O'Reilly aired clip of Bennett defending McCain without disclosing he's McCain's attorney
SUMMARY: While discussing a New York Times article on Sen. John McCain's relationship with a lobbyist, Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of McCain's attorney Robert Bennett defending McCain against the article's allegations, but did not disclose that Bennett represents McCain and was reportedly hired for the explicit purpose of dealing with the controversy.
During the February 21 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of attorney Robert Bennett defending Sen. John McCain against what Bennett called a "shameless" New York Times article about McCain's relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist, but O'Reilly did not disclose that Bennett now represents McCain and was reportedly hired for the explicit purpose of dealing with the controversy. Rather, O'Reilly described Bennett only as an "attorney" who "was hired by the U.S. Senate to investigate McCain during the Keating Five incident" in the early 1990s. O'Reilly's description of Bennett echoed a McCain campaign fundraising letter, which characterized Bennett simply as a "Washington attorney" and "Democrat counsel during the Keating investigation."
Earlier, in a previous segment on The O'Reilly Factor, former White House press secretary Tony Snow noted that Bennett was "his [McCain's] attorney," but O'Reilly did not discuss Bennett at that time.
From the February 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now for the top story tonight: analysis of the situation -- joining us from Washington, former White House spokesman Tony Snow. What do you think?
SNOW: You know, I think you're absolutely right. It's unbelievably sloppy. Look, you can't have an innuendo saying they had a personal affair without any details, or say that he was intervening inappropriately on the part of clients that she was representing without having any details. And furthermore, what you didn't mention, Bob Bennett, his attorney, has pointed out that they submitted 30 or 40 pages of answers to written questions. And they had something like a dozen different cases in which Ms. Iseman had recommended one course of action, and John McCain had opposed it.
So, it strikes me as somebody trying to retell gossip, spinning it out into a 3,000-word piece, giving it the impression of death by going into a lot of the processes involved here in Washington, and it's a nothing burger. I think it's something that is going to do a lot more damage to The New York Times than to John McCain.
O'REILLY: Now, you would think that the Times would know that, with their reputation of being a far left agenda-driven vehicle. They know this program, talk radio, commentators like yourself, are all going to question this kind of anonymous reporting. So, why would The New York Times, already in economic trouble, already with the perception of being unfair across the board, why would they do it?
[...]
O'REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story: Did The New York Times smear John McCain? Attorney Robert Bennett thinks so. He was hired by the U.S. Senate to investigate McCain during the Keating Five incident, and last night on Hannity & Colmes, Bennett said this.
[begin video clip]
BENNETT: I think what The New York Times did here was shameless, just shameless. As you pointed out in the lead, it's almost entirely unsourced. And I think for The New York Times to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain's public statement about this is correct. It's a --
ALAN COLMES (co-host): You actually --
BENNETT: It's a smear job.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Washington, Jane Hall; and from Greenville, South Carolina, Bernie Goldberg. Both are Fox News analysts.
Oh for pete's sake, Snow explicity mentions it in the "top story", and O'Reilly explicitly says "continuing now with our lead story".
If you must, stick with O'Reilly's real gaffes, this isn't one of them.
Tommy, I think Jane Hall mentioned it too. I believe she brought it up in defense of nbc. BO was criticizing their unfair coverage of the story and Hall noted that at least they had on McCain's attorney, Bennett, to address the charges. I wasn't really paying attention, but I think I'm correct.
"Slow day"
I'm on pins and needles waiting to see which one gets dragged out on the next item.
Is there a "WITH wheel" that gets a spin, or are they drawn from a fish tank?
Uh oh, I'm "monitoring comments" again, I better call my sponsor from my First Amendment Anonymous support group. :-)
Is there a "WITH wheel" that gets a spin, or are they drawn from a fish tank?
Dartboard ;-)
Send $19.95 to Jeter and Tommy c/o this website for your brand new "WITH Spinning Wheel of Irritants" for 2008.
Never again will you be stumped at your keyboard when attempting to derail or clog up a liberal conversation here.
Just spin and the stress is gone.
Sample spaces include "(insert rightwing pundit here), again!", or "Another WPITW from Olbermann, this was covered yesterday already", or the classic "This is just ridiculous and silly"
Credit cards and pay pal only, no personal checks!
Excellent idea Tommy, I believe we'll be doing a great service here!
Other sample spaces include:
Bill Clinton [included a litany of stuff to blame him for]
Liberals have no sense of humor
This is just nit-picking
God, really Sue? Every single thread on O'Reilly, you gotta bring up Olbermann. I mean, we get it, MMfA is biased towards Countdown. We get it, it's hypocritical for MMfA to pick up something crazy O'Reilly says but not something KO says. And we get it, MSNBC is just as bad as the rest. WE GET IT.
But I have to ask, do you really think you're going to see KO on here at any time, other than a comment about his WPITW, or something someone on his show says?
MMfA will not go after Keith Olbermann, because on the whole he doesn't spew conservative misinformation. Keith Olbermann will not go after the rest at MSNBC because YOU DON'T RAIL AGAINST YOUR COMPANY. Hell, a guy in Vegas was just fired because he had a Dilbert cartoon that referenced bosses as drunken lemurs. TV News is a business, and you don't put your product in a bad light, no matter how crappy your product is.
Sue, the site is dedicated to right wing misinfo. Nuff said. If it tires you LEAVE!
Thank you, I respect your posts and never thought you wanted me to leave. I love the dialogue .
Tommy -
I really think that you are making a valid point. As someone who intends to vote for Obama, I don't think that the NY Times story helps at all. I have read the article several times and have come to the conclusion that the points in the NY Times are either (a) really old, or (2) not supported by any evidence.
And we have to note that Bennet is a Democrat and he has a lot of credibility on the subject.
My advice for Obama is to stay on the positive message and ignore what can only be seen by any objective viewer as a "smear" or a "hit piece" by the NYT.
We already have seen what negative messages have done for the now defunct Hillary campaign. Smears do not work - especially when people know that a person such as McCain is a truly honorable and decent man. We need to reject the gutter level politics of the Clintons and the NY Times.
By the way, I'm taking bets on when Hillary is going to give up and quit - Will it be before or after the Texas Primary?
My bet is that she will give up before the Texas primary simply because she does not want to get kicked by another big defeat.
I agree, Obama would be foolish to go anywhere near this McCain dustup, and I doubt he will.
As for Hillary, I thought she ended the debate last night with a great deal of class. I admit I may have been wrong about her, as I said a couple months ago that she, and Bill, would take the party down with them if she failed to be the nominee. Her kind words for Obama and an apparent willingness to put their battling behind them in the fall was gracious and welcoming.
As for whether she quites before Texas, I can't even guess on that - I imagine it depends on how the polls look just prior.
In any event, either candidate, barring some unforeseen surprise, will be very hard for McCain to beat - at this point, practically impossible.
Who called it a campaign?
The graphic?
PS: here's the caption for the graphic image to the left of the graphic:
Weary Buffoon?
Uhh...what someone says they saw or heard is evidence. John Weaver, McCain's advisor spoke on the record.
Steve,
Did you read their tepid endorsement? After they practically choked on it, they finally inched him just above his Republican competitors. Yet they gushed over all the Democratic nominees, too bad they were forced to endorse only one.
Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan....
Now they've got me doing it.
O'REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story: Did The New York Times smear John McCain? Attorney Robert Bennett thinks so. He was hired by the U.S. Senate to investigate McCain during the Keating Five incident, and last night on Hannity & Colmes, Bennett said this.
Was there a commercial break immediately before this?
In the interest of assuring fair and balanced coverage O'Reilly could have easily, and should have, mentioned that Bob Bennet is McCain's attorney. My question to Bennet, in fairness, would have been whether he was on the clock for this interview. I'll bet John McCain gets a bill...
Yeah,
This is "fair and balanced" coverage--Billy style!
In the Pantheon of Egregious O'Reilly Behavior this is small potatoes.
However, a j101 student would flunk the course if they did something like this on their final project.
Billy's about outa gas (or maybe full of gas)...
It's the 10th round, and Media Matters is circling in for the knockout punch.
When I see stories like this, I go into "ignore" mode for a few days (or at least I try to). If the story is still kickin later on, then I pick up on it. Otherwise it seems to me to be is pretty much a waste of time.
I tried following this thread but gave up as the subject matter, B.O. telling us Bennett is McCain's lawyer, about as boring as it gets. It ranks right up there with Brittany's lawyer. Lets see if this story is still around on Moanday. :-)
Lets talk issues. I'm tired of tabloid style reporting by the mainstream media.
Have a good weekend everyone!I'm sorry Another Am...
Media Matters apologizes for not producing a thread that passes muster with Another American. Media Matters has a stated goal to provide "exciting threads that have appeal for our conservative posters!"
Especially on Fridays for the virtual Happy Hour. Haven't had a real good one for several weeks, MMFA needs to try harder.