O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tax Rates in Washington Times Op-Ed
7-30-08 -- Today, in a Washington Times op-ed, O'Reilly complains that if President Bush's tax cuts "on those making $250,000 or more" are repealed, me and other rich folks -- who as part of the 1 percent of Americans that paid an astounding 40 percent of all federal income tax in 2006 -- would have to finance "folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, and who smoke reefers 24/7."
For one thing, O'Reilly did not pay 40 percent in federal income tax, the top rate in 2008 for anyone making $357,701 a year (or more) is 35 percent, not 40 percent. The top rate in 2007 for anyone making $349,701 a year (or more) was also 35 percent. The top federal tax rate has been 35 percent since 2004, so when O'Reilly says he paid 40 percent in federal taxes, he is lying. And about a month ago on the Factor, O'Reilly said he was paying 50 percent in taxes, when it's actually 35 percent.
His argument that the richest Americans are overburdened by taxation is crazy. According to Internal Revenue Service data, "the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes."
In fact, "the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1 percent fell to its lowest level in 18 years," allowing the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to garner "the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929." The average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1 percent, based on adjusted gross income, was 22.8 percent, down from 28.9 percent in 1996, and 24 percent in 1988.
Not to mention, In 1964 the top rate was 70 percent, then it was lowered to 50 percent in 1981. So in the last 44 years the top federal tax rate for the richest Americans has dropped 35 percent, from 70 percent to 35 percent. And in the last 27 years the top federal tax rate has dropped 15 percent, from 50 percent to 35 percent. Yet O'Reilly is crying about the taxes he pays, and even lies about the rate he paid in the op-ed, to make it sound worse than it really is.
And what is it with these rich guys crying about taxes, O'Reilly makes roughly $10 million dollars a year from FOX, after taxes he probably clears $6.5 million a year. And yet he complains about it, if I made $10 million a year, and cleared $6.5 million a year, I would sure as hell not complain about it. I would be happy to clear $1 million a year, and yet O'Reilly is crying about clearing $6.5 million dollars a year. Even if the top rate was 50 percent he would still clear $5 million dollars a year, and that's a lot of money.
The average American worker makes $40,000 a year, so he works 20 years to make $800,000, about what O'Reilly makes in one month, and you dont hear that guy complain about how much taxes he pays. Which is 25 percent btw. I bet anyone in the world who makes $40,000 a year (and pays 25 percent in taxes) would gladly change places with O'Reilly, who makes $10 million a year, and pays 35 percent in taxes. I know I would, so O'Reilly should shut up and pay his little 35 percent, and thank his lucky stars he makes that much, because he is over-paid by about $9.9 million.
This about this, O'Reilly makes $10 million dollars a year. But he only pays 10 percent more in taxes than the guy who makes $40,000 dollars a year. So who is getting screwed more, the $40,000 dollars a year guy who pays 25 percent, or the $10 million dollars a year guy who only pays 35 percent. O'Reilly is only paying 10 percent more on $10 million, than the guy who pays 25 percent on $40,000, and he's crying about it. Then he has the nerve to say liberals are the whiners, he should shut the hell up, and pay the damn 35 percent.
In fact, they should tax O'Reilly at 45 percent just for crying about paying so much in taxes, then give the extra money to some homeless people, or a charity that feeds the poor, or something like that.
More News on The CMPA Study
- 7-30-08 -- A war of words over media bias in the presidential race has become at least as fierce as the debate between the candidates themselves. An "On the Media" column Sunday in the L.A. Times on a new study concluding that, since early June, Barack Obama has drawn tougher network television coverage than John McCain, met with a predictable response -- applause from the left and skepticism from the right.
Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Politics, has been scrambling from interview to interview to defend his research, which showed that the three broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC, made more negative statements about Obama than about McCain from June 8 through July 21.
In the past, O'Reilly embraced Lichter's research showing a liberal bias by network news programs. He welcomed Lichter as a truth-teller, for instance, when the communications professor at Virginia's George Mason University -- using the same methodology -- said Democrats were getting more favorable network TV coverage than Republicans in the walk-up to the 2006 midterm election.
But Monday, after The Times reported Lichter's latest findings and the apparent tilt against Obama, O'Reilly told his radio listeners the research was "misleading" and an "enormous mistake."
In 2006, after the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) released a study showing that Democrats got more favorable coverage than Republicans, Bill O'Reilly hailed the organization's president, Dr. Robert Lichter, as "a truth-teller." On his Fox News show, O'Reilly praised Licther's findings as definitive proof "that the media leans left" because "the stats are the stats." [The O'Reilly Factor, 10/31/06]
But now that the CMPA has released a new study -- using the same methodology -- that found ABC, NBC, and CBS have been tougher on Barack Obama than John McCain, O'Reilly has changed his tune about the validity of Lichter's research.
In the Monday interview with Lichter on his radio show, O'Reilly called the new study "misleading" and "an enormous mistake" by Licther. Lichter replied by telling O'Reilly, "you can take all my studies or none of my studies":
O'REILLY: A study like yours gives the bad guys in the media, and they are legion now, protection, you know, they can hide behind it. You see what I'm talking about?Despite O'Reilly's claims that Lichter's "technique" is no longer valid, there's little doubt that he would praise his studies again if they agreed with his position, that there is a "liberal bias" in the media. O'Reilly called him a truth teller when the CMPA studies agreed with him, but when they don't agree with him, suddenly the CMPA studies are misleading, wrong, and a mistake. Even though the CMPA uses the same methodology in all their studies.
LICHTER: Well, I think the answer to that is: You can take all my studies or none of my studies. If you use a study, then you admit that the study is valid, and so if you say Obama's getting bad press, we can quote this study. The same study, the same technique showed he was getting very good press before. And we're going to be doing this all the way up to the election.
What is shows is the bias from Bill O'Reilly, and that his bias is so strong he can not admit he was wrong, when a study put out by a guy he called a truth teller disagrees with him. Instead of admitting he was wrong, he tries to discredit the study because it disagrees with his partisan opinions. O'Reilly can not agree with the study, because he would have to admit he has been lying for months about the so-called liberal media being tougher on McCain, than Obama, as O'Reilly has claimed.
And to this day O'Reilly has not said one word about the CMPA study on the O'Reilly Factor, he only talked about it on his radio show. But if the study had found the media was tougher on McCain (as O'Reilly claims) you can bet the farm he would have done at least one segment on it, if not 2 or 3 segments, as he did when the CMPA study found the media was tougher on Hillary than they were Obama during the Democratic primary.
One last point, the only people trying to discredit the new study are Republicans. Including O'Reilly, yet he claims he is a moderate non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides, but only Republicans dispute the results of the study. So the study not only shows that O'Reilly is a liar about the liberal media bias, and a hypocrite with a double standard, it also shows that he is lying about not being a Republican, because only Republicans are saying the study is flawed.
O'Reilly Bias Shows in The News he Ignores
- 7-30-08 -- There are two kinds of bias, you can have bias in the news you report on, and bias in the news you do not report on. Hardly anyone talks about bias in the news O'Reilly does not report on, and that bias is almost as bad as the bias in the news you do report on. O'Reilly ignores any news that proves he lied, makes a Republican look bad, or makes John McCain look bad. And here is a small sample of big news stories O'Reilly has totally ignored.
-- The CMPA study that shows the media (NBC, ABC, CBS) were tougher on Obama than McCain, it showed that the media was more negative to Obama than they were to McCain, and it was done by a conservative media watchdog group, so O'Reilly can not try to claim it had a liberal bias. So he just ignores the study, and does not report it, even though he has reported on all their past studies. O'Reilly has been saying for months that the media is in the tank for Obama, and yet this study proves him wrong, so he just ignores it like it never came out. That's how it works in the great no spin zone, just pretend you are always right, and when you are proven wrong, just ignore it, and stick your head in the sand.
-- The hate crime story where the conservative went to a liberal church and killed two people, and wounded others. The guy said he wanted to kill ALL the liberals because they are ruining America. They found books by Savage, Hannity, and O'Reilly in his house. And yet not a word about this story on the Factor, ever, in the world of Bill O'Reilly it never happened. And if you only watch O'Reilly for your news you would never know about the story. This is real hate, where people die, influenced by Hannity and O'Reilly who spew out their hate for liberals, then guys like that act on what they say. The great O'Reilly has not said one word about the story, and he never will either.
-- The Republican Senator Ted Stevens indictment story. O'Reilly has not reported the story, he did mention it for 2 seconds in the Pinheads and Patriots segment. But he did not do a segment on the story, and have guests on to discuss it, as he would have if it were a Democrat Senator who was indicted. But he had plenty of time to devote a full segment to guys who hug and play with a lion, and the gay snickers bar commercial that was pulled in England, but he had no time to report on Ted Stevens getting indicted, or the other big news of the day.
-- No mention of the Monica Goodling story. The IG report came out and it said she violated federal law by doing partisan hiring at the Justice Department. One terrorism prosecutor was passed over because his wife was a Democrat, even though he had already got a conviction in one terrorism case, and a junior attorney got his job when they said he was not qualified for it. He got the job because he was a Bush loyalist, and the guy who was actually qualified was pased over for partisan reasons.
-- No mention of any McCain flip flops, or the fact that the oil companies gave him $1.1 million dollars just days after he gave a speech where he flip flopped on offshore drilling. For 20 years McCain has opposed offshore drilling, then suddenly he is for it, then a few days later his campaign gets $1.1 million dollars from the oil companies. Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month--three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May. Yet O'Reilly never said a word about it, but if he were a Democrat it would be a big story for on the factor.
-- Bob Barr is running for President as a Libertarian, but O'Reilly has never said one word about him. Because he does not want to give him any publicity, Bob Barr is a former Republican, and a lot of Republicans agree with him. O'Reilly does not mention his name because he takes votes away from McCain, and O'Reilly wants McCain to win so there is a blackout on Bob Barr on the Factor. But when Ralph Nader ran in 2004, O'Reilly reported on him all the time, frequently and often, with many segments on him, because he took votes away from Kerry. But when a 3rd party candidate runs for President, and takes votes away from the Republican there is no mention of him by O'Reilly, ever.
And no mention of the Phil Gramm resignation from the McCain campaign, not a word. I could go on, but you get the picture. As you can see O'Reilly has as much bias in the news he does not report, as in what he does report. It's called story selection, O'Reilly ignores a lot of real news to talk about guys hugging lions, and gay candy bar commercials being pulled in England. And all the news that is ignored, either proves he lied, makes a Republican look bad, or makes John McCain look bad. But if a Democrat jaywalks it is reported on the Factor, it's bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard.
Great Example of FOX Bias Against Obama
- 7-29-08 -- O'Reilly claims that FOX has no bias against Obama, that it's a fair and balanced news network, and that nobody can show him any bias, so it never happens. But to believe that you have to ignore reality, I can fill a computer hard drive with examples of FOX bias towards a liberal, and Obama. When you never see any of the same bias towards a conservative, or McCain. Here is just one example.
Just two hours after Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, FOX News declares it didn't help him in a new poll that was taken the day before. A little over two hours after Barack Obama's speech in Berlin on Thursday, FOX News anchor, David Asman said this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "YOUR WORLD" THURSDAY)
DAVID ASMAN: No Berlin bounce.
(voice over): An estimated 200,000 people turning out to hear Barack Obama speak in Germany today, but it's the reaction here that really counts, and a FOX News Poll just out shows Obama getting no pop from his overseas trip.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
No Berlin bounce? The FOX poll was taken on Tuesday and Wednesday, before Obama even arrived in Germany on Thursday.
What say you Billy?
That is one of the biggest examples of bias I have ever seen. They (David Asman) declares that Obama had no bounce from his Germany speech, based on a poll that was taken two days before he even gave the speech. How is that possible, explain that to me Billy.
Then yesterday I watched FOX News for a while to see what they were talking about. It was around 3pm cst and Alexis Glick was the fill in for Neil Cavuto, here is what I saw.
I was watching Cavuto's show on FOX, Alexis Glick was the fill in host. They had a segment on average gas prices dropping below $4 a gallon for the first time since May. They said it was great news and wondered why people are still complaining.
Earth to right-wing idiots, they are complaining because it's only down to $3.97, which is still a lot, u morons. It's not like it suddenly dropped to $3.00 a gallon. And at $3.97 a gallon it's still a dollar more a gallon than it was a year ago.
They (Glick and the right-wing Guest) implied that people should love it at $3.97 a gallon and that it's good news, and if you dont like it your just whining liberals. She had Brenda Buttner on to tell everyone how great it is to have $3.97 a gallon gas. Then they did a segment with a right-winger and a Democrat, the right-winger said people should shut up about gas prices because the average price dropped below $4 a gallon.
What a bunch of right-wing idiots, at $3.97 it's still way too high, and barely below $4 a gallon. Not to mention in a lot of places it is still over $4.00 a gallon, and $3.97 is pretty much the same as $4.00, a three cent savings is not gonna help anyone. The FOX anchor was giddy that gas had dropped 12 cents in the last 2 weeks, but they never said a word about how gas prices will go up 12 cents in one day, yet it takes 2 weeks to go down 12 cents.
The most biased part was the next segment when they reported on some so-called media website that accidently listed Obama as the next President, Alexis Glick said it just cost Obama the election.
How in the hell is that gonna cost Obama the election?
She said that because this media website listed Obama as the next president it might just give the election to McCain.
Talk about bias, you have to be the most far right-wing biased person in the world to even imply that. Obama had nothing to do with it, so how does it hurt him, all it does is make the media website look bad, and it will not alter the outcome of the election in any way.
Alexis Glick is an even bigger idiot than O'Reilly. Right there you have 2 examples of bias from FOX against Obama, and that is just a small sample, I could fill this website with stuff just like that, you see it every day on FOX, yet O'Reilly claims they have no bias against Obama, yeah if you ignore reality and pretend it never happened.
Follow Up: O'Reilly Ignores CMPA Media Study
- 7-28-08 -- As expected, O'Reilly totally ignored the study. The CMPA study last week found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. Which is exactly the opposite of what O'Reilly was saying.
O'Reilly did not report on the study because it proves he is wrong, and a liar about the media being in the tank for Obama. And he also did not report it because this study was put out by a right-wing media watchdog group, so O'Reilly can not discredit it by claiming they did a liberal biased study.
It shows that O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing partisan, who ignores anything that proves him wrong, or makes a Republican look bad. He says the media is in the tank for Obama, then after he is proven wrong, he just ignores the study and never says a word about it.
Dan Abrams reported on it, and I will post the transcript in the forums, and write about it here tomorrow. As I predicted O'Reilly ignored the study, because he is a dishonest and partisan fake journalist. When the CMPA does a study O'Reilly likes, he reports on it, and quotes from it. But when they do a study that proves he is wrong, and a liar, O'Reilly ignores it, and never says a word about it. When the CMPA did a study saying the media was harder on Hillary than Obama during the primary, O'Reilly did a full segment on that study, and quoted from it, with guests on to debate it.
Scroll down to read more details on the study, and O'Reilly ignoring it.
More Right-Wing Hate Ignored by O'Reilly
- 7-28-08 -- And this was more than just right-wing hate, two people died, and others were wounded. O'Reilly even claims there is no hate on the right, that it's all on the left. Virtually every night he says the left in this country is filled with hate, and out of control.
And yet, here we have a right-wing nut who went to a liberal church and KILLED people. He said he wanted to kill ALL the liberals who are ruining this country. And guess where he got that information, FOX News, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Ingraham, Limbaugh, etc.
This O'Reilly worshipping right-winger killed 2 people and wounded others. Here are some quotes from the story at knoxnews.com.
Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.And yet O'Reilly ignored this entire story, can you imagine what he would do if a liberal went into a conservative church and shot the place up to kill conservatives. And then they found books written by liberals in his house. O'Reilly would do half the show on it, and probably do follow up shows on the story every night for a week to report on the progress of the story. Then have reports with the progress of the court case for months. But when a conservative shoots up a liberal church O'Reilly says nothing, not a word.
Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical.
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
And that's fair and balanced?
O'Reilly And Ingraham Named Worst Persons in The World
- 7-28-08 -- O'Reilly and Ingraham still deny the Bush administration used torture, and they hammer anyone who dares to tell the truth, in this case it was Barack Obama. Keith Olbermann reported on their lies on friday in worst persons.
OLBERMANN: So, to our joint winners, pumping up the paranoia, Bill-O the clown and side-kick Laura Ingraham---of Obama's speech, he said, trying to rally a cowardly world against terrorism is a good thing. But he called Obama's rhetorical question, will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law his weakest point. So Ingraham says, he got up there in front of 200,000 people and he glommed on one of the most ridiculous, one of the most hateful stereotypes of America, which is that we torture. "The fact that he did that on foreign soil, I think, is absolutely atrocious."
The clown added, I pointed it out. But I feel the way you do. He should absolutely not mention, that's ridiculous.
I'll repeat what I said last week. The crap you guys at Fox used to make up when you were, as Scott McClellan described you tonight, Bush's means of disseminating his talking points, your junk used to be creative and occasionally plausible. Now it just sounds like you're all stoned.
We tortured people. The CIA has admitted to water boarding. We torture people. It's no stereotype. In your name, O'Reilly, in your name, Ingraham, torture done in your names, the same way the terrorists do it.
Bill-O the clown and Laura Ingraham, today's worst persons in the world.
And for the record, George W. Bush admitted that he authorized the use of torture. This is a fact, and the CIA admitted they waterboarded/tortured 3 people, and that is a fact. In April of 2008, ABC News reported Bush knew that Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Tenet met and authorized the use of specific torture techniques on particular prisoners.
Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
As first reported by ABC News, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA. These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects---whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news.
The CIA says it used waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...and that it had only been used on three people, and not for the past five years.
But far right nuts like O'Reilly and Ingraham refuse to admit waterboarding is torture, so they still deny the Bush administration used torture. Even though the rest of America, and the world know they used torture. Waterboarding is listed as torture in the Geneva Conventions, and many years ago the U.S. Government actually prosecuted people for torture, they were found guilty of waterboarding/torturing U.S. citizens.
What happened is, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had Alberto Gonzales (and his politically appointed partisan Justice Department lawyers) write a bogus legal memo saying waterboarding is not torture, and that Bush could authorize waterboarding because they said it was not torture. That's like telling them to write a legal opinion saying it's not illegal to rob a bank, then they rob a bank and say they did nothing illegal, it's just ridiculous. And anyone who buys their bogus legal argument is totally in the tank for the Bush administration, which both O'Reilly and Ingraham are.
If we use that logic, I can hire a lawyer to say it is not illegal to steal a Ferrari, so I can go steal one and claim it's not illegal because my lawyer said so.
Almost every law Professor said that memo is ridiculous, and not valid. Congress makes the laws, and the President can not just have his lawyers write a memo to over-ride the laws, especially when those laws are also in the Geneva Conventions.
Yet O'Reilly and Ingraham still say Bush did not authorize torture on anyone, they call it enhanced interrogation, which is just a softer name for torture. And btw, those are the talking points the white house put out, and O'Reilly and Ingraham quote them word for word, then deny FOX uses white house talking points, where do you think they got the term "Enhanced Interrogation" from, the frigging white house of course.
And that's a no spin zone?
Follow Up: FOX Gets White House Talking Points
- 7-28-08 -- From the July 25th 2008, Countdown with Keith Olbermann show:
OLBERMANN: The truth isn't shocking but the confirmation still is. A former Bush White House press secretary, tonight admits, the administration has used FOX News to spread its talking points.
It is like the moment in the film classic, "Casablanca" when Claude Rains as Captain Renault announces he is shocked to discover "there is gambling going on here" and then Marcel Dalio as the croupier hands him a wad of cash and says, "Your winnings, monsieur"---former White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, tonight confirming what we all suspected but could never prove until now. The Bush administration sent talking points directly to the decision-makers and talent at FOX News Channel.
Rupert Murdoch's TV network is a contractor for U.S. government-issued propaganda.
It is one of those things you kind of assumed to have been true all along, and yet you are shocked when the hard confirmation actually shows up on your door.
Our fourth story tonight: From the former White House press secretary himself, word that the Bush White House routinely sent, and as far as we know, still sends literal talking points to FOX News for its primetime propagandas. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the others spout, as if the ancholic was dummies, as if they had thought of it themselves, as if they had come to those opinions independently, as if there had been a process that was either fair or balanced.
Former Bush secretary, Scott McClellan, appearing this evening on HARDBALL, ripped once and for all, the fig leaf off the FOX News claim of fairness and integrity, ending one would hope forever---the debate over whether a government has really used private media as a propaganda outlet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)OLBERMANN: That Rupert Murdoch put neocons on the air under the leadership of GOP operative Roger Ailes is no secret, but FOX has always maintained with more or less a straight face, that it was striving for some sort of journalistic objectivity.
MCCLELLAN: And certainly, there commentators and other pundits at FOX News that were helpful to the White House. And then certainly, yes, we got talking points to those people.
MATTHEWS: They call Sean, call Bill, call whoever.
Did you do that as a regular thing?
MCCLELLAN: Certainly. It wasn't necessarily something I was doing, but it was something that, we, at the White House, yes, were doing and giving them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.
MATTHEWS: So, you were giving them talking points.
MCCLELLAN: But I would separate the journalists.
MATTHEWS: You were using these commentators as your spokespeople.
MCCLELLAN: Well, certainly. And I mean, and I think that happens to both ways when people go on other networks as well that are favorable towards the Democrats and so forth.
MATTHEWS: Nobody has ever fed me any crap like that. So, I don't know what you're talking about.
MCCLELLAN: Well, you're an independent-minded guy.
MATTHEWS: Thank you. But, aren't you a little embarrassed by the fact that your White House used a television network which is purportedly fair and balanced as your mouthpiece?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think everybody in this town uses people that are going to be helpful to their cause, to try to shape the narratives to their advantage.
MATTHEWS: But a whole network?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I would separate the journalists because the journalists that I worked with were people just like the rest of the White House press corps who were trying to report the news.
MATTHEWS: So, you won't use Brit Hume in some of this sales stuff for but you'd use the night time guys.
MCCLELLAN: Yes, I would separate that out and certainly, you know, and they'll say that's because they agree with those views in the White House.
MATTHEWS: Well, they didn't need a script, though, did they?
MCCLELLAN: Well, probably not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Over the phone tonight, Scott McClellan told us it was done frequently, especially on high-profile issues and COUNTDOWN asked whether FOX ever gave the White House its results. Scott said, "Yes."
We asked the White House about McClellan's statements on HARDBALL, current press secretary, Dana Perino said, quote, "I'm not aware of that" and declined to comment further.
New Media Study Shows That O'Reilly is Wrong About Liberal Bias
- 7-27-08 -- Any bets that O'Reilly never reports on this study. And the best part of this study is that it was put out by a right-wing media watchdog group, so O'Reilly can not discredit it by claiming they did a liberal biased study.
Haters of the mainstream media (O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, etc.) reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week. They said Barack Obama was getting a free ride from the so-called liberals in the media. Such pronouncements, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post, to Politico, to CBS News and more.
And now there is additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed -- with particular venom -- at the big three broadcast networks.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
CMPA was founded by a Republican, him and his wife are President and Vice President of the company. All their funding comes from right-wing foundations, and it is clearly a partisan right-wing media watchdog group. O'Reilly should read this part of the study very carefully, it says the majority of reporting at the big three networks was neutral, that means no bias, yet O'Reilly claims they are clearly biased to the left, when CMPA found they were mostly neutral, and they were more biased against Obama than McCain.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to CMPA.
The center's director, Robert Lichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, many of which O'Reilly has reported and cited, said the facts were the facts. Some conservatives argued that Obama was getting more coverage than McCain so that shows their liberal bias, but Lichter disagreed.
"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," Lichter said.
The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.
What say you Billy?
Obama had less positive statements (28%) than McCain at (43%), and more negative statements (72%) than McCain at (57%), from NBC, ABC, and CBS. And this evidence is coming from a right-wing media watchdog group, so you can not cry liberal bias in the study, as you usually do with any study that disagrees with you. This study flat out calls you a liar, for claiming that the media is in the tank for Obama. When are you and Bernie and Jane going to discuss this study?
What will O'Reilly and Bernie have to say about this, they have been crying for months about how biased the media is for Obama, and now this study proves they were both wrong. Will O'Reilly report on this study and admit he was wrong?
I am guessing this study will never be mentioned on the factor, ever, not by Bill O'Reilly, or anyone, we will see if I am right on Monday. And you can bet the farm, that if this study said the media was biased against McCain more than Obama it would be reported on the Factor on Monday. But since it says the so-called liberal media was more biased against Obama this study will never see the light of day on the all right-wing spin Factor.
And btw, I have been saying for months that the media is more biased against Obama than McCain, disputing the claims of liberal bias in the media for Obama from O'Reilly and Bernie, and this CMPA study proves that I was right. So what does that say about O'Reilly, he has the so-called no spin zone news show and the journalism degree, and I am just a guy with a website and a blog, it turns out I was right, while he was wrong.
Proof That FOX News Gets White House Talking Points
- 7-26-08 -- In December of 2006 O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: when a high profile guy like Dan Rather makes a blatantly untrue assertion about us, I have to deal with it. Here's what Rather said on Bill Maher's program.O'Reilly asserted that Rather "can't back up" his claim, and suggested that Rather was dishonest, and stated that Fox News is "balanced" because the channel employs O'Reilly himself, hosts Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren, as well as analysts Kirsten Powers and Michelle Malkin. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Fox News anchors, contributors, and correspondents routinely forward White House talking points in their own reporting.
RATHER: I think it's fair to say, Bill, in fact I know it is, that FOX News operates in at least a somewhat different way than every other news organization that I know, that they have their "talking points," in which somebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House. And they can say well, we don't always take those talking points, but I think it's pretty clear that they had wished the election had gone another way.
O'REILLY: Well, Mr. Rather's assertions are nonsense, untrue, seriously dopey. I've been here from the beginning, and have never seen a White House "talking points." -- And I don't know anyone else who's seen one either. I asked senior management if they have ever seen a White House talking points. No one had.
And now we have even more proof that Fox News commentators use Talking Points the Bush White House sends them.
On Hardball last night, host Chris Matthews asked former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan if he saw FOX News as a tool to get the White House's message out while he was in the Bush administration. "Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House," replied McClellan, adding that they were given "talking points."
McClellan admitted that the White House used Fox News talking heads as spokespeople with a script.
MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn't use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you'd use some of the nighttime guys?McClellan later told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann that "it was done frequently, especially on high-profile issues" and that Fox often gave the White House its desired results.
MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they'll say, that's because they agree with those views in the White House.
MATTHEWS: Well, they didn't need a script though, did they?
MCCLELLAN: No, well, probably not.
More to come on this story Monday, the question is will O'Reilly report it, and will he admit FOX was getting talking points from the Bush White House. I am guessing he will ignore the story, and not say a word about it. If he does report it, he will deny it is true, and call McClellan a liar.
Reality Check: Myth vs Reality
- 7-25-08 -- You wont see this reported on the factor because it's the real truth, and it would expose the lies and spin from O'Reilly and his right-wing friends who are spinning the story.
Myth - O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media, FOX, Hannity, Rush, Drudge, townhall.com, newsmax.com, etc. have been crying about media bias for Obama because the three major network news anchors accompanied Barack Obama on his current trip overseas and ignored John McCain's trip to Europe.
Reality - Newsweek has reported that John McCain "chose not to take reporters" with him to Europe, thus making the O'Reilly charges baseless. Yesterday during an interview on the UK's Channel 4 News, NBC News anchor Brian Williams confirmed Newsweek's report:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: When Sen Obama comes to Europe and the Middle East -- and in effect the pejorative is summons -- the presenters or anchors from the so called big three over the air broadcast networks in the States and offers interview deals with a varying degree of exclusivity and they all agree to go. There has been no similar offer from the McCain campaign with which we are in touch with constantly.
How can O'Reilly complain about bias from other media sources when he has more bias than any of them, and O'Reilly gets caught lying about reporters only going with Obama, when McCain decided not to take reporters with him. The bias is from Bill O'Reilly, and the lie, he is guilty of bias and lying, and he was caught red handed. Yet he has the nerve to complain about bias, when it was not even there, and he is guilty of more bias than any other journalist in the business, except for maybe Hannity, or Rush.
O'Reilly Does Partisan Hit Job on Democratic Congressman
- 7-25-08 -- Billy's latest innocent victim is Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), who was ambushed by Fox News cameras in the driveway of his suburban Maryland home. O'Reilly even admitted he has a vendetta against the congressman, so he was out to prove that Wexler resides in Rockville, Md., rather than in Florida, where he represents most of south Palm Beach County and parts of north Broward County.
Wexler is upfront about living in Maryland, where he pays property taxes and sends his three children to day school. But he claims his wife's parents home in Palm Beach County as his official residence. He even writes about his living arrangement in his new book.
Not to mention a hell of a lot of Congressman do the exact same thing that Congressman Wexler is doing, they even get housing allowance money from the Government to help them pay to live in or near washington where they work. So it's a standard thing to do what Wexler is doing, and there is nothing illegal about what he is doing. He was only attacked by O'Reilly because he is a Democrat who spoke out about the racism by O'Reilly and FOX, it's basically a revenge attack.
Why don't O'Reilly report on Elizabeth Dole, the Republican, who is allegedly from North Carolina. She only goes home to visit mainly during the election cycle to record her re-election commercials. If one wants proof of residence that the doles don't live there, one need only ask Bob Dole why he can not vote for his own wife in the upcoming North Carolina senate election. The answer is simple, she is a Republican, she does not live in North Carolina, but she represents the Senate for them, yet O'Reilly had no problem with that, and never says a word about her.
After Fox News cameras ambushed Wexler in the driveway of his Maryland home, O'Reilly went on the air Tuesday night and said Wexler is pulling a ruse on his constituents and it doesn't look like he has any tie to Florida at all.
O'Reilly is angry at Wexler, who is Obama's Florida campaign chairman, for sending an email to his supporters encouraging them to sign a MoveOn.org petition accusing Fox News Channel of racism in its coverage of Obama.
O'Reilly even admitted he was attacking Wexler for what he calls his "smear" against Fox, when Wexler is right, and just telling the truth, there is no smear, the only smear is in the warped and biased mind of Bill O'Reilly.
O'REILLY: "The only public person we know that's helping MoveOn smear FOX News is far left Congressman Robert Wexler." "Now last night, we reported Wexler doesn't even live in Florida, using a house owned by his mother-in-law as a phantom residence. Wexler's opponent for his House seat, Edward Lynch, has called for the FBI to investigate. Be that as it may. We are holding Wexler accountable for his smear against FNC."
Wexler responded, accusing O'Reilly of sending cameras to his home for retribution.
WEXLER: "This is simply nothing more than a baseless political attack by my Republican opponent that is being heavily promoted by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel because he is angry with me for sending an email to my supporters criticizing Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly for their offensive and racially tinged coverage of Barack and Michelle Obama," Wexler said in a statement.
Wexler also defended his decision to live in Maryland yet claim his in-laws home as his residence in Delray Beach. "Under all of the relevant factors my place of legal residence is quite clearly and legitimately Florida, including my clear and documented intention to be a Florida resident, my Florida driver's license, my registration to vote in Florida, and the Florida tags on my automobiles," he said.
Not to mention, when George H. W. Bush was Vice President, and President, his legal residence was an empty apartment in Houston, he lived in the Vice President's Mansion, and the White House in Washington. That enabled him to avoid paying any state income taxes in Washington, since Texas does not have a state income tax. So this stuff is done all the time, but you never heard O'Reilly, or any other Republican crying about Bush Sr. making his legal residence an apartment in Houston when he did not live there. It shows the level of right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly, only a partisan right-wing hack would do such a bogus hit job on a Democrat Congressman.
O'Reilly Cries Foul Over Racism Charges
- 7-24-08 -- Last night O'Reilly said the people who claim FOX is guilty of racism are wrong. And he claimed they are just saying FOX is racist to prevent them from going after Obama in any way. O'Reilly said it is a political trick, and that if anyone dares to say FOX is racist he will go after them, and he also said FOX has been fair to Obama and he knows it.
If any of that is true from O'Reilly then why has Obama refused to go on any FOX shows, and why was FOX not invited on the Obama trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. Because Obama knows that FOX is guilty of racism to him, and his wife. To belive O'Reilly you have to ignore reality. There have been many examples of racism at FOX, to Barack Obama, his wife, and other blacks.
O'Reilly himself said this, and I quote: O'REILLY: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."
That is a totally racist statement, no white person should ever use the words lynching party when talking about a black person, in any context, ever.
O'Reilly made another racist statement when talking about a black owned restaurant in New York, and I quote: O'REILLY: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, M-Fer, I want more iced tea. You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
That is a flat out racist statement, O'Reilly is basically saying he was shocked that all the blacks (in black owned restaurants) are not running around all crazy screaming I want more M-Fing iced tea. That is something you would expect to hear from Archie Bunker, not a so-called fair and balanced host of a news show.
And there are more examples of racism at FOX, they referred to Michelle Obama as Baracks baby mama, they called the fist bump between Obama and his wife a terrorist fist jab, they use racial stereotyping, numerous times they have called Obama Osama, and one woman on FOX said Obama should be assissanated, During a live interview, FOX Contributor Liz Trotta wished for the assassination of Sen. Barack Obama.
The incident happen in an exchange with the FOX News anchor. When asked her opinion of the recent scandal surrounding some comments made by Hillary Clinton, which Trotta described by saying that, "some are reading it as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama." Bill Hemmer quickly corrected Trotta, having noticed that she had said "Osama" when she meant "Obama." At this point, Trotta said, "Obama. Well...both if we could!" Trotta then laughed gleefully.
And yet O'Reilly claims there is no racism at FOX, when you can clearly see there is a lot of it, and half of it comes from O'Reilly himself. He likes to speak about clear thinking Americans, well clear thinking Americans see the racism, and they know FOX and O'Reilly are guilty of racism. If none of that is racism, then I'm Elvis. FOX is playing the race card, including O'Reilly, they are trying to fire up their base (that has a lot of white males who are racist) to get out and vote against Obama.
Reality Check: O'Reilly says anyone who claims they are racist, are nothing but race baitors. This is done so they can continue the racist attacks on Obama, it's a diversion trick. O'Reilly denies the racism, then attacks the people who call them on their racism, then he says he will go after them for being race baitors. So they can continue the racism, and claim it's not racism, and claim that it's just a few race baitors trying to stop them from criticizing Obama. When it's clearly racism, from O'Reilly, and FOX News.
And O'Reilly has not been fair to Obama, he reports nightly on everything Obama says, while ignoring McCain like he's not even alive, let alone running for president.
O'Reilly Ignores All Negative John McCain News
- 7-22-08 -- If Obama sneezes the wrong way it's a 2 segment a night, week long story on the Factor, but if the Senior Economic McCain Advisor resigns for making a stupid statement, it's not reported on the Factor. If McCain says Iraq is on the Pakistan border, it's not reported on the Factor. And this is the #1 show on FOX, it's a so-called news show, yet all of this news about John McCain is ignored, and it's even called a no spin zone, when it's all spin.
Last friday Phil Gramm, who messed up Republican John McCain's economic message with his remarks about America suffering a "mental recession" and turning into a "nation of whiners," has left his official post in McCain's campaign. Gramm has been a co-chairman, a top economic adviser and a spokesman for McCain on economics.
Yet O'Reilly has totally ignored the story and not reported a word about it. Can you imagine how many segments O'Reilly would do if the Obama top economic advisor resigned, it would be a nightly story with multiple segments for a week, if not two weeks. But over a week later he still has time to do a segment on Jesse Jackson using the N-word, which is a story that died a long time ago with the real journalists.
O'Reilly also mentioned the McCain segment on Good Morning America, but he ignored the biggest story from the segment. Today on Good Morning America, John McCain refused to call the situation in Afghanistan "precarious or urgent," but admitted that "We have a lot of work to do." He warned of a "very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border."
Of course, Iraq is nowhere near Pakistan. In fact, Baghdad -- the capital of Iraq -- is over 1,500 miles from Pakistan's capital of Islamabad. Afghanistan and Iran are on the border with Pakistan, the closest Iraq border is over 750 miles away, and not even close to Pakistan.
John McCain claims to be a foreign policy expert, and yet he does not even know that Iraq is not on the border with Pakistan. If Obama made that same mistake O'Reilly and FOX News would report on it 24/7 for a week, and they would say it shows that Obama has no foreign policy experience so he should not be president. But when John McCain does it they say nothing, especially O'Reilly. Then he claims he is fair to Obama, if that's fair I'm Newt Gingrich.
So on the Factor the only John McCain news you will get is when it's positive news, you will never see any negative news reported about John McCain, ever. O'Reilly complains about the media bias for Obama, when he has a bias for McCain. Which is the exact same thing he complains about, it's the ultimate hypocrisy, and a massive double standard, not to mention a violation of the rules of journalism.
O'Reilly Makes Worst Person in The World (Again)
- 7-21-08 -- On friday July 18th, Keith Olbermann busted O'Reilly for his spin on gas use.
OLBERMANN: That's next, but first time for COUNTDOWN's number two story, tonight's worst persons in the world. Our runner-up tonight, Bill-O the clown. Remember when he invented an imaginary publication called the "Paris Business Review" to verify that he had personally cost France billions of dollars during a Bill-O boycott?What happened is a few weeks ago, O'Reilly called for people to cut back on gas use, and he said that on the Factor. Now that gas use is down 3 percent and oil supplies are up, O'Reilly is taking credit for it. The problem with that is he only has 2.2 million viewers a night, 3.2 million is you count the 11pm re-run. And we have 300 million people in America, that means at best 3 million people knew he said it, which is roughly 1 percent of the population.
The Frank Burns of news is off on another big league delusion of grandeur. "First of all," he begins a segment, "thank you. I asked Americans to cut back energy use, and you guys rose up big. According to the Energy Department, oil supplies have risen three billion barrels in the last month, while experts predicted a significant drop in supply because of the summer driving season."
Billy thinks people tune in every night for instructions. Now, the problem you created for yourself here, sir, is that now if the price of a gallon of gas stays more or less the same or it goes up, it's your ass.
That means 99 percent of the population did not even know he called for people to use less gas. So it is impossible for him to take credit for something when only 1 percent of the population even knew he called for less gas use. The reason gas use is down, and oil supplies are up is simple. Gas hit $4.00 a gallon, so people are driving less to save money, it's that simple, and it has nothing to do with Bill O'Reilly.
That would be like me telling my website visitors to use less gas, and they do, then gas use goes down and oil supplies go up, and then I take credit for it. It's insane, you can not take credit for something when only 1 percent of the population even know about it. Yet O'Reilly did, which just shows how crazy he really is. And btw, there is no Paris Business Review, O'Reilly just made it up, and imports from France actually went up after he said his boycott was working.
More Massive O'Reilly Bias & Right Wing Spin Exposed
- 7-16-08 -- Tonight O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to explain how Obama is a flip flopper, but there was nobody on to explain how John McCain is 100 times more of a flip flopper than Obama, just look at the list below, O'Reilly never has anyone on to talk about all the McCain flip flops. How is that fair and balanced, where is the segment on the McCain flip flops, not on the Factor, ever.
O'Reilly also claims the media is in the tank for Obama, especially NBC and MSNBC, O'Reilly says they love Obama and never say one bad word about him. But to believe that you have to ignore reality, when the Pastor Wright story broke, MSNBC covered it for weeks on end 24/7, maybe even more than FOX did.
Then 2 days ago on Monday we saw more evidence that O'Reilly is crazy, and just wrong about NBC and MSNBC. On the July 14th edition of MSNBC Live, MSNBC aired four segments, between 9 a.m. and noon, without the presence of a Democrat.
Republican strategists and conservatives debated how to best attack Sen. Barack Obama. In each of the segments, MSNBC ran the same four on-screen texts, reading: "Republicans confused about how to attack Barack Obama"; "Republicans label Obama a serial flip-flopper"; "McCain campaign: 'Nobody knows what Barack Obama truly believes' "; and "Obama's limited service record a challenge to Republicans."
During one of the segments, Republican strategist and MSNBC political analyst Joe Watkins made false and misleading claims about Sen. John McCain's positions on taxes and immigration that went unchallenged. At no point during the day did MSNBC host Democratic strategists, without the presence of a Republican, to discuss how to attack John McCain.
It was 4 hours straight of nothing but Obama bashing with all conservatives, here are four screen captures taken during the biased one sided segment:
If MSNBC is in the tank for Obama they sure have a funny way of showing it, running four segments on MSNBC, during which only Republican strategists and conservatives debated how to best attack Barack Obama is something I would expect to see on FOX. Not on a news network that O'Reilly claims is totally in the tank for Obama. So as you can clearly see with your own eyes, O'Reilly is lying.
You can read the transcripts of the four biased and one sided MSNBC segments here:
O'Reilly Ignores Massive McCain Flip Flop Listing
- 7-14-08 -- In 2004 when John Kerry ran for President he flip flopped on a couple issues, then FOX, Oreilly, Hannity, etc. hammered him for months on end, and labeled Kerry a flip-flopper. Then I see this very long list of John McCain's flip flops, the listing was posted in my forum on June 30th, and it was also sent to Bill O'Reilly by e-mail, and yet to this day O'Reilly has not mentioned any of it.
Look at the list, then ask yourself if Bill O'Reilly is fair to both sides as he claims how come he never mentions any of McCain's flip flops, and how come he does not label McCain a flip-flopper as he did to John Kerry, especially when McCain has 10 times more flip flops then Kerry did.
1) McCain supported the offshore drilling moratorium; now he's against it.
2) McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
3) McCain thought Bush's warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
4) McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
5) McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.
6) McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
7) He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
8) McCain said he would "not impose a litmus test on any nominee." He used to promise the opposite.
9) McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration's warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
10) McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
11) McCain supported moving "towards normalization of relations" with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
12) McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
13) McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
14) He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party's policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
15) McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn't.
16) He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn't.
17) McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn't.
18) McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "read my lips" candidate, no new taxes, no matter what, referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, I'm not making a "read my lips" statement, in that I will not raise taxes.
19) McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
20) In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61 per-pack tax increase, he won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired a former Philip Morris lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
21) McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
22) McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
23) McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
24) McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
25) McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
26) McCain's first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn't be "rewarded" for acting "irresponsibly." His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
27) McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
28) In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
29) McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
30) McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants kids who graduate from high school. Now he's against it.
31) On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
32) In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving feedback on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
33) McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."
34) McCain said he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld's failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."
35) McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, to saying the exact opposite.
36) McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
37) McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks.
38) McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts, saying the majority of the tax cuts went to the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
39) On a related note, in 2005 he said that he opposed the tax cuts because they were "too tilted to the wealthy." By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
40) In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for violating campaign finance law. In April of 2008, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
41) McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
42) McCain opposed the holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., then recently decided to support it.
43) McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University, then he campaigned there.
44) McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.
45) McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
46) McCain decided in 2000 that he didn't want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he "would taint the image of the Straight Talk Express." Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
47) McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for the Republican Party. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to consult with Norquist.
48) McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, then caved to Republican Party demands, and now supports torture.
49) McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won't back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
50) McCain is now both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
O'Reilly Caught in Lie About Katrina And Oil Spills
- 7-11-08 -- What a shocker, Bily caught lying again, haha, not.
While discussing offshore oil drilling with a caller on the Wednesday July 9 edition The Radio Factor, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: You have to have a sane environmental policy when it's 25 miles offshore that no one'll see and you've got technology that will prevent pollution." He added, "Remember when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana. So we have the technology. And in Norway, which is one of the most green countries in the world, they drill offshore, and it's a self-sufficient country now."
There is one problem with that statement, Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 oil spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 5,552 barrels of oil, including 27 spills from platforms and rigs that resulted in the spilling of approximately 2,843 barrels of petroleum.
O'Reilly is spewing out right-wing talking points, Mike Huckabee said that when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico. And Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) said on MSNBC that "there wasn't a drop" of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane Katrina. They are all lying, Huckabee, Burr, and O'Reilly.
According to a 2007 report by the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 5,552 barrels of oil and petroleum products, including 27 spills from platforms and rigs that resulted in the spilling of approximately 2,843 barrels of petroleum.
The report included a chart of oil spill statistics for damage to outer continental shelf (OCS) structures related to Hurricane Katrina. But O'Reilly never reported any of that, and he left his listeners with the impression that no oil was spilled from Katrina, when in fact there were 70 oil spills with 5,552 barrels of oil spilled, and 2,483 barrels of gas spilled.
O'Reilly implies that those spills never happened, and that there was no pollution, just because the spills did not make it to shore does not mean there was no pollution. When you dump 5,552 barrels of oil and 2,843 barrels of gas into the ocean you are polluting it, whether it makes it to shore or not.
O'Reilly Does So-Called Reality Check Segment
- 7-11-08 -- Then lies and distorts reality, so when will he do a reality check on himself. O'Reilly said that Barack Obama advocated bi-lingual schools in his statement. Which is not true, Obama said American students should learn to speak spanish so they can compete with students from other countries that usually speak two or three languages. Obama did not call for schools to have bi-lingual school policy, as O'Reilly claimed. What O'Reilly did was a partial cherry pick of his comments and then he misrepresented what Obama said.
Obama was encouraging bi-lingual students and adults to learn another language so they can compete with other countries. O'Reilly made it seem like Obama was suggesting children should learn Spanish to make it easier for Latino kids and challenging the public school policy.
Then O'Reilly said www.moveon.org has a petition about racism at the FOX News Network, and he got that wrong too. The petition is from Brave New Films, they have a video and a petition, and it's about FOX smearing Michelle Obama, www.moveon.org is only promoting the petition on their website.
So O'Reilly got it wrong on both counts, I guess he should call the Reality Check segment, his version of truth and reality, because it's not the truth, or the reality. And just a couple days ago Billy said the NY Times put a horn on him, when that was a lie too, does he ever tell the truth.
John McCain News You Will Never See on The Factor
- 7-11-08 -- You will not see this reported on the Factor, because O'Reilly never reports anything negative about John McCain, in fact, he barely even mentions him, he is too busy attacking Obama for most of the hour every night.
Yesterday John McCain participated in a town hall meeting in Wisconsin. During the discussion, he claimed that he is a strong supporter of equal pay for women and other workers:
McCain: We haven't done enough. We have not done enough. And I'm committed to making sure that there's equal pay for equal work. That there is equal opportunity in every aspect of our society. And that is my record and you can count on it.
In fact, McCain is committed to just the opposite. In April, he skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have rectified the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear "that made it much harder for women and other workers to pursue pay discrimination claims."
In that case, she lost because they ruled she filed her claim past the 2 year limitation, but she never found out men were making more than she was (for doing the same job) until after 2 years had went by, so it was impossible for her to report it within 2 years because she never found out she was being discriminated against until more than 2 years after it happened.
McCain thinks that is ok, as do most Republicans, because they all voted against it. And that very same day, McCain said that if he had been in the Senate, he would have voted against it because the bill "opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems." He also dismissed the importance of equal pay, saying that women simply need more education and training:
McCain: They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else, McCain said. And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.
The issue is not "education and training." When denied equal pay by her supervisor, Lilly Ledbetter was doing the exact same job as her male counterparts and received numerous performance-based awards.
In 2000, McCain also opposed an amendment aimed at providing "more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex." In 1985, McCain voted against a study to investigate pay differences among federal employees and determine whether they were the result of discrimination.
And in May of this year, McCain told a 14-year-old girl that equal pay and legislation such as Ledbetter bill don't do "anything to help the rights of women."
O'Reilly Lies About NY Times Putting Horn on His Cartoon Like Image
- 7-9-08 -- On the 7-7-08 Factor O'Reilly responded to the controversy over Fox & Friends airing of altered photos of two New York Times staffers by criticizing The New York Times. He compared the photo of Times reporter Jacques Steinberg, which Fox & Friends did not indicate was distorted, to what was clearly an illustration of O'Reilly published by the Times book review page in January 2007.
O'REILLY: Well, some folks at the Times are outraged, as are the far-left loons at Media Matters. Now, this is rich, because here are the caricatures The New York Times used of me when they slashed my book, Culture Warrior. Nice images...you notice the horn in there? Isn't that nice?
Which is ridiculous on it's face because Fox & Friends altered a real photo of the guy, and did not say it was an altered photo. Here are the images in question:
And now remember this, whenever a liberal tries to justify bad behavior by a Democrat with the same bad behavior by a Republican, O'Reilly cuts them off and says you can not justify one bad thing done by someone with another bad thing done by someone else. Which is exactly what he is doing by defending Fox & Friends, he is trying to justify their photoshop hit job on the NY Times reporter by pointing to an illustration of O'Reilly done by the Times, talk about hypocrisy.
And Fox & Friends photoshopped a real picture of the guy, without telling their viewers the photo was altered. The Times illustration was like a cartoon, it was not a real photo, and there is no horn, The illustration includes little dialog bubbles, like in comic books, with pointy parts of the bubbles aimed at O'Reilly's mouth. Earth to the king of liars, that is no fricking horn you idiot, it's the pointy part of the text bubble they use on cartoons. Only a lying right-wing idiot would claim it's a horn to make the Times look bad, when it's not a horn and everyone can clearly see that.
And the NY Times did not put that illustration out, the person who wrote the book review did, not the actual paper. The Times illustration is by no stretch a caricature of O'Reilly, it is a series of straightforward renderings of O'Reilly as he looks on camera. Which is a hell of a lot different than altering a real photo of a guy with photoshop tricks to make him look like a freak.
O'Reilly Spinning The Media And The Decline of America
- 7-8-08 -- Billy claims the media is out to help Obama win, and says that America is not in decline. Is this the same media that spent 24/7 on the Pastor Wright story for 6 weeks, is this the same media that calls every statement Obama makes a flip flop, even when it's not a flip flop, is this the same media that takes every word Obama and his wife Michelle say and criticize them aftet taking it out of context, or misrepresenting what they said or meant.
Is that the media Billy is talking about?
It's crazy to say the media wants Obama to win, they hammer every word he says and never say a word about McCain and his flip flops, McCain has flipped and flopped on virtually every issue there is, and the media says nothing. If they media wants anyone to win it's John McCain, yet O'Reilly claims they want Obama to win.
Note to Billy: The media is helping McCain, not Obama, do you even watch the media? Dan Abrams calls him teflon John, and he even does a segment on how the media gives McCain a pass on everything.
O'Reilly claims the media is saying America is in decline to make the Republicans look bad, and to get Obama elected. Then at the end of his talking points memo he said America is not in decline. Earth to Billy, America is in decline, and you are a right-wing fool. The rest of the world hates us, the housing market has crashed, gas is $4 a gallon and rising, the stock market is crashing, food prices are going through the roof, jobs are down more than 400,000 just this year, wages are down, the dollar is at an all time low, the war in Iraq is draining our Government of $8 billion dollars a month that could be spent here, not to mention the 4000+ brave soldiers who lost their lives to fight a needless Bush/Cheney war, and on and on.
America may not be in decline for you sitting in your mansion in New York, but it is for the rest of us out here in real America. The Bush administration policies have led to disaster, and yet you claim there is no decline and that it's a conspiracy from the media to get Obama elected. Talk about propaganda and drinking the kool-aid, you are the king of denial, propaganda, and drinking the right-wing kool-aid.
Bush and the Republicans have us where we are, they have run the country for 8 years, yet you don't blame them for any of it. When they have had the power for 8 years, and they got us in this mess. And now you want everyone to vote for McCain, when he will just continue the failed Bush policies that got us in this mess, are you crazy? Talk about biased partisan propaganda, the entire O'Reilly Factor is one big right-wing political ad, the message is liberals are bad, conservatives are good. Guess what, it's not gonna work Billy, the people have seen the light, and they are not going to vote for McCain.
O'Reilly Ignores GI Bill Passing
- 7-1-08 -- O'Reilly is off for the week so he had another right-wing fill in (John Kasich) on to put out his Republican propaganda for him. Then yesterday Bush signed the new GI Bill into law. But if you watch the O'Reilly Factor for your news you would not know anything. The fill in never mentioned it, and they never told you that it passed the Senate with a 95 to 2 vote, and that McCain never voted for it.
They also never told you that Bush was opposed to the bill, and so was John McCain, they both opposed it. And they never told you of the massive hypocrisy in Bush signing the bill then taking credit for getting it passed, and giving credit to John McCain when he was opposed to it, and did not vote for it.
Yesterday, President Bush signed legislation that included Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill. In his signing speech, Bush praised himself and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for "working hard" to pass the legislation:
Bush: The bill is a result of close collaboration between my administration and members of both parties on Capitol Hill. I want to thank members who worked hard for the GI Bill expansion, especially Senators Webb and Warner, Graham, Burr, and McCain.
In reality, Bush and McCain "worked hard" to block the GI Bill. As Webb countered yesterday on MSNBC's Countdown, "Neither of them really did get on board."
"I think it's safe to say there was a good deal of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. It just didn't include the administration," Webb said.
It's total Republican hypocrisy, and it all went un-reported on the Factor. Senator Webb (DEMOCRAT) created the Bill, then Bush and McCain opposed it, then after it passed the Senate 95 to 2 suddenly they now support it and they take credit for it, when they did not support it, and they opposed it the whole time.
And O'Reilly has ignored the GI Bill story for 4 months, after he reported it, and said he would do everything in his power to help get it passed. But he only started ignoring it after he found out Bush and McCain opposed the bill. This not only shows what lying hypocrites Bush, McCain, and O'Reilly are, it shows that they all put partisan politics ahead of getting the GI Bill passed. Then after they know it's going to pass with a veto-proof margin suddenly these lying hypocrites support it, and then take credit for passing it.
They basically put partisan politics ahead of helping the troops. All of them, Bush, McCain, and O'Reilly, and in my opinion all three of them are the lowest forms of life on earth.
Bill O'Reilly Violates 25 Rules of Ethics in Journalism
- 6-29-08 -- The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics page that all Journalists should follow, I went through their listings and counted all the violations by Bill O'Reilly. Below is a listing of all the rules O'Reilly violates on a daily basis.
1) Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
2) Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
3) Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
4) Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
5) Never distort the content of news photos or video.
6) Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
7) Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
8) Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
9) Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
10) Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
11) Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone?s privacy.
12) Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
13) Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
14) Balance a criminal suspect?s fair trial rights with the public?s right to be informed.
15) Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
16) Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
17) Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
18) Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
19) Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
20) Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
21) Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money.
22) Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
23) Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
24) Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
25) Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
When Will O'Reilly Report Norquist Racial Slur
- 6-28-08 -- Eight days ago in Jacksonville, Florida, Barack Obama predicted to a crowd of supporters that he would soon face race-based attacks from the right:
They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black.
O'Reilly and Ingraham, and a lot of other Conservatives reported on the Obama statement. They said it was ridiculous and called it race baiting. Ignoring the fact that Republicans are already attacking him over his race. With the Obama sock puppet, and the button that said will we still call it the white house if Obama is the next president. And the new one that has Grover Norquist calling him Kerry with a tan.
O'Reilly has ignored all these stories to claim there is no attack on his race, and then calls Obama a race baiter. When O'Reilly is being dishonest, he ignores all the racial attacks by not reporting them, then he claims Obama is just trying to protect himself from racial attacks in the future, when he is already being attacked for his race, O'Reilly just don't report it. The Norquist statement happened 8 days ago, and O'Reilly never reported it one time.
After Obama made his statement in Florida, conservatives immediately criticized Obama for injecting race into the campaign. A host of television pundits (including O'Reilly) who did a whole segment on it, and claimed Obama was playing the "politics of fear" by race baiting.
Grover Norquist -- an influential supporter of John McCain, did exactly what Obama predicted would happen, making a reference to Obama's skin color:
Norquist dropped by The Times Washington bureau and, as part of his negative critique of Obama's liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry with a tan."
Will those conservatives who attacked Obama for race baiting now acknowledge the validity of his concerns. Don't bet on it, I am guessing O'Reilly will continue to ignore the racial attacks, and then claim Obama is a race baiter for pointing them out. Because Bill O'Reilly is a biased, right-wing, partisan hack of a pretend Journalist, who has ignored all the racial attacks on Obama. Because Billy wants John McCain to be the next president, then he cries about other bias in the media for Obama. When he is 10 times more biased for McCain than any of them, can you spell hypocrisy.
A Real Journalism Show (Hosted by a Bill) Was on Tonight
- 6-27-08 -- And it was not The O'Reilly Factor, it was Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. O'Reilly had a Republican fill in host, and he was probably home at the Factor mansion using massive amounts of energy watching his big screen TV. Bill Moyers Journal was on, and he did a report on chicken processing plants. He reported how workers are getting hurt in these plants and the company does not report it, or under reports them, by 50 percent or more. They showed how these people get hurt on the job and they keep working due to fear of being fired.
Some people get hurt and they are taken to the hospital, then the managers make them go back to the plant, even if all they can do is sit in the office or push a broom. This is done so they can avoid listing it in the books as a lost time accident. Then the company can claim they have a good safety record because very few injuries ever get listed in the books.
And the Government safety agency OSHA lets them get away with this crap because in 2001 Bush had the rules for reporting changed, and made sure the Republicans in Congress blocked the new ergonomic laws from passing.
In fact, in March of 2001 (one month after taking office) Bush signed into law a repeal of Clinton administration regulations that set new workplace ergonomic rules to combat repetitive stress injuries. Moyers also reported that the number of Inspections of these chicken plants has dropped as much as 90 percent.
At one plant OSHA Inspections dropped from 36 a year in 2000 to 1 in 2006 under the Bush administration. The head of OSHA, who had been there for 20+ years even testified to Congress that OSHA is worthless now in protecting the American workers, which is what their job is supposed to be. When the Bush administration found out he was going to testify they tried to stop him and he said he will testify anyway.
So they put him on administrative leave and he testified, as a private citizen, with his attorney sitting behind him at the hearing. All during this real Journalism report (from a real Journalist) I was thinking, when was the last time O'Reilly did a report on worker safety, and how the Government is letting companies hurt these workers and not report it with few to no Inspections of the workplace.
The answer is never. I have watched the Factor for 8 years now, virtually every night, and I have not seen one worker safety story from O'Reilly, none, ever, not one. Yet he claims to be looking out for you, the little guy. When it looks more like he is looking out for Bush and the Republicans and he could not give a damn about the American worker. The same American worker who is the backbone of the economy and who makes this country so great. It suddenly hit me that O'Reilly has never done a workplace safety story in the history of the Factor.
So in reality Billy don't give a crap about the American worker, all he cares about is making Bush look good, by ignoring the story, and the lack of workplace safety enforcement or inspections, and getting cheap chickens to market so he can eat a cheap chicken dinner. If O'Reilly was really looking out for you he would do a worker safety story once in a while, at least one, but I can not remember one story about worker safety, or the lack of inspections, or the lack or reporting injuries, ever.
It just shows what the difference is between Bill Moyers and Bill O'Reilly, Moyers is a real journalist who does real stories about real American workers, and O'Reilly is a biased fraud of a partisan hack who does stories about tabloid garbage like kids dirty dancing at a school dance, or young girls who take topless photos, or a gay mayonnaise commercial in England.
Just watch Bill Moyers Journal on friday nights, and see what they report on, and how good their reporting is, then compare it to what O'Reilly reports on, it's like night and day. And O'Reilly wonders why he never wins a Peabody or a Polk, just look at the garbage he reports, and the real news he ignores.
The O'Reilly Factor is a biased Republican all spin zone with garbage reporting, and he will never win a Journalism award. Because of the content of his show, not because their are a few liberals on the Peabody board. They give a Peabody to a Republican if they earn it, the problem is O'Reilly has never earned it, and never will, because he is not a Journalist. And btw, last night O'Reilly said there are 12 people on the Peabody board. WRONG, there are 16 people on the Peabody board, O'Reilly claims to be a Journalist and he can't even count.
O'REILLY: You may have heard about the Peabody Award, the prestigious prize given by the University of Georgia to journalists. Seems every few minutes our pal Bill Moyers wins one of those. And we're very happy for him. So happy, in fact, that we looked into the political leanings of the Peabody board. Interesting. There are ten liberals on it, two conservatives. Sounds like Newsweek magazine. Horace Newcomb, the director of the Peabody deal, and a Democrat himself, says he's not concerned. Nor are we, because we're sure the judging is...fair and balanced. Party on, Peabody guys.
What's really funny is O'Reilly talking about someone not being fair and balanced, when he is the most biased (so-called) Journalist in the business. Note to Billy: People in glass houses should not throw stones, especially when you live in the biggest glass house in America.
Go Look at the link below, then ask yourself how O'Reilly can call himself a Journalist, when he can't even get the number of members on the Peabody board right. And he says that 10 of them are liberal, that means 6 are conservatives, yet O'Reilly said only 2 were conservatives, when he reported last night it was a 12 member board. And remember this, O'Reilly decided the 10 were liberal, and he is a Republican, so that evaluation by him is worthless.
The Real Pinhead is Bill O'Reilly
- 6-26-08 -- In pinheads and patriots Monday night O'Reilly named Al Gore a pinhead for his so-called overuse of energy. Question: Do you think Bill O'Reilly buys the power for his mansion from green power sources? I know Al Gore does, so who is the pinhead, and who is the patriot. Who is the right-wing spin doctor, and who has awards for his work on fighting global warming. I think we know the answers to these questions.
On the Monday 6-24-08 Factor Billy said this:
On the pinhead front, hello, Al Gore. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research says the former vice president is still using a massive amount of energy at his Tennessee mansion -- more than 20 times the national average.Haha that's really funny Billy, not.
The research group also says Mr. Gore has made about $100 million on his global warming projects. So it looks like Gore is a pinhead, but we would like to hear his side of things. He has an open invitation to appear on "The Factor."
We are energy concerned here. Candles are lighting me right now.
And now for the no spin information O'Reilly never told you. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) is a biased right-wing group, and nothing they say has any credibility, only right-wing partisans cite them as a source for anything.
Belmont University graduate Drew Johnson serves as the TCPR president, he also worked for groups like the National Taxpayers Union and the American Enterprise Institute. The NTU is a biased far-right anti-tax group who is funded by the Philip Morris Tabacco Company. AEI is a well known biased far-right think tank in Washington.
How many Republican Mansions do they check for power use, answer, none. I would bet Rupert Murdoch uses a lot of power, but they do not report on his power use. On the TCPR links page they have links to The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, etc. and they are all biased right-wing groups.
Discussing TCPR claims, O'Reilly said he'd "like to hear Gore's side of things," but he ignored Gore's response to TCPR. So Gore has explained his power use, O'Reilly just failed to mention that, or tell you what he said, which is a failure of Journalism 101.
O'Reilly stated: "So it looks like Gore is a pinhead, but we would like to hear his side of things. And he has an open invitation to appear on the Factor." But at no point did O'Reilly mention that Gore has given "his side of things" in response to a June 17, TCPR press release on the subject of Gore's purported energy use.
And O'Reilly never reported any of this:
-- In a June 18 article, The Tennessean newspaper reported that, "When the Gores do use power, it's green power."All of this is well known information, and available to anyone with google and a computer. And yet Bill O'Reilly ignored it all, to dishonestly report that Al Gore uses too much power, and he used the far-right biased TCPR to do it, which makes him a far-right lying propagandist idiot. It makes Al Gore a good American for using green power, and it makes O'Reilly the pinhead for lying and spinning right-wing garbage from a bogus right-wing group to make Al Gore look bad.
-- A day later, The Tennessean newspaper reported: "Gore's utility bills are actually DOWN by 40 percent.
-- The group (TCPR), didn't include the former vice president's gas bill in this round of press release claptrap, as it did last year. That bill has gone down 90 percent.
-- And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas."
-- In 2007, it was reported that Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology."
-- As The Tennessean further reported on June 18. According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which partners with the Nashville Electric Service and other local energy distributors to provide green power. "The Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service's Green Power Switch program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas."