Sullivan Called O'Reilly A Dishonest Propagandist
By: Steve - October 7, 2010 - 9:00am
Which is what I have been saying for 11 years now. The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is taking issue with a half-baked piece of nonsense that the dishonest O'Reilly put out in a talking points memo, and Sullivan is requesting that Fox News let him bring his complaint to O'Reilly's No Spin Zone.
In one of his posts last Thursday, Sullivan took offense with a Talking Points Memo from O'Reilly's Wednesday night broadcast. He claims that, unlike the clown Glenn Beck, O'Reilly is a propagandist who distorts the state of the American progressive movement:
SULLIVAN: Beck is in many ways a clown. But my own sense of him is that he is, at times, a genuine clown, not entirely fake. (I know many disagree, and I cannot judge the man's soul from a distance, but that's my hunch.)
Sullivan's blog post was inspired by Mark Leibovich's profile of Glenn Beck in the New York Times Magazine. In it, Leibovich wrote that "several Fox News journalists have complained that Beck's antics are embarrassing Fox, that his inflammatory rhetoric makes it difficult for the network to present itself as a legitimate news outlet."
O'Reilly, meanwhile, is a propagandist - not as bad as Hannity - but dishonest and wrong. Mr O'Reilly, I know Fox has long had a blanket ban on having me on as a guest, but here's a challenge: allow me to debate this Talking Points Memo with you, and reveal what a completely half-baked piece of nonsense it was.
I'm not Dee Dee Myers. I am not a progressive. And I think your version of this president is a caricature so unfair it deserves a real thrashing out on air, in public.
Sullivan said he was baffled by this, since, in his opinion, Beck was not nearly as embarrassing for Fox as Sean Hannity or, especially, Bill O'Reilly.
Sullivan had harsh words for Hannity too, saying that, compared to him, "Beck seems to me to be a relative innocent. Hannity is a cynical liar and cool propagandist...shameless does not even begin to describe the man's public character."
But he reserved most of his criticism for O'Reilly. Writing that he had watched Wednesday's "Talking Points Memo," Sullivan wrote that it was "so full of meaningless cliches about 'big government' and 'progressives,' so divorced from any coherent engagement with the reality of Obama's record and stated views, that it beggared belief."
Sullivan then responded to several of the points O'Reilly made in his segment--including one about foreign policy:
SULLIVAN: He says first that in foreign policy, progressives believe that America is a "bully" and "too aggressive."
Beck is "a clown," but a genuine one. O'Reilly, though, did not get off so gently. Sullivan called him a "a propagandist - not as bad as Hannity - but dishonest and wrong." He concluded by asking O'Reilly to debate him.
Obama, however, has retained most of Bush's executive powers against al Qaeda (except torture), has poured more troops into Afghanistan than was ever the case under Bush, has ramped up the drone campaign in Pakistan, retained Bush's defense secretary, stuck to Bush's withdrawal timetable in Iraq, and embraced targeted killings of al Qaeda operatives, even US citizens...there is no other description of this than a travesty of the truth.
And I predict it will never happen, because O'Reilly is scared to death of Andrew Sullivan, or anyone who dares to dispute his right-wing propaganda. So Mr. Sullivan, sit back and relax, because the coward Bill O'Reilly will never debate you.
To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: www.oreilly-sucks.com