O'Reilly again ignored CNN and MSNBC coverage of Medal of Honor ceremony in attacking media
SUMMARY: A day after accusing CNN and MSNBC of ignoring the
Medal of Honor ceremony for Lt. Michael Murphy during
prime time, Bill O'Reilly once again blasted the two
networks for their lack of coverage
of the event, asserting, "It's just another example of anti-military
media matters in the USA."
However, although CNN and MSNBC did not report on the story during the 8-11
p.m. ET prime-time period, on the day the family received the honor, MSNBC
reported on Murphy at least five times throughout the day, broadcasting the
award ceremony live; and CNN covered the story on at least seven distinct
occasions.
On the October 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly once again accused the media of ignoring the Medal of Honor ceremony for Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy SEAL killed during a rescue mission in Afghanistan in 2005 and the first to receive the honor for the war in Afghanistan. In the introduction to his "Personal Story" segment, O'Reilly said: "[M]any media operations, including CNN and MSNBC, ignored the Medal of Honor recipient, Lieutenant Michael Murphy, in prime time, when his family received the honor from President Bush this week," adding, "It's just another example of anti-military media matters in the USA." Later, during an interview with Ginger Gilbert -- wife of Maj. Troy L. Gilbert, killed in Iraq in 2006 -- O'Reilly asserted that "many media absolutely ignor[ed] what happened this week with the congressional medal being awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy."
However, as Media Matters for America documented following his October 23 broadcast in which he accused the media of ignoring the story and specifically criticized MSNBC and CNN for not covering the event in prime time, while neither MSNBC nor CNN covered the story in prime time, both networks aired numerous reports on the ceremony throughout the day on October 22, the day it was awarded. MSNBC reported on Murphy at least five times, broadcasting the award ceremony live; and CNN covered the Murphy story on at least seven distinct occasions.
On the October 24 show, when Gilbert asked, "Can we please just focus on the amazing amounts of good that are being done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how these men and women are selflessly sacrificing sometimes their lives?" O'Reilly replied, "But with most of the media being against the Iraq war ... and despising the Bush administration, they're not going to do that. They're going to spin negative all day long to further their political agenda." He later added: "[S]o the reality is that politics is trumping the war effort, and that's just where we are."
Later on the show, when O'Reilly raised the coverage issue with comedian Dennis Miller, Miller stated: "Well, being ignored in prime time by other outlets doesn't surprise me, Bill. Quite frankly, I admire you in many ways, and I know you're a savvy man, but when you're shocked to find gambling in Rick's Cafe, that always befuddles me." Miller added: "MSNBC stands for 'Make Sure No Bush Compliments.' And I'd like to give you an anagram for CNN, but guess what? They don't stand for anything anymore since they ran that footage of one of our soldiers being shot down by a sniper in the name of newsworthiness." Miller appeared to be referring to video footage of insurgents attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq that CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 aired in October 2006. Conservative attacks against CNN in response to the airing of the video were noted by Media Matters.
O'Reilly also asserted during the October 24 show: "[W]hen you ignore a Michael Murphy and his family being honored because you hate Bush, because you don't want to show Bush giving the family the Medal of Honor, that's corruption, Miller." He added: "And yeah, I am surprised that General Electric is allowing corruption at NBC. I am surprised that CNN is a corrupt news network. And that's what it stands for now: 'Corrupt News Network.' There's your initials."
Miller concluded: "I would tell you this: I don't know the man, obviously, but if he lived his life like that, I think being eulogized by two second-tier, ratings-challenged cable outlets would not have mattered a twit to a hero like him."
From the October 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight: As we told you last night, many media operations, including CNN and MSNBC, ignored the Medal of Honor recipient, Lieutenant Michael Murphy, in prime time, when his family received the honor from President Bush this week. Lieutenant Murphy, a Navy SEAL, was killed in Afghanistan.
It's just another example of anti-military media matters in the USA.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. Now, I think that's a very legitimate point. You couple that with many media absolutely ignoring what happened this week with the congressional medal being awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy. You couple what happened to your husband to that -- all right -- and what conclusion do you draw about the American media?
GILBERT: The conclusion that I would draw and the reason I made a statement several days after this video came out, the point of it was to say, can we please stop? Can we please just focus on the amazing amounts of good that are being done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how these men and women are selflessly sacrificing sometimes their lives -- selflessly sacrificing being in the war just to protect us and to keep the hate and the death from entering and reaching our borders? And where are the stories, the positive stories about that?
O'REILLY: All right. But with most of the media being against the Iraq war --
GILBERT: Right.
O'REILLY: -- and despising the Bush administration, they're not going to do that. They're going to spin negative all day long to further their political agenda.
Now, today, it was announced -- and we're going to do the story tomorrow with Dick Morris -- that casualties are way down in Iraq; the surge is working, at least temporarily -- very little coverage. Very little coverage.
GILBERT: Yes.
O'REILLY: Now, so the reality is that politics is trumping the war effort, and that's just where we are.
[...]
O'REILLY: You just heard Mrs. Gilbert. You know, a brave woman taking on the entire media. And then you know what our reporting was this week on the Medal of Honor recipient, Michael Murphy, the Navy SEAL. So, how do you see this?
MILLER: Well, being ignored in prime time by other outlets doesn't surprise me, Bill. Quite frankly, I admire you in many ways, and I know you're a savvy man, but when you're shocked to find gambling in Rick's Cafe, that always befuddles me.
MSNBC stands for "Make Sure No Bush Compliments." And I'd like to give you an anagram for CNN, but guess what? They don't stand for anything anymore since they ran that footage of one of our soldiers being shot down by a sniper in the name of newsworthiness.
But they won't mention that. You know something? CNN has turned into a sub-clause and an afterthought, and they don't matter any more. And they don't matter to the troops. That's why the troops watch this outlet. That's why they're called foxholes, 'cause they know they get a fair shake here.
O'REILLY: You know, it's not that I was shocked they didn't do it. I was just appalled. There's a difference. I wasn't going, "Oh, I'm so surprised." If you saw my talking points, I was so angry because of the corruption that seeped in.
Look, we get accused of shilling for the Republican Party and all this nonsense, and I defined it this way: We at Fox News believe America is a noble country. We make mistakes.
But if we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the military, we're going to do that. The others believe we're not a noble country. The Bush administration: a bunch of fascists, rights violators -- and any shot they get, they're going to take, as you well said.
But when you ignore -- when you ignore a Michael Murphy and his family being honored because you hate Bush, because you don't want to show Bush giving the family the Medal of Honor, that's corruption, Miller.
And yeah, I am surprised that General Electric is allowing corruption at NBC. I am surprised that CNN is a corrupt news network. And that's what it stands for now: "Corrupt News Network." There's your initials.
Go ahead.
MILLER: Well, listen, if they want to break out a Lindbergh parade 'cause some failed politician trying to rebuild his shattered esteem wins a peace award from the guy who invented dynamite, that's their craziness. Go ahead and do it. The rest of us out in Cogent-ville don't have to play.
You know, Michael Murphy literally did recognize the worst person in the world, and it was the animal who was trying to kill his comrades and compromise his family's way of life. And he did something about it. He stood out in the open. He tried to signal for help, and he paid for it with his life.
But I would tell you this: I don't know the man, obviously, but if he lived his life like that, I think being eulogized by two second-tier, ratings-challenged cable outlets would not have mattered a twit to a hero like him.
O'REILLY: No, it wouldn't have mattered, but it's just the principle of the thing.
O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight: As we told you last night, many media operations, including CNN and MSNBC, ignored the Medal of Honor recipient, Lieutenant Michael Murphy, in prime time, when his family received the honor from President Bush this week. Lieutenant Murphy, a Navy SEAL, was killed in Afghanistan.
It's just another example of anti-military media matters in the USA.
Ok and the MMFA article begins with these words
However, although CNN and MSNBC did not report on the story during the 8-11 p.m. ET prime-time period, on the day the family received the honor, MSNBC reported on Murphy at least five times throughout the day, broadcasting the award ceremony live; and CNN covered the story on at least seven distinct occasions
OReilly is saying they did not cover it in Primetime. MSNBC is too busy with Olbermann spewing his weird Republican hate and Dan Abrams trying to become an Olbermann wanna be. At 10pm they show Documentaries. CNN is lost with the 8pm hour and Larry King and Anderson Cooper. What is factually wrong with what OReilly said? They did not cover it during prime time.
So what? When did they ever cover a medal of honor recipient during prime time? This is something I think should be on the 6:00 evening news.
you are right, "so what".
But what OReilly said was not inaccurate and was not misinformation, they did not cover it in prime time.
Well sue, I guess "so what" is the issue. If it's no big deal, why is O'Reilly making a big deal out of it? Is he deflecting again, trying to brand the other channels as unpatriotic or anti military? That's why this should be reported here, not because he was technically right.
By the way, everyone - we're number 1!
I do not believe I ever said it should not be covered, all I stated was that BO was correct that MSNBC and CNN did not cover it in primetime.
But they claimed that the media was "ignoring" the story. Just because they didn't cover it in primetime doesn't mean it was ignored. So his claim is misinformation, even if the specifics are true.
It's like he accused a newspaper of "ignoring" a story by pointing to one specific day where they didn't cover it, while there were stories about it almost every other day of the week. Even if what he's saying is true, it doesn't support his point.
Bill O'Reilly is saying that not only was it terribly eggregious for elements of the media to not feature the medal award ceremony in prime time, he is saying that the failure to feature the matter in prime time reflects an anti-military sentiment on the part of media and is also motivated by a hatred for George W. Bush. Those are the opinions of a highly opinionated right wing megalomaniac and, as far as this observer can tell, they are not proven by O'Reilly's harangue. Therein is the "misinformation".
Ok - I get it now - Fox News prime time viewers are more patriotic than CNN and MSNBC prime-time viewers.
Snoopy, I'm so proud.Dangerous is sexy.That's pretty great that #1 and #2 are organizations that document facts about the right wing media and provide education, respectively.
Snoop, a plea (to everyone, while I'm at it)- I love your links, but could you try to use the "open in a new window" option?
The "same window" route, seems to be slower, and sometimes reverts the thread back to zero. Thanks!
Ya know, I never thought about that! I'll pay attention next time I link and do as you suggested.
By the way, everyone - we're number 1!
Snoopy, get ready for more Billybob's and his cousins. ;-)
Pearl,
I'm kinda wondering why he ain't checked in yet! Musta been a combo of my wit and your perry!
What O'Reilly is enaging in is called innuendo. It's a phony issue: there has NEVER been prime time coverage of any medal ceremony. Never.
And since when does the administration ever have prime time awards ceremonies? This is all part of a script, folks. Get ready for more of this kind of phoniness.
O'Reilly's claim was very Clontonseque. While he tchnically didn't lie, his implication was erroneous (not to mention dispicable). He clearly tried to leave the impression that his cable competitors COMPLETELY ignored the story. As for his time-slot competitors ignoring the story, it would be nice, wouldn't it, if O'Reilly occasionally had the courage name them. I mean, hell, he goes out of his way to name/label everybody else who crosses him ("failed radio talk-show host" Jeanine Garafolo, "socialist columnist" Paul Krugman, "far-left comedian bomb-thrower" George Carlin, etc.), right? I don't know, I just find his entire approach repulsive here. For more on O'Reilly's dishonesty/paranoia, check out paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com
MMFA is clearly taking issue with these accusations, which are complete lies:
"You couple that with many media absolutely ignoring what happened this week"
"But when you ignore -- when you ignore a Michael Murphy and his family being honored because you hate Bush,"
The day before:
"And you ignore, ignore a Medal of Honor winner? Awful."
YES, we can all see, just as MMFA does, that they didn't provide prime time coverage, disappointingly, I might add. But O'Reilly is accusing them of ignoring the story while not citing that they actually did cover it.
I suppose an argument could be made that by not reporting on or mentioning the story during prime time (the portion of the broadcast day guaranteed to have the highest viewership), the other 24-hour news organizations were, in effect (if not in actuality), ignoring the story. Or, at the very least, downplaying its significance.
Do you realize how petty and ridiculous you sound by defending this loon ball O'Lielly? The guy attacks MSNBC and CNN for not covering this story, "in primetime". Does he mention that MSNBC carried Bush's speech live? The guy will say MMFA took him out of context because he said "in primetime" but the reality is he takes CNN and MSNBC out of context in a much more inflamatory and reckless way than MMFA has ever done to BOR. He can complain all he wants about it not being covered from 8-11. But what about the 7 spots on CNN that ran that day about this story? O'Reilly is trying to divide this country by implying CNN and MSNBC (read liberals) hate the military because it wasn't covered in primetime. Who gives a shiite about primetime when it was covered on 15 seperate occasions throughout the day on those channels plus the ceremony was on MSNBC live? The guy has no sense of rationality and is Dennis Miller funny? What an intelligent acronym for MSNBC. How about Fools Or Xenophobes for FOX. Someone find me an open mic night!!!
You're making a rock solid argument. Bill O. was correct about the accusation he made. What is really the nature of MMFA's complaint?
Most likely the ENSUING several times he said they IGNORED the story without saying anything about primetime. You know, THE LIES.
solon:
According to the MMFA posts, Fox News is "biased" (as opposed to all the truth-seekers at CNN and MSNBC) and Bill O. is a horrible person.
The problem for an open minded person like me is that this argument is "non-unique" in that you can use this particular approach to slam ANYTHING Bill O. says.
In other words, the argument is more with Bill O. the man rather than anything he says.
I'm not fan of Bill O. - in fact, the guys is probably as ignorant a blowhard as anyone else in the media. But, and let's be honest here, isn't that the conservative take on Keith Olbermann?
The argument is with what O'Reilly said. MMfA didn't say that everything he said should be criticized because he's "horrible", they pointed out where O'Reilly lied.
You're willfully ignoring valid criticism. Is that open-minded?
That O'Reilly is making a phony complaint, that's MMFA's point.
Hey, and didn't he fail to serve when his country came calling-- oh yeah, he got that 1967 "teaching" deferment that got him out of the draft-- the one they quickly eliminated back the because it was being abused.
Such as... as soon as BOR evaded the draft, he quit teaching!
O'Reilly goes after his competitors like a child nearly every day. But what exactly is inaccurate about him saying CNN and MSNBC did not cover this in prime time? They did not. O'Reilly was factually accurate. MMFA has no story here.
Of course you're skipping the other part where Bill O goes on to say that other media are completely ignoring this story all week. In that sense, MMFA is quite correct once again. And in pointing out that indeed, other media did cover this story extensively I might add, and Bill O was, well, wrong again.
I do agree, MSNBC and CNN didn't cover it in primetime, instead they covered the awarding of the medal live.
Mag,
I am no fan of O'Reilly, you know that. But he was being accurate in his "prime time" assessment.......there is plenty to diss him on, this is not it.
No, Tommy, this IS it as much as any other O'Really coverage. He's trying to launch some kind of crapola idea that the other news networks are anti-Bush, and this is what he's using for fuel. He NEVER mentions the fact that the other networks DID run the story, like the prime-time qualifier is the be-all and end-all of the subject. The fact is that most people don't watch the news during prime time anyway, they're busy watching sit-coms or dancing with the stars. So the presentation of the medal probably got more coverage from the NON-prime time broadcasts than if they HAD run it during the lucrative advertising period. And for this large-headed jackass to promote himself and line his pockets on the naivete of geriatric shut-ins, tire store patrons, and ignoramuses who don't have the attention span to sit through a true news broadcast relegates him to the gutter of broadcasting with the other sleazeball huckster rats selling disposable garbage on the shopping channels. He's a pimp, a punk, and a pimple on the face of the earth.
On the other hand, I thought Dennis Miller here was the funniest he has been in decades.
On the other hand, I thought Dennis Miller here was the funniest he has been in decades.
Hardly, and he couldn't even keep the two dead soldiers straight-- he thought the one was married (he wasn't) and kept referring to the woman BOR interviewed as his wife.
What a moron. An angry, bitter, distinctly un-funny guy.
I agree. Dennis Miller was funny, but it's hard to comprehend his analogies or whatever. I get too caught up in his pronunciation and annunciation during the routines with Bill O. And this time, he was trying to say his lines while sounding angry, yet spontaneous, so it was even more distracting to understanding his talking points.
But, overall, I'd say he agreed with Bill.
I am no fan of O'Reilly, you know that. But he was being accurate in his "prime time" assessment.......there is plenty to diss him on, this is not it. Tommy
Wrong. It was a completely phony issue-- a red herring, like being accused of something that is not culpable in the least. Nobody has ever covered "prime time" awards ceremonies. Ever. If FOX is starting to, that's only to create a set-up issue-- with the help of the White House.
Ditto my response to Sue.
Come on, Tommy, you're better than that. Pull out your old Logic 101 textbook, facrissake. The inference that BilldO is drawing from the fact he's harping on is in rightwing whackjob territory.
No, MMFA is better than. Not only did they regurgitate an exact story from yesterday, but they can't even show where O'Reilly is being inaccurate in his "prime time" assertion. It is gratuitous and weak.
They're not saying that the "prime time" part is inaccurate. They're saying that O'Reilly's claim of "ignoring" the story is bogus because they covered it multiple times outside of prime time.
Then there is no point in this thread, as it was done yesterday. O'Reilly was accurate in what he stated regarding their prime time coverage.
No.
First off, so what if it was covered yesterday? If he continues to lie, then it continues to be a story. It indicates that it's not some honest mistake.
And again, it doesn't matter that his "prime time" comment is accurate, because his point is that the story was ignored. It wasn't ignored. Therefore, it's misinformation. What part of that are you disputing?
Look, I am not going to get in some long semantic argument with you, here, again. I have no problem criticizing O'Reilly when it's warranted, unlike you, who reflexively does it because it feels good, apparently.
You can dismiss his "prime time" comment if you want to, but that is the jist of this topic, considering the rest of it was covered yesterday. MMFA, and you, wanted another O'Reilly bashing thread, go for it.....I gave my opinion, we obviously disagree.
What "semantic" argument?
I ask you what part of that you're disputing. You can't list anything. So you're not disputing anything I'm saying, but somehow you're continuing to claim you have some valid argument.
You don't.
This item wouldn't be here if O'Reilly simply said "CNN and MSNBC reported on the Medal of Honor ceremony several times each during the day but not in prime time".
But when has O'Reilly ever told the truth? it is rare.
Tommy, its like talking to a two year old to this guy, do not even bother, if he does not see the factual problem with the Primetime issue he will never budge.
I'm making points that you simply can't address, then you make a personal attack.
Who's acting like a child here, again?
Agree Sue, Brab is just being argumentative for it's own sake, I am not interested. Let him bash Bill for his accurate statements with someone else. It is absurd.
Bill's statement that the story was "ignored" is not accurate.
You have yet to address this.
Well then you blow on your knuckles and rub them on your chest. You have once again shown Bill O'Reilly to be accurate, and not accurate, all in the same thread, apparently. Good for you. You win.
:)
Yes, it is possible to say something true ("it wasn't covered in prime time"), but for the following conclusion to be false ("the story was ignored"). If you grasp this concept, then I think it's a victory for all of us.
Screw them Brab, they're just being obtuse.
The title of the item is:
“O'Reilly again ignored CNN and MSNBC coverage of Medal of Honor ceremony in attacking media”
If O’Reilly had qualified his comment by saying both CNN and MSNBC reported on the ceremony several times each, this item wouldn’t be here. O’Reilly intentionally left that out because it didn’t sit well with his “CNN and MSNBC are anti-military” narrative.
Tommy,
Yeah, I don't blame you...there are a few here that aren't worth the time. A difference of opinion quickly turns into them whining about personal attacks...all about themselves.
Then any exchange of ideas...from these pedantics...degenerates into a Clintonesque style discussion...trying to find out what the real meaning of "is" is.
State your opinion and why if necessary...and then in your true words...move on and avoid the boredom.
Any complaint about anyone's behavior is "whining", apparently. If someone said talking to you was like talking to a two-year old, you would call it a personal attack.
I believe it was Lynn the other day that you took to task for one of her comments. Why wasn't that "whining" on your part? And why is Sue's comment here not below her usual standards?
You're perfectly welcome to address the valid points that Sue and Tommy won't. If you don't, then it's even more obvious that they don't have any argument here.
Apparently you think the comment about pedantics whining about personal attacks applied to you...hmmm.
Feel free to grind on because I'm going to take tommy's advice and move on...to avoid the ennui of your thoughts.
As I wander away...I'll be wondering...was Goliath 17 inches tall or 17 feet tall...I think I'll do a little research before I take a position on the effect of his height in his battle with David.
Not going to take up the argument? Because Tommy and Sue have no argument, and you have nothing meaningful to say, as usual.
Bye bye, troll.
Brabanito, not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
Read the conversation. If you think Wesley's trying to engage anyone in thoughtful conversation, if there's some valid point he's making, you go ahead and explain how that's the case.
Is this really someone you want to defend? I suggest you think about it.
Do you know why he asked about "is"?
Wes,
You hit the nail on the head, exactly. Facts and accuracies become irrelevant when the bullseye is on an MMFA villian, this week > O'Reilly. Whether it's warranted or not is "whatevah!"......it's Bill, it's deserved.
What's relevant is that you split hairs over the use of the words "prime time", and then claim you don't want to argue semantics.
You hit the nail on the head, exactly. Facts and accuracies become irrelevant when the bullseye is on an MMFA villian, this week > O'Reilly. Whether it's warranted or not is "whatevah!"......it's Bill, it's deserved. Tommy
The title of this is: O' Reilly again ignored CNN and MSNBC coverage of Medal of Honor ceremony in attacking the media. AGAIN!
It is not about his initial complaint about prime-time coverage but how when Bill continues to attack CNN and MSNBC he failed to add his initial rant about 'prime-time' and simply said that 'many media absolutely ignored coverage'. Look at his conversation with the wife of Maj. Troy Gilbert. He does not include 'prime time' he simply say media absolutely ignored, which is false.
Later, during an interview with Ginger Gilbert -- wife of Maj. Troy L. Gilbert, killed in Iraq in 2006 --
O'REILLY: All right. Now, I think that's a very legitimate point. You couple that with many media absolutely ignoring what happened this week with the congressional medal being awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy. You couple what happened to your husband to that -- all right -- and what conclusion do you draw about the American media?
Ah, the Mr. Hyde Tommy shows up.
This is just like some other websites that I frequent where commonly, the complaints from a lot of right wing type folks who post on there, is that, "I bet the NY Times didn't cover this story.." And then they'll post something from say, the AP or some other news source, and of course, when you look at the NY Times website, and search for the same story they just posted, lo and behold, there it is.
It's called research Bill, you should have someone on your show to do these things for you. Of course, when said research gets in the way of your "facts" I'm sure you ignore it anyway. Just like he did on this story where in fact, stories were run time and again on CNN and MSNBC about this valiant MOH winner.
I'm so tired of hearing people whine and moan about how we only show the "bad" stuff going on in Iraq. Yeah, like it's some wonderland where fairies bring you treats, and the beer flows like wine. Maybe, just maybe if the media had done due dilligence on Iraq before the war, we might not be there as I write this today. And yes, we all know how much the soldiers over there are sacrificing for Bush's little jihad, and this is why I want them ALL to come home ASAP.
But Mangolia the stories were not run in primetime, thats what Bill O is saying. he is not innacurate about that.
Sorry bad spelling day "inaccurate"
But he doesn't only JUST say "primetime". He also states that other media have not covered this story at all.
I'll give him the primetime comment, and that MMFA is incorrect on that point, but Bill O does go on to say that everyone else had been ignoring this story all week, which is blatantly wrong.
But MMFA already did this story yesterday, if the prime time comment is inaccurate, then this is not worthy of MMFA's O'Reilly bash, reflexive as it may be.
Ditto my response to Sue, again.
Doris, do you agree with Billo that the failure to feature this event on prime time television was motivated by an anti-miltary bias in the media accompanied by a hatred of Bush? Personally, I don't think the evidence supports such a strong conclusion. But again, even on a rare honest day O'Reilly deals in hyperbole and exaggeration. The so-called No Spin Zone isn't as advertised.
Doris, do you agree with Billo that the failure to feature this event on prime time television was motivated by an anti-miltary bias in the media accompanied by a hatred of Bush?
Of course I do not and if you have ever read my posts in the past or even on this thread you know I have no use for Oreilly, this illegal war or this President and his lies.
Doris, don't get upset...I have a good idea where you stand politically. My point was that I was having difficulty understanding why you didn't immediately recognize what was wrong with O'Reilly's stance. Sure, he was correct that the award ceremony was not featured in prime time on some networks but it was O'Reilly's customary tenedency to draw conclusions that were not supported by the evidence. It may be true that George W. Bush is hated in some circles...I'm not so crazy about him myself (Now my tax returns are going to be audited and my phone is going to be tapped, I'm sure.) ;>) But I think it was patently clear that O'Reilly's conclusion that this episode was an example of an anti-military sentiment was wrong.
Sorry if I offended you. Didn't mean it that way.
Irony, thank you I was not upset ;-) .
Mag,
This isn't really much different from MMFA pointing out that Katie Couric didn't report something on her Nightly News program, even though it was reported on CBS's morning news programming.
O'Reilly's complaining this wasn't on Prime Time, MMFA says it was covered in the daytime.
I don't think either one has much of a case here.
I guess for myself, I was also looking at his later comments on the same show where he was bashing on CNN and MSNBC about how they weren't covering this story at all. I do agree, as I said before, that if he had just left it at "primetime" coverage comment, MMFA would be incorrect in pointing out just that instance. They didn't though. They did point out where he condemned other media for not covering this story at all. Which was indeed wrong.
I too often don't get the articles that are posted at times where they say so and so didn't cover this story, or that story. Production choices are no doubt made as to what story to air on the nightly big 3 coverages, and they don't have a lot of time to cover everything, and hence the 24/7 news networks on cable that can cover virtually everything else throughout the day.
I think in Bill O's rant, he was correct one time, and incorrect another time. That's all I'm really saying here. I can't argue against the "primetime" comment, they didn't cover it in primetime.
I do not see hte issue here, O'Reilly does say "Primetime" the MMFA article also states that MSNBC and CNN did not cover it in Prime time, now make the case that OReilly did not mention other times? Fine but this story seems to be pushing it alittle.
Ditto my response to Sue above, yet again.
I guess this is the kind of drivel it takes to secure ratings in a for-profit media. I'm saddened that this is what most Americans choose to watch when they look to cable for their news.
"As we told you ..."
Love that royal "we" ... wonder if he really DOES think of himself as "Royal"?
He has to spread the blame to that cage of chimpanzees that does his research.
Let me make one other statement however, OReilly still in my view seems to think that if you are against this horrible war you are anti Military. That is not the case at all, and allthough he is correct about the Primetime coverage that does not mean MSNBC or CNN are anti Military or hate Bush. FOX choose to cover the girl in Aruba non stop 2 years ago , it has to do with programing choices. Was FOX anti American because it has FOX News Alerts on Brittany Spears?
He said over and over again that other media outlets ignored this, with no "prime time" qualifier.
And besides, the whole argument is stupid and weak. Devoting an entire show to criticizing a news outlet for not covering one particular story during one particular programming block? It's just silly.
He says Primetime
O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight: As we told you last night, many media operations, including CNN and MSNBC, ignored the Medal of Honor recipient, Lieutenant Michael Murphy, in prime time, when his family received the honor from President Bush this week. Lieutenant Murphy, a Navy SEAL, was killed in Afghanistan.
Ditto my response to your opening post.
Sueeld, I think what we get down to it is that the bigger issue in my mind is how Oreilly is trying to make a link that if you are against this war you are anti Bush and Anti American. In a wider scheme of things and when you cut out all of his Bull S*it he is saying "CNN and MSNBC hate America' That is what is wrong, yeah he is correct that they did not cover it in prime time, but Americans want to see Spears and Lindsay Lohan and not real news on cable at 8pm anymore . We get it Bill.
Doris, there is nothing in your statement at all that I disagree with. Cable news (OREILLY included) have gone the NY Post way of journalism. Sensationalistic tabloid garbage . Its evidence on CNN Headline news with that disgusting Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck and the horrible Hollywood show. There are no real news channels anymore where we can get real unbiased news. Oreilly included (FOX)
He said it many times without the primetime qualifier. Your talking point is without merit
it is not a talking point, its a fact that MMFA agrees with , why else would they place it in the first paragraph of the thread? If we can not be fair then we will never win the battle against misinformation.
It IS a talking point because he said MULTIPLE TIMES WITHOUT QUALIFICATION that they ignored the story. Just because you put a qualifier in ONCE doesnt give you free reign to LIE three other times IN the broadcast about MSNBC and CNN which is what O'Rielly did.
I do not disagree with you, however the way the MMFA thread is written does not give that impression. There needs to be more clarity.
Summary: A day after accusing CNN and MSNBC of ignoring the Medal of Honor ceremony for Lt. Michael Murphy during prime time, Bill O'Reilly once again blasted the two networks for their lack of coverage of the event, asserting, "It's just another example of anti-military media matters in the USA." However, although CNN and MSNBC did not report on the story during the 8-11 p.m. ET prime-time period, on the day the family received the honor, MSNBC reported on Murphy at least five times throughout the day, broadcasting the award ceremony live; and CNN covered the story on at least seven distinct occasions.
How does that not address your original post and every one after it? What else were they supposed to say to provide "clarity"?
Sueeld, I think you are correct as I stated earlier with the "Primetime" issue. This does tend to be a poorly written thread. My issue with OReilly is that he tends to believe everyone who is against the war is automatically anti Bush and anti Military. Supporting the troops does not equal supporting this horrible , disgusting war to line the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater.
Supporting the troops does not equal supporting this horrible , disgusting war to line the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater.
Doris you make a valid point, I would like to ask Bill OReilly why he has done no indepth stories on Blackwater and the attrocites that Blackwater has committed on the Iraqi civillians, or is that too "anti American and therefore equals anti Bush and anti Military"?
Do you mean like later in the article when they show O'Reilly saying THIS"
You couple that with many media absolutely ignoring what happened this week with the congressional medal being awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy.
Then later THIS:
But when you ignore -- when you ignore a Michael Murphy and his family being honored because you hate Bush, because you don't want to show Bush giving the family the Medal of Honor, that's corruption, Miller.
Are you guys reading the entire article, or just the start of it, because Bill O also said this:
O'REILLY: All right. Now, I think that's a very legitimate point. You couple that with many media absolutely ignoring what happened this week with the congressional medal being awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy."
Exactodubitably.
When he said many media ignored the event, he was obviously referring to MTV and the Home Shopping Network.
If Bill really gave a rat's *ss about the troops, he'd listen to them instead of his own raging bullsh*t. They want to leave Iraq:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=35385
I see the filibuster is working nicely! ;)
thanks...forgot to use it in the phony Faux news "controversy" about Obama yesterday...everyone feel free to filibuster as well! :-)
The "primetime" qualifier is just Bill O's attempt to revise and sweep away his earlier falsehood about CNN and MSNBC. The man can't monitor a ham sandwich.
OMG, off topic, but...
Call the dogs and put out the fire!!!
MMFA is now the #1 most dangerous organization in America!!!!
Now THERE'S some cause for celebration!
Congratulations, MMfH! You even beat out a group that wants to secede! I'd say that's some well-spent Soros money!
Party at Neon's place... Mr. Soros just e-mailed me to say he'll spring for the champagne...but we're on our own for the drugs. He said Hillary may drop by late, after she puts Bill to bed.
This is a hard fought victory, especially when you consider the sheer plurality and numbers represented in the #2 slot! That's no easy task wrestling the top spot from that many professors!
BTW, that link appears to be hit-and-miss, so here's the TP item that informed me of the rankings.
Watch him boys, that David Brock is a verily dangerous man. Why I bet he's even got a McGovern For President sign on the wall in his garage.
Now THAT is funny.
It's really "crazy" how MMFA is so dangerous for you know, repeating the words and posting transcripts of what these guys say and do on the PUBLIC airwaves, and call them free speech taker awayers. Last I knew, we weren't calling for anyone to be silenced, nor calling for laws silencing anyone anywhere. It's called the free market, you know, that little bastion that the right loves to embrace, except when it smacks them in the face. We can write to the supporters of smear merchants like Rush et all, and urge them to pull their sponsorship money for the reasons we can state and show them. Will they do it? I doubt it. Can we make a difference? Maybe sometimes. For instance in my local market (North Carolina) I have written many letters to my local talk radio station to ask them to remove Savage from the air, or think about playing his show because of the things that he says and does. The response, "Sorry, Michael Savage is our most popular program". Again, free market. I'll keep writing, even though I'm a single voice in a large chorus.
Interesting how colleges and universities are attacked by this "research". I wonder if this is just this one person's opinion, or are there actual "facts" behind the reasons that these organizations are on the "list" of most dangerous organizations. The writer is obviously fairly hard right, as we have the usual boogeymen in there. Moveon, ACLU, and so on and so forth. I still can't believe right wingers preach about adhering to the Constitution, but seem to hate and loathe and want to destroy the ACLU who protect everyone's rights regardless of political affiliation.
The most "dangerous" thing about MMFA is that posting here is addictive & I'm writing this when I'm supposed to be working!! ;-)
Jeter, its the same thing with me . Im addicted ;-)
Maybe there's a 12 step program for us?
Media Matters Anonymous ;-)
OK, you were like 40 minutes behind with that one. I claim the title for delivery!
By the way, everyone - we're number 1!
I'll leave a bone in your dish.
O'REILLY: You know, it's not that I was shocked they didn't do it. I was just appalled. There's a difference. I wasn't going, "Oh, I'm so surprised." If you saw my talking points, I was so angry because of the corruption that seeped in. QUIZ TIME What "outrage" does the above rant best apply to? a.) Potential corrupt campaign contributions funneling into the coffers of a pro-war presidential candidate. b.) Medal of Honor ceremony for Lt. Michael Murphy getting reported perhaps only 12 times throughout the day on CNN and MSNBC. c.) Starbucks Coffee of Manhasset discontinuing 5% celebrity discount.
"Well, listen, if they want to break out a Lindbergh parade 'cause some failed politician trying to rebuild his shattered esteem wins a peace award from the guy who invented dynamite, that's their craziness. Go ahead and do it. The rest of us out in Cogent-ville don't have to play."
Let's see what Olberman does with this one, shall we?
Why is O'Reilly discussing what CNN and MSNBC does with a washed-up comedian?
I guess the same reason Olbermann interviews and discusses what Brit Spears does with the creepy Michael Musto. Nothing else to talk about?
So in your mind a gossip columnist commenting on a celebrity is equal to O'Reilly discussing what major news outlets do with a washed-up comedian?
Yes because they are both waste of airspace, but hey if Oreilly wants to talk to the loser Miller and Olbermann wants to stain his show with Michael Musto that is their right.
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
So now not only do you have an illogical hatred of Keith Olberman, but you also are a homophobe. I know what you meant by creepy...
Creepy because of the way he looks, talks and acts not his sexuality, I could care less . I remember though how Mr Creepy and Olbermann "outted" Ryan Seacrest in discussions last spring about Seacrest and Simon from American Idol. I guess thats ok though?
Let's see what Olberman does with this one, shall we?
I think we all know what Keith will do, Oreilly will be worst person in the world for this, MMFA will talk about it tommorow and we will have mindless conversation on why Olbermann and MMFA promote eachother, this was discussed allready blah blah blah.
I don't think they promote each other. MMFA just highlights when the media discusses an item that was posted on its website.
OReilly is saying they did not cover it in Primetime. MSNBC is too busy with Olbermann spewing his weird Republican hate and Dan Abrams trying to become an Olbermann wanna be. At 10pm they show Documentaries. CNN is lost with the 8pm hour and Larry King and Anderson Cooper. What is factually wrong with what OReilly said? They did not cover it during prime time.
First post and first mention of Keith.
I have to confess that I'm actually entertained when BillO and Miller get together.
Kind of like Ted Baxter interviewing Chuckles the Clown on matters of national importance. It's precious.
I'd love to hear them accidentally leave the microphones on during a commercial break...now that could be funny.
I am waiting for Dennis Miller and O'Reilly to start their own TV Reality show. These two liars are unbelieveable.
How dare you call them liars?! O'Reilly said "primetime"!
Wow! "O'Reilly" and "reality" used in the same sentence!
I better check the news. There might be peace in the middle east now...
Maybe it can be called Bosom Buddies? Starring Bill OReilly and Dennis Miller?
How about calling their act The Aristocrats. :>)
Now you've gone too far over the line. Even Saget wasn't that crude ;-)
Dennis Miller really has that fine "bad guy in a Lifetime movie" beard going for him now.
9/11 changed his life. My A**, he saw an opening, miscalculated and now has to live with his decision of becoming a conservative comedian. They are just not funny. I prefer Bill Maher.
Primetime!
Nurgie!
My husband and I watch O'Reilly every night to get our digestive juices flowing as we yell at the screen over dinner. He has been ranting about MSnBC and now his latest assault on CNN all week over this Medal of Honour winner. When it comes down to the semantics of whether he said "prime time" the first time he brought this up, he has not used "prime time" on other occassions on subsequent nights and his ties to being anti military are indeed a pathetic sight to behold. I will lay odds that it comes up again tonight in some form and even tomorrow. He can't let a night go by without referring to it somehow. Also who was it said that soldiers watch Fox news and that it is why ithey are called "Fox holes"? Don't your soldiers only get to the major extent the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly on the TV or radio over there in Iraq? His rantings and ravings seem to be getting worse and worse lately. Even as Canadians, we can see that the falshoods flow more often and quickly.. such as pretty well all high school and university teachers are leftists teaching anti American propoganda. Sorry, but for those defending him- Why? Does he really rise to the level of discourse you want to see in your country? He's pathetic and we watch him for the amusement show he is and to remind ourselves that you indeed can spin anything to your favour if you try hard enough...and O'Reilly sure does that!! We feel sorry for the people who actually watch him and believe him. What sad shape they must be in!
You'd better watch it or his next outrage will be over that gay draft-dodger Dudley Do-right. He always gets his man.
O'Rielly must be a lot more effective than I imagined to get all of the attention that MM has been giving him.
I like what he's done in the area of countering child molesters and also his attitude about the media in general. What I don't care for is his interrupting people before they make their point (although Allen Colmes is the worst in this regard) and his shooting from the hip to appear to be more of a "populist"
I wouldn't call him "effective" unless it is in lieing to the audience with such a false sense of outrage and indignation and getting away with it with his regular viewers.
And yes, he did go at it again with teasers of "Why didn't they cover the medal of honour awards?" while the screen runner at the bottom showed "Media Blackout" or again when he said "Why did they ignore......" He did finally bring up the primetime when Jane said that both MSNBC and CNN had covered it numerous times during the day, but then he had to say "not in primetime from 8-11". I did like Jane's retort saying that since Hannity and Greta didn't cover it, did that make them like CNN and MSNBC? O'Reilly said "Greta's show isn't a political one" whatever that is supposed to mean. So does that imply that only political shows from 8-11 were supposed to air it? I still think we will hear it one more time tomorrow night before he PERHAPS puts it to rest??
O'Rielly must be a lot more effective than I imagined to get all of the attention that MM has been giving him.
O'Really?
Don't you just love the way he hauls child molesters into jail single-handedly...and until he brought it up, who knew it was wrong?
He is effective at being a liar, a blowhard, and a shameless propagandist. This is just one example.
"I like ... his attitude about the media in general"
You mean completely demeaning the profession of journalism by pretending to be a journalist, while lying about and insulting actual journalists in the media?
What's not to like?
By countering child molesters, do you mean how he talks about how their victims probably enjoyed being molested?
The folks who monitor O'Reilly deserve a medal. They watch so we don't have to. I couldn't do it. It would shorten my lifespan. Thank you for what you do. The rightwing propandists can't stand you for exposing them for the neoGoebells that they are.