Fire Bill O'Reilly

Fire Bill O'Reilly Is Back!

2007-07-31T00:25:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted here in a while, and today I decided to resurrect this blog. I noticed that I was still getting quite a bit of traffic for not having posted in 3 months, so I figure that with a little TLC I can get this blog going again stronger than ever. I am contemplating a name change, as I would like to mix it up a bit, possibly expanding beyond Billo to include some other Fixed Noise personalities, and maybe some political commentary by me. The URL will stay the same, as that is where all of my traffic is going to, and because with Blogger I cannot do the redirect that I would need to do to keep my traffic and search engine standings.

Keep posted in the coming days and weeks.

O'Reilly Falsely Accused Guest of Lying While Lying

2007-07-31T00:08:00.000-07:00

On the July 26th O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly furthered his attacks against the Daily Kos, calling them a hate website, and criticizing the decision by some Democratic presidential candidates to attend the YearlyKos convention. Fox News contributor responded, "You had hateful comments on your website about Hillary Clinton." O'Reilly retorted (lying): "No, I didn't. We took them off." He later added, "That's a lie, and I can't let you say a lie on this broadcast." After cutting Hall's microphone, O'Reilly explained, "I can't let Jane lie. We don't allow hateful comments on BillOReilly.com. When they come up and we find them, we take them off." Billo, of course, was lying. One day later, as of 2 PM Pacific July 27, several comments about Hillary Clinton that were originally documented by Americablog remain on Billo's website, including one that caused Huffington Post blogger Lane Hudson to call for a Secret Service investigation.

And the transcripts...

O'REILLY: Just a real quick -- I don't want to belabor this, but a week from today, the Democratic candidates for president will be heading to the Daily Kos convention. And as you know, we have exposed that place as a hate website. Jane still doesn't get it.

But what I am going to do, Jane? I mean, I can't come to your house. But I can tell you that last night, we ran a picture of President Bush that ran on the Daily Kos for three years. They took it off today, Bernie. Was that an accident they took that off?

GOLDBERG: No, of course not. I mean, let me make sure I understand this. The Democratic presidential candidates will go to this Daily Kos or YearlyKos convention and speak to the angriest activist core of the party, but they won't debate the issues on Fox News?

O'REILLY: Correct.

GOLDBERG: Why is that? Why is that?

O'REILLY: I don't know.

GOLDBERG: Because they're death -- I'll tell you why, because they're deathly afraid that the crazies in the Democratic Party will punish them if they come on Fox News. And this tells you --

O'REILLY: Well, that's what RealClearPolitics says. That's what -- there's an article today. That's what they said.

GOLDBERG: Yes, I know. And I think they're right. And this is all you need to know about the strength of character, or more precisely, the lack of character of the Democratic candidates --

O'REILLY: Oh, absolutely. I mean, look at --

GOLDBERG: -- who are terrified, terrified of the crazies in their party.

O'REILLY: They are -- they are absolutely terrified of them. And why? Go there, Jane, tonight, and see what they're saying about me right now.

HALL: OK, well, Bill, Bill --

O'REILLY: That's why. Well, hold it. You know, a guy like Richardson, the Governor Richardson of New Mexico, was treated so well not only on The Factor but by the whole network. And he's the biggest coward in the world.

And as soon as the far left tells him, "Don't you do that, don't you go on Fox News." "OK, I won't." OK, and this is a guy we want to go up against Al Qaeda, Jane? Yeah.

GOLDBERG: Yup. Exactly.

HALL: Well, you know, and I know there's that famous quote, you know, "If they can't face Fox News, can they face Al Qaeda?" That is a different issue. They should be on Fox News.

But again you are picking out -- I haven't seen this horrible -- you know, I've seen this photo that was taken down. You had hateful comments on your website about Hillary Clinton.

O'REILLY: No, I didn't. We took them off.

HALL: Yes, you did. You took them off? OK, they are not representative of your website, are they?

O'REILLY: Jane, Jane -- Jane, Jane -- that's a lie, and I can't let you say a lie.

HALL: You're misrepresenting the bulk of this website.

O'REILLY: Jane -- Jane. That's a lie, and I can't let you say a lie on this broadcast. We do not allow hateful comments.

HALL: There were comments you took off. My point is there are hateful comments on websites, Bill.

O'REILLY: We take them off. There were not. We take them off when they come on. All right, Jane.

Here's the truth. I can't let Jane lie. We don't allow hateful comments on BillOReilly.com. When they come up and we find them, we take them off. The instructions are you can't do it. That's it, Jane. All right. I'm sorry I had to be impolite. I cannot let you mislead our audience. We'll see you next week.

BillOreilly.com Traffic At Its Lowest Since It Started In 2003

2007-04-29T11:03:00.000-07:00

According to Alexa.com, traffic to BillOreilly.com is at its lowest level since it first started back in 2003:

Fox News Reports Parody Story As Real News (video!)

2007-04-29T10:13:00.000-07:00

This story has nothing to do with Bill O'Reilly, but its just too great to pass up.

On the Tuesday "Fox and Friends," Fox News aired a story eight times as real news that came from a publication like The Onion, called Associated Content.

This part of the story is real: Last week in Lewiston, Maine, a group of students played a cruel prank on a group of Somalian Muslim middle school students, placing a ham steak next to them. Ham is considered by Islam to be unclean and highly offensive, so school offcials filed a report because they believed it was a hate crime.

Associated Content, a spoof news website similar to The Onion, published a parody story in which they created quotes and made up details about the incident.

In the spoof story, the superintendent said, "These children have got to learn that ham is not a toy", and that "They probably felt like they were back in Mogadishu starving and being shot at. No child, Muslim or normal, should have to endure touching a ham sandwich." The story even made connections the Holocaust, "The Jews had to go through the same thing when the Nazis would force-feed them bacon; do we really want our schools to become concentration camps?" The superintendent wanted his students to know that "They are safe from attacks with ham, bacon, porkchops, or any other delicious meat that comes from pigs." The spoof stated that the Center for Prevention of Hate Violence was working with the school to create an "anti-ham 'response plan.'"

Fox News picked up this parody, and ran it as real news during Tueday's "Fox and Friends." They made fun of the incident, asking whether ham was “a hate crime…or lunch?” The hosts kept assuring that they were "not making this up" and assured that "I've looked it up on a couple of different websites up there..." At one point, one host even said "I thought this was almost from The Onion."

According to SunJournal.com:

Following the Fox broadcast, Levesque's office received dozens of angry phone calls and profanity-laced e-mails, made and sent by people all over the country, who charge the school district overreacted to what they believed from news reports to be a ham sandwich tossed at a Somali student.

"Leaving your sandwich on a table is now a crime in Maine?" one e-mail asked. It continued, "This child did nothing illegal in placing his sandwich in front of several intolerant people that will kill YOUR students for sitting at the same table let alone placing a sandwich next to them."

From North Carolina, a e-mailer wrote that he'd read the "news media of your actions with regards to a child leaving a ham sandwich on a table used by Muslim students at one of your schools. Excuse my bluntness, but are you people insane?"

And, in another e-mail, "A ham sandwich is not a hate crime. It's two pieces of bread with a processed meat between them. Stop catering to the less than 1% and offending the other 99%. Please!"

Another e-mail suggested Levesque wasn't qualified to be superintendent of a public school because he "obviously escalated a simple prank into a hate crime."

Read: Think Progress

A compilation of clips from the show:

O'Reilly Calls Media Matters an 'Assassination Website' a 'Far Left Propaganda Thing' on Irish TV

2007-04-21T23:07:00.000-07:00

On April 13, Bill O'Reilly appeared on RTÉ One's The Late Late Show, which is filmed in Dublin, Ireland. Pat Kenny asked O'Reilly about his previous statements referring to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and to the Iraqi people as "prehistoric."

Here are the quotes in full context:

O'REILLY: Reagan was not a confrontational guy, didn't like confrontation, much rather be your pal ... doesn't want to get involved with the really nasty stuff, the tough stuff, and that's what racial politics is -- nasty and tough. ... It's hard to do it because you gotta look people in the eye and tell 'em they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's gonna wanna do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period. I mean I know people from Haiti, from the Ukraine from eh, -- we got callers all day long on The Factor. From Romania. You come here, you get educated, you work hard, you'll make a buck. You get addicted, you don't know anything, you'll be poor. But Reagan did not want to confront the issue. And that's the truth about it.

O'REILLY: Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up.

And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work.

Taken out of context? Absolutely not. That's just Bill's technique of evading what he said. On April 19th, he complained about Irish media in his column:

Last Friday, I appeared on Ireland's version of "The Tonight Show" and the host had scores of cue cards from "Media Matters," the far-left internet smear-factory.

When I asked the man why he was quoting from an obviously biased source, he blinked nervously and put down the cards.

Transcript from the show:

KENNY: Yeah. Some of the things that you've said and -- either on your radio show or on your TV show. Advice to the poor. "It's hard to do it because you've got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy, and who's going to do that?"

O'REILLY: Well, where did you get that? Because I don't remember saying that.

KENNY: That's Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly. 11-06-2004.

O'REILLY: By whom? Who put that out?

KENNY: We got it off the website.

O'REILLY: OK. The website you got it off is called Media Matters, which is an assassination website. It's a far-left propaganda thing.

Now, I do two hours -- you do radio, two hours as well. They'll take two, three sentences; they'll put it on out of context. I can't possibly answer that question. I don't know what the discussion was.

But be very careful when buying into the American website factory, because they're set up to assassinate people with whom they disagree. That's where you got it, and we know that game. They play it all the time.

KENNY: But you do have views on, say, the Iraqi people. Did you say that thing about the Iraqi people, that they're "prehistoric?"

O'REILLY: No. I don't remember saying that at all. And, again, taken out of context. And if you want to ask me a question about the Iraqi people or about American poverty --

KENNY: Which I will.

O'REILLY: I'll be happy to answer it. But be careful about this.

[...]

KENNY: But there's another problem. Maybe it's true of all Western democracies. And maybe democracy is not the only way you can rule a people.

O'REILLY: True.

KENNY: There have been other ways.

O'REILLY: True.

KENNY: But when I look at the caliber of the people who are running for the United States presidency, without running any of them particularly down, I mean, it's not exactly a glittering field, is it?

O'REILLY: You know, I'm not going to say that. I admire and respect people who put themselves out for public service. But I will tell you this.

KENNY: But do you know what I mean?

O'REILLY: Those cards you have in your hand came from one of the most vicious websites on earth. All right? And there are a hundred of them. And if you run for office in America, or you're me and you go on every night, those people will assassinate your character every single day. They will lie about you, they will defame you, they will slander you. And we can't sue, unlike the British system. If you're famous in America, you can't sue.

So, put yourself in a position of, "Do you want that kind of life? Do you want your family threatened every day, like my family is? Do you want that?" So the good people say, "We don't want this."

KENNY: Yeah. And if they've ever done anything remotely sinful or wrong or --

O'REILLY: Oh, they'll make it up. They'll make it up. You don't have to do anything. They'll make it up. So, good people --

KENNY: But is there any way to reform that kind of system?

O'REILLY: There has to -- there should be.

KENNY: Because if it's a --

O'REILLY: There should be tort reform in the United States.

KENNY: What does Hillary Clinton got? Forty-four million bucks so far?

O'REILLY: Well, that's fine. That's a different measure --

KENNY: No, but do you know what I mean? If that's what it takes to get elected --

O'REILLY: That's what it takes.

KENNY: It means that some campaigner, someone who leads with his or her heart, unless they have the cash, they can't do it.

O'REILLY: Well, that's true. America, you have to buy TV time. You have to campaign coast to coast. You've gotta have to have a private jet. You've gotta be everywhere.

But the money doesn't bother me as much as the defamation. Because now politics is a vicious game. It used to be in our country where people shook hands and this, that, and the other thing. Now, it's like the Mafia: "Let's kill them." And that has driven good people away.

O'Reilly Again 'Worst Person' for Cutting off Co-Host's Mike

2007-04-12T01:23:00.000-07:00

On the March 12th Countdown, O'Reilly again received 'Worst Person' honors after cutting off the mike of his co-host on the Radio Factor after she said that Gonzales-gate mattered and reminding him that under the President's offer, Rove would not have to testify under oath.

OLBERMANN: But our winner, Bill-O. Had his radio engineer turn off the mike of his own co-host, Lis Wiehl, because she said Gonzales-gate mattered and because she reminded him, under the president's offer to Congress, Karl Rove and company would not have to testify under oath. "Stop talking," he yelled at her. "It's not about you, and you're misleading the audience. Stop talking." He then had her mike shut off for three minutes, and asked rhetorically about Wiehl, "What can we do to her? What can we do to her?"

Bill-O, she has to sit next to you for two hours a day. You are already doing just about the worse thing you can do to her. Bill Orally, today's "Worst Person in the World."

Colbert on O'Reilly, O'Reilly on Colbert! (with video!)

2007-01-19T14:11:00.000-08:00

Colbert on O'Reilly:

O'Reilly on Colbert:

O'Reilly on Letterman

2006-07-05T19:21:00.000-07:00

Once again, this one is pretty old, but this is Bill O'Reilly on David Letterman's show, when Letterman tells Bill O that "I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap."

Bill Has Been on Vacation

2006-07-05T19:02:00.000-07:00

Bill has been on vacation since Friday, showing O'Reilly Factor reruns and Radio Factor "Best Of's". So obviously, there has been nothing to report on, but after reading Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, I looked into the 2003 BookExpo with Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken showing off their new (at the time) books.

During the show, O'Reilly snapped at Franken for him to "shut up", and Franken exposed his lies for half an hour, with O'Reilly sitting right next to him, unable to bully him around, like he would on his show.

You can watch it at: http://www.booktv.org/feature/...

It is over 8 hours long, O'Reilly starts talking at around 4 and a half hours through, so start there, and then Franken speaks after him. Notice how much of a better public speaker Franken is than O'Reilly.

Update: Bill is still gone (7/5), he has John Kasich filling in for him today.

O'Reilly Apoligizes (sort of) for Citing Article that Misquoted Murtha

2006-06-30T19:06:00.000-07:00

On the June 29th The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly apoligized for citing the Sun-Sentinel article that misquoted congressman John Murtha (D-PA)

O'REILLY: The South Florida Sun-Sentinel misquoted Congressman John Murtha in remarks about who is dangerous to the world. The newspaper has apologized, and since we picked up the paper's quote, we should apologize, as well.

We didn't -- we did, I should say, source the Sun-Sentinel, but I should have checked it out myself and called Murtha's office. Next time, we will do that.

The article, from June 25, alleged that Murtha said that "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran," when in fact Murtha was citing a poll.

The Sun-Sentinel corrected itself on June 28th, yet some conservative radio talk show hosts are still citing the article. On June 29th, Sean Hannity said during his show:

HANNITY: We've got the latest insanity from John Murtha. It's not Iran that's the greatest threat in the world, it's not Islamic fascists, it's not terrorism, it's not North Korea, it's not Iran. No, it's the United States. [laughs] I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

And today, two days after the correct, Rush Limbaugh had this to say during his radio show:

LIMBAUGH: Let's go back, though. I can remember being called a Clinton-hater. There was -- the media came up with a term to describe any critic of Clinton, and that was Clinton-hater. But we never called Clinton a terrorist. We never compared Bill Clinton to Adolf Hitler. We didn't suggest that the biggest threat, as Jack Murtha did the other day, to peace in the world is Bill Clinton.

MM: Media coverage of Iraq debate steeped in GOP talking points

2006-06-30T18:55:00.000-07:00

Very insightful analysis of the media coverage of Iraq war debate at Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606300009

Visitors to O'Reilly's Website Down 39%

2006-06-30T18:27:00.000-07:00

Its not just Fox News's and Bill O'Reilly's television ratings that are down in the last quarter, but both Fox News and Bill O'Reilly's websites have lost a significant amount of traffic in the last 3 months. According to Alexa.com, which tracks web traffic and is owned by Amazon.com, Bill O'Reilly's website traffic was down 39% in the last 3 months, and Fox News's website was down 13%. See http://www.alexa.com/data/details/... and http://www.alexa.com/data/details/...
As we recently reported, Fox's overall ratings dropped 8% in the second quarter of 2006, including a 22% in the key demographic, viewers aged 25-54. O'Reilly's own ratings are also declining, according to a MediaBistro report, losing 11% in the 25-54 demo, and 8% in overall viewers.

O'Reilly Worrying About MSNBC Ratings When He Needs to Worry About His Own

2006-06-28T19:00:00.000-07:00

On the June 27th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly had this to say about Air America and about MSNBC's ratings:

O'REILLY: Time now for the "most ridiculous item of the day." If you've read any of my books, you know I believe in karma: Do bad things, you'll get yours eventually. Do good things, you'll be rewarded. Recently, two bad guys got theirs. Air America has fired its president, Gary Krantz. The disastrous radio network booted him out on the heels of the removal of CEO Danny Goldberg. We believe there is major chaos at that far left concern. There's also major chaos at MSNBC, where Rick Kaplan has left after pretty much destroying that place. He did the same thing at CNN before he got fired over there. Closing in on its 10th anniversary, MSNBC's ratings are lower than they were six years ago, which might be ridiculous.

O'Reilly has turned his 'Most Ridiculous Item of the Day' segment into his daily attack segment, sharing things that aren't even ridiculous. You know what is ridiculous, that O'Reilly feels the need to worry about MSNBC's ratings when he needs to worry about Fox's, and his own. As we recently reported, Fox's overall ratings dropped 8% in the second quarter of 2006, including a 22% in the key demographic, viewers aged 25-54. O'Reilly's own ratings are also declining, according to a MediaBistro report, losing 11% in the 25-54 demo, and 8% in overall viewers.

O'Reilly: "If we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won"

2006-06-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

On the June 27th broadcast of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly once again spoke his wishes to handle Iraq the way Saddam Hussein did.

O'REILLY: It just depends on how you want to wage the war. If we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won. That means martial law, torture, murder, kicking in doors. You know, Saddam controlled that country for 25 years. He didn't have any insurrections. He didn't have bombs going off. And half the country wanted to kill him. You know, all the Shia hated him. And how'd he do it? Through terror. So we could do it. But then, you know, as soon as you look at one of these guys cross-eyed, the ACLU's got you sued.

O'Reilly denied supporting Saddam's method in Iraq after a Chicago Tribune editorial called him on the carpet. He started out attacking Wycliff, who wrote the editorial, calling him a coward:

O'REILLY:Nice, right? Well, we asked Don Wycliff, who teaches media criticism at Notre Dame, to appear this evening. He agreed, but then he canceled one hour before air time. So much for the Fighting Irish. Wycliff is one of the hiding Irish. If you're going to launch a personal attack, sir, at least have the courage to back them up. Cowardice is not becoming.

O'Reilly had Clarence Page on the show, who is a columnist at the Chicago Tribune. They had a long and heated discussion:

O'REILLY: All right. Let's deal with the irresponsible position first. If you are going to say the blame for the brutal mutilation and murders lies with the American government, which this man did, Wycliff, that's what he said, it's in print. If you're going to say that, I believe that is grossly irresponsible. The terrorists did this. The savages who killed Menchaca and Tucker are terrorists. He blames -- Wycliff blames the American government. Now, that is the irresponsibility. It's very clear to me.
PAGE: Well, follow the logic, Bill. Look at your own commentaries over the last week. You praised the way Saddam Hussein ran the country over there, said that we ought to have martial law, we ought to have the kind of crackdowns that Saddam had. The fact is you can't have martial law if you have inadequate police force, an inadequate army, and our American troops are inadequate. Enough troops were not sent over there in the beginning. That is a widely agreed-upon fact now. And that's what Don is talking about. We put --

O'REILLY: No. Don is talking about --

PAGE: -- our people in harm's way.

O'REILLY: -- his opinion is that the war hasn't been waged properly. Valid opinion.

PAGE: That's your opinion, too, right? You want to get tougher, right?

O'REILLY: You bet. And I have said that --

PAGE: Well, I'll say. You're entitled to your opinion, he's entitled to his.

O'REILLY: Hold it. Number one, I didn't praise Saddam Hussein. That is a lie and a distortion. I did not do that.

PAGE: You did praise his tactics.

O'REILLY: No, I did not. I said he controlled the country by a totalitarian method. That's not praise, that's fact.

PAGE: Everyone can see the commentaries on your website --

O'REILLY: Wait, wait, wait, Clarence --

PAGE: -- I don't need to quote the whole thing, but the fact is --

O'REILLY: There's a difference -- There is a difference between -

PAGE: -- that you did praise the way he ran it and the current government needs to run it the same way.

O'REILLY: That is not true. There is a difference between --

PAGE: You don't think they need to run it the same way. You don't think they need the kind of police-state tactics that Saddam used in a totalitarian state?

O'REILLY: Clarence, take a deep breath. I never praised Saddam Hussein once. I said he ran the country in a totalitarian way and he didn't have an insurgency because he ran it that way. Then I said --

PAGE: You're spinning, Bill.

O'REILLY: No, I'm not spinning at all. That's exactly what I said --

PAGE: You're spinning, Bill, because when you say people ought to run --

O'REILLY: It's on my website. There isn't any praise involved. It's a statement of fact. You are spinning by saying it's praise. That's bull.

PAGE: The record speaks for itself.

O'REILLY: Yeah, it does. Anybody can read it. The second thing is, this despicable Wycliff, who did run the editorial page at the Chicago Tribune before he took to Notre Dame --

PAGE: That's right.

O'REILLY: -- this despicable man is saying that the United States government bears more responsibility for their horrendous deaths of the two privates than the terrorists. That's despicable. It is beneath contempt, and the Chicago Tribune should be ashamed of itself for running something like that without something right next to it -- and my column in the Chicago Sun-Times will counter that.

PAGE: You're entitled to reply in the Tribune, I'm sure, Bill --

O'REILLY: Absolutely. It's despicable to say that the American government, to draw a moral equivalency between the American government's waging of the war and the deaths of these men. The terrorists are responsible --

PAGE: You're reading into his comments --

O'REILLY: -- all right, now here's the lie --

PAGE: I've got to object, Bill. I know it's your show, I've got to object, though, because you are reading into Don's comments. He is a true patriot --

O'REILLY: He said flat-out, if you put the blame where it really belongs --

PAGE: Just let me finish the statement, and then you can respond, Bill.

O'REILLY: No! No! "If you put the blame where it really belongs"! There are the words!

PAGE: Bill, it's your show. You've got the whole hour. Just give me 30 seconds to respond.

The fact of the matter is, you're trying to pick out people and say certain people are helping the enemy and other people aren't. I mean, you are sounding like one of those editors of those Arab governments -- or those Arab newspapers that are censoring Muhammad cartoons.

O'REILLY: Clarence, I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, let's address --

PAGE: Don is entitled to give his opinion --

O'REILLY: He's entitled to his opinion --

PAGE: -- he's not telling Fox News that they shouldn't run your opinion. You shouldn't be telling other people not to run somebody else's --

O'REILLY: Don Wycliff is a coward, and he is not a man of his word. He backed out at the last minute --

PAGE: That's OK, he's got me.

O'REILLY: -- he is entitled to his opinion no matter how despicable it is, and now here's the lie. OK? Here's what he says, quote, "You have to say bad -- O'Reilly" --

PAGE: Don is a gentleman and a scholar and too nice to engage in these kind of combative --

O'REILLY: No, he -- bull! It's bull! He's a coward.

PAGE: I'm entitled to --

O'REILLY: He's a coward! He takes cheap shots, personal attacks at me and won't stand up. He's a coward. He says, O'Reilly "would have to criticize some people for whom you have been a cheerleader."

I've not been a cheerleader for anybody, Clarence. You know it and I know it. OK? Here's what I said May 6, 2004: "We will remind you three weeks ago we reported Donald Rumsfeld lost control of the Iraqi occupation, his mistakes were endangering U.S. troops." I haven't cheerleaded anyone. This guy lies about me in the Chicago Trib, which prints the lie! Explain.

PAGE: There are occasions when you have cheerleaded --

O'REILLY: Bull! Bull!

PAGE: -- and the administration's side. Now, you know --

O'REILLY: Bull!

PAGE: -- sometimes you do criticize, and that's OK. But the fact of the matter is it's a well-known -- very well-known that the -- I'm sorry, I hear the music coming. Am I going to be cut off?

O'REILLY: No! Cut off the music! It's very well-known what?

PAGE: No, it's very well known that you have been defending the administration's side in this war --

O'REILLY: That's bull! I have been very critical of the way they have way they waged the war.

PAGE: You have been criticizing those who criticize --

O'REILLY: I've been very critical of the way they've waged the war.

PAGE: -- any kind of question --

O'REILLY: Hey, Clarence, let me make this --

PAGE: -- on human rights.

O'REILLY: That's not true. Period. I've been very critical of the way the war has been waged.

PAGE: You criticized -- you said people who signed an anti-torture petition were helping the enemy.

O'REILLY: No!

PAGE: That's McCarthyism. That's demagoguery.

O'REILLY: Bullsh--! Bull.

PAGE: That's beneath you.

O'REILLY: It's bull! The truth is, I've reported this accurately. I've said when we've made mistakes -- we, the United States government.

But the difference between me and this Wycliff is that I want the USA to win, and I don't believe there's a moral equivalency with what we do with what the terrorists do, and he does. But Clarence, I've gotta tell everybody, you are a stand-up guy, number one.

PAGE: Well, thank you, Bill.

O'REILLY: You knew this was going to be tough. And we appreciate your opinion. You're always welcome here.

PAGE: Let's hear it for free speech, Bill.

----Transcripts from Media Matters----

The Impenetrable Fog of Bill O'Reilly

2006-06-27T20:09:00.000-07:00

Nice editorial from the Chicago Tribune:

If intellectual dishonesty could be said to have a face, I saw it Tuesday evening as I watched Bill O'Reilly's program on Fox News.

I watched without the benefit of sound--if any was coming from the television it couldn't be heard over the din in the bar where I was in Mishawaka, Ind. But Fox conveniently runs a stripped-down text next to O'Reilly's image as he delivers his opening commentary. And there was, in addition, captioning beneath the picture for hearing-impaired viewers--or people who happen to be in noisy bars.

O'Reilly was burned up about the mutilation and murders of those two American soldiers--Pfc. Thomas Tucker and Pfc. Kristian Menchaca--who were captured in Iraq by insurgents last week and whose bodies were retrieved Tuesday.

...read the whole editorial...

Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

2006-06-27T16:22:00.000-07:00

I have just finished reading Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, recommend it to anybody. There are a few chapters on Bill O'Reilly, which go into the feud between Franken and O'Reilly, including O'Reilly's humorous outbursts. Here's footage of one, from YouTube:

And he also yelled at Jeremy Glick, whose father died on 9/11, repeatedly telling him to "shut up", and allegedly told Glick after the interview, "Get out! Get out of my studio before I tear you to fu**king pieces!" A video of the interview from YouTube:

There's also a lot of other good chapters, including a few on Ann Coulter, Hannity and Colmes, the Bush administration, and others.

Fox News sued Al Franken and his publisher for copyright infringement over the use of "Fair and Balanced" in its title. The case was literally laughed out of court, court transcripts can be found at http://www.alfrankenweb.com/foxcourt.html

You can buy a copy of the paperback at Amazon.com

O'Reilly: Carter, ACLU, Air America Radio, BBC, Dean, and Murtha are helping the enemy

2006-06-27T15:43:00.000-07:00

On the June 20th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill had a mission of "nam[ing] those we believe are helping the terrorists." Throughout the episode, he named former President Jimmy Carter, the American Civil Liberties Union, Air America Radio, BBC, Howard Dean, and John Murtha.

O'Reilly started out the program with:

Tonight: two American soldiers brutally mutilated and murdered by terrorists in Iraq. How should the U.S. respond? We will name those we believe are helping the terrorists. The ACLU and the BBC head the list.

O'Reilly went on:

The Bush administration also needs to begin challenging those who are helping the enemy. The ACLU, for example, opposes just about every anti-terror strategy. This organization should be exposed.

The BBC also helps the enemy by consistently slanting the Iraq war coverage and portraying the coalition as villains. The vile Air America Radio network does the same thing.

....

O'REILLY: Do you think Howard Dean helps the enemy?

INGRAHAM: I think when the enemy sees the reaction in the United States, not of unifying to defeat them, but of picking apart every aspect of what we're trying to do there, when those soldiers get treated the way they did, I think they are absolutely emboldened. They're very savvy. They're on all the websites. They watch CNN International and any other broadcast they can get their hands on. And you better believe it has to embolden the people who want to do us harm.

O'REILLY: What about John Murtha's dissent in the Iraq war? Does that help the enemy in your opinion?

INGRAHAM: Well, I think anytime they can use war veterans, you know, people who have served this country, to then say, look, we're the problem in Iraq, that we're stoking the violence in Iraq, that the terrorists want us in Iraq because we're depleting our military resources, that helps them. I mean, that's a recruiting tool. This guy is recognized by many as a war hero, and yet, he's condemning the United States.

......

O'REILLY: How about Jimmy Carter? He signs the torture ad along with the reverends, and the torture ad, as I told the reverends, shows up in the Arab press: "See, we told you they were torturing." How about Jimmy Carter? Is he helping the enemy?

INGRAHAM: Yeah. Nobel Prize -- Nobel Prize winner, right, criticizing the United States' torture policy, which of course, as you pointed out, we do not have a torture policy in the United States --

O'REILLY: Yes, we don't have a torture policy.

INGRAHAM: -- except we're against -- we're against torture. So, yeah, when he went down to Cuba and spent time with Castro and said he did really -- what did he say? He didn't see the problems in Cuba that a lot of right-wing people have characterized down there? I mean, this is nothing new for Jimmy Carter. Again, the biggest obstacle to world peace for many of these people right now seems to be the United States: We're the problem. If you look in the mirror, the enemy, we see him. He's us. And I think that hurts us.

O'REILLY: All right. It's a very interesting discussion. Because the line on dissent and helping the enemy, it's a tough, tough line.

To be fair, O'Reilly also defended Murtha at one point:

This may surprise you, but I don't consider dissenting from the Iraq war to be helping the enemy. Congressman Murtha, for example, is acting on his beliefs. He made a mistake by convicting the Marines in Haditha before the evidence was presented, but dissent makes America stronger.

Why would that surprise us though? Isn't that basic free speech? I oppose the war, and my opinion certainly isn't helping the enemy. I just disagree with how we got into this war, without any real reasons. We went into Iraq because the President led us to believe that they possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they possessed a serious threat to our security. None of that was true, and now we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars there, money that should be being spent on education and issues at home, and we're losing thousands of American soldiers, and the situation has just gotten worse.

Back on topic, on the June 20th broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly has this to say about the ACLU:

O'REILLY: The ACLU is rooting for the enemy. They're rooting for the enemy. They're helping the enemy in every way they can. The American Civil Liberties Union is Al Qaeda's best friend. There is not a better friend to Al Qaeda in the world than the ACLU, and that's the truth. OK?

----All transcripts from Media Matters----

O'Reilly: New Iraqi Government Should Rule as Hussein Did

2006-06-27T15:27:00.000-07:00

On the June 20th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly again shared his feelings on how the new Iraqi government should function, saying: "Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher."

I thought that we were trying to give the Iraqi people a humane government, and were trying to save them from Saddam Hussein's cruel and unusual ways. Bill O'Reilly doesn't seem to share that view, sharing his view on the June 19th edition of the Radio Factor: "So, I don't understand, general, why we don't have martial law in Ramadi, why we don't have shoot-on-sight curfews, why we don't have action that basically says, look, we're going to shoot first and ask questions later because this is a war. And that's what you do in war. All right?"

See the transcripts at Media Matters.

Email Sent to O'Reilly

2006-06-27T15:19:00.000-07:00

I sent Bill O'Reilly an email yesterday, I hope to see it on the show tonight.

Remember that Vincent Richards was blacklisted by Bill O'Reilly, so I'm using a fake name, Nancy Stewart:

Bill,

The New York Times is doing its journalistic mandate by reporting the facts about the monitoring of domestic and international bank transactions. They first broke the story on the NSA wiretapping, and at first the public was led to believe that it was nothing big, we soon found out that they had records of every phone call made by millions of innocent Americans, causing a public outrage. Now, we are hearing that the monitoring of domestic and international bank transactions is small-scaled and limited to people with suspected terrorist connections, but how do we know that? The Bush administration has never been straightforward in the past, why should be believe that they are being straightforward now? 1984 is becoming all to true.......

Nancy Stewart
Birmingham, Alabama

Fox's Declining Ratings

2006-06-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

Fox New's ratings continue to fall, and chairman Roger Ailes is not happy, and he's cleaning house. In the second quarter of 2006, their ratings fell 22% in their key demographic, viewers aged 25-54, and they lost 8% in total viewers.

Through a spokesman last week, Ailes said: "Anyone who displays launch-type intensity will continue to have a job at Fox News. Those who don’t will not. And that includes talent."

Talent? I have yet to see any of that at Fox News.

Read: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6346894.html

Will Resume Updating Blog

2006-06-27T15:04:00.000-07:00

I apoligize that I haven't updated the blog in over a month, I will continue to update it regularly now.

Look Out Mexico: O'Reilly Threatens one of his Boycotts!

2006-05-19T21:21:00.001-07:00

On May 17th of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly threatened to launch one of his little boycotts against Mexico if they sue the United States government over allegations that the National Guard is directly assisting with the detaining of people from Mexico trying to illegally enter the United States - if it turns out to be true.

O'Reilly, to Ernesto Derbez, Mexico's foreign secretary:

"If the Mexican government files one lawsuit in the U.S.A., one, pertaining to the National Guard, I will call for a total boycott of Mexican goods and no travel to your country."

A few years ago, Bill started a "little boycott" against France. O'Reilly thinks that his boycott has made a big difference, so he also said to Derbez:

"And if you don't believe me or you think it doesn't matter, Mr. Secretary, why don't you give the French ambassador a call? He'll fill you in."

But here is a newsflash! Since O'Reilly's "boycott"against France, their imports to the United States have actually increased. According to these stats from the Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census Bureau:

2002 (the year before O'Reilly's boycott): $28.24 billion
2003 (the first year of O'Reilly's boycott): $29.219 billion
2004: $31.605 billion
2005: $33.847 billion

As you can see, France's exports to the U.S. have increased by more than $5 billion since the beginning of O'Reilly's boycott.

But a boycott on imported goods from Mexico would largely damage our economy, as Mexico is one of the largested exporters of crude oil to the United States, more so than Saudi Arabia. We also import a ton of oil from Canada, another country that O'Reilly has threatened with one of his little boycotts. Canada and Mexico are actually our 2 biggest sources of crude oil.

Top 5 countries we import oil from, according to Gibson Consulting:
Canada: 18%
Mexico 15%
Saudi Arabia: 12%
Nigeria: 12%
Venezuela: 10%

So it looks like Bill is trying to destruct our economy, and further drive up the prices of gas. I've emailed Bill about this, from another email address and a different name. Next time you watch, look out for a Nancy Stewart from Birmingham, Alabama, because it might be me. :)

Transcripts from Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly:

Okay then, Mr. Secretary. Here’s a no-spin message right back to you. If the Mexican government files one lawsuit in the USA, one, pertaining to the National Guard, I will call for a total boycott of Mexican goods and no travel to your country. Now that might sound presumptuous and I don’t mean to be threatening, but enough’s enough. It is your government’s fault, sir, that there is border chaos. We in America have a right to security and a right to expect our immigration laws be enforced. So, once again, any action by the Mexican government that impacts border security in the USA will be met with a boycott call. And if you don’t believe me or you think it doesn’t matter, Mr. Secretary, why don’t you give the French ambassador a call. He’ll fill you in.

O'Reilly Blames NYC Mugging on "Mexican drug corruption"

2006-05-18T18:53:00.000-07:00

On the May 17th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly described that his makeup artist "was mugged the other day; punched in the face" by "drug addicts desperate for money." He went on to blame the mudding on "Mexican drug corruption."

O'Reilly made this racist remark just one day after alleging that there was a "white power structure" and attacking the far-left for wanting to change this so called "white power structure", as we reported here.

O'Reilly seems to have a real racial vendetta against Mexico. During the broadcast, he claimed that "Mexico doesn't care about the United States." Other instances of O'Reilly's racism against Mexicans are:

This is just a few, as these only go back a couple of months. He has also referred to Mexicans as "wetbacks", a racial slur. O'Reilly will attack the "kool aid drinking left" for anything and everything, but he himself continues making racist remarks and downright lies.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: You know, this immigration thing is very interesting because it -- it points out a lot of things, bigger issues that y'all should be aware of. You know, Mexico doesn't care about us. Mexico doesn't care about the United States. And, you know, it -- it -- we have to be friends with them. I mean, we just can't be enemies with them. But we're dealing with a country that is -- you know -- is so corrupt and so out of control that we -- you know -- we have to deal with them on a certain level. But we certainly can't let their corruption infect us, and it has, particularly with the drug trafficking.

You know, when you have the volume of narcotics, millions of tons of narcotics coming across the southern border -- if I'm the president of the United States -- that alone makes me put the [U.S. National] Guard on the border and not 6,000 guards. I would have 30, 40 thousand down there, because the damage that narcotics do to the fabric of society -- my makeup artist for the TV side -- I don't need makeup for radio, but some people say --

LIS WIEHL: Yeah, it would help.

O'REILLY: Yeah, thank you -- was mugged the other day; punched in the face in Greenwich Village. Now, who does that? Drug addicts desperate for money. So, this poor woman is walking down the street trying to support her little son, some guy walks up to her, punches her in the face and takes her purse. Now, nine out of 10 of these guys are drug addicts.

So, she is a victim of the Mexican drug corruption. And -- and -- and all you have to do is multiply that by 10 million and you see how all of this corruption in Mexico has infected our society. Yet, you have these pinheads in Congress -- see, they're not gonna get mugged. President Bush isn't' gonna get mugged. All right.

Understatement of the millenium: "Maybe I've been a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton"

2006-05-18T18:40:00.000-07:00

On the May 15th edition The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly admitted that he's been "been a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton." How's that for the understatement of the year!

Media Matters has put together a compilation of O'Reilly's unfounded attacks on Hilary Clinton, which you can find here.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: See this -- this is my whole thing. I don't have any emotion invested in President Bush. I'm not a Bush-hater. I think he's done some good things, and I think I've covered the man fairly in his five years in office. I think I've been very fair to him. Now, maybe, I've been a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps, I have been in the past. But I will submit to you, [caller], that you don't know, I don't know, and nobody listening knows where she stands on the border, how to win the war in Iraq, oil prices. We don't know. And that, to me, you can't -- you can't be giving somebody power if you don't know.

Guess What!? O'Reilly Once Again Olbermann's Worst Person!

2006-05-18T18:23:00.000-07:00

On the May 17th Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann proclaimed: "Bill O'Reilly, now and forever, today's 'Worst Person in the World' " This time Bill O'Reilly received the honor for his remark that the New York Times and other "lefty zealots" think that "the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide," as we previously reported.

Olbermann said of Bill's remarks:
"Hold on. Bill, you're saying there's a white power structure that controls America and you're defending it? Does that opinion come with the sheet and the hood, or do you have to buy those separately?

You can view the video clip of Olbermann at Media Matters.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

OLBERMANN: But the winner, oh, the psychological end is near. Bill O. explaining that The New York Times and, quote, "many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed." Hold on. Bill, you're saying there's a white power structure that controls America and you're defending it? Does that opinion come with the sheet and the hood, or do you have to buy those separately?

Bill O'Reilly, now and forever, today's "Worst Person in the World."

O'Reilly: New York Times and other "lefty zealots" think that "the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide"

2006-05-17T22:52:00.000-07:00

On the May 16th The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly claimed that the New York Times and other "lefty zealots" think that "the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide."

O'Reilly has believed that there are attacks on Christianity many times before, this is nothing new for Bill. Remember his "War on Easter"? He also claims to have exposed a secret immigrant agenda, the so-called "the browning of America", he's claimed that "there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege,' " and claimed that the immigrants are trying to take back the Southwest through mass immigration.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: Now in 1986, President Reagan thought he could solve the [immigration] problem by granting about 3 million illegal aliens amnesty. The New York Times was in heaven, editorializing back then, quote, "The new law won't work miracles but it will induce most employers to pay attention, to turn off the magnets, to slow the tide." Of course, just the opposite happened. But the Times hasn't learned a thing. That's because the newspaper and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed.

According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will. This can only happen if demographics change in America.

An open-border policy and the legalization of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens would deeply affect the political landscape in America. That's what The New York Times and many others on the left want. They might get it. And that's the "Memo."

Read: Media Matters

O'Reilly Once Again Olbermann's 'Worst Person' for Al Franken Remarks

2006-05-16T18:45:00.000-07:00

On the May 15th edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann once again named Bill O'Reilly the 'Worst Person in the World' for comparing 'internet assassins', cable television, and Al Franken to New York City radio DJ Troi Torain for the remarks he made, as we previosuly reported.

Troi Torain had said on his program that "I would like to do an R. Kelly on your (a rival DJ's) seed." "To do an R. Kelly" refers to a sex scandal involving famous R&B singer R. Kelly, when he was charged with 21 counts of child pornography after a "videotape allegedly shows him having sex with an underaged girl. " (see http://archives.cnn.com/...)

O'Reilly also said on his radio program that News Corp had made a mistake in trying to sue Franken because the name of his book was Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, and as we all know, Fox News falsely prides itself on its slogan "Fair and Balanced", so they claimed copyright infringement on Franken's and the publisher's part. O'Reilly called the lawsuit a mistake because he claimed it helped Franken's book sales. The judge seemed to feel the lawsuit was a mistake on News Corp's fault, stating:

There are hard cases and there are easy cases. This is an easy case, for in my view the case is wholly without merit, both factually and legally. Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

These transcripts are from Al Franken's website, where he also notes: "Because this is a court transcript, the 'official' record does not note laughter in the courtroom, though there was much."

I suggest that you read over the transcripts, part of them are very entertaining. Here's a selection I found humorous, that O'Reilly also uses plays on trademarked phrases in his titles of his books:

THE COURT: Do you think the use of the phrase "lying liars" can be a joke?

MS. HANSWIRTH: It can be, but it isn't necessarily. I mean, look at the title of Mr. O'Reilly's book "The Completely Ridiculous and American Life."

THE COURT: Let me ask you about that: Mr. O'Reilly uses in his book "the good, the bad and the completely ridiculous." Is that not a play on "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"?

MS. HANSWIRTH: I don't know.

THE COURT: You don't know whether that's a play on "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

MS. HANSWIRTH: I don't know.

THE COURT: Well, assume that it is. Is that not a play on a trademarked phrase?

MS. HANSWIRTH: That's a title of a movie.

THE COURT: Yes. And I assume there's some kind of protection for the title of the movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

MS. HANSWIRTH: Your Honor, there generally --

THE COURT: I think that I have in some of the papers, it might have been the amicus brief, a representation that the phrase "the good, the bad and the ugly" is a trademarked phrase.

MS. HANSWIRTH: I don't know that that's the case. And I don't know --

THE COURT: Well, I mean, isn't Mr. O'Reilly doing exactly the same thing using a trademarked phrase in the title of his book? The good, the bad --

MS. HANSWIRTH: He's not doing it to confuse. He's certainly not using it to sell the product.

THE COURT: Do you think that Mr. Franken and the publisher are intending to confuse buyers into thinking that he, Mr. Franken, is somehow associated with Fox?

You can view a video clip of Olbermann's show at Media Matters.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

OLBERMANN: Back to immigration. Are there solutions here? Maybe, maybe not. But there is a unique perspective from commentator and comedian Carlos Mencia; he's next. But first, even amid the press and urgency of the speech, there is still time for Countdown's latest list of nominees for Worst Person in the World.

The bronze to the police in Orlando, who appear to have overreacted just a tad to a senior prank at Edgewater High School there. After the officers sent to monitor the traditional event called for backup, the department sent a heavily armed patrol with helicopters and arrested and handcuffed five of the 30 or so seniors who were armed with shaving cream, toilet paper, and Hershey's syrup. But the kids were brandishing the toilet paper.

The silver: From the "I know where you were coming from, but ..." file, Michael Maxwell, a teacher in St. Joseph, Missouri, he gave his seniors a creative writing essay: "Who would you kill and how would you do it?" He's apologized.

But the winner: Oh, Bill O. Not only did he compare Al Franken and some of the people on the Internet and cable TV -- guess who he meant -- to, quote, "assassins." But worse, he's rewritten history, quoting, "When he attacked me a couple of years ago," Bill O said, "News Corporation made a mistake in actually trying to sue the guy." Uh, Bill, who made the mistake in suing, the one mistake big enough that the judge literally laughed out loud in the courtroom? Bill O'Reilly, today's Worst Person in the World.

Bill O'Reilly Cartoon

2006-05-14T13:41:00.000-07:00

I found this cartoon and think it sums Bill up pretty well. I found it at http://www.onsecondthought.net/humor.htm There are some other editorial cartoons there that you may find funny.

Have Dinner With Bill!

2006-05-13T17:03:00.000-07:00

I just saw this auction at Boston University:

Sit down for a private dinner with Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor, the most watched news program on cable television. Winner and a guest will enjoy a private dinner and "no spin" conversation with Bill O'Reilly in New York City. Winner will be notified by the College of Communication Alumni Office with details regarding the dinner. Priceless. Online and Live Auction. Please see rules for highest online bidders to participate by proxy in the Live Auction on May 22, 2006 at www.bu.edu/com/golfclassic/auction.html.

The price is currently at $525, but the reserve has not yet been met. I wonder how much somebody will actually pay to have dinner with Billy O. You can check it out at: http://www.bu.edu/htbin/auctions/golf/auction.pl?....

O'Reilly Compares Al Franken to a New York City DJ

2006-05-12T20:20:00.000-07:00

On the May 10th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly compared Al Franken, internet assassins, and cable TV to a NYC DJ who said that he wanted "to do an R. Kelly" on a rival DJ's 4 year old daughter. "To do an R. Kelly" is referring to a R. Kelly scandal where there was a videotape that allegedly showed R. Kelly having sex with an underage girl. The DJ, Troi Torain, was fired by Clear Channel Communications on Wednesday after offering his listeners $500 for information on where the rival DJ's daughter went to school, and saying "I would like to do an R. Kelly on your (the rival DJ's) seed."

I agree with Bill that this DJ was far out of line and definitely should have been fired. But that's not what this is about. The issue here is O'Reilly comparing Al Franken to this DJ. That is completely uncalled for. Franken, a liberal radio show host, could be seen as O'Reilly's rival radio announcer. So instead of threating "to do an R. Kelly" on his rival's daughter, he simply compares his rival radio talk show host to this despicable NYC DJ. O'Reilly, on Franken:

You know when that -- when that vile Al Franken, that disgusting human being that's failing in every way he can. The -- Air America just lost their New York City affiliate. When he attacked me in his book a couple of weeks ago -- not a couple of weeks ago, a couple of years ago -- News Corporation made a mistake in actually trying to sue the guy, and, of course, that helped his book sales.

Now, his last book bombed, nobody bought it, because we all ignored it. So, that's what I'm saying to you. If you give these people any publicity, if you mention their name, if you take them to court, then they prosper. That's what they want, these assassins.

This sounds to me like a personal attack to me, but O'Reilly claims that "I don't do personal attacks here." He only called him a "disgusting human being" said that he is of "failing in every way he can", accused him of using lawsuits against him to help book sales, compared him to this despicable DJ, and called him an "assassin." I don't know, if that doesn't qualify as a personal attack, than what does?

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: Clear Channel is a big radio company. It employed a DJ named Star in New York City . Here's what this guy said. Go.

TORAIN [audio clip]: Yes, I've disrespected your seed. Where -- where does kid go to school? I've got 500 bucks for that -- for that information. If you didn't hear me, I said I would like to do an R. Kelly on your seed.

O'REILLY: OK. So this vile individual who, again, works for a major media company in this country has a feud with another DJ on another channel in New York City and -- and wants to attack his four-year-old daughter. By that -- that's what an R. Kelly is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's disgusting.

O'REILLY: OK. So, he asked his listeners to tell him where the little girl goes to school and offered $500 for that information.

Now, the guy's been fired. He's been fired. OK. But he wasn't fired until a local New York politician brought it to the media. Clear Channel didn't fire him the moment he said it. They kept him there. So, this, ladies and gentlemen, is a -- a very troubling aspect of American society -- extremely troubling. It started on the Internet where you have a bunch of people there who assassinate people; say vile things about people; threaten people every single day. Then, it morphed into radio. And you know who these people are. I don't have to -- I don't have to name them for you. You know who they are. Where everyday , they just spew hatred, vitriol, defamation on the radio. And now, it's in cable television. It's in cable television.

You got a couple of people on cable news programs that do this every night of the week, and the big companies that employ them are the companies that should be held accountable. OK.

Now , if you are a famous person at all, you cannot sue. If you have any notoriety at all, if anybody knows your name, you can't sue. And if you do sue, then you empower the person who's attacking you. You see, you give them more publicity.

You know when that -- when that vile Al Franken, that disgusting human being that's failing in every way he can. The -- Air America just lost their New York City affiliate. When he attacked me in his book a couple of weeks ago -- not a couple of weeks ago, a couple of years ago -- News Corporation made a mistake in actually trying to sue the guy, and, of course, that helped his book sales.

Now, his last book bombed, nobody bought it, because we all ignored it. So, that's what I'm saying to you. If you give these people any publicity, if you mention their name, if you take them to court, then they prosper. That's what they want, these assassins.

O'Reilly Spins the Facts on Iraq War and Terrorism

2006-05-12T20:04:00.000-07:00

On the May 8 edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly spinned the facts on information about the Iraq war and on terrorism. Media Matters has put together a nice compilation of Bill's lies and the truth, which can be pretty far off.

O'Reilly spinned the facts on

Mary McCarthy
Warrantless spying
Nancy Pelosi
McGovern-Rumsfeld exchange

Check out Media Matter's report at: http://mediamatters.org....

Olbermann's "Factor Fiction"

2006-05-10T18:11:00.000-07:00

On the May 9th Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann refuted O'Reilly's false claims about his ratings. See here and here for our two earlier stories about O'Reilly's false claims and his declining ratings.

As Olbermann noted, despite O'Reilly's claims that his ratings increased from April 2005 to April 2006, they actually declined 3%.

Olbermann also refuted O'Reilly's claims that his ratings for the 4:00 AM ET rerun were higher than Olbermann's 8:00 PM ET original, that that they actually had 85,000 more viewers.

Olbermann also refuted O'Reilly's claims from May 8th that MSNBC's 'smear guy', referring to Olbermann, "was doing nothing" in terms of ratings. In the same period that Olbermann's numbers increased 28%, April of 2006, O'Reilly's declined 4%.

And while the "money demo", viewers aged from 25-54, Olbermann's ratings increased 37% while O'Reilly's declined 12%.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

OLBERMANN: Speaking of somebody who also lives in a bubble and is also all wet, there's Bill O'Reilly. Back in the news for playing fast and loose with the ratings, again. So, once again we're in the position of having to address the third thing Bill O. shares with David Blaine, the ability to misdirect your attention. You know the drill, I will read Mr. O'Reilly's on-air remarks from the other broadcast, then translate and/or correct what he said in a little segment we call "Factor Fiction."

"The ratings for April are in, and for the nights I anchored the Factor, we improved our total audience over April 2005."

Unfortunately none of us gets to fudge the ratings like that. Geez, Bill, why not just subtract the time when you're playing the commercials. Those ratings are probably fantastic.

"A nice achievement ... so we thank you all very much."

Thank you for dropping The O'Reilly Factor ratings by three percent last month compared to April 2005. You can't just count the nights you're on. To try to finesse it that way is, well, let's just say on the schoolyard it would be greeted by chants of "Here, kitty, kitty, kitty." Well, let's return to Bill's ego already in progress.

"If you read some of the Fox-hating print press --"

Print press? As opposed to what other kind of press? Wine press? Bill Press?

"If you read some of the Fox-hating print press, you'd never know how well we're doing actually."

That's because you're not doing well, actually. Last month's audience was smaller than March, which was smaller than January, which was smaller than December, which was smaller than October -- the smallest since May of last year.

"The writers in the Los Angeles Times and Rocky Mountain News, among others, want to prop up our competition."

Props. Never mention props. Reminds people of loofahs and falafels. The audience for the competition -- that'd be us -- was up by a third from last April.

"And here's more truth. Last Thursday evening, the Factor's third rerun at four in the morning actually beat MSNBC's 8 p.m. original."

Well, here, when Bill O. says, "Here's more truth," what he means is he's lying. Last Thursday our 8:00 p.m. original had 85,000 more viewers. And by the way, thanks for calling us original.

"So, the next time you read nonsense about cable news ratings, please understand it is disseminated by people who despise this network."

Like the A.C. Nielsen ratings company or Fox News media relations.

"What counts is that millions of Americans continue to choose Fox News over the competition."

None of them under the age of 70. Bill O's average viewer is now over the age of 70. Ours just dropped to under 60, and here's what actually counts. The little secret Bill O. would pay to keep you from knowing. Not like he paid Andrea Mackris, but you know what I mean. In what Fox itself calls the "money demo," ages 25 to 54, The O'Reilly Factor averaged 412,000 viewers last month. Down again from March, the 13th month out of the last 17 months it has dropped, and that counts the month everybody went up when the hurricane hit. His ratings are the lowest they have been since August of 2001. Here, kitty, kitty, kitty.

-------------------------------------

You can view the video clip of Olbermann at Media Matters.

O'Reilly Lies About CA Bill to Recognize Historical Gay Figures

2006-05-09T21:26:00.000-07:00

Bill O'Reilly claimed that under a California bill to require history textbooks to recognize the sexual orientation of historical figures, that a teacher would not "be able to say bad things about Jeffrey Dahmer" because he is a "gay cannibal." He said that "teachers would not be able to cast aspersions on even villains if they were homosexual." Bill also claimed that he "looked at this bill over very closely, and it is a very radical, very extreme, dangerous bill." Obviously he didn't look over it very well, because, as put by the SF Chronicle, the bill would require textbook writers to note the sexual orientation of historical figures who contributed to "the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society." I don't see anything "extreme" or "dangerous" about that, nor anything that wouldn't let a teacher say something bad about Jeffrey Dahmer.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

MALKIN: Well, this is much more radical than ensuring that homosexuals and other people of minority sexual orientation status are respected in the schools. It's already against the law in California to discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation.

I looked at this bill over very closely, and it is a very radical, very extreme, dangerous bill. It says that no teacher can even say anything that would, quote unquote, "reflect adversely" on anyone, a historical figure, whatever, based on their sexual orientation.

And so, now, there are real concerns that this could be interpreted broadly in the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other liberal courts, as saying that you can't even have sports teams, for example, that discriminate based on gender. And this is pure political propaganda.

O'REILLY: Well -- and also, if you are a teacher, what are you -- you're not going to be able to say bad things about Jeffrey Dahmer? He's a cannibal, a gay cannibal, and you can't say, "Well, that's wrong." I mean, if what you're saying is true, teachers would not be able to cast aspersions on even villains if they were homosexual.

MALKIN: Yeah, that's right. And in any case, I think school teachers in California and everywhere else ought to be paying more attention to whether or not third graders can find, oh, Sacramento or Washington, D.C., on a map than what the sexual orientation is of historical figures in America.

It's actually kind of hypocritical, because I thought that the gay rights lobbyists were all for privacy and keeping things in the bedroom. And here they are on this crusade to out people in some sort of weird, twisted way to boost the self-esteem of gay students? I don't get it.

O'REILLY: All right. Kirsten, maybe you do.

KIRSTEN POWERS (Democratic strategist): Well, I think -- I understand the impulse behind it, and what Michelle was talking about, about not being able to say anything negative about someone who is gay is just -- it's completely ridiculous, and it's -- it goes against, I think, every, you know, value we have in terms of free speech.

[...]

O'REILLY: Isn't it a form of fascism -- and I don't use that word lightly -- for California or anybody else, any other state, to be mandating that a certain lesson pattern be embraced by teachers? In the sense that you have to say good things about this group. That's not intellectual freedom, is it?

POWERS: Well, it's not intellectual freedom. But it's not only liberals or Californians --

O'REILLY: But isn't that a form of fascism? Government's not in the business of telling teachers to say good things about a group, is it?

You can view a video clip of this at Media Matters.

O'Reilly is Olbermann's 'Worst Person' for NYC Public School Remark

2006-05-09T21:17:00.000-07:00

Once again, on the May 5th Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann named O'Reilly the 'Worst Person in the World' for his comment that NYC public school "teachers are instructed not to say a word" if a 6 year old says "F you, you mother-F'er." As we reported here, according to the discipline code for public NYC schools, profanity is a level 2 offense and carries a punishment of possible principal suspension. You can view the video of Olbermann at Media Matters.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

OLBERMANN: But first, time for Countdown's latest list of nominees for the Worst Person in the World. The bronze: David Morris, one of the directors of the British soccer team Queens Park Rangers, QPR. He's been accused of forcing one of his fellow directors to quit. No, I mean forcing -- hiring a bunch of thugs to take him into a room and threaten him with a gun until he wrote out a letter of resignation.

Today's runner-up: Prince Henrik, the father-in-law of Princess Mary of Denmark. Prince Henrik is honorary president of the Danish Dachshund Club, noted dog lover, and now we know why. He's told a Danish magazine that he loves eating dogs, that they taste like rabbit or veal. Now, Prince Henrik is a great Dane, after all.

But today's winner: Bill O. His latest sign of the apocalypse, the one going on in his own head: How New York City school teachers have been, quote, "instructed not to do anything even if a 6-year-old says, 'F-you, you mother F'er,' in school." Quoting Bill there. Actually, New York City schools' discipline codes call language like that a Level 2 infraction, which requires at least a conference, maybe a suspension. Maybe the teachers have just been told to look the other way if a 6-year-old says "F-you, you mother F'er" to Bill. Bill O'Reilly, today's Worst Person in the World.

O'Reilly's Declining Numbers

2006-05-07T20:40:00.000-07:00

Bill O'Reilly's numbers have been steadily declining since their peak in August of last year:

(from Media Bistro)

Range             Overall  25-54 (key demographic)
08/29/05-09/25/05  3723  1115
09/26/05-10/30/05  2678  518
10/31/05-11/27/05  2552  468
11/28/05-12/25/05  2573  460
12/26/05-01/29/06  2327  472
01/30/06-02/26/06  2235  458
02/27/06-03/26/06  2266  415
03/27/06-04/30/06  2102  412

Numbers are in thousands

It looks like Bill is losing touch with the "folk." And remember, despite the fact that he's barely getting 2 million viewers, he claims he has "6 million people watching me every night."

Smear merchants never prosper!

2006-05-05T19:51:00.000-07:00

Bill O'Reilly once again declared tonight on The Radio Factor that "Air America Radio" had been taken over by the left wing media. Then King Bill declared that "Smear merchants never prosper!"

He just doesn't get it. He thinks that everybody except him is a "Kool-Aid drinking loony liberal", and that anyone who disagrees with him is a "left-wing smear merchant." Bill, you're the "right-wing nut job" who "spins the facts."

O'Reilly Spins the Facts of NYC Public School Rules

2006-05-05T19:35:00.000-07:00

On the May 3 edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly claimed that in New York City public schools, "teachers are instructed not to say a word" if a 6 year old says "F you, you mother-F'er."

According to the NYC Department of Education Discipline Code, "using profane, obscene, vulgar, lewd or abusive language or
gestures" is a "level 2 infraction" and carries anything from a parent conference to suspension. A level 2 infraction is pretty heavy, as it includes infractions such as smoking or gambling.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: Hey, I wouldn't even play the Village People to second-graders. Give me a break, OK. They're not getting "YMCA" until they're in the fifth grade. All right. We know what those Village People are up to.

Um, I'm not gonna send any kid that I could, you know, help to a public elementary school for one simple reason: the conduct outside of the classroom. The, what is tolerated in the public-school hallways and campuses is, to me, intolerable. For example, there are in New York City public schools, 6-year-olds going, "F you, you mother-F'er," in school, in the hallway. And the teachers are instructed not to say a word. You aware of that?

LIS WIEHL [Fox News legal analyst]: I wasn't aware of that.

O'REILLY: OK. That happens every day, all day in the public schools here in New York City. And I know it happens in Chicago and Los Angeles and Boston and Washington, D.C. In any major urban center. It doesn't happen in the small towns; it happens in the cities. I live in New York. I'm not gonna have my 6-, 7-, 8-, 9-year-old go to a school where they're saying that stuff in the hallway and the teacher doesn't do anything about it. You know, private school, that does not happen.

Now that's the most stark illustration I can give you, that even the smear, left-wing websites can understand that example that I just gave you. Something as simple as that. Language. Acceptable in the public school. And you know why it's acceptable? Because they don't want to deal with it. They don't want to haul the kid in, call the parent, have the parent come down, sue them, scream and yell, all of that. They'd rather have the kid say, "Blank you, you mother-blanker." And that is what's going on in public elementary schools in the major urban areas of the United States of America.

O'Reilly Lies About His Viewership

2006-05-04T19:31:00.000-07:00

On the April 27th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "I already got the 6 million people watching me every night." Sorry Bill, but not that many people like you. The statistic from Nielson Media Research put the figure at 2,274,000 a night in Q1 2006. And Bill's key demographic, 25-54 years old, saw a 24% decline in Q1 2006, down to 406,000 viewers.

Transcripts from Media Matters:
O'REILLY: It doesn't matter what my percentage of gain is at The Factor in the world of cable news. I am so far ahead of everyone else, if I grow 1 percent or lose 1 percent, it doesn't matter. I already got the 6 million people watching me every night. If one of my competitors adds 200,000 viewers, they can run around screaming, "Oh, look at our percentage. Look how high we're up." And it's nothing, it means nothing, because they have nothing.

O'Reilly: Immigrant protest organizers have "hardcore militant agenda" to take back American Southwest

2006-05-04T19:18:00.000-07:00

On the May 1st edition of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly declared a secret agenda of pro-immigrant protest organizers, a "hardcore militant agenda" to take back the American Southwest.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: And then there's the hardcore militant agenda of "You stole our land, you bad gringos." This is the organizers of these demonstrations: "The border -- we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." That is their slogan. That you stole our land, and now, we're going to take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest. And we're going to control those places, because you stole it from us, and that's the agenda underneath.

O'Reilly: The right wing doesn't smear

2006-04-28T19:51:00.000-07:00

On the April 26th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly claimed that "The propagandists on the right are just holding water for the oil companies, but they're not trying to smear anybody. But on the left, it's all about the smear. All about the smear, ladies and gentlemen, that's what it is."

He also described the shows of Sean Hannity's, Rush Limbaugh's, and Laura Ingraham's as "ideology," not "smear."

One prime example of right-wing smear is O'Reilly's own television and radio programs, despite his claim the other day that "the smear stops here," then proceeding on to smear two people immediately after, including one man that died in 2002, whom he told viewers to call. Additonally, Media Matters for America has put together a compilation of example of smear tactics used by the three news commentators mentioned by Bill, you can read them here.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: You're going to have the propagandists on the right, primarily on the right -- now, they're not smear merchants. There's a difference. The propagandists on the right are just holding water for the oil companies, but they're not trying to smear anybody. But on the left, it's all about the smear. All about the smear, ladies and gentlemen, that's what it is.

[...]

O'REILLY: OK, we're talking about the appointment of Tony Snow. Of course, he was smeared immediately by the left-wing websites -- those despicable people who operate those. Harrisburg, PA, [caller], what say you?

CALLER: Well, I -- I'm just a little taken aback at what you're saying, Bill. Because I -- I -- it just -- you conveniently always omit the smear tactics of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, constantly. Why is that?

O'REILLY: Well, I don't see it the way you see it.

CALLER: They constantly smear the --

O'REILLY: Nah, I mean, look. I -- I see -- I hear those people all the time and I don't see any -- I don't -- I mean, look. Maybe I'm -- maybe I'm naïve. But here's my definition of a smear, [caller], so you can take it to the bank. OK?

It's taking a person like Tony Snow, who, across the board, is admired and respected, OK? Courageous guy -- wants to help this country, has a belief system that he does not make any bones about. And then you take a guy like Snow and you try to tear him to pieces. That -- that's smearing to me. OK?

Now, the three people that you mentioned are right-wing commentators, and they go after the left consistently and on a daily basis. OK. But I have to tell you, when I tune into their programs, I hear ideology. That's what I hear. And then I hear, you know, "This one's bad," but they keep it in the issue area most of the time. That's what I'm hearing. Maybe I'm missing it. But it's in the issue area.

It's not -- OK -- "Here, we have a new person for Ted Kennedy. Let's try to tear him to pieces and injure him personally." I'm not hearing that. There is one smear merchant on the right who does that and I despise him. But the rest seem to deal mostly in issues.

Bill O'Reilly's Hall of Shame

2006-04-27T17:47:00.000-07:00

Bill O'Reilly has created a 'Hall of Shame' on his website to showcase media outlets that King Bill doesn't like. As O'Reilly now puts it, "The smear stops here." How's that for oxymoronic?

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Fighting the culture war in the media, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

There's no question, the committed left-wing media hates Fox News, along with me and some other commentators here because we provide a balance to the overwhelming secular presence in the media.

Now, every poll of journalists says the same thing. Secular media people outnumber traditional media people by a huge margin. And some left-wing media companies aggressively push their agenda in their news pages.

That is not acceptable, because the press in America is afforded special constitutional privileges. Thus, we have an obligation to be fair and balanced.

For a number of years, some media people have been using personal attacks and smears to try to marginalize people with whom they disagree. They do this because they can't win the debate. So, they try to demean and demoralize their opposition.

Well, that's no longer tolerable. And the Factor's now going to launch a campaign to hold these smear merchants accountable. You may remember a few weeks ago, the Factor investigated Ohio Judge John Connor, who sentenced a child rapist to probation, no prison time whatsoever.

The attorney general and governor of Ohio supported the evidence we presented that Connor is unfit to serve. Well, the Dayton Daily News didn't like that. It smeared the three of us. Thousands of you called that newspaper to complain. And it was badly damaged.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, I traveled to Syracuse, New York, to give a speech in support of the Boy Scouts, who had been thrown off the campus of Syracuse University after the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] complained.

For my trouble, I was smeared twice by the Syracuse Post-Standard. The villains at that paper are publisher Stephen Rogers and editorial writer Mark Libbon. These men are not only unprofessional, they are incompetent.

Over the past few years, the Post-Standard's circulation has declined nearly 30 percent. It is a disgraceful newspaper, nicknamed "substandard" by some in upstate New York.

Now, we've posted contact numbers for Rogers and Libbon on billoreilly.com, should you want to speak with them.

And that is what we'll continue to do. Any media person who uses smear tactics in any way, not just on me, but any way will be featured on The Factor and inducted into the billoreilly.com "Hall of Shame."

We will keep a running list of media smear merchants on the website, in addition to our "don't buy, don't advertise" list.

As you know, we debate issues all day long on this program. I have no objection to any media criticizing my stand on any matters of the day. But beginning today, the smear stops here.

You guys want to do that? We'll let everybody know about it. That's called accountability.

Media Matters put together a video clip of Bill's declaration to stop smear in the media, and a clip of Olbermann once again declaring him the "Worst Person in the World." You can find it here.

O'Reilly: In Massachusetts and Vermont, sex offenders "can go and molest children and get sympathy"

2006-04-24T19:56:00.000-07:00

On the April 21th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, King O'Reilly declared that in states like Massachusetts and Vermont, sex offenders "can go and molest children and get sympathy." Just because these states haven't passed O'Reilly's beloved Jessica's Law, doesn't mean that they aren't cracking down on sex offenders.

As the Burlington Free Press recently reported, the Vermont "Senate unanimously gave preliminary approval Wednesday to a bill designed to crack down on sex offenses" by "increasing the number of investigators who focus on sex crimes, increasing the number of pre-sentence investigations that judges use to help determine a sentence, trying to better coordinate prevention programs and decriminalizing consensual sex between teenagers." The Senate also "approved a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for aggravated sexual assault." The Senate bill would "expand the sex offender registry to list more offenders on the Internet and add a registry for violent offenders."

Although the Vermont House of Representatives did not set a mandatory minimum sentence, the Free Press also wrote on April 5th that "Many prosecutors and victims' advocates" oppose mandatory sentencing laws "out of concern that the mandate would force more defendants to take their cases to trial, forcing more victims to testify and creating the possibility of more acquittals because sex crimes can be difficult to prove."

Although not as much progress has been made in Massachusetts, several legislators have supported or passed bills requring a mandatory sentence for sex crimes committed on children under the age of 14, but as of now, nothing has been passed.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: And now the people may put the issue on the ballot, going around the pinhead politicians. That's what the folks in the great state of California did, and Jessica's Law is expected to pass there in a referendum next November. What is happening all across America is a tremendous victory for the folks and for democracy. Even the liberal Oregonian newspaper heard the people and supported Jessica's Law. We applaud the paper for doing so. So, things are looking up for the good guys and are looking black for the bad guys, especially the predators. Soon, there will only be a few states where they can go and molest children and get sympathy, states like Massachusetts and Vermont.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604240008

O'Reilly Once Again Olbermann's 'Worst Person'

2006-04-23T15:10:00.000-07:00

This is kind of old, but on the April 14th Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann once again named O'Reilly the 'Worst Person in the World'.

O'Reilly won the honor for switching his position on his so-called "War on Easter."

One of the two runner-ups was Ann Coulter for her remarks on the O'Reilly Factor on how to stop illegal immigration: "I'd build a wall. In fact, I'd hire illegal immigrants to build the wall and throw out the illegals who are here."

Transcripts from Media Matters:

OLBERMANN: That's next. But first, I've got Countdown's list of today's three nominees for Worst Person in the World. And it's a hat trick tonight. The bronze: Ann Coulter, explaining that the immigration situation could be resolved thusly. Quoting, "I'd build a wall. In fact, I'd hire illegal immigrants to build the wall and throw out the illegals who are here." You did read [the Edgar Allan Poe short story] The Cask of Amontillado, didn't you, Ann?

The runner up: comedian Rush Limbaugh. After Ben Domenech resigned from The Washington Post's new conservative Red America blog, admitting plagiarism as he did so, Limbaugh explained the Post had simply buckled to the left and, quote, "concocted some phony excuse that the guy that they had hired was a plagiarist." I wish Rush would plagiarize a good idea from somebody.

But the winner: Bill O. After a newspaper editorial chastising talk show hosts for railing against an attack on Easter, last night O'Reilly dismissed the piece as a "nutty diatribe" and reassured everybody, quote, "There is no attack on Easter." Tuesday, he had talked about how Christmas and Easter have been attacked by secular interests. His website says one of tonight's segments is titled, quote, "Easter Under Siege." Have I got this right? Tuesday, there is; Thursday, there isn't; Friday, there is. Maybe, there are multiple Bill O'Reillys. Run for your lives! Bill O'Reilly, today's worst person in the world.

Actually, judging from what we found on the Internets, those stories about attacks on Easter, they're entirely backwards.

O'Reilly's Latest Personal Smear on a Judge

2006-04-22T23:19:00.001-07:00

On the April 18th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly launched his third personal smear campaign against a judge, despite his claim, "I don't do personal attacks here."

O'Reilly started out announcing that Arkansas and Nebraska had adopted Jessica's Law, adding them to his map of "child friendly states." He then attacked Judge John McCann of Massachusetts, a liberal state that O'Reilly commonly has a bone to pick with, for letting a child rapist off with probation and an ankle bracelet after fleeing probation and escaping to Florida. He brought on a mother of one of the molester's victims, who was telling her child's story, and taking her time doing so, which seemed to upset O'Reilly, so he seemed to rush her off so that he could ask the Fox News child advocate, " Does he (Judge McCann) sympathize with the rapists?"

For the opposing viewpoint, he brought on the Chair of the Massachusetts Bar Association, Ed Ryan, who was tackling O'Reilly with facts that he had a hard time refuting. Ryan also refuted the claims of Wendy Murphy, the Fox News child advocate, who was on earlier in the show. He also noted that he had already served his time for the rape, this was simply a sentencing because he violated his probation, and the D.A. had not even asked for more time, just 10 years of more probation or a tracking device that would tell his exact location at all times. To all this, O'Reilly angrily responded " Stop this legal mumbo jumbo!!", and he yelled "The judge should have given him 10 years!"

Although I admire Bill's work on getting Jessica's Law passed in all 50 states, I do not admire his presentation in doing so, using personal smears and "spinning the facts". O'Reilly tried to spin this to make it look like he was just given probation for molesting a child, time which he had already served, as this was just for breaking his probation. Good cause, poor presentation.

Read News Hounds

O'Reilly's Attack on the Homeless

2006-04-21T20:41:00.000-07:00

On the April 18th edition of the Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated that the homeless will "not support themselves" because they "want to get drunk, or they want to get high [...] or they don't want to work (because) they're too lazy." This is absolutely not true. According to the National Resource and Training Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness:

38% report alcohol use problems
26% report other drug use problems
39% report some form of mental health problems (20-25% meet criteria for serious mental illness)
66% report either substance use and/or mental health problems
3% report having HIV/AIDS
26% report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted diseases
46% report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer

From http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/facts/facts_question_2.asp

Additionally, many have had many other major problems in their life:

23% are veterans (compared to 13% of the general population)
25% were physically or sexually abused as children
27% were in foster care or institutions as children
21% were homeless as children
54% were incarcerated at some point of their lives

Also from http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/facts/facts_question_2.asp

As you can see, many of the homeless have suffered from sexual abuse, are mentally ill, or involuntary life-threatening diseases. Mental illness is by far the leading cause of homelessness.

From the April 18th edition of The Radio Factor:

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: OK, and that's exactly what happened in Los Angeles. The ACLU sued, saying that the police could not arrest or remove any homeless person on the street. Sleeping on the street, blocking the street, urinating or defecating on the street or anything. Now, they sued because the ACLU knew that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would eventually hear the case, which it did. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as you may know, the most liberal court this country has ever seen. Its rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court 75 percent of the time. But you take it there and you'll get probably a loony ruling, a loony ruling.

Now, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-to-1 that Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks violates the Eighth Amendment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, ladies and gentlemen. Cruel and unusual punishment. An estimated 80,000 homeless are in L.A. County on any given night. An estimated 12,000 homeless live in Skid Row, a 50-block area in downtown L.A., the highest concentration of homeless in the USA. OK? Now, this lawsuit will be overturned by the Supreme Court if they hear it, and I believe they will. Because, just think about it, and the, and the [Los Angeles city] councilwoman, Ms. [Jan] Perry, made a very interesting point. This could happen anywhere in the United States.

[...]

The ACLU wants to force society to house people who will not support themselves, who will not do it, because they want to get drunk, or they want to get high, or they want -- they don't want to work, they're too lazy. They say, "OK, that's a person's choice. The government should give them a house, and food, and walking-around money, and everything else." That's what it's all about. This is the hidden agenda.

O'Reilly concedes: "there is no attack on Easter"

2006-04-21T09:55:00.000-07:00

After O'Reilly's claimed that there was a "war on Easter", O'Reilly finally admitted "there is no attack on Easter", giving himself credit: "After the thumping that the department stores and all-over crazies took over Christmas, these people say, 'You know, I don't think we want to come up against O'Reilly and these other people on Easter. Let's just let it go.' "

Let's ask Bill to lower gas prices.

The story is at http://mediamatters.org/items/200604170006

O'Reilly: Alleged Duke rape victim "put herself in jeopardy"

2006-04-21T09:50:00.000-07:00

On the April 19th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated that the alleged Duke rape victim "put herself in jeopardy" because "she chooses to go to strange places and disrobe in front of strange men."

Transcripts from MediaMatters.org:

O'REILLY: Duke University officials knew the lacrosse team often crossed the line, drinking and acting out in immature ways. The coach was warned last year to rein the players in. Apparently, he did not or could not. The coach has now resigned.

One of the players charged, Collin Finnerty, may be a violent guy. Last November, he was allegedly involved in an assault on a man in Washington, D.C., for absolutely no reason. And he entered a diversionary program.

Fighting, drinking to excess, and generally ignoring social boundaries always leads to bad, unintended consequences. Always.

Likewise, a 27-year-old woman put herself in jeopardy. She has two young kids to support and no fathers in sight. So, in order to earn money, she chooses to go to strange places and disrobe in front of strange men. Do the math.

"Talking Points" is not accusing anyone of anything, or making any judgments at all. What I just told you is on the record -- fact. The lacrosse team operated in a loose fashion. The alleged victim had little control over her environment.

O'Reilly Lies About GOP's Support of NAFTA

2006-04-14T18:36:00.000-07:00

On the April 11th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "most Republicans didn't want" NAFTA, which was signed in 1993 by Canada, the United States, and Mexico. That could not be further from from the truth. In reality, not Billy O's little world, 134 Republicans voted in support of it in the House, with just 43 opposed to it, and 34 Republicans voted for it in the Senate, with just 10 against. It was actually Democrats that did not want it, with 28 opposed and 27 in favor in the Senate, and in the House, 156 opposed and 102 in favor.

Transcripts from MediaMatters.org:

O'REILLY: Who wanted NAFTA? Who wanted it?

BARRON: Republicans and Democrats. Both.

O'REILLY: Mexico wanted it.

BARRON: America wanted it.

O'REILLY: Most Republicans didn't want it.

BARRON: Yes, they did. That's why they got mad at Bill Clinton for having him pass it.

O'REILLY: You think Pat Buchanan and those guys wanted NAFTA?

BARRON: They're -- they wanted free trade.

Stop spinning the facts, Bill!

O'Reilly On Immigration

2006-04-14T18:09:00.000-07:00

Not much explaining to do here, just read it for yourself. O'Reilly claimed to expose a hidden immigration agenda. O'Reilly also told his listeners: "The bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." Barron discussed the 'white privilege' and the 'browning of America', but never made such statements.

From April 11th O'Reilly Factor:

Transcripts from MediaMatters.org.

O'REILLY: Then why did so many people want to come here if we're so bad?

BARRON: Because there are places where they can do good here, if we allow for that to happen and we create change.

O'REILLY: Change?

BARRON: Change.

O'REILLY: So that means a changing America. You want a changing America.

BARRON: Of course America has to change.

O'REILLY: Right.

BARRON: Yes

O'REILLY: And you'd like the changing America to be -- the dominant people would be people of color?

BARRON: That's going to happen anyway, whether you like it or not.

O'REILLY: But you want it to happen, do you not?

BARRON: That's going to happen anyway.

O'REILLY: Do you not want it to happen?

BARRON: That's going to happen whether you or I want it or not.

O'REILLY: And that's the bottom line on it, isn't it, Charles?

BARRON: No.

O'REILLY: Yeah, it is.

BARRON: The bottom line is that you fear your white --

O'REILLY: I don't fear anything.

BARRON: -- your white privilege will no longer exist.

O'REILLY: I just want the rule the law.

BARRON: Rule of law.

O'REILLY: You want a totally different country.

BARRON: It's going to happen whether you like it or not, whether I want it or not. Look at New York City. The majority of the people in New York City are people of color.

O'REILLY: That -- hey, Charles --

BARRON: And that's why you have problems with immigration.

O'REILLY: And that's why I love you.

BARRON: Because of the browning of America.

O'REILLY: That's why I love you.

BARRON: You want to stay in control.

O'REILLY: Because now --

BARRON: You want to stay in power.

O'REILLY: I don't care about control at all.

BARRON: Yes, you do.

O'REILLY: But I love you, because now everyone knows what the true agenda is. That's what it is.

BARRON: The true agenda is to treat all immigrants fairly as they treated your ancestors.

O'REILLY: I gotta go. Charles Barron, everybody. Now we know.

From the April 12 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:

O'REILLY: You know, sometimes in an interview you get lucky. And our goal is always to expose the underside of every, every issue we cover. Because there is usually a hidden agenda. Now, nowhere is this more apparent than in the illegal immigration debate. There is a hidden agenda in this debate that no one will tell you -- press won't tell you, politicians won't tell you, the illegal immigrants themselves won't tell you that. But there is. And it's vitally important to the country. Now, last night on the television side, we had New York City Councilman Charles Barron on the program. I hope you saw that. If you didn't, we're gonna play you the highlights of the interview in a couple of seconds.

[...]

O'REILLY: All right. There you go. White privilege. The browning of America. There it is. There it is. Bottom line on this? That's what it is. Change the complexion of America. Have an open border where Hispanics, people who live in the Caribbean, people who live in Africa and Asia can walk in and become citizens immediately. And there you have the white power structure would decline, of course. Because the numbers of people coming here would be people of color. Right? That's the hidden agenda.

See, nobody'll say that. Nobody'll say it. That's what it's all about. It's all about that on both sides, too. Because you have some white people saying, "I don't want to live in a country that has people of color in the majority."

Now my take on it is this: I know where Charles Barron's coming from, and at least Barron was man enough to admit it. How many other programs have you heard anybody say that? But it's absolutely true, absolutely true. At least Barron's honest enough to say it.

[...]

O'REILLY: The unintended consequence of that is that America is going to change. It's going to change in cultural ways, in racial ways, in intellectual ways, in voting ways, in every way. Now, do we, as American citizens, all of us, want that change to come about through illegal methods? This isn't the ballot box. This is, throw it open, let anybody come, and then we'll have a new America. That's what Charles Barron wants, and it's absolutely what the left-wing press wants. They see an opportunity to overthrow what they call the white, privileged, Christian nation. They overthrow that.

Even though most Hispanics are Christian, the left believes that Hispanics who come to the USA will vote left. Now I'm not so convinced of that myself, but Barron certainly believes it. "People of color will vote the way I vote, and we'll kick out all the white people and we'll have a rainbow nation, not a white power structure."

That's -- "white privilege" is the key words. The browning of America. Ladies and gentlemen, you know I hate to say it, because I don't like to debate this kind of stuff, I don't like to do colors-based programs, but that's the bottom line on this whole thing. That's where it is. There's no reason on earth the federal government doesn't secure the border. No reason on this earth. But they're afraid to be demonized as racist, because the real racists who want a color-based country attack them vehemently if they put up a wall or put the military on the border.

[...]

O'REILLY: But the bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out, quote-unquote, "white privilege" and to have the browning of America. And, you know, we got it out; we got it out. Now it's out there in play. But, boy oh boy, you're not gonna hear that on anyplace else. You're not gonna hear it, but it's true. A lot of people want that.

Stop spinning the facts, Bill.

O'Reilly Makes False Claims About Kennedy-McCain Immigration Bill

2006-04-12T21:33:00.000-07:00

On the April 10th edition of the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill only increases the size of the the border control. O'Reilly said, "They add 2,500 border patrol a year and that's it." Actually, from a factsheet provided by Kennedy, the law would:

Double interior enforcement by adding "1,000 investigators per year for next 5 years"
Create a "[n]ew [s]ecurity [p]erimeter" by "add[ing] new technology at the border to create [a] 'virtual fence' "
"Tighten[] [c]ontrols" by "expand[ing] exit-entry security system at all land borders and airports"
Call for the "[c]onstruction of [b]arriers" by "mandat[ing] new roads and vehicle barriers at borders"
Call for the "[c]onstruction of [f]ences" by "provid[ing] additional border fences at specific vulnerable sectors"
"[A]uthorize new permanent highway checkpoints near border"
Demand a "[c]omprehensive [s]urveillance [p]lan" that would "mandate[] new land and water surveillance plan[s]"
"Create[] new crime for construction, financing, and use of unlawful tunnels."

That is much more than increasing the border patrol by 2,500. What were you thinking, Bill? Don't you read up on things before you lie about them?

O'REILLY: Now, what's happening in the debate is deplorable. Number one, if you want to secure the border and hold illegal aliens accountable for breaking immigration law, you're inhumane. You're inhumane. Americans seeking strict enforcement of immigration laws are bad people, and even worse, conservatives. But the open border crowd is humane and holistic. Just read The New York Times and other left-wing outlets.

Well, "Talking Points" is fed up with the bull. So, here's the truth. The Kennedy-McCain bill would not secure the border or stop rampant illegal entry. The bill provides for more border patrol agents, but little else on the security side. The [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] bill's a bit tougher, but not much. So, at this point, the Senate simply doesn't want to secure the border, period.

[...]

LINDA CHAVEZ: Michelle [Malkin], my point is that this is like a three-legged stool. You can't fix one leg. The stool will not stand. There really are three issues. One is border security. It certainly is the top of the list. The second is what to do about the 12 million people who are here. And the third is what to do about our own needs as a country for new faces, new workers. We have --

O'REILLY: OK. But, Linda --

CHAVEZ: -- a need for those workers.

O'REILLY: -- the Senate bill does not address border security in any meaningful way, neither the McCain-Kennedy nor the Frist versions. They add 2,500 border patrol a year and that's it.

CHAVEZ: Well -- absolutely --

O'REILLY: That's not going to cut it when you have hundreds of thousands of people coming across.

Transcripts from: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604120001
You can find the factsheet at: http://kennedy.senate.gov/%7Ekennedy/statements/06/04/2006404556.html

Email Bill, oreilly@foxnews.com, and call him on the carpet.

O'Reilly: If Clinton elected "the first thing [Osama] bin Laden and his killers are gonna do is say, would say 'Oh yeah, this is good,' "

2006-04-05T19:32:00.000-07:00

On the April 3 edition of Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly had another go at potential Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton (D-NY). He says that if Clinton was to be elected President, "the first thing bin Laden and his killers are gonna do is say, 'Oh yeah, this is good. We like this.'" He also said that "they'll test her, they'll test her. And then she's put in a very difficult position that she may have to overreact to prove herself, you see? Very complicated." He also said, "What she will have is, "OK, we have a weak person."

This to me looks like sexism. O'Reilly's just saying that she's "weak" because she's a woman. She's taken a very tough stance on the war. But O'Reilly doesn't care. He made further comments, proving that this is gender-based: "If you got a Giuliani or a McCain, these are tough guys, these are street fighters. Bin Laden and the crew, they're gonna know right away these guys mean business. Her they're gonna test."

Just ridiculous. Note how he says "these guys mean business", but "her they're gonna test." To me, he's clearly implying that Ms. Clinton would be unable to be a successful President because she's a woman. That's unacceptable.

Bill O'Reilly Only Attacks Mexican Flag Wavers

2006-04-04T20:52:00.000-07:00

Many media figures, including Mr. Bill O'Reiily, have attacked people for waving Mexican flags, which O'Reilly describes as a "race war".

O'REILLY: You have no policy unless you have border security. There's no policy. All the other stuff doesn't matter. Because you just cannot keep assimilating millions of people in here at the rate they're coming without unintended consequences. And you've got them all day long.

So now, it's becoming a race war. That's what it's becoming -- a race war. You see half a million people show up in L.A. and they were waving Mexican flags. And they're saying, "Hey, we have a right to be here." No, you don't. If you're illegal, you don't have a right to be here. But they don't see it that way.

But why isn't O'Reilly mad that on St. Patrick's Day people wave Irish flags, or that on Columbus Day people wave Italian flags, or that on Israel Day people wave Israeli flags? It sounds to me like O'Reilly is the one instigating his so-called race war, for only picking on Mexican flag-wavers while not caring about people of other nationalities waving their own respective flags.

On O'Reilly's show somebody brought up this point, which he quickly dismissed. The guest said that the Mexican flag is waved "[e]xactly the same way [as at] the St. Patrick's Day parade," to this, not being able to think of anything better or somewhat intelligent to say, O'Reilly retorted: "Come on."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030012

O'Reilly: Only "nutty left wants Scalia to recuse himself"

2006-04-02T17:36:00.000-07:00

On the March 28th edition of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly falsely stated that only the "nutty left wants Scalia to recuse himself." This is certainly not true, as many non-liberals have joined the fight to have Scalia recuse himself from the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case that questions the legality of the military commissions set up in 2001 by George Bush for detainees of war crimes.

A number of people are in on the Center for Constitutional Rights and Representative John D. Conyers's fight to have Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the case, including retired conservative Fox News judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano, and a group of retired military officials.

Justice Anthony Scalia has dismissed the idea that detainees have any rights. When asked if they have any rights under the Geneva Convention or ither international conventions, Scalia replied:

"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."

The president of the Center for Constitutional Rights said:

"This is clearly grounds for recusal. I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him -- without hearing the arguments."

And O'Reilly's own colleague from Fox News, Napalitano, certainly not from the "nutty left", said on The Big Story with John Gibson from March 28th:

"So, look, here's the rule. If a judge or a justice has formed an opinion about a case, based upon some effect on the family member, you got to get off the case. In -- in this particular instance, there is no provision to force him off. "

....

"But when you go into a court, you expect the judge to have an open mind, not to have decided the case before it's even argued. "

....

"But, remember, their job [the lawyers involved in the case] is not to change his mind from one position to another. Their job is to take him from a position of neutrality and win him over. "

....

"I think, morally, he must [recuse himself]."

And he speaks with certainly no bias against Scalia, also stating that he "love[d]" Scalia, and later, "He's a great man. He can deal with this."

And the original transcripts from The Radio Factor from March 28th:

O'REILLY: Finally, chief justice -- not chief justice but Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made some comments about how captured terrorists should be treated by the USA. Now, the Supreme Court is going to hear -- going to hear a case where the crazy left wants all of the captured terrorists to be tried in civilian court, no matter where they're caught. This is insane. But that's what the far left wants. Now, Scalia was in Switzerland and said this.

SCALIA (audio clip) We are in a war here capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in war. We captured a lot of Germans during World War II, and they were brought not to Guantánamo, but to the soil of the United States. We didn't give them a trial.

O'REILLY: All right, so obviously, Scalia's not going to vote for civilian trials for terrorists, and I don't think most of the other Supreme Court people will either. But now, the nutty left wants Scalia to recuse himself from the vote. You know, it's just the same -- on and on and on and on. But these nuts -- aye-aye-aye.

Read: http://mediamatters.org/items/200603310003

Dealing With Nigerian Scam Emails

2006-04-01T20:50:00.000-08:00

This doesn't have to do with Bill O'Reilly himself, but is a spoof of the Olbermann radio incident.

Everybody gets those annoying emails from people in Nigeria wanting you to assist in a financial transaction with millions of dollars, and claim they'll give you a large percentage. Needless to say, these are scams, but here's a way to deal with them and put Fox security on them.

I received an email from a young woman in Nigeria wanting me to assist her in retrieving $8 million from a European bank. When she asked for my contact information, I told her my name was Keith Olbermann, and gave her the number for The Radio Factor, and told her to call Monday-Friday between noon and 2 PM GMT-5 and ask for Keith Olbermann:

Hi Janet,

After reading your email, I am touched by you choosing me to help you with this. I'm glad to know that you can trust me. I would love to do this with you.

I currently do not have a phone at my home because of a mixup with the phone company, so you will have to call me while I am at work. It's a toll free number, because I work at a radio show. The number is 1-877-966-7746. You will need to call between noon and 2 PM Eastern time (GMT-5), on Monday through Friday (no weekends) if you want to get through to me. My name is Keith Olbermann. So when you call, ask for Keith Olbermann, and they'll transfer you to me. If you call outside of those hours, you'll just get a recording and you won't get through. Then we can talk and work out the details.

I am looking forward to talking to you. Please call as soon as you can, which would be on Monday between noon and 2 PM GMT-5. Thank you very much for coming to me, and I am thrilled to get to work with you and help you out. Also, I am very sorry about your father, he sounds like he was a great man.

Best Regards,
Keith Olbermann

-------------------------------------------------

Of course she'll never actually get onto the show, but the operator will get mad and maybe Fox Security will follow up on it, because she's harassing Bill.

O'Reilly: The media is "blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually"

2006-03-31T21:35:00.000-08:00

On the March 28th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly described the American media as "blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually."

O'REILLY: Surely, surely, every intelligent person has to say, "You gotta stop the illegal immigration." That's the bottom line. And you know our press does not care. Once again, just like with the kids, abusing the kids, MIA. No solutions, and anybody who puts forth a solution, particularly if it is an effective solution, is a racist. And that's our American press. I think the American press -- and I know you've heard me say this -- is the most damaging institution in the country today because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually. No pressure put upon anybody to solve any problem they don't like. God help you, though, if you don't give welfare and -- and, you know, payments to everybody who comes into the country, legally or illegally. God help you if you don't do that.

But Bill is not referring to conservative media such as himself. On The O'Reilly Factor of the same day:

O'REILLY: I'm glad you're on my side, but I want everyone to know this is a struggle here. The defense attorneys buy politicians off, especially in small states like Vermont where they give a lot of money, and the liberal media working against Jessica's Law for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons. And the folks have gotta know who the forces of darkness are.
----------------------------------------

In Keith Olbermann's words, "If that's true, Bill O, the American media is now partisan and intellectually dishonest, your work here is done. We've accomplished what you've set out to do." Olbermann named O'Reilly as his "Worst Person in the World" twice on the 30th, once for his comments about the American media, and again for claiming that Cardinal Mahony favors immigration to help church attendance.

O'Reilly's Attack on Cardinal Mahony

2006-03-31T16:46:00.000-08:00

On the March 27th Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly accused Cardinal Roger Mahony, the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, of opposing immigration reform laws for the sole purpose of increasing church attendance:

O'REILLY: From the very beginning when I started covering immigration more than seven years ago, I told you this is about social engineering; and this country's whole political process is being changed by millions and millions of people pouring in here with a totally different lifestyle and a totally different frame of reference as far as America is concerned.

So, the country that you grew up in, if this isn't stopped, will change dramatically. And the Ted Kennedys of the world like that because they know they'll get the lion's share of those votes. And you can make an argument Cardinal Mahony knows he'll get those people in church when he doesn't have anybody in church anymore. Americans have bailed on the Catholic Church. That's tragic.
-----------------------------------------------------------

He also alleged that we have a potential civil war throughout the program:

O'REILLY: OK. I'm doing this on TV tonight because we're going to have some interesting coverage on television as well. You'll be able to see the pictures of the demonstrations and things like that, as a potential civil war in the U.S.A. because you basically have Americans who don't have a dog in the hunt -- European Americans, black Americans -- watching a phenomenon -- and that's what it is: phenomenon -- that to them may not be serving their best interests.

So, you have millions and millions and millions of Americans saying, look, this has got to stop. This has got to stop. That's why they're doing stuff because it's critical mass right now. Critical mass. All the polls show that.

Heartland America , red-state America -- had enough. Had enough. But you've got an emotionally driven other side, Hispanic Americans -- not all of them but a lot of them -- saying, wait, what are you picking on us for? Stop picking on us. This is racism. And then you have the far left, the open border crowd, which thinks the U.S.A. is an evil nation anyway, and it's our fault that people in Mexico are poor.

..............later...................

O'REILLY: It doesn't matter. In this country, if you single out a group, any group, for criticism, you're going to be called a racist. I mean, that's just the way we play the game here. So, you have a potential civil war. You do.

You've got the folks who don't have emotion invested in it, other than the farmers down and the ranchers down on the border are going -- as the lady just called up, [caller] -- say, look, I got garbage in my -- on my ranch every day. I mean, I'm under siege. They have emotion invested in it. But those of us up here don't.

Unless you live in a town, like Farmingville, Long Island -- we went over this before -- where you bought a house, you spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you're on a nice block, your kids are happy, and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med. And this happens all over the country.

-------------------------------------------------------------

On The O'Reilly Factor with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) of the same day, he called illegal immigration a "natural disaster":

WEINER: You know, can I tell you something? I think you're right. I don't have any -- any, you know, gut or problem with an interagency effort to stop this, but let's not kid ourselves. You're talking about a 700-mile fence. You have 2,300 miles of just border with Mexico, and I don't know why you think Canada isn't a threat to have terrorists come in. Why do you think someone --

O'REILLY: Well, Canada's -- Canada's a terrorist threat, but it's not an illegal alien threat. There aren't hoards, millions of people coming down through Canada to work here. You don't need the fence if you use the guard.

WEINER: Well, even the guard -- listen, I can -- can I tell you -- first of all, you have to pull them back from Iraq, which I support doing.

O'REILLY: No, you don't. There's plenty of guard as you saw -- no, you don't.

WEINER: You have to pull them -- you have to pull them off of things like natural disasters and the like. I don't have any problem with doing that, but --

O'REILLY: This is a natural disaster.
------------------------------------------------

This seems to me as just plain and simple racism on behalf of O'Reilly. These sound like things that would come out of Michael Savage's mouth. Speaking of Michael Savage's views on illegal immigration, I listened to a very disturbing Savage Nation the other day, in which Savage implied that Homo Sapiens are being invaded and replaced by Mexicans. He also said that Mexicans come here to rape, murder, and kill people, and suggested that everyone go out on the street and burn Mexican flags. I emailed the good folks at Media Matters about this, and they have since posted an article on that day's show, which I suggest you read. Its at:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603310008

O'Reilly Falsely Attacks Columnist While Lying

2006-03-29T16:52:00.000-08:00

On the March 27 broadcast of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly attacked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for writing a column about illegal immigration without using the word "illegal." That is entirely untrue. The small portion of the column that O'Reilly read referred to all immigrants, but the column referred to "illegal immigrants" throughout.

From Krugman's column:

"Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should -- and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, ''We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.'' Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a ''modest role'' in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.

But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?

Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests -- legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care -- is simply immoral. "

---------------------------------------

The part of the column that O'Reilly referred to was "[b]asic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more." In the portion, Krugman is referring to all immigrants, not simply illegal immigrants.

From The Radio Factor:

O'REILLY: "Now, once they get here -- and this is very interesting -- the far left wants them to immediately go on the dole. This is from Paul Krugman, he's the quasi-socialist columnist in The New York Times, writing today, quote: "Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants" -- not illegal, he just says immigrants. He's writing about illegal immigrants, but he won't put the word "illegal" in there.

Let me start again, quote: "Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more," unquote. This is the quasi-socialist Krugman.

So not only do we have to let them all in, but we got to pay for everything that happens to them. We, we, the people of the United States, the 300 million of us. Now, this is insane."

-----------------------------------

O'Reilly also misrepresented Krugman in his show, falsely suggesting the Krugman said that we should "let them all in." In fact, Krugman said, "Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration."

I find this especially funny since on yesterday's O'Reilly Factor, he had a "Kool Aid Alert" that if you drink too much kool aid (referring to democrats and especially party-liners) that you will suffer from hearing loss. He said this in response to an email that O'Reilly felt the writer hadn't listened to the whole show. In this case, O'Reilly misrepresented the story, and didn't read about half of it.

Words of Theodore Roosevelt

2006-03-27T16:05:00.001-08:00

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

— Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I think that somebody needs to email this to Bill O'Reilly. I will, but I need to create another email account first just for emailing him, since I have been blocked. I remember his "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" segment where he blasted Jessica Simpson for not wanting to meet with the President since she didn't agree with him, I believe he said that it was disrespectful and anti-American. As Theodore Roosevelt said, it is not wrong to criticize the President, and actually is unpatriotic not to do so when the President is in the wrong, as he often times is.

I actually found this quote in an editorial on The University Star's website, called "Right-wing venom reaches dangerous level". You can read it at: http://star.txstate.edu/main/article.php?aid=908

Will O'Reilly Survive Real Debate?

2006-03-26T18:53:00.000-08:00

Interesting editorial I just read, mainly covering Bill's hilarious radio show on Friday. Pretty much covers everything O'Reilly said, especially good to read if you missed the show:

Steve Young: Will O'Reilly Survive Real Debate? - Yahoo! News

Blacklisted from Bill's Inbox!

2006-03-25T22:38:00.000-08:00

It looks like Bill O'Reilly cannot stand to hear from somebody who doesn't agree with him, as it appears that he has blocked my email address. I have only sent him 3 emails in the last month, all on different topics, one of them was read on the air, but just a minute ago, when I tried to send him a follow-up email regarding the Judge Connor situtation, it bounced back to my inbox. I tried 3 more times, each time with the same result:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.
oreilly@foxnews.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;oreilly@foxnews.com

Action: failed
Status: 5.2.2
X-Display-Name: Show -O'Reilly

I am very disappointed that Bill is not interested in my viewpoints, but this will not prevent me from getting my word across to Bill.

Here is the email that I tried to send to him:

Bill, Can you help me out? I'm confused here. When you were sued for sexual harassment, you thanked your viewers for giving you the benefit of the doubt when the media did not. Why can't Judge Connor be given the same? When you read my last letter on the air, you told me that it was your mandate as a member of the media to "look out for the folks." In your case, what was wrong with the media looking out for the woman who felt that you sexually harassed her, as wouldn't she be considered the "folk"? Why should the media had looked out for you, because in that case, you were not the "folk"? They were simply doing their job, just as you are doing? Or should we give Judge Connor the same benefit of the doubt that you expected?

I have sent Mr. O'Reilly a request to unblock my email address:

ATTN: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel

March 25, 2006

Dear Mr. Bill O'Reilly,

I am writing this letter to respectfully request that you unblock my email address, vincent.richards@gmail.com, from emailing you at oreilly@foxnews.com.

I watch your show everyday, because I like to get my news from both liberal and conservative sources. I read blogs to get my liberal news, and watch your show, The O'Reilly Factor, to get my share of more conservative news. I like to hear from both sides.

I have always been fond of sharing my opinion, and have sent you email on occasion. Earlier this month, you read one of my emails on air, regarding Judge Connor. That was one of just three that I sent you, and in each all that I did was express my views. I value our First Amendment, and feel that we should be allowed to say what we want to say. I understand if you don't want to hear from me because my views are so different than yours, but please, at least humor me and let you send you my emails. One thing that I am very fond of on blogs is the easy ability to comment on the news story. You are making it impossible for me to comment on your news/opinions/rants.

Therefore, I would greatly appreciate, and respectfully request that my email address, vincent.richards@gmail.com is unblocked at once. Thank you very much for your time.

Respectfully Yours,

Vincent Richards

Update: It appears that I have been banned from the entire @foxnews.com domain, so that email above didn't go through. I guess I'll just make a new one.

O'Reilly, editor spar over sex-offender case

2006-03-25T21:52:00.000-08:00

According to Bill O'Reilly, the Dayton Daily News is "the most friendly (newspaper) to child rapists" in America:

Statement from Bill O'Reilly's website:

"What newspaper in the United States of America is most friendly to child rapists? Could it be the Dayton Daily News which has supported Judge John Connor's sentence of probation for a man who raped a 5-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy over a 3-year period.

"Not only that ... but the Dayton Daily News attacked the governor of Ohio, the attorney general of Ohio and Bill O'Reilly for reporting the story and actually asking for the removal of Judge Connor. The vicious personal attacks launched by the Dayton Daily News were strange when contrasted to the lack of condemnation for the judge.

"So, can one conclude therefore that the Dayton Daily News is a newspaper that has sympathy for child rapists and the judges who will not incarcerate them?"

---------------------------------------------------------------

The editor of the Dayton Daily News responded:

Statement from Jeff Bruce, the editor of the newspaper:

"They say only two things happen when you wrestle a pig: You get muddy and the pig enjoys it. So it's tempting to just let this pass, but, really, what O'Reilly has said on his Web site is so outrageous and such a distortion that I can't.

"No crime is more heinous than child molestation, so it is understandable that people would be inflamed by the notion that a pederast evaded the punishment he is due. But when Mr. O'Reilly asks the question on his Web site, "What newspaper in the United States of America is most friendly to child rapists," he's egging his readers on without giving them all the facts.

"As readers of the Dayton Daily News know, this newspaper is not soft of child molesters. Just the opposite.

"Here's what's really happening: Mr. O'Reilly is upset with the newspaper because in an editorial we referred to his own recent legal history in which he was accused of sexual harassment. His producer threatened that unless we published an apology they would resort to their 'bully pulpit.' That's what they've done. This isn't about being 'soft' on child molesters. It's about Bill O'Reilly getting even.

"We never defended Judge Connor's decision to sentence a child molester to a year of house arrest and five years' probation. What we said is that if the judge deserves to be removed from office then due process should be followed – the same sort of due process that Bill O'Reilly relied upon when he was sued and, ultimately, settled out of court.

"The editorial also noted that the prosecutor in the case, while disappointed with the judge's sentence, was afraid his evidence was so weak that he might have lost the case entirely if it had gone to trial. He agreed to settle the case.

"In America we have a system of checks and balances that includes the independence of the judiciary. There are rules in place to remove bad judges. Our editorial simply said we should follow those rules, not allow ourselves to rush to judgment because of a television commentator's opinions.

"That's not an endorsement of Judge Connor or his decision. The fact that a child molester got off so lightly is disgusting. If I would fault our editorial for anything it is that we could have said that and said it firmly.

"But that's not why O'Reilly asked his readers to write the newspaper. His producer, in a conversation with me, acknowledged the logic of our editorial's argument. But they felt dragging O'Reilly's own legal problems into the article was gratuitous. While I expected O'Reilly to take a shot at us, I was shocked that he would suggest that this newspaper 'has sympathy for child rapists.' That is a deliberate distortion of what we said and what we stand for, and nothing could be further from the truth.

"So you know, on the same page that we published our editorial, we also printed a package of opposing views, including those from O'Reilly himself. We made every effort to be fair and balanced in our presentation of this issue. It is a pity that sense of fairness was not reciprocated."

----------------------------------------------------------

This whole incident further displays Mr. O'Reilly's inability to see anybody else's point of view, or even reason with anyone else, two qualities that you think a television news person should possess.

O'Reilly's Attack on this Site

2006-03-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

Once again, this is old news, but this blog wasn't around in November, so I'm posting it now. On the November 15th edition of The Radio Factor, in one of Mr. O'Reilly's tantrums, he had this to say about the so called "smear sites" against him:

"...And the smear sites who kind of tried to use this issue to drive it are now on the defensive. And you know who they are, you know who they are. And only Kool-Aid zombies are going to get involved with them anyway. And it was good. I mean, I wanted to show our affiliated stations, all 400 of them, I wanted to show our sponsorship, all the people who buy time on The Radio Factor, I want to show everybody exactly where this was coming from, who these people are on the far-left smear sites.

And they are anti-American people. They hate this country. They do. And if you read their garbage day in and day out, we're the bad guys. We're always wrong. Blame America first. That's who these people are on the far left on the Internet. And they are well funded by George Soros and Peter Lewis, the radical billionaires. They're as dishonest as they come. And you need to know about them. Even --

Because most people don't go to these sites. They don't read this crap. And you need to know they're out there, because what they do is they have minions in the elite media that they feed stuff to, and the minions run with it. And here's what I'm going to do, ladies and gentlemen, every minion that does that, every one is going to be exposed on The Radio Factor, the television Factor, and on our website, BillOReilly.com. Every one who carries their water, I'm going to put their face up there, their name up there, and tell you exactly what they're doing. So you know in your town who's doing it. Enough's enough."

And on The O'Reilly Factor the same day:

The far-left smear websites, which support the anti-military movement, have developed an effective way to punish people with whom they disagree. And here's how it works: The smear sites print analysis that distort someone's position on an issue by taking it out of context, reporting humor as being serious, or flat-out lying about tone and substance. Then the smear sites urge their readers to email threatening words to sponsors or demand a firing, whatever. The Internet guttersnipes also contact sympathizers in the mainstream media, who then publish the Internet defamation, often without hearing the original remarks which are at issue. Remember, there's a huge difference between a written transcript and actually hearing what was said.

In the past, the smear sites have been somewhat successful using these dishonest tactics, but now the game's up. Anyone, anyone who carries water for these far-left sites will be exposed on this broadcast. Your right to know. The Internet -- the intent, I should say, of the smear sites is to intimidate free speech. This is not what America is supposed to be about. So the smear sites must be exposed. They have hurt the country dramatically.

So there you have it. Our left-wing San Francisco guest last night would not agree we're fighting a war on terror. And he's entitled to his opinion, but we are entitled to believe the opposite and to fight against dishonest ideologues. And I believe we're winning that fight.

Anyways, I find this pretty funny, especially his claims that I am anti-American and hate this country. O'Reilly thinks that everything that he says is automatically correct, and that for some reason, all these "smear sites" pop up, and are completely unjustified. In fact, since I do not agree with him, I must hate this country. O'Reilly loves our country, so if I do not care for Mr. O'Reilly, I must be anti-American. I love America, I just cannot stand O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's Attacks on San Francisco

2006-03-24T17:41:00.000-08:00

This is an old topic, this occured back in November, but I'm posting it here now because this blog would not be complete without it.

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

You can view a video clip of this outburst at MediaMatters.com.

Read on the Air!

2006-03-16T21:16:00.001-08:00

I have sent Mr. O'Reilly many emails, but he finally read one of mine on the air today.

"Bill, while I agree Connor is letting people off too easy, it is not your job to say he is not fit for the bench." - Vincent Richards, San Francisco

He made some modifications from the original email that I sent him, as I hear he frequently does. Of the emails that I have sent to him, this one is the least critical of him, so surprise, surprise, he read it! He responded, lecturing me in a demeaning tone:

"Of course its my job Mr. Richards. I'm a news analyst whose mandate is to watch the powerful, and look out for the folks. The two kids who were raped are the folks. What exactly do you think we do here? "

My original email:
"Bill, while I do agree with you that Judge Connor is letting people off too easy, you have to remember that he is a judge, and if he is not fit for the bench, that is up to the proper Ohio officials, not you."

I've read that he frequently edits emails to make them sound more friendly towards him, as he obviously did here. Perhaps I was too truculent. :)

Call O'Reilly, Get a Free Book!

2006-03-10T18:03:00.000-08:00

I just stumbled upon a posting at www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com, where they will give you a free copy of their upcoming book if you call O'Reilly's radio show and mention Keith Olbermann.

"Each person who gets on The Radio
Factor and mentions Keith Olbermann
will get a free advance copy of the
new Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly
book.

Call the Radio Factor
1-877-9NO-SPIN
between noon and 2pm EST"

Read: http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com.....

Olbermann: "I can't hate" [O'Reilly]

2006-03-10T17:53:00.000-08:00

In a interview with Brian Lamb for CSPAN's Q&A this weekend, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said the following:

"Somebody asked me the other day if he was - you know, if it seemed to me that he was going to retire soon, or leave this - leave the air, and I replied (ph), "I hope not," because he provides me with so much material. I can't hate him. He's so extraordinarily obvious and the antithesis of what I think broadcasters should do and what journalists should do and what people should do that he's necessary, in some way. I would be lost without him, in some respects. But, what he does on the air, everything is a simplification. It goes back to what we were talking about earlier, about inspiring fear in people, both in terms of what the world is going to be like, and also what the rest of the media is like. And I don't hate him. I'm entertained, to some degree, by him. I wouldn't watch him with a gun pointed to my head because I - people watch and actually think they're hearing the truth."

You can see the full interview on CSPAN this weekend.

Read: http://www.mediabistro.com.....

Olbermann on "The Radio Factor"

2006-03-09T20:33:00.000-08:00

A recent segment on MSNBC aired about Bill O'Reilly's encounter with a caller who mentioned Keith Olbermann's name. He said that he would turn his number over to Fox security, and they would contact his local authorities. Fox security left a message on the caller's answering machine. O'Reilly claimed that it was harrassment, but it sounds more like Fox is harassing the caller.

"The only person that's going to get in trouble here is Bill O'Reilly. He's lost the plot entirely. To think that you can commandeer local law enforcement to be your personal henchman because you don't like something a caller said on the air is absolutely outrageous and absurd. It's an abuse of the media, it's an abuse of law enforcement, and he's now the one engaging in threatening behavior. You can't do that. He's crossed the line," says Susan Filan, a former Connecticut state prosecutor.

From MSNBC:
"Now, Bill O’Reilly is threatening callers to his radio show who mention Olbermann’s name. Ted Baxter told uncooperative listeners that he'll turn their phone numbers over to Fox security, and that Fox security will in turn contact the local authorities."

Read the full article at MSNBC.com.

Email Sent to O'Reilly

2006-03-09T18:55:00.000-08:00

I just sent an email to Mr. O'Reilly, requesting that he presents the petition on air:

Hi Mr. O'Reilly,

I am aware of your petition to fire Keith Olbermann and bring Phil Donahue back to his time slot. You have advocated this petition on-air. I don't feel that this is 'fair and balanced" to Mr. Olbermann, you are just presenting your side of the issue. Therefore, I have created a petition to "Fire Bill O'Reilly", and I feel that it would only be "fair and balanced" for you to air this petition on your show, therefore presenting both sides of issue, which is "fair and balanced." The petition is located at http://www.petitiononline.com/foxfair/petition.html. Please present this petition, as I feel that this is fair for Mr. Olbermann and supporters of his.

Thank you,
Vincent Richards

O'Reilly's Olbermann Petition

2006-03-09T18:36:00.000-08:00

In order to keep this blog "fair and balanced", I am providing you with the link to Mr. O'Reilly's petition to fire Keith Olbermann, in case you would rather sign that.

O'Reilly's petition: http://www.billoreilly.com/petitions/viewpetition?petitionID=45714

Welcome to Fire Bill O'Reilly!

2006-03-09T18:27:00.000-08:00

Welcome to my blog advocating that Mr. O'Reilly is shown the door at Fox News. As you may be aware, Mr. O'Reilly advocates his petition on-air that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is fired, and that Phil Donahue, formerly in Olbermann's time slot, is brought back onto the air. As Mr. O'Reilly insists, Fox News is a "fair and balanced" station, which is why I will be requesting that Mr. O'Reilly gives my petition equal air time to that of Mr. Donahue's.

You can sign the petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/foxfair/petition.html