On the June 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly joined nationally syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham in attacking liberal media critic Eric Alterman, Nation magazine Washington editor David Corn, and Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel. In response to Ingraham's assertion that Alterman, Corn, and vanden Heuvel “believe that if America kind of went away tomorrow, the world would be safe,” O'Reilly responded, “I won't put any of them on this program ... because I do not believe they want to have a conversation. ... You can't have a reasonable discussion with them.” O'Reilly also said, “I believe that they come on in here with a viciousness that ... makes me uncomfortable.”

But a Media Matters for America review of the three journalists' most recent appearances on The O'Reilly Factor has revealed little evidence to support O'Reilly's claims. Although vanden Heuvel dominated the discussion during her last Factor appearance, Media Matters found little evidence of the “viciousness” O'Reilly mentioned. Rather, it appears that the journalists made O'Reilly “uncomfortable” by merely confronting him with inconvenient facts.

Eric Alterman

Alterman's most recent on-air encounter with O'Reilly occurred on the February 11, 2003, edition of the Factor. The interview was contentious, as Alterman confronted O'Reilly with instances in which the host was “not very careful about ... facts,” challenged O'Reilly's assertion that he is politically “independent,” and asserted that “everybody on earth” thinks Fox News is conservative “except you and [Fox News chairman] Roger Ailes.” But Alterman was hardly “vicious[]” or "[un]reasonable." In contrast, O'Reilly repeatedly attacked Alterman, calling him an “ideologue[],” and asserting that Alterman had “left the building with Elvis.”

Alterman also appeared on the February 28, 2003, edition of the Factor opposite Media Research Center director of media analysis Tim Graham, which was guest-hosted by nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas. Alterman and Graham were on the show to discuss the February 26, 2003, interview of Saddam Hussein by then-CBS News anchor Dan Rather. The most heated portion of Alterman and Graham's discussion occurred when Alterman contradicted Graham's assertion that Rather “yelled” at then-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush during a 1988 interview. Alterman called this assertion -- which appears to be untrue based on the MRC's own video -- “a lie.” Again, Alterman exhibited no signs of “viciousness” and the discussion remained “reasonable” throughout.

More than a year later, O'Reilly unleashed another unprovoked attack on Alterman, characterizing him as a “Fidel Castro confidante.” Alterman threatened to sue O'Reilly for defamation unless he retracted the remark, but O'Reilly maintained that in comparing Alterman to Castro, he was only “mak[ing] fun.” Center for American Progress president and former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta confronted O'Reilly about his remarks on the June 22, 2004, edition of the Factor, and O'Reilly conceded that Alterman was “anti-Castro.” Alterman did not pursue litigation against O'Reilly.

David Corn

Corn last appeared on the April 7, 2003, edition of the Factor, to discuss whether -- as O'Reilly claimed -- The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were distorting coverage of the Iraq war to damage President Bush. As with Alterman, Corn exhibited few signs of “vicious[]” or "[un]reasonable" behavior, merely confronting O'Reilly with facts that contradicted his arguments. Corn took issue with O'Reilly's claim that New York Times editors were putting pessimistic headlines on stories about the war, citing several New York Times headlines depicting the war effort favorably and suggesting that O'Reilly was being “selective” in which headlines he cited. Corn also contradicted O'Reilly's claim that The New York Times had stopped slanting its coverage of the war after O'Reilly “exposed” the editors' dishonesty on the Factor. Corn cited favorable headlines from the March 21, 2003, edition of The New York Times, published days before O'Reilly “exposed” The New York Times' purported bias. O'Reilly responded by calling Corn “intellectually dishonest,” and accusing him of “deny[ing] the undeniable,” “cherry-picking” headlines, and “not looking at this as a fair person.”

Although Corn never appeared on a program hosted by O'Reilly again, O'Reilly stepped up his attacks on Corn on the July 28, 2005, edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, calling Corn a “slimy sewer-dweller,” an “idiot[],” “an irrational left-wing bomber,” and saying Corn was “beneath contempt.” Similarly, on the January 26 edition of the Factor, O'Reilly called Corn a “very far-left individual[],” and a “bomb-thrower[].”

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Vanden Heuvel most recently appeared on the December 1, 2003, edition of the Factor, participating in a panel discussion with Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce. Vanden Heuvel spoke over O'Reilly several times during the discussion, as he repeatedly attempted to cut her off. When O'Reilly accused vanden Heuvel of having “a speech prepared,” she responded: “You don't like to hear from anyone who disagrees with you.” She then asked: "[D]on't you believe in the marketplace of ideas?" O'Reilly later complained about vanden Heuvel's “incredibly boring diatribe,” to which vanden Heuvel replied: "[Y]ou do it on Fox every night, Mr. O'Reilly." O'Reilly subsequently accused vanden Heuvel of “spinning and engaging in propaganda” and threatened to cut off her microphone, a tactic he has used to silence many guests in the past, as Media Matters has noted.

Although vanden Heuvel was adversarial toward O'Reilly during her appearance, she did not exhibit any signs of “viciousness.” Nevertheless, on the March 30 edition of the Factor, O'Reilly labeled vanden Heuvel a “demagogue[]” and an “extreme left-wing person,” for her comment that “some of the white supremacist thinking that used to be represented by David Duke has been absorbed by people like [Rep. Tom] Tancredo [R-CO].” Taking her cue from O'Reilly, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, a guest on the show, also attacked vanden Heuvel, calling her a “shameless smear merchant” and “very clueless and blind.” O'Reilly did not take issue with any of these characterizations.

From the June 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now, we saw it in [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, we saw the most vile things, and we played them on this broadcast. I don't know whether you played them on your radio show or not, but the clips of people actually saying, “We, the United States, are worse than Zarqawi” -- the Air America woman -- I won't even mention her name, she's so despicable -- said that. And what percentage do you put the American public who believes that?

INGRAHAM: I think it's a very small percentage of the people. But I think it is this angry core of the Democratic Party that's raising a lot of money and, frankly, has a pretty powerful presence on the Internet, the Daily Kos, The Nation website. You know, people like Eric Alterman, David Corn, Katrina vanden Heuvel.

I mean, they -- to listen to them, Bill, you really think that they believe that if America kind of went away tomorrow, the world would be safe, terrorism would pretty much end, and we would be better.

O'REILLY: The three that you mentioned, I won't put any of them -- I won't put any of them on this program. All three have appeared in the past. I will not use them, because I do not believe they want to have a conversation. I believe that they come on in here with a viciousness that I just -- you know, it makes me uncomfortable. There's no place I can take the debate. You're not -- they're not going to cede any points. You can't have a reasonable discussion with them.

From the February 11, 2003, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: In the “Back of the Book” Segment tonight, a new book that says the left in America are not dominating the media. In fact, they are being denied equal time.

With us now is Eric Alterman, author of the book, What Liberal Media? -- with a question mark there.

All right, Mr. Alterman. What's your beef? You know, you ideologues -- [Accuracy in Media editor Cliff] Kincaid, you -- I mean, you guys are --

ALTERMAN: Hey.

O'REILLY: You know, what's up? Come on.

ALTERMAN: Hey, I'm not an ideologue, Bill. I've got my facts and figures with me. But, in any case, before I start with my beef, I just want to say I'm really happy to be here. Now, this is the second time I've been on Fox this week.

I've been on MSNBC once and CNN. When I was on MSNBC, they had three conservatives up against me. When I was on CNN, they had another conservative up against me. Both times I've been on Fox with you and [Fox News host] John Gibson, it's been one-on-one, and I just think that says something good about Fox.

O'REILLY: Yes. Of course it does. We have more liberals on the Factor than we have conservatives.

ALTERMAN: Well, you really -- you really let liberals have their say, unless, you know --

O'REILLY: Absolutely. I mean, that's what America is all about.

ALTERMAN: OK. So that's -- that's the nice thing I have to say. The not-so-nice thing I've got to say, Bill, is that I think you're not very careful about your facts, and I think that when you're not very careful about your facts, it's almost always in the direction of your ideology.

O'REILLY: All right. You've got to give me -- you've got to give me examples now?

ALTERMAN: I've brought lots of examples. I don't want to bore people with reading from my book, but -- for instance, you said there were 100,000 abductions of children by strangers in the U.S. every year. It's fewer than a hundred.

O'REILLY: Yes, we -- well, there isn't fewer than a hundred, but we corrected -- we corrected that, and that was -- that's infamous.

ALTERMAN: OK. So you made a mistake, and you corrected it. That's fine.

O'REILLY: Yes, we made a mistake, and we corrected it.

ALTERMAN: Fine, fine. Fine. Good. That's all I can ask.

What about when you said that there were -- that Israel had offered the Palestinians -- that Israel had offered to withdraw 90 percent of its settlements, when, in fact, it's closer to between 10 percent and 20 percent of settlements, when you were arguing with [Arab American Institute president] Jim Zogby?

O'REILLY: All right. Now, if you -- if you are in the know about the Camp David negotiations in the last year of the Clinton administration, you know they had on the paper that they were going to withdraw up to 90 percent, if the other side would sign.

ALTERMAN: That's false.

O'REILLY: Now, if you don't know that, I can't help you.

ALTERMAN: That's false. The Camp David -- and, actually, it was the Taba Agreement that was -- that's more germane than Camp David because --

O'REILLY: Ah! Whoa! More germane. Now, we're talking germane things.

ALTERMAN: No, no. Taba -- Taba came after Camp David. Taba is where the deal was reached --

O'REILLY: Look, the deal --

ALTERMAN: -- and --

O'REILLY: -- that fell apart -- the last deal between [President] Clinton, [late Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat, and [former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon is the deal I was referring to. If you don't know the -- call Bill. He'll take your call.

ALTERMAN: Bill - Bill --

O'REILLY: Call Bill -- President Clinton.

ALTERMAN: Bill -- you're simply wrong.

O'REILLY: All right. Well, you're wrong on that one.

ALTERMAN: All right.

O'REILLY: Go ahead.

ALTERMAN: Now, what about when you -- one night, you were on -- and one day, you said that -- you gave a statistic for -- you were talking to the National -- a woman from the National Organization for Women, and, one night, you claimed that 58 percent of single moms -- single-mother homes are on welfare, and you got -- and you got all mad about that.

Then, the next night, you came back with a completely different statistic, in which you said that 52 percent of families receiving public assistance are headed by a single mother --

O'REILLY: Right.

ALTERMAN: -- which is a completely different way --

O'REILLY: OK. All right. Look --

ALTERMAN: Now, did you correct that?

O'REILLY: Yes, we did, and I --

ALTERMAN: OK.

O'REILLY: -- remember that very clearly.

ALTERMAN: No, but here's the point. We can fight about --

O'REILLY: We've been on six-and-a-half years, Eric. You came up with two things.

ALTERMAN: Sure. You make mistakes.

O'REILLY: One of them is bogus, and two of them have some validity.

ALTERMAN: Well, we've got only -- got five minutes. But here's my point.

O'REILLY: All right. Two of them have some validity. One of them is bogus.

ALTERMAN: They always are in your --

O'REILLY: Six-and-a-half-years!

ALTERMAN: They're always in your direction, Bill. Well, I could do this all night, but it would --

O'REILLY: No, but you couldn't do it all night.

ALTERMAN: The fact is --

O'REILLY: That's what you got. You --

ALTERMAN: The fact is --

O'REILLY: Wait a minute. Hold it. You gave me your best shot. You came in with your best shot. You've got two that have some validity. You've got one that was completely bogus.

ALTERMAN: It's not --

O'REILLY: If that's your best shot after six-and-a-half years, you don't have anything.

ALTERMAN: Now --

O'REILLY: Now, let's get on to the substantive of your book. You believe there's some right-wing cabal that's out to crush --

ALTERMAN: No, not a cabal. Hey, how could there be a cabal? We're sitting here at Fox News.

O'REILLY: All right. What is it then? What is it?

ALTERMAN: It's the right wing. It completely and totally dominates talk radio. We can agree on that. It pretty much dominates cable news. All you got is -- the only guy --

O'REILLY: Well, wait a minute. You got [former MSNBC host Phil] Donahue on right now.

ALTERMAN: All you got is Donahue. All you got is Donahue, and he's about to get the --

O'REILLY: That's not all you --

ALTERMAN: He's about to get the hook.

O'REILLY: What happened to [Fox News co-host] Alan Colmes? Did he disappear? He's on right after us. You've got Donahue up against O'Reilly. Now, answer me this question, if you're such a great analyst. Don -- last night, the Factor does about five million viewers over the two runs, all right.

ALTERMAN: Yes.

O'REILLY: Donahue does about 650,000. If there was a demand for liberal thought, why would he get crushed by independent thought? We're independent here. He's liberal. Why would he get crushed like that?

ALTERMAN: Well, I think we can agree you're conservative. I think --

O'REILLY: We can't agree with that, but --

ALTERMAN: All right.

O'REILLY: -- why is he getting crushed if there is a demand for it?

ALTERMAN: Hey, I'm not saying that there are a lot -- that there are not a lot more conservatives who are creating a market for this stuff. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm saying it is market driven. But the fact is -- is that for conservatives to whine they don't get a fair shake from the so-called liberal media is a lot of nonsense.

O'REILLY: Well, all right. I'll --

ALTERMAN: It dominates --

O'REILLY: I'll cede that. I think the whining is on both sides. I think -- look, with 680 NPR affiliates and another 340 public PBS affiliates, liberal thought is everywhere.

ALTERMAN: NPR and PBS are nowhere near as liberal as Fox, and The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times are conservative.

O'REILLY: You're living in the land of Oz. You -- all right, Mr. Alterman, you --

ALTERMAN: That's not an argument that I'm living in the land of Oz.

O'REILLY: Mr. Alterman, you have just left the building with Elvis and gone to the -- if you don't think NPR is as liberal as Fox -- and I don't buy the Fox conservative. I say Fox leans a little right.

ALTERMAN: Bill, everybody on earth finds that Fox is conservative except you and Roger Ailes.

O'REILLY: OK. But perhaps we're right because we have the highest ratings in the country.

ALTERMAN: Well --

O'REILLY: There you go.

ALTERMAN: -- a lot of people in Arab countries think that, if they blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, they'll be visited by 72 virgins.

O'REILLY: Not --

ALTERMAN: Doesn't make them right.

O'REILLY: Didn't really get that comparison.

ALTERMAN: Doesn't make them right.

O'REILLY: You and Mr. Kincaid ought to go out for dinner. All right. Nice to see you. Thanks for coming in, Eric.

ALTERMAN: Nice to see you.

O'REILLY: We appreciate it. Good luck with the book.

From the February 28, 2003, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

THOMAS: Why? Why was it poor journalism?

GRAHAM: Because it was way too soft. I mean, I liked the way you put it at the beginning, did he punt? He punted on first down. I mean, the whole idea was, you have a 60-minute program you want to fill, so you don't want the dictator to pull the plug in minute five.

So, you ask him all these easy questions like, what would you like to tell the American people on this historic juncture? I mean, that's not a question; that's a red carpet. And so, I think the thing that really offends me and probably offends a lot of Americans is that Dan Rather was -- made his name being rough on Richard Nixon.

In 1988, he yelled at George Bush in an interview when he was running for president and said, “You've made us hypocrites in the eyes of the world about Iran Contra.” And then he goes over to Baghdad twice now, and he did the same thing in 1990, saying “Oh, Mr. President, what would you like to tell the American people?”

The American people deserve better than that. This was not about the American people. This was about CBS promoting itself for money.

THOMAS: All right. But now, so, you're not exactly against the idea of interviewing Saddam Hussein. You're just against the way Dan Rather did it for the most part?

GRAHAM: Look, if Saddam Hussein's going to grant that interview to someone in the American media, there's no way that will be stopped. The question then is, how do you serve the American people?

ALTERMAN: But do you think it should be stopped? Do you have a problem with the idea of the networks interviewing Saddam Hussein?

GRAHAM: I do question how much value is it, when we -- to get 60 minutes of Saddam Hussein saying ridiculous things like he believes in freedom, he believes in humanity. He is such a great believer in Allah. And he doesn't have --

THOMAS: Well, first of all, the questions were in softball (ph), and I think there's an argument that some of them at least were. The answers were certainly disingenuous.

ALTERMAN: Yes. I think it's no different than when the networks interview any other world leader. For instance, George W. Bush -- when George W. Bush gave his State of the Union a few weeks ago --

GRAHAM: They're equal?

ALTERMAN: Can I finish? Because, if I finish, maybe you would understand what I was saying. When journalists interview world leaders, they go to great pains to be respectful. They did it for Mikhail Gorbachev, they do it for dictators, they do it for presidents, they do it for everyone.

THOMAS: How about this question about Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan? They basically --

ALTERMAN: They were enormously respectful of Ronald Reagan. They let Ronald Reagan lie to the American people about his role in Iran Contra without questioning him. And, in fact, Tim was incorrect. Dan Rather did not yell at George Bush when he was vice president. That's a lie.

If you take a look at that tape, there will be no yelling. You'll see that he questioned him in a tough way. It's very tough -- I would have liked to have seen him be tough on Saddam Hussein, no question about it. But it's tough to do it in that situation.

The guy is a windbag. There's a translation. He could go on forever and ever.

[...]

THOMAS: All right. Well, let's give Tim Graham the last word here. We have about 30 seconds, Tim. And respond to what Eric says about most of the major mainstream media being soft on the presidents.

GRAHAM: Look, Peter [late ABC News anchor] Jennings, as you suggest, has spent every night beating up on the Bush administration, how it's destroying all of its alliances.

ALTERMAN: I wish.

GRAHAM: Do you watch the news, Eric? I don't think you watch the news, because you don't have an example. And go look at mrc.org. You can find the '88 interview.

THOMAS: All right. Got to run, gentlemen. Thanks very much for joining us tonight.

From the June 22, 2004, edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

PODESTA: Would you admit that he's [Alterman] anti-Castro?

O'REILLY: Sure. Eric, baby, you're anti-Castro. All right? That was a joke, Eric. I'm having a little fun at your expense.

O'REILLY: All right, Mr. Podesta, when you see Bill and Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)], tell them, look, here we are, and we want -- ready to believe them. Thank you, sir.

From the April 7, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, also featuring Tim Graham:

O'REILLY: In the first few days, the coverage was so bad in the L.A. and New York Times that I said, you would think you were on Iwo Jima or in Stalingrad here.

And I called out to some of my guys out there in the field, you know, embedded reporters, I said, “Does this jive with what you're getting?” And then I talked to some of the military analysts, and we've got like 45,000 military analysts on the payroll. I said --

Not one -- not one said that The New York Times and the L.A. Times were reporting accurately, and that's when I launched on them.

Now, Mr. Corn, I mean I know you're sympathetic to the left, but don't you see what happened in the early days of this war here?

CORN: Well, I saw a lot of criticism in the papers that came from people within the military and outside of the military, and I saw headlines that were different than the ones you read.

I mean, you can be selective about this. The day after you --

O'REILLY: No, we gave you the whole page.

CORN: The day after you -- the day after you criticized --

O'REILLY: We gave you the whole page, Mr. Corn.

CORN: Well, listen, The New York Times headline after the one you ran, the next day, was “Heavy Iraqi Losses Seen in Big Battle.” That was in --

O'REILLY: Yes, because they got -- they got --

CORN: Oh, you think they --

O'REILLY: They got scorched.

CORN: You think -- do you think they changed the headline after -- at 11 at night after seeing your show at 8 p.m. in the evening?

O'REILLY: I believe -- listen, those headlines --

CORN: Do you think you --

O'REILLY: -- ran at midnight, all right.

CORN: Bill, if you have that much influence, more power to you.

O'REILLY: Well, look --

GRAHAM: Even The New York Times admitted that --

O'REILLY: David, if you -- if want to deny the undeniable, you go right ahead, but the temper changed -- the tempo changed, all right, after we exposed it. Look, David --

CORN: You had -- you had General --

O'REILLY: -- you've been around long enough to know that The Boston Globe and The New York Times are owned by the same company.

CORN: Sure.

O'REILLY: You have a disparity like that that's undeniable, all right. There's something wrong. David, you can't deny it.

CORN: Bill -- Bill, if you had time, I could sit here and read you lots of headlines from The New York Times, even in the last few days, even if -- from the time period that you're talking about. I have a list here -- if you want, I'll do it -- that shows the war going well. They did headlines of both sorts.

O'REILLY: Yes. After we blew their cover, they got scared. They pulled the Robert Scheers off the editorial page. They did all the things that the America -- do you know what outrage --

CORN: Bill -- Bill -- Bill, I'll give you -- I'll give you one here. You -- from March 21: “U.S. and British Troops Push Into Iraq as Missiles Strike Baghdad Compounds”; “G.I.s and Marines See Little Resistance.” March 21, New York Times/Washington Post. I mean, come on. That's not -- that's not downplaying the war.

O'REILLY: The New York Times and The Washington Post. What does that mean? They're not the same company.

CORN: No, no, no, no, no. No, those are both from The New York Times. I'll read you some Post headlines, too, if you'd like.

O'REILLY: All right. Look -- look, what I'm saying to you is, in the beginning of this conflict, all right, not when the tide turned, not when the Factor exposed it because then they all ran for cover -- in the beginning, the L.A. Times, The New York Times, and some other -- and some television people, too, wanted the United States to take an initial beating.

Am I wrong, Mr. Graham?

GRAHAM: No, and I think that -- well, look, even this weekend -- yesterday's New York Times, as our Times Watch website shows, they were saying this weekend the war's lasted longer than expected and resistance has been tougher than expected, and they're still, in the wake of the kind of successes we're having right now -- still trying to rain on that parade.

They don't want it to be seen as a success, and they especially don't want to -- it to be seen as a success for President George W. Bush. So, it becomes to them --

O'REILLY: Yes, that's the bottom line.

CORN: You know --

O'REILLY: That's the bottom line.

Go ahead, David.

CORN: I think -- I think you guys are bringing your own perspective to this. Today in The New York Times, front-page headline, “Allies Press Baghdad and Thrust Into Basra.” Now --

O'REILLY: Yes, they have to report it now!

CORN: Well --

O'REILLY: They have to now.

CORN: Well, listen, Tim was just --

O'REILLY: Unless they want to be like --

CORN: Tim was just saying --

O'REILLY: -- the Iraqi information officer! Come on! How ridiculous is this?

CORN: I gave you headlines. Bill, I gave --

O'REILLY: In the beginning --

CORN: Bill, I gave you headlines --

O'REILLY: Look, the thesis here, David --

CORN: -- from March 21, and I gave you headlines from yesterday.

O'REILLY: You're being intellectually dishonest, David. You're being intel -- you know that we're talking about coverage at the beginning of the war. You know that, and --

CORN: I gave you --

O'REILLY: -- you're cherry-picking now because everybody's on the bandwagon.

CORN: I just gave you headlines from March 21 that didn't have any -- have a negative slant in The New York Times.

O'REILLY: Well, look --

CORN: That was the beginning of the war.

O'REILLY: We gave you a whole page --

CORN: The New York Times --

O'REILLY: -- a whole front page, every headline we gave to you, David, and you still won't admit it, and that tells me that you're not looking at this as a fair person.

CORN: I don't think you're looking at the whole picture because --

O'REILLY: Go ahead, Mr. Graham.

CORN: -- you're focusing on one day and one set of headlines.

O'REILLY: Yes. One day and one set of headline. The whole front page. They wanted a Pyrrhic victory here, and --

CORN: Who's they?

O'REILLY: And Mr. Graham --

CORN: Who's they? Let's get -- let's --

O'REILLY: The editors of The New York Times. That's who.

CORN: Name them. Name them. Who's doing it?

O'REILLY: Howell Raines.

CORN: OK. So you think he's sitting there writing headlines to make the war go bad?

O'REILLY: I'm saying they're writing -- they were writing headlines to back up --

CORN: And you think --

O'REILLY: -- their editorial point of you view.

From the July 28, 2005, edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Now, we got a call from Dayton, Ohio, that asked why I never challenge David Corn. Number one, David Corn is so beneath what we do here, it's a waste of my time. Number two, no one knows who he is. Number three, he's an irrational left-wing bomber that why would I bother with him? I'm not going to take a call like that.

We want to take good calls, the calls that people can identify with. You know, why don't I challenge all of these slimy sewer-dwellers? I don't have time to do it. You know, we got a lot of stuff to do here on The Factor. We got a lot of causes that we're involved with that mean something. I'm not going to go after these idiots. I mean they're just, you know, beneath contempt.

From the January 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: You have 638 footnotes in the book, you know. The problem with some of those footnotes is that you are using people like David Corn, Robert Scheer, very far-left individuals, as sources. And you really can't do that and then try to win over people who are in the middle or not far left, because these guys are bomb-throwers.

PAUL BEGALA (Democratic strategist): David Corn is one of the best journalists I know. He was the first person to blow the whistle on the outing of Valerie Plame, which has damaged our national security.

From the December 1, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: All right, Ms. vanden Heuvel, is this strategy on the left going to succeed?

VANDEN HEUVEL: I hope it does, because if it does, America will be a safer, healthier, better educated, more secure society.

O'REILLY: I know, you're --

VANDEN HEUVEL: And you know what? George Bush ran as a uniter. He has divided this country in unprecedented ways. At that meeting, and there are millions of meetings like that going on around this country, not just Hollywood, but Republicans and centrists are coming. What Bush has done, he has united progressives.

O'REILLY: Well, I agree with you.

VANDEN HEUVEL: People wouldn't have understood. So, you have now the beginnings of a progressive infrastructure.

O'REILLY: Your magazine's up 50 percent, right? In certain --

VANDEN HEUVEL: The Nation's circulation is up 50 percent --

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

VANDEN HEUVEL: -- but that's not just because of George Bush. That is because of a sense that the core American values of the decency, fairness, equality, opportunity and accountability have --

O'REILLY: Then why are only 20 percent of Americans liberals, then?

VANDEN HEUVEL: -- been distorted by -- no, the progressive values of this country rank much higher.

O'REILLY: All right.

VANDEN HEUVEL: The tax cut that George Bush rammed --

O'REILLY: No, no, no --

VANDEN HEUVEL: -- down this country's throat.

O'REILLY: -- look, they do a poll, Miss vanden Heuvel --

VANDEN HEUVEL: Not what Americans wanted. If they wanted health care, they wanted education for their kids.

O'REILLY: Look, OK, speeches are fine.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Let us hope President Bush --

O'REILLY: You're a journalist. You deal in facts.

VANDEN HEUVEL: -- is unseated in 2004 because America will be a better place for it.

O'REILLY: OK, good. Yes.

VANDEN HEUVEL: But more important --

O'REILLY: I'm going to stop you --

VANDEN HEUVEL: -- as someone who believes in democracy --

O'REILLY: -- Miss vanden Heuvel, I'm going to stop you now because your speech is lost on this audience. They know you're an ideologue. We don't care that you have a speech prepared.

VANDEN HEUVEL: You don't like to hear from anyone who disagrees with you.

O'REILLY: No, I don't disagree with you at all.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Mr. O'Reilly, don't you believe in the marketplace of ideas?

O'REILLY: You won't answer the question.

VANDEN HEUVEL: This country is better and more democratic.

O'REILLY: Miss vanden Heuvel --

VANDEN HEUVEL: It's not just the right wing dominating our airwaves, our media, our national debate.

O'REILLY: This is an incredibly boring diatribe you're going through. This is incredibly boring.

VANDEN HEUVEL: But then you do it on Fox every night, Mr. O'Reilly.

O'REILLY: No, I don't do this every night at all. I'm trying to get to the bottom of a question. And we'll get to Miss Bruce in a moment.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Let us hope the liberal strategy --

O'REILLY: But here's the deal. What you just said --

VANDEN HEUVEL: --has some potency.

O'REILLY: -- is the perfect example of spin. You spun it. You had a rehearsed speech. You came in and you regurgitated it. The audience knows it.

VANDEN HEUVEL: I believe in the politics of passion and principle.

O'REILLY: Twenty percent of Americans say they're liberal. If what you said were true, 80 percent would. There's a problem with the liberals.

VANDEN HEUVEL: There's a problem because people don't see...

O'REILLY: So, let's go to Miss Bruce.

VANDEN HEUVEL: -- their views reflected on media.

O'REILLY: Yes, I know.

VANDEN HEUVEL: And they don't know that there are views out there that are just distorted by the media, that aren't even shared with them.

O'REILLY: All right, Ms. -- let's get to Miss Bruce.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Polls show Americans want universal health care.

BRUCE: I'd love to pipe in here.

O'REILLY: Yes, and I'm going to have to cut Katrina's mike if she's go more.

BRUCE: Please, please. That would be a Fox touch.

O'REILLY: Go ahead.

BRUCE: Well, first of all, let me say as a Democrat and as a feminist and as a progressive, and as an openly gay woman, I also have an investment in progressive politics. And the reality is that once you have -- you've got Fox News, you've got talk radio, and you have the Internet, has finally been a way to show the American people that this stranglehold on mass media and entertainment, which is controlled by the far left and liberals is not necessarily indicative of the fact that everyone is thinking the same, that Americans do care about the information. They do like what George W. Bush is doing. And what Ms. Vanden Heuvel has shown is that, and what they normally keep complete control of is that you can have a speech like that, and usually, whether it be on David Letterman or any other kind of television program or “The View” or anywhere else, you're not going to hear a rebuttal.

O'REILLY: No, they'll let it go.

BRUCE: And what they can't stand --

O'REILLY: But look, Miss vanden Heuvel is right when she says that there is a polarization in the country right now. She's wrong when she says most Americans agree with her. They don't. And the polls show that.

BRUCE: No, they don't.

O'REILLY: The polls show that President Bush's approval rating is well over 50 percent. So Miss vanden Heuvel was spinning and engaging in propaganda.

From the March 30 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.

In the “Unresolved Problem” segment tonight, as Congress tries to hammer out an immigration bill that would get the illegal alien situation under control, emotions are running very high, as you know.

Last week in Los Angeles, many people were offended by seeing Mexican flags on display. I've taken a lot of calls on The Radio Factor about that.

Also, demagogues are attacking people like Congressman Tom Tancredo [R-CO], who want a hard line on immigration.

VANDEN HEUVEL [clip]: But I will say that what's happening in our country is some of the white supremacist thinking that used to be represented by David Duke has been absorbed by people like Tancredo.

O'REILLY: Joining us now from Edmonton, Canada, Dr. Raul Hinojosa, who teaches international development at UCLA, and from Raleigh, North Carolina, syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin, the author of the book, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores.

All right, Michelle -- begin with you. The rhetoric is getting ratcheted up, now, Miss vanden Heuvel, who you saw or heard on the ABC News program, is an extreme left-wing person, but, you know, the personal attacks -- fast and furious -- and then there's the Mexican flag. What say you?

MALKIN: Well, Katrina vanden Heuvel is a shameless smear merchant, and she's also very clueless and blind. She underscores something that I've noted for a long time about the far left, and that is their own blindness towards racism and ethnic separatism on the part of politically incorrect minorities within their own ranks.

While she was smearing Congressman Tancredo, who has done nothing -- nothing more than insist that we enforce our borders and that the federal government fulfill its obligation to provide for the common defense, while she was doing that, take a look at what was happening in Los Angeles. Just open your eyes, Miss vanden Heuvel.

It was the far left, the open borders activists, who were the ones who are the extremists, who were the ones advocating militant ethnic separatism -- “This is our stolen land.” “Chicano power.” You had folks with Azatlan T-shirts mugging for the cameras in front of City Hall. These are people who believe that the American Southwest belongs to Mexico, that we don't have a right to enforce our borders, and who do nothing more than try to sabotage our sovereignty.