On O'Reilly Factor, Bruce called Media Matters the "media Gestapo" and MoveOn.org "the political Gestapo"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly hosted Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce to talk about what O'Reilly called "[t]he far-left Internet sites" such as Media Matters for America who "are in the business to smear any and all commentators who do not toe the liberal line." In response, Bruce said, "I think most of us who are in the public eye have got to call attention to the real story, which is the fact that a Gestapo has emerged in America. If you'll notice, the attacks on you mirror the attacks on General [David] Petraeus. And you have a media Gestapo in Media Matters, and then you have the political Gestapo in MoveOn.org."
During the September 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce -- a self-described "openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist" -- to talk about what O'Reilly called "[t]he far-left Internet sites" such as Media Matters for America who "are in the business to smear any and all commentators who do not toe the liberal line." In response, Bruce said, "I think most of us who are in the public eye have got to call attention to the real story, which is the fact that a Gestapo has emerged in America. If you'll notice, the attacks on you mirror the attacks on General [David] Petraeus. And you have a media Gestapo in Media Matters, and then you have the political Gestapo in MoveOn.org."
Bruce continued: "And the intention is the same. The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to." She added: "It is a very serious dynamic. Now, the issues involved are almost irrelevant because the truth of the matter is, no matter what is said, no matter what is done, the Gestapo will find a way to move in some kind of element of demonization."
O'Reilly devoted a substantial portion of his September 26 program to attacking Media Matters, which documented O'Reilly's controversial September 19 comment about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem.
Concluding his discussion with Bruce, O'Reilly mused: "Isn't it depressing in a republic as strong as America that we have now the most corrupt media in the history of our country. That's a little depressing to me, Tammy." Bruce replied: "Well, it is, but it also then shines the light on the media that we can trust like Fox, frankly."
From the September 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment, tonight. The far-left Internet sites are in the business to smear any and all commentators who do not toe the liberal line. In the past year, Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times. Glenn Beck has been smeared 92 times. Rush Limbaugh, 87 times. And Sean Hannity, 75 times. Not one liberal radio commentator has been smeared by Media Matters.
Joining us now from Los Angeles, radio talk-show star Tammy Bruce, who's also been attacked by that smear factory.
OK. Commentators are attacked by this. We know this. We ignore it most of the time until CNN or another, what they call, mainstream media outlet picks it up. But some people are saying, "Look, O'Reilly, you should just ignore this. You shouldn't do anything about it." I'm attacking it, obviously. How do you see it?
BRUCE: Well, it is actually very serious. And the real story is -- and I think those of us who are in the public eye have got to call attention to the real story, which is the fact that a Gestapo has emerged in America. If you'll notice, the attacks on you mirror the attacks on General Petraeus. And you have a media Gestapo in Media Matters, and then you have the political Gestapo in MoveOn.org. And the intention is the same. The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to.
It is a very serious dynamic. Now, the issues involved are almost irrelevant because the truth of the matter is, no matter what is said, no matter what is done, the Gestapo will find a way to move in some kind of element of demonization, especially as we move into this election year. And it is -- when it comes to the military, when it comes to government, or especially with you, in this case, an individual who is independent from either party line and who is likely to be listened to more seriously than other people.
O'REILLY: OK. Now, how do you handle it then when a CBS morning news -- totally irresponsible, the correspondent didn't listen to the tape. The anchor who did the interview links it up to an Imus. You know, this Media Matters is --
BRUCE: Sure.
O'REILLY: -- the same people that got Imus. Now, they know that's dishonest. CNN from the jump knew it was dishonest because I told them.
BRUCE: Sure.
O'REILLY: And they didn't care. CNN, we know because they're getting hammered in the ratings 6 to 1 by us. So we know why they do it. But how do you handle a CBS morning news?
BRUCE: Well, you -- this is actually a gift. And I know it probably doesn't feel that way --
O'REILLY: No, it does. I agree with you.
BRUCE: -- to those of use who have been targets.
O'REILLY: It is a gift, absolutely.
BRUCE: It's a gift because what it does is it swings the curtain back. I -- when I was in the left, it's known as the network. Literally, a network of outlets that then follow the lead of who it is that's leading the charge, whether it be The New York Times or, in this instance, Media Matters or MoveOn.org. And what Americans need to realize, and I think what commentators have a duty to do, is remind people what the real story is, which is this is an opportunity to see how that network operates, how it exists, especially as Americans have to listen to establishment media for news about an election and for decisions they make. So it's a real opportunity to show who is part of the network, who is playing that role, who is a water carrier and who isn't. And I think that you, as a lightning rod, is a perfect example for most people about the agenda is of the Gestapo and how it can be stopped.
O'REILLY: Sure, and the reason it's a gift is because we have the tape. And anybody --
BRUCE: Yes.
O'REILLY: -- can go to BillOReilly.com and hear the whole thing. And there's no two sides to the story. There's no debate.
BRUCE: Well, it's context.
O'REILLY: Right.
BRUCE: No, it's context, and the other issue is always --
O'REILLY: But isn't it depressing --
BRUCE: Uh-huh.
O'REILLY: -- isn't it depressing in a republic as strong as America that we have now the most corrupt media in the history of our country. That's a little depressing to me, Tammy.
BRUCE: Well, it is, but it also then shines the light on the media that we can trust like Fox, frankly.
His show was so funny tonight, one of the best in ages. He's really blowing his top over being accurately quoted! Shame on you Media Matters!
OLielly was indeed accurately quoted, but apparently deliberately misconstrued. If you listen to the whole comment, it's pretty clear that he is lambasting some white people who assume that all blacks behave like the idiots in rap videos. Using that to make olielly look racist (or more so than he actually is) is really pulling a "fox" on him. Sure, it's nice to say "now you know how it feels, bill", but it would be nicer to just be above that.
Olielly is a total ass-munch, like the rest of fox, and the sooner he and the rest of them are gone, the better for America. But he can supply all the real rope he needs to hang himself. Media Matters MUST do better than this.
As soon as FOX is gone ?? to bad, they have more viewers/listners than others, sometimes by 6 to 1 in the 8pm EST time slot.
You didn't hear the whole program did you???
His comment was about marketing aproach by a business that wasn't slanted as it might be in an Italian rest. etc ........
And that whites shouldn't be afraid because of negative stereotypes that he and Williams were talking about...!
No they werent. This has been explained ad naseum. And Fox is still TROUNCED by the networks not even a good try.
Tammy, you're not helping.
Does the frame above showing Bruce's face remind anyone else of The Scream?
"O'REILLY: -- isn't it depressing in a republic as strong as America that we have now the most corrupt media in the history of our country. That's a little depressing to me, Tammy.
BRUCE: Well, it is, but it also then shines the light on the media that we can trust like Fox, frankly.
Do they have coed padded cells somewhere for these two?
Do they have coed padded cells somewhere for these two?
Yes. With a good supply of falafels....
:-)
Well, I have to agree. The first time I heard of MMFA 7 years ago, it seemed like a respectable liberal organization. Now it it getting ridiculous.
I dare I dare I dare MMFA to play Juan Williams' response to MMFA and the O'Reilly comments.
You won't because he destroys you.
Are you talking about the Juan Williams who accuses people who quote O'Reilly verbatim of wanting to shut down the dialogue on race in this country?
Anyway it's been posted here already:
[link to mediamatters.org]
Knock yourself.
out.
No he doesnt stop dreaming. Juan is not the final word on the matter. Its so funny to hear you guys say listen to THIS repsonse or what THIS guy said. Billys words are RIGHT THERE. IF you cant defend them then thats pretty much the ballgame. Your arguments are so weak its hilarious.
"I dare I dare I dare MMFA to play Juan Williams' response to MMFA and the O'Reilly comments."
Why would MMFA do that? Posting O'Reilly's racist commentary is all they have to do.
I guess that's the standard for calling misinformation on MMFA, as several righty's have linked to Williams' response as clearing BilldO;
MMFA can post quotes, video, audio, transcripts, whatever- but if they don't also post somebody arguing that those quotes are not what we see and hear, and BS an explanation as to why, it's not fair.
I am glad the posters who found Juan Williams explanation (through complete avoidance of the issue) satisfactory came here to admit it. I watch these spin jobs , and always ask myself "who the hell is buying that?"
Fortunately, they log in here, and volunteer.
The propaganda parrots of the right have gotten lazy. Instead of REPEATING what they masters tell them to think they just REFER us to what they were told to think
I dare I dare I dare MMFA to play Juan Williams' response to MMFA and the O'Reilly comments.
You won't because he destroys you.
When did Juan Williams become the spokesman for ALL African Americans? I thought according to Bill "we are thinking for our selves". Better go check back with Bill for your response.
The first time you heard of MMFA 7 years ago? What? The organization was founded in 2004!
Did you just make that up to pretent that once you supported them?
Are you accusing Copiousconsent of making something up? Oh, you've been to the site. ;0)
"Tammy Bruce -- a [link to tammybruce.com] title="http://tammybruce.com/biography.php">self-described 'openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist'"
She's a walking contradiction.
Very much so. Maybe she's a libertarian, but being a feminist and conservative doesn't mesh well with me. Feminism was the antithesis to conservatism; therefore I'm trying to understand how she's trying to juggle being both.
LOONZ:
Tammy, a contradiction? I beg to differ. She represents what has been called "the world's oldest profession". As long as the cash is delivered, she can become anything her "john" wants her to be. A cheerleader? A dominatrix? When the cash is good, she will perform, becoming whatever is paid for.
Rightwing media pays very well, and the propaganda they demand is predictable. Check all integrity at the door.
Yes, well do I remember when MMFA invaded Poland. And who can forget when they, just like the Gestapo, chucked their enemies into all those concentration camps.
Tammy Bruce, as some of you may remember, made quite a living for herself by showing up on Fox as a self-proclaimed "liberal," "progressive," and "life-long Democrat" who, of course, only spouted the Bush line and who in reality attacked anything remotely progressive. When finally pressed on just how she considered herself a liberal by Alan Colmes, she stated that she was a classical liberal. Colmes' reply was pretty funny, and along the lines of "ah, so you would have been a liberal in 1870." Bruce's shtick has always been in dishonestly representing herself in the marketplace of ideas, and she's never struck me as being particularly bright.
"And the intention is the same. The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to." She added: "It is a very serious dynamic. Now, the issues involved are almost irrelevant because the truth of the matter is, no matter what is said, no matter what is done, the Gestapo will find a way to move in some kind of element of demonization."
Let me see, who was it that made "liberal" a dirty word? Who was it that changed the meaning of gay to include bestiality and sex with minors? Who was it who marginalized the entire hispanic population by demeaning their desire to speak spanish and maintain some of their traditions?
Turd bucket accurately described the GOP, and turd for brains lapped it up because it was just what he wanted to hear.
She is a joke. I find it also hilarious that E.D. Hill, who sits on O'Reilly's lap during his radio show like a ventriloquist dummy agreeing with his every word, claims she is a democrat as well. O'Reilly tries to point to Alan Colmes and Greta Van Susteren as proof of Fox's fairness. Believe it or not he also says Shepard Smith and BRIT HUME are also proof that Fox is not a conservative news outlet. He once said it is "traditional" but not conservative. There are some pathetic people out there who continue to respect this man.
If a person goes into an Italian restaurant and doesn't see "red and white checked table clothes" on the table and says that is "Surprising", are they racist? If a person goes in to a Mexican Restaurant and doesn't get "chips and salsa" at their table and says that's "Surprising",are they racist? Remember people you can only get offended if you let yourself get offended.
The idea that Bill was responding to the cuisine rather than the behavior of the staff/patrons is a pathetic after-the-fact justification and doesn't wash. Bill also added that there were no people at Sylvia's yelling "bring me the ice tea, Mofo."
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that Bill was correct to be suprised that nobody was yelling MF across the room and that that is the expected norm for a AA restuarant? If so you're a bigot just like Bill.
Lynn: I am not saying that Bill was correct at all. I was responding narrowly to the above post that was offering the justification that O'Reilly's offending remark was not surprise that an African American restaurant could be run just as well as any other restaurant, but that Bill was merely registering surprise that the food and decor there wasn't solely of an ethnic variety. I don't buy this explanation from Bill's supporters because later in the interview Bill was touting Sylvia's as a place where the African American clientelle weren't screaming obsenities to get their food (as though that were the expected norm). Bill was clearly talking about behavior and not the food/decor, as his defenders are trying to have people believe. I hope that clarifies my statement.
You are of course completely correct Howard. I just want to point out that Lynns post was NOT an answer to YOURS rather the Vg guy above yours
My point is that now a white person can't be "Surpised" refering to something that has something to do with a black person. Why?
So screaming MFer get me an ice tea and gee its just like any other restaurant are comparable to the color of the tablecloths? Do you guys ever just get embarassed with the weak BS you bring to the table?
I see now, with your comment, you didn't listen to the whole radio show in question. I see you pick and choose what you want to hear. The "MF" comment showed that not all black folks dress or act like the kids on the MTV. And you know with some white people (that don't interact with blacks) that's all they see as far as black culture. You know what I mean, the gangsta rap, and the flava flav show. The point is that a very small part of the black culture act in that way. And BTW doesn't it bother anyone that I'm the only one with a different oppinion than evryone else on this site?
That's right, Bill, attack others for your own stupidity. Call them names, too.
Even if you give O'Reilly just a small benefit of the doubt, that perhaps his evening at Sylvia's was an enlightening experience for him in his dumb-ass, white bread, Republican world, how stupid is this man to phrase his comments the way he did? And consider this: Bill O'Reilly makes his living speaking...makes millions of dollars at it. His livelihood is communication!
Instead, why didn't Bill just comment on how his own assumptions about the way black people live had been dead wrong? He actually could have used his experience to score points, not to insult people and create a controversy.
Note to Bill: The issue is not about black people or whether they are capable of thinking for themselves (or behaving properly). It's about your own ignorance, Bill. Get out in the real world more often, Bill... and get your head out of your ass.
Good point. I want to comment on another aspect of this. It is possible to harbor basically racist preconceptions witout being racist. We are a product of our upbringing. Underlying assumptions not looked at happen. The pervasive attitudes taken for granted sometimes lead us astray. I wouldnt accuse Bill of being a racist based ONLY on these comments. However once it is pointed OUT to you. IF you are a decent person who is definitly against racism. You LOOK at the criticism of what is said. The kind of person we ARE is to a large extent shaped by the kind of person we WANT to be. When confronted with such an undercurrent of racist preconceptions, causing such clearly patronizing behavior. You say, you are right. That was so condescending. It wasnt my intent I am sorry and I will look at those assumptions that led me to such insulting remarks. Then you stop accepting those assumptions. Bill didnt do that he is adamantly fighting the notion he said ANYTHING wrong. He is in effect saying there is NOTHING wrong withbeing someone who harbors such insulting preconceptions. THAT pushes Billy into the realm of being a racist.
Tammy Who? Where'd they dig this one up?
Seeing Tammy there makes me long for Ann and Michelle. I wonder what they would think about this subject?
But I am more interested in this statement by Bruce, "If you'll notice, the attacks on you mirror the attacks on General Petraeus." What?! Is she implying that Bill is responsible for bad policy in Iraq? Really, even I can blame him for that. Propping it up, yes but actually controlling it I can't see it. That is more Roger Ailes line of work.
Where is Michelle Malkin on all of this? She usually shows up as the most "off-white" member of the Fox Team whenever there's a race related issue, calming any fears that racism is bad. Juan Williams is giving her a run for her money, I guess.
It is hard to take anyone seriously who once argued (and wrote a book) that Japanese-American internment in WWII was a good idea.
I can never get over the stark contrast between inner and outer beauty Malkin represents.
Tammy equates MMFA to Nazi's. Must be because MMFA is racist, propoganda spreading, anti semetic, fascist, war mongers. Oh the irony.
The same logic (or lack of) is what cracks me up about comparing al Qaeda to the American Left.
Oh, you mean a bunch of violent theocrats who oppress women and hate gays?
Yeah, totally leftist. *rolls eyes*
I love how Tammy Bruce mirrors O'Lielly's technique of projection. They both angrily (& falsely) denounce MMFA, MSNBC, & CNN for employing the same tactics against conservatives that THEY THEMSELVES are employing against their "far left" opponents AT THAT VERY MOMENT! Their audacity is astonishing.
There is no low that they won't stoop to & no lie that they are unwilling to tell.
"...but it also then shines the light on the media that we can trust like Fox, frankly."
This has to be the funniest line in this entire exchange between these two geniuses. Trust FOX...?? For what? The latest news on Anna Nicole Smith? Billo's expert opinions on cultural matters? FOX won't even report on the Iraq war unless it comes from a watered-down White House report.
I can't get over the fact that there is no difference between BillO and all the other Foxes. I mean, it is exactly the same, even though it's run by conservatives, primarily rightwing patronship. There isn't one person on Fox who is spouting anti-democratic propaganda.
Here's a Freudian misplaced modifier:
"The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to."
Exactly. We need to smear an individual who has no basis in reality or fairness so they will be demonized and won't be listened to!!
Mama always said ifyou want to "attack" somebody you cant get any further from reality than reporting exactly what they say.
Tammers and BillO are great entertainment (cheap too).
Isn't it interesting that the BillO's, the Becks (the beaver), Limbaugh, etc can attack and smear Kerry, Cleland, Hagel, McCain (Hmmmm...seems to be pattern of smearing people who have served).
Then when their own words are reported, they are always and forever taken out of context and the messenger is the Gestapo.
BillO said what he said folks. I don't think he was intentionally racist, but clearly it was not well thought through. When your mentor is Ted Baxter thats not hard to imagine.
Note to Tammers -Stop your whining - it was gift!
MMFA better do a better job - get someone fired other than Imus - Soros might cut off the funding.
And Polly the propaganda parrot earns another cracker
Oh please tell me this woman did NOT just said that... And appearant MSNBC doesn't count as a major media network...
Only the credulous and willfully deceitful would buy into this deliberate smear. You clowns would walk a mile to be pretend to be offended...you wouldn't acknowledge the truth if it were sitting on a plate under your nose, as long as it exculpts anyone to the right of Ward Churchill. You're all jumping on O'Reilly like the useful fools you are, "reacting" to an obvious smear job. But hey, don't let context and the African-American interviewer who was actually involved who is defending him change your narrow little partisan minds. Media Matters and CNN and all the other left-wing sheep have invented a straw man so you can bleat to eachother about how unjust life is. What a collection of liars and fools you all are.
I don't think that BillO's smear on African-Americans was deliberate. He's more of a Ted Baxter clone and says silly things from time to time. Take it easy on the guy.
"don't let context and the African-American interviewer who was actually involved who is defending him change your narrow little partisan minds"
Context didn't help BilldO, and nobody except the most determined to be fooled has their mind changed by one AA apologist.
BTW, I don't think people here are as "offended" as you seem to think they are, more amused.
Ah no PoliticalStupidity. Just because you are too moronic to understand, well virtually anything, doesnt mean we are wrong. Only that YOU are an idiot. A useful idiot to whichever Bloviating screechmonkey sent you here and TOLD you what to think and say.
Iraq & all it entails has revealed these right wing nutbags & their TV stations as vehemently harmful, entities run by demonic clowns.
3 years ago the traditional media would have come to BillO's rescue...
...but since Iraq has revealed the Republican agenda to be full of destructive bullsh*t, the country is now in the mood to bury these oafs.
The only people who are siding with BillO in this matter are:
1. His dwindling fanbase.
2. The idiots in congress who are probably on the verge of passing "Protect Bill O'Reilly" legislation.
I had listened to the entire show the day it aired and never thought anything racist of Bill's comments. I am a premium member though so perhaps I'm too biased to pick up on it. However, here is what I took away from Bill's remarks about being "surprised" that the restaurant was just like all other restaurants. Bill was discussing how a lot of white people don't come into contact with other black people and they build stereotypes of blacks based on popular culture, which consistently drags out rappers and people who DO say "M-FER". His point on the restaurant was, if people who have the wrong perception of blacks could sit down in the restaurant or go to the Anita concert and truly spend time around black culture they would see there is no difference and that most African Americans are not like Snoop Dog.
I don't know how someone could listen to that hour and come to the conclusion that O'Reilly is racist. Unless, of course, you wanted to label him such to get him off the air. The latter makes more sense to me based on his remarks.
Lets give you ALL of that. WHO would that be a suprise to? Not the people I know. It would only be a suprise to those who harbor racist attitudes which as I said in another post doesnt in itself make a person racist. Now Bill INCLUDES HIMSELF in that suprise, which is a tacit admission HE also harbors those racist preconceptions and assumptions. Fine so far. However the way he REACTED was racist. Instead of saying mea culpa I didnt understand how patronizing my comments were or would be seen. Now that I do I will look at my own preconcieved notions and endeavor to be more open minded. NO he defended them. Not that they were right but that it was reasonable to HAVE them. There is no other reason to defend his OWN admitted suprise that black owned restaurants are just like any other. SEE?
The racist bit comes from the "Black people are thinking for themselves", implying they did not do so before, and from the "I couldn't get over that they weren't shouting MFer", implying that he genuinely expected the 'blacks' to be behaving 'inappropriately' for a restaurant.
Well-intentioned racism is still racism.
Might be appropriate to drop a complaint on Bruce/Fox/O'Reilly for unfair competition. Law in CA is pretty broad - anything unfair, fraudulent or unlawful. Repeated false claims of financing by Soros plus Gestapo comparison sounds actionable. Fox would claim the suit was a SLAPP suit, but that claim should fail here, if Soros in fact has no funding ties (director or indirect) and Fox is knowingly trying to undercut MM (as a business) by false accusations.
You leftards are rediculous. There was nothing racist at all about what he said. This is brought out of thin air. Any right minded person with half a brain cell and an open mind took what he said for what it was. An observation about the perception of most white people have about blacks in America. Nothing racist about that. Even the very racist Al Sharpton agreed with him. I know you all hate Bill O'Reilly, he knows it and is very careful in what he says. You'll have to do better. You carry no wieght with your current tactics. I say keep it up though, you're only sinking yourselves. I'm an Independant.
I think you are probably right minded and are working on a half of a brain cell, but thats no excuse for not using spell checker.
Don't be redickulis, Moe. That's part of being an indeeependant, not letting the man tell you how to spell.
You MORONS just dont get it. Considering how stupid you are no one expects you to. Now go play nice with the other special children and let the adults talk
Oh really, do MOST White people think that or just the White people you know?
Amazing that Fox would use Bruce who has a professional history of getting canned TWICE for make racial remarks. Her blog includes a charming photo of her and her handgun that she has named Snuffy Bruce. With friends like this.....
Bruce was fired twice for remarks during the O.J. trial and again for comments she made about Bill Cosby's wife following the murder of there son.
"..Bruce continued: "And the intention is the same. The intention is to smear an individual without any basis in reality, without any fairness, in an attempt to make that person demonized so that they will not be listened to."
Question:how do you "smear" someone by simply documenting their words?In every instance where O'Reilly has claimed to have been smeared by Media Matters,he has never once offered a single example to back up his claim.How can he?So who is smearing who Bill?You have called MM everything in the book.You're lucky they don't sue you.