O'Reilly noted poll on effect of gay rights groups' endorsements, but not that he had been wrong about results
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly read a letter criticizing him for "erroneously report[ing] that a poll found most Americans would not vote for a presidential candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization." But while O'Reilly noted that the poll was taken "in a few states," not nationally as he had earlier suggested, he did not acknowledge that his original assertion that the result applied to a "majority" of respondents was false.
During the August 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly read an email from Cindi Creager of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that criticized him for "erroneously report[ing] that a poll found most Americans would not vote for a presidential candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization." Indeed, as Media Matters for America and the blog News Hounds noted, on the August 13 edition of the program, O'Reilly asserted that "a new poll" -- which he said was issued by "Pew Research or something like that" -- "says that most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group." In fact, an August 6-8 Quinnipiac Poll of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania found that a majority of voters in each state responded that support for a presidential candidate by "gay rights groups" would not affect their level of support for the candidate. While O'Reilly noted that the poll was taken "in a few states," not nationally as he had earlier suggested, he did not acknowledge that his original assertion that the result applied to a "majority" of respondents was false. Rather, he simply cited the Quinnipiac poll results from Florida -- which found that 28 percent of respondents would be "less likely" to support a candidate endorsed by a gay rights group, while 60 percent said it "would make no difference," and 10 percent said it would make them "more likely" to support such a candidate -- and added, "That's what I was referring to."
As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly frequently misrepresents the results of polls, often either to cast the results more negatively for Democrats and progressives or more positively for Republicans. For instance, during the July 12, 2004, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly cited poll results showing that a majority of Americans opposed gay marriage to support his claim that "Far Left" senators were thwarting the will of the people by not passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In fact, numerous polls at the time showed that while the public did oppose same-sex marriage, a majority opposed amending the Constitution in order to ban it.
From the August 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Cindi Creager, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, New York City: "Bill, you erroneously reported that a poll found most Americans would not vote for a presidential candidate endorsed by a gay rights organization. We expect your program to do a better job living up to its no-spin promise."
OK. Here is the Quinnipiac poll question that was asked in a few states, Florida being this example. "If a candidate is supported by a gay rights group, would you be more likely to vote for the candidate, less likely, or it doesn't make a difference?"
Ten percent, more likely; 28 percent, less likely; doesn't make a difference, 60 percent. That's what I was referring to.
Huh? So 28 percent is now "most Americans"? Was posting the poll some attempt at rebuttal by O'Reilly? He made no mention he was wrong the other day.
"That's what I was referring to." is all he had to say about it? -- WTF? That doesn't look like an admission of error at all.
It is pretty funny that O'Reilly presents this information as if it backs up his argument. Is anyone really stupid enough at this point to believe him?
"That's what I was referring to."
He may as well have said, "That's what I was lying about."
Hahaha, that's it? I was expecting some long-winded diatribe about how the poll backed him up. Clearly he's wrong *and* knows it as the discussion was over as quickly as it started.
It appears that O"Reilly is embracing homophobic thought at a faster pace than I ever suspected. His targeting gays and lesbians is similar to his hate fest last year with "seculars" targeting Christmas.
I am sure he will attack this site as saying he is being attacked by a "smear website". More garbage from a liar and hater.
Sad.
It just shows how mal-adjusted Billo is. Him and Savage, constantly ranting about gays, that sociopathiac need to blame others. I don;t think either has a girlfriend or wife. Love is a lost concept on neurotics like them.
Nice recovery, Bill. The self-described "humble correspondent" shows once again that he is anything but humble.
What a pompous a** liar.
What a liar! Here' s a more accurate interpretation of the poll findings. A NEW POLL IN TWO KEY BATTLE GROUND STATES SUGGEST MANY VOTERS DON'T CARE WHETHER A CANDIDATE IS ENDORSED BY GAY RIGHTS GROUPS. A MINUTE MINORITY OF BIGOTS DO GIVE A DIDDLY SQUAT, BUT SO WHAT!
I guess the real results just don't fit into the Fox agenda. These idiots have no shame. Good work MMFA! Tommy, what say you?
Actually nothing more than what I said in yesterday's thread. O'Reilly is a master of backpedaling and selectively choosing information to try and justify one of his "facts". He erroneously gave false poll results, he should own his mistake and apologize for misleading his viewers. He did not.
And I did offer you kudos yesterday. I was just tweaking you because he's representative of the entire Fox operation as their marquis "pundit." And as you know, he's fair and unbalanced. But I appreciate your condemnation of this clown. You do have ethics.
erroneously??? O'Reilly knew that the poll was conducted by Quinnipiac but stated that it was Pew Research. He knew that 28% Less likely does not translate into "most americans" But he said so anyway. That doesn't sound like an accident to me.
Bill just taught us a valuable lesson: how to admit to lying without admitting it.
Don't be so hard on the blowhole BillO, he represents a section of the population who truly, madly, deeply believes being "GAY" is a choice.
In order to keep themselves and millions of others from “choosing” to be gay they must continue to make it as unattractive as possible. As a hetero male I’m not sure I understand this particular philosophy, because I have considered it and can’t imagine, no matter how long and hard I’ve tried (innuendo deliberate) that I could ever get aroused by any male. But Billo, Limprod, Slanthead, and “The Weiner”, all subscribe to the philosophy that it is a choice, so choose they must. I imagine that for these and our other conservative friends life is indeed difficult. They must get up every morning and decide a few things 1. What do I want to have for breakfast?2. What do I want to wear?3. Should I be straight or gay today? Decisions, Decisions what a manly man to do? I’ve said it before and I will continue to say “If you have to choose to be straight. You’re GAY!!!!My question to Bill would be simple and quick. Why so homophobic?
And his answer would be
"Cut off his mike, you are engaging in a smear campaign".
And just so you know, Casey, he has your phone number, so expect a call from Fox Security.
Good job MMFA staff. It will take several years of pounding away at the lies and deceit of this organization before they are forced to either clean up their act of go out of business. I have a co-worker who responds physically to any criticism of bill0, just like she does if I dare mention the phrase pro-choice. To these simpletons, bill0, jesus, pro-life, patriotism and their faith are all in the same box and an attack on one is an attack on all. It amuses me to come up with phrases like "professionally speaking, choices are either a hardware VPN or a software choice" . The other day I was able to get "pro" and "choice" into conversation 8 times, my personal best!!
Hey Pit!
You can have oottles of fun with this coworker. I would start sexually harassing her and point out that her hero does it. Then when she starts to talk cut her off or just insult her. I know if she can't figure out BillO all this would go right over her head and you would come out looking like a dooche bag for picking on someone so simple minded.
P.S. I'm guessing she can't be that attractive.
In no way do I support Bill O'Reilly, but I think he's spinning these numbers in a different way than what his initially comment has been interpreted to mean.
What he said was that a majority of people say that they "won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group."
I think what he was trying to say, and what the results actually do say, is that a majority of those surveyed aren't more likely to vote for you if you get an endorsement from a gay rights group.
He was discussing this in reference to a bunch of Dems going to a debate sponsored by a gay group. He was trying to make the leap that the Dems went there because they thought an endorsement by a gay rights group would gain them votes. He was trying to make the point that any endorsements like that would not lead the majority of people surveyed to change their votes.
That's not what he said, but I believe that's what he meant to say, and the survey backs up that statement. A majority of people said that it would not cause them to vote for a candidate.
What he said
the majority "won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group."
What he meant
the majority "won't vote for you (just because) you get an endorsement by a gay rights group."
or
the majority "won't CHANGE THEIR vote TO you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group."
"I think what he was trying to say, and what the results actually do say, is that a majority of those surveyed aren't more likely to vote for you if you get an endorsement from a gay rights group."
Actually, no, that’s not what he was trying to say at all. Go back and read the original. Bill was trying to push the (completely wrong) point that most Americans would be less likely to vote for someone who got an endorsement from a gay rights group ---
O'REILLY: OK, but say a gay -- the question posed, "If a gay rights --. . .
O'REILLY: -- organization endorses you, would that make you more or less likely to vote?. . .
O'REILLY: And most Americans said less likely
It's incorrect to say a majority, because the poll clearly indicates a majority of those surveyed don't care.
Bill-O would have been okay if he had said, "Of the minority that would base their vote on this issue, about 3 of 4 said they'd vote against that candidate."
However, he didn't. And given a chance to correct his statement, he didn't. When you get two chances to say it on a recorded program, we have to conclude he meant what he originally said, which is terribly inaccurate.