O'Reilly falsely claimed "Obama has dodged every tough interview"
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "has dodged every tough interview," adding: "Every one, and is still a contender." O'Reilly did not explain what constitutes a "tough interview," but Obama has been interviewed twice on Good Morning America, twice on Meet the Press, once on Face the Nation, and once on This Week.
On the January 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "has dodged every tough interview," to which Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg responded: "Exactly." O'Reilly added: "Every one, and is still a contender." O'Reilly did not explain what constitutes a "tough interview," though his comments were similar to those he made on the October 29, 2007, broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, in which he claimed that he told Obama "face-to-face" that "Tyra Banks ain't gonna get you elected, OK? You gotta go on the Factor, you gotta go on GMA and answer the questions." As Media Matters for America noted at the time, however, Obama had already been interviewed on Good Morning America -- co-host Robin Roberts interviewed him in New Orleans on August 27, 2007. Obama was interviewed again on Good Morning America on December 20.
In addition to his two Good Morning America interviews, Obama was also interviewed on the November 11, 2007, and December 30 broadcasts of NBC's Meet the Press; the December 23 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation; and the May 13, 2007, broadcast of ABC's This Week. As Media Matters noted at the time, during the November 11 Meet the Press interview, host Tim Russert misleadingly cropped a July 2004 Obama quote to claim that Obama wasn't "firmly wedded against the war."
From the January 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
GOLDBERG: We're in huge trouble, but you hit -- you really did hit it on the head this time. Every now and then, you stumble onto the truth. And in this case, in this case, it's that likability is more important to many, many voters than where you stand on --
O'REILLY: Yeah.
GOLDBERG: -- the estate tax or --
O'REILLY: Whether you can solve the problems.
GOLDBERG: -- or whether you can solve -- or what you would do about Pakistan. And that's a scary thing.
O'REILLY: Now, Jane.
JANE HALL (Fox News contributor): Well, it is.
O'REILLY: Go ahead. Jane, let me ask you a question.
HALL: It is a scary thing.
O'REILLY: Hold it.
HALL: Yeah.
O'REILLY: The problem here is this: that Americans are more distracted, Jane, than they've ever been in the history of the republic, OK? Because machines have taken over their lives. Everything is a machine. And the smart, savvy candidates understand that. They -- Obama has dodged every tough interview.
GOLDBERG: Exactly.
O'REILLY: Every one, and is still a contender.
HALL: Right.
O'REILLY: So, Jane, I'm telling you, I'm getting scared.
Never on Bill's show though. I suppose that only Bill gives tough interviews.
The closest Bill ever came to a tough interview was with Geraldo. He darn near got his lights punched out...
Is there a more bankrupt intellect or opportunistic whore that Bernard Goldberg? (Besides Dick Morris?)
No!
I, frankly, would like to see Obama go on O'Reilly's show - I firmly believe he would handle himself quite well and Bill would have to stop his little condescending act towards Obama for not appearing.
Barack would eat Bill for lunch, in my opinion.
And what possible value would it have for Obama and his run? You think those folks who follow 'The Factor' like a bunch of cultists are gonna change their set-in-stone opinions of Obama?
I should think that Obama has better things to do than to waste his time on Billo's silly 'no spin' joke-fest.
Think of it being like Nixon's "Sock it to me" moment.
Who the heck is O'Reilly that everyone has to appear on the Factor to be credible? He's just promoting his show as something worthwhile which it isn't. People are smart to stay away. He has the first and last word on his show and the next day reads emails about the interview and has another last word. He even has a body language person analyze the person's behavior.
Rabbit,
You have a point. I don't think any Democrat should waste their time on Fox; they should concentrate on ACTUAL news media.
I agree, I think it would do nothing but good for his campaign. O'Reilly's got nothing on him, and Obama would certainly show him up.
He might could even persuade some of those BillO fans to vote for him.
"He might could even persuade some of those BillO fans to vote for him."
Oh really? Think so?
I suppose then that it's fair to assume that the same thing could happen if Obama showed up on HANNITY & colmes or the Rush Limbaugh show or the Mark Levin show or - gasp! - Michael Savage's show?
Yeah, actually he might. Not all of BillO's fans are hiveminders. Most, but not all.
I'm curious to discover just how you know Mr. O'Reilly's audience so well. Have you traveled the country, interviewing them one by one, and educating yourself so that you can quantify a statement like "not all of them are hiveminders. Most of them are.", or do you simply have a prejudiced, stereotypical image in your head of what the typical "O'Reilly Factor" audience looks like and how they behave? And if that's the case, what does that mental image of the "typical" O'Reilly viewer look like to you?
Swine,
Don't really have to...... we only need to read posts like yours that clearly show your undying support for a blowhard like BillO!
But, since you ask, in my travels across this country when I did the over-the-road trucking until earlier this year, it was so painfully obvious which people were BillO zombies and those that were not......
How would I know this or have the ability to say it with confidence......
I'm a very personable people person (say that 5 times real fast) and engaged in conversation with just about every person I had a chance to chat with at all those truckstops
Those that were BillO fans or Bush defenders ended up scaring the crap out of me almost everytime when it became obvious to them where I stand on issues!
But I felt it was my job to gauge were people sttod around the country and then report it here, which I did several times over the last three years or so.....
Does that help?
Just knowing what O'Reilly has to say...well, says it all. No survey necessary. You are what you consume, unless you work for MMFA and have to watch the crap.
So your conclusion of O'Reilly supporters is derived from your many travels ands conversations with the hoards of deep-thinkers that hang out at..........say it with me.......truck stops?? Maybe that says something about yourself.
Solonswine, since demographics show O'Reilly's audience to be 84 years old on average, it's not hard to fill in the blanks.
If Obama ignores O'Reilly it really doesn't show me he is afraid of him, but if he does appear it definitely shows me that he is NOT afraid of Fox or their hosts.
Watch them or not, they are the #1 cable newschannel, and O'Reilly is their #1 host.
No it doesnt. It only shows he thinks, rightfully so, that Fox isnt a NEWS network rather a propaganda arm and they dont deserve to be given the legitimacy and treated as if they WERE a news network.
So, would you suggest he go on Countdown with Olbermann then? Because that is definitely an hours worth of leftwing slanted information.
Just had to bring Olby into this, didn't ya?
Countdown is not "biased" according to most on here. After all MSNBC had Olbermann and Matthews co anchoring the election coverage all night. Could you imagine if OReilly was with Brit Hume co anchoring FOXs coverage? The outrage. Anyway many on the Daily Kos are furious at Olby , his anti Obama slant (we could all tell he loves Hillary) infurated many. I was reading the site today and was laughing. Olby being attacked by the left . There is a God.
See believe it or not, those of us on the left, when we disagree with someone on our own side, we don't let it go, we attack them for their position and what we perceive they're wrong about. And hence, why I firmly believe, many on the left are better thinkers than those on the right. We don't fall into line when one of our own strays across a line we think they shouldn't cross and all, we call them out on it. That left wingers can at the same time criticize and hail Olberman must really twist your mind doesn't it?
No it doesnt twist my mind, I feel like I have been the only one on the island I am glad it finally has happened, I just wish Olbermann would not get the pass on here that he gets. he is not a real left winger, he is a showman.
I disagree. I think that he is a true democrat, and a liberal. And I agree with some things that he says on his show, and I disagree with others.
In the news program of his show, the part where he is actually going over real topics, and discussing them and dissecting them, he's pretty darn good at it I think. His WPITW is just darn funny, and he mixes it up with some editorial/ranting at the end. Overall, his show is pretty well done, and presents actual real information. The only thing that you coudl say is liberal bias on his show is WPITW, and his editorializing, most of the rest of the content is pretty solid.
Sueeld, I have been posting here for awhile and have never been a fan of Olbermann. I also think he is disingenious however he is nothing compared to what is on FOX today. As for the Daily Kos, they do not like Senator Clinton because of Iraq, many posters are very passionate about the war.
Yeah......right Sueeld,
I bet you believe that all those Special Comments of Keith's are just for show too?
I won't disagree that KO is a showman but he is also a newsman and a true American that will blast the Dems when its warranted....
Is KO a Hillary fan? Its seems he is, so I can understand his apprehension for not knocking on Hillary and I hope he comes to realize that.
But please, don't for a second compare KO to BillO..... there is no comparison.....
KO wins that one by an entire universe
I've seen KO criticize Hillary a couple of times. I think he's an equal oppertunity critic. He blasts Republicans more often, but they deserve it more often. I was impressed with his retraction on tonight's show concerning Gravell (sp?). That's something you NEVER see on Fox "News," or hear on Limbaugh.
Come down off that KO hate horse.
You're going to town with this one, WK. Good for you.
I'll admit it.
I've got nothing.
But that's never stopped me before.
Got nothing? You've got a perfectly good dead horse to beat, and if I haven't lowered the bar in that dept. enough to inspire you, I feel like a failure.
Have I mounted my Failure Filly yet?
Only a gelding would quit this equine whine at this time.
I'll continue to flog this filly.
You're so full of it Sue. Can't you go into the new year with a different schtick? Olbermann is certainly biased as is this site. The difference is that they admit it! Please go away, there's a nice space somewhere under a bridge just right for you. I know this is a bit mean spirited but you fairly suck!
Wow you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, relax .
Jlyons, relaxing is what has resulted in the mess we're in today. BOR wants a culture war and as black, gay, liberal I'm prepared to fight for the principles that I believe in.
Damn! I thought I was the only black liberal queer here! You're stealing my role here, Krome. ;o)
Excuse me, Preston & Krome, but are you black, liberal queers clustering? And why is it OK for Frankie to say "Relax", but not posters here.
(I don't know how old you are, if FGTH was before your time, disregard lame joke)
Sorry, babies, I am the original BLG on this site (as far as I know!) though I usually play down the "B" and "G" aspects! ;)
whoever said that countdown isnt biased?? it sure as heck is....but at least its biased for the right reasons, and ko aint some toady for you wingnuts
Sueeld: "Keith, would you play "Misty" for me?"
Stop it, Chimp, I'm spittin' coffee. And watch it with the clustering, you can all be BLGs.
That is your opinion and perhaps its true. Never watched it. There is however a couple of differences however one. MSNBC itself is NOT a propaganda arm for Dems. Also there is a difference between supporting your supporters and supporting the other camp. I dont blame republicans for going on Fox. Its just stupid for Dems to PRETEND they are doing anything but giving legitimacy to a propaganda organization for the GOP when they do anything to support Fox.
I am talking about one program vs. another - Olbermann's leftwing show vs. O'Reilly's rightwing version. If you say you won't go on one because it's slanted unfairly, but appear on the other, you're disingenuous.
You can change the subject of what I said and talk about anything you want to. I am saying Dems should treat FOX as what it is a propaganda arm and not give it legitimacy. There is no way to go on O'reillys show without supporting FOX. There is NO disengenuousness in treating supporters different than opponents when running for office the very claim there is boggles my mind.
The Factor is promoted as the 'No Spin Zone' and it's obvious that it is anything but. Olberman is called 'Countdown'. No false advertising.
Countdown is definitely more centrist than anything else out there now...I think that it seems left though, because we've been dominated by so much right wing news for so long
There isn't one single cable news show that has cracked the basic cable top 50. Given that Obama is both a senator and a candidate, the time that he has available for interviews is more wisely spent on network shows that capture a significant audience.
Good point. But that certainly invalidates any appearances on ALL cable networks then, even more so than Fox - such as CNN, or MSNBC.
Tommy, sadly most serious Democratic Candidates are afraid to go on FOX, not because of FOX but because of the outrage from the Daily Kos people. I think Obama should to on OReilly, he has the most viewers and it would be good for him to even widen his appeal. I think Obama is the real thing .
Going on FAUX is wrong, it gives them legitmacy. They are a talking piece for the Republicans.
Agree, I just cannot see any valid reason for Obama to venture into that viper pit. We all know that Fux steers hard to the right so it would simply be a waste of time for him to go there.
The interviews would be set up in a way to make him look bad anyway, especially if it was HANNITY'S show... ESPECIALLY if that s**t Mark Levin is a guest, so there is no positive reason for Obama to go there unless he wants to commit political suicide.
I disagree. Hannity operates within his talking points and patented rightwing spin on nearly every point he makes, Obama is more than equipped to combat that admirably and probably make Hannity look hysterical, incredibly partisan and flustered.
Exactly, so why would Obama even entertain the thought of going there? Hannity is Hannity... he isn't gonna change one bit and those who follow him won't change either. Whether Hannity would be 'flustered' or not is irrelevant as Hannity won't allow himself to be put in that position in the first place.
Again, there is no point in Obama going there.
Tommy,
First of all, I hope you had a Happy Holiday season, welcome back.
I agree with you to a point on Obama doing these shows. I think he should go on and debate them under these conditions:
1) He is in studio, 2) He is given a chance to give his answers without interruption, 3) No questions about previously debunked rumors ("Radical" Madrassa).
Numbers one and two are obviously more important (with #1 a dealbreaker due to the cut mike segments). I think Obama should also, if he chooses to go, read up on all of the propaganda Hannity has been spewing about his church and be given a chance for an unfettered rebuttal.
What I worry about on Fox is the re-airing of the clips and cropped quotes.
Just my feelings.
Thanks Fried, hope your holidays were fine as well, Happy New Year.
Your suggestions are good ones. Obama is more than capable of handling Fox News' hosts, any of them, in my opinion. It isn't a matter of legitimizing them, that's for the audience to decide.....it's a matter of meeting the beast head on and winning them over with facts and confidence.
Thanks, Tommy. Here is the unfortunate rub on asking for conditions: Hannity would constantly bring up the fact that Obama asked for them over and over. He wouldn't bring up the conditions, but he would say that Obama wanted special treatment, etc.
I have to disagree with you a bit on your KO vs. BOR slant idea. I agree that both are slanted, but I have yet to see the amount of misinformation/outright lies that Bill O has on. Just my opinion there.
B.O. and Hannity have control on their shows, as mentioned above. It's their game and no amount of effort or reason will win out when they can interrupt, edit and have the "final word"
I agree with the "don't give any legitimacy to these hacks" point of view.
I agree, nobody should go on The No Spin zone. Bill is not an honest participant in the process and going on his show would condone his silly behavior. Anyway why would any sane person want to spend anytime talking to a complete whack job like BO.
If I was Obama I would go on Bill's show under certain conditions only, and I would make that very clear in the media to avoid any misinformation from O'Reilly. I would demand the interview be live, not taped to avoid any editing.
Obama would come out just fine, he is more than capable, I have no doubt about that.
Tommy, why give FOX and validity? They are responsible for proping up the Bush adminisration with its propaganda and war . I say no to FOX.
How about a compromise?
Obama can announce he will agree to be interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, in a live forum, at a college or town hall setting.
Two chairs, O'Reilly with his notes, Obama with his wits. Invite ALL news organizations to film, if they want; CNN, MSNBC, whoever.
This would showcase Obama getting "tough" questions, and give O'Reilly the chance to show his journalistic skills, in a setting he does not control. The live audience would keep the nonsense to a minimum (i.e. if O'Reilly attempts his bully-boy tactics, he will be booed and the tactic will not work).
I'd really like to see it, even though if Obama is not skilled enough, the FOX team would get what they lust after: A sound bite that makes Obama look bad. That's the chance you take when running for president.
Similarly, the same deal should be made by Hillary to Hannity.
I've seen Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh in forums they did not control, and they do very, very poorly. The come off peevish, petulant, and shallow (no depth beyond their "gotcha" talking points). Their little bubbles burst when there is ANY opportunity for an intelligent, complete, UNINTERRUPTED response (which is why they do not allow such things on their own shows).
Such a neutral forum would be great for two reasons: It would allow the candidates to claim they opened themselves to the most hostile possible questioning, and it would diminish and deflate the interviewers for what they are: Incompetent when they do not hold the whip hand.
From then on, the rightwing pundits' taunting and rhetorical questioning of the Democrats would be colored by the fact that they HAD their chance to confront the candidates directly, and if they had a question to ask, that was their opportunity.
I say, BRING IT ON. But don't play on FOX's home court.
Tex, A watershed moment - I absolutely agree 100% - brilliant. The candidates would do well to take your advice, I would love to see it.
Tex, I find myself agreeing with you on this one. A sensational idea; I do have my doubts O'Reilly would go for it. I know Limbaugh in the past has refused to do anything like this; he is terrified of debating anyone fairly, one-on-one. He at least seems to have a sense of his own limitations. I don't know if O'Reilly has the same sense. If he does, he says no; if he thinks he's smarter than he is, he'd say yes.
That works for me too.
Tex, that's what I've pictured, or something close, with one addition; The interviewee has an assistant (or several) with transcripts of the interviewers past related work, as well as the fastest internet access available to debunk any horsesh*t right on the spot.
If this was taped (rather than live) the subject of the interview could be given a choice- edit out any questions based on provable lies, or leave them in, followed by documentation that the interviewer is completely full of it.
That, I'd watch.
HBL:
Really, that function should be provided by Obama's (or Hillary's) staff .
There are easily a dozen MMFA posters, including yourself, who instantly recognize rightwing MISinformation, just as the misinformers are speaking (to say nothing of MMFA's expert staff). The interviewee should be versed in the tactics currently being used, and be prepared to say to the interviewer, "Your PREMISE is false. That claim has been debunked. The FACT is ..." and correct the record in real time.
Rachael Maddow did that to Chris Matthews, who was trying his nonsense "calculus" to state that Hillary getting 30% in a 3-way tie would mean that 2/3 of the voters rejected her. Maddow pointed out IMMEDIATELY that this was true for ALL THREE candidates, not just Hillary. It made Matthews look ridiculous, biased, and petty. And stupid.
It is THAT kind of quick response, and knowledge of both the tactics being used (the rightwing's talking points), AND the truth, that will win the day (and be hugely entertaining).
That said, an ongoing FACT CHECK could track the statements made by the interviewer for the accuracy in their premises, but really, a GOOD interview consists of fair questions, and a good question should not contain any facts to check.
However, partisan rightwing pundits load their quesitons up with false premises, so we'd have the bizarre development of all questions having to be fact-corrected BEFORE they could be answered. This would be especially true of Hannity, who wags around his clipboard full of WorldNetDaily clips, Drudge excerpts, and Karl Rove memos, as if such documentation equals TRUTH.
A major tactic used by all the rightwing pundits is to demand proof for any statement made. For that reason, your idea of having fast computers at the ready is a great idea. But like I said, the interviewee's staff should man the keyboard, passing the info to their boss.
Let's get these interviews done! Sounds like fun!
Tex,
I love your suggestion and I think that O'Reilly, Hannity, and the other Fox "News" talking heads would never agree to anything like that. They don't want ACTUAL interviews, they want to distort facts to to fit their talking points.
Yeah, and I'm sure Billo would agree to those terms heartily.
If I'm not mistaken someone else tried that and once on the show O'Reilly ignored that contract. The guy got up and left. Can't remember who it was though.
All Obama needs to do is issue a press release saying he will happy to do a one on one live interview with O'Reilly if he wants. No misinterpretation, no contract, no misunderstanding - and if O'Reilly balks, he hasn't a leg to stand on in bashing Obama's lack of "tough interviews".
Has Billo actually ASKED Obama to come on 'The Factor'? Or is he bulls**tting again?
All Obama has to do if its brought up is say Fox is not a news organization they are a propaganda organ and I am not pretending they have any legitimacy.
That would sound like that Stevenson anecdote, "You have the vote of every thinking person!" when Stevenson called back, "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
After all FOX is the big winner for cable viewers. He may win some applause from the left but he could very well anger the center and that is his bread and butter.
I doubt that. Big winner on cable is like leading the MINORS in home runs. SO WHAT. They are still DWARFED by network ratings. He might tweak some conservatives but they arent going to vote for him anyway and its obviously true.
All Obama has to do if its brought up is say Fox is not a news organization they are a propaganda organ and I am not pretending they have any legitimacy.
AMEN!!!!!
And he would still be supporting and giving legitimacy to the propaganda arm for the other side. Its a losing proposition. The Dems are right. Just point out they are not a legitimate news organization and dont treat them as if they were.
It isn't a matter of his being capable of handling , and you know Obama is my guy. He could clearly wax BO because in my opinion BO is an intellectual midget in spite of whatever Harvard was thinking when they granted him a degree. I just think that Bill O'rielly has behaved too badly and too dishonestly through out his "No Spin" years to be validated by having serious respectable politicians of any stripe come on his show. BTW that's how I always felt about the old Imus show. I couldn't understand for the life of me why politicians went on that show and that included the Democrats that frequently appeared and Obama actually appeared once on Imus’ show.
Lynn,
I understand your point of view, and respect it. I am more inclined to see candidates who put themselves out there, all over the place, everywhere they can, to get their message out there.
I think it serves them well, not worse.
It doesn't serve them well to appear on any of the OPINION shows such as 'The Factor' or even 'Countdown'. They should stick to the network shows such as 'MTP', 'Face The Nation', or 'This Week'. Stay away from the pseudo-news trash such as what passes off as 'journalism' on Fux.
I agree with Lynn..
Nothing good is going to come out of going on BOR... Even if Obama manages to leave that particular episode unscathed you know that BOR and the majority of the Fox Network is going to spend the next year smearing or casting doubt on whomever the Democratic nominee is.
One interview isn't going to outway the next 11 months.
J sorry, but your anti FOX talk is just being alittle hysterical. FOX is not the evil thing that Al Franken and the other lefty loons tell us it is, why can you not think for yourself?
Sue,
Just a personal story, BOR trashed a high school in my hometown and my home town (Boulder) for about a week straight with NO BASIS for his diatribe. He brought on a guy from a conservative "think tank" out here and said by the end of the interview that if the guy wasn't a liberal, he was "Donald Duck."
He constantly, when he wants to bash Boulder, brings on a conservative talk show host who kisses his butt and just baselessly bashes my home. I think FOX letting him go off on and on with lie after lie is enough to make me think they are pure evil. He even had a Boulder High kid on there who he cut off repeatedly.
Just my experience...
Friend
I am not a fan of Bill O , I was talking about the entire FOX News network. They are not the evil entity that the left tries to paint them. They are as biased as the other networks, yet because they have Oreilly and Hannity they get ambushed. I understand they are not liked , Hannity disgusts me also but I think we all tried to forgive MSNBC for having Savage and Imus on the schedule in the past.
No.
They are constantly biased to the right all of the time. Every single show that they have on there, and even when they present "news" it's still biaed incredibly to the right.
Take a watch of Outfoxed. FoxNews is a completely and totally biased network, whereas other networks simply are not even close.
OutFoxed is a great piece. I think my favorite part is "Why can't the city attract more minorites to the police department? Why because black people are afraid of water." Did they actually say that? Really?
At least MSNBC had the balls to fire those scumbags. Hannity, Billo, and the rest of that miserable crew at Fux are lifers. They aren't going anywhere as long as there's mud to sling.
Sue,
I could go on and on about Hume (my mother constantly gives me talking points as news that I have to refute). They are much more slanted than any of the news channels.
I am not a fan of MSNBC either. I would respect Fox if they had a liberal/moderate/anything on their station other than Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, etc. MSNBC features Scarbourough and Tucker, who does Fox have as equivalents for their balance? CNN even has Beck these days, but no lefty equivalent. How can anyone say that Fox is as biased as anyone else?
I will be interested to see what Abrams/KO do if/when a Democrat is elected.
I put the O'Reilly thing up there because his station allows him to villify entire communities. I am not sure I have seen that on ANY other show/station and that is, to me, pure evil. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Fried, the reason you get "real" networks (CNN, for instance) putting on Glenn Beck with no liberal alternative is that the right has done an outstanding job putting forth the canard that the mainstream media is liberal, so Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. just "level the playing field". It has become accepted by those that pay no attention (a lot of the electorate, sadly) that this is fact.
These "field-levelers" then turn around and create crises or faux movements. O'Reilly with his war against Christmas, ably assisted by Bill Donahue (sp?). Or O'Reilly's culture war against secular progressives. Yeah, we'd sure hate people who think religion does not belong in politics and believe progress is a good thing to win over any hearts and minds in America. That would spell the end of this great nation. I mean, when have progressives ever done anything good? I mean, not counting Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK, and both Roosevelts.
Well put, WP.
FOX is "evil" only if the outcomes they seek by their obvious bias is evil.
FOX does everything in its power to support Republicans and their policies, and to bash and criticize Democrats and THEIR policies.
Can a policy be EVIL? It certainly can. A Policy which favors corporate profit over public health could be considered EVIL, immoral, soulless.
A Policy which attacks a nation, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings of human beings, on a BASIS that turns out to be FALSE ... that is EVIL.
Some believe it to be evil to turn a blind eye to suffering, hunger, and need while at the same time working overtime trying to shovel more money into the coffers of the already wealthy.
PRIORITIES can have evil consequences. Causing or allowing human suffering is evil. Cronyism and corruption, no-bid government contracts to reward pals, these are evil, because they sidestep legitimate ways for citizens to feed their families. Exposing issues of national security for political gain is evil, for this puts our brave intelligence operatives at risk.
So, is FOX evil? What they champion, what goals they lobby for, the tactics they use to influence people to vote against their own interests ... these things are EVIL, because the CONSEQUENCES of their being successful are EVIL.
If you like, you could call them SOMETHING to EVIL, like accessories, facilitators, or collaborators. But the evil that results, they must claim as the fruit of their labors.
IF they are successful in their partisan promotions.
Who said they were evil Ms strawman. They ARE a propaganda organization. That isnt evil. I am sure they think its the right thing to do. It isnt in any Dems best interest to pretend they are actually a news service.
SOLON:
I see we disagree. I no more forgive FOX their part in bringing about such horrendous things as unnecessary war, than I would accept the excuse from Nazi war criminals that they were "just following orders."
Propaganda, by itself, is not evil ... on that we agree. But propaganda is not an end in itself; it is a MEANS to power, and if successful, the USE of that power can be characterized (as I listed above).
To separate propagandists from the outcomes they enabled gives them a "PASS" they do not deserve. They should take full responsibility for what they enabled ... AND be held accountable.
Before you think about FOX just being misguided journalists doing a job, think about the halls of Walter Reed Hospital, filled with the REALITY of what FOX and others enabled. FOX does not deserve any intellectual detachment from the consequences of their advocacy.
It's too easy to dismiss propaganda as "just show business" without any real-world import. They are deliberately engaged in deceiving, misleading, and LYING to the American People, in order to try to put the reigns of POWER in the hands of their selected people. Theirs is NOT a "victimless crime" ... much blood is on their hands. I do not give them a pass.
Sue, I do think for myself. I thought you knew better than to try that crap on me.
Sue
Why do you constantly smear people that disagree with you?
Sue is not very tolerant of differing opinions.She rides an anger appaloosa.
Not to be rude, but I wanted to jump in with...
Loathing Lippizaner! Thanks.
well played, old ben. C
Ta.
A maddened mustang
An abhorrence arabian
A bitter bashkir
A venomous vyanka
A despising deliboz
A cursing clydesdale
and a seething shetland
I'm a little hoarse after that last one...
Time to pony up.;$
Damn you, Brabantio ! I was going to use "mustang" with "monomaniacal" !
petulant, p*ssed off, palomino
She should get off her Chincoteague of contempt.
Who exactly did I smear? I welcome diverse opinions I think that is what makes America Great.
"J sorry, but your anti FOX talk is just being alittle hysterical. FOX is not the evil thing that Al Franken and the other lefty loons tell us it is, why can you not think for yourself?"
Did you not just say this to Jlyon in the thread up above? If she doesn't agree with you then you make wild accusations and accuse her of not thinking for herself? Sound like your the one that cannot deal with or hear different opinions without responding back with smears.
Hi Ho Drama Queen.
Sueeld, MHK does have a point, I did not take it as a smear but more as just an attack on my intelligence. I do think for myself thank you.
I wonder if someone - say Sueld_ who can not distinguish between Fox and legitimate news organizations has any intelligence. If She can not do this and basically thinks everyone is the same, then is she thinking for herself? Why does having a point of view disqualify one from "thinking for themselves"?
I'm gonna get that Brittany guy to cry and scream for Sueld to leave KO alone. ;-0
I'm gonna get that Brittany guy to cry and scream for Sueld to leave KO alone. ;-0
LMAO...... Juliajayne, a picture worth a thousand words. :-)
Jlyons. Per your previous chastisement of me for assaulting Sue. We have to realize that she is a no good. You've admonished him/her before to no avail. Being direct or rude has an affect which makes them stop being purposefully ignorant. I'm more Barrabus than Christ in this new year. Patience! the most over-rated virtue. And I'm convinced that Sue is a FOX-BOR operative.
JL,
Instead of addressing your point, Sue throws out accusations of you being unable to think for yourself as a sustitute for an actual counter argument. She also offers nothing up to support her accusation. Smear in my book.
In 2004, 88 percent of Fox' audience voted for GW Bush. There's not another media outlet in the U.S. that is as reliable in delivering a vote for a particular party. It is headed by an admitted GOP operative (Roger Ailes) and a foreign media mogul who trades in tabloid journalism (Murdoch).
Sue, you either work for BOR or really are a complete village idiot. Happy New Year to you. Now go back to your village put on your funny hat and drool while children and town folk poke you with a stick.
Why Can You Not Think For Yourself? - SUEELD / Friday January 4, 2008 02:31:20 PM EST
Hi Sue! Obama thinks for himself. Obama is correct for not validating or enabling Fox News. Obama is smarter than the posters here who say he should appear on that illegitimate fake news outfit.
Show me a poster here who believes Obama should submit or lower himself to the likes of Fake News and I'll show you a damn fool. It would be damn foolish for him even consider it. Obama is not that foolish.
I'll venture to say... Obama will never, ever, be on Fox even while Fox and some of you wait with baited breath till the end of time.
P.S. - Happy New Years To All !!
- Sam I Am -
(Sam'sComputer: The phrase is " 'bated breath", as in ABATED or "held".
"Baited" breath is what recently caught fish have!
Towards more clear communication ...)
Thank You TEX...
And... Good Luck to your Cowboys if you're a Texan and/or a football fan of theirs.
most serious Democratic Candidates are afraid to go on FOX, not because of FOX but because of the outrage from the Daily Kos people.
The others have enough sense to ignore such a silly proposition but I cannot. Or maybe that is satire or a joke.
Serious Democratic Candidates fear Daily Kos MORE than they fear what the multi-billion dollar Rupert Murdock network will do to them once on screen?
That's plain silly.
Democratic candidates are NOT afraid to appear on Fox they simply know that it is a waste of time and energy. Obama’s appeal would not widen from an appearance on FOX and any person with half of a brain cell would know that. You must have an actual new organization dedicated to reporting actual news, not news with a conservative/Republican bias which Fox does 24/7.
Not me Tommy...
I hope O'Bama remains steadfast and refuses to appear on Fox Noise.
It would be nothing but a setup by a group of thoroughly discredited "Fake Journalists" who would love nothing better than to tear him down and make him look bad.
Tommy, I strongly disagree since O'Reilly is not a legitimate jouralist -- but a commentator as you yourself have indicated. He uses this idiotically transparent "baiting" to try to bully people to come on his program. Does anyone recall his disrepectful interview with Chris Dodd? Why would another one of stellar candidates help this moron in his attempts to be considered a serious player in electoral politics.
The only way to make it fair would be for the show to be broadcast live. If Bill's editors get to work over the tape it would be useful only as fodder for a GOP ad.
BillO is tough.
If, by "tough," one means "ignorant."
Or if by 'tough' you mean 'compulsive liar, sexual deviant, and utterly unable to conduct an honest interview without cutting off someone's mic'
Whatever you say, Billo. As if being interviewed by you is something of any importance, something worthwhile to have on the record, something to be proud of.
Whatever you say, Billo.
Did I just read, that a conservative called the estate tax, the estate tax?
I could have sworn in the original airing that "death tax" was used. But I tend to only half listen to the show so I don't have to throw something through the set.
Either way, it's very telling that the panel considers the estate tax an important issue to most Americans as it only effects a very tiny percentage of us.
I remember O'Lielly saying that Kerry lost in 2004 because he didn't come on his show. If Obama (or Edwards) wins in November without going on his show, what's he going to say then? It will prove how irrelevant he is.
Billo says lots of things... I have come to the realisation that about 99.8 - 99.9% of them are absolute rubbish.
Maybe BillO forgot that his network ran a story suggesting Obama went to a terrorist school as a young boy. A story that was debunked in minutes with very little effort. Why should Obama bother with Faux News?
I'm pretty sure Obama didn't forget that little story that they did on him. Also FoxNews wants to trot out that Obama went to a "Madrassa" which sounds all mean and Islamist, when in actuality, the literal translation of Madrassa is, yes, "School". Meaning if you're a Muslim and you go to a Madrassa you're just going to school for the most part. Sure, there are some fairly radical Madrassa's out there, and guess where most of them are? Saudi Arabia.
Indeed Mag, some here seem to think that going on a network that has slandered you, that have people on that are disrespectful towards you is a good thing.
I respect them (Obama, Edwards) more for not giving that propaganda outlet legitimacy.
I think this is one of my favorite quotes from him: "O'REILLY: The problem here is this: that Americans are more distracted, Jane, than they've ever been in the history of the republic, OK? Because machines have taken over their lives. Everything is a machine. And the smart, savvy candidates understand that. They -- Obama has dodged every tough interview."
The machines! I could just see him as Dwight Schrute, drawing a mock-up for a statue/robot for a dead co-worker, and adding a 5 foot electrical cord so the robot can't chase him.
Must be those darn interwebs and the tubes again subverting people. You know, this whole internet business has given people a voice they didn't have before. How DARE THEY? I mean, we should be getting all of our information and news from Bill O'Reilly and his merry gang of jack monkeys. RIght?
Right.
I dont watch BillO I watch Countdown because Keith gives me the news I want to hear spun the way I want to hear it, true or not I dont care. It makes me feel good.
I'll buy that, especially with regard to the Special Comments. The guy who writes those (Keith, I assume) has real talent; and (regardless of authorship) Keith delivers them with appropriate passion.
So then you are like the anti Hannity watcher. OK, I gotcha
I can't belive I'm saying this but I a..g.ree with O'reilly on this one. God help me!
Glad You're feelin Good Billy...
Keith is truthful... You're correct to seek truth and you should care.
Obama is correct for not validating or enabling Fox News. Obama is much smarter than the posters here who say he should appear on that illegitimate fake news outfit.
Show me a poster here who believes Obama should submit or lower himself to the likes of that Fake News Outfit and I'll show you a damn fool. It would be foolish for Obama to even consider it. I know Obama is not that foolish.
I'll venture to say... Obama will never, ever, appear on Fake News, even while Fox and some of you wait with baited breath till the end of time.
- To One & All - I Wish You Many Happy New Years !!
- Sam I Am -
Hi all,
This is the first time for me to post a comment after years of listening to a lot of lies from Billo and the right wing media.I am not an American, but we look up to you guys over there.I am a dutch citizen. I decided to post this comment because, i love your country too. I hope there are more organizations like media matters that are willing to tell the truth about your right wing media. I will like to make it clear to your readers, fox news is considered a news outlet only in America. When are you guys going to relize that? I think senator obama is wise enough to make that call.
JOEY KING
NEDERLANDS
This just in.
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Boorish Billy at it again.
Can't wait to see how he'll spin this.
He's progressed to being a stalker of candidates.
Bill "Travis Bickle" O'Reilly.
NO ONE ON THIS EARTH...
Is going to block a shot on ''The O'Reilly Factor.'' It is not going to happen,'' - O'Reilly -
Thanks King Man... You're quite the news hound! This made my day. I hope cameras were rolling on this little tidbit of revealing exposure of the ugly ego and character O'Reilly has.
Are you tuned in Media Matters? Expose this story and O'Reilly will absolutely explode.
O'reilly was probably upset that the staffer wouldn't bring him some mo f*king ice tea.
Nice link, King---
'O'Reilly, Nicholson recounted, ''said the senator was great and that he would love to have him on the show.'' '
He's actually going out door to door like a Jehovah's Witness trying to get A-list guests.Isn't BilldO about 80 years old? How is he going out crashing events?
O'Reilly says he LOVES Obama! - SO...
I submit this song To: Bill-Oh from Oh-Bama...
"ARE YOU LONESOME TONIGHT?"
Made Famous By Elvis Aaron Presley, known as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll", or simply "The King".
To Poor Little Bill-Oh!
(Spoken) I wonder if, Your lonesome tonight
You know someone said that
The worlds a stage - Each must play a part
But you seemed to change-You acted strange
And why I've never known
Bill-Oh you lied, when you said you loved me
And I had no cause to doubt you
But I'd rather go on a-hearing your lies
And to go on living without you
Now the Stage is bare
And you're standing there-With emptiness all around
And If I won't be on your show
Then they can bring the curtain down
(Sung) - Is your heart filled with Pain
Shall I come back again
Tell me Bill! - Are You Lonesome Tonight?
----------------------------
Some Editing to fit the situation