More Proof O'Reilly Spins Anti War Views

  • 5-29-07 -- When anyone on the left speaks out against the War in Iraq Billy calls them un-American traitors who hate America. He does numerous segments on it to show that the left in America are haters. What O'Reilly does is make it look like only the far left is against the war. When many Republicans are also against the war, yet Billy never reports what they say.

    Even though that is just right-wing spin, a lot of people believe it. And the left does not hate America, they only hate George W. Bush. Billy spins opposing Bush into hating America. Funny how he did not spin opposing Clinton into hating America when the Republicans opposed everything Bill Clinton did.

    Here is an article from 5-27-07, it was published in the International Herald Tribune. They talked to a Conservative Republican from Texas who is the leader of Delta Company. This is no liberal, he is a Conservative Republican, yet you will never hear his story on the factor. Because that does not fit the agenda of Bill O'Reilly. His agenda is to make everyone think only the far left oppose the war in Iraq. Read what Sergeant David Safstrom says, then ask yourself why you never see any of this reported on the factor.

    With allies in enemy ranks, GIs in Iraq are no longer true believers

    Staff Sergeant David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.

    "In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place," he said. "There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome."

    But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

    "I thought, 'What are we doing here? Why are we still here?' " said Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. "We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."

    His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.

    With few reliable surveys of soldiers' attitudes, it is impossible to simply extrapolate from the small number of soldiers in Delta Company. But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.

    They had seen shadowy militia commanders installed as Iraqi Army officers, they said, had come under increasing attack from roadside bombs - planted within sight of Iraqi Army checkpoints - and had fought against Iraqi soldiers whom they thought were their allies.

    "In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war," said Sergeant First Class David Moore, a self-described "conservative Texas Republican" and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. "Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me."

    In Safstrom's view, the American presence is futile. "If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy," he said. "It would go straight into a civil war. That's how it feels, like we're putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here."

    oreilly-sucks.com owner: When a liberal says exactly what Sergeant Sasftrom said above, Billy calls them America haters who want us to lose in Iraq. Yet when a Republicans says it Billy is silent. And remember that when Billy came back from Iraq he said 90% of the troops he talked to supported the war. When here we have a Delta Company Sergeant saying 95% of his guys oppose the war. Who do you believe, Billy or the Delta Company Sergeant in Iraq.

    Their many deployments have added to the strain. After spending six months in Iraq, the soldiers of Delta Company had been home for only 24 hours last December when the news came. "Change your plans," they recall being told. "We're going back to Iraq."

    Nineteen days later, just after Christmas, Captain Douglas Rogers and the men of Delta Company were on their way to Khadimiya, a Shiite enclave of about 300,000. As part of the so-called surge of American troops, their primary mission was to maintain stability in the area and to prepare the Iraqi Army and police to take control of the neighborhood.

    "I thought it would not be long before we could just stay on our base and act as a quick-reaction force," said the barrel-chested Rogers of San Antonio, Texas. "The Iraqi security forces would step up." It has not worked out that way.

    O'Reilly Ignored Story of Republican Who Took Bombs to Protest

  • 5-28-07 -- Billy says there is no radical-right in America. And if anyone has an example of it send it to him and he will report it, haha, fat chance. I don't know about you, but I think taking bombs to a funeral protest is pretty radical. Billy has ignored this story, not a word about it on the factor, nothing, zip, zilch, nada. Can you imagine what he would say if a Liberal took bombs to a protest by the conservatives.

    Billy also ignores the far right pro-life groups who call people who shoot and kill abortion doctors heros. These people are far right religious nuts who kill abortion doctors. They are worshipped on all the pro life right-wing religious websites, yet Billy never says a word about any of them. Somehow he can not find anyone who is radical right in America, even though there are 844 active hate groups in America, and the vast majority of these hate groups are right-wing hate groups, as listed by the southern poverty law center.

    Recently Billy covered a protest where liberals were calling religious right conservatives names. He made a big deal about it, even though there was no violence, just a peacful protest that the constitution gives them a right to do. Billy did not like it, and he said no conservatives do anything like that.

    Yeah, they do much worse. They take bombs to a funeral service protest.

    Hey Billy, report this you hypocrite.

    Liberty U. student arrested over 'napalm-like' bombs

    5-22-07 -- A small group of protesters gathered near the funeral services to criticize Jerry Falwell.

    During the protest, Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

    The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent.

    www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3201543

    Example of How Conservatives Claim The Media is Liberal

  • 5-23-07 -- Here is a great example of how Conservatives like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. claim the media is liberal. Basically they lie to you.

    Earlier this month, the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer had a segment with far-right radio talk show host Melanie Morgan and VoteVets chairman Jon Soltz. Morgan turned the segment into an unwatchable shouting match.

    Viewers contacted the station's ombudsman and called Morgan's appearance on the NewHour a "dilution of the integrity" of PBS; one viewer asked, "Who in the world thought she would be a rational voice to counter Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org?" In response, NewsHour Executive Producer Linda Winslow promised that "you will never see her on our program again."

    So last night on Hannity and Colmes, Morgan accused PBS of "censorship," saying that the network "has a blatant anti-conservative bias. They don't want to hear a proud pro American, pro-troop point of view. They've clearly demonstrated that in the past. I think PBS should be ashamed of itself."

    And now for the facts. PBS did not ban all conservatives, they only banned her. Because she is a loud mouth far right idiot who screams and yells so nobody else can be heard. And to prove she is a liar, a study published last fall found that from October 2005 to March 2006, "Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1," and "'stay the course' sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1."

    O'Reilly does the exact same thing. He will cherry pick one isolated example of liberal bias in a newspaper, or on a cable news show. Then report that example as proof there is a liberal bias. When I could find 2 or 3 examples of conservative bias from the same source for every 1 example O'Reilly found. But he does not report the examples of conservative bias, so he leaves the false impression that news source has a liberal bias.

    Billy does it with MSNBC. They have one liberal, Keith Olbermann, and many conservatives, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and Tucker Carlson. Yet O'Reilly said they are a liberal news network with no conservatives. He is lying, plain and simple, Joe, Tucker, and Pat are all conservatives. Dont just believe me, watch them and decide for yourself.

    billoreilly.com is Stealing Web Hits From Michael Moore

  • 5-19-07 -- People looking for information on Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko, may not find what they are looking for.

    If you type sickomovie.com or sickofilm.com into your web browser it takes you directly to billoreilly.com.

    Billy must have told his people to buy those domain names then put a re-direct code on them to send people to billoreilly.com.

    This does 3 things, all unethical. It gets more hits for billoreilly.com from people who are looking for more information on the Michael Moore movie, it gets billoreilly.com hits from people who would never visit his right-wing propaganda website, and it keeps Michael Moore from using those domain names for his movie.

    In The All Republican Spin Zone a 2.2 Rating is Bombing, But a 2.4 is Not

  • 5-18-07 -- And a 2.2 rating is only bombing if it's a Democratic debate on MSNBC, if it's a 2.4 rating for a Republican debate on FOX somehow that's not bombing to Billy.

    On May 9, 2007 Billy said this in his most ridiculous item of the day:
    Last week, ABC News beat NBC News by the largest margin in nearly two years, as Charles Gibson is really hammering Brian Williams.

    And a new Gallup poll explains why: While Mr. Gibson enjoys strong approval ratings across the ideological spectrum, Mr. Williams has lost the confidence of many traditional conservative news watchers. That's because NBC News has moved sharply to the left, especially on its cable channels. It's no accident that their presidential debate bombed in the ratings as most Americans want a fair playing field.
    Billy said the Democratic Presidential debate on MSNBC "bombed in the ratings" because most Americans want a level playing field.

    But the ratings were almost the same for the Republican debates on FOX. The Republican debate on FOX had 2.4 million total viewers, the Democratic debate on MSNBC had 2.2 million total viewers. So in Billy's world 2.2 million is bombing, but 2.4 million is not?

    And the Democratic debates on MSNBC actually had more viewers in the 25-54 demo. So MSNBC had higher ratings than FOX for the Democratic debate in the key 25-54 demo, yet Billy never said a word about that.

    The Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC had 2.2M total viewers with 806,000 viewers in the 25-54 demo.

    The Republican presidential debate on FOX had 2.4M total viewers with 663,000 viewers in the 25-54 demo.

    O'Reilly Misrepresented an Old And Outdated Gen. McCaffrey Iraq Report

  • 5-14-07 -- Billy wrote this on Friday, May 11th.
    FOX News has obtained this memo by General Barry McCaffrey, an adjunct professor of International Affairs at West Point and former drug czar under President Clinton. The general also does some TV commentary and has been very critical of the Iraq War. So his thoughts on where we are right now are interesting.

    Summing up his eight page analysis, Gen. McCaffrey says this: "We have brilliant military and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq. Our cause is just. The consequence of failure will be severe. The American people hold that the U.S. Armed Forces are the most trusted institution in our society. The polls also show that domestic opinion is not calling for precipitous withdrawal.

    "However, this whole Iraq operation is on the edge of prevailing as the poor Iraqis batter each other to death with our forces caught in the middle.

    "We now need a last powerful effort to provide to U.S. leaders on the ground ? the political support, economic reconstruction resources, and military strength it takes to succeed."

    Now, I doubt you'll see the general's memo in The New York Times or any other left wing media. For them, the Iraq War is over. And the Republicans lost it, so let's all vote for the Democrats in 2008.
    Whoa, hold on there Billy. Lets leave the right-wing world of fraud and spin and come back to reality.

    O'Reilly says FOX News has obtained his 8 page memo, he said that on 5-11-07, but the report was made on 3-28-07, that's 6 weeks ago, and FOX is just now getting it?

    Billy says General McCaffrey has been critical of the war, which is not exactly true. In 2005, he concluded in a similar report that "momentum is now clearly with the Iraqi government and coalition security forces." In a 2006 assessment, he wrote: "It was very encouraging for me to see the progress achieved in the past year." McCaffrey has also met twice with President Bush to discuss the war, most recently in December of 2006, so he is a Bush advisor. Hardly the critic O'Reilly claims he is.

    McCaffrey has been critical of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the Iraqi government, but not so much the Iraq war. Billy paints a picture of McCaffrey as a war critic who suddenly changed his mind on the situation in Iraq, and now sees great progress, and that his 8 page report says that. Talk about spin, that is almost total spin on McCaffrey, and his report. And then he says you wont see it reported in the NY Times, or the left-wing media. And he is right, because the story is 6 weeks old, McCaffrey came back from Iraq on March 28th, about 6 weeks ago.

    At the time all the left-wing websites reported it, but it's a 6 week old story so it's no longer news, except for Billy to use to put out right-wing propaganda that the left-wing media ignored it, and to spin the conclusions in his report.

    Thinkprogress wrote this on 3-28-07:

    Late yesterday, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey delivered a new report to White House officials. Based on a recent visit to Iraq and interviews with Gen. Patraeus and numerous coalition officials, McCaffrey found Iraq to be "ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels."

    (Funny how Billy never mentioned that, and Billy even denies Iraq is in a civil war)

    He added, "the U.S. Armed forces are in a position of strategic peril," and - in contrast to yesterday's statements by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - found the situation in Iraq to be dire.

    Look at what the Washington Post had on it: McCaffrey Paints Gloomy Picture of Iraq

    In Contrast to His Previous Views, Retired General Writes of 'Strategic Peril'

    By Thomas E. Ricks
    Washington Post
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007

    An influential retired Army general released a dire assessment of the situation in Iraq, based on a recent round of meetings there with Gen. David H. Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders.

    "The population is in despair," retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey wrote in an eight-page document compiled in his capacity as a professor at West Point. "Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate."

    The retired general, who on his latest visit also interviewed a U.S. intelligence official and some Iraqi officers, is especially critical of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is "despised" by the Sunnis, he writes, is seen as "untrustworthy and incompetent" by the Kurds, and now enjoys "little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged."

    The government lacks dominance in every province, he added. One result is that "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO [nongovernmental organization], nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection."

    Militias and armed bands are "in some ways more capable of independent operations" than the Iraqi army, he added.

    ---------

    He does say that since the arrival of Petraeus last month, "the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved." He concluded, it is still possible to develop a stable Iraq. But, he added, "We have very little time left." The dilemma facing the U.S. government, he said, is that U.S. forces probably will have to be reduced substantially within three years, but the insurgency will go on for many years more.

    His bottom line is that the U.S. military is in "strategic peril" -- a sharp contrast to his previous views. Hardly the views O'Reilly represented in his talking points memo.

    Billy took a 6 week old report, and claimed the left-wing media ignored it, when every liberal website and blog I know of reported it. But they reported it 6 weeks ago in March, when the actual report came out. Then Billy (the king of spin) put his spin on the report, he cherry picked the small sections where McCaffrey said things have improved in Iraq. While ignoring the vast majority of the report where he says things are bad in Iraq.

    And that's a no spin zone?

    O'Reilly Admits he is a Hypocrite Who Does Character Assassination

  • 5-10-07 -- After a disagreement over the Army General John Batiste (who did a political ad where he spoke out against Bush's handling of the Iraq war) for VoteVets.org, things got heated as Billy attacked Wes Clark for accepting $75k from George Soros.

    Billy is obsessed with George Soros because he gives money to liberal groups, which is 100% legal btw, so he asked General Clark if he had any clue how radical left Soros is. Clark defended Soros, and said if a Republican gave him money he would take that too. This really made Billy mad, then the yelling and screaming started, from Billy of course.

    Now remember that Billy has stated in the past that he does not engage in personal attacks, and he deplores character assassination. Then O'Reilly said he's going to have "his guys" FedEx Clark a package of who Soros really is.

    Clark said "That's character assassination" and Billy replied, "You bet it is" Realizing that he just admitted to what he claims to deplore, he said, "No It's facts." Now when someone quotes him in the future (admitting to character assassination) he will say he said no it's facts, and claim they are lying.

    The truth is this, Billy is a Republican so he hates George Soros, he don't like anyone that gives money to liberals. Liberal groups and websites monitor Billy and expose his lies, his spin, his bias, and his right-wing propaganda, and Billy hates that with a passion. So he smears George Soros as revenge, and he tries to make him look like the bad guy, when the bad guy is Bill O'Reilly.

    Everything George Soros is doing is 100% legal. And none of those groups ever say anything about Billy that is not true, otherwise he would sue them. All they do is print his transcripts, word for word, and or publish a video of it, or both, yet Billy claims that is smearing him, if that is smearing him, I'm Elvis.

    P.S. I do not get a dime from George Soros, or anyone. I do this website for free, as a public service to the American people.

    Billy Caught Lying About George Soros (Again)

  • 5-8-07 -- Last thursday Billy did a talking points memo about the IU study on him. In that memo he claimed George Soros donated $5 million dollars to them so they could do the study. He basically said Soros funded the study as revenge for him exposing how the Soros money machine gives money to liberal groups and websites. Dont just believe me, read it yourself.
    O'REILLY: Last week we showed you this chart detailing where far left billionaire George Soros contributes money and how his propaganda machine works its way through the internet and into the mainstream media.

    Soros and his gang were furious with that exposition. So we knew blow back was coming. Thus the Indiana Media Matters nonsense. By the way, did you know that Soros's Open Society Institute donated $5 million to Indiana University?

    I'm also sure that was just a coincidence. Also sure that Soros is very disappointed he didn't get more bang for the buck this time around.
    What happened is Billy made up a story about the Soros donation, he implies that the Soros money paid for the study on him, and that it was payback. He only did it to discredit the study. When he just made it up, the only thing he said that was true is that Soros donated $5 million dollars to IU.

    Funny how Billy claims the study was blow back from his report on the Soros money machine last week, yet he never told you it was a 6 month study, the study was started well before Billy ever did the Soros money machine report, how can it be blow back for a story he did a week ago when the study was started 6 months ago, ask Billy why he left that part out of his no spin report, and how that is possible.

    Here is what Keith Olbermann found out:
    OLBERMANN: Remember that Indiana University study that while he claims he never does these personal attacks, he in fact calls a person or a group a derogatory name once every seven seconds during those yakking notes memos that he does? He's now claimed that this is just an another smear by George Soros, who apparently owns the University of Indiana. He claims Soros donated $5 million to Indiana University.

    Well, Soros did donate $5 million to IU, but not to study O'Reilly--rather to fund Indiana's educational outreach in Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan and Burma. The fact, the university says, the O'Reilly study got no funding. Bill just made the Soros stuff up. And as if you need to spend $5 million to know Bill-O insults people.
    Billy also said no newspaper he could find printed that propaganda. He said Rosie and Joy got it from Media Matters. Yet a simple google search on "Bill O'Reilly calls people names every 6.8 seconds" will get you 70,200 matches. DIGG.com had it, the usatoday.com blog had it, drudge.com, thinkprogress.com, foxnews.com, and pretty much every liberal website and blog on the internet reported it. Yet Billy claims Rosie and Joy got it from media matters.

    And media matters did not even come up in the search, but drudge and foxnews.com did. In fact, I found many search results on conservative blogs and websites. Almost as many as I found on liberal blogs and websites.

    I personally found it on the liberal blogs, I did not even know media matters reported it. O'Reilly also claimed that Media Matters was disseminating the results of the IU study far and wide. Wrong again.

    The real culprit behind all that publicity? Indiana University.

    The study was reported on Jim Romenesko's widely respected journalism blog at Poynter.org. He got the same release that IU sent to its usual distribution list of more than 4,500 news sources around the country, which includes all major newspapers, television networks and hundreds of columnists and reporters.

    Despite O'Reilly's claim, Media Matters wasn't even on that list. A spokesman for media matters said they found out about the study through a "Google alert," which linked to the university's Web site.

    The press release was not about George Soros. Then again neither was IU's study, but that didn't stop O'Reilly from throwing in his name.

    Hey Billy I thought you never speculate. Yet here you are speculating that Rosie and Joy got it from media matters, and speculating that Soros funded the study, and speculating that media matters spread the story around the internet, for a guy who never speculates, you sure do a hell of a lot of speculating.

    Read This Billy: Doom For Republicans

  • 5-6-07 -- On May 1st, Billy had a talking points memo called "Doom For Democrats" where he spewed out some ridiculous claim that the Democratic party is doomed if they listen to the far left in the party. Yet a New poll by Newsweek shows if any party is doomed, it's the Republican party.

    President George W. Bush's approval rating has fallen to 28 percent in a Newsweek Poll released on Saturday, an all-time low for Bush in that survey.

    Nearly two out of three Americans -- 62 percent -- believe Bush's recent actions in Iraq show he is "stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes."

    Just 30 percent think Bush's execution of the Iraq war demonstrates he is "willing to take political risks" to do what's right.

    Democratic front-runners lead potential Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups across the board.

    Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fares best against the lead Republicans so far in the race. Obama bested Republican front-runner, Rudolph Giuliani by 50 percent to 43 percent among registered voters who responded to the poll.

    Obama topped Arizona Sen. John McCain by 52 percent to 39 percent and defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 58 percent to 29 percent.

    New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner among Democratic voters, topped Giuliani by 49 percent to 46 percent, beat out McCain 50 percent to 44 percent and outdistanced Romney 57 percent to 35 percent.

    Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards topped Giuliani by 6 points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37 points.

    There is your "Doom For Democrats" Billy. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards all beat out the top 3 Republican candidates, what say you Billy.

    Billy (The Terror Warrior) is a Fraud

  • 5-5-07 -- Billy claims to be a terror warrior, he says we must be tough on terrorists. He constantly hammers anyone who is not tough on terrorism. Kill em all is his motto, and anyone who disagrees with that is an un-American traitor who hates America. So why did Billy ignore this story, why did the Bush administration let a terrorist out on bail, then let him go to Miami, and why did the so-called terror warrior ignore this story.

    US Government Moves to Gag Terrorist on CIA Ties

    With his trial on immigration charges set for May 11, the US government has filed a motion in federal court seeking to bar the international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles from testifying on his role as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

    Venezuela has demanded that Posada Carriles be extradited to face charges there related to his masterminding of a 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian passenger jet that killed 73 people.

    Violating international and bilateral treaties, Washington has rebuffed Venezuela's request, charging Posada Carriles instead with minor violations of US immigration law for entering the US without a visa and lying to immigration officials. Last month, the terrorist, who had been in federal custody since May 2005, was set free on bail and returned to Miami.

    The release has provoked international protests and exposed the hypocrisy of the so-called "global war on terrorism" proclaimed by a government that has sponsored and continues to harbor and protect a wanted terrorist.

    www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/040507gag.htm

    So if you worked for the CIA you can be a terrorist, the Bush administration will let you go, and refuse to extradite you. Yet they claim they are fighting a global war on terror.

    Funny how Billy never reported this story, he is Mr. Terrorism, and the Terror Warrior, yet he has no problem with the Bush administration releasing a known terrorist.

    Last month, the terrorist, who had been in federal custody since May 2005, was set free on bail and returned to Miami.

    Hey Billy, they let a terrorist go free, and then let him go to Miami, what say you?

    Study Shows Bill O'Reilly #1 in Fascist Propaganda

  • 5-2-07 -- A new propaganda study done by Indiana University shows that Bill O'Reilly is #1 in putting out fascist propaganda.

    The study not only shows his ridiculous "no spin zone" to be completely bogus - offering unambiguous data to support such conclusions - but also how O'Reilly is truly in the business of exclusively sucking up to the Powers That Be, which is regardless of your political views the last thing, and indeed the worst thing, one could do as a self-proclaimed "journalist".

    Bill O'Reilly calls a person or a group a derogatory name on average once every 6.8 seconds during the "Talking Points Memo" portion of his cable news show. This is a much higher use of name-calling than the popular but controversial radio priest of the 1930s, Father Charles Coughlin. These results come from a study of O'Reilly's editorials by three Indiana University researchers using early 20th Century propaganda analysis techniques.

    ?Villains, Victims, and the Virtuous in Bill O'Reilly?s 'No-Spin Zone:' Revisiting world war propaganda techniques," appears in the spring edition of Journalism Studies journal and features research conducted by Indiana University Bloomington's Mike Conway (Assistant Professor, School of Journalism), Maria Elizabeth Grabe (Associate Professor, Department of Telecommunications), and Kevin Grieves, (Doctoral Student, School of Journalism).

    The researchers analyzed roughly six months of O'Reilly's daily editorial "Talking Points Memo," using propaganda analysis methods made popular after World War I.

    The researchers revived the "seven propaganda devices," a research method developed by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in the 1930s. The propaganda devices (name calling, glittering generality, transfer, plain folks, bandwagon, testimonial, and card stacking) had been used to study various political and media figures in the 1930s, including a book-length look at Father Charles Coughlin (The Fine Art of Propaganda-1939).

    "By reviving the seven propaganda devices, we were able to directly compare O'Reilly to Father Coughlin," said Conway. "Our research shows O'Reilly is a much heavier user of the devices than Coughlin, with close to 13 incidents a minute compared to eight for Coughlin. Plus, O'Reilly was a much less nuanced user of the devices, limited mostly to name-calling and glittering generality".

    The study also delves into O'Reilly?s construction of good and evil, another popular propaganda method, especially during war time. O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memos" were analyzed to determine what people and groups he highlights and whether he sees them as villains, victims, or virtuous.

    "If one digs further into O'Reilly?s rhetoric it becomes clear that he sets up a pretty simplistic battle between good and evil," according to study co-author Betsi Grabe. "Our analysis points to very specific groups and people presented as good and as evil." O'Reilly consistently presents illegal aliens, terrorists, foreigners, media, Democrats, academics, and criminals in the bad or evil role while presenting right-leaning media outlets, Christians, the American public, Republicans, the U.S. military, and the Bush administration as the opposing good force.

    "Villains, Victims, and the Virtuous in Bill O'Reilly's 'No-Spin Zone:' Revisiting world war propaganda techniques,"

    taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/573VU23UN1474205.pdf

    Bill O'Reilly: Out of Touch With Reality in America

  • 5-2-07 -- Last night on the 5-1-07 O'Reilly factor, Billy had a ridiculous talking points memo called "Doom For The Democrats."

    He went on to detail how the Democrats are doomed if they listen to the far left in the party. He put his right-wing spin on it, and claimed it shows what the Democrats and the far left want in America. I would say 90% of what he said was ridiculous. He blamed the Democrats and the open border far left radicals for the illegal immigration problem.

    Earth to Billy, the Republicans had control of the house for 12 years, from 1994 to 2006, and they had the presidency for 6 years of that too. Guess what they did about illegal immigration, nothing. The Republicans also had total control of the government for 4 years, from 2002 to 2006. Guess what they did about illegal immigration, nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

    Guess why they did nothing Billy, because they are in the back pocket of big business. And big business wants the illegal immigrants so they can use them for cheap labor that will increase corporate profits. If anyone is to blame for the illegal immigration problem it is the Republican party. They refuse to pass a law to levy big fines on employers (say $1 million per infraction) who hire illegal immigrants, and they must also provide enough law enforcement officers to enforce the law. The Republicans will not do either one of those things. That is why we have an illegal immigration problem, because of the Republicans in Congress who are in the back pocket of big business.

    And I personally do not want open borders, I oppose illegal immigration 100 percent. But for the record, when Billy says the majority of the American people agree with him, he is LYING.

    FACT: In a 4-15-07 USA Today/Gallup poll, only 14% of the American people think the government should require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. and never allow them to return. Only 6% say we should require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return temporarily to work. While 42% think we should allow illegal immigrants to leave and let them return to become U.S. citizens, and 36% say we should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens.

    Now here is where we go into the twilight zone, Billy does a TPM called "Doom For The Democrats." Yet the reality is the Republican party is in a freefall.

    FACT: The Republicans got their ass kicked in the 2006 mid-term elections, George Bush has a 35% approval rating, Dick Cheney is at 18% approval, 67% of the people think the country is heading down the wrong track, only 27% approve of Bush on Iraq, Republicans are dropping like flies and resigning over scandals with Abramoff or the U.S. attorney firings, Duke Cunningham is in jail for taking bribes, we now know for a fact that the Bush administration knowingly lied us into a war based on cherry picked intelligence, they had the Katrina disaster, the missing e-mails, Gonzales lying to Congress, the hatch act violations, the NSA wiretapping scandal, torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, Tom Delay indicted, Halliburton fraud, trying to sell the ports to an arab country, the medicare bribe scandal, the EPA air quality scandal at ground zero, the Niger uranium scandal, outing a CIA agent, and on and on, the list is endless.

    So what does Billy do, a TPM called "Doom For The Democrats" of course. Billy has officially jumped the shark, he has lost his mind, he needs a reality check, and fast. The TPM should be "Doom For The Republicans" because they are running this great country into the ground, and making us hated by everyone in the world. And none of it has anything to do with the Democrats, or the far left, it's all the fault of George W. Bush, the Republicans in Congress, the RNC, and right-wing propaganda news networks like FOX News.

    Remember this Billy, the next president will be a Democrat, bet on it, and the Democrats will gain even bigger majorities in the House and the Senate. But of course you will never admit that, or dare say it's possible, because you are a biased, spinning, right-wing propagandist for your master George W. Bush, and the Republican party.

    And that's the reality memo.

    Bill O'Reilly Lied About Fact Filled Moyers PBS Documentary

  • 4-26-07 -- On tuesday night Billy said this:
    Tomorrow, PBS will broadcast a documentary by committed leftist Bill Moyers that charges the American media, especially the conservative media, gleefully embraced war with Iraq and smeared anyone who disagreed with the action.
    Billy implies that the Moyers documentary is a biased hit piece, put out by a far left partisan, that mainly targets the conservative media, and him. That is a lie, I watched every minute, and it was a great piece of journalism. Maybe the best documentary I have ever seen. It was totally fair and balanced, and in fact, Moyers criticized the NY Times and The Washington Post more than he did FOX News, or the conservative media. And in the 90 minute special, Billy had a total air time of maybe one minute, if that.

    Variety.com called it a "methodical, devastating, pull-no-punches recap of mainstream journalism's collective failure to challenge the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war."

    Moyers puts the lie to the assertion that everyone assumed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, meticulously documenting a series of prewar articles by the Knight Ridder newspapers with headlines like "No Sign of Iraq Threat" and "Terrorism Experts Say they Don't See Iraq Link."

    Bill Moyers did criticize the conservative media in the special, that's for sure. But I would say he spent more time criticizing the NY Times and the mainstream media more than he did the conservative media. This was not a biased hit piece on the conservative media as Bill O'Reilly implies. It was an honest and fair documentation of how all of the media let the Bush administration fool them into thinking their partisan propaganda on the Iraq war was the truth. He hammered Tim Russert and Dan rather, not just people in the conservative media.

    Moyer says the Bush administration was aided by vocal talk-show hosts and an organized network of bloggers. But he notes that the Times and the Post also bolstered claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in front-page pieces from mid-2002 to March 2003, when the U.S. military invaded Iraq. They had a huge effect on other news organizations.

    "The New York Times is often the inspiration for much if not most of what winds up on the evening newscasts," Moyers says. "For media elites in broadcasting, the Times still drives their agenda."

    A series of pieces by Times reporter Judith Miller making the case for war got huge media pickup, while stories by Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel were virtually ignored. "There was a lot of skepticism among our editors because what we were writing was so at odds with what most of the rest of the Washington press corps was reporting," Strobel tells Moyers.

    I recommend everyone watch this documentary, and I challenge Bill O'Reilly to prove one thing in it to be untrue. This is a documentary that every American, and every journalism student should see. This is how a real journalist does his job, and I predict this documentary wins a journalism award, maybe even a peabody.