O'Reilly again attacked Huffington Post as using "same exact tactics that the Nazis used"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly again attacked The Huffington Post, claiming that reader comments on the website employ "the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late '20s and early '30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people." O'Reilly specifically mentioned his own site, where he said, "Those people do not have a right to spread hatred around." But several reader comments -- still on the site -- do just that.
During the March 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly again attacked The Huffington Post because of comments that readers had posted on the website. After reading several comments, O'Reilly stated, "And I said that these tactics that are being used on this website, The Huffington Post, are the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late '20s and early '30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people." Later, responding to Townhall.com managing editor Mary Katherine Ham's claim that "you need to do your best to keep" controversial comments off one's website, O'Reilly agreed and stated, "[A]s we do on BillOReilly.com." However, O'Reilly's website has numerous comments from readers that use violent and inflammatory language.
In comparing The Huffington Post to the "tactics that the Nazis used," O'Reilly stated, "First you have to demonize; first you have to create the hatred. Then you can take action. Now the hatred is by left against left. That's what's going on there." Ham replied: "I still disagree with you about the Nazi comparison." Later, O'Reilly commented: "[I]f you go to that site, and you know I'm -- what I'm saying is true. There is hate from top to bottom on that site. There is defamation on that site. There is the worst possible stuff. So you don't tell me that's freedom of speech, because that isn't. That's irresponsible. And I'm standing by my comparison."
O'Reilly claimed to "knock the bad apples down" on his own website -- "as we do on BillOReilly.com" -- and stated: "Those people do not have a right to spread hatred around and -- and, you know, wish people die and all of that. That is not freedom of speech. That's irresponsible." Ham said she "agreed" that "you need to do your best to kick it out of there" and O'Reilly concluded: "And she [Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington] doesn't. She traffics in that. That's one of her marquee players. You can be as vile as you want."
O'Reilly read several comments that appeared on The Huffington Post regarding Sen. Hillary Clinton's wins in the Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island primaries on March 4, including: "The B--- finally won"; "Go ahead and someone punch the F-word B-word in the nose, she deserves it"; and "Why are so many Obama lovers such right-wing tools?" But O'Reilly has not taken down reader comments on his own website smearing Spanish speakers and immigrants, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Muslims. One commenter wrote:
In the grocery store yesterday, in almost every aisle I had trouble getting past Mexican women pushing loaded carts full of babies, little kids clamoring around loudly - not speaking one word of English. Jabbering in Spanish. Heck, I knew they werent legal. It was so obvious. I was so *ed I just pushed my basket past them, not caring if I ran over one of them. I am so angry about the onslaught of Mexicans in this country; Im sick of their jabbering in Spanish; voting places posting signs in Spanish; walmart announcing over the loud-speaker in Spanish; and on and on.
Our newspapers publish huge stories on them to get sympathy for them. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR PLIGHT. THEY NEED TO BO BACK WHEREVER THEY CAME FROM. IM SO SUCK OF THIS I COULD PUKE.
Another commenter posted a joke about "[a] Mexican, an Iraqi, and a redneck girl ... in the same bar," which concluded: "The redneck girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air, whips out her .45, and shoots the Mexican and the Iraqi. Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill, she says, 'In America we have so many illegal aliens that we don't have to drink with the same ones twice.' " Of the Congressional Black Caucus, the same commenter stated: "When I was watching the black caucus, the first thing that I pictured was a room full of black people who might as well be wearing white sheets with eyes cut out to see because to me they are on the same level as the k'k'k'. They are out for one race only and that is no, in my definition, a call for unity." Finally, in a post titled "You Might Be Muslim If..." a commenter wrote: "1. You wipe your butt with you bare left hand, but consider bacon unclean."
The following comments were posted on BillOReilly.com and remained on the site at least as late as noon ET on March 10:
O'Reilly frequently attacks those with whom he disagrees, comparing them to the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan. During the July 17, 2007, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, for example, O'Reilly claimed that the blog Daily Kos is a "hate website[]" and opined: "There's no difference between the KKK and the Nazis, who have websites, than the Daily Kos."
From the March 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Also, Arianna Huffington's website continues its hateful agenda. Posted on there is stuff like this: "Hillary would kick a baby in the head if it would get her what she wanted."
"The B---- finally won."
"Go ahead and someone punch the F-word B-word in the nose, she deserves it."
"Have you ever in your life seen a more dominating, manhandling shrew than Michelle Obama. Boy Obama loves to be lead around by the nose."
"Why are so many Obama lovers such right-wing tools?"
And the hits just keep on coming.
Our Internet cop, Mary Katherine Ham, has been investigating the situation, joins us now from Washington. Now, when we last left you, I was telling you about the tactics -- Nancy Reagan fell down, had to go to the hospital. Bang, on The Huffington Post: "We hope she suffers and dies." All kinds of vile stuff. And I said that these tactics that are being used on this website, The Huffington Post, are the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late '20s and early '30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people.
First you have to demonize; first you have to create the hatred. Then you can take action. Now the hatred is by left against left. That's what's going on there.
HAM: Well, I -- I still disagree with you about the Nazi comparison. But, you know, this is -- partly this is the cost of having, you know, very open free speech on the Internet. And I am in favor of that and love people getting involved in the electoral process.
On the other hand, this is what I was talking about with people taking responsibility for their own sites and the comments that go on. Because as you see on Arianna's site, if you let the culture get nasty in the comments, then eventually it comes back to bite your own party. Where, these guys, you know, the right is certainly watching this and saying, "Heck, yeah, we want to watch them eat their own." And they're really going after each other with -- with pretty much the same vehemence that they go after the right. Now --
O'REILLY: OK, now would you say that a newspaper with an editor -- and the editor is there hired to keep hatred, defamation, irresponsibility out of the paper, that wouldn't be freedom of speech, that paper wouldn't be exercising the freedom to communicate to the folks? Would you say that?
HAM: No, no, no. No, I think -- I think, you know, on Arianna Huffington's site, to -- to be fair, she has a moderation policy where things do get some sort of vetting. And she has an extreme amount --
O'REILLY: Oh, I see. So Nancy Reagan, "We want her to suffer and die," that -- that's been vetted, and that's OK?
HAM: No, no, no. There are different rules for different posts. But there is a sort of a policy. But they want to allow, you know, as many comments as possible. But no, I agree with you that you need to -- you need to vet these things and watch out for your own site and take responsibility for what's going on. But there is, to some extent you're gonna --
O'REILLY: Yeah, because -- because if you go to that site, and you know I'm -- what I'm saying is true. There is hate from top to bottom on that site. There is defamation on that site. There is the worst possible stuff. So you don't tell me that's freedom of speech, because that isn't. That's irresponsible. And I'm standing by my comparison.
HAM: Well, I -- well, my only point is that when you're getting a lot of people involved in the electoral process and commenting like this, which I think is a good thing, you are going to get some bad apples in the bunch.
O'REILLY: No, you don't -- then you knock the bad apples down --
HAM: Right. You need to do your best to keep them out --
O'REILLY: -- just as we do on BillOReilly.com. Those people do not have a right to spread hatred around and -- and, you know, wish people die and all of that. That is not freedom of speech. That's irresponsible.
HAM: I -- I agree with that. And you need to do your best to -- to kick it out of there.
O'REILLY: Right. And she doesn't. She traffics in that. That's one of her marquee players. You can be as vile as you want.



















Billo IS a Nazi, and I stand by that statement.
You may also want to add the name of Julius Streicher, editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic hate weekly Der Sturmer ("The Attacker"), who was fond of using simple, easily-understood language crossing into crude pornography to whip up anti-Semitic sentiment among the dregs of Nazi German society.
Usually reinforced by the cartoons of "Fips" (Philipp Rupprecht) depicting Jews as rats, snakes, monkeys or other lower life forms threatening "Aryan racial honour."
In fact, it was because of Der Sturmer's anti-Semitic excesses that Herr Streicher was among the several co-defendents in the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials as were sentenced to death on Yom Kippur 1946.
Interestingly enough, BOR has been criticizing The HuffPo because of their unfairness to Hillary Clinton.
He has a point -- why are they banning many Clinton defenders over there?
they're not. I've seen many posts in favor of Hillary in the last few days. both threads and blog entries.
Some are better than others, though. Joe Wilson make a compelling case almost always, but then you have Roseanne Barr on there saying Obama needs to "bow to the woman."
It amazes me that in the internet age where facts can be checked in seconds that O'Reilly even has a career...then again my gram is awful with computers and that may explain his audience away
I find comfort in the fact that advertising dollars are wasted on them, because whatever they buy has nothing to do with Billo's advertisers since they are set in their ways.
Bruce,
Not being a BOR premium member, I don't know. Has he purged the extremists from his site?
If we have indeed established both sites have idiot posters, its time for BOR to step up, condemn those in his forum who spew idiocy and, if he is truly not a hypocrite, step up, admit his site has a problem and detail what he is doing about it. Assuming he does this, MAYBE he would have part of a leg to stand on.
Criticizing ones opponent for something you are also guilty of has always been a bad move in my view. It's just not credible.
O'Reilly gets burned in this rant that smacks of a double-standard.
And people should not make the Nazi comparison anyway, it's far too inflammatory.
O'Reilly''s been criticizing the Huffington Post because of their unfairness to Hillary.
Hardly a typical far-right impulse.
Carli,
Rush Limbaugh was encouraging his listeners to go out and vote for HRC. Examine his statements on this website. If BillO isn't at least semi-far-right, I'm a conservative ;).
O'Reilly has been drinking the Michael Savage-flavored Kool-Aid; he wouldn't know a real Nazi even if he was in 1930's Germany - he'd just call them "proud Germans trying to save their country from the far-left Jews".
Didn't O'Reilly defend the Nazis who murdered American POW's at Malmedy, saying that it was Americans who were evil?
O'Reilly asserted twice over the course of a year that the atrocities at Malmedy were committed by American troops, when in fact it was the Americans who were lined up and shot by the Nazis.
Keith, being the "obsessive" that he is, broke it down and exposed him.
I think the internet and how it has evolved just chafes O'Reilly's hide to no end.
Actually, that chafing is caused by using a falafel instead of a loofa. :-)
Werner,
Where did you get your information that Fox News has fallen way behind CNN & MSNBC? Please share. Fox News is far and away ahead in all time slots.
People? Being mean? On the internet? Have you internet people no shame.
Let's see if I get this right. O'Reilly says "First you have to demonize; first you have to create the hatred. Then you can take action."
I'm looking for a good example of demonizing someone and then using that to drive a segment of society from enjoying the rights and priveledges that society has to offer. Is this a good example?
No, Snoop. That's a bad example. It makes sense, and so must be immediately discredited by BilldO and his fans.
Now, the free speech people as Nazis, that one works. ?:0/
Oh Billy..... you are such a hero to all those that ignore reality!
Whatever drugs you take to see things in such a way.... please don't put them in our drinking water.... it seems that there is plenty drugs in our water already.... or give them to Rush.
I have to ask: Mr O'Reilly, Have you ever actually taken the time to read some of the many vile, disgusting, and Nazi like posts that have invaded your blog?
Any chance that you might be willing to recant your sto ......... oh nevermind......
Read the post again, and then comment with some intelligence.
Did MMfA accuse O'Reilly of using those phrases? no.
Did he compare Ariana Huffington to a Nazi? yes.
Are there similar comments on his site? yes.
Does that make him a Nazi? Godwin's Law.
Come on, Savage and O'Reilly occasionally believe they are comedians while Maher IS a comedian.
They shouldn't be grouped together AT ALL.
Oh, yes I can play that card. Until I see some proof from you the statement stands. And the gov? More ethics than a republican. Note the big difference here. His first action wasn't denial, it was owning up to the truth and apologizing, and now he's considering turning in his resignation.
Compare that to Larry Craig, the poster boy of republican hipocracy.
How about John McCain. The NYT tries to smeer him, he denies any wrong doing because guess what he did not do anything wrong. The only reason Spitzer did not deny was because he knew there was overwhelming evidence that showed he was guilty. I do not like what Craig and I am not going to condone it. To be honest though the dems have the same ethical issues republicans do. You are to far in the forest to see the trees.
Does anyone notice that BillO never attacks the right wing hate sites?
You know, sites like his own?
As I watched O'Reily blather on, the image that came to mind was of a pot calling the kettle black. Take that however you want, I don't care. I also noticed that if you take all those supposedly direct quotes he was citing and raplace the name of the protagonist with Bill O'Really's name, it results in an amusing but sad comentary on the state of Bill's sanity. Let's face it, folks: He needs to seek help from a mental health professional, ASAP. He's delusional!
"But several reader comments -- still on the site -- do just that."
Continuing example of how BOR just makes it up as he goes.
How did Media Matters get this information/ The information they pulled from the BOR site is private and has copy right laws attached. These laws are given to you when you join. I know because I am a member and the post that were stolen where written by very nice people. We pay to be premium members.
You don't have to like BOR but you are taking private information from individuals so who ever the rat is good going be proud of yourself.
If media matters is supposded to be fair and balanced then how could they post these private blogs. Something is fishy and Media Matters stinks.
How did Media Matters get this information? The information they pulled from the BOR site is private and has copy right laws attached. These laws are given to you when you join. I know because I am a member and the post that were stolen where written by very nice people. We pay to be premium members.
By the post made here you would not like our FBZ as we do not trash him we may disagree with him but we don't call him an idiot. I can see the disinformation is overwhelming here.
You don't have to like BOR but you are taking private information from individuals so who ever the rat is good going be proud of yourself.
If media matters is supposded to be fair and balanced then how could they post these private blogs. Something is fishy and Media Matters stinks.
As a BOR PM, I take offense to many of the statements I heard on the Huffington Post, read by BOR.
I have been reading some of your posts here and it's nothing like what I see on the BOR site.
Bruce1Ace, I agree with your comment...there are idiots on both sites. I don't agree with every comment I read on the BOR site, but I respect everyone's opinion. And some are downright rude, but I have yet to see a HATEFUL comment. I would not pay to be part of a site like that.