The Blowhard Bill O'Reilly Blog

[ Fri Apr 30, 09:46:40 PM | Jack Clark ]
Viagra and the Battle of the Awkward Ads
For instance, if an ad mentions the product name and what it treats, side effects must also be disclosed - in this case eyebrow-lifters like 'erections that last for more than four hours.'

'My 6-year-old daughter turned to me and said, 'What's a four-hour erection?' ' said Kelly Simmons, executive vice president and chief creative officer at Tierney Communications in Philadelphia, who studies sex issues in marketing. 'How do you explain it?'
And parents are concerned about a breast flash? How come Bill O'Reilly isn't hammering away on this, since the ads appear during times when kids will be watching television? I've got to remember to take note whether any of those (as Bill Maher terrifically labels them) "boner pill" companies advertise on his show. 
[ Fri Apr 30, 11:22:44 AM | Jack Clark ]
Poll finds optimism about what lies ahead Most Iraqis expect life will improve in next few years  What a dishonest spin on the poll results.

Poll: Iraqis conflicted about war, its impact  A more honest assessment of the resuts, but still too optimistic. Even Bill O'Reilly is now saying that if 57% of Iraqis want us to leave within the next few months, that's the end of the ballgame.

Here's something with a link to the best assessment of the poll.
[ Mon Apr 12, 08:23:23 PM | Jack Clark ]
Battle for Iraqi Hearts and Minds Suspended in Face of Escalating Resistance
The Democratic criticism was to be expected, but Bush should be more concerned with some of the talk coming from his usually loyal right-wing commentators.

Perhaps the best known of them, Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly, was running out of patience, he told his audience last week, making a comparison between Vietnam and an Iraq where Americans increasingly fight on behalf of a population that will not help itself.

'If these people won't help us, we need to get out in an orderly manner,' O'Reilly said. 'If, come next October, Iraq continues to be a big mess, President Bush might very well lose the election.

'Mr. Bush and his advisers must know that. And that's why there's still a chance that the Iraqi radicals will be beaten.

'But time is running out, both for Iraq and for the Bush administration.'
O'Reilly warns the Bushians. O'Reilly still thinks the war was a grand idea, he just doesn't like the way the Bushians are conducting it.
[ Fri Apr 09, 03:16:03 PM | Jack Clark ]
Bill O'Reilly recently used this teaser, which takes the cake for sheer bluster: "The Factor will be back in a moment with the real story behind Jesus the man." I guess O'Reilly went back in time to find out, and he has the "real story" no one else does.
[ Fri Apr 09, 01:32:33 PM | Jack Clark ]
Bush Presidency Could Be Ultimate Casualty of War
But it is not only Democrats who are expressing doubts. On his radio program earlier this week, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly suggested the situation in Iraq was 'like South Vietnam redux' and predicted that 'if it gets worse, there's no way [Bush] wins.'

'The American people are not going to absorb this kind of chaos for several years,' said Reilly, who had supported Bush on the war. 'I know this country, I know myself. If I'm seeing 10 bodies a weekend over the last weekend in October, that's going to influence my vote.'

Michael Harrison, publisher of the trade magazine Talkers, predicted other conservative radio hosts would turn against the president, after serving as one of his most loyal constituencies.

Many of them 'were out on a limb' in support of the war 'because of their respect for the presidency,' Harrison said. 'The fact is, it's a very uncomfortable position to be in, in conflict with the facts.'
The beginning of the end?
[ Wed Apr 07, 04:28:06 PM | Jack Clark ]
O'Reilly's far right ranting gets worse and worse. Last night he said " bashes anything that isn't Fidel-Casto-like." Could any person with a scintilla of rationality go to the TomPaine website and liken it in any manner to Fidel Castro?! O'Reilly's unusually off the farm regarding this site because its editor is Bill Moyers's son, and O'Reilly is insanely and publicly jealous of the acclaim and respect Bill Moyers gets in the broadcasting industry.
[ Fri Apr 02, 01:10:12 PM | Jack Clark ]
Another O'Reilly Endorsement of a War Crime?  Here's what O'Reilly and his guest agreed on, since after his guest said the following, O'Reilly didn't object at all:
On a practical level, yes, you make an example of it. You close it off. And instead of trying to reward them by building more playgrounds, you ration electricity. Start with half an hour or an hour a day. Make sure it gets to the hospitals, etcetera. Ration water. And make them earn it back. And the world will scream. The world will cry out and complain no matter what we do.
The fact that doing so would be a war crime under the Geneva Conventions apparently doesn't bother O'Reilly and his guest:

Article 54: Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive. [Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions]

This recalls O'Reilly's earlier call for the war crime of starvation against the civilian populations of Iran, Iraq and Libya.

[ Sat Mar 27, 01:56:39 PM | Jack Clark ]
Bill O'Reilly says his "go-to guy" on Iraq is Col. David Hunt, because he's always right. Hunt was wrong during the war when he said he knew for a fact that within three days Saddam's DNA would be identified in the rubble of a restaurant we had bombed. I don't remember O'Reilly ever acknowledging that whopper of a mistake. Now Hunt appears to have made a major error again. He said he was certain that within a few days, DNA of Al Qaeda's second in command would be identified from an area where Pakistani troops had been battling Al Qaeda. That has not happened a week later, and word is that if that guy was ever there in the first place, he escaped. Will O'Reilly acknowledge this blunder?
[ Thu Mar 25, 09:12:59 PM | Jack Clark ]
Former Bush Adviser Apologizes for Sept. 11
President Bush's former counterterrorism chief apologized yesterday to the families of 9/11 victims for failing to protect them, but said Bush had scaled back anti-terror efforts.
Richard Clarke's testimony set off a wave of emotion from the victims' families and infuriated the White House.

Clarke started his appearance before the independent 9/11 commission with an act of contrition, telling the families, 'Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you.' He asked for their 'understanding and forgiveness.'

Family members at the hearing were moved.

'Clarke is the first person who's ever apologized,' said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband was killed at the World Trade Center. 'I felt like crying.'

Mary Fetchet, who lost her son Bradley, said she appreciated Clarke accepting blame and praised him for being 'brave enough to talk openly about the truth.'
Such sentiments were even expressed by the family members whom propagandist Bill O'Reilly had on his show tonight. They would have none of his effort to repeatedly condemn Richard Clarke. O'Reilly's producers will certainly get a tongue-lashing from O'Reilly for giving him guests that didn't agree with him!
[ Wed Mar 24, 08:01:07 PM | Jack Clark ]
Greta sank to a new low tonight (not something easy for her to accomplish given where she has already been in her stint at Fox!). A pathetic practice on her program is that at the beginning, the Fox News Alert music will come on, and then Greta will breathlessly relate one of the day's top stories, which isn't in an alert stage at all, but just the facts that have been known all day, and usually discussed ad nauseum already on O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes directly before her. Tonight, the end of H&C was devoted to live coverage of Bush giving a speech. Then at the time Greta was scheduled to go on, she appeared in the corner of the screen with the Fox News Alert music, and told us that Bush was giving this speech, and that Fox would continue to cover it. This was not an address to the nation. It was a yearly appearance before a broadcasting group. The speech was not even worthy of live coverage, let alone a News Alert. But then this is Fox, not an actual news channel.
[ Fri Mar 19, 07:59:24 PM | Jack Clark ]
Bill O'Reilly tonight exhibited clearly his trademark characteristics of exaggerated bragging, flim-flammery, and insecurity. He bragged that "tens of millions" of people would see and hear a guest on his TV and radio program today. I don't think his audience is in the "tens of millions." O'Reilly flim-flammed when he opined that the war in Iraq was still worth it, then said his guest would offer a differing view. But his guest endorsed O'Reilly's view, supporting the war if anything more strongly. Surely O'Reilly and his producer knew what the guest's opinion was. Finally, O'Reilly's insecurity was evident when he smugly noted that his book has been on the New York Times bestseller list longer than Hillary's. O'Reilly still can't get over the fact that, as he admitted on an earlier show, he lost the phony "competition" he set up to sell more books than Hillary, by nearly two to one.
[ Wed Mar 10, 02:43:25 PM]
OReilly had on David Shipler who wrote The Working Poor. I don't know if it was O'Reilly's usual aggressive flim-flam bamboozle man assault, but the discussion focused on the non-working poor, those too screwed up to hold down any job at all. What's wrong with Shipler? His book is titled the "working poor," those who work full-time and still are paid sub-starvation wages. Why didn't Shipler put the focus of his nationally-televised appearance where it belongs, on the need for a nationally-mandated living wage?
[ Sat Mar 06, 03:07:18 PM]
The other night O'Reilly actually sided with the ACLU, which he calls a "fascist" organization, in a lawsuit. The Salvation Army takes $89 million in federal funds but wants to require all its employees, even those doing completely secular tasks like working in soup kitchens, to pledge to spread the Gospel. I agree with O'Reilly that the ACLU is correct to sue the Salvation Army on this issue. But then I don't call the ACLU a "fascist" organization. I guess they're only fascistic when they take positions O'Reilly disagrees with.
[ Mon Mar 01, 09:14:20 PM]
Aristide says U.S. deposed him in 'coup d'etat'  Wow, reality overtakes my ability to write a blog entry. I was going to propose a lottery, with entrants guessing how many days, weeks or months would go by before a U.S. role in Aristede's overthrow was revealed. Before I could write that, this story came over the wires. I guess the winner would be "a couple of hours." Of course, these corporate press stories almost always omit the role the U.S. played in economically strangling Haiti, a large part of the reason for the unrest, as hungry Haitians couldn't take it any more.

The Fire This Time in Haiti was US-Fueled  Here's the truth about how the U.S. destroyed Haiti in recent years.

Reminds me of Nicaragua, where many people were so desperate to stop contra attacks that they voted against the Sandinistas, just as the contra's bosses -- the Reagan administration -- demanded.

As might be expected, just about the dopiest segement on Haiti was run by that foreign policy expert (isn't he an expert on everything?), Bill O'Reilly. His teaser breathlessly asked "Why is that country so chaotic? Voodoo may have something to do with it." Then he runs a 1991 (!) report he did for his tabloid show Inside Edition about voodoo in Haiti. The report said dictator Papa Doc Duvaliar was a voodoo priest, implying that was the reason he was so evil. The report didn't mention he was a U.S. puppet. After the 1991 segment was over, O'Reilly intoned about the voodoo, "A disturbing situation still going on in Haiti." That's right, Bill, voodoo is the cause of what's going on in Haiti today, not a U.S.-fostered crisis and overthrow of the democratically elected government.
[ Mon Mar 01, 08:22:40 PM]
BusinessWeek: Bill O'Reilly Generates $60 Million a Year
31 percent of his viewers age 25 to 54 make more than $100,000 a year, says Fox.
They are undoubtedly thrilled when he rants and raves that no one should pay more than 50% in taxes.
[H]is nightly 'The O'Reilly Factor' on Fox News is one of the most watched shows on cable. It has an average of 2.1 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research.
A lot fewer than O'Reilly claims on air, but then what's a little bit of exaggeration to him?
[ Thu Feb 26, 09:23:32 PM]
Tonight O'Reilly prefaced a question to a guest as follows: "I'm asking this question with all due respect as ombudsman for the American people." Hmmm... I didn't know we had one.
[ Wed Feb 25, 07:56:31 PM]
The O'Reilly Factor - Transcript: Gibson on 'The Passion'
[If] it's going to be horrible and ugly, try and make the violence -- try and find the beauty in it, try and find the lyricism in it...
This is why I think Gibson is sick. There is no beauty or lyricism in violence. Only someone unhealthily addicted to watching and depicting violence would use such terms.
[ Tue Feb 03, 02:28:30 PM]
O'Reilly said last night that the Janet Jackson boob episode will be a "seminal" event in broadcasting history. Good to see O'Reilly hasn't lost his skill at extreme exaggeration. I thought maybe he might have once he had to admit that Hillary's book outsold his nearly two to one (1.5 million to 800,000). What I'd like to know is, how many copies did Franken's book and Michael Moore's book sell. I think one or both of them must have outsold O'Reilly also.
[ Thu Jan 29, 12:16:57 PM]
Just for the record, so that my "archives" on O'Reilly are complete: the other night he once again referred to himself as having been poor when he was younger -- which is, of course, a blatant lie.
[ Mon Jan 26, 08:20:10 PM]
A guest on O'Reilly tonight suggested, how seriously not clear, that the reason no conservative actors had been nominated for Golden Globe awards is that conservatives are just not creative. O'Reilly retorted with "What about The Factor?" O'Reilly always denies being a conservative. Doesn't his response tonight indicate he considers himself one?
[ Sun Jan 25, 10:56:10 PM]
Judge Sentences Janklow to 100 Days in Jail  Let's see, he killed someone through reckless behavior, that he had engaged in many times before. And all he gets is 100 days, with only 30 having to be served in jail?! I would have given him 5-10 years for the deterrent effect alone. I wonder if O'Reilly, who continually puts on sentencings he feels are too light, will deal with this miscarraige of justice.
[ Sun Jan 25, 10:08:33 PM]
Joe Lieberman Deserves Your Vote endorses Joe Lieberman! The perfect endorsement for a Democrat to have. Of course, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly also praise Lieberman every time he comes on their shows. More reasons for Democrats to support Lieberman.
[ Mon Jan 12, 09:41:58 AM]
The O'Reilly Factor - Talking Points - Another Big Win for the ACLU
The nation's most dangerous organization...

...a fascist organization that uses lawyers instead of Panzers.
I imagine donations to the ACLU will go up again after this imbecilic (is there any other kind with him?) O'Reilly outburst.
[ Wed Dec 17, 09:00:02 PM]
Tonight O'Reilly had a segment on what he called "loony left" websites. He specified and

Did he have those sites on to defend themselves? No.

Did he have anyone else on to defend them? No.

Whom did he have on? A shrill reporter from the Washington Times, and a somewhat less rabid, but still right-wing reporter now with Forbes, before that with the Wall Street Journal.

Very fair and balanced.

And the segment was 100% pure name-calling. O'Reilly did not give an single example of a quotation from either site as being inaccurate. The sites were just repeatedly called garbage, etc.

O'Reilly kept saying these sites were a danger to democracy, and there should be some way to regulate what they say.

O'Reilly would probably claim the segment was balanced because he said there were also loony right-wing sites, and cited Drudge. But 99% of the focus was on the progressive sites.

This right-wing lovefest ended with O'Reilly's teaser for an upcoming segment, in which he said Saddam was Sean Penn's "buddy."

Yup, O'Reilly sure is "independent"-minded.
[ Mon Dec 15, 07:27:26 PM]
O'Reilly and other extreme right-wingers are now bitterly complaining that innocent Christmas carols are being targeted by the evil "secularists" as not being appropriate for children to sing in school. The implication is that there is nothing overtly religious about these songs, such as two mentioned by O'Reilly, Silent Night and O Come All Ye Faithful. Huh? Here are the lyrics to Silent Night:
Silent Night

Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!
Christ, the Saviour is born
Christ, the Saviour is born

Silent night, holy night
Son of God, love's pure light
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth '
Virgin, holy infant, Christ the Saviour, Jesus Lord. Seems like the lyrics go a tad beyond the Jesus as philospher that O'Reilly is always proferring as the proper way for Jesus to be presented in public schools.

Herer are the lyrics to O Come All Ye Faithful
O Come All Ye Faithful

O Come All Ye Faithful
Joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem.
Come and behold Him,
Born the King of Angels;
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

O Sing, choirs of angels,
Sing in exultation,
Sing all that hear in heaven God's holy word.
Give to our Father glory in the Highest;
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

All Hail! Lord, we greet Thee,
Born this happy morning,
O Jesus! for evermore be Thy name adored.
Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing;
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.
Let's see: King of Angels, Christ the Lord, word of the Father now in flesh appearing. O'Reilly would have us believe this is also not a religious song. Only the brain dead could be taken in by O'Reilly's constant twisting of reality.
[ Sat Dec 13, 08:28:52 PM]
Last night O'Reilly spoke of people being able to get a signed "first edition" of his book. So now O'Reilly thinks his tripe is going to have historical value, such that whether a copy is a first edition or not matters?! The man's (amazingly unwarranted) megalomania seems limitless.
[ Sun Dec 07, 10:43:34 PM]
A Lynching Memorial Unveiled in Duluth
Nations deal with nightmares the same way people do --by trying to forget them. Among the nightmares that had faded from public memory in the United States until recently, none are more ghastly than the campaign of racial terror that gripped this country from the 1880's to the 1930's, when thousands of black Americans were hanged, mutilated, burned alive or dragged to death while huge crowds looked on.

Sometimes called "lynching bees" or "Negro barbecues," these events were cast as macabre carnivals, which drew crowds with children and picnic baskets from miles around. The victims' bodies were sometimes photographed for postcards, which were used as instruments of terror until mailing such postcards was barred in the early 20th century.
Whenever an O'Reilly or a Hannity start spewing about the "coarsening" of American society, I always wonder what the hell they're comparing it to. Do they really think Britney and Eminem are worse then the deadly racism that was rampant only a generation ago? What's worse for a kid to see, Christina Aguilera's butt cheeks, or a tortured victim of a lynching? Of course, the O'Reilly's and Hannity's, when thinking of the past, just have Ozzie & Harriet/Leave It to Beaver scenarios in their heads. I really don't think past (or even present) racial (or any other type of) injustice play much role when right-wing pontificators analyze things in their morally-impoverished brains.
[ Thu Dec 04, 09:50:36 PM]
O'Reilly said tonight he was in a "tight race" with Hillary Clinton for the best-selling non-fiction book of the year. But Al Franken's book has been way ahead of O'Reilly's on the best-seller list all the time, and often on the New York Times list as well. So how could O'Reilly even be ahead of Franken, let alone Hillary?
[ Wed Dec 03, 08:39:42 PM]
The other night Bill O'Reilly read an email asking who appointed him to be spokesman for "the folks." O'Reilly said the audience did, by watching him. Hmm... his audience is a couple of million, and there are 280 million Americans. O'Reilly has deluded himself into thinking that he's not really a big fish in a small pond.

If I had the money, I'd conduct a national poll. First question would ask if Bill O'Reilly was a talk show host or some other job, in other words, let's see how many people know who he is. Next question, for those who knew of him, would be whether their opinion of him was very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or very negative. This would gauge how much of the country believes he's a blowhard.
[ Sat Nov 29, 10:50:49 PM]
Frank Rich: When You Got It, Flaunt It
The perfect bookend to Ms. Stewart is Bill O'Reilly, another fabulously wealthy American entertainer who has burnished his humble roots to flog his product line. In his first book he wrote that he had grown up in lower middle-class Levittown, N.Y. -- only to be corrected by Newsday, which reported that Mr. No Spin Zone grew up in Westbury, a middle-class suburb near Levittown. Mr. O'Reilly went ballistic over being stripped of his blue collar. He defends his original poor-mouthing by saying that his family's house was built by Levitt and that his parents lived so modestly that they had to buy used cars. It's touching, really.
Poor Bill, being exposed all over the place for the lying phony he is.
[ Sat Nov 29, 10:50:31 PM]
More on O'Reilly: A recent teaser to a segment had O'Reilly angrily asking "Why is a man who killed 48 women dodging the death penalty?!" This is quite a statement from someone who touts his anti-death penalty views as evidence that he is not a conservative.

O'Reilly also recently announced an additional service he will perform in his role as defender of "the folks": "I will monitor all defense and prosecution tactics that I think are unfair." Well, O'Reilly slams defense attorneys virtually every week for one sin or another. Yet again unusual from someone who claims to be against the death penalty, I can't remember a segment at all where O'Reilly discussed the dozens of cases where prosecutorial misconduct put innocent people on death row.

Hmmm... could it be that O'Reilly's anti-death penalty "position" is as phony as the rest of him?
[ Mon Nov 24, 09:04:58 PM]
Conservative Revolution? No -- Just Dazzlingly Effective PR
Everyone who follows the media knows that we live in an increasingly conservative society. Everyone knows that conservative talk radio is a dominant force and that Rush Limbaugh alone attracts 20 million listeners weekly. Everyone knows that the Fox News Channel -- on which I am a contributor -- has drained millions of viewers from the broadcast networks. Everyone knows that millions of Americans mobilized against CBS' Reagan miniseries.

Yet, everything that everyone knows in the preceding paragraph is absolutely false. In sheer numbers, conservative talk radio is still a relatively small phenomenon, and Limbaugh's aggregate audience of 20 million -- if you assume that most of his die-hard fans listen to him daily -- is probably closer to 4 million or 5 million. Fox News is unquestionably a cable success story, but, excluding major news stories, at best it attracts an audience of 2 million -- not even in the same league as the least-watched broadcast news report and a blip on the larger demographic screen. After more than a week of constant, highly publicized agitation, CBS reportedly received 80,000 e-mails protesting the Reagan miniseries, not exactly a populist wildfire.

Here's the truth: Even after 9/11 reputedly turned us into a nation of flag-waving patriots, even after Fox News Channel torpedoed the liberal media, even after the drumbeat of Limbaugh, even after Dennis Miller decided to forgo humor for attacks on Bill Clinton and even after the Reagans were saved from liberal calumnies, the country, according to both a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll and a Pew Research Center poll, is almost exactly evenly divided between those who lean left and those who lean right.
Very true. When Bill O'Reilly brags that he's the most-watched prime time cable news show, and Hannity & Colmes trumpet their number one cable debate show status, I always chuckle. Big fish in a small pond.
[ Thu Nov 20, 09:28:41 PM]
Over 100,000 March Against Bush in London

Police Gas Miami Trade Protesters

O'Reilly has given up even the pretense of presenting both sides. In his segment on the above two protests, who was his only guest -- some guy from what O'Reilly admitted was the "conservative think tank" Heritage Foundation!

On the same show, in a segment about what O'Reilly says is the ACLU's attack on Christmas, there was no guest with a viewpoint supporting the ACLU's position in the lawsuit in question. O'Reilly said the ACLU wouldn't come on. But O'Reilly could have easily gotten someone from another group supporting the ACLU position.

Maybe the reason O'Reilly doesn't want guests on who disagree with him is because they'd have so much fun tearing apart imbecilic statements from O'Reilly such as this one tonight, made in reference to the songs "Silent Night" and "Come All Ye Faithful":"I don't see why any Christmas hymns would be promoting any particular religion."
[ Thu Nov 13, 09:46:18 PM]
Bill O'Reilly Says He'd Consider Presidential Run  This is, believe it or not, a serious article.
[ Wed Nov 12, 10:04:35 PM]
Wal-Mart Faces Class-Action Suit
Lawyers filed a class-action suit against Wal-Mart yesterday in New Jersey, saying it violated federal racketeering laws by conspiring with cleaning contractors to cheat immigrant janitors out of wages...

'This case is about the most powerful and richest company in the world taking obscene advantage of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world,' said a lawyer filing the suit yesterday, James L. Linsey.
How can you be so rich, multi-billionaires, and still want more and more and more? Let alone from those who have virtually nothing. Greed is possibly the strongest addiction! (By the way, you think that "looking out for the folks" guy Bill O'Reilly has ever had a segment on the plight of Wal-mart workers? I can't remember one. Compare that to the multitude of segments bashing Jesse Jackson or the ACLU, or hyperventilating about teenage sexual escapades.)
[ Tue Nov 11, 10:26:10 PM]
O'Reilly added a new demon tonight, He devoted an entire segment to attacking it, calling it an "extremist" organization. It joins the "fascist organization" ACLU and the "most dangerous woman in America" Hillary Clinton, on the honor role of entities doing enough harm to ultra-conservatism so that O'Reilly feels compelled to attack them. I imagine like the ACLU, will now receive a torrent of massive donations after being attack by the Great Bloviator. Keep it up, Bill, those organizations have bills to pay!
[ Wed Nov 05, 11:34:35 PM]
Tonight, Bill O'Reilly said the ACLU was "the most dangerous organization operating in America," that "every state should have an anti-ACLU organization," and that "these people must be stopped." Nah, O'Reilly doesn't push a conservative agenda at all!
[ Tue Nov 04, 09:56:09 PM]
Bill O'Reilly said tonight that he's "not a conservative" and "doesn't push a conservative agenda." As evidence of his not being a conservative, he says he is pro-environment, pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Other than his bald claim, you would never know those things from his TV program, since virtually every segment relating to those issues -- and they are few and far between -- involves O'Reilly criticizing one or more pro-environmental, pro-choice and/or anti-death penalty groups for their tactics or positions on a specific controversy. There has rarely, if ever been a segment where he advocated a pro-environmental, pro-choice or anti-death penalty position. He recently stated that even though he's against the death penalty, he hoped a certain criminal would get sentenced to death! But he's had no segments where one of the innocents sentenced to death and then freed has been a guest.

In stark contrast to his virtually total lack of advocacy of his "liberal" views, is O'Reilly's constant drumbeat from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Who else but an extreme right-winger would day-in and day-out attack Hillary Clinton, the ACLU and "secularists"? How far to the right do you have to be to label the New York Times a "far left" publication, Hillary Clinton "the most dangerous woman in America," and the ACLU a "fascist organization"?!

O'Reilly's claim that he's not a conservative is the foundational spin of his Only-I-Can-Spin-Zone.

The pathetic thing is that I get email from O'Reilly viewers who tell me that they, too, are not right-wingers, and then they proceed to rant and rave for paragraph after paragraph in an extreme right-wing mode.

O'Reilly is a truly dangerous propagandist.
[ Fri Oct 24, 04:15:11 PM]
Defend Religious Freedom -- Drop 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance
Most Americans are unaware that many of our early presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and George Washington, as well as great patriots such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen, did not consider themselves Christians. Their views often were carefully camouflaged in public for fear of reprisal but quite clear in their private correspondence.
I certainly didn't understand this to be the case from listening to O'Reilly and Hannity...
[ Mon Oct 20, 10:06:37 PM]
Company Is Foreign at Tax Time, but Seeks Americans-Only Work  Here's a real example of being "un-American". You think Bill O'Reilly will have a segment on this and other outrageous tax scams among the wealthy? Of course he won't.
[ Sun Oct 05, 11:45:37 PM]
I don't think I've ever watched Tim Russert before today. He has a reputation as one of the toughest interviewers. I watched the last 45 minutes of his interview with Bill O'Reilly. Russert was an ass-kisser who rarely challenged anything O'Reilly said. And what challenges there were, were pitty-pat timid queries that O'Reilly easily swatted down. Russert is supposed to prepare so carefully for interviews. Russert asked about some of Al Franken's charges against O'Reilly contained in "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." O'Reilly responded with the exact further lies that Franken demolishes in his book. But Russert had either not read the book, or chose not to embarrass O'Reilly. On his program this week O'Reilly mentioned that Russert had conducted a "fair" interview. I knew what that meant: an interview where everything O'Reilly says is respected as the Gospel. I watched the Russert interview only because I was doing house cleaning and figured maybe I was wrong. I wasn't.
[ Tue Sep 30, 10:10:22 PM]
Sean Hannity is like a guy who goes out to pitch a ballgame and is also the ump. He calls every one of his pitches a strike, strikes out everyone, and from that concludes he's a great ballplayer. I'd like to see Hannity debate any sentient being where Hannity doesn't moderate the debate. All of the foregoing also applies of course to that other master of the crooked debate, Bill O'Reilly.
[ Wed Sep 24, 10:47:20 PM]
Bulletin! Special to the Rational Radical Bill O'Reilly and Condoleezza Rice underwent emergency surgery tonight to separate Mr. O'Reilly's lips from Ms. Rice's butt. In a manner rarely, if ever seen before by the attending surgeons, Mr. O'Reilly's lips apparently became physically stuck to Ms. Rice's butt as the result of extreme pressure applied by Mr. O'Reilly while kissing Ms. Rice's posterior during an interview tonight. Witnesses to the on-air ass-kissing say it was just about he worst case of sucking up to an elected official they could recall. Both Mr. O'Reilly and Ms. Rice are reportedly doing well after surgery, and both are expected to fully recover.
[ Fri Sep 19, 09:58:15 PM]
Tragedy in New York: French Fried Friedman  I call him Thomas O'Reilly Friedman for taking up the asinine line heatedly trumpeted every day by Bill O'Reilly that the French are our enemies and want to hurt us. Does France have big oil reserves I don't know about? Listen to an example of Friedman's logic:
But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of Iraqi representative government -- after being so content with Saddam's one-man rule -- is so patently cynical. Our War With France
And I guess the U.S. has been interested in promoting democracy in the Arab world? We overthrew the Iranian democracy in the early '50's and installed a dictator, we still support the Egyptian dictator with more money than any country but Israel, we continue to prop up the Saudi and Kuwaiti dictators, etc etc. The blatancy of Friedman's hypocrisy is astonishing for a man of his intelligence.
[ Fri Sep 19, 08:00:31 PM]
Just call him (once again, and certainly temporarily) Bill "But I Could Be Wrong" O'Reilly. He's at it again. Every once in a while, in response to media criticism, the Consummate Spinmeister will modify his SOP and preface or conclude every expression of his own opinion with "But I Could Be Wrong." What a waste of breath. No one watching believes this is a genuine expression of humility. It's just more spin from the master himself.
[ Wed Sep 10, 10:29:03 PM]
If Bill O'Reilly had any shame, he would never again dare criticize anyone for conducting a softball interview. During O'Reilly's worship session with Arnold tonight, it seemed like virtually every question had been scripted by Arnold's campaign. If a liberal had started spouting the non-specific rhetoric that Arnold did, O'Reilly would have interrupted and tried to tear the liberal apart. But not with Arnold. O'Reilly always accuses Larry King of being an easy interviewer. Compared to O'Reilly tonight with Arnold, Larry King is Torquemada. [transcript]
[ Fri Aug 15, 03:57:44 PM]
Another O'Reilly falsehood: he claimed as a "Factor exclusive" his interview with the Alabama Ten Commandments judge. Yet a day or so earlier, the judge was interviewed on Hannity & Colmes!
[ Tue Aug 05, 09:33:00 PM]
Larry Flint Issues Call to 'Pray' for Death of Bill O'Reilly  Hmmm....
[ Tue Jul 22, 09:50:47 PM]
Bill O'Reilly continued his dissemination of misinformation when he repeated tonight his claim that his guest Col. Hunt has been "100% accurate" about the Iraq War. Except, of course, when Hunt said several months ago that by that upcoming weekend, DNA tests would confirm that Saddam Hussein had been killed in a U.S. bombing strike.
[ Tue Jul 08, 10:21:41 PM]
Civil Rights, the Sequel  This column by Bob Herbert could have been written by Bill O'Reilly. I wonder if O'Reilly will use it to bolster his position the next time he raises the subject.
[ Mon Jun 09, 09:22:05 PM]
O'Reilly was really on the ball tonight. He was illogical, ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

Illogical: He said both Monica and prior alleged affairs/escapades of Clinton's (Broaddrick, Wiley, Flowers) were private matters, so if Hillary can talk about Monica, she should be willing to talk about the others. But Monica -- unlike the others -- was transformed from a private to a public matter with the impeachment. Lumping Monica with the other affairs is illogical (and "spin").

Ignorant: In his latest tirade against Hillary, he listed several items that he said made her out of step with "traditional Americans." One of them was her support of the "progressive taxation system" which results in "income redistribution." Let's see, the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax was passed in 1913. Since then every President and every Congress has seen fit to allow the progressive income tax to stand. So exactly who are the "traditional Americans" who don't support a progressive income tax? I think by "traditional Americans" O'Reilly means the hard-right ideologues with whom he shares so much of his philosophy, but in which group he refuses to be included. They are the ones who want to do away with the income tax and repeal the 16th Amendment. They are not "traditional Americans." And neither is O'Reilly, no matter how much he hoodwinks the more ignorant elements of the public into thinking he is through his adroit pressing of cultural hot button issues.

Intellectually dishonest: O'Reilly keeps pointing out to guests the results of "polls" he runs on his website. He sometimes flat out states they reflect the views of Americans. Other times, like tonight, he points out that 46% of his viewers are conservative and 54% moderate and liberal, so that the results certainly aren't skewed to the conservative viewpoint. Huh? Is he seriously maintaining that the same percentages conservative/moderate/liberal of his TV viewership apply to his website visitors? Moreover, while any visitor to his site can vote in the poll, most of his website's other interesting stuff, including his message boards, require payment of a monthly subscription. So obviously people visiting his site are going to be disproportionately his fans, not the liberals and moderates he boasts of. This he knows, but doesn't point out.

Bonus: He also tonight repeated in two sentences in a row that he was from a "working class" neighborhood -- no doubt full of other working class type guys like his NYC oil company accountant father.
[ Fri Jun 06, 02:36:43 PM]
The fraud that is Bill O'Reilly, and the utter stupidity of some of his "fans," is seen in the following messages recently posted on his website's message board by two such individuals [whose full names I have omitted to avoid embarrassing the mentally helpless]:

No taxes under $30,000?? In what country, Bill?
Posted By: RN
Date: 24-May-03

I'm a no-spin guy, and love your show, Bill. Yet, I am disgusted that you keep saying people under $30,000 incomes do not pay federal taxes, and that the earned income credit and child tax credit gives us "free" money. Well, I made less than 30 grand, qualified for the earned income tax credit, and the child tax credit for one child. I still paid around $2000 to the federal government. Bill, please don't put yourself on your "high horse" and say I don't contribute. I certainly do, and I think 2 grand for a guy like me is fair... more than fair. I can hardly support my family, let alone save money to buy them a home. I think you need to appologize to us... on air... and get the real facts about taxes!! PS> LOVE the show...


Reply: RE: No taxes under $30,000?? In what country, Bill?
Posted By: RM
Date: 24-May-03

I wonder where he's getting his numbers from. In a small business venture last year after expenses and credits I cleared about $22,000. I paid the IRS $4238 in income tax and self employment tax of $2823 totaling $7061.That's not all my income, but I ask you how is someone making under 30k not paying taxes? This is what I paid in business income alone.


Reply: RE: No taxes under $30,000?? In what country, Bill?
Posted By: RN
Date: 25-May-03

I rest my case!!
Even though the guy knows that O'Reilly is misleading people about taxes,he still professes his love for O'Reilly twice in one message. That's because O'Reilly is so demagogically (is this a word?) skillful in pushing hot button cultural issues -- sex on campus, Jesse Jackson, etc -- that his "fans" come to believe he is on their side, even when O'Reilly virtually NEVER deals with the true issues that affect the pocketbook and well-being of average Americans: the unfair tax system and abhorrent Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; the need for living wage legislation; rampant OSHA violations, etc.
[ Fri May 23, 09:53:11 PM]
After repeatedly forcing myself to watch O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes every night (I say I want to know what the other side is thinking, but maybe I'm really a masochist), I've come to one solid conclusion: FoxNews is the greatest terrorist recruiting weapon in the world. If you sat down the average citizen of any country and let them watch a day of Fox programming -- making sure to include Hannity and O'Reilly -- that would be enough to make them strap on a suicide bomber's belt and be chomping at the bit to blow up some Americans.
[ Wed May 21, 09:33:45 PM]
O'Reilly is revealing his red-baiting soul ever more blatantly. Tonight he said Hillary Clinton was a "quasi-Socialist" (c'mon Bill, have the courage of your convictions, she is or she isn't!) who wanted to take money from high-earning people like him and give it to Americans who earn less. O'Reilly said Sen. Clinton wanted to take "70%" of his income, by which one would assume O'Reilly meant she wanted the highest marginal tax rate to be 70%. Really? Is this some proposal of hers I haven't heard about? Where is it, Bill? When did she say or write that? Or are you creating facts and accusations out of whole cloth?

AND -- The marginal rate was 90% under Eisenhower, wasn't it? He must have been a full-fledged Commie. And JFK -- he of the recent Republican commercials -- only reduced the rate to 70%, so he -- like Sen. Clinton according to O'Reilly -- must have himself been a "quasi-Socialist." Republicans should really stop using him in their ads then, shouldn't they?
[ Tue May 20, 10:28:18 PM]
O'Reilly really put his foot in his mouth tonight. O'Reilly says his main analyst is Col. David Hunt. He's praised the guy over and over for his great analyses. At one point during the Iraq War Hunt predicted with complete certainty that before the end of the upcoming weekend the U.S. would confirm through DNA that Saddam had been killed in the restaurant bombing. Hunt said he was sure of that because his sources had always been accurate. I guess not that time. I wondered if O'Reilly would continue to use Hunt. He did, and didn't even bring up the bogus prediction. Tonight O'Reilly was discussing the claim from the BBC that the Jessica Lynch rescue was a fake, that she wasn't even being guarded by anyone in the hospital. O'Reilly had Hunt on. Hunt said his sources said the BBC claim was dead wrong, and was "outrageous." O'Reilly said he believed Hunt, because Hunt has been "100% accurate" and hasn't "had to retract anything." I guess O'Reilly forgot about the Saddam DNA prediction. Typical O'Reilly self-aggrandizing, inaccurate bluster.
[ Tue May 13, 06:03:27 PM]
O'Reilly keeps touting the results of his polls as representative of American opinion. What a joke! As if the gullible and easily-misled who constitute the bulk of his fans are representative of the public... On second thought, maybe they are, unfortunately. Or at least more so than a rational person would wish.
[ Wed May 07, 10:18:05 PM]
O'Reilly's show should be called the "No-Economics Zone". The economic concerns of average Americans are almost never dealt with directly. Another name might be "Students Gone Wild," as O'Reilly focuses on stories of national importance such as a porn film being shot in an Idaho dorm, or a high school hazing gone violent. Are these stories really more important than anything else that occured those days? Of course not, but they get good ratings from O'Reilly's maybe-one-step-above-Jerry-Springer audience.
[ Thu May 01, 09:48:38 PM]
Wal-Mart - Always Low Wages for Women!  Have you heard a word about this lawsuit on the program of the self-proclaimed defender of "the folks," Bill O'Reilly? I don't think so. He's too busy chasing after that issue of major importance to working class Americans, Jesse Jackson's tax returns. Or focusing on local sex scandals like a porn film shot in a public college dorm, or a college prof seeming to go over the line in his human sexuality course. Titillating, and sure to boost his ratings, which is all that O'Reilly seems to care about -- but completely irrelevant to the lives of most people.
[ Thu May 01, 09:39:51 PM]
O'Reilly Anti-Bush Stand?
Even Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, who's normally supportive of the Bush administration, has warned on his top-rated "O'Reilly Factor" show that if Bush cannot produce a WMD smoking gun by mid-May, the American people would be right to question his reasons for launching a war that may not have been necessary.
I bet a dime to a dollar that O'Reilly finds a way to not bash Bush even if no WMD's turn up.
[ Fri Apr 25, 09:44:13 PM]
Praise when praise is due, once again. O'Reilly devoted time tonight to the Tulia, TX drug case miscarriage of justice. My only criticism is that no one mentioned how this was George Bush's Texas, the kind of justice system he would be more than happy to impose upon the entire nation.
[ Thu Apr 24, 09:46:26 PM]
Praise for O'Reilly: assuming the facts he presented are accurate, I share his outrage over a woman who scalded her four-year-old to death getting a time served (one year) sentence and being released. Worse yet, her other kids are still with her. This just doesn't seem rational.
[ Sun Apr 20, 09:24:44 PM]
Journalism on Fox  The real purpose of the right-wing attack dogs like Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage and Limbaugh:
To the Editor:

"Cable's War Coverage Suggests a New 'Fox Effect' on Television Journalism" (news article, April 16) illustrates a paradox in American society.
Constitutional protection of free speech is a necessary but insufficient condition for its exercise in daily life. Rights can become paper rights: constitutionally protected but seldom exercised by a people fearful of speaking one's mind.

If dissenting opinions are publicly vilified by the news media, the conditions that make free speech and dissent possible will wither. People will not speak out against war or other unpopular policies, irrespective of their constitutional right, for fear that they will be demonized or punished financially or socially.
In modern societies, it is unnecessary to resort to crude methods like imprisonment or torture to silence dissenters. It is sufficient simply to question their integrity, their values and their patriotism.
[ Sun Apr 20, 09:04:03 PM]
I wish some group would do a national poll, asking two questions: Do you know who Bill O'Reilly is? If so, is your opinion of him favorable or unfavorable? I think Bill might be surprised at the results, and perhaps rethink his crowing about how powerful and well-liked he is.
[ Fri Apr 18, 09:40:57 PM]
O'Reilly's hypocrisy is amazing. He bitterly complained when reporters interviewed Mel Gibson's father and O'Reilly's own mother. So what does O'Reilly then turn around and do? He interviews Susan Sarandon's mother!
[ Thu Apr 17, 08:50:04 PM]
Nice letter sent by a visitor to this site to O'Reilly:

You are the only host I know that KNOWS EVERYTHING. If a doctor comes on your show, you can out talk him about the medical field, and Lawyers can't tell you a thing about THE RULE OF LAW. Bill you have been a CAB DRIVER, SCHOOL TEACHER, probably a TRASH COLLECTOR, and the whole nine yards. Just name it and you've done it. Is there anything that you have not DONE or do not KNOW?

Sometimes, its good to just sit and listen and believe it or not, there still might be a few things left that you can learn. On the other hand, maybe you shouldn't listen because you already KNOW IT ALL.

I am just expressing my little 08 cents worth.
[ Sun Apr 06, 10:37:50 PM]
Bill O'Reilly bragged the other night that we should all suspend judgement on Geraldo. O'Reilly said he knew of facts which, when revealed, would exonerate Geraldo. Well, Geraldo has since left Iraq, is reporting from Kuwait, and tonight apologized for breaking the rules for embedded journalists by revealing information when he made that sand diagram of troop movements. I wonder if O'Reilly will apologize for misleading his viewers. Don't bet on it.
[ Wed Mar 26, 09:56:34 PM]
O'Reilly came up tonight with one of his typical illegal, immoral and bloodthirsty ideas. Tell the residents of Bagdhad they have x number of hours to get out, and then level the city. If they haven't left, it's their own fault. Reminds me of what he said shortly after 9/11, that we should blockade Iraq, Libya and some others, and if the people don't overthrow their governments, well then, they'll just starve to death.
[ Thu Mar 20, 10:00:01 PM]
O'Reilly has proclaimed on more than one of his TV broadcasts that viewers should tune into him to get the best TV coverage of the war. It's interesting that Fox pulled him (and the other talk shows) off the air tonight. Bad programming move. The "special" war coverage is so boring that O'Reilly would be a relief.
[ Tue Mar 18, 09:57:00 PM]
O'Reilly grandly pronounced tonight, once again, that he has the best coverage on TV about the Iraq War. It was certainly fair and balanced tonight. Pro-war John McCain and Joe Lieberman and Bill Richardson and David Hackworth. You'd certainly get both sides from that crowd!
[ Tue Mar 18, 09:39:28 PM]
An Open Letter To Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin Zone" or "No Integrity Zone" -- You Decide  Cowardly O'Reilly cuts a radio show listener's mike and doesn't even tell the audience.
[ Mon Mar 17, 09:50:33 PM]
I kept switching the channels after Bush was done lying and I couldn't find a single anti-war person on CNN, MSNBC or FOX. I guess they've all been banished by the internal sensors of the producers of all those programs. Fox was especially pathetic, a couple of old white guys for a solid 45 minutes telling each other how wonderful Bush was. "Do you think Bush made the point really well that blah blah blah?" "Oh, yes, he was quite articulate, and it makes sense because blah blah blah." It could have passed for a Saturday Night Live parody, or Pravda-TV. And on O'Reilly, his debate had a guy from the Cato Institute squaring off against a guy from the Heritage Foundation. Sort of like the Ku Klux Klan debating the American Nazi Party.
[ Sat Mar 15, 09:24:51 PM]
While I can sit through O'Reilly and Hannity's hate-fests, Michael Savage was too much. I had to shut it off. He has this telescoping pointer that he keeps pointing directly at the camera. He also keeps extending it and then folding it back, as well as twirling a pen. The guy has Freudian issues. Savage reminded me of the Dr. Strangelove character who couldn't stop his artificial limb from saluting.
[ Fri Mar 14, 09:12:51 PM]
Singer Cancels U.S. Tour  All cultural figures around the world should boycott us. And about that imbecilic boycott of French goods that chickenhawk Bill O'Reilly and other armchair combatants are urging: let's all go out and buy as many French goods as we can! Vive La France for standing up against Bushian bloodthirsty arrogance!
[ Wed Mar 05, 09:10:11 PM]
Mall Wants to Drop Peace T - Shirt Charges  Praise for O'Reilly, who covered this story tonight in a manner that was, uncharacteristically, fair and balanced.
[ Mon Mar 03, 10:10:01 PM]
How Conservatives Pigeonholed Those Poor Liberals  Can't argue with this:
In their efforts to bond with the working class, conservative pundits can be as risibly phony and pretentious as anything that Hollywood or the Upper West Side has to offer. You think of Bill O'Reilly describing himself as a "working-class guy" -- this from an accountant's son who grew up in Levittown, N.Y., the El Dorado of the postwar middle class.

Or listen to Ann Coulter, who grew up in New Canaan, Conn., and her paean to the New York's other boroughs, as reported in The New York Times: "Queens, baseball games -- those are my people. American people."
[ Wed Feb 26, 09:40:22 PM]
An O'Reilly teaser tonight was "What's the connection between a cult leader convicted of crimes against children and Jesse Jackson?" The connection turned out to be that during a national speaking tour, Jackson once gave his standard speech at a meeting of that leader's organization, and then left. O'Reilly pressed the reporter, but there was no more. The teaser was a knowingly dishonest, blatant attempt to smear Jackson. Even more abusive: O'Reilly ended the segment insisting that he knows there's more there, and advised to reporter to keep digging.
[ Wed Feb 26, 09:36:44 PM]
Bill O'Reilly warned us tonight that once the war starts, all criticism of the effort better stop, OR ELSE.
[ Tue Feb 25, 05:36:18 PM]
O'Reilly tells us that his show is seen around the world. God help us if those watching assume he represents the average American! Indeed, other than George Bush, is there an American alive who could be more responsible for fostering anti-American feeling in the world? (OK, I agree, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell probably are above O'Reilly in that regard).
[ Fri Feb 21, 10:21:37 PM]
Skewered by 'Dean of Mean' Bill O'Reilly -- a Survivor's Tale  O'Reilly complained about this being a vicious hit piece or the like. Seems pretty mild to me.
[ Mon Feb 17, 09:18:36 PM]
Wal-Mart Faces Lawsuit Over Sex Discrimination  Who could be more working class than Wal-Mart employees? Who could be more accurately characterized as included in Bill O'Reilly's oft-used phrase "the folks"? Yet that self-proclaimed defender of working class Americans, that protector of "the folks" never seems to get around to reporting on issues such as these. He ignored the prior jury verdict against Wal-Mart for forcing employees to work overtime without pay. He seems to be ignoring this latest story also. But this all makes sense, doesn't it? If Ludacris is allowed to continue as a spokesman for Pepsi, that is obviously of much more importance to hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart employees than their own jobs, right Bill?
[ Fri Feb 14, 09:39:50 PM]
Haig Advocates War Crime  Like Bill O'Reilly before him, ex-Reagan Secretary of State Alexander Haig has advocated starving a civilian population to achieve a political/military objective:
The former NATO commander said that instead of conducting a bloody house-to-house battle to root out Saddam's loyalists, U.S. ground troops should blockade the city.

"All we have to do is surround it and starve it out," he told Hannity.
Starvation of a civilian population is a war crime under the Geneva Convention:
1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.[Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions]
[ Thu Feb 13, 09:51:44 PM]
USA Patriot Act: A Dreadful Act II  Even Bill O'Reilly came out against this dreadful new Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Anyone who doubts that if they had their way, Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney et al would lead us in the direction of dictatorship-level freedom loss, just read about this proposed legislation.
[ Wed Feb 12, 04:32:09 PM]
Interesting how out of all the outrageous things O'Reilly has said over the years, the New York Times picks up this, O'Reilly's use the other day of the term "wetback" -- for which, of course, O'Reilly has a full-spin excuse. Gaffes on Hispanics, From 2 Well-Known Mouths  Reminds me of when O'Reilly told a guest he was not aware that African-Americans found it offensive for whites to put on blackface in minstrel show-type fashion.
[ Mon Feb 10, 09:13:10 PM]
O'Reilly's No-Fear 'Factor'   A puff piece so shameful that I thought even Bill O'Reilly would be embarassed to promote it. But no, he directed his viewers to it tonight.
[ Thu Feb 06, 09:49:21 PM]
When I listen to O'Reilly, the mantra "cliches, buzzwords, platitudes and non sequiturs" keeps coming to mind. I wonder why?
[ Wed Feb 05, 10:21:32 PM]
O'Reilly tonight told his viewers he put links to the French and German embassies on his site to make it easy for people to contact them. Is a network allowed to have its employees utilize the public airwaves in that kind of a partisan way?
[ Tue Feb 04, 09:30:54 PM]
O'Reilly tonight showed us the scared, censoring weakling that lurks beneath his blustering facade. His guest was the anti-Iraq war son of a man killed on 9/11 at the WTC. The son tried to explain his anti-war position. O'Reilly told him to "shut up" at least two times, then cut the son's mike. Any arguments that fit outside O'Reilly's view of acceptable positions -- meaning those he has a canned, ready-made answer to -- will not be allowed on the "No Spin Zone."
[ Thu Jan 30, 09:56:47 PM]
Tolerance and Hypocrisy on Gay-Straight Clubs More O'Reilly demagoguery exposed. Compare a real journalist's reporting of the story with O'Reilly's. I watched the segment, and the excerpts accurately reflect the whole:
Dr. Capehart was recently interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, Fox's conservative television news superstar. "I would have turned them down," Mr. O'Reilly said, "because I say once you open the door to a club based on sexuality, then you got to have the S&M club, the bigamy club, you know any club." Dr. Capehart said, "That's exactly my point." Mr. O'Reilly blamed the A.C.L.U. for the whole mess. "I call them a fascist organization," he said, "because what they're doing is using terror to further their agenda. Am I right?" Dr. Capehart added, "You are exactly right."
[ Tue Jan 14, 10:21:04 PM]
Companies Fight Shortfalls in Pension Funds   Nothing particularly surprising about the fact that million of workers may get hosed on their pensions. And nothing particularly surprising that the self-proclaimed spokesman for working class America, none other than one Mr. Bill O'Reilly, hasn't covered this story. He was, again, too busy tonight hyperventilating about the oral sex on a high school bus incident, and another case of a 4 year old being molested on a school bus. Why he would lump the high school thing together with the child molestation, I don't know, but I'm beginning to wonder about O'Reilly's fascination with the teenage sex issue.
[ Mon Jan 13, 09:59:25 PM]
Isn't it curious how "fair and balanced" Fox always manages to shut up true leftist guests? Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on each of their recent programs shut off the mikes of progressive representatives who insisted on completing a sentence or two. O'Reilly and Hannity weren't letting them get out more than a few words before interrupting them, so the guests just kept talking over the interruptions. They were making points that are almost never heard in the corporate mindset main media. O'Reilly thinks those views are so crazy so as not to be worthy of listening to, and Hannity just can't stand to hear anyone who doesn't agree with him speak for more than a few seconds without interrupting. Right-wing guests on both programs are generally allowed to speak uninterrupted and get their full spiel out. But watch out if you're left-wing (and I don't mean slightly-left-of-center liberal Democrats): you won't be allowed to make your points.
[ Sun Jan 12, 10:09:37 PM]
At a Texas Foundry, an Indifference to Life

Family's Profits, Wrung From Blood and Sweat

Deaths on the Job, Slaps on the Wrist   I must admit I haven't read every word of this powerful three-part series, but you should at least look it over. Here you will see the quintessential George Bush America, where workers are unprotected: he wants to cut OSHA funding!

And speaking of phonies, where's Bill O'Reilly on issues like this? Oh, there is he is, continuing doing what he's best at: crawling in the sewer and dredging up every local sexual mini-scandal -- oral sex on a school bus, a porn film shot in a public college dorm -- and trying to elevate them to a national moral crisis of Sodom and Gomorrah proportions. Often, of course, with titillating video accompaniment. O'Reilly knows that sex sells, and all he really seems to care about is ratings. The self-proclaimed spokesman for working-class Americans never covered the Wal-Mart conviction for forcing employees to work overtime without pay, just one of many truly relevant stories to the working class that O'Reilly chose to ignore. O'Reilly has turned into a rude Bill Bennett on steroids.
[ Fri Jan 03, 10:25:14 PM]
Anyone else notice that on O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes tonight, there were far fewer commercials than normal? I usually watch these programs on tape so I can fast forward thru commercials. My VCR has a button that skips 30 seconds with each push. I usually have to push it 6, 7, even eight times to get to the next segment. Tonight it was invariably only 3 or 4 clicks.
[ Thu Jan 02, 10:12:51 PM]
O'Reilly has really gone over the top, bloviating tonight that the ACLU is a "fascist" organization that uses "terror" tactics. O'Reilly said the terror tactic is threatening lawsuits. O'Reilly's demagoguery is dangerous. Labeling groups fascist is bad enough, but when in this current climate he labels them as a terrorist group, that could well incite one of the less self-controlled of OReilly's moronic worshippers to take violent action.
[ Tue Dec 24, 10:43:07 PM]
Who Paid for the Whitewash?!  Everyone's shaking their heads at the Republican Congressman who compounded his error of admitting to recent "segregationist feelings," by having a a Black lawn jockey on his lawn painted white, instead of just removing the damn thing. What I want to know is, why did a member of the Congressman's staff do the paint job? Don't the taxpayers pay the aide's salary, and wasn't the aide doing a personal chore for the Congressman? I am outraged. Loony Rep. Jim Trafficante is now in jail for, among other things, having staff members do chores on his farm. I want an investigation. Where is Bill O'Reilly when we need him? He's on vacation. But I'm sure when he comes back, he will investigate this abuse of the "folks" money.
[ Sun Dec 22, 11:32:18 PM]
Bill O'Reilly says he speaks for the "working class," the "folks." Well, one of the largest employers in the country, Walmart, with over 1 million employees, was found guilty of forcing employees to work overtime without pay! U.S. Jury Cites Unpaid Work at Wal-Mart  O'Reilly has ignored the earlier press reports about this story. I imagine he'll ignore this also, as well as the results of the 40 other upcoming lawsuits againt Walmart for such practices. O'Reilly's too busy hosting tabloid-style segments about jail sentences he thinks are too low and similar hot-button items, which really have very little effect on the "folks." But something like this, he ignores. About the only time I can remember him taking on a corporation on an economic issue is the Enron scandal, and he could hardly avoid that given the saturation media coverage at the time. O'Reilly, so quick to attack VH1 for its prison rock band shows, and a soft drink manufacturer for using rapper Ludacris as a spokesperson, doesn't seem to feel that forcing people to work overtime for no pay is worth reporting on. Might that have something to do with the conservative bias of the self-proclaimed "independent" O'Reilly? Or perhaps it's attributable to the fact that his tabloid stories rile "the folks" up and produce huge ratings for O'Reilly, while a employment abuse story might not?
[ Mon Dec 09, 10:46:29 PM]
Another praise to O'Reilly entry: kudos to him for leading tonight with the Trent "If Only We Had Continued With Segregation" Lott story. O'Reilly even had a prominent presidential historian as a guest who flat out said Lott was a racist. O'Reilly disagreed, saying Lott was only "insensitive." Do I detect a "spin" here? But O'Reilly still gets points for leading with the story.
[ Thu Dec 05, 10:49:23 PM]
Congress votes itself a pay raise, while Bush reduces pay raises for all other government workers and at the same time authorizes cash bonuses for its political appointees. White House Defends Return to Appointees' Cash Bonuses   You'd think this blatant series of Republican more-for-me, less-for-everybody-else greed would be on Bill O'Reilly's radar, since he's always watching out for, as he calls them, "the folks." Well, these minor issues can't be dealt with on The Factor because Bill's spending huge amounts of time on stuff really important to the American people, like a porn film being shot on an Indiana college campus. That certainly affects everyone in the country greatly.
[ Mon Dec 02, 10:33:21 PM]
Did I really hear O'Reilly say tonight that his program was the only news organization in the United States to report that John Lee Malvo was in the country illegally and released by the INS?! Everybody reported that, eg John Lee Malvo ( Is O'Reilly's megalomania affecting his memory? It's already affecting his judgment: hasn't he promised to bring down VH-1? Who the hell does he think he is? He's a big fishie in a small pond. He acts like he's a Great White Shark ruling the entire Pacific Ocean.
[ Fri Nov 22, 10:38:46 PM]
Tonight O'Reilly said that (and I quote from memory) "a substantial portion of the proceeds" from Factor Gear sales goes to "poor Americans who want to help themselves." His web sites don't, as far as I can find, give any details. A guy calling for transparency in connection with charities should himself give out the details of what he claims to be doing.
[ Fri Nov 22, 09:55:56 PM]
Okay, I know I wrote a little while ago saying I missed the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson (see, I restrained from calling him the Rev. Jesse Lee Peckerhead, although I guess I just did so, didn't I, naughty boy) because I always got such a good laugh from him. Well, O'Reilly the other night devoted a segment to probably the most idiotic lawsuit ever filed in the history of Western jurisprudence: Blacks Sue Jesse Jackson: You're Not Our Leader   Only people with a bug up their ass about Jackson like Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing crazies like would even bother to report on something so obviously headed for a quick dismissal by the judge. While I watched the segment, I said to myself, "Boy, isn't this something that Rev. Peterson would do?" But the segment never mentioned him. Well, I felt happy to read the above-cited news story since it mentioned that Rev. Peterson's organization was one of the plaintiffs. Surprising that Rev. Peterson, the desperate publicity hound trying to feed off of Jackson's persona, didn't also appear on the O'Reilly segment. So I still didn't get to watch the hysterically sincere Rev. Peterson in person. I'll just have to wait.
[ Sun Nov 17, 11:04:31 PM]
Another thought about the concept of the Blue and Red states forming separate countries: The Bushian Red states can form a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Bill O'Reilly can be the morals czar and make sure no Eminem or Ludacris besmirches that nation. John Ashcroft can still be Attorney General, and outlaw breasts and dancing. And on the economic front, wanting to avoid evil "big government," there will of course be no minimum wage (let alone a living wage!) so all those intelligent working class people who vote for Bush and his ilk can have their dream come true and work for Third World wages.
[ Tue Nov 12, 10:20:47 PM]
Bill O'Reilly, who has falsely claimed to be from a "working class" background when he grew up solidly middle class, has taken his charade one step further: now he claims to have been "poor." As I scribbled it down tonight from his TV show:
Guest Robert Reich:

Why not give a tax cut to people at the bottom and in the middle, instead of a tax cut to people like you, who are very wealthy --

Bill Oreilly:

Primarily because -- but I used to be poor, so you've got to respect me for that --
Some more spinning from O'Reilly, we should be surprised?
[ Fri Nov 08, 10:37:35 PM]
Bill O'Reilly, not without justification, has made a big deal about the necessity for charities to be transparent, and for celebrities who pitch for charities to exercise responsibility in making sure the money gets used properly. Well, since O'Reilly advises viewers that some of the Factor Gear money goes to charity, shouldn't he, as a celebrity, be transparent and voluntarily disclose to whom and how much and what it's used for? Certainly he's carefully monitoring these things, just like he demands of other celebrities. (I think I once heard him on the TV show say one of the charity's names, but I'm talking about posting all relevant details in writing on the Factor Gear web page)
[ Thu Nov 07, 09:41:23 PM]
Just when Bush is pushing again strongly to make his tax cuts for the rich permanent, we're told that the rich already have gotten a massive tax cut: the ability to evade tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes owed with virtually no fear that the government will come after them. Departing Chief Says I.R.S. Is Losing War on Tax Cheats 
[T]he Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Charles O. Rossotti, says the agency is steadily losing the war with tax cheats, especially the wealthiest and most sophisticated among them.

"The tax system continues to grow in complexity, while the resource base of the I.R.S. is not growing and in real terms is shrinking," he said. "Basically, demands and resources are going in the opposite direction."

The Bush administration, which has yet to name a replacement for Mr. Rossotti, recognizes that tax cheating is widespread but says the I.R.S. is getting the right amount of money in its budget.
Well of course the Bushites won't give the IRS enough manpower and resources to stop the wealthy tax cheats: the wealthy tax cheats are in whose interest the Bushites rule. Astute readers of this site know the cardinal economic maxim that no one can deny: an economic system designed by the wealthy is designed to keep them wealthy if not increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of us. What to do about it? Hint: the answer is NOT to elect more Bushite Republicans, and is ALSO NOT to elect more virtually-equally-corrupt Democrats.

Aside: Don't hold your breath waiting for "man of the people" Bill O'Reilly to devote even one segment to this "Unresolved Problem." He's too busy defending (as he terms them) "the folks" against much more important stuff, like the $100,000 that a city government spent on a Halloween parade.
[ Mon Oct 07, 02:16:43 PM]
Bill O'Reilly always claims to speak for average, working class Americans, yet how many labor leaders -- the people that workers actually themselves choose to represent them -- has he ever had on the program? (9/11-related firemen and policemen excepted). I can't remember one. How many rank-and-file workers as such, discussing issues of importance to them, as opposed to the hot button cultural issues that O'Reilly says they're concerned about? How many segments has he devoted to real labor issues, like the living wage (O'Reilly says he'd raise the minimum wage "a buck," not anywhere near a living wage) or corporate abuse of workers, such as the Walmart scandal, where management forced workers to work overtime off the clock? Sure, he hopped on the Enron bandwagon, but before that scandal broke, and afterwards, how many?
[ Fri Oct 04, 09:52:49 PM]
Again tonight we saw O'Reilly the activist. He gave out the phone number of a radio station whose shock jocks pulled a cruel stunt on a baseball widow, and he also called for a boycott of because it's selling a pro-pedophilia book.

This nightly blatant activism seems to be a qualitatively new addition to O'Reilly's bag of tricks.

I believe what's behind it is that O'Reilly is not now satisfied being merely a talk show host, and that he is setting himself up for bigger and better things. He wants to eventually run for public office (cf. Patrick Buchanan).

My prediction is, O'Reilly will at some point try to run for Governor of New York, and may just win.

Call me crazy....
[ Thu Oct 03, 10:00:18 PM]
Isn't O'Reilly stepping over the line? A talk show host can express opinions, that's the job description. But becoming an activist is another story. O'Reilly has implicitly called for a boycott of Coke over its use of Ludacris as a spokesman, leading Coke to fire Ludacris; he got Snoop Dogg canned from a Muppets movie; O'Reilly is using Fox's legal analyst to help him file a complaint with the California State Bar against the defense lawyers in the Danielle van Dam case; and today he gave out the phone number of one of the Congressmen who criticized Bush while visiting Baghdad, urging his viewers to call and complain. O'Reilly also gave out the phone number of the California Bar ethics hotline and urged viewers to call in to get forms to file complaints on their own. This is highly irresponsible on O'Reilly's part. Thousands of people calling all at once will effectively shut down the switchboard in the Congressman's office and at the ethics hotline. People who have legitimate reasons to call, some perhaps urgent, won't be able to get through. If O'Reilly wants to transform himself from cable talk show host to activist, he needs to do so more responsibly. And isn't there some kind of issue about the Fox News Corporation allowing one of their hosts to use the airways to agitate in favor of causes he espouses?
[ Mon Sep 09, 08:37:30 PM]
I've lost a lot of respect for Phil Donahue. If you have a mass murderer on your program like Oliver North, you have to confront him on it every time. Donahue did not last Friday, even when North bragged about his counter-terrrorism expertise. �Donahue� for Sept. 6

At least Bill O'Reilly when he interviewed North told him that the contras (and Salvadoran government) committed many atrocities. O'Reilly let North slide with an evasive "both sides did bad stuff but it was not contra policy to do so" answer. But at least O'Reilly raised the issue.
[ Tue Sep 03, 08:58:26 PM]
I often bash Bill O'Reilly, but fail to praise him when he does good stuff. That does happen sometimes. Tonight was such a case. He showed this video of CA officers gunning down in cold blood and killing a stopped motorist who had his hands in the air. He interviewed the man's mother and her attorney. O'Reilly promised to follow up tomorrow. No other English media seems to be following the story. Kudos to Bill on this. If you go to his website tomorrow, they may have that interview posted. link

On the other hand, when he arranged for two Saudi women (who had been kidnapped to Saudi Arabia from their US mother when they were babies) to be interviewed by Fox in london, he apparently didn't tell the mother, even though it was his promise to her on an earlier interview that led to the London interview. She bitterly complained tonight, and he said that was because they didn't want to see her. But he should have had the mother in the next room, which would have made it much more likely that they would have decided to see her.


2001-04  All rights reserved