Showing Bias by Ignoring News
8-24-07 -- Bill O'Reilly shows his right-wing bias by ignoring big news stories that make Republicans look bad, he just ignores them as if they never happened. This is an example of bias by not reporting news. While at the same time if a Democrat gets a speeding ticket O'Reilly reports on it.
From the lack of coverage on the mine disaster, to the lack of coverage on the NY Times op-ed by the 7 U.S. soldiers, to the lack of coverage on the foreign policy expert report, to the lack of coverage on the Republican Senator being investigated by the FBI and the IRS, to the lack of coverage on Iraq, to the lack of coverage of the new NIE report, and on and on.
Bill O'Reilly is trying to help Republicans win elections and re-elections by ignoring any bad news about them. At the same time he is trying to cause Democrats to lose elections and re-elections by smearing them with lies and right-wing propaganda.
Billy is no different than Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. They do nothing but spin, lie, and put out right-wing propaganda and talking points, as if they were all working from the same playbook.
Just yesterday it was reported that a newly formed non-profit organisation made up of former Bush administration officials is spending $15 million to run pro-war television and radio ads in more than 20 states that falsely link the 9/11 attacks to the war in Iraq.
Yet O'Reilly never says a word, even though it is 100% right-wing propaganda. That story and other stories like it are never reported on the factor, ever, not a word. This is 100% right-wing bias by ignoring real news. It is also big time hypocrisy from Billy, and the FOX News network. Billy hammered Senator Dodd claiming he was putting out left-wing propaganda, when all he did was quote O'Reilly with his own words.
But when a group of neo-con Bush Republicans spend $15 million dollars to put out 100% Nazi type propaganda Billy says nothing, not a word, and he calls that a no spin zone. I call it nothing but spin and lies and an all spin zone.
More Proof O'Reilly is a Biased Republican
8-22-07 -- When the two Bush stooges Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon wrote an op-ed in the NY Times in support of the troop surge in Iraq, O'Reilly did a segment on it, and praised it as a great piece that shows what is really happening in Iraq.
But when seven infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division, who are in Iraq right now write an op-ed in the NY Times that disagrees with Pollack and O'Hanlon O'Reilly does not say a word about it. These are soldiers in Iraq, they detail the conditions there, yet Billy totally ignores it.
Who are you going to believe, partisan political hacks who support Bush, or actual troops on the ground who are in Iraq. Read what they write then compare that to what the Bush supporters say about the real conditions on the ground in Iraq.
The War as We Saw It
By Army specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, Sergeant Wesley D. Smith, Sergeant Jeremy Roebuck, Sergeant Omar Mora, Sergeant Edward Sandmeier, Staff Sergeant Yance T. Gray and Staff Sergeant Jeremy A. Murphy
Published: August 19, 2007 in the NY Times
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Read the rest here: www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
Then ask yourself why Bill O'Reilly is only giving you one side of the story, he cherry picks NY Times op-ed articles to spin the truth. And how can Billy criticize the rest of the media for bias when he is doing it himself. O'Reilly is trying to spin the surge and the Iraq war for Bush and the Republicans, then he has the nerve to criticize the rest of the media for their coverage of Iraq. It's called partisan right-wing bias from Billy, and big time hypocrisy.
O'Reilly And FOX News ignoring The Real Story in The Utah Mine Collapse
8-18-07 -- Billy says he is looking out for you, the little guy. He crusades as the man on a mission to protect you, yet he says nothing about the real story in the Utah mine collapse. In fact, O'Reilly has barely covered the story at all, he has pretty much ignored it.
The real story is about a Republican mine owner who fights against all safety regulations and laws. A mine owner who donated over $100,000 to Republicans in the Senate, and who donated over $700,000 to the Republican party. This money bought him Senators and Congressman who would vote against, or block Congress from passing new mine safety laws.
Murray knows how to buy influence. He is a big-time donor to the Republican Party, personally donating over $115,000 to Republican candidates over the past three election cycles and another $724,500 to the GOP over 10 years through political action committees connected to his businesses. He brandished that clout in 2003,, threatening the job of MSHA district manager Tim Thompson, who ordered him to shut down one of his Ohio operations. "I will have your jobs," he said. And in fact, Thompson was transferred to another office and retired in 2006.
Murray's scorn for safety has resulted in the MSHA citing his mines for thousands of safety violations, and calling for him to pay millions in fines. Crandall Canyon had been issued 324 citations by federal officials, with 107 said to be "significant and substantial," or likely to cause harm.
The other part of the story is the federal mine safety agency called MSHA, who lets the mine owners do whatever they want to make as much profit as possible, and to hell with safety. The head of MSHA is Richard Stickler, a former coal company executive with a lousy safety record, who was deemed so unfit for the post by Republican and Democratic senators alike that they wouldn't confirm him. So Bush appointed him on October 2006 when the Congress was in recess.
Does anyone (other than me) have a problem with president Bush making a former coal company executive the head of the federal Governments mine safety agency? Dont you think a mine safety expert should be in that job, I sure as hell do. It's like the FOX guarding the henhouse.
The story of the mine disaster is simple, it should have never happened. The mine owner donates money to Republicans in Congress, they let him ignore safety, Bush makes a recess appointment and puts the FOX in charge of guarding the henhouse. The Salt Lake Tribune has a copy of a memo that shows the mine was unstable and that they had a bump in March, that forced the closure of that part of the mine. Yet MSHA let them keep mining other parts of the mine, and even approved retreat mining, after another part of the mine had the bump.
The people at FOX News like O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, Cavuto, Greta, etc. never said a word about any of it, not a word, they totally ignored it all.
The reporters at FOX are partly to blame for the miners who died because they put out propaganda and prop up these Republicans, and that helps them get elected and re-elected. Then they block (or vote against) new mine safety laws that could save lives, and the Bush recess appointed stooge approves dangerous and unsafe retreat mining plans that lead to miners getting killed.
If Billy is looking out for you, how come he never reported on any of this information. Go to the Salt Lake Tribune website and read the articles, it is all there, they are the paper of record on this story, they are doing real journalism. Read these articles, you will then be informed, and you will see the real story on the mine accident, the story you are not getting from O'Reilly or anyone at FOX News.
Memo Shows Mine Already Had Roof Problems in March
Critics Blast Feds Approval of Controversial 'Retreat' Mining at Crandall Canyon
Murray's Illinois Mine Had 2,787 Violations Since 2005
On TV And Before Congress, Murray Railed Against More Safety Regulations
Scientists: Collapse Caused Tremor
The Utah Mine Disaster: Don't Call It an Accident
'What's Wrong with America?'
It Shouldn't Have Taken the Deaths of Three Miners to Get the Media to Focus on Mine Safety
Ask yourself why neither Bill O'Reilly, or anyone at FOX News is reporting any of that information. Then ask yourself why you watch the Factor, and FOX News, when they ignore the real story to prop up Republicans who let people die to make more profits.
Olbermann Nails Billy For Gay Rights Endorsment Poll Lies
8-17-07 -- Our winner, BillO.
Well he's done it again, making stuff up. "A new poll says that most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group. What is that poll? Pew Research or something like that?" Oops again. The Pew Research Center has taken no such poll.
O'Reilly is referring to a Quinnipiac poll from a week ago of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, not a national poll. Its question 18 reads, "If a presidential candidate is supported by gay rights groups, does that make you more likely to vote for that candidate, less likely to vote for that candidate or does it make a difference?"
The combined response in those three states -- 30 percent said it made them less likely to vote for the candidate; 10 percent said it made them more likely to vote for the candidate; 58 percent said it made no difference.
So when you said, "a new poll says most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group," but the poll actually shows that less than one-third think that way.
Is it the truth that you hate, Bill? Or is it just the math? Pew, Quinnipiac, what's the difference? Peabody, Polk, loofah, whatever.
Bill O'Reilly, today's Worst Person in the World.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20319064/
The King of Liars Just Keeps Lying And Lying
8-16-07 -- Tonight on the no-news factor Billy repeated the lie that everyone on the left is opposed to the NSA wiretapping program. He told Steve Emerson that the left would do away with the NSA wiretapping program because they do not want to wiretap American citizens.
That is a lie, it's a total lie. I am as far left as it gets, and I support the NSA wiretapping program, I repeat, I support the NSA wiretapping program. I do not know one person on the left who does not support it, and I challenge anyone to show me one person on the left who opposes it, name them, show me, e-mail their name to me. I visit a liberal message board with over 100,000 members every day, and not one person there is opposed to the NSA program, not one.
Here is the real cold hard truth, people on the left (myself included) support the NSA wiretapping program, we only oppose the president doing it without going through the FISA court and getting a warrant. What we want is for Bush (or any other president) even a Democrat president, to get a warrant from the FISA court, that is all we want.
We do not oppose the NSA wiretapping program, nobody does, we just want it done legally, by getting the proper warrants from the FISA court so there is a check and balance on the president, be it Republican or Democrat president.
How hard is that to understand, it's very simple, yet Billy keeps lying and saying the left is opposed to the NSA wiretapping program, it is a total lie from Bill O'Reilly, not one person on the left is opposed to the program.
Kirsten Powers Has Zero Credibility
8-16-07 -- I sent an e-mail to Kirsten Powers about the lie from Billy about the gay rights endorsment poll. I showed her the actual poll, and the results, and I told her she needs to go back on the factor and correct the record, and show that Billy lied his ass off about the poll.
But I am sad to say she twisted my words around to misrepresent what I said to her. She basically refused to correct the record, so it looks like she is a lost cause, and that she will continue to kiss Billy's ass just to be on tv. She chose fame, dishonesty, and ass kissing, over integrity and journalistic honesty.
You can read my e-mails to her, and her reply to me in my forums. It looks like instead of being a real journalist with some integrity, Kirsten will continue to kiss Billy's ass so she can stay on the show. I have now lost all respect I had for her, what little that was, which was not much to begin with.
When informed of the direct lies about the poll from Billy, she refused to correct the record, so her name is now mud, and her credibility is zero. When someone who knows a person directly lied to them, and they are told the truth, and then they still refuse to correct the record they have lost all credibility.
Lies, Lies, Lies, More Lies From Billy
8-15-07 -- During the August 7, 2007 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, after playing a clip of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards asserting that "Fox News has a clear and long history of bias against Democrats," O'Reilly responded that "John Edwards has been on the Fox News Channel 33 times," and that, in reviewing those interviews, "not once could I find anything insulting, demeaning, or disrespectful to the senator."
It's all lies, every word.
On the June 8 edition of Your World, in response to host Neil Cavuto's false claim that Edwards used the controversy surrounding celebrity heiress Paris Hilton's recent jail sentence to accentuate his "Two Americas" campaign theme, O'Reilly referred to him as "the biggest phony in the world."
On the August 3 edition of The John Gibson Show, the program's executive producer, "Angry Rich," claimed that Edwards "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick." He also went on to call him "a fraud" and "a pansy." Host John Gibson referred to Edwards as "the Breck Girl," "Silky," and "the biggest fraud running for president."
And that is maybe 1% of the insults I listed against John edwards, and Democrats by O'Reilly and other employees at FOX news. Yet Billy said he could not find any examples of anyone at FOX ever saying anything demeaning or insulting to the Senator. I am one person with a home computer, and I found them, so surely Billy who makes $10 million a year with a staff of 15 people could find them.
O'Reilly Caught LYING About Gay Rights Poll
8-14-07 -- Billy lied his ass off last night when he said most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay-rights group. That is a total 100% Bill O'Reilly LIE, he flat out lied about the poll, and the results of the poll.
O'Reilly said that according to some poll, "Pew Research or something like that," "Most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay-rights group."
WRONG, he was lying, and btw it's a Quinnipiac poll. It looks like he did not mention the correct poll name because he knew that if he did people would go read the poll and see he was lying.
And as far as the people not voting for you if you get an endorsement by a gay-rights group, that is not true, just read this.
In Ohio, 10 percent say the endorsement of a gay rights group would make them more likely to support a candidate while 34 percent say less likely and 54 percent say it would make no difference.
In Pennsylvania, 11 percent say it would make them more likely, with 28 percent saying less likely and 59 percent saying it would make no difference.
Among Florida voters, 10 percent say more likely, while 28 percent are less likely and 60 percent say it would make no difference.
www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089
The winner is no difference, 60% in Florida, 59% in Pennsylvania, and 54% in Ohio.
Billy said the winner was less likely, which is a lie, and he knew it. This is a perfect example of dishonest partisan journalism from Bill O'Reilly. He knowingly lied about a poll.
I want O'Reilly factor viewers to now tell me how Billy is an honest journalist. When 60% say it makes no difference, and 28% say less likely, how in the hell can Billy claim MOST Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay-rights group.
And if Kirsten Powers does not go on the factor and correct the record on the poll, her credibility will be zero. So everyone should watch the factor tonight and see if she corrects the record. I will update this blog entry and let people know if she corrects the record or not.
O'Reilly Called Liberal Bloggers Blackmailers
8-11-07 -- Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it's not blackmail, it's called Democracy, and the people voicing their opinions to the politicians they elected, and who represent them.
But he never called Republican bloggers blackmailers when they do the exact same thing. The problem Billy has is liberals doing it, but he has no problem with conservatives doing it. Show me one time where O'Reilly called conservative bloggers blackmailers, for doing nothing more than telling their elected officials what they want.
Which is how a Democracy is supposed to work. Yet somehow Billy has a problem with the people who vote these officials into office telling them what they want them to do, and how to represent them.
In The Gettysburg Address President Abraham Lincoln said this:
"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
But O'Reilly calls it blackmail, when it's people getting active in the political process, which is how Democracy is supposed to work. The people tell the politicians, that they elect, and who represent them, what they want.
Billy only has a problem with liberals doing it, when this is what the founding fathers wanted. They wanted the people to have the power and the elected officials are supposed to represent the will of the people.
Billy calls that blackmail, everyone else calls it Democracy.
How in the hell does this commie have a tv news show, he is opposed to Democracy. And he calls people that form a grassroots community on the internet blackmailers, he should be put in jail for slander and for opposing Democracy.
O'REILLY: Yeah, maybe they do, but it's just a stupid issue. Bloggers threatening -- you know, what people don't understand is that these Internet bloggers give messages to these candidates: "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will trash you and try to interfere with your fundraising."
Well, they can rally all they want, but they're not going to do anything as far as the main election is concerned. But I think it's a danger to have blackmailers, which is what these bloggers are, active in the political process.
Bill O'Reilly is a Biased Right-Wing Fake Journalist
8-10-07 -- Billy screams bloody murder about bias in the media, he even devotes an entire segment to media bias with Bernie Goldberg and Jane Hall. Yet he is one of the most biased so-called journalists in all of the media.
O'Reilly praised the op-ed in the NY Times by O'Hanlon and Pollack that said the surge was working and we might just win the war in Iraq. Yet he totally ignored the report from Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who went to Iraq with Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.
Not a word about his report from Billy on the factor. So he does not practice what he preaches, he does exactly what he complains about the rest of the media doing, only giving one side of the issue. A real journalist would have reported on both reports, not just the one that agrees with him.
O'Reilly did not do that, three men went to Iraq, all experts on foreign policy, yet Billy only reports what the two men who agree with him said.
This is classic political bias, and there is no way Billy can complain about media bias when he does it himself. It's called dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Cordesman, has revealed that he differs with his esteemed colleagues. And he's released a report on his views of the trip and what's going on in Iraq. Here is part of his report.
Everyone sees Iraq differently. As one leading US official in Iraq put it, "the current situation is like playing three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you." It is scarcely surprising that my perceptions of a recent trip to Iraq are different from that of two of my traveling companions and those of several other recent think tank travelers to the country.
From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq's future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence.
It is Iraqis that will shape Iraq's ability or inability to rise above its current sectarian and ethnic conflicts, to redefine Iraq's politics and methods of governance, establish some level of stability and security, and move towards a path of economic recovery and development. So far, Iraq's national government has failed to act at the rate necessary to move the country forward or give American military action political meaning.
And that is not just the opinion of one man, a study by the U.S. Air Force agrees with Cordesman, yet Billy never says a word about the Cordesman report or the Air Force Study. He only gives his viewers one side of the story, the side he agrees with.
Air Force Study on Iraq
A US withdrawal from Iraq may be "impossible to resist" unless violence against civilians falls substantially, a new study funded by the Air Force warns.
The US commitment to Iraq should not be open ended. If US forces cannot reduce the violence in Iraq, their continued presence and the further expenditure of US treasure and lives will prove unsustainable, even if their presence is achieving other objectives, the study said.
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070808/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqmilitarystudy
Not to mention these headline stories you can read about at www.dissentisterror.com that were totally ignored by Bill O'Reilly.
8-9-07 - Roadside Bomb Attacks in Iraq Reach an All-Time High
8-9-07 - REPORT: 'The Next Few Months' On Iraq That Never End
8-8-07 - 2,000 Iraqis Flee Homes Every Day to Escape Death's Shadow
8-6-07 - 190,000 Weapons Given to Iraqi Security Forces Are Missing
8-5-07 - Death Tolls in Iraq Questionable
Funny how Billy never reports on any of that information.
DailyKos Founder Speaks About Blogs And O'Reilly
8-5-07 -- Last night in Chicago DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga offered a stirring defense of the progressive blogosphere. He said the real reason people like O'Reilly don't like him or the liberal bloggers. Because they are not in the back pocket of the advertisers, or the Bush administration, or a political party. They can tell the people the truth and say whatever they want.
Unlike O'Reilly and other so-called mainstream journalists. O'Reilly is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, his corporate sponsors, and the Republican party. So all you get from him is the corporate line and right-wing propaganda. Bloggers like Kos, Atrios, me, etc. can tell it like it is because we have the freedom to do so under the 1st amendment of the constitution.
People like O'Reilly want us to shut up, and have tried to shut us up, which is un-American btw. Because we cut through their corporate/right-wing spin and show you their bias, their lies, their dishonesty, and their hypocrisy. They want to silence us because we take their own words, using video clips or transcripts, or both sometimes, and hang them with their own words.
Billy calls that hate, and smearing him. Yet how is it hate to repeat a persons own words to show they are spinning or lying. It's not, O'Reilly has re-defined hate, in his world anyone who criticizes Bush or Bill O'Reilly, or anyone on the right is a hater, which is ridiculous. Billy points out things people on the left do wrong every night, or what he believes are wrong to him, and nobody on the left calls that hate. But if a liberal blogger does exactly what O'Reilly does, but he does it to someone on the right, O'Reilly calls that hate, and smearing them.
If O'Reilly says Barbara Boxer is a nut for the way she voted on a bill, Billy says that is not hate, and he denies saying it, even though we have it on video and the transcript. But if I call Bush a nut for the way Bush is running the war in Iraq somehow in O'Reillyworld I am a hater. It's dishonest, and a double standard. Then O'Reilly wonders why the left has so much anger towards people on the right, like him.
Earth to Billy, when you call us un-American traitors for doing nothing more than telling the truth about you or Bush or another Republican you make us mad. When I use my free speech rights to voice my opinion about my Government and I am called an un-American traitor it is the worst thing you could ever say, and it pisses me off more than anything. I suggest to you that it is un-American to call people who dissent un-American traitors, and people like you (Bill O'Reilly) are the real traitors for blindly supporting a corrupt president and a bad policy in Iraq.
I do not hate America, I love America. What I do not like is the corrupt Bush administration and the Republicans who cover for them because they are in the Republican party. They put politics ahead of the will of the people, that is what I do not like. Republicans in the Senate and the House speak out against the war, yet when the vote comes up to bring the troops home they vote against it, even when 70% of the people want the troops home.
I support the troops, they are all heroes to me, I am a real troop supporter, because I know they are being killed for nothing, and I want them to come home so they are not killed and wounded in an un-needed war. O'Reilly don't like Kos and other liberal bloggers like me because we tell the truth, and we expose the lies and spin, and the real reason he hates us is because he can't stand us exposing his hypocrisy, his bias, and his double standards.
O'Reilly Lied About Joe Biden And YearlyKos
8-3-07 -- This statement was posted on 7-31-07 at the DailyKos blog, by Luis Navarro, Joe Bidens Campaign Manager.
Recently, Bill O'Reilly made some reckless comments about our campaign and why Joe Biden won't be attending the YearlyKos convention in Chicago.
"What is significant is that this website and the others mentioned have intimidated the entire Democratic presidential field with the exception of Joseph Biden, who will not go to that convention. And we respect the senator for that."
-- Bill O'Reilly on FOX News, "The O'Reilly Factor" (July 30, 2007)
This is a total misrepresentation.
And it's not the first time O'Reilly has tried to do this to Joe Biden.
The simple truth is Joe Biden would be at YearlyKos if he could, but adding a book tour to all the demands of a campaign meant some things had to change. But we won't stand by and let Bill O'Reilly try to drive a wedge between the progressive online community and us to make a false point on behalf of his half-baked theories.
While not always agreeing with all members of the DailyKos community, Joe Biden respects what the YearlyKos convention - a diverse assembly of activists and organizations - represents as a vehicle for progressives to organize and advocate on behalf of democratic ideals and the Democratic Party.
The main thing we are united on is that we must end this war in Iraq. I hope you'll take a look at Joe Biden's plan, the only comprehensive political solution offered by any Democratic candidate to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Our campaign has never shied away from using new technologies and new media to engage voters in this election season. Just last week, we responded via YouTube to Rudy Giuliani and his hollow rhetoric about Republicans and national security - an important moment for candidates directly engaging each other in an open dialogue.
And anybody who watched the YouTube debate knows Joe Biden is up for a direct conversation with the American people.
We look forward to participating in YearlyKos next year and working with the progressive online community to take back the White House in 2008.
Luis Navarro
Joe Biden for President
Campaign Manager
Stand With Senator Dodd in Support of The Netroots
8-3-07 -- Last night, Senator Dodd appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" to stand up to its host, Bill O'Reilly, for his unfair attacks on progressive bloggers. O'Reilly has spent the last two weeks smearing a Democratic blog, DailyKos.com, as well as Democrats who are attending the Yearly Kos conference. Senator Dodd is going on to defend free speech and make clear that he will be proudly attending Yearly Kos.
Unlike O'Reilly, Chris Dodd knows the difference between representative comments and ones cherry picked with a hostile agenda. He has the conviction to stand with his friends online and stand up to O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly isn't used to someone stepping in to do the right thing. He isn't used to someone putting their foot down and saying, "Enough is enough."
Will you stand with Chris Dodd in his defense of the netroots?
Sign up below now!
action.chrisdodd.com/t/41/signUp
Miracle Alert: Billy Actually Reported on Hate at FreeRepublic.com
8-1-07 -- FreeRepublic.com has been online for 11 years spewing their right-wing hate, yet last night was the first time their website was ever mentioned on the O'Reilly factor.
Billy found some hate quotes on their site and reported them, but he had a spokesman from freerepublic.com on to explain them. Yet when he attacked DailyKos he did not invite a spokesman on to explain their comments.
He did not even touch the thousands of offensive and hateful captions they put on pics of liberals like Hillary etc, or how they do the freeper pings to rig online polls or any of that dishonest activity.
And freerepublic.com has been online since 1996 saying and doing that crap, yet it is the first time Billy has ever reported anything on their website, or even mentioned their name. And the one report he did on freerepublic.com is nothing compared to what he has done to DailyKos for 2 weeks now.
Not to mention we all know Billy only reported on freerepublic.com because he was being flooded with e-mails telling him about hate on the right and how he is ignoring it.
I made a big posting here yesterday morning showing some right-wing hate at freerepublic.com on Hillary, and i said if Billy had an ounce of journalistic honesty he would report on it. Then low and behold he does a report on them that very same day, what a coincidence, lol.
JimRob from freerepublic claims Billy took the quotes out of context, and he says they were statements made in articles posted, not comments made by members of freerepublic. Which is what Billy screams bloody murder about when he claims people do it to him. Except usually when they do it to Billy it was not taken out of context, he just says they did.
The members of freerepublic.com are claiming that O'Reilly attempted to use what might turn out to be one post in a million to paint the entire site as a hate site and their posters as racists.
Which is exactly what Billy did to DailyKos, he cherry picked 1 or 2 comments (out of millions of comments) made in the free speech comments section of the site and tried to claim they represent the views of the blog owners. When they are comments made by visitors to the site, not the blog owners. It is disingenuous and dishonest reporting, you can not cherry pick comments from visitors in the free speech comments section to a website and claim they represent the views of the site owner(s).
I do have to say that the comments Billy used were nothing compared to what I have seen posted at freerepublic.com over the years. I used to visit their website once or twice a week to see what they were saying, and I have seen hundreds of things posted there that were far worse than what Billy reported last night.
I reported on this at freerepublic.com in 2001, yet not a word about it from Billy, or anyone at FOX news.
Conclusive Proof That Freepers Rig Online Polls
www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/freeperlies.htm
And I could fill a phone book with examples of vile and offensive profanity filled comments Republicans have made in the past forums I had, and in the hate mail I get. None of that is ever mentioned by O'Reilly, just read my hate mail pages on the website and the forums and you will see some big time hate, far worse than anything posted at DailyKos. Yet Billy calls Kos a hate site, when freerepublic.com and the Republicans who send me hate mail are 10 times worse than anything said at Kos.
One last thing, it is important to note that Billy does not tell you there is a very big difference between the freerepublic.com message boards, and the DailyKos Blog.
At freerepublic.com you have to register a username to post new topics or reply to topics posted by other members. All postings and replies are made by members of freerepublic.com, you can see the number of postings they have made and it shows how long they have posted there. It is a giant message board, not a blog.
DailyKos is a blog, and you do not have to register a username and become a member to post comments. The members of the blog post articles and usually add a one or two paragraph personal opinion to what the article is about. Then visitors to the blog click the comments link and leave a comment, they are not members of DailyKos, and you can leave a comment as anonymous if you want to. The comments are free speech made by people who visit the blog, and the blog does not censor or edit those comments.
That is a big difference that Billy never disclosed, one website is a message board with monitors called moderators, and registered members who post and reply to the postings. The other website is a blog with a free speech comments program that lets any visitor to the site leave a comment.
So if you have a long time member of a message board website who has 1000 postings, or more, and they were caught making offensive comments, you can bet they have done it in the past and they were not banned and had their account deleted.
That shows that the owner of the website and the moderators basically support what that person has been saying. But when you have a blog with a free speech comments section where anyone on the internet can leave a comment. That does not imply the blog owners support what was said, it just shows they believe in free speech. And that is a big difference between the two websites that Billy did not disclose or discuss.