O'Reilly told CNN that Harlem restaurant comments were "hatchet job by Media Matters"
SUMMARY: On CNN's Out in the Open, Rick Sanchez and CNN contributor Roland Martin discussed Bill O'Reilly's statement that he was surprised there was "no difference" between Sylvia's restaurant in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan and other New York restaurants, even though Sylvia's is "run by blacks." Sanchez reported that during an "animated" phone conversation, O'Reilly denied any "racial intent" in his comments and described the story as "a hatchet job by Media Matters."
During the September 24 edition of CNN's Out in the Open, host Rick Sanchez and CNN contributor Roland Martin discussed Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's statement during the September 19 edition of his radio program -- which Media Matters for America documented -- that he was surprised there was "no difference" between Sylvia's restaurant in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan and other New York restaurants, even though Sylvia's is "run by blacks." Sanchez reported that during an "animated" phone conversation, O'Reilly denied any "racial intent" in his comments and described the story as "a hatchet job by Media Matters."
After airing an audio clip, during which the Media Matters webpage was displayed on-screen, Sanchez read several of O'Reilly's comments, including his statement that "[t]here wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' " He noted: "Now, O'Reilly's critics are saying that it's not the first time that he's made some questionable remarks publicly." Sanchez later reported: "Let me tell you what [O'Reilly] said. I was on the phone with him just a little while ago, and he was animated in this conversation. He said to me, 'Rick,' he said, 'there was no racial intent in what I said. It was a benign program. We didn't receive one single complaint on any of our radio stations,' and he says this is a hatchet job by Media Matters."
Sanchez concluded: "And by the way, to be fair, one more time, Mr. O'Reilly's point of view, no racial intent, benign program. Not one single complaint. Hatchet job by Media Matters. Media Matters is one of those websites that talks about what we do in this business. They've criticized me plenty, by the way, as well. And I'm sure you [Martin] too."
Additionally, during the September 24 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann highlighted O'Reilly's comments in his "goofballs and good guys" segment:
OLBERMANN: Number three, best meal: Bill-O. Says he took Al Sharpton to dinner in Harlem at the famous restaurant Sylvia's. And Orally actually says on the air, "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming 'M-Fer -- I want more iced tea.' " Oh, my God.
From the September 24 edition of CNN's Out in the Open:
SANCHEZ: Next, look who's giving some advice on race to African-Americans: Bill O'Reilly. So, how do you think that's playing?
[...]
SANCHEZ: Tonight, a comment that Bill O'Reilly made on his radio show that's gotten many African-Americans to respond. It's controversial. But just how big a deal is this?
Well, I want to let you hear a part of what he says. Here's the set up. He goes to a restaurant in Harlem with the Reverend Al Sharpton, and then he makes some comments. Here he goes.
O'REILLY [audio clip]: I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the USA. There's no difference.
SANCHEZ: O'Reilly goes on to say -- and I'm going to quote him here, because we want to make sure that we've got these things down accurately. Here we go. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer,' " I think you know what that probably means, " 'I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
Here's some more, here's another direct quote. See if we can get that one up there if we're done with the first one. Ready? O'Reilly says, "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out."
Now, O'Reilly's critics are saying that it's not the first time that he's made some questionable remarks publicly. Now, in fairness, he has a radio show and a television show. He's on the air for an awful long time. I want to find out, though, what our CNN contributor Roland Martin has to say about this after hearing some of this.
I guess, let me just, you know, go right to it, here.
MARTIN: Sure.
SANCHEZ: What's wrong with a white guy making social commentary about other people's race, which is what he seems to be doing here?
MARTIN: The issue is not social commentary, the issue is how stupid can you be? The point about the restaurant is offensive because here's what he says: "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference." Why couldn't you? It's a restaurant. People sit down, they eat. What's the big deal about that?
SANCHEZ: So, what are you saying? You're saying the fact that he was shocked by the fact that African-Americans --
MARTIN: Right. Right. They --
SANCHEZ: -- were no different than white people shows what? What are you trying to say?
MARTIN: Well, it shows that he probably lives in a very isolated world. I mean, "I couldn't get over the difference," over the fact that somehow they're sitting there, eating. No one's cursing, saying, "Bring me my tea." What does that say? Now, does that mean that his opinion of African-American restaurants has been formed by someone else? He did say, "There is no difference." Yeah, we get that. But why couldn't you get over that fact? What's the big deal?
SANCHEZ: Let me tell you what he said. I was on the phone with him just a little while ago, and he was animated in this conversation. He said to me, "Rick," he said, "there was no racial intent in what I said. It was a benign program. We didn't receive one single complaint on any of our radio stations," and he says this is a hatchet job by Media Matters.
MARTIN: No, but here's the deal, though. Bill -- and look, I did Bill O'Reilly's show on many times prior to joining CNN.
SANCHEZ: Controversial guy.
MARTIN: Nice guy.
SANCHEZ: And he always has something interesting to say.
MARTIN: Yes, indeed. But again, you couldn't get over the fact that, oh, my God, people weren't shouting and cursing? But here's what also bothered me. When I read the comment in terms of, "Black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the Reverend Jacksons of the world and trying to lead them into a race-based culture."
And here's what bothered me out. "They're just trying to figure it out: 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.' " I'm reading Marcus Mabry's book Twice as Good on Condoleezza Rice. Condoleezza Rice's father, in 1954, was not an active participant in the civil-rights movement. You know why? Because he believed that we just focus on getting our kids educated, we'll do well. Black folks have always thought that. And so this notion that somehow, "Oh, we're all of a sudden, black people are now thinking today," it's just ridiculous.
SANCHEZ: Do you think -- I bet you if he could have that back, he wouldn't have used those words, "thinking more and more for themselves," because it's almost sounding like, you know, the guy up here talking down to those folks down there.
MARTIN: But the issues, there are a number of people who somehow believe that African-Americans are sitting there going, "OK, I need to get my cue from Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton." There are people out there who are working their butts off every single day who are doing an amazing job. But the other piece, Rick, that jumps out is, is that I wonder what formed his opinion to think that's somehow the case. Who does he talk to?
SANCHEZ: Well do you think -- let's be honest about this. Do you think it has something to do with his audience? I mean, after all, he's talking to a specific audience.
MARTIN: Well, look, I have a mostly black audience at WVON in Chicago, so I get that.
SANCHEZ: The reason I ask you that is, well, what if an African-American said this on the radio to an African-American audience? Do you think --
MARTIN: And they would say, "Wow, you've just decided to go to a black restaurant? What's going on here?" I would say you're not informed. The whole point here is, how are you informed about various people? See, Bill O'Reilly might somehow believe that all black America is just waiting on two people to tell them where to go. That's not the case. The day of there being what I call the super-duper Negro is no longer here. You don't have just one leader. And also --
SANCHEZ: So what doesn't he get? I mean, if there's one thing, Roland, that you think maybe he doesn't get, in fairness, I mean, if he's watching this program right now, he says, "I'm going to watch this show, Rick, and see what you guys say."
MARTIN: Good.
SANCHEZ: What would you say to him?
MARTIN: I think he doesn't get that African-Americans are not monolithic. If he listens to my show, a show on WVON in Chicago, the home of Reverend Jackson, you don't get people sitting here saying, "I agree with everything that he says." You don't have people saying, "I agree everything with Al Sharpton says." And his show is also on my station. The point is, people have different views and not just one train of thought.
SANCHEZ: Well, what's interesting is, I just finished reading his book. And, Bill, let me look at the camera and offer an invitation to you. If you want to come on and talk about this and defend your point of view and disagree with Mr. Martin on what he has to say, we would love to have you. And by the way, to be fair, one more time, Mr. O'Reilly's point of view, no racial intent, benign program. Not one single complaint. Hatchet job by Media Matters. And Media Matters is one of those websites that talks about what we do in this business. They've criticized me plenty, by the way, as well. And I'm sure you too.
MARTIN: And Bill, guess what? I got a college degree. My parents did focus on education.
From the September 24 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But first, time for our goofballs and good guys. Here are Countdown's three best persons in the world.
Number three, best meal: Bill-O. Says he took Al Sharpton to dinner in Harlem at the famous restaurant Sylvia's. And Orally actually says on the air, "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming 'M-Fer -- I want more iced tea.' " Oh, my God.
the key sentence in the whole thing is: "i couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in new york city." "i couldn't get over the fact...."
The fact that CNN is actually airing a story on this provides textbook proof that the liberal bias in the media is very real and pervasive. ("Conservative misinformation"? LOL!)
Doesn't O'Reilly have more viewers in his timeslot than all of his competitors (CNN, MSNBC, Headline News) combined?
CNN is just coming across as a bitter loser. And MM just appears to be making another lame attempt to force O'Reilly off TV with another one of its bogus "outrages."
There's a stretch. Let me see if I got this straight.
CNN has a lot of nerve repeating O'Reilly's racially insensative remarks.
Got it.
According to Shoes if the media report the racist ramblings of someone they are being "liberally biased". I suppose that means that racists are necessarily conservatives by that reasoning.
"Racist ramblings"? Puh-leeze. Not even close. Juan Williams is shredding MM and CNN right now on TV. MM took one comment out of context from an hour-long interview and discussion on racism.
Why don't the cable networks jump all over liberals like Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, and Wolf Blitzer when they make notable remarks?
Olbermann's Nazi salute: The Anti-Defamation League took note and cited him. Where was the reporting in the television media? Nowhere.
Randi Rhodes compared the evacuation of Katrina victims to the Holocaust! Again, she was cited by the Anti-Defamation League. Where was the television reporting? Nowhere.
Wolf Blitzer, live during Katrina coverage, said of the victims: "They are so black." What?!? Again, no reporting from any mainstream outlet.
The liberal bias in reporting in the media is nothing short of staggering.
This is simply another weak, desperate play by MM. But, alas, MM has been exposed again.
you want to talk about everything but what o'reilly said, which is understandable. to say you "can't get over the fact" that a black restaurant can be well run, or it's patrons behave, is totally offensive. and that is exactly what he said. he really got to that age and didn't know that?
"you want to talk about everything but what o'reilly said ..."
Uhhh. Did you actually read my comment above? Ugh.
I re-read your post above, and it seems to me that MEFIRST has it pegged. You speak of everything except O'Reilly's racest comment.
uh, yes shoes, i did read your comments. which was the basis for my comment.
Then you read the part in which I wrote that MM took "one comment out of context from an hour-long interview and discussion on racism."
Juan Williams actually particpated in the discussion in which this took place. He blasted propagators of this story for their "rank dishonesty." And that's what this is. Out of context from an hour-long discussion ...
WILLIAMS: You (to O'Reilly) said stereotypes are not true ... [I]t had nothing to do with racist ranting by anybody except these idiots at CNN.
Rank ... dishonesty. MM and CNN are exposed.
The RANK dishonesty is YOURS. Are you really arguing that if you are reasonable for MOST of an hour then say something as blatantly racist as O'falafel did that its somehow OK? Is there a point system? For every 10 minutes you are NOT spewing racist ignorance you get a freebie? Please tell me you are kidding? I dont care WHAT paid shill Williams is saying the O man let his inner racist out for a spin and a whole lot of people didnt like the look of him
That was because your "examples" were terribly weak. Nothing you wrote compares at all to O'Reilly's racist remarks.
Sorry shoes, you don't have a leg to stand on. And what's with the Wolf Blitzer thing? Is he a big liberal boogeyman too? The guy is such a hack. He's pretty much been a shill for your heroes all along. Might as well work for FOX.
One comment in an hour long interview?
You don't know what the heck you're talking about. It was several comments and the interview with Juan was only one segment long...like less than 15 minutes.
And don't point out others' supposed bad remarks to defend O'Reilly's bad remarks. O'Reilly hates it when people justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. That's one of his big rules to live by. LOL!
Juan Williams is shredding MM and CNN right now on TV.
That Juan Williams boy he's such a heavyweight.......NOT!
Pearl, the moment I read that comment I stopped and moved on to other posts in the thread. I refuse to read such nonsense. To say that Juan Williams shreds any topic is not only laughable but completely delusional. The only thing Juan Williams is good at is being Brit Hume's punching bag on Sundays, and he has perfected that down to the T!
Your post is PATHETIC. Forget the look over there dodge. What O'falafelman said was CLEARLY racists and no reasonable argument can be made it isnt. Evade the issue all you want it WONT change a THING. Let me translate your post for those who have trouble speaking WINGNUT. WWAAHHHHH stop pointing out the racist spew of O'Reilly. WWAAHHHH it makes him look bad WWWAAHHHH look over there at the mean liberal, not the racist bag of neurosis on MY side WWAHHHHH
shoes, what does the number of viewers anyone has have to do with this? i think the answer is nothing. it's the fact that he seems so totally taken aback that blacks can actually run a nice restaurant. that's the point, which you're doing your best to avoid.
Shoes, what in the world are you talking about? O'Reilly said that he was surprised that black people could run and patronize a restaurant in much the same way as white people. Do you need to be black yourself to see how offensive that is? What part of this do you have trouble understanding? What does it have to do with his ratings? Nothing you said fits together in any logical way whatsoever. Can you clear any of it up?
SunDog- If Shoes is an Oreilly fan- logic would have to be suspended indefinitely. This is crazy making at it's best.. or worse.
Oreilly makes outrageous racist comments. That's what they were. He's an ignorant fool.
Then the CNN masterminds "Dumb and Dumber" try and figure out how are O'reilly's comments racist, they have the exact quotes.
But somehow in the land of the no brains- because Media Matters highlights the ridiculous, inane, offensive EXACT comments Oreilly made -then according to BO and the clowns that covered this Media Matters is somehow distorting Oreilly's ever so benign "golly gee black folk can run a decent restaurant, eat decent, and not spew profanities in public." Huh?
Oh yeah.
Please for the love of sanity get this nimwit to Shut-up, along with all the other regressives.
Sundog, Shoes can tell you: Bill O'Rudely FUXnews.
That's as clear as words can say it.
Shoes, I haven't read but the top of this thread, just your first post really.
MY GOD, MAN!?!?
I really hope to god you're joking.
shoes89,
Why don't you come down to Fox News and spend a day with this far-right loon Bill. Then post your comments.
You might get a Fox News tour with this News Corporation nightmare.
So a cable news show, talking about CLEAR racist BS from a MAJOR news personality is PROOF of liberal bias? THAT is proof of your complete disconnect from reality.
How is it a hatchet job when his words, in full context, were put out there for people to read? Tell me how that's a "hatchet" job again Bill O? Can you say, "No leg to stand on?"
O'Reilly really got caught with his pants down on this one. There is no hatchet job here, his words are fully in context and they speak for themselves. His demeaning patronization is inexcusable, instead of blaming MMFA as he usually does, he should fess up and take responsibility for his offernsive remarks. Even an apology would be hollow for him at this point, but appearing this clueless, when he knows exactly what he said, only makes him look more asinine.
OReilly is more and more putting his foot in his mouth. Reminds me of Al Campanis and Jimmy the Greek. Why no more MSM coverage of this?
True. At the rate he currentley is putrting his foot in his mouth he;ll have to borrow a pair of Shaqs shoes.
His past remarks pretty wellpaint him as the bigot he is.
One wonders if, in his simple mind, BO doesn't consider it a racist remark. Many folks don't recognize it in themselves. My dear sainted mother (a jazz musician) said she definitely was not a racist. "All the blacks she ever meet were very clean."
One wonders if, in his simple mind, BO doesn't consider it a racist remark. Many folks don't recognize it in themselves. My dear sainted mother (a jazz musician) said she definitely was not a racist. "All the blacks she ever meet were very clean." Middleleft
IMO we all have friends who make statements that on their face appear racists but yet it was not their intention. I too have friends who have make statements not meant to be racially insensitive but insensitive never the less. Unfortunately I think Bill's statement are insensitive, racists (based on previous statements) and ignorant.
No Bill it wasn't a hatchet job, it was a mirror for you to look into.
Poor ignorant Bill. No wonder he likes Bush, neither one can take responsibility for what they say!
butbutbut...I thought The Republican Party was all about "Personal Responsibility". ; )
It is! Republican's expect Democrats to take personal responsibility for the ills of society.
He says that he's surprised that the black folks are sitting around eating just like regular people and there's no racial intent? What the hell? Why isn't this a bigger story?
dawg, it's because the media is liberal. We all know the liberals only eat their own. It makes no sense that they would try to pick on republicans to try to get a political edge on, remember?
A bigger story? CNN is covering it, I'd say it has branched out to the mainstream media, at least on their network. Where would you like to see it go?
That is good. Hopefully this will finally get pushed to the point where FOX gets confronted on why they continue to employ someone like Loofa Boy.
Problem is, Fox "News" wishes they had more idiots like loofa boy.
One thing I'd like to see is people telling businesses like bars, cafes, laudrymats and all these public places that leave FOX 'news' on all the time to change the damn channel. I mean talk about a discredited organization. And clearly they broadcast some pretty creepy stuff in terms of racism.
I can't go to the airport without seeing FOX on about ten TVs. Why should these businesses be putting someone like O'Reilly in front of the public? I've confronted people about this before and I don't give a damn about their incredulous reactions. It's either just a clueless, "huh?" from the clueless or some really sideways stuff from the obvious dittoheads who know exactly why they leave FOX on. I stopped going to one place and told the owner why. What if lots of people were speaking up this way? Why should we be subjected to this crap in public? If someone wants to sit home and wallow in it that's their business. But I don't want government propaganda and racist innuendo masquerading as news forced into my face when I'm eating lunch or having a beer.
My wife and I ALWAYS request the channel changed to a real news channel, or none at all. When we get a dirty look, we shrug if off. Once in a while a waiter or waitress will ask why, and when we explain, it's fun to watch their jaw drop and the deer in the headlights look slowly comes over their faces. We then explain why they should vote for Democrats.
Nice to know I'm not the only one out there. Wish this would happen all the time. I mean FOX has responded to this latest bit of racism by saying it's just the fault of jealous liberals. What's it going to take?
To change the minds of politicians, you need enough social pressure to threaten their political future.
To change the minds of corporations, you need to hit their bottom line hard enough for them to actually feel it. Unfortunately, because of the money that's backing FOX's propaganda, even a mass exodus of advertisers and viewers may not make that big of a difference. Murdoch has his own agenda, and he has the money to back it, even if it means having some of his subsidiaries advertise on FOX in a cluster**** of advertising dollars instead of changing the party line, anti-Democratic (party and philosophy, of course) rhetoric that spews from his problem child of a Cable Views station.
They did cover this on Morning Joe, and even suprising to me Scarborough thouth the statement was offensive and he genrally downplays O'rielly's nuttiness. The statement speaks for itself and it's more than patronization and it gives a very revealing peek into the soul of someone like O'rielly. O'Rielly reinforces the otherness he considers of AAs and that these others are not like us really. He further in my opinion perpetuates this notion that's being circulated by the racist intellegnisia that those others those Blacks need special guidance because of their inferiority. So somehow sitting in a resturant acting like Whites do when they go to a restaurant means that Blacks have finally caught on and are taking their cues from the example that Whites have to set for them. To make a long story short their behavior reinforces the correctness of Bill's beleif in the White man's burden of leading these inferiors.
Why don't the "investigative reporters" pull up Media Matters and compare the audio on Media Matters to the clips they played? Why don't they compare what O'Reilly said to what was written here? Show the audience if it is a hatchet job or not. You have all the resources you would ever need!
How is this a rebuttal for O'Reilly:
"Now, in fairness, he has a radio show and a television show. He's on the air for an awful long time. I want to find out, though, what our CNN contributor Roland Martin has to say about this after hearing some of this." Is the reporter trying to say that because he has been broadcasting for a long time he is incapable of saying inappropriate things?
Lastly, Martin says he is a nice guy. SO WHAT? Talk about what he said and how he said it. Just because he has been cordial with you does not mean he isn't a jerk to others. Why does this dialogue happen?
Yeah, O'Lielly is a nice guy. Isn't that what women who fall in love with murderers in prison say. He's always been nice to me. Same mindset I guess.
"Is the reporter trying to say that because he has been broadcasting for a long time he is incapable of saying inappropriate things"
I think he's saying that when you do three hours of commentary every day you're going to slip up every once in a while. When you talk as much as O'Reilly does you're going to end up saying some things that are controversial. That's part of being a talk show host. I don't really think that what O'Reilly said is very controversial. It's possible that he could've eaten in other black restaurants in Harlem that weren't hospitable and had bad service. He may have been surprised that the restaurant that he went to with Sharpton was better than similar restaurants that he had been to in the past. He could've been commenting on how blacks have been progressing in this area over the years.
Rino,
I understand that O'Reilly has three hours a day on the airwaves and at times says something stupid or offensive, but it's his lack of personal accountability for what he said, his blaming someone else for taking it out of context instead of fessing up to it, owning it, and trying to make amends. He can't ever do that, he won't, his ego and self importance will not allow him to admit to anymore than some innocuous mistake from time to time. I have no respect for him.
As for this incident, it's his patronization that is so gauling here. As I said before, that form of racial pandering and offensiveness is worse than an actual in your face hater - for it's far more sneakier and more hideous. He said it, he should take responsibility for it.
If you let a person talk long enough, you'll really get to know them because they'll tell you who they are. O'Reilly might as well have said 'I'm a bigot.' But, we knew that already.
I'm sure that many were offended by O'Reilly's comments, but I don't think that O'Reilly meant for his comments to be offensive or racist. I think that his overall point was how the black community is improving. I think he was basically saying that blacks have come a long ways over the years and have evened the playing field. He may have been comparing his current experiences to other experiences in the past where he got bad service in black restaurants. I don't really think that you can say that it was a racist comment without the proper context. But we just disagree on O'Reilly's intent.
You really can't see the inherent racial component in "patting someone on the head and say good job, you are really improving, keep it up, even your restaurants are getting better"?
I'm just saying that I don't believe that O'Reilly's intent was racist. I think that he meant to compliment blacks. But I'll admit he didn't say it in a very eloquent way. It didn't come across very good.
It doesnt MATTER if he intended to be racist. The fact he was acting suprised that blacks were NOT conforming to racist stereotypes shows a passive racism, that is SEEING black people as inherently inferior that is condescending, patronizing, insulting and ABSOLUTLY racist. There is no obligation that something be malicious for it to be racist.
RINO,
You're not helping.
Lynn,
If you're somehow saying that Rino's opinion is worrysome to me because he is a conservative, then you are mistaken. Rino's opinions are his own, as are mine, as are yours.
You're correct. I'm just speaking for myself and no one else. I criticize O'Reilly and Limbaugh from time to time as well. The other day I criticized Limbaugh for his attack on Senator Hagel. I don't always agree with these guys. I just call it like I see it.
I was talking to RINO not you. Rino is indeed entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. My comment was aimed at Rino's torturous efforts to explain what BO probably meant were not helping Bill’s cause. Bill was giving a compliment because he discovered that the Blacks weren’t hurling MFers across the room at each other as he expected they would be? That’s utterly ridiculous. Bill O’rielly is harboring racist attitudes and stereotypes about Black behavior and I wonder why any rational person is unable to see that. So Tommy I don’t understand the people running to Bill’s defense unless they harbor similar sentiments and this is why they understand what Bill meant.
Lynn,
Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes our intent and meaning is different than the way some people interpret the posts here......so I appreciate your answer. I apologize.
I think Rino said it best when he said "I don't really think that what O'Reilly said is very controversial."
I'm actually gonna agree with Tommy way back there: being on the air a long time and (presumably) slipping up doesn't absolve you of accountability.
Jerry Lewis was on the air for 20 some hours and toward the end goofed up. Some language bubbled up to the surface probably from years back and made it out of his mouth. He kind of caught himself on air after it happened. And later, when called to the carpet on it, what did he do? Did he cry "Hatchet job?" No, he immediately apologized unconditionally.
The key difference, though, is that I think Lewis knew instantly he'd goofed. O'Reilly was oblivious to the racism in what he was saying as he said it. It's not even clear that he gets it NOW.
We all have the baggage of our upbringing, good or bad. We're all gonna "goof." Those with character address the goof appropriately and make amends.
But to do that, you have to actually understand that you goofed.
Bill doesn't follow his own advice. He never takes responsibility for what he says, he just tears into people for airing verbatim the clap trap only meant for the ears of his followers'fans to audiences that wouldn't be caught dead tuned into his one of his shows.
Tommy, I would NEVER think that because you and Rino are conservatives you have the same thoughts. I also don't think badly of either of you. IMO you have a better understanding and a willingness regarding social issues. Rino on the other hand is extremely defensive in his opinions. His beliefs and Bill's are similar on issues other than social therefore he cannot imagine that Bill would have racists thoughts. That's just my opinion.
Pearl,
I know Rino and myself share many of the same ideological opinions, but not in this particular instance. This further illustrates how people, liberals and conservatives, can have similar opinions on many things, as well as many stark differences.
Which is why I say we all speak only for ourselves, nobody else.
This further illustrates how people, liberals and conservatives, can have similar opinions on many things, as well as many stark differences. Tommy
Stay tuned cause you will see black folks appearing on Fox probably who feel like Rino that Bill did nothing wrong.
Good call pearlene. So true. I would put money on that!
Heck, you can find some blacks who will extol the virtues of slavery. I guess that makes it okay then. Jeesh!
Open, unfortunately I have a perfect example:
On September 21, 2005, Jessie Lee Peterson (black man) penned a column for WorldNetDaily, in which he accused African American people stranded in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina of being "welfare-pampered", "Lazy" and "immoral".
Look him up, he'll make your head spin, seriously.
I get a good laugh out of reading Peterson. He reminds me of one of those caricatures from SNL and Mad TV. Max Blumenthal from the Nation exposed him a long time ago for being nothing but a minstrel for the hard right. What I find interesting is how he continues to have a plateform when he's one of the most unintentionally comedic "pundits" in mainstream media today.
I think most racists never intend to show their true colors.
I remember going into an English Restaurant...do they have those?...and all of the staff spoke English.
I went to a mexican restaurant, I think the cooks were illegal immigrants because the taco's tasted good.
FYI, RH, when you say "the black community is improving" , the black community is immediately offended and will consider you a racist from then on. You may not hate blacks, but you are a racist from the very structure of the cells in your body. You cannot change who you are, but you can continue to self anylize and try to understand how a group of people will feel when some one says "the black community is improving"
You don't think the black community has come a long ways from being in slavery to being segregated to finally being treated like equals with whites? It sounds to me that you're the one who's racist. You seem to forget about what blacks have gone through in the past.
I don't think the context of "improving" here is economics, I think it's referring to behavior. Like black people are getting more civilized, or some such patronizing garbage.
Tommy, I like all of your comments in this thread (to this point, anyway) :-).
Rino, Bill's comparison was with "white" restaurants not black.
That slip of the tongue business was not a slip. If you don't have those thoughts to begin with you don't usually say them.
And my point is that O'Reilly may have thought from experience that white restuarants had better service than black restuarants. And then the new restaurant he went to made him change his mind and come to the conclusion that the restaurants are equal. You don't really know for sure unless you have the entire context. That's all I'm saying.
Rhino,
The interesting thing is that O'Reilly wasn't commenting on the service, he was commenting on the clientele.
I think O'Reilly is a racist and the tragic thing is that he doesn't even know it. Most of the restaurants I go to are owned, operated and patronized by Black people and I have never once encountered this phenomenon O'Reilly claims [or use to claim] goes on in Black restaurants.
Rino, Sylvia’s is not NEW. It’s been around for a long time.
Bill would have to dine in a “black” restaurants in order to have any comparison to "other" black restaurants. How many “black” restaurants has Bill dined in? None I would guess by his comments. Did Bill base his comments on his OWN stereotype of “blacks”? It would seem so.
"How many “black” restaurants has Bill dined in"
That's exactly my point. We don't know. And without that context I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that what O'Reilly said is racist.
Only a racist would hold that type of perception of places he's never frequented.
Bill would have to dine in a “black” restaurant in order to have any comparison to "other" black restaurants.
That is the point! His expectations of dining in a "black" restaurant are based on HIS stereotyping of blacks in general!
Rino, you really are missing the point. This reminds me of people who have shown themselves to be racist then explaining to me that it's because of something some particular person did to them. As though they had been granted special dispensationg to group all black people together and repeat hateful stereotypes because one black person had done something bad to them. As though if I punched the same guy in the face he would forever suspect all white guys are violent.
There really is no context to explain away saying what Bill said. You're surprised that black people can behave in a restaurant? I mean come on. If you can't see how that reads as insulting as hell towards black people I don't really know what to say.
See thats just it you didnt MAKE a point. Gee I dont know anything at all about this situation but I am going to make up some far fetched hypothetical to appologize for O'falefels racism IS NOT MAKING A POINT.
I doubt very seriously if Bill has ever patronized any business predominantly patronized by AAs, but Lostlogic made an interesting point on another thread. She said she had little contact with AAs until high school but she wasn't harboring any expectations that somehow they are inclined to behave uncivilly. I suspect that’s because her parents didn't put them in her head.
"When you talk as much as O'Reilly does you're going to end up saying some things that are controversial."
I could talk for twenty-four gours straight and I would not end up saying something that was out-of-character with who I am. Controversial, probably. But I wouldn't become a different person through sheer exhaustion of topics to discuss.
And I'm pretty confident that I wouldn't wind up saying something as demeaning and patronizing as "I couldn't get over the fact that blacks could run a restaurant as nice as whites".
And its POSSIBLE that Martians have eaten his brain. If YOU dont think what he said is controversial that is if you are saying it wasnt racist that says a lot about YOU. When will you stop making the dumb its possible arguments. Virtually ANYTHING can be justified with a far fetched enough hypothetical if you have no evidenciary back up then they are completely worthless as arguments.
Patronship? Does he mean, patronage? My spell check is highlighting patronship as I write this.
His comments certainly are a "target rich environment."
Doesn't it really all boil down to the fact that the media is mostly controlled by, and comprised of, white males. Not a complaint or criticism, its just a fact. They're not going deny racist sentiments by one of their own because that's the tribalist thing to do. Blacks do it also. it's just plain and simply tribalism. So don't expect the media to attack one of their own. It's sad but true.
I was really hoping this would hit the MSM wire. I want O'Reilly off the air, but not for comments like this. I think this is just a case of someone who is not racist but SHELTERED saying something extremely stupid.
I want to get O'Reilly off the air because of his propaganda and LIES about the Iraq war and the fact that he reports on stupid stories about 80yr olds getting run over by illegals just to keep his senior citizen audience happy and to take attention away from atrocities occurring in Iraq - all of which he IGNORES. He also keeps saying "Lets give Iraq another 3 months" and anyone with any sort of memory knows that he has been saying that for the last two years, and it is an obvious attempt to help the president buy more time. O'Reilly is a lying bushbot and everyone who is new to MediaMatters will realize it about 5 seconds after perusing this website.
"I want to get O'Reilly off the air because of his propaganda and LIES about the Iraq war"
No. You want to get O'Reilly off the air because you can't handle dissenting points of view. So rather than try to debate someone in the arena of ideas you would rather silence them. But don't worry, you're very similar to most most modern day liberals.
Wow. That was kind of rude. Why do you hate Liberals so?
I don't. I just find it frightening that many liberals are so intent on silencing opposing voices.
You mean like this putz?
[link to thinkprogress.org]
Not all of us are like that. O'Reilly is MMFA's bread and butter. This site would suck much more without the material he provides on a regular basis.
I will never advocate silencing O'Reilly. Anyone who does such a thing is just insecure in their own personal beliefs, IMO.
And I apologize for the rudeness. I just wish people would stop calling for censorship. It's scary.
And I wish people would stop calling any complaints about the ideas and opinions expressed on the public airwaves "censorship".
We as citizens have a right to hold public figures accountable for their words and actions, especially if they're expressed on public airwaves.
Here we go again with your censorship talk.
We, the basic common people, have no power of censorship. That is for corporations, and government. If we don't like a dissenting point of view, or opinion, it is our right to call out whoever is saying it, and to maybe ask for their sponsors and or their employers to think about putting them back on the air. That's not censorship, that's called using your freedom of speech. We're not saying Bill O and the other bloviating pretentious windbags don't have the RIGHT to say what they're saying, sometimes we say that they don't have the RIGHT to say it on the air, on TV, and on the radio. Again, they are free to scream it across the country on sidewalks, on a blog, or wherever, but nobody has an inherent right to say anything on TV and or radio. That decision is made by the company's the employ said talking heads, and or the sponsors who pay for advertising.
It's not censorship, and as soon as you learn that, the better off you'll be. As soon as the government starts cracking down on what you can, and cannot say, and makes laws against such speech, that is censorship. You still don't get it. But that's OK. Maybe someday, you will, but I doubt. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
The bottom line is that if you disagree with O'Reilly, change the channel and don't listen to him. You shouldn't want to get him off the air. After all, the folks at Media Matters wouldn't have anything to do without O'Reilly. But calling for someone to be taken off the air is very closed minded and simply shows that you aren't open to opposing points of view.
RINO, how many Dixie Chicks CD's do you own?
0. What's your point?
Do you think it's okay that they were censured because people disagreed with their opinion?
They weren't actually censored. They were criticized and boycotted. But to me honest I thought that the whole thing was way overblown. I didn't think that what their lead singer said was controversial at all. She didn't criticize the military or even the Iraq War. She simply criticized Bush, which I don't have a problem with. It got really old when O'Reilly kept bringing up that subject every night. I never really understood what the big deal was.
There is no difference between criticising the president and the military OR Iraq. We have EVERY right to do any of those things.
RH,
Later in this thread you say that boycotting is "legal censorship." Does this mean that the Chicks were "censored" in your mind?
Thanks for the advice, but no. The best response to speech (in this case, idiotic racist speech) is more speech. Actions, too, are perfectly acceptable. If people want to point out to other people that O'Reilly is a racist, people are free and encouraged to do so. If people want to organize and blog and comment publically about O'Reilly's racist comments, people are free and encouraged to do so. If people want to organize and boycott products advertised on O'Reilly's programs where he makes racist comments, people are free and encouraged to do so. If people want to exercise their free speech to write to the heads of corporations that sponsor or put O'Reilly's racist comments available on their media outlets, people are free and encouraged to do so.
So you're free to leave your sets tuned to O'Reilly's programs and enjoy his racist comments. But if the effects of all those other constitutionally allowed activities by those of us who disagree with O'Reilly and his racist comments actually end up booting him off the air... tough. That's the way it works.
People should be thrown off the air if their rhetoric causes harm to another human being. The lies and propaganda of the Iraq invasion has caused the deaths of countless human beings. A good case can be made for throwing him off the air.
Hmmm. So you're basically saying that anybody who supports going to war should be censored and taken off the air. That's nice. Welcome to Cuba.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. How do you gloss over words like "lies" and "propaganda" when you read?
And when I put MY liberal billboard in YOUR front yard and YOU dont like it you can look the other way. If you take it down you will be censoring me
I know RINO. I wish people would stop perpetuating ugly stereotypes because it's annoying, so what can I do but loudly and persistently criticize people who do this. Bill's free to say whatever he wants to and I'm free to comment on WHATEVER he says.
RH,
I am going to have to ask you this again. A while back, there was a post on here about the two people who were non-disruptive at a Bush rally wearing what the organizers thought were insensitive shirts. They were arrested. It turns out that there is an entire manual written by the Bush people about stifiling dissent at Bush rallies.
I asked you at that point to join me in writing to our Congresspeople because our freedom of speech was being threatened as individual citizens by the government and you balked. You said that this would be best decided by a Court. You did not step up to defend freedom of speech in its purest form.
In this example, you claim that people want censorship based on their outrage of racially insensitive comments.
In this case, O'Reilly clearly said that he thought that the patrons would be acting crazy and asking the waitstaff to bring them tea "m-fer." He was amazed that the blacks acted like patrons at other restaurants. He did not make any comments about the establishment itself, but rather the clientele.
Is it censorship to ask the people who broadcast and sponsor Mr. O'Reilly to confront him with his words? If they don't agree with what he says and pull their ads, are they censoring him? When statements like these are made, awareness is key. I am guessing if you sponsored a show which suddenly made awful comments, in your mind, about Christians you would pull your support immediately and no one would blame you.
What is wrong with confronting those who support O'Reilly with his words and letting them choose if this is someone they want to support?
If Freedom of Speech is such a passionate issue for you, why do you want to let it go to the courts instead of fighting for it? In other instances, you have said that you want issues decided by the people. I would think, hope and pray that this issue would motivate you to do more than post on a website that does not cater to your point-of-view and do something about it.
No one is going to arrest O'Reilly for his comments or tell him what he can or cannot say, but the advertisers/supporters do need to see if O'Reilly's is a message they want to continue to support.
"In this example, you claim that people want censorship based on their outrage of racially insensitive comments"
I was actually just responding to the Patraeus guy who said that O'Reilly should be taken off the air. His comment made it sound like he wanted to silence those with an opposing political view point rather than simply defeating him in the arena of ideas. He said nothing about boycotting advertisers and the like. He simply said that O'Reilly shouldn't be on the air.
And I agree with you about the protesters at the Bush rally as long as they aren't disturbing the peace by yelling during the speech. I just don't usually write to my representatives. I don't think that it usually does much good. And I just come here for fun. I know that I'm not changing anybody's mind, but I just like debating people that I disagree with. But my overall point is that I just don't like this attitude on the left that people on the right who say controversial things shouldn't be on the air. Whether it's done through legal means or not, I don't believe that you should ever want to boot someone off the air simply because you disagree with their political opinions. I strongly disagree with just about everything that Keith Olbermann says, but I'm not advocating that he be taken off the air. I support his right to speak his mind and say whatever he wants to say.
"His comment made it sound like he wanted to silence those with an opposing political view point rather than simply defeating him in the arena of ideas."
Is dishonesty a political viewpoint? The comments were specific to behavior, which is valid criticism.
RH,
It sounds like you think that anyone who is currently on the air has a lifetime contract.
Do you think advertisers have an obligation to stay with their clients?
I realize debate is fun, but what does it take for you to stand up and be counted?
Are you ok with dishonesty and hateful rhetoric?
"Are you ok with dishonesty and hateful rhetoric"
Dishonesty and "hateful rhetoric" is basically just your opinion. Many of us feel that O'Reilly is not hateful and is accurate most of the time. In a free society you get to make choices about whether someone is hateful and whether you want to listen to that person or not. But when you say that someone is "hateful" you should realize that that's simply your opinion and nothing else. Many of us don't feel that O'Reilly is hateful, and we don't want him to be taken off the air simply because he offends certain people. I realize that there's nothing wrong with calling his advertisers and telling them you won't buy their products. It's basically a legal form of censorship. I just don't see why you bother when you can simply change the channel and watch Keith Olbermann or some other leftist.
Oh, brilliant.
Yes, hatefulness and dishonesty are subjective. It's all about what makes a reasonable opinion. You pretend as if all opinions are equal, therefore nothing can ever be fairly determined.
Godwin's law, but to show the silliness of your argument;you could brush off criticism of a Nazi if "many" agreed with that person's view. It's like David Duke saying someone else isn't a racist. That opinion obviously carries no weight, because he doesn't want to admit there's a racism problem anyway. It's not a reasonable opinion, because of that.
I love the "honest most of the time" argument as well. So if every fourth thing he says is a blatant lie, he's relatively honest. Hilarious.
Let me ask you this then, RH. When has Bill made any type of remark even close to this about white people or Mexicans?
Has he ever said: "I went to that Mexican restaurant and no one said "Hey gringo we are invading your country." They acted just like white people."
So you are basically saying that anyone on TV deserves to be there forever and if we don't like it, change the channel? Where can I get a job like this?
You honestly think that asking advertisers if they agree with the message they are paying for is censorship????
Do the advertisers have to keep the lifetime contract?
"So you are basically saying that anyone on TV deserves to be there forever"
Talk show hosts should be on T.V. as long as they are getting good ratings. O'Reilly has the #1 rated talk show on Cable News, so of course he's going to stay on T.V. If a talk show host starts to get low ratings and becomes a drag on the network he or she should be let go. But they shouldn't be fired simply because they offend certain people. In a business like that you're always going to offend somebody. You can't please everyone.
Can we distinguish between "not pleasing everyone" and making racist comments? By your argument, someone could come out on the air and encourage their viewers to kill every "camel jockey" they know, and as long as they continued to pull a profit there's no problem.
Can you make some effort to understand the concept that there are some things that are almost universally offensive? Racism is one of those things.
So, you would be ok with the David Duke show if it got ratings?
The Gen comments specified LIES. That is NOT an opinion but a matter of FACT and it is a FACT that O'Reilly spreads LIES. That is NOT covered by free speech. If you LIE about someone just talking on the street which OBVIOUSLY is more protected than your JOB or an audience, you can be sued. What he was calling for was NOT censorship but accountability.
That's not censorship Rino. No one is talking about repressing any facts. Ironically, everyone here would like to see a heck of a lot more facts reported. They're talking about an offensive opinion giving celebrity who has shown himself to be a liar and a hate monger and a loofa lover even when the loofa doesn't want to be loved.
What he was calling for was accountability NOT censorship. He said he wants him off the air because he LIES. The airwaves BELONG to us we have every right to voice an opinion on how they are USED and if they are being MISUSED since they are OUR resource. I dont know how often this has to be explained to you. Are you congenitally incapable of understanding this simple concept?
Wino, see Tommy's comments. He's no liberal. Your thinking represents the worse in American deniability of racism. We know racism exists, but mysteriously there are no racist in the media. How could that possibly be, you poor put upon white man. I'm sorry my people are such a burden to you. We'll really try to do better.
I'm not obligated to agree with Tommy simply because he's a conservative. We just disagree on what O'Reilly's intent was. I'm just being honest. I don't care about being politically correct.
I don't care about being politically correct.
The word you were looking for was "racist."
Hmmm. So anyone who disagrees with your far left views is a racist. That's nice.
O'Reilly's comments were clearly racist. Blowing off the obvious explanations of why that's the case as "politically correct" is weak.
Sorry, but I just don't think that it's racist to compliment blacks.
That particular idiocy is addressed elsewhere.
Sorry, but I just don't think that it's racist to compliment blacks Rino
Rino let me tell you comments that I as a 73 year old African American feel IS racists.
"You dress sooo nice"... as opposed to baggy pants hanging down my a** or "You speak soo well"... as opposed to Ebonics and the best is " "And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patron-ship." .... as opposed to some tacky joint where the floors are dirty and the patrons wear baggy pants hanging below their a** and speak Ebonics.
Rino- Why do you post you here? Your post is not dissent , it's insulting and baseless.
Just like O'Reiley.
Defending his racism, lies, hate speech, attacks, paranoia, propaganda, and on & On. I see that you don't "get" that BO is a racist idiot. Not opinion. Fact. So what's to dispute?
In my opinion, he's not only polluting the mains stream free air waves, he's poisoning the airwaves and has corrupted along with many on Faux and elsewhere the integrity of decency in journalism and reporting.
Your adding nothing to the conversation.
"Rino- Why do you post you here? Your post is not dissent , it's insulting and baseless.
Just like O'Reiley"
Well, thanks for comparing me with O'Reilly. I'll take that as a compliment.
To you, it would be a compliment.
Did he really say being compared to O'Reilly is a compliment!?!? Holy cow. Then again this is a guy who thinks that if someone rapes my daughter because he wants to make her have his baby, she has no choice but to have the baby. Or she could get an abortion but then the doctor should be put to death. Did I miss any part of that?
Yes, you missed the part about "everything happens for a reason". A woman shouldn't abort a rape pregnancy because God wanted that to happen in the first place.
That DOES make sense. So if the guy raped her specifically because he knew she would have to have his baby? Must have been God whispering in his ear that it was time to force another miracle on the cattle we call women. I have a hard time believing any of the hardcore righties really believe half of the bull they're selling. If this stuff happened to the daughters of aristocrats like Bush, they'd just fly her to Switzerland and have it taken care of. And if this guy would force his wife or daughter against her wishes to carry for nine months and give birth to the baby of some rapist or even a family member?..... Well, I just hope the country knows what they're accepting when they enjoy the groovy feeling of calling themselves 'Pro-life' in this regard.
Sorry about the tangent, it has just gotten really hard to take this guy seriously even when he's just making excuses for racism.
It should be a compliment. He's a very respectable journalist who a large number of people find favorable.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/politicians_earn_higher_favorable_ratings_than_journalists
JOURNALIST !?!?! Now that's rich. lol hahaha
So, by that logic, Katie Couric is the best we got, eh?
I think that she's a good journalist. What do you have against Katie Couric?
Nothing, but according to that poll, she is the best in the country.
Since you are so into polls are you now willing to concede that the Dems should have all of the power:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28780
Or should we really not base things on polls?
People go to the polls and vote for the politicians they like. We'll find out how much the American people like the Democrats in November 2008. People can't actually vote on which journalists they like the best.
Then why link a poll where people voted on which journalists they had favorable opinions of and use it as evidence that O'Reilly is ok?
A lot more people eat big macs than filet mignon and a lot more people watch American idol than Shakespear. Doesnt mean the former is better than the latter. You trot out this weak meaningless bilge everytime someone takes the O man to task for swinish behavior
"No. You want to get O'Reilley off the air because you can't handle dissenting points of view. So rather than try to debate someone in the arena of ideas you would rather silence them. But don't worry, you're very similar to most most modern day liberals."
This is a very Olyly kind of statement you made, though I will give you credit for at least apologizing for the above attack... something O'liey would never do.
Still don't understand why your posting on this article and attacking folks for pointing out the obvious.
Media Matters quotes BO verbatim- his words and statements are perfectly clear.
Noe he's got his conspiracy, "all the left loonies are out to get me"
His show tonite should be really amusing. His only acceptable response should be.
"I'm meltinggggggg..."
I'm convinced the man is mentally ill among many other things...
RINO,
You take being compared to a racist as a compliment??
I don't think that people who compliment blacks are racist.
Um, right. So if there was some black guy on TV who was talking about going to a club and how surprised he was that the white people actually had rythym and could dance and weren't all self-repressed, that would be fine? Sure, I bet, because it's a compliment.
If you expect black people to behave in an uncivilized manner, that speaks directly to your views on black people. There's no getting around that.
"So if there was some black guy on TV who was talking about going to a club and how surprised he was that the white people actually had rythym and could dance and weren't all self-repressed, that would be fine? Sure, I bet, because it's a compliment"
I'm not offended by that all. In fact, it's pretty truthful. I'd be surprised to go to a club where all the white people could actually dance well. I've never been to a club like that before. I think it's pretty obvious that blacks are better dancers than whites on average. Each race has different gifts and abilities even though we're all equal in the end. I don't think that it's racist to point out the obvious.
So it's "obvious" that black people would act uncivilized in a restaurant, as O'Reilly said? That's just the nature of the race, that they don't understand propriety?
Good to know.
Are you going to elaborate on what race is good at what? Sounds like you are channeling Reggie White.
No, because people will take it the wrong way, even though it's not meant to be offensive. I think it's obvious that different races excel in different areas even though we're all created equal.
Do you believe that some races are good at certain things simply because they were born into a certain race and other people aren't good at certain things because of their race?
That would make us unequal. Please don't worry about offending people, RH. Stick to your points.
What do you make of the African Americans on this thread thinking BOR is racist?
"Do you believe that some races are good at certain things simply because they were born into a certain race and other people aren't good at certain things because of their race"
No, I just think that the STATISTICAL AVERAGE shows that there are differences in the races in different areas. There are certainly many exceptions. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. About 80% or so of NBA basketball players are black while only about 20% or so are white. So either blacks are more athletic than whites or the NBA is racist against whites. My opinion is that blacks are more athletic than whites ON AVERAGE.
You missed a third option. If you're from a poor area, and your educational system is substandard, then obviously making a greater effort at success through other means is going to be a priority for people. Not going to be able to pay for college without a scholarship? Better hit the courts, then. See "Rodman, Dennis" for a prime example, if my memory serves.
I feel you must address my post above. Why is it "obvious" that black people can't behave in restaurants? And if that's not obvious, then how was your point about complimenting people valid?
Do you believe in stereotypes then, RH?
And I respect the African Americans here who think that O'Reilly is a racist. They're certainly entitled to their opinion. I obviously don't have the same perspective as them since I'm not an African American myself.
Why was O'Reilly shocked at how great his experience was at Sylvia's? Why were his expectations so low?
Neither am I but I think claiming what O'Reilly said was racist is pure lunacy
Solon,
I think you meant "wasn't," not was, correct?
Yes that is exactly what I meant. I think my typing is getting worse. Claiming what the O guy said ISNT racist is lunacy.
Do you walk into an Applebee’s and compliment the customers for not throwing food across the room? It's expected that adults would not behave like that. The fact that Bill found Black people behaving like anyone should behave in a restaurant astonishing is inherently bigoted because it proves he believes that we normally are uncivil and that behaving civilly takes some special effort on our behalf and therefore it must be heralded as something extraordinary. I find that to be the insulting. Wouldn’t you find it strange if someone were to compliment you for using a knife and fork to eat food? Honestly RINO I hope that you honestly examine your own beliefs about what you think is typical behavior in Blacks.
Apparantly you dont think at ALL if you think what he said was complimentary to black people
"Rino- Why do you post you here? Your post is not dissent , it's insulting and baseless.
I don't agree with Rino almost all of the time but I enjoy posting with him. IMO believe that Rino genuinely believes what he post and while not popular is not meant to be insulting. Keep posting here Rino, maybe we all can learn something.
Rino, don't say things like you think being compared to Bill is a compliment, it makes it hard to keep you in good thoughts.
Ratings don't mean that someone has "better ideas."
Are you seriously telling me that if there was a KKK channel and it had the highest ratings, you would say that they "won" the battle of ideas?
And since you are IGNORANT you are like most conservatives
No. You want to get O'Reilly off the air because you can't handle dissenting points of view. So rather than try to debate someone in the arena of ideas you would rather silence them. But don't worry, you're very similar to most most modern day liberals.
- RINO Hunter / Tuesday September 25, 2007 03:28:10 PM EST
Will someody please cut his mike already?" There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming 'M-Fer -- I want more iced tea."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I just read that.
Straight out of a Wayan's Bros. movie. Hilarious.
I share O'Reilly's wonderment. I went to Carrabba's Italian Grill with my husband last week, and was astonished to find that not one large, hairy man came to our table, crying, "Atsa spicey measta-ball!"
Did anyone get wacked while you were there? You must have been very surprised that no one was wacked because that always happens in Italian restaurants.
Bill O went to a Mexican restaurant and couldn't believe that the kitchen staff was awake to make his food. Hey, he said he was PLEASANTLY surprised so it's ok.
He went to Fredericksburg for Oktoberfest and was pleased to find that no one was goose-stepping around in jack boots.
That's the problem with movies like the Wayan's Bros movies. Blacks know that the behavior in these movies represent extremes and that it is in no way representative of typical behavior for African Americans, no more than the behavior of the Whites on Jerry Springer's show is for Whites as a whole. And no more that the Stepnfetchit character from the forties was representative of the the behavior of Blacks of that era. They weren’t all out stealing chickens and running from ghosts. I’m sure most intelligent and rational Whites no this as well. Too bad for us Whites like Bill O’rielly seem predispose to want to believe the most negative stereotype about Black behavior and they will take these extreme comedic examples and propagate that it's the norm for Black behavior. I wonder why the characters in movies like Waiting to Exhale, Soul Food, The Best Man, most of the movies Denzel Washington appears in that depict AAs of middle class and working class backgrounds aren’t the stereotype. Could it be because it doesn’t help to perpetuate negativity as the norm for Black behavior that people like Bill O’rielly feel compelled to use to defend the persistence remnants of racism particularly the notion that Whites must be in the lead to guide this poor intellectually and emotionally challenged inferiors. No Wayan’s movies are what people like Bill want to be the norm. I have my issues with the preponderance of the Wayan’s brand of movies but don’t blame the Wayans because Bill is an ignorant fool who believes that a few characters in a comedy are representative of millions and millions of people. It’s the Wayans’ fault, oh boy!
Of course I meant to say Know this as well
So O'Reilly was surprised that a restaurant run and visited by black people is capable of being run like a regular New York restaurant. Then he tried to spin it into a positive thing. Maybe it's good for him to say that to his audience in those terms, who probably has the same narrow mindset as him. It still is a deep-seeded racist statement, but maybe ignoramuses will finally understand how the world is if they hear their hero say, "It was surprising, but did you know that there are black people that can act as cultured as us whites".
I think something that nobody's focused on is that O'Reilly, who is clearly out of touch with any points of black culture, is glad things are getting better. His reasoning isn't that there needs to be less racism or that racism has decreased, it's that things are getting better because blacks are finally getting that they have to work hard and not be bitter. In my opinion, the much more harmful thoughtis that it's as simple as that to fix the racial inequities in this country.
So none of O'Reilly's listeners called in to complain about O"Reilly's shock that black people can be civilized? That says a lot more about O'Reilly's audience than it does about Media Matters.
This reminds me a little of the comment that got Rush Limbaugh kicked off of his NFL gig. Like O'Reilly, he made what he assumed was a perfectly logical statement, and was totally surprised that anyone would object. This reveals a latent racism that still runs deep in certain segments of the population. They're so comfortable with it that they sometimes blurt it out and are unprepared for the fallout. Sadly, many of them don't even see what all the fuss is about. This isn't as bad as Imus's comment, but it's very revealing, nonetheless.
This isn't as bad as Imus's comment,
I'm not sure I agree. Imus' comments were so overt, they almost had to be for shock value. (Doesn't make them any more acceptable, though.)
But what O'Reilly said I think revealed the way the man actually thinks about this stuff. I think the word that has been used, "insidious", describes it best. O'Reilly seems to think it's perfectly fine to divide up people in the manner he did and ascribe traits to entire lots of them.
They're so comfortable with it that they sometimes blurt it out and are unprepared for the fallout. Sadly, many of them don't even see what all the fuss is about. This isn't as bad as Imus's comment, but it's very revealing, nonetheless. Nerzog
The language that people use in private will usually appear in public. There is no slip of the "N" word if it's not a word that is in your vocabulary. Bill would not have used the exact language he used if he had thought any different. He was amazed that a black restaurant was run just like a white restaurant. His opinion of blacks is that have no manners, curse, rob steal and murder. If he didn't have those thoughts he would have simply said that he enjoyed his meal a Sylvia's restaurant and maybe commented on the food .
They're getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out."
The other day someone made a comment about "race-based culture" and at the time I thought what are they talking about. Is it what I think it is?Where would someone come up with this "race-based culture"(Bill's show obviously). So now I'm to understand that if I take pride in being African American, take pride in the contributions that African Americans have made to this country. If I express a desire that African American history month continue cause too many school children are not aware of the contributions that African Americans have made to this country I'm trying to create a race-based culture? What part do white America play in creating this race-base culture". When African Americans move in white Americans move out. Just who is responsible for this so-called "race based culture". Who appointed Rev. Jackson & Sharpton as "leaders" for black people? Black folks surely didn't. There was no vote to appoint a "leader" cause we DON'T need a leader. White America decided that African American needed a "leader" we did not. White America decided that Rev. Jackson & Sharpton would speak for African Americans.
I'm 73 years old and god know I'm truly tired is explaining and explaining. I had such high hopes for the future and yet I'm still explaining. The Jena 6 was about "Equal Justice under The Law". But what I see is race. What I hear is race. What I don't see is the law applied equally and I don't hear any outrage over that fact.
I promised myself that my children would take advantage of each and every opportunity that the civil rights movement afforded them. I have 3 women with college degrees. They used all that they learned to get great jobs and be successful and they are not alone. Their friends and family members have done the same. I find it hard to understand that while African Americans have become more educated not only of themselves but the world around them many white folks are just as ignorant today as they were 50 years ago. They cannot see that it is them who need to come into the 21st century.
MMFA did not do a "hatchet job" on Bill they put a mirror in his face and all those who watch and listen to him. Not such a pretty picture huh.
Nice post, Pearl.
Pearlene, Now quit thinking more and more for yourself ;-)
Well said, Pearlene. You own this thread.
Let me preface this by saying I have no respect for O'Reilly and I think he's a despicable human being for the reasons you probably do too...
having said that - it seems to me what he's saying is, he couldn't 'get over the fact' that the (cautiously now) stereotypical black person wasn't dining out in this restaurant. That is, stereotypes about black people are inaccurate and he seems to me to be insinuating that this fact needs to asserted by black people. I could be way off base here, and it grates me to defend him. But obviously the smear against media matters is inexcusable. I don't think he's saying 'where are all the crazy black people' but more 'the differences that give rise to stereotypes are disappearing and thats a good thing.' That's not to say I think he's right, obviously.
If he was trying to make that argument, don't you think he could have said something besides "I'm surprised"? I think I understand what you are getting at, that he's done this so long he assumes his audience knows where he is going with it. But that is still ignorance, because if that is the case he's proving that he isn't interested in expanding his horizons by adjusting his opinions to appeal to a larger base.
yeah absolutely... yep. I guess I'm thinking basically that he's not saying 'I thought all black people swear at each other' more that 'this stereotype doesn't exist.' His wider point, I'm not quite sure what that is. the cynic in me says he's trying to dissolve any notion of a contemporary African American movement that attempts to address the real problems faced by black people, and substitute that with 'all black people are nicely integrated now and we don't need Jesse or Al any more.'
it seems to me what he's saying is, he couldn't 'get over the fact' that the (cautiously now) stereotypical black person wasn't dining out in this restaurant. That is, stereotypes about black people are inaccurate and he seems to me to be insinuating that this fact needs to asserted by black people.
Black people are not the ones with the “stereotypes" about themselves. It would seem that white folks are the ones who have the “stereotypes” about black folks so why won’t THEY learn that THEY have the problem? You seem to try very hard not to accept that Bill said what he felt. He and many others have thoughts and opinions that are not real, based on ignorance. Why? The media did not create Bill’s thoughts, he did. The words were not created by the media, Bill said them. He is old enough and has a large enough vocabulary to be able to express himself each and every night on a national stage with a huge audience but NOW it’s the media’s fault that poor Bill was misunderstood?. The stereotypes that other’s have about blacks is disappearing? On which planet and not if you keep listening to Bill.
The average black child see and is surrounded by “white” people each and every day. How many "black" people are in the lives of white children each and every day? Where do "white" children see and learn about black people?
We want changes in our society, WE have to MAKE changes.
That's a great point Pearl. I think we've always known more about the larger culture than they know about the entirety of AA culture which include traditions both African in origin, American and new traditions that developed right here in the good old USA among Americans of African ancestry. But anyway, BO and many others seem so much more inclined to believe the negative as normal for AAs, I believe that’s what they want to believe. And contrary to what Bill thinks, we’re out here just living our normal little lives as best we can and nobody is looking to the great White father Bill O’rielly for direction or for approval.
well I think i simply interpret it differently to you. I dont think O'Reilly ACTUALLY expected to find black people swearing at each other in there. I think his comment is tongue in cheek. But thats just how i read it. That doesn't mean its ok or that I agree with it.
What was his intent with the "tremendously respectful" comment?
I guess he expected the room to be thick with the smell of canabis and the the patrons sitting around throwing back fortys.
He will be suprised again come 2008.
O'Reilly can't imagine;
Blacks can set a proper table.
Blacks have manners,
Blacks wash their hands,
Blacks wash their cooking utinsels and plates,
Blacks could cook anything other than collard greens and fat back.
Bill O' you need to get out of the NYC 'Green Zone' more often.
Billo Reilly talks as if his trip to Sylvia's was a safari adventure to the darkest region of Africa. He was amazed the blacks could actually run a decent restaurant, they had opposable thumbs, walked upright and everything. Billo is pleased to announce to the American public that darkies are starting to think for themselves.
Fox News Responds: "This is nothing more than left wing outlets stirring up false racism accusations for ratings. It's sad."
Does this mean Fox is finally admitting it's a "right wing outlet"?
You know what? I've got an easy solution for O'Reilly to avoid hatchet jobs: Go pay-per-view!
Go pay-per-view and make it expensive, really expensive. That way, only the people who really want to see his BS will see it. No more hatchet jobs, and only the people who care enough to pay can rejoice in the stupidity with Bill.
I've thought for a long time the right wing nut jobs ought to be on satellite radio like Howard Stern and Fox ought to be a premium cable channel like HBO.
I'm sure the FCC can work this out.
Oh you MMFA posters, you still don't understand. Billo has many fans of his show, books and whatever else spills out of his Make Me Rich production company, who, will always take his word over all other sources. Take my loyal co-worker,
Me: Have you rented "outfoxed" ?
Co worker: no, it is full of lies and distortions?
Me: How do you know if you have not seen it?
Co worker: Cuz Bill O said so!!
Me: Well have you at least looked at MediaMatters.org , to see what lies and distortions BillO has put forth?
Co worker: No, O' reilly says they are a liberal, hate site run by homos!!
Not much critical thinking going on there. You should hear her go on about Michael Moore's documentaries, of course without ever having viewed one. They, the people like my co worker, don't want the truth, they hate the truth and are afraid of the truth!!
"I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves."
Bill better be hoping that his most dedicated audience members don't follow suit.
"And Orally actually says on the air"
I like how Media Matters doesn't "(sic)" the Orally as in Orally (sic) O'Reilly, as they would do if ANY conservative played a word game with some liberal's last name. Double standards through and through here, even in the typing up of these transcripts!
You got anything "interesting" to say about the topic?
"sic" is only used when the intent of the misspelling or uncommon usage is unclear. But you knew that.
Well MMFA is so sure that when a Republican refers to the "Democrat" congress, he is doing it to suggest that "Democrats" are not "democratic." Yet they (sic) the adjectival "Democrat" every time. Ooops, what happened to your argument now? It's refuted, that's what. YOU just can't take the double standard.
As for my substantive comments about the topic Pearlene, I really don't have any. BO is just a buffoon--his comments were indefensible.
As for my substantive comments about the topic Pearlene, I really don't have any. BO is just a buffoon--his comments were indefensible. IO
Thank you.
hmm oh yes interesting, Keith makes fun of BO a lot. Orally sums up so much about him. And yes it's in a segment specifically dedicated to mock those who spew such gems as BO stated about his experience at Sylvia's.
Get a grip. Bill's own words make him "the worse person in the world"runner up or worse person too many times to really count. And that's the context it's delivered.
Great job MM. O'Reilly hates the fact that someone is pointing out his hate. Keep exposing this nutcase.
I went out for some Irish American yesterday and was SHOCKED to find that not all the patrons were drunk! Incidentally, potatoes were on the menu as well!
I went to a NeoCon restaurant. The menu was spoken on a TV loop, and every entree' contained chicken.
I went and listened to the entire broadcast from that day, and the reporting here is dishonest, at worst, or just lazy, at best. What is left out of the "reporting" here is what Bill was talking about prior to the restaurant comments. He was talking about how those who may not know a lot of black people may have a misguided view of them if they only pay attention to TV. He said that although there are the gangsta rappers, that most black people are really no different than white people.
Stop believing what Media Matters tells you as fact, think for yourself. Go listen to the broadcast, in full, on Bill's website. You will find there is nothing racist or offensive in anything he says. For heaven's sake, he was doing a segment AGAINST racism. The iced tea comments were made while talking to a BLACK person. He was not offended. Think, don't hate. Media Matters is a hate website. Feel free to read it, but keep in mind their agenda, and most importantly, find out the facts for yourself, and think for yourself.
Stop thinking what YOU are told to think by the screechmonkey that put THIS baloney into your head. Unless you are making the argument that his little foray into racism was satirical. An argument even Billy O isnt making then your take is just STUPID. You dont get points for being reasonable that you can cash in for a free pass on being a racist jerk. Being reasonable is the way a decent person is supposed to act ALL the time not most of the time. When you deviate from decent behavior. As in spewing racist bilge you deserver to be called on it. Anyone with two working brain cells to rub together and a sense of decency already KNOWS this.
According to Juan Williams, who accompanied OR on this junket, it WAS a hatchet job, a total lie about what was actually said and the context in which is was said.
I guess in the eyes of many on this thread, that makes Jaun Williams a racist too(?)
I know I don't care what Juan Williams a Fox mouth piece and Fox regular has to say about what he believes Bill O'rielly meant. It's insulting to compliment Black people for behaving in a manner that everyone behaves in a particular environment unless you indeed expect Blacks to behave differently; and if Juan indeed agrees that Blacks should be praised for eating with a knife and Fork jus like White people than he's a racist.
Juan Williams, an employee of FOX news, tried to downplay the blatant racism of another FOX employee?
Wow! You sure proved your case there!
According to Juan Williams, who accompanied OR on this junket, it WAS a hatchet job, a total lie about what was actually said and the context in which is was said.
Oldmarine the problem with your comment is you think hey Juan is black and he says what Bill said was OK. News flash... Juan like Jessie and Rev Sharpton are each individuals who are entitled to their opinion. The DO NOT represent African Americans, they represent themselves. Get out in the world and ask African Americans how they feel about Bill's comments.
I guess in the eyes of many on this thread, that makes Juan Williams a racist too(?)
No that simply makes Juan 1 black man who agrees with Bill.
No it makes him a shill. If its a LIE show us what MMFA claimed he said he DIDNT say. Or can you adress what he DID say and show why it ISNT racist? If not you are wasting our time. Exactly WHAT context can you put those words in that negates the racism unless it was preceded by..Only an ignorant racist jerk would say something like...Rent a clue.
Let's face it, Bill O'Really finds Media Matters a convenient scapegoat (at least in his twisted little mind) for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are three very important factors (er, sorry, you should pardon the expression). First, your staff is in part peopled by gay and gay-friendly persons, which is a big no-no to bigot Bill. (Yes, he pretends to support gay rights, but he speaks with a forked tongue, his position on gay marriage being tantamount to being against "special" rights (the buzz words for queer equality). Second -- and related -- is the fact that although you spare neither conservatives and GOPS nor liberals and Dems, finding falsehood in slanted or downright factually deprived reportage no matter what its source, the prevailing winds blow a stench from right wingnut hangouts (and, let's face it, primarily Fox Noise). In this regard, I have to believe that Billo thinks of David Brock when he thinks of any one representative MM person as the apotheosis of all that he sees, in his paranoid delusions, as "The Enemy." Not only is Mr. Brock openly gay, he blew the whistle on the neo-cons and right wingnut GOPeratives in his books, The Republican Noise Machine and Blinded by the Right. (I've read the former, a trenchant, encyclopedic examination of crypto-fascist media in America, a book I keep handy when I want to research any of these louts. And I plan on reading the latter while on vacation in Mexico.) Finally, it is characteristic of the arrogance of power that those in positions of dominance (or perceived dominance -- and O'Really's ratings obviously have gone to his head) that, like Arbusto, they can do no wrong, such that when criticized by anyone, it's only because someone telling the truth is simply out to get them. That is why Herr Karlheinz Roeff and Veep Prick Cheanie have kept enemies lists, just as King Richard of Nixon did); what else would explain the attempts to destroy the reputations and credibility of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? This is not the first time Billo has blamed MM for his goofy comments. I doubt it will be the last. MM has become an obsession with him. What a marvelous feather in your cap! Congratulations!
Bill Orally just can't keep his mouth shut!!! I guess he thought that all black resturants are dirty and trashy. Bill get a LIFE!!! As an African-American I find his comments offensive.
As an African –American, I don’t think that CNN was dishonest. Bill got caught sounding racist, (I don’t think that he is, it sounds that way though), and he points to other bad behavior to (Christianne Amanpour) justify his own. If he would just admit that the conversation sounded bad it would be better. Media Matters covers Bill all the time, and now he is whining that they attack him. Suck it up. Why does he address this issue if you has done nothing wrong. It speaks for itself. His paid lackey, Uncle Tom (Juan) Williams will parrot anything he says to bolster his argument. I listened to the hour long litany. He sounded racists by making the comparison between black and white restaurants. He makes all that money and acts like a little kid who got talked about by his friends, and whose feelings got hurt. He should Grow up and keep bringing America the conservative diatribe that he normally brings. Was there anything false in what Media Matters reported? They framed what he said according to what they believed. I thought he sounded racist as well. I don't think that I'm a left wing loon or a pinhead because I voted for Bush, but I look at both sides not just to the right.
My God Sanchez is pathetic. The fact that he seems unable to grasp the obvious bigotry of O'Reilly's comments speaks volumes. Sanchez says,"Well do you think -- let's be honest about this. Do you think it has something to do with his audience? I mean, after all, he's talking to a specific audience." So Mr. Sanchez, are you suggesting that Bill said this to enlighten his racist audience? If that is the case, why didn't he say, "You wouldn't be able to get over it." No, he was clearly speaking for himself and expressing his own befuddled racist ignorance.
Shoes, in your defense of O'Reilly, you forgot to mention Clinton. That is an automatic downgrade of your troll rating.
MMFA is grasping on the oreilly comments. The are disparate, having not got anybody fired since Imus, they grasping to maintain any sense of importance. They should ask Soros for a few more million to get back in the game, take some of that Soros money away from move-on.org. Come on mmfa, try harder, get some more Soros Cash!
Care to address what O'Reilly said? Why was he surprised that blacks were behaving in a restaurant and that his experience was good?
Go back to your bridge troll. No one is biting
To bad Bill'O didn't bump into his old pal "Snoop Dog" at Sylvia's. I can't believe this clown claims he was a school teacher, no wonder Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Education. I suggest someone take him to a Jewish restaurant and when he says something stupid there, we'll be done with him.
context is the word of the decade! i dare those who actually want to know the truth about this, to listen to the ENTIRE INTERVIEW! infact, oreilly was NOT shocked about the dining experience. He was expressing himself as one who may feel that way. As someone who works hospitality, i can assure you that there are those african americans who are rude, and more demanding, and cuss as if it were OK, but the majority of them are polite and gracious. There is a cultural split with many african americans! unfortanately, the majority of culture that is exploited on television or radio is tasteless. and that needs to be adressed. so thank you bill! keep up the truthful discussions.