the media. Just because your planet Wingnut bloviators tell you something doesnt mean its true. I know that makes it your duty to repeat it over and over and OVER in the vain hope it will make it seem true but it isnt true you are full of it. I am a liberal and the media is NOT pushing my agenda never have. That BS is in your mind. Doesnt exist in reality
The notion of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is not as popular among progressives as you'd like to think it is. I am not for it. One of the more successful progressive talkers, Ed Schultz, is completely against it as well. He beats Sean Hannity in several markets, which proves his point that it's not about legislating fairness, it's about station ownership giving progressive talk more opportunity. It also disproves the notion that only rightwing talk shows can make money.
Right on Pete,
Thom Hartmann doesn't like it either and he points out that the Think Progress study shows that cons dominate the airwaves but it also shows that in 4 years liberals have taken 10% of that market away from them. That's pretty freakin good for an idea that wasn't supposed to work. Cons should be afraid. The "free" markets are going to get them all laid off eventually. In 5 years it will be Limbaugh and Hannity who will be advocating a Fairness Doctrine.
That is false. Patently false. Show me where anyone is advocating the Fairness Doctrine. Think Progress? Nope, liberal talk show hosts? Outside of Randi Rhodes occasional comments the past 3years, I haven't heard any. Rino you are regurgitating right wing talking points again, devoid of factual basis. And you don't have the first clue about the Fairness Doctrine in the first place. You don't have a clue about who is advocating it. You are simply being gullible to right wing paranoia and propaganda.
The Fairness Doctrine is actually a point/counterpoint thing. Anyway, Republicans like Trent Lott think it's a good idea.
How would the "Fairness Doctrine" limit free speech. It only would require that an opposing point of view be heard not silenced.
The Free Speech Doctrine isn't about silencing - it's about allow MORE people to speak. If you're going to criticize something, at least get it right.
Oh, dear! Those poor pubs might actually have to hear the other side of a story! The HORROR!
As usual you just repeat the propaganda no matter how often you have been shown its complete nonsense. There is NO WAY that mandating both sides are heard is in ANY way silencing anything. No one with two functioning brain cells could take that seriously but since your propaganda parrot masters told you this BS you just repeat it anyway. There is NO free speech issue here. It doesnt exist. This has been pointed out to you a hundred times. We have mopped the floor with you on this issue over and over but still you regurgitate the nonsense. Its all about the propaganda for you. You couldnt care less about facts or reality just spew the propaganda on key like the chatty Kathy doll you have been programmed to be.
You call call BORe many names and I'll agree with most. He is making a total fool of himself on this issue and the sooner he shuts up, the better it'll be for him. I was reading some posts that a Daily Chaos diarist (sp?) has posted from BORe's "premium membership" site and they are no different from the individual user posts he is criticizing on DChaos.This being said, to call BORe an anti-free speech extremist is unfair. Even with all BORe's faults, he is a much bigger supporter of free speech than the Democrats who are curently championing the "Fairness Doctrine" or liberals who muzzle all dissensions in the name of political correctness.
What is with you righties and pretending that the Fairness Doctrine somehow limits free speech? In what way does making the media present both sides of an argument silence one side? In what way does it limit anyone's freedom of speech at all?
And what is with "liberals who muzzle all dissensions in the name of political correctness?" This sounds like something Glenn Beck would say while discussing how all Muslims want to kill us. What does political correctness have to do with dissent? Is that unlike Bushco's "with us or against us" stab at dissent?
Also, erroneous on one big thing.
There are no democrats currently serving in Congress who are "championing" (as you put it), the Fariness Doctrine. There is no legislation that has been proposed to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine, and there haven't been any attempts to even bring it up. As always, with a lot of conservatives, and their bloviating talk show host friends, this is, so far, a red herring (sort of like communism). The only legislation tied to the Fairness Doctrine has been the legislation introduced to STOP it from being re-introduced by a republican senator or congressman (I forget which one did it). It's similar to all of these "gay marriage" bills these a-holes want passed. They're trying to take away something that isn't even there.
That would be Mike, "Baghdad looks like an outdoor market in Indiana," Pence. And some other blowhard who sponsored it with him.
Name one Democrat who has proposed legislation to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Name one Democrat or progressive talk show host who as actively promoted the idea of bringing it backsince the now infamous ThinkProgress/Free Press study.
there are none chief. Get your facts straight before forming an opinion. You are being lied too by somebody who wants to play on your fears.
I don't know many free speech advocates who routinely tells people to shut up on his program or shouts them down.
Didn't Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, and Ed Schultz all testify about it just last week in Congressional Hearings?
The ironic thing about this is that most oreilly watchers are big fans of duke and the nazis, so using it as an insult and a club to attack Kos: kinda confusin' em'.
This MMFA article mentions nothing of the Fairness Doctrine (FD). In this thread the first mention of the FD come pre-emptively from the right. This, to me, exposes the palpable nervousness by the right to acknowledge, in the absence of the FD, the surge of progressive voices like those at Kos or lib radio. Most liberal/progressives I interact with on the Internet and on the street have tepid reactions to the FD. Although, we do favor media deconsolidation. In other words, the FD is a straw man.
Exactly. I used to like the idea of bringing it back but having heard all the discussion and the lack of progressive support, even I the uber-liberal left winger, am now thinking that Think Progress is probably right. It will no longer work in today's climate.
But these fraidy cat righties have to be the most paranoid bunch on the planet. "The sky is falling the sky is falling the Fairness Doctrine will silent Right wing radio!" the horror.
I couldnt care less one way or another about the fairness doctrine myself. If it comes fine if it doesnt thats fine too. The hysteria from rightwingnuts like Rhino about it is just ludicrous though.
O'Reilly isn't the one advocating bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and silencing those with whom he disagrees.
Allow liberals the same amount of air time somehow silences conservatives?
Utter nonsense.
Let both sides be heard.
Both sides can be heard. No one is being censored. It's not the government's role to mandate equality of results. They only get to ensure that there is equality of opportunity.
There is no equality of opportunity AND since WE own the airwaves, since the corporations that use OUR resource to make their money are supposed to perform a public service for the privelege of making thier huge profits from OUR resource we darn sure DO get a say in what constitutes that public service and if WE decide that means both sides of a public issue need to be heard that the governement absolutly has the right to mandate that. You can WWAAAHHHHHH I want my propaganda without any counterpoint all you want it isnt YOUR decision that decision belongs to the people and the Limbaughs of this world have no inherent right to use OUR airwaves however they see fit WITHOUT our input.
No this is not hate speech, the Daily Kos is a such a loving site
Hillary George Wallace Clinton, F you and you're A-sucking appeasing any way the wind blows careerist slag. We're looking at President George W. Bush with breasts," only they didn't use the word "breasts." "Hillary is not the answer. She is owned and operated by right wing crazies. She is for more war, more attack, weaponizing Israel. Hillary Rodham Clinton, just trust me, wink, wink, F that and F her. Hillary got stains on her dress, too. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a walking, talking repudiation of everything that Kos and the netroots have worked for over the past four years. I have nothing but contempt for this evil woman, Hillary Clinton. Damn her to hell."
Yep, that does sound fairly hateful.
Do you have a name to go with it? Which Kos columnist wrote that?
Billo and Sue have some nice trees in which to pick their cherries...or lose them.
I really don;'t know, but this sounds like a rightie posting on the site. For example, are Rhino's posts indicative of the position of Media Matters?
No, Sue, it is not "hate speech." Hate speech is:
"[b]igoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hate+speech);
"[g]enerally, …[it is speech that] offends, threatens, or insults groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or a number of other traits." (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=2619); and
it "is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color)." ([link to en.wikipedia.org] color="#0000ff">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech ).
The text you’ve cited is not hate speech. It is the ranting of a someone who disagrees vehemently with Sen. Clinton's political stances. The words are ill-mannered, repugnant and highly uncivil, and do nothing to advance reasoned discourse. Moreover, the text you quote is not representative of the Daily Kos community. Such a baseless accusation, is disingenuous at best. At worst, it is itself hate speech given that O'Reilly and those who repeat it clearly do so "intend[ing] to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their…political views" - namely liberals, progressives and Democrats.
"Linus" notes where
And he hits it bang-on right on the head: Bill O'Reilly is culpable of Hate Speech by way of his programme.
Can the same be applied likewise to Faux News generally?
--"the Daily Kos is a such a loving site"
So about .1% of the tens of thousands of comments posted every day at Daily Kos are objectionable, and that is supposed to tarnish the whole site?
All you need to know about O'Reilly is that when it's revealed that his message board has bad comments as well, he totally fabircates an excuse that the Daily Kos "planted" someone there. Yet all the inflammatory posts referenced from Bill O's site were written by different members who had posted thousands of comments.
So to recap, Bill O'Reilly wants us to believe that the Daily Kos saw into the future and knew that Bill would attack them, so they planted posters on his site so that one day, they too could make questionable comments to tarnish Bill's website. If you don't believe O'Reilly is delusional after that, God help you!
It's more like .000001 percent, but who's counting?
"No this is not hate speech, the Daily Kos is a such a loving site"
Gee, thanks a lot, Sue. Now Bill is going to pull your quote and claim that MMFA traffics in lousy punctuation skills.
I did not realize I was being graded.
And Markos Moulitsas didn't think that he would be smeared for something that some random anonymous poster wrote in the comments section of his site.
Here's a clue: I was making a joke to illustrate a point. I don't care how poor your writing skills are. Your reading comprehension skills, on the other hand, are an issue.
If you want to insult , that is your choice. MMFA is a reputable site and takes down offensive material. If KOS does not that is their choice, but they are engaging in promoting hateful speech as was the case in the filthy talk regarding Senator Clinton.
As you said. It's Kos' site, and they can do whatever he, and or they want to do with it.
And one other small item. Guess what? Cussing and swearing, believe it or not, is how some people talk. You might not like it, but alas, it is indeed how MOST of the people I know talk. Spend a few days on the floor of a manufacturing plant (any manufacturing plant), and you'll see that this is indeed the norm. It might be filth to you, but to most of the rest of the United States, it's normal discourse.
Calling the former First Lady and current senator those names is hate speech. There is a difference between a manufacturing plant and a web site. The Manufacturing plant does not reach millions, the web site does. Hate toward Senator Clinton by both extreme members of the political spectrum is dangerous.
It's not "hate" speech, but hateful speech.
And again, the website did not put that content on there, anonymous posters, like us, did that.
Just because they used some bad words does not make it hate speech. And my manufacturing plant does reach millions, since our output is approximately 50,000 car parts per day. OK, the people don't, but our products do. There are a lot more people out there using "bad" language that just the few hooligans that might frequent a website somewhere.
Take it as an insult if you like--that's your choice--but it was a valid analogy. I'm not sure if you missed the point, or if you're simply ignoring it.
Sueeld
I do not read Kos that much, but as I have stated before they are a good voice and a valid blogger. MMFA seems mroe civil, we have a good overall debate and any profanity is usually taken down, I like to participate in those sites. However we should not judge the entire site on some posters who smear and say nasty things about Senator Clinton. We all remember the old "Sue" or "Notthatgeorde" on here who use to call people "numbskulls". The moderators took down that name calling. if O'Reilly said we were a hate site on here becuase of him, would you agree or disgaree?
Sue, did you read the comments from BOR's site?
Since you hate all that hate so much, I'm waiting for you to condemn that hateful BOR and his hate site.
I think sue would prefer to take Bill O'Reilly's approach - ban the person who points out the hate!
How pathetic is that?
Where have I ever said that? or is this just another smear of me because I dared to question the Daily Kos.
Of course I condem that type of hate, I do not read BO site either I do not find him enlightning. Just because I have issues with the Daily Kos does not mean I am a fan of Bill OReilly.
And Sue is going right along with the smear, so in my mind is no better than O'Reilly.
Again more attacks that I am smearing without offering a civil debate.
You have engaged in dishonest smearing of the Daily Kos. You have used dubious examples that have been directly challenged and disproved and marginalized as anonymous postings of a handful of bloggers. Now you toss out the term "civil debate." You continue to use the same tactics and use the same dubious examples to perpetuate the myth that KOS is a hate site. Civil debate is one thing, denial and dishonest dialog from yourself is another thing entirely. Every example you use has been systematically and politely discredited. No one I have seen here has told you to shut up, go away or called you names. The debate has been civil and you have been proved wrong.
You want to be right in this civil debate, then use some legitimate posting from KOS himself or his crew of columnists instead of random postings from a couple of anonymous bloggers spouting off. It's not my fault you have yet to provide any real evidence of your claim that KOS is a hate site. That's a heavy charge you simply have not backed up with pertinent proof.
Explain to me where I ever said Kos himself engages in this, I said his website. That is the point, why is this language toward Senator Clinton allowed on that web site, why not have moderators like MMFA.
By your criteria any blog is a hate site, including this one. What you perceive as being hate may be less prolific here but we can find just as many examples as you glean from your right wing sources like the Cybercast News Service, (formerly known as the conservative news service.) I could go to the Washington Post and find more "hateful" statements you have provided as proof that KOS is a hate site. You haven't convinced anybody. Perhaps, just maybe, you are incorrect in your condemnation of the Daily Kos and should direct your attention towards real hate sites elsewhere. Or continue reading your untrustworthy sources to bolster your flawed opinion. Be my guest.
This isn't simply about disagreeing with you. You are making a serious charge that many take exception with and you have been unable to provide any real evidence to back up your charge. Have you even considered that maybe you are wrong? Maybe you are over reacting when you call this particular web site a hate site, when there are so many glaringly obvious examples of actual honest to god hate sites out there? Probably not. Each example you have given simply does not live up to your billing.
Bing
I think you make a great point , it is very dangerous to label a site "Hate" because of a a few posters. The word "hate" is always abused by people like O'Reilly and Hannity. it is hate when they do not like it but when they do like it its freedom of speech.
Thanks Doris,
That's all I'm saying. You nailed it.
It's called smearing someone when you post claims you don't back up to try and damage someone. It's called "libel" in legal circles, by the way, so you might want to try thinking for five seconds before you get sued.
People can get sued for having an opinion? I wish Hillary would sue the person that smeared her on the Daily Kos.
Markos Moulitsas has repeatedly posted a list of about a dozen people who are officially representatives of DailyKos, and he said he is the only person who speaks for the site.
He didn't write that post, and neither did any of the editors he named.
The one deplorable person who says threatening or racist things doesn't reflect on a community of 500,000 daily visitors. The average DailyKos posting has about 100-200 comments, and the people who say the deplorable things you're cherry-picking are an extreme, extreme fringe section.
O'Reilly's original report about DailyKos included four comments. That's .000008 percent of the site's daily traffic, hardly enough for you to make anything more than a laughable strawman argument.
They're really, really spreading the word of hate at KOS.
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Wow, Roundhouse, that Pastor Dan sounds like a real unhinged hater moonbat. I can see why BilldO is terrified.
I sincerely doubt you actually read that yourself on the KOS site and it certainly sounds like another anonymous blog poster.
You analogy could be best summed up as thus, if people who buy a Chevy and drive like a maniac, in your world Chevrolet is a manufacturer of maniacal cars.
Give it a rest. Kos is a person, he has other people write columns. None of them use the speech you cite as being hateful.
O'Reilly however actually engages in hate speech. Do you see the glaringly obvious difference Sue?
So are you going to back up these claims, liar?
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog reports that a regular at BillOReilly.com posted, "If [Hillary] wins... my guns are loaded."
The actual quote is ... "If she [Hillary] wins which hopefully she won't. My guns are loaded for the revolt are yours??
The poster isn't explicitly stating that the guns will be aimed at Hillary, but it doesn't sound good anyway. We need to be careful and not stoop to their level, quoting out of context isn't good, no matter what side you're on.
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog reports that a regular at BillOReilly.com posted, "If [Hillary] wins... my guns are loaded."
With any luck, that loser will take one of his loaded guns and point it to his temple.
He was just banned from billoreilly.com for reporting that hate statement to the site moderator!
sounds like he's pretty sure that any bad comments on his site come from a "plant". evidence to come? or not?
Well if he comes up with any "evidence", I'd like to know how he explains that fact that of just two of the posts I looked at on the screen capture....one has left 12,227 comments on his web site, and the other has left 4,638 comments.
Now these are die hard O'Reilly regulars!
Bill is so easy to figure out, he is waging this campaign out of sheer fear. Unlike the TV, Radio, and Newspapers, liberals can be heard freely without the Conservative establishment being able to muzzle them. The opinions expressed don't have to be "vetted" by some Corporate lackey as they do in the traditional Media, so what really matters is not if your ideas are "Radical" but whether or not they are correct.
That's what they (Regressives) are deathly afraid of. For all of their prattle about a "War of Ideas", they are cowards when it comes to real debate. It is widely acknowledged (and backed up by traffic numbers) that the netroots are far more effective in spreading ideology and fundraising than the Regressives are in the same forum. This proves that when the playing field is level we'll win, because we don't have to kiss Murdoch's ring or suck up to some corporate clown to be heard. In other words, the blogosphere is a fair fight in which the Regressives are getting their butts handed to them, so of course they have to shut it down.
Well, we're not going anywhere, Regressives. Just take some advice from Hunter S. Thompson, "Learn to enjoy losing." That is the only future you have.
David Duke=Daily Kos?! Jeebus that man is just insanely stupid. I should insult him, but why bother. Let the baby and his geriactric audience have their bottle.
JH
"What's the difference...?"
Well, BO, Duke hates anyone who's not a Caucasian Christian.
Kos ain't all that fond of idiots.
Can you guess where you fit?
Drafted, I thought it was a riddle too. Like one of those old Yakov Smirnoff "In America..., In Russia..." knee-slappers.
I'll try to solve it;
One gets security from visits to Fox, and one gets visits from Fox Security.
Ah, never mind.
Oooo... that's good.
How 'bout:
One is a fascist hate-mongering racist bigot promoting violence against minorities, and the other is attacked by O'Really for letting idiots prove themselves such by not censoring their comments on his website?
Ah, nope. Yours was far better.
If I could just cut back on the wordiness...
I know BillO is boycotting all things French, so I guess Voltaire is at the top of his list.
Curious how the right seems so "liberal" when it comes to economic intervention by government, yet loudly demands foreign intervention somehow believing that the "Law Of Unintended Consequences" no longer applies. Yet dealing with foriegn cultures even less predictable than our own shows the lack of depth coming from this bunch. Nixon’s price controls on gas wasted more by having millions lining up for gas.
Now O'Reilly loudly supports using military intervention in the M.East, yet CIA installation of the Shah led to Iranian hatred and the Ayatollah Khomeini. This led to US support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq War. Intervention in Afghanistan led to the US's support for Osama Bin Laden.....and still he trumpets US intervention over there.
US support for both is the link between OBL and Hussein, but where's Bill on this "news"?
Wofson best line was when he told orielly that his days are over when he orielly tells people where to go and who to talk to.orilley is becomming flat out crazy now and anyone who dissagrees with him is far left and his people are blind to this nut.
Could someone please tell me which person in congress has put forth anything calling for a return of the fairness doctrine? Grhino? Ghengiz? Sueeld?......anyone? No, I didn't think so.
And there are liberal talk shows that are quite successfull in the markets they are allowed into, but still don't get in half as many markets as the right wing talkers who they are beating soundly in the markets they are in. If it were truely a free marketplace, people like Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz would have as many stations as Hannity, Savage, O'reilly, etc.
Also isn't it interesting that the side that claims the fairness doctrine would silence voices is the same side that tried to block any left wing talkers from getting on to armed forces radio. No, no silencing going on there.
"So you're just going to have to find somebody who's a little more mainstream and a little more entertaining." - Rino
Media consolidation is certainly a big contributor as to why the airwaves are the way they are today, but the free market argument Rino brought up may make some contribution in this sense; it's difficult for liberals to act as outrageously stupid, be willing to lie without shame, act horrible vindictive, and do it all in an entertaining fashion.
I mean if Rino is correct, we need a liberal version of Ann Coulter, somebody who can spend weeks presenting the case, in an entertaining way of course, that neo-conservatives always have to pretend to be tough because they have small wankers. Maybe a liberal version Shaun Hannity spends 4 hours a day 5 days a week identifying the conservative moral hypocrites in Congress using lies and innuendo. Maybe a liberal version of Savage who lambasts rednecks as an evil stain upon the land who deserve to be hated and despised. To put it simply perhaps liberals cannot compete because liberals would never be "entertained" by liberal versions of those conservative knuckle-draggers. Or even simpler, they made radio a swamp, dirty and smelly, and liberals don't want to play there.
THIS IS GREAT!
All of you have to go to www.huffingtonpost.com. Lane Hudson has reported billoreilly.com to the Secret Service because one of e-mailers has threatened Hillary Clinton and they are taking it extremely serious.
That is pretty sweet. I'm glad that the Secret Service would take things seriously, as they should for all presidents, and former presidents, and first ladies, and former first ladies, and even in this case, Presidential candidates. You can't really make flippant comments like that without maybe seeing a visit from the Secret Service and all. It's sort of like yelling "BOMB!" in an airport. You might be "kidding", but you'll get tackled and taken away in shackles for sure.
Good for the secret service, any threat on any web site toward any public official needs to be looked at . Alot of crazies in the world.
A little info on the hate sites of Billo's stooge-hag:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/25/malkin/index.html
There's some David Duke for ya.
What's the difference between Bill O'Reilly and a lobotomized monkey with syphilus? I mean really, what's the difference?
This tirade against KOS is going to expose O'Reilly as the hateful and contradictory moron that he is. It will bite him in the arse. He has invited his site to scrutiny he doesn't really want to become public and will show him as being the hypocrite he is.
Who, besides the couple million who watch him each week, doesn't already recognize that? Unless he actually says it on his radio or tv show, his audience will REMAIN none the wiser.
This is true, but this controversy he's manufacturing may grow beyond that. To the point where even O'Reilly's most ardent supporters will have to deal with him being mocked openly. I'm sure none of these folks like being associated with losers.
David Duke always runs for office as a Republican?
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
That is the difference.
"[W]hat's the difference between David Duke" and Daily Kos?"
But that's an EASY answer! When David Duke says something racist, Bill-O doesn't throw a fit.
How do we know it may not have been some low-level operative droog in the hire of Bill O'Reilly perhaps fabricating the comments in question, then shifting the blame on others to deflect attention (and possible liability) from himself in case The Proper Channels start asking questions or suspicions otherwise start being raised?
There is always that possibility.
comment about this by Pastor Dan on Kos really nails it: He who is without sin cast the first stone. O'Reilly must have broken all the mirrors in his house.
IMO, people who post on web sites anonymously might be surprised to find that they really do have to take responsibility for what they say. Name calling, cursing, lying and smearing take their toll...on the public discourse and the individual.
O'Really will continue to spew his racist, sexist, homophobic, protectionist, class warfare comments only as long as advertisers, publishers and media-owners project that audience appeal will be sufficient. It's all economics. Even a conservative nutjob like Murdoch pays attention to the bottom line. When Republicans wise up and understand just what these extremists have done to their party and its fundamental positions, they will start to seek commentators who can lead them back on the path.
As with most moderates these days, my viewpoints are viewed as weak and useless to both party leaderships. Moderate conservatives used to be fiscally conservative, sought a small federal government. pormoted state's rights, desired limited regulation, wanted judges to be slow to change judicial precedent, were distrusting of unions, heavily supported business and competition, and generally appreciated Bill Clinton for his fiscal creativity, his wonky intuition and his big tent approach to moderates of all kinds. There is simpoly no room in the media today for wishy-washy middle roaders who see gray where only black and white are considered.
The Neo-conservatives have the loudest voices because of media owners who support them. While they crowd out the moderates with contemptuous disregard they empower the likes of Coulter, O'Rielly, etc. to run screaming beyond the pale of commonsense.
And let's face it, most americans are ill suited to form their own opinions for lack of a proper civil education, any meaningfull attention span, and a cultivated lack of interest in anything that takes longer than a first glance to recognize, categorize, generalize and then accept or reject.
O'Reilly has a valid point about the hateful nature of numerous posters on the KOS site. Not only do I object to the comments re: Sen. Clinton, the postings about Tony Snow and V.P. Cheney are equally offensive. MMFA has rules regarding posts which help insure civility. BOR's site probably has similar restrictions( just a guess, as I have never blogged there). While I realize that vulgarity is certainly commonplace in our coarse society, generally speaking, it shows a lack of intellect or just plain bad manners. As long as I'm bashing the KOS, I realize that the same tripe is spewed at Townhall or Free Republic. Civility is lost on both sides of the aisle. Also, wishing death on people is reprehensible. Atomic Anne Coulter is also guilty of doing this, which is why her commentary should be reviled. There is nothing a politician can legally do which would make me wish for their death. Yet some at the KOS do it on a daily basis( and Townhall, etc.) What most people have seem to forgotten is that our democracy moves forward when differing sides reach a compromise. That means working TOGETHER to achieve a positive outcome. No rose-colored glasses here sportsfans. I fully understand the ugly side of politics. However, after the elections are over, animosity should be put aside. I think GWB is a turkey of a Prez, still, he is our PREZ!
"I think GWB is a turkey of a Prez, still, he is our PREZ!"
I think you are maligning turkeys unfairly here; and have suspicions that dubya ain't really the prez; but agree with you about the discourse.
Now if we can do something about the biggest obscenity called the occupation of Iraq...
The vast majority of those who don't play well with others are people on the right side of the aisle.
pls, pls, pls people, let's not lose sight of the essential facts:
1--O'Reilly is deliberately confusing the distinction between blogs and reader comments. (Probably hoping his generally very old demographic--not that there's anything wrong with being old!--will not know the distinction.) This is slanderous and fundamentally dishonest. It also expresses his anxiety about the popularity of progressive bloggers.
2--The people who accept his distortion of this issue are hopeless dupes.
3--#1 makes Wolfson's charges of cherry-picking beside the point. (Though I think Wolfson did well under the circumstances.) O'Reilly's chief act of dishonesty is in the initial confusion he is trying to sell his audience.
We have to remember that so many rural areas in this country still have no access to the internet and therefore have no ability to judge the facts for themselves. That's who O'Reilly is propandizing and I wouldn't discount all of them as dupes for the simple reason that they don't have all the essential information. I also wouldn't disagree that many folks simply want to believe O'Reilly.