O'Reilly falsely asserted Media Matters added to the audio clip of his controversial comments after posting initial item
On the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, during a discussion with conservative blogger La Shawn Barber about his controversial comments following his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly falsely asserted that Media Matters for America made additions to the audio clip of his remarks after posting the item. Responding to Barber's statement that "to credit Media Matters a little bit, they posted enough of your audio that you could even listen to their clips and understand what you were saying," O'Reilly claimed that Media Matters added content to the audio clip of his September 19 comments after a September 26 appearance by Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman on NBC's Today. O'Reilly told Barber, "[T]hey only did that after ... they were busted, and after they were on the defensive, and after [Today co-host] Matt Lauer took the guy apart on the Today show." O'Reilly added: "Lauer slaughtered the Media Matters guy. ... Killed him. And then, they say, 'Oh, we better put up a little bit more.' " In fact, Media Matters added no additional audio of O'Reilly's original discussion about Sylvia's after the first item highlighting his remarks posted on September 21 -- five days before Waldman's appearance on Today.
From the September 28 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
BARBER: The reason I agreed to go on the [CNN] show is just to sort of put things in context and make sense of it. I mean there's a lot of sound bites, a lot of accusations going around, but even to credit Media Matters a little bit, they posted enough of your audio that you could even listen to their clips and understand what you were saying.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but, look, don't give them any credit because they only did that after --
BARBER: Oh!
O'REILLY: -- after they were busted, and after they were on the defensive, and after Matt Lauer took the guy apart on the Today show.
BARBER: Oh, I see. I thought that --
O'REILLY: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
BARBER: -- the audio was posted at the same time --
O'REILLY: Matt Lauer slaughtered the Media Matters guy.
BARBER: Wow.
O'REILLY: Killed him. And then, they say, "Oh, we better put up a little bit more."
BARBER: Oh, OK.
O'REILLY: Oh, yeah.
BARBER: OK.
O'REILLY: No, this was an ideological play, not a -- this had nothing to do with race --
BARBER: Right.
O'REILLY: -- Ms. Barber. This had to do with CNN collapsing on all fronts --
BARBER: Hmm-mm.
O'REILLY: -- and NBC News losing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fox News -- "Let's get O'Reilly, try to make him [Don] Imus. Let's get him off the air." That's what that was about. It didn't have anything to do with race.
BARBER: Yeah, I thought --
O'REILLY: And with Media Matters, it has to do with ideology.
This is really getting old. Both MMFA and OReilly are exploting this now, but for what reason is completely different. OReilly to help turn the tables and make him the victim and MMFA on this silly feud. All in all he will still be on FOX, they do not care what MMFA thinks, since his base does not read this website.
it's not just about his base. it's about others as well. o'reilly has lost a good deal of credibility on this.
Yea, but so long as Billo continues to appease the 30% right wing wacko base FOX doesn't care if sane people think O'Reilly is not credible. Sane people don't watch Billo, anyway.
Although I am using the term "sane" as a euphamism, think about it...who in his right mind would watch O'Reilly every night and believe anything this bellicose bulshi++er would say?
...exactly, we're talking about FOX viewers here. Bill could crap on a platter and they'd eat it up.
He had credibility?
Are you saying that BO should be able to lie about facts related to the MM postings? This site should just ignore his lies and slander?
BO can't handle the truth. I think this is great. The more his lies are exposed, the more he lies about them. This is a win-win situation for his critics.
When there's new facets of this story, what would you have Media Matters do?
Do you think they can only cover this one time, and every time after that when O'Reilly distorts reality and smears Media Matters again, they're just supposed to sit back and take it? He smeared Media Matters by saying that they tried to cover their butt when it is O'Reilly who's trying to cover his butt.
If you're bored with it, then you can refrain from posting, but for most people, new aspects of an ongoing story being covered are appropriate topics of conversation.
If Woodward and Bernstein took your attitude, we never would have found about about Watergate. In current events, every new story about how intellectually lazy Fred Thompson is gives the American public more information. If reporters took your attitude, when new examples of his lack of initiative in learning and retaining information, they'd say that it's more of the same, and they'd ignore it, and we'd all be poorer for that lack of knowledge.
I am sensing a pattern here. 1st we have Rush apologists saying MM edited his audio before posting it, now we have Bill saying MM edited his audio before posting it. Hmmm, if it looks like a turd, and smells like a turd, it must be a turd - unless you are a wingnut, then it has got to be a rose!
Nice catch.
I bet MM faked the moon landing too.
You found them out! And they shot JR, too, back in the '80's!
MapleSue,
You're serious in making an analogy between the importance of uncovering criminal behavior regarding a sitting president, with covering more of this never ending fued between this webiste and a talk show commentator?
Nice stretch, even for you.
Bill O's accusation is a big one and a prime example of a media figure trying to mislead people.
It's the creeps on Fox who, to a large extent, allow criminally minded people to get into office in the first place. The current crop of GOPers has been far more damaging than Nixon and bunch.
Tommy you are just looking for attention. If you can't say something snarky about the article you try to start an argument with a poster.
Tommy you are just looking for attention. If you can't say something snarky about the article you try to start an argument with a poster.
...which will go on...and on...and on...
You would be the one stretching the truth to the breaking point by continuing your false allegations about my identity. That's your credibility that's damaged by your saying that I'm someone else, not mine. Feel free to continue such stupidity. It only hurts yourself.
I compared like behavior. I did not compare the results of that behavior or the underlying problems. What I did won't hurt my credibility.
Ignoring this new example of O'Reilly's misdeeds would be the wrong thing to do. Ignoring another example of Fred Thompson's disconnect with reality would be the wrong thing to do. Ignoring the new bits and pieces of the Watergate story before they had all the pieces put together would have been wrong, but I'm sure there were Nixon supporters who were telling Bill Bradley that it was a story that had run its course and the reporters needed to get on with their lives and stop harping on old news.
Way to go SUE, your initial post was under the name Mapletootie, but you switched it to Monkeyman - oops.
Honey, you have enough trouble with one screen name at a time, don't try to jockey two.
Better opt out and find another.......tata.
Wow Sue/Ellie/notthatgeorge/nomobush you do not stop with the games do you? Please just leave and stop disrupting the boards. Geez.
Hahahaha
Ah that was priceless!
Maple"Sue" outed by her own sockpuppet Monkey"Sue"
"Ignoring this new example of O'Reilly's misdeeds would be the wrong thing to do. Ignoring another example of Fred Thompson's disconnect with reality would be the wrong thing to do. Ignoring the new bits and pieces of the Watergate story before they had all the pieces put together would have been wrong,"
-------------------------------------------------------
Exactly right. Great point. It's in the breach that our failings often lie. What we fail to speak up about and counter more than what we proactively do on our own. These are scoundrels who must be held accountable for their lies and deceptions.
You're serious in making an analogy between the importance of uncovering criminal behavior regarding a sitting president, with covering more of this never ending fued between this webiste and a talk show commentator? Tommy
Tommy would America have learned about Nixon's criminal behavior if Woodward & Bernstein had said "This story is getting old, why cover it anymore"? Initially the story was about a simple "break in" at Democratic party headquarters remember. Who would have thought that a sitting President would conduct criminal behavior in the White House in 1972? President Nixon's conduct was an eye opening experience for Americans. Had they (Woodward & Bernstein) had the thought "it's getting old" we would still be unaware of Nixon's criminal behavior.
We ask for better reporting and them complain when we get tired of the story.
Tommy your "Sue" fixation is getting kind of scary.
You have a Sue fixation. She has been gone for a long time get over it.
It may be a fixation but Mapletootie got nailed using another screen name. It at least gives some believability that this person is Sue.
Jlyons, I think MMFA deserves our patience on this. To us regulars, it would be more fun to move on to other subjects. But understand what an uneven playing field we're looking at here. We have a website in a war of words with a multi-billion dollar newsertainment empire. And it's the multi-billion dollar guy who keeps lying. He is the one who is nuts to continue this. It's important for people who would consider him credible or even harmless to see just what a sociopathic liar this guy is. I'd say this fits in pretty well with MMFA's mission. They provide us with plenty of stimulation, information and entertainment. I'm willing to wait and see how much this effects the career of one of the worst people in fake news.
What feud?
Media Matters posted Oreillys statements with links to full transcripts way they ALWAYS do.
Oreilly just LIED... again. Oreilly keeps the story alive. I've never seen such a case unraveling, spinning, and continued deceit.
Gawd, as has been stated here so many times all he had to say was "SORRY!"
Media Matters doesn't need their credibility tarnished or misrepresented so they SHOULD point out the lie.
Geeze. Oreilly needs a long vacation, far far away.
This is really getting old.
What's old are right wing posters coming here and saying MMFA should stop following this controversy when this is exactly what MMFA exists to do. Gets really tiresome to have to read posts of right wingers who Don't Get That.
Don't like it, don't read these topics.
So, Bill...when are you going to Paul Waldman's house to stick a camera up his nose? Or will you send a a young production assistant to ambush him?
Well, Lauer certainly pushed an agenda, and instead of interviewing each side became an advocate for the anti-Media Matters side. If propaganda constitutes a "slaughter" then congrats to "hard-news" Matt.
Pretty pathrtic that Billo would rely on NBC and Matt Lauer to go after so-called "smear merchants". Hey, Bill, what happened to your threat to go their houses and stck a microphone up their noses? We're waiting, Bill...
Can I get a link to anything about Lauer's interview? I missed it.
I want to live in O'Reilly's world.. it must be great...
So now we're going to have to do an audio anaylsis just to prove it was Bill. After that an acusation that a series of clips was assembled to do this to poor Bill. A completely bogus computer animation next?
I was hoping he'd follow though on the threat to strangle, or attempt to strangle someone. There'd have to be video there to prove his Alpha Malehood to all doubters.
Billo Luffajack is onto us now. We should just come clean and admit that with the millons in cash we receive from George Soros we have contracted a Bill O'Reilly look alike. By tweaking his appearance with a little plastic surgery (with that Soros money we can afford the very best) and electronic manipulation of his voice we can simply sit him in front of a camera (or microphone) in an authentic replication of any studio he might use for for his broadcasts. We can fake (or digitally manipulate) both audio and video clips so well that it is impossible for anyone to tell. That is why Luffajack and Limbaugh are having such bad weeks. And of course since neither of them has any credibility whatoever (outside their circle of brain dead zombie Kool-Aid swilling dittoheads) they are no longer believed. Give it up Billo. You're going down and there is nothing you can do about it. You are an irrelevant has-been that never was. We don't even need the Soros money to bring you down. Both of you are so good at doing it to yourselves.
I say we start a Brock - O'Reilly debate fund. Put this puppy to rest.
I think this goes beyond Brock and OReilly.
Oh, I understand that. I'd just love to see O'reilly try to spin his crap in a neutral enviorment, against someone who could pound his head in the dirt. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Mr. Al: Hey kids, it's the Mr. BillO' Show!
Mr. BillO': (Standing outside of Sylvia's) Ho ho kiddies! Oh boy are we gonna have fun today. Because I'm taking off work to go eating at a black restaurant yay! And here's our maître d' Mr. Al Yay!
Mr. Al: (Starts molding a blue menu) Hey Mr. BillO'! Before we eat, we need to get a menu to see what kind of food they have. (Places it in Mr. BillO's hands.)
Mr. BillO': Yay! Thanks! (Mr. Al puts the silverware on the table which go right through Mr. BillO's head.) Oh no the silverware! Since when did black people use them? I didn't Knoooooooooow! Why Why!
Mr. Al: And say, before we start eating, how about a nice cold beer? Hey, Mo Fo! (Shakes up a beer can.)
Mr. BillO': But you know I'm too young to drink. (Mr. Al opens up the can which sprays Beer all over Mr. BillO's face.)
Mr. Al: Now we need a waiter.
Mr. BillO': But I don't know how to order in jive.
Mr. Al: (Sings) "Here comes Mr. BillO's token!" (Molds Juan into shape.)
Mr. BillO': Yay Juan! How are you doing huh? (Mr. Al throws Juan to the liberals) Oh wait! Oh no don't do that no! Ohhhhhhhhhh!
Mr. Al: (Places the menu on Mr. BillO's plate) Now lets order!
Mr. Bill: No no my token! Nooooooooo!
Mr. Al: (Calling Brocko to the table.) Say what a coincidence! It's waiter Brocko!
Mr. BillO': Oh no! He's gonna be mean to me!
Mr. Al: No he just wants to show you his new sushi skills (Brocko throws a ginsu knife at Mr. BillO')
Mr. BillO': No wait! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Mr. Al: (Picking up knives.) Now I'll try my luck and maybe I'll make sushi. (Aims it at Mr. BillO'.)
Mr. BillO': No I don't like sushi!
Mr. Al: Say I think I got the hang of this so why don't you hold the knives while I tell the kids... (Gives the knives to Mr. BillO')
Mr. BillO': No I can't do it! I can't--! (Mr. Al releases the knives and Mr. BillO' drops them and cuts his legs off.) Nooooooooooooooooooo!
Mr. Al: ...So long! See you next time when Mr. BillO' goes ballistic on Mr. Brocko. Bye bye!
Snoopy, your brain is just so darling. Almost as cute as your puppy dog looks. ;-0)
Snoopy, you should become a screenwriter because that was brilliant! Thanks for that read.
I don't understand how him and his ilk can keep lying people straight in the face and get away with it.
No, wait, I do understand. They make lots of money for their employers, that's why. But still, I wonder if there's anything they are not allowed to do?
This is a total red herring.
Even if MMFA added to the original excerpt (which they didn't) it doesn't materially change a damned thing O'Reilly said.
Holy mackeral. O'Reilly's sole porpoise is to trout out some eel advised accusation about MMFA. Cod he be anymore of an aholehole?
(yes, I know a porpoise isn't a fish for the parsers).
7 in one post, JJ. I'm impressed!
Well, thanks HBL, I hate to carp on O'Reilly, but he's always making a bass out of himself just for the halibut. It's really Shad. He's a clownfish and he says crappie stuff that just smelts. Okay, I'll stop. I just have too much fun here.
Something smells fishy. It's really all about money to the tuna millions.
So, now O'Reilly LIKES NBC? Hmmmmmm.....
Yes. In fact, Billo is taking Matt Lauer to eat at Sylivia's to show him how well-behaved the Negroes are in Harlem.
Not only will we be well-behaved Negroes at Sylivia's, but we’ll "think for ourselves" as well! That's the kicker!
Okay, Preston. now you're getting damn uppity...cut that crap out. ;>)
if Mr. O's comments _were _ taken out of the context of a general discussion that was of a more over-arching subject then he may be right on this one... regardless of how inane the comments were.
to digress: ...seems to me Juan Williams' _stridency_ in comments of support of Mr. O was a little off base...
Back to Bill...The worst Mr. O is on this is a goof ball. Except , of course of his hyped up response to MM.
To convicet Mr. O on this issue is a bit like convicting OJ on wastiing water during a drought
Back to Bill...The worst Mr. O is on this is a goof ball. Except , of course of his hyped up response to MM.
I find the charge of racism to be a bit tougher charge that that of being a "goof ball."
There is a difference between having preconceived, or prejudical, notions and being an outright racist. I think his comments, while, of course racial by virtue of the context. were not racist commentary, nor were they maliciously conceived. They were inept, unsophisticated and, yes, a bit goofy. I think to be insulted to the point of outrage on this instance is way off the mark.
Just because someone is a bafoon, or ignorant, or makes an insensitive remark does not make him a racist.
Ignorance and stupidity a racist makes. Good gosh.
against my better judgement, I will respond by saying again... that in and of themselves, insensitive remarks are not inherently or necessarily racist.
malicious intent must be part of the equation.
There is a difference between having preconceived, or prejudical, notions and being an outright racist.
Racism in it's most common and widely accepted definition is members of one race thinking that they are inherently superior or inferior to members of another race.
When Bill says the following:
"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."
Why would Bill be surprised by a superior black owned restaurant in Harlem? Could he have the same thought as his friend DePetro, the only things available in Harlem are drugs and prostitutes? Could he be surprised because he always thought that black restaurants, it's owners and patrons were unable to own, operate and behave in a civilized manner?
I think to be insulted to the point of outrage on this instance is way off the mark.
How should black folks feel about Bill's comment if not insulted and outraged? I have heard that Bill has one of the largest audiences on TV. If he were to make such remarks about you to millions of people how would that make you feel?
I guess JMH is living in that cave with Billo.
There is a difference between having preconceived, or prejudical, notions and being an outright racist
Juliajayne, the comment leaves me shaking my head in total confusion.
i did not say that the comments were not insulting. But I do believe that his comments are not racist in the way you are characterizing.. There is no eveidence that Mr. O wants to harm, annihilate, or oppress African Americans. Our country has a history of brutal treatment of people of color. There is just no evidence that Mr. O's intention is to perpetuate this. That people here do not want to talk rationally about this issue is even more disturbing.
I forgot to mention that it is ironically hilarious that you have me defending Mr. O
Have a nice day!
Yeah, we're holding a gun to your head to get you to defend O'Reilly. Whatever.
Thank you for allowing me to make renew point: It might be possible to take your comment as an insensitive and insulting ...but I would not take it as racist.
hmm I wish this forum had spell check and an editing function
In my opinion, even if what you say is true, which I do not beleive it is, Is that the kind of person that should have an adoring audience of millions? Is perpetuating the marginalization of blacks a good thing?
BO continues to say inane statements on air to the people that watch. Do you let your child associate with people that lie or distort facts? Do you let your child lie or distort?
No, that is why MM keeps highlighting these people.
I take seriously the mission (so to speak) of MMFA and I have done my fair share of criticizing Mr O at these forums
and to illustrate an earlier point I tried to make... Don Imus' infamous comments were racist because they were clearly intended to insult, demean, belittle, and put people of color in their place (to use an old figure of speach) I still do not believe O'Reilly's comments reach that level. But people here, apparently, do not agree.
Bill lied again. Is anybody surprised?