Dershowitz review of O'Reilly Kids book concluded "it should be placed ... with the joke books"
SUMMARY: In his review of Bill O'Reilly's book, Kids Are Americans Too, which O'Reilly co-wrote with Charles Flowers, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote: "This book is so riddled with errors, inconsistencies, bad advice and hypocrisy that ... it should be placed in the adults-only section of the bookstore. Or better yet, with the joke books." Dershowitz also noted comments O'Reilly has made on his nationally syndicated radio show that Media Matters for America has highlighted, including O'Reilly's 2005 comments about calling on the FBI to arrest the "clowns" at Air America Radio; his on-air description of his trip to Sylvia's restaurant; and his comments about the media and Phil Spector.
In a December 9 Washington Post review of Kids Are Americans Too (HarperCollins, October 2007), a book by Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and author Charles Flowers, Harvard Law School professor Alan M. Dershowitz wrote: "This book is so riddled with errors, inconsistencies, bad advice and hypocrisy that by O'Reilly's own standards -- we must not 'leave children exposed to harm' -- it should be placed in the adults-only section of the bookstore. Or better yet, with the joke books." In his review, Dershowitz noted comments O'Reilly has made on his nationally syndicated radio show that Media Matters for America has highlighted.
Dershowitz wrote:
The author of this book also preaches to kids about their right to express themselves freely. Contrast that author with the talk show host of the same name, who said in a June 20, 2005, radio broadcast:
"Dissent, fine: undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all of those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. ... Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything."
When newspapers and blogs reported this fall on O'Reilly's bizarre comments about visiting an African American restaurant in Harlem -- he expressed astonishment that none of the diners was "screaming" obscenities, there wasn't "any craziness," and it was "exactly the same" as any "Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb" -- he went into a rant against the media for portraying him as racist:
"These people aren't getting away with this. I'm going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I'm coming after you. ... I'm going to hunt you down. ... I'm coming to your house. You'll have a camera up your nose."
[...]
And the contradictions go on. O'Reilly the author praises juries and tells kids we must accept the law even if we disagree, otherwise we have "anarchy." O'Reilly the talk show host had this to say about the jurors who voted not to convict Phil Spector: "They're idiots and they should be put in jail for letting this guy get off."
Media Matters documented O'Reilly's 2005 comments about calling on the FBI to arrest the "clowns" at Air America Radio; O'Reilly's on-air description of his trip to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem; and his September 27 comments that "[e]very corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I'm coming after you" and warning that "You go after somebody's family, you go after them and smear them with defamation that you can't back up, I'm coming to your house. I'm coming to your house. You'll have a camera up your nose." Media Matters also documented comments the same day about media and music producer Phil Spector's murder trial.
Dershowitz's December 9 Washington Post review in its entirety:
So now Bill O'Reilly is teaching kids about their rights as Americans. In Kids Are Americans Too, the right-wing television bloviator rails against his usual targets: activist courts, the ACLU, big government and federal intrusion on states' rights. He tells American kids -- many of whom, in his view, are "complete morons" -- that "Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the guys" who "got together in Philadelphia in 1787" to write our Constitution "believed that a lot of laws -- a lot of rights -- should be decided by the individual state, or even the individual county or city." Never mind that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being drafted and ratified.
And never mind, too, that the first court decision used by O'Reilly to illustrate his screed says precisely the opposite of what he tells the kids it says. O'Reilly begins by describing a case in which the ACLU allegedly persuaded the Supreme Court of the state of Washington that the "constitutional rights" of a girl named Lacey had been violated when her mother surreptitiously listened in on a phone call between Lacey and her boyfriend, during which the boyfriend admitted to a purse snatching.
Although O'Reilly doesn't provide readers with a citation so they can check the case themselves, I was able to find it. Washington v. Christensen, 102 P.3d 789 (2004), had nothing to do with "constitutional rights." It involved a state statute that reflected "Washington's long-standing tradition of affording great protection to individual privacy." The court went out of its way to emphasize that "it is, of course, within the province of the legislature to shift these statutory balances should it decide the residents of this state require less privacy protection." So it wasn't the big, bad federal government or activist courts that barred parents from listening in on phone calls, after all. It was the state legislature -- precisely the institution that O'Reilly contends should make these kinds of decisions.
Moreover, the case was not about Lacey's right to privacy. The court explicitly said that it was "Christensen's [the boyfriend's] expectation of privacy with which we are concerned." O'Reilly simply got it wrong. A kid will not be "way ahead of the pack," as O'Reilly claims, "just by reading this book." Instead, the kid will be misinformed.
O'Reilly also purports to teach about morality and responsibility. He complains about secret legal settlements "in which no one admits any 'wrongdoing' in the matter." You mean, like the one he entered into with Andrea Mackris, one of his former Fox News producers, after she filed a lawsuit accusing him of harassing her with sexually explicit phone calls and of threatening that she would be "destroyed" if she "ever breathed a word" about it? This is the same Bill O'Reilly who tells kids that "any kind of bullying is a bad thing." O'Reilly bought Mackris's silence with a confidential settlement in which no one admitted any wrongdoing and in which the tape of his alleged telephonic harassments and threats was suppressed.
The author of this book also preaches to kids about their right to express themselves freely. Contrast that author with the talk show host of the same name, who said in a June 20, 2005, radio broadcast:
"Dissent, fine: undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all of those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. ... Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything."
When newspapers and blogs reported this fall on O'Reilly's bizarre comments about visiting an African American restaurant in Harlem -- he expressed astonishment that none of the diners was "screaming" obscenities, there wasn't "any craziness," and it was "exactly the same" as any "Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb" -- he went into a rant against the media for portraying him as racist:
"These people aren't getting away with this. I'm going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I'm coming after you. ... I'm going to hunt you down. ... I'm coming to your house. You'll have a camera up your nose."
O'Reilly the author rails against secularists to whom the sanctity of the church means nothing, while O'Reilly the powerful media mogul bragged to his Fox News producer, according to her legal complaint, that "he was going to Italy to meet the Pope, that his pregnant wife was staying at home with his daughter, and implied he was looking forward to some extra-marital dalliances with the 'hot' Italian women."
And the contradictions go on. O'Reilly the author praises juries and tells kids we must accept the law even if we disagree, otherwise we have "anarchy." O'Reilly the talk show host had this to say about the jurors who voted not to convict Phil Spector: "They're idiots and they should be put in jail for letting this guy get off."
This book is so riddled with errors, inconsistencies, bad advice and hypocrisy that by O'Reilly's own standards -- we must not "leave children exposed to harm" -- it should be placed in the adults-only section of the bookstore. Or better yet, with the joke books.
WITH?
Oops, sorry - to T-off gratuituously at O'Reilly.
I do not understand this web site, is it to expose misinfomation or to smear Bill O'Reilly. What does this have to do with anything, and why is Alan Dershowitz important? Was he important when he defended the disgusting OJ Simpson for killing is ex wife and Ron Goldman. This
Not attacking Bill O'Reilly. They are attacking what he has written, and what he is saying, and how indeed, his children's book is, well, misinformation wrapped in a nice package.
If they were attacking Bill O'Reilly, they'd say something like, "Bill O is a POS, smelly individual." Or something worse.
There's a difference between attacking a person, and their ideas, and or arguments, which is what MMFA is doing in this case.
Who throw venom at Dershowitz for doing his job as a lawyer? Are people not allowed to get the best representation that they can when they are facing criminal or civil charges?
Magnolia, it is interesting to find you defending Dershowitz on this exchange. I'm curious whether mediamatters values Dershowitz's opinion as much when he advocates the use of "torture" in specific circumstances. He's publicly described at length the situations in which the use of "torture" techniques are defensible, as I'm sure mediamatters is all too aware
This entire episode is actually a great example of liberal media bias!
O'Reilly has publicly stated a number of times that Dershowitz is one guest he would never have on his show. There is a long history of animosity between these two.
For the Washington Post to allow Dershowitz to review O'Reilly's book is simply unfair. It's like that time that Elbert Ventura of MM wrote a review of O'Reilly's Culture Warrior for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
In both cases, O'Reilly had NO chance of getting a fair review at all. A bias against O'Reilly was already long established.
If the Post ever did this to one of their own, MM would throw a fit.
A great example of liberal media bias by MM. Thank you!
So the fact that he REVIEWED the book and SHOWED ERRORS and BAD ADVICE means the media is liberal.... you are mistaken, shoes...
I'm with you. Pointing out O'Reilly's errors & then giving the correct facts and pointing out where O'Reilly says one thing in his book but then says & does the opposite on his radio show and in his real life is not bias. It's pointing out the truth about the so-called culture warrior.
O'Reilly has no business passing out erroneous "facts" and telling others to do things that he doesn't even do. It makes him a fraud. Anyone who buys this book for their kids is not doing them any favors. They are only making O'Reilly a rich(er) man and stroking his already out of control ego.
Mr. L: "So the fact that he REVIEWED the book and SHOWED ERRORS and BAD ADVICE means the media is liberal ..."
You've missed the point completely. The point is that the Post could have found a reviewer in which the outcome wasn't already predetermined.
A reviewer can point out errors and still give an honest review. With Dershowitz reviewing O'Reilly, there was no chance of that at all.
How do you KNOW the outcome was predetermined...? Do you have Sylvia Browne next to you? The guy read the book and REVIEWED it... no more and no less...
"How do you KNOW the outcome was predetermined...?"
C'mon, now. Just a little honesty, please. If Al Franken reviewed Rush Limbaugh's next book, would there be any doubt as to how the review would come out?
Who cares WHO reviews it... discuss the REVIEW itself!! Valid criticism is valid as long as it stands up to FACTS, which the reviewer USED to talk about Bill's *book*...
Cmon now..how about a little fairness? Let's let jennifer Flowers review the next Clinton book. After that, we'll have Mike Tyson give a lecture on money management.
"A great example of liberal media bias by MM. Thank you!"
Ha! No addressing of the facts in the case, just a lot of theatrical arm-waving. I spent 30 seconds reading that. Stop wasting my time.
THOMP-STEVE:
You say, "I'm curious whether mediamatters values Dershowitz's OPINION ..."
It's not Dershowitz's OPINION that is compelling, it is the factual case he builds for hypocricy against O'Reilly, using O'Reilly's own contradictory words.
See, "attack the messenger" can have some validity if he or she is ONLY expressing opinions; example, Dick Morris. Morris opens himself for character examination when his frequent tirades against the Clintons contain no substance or facts, but only Morris' "predictions" and "mind reading" which he claims to base on uncorroborated "observation". In such cases, the credibility of the witness is vital ... and Morris has NONE.
Dershowitz, on the other hand, does not rely on an iota of opinion. His case for presenting O'Reilly as a horrible person to be giving advice is unassailable and fact-based.
What is it with you guys? Do you understand the concept of ad hominem? Do you understand that WHAT is said is more important than WHO said it? What part of that cant you guys understand? Do you REALLY think it makes some kind of sense that either every single thing someone says or does is above reproach or nothing he says is ever worth anything? I mean its a pretty simple concept really.
SueEld
Dershowitz does seem to be an odd choice for MMFA to highlight - Isn't he the same guy who supported "torture" under certain circumstances in the war on terror? And it's the same Dershowitz who is not criticising the NIE and claiming that Iran is a nuke threat.
Seems a little "selective" to quote Alan D. in this case.
Yes , that even makes it worse.
"Dershowitz does seem to be an odd choice for MMFA to highlight - Isn't he the same guy who supported "torture" under certain circumstances in the war on terror? And it's the same Dershowitz who is not criticising the NIE and claiming that Iran is a nuke threat.
Seems a little "selective" to quote Alan D. in this case."
Does anyone understand this? Sure, Dershowitz sometimes seems like a right-wing nutbag. You left out the fact that he wrote a book defending Israel's aparthied rule of Palestine. But what makes it "odd" or "selective" to quote his book review? It wouldn't be news if it were a liberal reviewer, right?
This thread highlights a review in the Washington Post that shows examples of misinformation within Bill O'Reilly's children's book. This site is all about media misinformation, see.
TWIH. (That's why its here.)
So, MMFA is in the book review business of those they don't like? Or is just republishing ones they agree with? Got it.
The real question is, why don't you want this here? What exactly is your problem with MMFA highlighting a book review that points out O'Reilly's errors, misinformation and hypocrisy?
Exactly! What is your issue?
It is hysterical to watch you liberals stumble all over yourselves defending every item here, blindly.
If MMFA is now reviewing books by conservative authors as part of analyzing misinformation, then knock your lights out - just don't hide behind a mission statement that purports to do nothing of the sort.
lol! if conservative authors who also happen to be media personalities write books that are promoted via their media positions, I'm pretty sure the content of those books is a valid arena to highlight conservative information if its found.
dude, you've lost your edge, its too easy!
The word "hysterical" sounds a little defensive, Tommy.
Highlightling a review in the WaPo that lists examples of misinformation of a book from Bill O'Reilly falls precisely under the mission of this site. Please explain how it doesn't.
What exactly is misinformative about the WaPo review? If there is nothing, then WITH?
Oh, you think the review is supposed to be somehow misinformative, I get it.
Again, the WaPo review highlights the misinformation of Bill O'Reilly's book. It's his book that is filled with misinformation, says an independent source from a major newspaper. So they highlighted it here.
"If MMFA is now reviewing books by conservative authors as part of analyzing misinformation, then knock your lights out - just don't hide behind a mission statement that purports to do nothing of the sort."
"What exactly is misinformative about the WaPo review? If there is nothing, then WITH?"
You actually posted those two statements back to back. Wow. This either shows you being dishonest or dumb. Take your pick. Obviously MMFA didn't write the book review, so your first post is just flat out wrong on every level. And obviously MMFA isn't pointing out misinformation in the content of the book review, so your second post is just flat out stupid. Do you really not get this?
Tommy,
Literature is a form of media. Dance around that fact all you want, it still remains.
Reviewing books is nothing new to MMFA:
MMFA book review
MMFA book review
MMFA book review
MMFA book review
MMFA book review
You're right, not the first time. Apparently they are in the book review business, I stand corrected.
It is ok Tommy, they were Coulter , OReilly, Hillary related, and Novak. Common targets of MMFA agenda.
what on earth is your point?
Point is they only do reviews on people the hate and subjects they defend. Where is the review on Harry Potter?
Sue, you need to get a grip on reality. Why would MMFA want to do a review on Harry Potter?
You're the one that's constantly harping about "why is it here?" Even though it is clear why the thread is here and falls within MMFAs stated mission.
A review on Harry Potter wouldn't be within MMFAs. Why would you want it here?
I do not, that was my point.
If I want a book review I will read the NY Times book review section.
Except.....this isn't a book review. I almost wish it was, because then I could tell you, PLEASE, for the love of god, leave right now and go the the nytimes book review site.
But I won't, because this isn't a book review. It's a report on a book review that confirms prior mmfa assertions about oreilly. Get it yet?
Come off it! Dersh was very specific in his critiuqe to point out conservative misifnormation that O'Rielly had provided. This is, no-question, a totally legit piece for MMFA.
AND BILL O'RIELLY IS AN IDIOT!
Are books MEDIA? Why yes they are. Did O'Reilly get a whole bunch of misinformation corrected by Dershowitz? Why yes he did. What is HILARIOUS is your blind partisan appology for rightwingnuts no matter how dumb and without merit they are.
And the problem with that is...?
What is your take here, really? Why SHOULDN'T it be here?
No, Tommy MMFA and most of its posters and readers hate O"Reilly. They wish O"Reilly was gone, they despise him more than the common rapist. It is quite disturbing. The energy could go toward helping America , yet another example of dividing and hate. Disgusting.
Sueeld, I do not hate O'Reilly more than a rapist. Please tone down your rhetoric, it's insulting.
What is getting insulting is the constant change in what the mission is of the site, and the posters venom toward anything Bill Oreilly says and does. Its like he is the most powerful person in America. Its disgusting.
I find the review has merit and import.
That doesn't makes me some sort of venomous person who "hates" a TV host more than he would a rapist. You needd to cut that language out, Sueeld.
Sueeld, I agree with Watershed, just because many of us are critical of OReilly does not mean we hate him and I do not like the analogy with the "rapist".
I do not hate OReilly , if anything I respect him he has done some good with Childrens issues and his stance on big oil.
Not so fast. O'Reilly dispenses a very different form of evil than that of a rapist, but it could be argued that it is even more insidious.
He pushes extreme political ideas while practicing intolerance and intimidation on his broadcast shows, which are owned and paid for by huge, multi-national corporations. Many people die because of political policies that are cheered on by corporate media pundits (for example, "abstinence only".)
There I go again. More crazy, leftist commentary from another reactionary MMFA reader.
Well, let's look at the Mission Statement and review it, again, for those who don't want to look at it themselves:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
The word media being key here is probably what you're complaining about. Since when is a book NOT media? Media, to my knowledge can be TV, radio, newspapers, microfiche, the internet, books, and just about anything printed or televised don't you agree?
Seems as though they're spot on with this one.
And we don't hate O'Reilly more than a common rapist. You're deluded if you think that. And trying to get Bill O'Reilly to be held accountable for what he says, and to NOT misinform the nation and our children, does actually add to the discourse of the country, whether you like it or not.
To answer Tommy's assertion that the liberals on here defend every thread, that's blatantly un-true. There are a number of posters here who disagree with some threads, and agree with others, and they're liberals. I have disagreed with some of the threads in the past, have posted as such, and I seem to remember Solon and others doing as well. We're not all robots like a lot of the GOP followers.
YOU are disgusting and STUPID to boot. O'Reilly doesnt get a pass because your WISH you got to tell MMFA how to run their website, what is disgusting is your stupidity and freakish control issues.
A little over the top don't you think Sueeld?
You sound a little like Bill with your "they despise him more than the common rapist" line.
Sure O'Reilly takes a beating here. Most pompous asses from the left or the right get beat up on opposing websites.
I don't hate O'Reiily, but I also don't like being called a traitor by idiots like him.
If Media Matters posts a thread, I figure it's their right, just like it's Bill's right to call me a traitor and my right to call him and his defenders pompous asses.
Worrier,
Nobody is saying that MMFA doesn't have the right, but just as many posters here the privelege to opine on O'Reilly or Limbaugh's topic worthiness or what comes out their mouths, do many of us here also have the privelege to opine on each MMFA's thread topic's worthiness.
I don't have a problem with anyone asking "WITH".
I usually try to stay out of things like that, not always, but I try.
I have a problem with those who defend O'Reilly's over the top comments with O'Reilly like over the top comments.
"The common rapist" theme was a bit much, I thought.
What is a common rapist anyway? There's nothing common about rape.
Well there is nothing common about a criminal but the term common criminal is used. Geez, get a grip. There is nothing common about smearing people either , but Alan Dershowitz has not stopped before either smearing the Goldman family in his support of OJ .
You're asking me to get a grip, yet you claim that those of us who make anti-O'Reilly comments despise Bill more than we do a rapist.
How did you reach that conclusion?
So what is your point. Does Dershowitz now need YOUR permission to do a book review on O'Reilly? Do you think its YOUR call what Dershowitz does or what MMFA does? You should get over yourself. It is hardly a SMEAR to show that O'Reilly is flat out WRONG in facts he puts in his books whether they are for children or not.
Hi worrier, tommy.
I hate to admit it, but I actually DO have a problem with the "why is this here" thing. Whether a poster thinks it should be here is not the issue. If a person wants to discuss the issue, fine, if not, fine.
I question the motives of people when they post the "WITH" thing, because it can only possible matter to a person who is somehow threatened by the content.
On top of that, posts questioning the value of an item WASTES ALL OF OUR TIME. Please, please, PLEASE stop making a scene about it people. If you don't think an item should be here, express your bewilderment in the quiet of you own home instead of derailing the discussion.
Topics can only be derailed if the derailing post is responded to. If not, it dies underailed and the topic is unaffected. Can't some of you figure that out?
And the fact that many of your don't like the WITH? Tough. Commenting on a thread topic's validity and worthiness is as much a part of the topic as the meat of the topic itself. Once again, if you can't figure that out, then perhaps your common sense is what has been derailed.
wow - i thought Kevino was being pretty respectful with his comment. is it out of your reach to respond in kind, tommy?
whats worse, even, kevino, is once the 'WITH' question has been put to bed, as in this case, it continues to be questioned by tommy et al, despite his 'don't respond' point. lame.
So it's our fault for responding to your idiocy? Got it.
What is absolutely hilarious Tommy is how you are able to rile these guys to the point in which they gang up and pile on. I can see you sitting at your computer and knowing that all it takes is one comment and you got them where you want them. You'll get the standard rebuttals i.e., strawman, ad hominem attack, your an idiot, and the famous "care to post a link?", it's so amusing and so predictable. Of course, you'll get Clams, who has such a hard on for you it's embarrasing, to chime in and not even realize that everyone already knows what he will write because his postings have the same context. And now, we have good ol' TOMJOAD who is the self appointed monitor on the relevancy of postings, and of course if you disagree then you are automatically and idiot because noone is as smart as TOMJOAD.
Good points Chris, All the usual suspects get so bent out of shape whenever I post - they think that eventually one of their posts will resonate enough with me that I will pack in it and head out one day, if they only knew their hysterical rants only have me even more amused.
But I am here for the many who have enough convictions in their own opinions to engage in spirited discussion, not the whiners whose fragile weaknesses can't take the scrutiny.....and look around in this thread alone for examples of that.
We carry on........
Sorry if this comes off as personal- but you are living in a dream world... YOU get rightly called on ALL of your logical fallicies ALL the time- those are not 'attacks', but constructive criticism to the issues at hand... you wouldn't get 'piled on' if you made any sense when backing up your opinions...
I don't mind asking WITH in theory, but what gets me is that posters (especially Tommy and Sue) obviously don't even TRY to think about why an item might be there, and demonstrate very few critical thinking skills about the item, and the implications/errors in the news reports mentioned. Often they're asking about items when the reason is patently obvious why it's there!
Good point, but I do think that Sue TRIES to think about these items. Unfortunately, all she can come up with is "its gotta be hate".
TOMMY:
You have set yourself up as someone who would be far better at picking valid topics for MMFA than they do themselves.
You are keenly atuned to what represents, in your opinion, a valid thread, and what you believe falls out of their stated mission statement.
As a casual observer, at least HALF of what MMFA does, you take exception to their bringing up.
There is only one solution: Since you know how to do their job better than they do, START YOUR OWN WEBSITE and put your discriminating and more accurate story-picking talents to good use. Run MMFA out of business, by stealing their audience offering a far superior product, with every story exactly on point.
Nah, too much work. Much better to sit in the audience and toss rotten fruit at the act, hoping that if the discomfort gets too much, MMFA will just quit skewering all your rightwing sacred cows. Guess what? Your derisive condescending commentary makes not one iota of difference: MMFA is a force in the media, much quoted and very influential, and rightwing bloviators KNOW that their comments can no longer go unexamined and unexposed.
O'Reilly and Limbaugh and their ilk would LOVE to put MMFA out of business, and that is the best hallmark of MMFA's resounding success.
A simpler "mission statement" ... as far as results are concerned ... would be just to aggravate and piss off rightwingers. By your comments, they are hitting the mark daily.
wow, that brings a tear to my eye. precision tex, precision. i especially like the 'condescending derisive comments' descriptor. well put.
As usual, Tex is elequent and spot on.
We DO? And you know this HOW? Because we keep critisising what he DOES? So you got this from your I Ching or your amazing mind reading powers. Stop your ignorant attempts to tell us what WE think.
TWIH?
Could we change "that's why it's here" to "that's why it's there"? Not quite as accurate, but it would mean we'd have the satisfaction of responding to Tommy and Sue with
TWIT!!!
which is certainly an apt term.
Maybe it has something to do with MMFA trying to show the pack of lies that O'Reilly's book is using the article from the WaPo? I mean, you know, it could have something to do with it being here and all.
I do not understand this web site, is it to expose misinfomation or to smear Bill O'Reilly.
What part of "This book is so riddled with errors, inconsistencies, bad advice and hypocrisy that ... " don't you understand?
Wouldn't "errors, inconsistencies, bad advice and hypocrisy" be considered "misinformation" in your world? Have you ever found a thread here at MMFA that you thought belonged?
Tommy apparently assumes that he, a commenter, has some sort of insight as to what MMFA can and cannot put on their own site, and then calls them on it, in a commenter post.
It is a bizarre little dance.
Yeap, thats a succint description. A bizzare little dance, i like it.
Sue, are you really so ingnorant that you would rather excoriate the messenger than opine on the popints he makes. Do you refute the quotes attributed to BO? Do you refute that his "book" is false and misleading? Or do you defend BO's book and if so, how is it beneficial to children?
This is here because it validates everything MediaMatters has said about Bill O'Reilly, and the validation occurs from an independent source. I imagine its a farely lonely job, documenting and reporting on O'reilly etc and getting no right of reply to his smears via mass-media.
If you dont like it so bad, Tommy, Sue, then don't post here. Here's one poster who wouldn't miss you too bad.
Did you read that Tommy? The great OZ has spoken. Disagreement is not wanted.
Got it Chris. Differing opinions are welcomed by MMFA, but scorned at by many of the readers.....tsk, tsk.
Oh no, you're allowed to disagree. Its just more interesting if you have something relevant to say, instead me coming here everyday and watching the both of you get taken to task over your asinine comments.
I also notice your shared trademark of ignoring the content of my post but picking up on the side show. Here's a challenge - address my point.... im waiting.
So, Dershowitz' review is an "independent source"?
Perhaps the reason your points are often ignored and the "side show" is taken up, is because you make such ridiculous statements as the one above.
Its independent from MediaMatters. As far as I know, he's not a mmfa employee. So in that context, which is the context i meant, he's independent. Oh yeah, but I'm being ridiculous. Address the point tommy.
I don't believe James Dobson is an MMFA employee, would you offer him up as an independent source as well?
Now this goes directly to your consistency here, so be careful.
;)
If I may stick up for Tomjoad-
Anyone who is NOT an employee of MMFA would be INDEPENDENT of MMFA.
My goodness, you are deliberately obtuse, Tommy. Why is that? You're obviously intelligent.
Oh please, that is not what he meant and you know it. What he meant was we are supposed to give Dershwitz' review more credibility because he is an independent source, with no bias.
No, I don''t think he did.
er, thanks watershed, thats exactly what i meant, which is the only meaning that makes sense in the context of what I said. If you want to attack the validity of this lawyers opinion, be my guest. But thats not what you've done. So, you know...
"My goodness, you are deliberately obtuse, Tommy. Why is that? You're obviously intelligent."
He has a problem with understanding...what do you call them?...words and concepts. Other than that, sure, he's obviously intelligent...cough, cough.
Tommy's intelligent enough to choose his battles on the basis of how winable they are. When backed into a corner, he writes about the lesser point while running from the larger.
I've enjoyed Tommy, and this little game he plays, however, it is clear to me that he is a blatent debating coward. I honestly believe I would face our enemies beside him in the same foxhole, however, I wouldn't choose him to be on my debating team because he skirts the issues, makes 90* turns away from issues that he somtimes brings up, and is often antagonistic for (I believe) his amusement.
Now granted, sometimes I can be an a$$ole when things are pizzing me off, and I'll be the first (or second) to admit it. But I do respect Tommy, and I know we'll continue to play this game from time to time. But only when he's not ignoring me which drives me absolutely crazy. :-)
What part of this do you not understand?
Independent does not equate to objective you tool. My point is that someone outside of mmfa is agreeing with something they have been highlighting for years.
Oh, YES! James Dobson is indeed an independent source, insofar as MMFA is concerned. Independent of reason, and fact, as well as of MMFA. However, to be independent is in itself insufficient; on must then either offer some new insight, or be subjected to the same scrutiny as O'Lielly.
Moreover, independence does not equate to veracity, nor to validity.
Further, Alan has been pilloried here at MMFA more than once. So, not only is he independent of the site, he doesn't even have "most favored reviewer" status!
Until now.
Like swinging at a curveball, tommy: sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss.
Ah the old if you don't like it here get lost refrain.
How about accepting others opinions Toad? Isn't that a part of being a tolerant Liberal? Or is tolerance another Liberal myth?
Personally a Dershowitz being critical of an O'Reilly is laughable to me. A few of Dershowitz's books should have been placed in the joke section. This guy has a lot of nerve being critical of someone else.
While O'Reilly should be cited for some his remarks, a book review by a Liberal ain't exactly fair & balanced...is it?
Hey the kids are getting Liberalism taught in schools...so if O'Reilly wants to offer another side, then so be it.
I'm not telling anyone to get lost. Its got nothing to do with me. I'm just stating the oh so obvious point. If Sue etc just come here and throw their toys about the content, the obvious advice for them is to vote with their feet and stop posting. If I think the sports team i support is useless, I dont have to keep paying to see their games, catch my drift?
SAVE DEMOCRACY !! VOTE INDEPENDENT!!!END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!
I get it , only partisan opinions allowed. America is doomed with your type of thinking.
You don't get it.
You never have gotten it.
Exactly Jeter,
The bottom line is MMFA wanted to get this book up here somehow, and because they can't opine on its worthiness themselves, and considering it's not being bandied about in the media for anyone to offer any "misinformation" about - they wait for a negative review of the book and put that here.
MMFA's mission is not ripping apart books by authors they don't like, so this is the next best thing.
Tommy that is well said
That is what is so disturbing and has now allowed MMFA to cross the line to smear people on the words of a disgusting man in Alan Dershowitz.
Tommy, Sue and Jeter have still not addressed BO's inconsistent statements in his show and book, which is the point of the review. They simply shoot the messenger. Typical.
Isn't it weird? They're more irate about technicalities on this website than the issues under discussion - Bill O'Reillys hypocrisy, media distortions, government lies etcetc... oh but does it specifically say in teh mission statement that we can talk about book reviews of Bill O'Reilly? OMG!
Then you do not follow the site, I have been critical of BO many times. Just because I think he is being smeared here does not mean I support him, why is that so difficult to get through partisans heads? The Ends never justify the means. Smearing is wrong regardless of who does it.
Where exactly is the "smear" in this article?
And this is the argument from someone who claims anyone who agrees with this thread hates BO "more than a common rapist"? It's obvious you don't have any problem at all with "smearing", with that language.
To me this is a smear, maybe I am wrong?
Or better yet, with the joke books."
That's not a smear, the book has to go somewhere. Maybe fantasy would work.
Sue PRETENDS to be fair but NEVER holds herself to the standard she demands from others.
I was trying so hard to stay out of this, but....
It's this whole thing about using the word "smear." An above poster demonstrates the same lack of understanding of that word that BillO. himself and many of his wingnut brethren so aptly demonstrate.
It is NOT smearing someone to supply their own words and statements in context. That is what this "evil, vile, far left hate site" we are here posting on does. While it does choose what words to shine the spotlight on with a certain agenda in mind, it does not take those words out of context or distort their meaning in order to present a false image of the person.
Let's say that MMfA for some bizarre reason isolated audio of Bill saying "I love kids" and then put that under a big banner headline "O'Reilly confesses to pedophilia!". That would be a smear. Get it?
Sounds like something O'Reilly would do! LOL
Well they often highlight the lies and misinformation in Coulters books, columns etc. Did you miss that part?!
"...MMFA wanted to get this book up here somehow,...they wait for a negative review of the book..."--Tommy
Then dispute MMFA by offering a favorable review by an independent source. And by independent, I mean non-right winger. Or better yet, a favorable review by a left winger.
"MMFA's mission is not ripping apart books by authors they don't like, so this is the next best thing."--Tommy
So now you're admitting that MMFA is following their own mission statement !?!
I really don't understand.
BOOKS ARE MEDIA. Why is that too complex for you to understand. Dershowitz has ACCURATLY pointed out its MISINFORMATION. It will NEVER be your call what MMFA decides to post. Is ANY of that sinking in?
"Jeter2" hath it that
Next thing you know, expect the cultural conservative community to push for so-called "American Folk Drama" being featured almost exclusively in high-school dramatic presentations, for one.
You've managed to disparage Dershowitz, Jeter. What you HAVEN'T managed to do is ADDRESS HIS POINTS! What exactly is it that you find to be incorrect in his criticisms of O'Lielly? Where has Dersowitz strayed from reality. Simply denouncing him is a dodge. What has he said about O'Lielly's latest propaganda fest that is factually or logically inaccurate?
Remember, any failure of yours to address the SUBSTANCE of my questions is a tacit admission on your part that Dershowitz HAS made salient points in his criticism of O'Lielly's book. It is an admission that you got nothin' on this thread except attitude.
You obviousley have a lot on the ball, so now's your time to prove it. Otherwise, I'll expect you to admit that Dershowits is right on this particular occasion, & that O'Reilly is... once again... a liar & completely full of sh*t.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Still waiting, Jeter.
Wonder how Bill keeps all of his personalities under control. There seems to be many O'Reillys inside that skull.
Yes, Tommy and Sue apparently run from article to article posting snarky little messages of no substance. They can't make a meaningful argument against the facts MMFA exposes. After all, the conservative media make it so easy that all you have to do is publish the facts they ignore. As Colbert says, truth has a liberal bias.
Tommy,
This is just a veiled attack against O'Reilly. As everyone can see, Dershowitz is not arguing about the book itself but with the author. I was struck by what Dershowitz said about the book. Frankly, like you, I see nothing that is anyway misleading. One can argue about secularists, but that doesn't mean it passes the MMFA test for misinformation. Here are the quotes from Dershowitz above about the book:
The author of this book also preaches to kids about their right to express themselves freely.
O'Reilly the author rails against secularists to whom the sanctity of the church means nothing,
O'Reilly the author praises juries and tells kids we must accept the law even if we disagree, otherwise we have "anarchy."
Yes, O'Reilly is a bloviator and contradicts himself almost nightly. But lets not waste our time with kids books because some Harvard lawyer doesn't like O'Reilly and is really only grinding his own ax. Frankly, I think Dershowitz looks as silly as O'Reilly for wasting his time on this.
Well said AA - as the liberals feverishly type to defend this thread, and blast O'Reilly, it becomes clearer with every posting why this is here.
WELL SAID? Allow me to write it again for you:
"This is just a veiled attack against O'Reilly. As everyone can see, Dershowitz is not arguing about the book itself but with the author. I was struck by what Dershowitz said about the book. Frankly, like you, I see nothing that is anyway misleading. One can argue about secularists, but that doesn't mean it passes the MMFA test for misinformation. Here are the quotes from Dershowitz above about the book: "--AnotherAmerican [bold mine]
Interpretation: Dershowitz dosen't like O'Reilly, and didn't have disagreements with the book, except for when he disageed with the book.
"Frankly, like you, I see nothing that is anyway misleading. One can argue about secularists, but that doesn't mean it passes the MMFA test for misinformation."
Just who are these secularists?
"The author of this book also preaches to kids about their right to express themselves freely."
The point is that he doesn't actually believe people should be so free. BO derides opposing views in the worst way.
"O'Reilly the author rails against secularists to whom the sanctity of the church means nothing,"
Who are these "secularists" that hate the church? Might there be nonnbelievers that could care less about religion? Why would a person with no religious beliefs sanctify a church anyway? If you are a Christian to do sanctify the mosque or the temple? Do you hate them?
"O'Reilly the author praises juries and tells kids we must accept the law even if we disagree, otherwise we have "anarchy.""
But he is quoted as not actually believing this. That is the point.
Sigh. Cannonball. You're reading and comprehension skills are above 5th grade level. Stop showing off.
Cannonball,
I haven't read the book so I have no idea in what context Dershowtiz is criticizing O'Reilly regarding secularists.
I stipulated the O'Reilly on the air contradicts himself repeatedly. That is nothing new. He's a bloviator and pundit and entertainer(?). It should be apparent by now that he shoots from the hip on air in mostly unscripted rants.
If Dershowitz had any valid criticism of the book then I would say go for it, but it looks to me like he does not. His review was simply a rant against O'Reilly. It reminds me of MMFA publishing Olbermann's worst person as a thread when it is based on a MMFA article the day before. Simply regurgitation.
SAVE DEMOCRACY !! VOTE INDEPENDENT!!END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!
Olbermann and Dershowitz do not like OReilly, that is the only thing I get out of these partisan hackfilled threads.
That's as good a description an any......well said.
No it isnt you are both full of it. Dershowitz takes O'Reilly to task for inaccuracies and hypocrisies. SPECIFIC cases of both. So NO it isnt JUST Dershowitz doesnt like O'Reilly its ALSO that O'Reilly is a hypocrite who puts things in his books that ARENT TRUE.
Outstanding Bob, I can tell you one thing, this thread will be rehashed tommorow because Olbermann the MMFA hack will use this and talk about it, he may even name Oreilly WPITW and we have to go through this again.
You are so correct, it dawned on me the only thing to get out of these threads is that these people really HATE OReilly. I stand by my earlier comments.
Yeah, I'm with Sue! Why does everyone hate on poor poor Mr. O'Reilly! I mean, he's such a virtuous, upstanding citizen, with loads of integrity, who has never lied about anything in his entire life! Plus, he's a good Christian who celebrates the War on Christmas every December. Also, he makes lots of money!
Why is everybody always pickin' on Bill?
Yes, "outstanding," Sue. Your comments have nothing to do with O'R's misinformation and everything to do with a perceived Hatred thread from MMFA. Now go pick up your check from Karl Rove, you've done your communications job effectively today.
The old Karl Rove attack, nice. Does that still work?
It does if it's true.
Sueeld face it Keith will never ask you out no matter how many times you beg him to. You need to get over your Olbermann obsession.
I think they're secretly dating, but he won't give it up because his first love will always be Edward R. Murrow..
This isn't valid?
"He tells American kids -- many of whom, in his view, are "complete morons" -- that "Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the guys" who "got together in Philadelphia in 1787" to write our Constitution "believed that a lot of laws -- a lot of rights -- should be decided by the individual state, or even the individual county or city." Never mind that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being drafted and ratified.
And never mind, too, that the first court decision used by O'Reilly to illustrate his screed says precisely the opposite of what he tells the kids it says. O'Reilly begins by describing a case in which the ACLU allegedly persuaded the Supreme Court of the state of Washington that the "constitutional rights" of a girl named Lacey had been violated when her mother surreptitiously listened in on a phone call between Lacey and her boyfriend, during which the boyfriend admitted to a purse snatching.
Although O'Reilly doesn't provide readers with a citation so they can check the case themselves, I was able to find it. Washington v. Christensen, 102 P.3d 789 (2004), had nothing to do with "constitutional rights." It involved a state statute that reflected "Washington's long-standing tradition of affording great protection to individual privacy." The court went out of its way to emphasize that "it is, of course, within the province of the legislature to shift these statutory balances should it decide the residents of this state require less privacy protection." So it wasn't the big, bad federal government or activist courts that barred parents from listening in on phone calls, after all. It was the state legislature -- precisely the institution that O'Reilly contends should make these kinds of decisions.
Moreover, the case was not about Lacey's right to privacy. The court explicitly said that it was "Christensen's [the boyfriend's] expectation of privacy with which we are concerned." O'Reilly simply got it wrong. A kid will not be "way ahead of the pack," as O'Reilly claims, "just by reading this book." Instead, the kid will be misinformed."
Really?
Seems pretty valid to me. Then again, I hate Bill so much that tiny little things like facts tend to bother me.
Careful PSP. You're making sense and I don't like it so much.
CANNONBALL:
You leave out an obvious issue: If you love the sanctity of the church, you may wish to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT THE HELL OUT OF THE RELIGION BUSINESS.
Protecting the church from usurpation by craven politicians with an agenda would seem an act of LOVE towards the church. Yet, those same scheming politicians and their supporters choose to frame such protection as being "secularist" and thus hateful to churches and religion ("agree with me that the state should promote religion, or you must HATE GOD." is their dishonest and hateful message.)
Definitionally, a "secularist" is an American who believes that the separation of church and state is a great idea, not only to protect government from being co-opted by religious leadership (as our founders rebelled against the Church of England), but also to protect religion from the pernicious influence of partisan politicians wishing to use overt religion as a weapon against those who do not "believe" as the politicians would dictate.
In a very real way, "secularlists" are real patriotic Americans who support the Constitution, while those who wish to promote religious practices using state resources are NOT.
Well said!
On that note, didn't Romney's speech on "Faith in America" make you sick?!
Outstanding AA, you say it best !!!!!
You don't see how unpleasant and perverted it is to have a man like Bill O'Reilly writing hypocritical childrens books? You seriously think O'Reilly is a suitable person to be indocrinating children, given the content of the media matters post above, not to mention their archives?
Uh huh.
Tom,
I have no idea if this book is really intended for children or not. I rather doubt my kids will be asking for the book for Christmas. Nobody ever talks about what age this book is intended.
I think you'd agree with me that people should be free to buy books of their choosing. Let the marketplace determine the worthiness of the book. My guess is a few grandparents who watch O'Reilly will buy it for their grandchildren. Won't those kids be happy unwrapping that gift! :-)
As an aside, I don't have any argument about speaking out or abiding by a jury's decision. Do you?
I think Dershowitz is simply being a lawyer regarding his criticism of O'Reilly's Washington ruling. My eyes glazed over that part.
So Jefferson was in France at the time. Did he not have any input into the Constitution? Maybe not. I don't know. But as a criticism, it seems very trivial (as in pursuit). Does anybody but Dershowitz even care?
Feel free to think otherwise.
"I have no idea if this book is really intended for children or not."
Really? You have no idea? Here's a hint: Read the title of the book.
"Let the marketplace determine the worthiness of the book."--AnotherAmerican
You are kidding--right? The marketplace will decide the popularity of the book. But, the marketplace will never decide it's accuracy or worthiness. I don't know about you, but I can't think of any book with false information that's worthy of being sold to a child.
So then because YOU arent bright enough to understand an obvious case of misinformation then Dershowitz shouldnt have shown such misinformation in his review? Is that your point? Did you HAVE a point? O'Reilly misinformed whoever wants to read his typically inaccurate book.
Yes, O'Reilly is a bloviator and contradicts himself almost nightly. But lets not waste our time with facts and instead attack MMfA for no reason.
I went ahead and fixed that for ya.
Young,
If O'Reilly was attacking MMFA in the book, I'd grant you your point.
Dershowitz's criticism, aside from his personal attacks against O'Reilly consist of an ambiguous historical reference to our founding fathers that included Jefferson. An unnamed court decision and... hmmm.. .zzzzzz.
Oops. Sorry. I just lost interest. Oh yeah. Something about secularists that never was explained.
Forgive me if I am nonplussed.
"Nonplussed"?
Sounds French to me.
So you're nonplussed, just enough to post several times on the topic.
Got it.
Yes, I'm nonplussed minus replying to negative rejoinders. You do the math. ;-)
Don't make me start counting your posts again, AA.
While your sleeping, allow the adults to police what is being passed off as good reading to your children. Please, start caring.
AMBIGUOUS? Are you KIDDING ME? It isnt ambiguous whether or not Jefferson was in FRANCE at the time O'Reilly claimed he was doing something in the US nor that O'falafel got the Washington decision WRONG. It is flat out inaccurate and misinformation.
SAVE DEMOCRACY!! VOTE INDEPENDENT!!! END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!
What about when Dershowitz said OJ Simpson was innocent and Nicole Brown Simpsons behavior caused her death. I guess that is as valid as this partisan book review. This is really pushing the edge here. Dershowitz is a hateful hack. Please.
Bob, you have anything to back that up or are you making that up? I have alot of respect for Dershowitz, I think you are "smearing" him.
What about when Dershowitz said OJ Simpson was innocent and Nicole Brown Simpsons behavior caused her death. I guess that is as valid as this partisan book review. This is really pushing the edge here. Dershowitz is a hateful hack. Please.
So is Dershowitz's criticism of Oreilly's book automatically wrong because of past controversial remarks on OTHER issues? He may certainly have credibility problems, but that does not make this particular matter invalid. Debate the content of THIS matter, please.Just like when people bring up Oreilly and Loofahs when that has nothing to do with topics. Ok thanks for the advice. I understand your reasons, you do not want to expose the real disgusting Dershowitz. Got it.
OH I JUST GOT IT !!! Stupid me. Sueeld is the producer for O'Reilly that he DIDN'T make advances toward.
Carn,
It seems to me you are making the same argument that I have toward MMFA, this thread and Dershowitz's criticisms.
O'Reilly's comments elsewhere are immaterial to this book review.
No they're not. The book review shows O'Reilly taking two contradictory and hypocritical sides of THE SAME ISSUE.
Meanwhile, the Dershowitz-bashers are railing against him for OTHER issues. And then, when you actually do look at the factual inaccuracies in the book, you just conclude they don't matter (?!). That's really weak. The whole point of correcting misinformation (conservative or otherwise), is that you need to look at the flawed premises that go into making a flawed argument.
Sue, not got it.
I would like someone to please write something good about BO. The conservatives complain that the liberals have it in for him, the liberals agree and claim the he is so partisan that he lies continuously when he is not simply misleading. I think the conservatives know he is a liar, but love him because he rallies the ignorant, the racist, the xenophobic and the homophobic behind the republican party. They don't care how they win elections and who suffers as long as it isn't them.
cannon,
Best conspiracy theory today. Congrats!
I'll say something nice about Bill O'Reilly...
His hypocrisy fuels the Democratic base and provides the world a poster boy for the term "Conservative Misinformation".
(And I'm not afraid, more like proud, to admit I hate him. I've always hated all phonies.)
I would like someone to please write something good about BO.
OK, here goes:
Ann Coulter is worse than he is.
As Gomer Pyle would say "Suprise, Surprise, Sup rise"
On a Bill O thread I found Sue, Tommy, AA and Bobthep, surprise, surprise, surprise. *LOL*
There is Pearlene again who offers nothing on these boards but snide remarks and insults. Suprise Suprise, care to comment on the issue? LOL
er, pot meet kettle?
Tomjoad, I started to read the posts and when I saw Sueeld, I knew exactely where this topic was headed: Hate MSNBC or Hate Bill or surprise Hate Keith.
Sueeld, when and if you ever post something worth responding to, I will but I'm not holding my breath.
Its ok Pearl, i will keep breathing. To me you are not worth it either .
Then your perception of worth is severely flawed. Pearline is, as her name suggests, a rare pearl, indeed.
All right Sue, now you've successfully managed to tick me off. Pearlene is a shining example of everything I'll look for in my future wife should my present wife (god forbid) ever leave me or die. Now, you be nice to Pearlene, and beat up on me if you're looking for a punching bag. I know she can take it, but I sometimes enjoy biting back, and she's too good a person to lower herself to my level. :-)
Sue,Once you actually post something longer than 2 sentences that doesn't contain the words KO or hate, you might actually be in the position to criticize the content of Pearl's postings.
Pearlene is twice the poster you will EVER be and offers more intelligence and insight in a single thread than you have in your entire posting history here.
Just like when people bring up Oreilly and Loofahs when that has nothing to do with topics. Ok thanks for the advice. I understand your reasons, you do not want to expose the real disgusting Dershowitz. Got it.If people bring up Oreilly's "Loofahs" to discredit his views on a particular matter that has no connections to said "Loofah", that is wrong too. If they are doing it only to mock him any chance they get, then you have no point; the Loofah has nothing to do with why they disagree with him. Your last sentence was a strawman, just so you know. I didn’t even know who the guy was before this topic.O'Reilly's comments elsewhere are immaterial to this book review.Not necessarily. If his comments elsewhere have no connection to what is discussed in the book, then you’re right; if he contradicts himself, that is another thing entirely. Oreilly could make profound, truthful statements in the book, but they could also work to expose hypocrisy.
As long as you say it is wrong then we agree. I will await your defense the next time someone brings that up.
Speaking of off topic:
Did you hear the one about O'Reilly polishing his Peabody with a loofah?
Did you hear the one about O'Reilly making a sandwich out of a sponge?
Oh, man. That post looks terrible. Sorry.
Just like when people bring up Oreilly and Loofahs when that has nothing to do with topics. Ok thanks for the advice. I understand your reasons, you do not want to expose the real disgusting Dershowitz. Got it.
If people bring up Oreilly's "Loofahs" to discredit his views on a particular matter that has no connections to said "Loofah", that is wrong too. If they are doing it only to mock him any chance they get, then you have no point; the Loofah has nothing to do with why they disagree with him. Your last sentence was a strawman, just so you know. I didn’t even know who the guy was before this topic.O'Reilly's comments elsewhere are immaterial to this book review.
Not necessarily. If his comments elsewhere have no connection to what is discussed in the book, then you’re right; if he contradicts himself, that is another thing entirely. Oreilly could make profound, truthful statements in the book, but they could also work to expose hypocrisy.Interesting piece. But I'm wondering what this has to do with monitoring "conservative media misinformation." It seems like Dershowitz is the one who did the monitoring here, and MMFA just reported his findings.
Well since both Dershowitz and MMFA hate Oreilly better to be partners on this one.
Love the ideologue, hate the idea.
Yes, but how do you feel about common rapists?
Well since you are an ignoramus who wouldnt know hate from peanut butter I will take your post for what its worth. Less than a soapbubble
Books are media. O'Reilly's contains misinformation as Dershowitz has shown. QED
Actually, AA, you have a point: What Oreilly SAYS has no bearing on a book review. Even if it exposes HIS hyrpocrisy, that has nothing to do with how good, bad, or average the book itself is.
Sue and his buddies just go around posting their BS cause they disagree with MMFA on just about everything. They have offered nothing in the form of facts. Was the article posted above wrong? Where are your facts to support that? Their argument boils down to MMFA hates BO! But at least MMFA has facts to back up their statements somehting Sue and his friends don't provide. I think bringing up BILLO's falafel thing is relevent in any discussion about him particularly since he touts himself as a "cultural warrior". and he is a sexual predator, wouldn't you want to know this before allowing your child to read his scribes? Billo is a damn liar and hypocrite and should be exposed for his lies at every opportunity. The absurdity of Sue and his buddies to defend him really is astounding and bizzare and devoid of reason!
Sue and his buddies just go around posting their BS cause they disagree with MMFA on just about everything
I am a she not a he ,and if you read the other threads today I agree with MMFA. I think the Edwards haircut is a joke and should not get any press, and the Rudy laugh was disturbing and did not get the press it should. Of course people like me who have an open mind are not welcomed on this site by the partisans, I get it loud and clear.
If you "get it" (as you write, so often), why the hell do you still post here? Do you like posting with "partisans"? Surprise, Sue, MMFA is a partisan website. This is a liberal site dedicated to exposing conservative misinformation. As far as I know, MMFA has never claimed to be "Fair and Balanced" like your favorite "news" network.
Furthermore, you whiners who complain "Why is this here...waaaaahhhhh" are getting really old. If you don't like an article, or if you don't think it should be here, shut the hell up and let those of us who do want to discuss it, discuss it. You derail the dialogue EVERY FREAKIN' TIME you don't like something on MMFA with your whole, "Why is this here" meme. You can let us know that you don't agree with the article being here by simply NOT COMMENTING ON IT.
I'm not saying that we don't value dissenting opinions. Liberals do like dissenting opinions. It helps us get to the meat of the matter, it helps us to understand other points of view, etc. There is difference between complaining about why an article is here versus the discussion of the actual topic. I notice how it's usually the conservative posters here who complain "Why is this here?" Complaining about how an article that MMFA posts on MMFA's website is childish, at best. It's MMFA's website. They can post what they choose to post. Your whining won't change that.
For the record, when I first saw "WITH", I thought it stood for "What in the hell?"
Commonsenseliberal:
If you were going to sum up the whole thing you could have told me before I wasted 10 minutes reading all those posts!
;)
Sorry, my friend. I was going to just sit this one out, but I decided I was tired of the whining from the righties...WAAAAAAAH!
"...Of course people like me who have an open mind are not welcomed on this site by the partisans..."--Sueeld
Sue, with all due respect, there is a huge difference between an open mind and an empty one. :-)
You dont have an open mind. You have an Olbermann fixation and a skewed idea about what fairness is all about. Your posts are 90% wothless. This is a perfect example. In your ZEAL to attack MMFA for doing EXACTLY what their mission statment says your singlemindedness is on display. Books ARE media. O'Reilly puts things in his that are WRONG. So, do you EVER address that point? NO, do you ever even ATTEMPT to show Dershowitz is wrong about O's misinformation? NO. You dont have an open mind you have a fixation. You will block out ANYTHING that you dont like to face.
Sueeld sorry but how was I to tell you were a she not a he? One thing I can see though is that your foolish and stop crying about not being welcomed. No one is denying your right to speak only what you say when you do, which so far during this post makes no sense at all other than to attack MMFA. You have not posted any facts as rebuttal to the article that would show us "partisans" where MMFA is wrong, therefore I assume your just being partisan and want to rant about how MMFA is unfair in its criticism of BILLO. This to me is just plain BS.
I do not like "Billo" however I believe everyone deserves the right to not be smeared. To write a thread based on Alan Dershowitz a man who defended the disgusting OJ Simpson as someone who is valid in being critical toward BO is wrong, its partisan. If you and other do not see it fine but you are fooling yourself.
Sue, BilldO is not being "smeared" if what is said about him is true, complete, and honestly presented. If you think otherwise then show us WHY this is a smear.
Re: Dershowitz, everyone (even a murderer) has a right to legal counsel; it's in the Constitution. So you can't take issue with him for that. If anything he did in that defense DIRECTLY AFFECTS the argument he makes in this review, then tell us about it.
It boils down to: IS THE INFORMATION IN THE REVIEW INCORRECT? If so, it's a smear (but you have yet to prove that). If not, it is being "comprehensive" (there's that mission statement again!!) in "monitoring" conservative misinformation, and giving credit where it's due when someone else does the research.
No your WHINING is that O'Reilly shouldnt be REASONABLY CRITICISED by someone you dont approve of. Tough. You havent even TRIED to say Dershowitz is wrong you just keep saying he SMEARED O'Reilly by CORRECTLY pointing out misinformation and hypocrisy in his book.
Sueeld your only argument is that Alan D. defended O.J. so therefore his critique of Billo's book is a smear? If by smear you mean a unsubstantiated charge or accusation point it out otherwise YOU arethe one doing the smearing!
When you say a book belongs in the joke section that is a smear. That is not based on truth. That is his opinion.
No, it isn't, because he provides ample EVIDENCE for his opinion, and CITES and EXPLAINS the innacuracies in the book to show why it is incorrect, and therefore belongs in the joke section. That line is a summary of the evidence presented, not a "smear," which implies inaccuracy or dishonesty.
To quote BillO, "IT was S-A-R-C-A-S-M". Get over it!
When I read any critic or review, I always concider the source - this is a no-brainer. But to expect a critical review to be free of "smears"...?
When's the last time you read any Ann Coulter, or heard her speak?
Of course it was Dershowitz' opinion - and he's entitled to it. He's even entitled to write about it. It doesn't make it a smear.
Sueeld there you go again. After reading his book A.D. wrote a critique of and concluded that it belonged in the joke section. He used refreneces from the book pointing out why he felt that way. What refrences that he used do you find unsubstantiated,or do you just dislike A.D.? i don't mean to imply that your dislike of AD is unfounded but it does shed light as to why your attacking MMFA for this article!
My opinion - BO is a dirtbag. AD is a dirtbag. But did what AD write have substance and acuracy? Yep.
"What refrences that he used do you find unsubstantiated,or do you just dislike A.D.?"
It's highly unlikely that the RW "sheeple" complaining about the book have actually read it. They are simply parroting what their radio tells them to think.
It's also highly unlikely that they read the entire MMfA article.
Their arguments are from general ignorance, not specific information.
All right, Tommy and Sueeld – the jig is up. You both are always the first to comment, and those comments are meant to incite. You work for Media Matters, don’t you? You’re plants to get the conversation started, aren’t you? Hired to make it interesting, perhaps? Hmmmm?
Hired to make it interesting, perhaps?
If so, they're failing miserably.
I don't know, I'm finding the dialogue that they inciting to be interesting.
I can't believe anyone, including Dershowitz, would take anything in print seriously if it comes from BO or Ann Coutler or Cash Limbo or any other neocon who publish with superhuman frquency.
Does anyone else notice that they usually have a partner who "researched" or co-wrote or are named as "with Joe Blow" on the cover?
Where in the world would Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter or Fatty McOxy find the time to write a freakin' book? Any book. They travel, they lecture, they do daily radio broadcasts and tv shows.
You kiddin' me?
They spit out a few invectives, someone else writes the damn book and they put their names on it so it will sell to the villagers. Done deal.
I beleive it's called ghostwriting.
It's "demonwriting" to me.
Alan Dershowitz? Are you kidding me? That's like having Keith Olbermann review Bill O'Reilly's book.
I think Olbermann would be fair.
Does anyone know how the idiot O'Reilly's book is selling? I mean, what moron parent would actually buy this book and use it to educate their children?
And the sobering observation is that he is targeting children to poison their minds early in life with this nonsense.
I'm amazed that these wacko's realy have literary agents, let alone a publisher who is so desperate for profits they disregard content over name recognition. Most authors rely on critics for sales while these "authors" can use there airtime to reach millions in less then a second. Mark Levine is a perfect example of someone who wrote an unconsequintial and overly emotional book about his dog, then promoted it every 10 minutes on his radio show, and used the Limbaugh and Hanity to endorse it. Like these people could really give two ##### about this guys dog. Thank goodness for spell check. When is MS Word coming out with fact check?
also, I recall NPR giving a rather dull review of Levin's Men in Black. Shortly after, NPR retracted there review. Levin was rumored to threaten NPR with a lawsuit and bashed the reviewer on his radio show. Levine writting with sentiment about his dog is like Mussolini writting "my dog spot".
I'm sure it's already been said on this board, but did mediamatters lend such credence to Dershowitz's opinions when he advocated torture in certain circumstances? All you read on this sight is how barbaric and vile is the practice of waterboarding and other strenuous interrrogation techniques, and how anyone who takes an opposing view must be a heartless, sadistic, moron. Well, Dershowitz takes an opposing view and supports interrogation techniques which surely have been deemed as torture by "progressives". Is he smart when he bows to the progressive talking points, but insane or stupid when he exercises independent thought, God forbid, and opposes the liberal thought police?
Did you really think you were making a point? Because you werent within MILES of one. IF Dershowitz were relying on his CREDIBLITY to make a claim you WOULD have a point. He wasnt, YOU DONT. HE showed specific examples of O'falafel being WRONG and hypocritical. If you cannot show those SPECIFIC EXAMPLES to be wrong they could be made by Adolph Hitler and would STILL BE VALID. What is it about this simple concept that conservatives cannot seem to grasp.
I don't care what site it is. Any site that will help expose just how hypocritical, misinformed & therefore dangerous Bill O is, then that site is doing the work of the American people. It is necessary & needs to be done. Can you imagine letting this guy advise your children?