Media Matters' Waldman: "[I]f Bill O'Reilly got caught robbing a bank he would say he was taken out of context"
September 26, 2007 10:04 am ET
Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Paul Waldman appeared on the September 26 edition of NBC's Today show to discuss the controversy generated by comments made recently by Fox News host Bill O'Reilly---and documented by Media Matters---following his visit to a Harlem restaurant.
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Congratulations!! This event will expose millions of viewers to your fine efforts here.
I really have to wonder about posters coming here defending, explaining, and making desparate excuses for obvious Racial Remarks.
The context of what was said does not effect the Racial Remarks.
Alexander Sharpton can not erase the Racial Remarks. Al BetrayUs Sharpton? I hope not.
Al can talk himself blue in the face. It won't change the Racial Remarks that stand on there own for all to see.
Exactly. Especially since we have a bunch of white people defending remarks made by a white person, that in itself is telling in that these defenders aren't recognizing the opinions of the AA community. Doesn't that just add fuel the fire, this "He was just trying to compliment you, now be quiet because we know better than you what you should be feeling"?
Snoop, I predicted this reaction in previous posts on related items. The MSM is not going attack another member of "the club" no matter how overt -- or subtle -- their comments may be. In their eyes, you have to wear a hood or burn a cross to be a true racist. Imus was taken out of context, as was Trent Lott in their aplogist estimation. It was racist plain and simple. That's sad for America and sad for race relations here. WAKE UP America.
I think this cuts right to the heart of the modern Right. Their patron saint Ronald Reagan came to power supporting Goldwater and fighting against Civil Rights. They can polish his myth and bury these realities but the legacy remains. It's time for the nation to face facts. No matter how skilled they get at covering it up, there is a core constituency of Republicans who are under the 'big tent' for some pretty sick reasons.
That's some big tent. Rich white people, white racists, white religious zealots, white rednecks, white nascar fans, ...
It's a very diverse band of narrow white people. Who better to lead us into the 21st Century? Who better to represent us in a one world economy where every nation and every people will be connected at the click of a mouse? Let's find the most xenophobic strand of American culture and let them lead us into that future!
Oh, I forgot one. The log cabin republicans. Every tent has an outhouse, right?
What are there, about 15 of those guys? I like how that small group gets their reps on the air as much as the people who represent millions of gay people. It's all so Fair and Balanced.
Indeed! In dumbed-down conservative America this is what we get. SUBTEXT is meaningful and the we all know what O'Smelly was really implying.
Let me tell you something "Sundog" It was Republicans who started "Affirmative Action" Conservatives who helped form the NAACP and not the Democrats who want to keep you poor so they get your vote! You see as long as you stay a "Victim" The Liberal Democrats are assured of your vote! Go to school ,do well and get away from "Big Daddy" ( The Government) and succeed and there is a better chance that you will leave the Democratic Party especially after you see your paycheck being robbed by the government, and the Democrats know this! Don’t blame whites for your failures and stop calling African Americans “Uncle Tom” when they strive to get ahead. Your enemy isn’t white people it’s your perception that whites are all racist when white really don’t care!! They work and live in their world and haven’t the time to be racist. But you come in their neighborhoods with an attitude and you will see their anger at being labeled a racist when you are the one that is the racist!! Don’t make whites feel guilty by your failures! So get off the street corner and get educated and stop asking for handouts from those in America who work hard! This last comment pertains to ALL races!
That's too funny. Y'all like to claim to be the party of Lincoln but you guys tossed him out along with the rest of what you called RINO's 10 years ago. Stop living in the past and see your party for what it has become.
They started Affirmative Action? Different band of Republicans. This bunch is doing their best to do away with any affirmative action, and they denounce any attempt to stick to the golden rule as "politically correct."
I called someone an Uncle Tom? I told someone not to work hard or get an education? I blame 'whites' for my failure? I'm a failure?
THEIR neighborhoods?
Wow.
Just for the record, I'm of mostly German and Irish descent. 6th generation American. That's a lot of generations but actually not as many as a great number of Americans of African descent. Buddy, there was nothing of the hostility or even intentions you perceived in my post. My point is that we use the organization of government to make sure there are schools available for every American kid. What I'd like to see is the best schools in areas where the kids need it the most. Then they are more likely to have to tools to do those things you are encouraging us all to do. Which are good things.
Sundog, I appreciate the full disclosure. It would make a lot more interesting board IMHO if everyone had to do that, or at least go on record as being something or other even if it's a fabrication.
Well, since I'm already a known white guy, I'm going on the record as being Brad Pitt. At least that's almost EXACTLY what I look like. My wife is way hotter than his though. For the record.
EagleSeven1
Just a few corrections:
President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925, which creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.
AND
The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909 by a diverse group composed of W.E.B. Du Bois (African American), Ida Wells-Barnett (African American), Henry Moskowitz (Jewish), Mary White Ovington (White), Oswald Garrison Villard (German-born White), and William English Walling (White, and son of a former slave owning family)[2][3],
And
You are more than welcome to keep your white neighborhoods especially if your neighbors are like you. I left Texas to get away from Klan members who don't wear their sheets but keep the same thoughts and attitudes. I have no desire to return.
That "their neighborhoods" thing was really nice huh?
Thanks for typing the facts here Pearlene. Addressing that old tired bull about the Republicans being the party of Lincoln and all that gets to be a redundant chore so I didn't even bother addressing it. It probably is really worth getting into though because it's the kind of thing that can confuse younger generations who don't know the delightful tale of how the Southern Democrats became the bedrock of the modern Republicans. Reagan had a lot to do with it. But everyone knows what a swell guy he was. They tell us all the time.
Sundog, the sad part is he really could not see were he "invited" black folks the "opportunity" to live in "his" neighborhood "if" we knew how to behave.
Wow all the ignorant propaganda parrot talking points heard from. Right down the list. Isnt it wonderful that black Americans have a wise and benevolent master like YOU to tell them they are too dumb to know whats good for them and which party stands up for them. Yeah what they REALLY need as a brain dead brainwashed koolaid mainliner to clue them in. OR they DO know whats in their best interest and its YOU that doesnt have a clue.
Good point Sundog. Many forget Reagan's veiled support of a return to the southern way of life by indicating his desire to return the nations policies to "states rights". It was a blatant but cleverly veiled indication of his feelings regarding civil rights. I think he gave the speech in Georgia in 80'????
Overall, I think Waldman did a really good job presenting the argument carefully and in a non-judgemental way.
However, I was frustrated that he let the implicit racism, and the complacency of the other two speakers, go so unchallenged.
For instance, when the African American was speaking about, "Overall, Bill O'Reilly was saying something very positive, and that we're all the same" (not exact quote, sorry), I would have liked Waldman to say something stronger about why it WAS necessary that this bit of Bill-O-Blather needed to be exposed by MMFA, along the lines of:
"Jim, Maybe you personally don't find his remarks offensive, but a great many African-Americans do, including many that were in Sylvia's that day. For many people, the point is not whether Bill O'Reilly was saying we are all the same, but rather that this seemed to come as such a shock to him. He made these comments as though he has such a low opinion of African-Americans that he was surprised that they weren't swearing in a restaurant. He may not realize that what he was saying is racist, but to make such a patronizing comment shows that he has deeply ingrained prejudices."
Also, the moderator was HUGELY biased!! That really wasn't appropriate at all!
Should my wife dress like a man too? She's very career minded. At least she speaks proper English.
I like the 'get educated' thing too. Not that it's not good advice, education is the key. But there are real problems when millions of American kids grow up where their schools need to focus on just keeping them safe and the walls from coming down around them. We see that parents with a good education are the best education for their kids but in areas where the parents have the least education the kids usually have the poorest schools as well.
The Rightwingers love to run the government that they claim to hate so much and they don't seem to try very hard to break through the generational cycle of poverty that occurs in many communities of all ethnicities. What if the billions they intentionally dumped into Iraq had been a sort of Marshall plan for our own communities, especially the schools? It's absolutely heartbreaking to think of the good that isn't being done because these jerks who Bill O'Reilly supports are running the show.
Just get an education. Just say no. Reminds me of the Reagan era joke. "So, on the heels of the huge success of Just say No, Nancy has started a new program to end homelessness. Just Buy a House."
Oh, and the dressing like a man and 'just get an education' thing was in response to another post that seems to have gotten zapped.
Gee, did the interview by NBC include the fact that Juan Williams, who actually participated in the discussion in which the remarks took place, has cited the media for its "rank dishonesty" for propagating this bogus story?
MM is acting like a whiny infant trying to brew up a "controversy" and get O'Reilly thrown off the air.
Sorry, folks. It ain't happenin'. MM, CNN, and NBC have been exposed for their "rank dishonesty."
I listened to the entire event and I now do not think O'Reilly meant anything racist about this. What was starting was how Stephen A Smith from ESPN last night appeared on MSNBC with Abrams and actually defended OReilly , Abrams was taken back and suprised. the other two MSNBC hacks were also suprised that an African American was defending him. I think once Sharpton comes to his defense tonight, this will stop.
Sue, the point isn't really about what he thought he meant necessarily. What he said was incredibly condescending. Hey the black folks are starting to think for themselves! I'm guessing most African Americans have been thinking for themselves for their whole lives. Just as long as a regular white person like you Bill. Hey looky, the black folks can operate and eat in a restaurant just as well as white people! No kidding Bill, just like grown-ups huh?
People who are condescending usually don't intend to be offensive because of course they don't really understand the perspective of the people they're being condescending towards. It's just really lame for someone who speaks to millions every day and considers himself an authority on our society. If he wants to take on the mantle of moral authority on everything from Christmas to race, he is asking for and deserves a high level of scrutiny.
There's a difference between the definitions of "racist" and "prejudice". O'Really wasn't being racist when he made his remark. He was exposing his prejudice, as illustrated by the fact that he "couldn't get over" that a restaurant run by blacks would be just like a restaurant run by whites. There's no missing context there. He EXPECTED that people would be yelling "Hey, MFer, bring me some effin' iced tea!" from their tables. Assumedly, he probably also EXPECTED "crack-n-reefer" in place of "surf-n-turf" as the specialty of the house.
The discussion isn't about O'Really being a racist. It's about his pre-formed expectations of Sylvias, and the worthiness of someone having their own political analysis show if they so readily demonstrate their willingness to pontificate on matters of which they're entirely ignorant.
Billdo's ignorant, a lousy communicator, and a liar.
Reaction from Juan Williams, O'Reilly's guest on the radio show in question, on Tuesday night's The O'Reilly Factor
JUAN WILLIAMS: It's rank dishonesty, and the troubling thing is that if I hadn't participated in the discussion, if I was just tuning into CNN, or listening to MSNBC, and heard that, oh, Bill O'Reilly said he went to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem and they weren't using M-F and all this kind of stuff, I'd say, "Oh, my God. What is he thinking? Where's that coming from? Why did he say something like that?" Not understanding that that discussion, Bill O'Reilly, you know, I'm telling you, it's just, it's so frustrating. They want to shut you up. They want to shut up anybody who has an honest discussion about race.... And now they take this discussion and somehow turn it on its head. I'm really appalled. And I say that as someone, you know, who's, I mean, I just can't believe that this is going on. It's outrageous because the discussion we had was about how too often the images on TV are these rappers glorifying drugs, glorifying violence, degrading women.... Here's my complaint. They're trying to shut up anybody who's having an honest thought about race relations in this country, and wants to speak honestly about the damage being done by the likes of these rappers or these comedians who use the N-word, and all of that. You know what? They're willing to celebrate Snoop Dogg, or Twista, or any of these guys who go out there and present these minstrel show images of black people. ... When you said you went up to Sylvia's, you said you went in there, the place was a normal restaurant, healthy discussion, people were pleased, and, in fact, they celebrated the fact that here is Bill O'Reilly with Al Sharpton -- Oh, my gosh, two celebrities are in the house. And then you said everything settled down like a normal restaurant, ethnic like an Italian restaurant. O'REILLY: Yeah, there wasn't any, it was an attempt to tell the radio audience that there is no difference- WILLIAMS: Correct. O'REILLY: -black, white, we're all Americans, the stereotypes they see on television are not true. None of that was mentioned. WILLIAMS: That's right. And I'm glad you said that. You should repeat that so they hear it again. You said stereotypes are not true. I said you should go up there more often, it shouldn't be a foreign trip. But it had nothing to do with racist ranting by anybody except these idiots at CNN.
Thanks for the post, Sue. Now I am more convinced than ever that Juan Williams is a political hack. Nowhere did Williams explain *how* O'Reilly's words were taken out of context. He just become indignant and spouts a lot of right wing crap about rappers.
Thats even worse than I thought? Was his argument that since Bill said, as if it were NEWS, that stereotypes arent true, then went on with is astonishment that HIS racist preconceptions werent true and THAT somehow means he wasnt being racist? Are you KIDDING ME?
Sue, thank you for clarifying this for us by referring to Jaun Williams who is BTW on the Fox payroll. Spin to your heart's content. As a black man I am offended by this insidious type of racism. You're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to call you a fool for falling hook, line and sinker for obvious spin.
I posted the comment , I was not defending Juan Williams. Save your outrage for Oreilly.
Sue, you're very dishonest and sneaky. You may not came out and said you defend Juan Williams, but you're card stacking and attempting to build a strong case that Media Matters is making too big of a deal out of this, and because Juan Williams -- being a black man -- took up for O'Reilly, that means this whole entire story is weak -- as if one or two black men exemplify how the entire "black community" feel about this story. So much for black individuality! Furthermore, didn't you say months ago that you hated Imus but you felt that the media gave him a "lynching" because of Sharpton and Jackson? Sometimes I think you say things just to get a reaction because your opinions are never consistent.
Then you say if Al Sharpton takes up for O'Reilly tonight then that means you'll officially give this round to Bill. So now people are A-okay with Sharpton when it comes to defending Bill O'Reilly and his condescension, but other than that, he should be despised because of the "lynching" he gave to Imus? I find it funny how folks will take up for Sharpton when -- or I should say IF -- he defends O'Reilly and his errors, but he's sole responsible for giving Imus that "lynching" and getting him kicked off air. Everyone knows that Sharpton, like Jackson, makes back room deals with many prominent pundits in the media just to get air-time. The fact that he is "friends" with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly proves that Sharpton's only interests is being a celebrity in the media.
No, I have never said they are making a big deal out of this or it should not be covered. It should, the statements are wrong, and need to be discussed. I do feel Sharpton will however support OReilly, why is it wrong to feel that? If you do not want have an open discussion about this fine, do not participate. Posting comments by Juan Williams who is a hack is in no way showing that I support him or OReilly. Are you really that much against looking at things in greater view and discussing them?
So Sue, you posted that big long quote of his because you didn't agree with it? And spare us all the cheap rhetorical tricks. You post that whole thing and then when people criticize it you say, "He said it not me." Gimme a break.
And quality work at the end there. "Are you really that much against looking at things in greater view and discussing them." Discussing seems like what he was doing. Does he have to knock down your straw man in order to keep discussing things in greater view? Really dishonest garbage.
Sorry to jump in here but that just really took the prize for bs.
I posted it to continue the discussion.
You ended the discussion immediately after my comment by your lack of comprehension by pasting a Juan Williams quote which had NOTHING to do with what I wrote.
You cannot continue a discussion when you don't comprehend what is being discussed, and I frankly don't have the patience to tutor you any further.
Yeah because this thread was just dying on the vine
Preston, I honestly think Sueeld thinks we are stupid. All you have to do is read her posts, thread to thread, day to day. The only time you can expect honestly is regarding Keith.
Juan Williams, well-known Fox employee. What do you expect him to say?
Sueeld, as usual you are full of sh*t. You jump from one thread to another kissing any one's a** that you can fine UNLESS it’s regarding Keith. First it was racists then it wasn't. The statement that Bill made has not changed from yesterday to today! Stephen A. Smith did not defend what Bill said. He along with John Ridley ( black conservative who i don't agree with most of the time) both felt that what Bill said was a racists statement that had NO defense. If you’re waiting for Rev. Al to come to Bill’s defense, keep waiting. There is not excuse (notice that Bill doesn’t have one) for what he said. None at all.
Please, tell us, old wise one, how this is hypocritical again? Because I know that we're all just dying to know what your definition of hypocritical is, and I'm sure that it in no way matches the real one. Probably something along the lines of how people tried to re-define hypocritical with John Edwards. How was O'Reilly taken out of context again? He wasn't.
Oops, sorry. Dishonesty I meant. How are they being dishonest when they use his own words? How is it being dishonest when they use his own words, in context? I'm trying to wrap my mind around how they are being dishonest by re-playing, and highlighting the stupid things Bill O says.
Mag, I'm looking forward to that explanation too. Holding my breath, starting...now!
Let Juan Williams, who actually perticipated in the original discussion, explain it to you:
"It's Rank Dishonesty!"
Got it?
You keep thinking you have some gotcha so you just repeat the same tired mantra over and over. It doesnt matter what some Fox shill says to cover Billys butt. His WORDS are there for ALL to see. When you can explain how THEY are not condescending, patronizing and flat out racist get back to us until then ya got NOTHIN
It may be a "tired mantra", but could you at least respond to what Juan Williams stated about the conversation with BO? I mean, JW is an African American who actually participated in the conversation.
Could you please answer Solon's question? How are Bill's comments not racist?
Bill,
I saw the interview last night between O'Reilly and Williams, so I wanted to make sure for myself of the context, so I listerened to the radio exchange.
My opinion remains unchanged. Bill and Juan kept saying this was an entire hour on racism and how "dumb" it is and unjustified and how blacks are the same as whites, etc. And they did make those points - but that does not excuse the patronizing tone and remarks that O'Reilly made within that hour that have been highlighted, in context. And the fact that he actually believes that compliments are not racially charged is ridiculous. When they are patronizingly bestowed upon anyone, they are like pats on the head saying "Good job", or "Good for you", that is offensive in my opinion.
Because, and not to credit Bush here, but it is "the soft bigotry of low expectations" that is in play here. Either O'Reilly is truly ignorant or he is being disingenuous, and I don't think he's stupid at all.
As for him having Williams on, that proves nothing. Everyone who works at Fox knows who the top dog is, O'Reilly has the #1 program and wields plenty of power of the network's content. Williams may have been sincere in his defense, I have no idea.
But his comments stand for themselves, they were patronizing and offensive - he can call every other media outlet the devil all day long. It changes nothing. He is pathetic.
Tommy,
My take from the talking points was simply that Bill was bringing up a racist example to prove othewise. I felt he was simply explaining to people who have a woefully ignorant stereotype of blacks that it is untrue.
It seems to me that many people here are feeling that Bill actually was expecting the type of behavior he characterized and that Bill was surprised when everyone acted normal. It seems clear to me that Bill was in no way expressing his own view or trying to patronize blacks by his comments. He was simply trying to prove to people who might hold racist and or misconceived opinions of blacks, that they were all wrong.
I'm no Bill fan, but I think his comments have been distorted to sound the exact opposite of what he intended.
Oh please you are saying he was SATIRIZING racist condescension. Even HE hasnt made that argument. Yes we think he was suprised that blacks werent screaming MF I want some iced tea mostly because THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.
Frankly AA, I am tired of the whole thing, I have stated my opinions, everyone is entitled to their own view of what O'Reilly meant, or what his intentions were.
I still say that he was pandering and patronizing.......and not to bring up an old wound, but this is the exact reason that I am basically against race based affirmative action, and disagree with those that advocate reparations for blacks because of slavery. All, including this latest from BillO, are examples of the soft bigotry of low expectations, in my opinion.
Whether Bill was speaking personally of his "low expectations", or others, he was exhibiting a stereotype that lesser achievements should be celebrated because higher ones are not as realistic - because of an inherent inferiority. That is my problem with what O'Reilly said.
People are free to formulate their own opinions, but it is time to move on.
Why are you bent on explaining to us what some right wing nut job really meant, instead of condemning what he/she said?
We understand the language he was speaking.
I dont care if he is GREEN, THAT makes no difference. Ever hear the old saying if you want to roast an Irishman you can always find an Irishman to turn the spit? Just because they found someone black PAID BY FOX to cover Billys butt is IRRELEVANT. I found Juans defense to be ludicrous. He seems to be saying that since Billy SUDDENLY, as if it were an epiphany he was sharing with an uninitated world that the stereotypes which consisted of HIS OWN preconcieved, racist notions werent true, the notions he then went into specific, racist, astonishingly niave detail about THAT absolves him from pushing those same stereotypes. It only adds another layer to his condescension. Yeah BILL WE KNOW THEY ARE BS. Welcome to planet EARTH. Its still racist because he is STILL in effect saying WOW its SHOCKING but African Americans are adults with actual decency, who knew? Those stereotypes I cherished my whole life arent true. Who in the WORLD could accept this as some kind of defense?
Are JW's opinions more important than anyone elses? Why don't we ask other people on the Fox payroll for their opinions while we are at it.
billiybobjones7678
Are you African American?
I am a 73 year old African American and I found what Bill said highly racist and unfortunately very ignorant.
pearlene_scott1602:
I'm not African American. However, my family is mixed. My dad's parents came from Mexico. My adopted sister is Black. My brother is gay. And my mom is white.
I've been very sensitive to any racist remarks against my family - and in all sincerity, I did not find anything "racist" is what BO said. He may be a blowhard, but I do not believe he is racist.
billiybobjones7678
I’m going to tell you exactly why Bill’s statements were racists and exactly why he can’t explain them and wants to blame someone else.
Why would Bill , and these are his words he was surprised there was "no difference" between Sylvia's restaurant in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan and other New York restaurants, be surprised? In order for Bill to be surprised buy what he found at Sylvia’s he would have to had expected something different. Has Bill explained what he was expecting find at Sylvia’s? Was Bill expecting to find a dirty windows or trash in the front door? How insulting is that. Black people cannot have a fine dining restaurant in Harlem? Why? The next part of Bill’s statement is even though Sylvia's is "run by blacks." OK I can only assume that Bill does not think that blacks are capable to running a clean decent restaurant that are of the same quality as other restaurants in Manhattan. I can’t find where one would feel that statement was a complement. Now the next part of Bill’s statement says it all: There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming 'M-Fer -- I want more iced tea.' So now we know that Bill is surprised that black folks know who to create a fine dining establishment. We know that Bill was surprised that not only could the create a fine dining establishment but the have the knowledge to run such a place which must mean…oh my god they’re smart too! And to put the cherry on top they know how to conduct themselves in such a fine dining establishment when according to Bill most black folks would be yelling “M-Fer”.
If you can explain that sentence any differently, please do so. Please don’t tell me to hear the entire text, it just gets worse. Kind of like when Bill decided to insult black folks further but say that “we are now thinking for our selves. I’m a 73 year old African American who has ALWAYS thought for my self. I’m just sorry that Bill’s and other’s were too stupid to realize that.
Yeah, I "got it", Shoes. BilldO asked Juan if it was dishonesty. Juan said it was. He then talked about rappers and complimented O'Reilly for having an honest discussion about race.
All of which was BS. The closest thing to an "explanation" in that clip is this; BO and JW alerting the American public to the fact that every black person in the country does not have a rhinestone grill in their mouth, and many don't even use "motherf-er" in every sentence.
That's the whole point. Got it?
Yes, I agree from the post Sueeld posted. Juan Williams simply dances around what Bill said.
There in a nutshell is the purpose the weak liberal-in-name-only Juan Williams serves for Fox News: so that right-wingers like Shoes can cite him.
The only whiney infant is O'Reilly who can dish it out but clearly can't take it. His days are numbered, and then you will have to find another source of garbage to fill your brains with mush.
Shoes,
Considering that Williams made his comments only LAST NIGHT, I think we can give the networks just a bit more time. But I agree that Waldman should have brought Williams' subsequent comments to light, considering his organization constantly monitors O'Reilly.
Did you catch on to the fact that this interview also included Joe Watkins, who DEFENDED O'REILLY?
So you tell me, where is the "rank dishonesty" on the part of NBC and/or Matt Lauer as it relates to this interview?
Gee - Shoes89 ...
You just displayed Your Own "Rank Dishonesty."
oder eaters may solve that problem for shoes...
No they havent but YOU have been exposed for YOURS. Who writes Williams checks again? Just because HE is a shill in NO WAY abrogates Billy's racism. His words are plain. You havent even TRIED to address them. I urge you to stop embarassing yourself
Solon,
Your words about Williams are even worse than Bills. You are accusing Williams of being an Uncle Tom in order to curry favor with Bill.
You and the others here have no proof of your accusations. If you do, please bring them forward. Otherwise You are simply smearing Williams because his views don't follow the storyline set up by MMFA.
I already did. I showed once why Juans attempt at a defense was laughable and inane.
Here we go again. Calling out one black man on his behavior is worse than O'Reilly making a blanket statement about how he expects all black people to behave.
You'll defend or attack anyone for partisan purposes, I have to believe, no matter how weak your argument is. It doesn't exactly enhance your credibility.
I guess your point is that Juan Williams is black and speaks for all black people and therefore what O'Reilly said is O.K.
Welcome to "Shoes" up-is-down fantasy world. O'Reilly's a poor, helpless victim. Shoes agrees with O'Reilly that it's amazing!! a black restaurant would be like a white one. Sees nothing wrong at all with the statement.
Shoes 89, Are you African American?
I am a 73 year old African American and I found what Bill said highly racist and unfortunately very ignorant.
Waldman said that MM put up the "full audio" and "full transcript." Did MM actually put up the entire hour of the discussion?
No. Waldman did not tell the truth.
Shoes you have a point, which was Stephen A Smiths point last night on MSNBC.
I am disappointed that MMFA has not followed up and linked to the full transcript.
In the case of articles, MMFA always links to the full text.
Pete: It is early, and Fox may not yet have posted the full transcript. Judging at least from efforts over the years to find such transcripts on CNN and Fox, it is often a couple of days, and sometimes never.
Oh, and Lord help us should MMFA use a transcription from someone other than Fox - that would invite bickering from some of the posters that the transcript is different.
What context could those words be put into that would erase the blatant racist condescension other than preceding them by saying I would have to be a racist jerk to say...
How in the world would MMFA ever sell that as "Fair Use"?
Why did you just stop with the hour long show? How much context do you need? Why not demand MMFA put up every episode of the O'Reilly Factor ever produced to show complete transparency.
I am quite willing to accept that O'Reilly believes racism is wrong in general. I just find his observation at Sylvia's to be mindblowingly idiotic for a grown man. The remarks from the larger conversation do not change that impression at all.
Coming tonight, another Bill O'Reilly expose on how NBC has now entered the dark ranks of the Media Matters smear merchants!
Actually, Shoes has a point. Unless somebody was running a tape recorder from the moment BilldO was born until right now, and played the entire thing, it's out of context.
Yeah, I'd have to listen to a complete hour of BilldO's stoopidity to get the nuances in his social commentary.
Does that lame "out-of-context" defense ever get embarrassing ? Especially from those who beat the living snot out of snippets like "I voted for the 87 billion,etc"?
"I was on acid and I looked at the trees and I realized that they all came to points, and the little branches came to points, and the houses came to point. I thought, 'Oh! Everything has a point, and if it doesn't, then there's a point to it.'" -- Harry Nilsson
Thanks for the memories!
(Me and My Arrow toured much of the US, paved and unpaved - although until you posted this url, I hadn't been able to find the CDs. Couldn't even get any of his stuff on the now-defunct Russian site, AllOfMP3.com.)
Good job Paul and MMFA. I don't know what rappers or Al Sharpton have to do with a misperception that Black people can't own and/or operate a civilized restaurant. O'Lielly wasn't taken out of context. He has a history of saying this stuff.
First off, Juan Williams one of the most respected black journalist?
Secondly Bill's comments were patronizing and ignorant and it's not the first time he's said something like this. Fox and B.O. are in damage control mode. The fact tat they seem not to understand why this was offensive is astounding.
If I didn't know better, I'd think that Matt Lauer was on B.O.'s payroll as his flack. What's up with that? And, having that "conservative" black guy on to discuss the incident was like having Clarence Thomas argue in defense of affirmative action. Who produces the Today show? Does he live in a bubble, too? (And, I am sure it is a he).
Man! Lauer is such a putz. Could he give Oreilly any more benefit of the doubt while stumbling through the formulation of leading questions for the con on the set?
Anyway, this was good work by Waldman. He didn't allow the tagteam to control the frames, even when Lauer did his best gotcha attempt at finding holes in Paul's case.
I don't understand Lauer's almost "anger" over this whole thing. Could The Today Show make it more obvious that they are trying to get this to blow over?
Is it fear? Fear of the exposure that these messengers have no message? Lauer is definitely on an agenda here and that AA representative was strangely used to attack MMFA, really.
Having said that, yeah, the whole BO'R thing is being blown out of proportion, but O'R has been so insidious over the years, so misinforming and egoistic, that I can't help the schadenfreude.
The TODAY SHOW dropped the ball on this one. I think Lauer should have framed the question as to why was O'Reilly surprised by the fact that Blacks weren't wild at Sylvia's.
I listened to the entire segment, and I also now think it was taken out of context. It was stupid to say but not racist, and he was trying to make a point. O'Reillys problem is more in communication. He is bad at it.
A national talk show host on tv and radio, with an audience millions is a poor communicator?
I think the problem may be with the message, not the messenger.
Perhaps the message AND the messenger?
Yeah, definitely both.
WHY in God's name is it SUPRISING to find a black owned restaurant in Harlem that is not only, attractive but well run with patrons who is decent and have manners?
Considering the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES eats there AND has an office in Harlem WHAT IS SUPRISING?
Maybe it's just SUPRISING to WHITE FOLKS!
I sent this to the Today Show:
I saw the segment of the show where Matt Lauer was talking about Bill O'Reilly's comments on Sylvia's Restaurant in Harlem. Is Matt really that clueless? Does he not see that even in the context of the whole show, that O'Reilly was expressing HIS surprise at an African American establishment and patrons as being just like a white establishment. Has this man (O'Reilly) lived in a cave or something. Why would he assume that white people (or people in general) would have the prejudices that he obviously has? He wasn't trying to educate, he was expressing HIS prejudices in an overt way (for anyone paying attention). Racism is ignorance and Bill was showing his ignorance in abundance. What part of that does Lauer not get?O'Reilly was being condescending with his remarks. He could have simply said that Sylvia's was a fine establishment and that he had a good meal with Sharpton. That would not have surprised me (a white person). Does he think all whites (or maybe his audience members) are so clueless that he needs to explain to them that not all blacks live and talk like rappers? So he was not only being condescending to blacks, but to whites also. It is too bad that Matt Lauer and the people who stick up for this type of subtle and overt racism are on the air and do not take their responsibility to have a more informed opinion seriously. What a disappointment.Julia ...
You should be sending your ideas to CNN's iReport too. I've tried for 2 years to get them to expose Fox News and O'Reilly. They finally did it.
In his first segment yesterday O'Reilly began with an untruthful, disgraceful and shameful attack on Media Matters as a media watchdog group that has never exposed a Democratic Liberal Commentator. But they have smeared most Republicans. (Go Figure)
O'Reilly then lined up all the news outlets that reported his comments truthfully and leveled attacks on them. He listed and praised the outlets that ignored his racial comments.
He singled out CNN, who he says have ratings 1-to-6 lower than Fox News. He claimed CNN reported this story on him to get cheap ratings and attention. He said it has backfired.
All his guests conveniently did not know what O'Reilly's racial comments were and dumfoundedly accepted his take on the whole event.
Al Sharpton said he hasn't heard the tape or the complete context but had issues with what he has read so far. Sharpton did not make any effort to question O'Reilly. Very puzzling and unexplainable? The lazy Sharpton should have been prepared for this.
Sharpton said he would listen to the entire tape later and then address it with Bill. Bill then ordered him to go after groups like Media Matters, MoveOn and CNN. Bill agreed to continue Enabling Sharpton by having him on the Factor and Dinner every year.
Dennis Miller, the not so funny comedian, was on the show to help Bill with the attack on Media Matters. Dennis advised Bill to ignore the whole Media Matters thing. He said he hasn't heard the comments but supports Bill anyway.
Tammy Bruce, Fox Damage Control Girl, was there to attack Media Matters and MoveON. She called them very dangerous. Bruce called MM a Media Gastopo Group and MoveOn a Political Gastopo Group.
Today if Jackson confronts O'Reilly the microphone will probably be silenced.
It'd be fun if Jessie Jackson brings a taser and O'Reilly says, "Don't Tazz Me Bro!" and "Don't Expose Me Bro!" Don't tell anyone i'm a disgusting racist.
Is there a reason why matt lauer and NBC's Today show chose not to air o'reilly's recorded comments in this segment?
It's right there in the screen-shot, as a subtitle to the little discussion they had: "Did Harlem Comments Cross The Line?"
Why ask such a question about the "comments", and then neglect to simply air the record of those comments?
Isn't it better to just make people the judge themselves, and air the comments for them, so that they can decide for themselves?
Isn't it typical of a worthless "media", to neglect such first-hand evidence, and instead put in it's place, the opinions of three talking heads?
That actually highlights and makes worthy what MMFA did, over what NBC's Today show did: MMFA presented to you o'reilly's recorded comments; NBC in this instance did not.
In MMFA's presentation of the matter, you hear o'reilly's comments for yourself, and you become the judge...
In NBC's presentation, you are denied the first-hand evidence, the recorded comments, and offered in their place instead, the opinions of three talking heads.
Is there a reason for that?
It seems typical of this worthless "media".
This is a very good point. Why DIDN'T they present the clip?
The most charitable (!) answer I can give is that they didn't have the time to play it "in context," but far more likely is the fact that if they actually played the thing, and the extremely condescending tone of voice O'Reilly has each time he says "Blaaacks," I think it would shoot through the argument that he is being tolerant!!
Yes, to the charitable reason you think of, about a time constraint. I'd only say that they (NBC's Today show) found the time to give not one not two but three person's opinions on someone's comments, but couldn't find the time to give the commenst themselves.
Me, I'll always prefer first to hear what a person said, over hearing someone's opinion about it instead (it's called "hear-say" in a Court of Law, and they don't allow it).
As for the less charitable reason why o'reilly's comments weren't aired in this Today show segment?
How about neglecting to include in your argument, the very evidence that might disprove it!
I like the timeliness of the posting of this item: The item is time-stamped 10:04 AM EDT, which if I'm understanding things right, is just an hour or so after the NBC Today show segment aired.
A quick response. That's good.
I've always wondered why it took more than a day sometime, for MMFA to cite misinformation broadcast on television. It's best to spot a bad job, while the paint is still wet.
MMFA was lightning fast on this one. Good job.
Well, yeah. MMFA spotted this immediately, well because that third talking head you mentioned earlier is a senior fellow for MMFA.
I'd have titled the above item...
NBC Today Show Pretends to Discuss o'reilly Comments; Neglects to Air those Comments, Instead Substituting Opinions of Three Talking Heads
...instead of titling it to cite the biased metaphor used by an MMFAer, about "bank robbery" (What bank was robbed? Who robbed it? Doesn't anybody find the metaphor of criminal activity a little over-the-top here?)
And I'd have made the substance of the item or citation, that a "media" show asks it's audience a question about someone's comments ("Did Harlem Comments Cross The Line?"), and then chooses not to offer any evidence of those comments, but simply the opinions of "pundits" instead.
That's a major problem with the televised "media": presenting opinions about facts, in place of the facts themselves.
In a Court of Law, if someone alleges Slander or Libel or Fraud or Threat or even Perjury (or any other thing that someone has communicated), then the Court requires hearing the communication, hearing the thing being alleged; the Court requires evidence of the Slander etc., and does not except in it's place, some person's or any number of person's opinion on the matter...
Can you imagine yourself to be found to have Slandered someone, and yet in the proceeding it was neglected to have heard, what it was you said...
...and in it's place was presented instead, the opinions of talking heads?
Just indicating the possible reason for the lightening fast response on this item.
I don’t really care if some idiot doesn’t mean to be offensive or not. It’s a racist statement even if it’s not overtly so and even if it’s “meant as a complement.” It’s kind of like that “I’m not racist; a good friend of mine is black” kind of thing. Kinda reminds me of the racism portrayed by some of the characters in Faulkner’s or O’Connor’s books.
Ya know what I’m saying?
truthfully i don't think media matter did anything wrong... what Bill said was a bit.. un.... delicate, but that's really all. His words weren't taken out of context.. and I didn't hear him say anything abou this grandmother.
in a way it is sort of a "gotcha" approach.. but it's an honest one without any spinning or bias. How Bill handled it show a bit of a bad side.... which is why i don't watch him...
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Hey, Media Matters, where were you when Glenn Beck compared Elvira Arellano, an illegal alien and twice convicted felon to Rosa Parks?!?! On an August 30th show, Beck called the little segment, "The Next Rosa Parks?" and when on to say "Elvira may just end up being the Rosa parks of illegal immigration." Now THAT is offensive!
When did that happen? I'd think MM would have been all over that one.
The progressive movement supports undocumented immigration, so why would they post an article on that?
No they don't, we support getting rid of the red tape republicans created and making for a more fair, streamlined process to allow people to come here legally. But I see you just supported another stereotype, so why aren't you defending bill?
You have got to be kidding !!! Did you see this show. Are you aiming your comments to those who do not have time to watch various news and opinion shows, those who would take your word at face value, to sway their opinion for furture use. What you are doing is very dangerous, and dishonest!!! Be honest to your readers and tell them your true agenda, you dislike FOX News and Bill O'Reilly, I saw the the segment Bill did with Juan Williams and apparently you did not.
Are you aiming YOUR comments at the KKK? Why not come out and admit you do NOT have amazing mind reading powers so your attempt to assign motives you cannot POSSIBLY KNOW are so much hoooey?
It was painfully obvious from watching the Today Show that indeed MMFA is doing its best to further misconceptions regarding BillO's remarks. No where could I see where Bill is being racist or condescending. He is simply tearing away at some ridiculously false stereotypes of blacks.
I thought Waldman was being disingenuous by relying on the trope that in essence said MMFA simply puts out the transcripts. Obviously MMFA has a progressive/liberal agenda and selectively publishes transcript segments along with links and rants designed to further that agenda. To try to come across as a non-partisan chronicler is simply laughable.
Good grief! Walman never said he was a "non-partisan chronicler." Nor does this website make that claim.
>>No where could I see where Bill is being racist or condescending.
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 patronship.
Right. Except for those words. But why should I be surprised from a poster who thinks the N-word is the same as legitimate criticism?
funnyman,
I was simply referring to the impression Waldman was trying to get across on the Today show by his repeated defense that MMFA simply publishes the transcripts and shows the videos. I know what they say about themselves. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall Waldman this morning clarifying to the Today Show's audience MMFA's stated purpose for being.
As for my comments on another thread, You seem to not get it. Saying that someone is "a total disgrace in every sense of the word" is not, at least in my book, legitimate criticism. I view it as a disparaging remark.
>>I was simply referring to the impression Waldman was trying to get across on the Today show by his repeated defense that MMFA simply publishes the transcripts and shows the videos.
No you aren't. You also said you couldn't see where what O'Reilly said was racist.
>>Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall Waldman this morning clarifying to the Today Show's audience MMFA's stated purpose for being.
Yes, you are wrong. Lauer introduced MMFA as the liberal watchdog group. Walman did not contradict Laurer. Are you suggesting that Walman has to open every comment with "We are a liberal watchdog group?"
"Saying that someone is "a total disgrace in every sense of the word" is not, at least in my book, legitimate criticism. I view it as a disparaging remark. "
Yes, well not everyone reads your book. I doubt if you surveyed educated people (say, professors), any of them would agree that such a remark is not legitimate. It is polite, it does not use any bomb words, it does not resort to ad hominem. But that is not even the point. You said that using the phrae "a total disgrace in every sense of the words," is the same as using the N-word. No wonder why you can't see O'Reilly's racism.
funnymanpants,
I am at a loss as to why you are intent on misconstruing my comments and simply responding to your note.
I watched the Today Show this morning and I know how Lauer introduced it. Your rebuttal only offering Lauer's introduction does not negate my impression of of Waldman's performance.
Yes, we do disagree in this case on what constitutes a polite remark. In my view, calling someone a total disgrace is anything but polite. And yes it was ad hominum. There was nothing in the original comment that backed up this insult.
As one last bit of clarification. I never argued that the two insults were the same, only similar. Feel free to think differently.
I have been emphatic that the use of the 'n' word is unacceptable at all times. I think we are in agreement on that.
Too funny. There are far better, respectful ways to say what you claim he is trying to do. No, when you speak in a condescending manner, you are speaking from your beliefs. Bill just outed himself.
A new bumper sticker for bill: Racist - the other white bill
I simply don't get why everyone insists on calling Bill a racist when he is using this example to decry racist misconceptions.
It seems obvious to me that Bill was simply dispelling some misperceptions others might have who have never been to a predominately black run/patronized restaurant. He simply set up the misperceptions in order to explain how wrong they were.
One has to infer that Bill was genuinely surprised by his experience in the restaurant and completely ignore his ending remarks in order to argue he is racist. To do otherwise is to take his remarks out of context.
Like I said many times, I am no fan of Bill and do not watch his show, but in this case, as the Today Show illustrated, MMFA misinterpreted Bill's comments and by dogmatically sticking to its storyline, looked pretty bad in the Today Show segment.
"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."
That's O'Reilly stating his own personal viewpoint. He is saying that he personally could not get over that lack of difference. He didn't say "some might be surprised", he was talking about himself personally.
What context is there to change this? Be specific.
Its all in perception. I thought he was exaggerating and using hyperbole to set up his point later that there was nothing different about this restaurant. I do question Bill's judgment and I personally don't care for him. But from the context of the snippet, it is obvious to me that he is arguing against bigoted preconceptions rather than fostering them. It is evident by his last sentence or two. Don't you see that?
So in other words, you don't have any specifics. You don't actually have an argument.
His last sentence or two...you mean this? "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."
And the lack of craziness is noteworthy...why? What does he expect in a black restaurant?
Yes, he talks about how all of them are the same, but he's still talking about how he himself personally is surprised by the evidence of this. This wasn't put in the context of "this is something I've been telling you racists all along", it was "I can't get over...". We're supposed to believe that he wasn't surprised at all, even though he said he was, for what purpose? Because he thought this would be big news to his audience?
I guess if you're determined to give O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt, no matter what he actually said, then that's your right. But it doesn't make a convincing argument. Sort of like how Limbaugh wasn't so far out of line because he never said "faked", just "acted".
It's just your spin.
And you thought that despite the FACT the words he used dont support that because...Oh yeah because you WISH it were true.
I simply don't get why everyone insists on calling Bill a racist when he is using this example to decry racist misconceptions.
AA, he was using examples of what he expected to find to let folks know that's not what he found, that's why he was SUPRISED!
The examples of what Bill thought black folks would be doing were provided by Bill and Bill only!
I am very disappointed at Waldman's appearance. He came off looking wrong. Lauer asked him if O'Reilly's comments were in fact racist, of his words were taken out of context. Instead of answering the question, Walman switched the topic to O'Reilly's reaction. It looked like Walkman was guilty of what Lauer accused him of, taking the words out of context.
Waldman should have said something like "The words that O'Reilly used were condescending and offensive. It amazes me that a news figure in New York would be surprised that Blacks act the same as Whites. This is what Bill said. These are his own words, not taken out of context. This is why people all over the media spectrum, including conservatives at CNN are appalled at O'Reilly's behavior."
Waldman gave that Repub spokesperson an easy job. O'Reilly's comments would have been hard to defend.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty disingenuous for Waldman to say, effectively, that "Hey, all we did is post it and let the public decide." Right. Post it in a way that draws attention to it, cite other instances where they think O'Reilly was being racist, etc.
Why is MMfA scared of being publicly progressive?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
MM is acting like a whiny infant trying to brew up a "controversy" and get O'Reilly thrown off the air. Sorry, folks. It ain't happenin'. MM, CNN, and NBC have been exposed for their "rank dishonesty." / - shoes89 / Wednesday September 26, 2007 10:17:36 AM EST
I admit a slant, Air America Radio admits a slant, all progressive or liberal media formats be they radio, tv, or print proudly admits a progressive slant. The thing is that while they admit the slant in views, they are persistant in basing their views on facts, and the truth. You'll see a Thom Hartman debating a Republican or Neo-Con of any bent in a fair exchange of views, a kind of thing seldom seen on the Right-Wing media whom seem to be bent on convincing people they are not what they are, Neo-Cons.
Media pundits on the three major networks feel compelled to way 2/1 conservatives to liberals as the reality seems to be a ally of the liberal needing another voice to keep the distortion in tact!
Media Matters admits an exaggeration, a off-colored remark from their own, and they are the first to admit it. You would find alternate explanations as you view the posting only minutes after the deed.
This falls in line with Bill O'Reilley trying to conflate his remarks as a "hathcet-job," and yet Bill elaborated about having not heard black people being loud, or unruly as yelling obscenities across the room, and conflating this with civil rights leaders, and rap music's influence on black people. He wants to split hairs when he broad strokes a whole race as unruly, and ignorant in public!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Gee, maybe we've learned something from the way the GOP gins up completely phony controversies like the "Betray Us" ad.
Well I can tell you its offensive whether he meant it to be or not. It was a condescending comment at the LEAST....the fact that he didn't even realize with his little white man ego that he was being condescending is typical of the holier than thou types.
Im white, some of my grandchildren are mixed black and white. What the hell kind of message does our airwaves want to portray.
Surprise at blacks acting like human beings.....
Its no wonder people are moving away from fox in droves, they are snobs, and holier than thou types, and people are sick unto death of these types of "opinions and ops" that fox continues to say is "fair and balanced".
It is evidenced in the people they support and the "news" they cover.
Right on Loralei.
I walked into a Jewish restaurant and I was AMAZED to find that the people didn't have horns and they weren't killing Christians in the back room. It seemed just like a white restaurant. Incredible! Of course I mean this is a positive way about Jews. I can't understand why anyone would think I am saying anything bad about Jews. They took it out of context.
Excellent! We should use this as the standard response to all those claiming O'Reilly was taken out of context.
There is something knawing at me about the WHOLE Bill O'Reilly and Fox News (?) thing. BillO LOVES this! He is getting more publicity from MMFA than any of Fox's high-priced PR hacks. While we have to applaude MM for keeping an eye on this dangerous and un-american rant-meister, at the same time I worry that perhaps we just extend his forum. By making O'Reilly an "underdog" we might be creating actual sympathy for him. He is obvious in his wild sputterings, but I am much more concerned about the ligit news personalities (if there are any) with their more subtle, if unintended, lapses into false reporting. CNN, ABC, CBS, the NY Times, etc. seem to just drop the ball on getting it right. O'Reilly is NOT going away. He is a BIG star.
Yes, he was patronizing, yes, he was condescending, but he is that way with everything! He is THE spokesman for a certain segment of the population who share his extreme rightist views.
BillO LOVES this! He is getting more publicity from MMFA than any of Fox's high-priced PR hacks.
No, I believe it is the other way around. Billo has 12 million viewers and every time he actually mentions MMFA a few of them come here and see the actual content. It was better for him when he could get away with NOT mentioning the actual name of this site.
I wonder if MMFA reported on the subtle racist remark made by Keith Olbermarx? On 9-9-07, while doing play by play football highlights, K.O. described a reception by AA Buffalo Bills WR Roscoe Parrish as, "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles at it's finest." If we're going to be hyper-sensitive about racial remarks, let's include ALL of them.
Quick, look over there, somewhere there is a liberal doing SOMETHING wrong, look for that.
Whatever. Unlike BillO, KO isn't suprised by the humanity of people that look and speak differently than he.
"Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles at it's finest."
FYI, it is another black owned and operated restaurant in Los Angeles. Having eaten there many times I can tell you that they serve great fried chicken & waffles.
I'm sure Bill would be surprised that it too serves great food in a clean environment and the customers don't curse.
There's a Roscoe's in Long Beach, too, Pearlene(closer to me). Good food, and the white people who eat there are surprisingly well behaved.
Okay, THAT is funny, not to mention true. Bravo, Waldman.
Hmm now that's my MMFA, all the usual suspects are now predictably defending Bill O'rielly's statement. Oh yeah Bill is just another WCM caught in the snares of the PC police that of course are manned by African Americans with a chips on their shoulders and Whites suffering from Liberal guilt. BTW Fox's deployment of Juan Williams as Bill’s Black friend to defend him was masterful .
BTW Fox's deployment of Juan Williams as Bill’s Black friend to defend him was masterful .
Not to mention being Brit Hume's usual punching bag on Sundays! He's good at that too, let's not forget.
TheBlackCommentator exposed Juan Williams for being the closet-conservative a long time ago. He's just like Joe Klein, but sneakier. I'm just happy that he's showing his colors -- pardon the pun -- more and more on air as the years go by.
not really, the deployment was obvious rather than masterful.
I pity you people at Media Matters.
That makes us even I pity people like YOU
Why??
He hates us for our honesty and quest to know the truth. Sheeple can't stand people like us.
This is MMFA on a witch-hunt. Plain and simple. And I think we all will realize it in the next couple of days as this story fades into oblivion, Billy O becomes the benefactor of higher ratings because he is "controversial" all of the sudden, and MMFA (and all of it's loyals) are left crying like a bunch of spoiled children while the whole world collectively stops listening to them.
OH look, name jacker offering the right wing commentary again. Wrongo, name jacker. The only people who will fade this out are the 30% of the country that make up the republican base. Everyone else will call it out loud and clear that O'Reilly is at best ignorant, but most likely a racist.
And I think I am reading a lot of WWWAAAHHHHH stop pointing out Billys racists stupidity WWAAAHHHH from you. I dont think Billy will get fired. I think this stain will remain. His ratings mean NOTHING he is dwarfed by the Networks AND a cartoon sponge. Doesnt mean a thing. There are several places to go to get balanced news and only ONE place to go to get the preaching to the choir Fox brand rightwing propaganda so while the others split the reasonable viewers Fox has a monopoly on the neandrathals. This simple. Bill act like racist jerk. MMFA call Bill on acting like racist jerk. Its what they do. Just like being a racist jerk is what Billy does
You people are all idiots. From the poster who could name Paul Waldman but not the Republican strategist (calling him the African American - whose name is Joe Watkins) to the people assailing Juan Williams because he is on the payroll of Fox News (he is also on the payroll of NPR). Funny how nobody assailed Paul Waldman because he is on the payroll of Media Matters!!
There was nothing rascist in the remarks. When Sharpton comes on O'Reilly tonight and says there was nothing rascist, you can all then yell that Al has been bought off. It is true that racism is in the eye of the beholder, but some people see it in everything.
You people really need to get a life.
Oh, lookey everyone! We just got scolded by another O'Reilly apologist who thinks that kind of racist talk is the proper way to discuss race relations in this country. I'm so glad that all that condescension is really for our own good! Thankeee, mister!
Snoopy as I've read through the post looks like Bill and Fox has his staff posting just so he can use them on his show tonight. I was going to respond to some but these guys will only raise my blood pressure. I better wait till after lunch when I've had a glass of wine. ;-)
My hats off to you on your extra sensory powers. Either that or you work for MMFA and have inside information as to who logs in. Which is it?
AA, it's that old black magic.
I second the notation that you are a complete and utter MORON!
Most of these poster have NEVER been here before and all of a sudden they appear to praise Bill and find fault with MMFA? Pleaseeeee As my grandson would say GTFOH
You are a complete MORON and need to get a functioning cerebral cortex. I dont care WHAT Sharpton says. He doesnt speak for me and I can judge O'falafels words all on my own. Being an adult who doesnt need rightwing screechmonkeys or anyone else to do my thinking for me. Try it some time you MIGHT like it. Then again that does require higher brain function and I dont think you have the requisite equipment
Anyone who disagrees with you is a brainwashed moron sent here by Rush and Hannity. Meanwhile, you have such a tight poodle-hug on Paul Waldman's leg, you couldn't be pulled off with a crowbar.
Typical of you weak minded wingnuts you take ME to task for insulting Thark who began his post by saying WE were all idiots. Try ONCE thinking for yourself it might hurt at first to use those synapses for the first time but its REWARDING take it from me.
How are your thoughts any different than Waldman or Alterman? You repeat everything they write. Pot meet kettle.
So we are on the same page ideologically. Who cares I notice I am not using THEIR arguments. Meanwhile the look over there at some mean liberal somewhere IS standard propaganda parrot 101
That's rich. How does your argument differ from Waldman's? You have been parroting the same talking points all day that he issued-OReilly's a racist and Fox News is covering for him. Now, how is that different from what you accuse conservatives of doing?
You need a refersher course in reading comprehension. OF COURSE I am arguing that O'falafel made a racist statement that is clear to anyone with two working braincells. Waldemans argument is that OReilly always claims he is taken out of context. I specified that it was the patronizing and condescending statements he made the astonishment that Black act like real people. Of course overall we see things the same way. WE arent twisting logic or reality into a pretzel to appologize for the weasel. The wingnuts came in and used the SAME argument Juan did. The one NONE of you were making yesterday or the day before because you hadnt been told what to THINK yet. I blew that out of the water by showing that what you guys were CLAIMING as context was an added layer of condescension who else has made that argument? Show me where Waldeman or Alterman did. Ya got nothin and my guess is you WONT until ONE of your propaganda parrot masters GIVES it to you. Its pure projection on your part. Since you have no ABILITY to think you just assume us lefties also take our marching orders. Its stupid since the well known political axiom is that getting lefties to agree is like herding cats but then it IS what you were TOLD to think so there you go.
Thanks for chiding us idiots, thark21085341, but your "argument" is a bit flawed, and stupid. No one is assailing Paul Waldman because he is not desperately trying to defend racist comments, therefore his credibility is not being questioned. But you disagree that they were racist. Why is that? Please, I am anxious to know. :D
Is Media Matters doing a piece on the extraordinarily biased "interview" by Matt Lauer? His treatment of this story was a complete whitewash of Bill O'Rielly's controversial (at best) statements. His defense of O'Rielly was vigorous and obvious. He answered the questions he asked as he asked them. All the republican talking head had to do was agree!
Snoopy - your remarks would carry more weight if they weren't riddled with condescension. You are one of the many here that deserve pity. Your lives are so consumed with hate and self-righteousness that blurrs your thinking. I recommend some therapy. In the meantime - I and the majority of America will continue to go to work, and when we have time, pity you and those of your ilk.
Hey moron. Your pity is misplaced. You should increase your medication and stop repeating the ignorant hate mantra. I know it is this months assignment for all you wingnuts to repeat at every opportunity that us liberals are so hatefilled but its DUMB. Your koolaid intake has reached toxic levels. The extra points are NOT rewarded for the cliched liberals dont work stupidity. Koolaid is bad for your braincells and you dont have any to spare.
Solon,
I enjoyed reading your calm and well reasoned post on why progressives here are not hateful.
;-)
The post he responded to was hateful.
You reap what you sow. Where did that phrase come from, again?
Fighting fire with fire isnt hateful. Its a moral imperative
My, that was so condescending. I appreciate your false sense of pity, Birkenau.
Hey instead of pitty send a check instead. It would be much more appreciated.
Congratulations to Paul Waldman.
For those of you saying O'Reilly's remarks are "racist", I don't see it.
And I have to point out that I don't see anything posted by Media Matters that suggests racism. I'm certain that Paul Waldman didn't accuse O'Reilly of -ANYTHING-.
Waldman very adroitly said, "We just post what O'Reilly said". It appears to me that the one who brought up racism was O'Reilly himself.
But what is most important is how ignorant the clip makes O'Reilly sound. It reminds me of then Bush Sr went to the grocery story and saw a price scanner for the first time. Hillarious!!!
What I found most disappointing about the Today interview was the position taken by Mat Laurer. His questions were direct attacks on Mr. Waldman and tried very hard to smear Media Matters.
Media Matters actually does the "We report, you decide" thing much much better than Fox!! :-)
You dont see how O'Reillys astonishment that black people actually act as if they were decent human beings with an understanding of decorum and that a black owned restaurant is like all the other restaurants is racist?
Don't you understand? Bill O'Reilly has is not a racist! He's an arrogant fool who's used to getting his own way through bullying! Nothing like Bull Connor at all! What the hell's the matter with you people!!!
The black Republican is completely understandable, but it's Lauer who's the real stooge. Doesn't he hear Fox denouncing his entire network, accusing them of dastardly political motives? Doesn't he hear the crap he says every night? But then again, it's Lauer they go with when they want to interview Ann Coulter, too. Hmm. Maybe he's switching to Fox.
Brknarrw_20003494, that's an awfully condescending post.
I like the arguments being advanced that "Juan Williams is black, and he says it's okay." See, the black guy at Fox approves! Well, Juan is trying to sell a book that takes off on rappers because his kids are freaking him out. Juan is one very specific black person, and has his own point of view. It's kind of funny that Bill O goes to A Black Person, and if the Black Person thinks what he says it's all right, it must be all right. Some of his best friends--
The point that these guys totally miss because their mindset won't allow it is very simple: apologize for any misunderstandings and explain what you were trying to say. You know, be sincere and not a conspiratorial blowhard. After many years of Media Matters being some kind of sinister (Jewish) plot by Soros -- a guy that FOX says shouldn't have survived the Holocaust -- when Soros has not contributed at all to Media Matters, the sincere apology is out of the question.
ANOTHERAMERICAN wrote:
"One has to infer that Bill was genuinely surprised by his experience in the restaurant and completely ignore his ending remarks in order to argue he is racist. To do otherwise is to take his remarks out of context."What part of "I couldn't get over [meaning "I was surprised/shocked/amazed"] 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." is not clear to you? He said, quite clearly that HE was amazed that he was in a restaurant full of black folks, owned by black folks, and everyone was acting like grown-up, civilized human beings. I don't think there's any other inference one can take from those words.
[insert paragraph break before "What part of . . ."]
I am not a crook (Richard Nixon).
I am not gay (Larry Craig).
I am not a racist (Bill O'Reilly).
I won a Peabody award (Bill O'Reilly).
I never said I won a Peabody Award (Bill O'Reilly).
The depressing truth is that I am more inclined to believe Craig or Nixon before I would believe anything O'Reilly says.
Has anyone else noticed the Today Show's is morphing into another Fox cable network? Last week both Meredith V. and Matt "Burrhead" Lauer were acting as cheerleaders for Bush's "surge." Prior to the O'Reilly segment this morning they had neo-con Fox regular Bill Kristol commenting on the Democratic candidates without out identifying him as a founding member of PNAC. O'Reilly himself is a frequent guest on Today lately. Lauer was clearly supporting his buddy BO and attacking MMFA this morning. My favorite Today interview was when Michael Moore put Lauer on the defensive by pointing out Matt's cozy relationship with the Bush family. Matt got very defensive and cut the interview short.
I've tried for 2 years to get CNN to expose Fox News and O'Reilly. They finally did it.
In his first segment yesterday O'Reilly began with an untruthful, disgraceful and shameful attack on Media Matters as a media watchdog group that has never exposed a Democratic Liberal Commentator.
But they have smeared most Republicans. (Go Figure)
O'Reilly then lined up all the news outlets that reported his comments truthfully and leveled attacks on them. He listed and praised the outlets that ignored his racial comments.
He singled out CNN, who he says have ratings 1-to-6 lower than Fox News. He claimed CNN reported this story on him to get cheap ratings and attention. He said it has backfired.
All his guests conveniently didn't know what O'Reilly's racial comments were and dumfoundedly accepted his take on the whole event.
Al Sharpton said he hasn't heard the tape or the complete context but had issues with what he has read so far. Sharpton did not make any effort to question O'Reilly. Very puzzling and unexplainable? The lazy Sharpton should have been prepared for this.
Sharpton said he would listen to the entire tape later and then address it with Bill. Bill then ordered him to go after groups like Media Matters, MoveOn and CNN. Bill will of course continue Enabling Sharpton by having him on the Factor and Dinner every year.
Dennis Miller, the not so funny comedian, was on the show to help Bill with the attack on Media Matters. Dennis advised Bill to ignore the whole Media Matters thing. He said he hasn't heard the comments but supports Bill anyway.
Tammy Bruce, Fox Damage Control Girl, was there to attack Media Matters and MoveON. She called them very dangerous. Bruce called Media Matters a Media Gestapo Group and MoveOn a Political Gestapo Group.
Today if Jackson confronts O'Reilly the microphone will probably be silenced. It'd be fun if Jessie Jackson brings a taser and O'Reilly says, "Don't Tazz Me Bro!" and "Don't Expose Me Bro!" Don't tell anyone i'm a disgusting racist.
-Sam I Am-
Paul Waldman stated on the Today Show that Media Matters had put up the "full" transcript and audio of the September 19th broadcast of O'Reillys radio show. I looked for it on your site, but only found audio that was not of the full broadcast unlike (Bill O'Reillys) site that has the "full" audio of that 9/19 broadcast.
I was also unable to find a "full" transcript on the Media Matters site of that 9/19 braodcast. I understand that Media Matters kept the sequence of the conversation in tact, but it would have been a good idea to have had the full transcript and audio posted somewhere considering what was stated by Paul Waldman on the Today Show.