O'Reilly: Media Matters President David Brock "biggest villain ... in the country"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly lashed out at Media Matters for America President and CEO David Brock for what O'Reilly called "the vicious far-left assaults on me and Rush Limbaugh over the past few days." After calling Brock "a hatchet man," O'Reilly stated: "[A]t this point, this guy has emerged as the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country. He'll do anything. He'll say anything -- doesn't matter if it's true -- for money."
During the October 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly lashed out at Media Matters for America President and CEO David Brock for what O'Reilly called "the vicious far-left assaults on me and Rush Limbaugh over the past few days," asserting: "[T]here's no question that this guy's a hatchet man. I mean, nobody on earth could read his stuff and come to the -- a conclusion that he's not a hatchet man. He is." O'Reilly went on to claim: "[A]t this point, this guy has emerged as the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country. He'll do anything. He'll say anything -- doesn't matter if it's true -- for money." He later asserted: "Because this is number one, dishonest. Number two, it's dangerous, because anybody with whom Mr. Brock disagrees is going to be smeared, defamed, and slimed with no regard to the truth." O'Reilly concluded his attack by calling Brock "a despicable human being."
As Media Matters has documented, O'Reilly routinely attacks Media Matters. For example, on the September 25 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly repeatedly claimed that "Media Matters has personally attacked me 109 times." In fact, Media Matters has posted more than 125 items (between September 25, 2006, and September 25, 2007) documenting statements by O'Reilly, while providing full transcripts of his comments with corresponding audio or video. Moreover, O'Reilly has a long history of personally attacking those with whom he disagrees.
From the October 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight: With the vicious far-left assaults on me and Rush Limbaugh over the past few days, some Americans are asking, "Who's behind all the smearing?"
Well, it is this man, David Brock, the president of Media Matters. Brock is paid almost $200,000 a year to attack non-liberal commentators and politicians using a daily smear campaign on the Internet.
Now, Brock used to be a conservative hit man. In 1992, he called Anita Hill, quote, "a bit nutty and a bit slutty," unquote. But now he smears from the far left.
Joining us from Washington, Genevieve Wood, the director of strategic operations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
When did you first become aware of Mr. Brock?
WOOD: Well, Bill, back in, I guess, late '93, I was working at the time for a network called National Empowerment Television, which was a conservative political TV network. This is pre-Fox days and MSNBC days. And David Brock was a guest a few times on our network primarily about a book he wrote called The Real Anita Hill. And I think you may have actually quoted from it just there.
But as you might know from there, he went on to work for an organization called The American Spectator, which is a conservative publication, who's done a lot of good reporting over the years. And David Brock was a reporter for them. He did a lot of investigations in what became known as Troopergate and looking into the Clinton administration.
But not long after that, he decided that he was no longer a conservative, and decided to go more on the left side of things.
Now what became confusing about all of this is that he didn't just say well, I've changed my political philosophy, which people do. Some people are Republicans, they become Democrats and vice versa.
But all of a sudden, he started saying that well, what I've been reporting were actually lies. I really -- you know, a lot of what I talked about wasn't true. But the fact is we don't really know what was true and what wasn't.
O'REILLY: All right. So let me start with this. So he writes this book about Anita Hill, where he attacks her personally. Right?
WOOD: That's right.
O'REILLY: All right? He cuts her up. Nasty piece of business. And then, a few years later, he says what I wrote I knew wasn't true, and I wrote it anyway. Is that what he said?
WOOD: He said -- well, he doesn't say specifically about which parts of the book, but he says a lot of what I wrote wasn't true.
O'REILLY: But my point is --
WOOD: And he says the same thing about the Clinton investigations.
O'REILLY: Genevieve, my point is did he say that I knew it wasn't true, but wrote it anyway?
WOOD: I don't know that he said I knew it wasn't true, but looking back, a lot of things I wrote he said were not true.
O'REILLY: OK, well that could mean --
WOOD: When he stumbled across that --
O'REILLY: -- it was erroneous, I had bad information, whatever. But --
WOOD: Could be. But, Bill, it's different if that happens once. But when somebody calls himself an investigative journalist, and all of a sudden, you have a pattern of this when you're reporting on the right, when you're reporting on the left, doesn't matter who you're talking...
O'REILLY: Well, there's no question that this guy's a hatchet man. I mean, nobody on earth --
WOOD: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- could read his stuff and come to the -- a conclusion that he's not a hatchet man. He is.
WOOD: Yeah.
O'REILLY: The matter is how calculated is he? Or does he sell himself to the highest bidder? Now, he's being paid a lot of money to put out this dishonest garbage, which he does. He has, obviously, mainstream media access, which the right wing does not have, because the right wing has character assassins, too.
WOOD: Sure.
O'REILLY: But at this point, this guy has emerged as the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country. He'll do anything. He'll say anything -- doesn't matter if it's true -- for money. And the money's coming from the far left.
WOOD: Right.
O'REILLY: George Soros and some of his organizations are funding this. But maybe I'm wrong. Do I have this wrong?
WOOD: Well, I -- there's a lot of villains out there. Whether he's the biggest, I don't know. But look, there's a lot of people that look like this guy and like this organization Media Matters that you could say, well, you know what, let's not give them a platform. Let's not give them air time --
O'REILLY: Well, you have to now.
WOOD: Let me keep -- well, but the problem with him is that it's not just him putting out these press releases. You have people like the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] --
O'REILLY: Yes, that's why I'm saying you have to --
WOOD: Well, yes.
O'REILLY: -- well, you have CNN and MSNBC, who are now in bed with Media Matters. And when you have Harry Reid, who you're looking at, who goes to the Senate floor and wastes all the taxpayer's time, talking about propaganda designed to diminish a commentator he disagrees with, Reid disagrees with, then you have to bring it to the attention of the American public.
WOOD: You absolutely do.
O'REILLY: Because this is, number one, dishonest. Number two, it's dangerous, because anybody with whom Mr. Brock disagrees is going to be smeared, defamed, and slimed with no regard to the truth. Now --
WOOD: And the difference, Bill, between -- I mean, you know, look, you and Rush have had to put up with a lot already, but the good thing is that you and Rush have a daily show, where you can actually --
O'REILLY: Yeah, we can repudiate. But others can't.
WOOD: -- defend yourself. But that's right.
O'REILLY: Others can't.
WOOD: And you've got to --
O'REILLY: They get smeared and slimed by this guy.
WOOD: That's right.
O'REILLY: Anita Hill didn't have -- she didn't have a daily platform when this guy attacked her. And she had to just absorb it. But anyway, I think he's a despicable human being. And I'm glad you came on. And it took a little bravery, because now he's going to go after you, Genevieve.
WOOD: Oh, I'm sure. Well, he already has, but he's reported it wrong in the past. We'll see what he does now.
O'REILLY: All right, well if he does, you let us know and we'll --
WOOD: All right, thank you.
O'REILLY: -- revisit him again.
Well, when you write a book calling Anita Hill a liar and then create a website defending her statements, you cannot be trusted.
And O'Reilly can be trusted CD? If O'Reilly was really "looking out for us (you)" wouldn't he confront this enemy to the United States?
When O'Reilly says that line he really means "Because we're looking for (B)U(SH)"
CD,
Since you think those things of Brock, do you hate born-again Christians too? After all, Bush credits Jesus for helping him find himself, but before that he was lost. Are the only people allowed to change on your side of the aisle?
No one NEEDS to trust him. Whether you trust Brock or not is basically irrelevant to what he does. All you have to do is look at the information he presents and find out whether it checks out. In this case, as in nearly every other case, it does.
Exactly and as ususal when wingers don't like the message they attack the messenger period. Rush said soldiers and he was referring to the soldiers that have been vocal about their opposition to this war. It doesn't matter what Brock is or isn't it's very irrelevant to them.
Attacking the messenger is all they've got, and all they've had for a long time.
Correct, TheRick.
A friend of mine has access to the O'Reilly message boards and he told me about a post over there. The poster made a good point and asked for people's opinions on it and the question got totally ignored by those at O'Reilly's boards. The post said:
"I don't think O'Reilly is a racist nor do I think his statements were racist. But where did Media Matters call him a racist? I went and read their post on what O'Reilly said and I don't see that they called him a racist or said that his remarks were racist. It looks more like other people are chosing to interrupt his remarks to be racist. Isn't that's on them instead of on Media Matters?"
The poster is right in that MM did not call O'Reilly a racist or his remarks racism. They simply posted his remarks for all to see, hear and for themselves.
O'Reilly doesn't have a leg to stand on. Imagine, Brock, the biggest villian in the country. Nevermind the pedophiles, murderers, and rapists out there who actually are villians and a real danger to the folks.
Btw, did anyone hear O'Reilly spin his "Brock is a despicable human being" remark? On his radio show, O'Reilly said it wasn't really a personal attack. It was a description of Brock's activities. O'Reilly is spinning like a top.
correction: They simply posted his remarks for all to see, hear and decide for themselves.
I don't care what he did then. I don't know anything about him nor should that matter. All I know about him is in the context of this website.
And all that I can ascertain from that is that he runs a well-researched website that makes a legitimate argument about the over-saturation of misleading conservative talking points in the medium of television, radio, print, and web-related material.
It's the same with you copious; the only information I have about you comes from your comments and from your blog. Since you are directly responsible for this material, all I can say about you is that you serve as a small reminder of why we need a website like this.SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
CD??? Copious Dissent, eh??? I think you are exactly what you pretend to hate, much like the scoundrels you choose to defend!
You think we're are as stupid as you wish we us to be. Your so pathetic that wish us to believe whatever lie you and your punditry wants to spew. We should just accept your pathetic explanations of David Brock's motives, and accept Bill's motives to be sincere!!
I'd say your either a complete hypocrite, or they been slipping LSD in your coffee!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
She is from the Heritage Foundation, and is commenting on the truthfullness of Limbaugh's statements, and yet let this come out:
"Well, Bill, back in, I guess, late '93, I was working at the time for a network called National Empowerment Television, which was a conservative political TV network. This is pre-Fox days and MSNBC days."
Is this not an overt admission that Fox News and MSNBC are conservative propaganda vehicles??
Maybe not, yada yada yada yada.....
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
DG, thanks for highlighting that because it was very telling. Again, we've had conservative and liberal media in this country -- but Fox and MSNBC brought an entirely new paradigm to the landscape with purely partisan "narrow casting." Its a good business strategy (brought to you by an Aussie business mogul), but very bad for serious journalism and punditry.
Hmm? Biggest villians?
Osama bin Laden.
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
(scroll down)
(scroll down)
Kermit the Frog.
David Brock.
Tommy,
Not to be techincal, but are your first two "in the country?" Don't you think O'Reilly should really look out for us and confront Brock with a studio interview?
I agree with you on Kermit though, how can we accept frog-pig love and have any hope for the "sanctity" of marriage ;).
Kermit is OK. Bert is the one who is evil.
Yeah, I think thats about right. Then again what does it say about Billy O that he thinks a man who has the temerity to show Billys OWN words in context is the biggest villian in the country?
Solon,
You are definitely right about that. I tend to think that a villian would be a man who preys on subordinates then threatens them if they tell. Afterward, such a villian would tell his audience that the woman is a liar and he is going to go to the ends fo the earth to prove himself innocent, until dum, dum, dum the tapes prove he is a villian. Oh, how can we forget the incessant lying and subsequent denials of lying. All the while blaming those who catch them of vileness. I would swear such a person is straight out of a sociopath identification manual.
O'REILLY: Because this is, number one, dishonest. Number two, it's dangerous, because anybody with whom Mr. Brock disagrees is going to be smeared, defamed, and slimed with no regard to the truth
Well Brock did it for the Right. Anita, Bill Clinton just to name the two most notable.
Then the guy allegedly has an epiphany...
But do old habits die hard?
Or did he simply change horses and is now he's churning it out for the Left?
Does he do it for the money? Probably.
Is he the Biggest villain in the country?
Nah. There's a long list ahead of him, & behind him.
Is he doing it for the Left? Yeah, the mission statement says as much. This time, most of what ends up here is fact-based, and is backed up with historical context and complete transcripts, which I do not believe can be said for the lies about Anita.
J,
Who really knows the motivation behind Brock's change? That is the agenda BillO is pushing right now to discredit him, so O'Reilly's motivation is crystal clear.
It is rather funny how he often accuses those who won't answer to him as hiding under their desks and cowards, yet he won't have Brock on his show to battle it out? Why is he afraid to do that?
"Who really knows the motivation behind Brock's change?"
Anyone who's read his book. It's called Blinded By the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.
Anyone can write a book with a point of view or an agenda. It's up to the reader to believe it or not, it proves nothing. But thanks for the info.....
Well Brock lays his motivation out in his book Blinded by the Right. I guess you could take it for what it is worth as for Billy OWaahhWaaahh, you are right his motivation is crystal clear
Ah yes, the old victim mentality....the right MADE me do it--I had NO personal responsibility--I was "BLINDED." The guy's initials pretty much say all you need to know about him. BUT--I will give him some credit. If it were not for him, the Lewinsky story probably never would have broken (remember, it was Troopergate, which was revealed as a result of Brock's piece in the American Spectator that led to the Lewinsky revelation). So he did provide us with some fun for a few years in the late 1990's, MAY have cost Gore the election in 2000 as a result (who knows if several thousand idiots would have voted for Gore had it not been for Lewinskygate), and, as a result, caused us to end up now where we are in Iraq. This is David Brock, of Media Matters.
My last sentence should have read "This chain of events occurred as a result of David Brock, of Media Matters" instead of "This is David Brock, of Media Matters."
Hey IO,
Do you ever have anything to say regarding the topic at hand and the lies the right spews and why idiots like you believe them?
I see you didnt read the book. I did. there arent any excuses in there at ALL. He takes full responsibility for acting the jerk. It is a booklength mea culpa. So basically your whole post is a non sequitur. Perhaps if you made a bit of an attempt at knowing what you were talking about you MIGHT make sense.
He's the biggest villian to Bill because he has the nerve to tape everything bill says and post it for the world to hear. Poor, poor bill.
{verse 1)Nobody knows the trouble I've seenNobody knows but Brock-oNobody knows the trouble I've seendamn you, MMFA-repeat verse-
Dang it! If soros really funded this site, we'd have an honest preview button!
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen
Nobody knows but Brock-o
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen
Damn you, MMFA!
Or you could read 'Blinded by the Right' by Brock and understand his thinking.
Jeter, are you aware that David wrote a long mea culpa? It's called "Blinded by the Right." After I read it, I gave it to my brother who resented David's "conversion" too.
Face it, some of us change. Then there's prostitutes like Limpballs and o'leilly who'll never change as they never had a stand in the first place. What they have is an audience that pays for their incessant flatulence.
Jeter, Have you read Brock's blinded by the right? Brock talks about the accusation that he would simply use the tactics he used for the vast right wing conspiracy machine for the left. He addresses this in great detail in the book. Nobody knows anyone else’s heart but Brock seems to have come to terms with what he did and he vowed not to continue to be the unethical person he had been for any cause, issue, anything. He seemed truly sorry, in fact he went through a personal crisis that resulted in a breakdown. My grandma always told me, if you do a bad thing you have to examine what you did, acknowledge that what you did was wrong and most importantly understand why what you did was wrong, and lastly don't don’t repeat the deed. She siad you then ask for God's forgiveness and that you have to forgive yourself because if you wait for forgiveness to come from your fellow human beings you could wait a vefry very long time You improve your life, you become a better person and you move on. Brock apologized and if what he said in his book is true he seems to have moved on to a positive place and God bless him that.
But MMFA was suspiciously silent when Cindy "What was my son's name again? I forgot." Sheehan claimed that the legally elected President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, was "the worst terrorist in the world." I'm sending all MMFA employees brand new cherry-pickers for Christmas.
Or you could just read the mission statement, either one.
Cindy's a right winger? News to me.
Bush does use terror. In this country people have been scared to say their mind for fear of being accused of being 'not with us but against us'. Same all over the world. We are feared because of the the preemptive and unjust war on Iraq with potentially over 600,000 deaths caused and 4 million internally displaced and two million refugees.
Doesn't the bible say, 'an eye for an eye' not '120 eyes for an eye'? And isn't it implied that the eye is supposed to be from the guy who took your eye, not 120 of his distant cousins in another country? Aren't most of you guys big on that stuff? Or is it only when it suits your rhetorical needs?
Thank you for your opinion.
And what did the right-wingers say to Cindy?
"Just shut up!"
Illegally appointed - then kept in office by voter suppression and the theft of Ohio.
Then explain to me, please, why he's STILL in office.
The cowardly, bullying, lying O'Reilly, despite numerous requests, cowers in his studio, afraid to have Brock on his show, afraid to confront him directly.
Brock has facts and transcripts-- O'Reilly's own incriminating words.
O'Reilly has nothing but a loud voice and a finger on the guest's mute button.
Dave,
I agree and frankly wish everyone would refuse to show up on o'leilly's "show." We have to get that degenerate idiot off the air. No, not censor him. After all, he does have a right to say what he will. But if no one watches him because no one with a brain will put up with his utter nonsense, he'll be retiring and settling for more phone sex with employees.
The Irony over what the "right" is so mad about right now is incredible. I am glad a record is being kept.
Yah FBB didn't he sing a song about doing horrible things to a rubber duck?
I read Blinded by the Right CD. I got no problem with David. David retains some guilt about Anita and his treatment of her. I shudder to think of the repercusions if Bill were somehow to find some guilt inside himself.
EWEST,
That was Ernie of Bert and Ernie and the song you are referring to is "Rubber Ducky, you're the One." I am shocked that show is on the air with Bert and Ernie spending so much time together. And Bert with his pigeons? Don't get me started ;).
Didn't ernie cheat on bert with tinky winky?
I sit corrected, its hard to stand and type. Must be one of those false memories, those gyptologists are always offering to remove.
"Joining us from Washington, Genevieve Wood, the director of strategic operations at the conservative Heritage Foundation."
Joining us from Washington is another person who shares my ideology and my viewpoint who will now fill air time by agreeing with every word I say.
Really.
I cannot imagine any rational person watching these victim crusades that O'Reilly gets on without questioning why he never has a strong opponent on debating from the other side? Everyone knows there are two sides to every story. I would imagine his emails reflect this, they have too.
Or is his ego just so huge that he has lost touch with reality in this regard. It is curious, indeed?
Tommy,
Did you ever see the altercation between o'leilly and Geraldo? I never thought I'd respect Geraldo but he put o'lielly to shame. It's amazing that that fool still has a show. (But it does reflect, I guess, on the type of gutless creatures who admire billy; he provides them with a spine they lack. And that's kind of sad, as billy's spine is made of Silly Putty.
You're overlooking the fact that 95% of O'Reilly viewers would not be considered 'rational people'
I would venture to say that many of O'Reilly's viewers watch him for more entertainment purposes than informative - especially when he gets going on this type of silliness.
I agree with that, Tommy. I don't think anyone watched O'Reilly expecting to get Edward R. Murrow. O'Reilly is a cartoon character, and the format of his show is very tabloid-driven, much like A Current Affairs, his old gig back in the day. If Colbert hadn't mastered parodying O'Reilly so well, The O'Reilly Factor would be a great addition to Comedy Central's lineup following. ;)
"because anybody with whom Mr. Brock disagrees is going to be smeared, defamed, and slimed with no regard to the truth"
Wow. This gets funnier all the time. Talk about projection...Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity et al have been doing exactly that for years now. Until MMFA, Air America, Huffington Post, Buzzflash, etc. came along, they were doing it relatively unchallenged. Now that someone is pointing out their bullsh*t, they don't like it, even a little bit. No wonder they're whining so much.
Brock has confessed to his past sins and is trying to make amends. Can any of the current Flying Monkey liars say the same? Hell no.
If by "amends" you mean money, then you are probably right.
So making money is only a good thing if Conservatives are doing it via war profiteering?
Loosen the helmet, your one brain cell is bouncing off the confined space of your cranium.
On this point, I have to agree with the falafel king. Brock's credibility reached its nadir during his Anita Hill "expose" (he called her a "little bit n**ty and a little bit s*****) and his subsequent selective denunciation of the same.While I don't begrudge his "change of heart," Brock is, as O'Reilly points out, is not credible and is merely a shrill for the Hillary Clinton camp.Uncomfortable but true facts.
Genghiz,
Please show where he "defamed" or "slandered" O'Reilly. Also, why does O'Reilly not have Brock on? Isn't he an "independent?"
You wrote: "Please show where he 'defamed' or 'slandered' O'Reilly. Defamation or slander are not the words I would use. Selective quotation is more what MMFA does. Sometimes, they are right on the mark (re: BillO and others); other times, the attempts at elevating non-controversies into controversies are visible for all to see (incl. many liberal posters on this board).You also asked, "Also, why does O'Reilly not have Brock on? Isn't he an 'independent?'"That's a quesiton for BillO though I think we both know the answer. BillO is like a schoolyard bully. His strength comes from an aversion to hearing any criticism directed toward him even when such criticism is accurate. In other words, the man is a coward when it comes to David Brock.
I appreciate the response, Genghiz.
Brock's credibility is only an issue to those who don't like the MM message. If we were reading opinion pieces - editorials - references to "facts" undocumented, Mr Brock's credibility would be very much an issue for me and other fair minded progressives.
As it is, that is just another troll smokescreen. Wouldn't matter if Elmer Fudd was in charge here. Everything I read here can be checked out. Attacking the messenger is a favorite wingnut tactic one that every troll here likes to employ because A) It's a quick way to hijack the thread, B) It is an easy way to put us on the defensive and C) It's a lot easier than trying to defend the indefensible.
I don't defend Mr Brock because he is perfectly capable of defending himself (although I notice he never bothers with these pipsqueaks) and I don't feed trolls.
Selective quotation is more what MMFA does.
You mean like Limbaugh removing one and a half minutes from his "complete transcript?"
Why must the right-wing project their own actions upon people who do nothing of the sort? All of O'Reilly's words were there to read, and BillO couldn't begin to defend himself against his own words. He call it "smearing." Well, monkeys smear with and fling at each other stuff that they create all the time, too. O'Reilly is just acting true to form.
There is no context in which O'Reilly comes off sounding like anything but a racist ass.
One more time.---When he quotes somebody and provides the audio he doesn't even require credibility in your mind and or anyone eles's.!
More like unsupportable and frankly ludicrous accusations. As has been pointed out this site doesnt RELY on anyones credibility. They post the facts and transcripts. Then again considering YOUR lack of credibility who cares WHAT you think?
Colon - Brock's previous condemnation of Anita Hill and his subsequent change of heart are both facts. There is no dispute that Brock wrote "The Real Anita Hill" nor is there any confusion about his support for the Democrat Party agenda currently. If you choose to ignore these facts and attack the messenger, that's fine with me. Don't claim that my post is devoid of facts though.
Genghiz,
Please point to examples from this site of defamation and slander.
IRRELEVANT FACTS you insufferable moron. It isnt my fault you are SOOOO stupid you think that becuase he wrote dishonest books THEN that now the FACTS on this site are somehow suspect. Those of us with a functioning brainpan can tell a fact from an opinion. Find yourself one and you MIGHT understand the difference yourself. Just like the fact you are a MORON doesnt alter your facts. They are true, and have been admitted by EVERYONE involved. YOU are just too stupid to know WHEN it is relevant and when it isnt. IF Brock were asking us to trust him they would be. He isnt. They arent. Try to keep up.
One need only research the links provided by MMFA, to ascertain that Mr. Brock's credibility is not the issue. In fact, one rarely encounters Mr. Brock's direct voice here, being served instead the steaming ordure produced by the right.
Nice talking points, Genghiz Con. As others have pointed out, Brock's credibility is irrelevant. He simply points out what the Conservative liars are saying. If you can find any lies posted by MMFA, by all means, document them for us.
What Genghiz? Brock, at the nadir of his credibility, was like the current model BilldO, so you're going to give the nod to O'Reilly?
Hmm. I didn't know that MMFA is a Hillary front. If it is, I didn't notice. Also, see above: David's paid his dues with his mea culpa.
"Moreover, O'Reilly has a long history of personally attacking those with whom he disagrees." A. I. MMfA
I cannot let this go. This is what MMfA does on an almost hourly basis: Personally attack those with whom mmfa disagrees. It's in the mission. Please just admit it for God sake. The simultaneous smear of Limbaugh and O'Reilly is laughable. MMfA is lying and intentionally distorting the truth for the advancement of liberal political candidates and left-wing agenda.
Point to one "personal attack" made by MMFA and not by any of us leaving comments.
First of all, why do you automatically discount the comments? MM clearly encourages the personal attack comments and should take responsibility for them.
Reader comments aside, one could argue that every one of MMfA items are a personal attack because it calls into question that person's honesty and intergrity by selective editing, taking comments out of context and out and out lying.
The biggest lies are these:
MMfa claims that they don't support and political candidates.
MMfA claims they don't receive any funding from Soros
MMfA claims they have no connection or backing from Hillary Clinton. Shown here to be a lie.
GF,
I discount the comments because anyone could say anything here. If I went to your site and said awful things, would it reflect on you? What if, by chance, a rival site came in and started posting terrible personal stuff about Republicans (while posing as Dems), would that reflect on the site? Did you see the Colbert Report when he had the guy from Kos on and Colbert placed a terrible comment on it and then railed against the guy from Kos for his site's content?
Also, what is wrong with questioning the points people pull out? Doesn't discussing a point either strengthen or weaken an argument or a belief? Are you not supposed to question things you hear?
I still have not seen how the publishers of this site have made personal attacks.
Nearly every day they have personal attacks. That is the primary weapon of choice. They constantly call racists by insisting certain statements are racial (race-baiting 101), they constantly leave out facts and deliberately push Hillary ahead of all other candidates and spin any error she makes.
Not giving racists a pass to spew racist nonsense really burns you up doesnt it? The idea they are pushing Hillary is just too dumb to take seriously. She is YOUR obsession not this sites.
Hillary started this site. Obama supporters have long agreed MM pumps her over Obama.
I dont care what you OR Obamas people say I am HERE. I can read for myself. I can even think for myself as hard as that might be for you Limborg hivemind cells to understand. When the right is obsessing on Hillary she gets more threads. When they go after Obama he gets more. Ya got nothin.
LH,
Please provide evidence of this assertion. If its all over the site, this should be easy for you.
Leather, do the MP's know you are off base again?
"They constantly call racists by insisting certain statements are racial (race-baiting 101)"---Leatherhemet
To the extent this applies, there is justification as the right has a strong nativist/racialist dynamic within it.
They constantly call racists by insisting certain statements are racial (race-baiting 101)
Typical LH comment. Surprised you haven't dragged in Sharpton and Jackson's name in the conversation. You tend to always squeeze those two someone in your whiny rants about MMFA.
those two someone
SOMEWHERE I meant to say.
Ok. Sharpton and Jackson. Didn't want to disappoint you.
Didn't want to disappoint you.
Not again, anyway.
GF,
While you have your opinion on what constitutes a "personal smear", the point is that MMFA puts up these items, some of them ridiculous in my opinion, but nevertheless they freely invite comments from anyone who cares to respond, without proganity, etc.
These threads are hashed out and argued and scrutinized and debated vigorously from many points of view. That fact should not be left out when discussing this website......and it is never mentioned by its detractors.
Tommy,
You are correct that the discussion is important on these items. Look, I am able to post here and disagree with evey one of their posts but, for the most part, I am treated in a civil manner.
My concern is with the effort by MMfA to have people removed from the air that they don't agree with. It goes beyond simply "pointing out misinformation". I know they will deny this but look at the "Take Action" section of the MMfA website. They wont ever admit it, but it sure looks like they are encouraging censorship.
GF,
People have all sorts of agendas, if this website wants to see these people off the air - then let them campaign for that, it's their right.
If silencing one's opposition is the only way to get your message across, then your message isn't worth a damn in my opinion. But I doubt this website has that kind of power........the free market place takes care of these things, for the most part. If advertisers start to jump ship because of the content of a particular program, then that is what usually sinks it - not some activist or stealth campaign.
Holding people accountable for what they say is no more censorship than the threat of being fired from YOUR job if you screw up is blackmail.
The issue is not silencing "people they don't agree with". that's a straw man, and a particularly thin one at that.
The issue is holding accountable people who lie and distort. Yes, they also happen to disagree with MMFA, but plenty of people who disagree with MMFA don't get scrutinized by them. It is conservative MISINFORMATION that draws the attention of MMFA.
You may be confused by the unfortunate fact that so many of the voices in the right-wing media are prone to misinforming their audience, and thus draw the focus of MMFA.
Kudos Tommy, a very good post.
"This is what MMfA does on an almost hourly basis: Personally attack those with whom mmfa disagrees."---GF
The fact that you see the articles as personal attacks makes MMFA's case. They just expose what the subjects say.
No, here they expose the liars and distorters--you know, people like yourself.
No YOU are lying. There was no smear of O'falafel OR Limbaugh by MMFA. They showed what they said. I know it just breaks your little heart that their racism and hatefullness are being played outside the venue of their brainwashed sychophants. So EVERYONE can see how outrageous they sometimes are. TOUGH. Actions have consequences and those two have dodged the consequence of what they say long enough. Isnt is soooo mean to hold them accountable for what they say.
As the English put it: Rubbish. MMFA has never used personal attacks--if they have SHOW ME ONE!
Now o'lielly and Limpballs, they've made an institution out of personal attacks--with a follow-up institution of denying that's what they do. That's one of the things I like about MMFA: It documents the lies of those Stalinist radio personalities on whom the "right" thrives.
Yeah, this website strikes at the heart...
of the pitiful disgrace that has become conservatism. Just by posting what these lying, wingnut, freak-bags are saying.
What do the right-wing cowards do? They scream and yell, and stamp their feet, and hurl all kinds of attacks at Media Matters: and then they run and hide under the kitchen table. The one thread that connects all these wingnuts? Cowardice
you sir are blinded by the right.....!
Fox News and Media Research Center (aka Newsbusters) are now declaring war on Media Matters for America (MMfA). They finally realize that MMfA is telling the public what the conservative media avoids telling the public! With all the transcripts and audio/video clips, MMfA has became a conservative's worst nightmare. After all, MMfA has successfully exposed Don Imus on his "nappy-headed hos". Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are now screaming to Congress to prevent a intitive the Democrats long been waiting on. The fairness doctrine is the biggest fear that conservatives such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, O'Reilly and Beck fear. Fox News has stepped up attacks on George Soros, Daily Kos, and others. We must do something! Conservatives are actually hurting the Republican party, they keep talking and blaming Clinton - Obama, Pelosi - Reid as desperate measure platform that distorts the message.
Don Imus was no conservative, he was calling Cheney a "war criminal " for 2 years. He was exposed by MMFA because of racist remarks and rightfully so.
BB,
What an idiotic post.
Look - I only try to point out the hypocrisy that is MMfA. Frist they say their not advocating censorship, now there is a "Take Action" page listing all of Limbaugh's sponsors so you idiots can write letters to his sponsors . Boo frickin' hoo! Grow a piar and shut up. Or better yet..just TURN THE FRIGGIN CHANNEL.
Look - I only try to point out the hypocrisy that is MMfA.
And you're doing it so well you haven't posted a single lucid example.
You are SUCH a complete moron. The whole hog of abject moronity. The airwaves BELONG to us. It is NOT censorship to hold anyone accountable for their ACTIONS. It isnt our fault you are too stupid to understand this simple dynamic. Actions have consequences. Talking to sponsers to tell them what WE think of ANYTHING is a function of what I like to call DEMOCRATIC action. If you dont like democracy we dont care. It is annoying you are too ignorant to tell the difference. It would be censorship if he could not say something. Holding him accountable for being a liar, or objectionable is NOT censorship. Go find a five year old to explain the definition of the word to you. My GOD you people are stupid
"You are SUCH a complete moron. The whole hog of abject moronity. The airwaves BELONG to us. It is NOT censorship to hold anyone accountable for their ACTIONS. It isnt our fault you are too stupid to understand this simple dynamic. Actions have consequences. Talking to sponsers to tell them what WE think of ANYTHING is a function of what I like to call DEMOCRATIC action. If you dont like democracy we dont care. It is annoying you are too ignorant to tell the difference. It would be censorship if he could not say something. Holding him accountable for being a liar, or objectionable is NOT censorship. Go find a five year old to explain the definition of the word to you. My GOD you people are stupid"
-solon
First of all... I'll leave you to the 5-year olds. Probably just your style.
Look..what you can't seem to get through your pointy head is that MMfA LIES about its mission. And when the IRS looks into its mission and funding (and I believe they soon will be), the game would be up. No more tax exempt status. The claim by MMfA that they do not promote or back any political cause or candidate is an out and out bald face LIE. If you can't see it, that makes you either a complete idiot or (more likely) a liar.
In the words of Shakespeare: if it looks like duck, walk like a duck and stinks, it's a DUCK.
T his site would have a lot more credibility if they lose the 501c3 status, admit funding from Soros and get on with it. Stop trying to hide behind some cloak of being fair. They're not, MMfA is a left-wing web site that actively promotes left-wing causes and candidates by silencing those with whom they don't agree.
Yours,
-Stupid Moron
Well OReilly was right , Brock did smear Anita Hill. Difference is he apologized, OReilly smears people and you will never get an apology.
Ooooook, anyway, anyone who spends just a short time here knows the gig. Most who post here do it for fun and therapeutic release. As seen in this thread progressives when "had" start the "smoke and joke" routine. If one were to change the two stories by switching O'Reillys name for Brock's the outrage would change with the names HOW SHALLOW AND TRANSPARENT! The word is getting out though. I see it in other media. The gig will soon be up so enjoy MMfA. This is your pinnacle of relevance.
So, the word is getting out huh? You see it in the "other" media (Faux News), huh? Excellent. As the "other" media (mainstream media) begins to parrot the right-wing smears of MMFA, more and more will log in to see what it's all about, thereby exposing more and more naive, kool-aid drinking Republitrons to the TRUTH. Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa!
Thats the way...................let it out...............laughter is the best medicine.
Why do you find it necessry to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. did you not get enough of that in 7th grade.
Retire your mind reading act. We all know you DONT have amazing mind reading powers you just ACT as if you did. Then again deluding yourself is what you do best.
Mr. Brock, you are good. You appear to be driving Bill O'Reilly slowly insane. Well done!
Hey Billo - why don't you have David Brock on your show. I believe he has offered to appear - many times. Is it perhaps time to accept his offer?
Oh yeah - you don't like actually debating with anyone. You prefer to have like-minded guests. Of course, you could always shut his mike off and yell "shut-up, shut-up" like you do when you disagree with guests, and then lie about what he said over the next few weeks as in Jeremey Glick's case - who remembers what you do one night after the other anyway.
I have also read Mr Brock's book, "Blinded by the Right". His switching sides was not an immediate thing, but a gradual one. He also writes about how he used to hang out at Ann Coulter's place. He understands how they work because he was one of them. Now Billo is trying to do to Brock exactly what Brock did all those years as an operative for the right wing media to those on the left. It won't work with Mr. Brock Bill - he knows the game too well.
Regardless of what he did in the past. Brock is not "smearing" anyone here, he is just repeating the words from the pundits mouths to people that are not the pundits' standard audience. And, as is quite obvious, much of what the right-wing pundits say to their loyal listeners is nauseating to many people. One question that I think remains unanswered --how does anybody listen to these right-wing pundits on a daily basis? Most of what they say is just ridiculous, and the lack of insight displyed by these opinion makers is embarrassing.
"One question that I think remains unanswered --how does anybody listen to these right-wing pundits on a daily basis? Most of what they say is just ridiculous, and the lack of insight displyed by these opinion makers is embarrassing."---Markfromchicago
Boy that question is key isn't it?. My guesses: 1.) No other political talk on. 2.) They feel better about themselves after they tells them why it's OK to hate those who are different (Democrats and those they represent.) 3.) too lazy or too busy or too whatever to use the internet. 4.) They distrust media in general but they trust them because they bash the media. 5.) the better ones have a certain personal charm (Limbaugh, O'Reilly) 6.) Force of habit.
Eddy: I read your points, and they make sense. I think that what the right-wing pundits really do best is to convince their listeners that they are getting the "inside story" that noone who just listens to "mainstream media" gets. That makes them "better informed" than those who disagree with them. But even so, it would just seem that anyone who even casually listened to these guys would know that they are being manipulated. Anyone who disagrees with the views expressed by the pundits are attacked, ad nauseum. And the pundits contradict themselves constantly. Don't these listeners ever say "oh, c'mon, you cannot really expect me to swallow that one can you?" Because this is all a big game for these people. In fact, I am surpriseed that some of these pundits don't make up an assumed name, and then take the opposite of their positions and argue with themselves. I just do not believe that any of these people believe half of what they say, and they could just as easily argue the flip side with just as much vitriol.
"I think that what the right-wing pundits really do best is to convince their listeners that they are getting the "inside story" that noone who just listens to "mainstream media" gets. That makes them "better informed" than those who disagree with them."---Mark from Chicago
I agree, another one or maybe two; some think they are getting the true inside skinny and some may have a hunch it's bull but they want to know what the slander of the day is for chit-chit and so on.
"Because this is all a big game for these people. In fact, I am surpriseed that some of these pundits don't make up an assumed name, and then take the opposite of their positions and argue with themselves. I just do not believe that any of these people believe half of what they say, and they could just as easily argue the flip side with just as much vitriol."---Mark from Chicago
I remember Sean Hannity on an April Fools' day, about 3 or 4 years ago, doing exactly that! He never sounded more sure of himself either. That almost subliminal warble in his voice was gone, and he sounded like a very normal level headed man objectively looking at the political landscape. I believe Hannity does not in fact beleive what he says.
Eddy: I never heard that Hannity did taht, but I am not surprised. He is definitely someone that I think does not really believe in much of what he says. For one thing, his pitiful "gotchas" with his liberal guests are often so lame, that no thinking person could believe they are actually making rational points. And he is simply too hypocritical in his comments for me to believe that he believes it. A recent example: supporting Nugent's despicable comments because he is a "friend of the show" after trashing the Dixie Chicks for much less offensive comments. Or his practically fainting over the MoveON ad after regualrly hosting Coulter to say and do much worse. That kind of hypocrisy just cannot be legitimate; it must be an act.
I tuned in the day after the 06 elections. I wanted to hear the spin and see how would he react to the defeats. He was as up as could be. He was rallying the troops as though the election was tommorow not yesterday. Not a bit depressed. He is a professional. A professional propagandist.
Eddy: You hit the nail on the head. Propagandist is exactly the right word. But their listeners DO NOT CARE! My gosh, the day after the election Limbaugh ADMITTED that he was carrying water for the Republicans and saying things that he did not even believe. But his audience did not care. How can we expect Limbaugh's audiences to rationally analyze what Limbaugh is telling them when it is clear that they do not even care if he is admittedly lying to them? To top it off, even knowing that he is a liar, they then quote him to other people as if he actually knows something worth hearing. Amazing!!!
Yes it is something to behold. You mention the time Limbaugh admited to his audience he is a propagandist. This was a change, but what stays the same are justifications he consistently provides for the GOP bases' very existence. And that is as an anti party. An anti-Democrat party which is the party of the 'Libs'.
Who are the 'liberals' really in his world? He won't bluntly say what he means. He mealy mouths around it and uses various words which express things different to their normal meaning, like a code. This is his talent. By liberals he means all the people who didn't have ancestors who came over on the Mayflower or sometime not too long thereafter. And who don't have mostly Anglo-Saxon or Germanic ethnic stock. And who very preferably are not Protestant. His professed arguments against liberals are merely a cover. His audience understands him. They know he is engaging in a perpetual ad hominem attack on "those damn people who should never have been let in here in the first place".
These people I refer to have thrived here. This breeds envy. Envy can be stoked into hatred. That is Limbaugh's job. He provides a service to these people, to justify why they are not relatively better off than they are---relative to the "outsiders" he demonizes. You say, "But these 'outsiders' make up the majority of the populace"? True, but until the majority sees what is going on it is as though they are a minority. The fact is that ethnic politics, long the domain of the Democratic party is now being much better played by the Republican party.
Eddy: What you posted is sad, but true. Limbaugh's main schtick is playing on the fear, prejudice, and hatred of his audience and using code words to hide his real meaning. The "liberals" are the rotten people who actuially believe in things like equal protection of the laws, which prevent the majority from completely dominating minorities and gays. The "good old days" are the 1950s, when white men ran everything, woman were at home where they belonged, and blacks and hispanics did not even think about demanding their rights.
Brock's history speaks for itself. We don't need O'Reilly to point it out for us.
Thats true. However as we pointed out its not relevant since he isnt ASKING US TO TRUST HIM.
Red meat for Keith Olberman...
BO channeling BO: "He'll do anything. He'll say anything -- doesn't matter if it's true -- for money."
Uhhh... Bill.... it DOES matter if "it's true."
Let me see if I have this straight. Bill O'Reilly calls on Al Queda to attack America ("You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead!"), Rush Limbaugh, who like O'Reilly never served in the military, openly condemns our troops during war time, not only those currently serving, but ALL the troops who served, and died, if they don't (or didn't) support the irrational & failed policies of the Bush administration, BUT David Brock - who not only has never condemned the military or called for Al Queda to attack America, is "the biggest villian" to O'Reilly.
Aside from the bigger question of why O'Reilly's not been incarcerated for supporting terrorist attacks against the US, who exactly is his allegience to when he characterizes David Brock as the "biggest villian"?
That's a nice rant, but Rush has always supported the troops and this is a smear job. I notice MMFA still has not mentioned his McBeth spot he did the day before the phony soldiers caller.
Rush saying he supports the troops is like a cheating husband that says he loves his wife. Every one of these conservative blowhards fell in line with the prewar agenda and never have they admitted that they were wrong or held themselves accountable. WMD's, mushroom clouds, cakewalks... They sold us a war like they would sell a used car!
Rush says he supports the troops. Wonderful!
Yet rush obviously feels that a soldier that contradicts the party line message should have their relevence questioned automatically, just like anyone else who questions the party line.
And to all you crybabys out their that think MMA is some kind of evil smear organization: All media figures need to be held accountable eventually. That is what is going on here. What is the alternative?
Hey I can play the "oh you want to take so in so off the air". Aparently all you conservative crybabies must want to put MMA off the web and outlaw the quoting of conservative media on the charge that quoting them is a smear.
Again whats the alternative: ban the quoting and analyzing of any conservative who is on the air for more than an hour a day unless it is done in a way that insures that it is ignored and marginal.
Lame!
Leather: What does "support the troops" even mean? You say that Rush has always "supported the troops." How? What has hew ever done for the troops? I see how he has supported George Bush, I see how he has supported every Republican talking point that there is, but please point out what he has ever done for the troops besides engaging in phony, fawning deference when he has a soldier on the air? Bottom line--"support the troops" is nothing more than a right-wing cover phrase for "support George Bush's Iraq policies" even when that means extending soldierstours of duties, and not providing soldiers much leave time between deployments. In case you have not noticed, George Bush is not "the troops" and we can support the troops without blindly following Bush.
Its not a smear job and only those who have been assimilated by the Limborg take the nonsense he was talking about that one guy seriously. Then again another of the hivemind is heard from
Congratulations, David! You deserve megakudos if o'lielly criticizes you. But a hack from the Stalinoid Heritage Foundation??? Is there anyway that street hooker o'lielly takes himself seriously?
I do hope, for billy boy's sake, I never run into him at night. I won't be able to control my rage. He's much like Limbaugh with just a little more "finesse." Niether has a spine, and both have sold themselves to the highest bidder. Yet both claim to have some grasp of "truth." That's what most pathetic.
Well, again, keep up the good work. If these complete lunatics criticize you, you must be doing something right. We all know what that is...
I've often wondered myself why we don't see these guys with black eyes, etc. They must never go out or use guards.
I love how Brock and MMFA gets under O'Reilly's skin.
It's priceless when the words of liars/bigots/racists come back to haunt them.
Are thes people (O'reilly & Limbaugh) so bloody stupid that they don't realize that every idiotic word or phrase they utter is recorded for posterity? Or, do they just not care? Some of the faithful must read the transcripts and know that they are lying. This is surreal.
SShan, I think you hit the nail on the head: They don't care. My father in law, who has the intellectual capacity of a Ken doll, adores o'lielly because billy boy--in his books--decries sex. (My father in law: the father of 11!) That billy gets off on a telephone receiver is something dad-in-law denies. It's easy, really. It's related to Archie Bunker's definition of faith: believing in something no one in his right mind would believe in
Wow. Forget people like the BTK Killer. The biggest villain in the country is clearly someone who runs a website that criticizes Bill O'Reilly.
"But at this point, this guy has emerged as the biggest villain, in my opinion, in the country. He'll do anything. He'll say anything -- doesn't matter if it's true -- for money. And the money's coming from the far left."
Projecting again, eh, Billo? Where's your money come from? Why do you spew hatred and lies 24/7 from your soap box? Who's payroll are YOU on?
Billdo made one telling point...
He controls the microphone. Indeed, he's got the mike. The corporation gave him the mike. He can lie and spin and smear at will. And we all know, he's more than willing to do all three.
Whoever has the mike, has the control. And it usually aint liberals.
Mr. O'Reilly,
You can do better than the word VILLAN. Heck, that is nowhere near VERMIN. VILLAN is something to sneer at. How about adding NAZ, VERMIN etc to your description and you can personally post here. As everyone knows, I prefer VERMIN...sounds sort of French.
Again I wonder if these guys(when they got together with Bush)decided to make a concerted effort to go after D.Brock and MM?Its quite obvious that they are feeling the heat,and I have to say its about damn time.Great job MM!
what lufa boy and his guest neglect to note, that while david was a part of the giant wingnut smear machine of the 90s, there is a great difference in what he did then, to what he does now.
then he printed unsubstantiated pieces in order to further the neocon agenda and to bring down people like the clintons and anita hill.
today, he posts the words (in both transcript and audio and video fom) of the individuls...in other words, he allows them to speak for themselves with very little editorial comment.
one thing mmfa should change, is that they need to take a tact from faux news itself....put question marks at the end of every headline...this would add plausible deniability
why, we didnt say that rush called all soldiers phony, we asked a question
ie "rush limbaugh calls soldiers phony?"
or "rush limbaugh compares vet to suicide bomber?"
or "bill o'reilly sleeps with a lufa?"
and christ, is george soros so cheap that he can only pay david 200k per year? i mean my god, david is paving the way for soros' world domination, that should be good for at least 500k....come on george, give the kid a raise.
Hey Bill! You should be attacked! First, you should have been fired for sexually harassing Andrea Mackris, but Fox News management kept you on. Second, you insult African Americans by stating that you found no difference between black and white patrons. You have damaged people personally, now it's your turn. Pay back time.
You are useless to this network. Do you and Fox News employees a favor and quit.
David Brock is a good, honest, upstanding American. His history is clearly a testament to that fact.
His history would certainly be relevant if he were ASKING us to trust him. He isnt. YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
Media Matters is a dispicable reporting machine. Will you do anything for money? It seems so
Great post. really well thought out points.Excellence in Webposting award is on its way.
You are right BJ...they go so far is print the exact transcripts and audio tracks. Those Bad people. How evil? They should hire Rush, MR. EDIT, to clean things up around here. Don't you agree?
Yeah, they are dispicable for reporting VERBATIM what O'falafel says. The Limborg has assimilated another one.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I'm the only one who scoffs at Bill's definition of a lot of money being $200k when he makes hundreds of millions!
If smearing, slander, and defaming for money is any measure of the truth than we can safely conclude that Bill is thousands more villianous than David!! Besides, David doesn't talk every day on TV and Radio nationwide, he runs a website posting the very sames own words!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady