Partisan & Dishonest O'Reilly Calls The Media Partisan & Intellectually Dishonest
- 3-29-06 -- O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I think the American press -- and I know you've heard me say this -- is the most damaging institution in the country today because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually.
Now on the very same day (3-27-06) O'Reilly pulled a cheap, blatantly partisan, and intellectually dishonest hit job on Paul Krugman from the NY Times. O'Reilly cited a partial quote from one paragraph, and lied about Krugman not saying illegal immigrant in his column, on top of that he misrepresented his position on illegal immigration.
On 3-27-06 O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Now, once they get here -- and this is very interesting -- the far left wants them to immediately go on the dole. This is from Paul Krugman, he's the quasi-socialist columnist in The New York Times, writing today, quote: "Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants" -- not illegal, he just says immigrants. He's writing about illegal immigrants, but he won't put the word "illegal" in there.
Let me start again, quote: "Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more," unquote. This is the quasi-socialist Krugman. So not only do we have to let them all in, but we got to pay for everything that happens to them. We, we, the people of the United States, the 300 million of us. Now, this is insane.
Now read what Paul Krugman actually wrote in his 3-27-06 column:
Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, ''We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.'' Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.
We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a ''modest role'' in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.
Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests -- legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care -- is simply immoral.
Take note that O'Reilly has claimed that journalists in the so-called left wing media are dishonest, but he says he will tell you the truth so listen to him, yet here he is pulling a partial quote from one paragraph of a Krugman column, and claiming Krugman does not mention illegal immigrants. That is about as dishonest as you can get, especially when Krugman mentions it not only once, but 3 times.
You should also take note that he never does this to any conservatives in the print media or the tv media, he only does it to liberals. And if anyone dares to partially quote him and misrepresent his positions, he screams bloody murder and says they are part of the dishonest liberal media. Yet here he is doing the exact same thing he complains about.
O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings (Again)
- 3-22-06 -- Here is what he said on the 3-22-06 Factor:
O'REILLY: "The Factor's" total cumulative, 24 hours, about four million viewers a night, not counting the Direct TV people and the college people. That makes us very competitive with the late night network shows and the net morning programs. We also are creeping up on "The CBS Evening News".
And now the truth, for February of 2006 the O'Reilly Factor averaged a 1.9 rating with 2.3 million total viewers a night. And the Factor ratings have dropped from a 2.5 rating in October of 2005 to a 1.9 rating for February of 2006. Out of that 2.3 million only 400,000 are in the 25 to 54 demo, and the average Factor viewer is 68 years old, so I doubt very many college people are watching the Factor.
The Factor is not creeping up on CBS or anyone, because the Factor ratings are dropping, and have been since October of 2005, not to mention The CBS evening News averages 8 million viewers a night, which is not even close to 2.3 million or 4 million. In a December 2004 interview with Ashleigh Banfield O'Reilly claimed he was getting 6 million viewers a night, now he claims it is 4 million, so if (according to O'Reilly) his total viewers dropped by 2 million in a year, how is that creeping up on CBS News?
BANFIELD: Well, the word is that there are going to be changes maybe at CBS anyway. We don't know what's going on. There's a -- there's a real upheaval, it seems, in cable news right -- or, excuse me, in broadcast news right now. And why is that? Because people like you are getting two million viewers a night, and you're making a lot of money doing it which makes stars.
O'REILLY: Let me break this to you. I get -- I get six million viewers a night, which they'll never admit, but that's the way it is.
Some Ratings Facts O'Reilly Will Never Talk About
- 3-4-06 -- Billy sure loves to talk about ratings, but here is something he never talks about, how his ratings have dropped 5 months in a row. And all he talks about are total viewers, yet the advertisers only care about the 25 to 54 demo, they call it the money demo, in that demo O'Reilly has roughly 400,000 viewers, which is only about 40% more than Keith Olbermann has. Thats because most of his viewers are over 54 years old, and the average factor viewer is 68 years old.
3rd quarter 2005 Factor rating: 2.5 -- Total Viewers - 2,820,000
October 2005: 2.3 -- Total Viewers - 2,600,000
November 2005: 2.2 -- Total Viewers - 2,500,000
January 2006: 2.0 -- Total Viewers - 2,325,000
February 2006: 1.9 -- Total Viewers - 2,228,000
O'Reilly Lied His Ass Off About Walter Cronkite
- 2-25-06 -- O'Reilly claims that Walter Cronkite wants to let street drug dealers who sell heroin, crack, and meth out of jail. He says that view is insane, and it would be, if that is what Mr. Cronkite said, which it is not.
Here is what O'Reilly said on the 2-24-06 factor:
O'REILLY: You know, I admire Walter Cronkite. The man's nearly 90 years old, still kicking. But there is no question that the former newscaster is a far left guy. Since his retirement from CBS News, he has embraced all kinds of progressive causes.
Here's the latest. Mr. Cronkite now trying to raise money for the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug legalization outfit that's partially funded by our pal, George Soros. Cronkite actually signed a fundraising that said in part, "We have locked up literally millions of people of color who have caused little or no harm to others."
The people Cronkite is talking about are street drug dealers who sell heroin, crack, and meth, among other dangerous drugs. Apparently Walter Cronkite doesn't feel this is harmful. That view, with all due respect, is insane.
Memo to Walter. Hard drug dealers hurt and sometimes kill people, sir. It is ridiculous you do not understand that. Mr. Cronkite is welcome to debate me on the issue any time.
Memo to Billy, misrepresenting what someone said by partially quoting them out of context is unethical, misleading, spin, and wrong. Notice that O'Reilly only partially quoted Mr. Cronkite, he cut off the full quote, here it is:
Instead, we have locked up literally millions of people...disproportionately people of color...who have caused little or no harm to others - wasting resources that could be used for counter-terrorism, reducing violent crime, or catching white-collar criminals.
What Mr. Cronkite is talking about are drug users who are not drug dealers who go to jail for 1 or 2 ounces of marijuana that is for personal use. And girlfriends of drug dealers who go to jail for 10 years for giving out a phone number, when she had nothing to do with the sale of the drugs, and the drug dealing boyfriend only gets 5 years. And crooked cops who lie about African Americans and send them to jail for drug charges they never did. Mr. Cronkite was not talking about big time street drug dealers who sell heroin, crack, and meth, he was talking about low level first time drug users getting 15 years to life for a first offense and similar cases to that.
If you read the full letter you will see that Mr. Cronkite does not support any of what O'Reilly said, and it is in fact, a very smart and well written letter that makes some very good points. Like how the drug war is a failure, and how we waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money on a failed war on drugs, money that could be going to fight terrorism, funding our port security, and homeland security. I suggest everyone read the actual letter, and I challenge anyone to get what O'Reilly said out of it. You will see that O'Reilly quoted him out of context and misrepresented what Mr. Cronkite said just to make him look like a crazy old left wing fool.
Read the full letter here:
Why I Support DPA, and So Should You
by Walter Cronkite
Why I Support DPA, and So Should You
Hypocrisy Alert: O'Reilly Calls For Quick Pullout of Iraq
- 2-22-06 -- In November of 2005 Congressman John Murtha called for a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq over a 6 month period or whenever possible. Then Bill O'Reilly called the decorated Vietnam veteran and former Marine a pinhead who don't not know what he is talking about. O'Reilly also compared people who were calling for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq Nazi appeasers.
Now Billy O'Reilly is calling for the exact same thing, so suddenly it's ok, but if you said it 2 months ago you were an idiot who don't know what you're talking about, a pinhead, and a Hitler appeaser. During a November 30, 2005, appearance on NBC's Today, O'Reilly called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers. But now Billy is calling for the USA to pull all our troops out as fast as humanly possible, which is the exact same plan John Murtha called for 2 months earlier.
On the 2-20-06 radio factor Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Somewhat of a disturbing report out of Iraq, and it's more important than it first appears. The governor of -- or the mayor of Karbala, which is a town in the south part of Iraq, Shiite-controlled, has banned any further government dealings with the American military in his province, saying that they're not behaving well.
Now, it's a small little thing, but I picked up on it, because here is the essential problem in Iraq. There are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them. And I don't -- we're never gonna be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. Because we just can't control these crazy people. This is all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America: They didn't -- it was the crazy-people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them -- still don't. But they're just all over the place.
Bill O'Reilly & FOX Being Sued for Plagiarizing Debate Contest Idea
- 1-20-06 -- Marketing executive Jay Schorr of Florida has filed a plagiarism lawsuit against FOX News and Bill O'Reilly, claiming that they stole the idea for the "Great Factor Debate Contest" from him. And yesterday O'Reilly changed the name of the debate contest to the "Bloviate with Bill" contest.
Here is what it said on the foxnews.com website before the lawsuit was filed:
Would you like to sit on the set of "The Factor" and let Bill O'Reilly have it?! The Great "Factor" Debate contest is underway and here's the deal:
And now today (1-20-06) it says this:
Would you like to sit on the set of "The Factor" and let Bill O'Reilly have it?! Our "Bloviate with Bill" contest is underway and here's the deal:
So O'Reilly has changed the name of the debate contest to Bloviate with Bill. Here is my question, if they did not steal his idea, why did they change the name of the debate contest.
Mr. Schorr says he is going to pursue every legal recourse available to him in prosecuting O?Reilly and Fox.
?Mr. O?Reilly holds himself out as a paragon of virtue and makes a big deal about his show?s ?no spin zone? in which guests are not allowed to spin any b.s. on matters at-hand,? said Schorr. ?Apparently Mr. O?Reilly chose to leave the zone when he plagiarized my program and will continue to try to spin the facts as this case progresses.?
Schorr says he has no intention of settling out of court with O?Reilly as did a former Factor producer who sued O?Reilly in October 2004 for sexual harassment.
The O'Reilly Factor Debate Contest is a Fraud
- 1-17-06 -- During the month of February six lucky "Factor" viewers will be flown to New York City or Los Angeles to debate Bill O'Reilly.
But these debates are a scam, just look at this rule:
Six Grand Prize Winners will be selected to receive a trip for two to New York or Los Angeles (in Sponsor?s discretion) for two nights to tape a segment with Bill O?Reilly. Sponsor reserves full editorial rights to edit the segment and determine whether or not to air it.
So it will be taped and the sponsor reserves the right to edit it and to decide if it airs at all, what a fraud of a debate. It should be live an unedited, or live on tape and unedited, or it's a joke. The rules protect O'Reilly, all the debates will be edited so O'Reilly don't look too bad. And a couple months ago Billy said his show is never edited, so how can he run edited debates and still live up to his no edit rules?
O'Reilly is a coward, he should just debate 4 or 5 of his toughest critics, like David Brock, Al Franken, Frank Rich, Keith Olbermann, and Steve Senti. And do them live an unedited, that would be the honest thing to do, instead of running these scam debates that will be edited, if they air at all. Read the rules yourself to see what a scam these debates will be:
Conservative Blog Calls O'Reilly a Conservative Commentator
- 1-13-06 -- You are probably saying newsbusters.org called O'Reilly a conservative commentator, so what, we already know O'Reilly is a conservative.
On his Countdown show Thursday night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann delivered his latest attack on conservative commentators Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter by indirectly referring to them as "dogs" during a discussion of politicians who write children's books in the name of their pets.
The reason I am reporting this is because newsbusters.org is a conservative blog, it is owned by Brent Bozell from the Media Research Center.
From their about us page:
Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center, the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
So when a conservative blog owned and run by Brent Bozell and the Media research Center call you a conservative, you are officially a conservative. Before this it was always liberals who called O'Reilly a conservative commentator, O'Reilly would just deny it and say it was liberal lies, now we have a conservative blog referring to O'Reilly as a conservative.
I think it's about time for O'Reilly to just drop the I'm an Independent and not a conservative crap. Nobody believes he is an Independent, and even the conservative blogs are now calling him a conservative. Not to mention all the Republicans at freerepublic.com love O'Reilly and agree with almost everything he says.
O'Reilly Lie on The Abramoff Scandal Being Equal
- 1-6-06 -- E-Mail to the Factor:
Adrian Cavallini-Gardner, San Diego: "I love how you made the Abramoff bribery scandal seem like it involves both Democrats and Republicans, O'Reilly. There are many more Republicans involved."
O'REILLY: Public records show the money Abramoff spread around was equally divided, sir, but we will see. At least those of us trying to get the truth will see.
And now the FACTS from the people who really want the truth:
1) From 2000 to 2005 Jack Abramoff made political donations to 220 Republican members of Congress and the Bush administration, including more than $100,000 to President Bush as a pioneer. Not one dime of Jack Abramoff's money went to any Democrats, ever.
2) The Abramoff-related money was donated by his clients (Mostly Indian Tribes) to 65% Republicans and 34% Democrats, but that money was not directly donated by Abramoff. It was money donated by groups who employed Abramoff as a lobbyist, the FACTS will show that Indian Tribes donated money to Democrats (as they have since 1991) NOT Abramoff.
Even if you use O'Reilly's crazy argument, 65% is not even close to 34%, yet he claims public records show the money was given equally to Republicans and Democrats. In O'Reilly's world 65% equals 34%, in my world 65% is not equal to 34%, it's not even close. And the public records show that Jack Abramoff gave 100% of his money to 220 Republicans, and only Republicans. The Indian Tribes donated money to Democrats, Jack Abramoff did not donate a dime to one Democrat, not one. O'Reilly is trying to muddy the waters in the Abramoff scandal by claiming it is a bi-partisan scandal, which is what the RNC is putting out as talking points. And as a dedicated Republican O'Reilly is pumping out the RNC propaganda as fast and as often as he can.
Letterman Put The Smackdown on O'Reilly
- 1-3-06 -- In February of 2001 O'Reilly wrote an article that said this, Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy.
The Letterman experience
By Bill O'Reilly
The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.
That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down.
It seems that Letterman has spotted a phony in O'Reilly because he was not buying anything O'Reilly said to him. With O?Reilly as a guest, very serious Letterman denounces Iraq War & hails Cindy Sheehan. O'Reilly started out telling his war on christmas stories, Letterman said but that is just 2 examples at a couple small schools so how does that prove anything, O'Reilly says I got a million of them, Letterman says I dont believe you and tells O'Reilly to move on to another topic. Then he hammered O'Reilly on his attacks of Cindy Sheehan, he said how can you not support her when she lost a son in the war.
Letterman: "Have you lost a loved one in armed conflict?"
Letterman: "So how can you speak for her?"
Letterman tells O'Reilly: ?I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ. Honest to Christ." That prompts O?Reilly to answer: ?No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ?freedom fighter' on my program."
To which Letterman fires back: ?I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.?
Read the full transcript of O'Reilly on Letterman Here:
For the record: Cindy sheehan did not call the terrorists who are doing the car bombs and the suicide bombings in Iraq freedom fighters. That's another lie from O'Reilly, FOX, and the RNC, it's a Republican talking point lie to make her look Un-American. She said the Iraqi citizens who are fighting for their country against an invading Army are freedom fighters. She was not saying the terrorists who use car bombs and suicide bombs are freedom fighters.
Imagine if Russia invaded the USA, and US citizens took up arms to fight the invading Army, we would be called freedom fighters for fighting for our country. The fact is 90% of the Insurgents are Iraqi citizens, only 10% are outsiders. She was saying the Iraqi citizens who are fighting for their country against an invading Army are freedom fighters. She never called terrorists who blow up women and children freedom fighters, that is a lie put out by O'Reilly and his right wing friends. It is insane to claim she called terrorists freedom fighters, and she has denied that claim, she even refused to do the factor because O'Reilly was spreading all these lies about her.
Despite O'Reilly's Claims The Factor Ratings Are Not Increasing
- 1-1-06 -- O'Reilly is always talking about how his ratings are going through the roof and thanking his viewers for increasing his ratings. But it'a all a lie, his ratings have not gone up at all in the last year. He claims his show gets 6 million viewers a night, which is an outright LIE. At no time in the history of the show has he averaged 6 million viewers a night, ever.
In October of 2004 the O'Reilly Factor was averaging 3.1 million viewers a month and a 2.8 rating, that was his highest rated month since 0ctober of 2004. In October of 2005 the Factor averaged 2.6 million viewers a month and a 2.3 rating. But in November of 2005 the O'Reilly Factor only averaged 2.5 million viewers a month and a 2.2 rating. So his ratings have actually went down over the last year.
His yearly rating is down to a 2.2, with an average total viewer number of 2,490,000 a night. But if you watch the factor you would think O'Reilly's ratings have gone up, when in fact, they have went down.
This is the yearly average for the O'Reilly Factor from 12-27-04 to 12-25-05.
Rating - 2.2 -- Total Viewers - 2,490,000 -- 25 to 54 Demographic - 564,000
Yearly Cable News Shows Ratings: www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/2005ranker.pdf More Lies About Tax And Poverty Rates From O'Reilly
- 9-18-05 -- O'REILLY: Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II.
The above statement may be the biggest lie O'Reilly has ever spewed out. When Bill Clinton took office in 1992 he raised the top federal tax rate for people who make over $200,000 a year to 39.6 percent, but he gave tax cuts to the middle and lower class. Other than 6 years during the Reagan years from 1987 to 1992 was the top rate lower than 39.6 percent. From 1939 to 1987 the top rate was 50% or higher. So the above statement from O'Reilly is about as big a lie as anyone could spew out.
- 9-12-05 -- O'REILLY: Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.
O'Reilly is claiming that poverty levels are better under Bush than under Clinton. But when Clinton took office the poverty level was 15.1%, he got it down to 11.3% in 2000. And it went up to 15.1% under George Bush Sr. So when George Bush Jr. took office on 1-20-01 the poverty level was 11.3% because of Clinton. Bush had nothing to do with that, it was Clinton who got it that low. Since Bush took office the poverty level has increased every year from 11.7 percent in 2001, to 12.7 percent in 2004. That is the truth, and a cold hard fact, no spin can disprove that.
Funny how Mr. no spin does not mention any of that, he cherry picks a number from halfway through each presidents 8 year term to spin it for Bush. When the reality is poverty rates have went up every year under Bush. I just want to know why O'Reilly does not get his checks from the Bush white house.
O'Reilly Lied About French Hurricane Aid Offer
- 9-9-05 -- O'Reilly lied his ass off (AGAIN) when he reported what the French offered for hurricane relief.
In the 9-5-05 Most Ridiculous Item of the Day O'Reilly said this:
Our great ally France has offered the following in the wake of Katrina: 600 tents, 1,000 cots, some kitchen kits, 60 generators and 12 experts to advise the American Red Cross. I hope they speak English. Now I believe the 4-H Club of Bangor, Maine, has topped that offer.
Why do they even bother? -- Keep your cots.
Here is the full list of what France offered:
France has 35 disaster relief workers ready to leave for the U.S. the minute they are asked
A 60-strong disaster relief team
1000 camp beds
3 portable water treatment plants
2 naval ships
1 hospital ship
Look at what O'Reilly said they offered, and then compare it to what they actually offered. If O'Reilly has a real no spin zone why did he not report everything they offered, and why would you make fun of a country who offers aid to hurricane victims ?
Source: Bloomberg News on French Aid Offer
Now O'Reilly is Lying About The Governor of Louisiana
- 9-8-05 -- Does O'Reilly ever tell the truth ? Not when you are in the business of spinning and lying for Bush and the Republicans. There is no easy way to say this, Bill O'Reilly is a lying, spinning, right-wing hack who has sold out the American people and put partisan ideology above the good of the people.
From the September 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, Governor Blanco also made major mistakes. After asking and getting the federal government to declare the hurricane zone a disaster area two days before the storm hit, the governor failed to send any National Guard troops in to secure New Orleans and the surrounding parishes before the storm. Why? She also failed to ask for more troops from the feds, knowing she only had about 6,000 to control a city of 1.3 million. Why not ask for more? Like the mayor, Governor Blanco has no explanation.
That is a lie and O'Reilly knows it, and it is nothing but right-wing propaganda put out to cover for Bush, FEMA, and the DHS. Your humble no-spin Journalist Bill O'Reilly is part of the Karl Rove plan to shift the blame from Bush and FEMA to the Governor and the Mayor of Louisiana.
O'Reilly said the Governor failed to send the national guard in to secure the city before the storm, and wonders why. Is he braindead, you can not send the guard in before the storm or they could get wiped out too. You have to wait until the storm is gone before you send the guard in, a retarded 5 year old knows that.
O'Reilly also wants to know why the Governor did not ask for more guard troops, and that 6000 was not enough. But what he fails to mention is that 6000 is all the guard troops New Orleans had, the rest are in Iraq. They tell us 40% of their guard units are fighting in Iraq. Once she knew they needed more troops to deal with the flooding etc. she asked for them. Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that to replace those units he had to dispatch personnel from Guard division headquarters in Kansas and Minnesota after the storm struck.
According to Department of Defense officials, Governor Blanco had requested additional Guard personnel before the storm hit.
General Honore stated in a 9-1 briefing, the Governor of Louisiana had requested additional assistance from the federal government "as the hurricane was approaching," beginning with a request on 8-26 that DOD command centers be set up in their states. And by 8-28, Mississippi and Louisiana were collaborating with the National Guard Bureau to have additional security forces sent in.
Then he hammers her for not going on the factor to explain what happened, dont you think the Governor has more important things to do right now than talk to O'Reilly with her whole city flooded and people dying. Not to mention FOX and the Republicans say it is not time to point fingers, yet FOX, O'Reilly, and the Republicans are all pointing fingers at the Mayor and the Governor. While the rest of the country and the world want to know why Bush and FEMA were so late to respond.
Read this for the truth, then ask yourself why Bill O'Reilly is lying to you, and why you should believe anything he says. Remember this, the Hurricane hit at 7:00 AM on Monday August 29th.
Friday, August 26
Governor Blanco declares state of emergency and she requested troop assistance from the Pentagon. This happened on friday, 3 days BEFORE the hurricane hit.
Saturday, August 27
Governor Blanco asks president Bush and FEMA to declare a federal state of emergency in Louisiana.
“I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.” [Office of the Governor]
This was on saturday, 2 full days BEFORE the hurricane hit. That same day, saturday 8-27-05 a federal emergency was declared by Bush and FEMA.
“Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.” [White House]
Now knowing all that, ask yourself what more the Governor could have done. She declared an emergency 3 days before the hurricane hit. And she asked for federal help (including troops) a full 2 days before the hurricane hit. She even asked Bush to declare a federal emergency so they could bring the full force of the government into the area. Yet O'Reilly blames it on the Governor, is the sky purple in his world ?
The national guard did not get to the convention center until friday 9-2-05, that is 5 days after the hurricane hit. Governor Blanco asked for federal help on saturday 8-27-05, a full 2 days BEFORE the hurricane hit New Orleans.
Dont just believe me, since according to O'Reilly I am just a biased liberal who is lying to hurt Bush. Go read it for yourself, then decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.
Katrina Timeline: The Real No-Spin Truth on Hurricane Katrina
You Are an Extremist if.........
- In the 8-24-05 Talking Points Memo Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: An extremist is someone who rejects facts and holds on to opinions no matter what.
Now read this, and ask yourself if O'Reilly is rejecting the facts and holding on to his opinions no matter what.
O'REILLY: The administration has accomplished much in Iraq. There is a free media there for the first time. 96 percent of all children have received free medical vaccinations. And new construction is booming.
When the reality is this:
Iraq reconstruction shows 'limited progress'
Need for extra security, money lost to corruption, hinder rebuilding efforts
published August 26, 2005 by the Christian Science Monitor
Reuters reported earlier this month that three US government reports released in July show "ambitious reconstruction goals are falling short."
Soaring security costs are a major stumbling block in what is billed as the biggest US foreign aid operation since the post-World War II reconstruction of Europe.
Congress's investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office [GAO], said in its latest report that as of May 2005, power generation in Iraq was at a lower level than before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
O'Reilly also said that Iraq's oil production is at 97 percent, yet the GAO reports say different.
Iraq's oil output, which U.S. officials initially said would help pay for rebuilding projects, has also dropped in the past two years, said the GAO's report on Iraq reconstruction.
In March 2003, Iraq produced 2.6 million barrels of oil per day and exported 2.1 million barrels daily. By May 2005, Iraq was producing just 2.1 million barrels of oil a day and exporting only 1.4 to 1.6 million barrels a day, said the GAO.
Full Story: The Truth on Iraq Reconstruction
O'Reilly Finally Admits That Most of his Viewers Are Republicans
- 8-23-05 -- During an Interview with Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Bill O'Reilly said: "You know there are millions of Bush supporters sitting at home watching us right now."
According to the most recent Nielsen ratings, The Factor had a 2.1 rating and averaged 2.3 million viewers a night for July 2005.
Now this is amazing, O'Reilly finally reported something that is accurate, that the vast majority of his viewers are Republicans.
Full Story: Nielson Ratings
O'Reilly Lied About Air America
- 8-21-05 -- Bill O'Reilly said that Air America is on the verge of collapse and that their ratings are down in New York. That was his evidence that they are failing, yet he never told you that the ratings for all political talk shows dropped in New York. And that the ratings for conservative talk radio also had big drops in parts of the country.
7-27-05 -- O'REILLY: The Air America radio network continues to fail with catastrophic ratings here in New York City, perhaps the most liberal market in the country.
8-3-05 -- O'REILLY: There's no question the far left in America is on the verge of collapse. And that's a good thing.
Twin Cities listeners have been tuning out political talk radio.
Locally, conservative-talk icon Rush Limbaugh's show has lost 43 percent of its audience among 25- to 54-year-olds in the past year. Sean Hannity's show is down a whopping 63 percent.
The ratings shift hasn't affected partisan radio stations such as WWTC (1280 AM), known as the Patriot, or KTNF (950 AM), home to Air America programming, including Al Franken's weekday show. Both have maintained relatively stable, if small, audience shares of about 1 to 1.5 percent.
Franken is an exception, however. Locally, the Minnesota native has increased his audience share to 2.4 percent of listeners ages 25 to 54, compared with 1.3 last year.
Full Story: Twin Cities listeners tuning out political talk radio
He also failed to mention that in a little over a year Air America has increased their total listeners from 1.3. million to 3.1 million and from 4 stations to 70 stations. And that Air America ratings are up in 9 states. They are: Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Phoenix, Portland, Ore., Cincinnati, Denver, Honolulu, Memphis and Miami, according to the Arbitron Spring survey. The biggest thing he fails to mention is that Air America is the #1 rated radio station on the internet, and that those people are not counted in the ratings. Al Frankens show is the #1 streamed radio show on the internet, O'Reilly never reports any of that information, no spin ?
What O'Reilly did was cherry pick the ratings from one city to make it look like nobody wants to listen to liberal talk radio, and that Air America is failing. After reading the above facts how can you still believe he has a no spin zone. If anyone believes that please e-mail me and explain to me how that is possible.
Bill O'Reilly Lied to You About Clinton, Gorelick, & Able Danger
- 8-19-05 -- Yes I am calling Bill O'Reilly a LIAR, and if I was not telling the truth he would sue me, which he has not done and never will, because I am telling you the truth. This is conclusive proof that O'Reilly is a liar and part of the right-wing smear machine.
The O'Reilly Factor, 8/17/05
O'REILLY: It is now clear that Army intelligence had identified Mohammed Atta as a dangerous terrorist more than a year before Atta led the 9/11 attack. An Army group called Able Danger got the information, but did not pass it along to the FBI and tell the bureau that Atta was actually inside the USA.
Why? Because of a policy instituted by Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy Jamie Gorelick. The women erroneously believed that potential criminal activity could not be pinpointed by any U.S. military intelligence operation. That's insane.
Now, longtime Factor viewers will remember that I called Janet Reno the worst attorney general in history because the woman simply refused to aggressively pursue wrongdoing and was a political player, not a law enforcement officer in my opinion.
As for Miss Gorelick, who also served on the 9/11 Commission, she obviously made an enormous mistake. If she had done the right thing, 9/11 could have been prevented.
Wrong, that is all lies put out by O'Reilly and the right-wing smear machine, here are the facts.
But, as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing "between the FBI and the Criminal Division" within the Justice Department, not a military unit established by the Defense Department.
9-11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow also clearly noted during the commission's hearings that the "wall" applied only to the Justice Department: "Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors."
If Able Danger did in fact identify Atta, the Gorelick memo and the subsequent 1995 Clinton administration guidelines based on it did not prevent the group from sharing that information with intelligence agencies or law enforcement officials.
In fact, the "wall" was established well before President Clinton took office; according to the 1995 memo itself, Gorelick intended to codify procedures for the sharing of information between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials to make sure evidence gathered by such agencies would be admissible in criminal prosecutions. The "wall" was built before the Clinton administration and retained by the Bush administration.
The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures assessed that the "wall" was "constructed over 60 years," and a 2002 ruling of the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review found that the "wall" originated "at some point during the 1980s."
Further, the current Bush administration maintained the "wall" to at least the same extent that the Clinton administration did. A memo issued by Ashcroft's deputy attorney general Larry D. Thompson in August 2001 reauthorized the "wall" and even proposed expanding it by prescribing "additional requirements."
None of that was reported by O'Reilly, ever.
Full Story: www.mediamatters.org
What Fox News Channel Would Have Done to Rosa Parks
- 8-15-05 -- Cindy Sheehan – in case you’ve been living in a box or you only watch the mainstream media – is the mom of slain Iraq War veteran Casey Sheehan. She is protesting in front of George Bush’s Crawford ranch this month. This grieving mom has been characterized as a flip-flopper, a crackpot, accused of putting on a public circus, lambasted as a publicity seeking grandstander and criticized for not truly speaking for her family since an aunt and a godmother Matt Drudge found somewhere in the Sheehan family disagrees with her. The conservative attack machine is in high gear in the efforts to tear this woman down.
That made me think of how it would have been in the Civil Rights era if Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and the rest of the gang were around back then.
Full Story: What Fox News Channel Would Have Done to Rosa Parks
O'Reilly Lied About CPB Management Not Having Any Conservatives
- 7-13-05 -- Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed in his July 7 syndicated column that the management of public broadcasting had been liberal for "decades," and therefore, "isn't it fair to give some conservatives a shot?" In fact, even before the current Republican leadership of chairman Kenneth Tomlinson and president Patricia Harrison, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, has often been led by Republicans, most recently by Richard Carlson, who served as CPB president from 1992 to 1997.
From O'Reilly's July 7 syndicated column:
O'REILLY: Because I am a simple man, I have but one simple question: If PBS is politically balanced as Bill Moyers says it is, why, then, are only liberal Americans objecting to impending changes at the network? I mean, every far-left crank in town is in a frenzy over a couple of Republicans moving into management positions. After decades of liberal leadership, isn't it fair to give some conservatives a shot? After all, the tax dollars of right-wing Americans also pour into the Public Broadcasting trough. So, hey, let's be fair about things.
In addition, federal law mandates that no more than five members of CPB's nine-person board of directors be from the same political party, which ensures that the board includes directors with different political leanings.
Funny how O'Reilly never mentions any of that, and he calls the factor a no-spin zone, I would call that a total spin zone. Yes PBS leans left, everyone knows that, but O'Reilly claims they had decades of liberal leaders, which as you can see above is a lie. And btw, PBS only gets 15% of their money from the federal government. Notice that O'Reilly does not mention that fact either.
O'Reilly Caught Lying About CPB Management Not Having Any Conservatives
- 7-3-05 -- Citing meaningless Gallup flash poll, O'Reilly deceptively claimed that 74 percent of Americans liked Bush's June 28 Iraq speech. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly didn't inform viewers of a Gallup poll's disproportionate Republican sample when he deceptively claimed, "According to a snap poll by Gallup, 74 percent of Americans thought the president's Iraq speech was a good one."
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup "flash poll" that O'Reilly cited actually reported that 46 percent of respondents had a "very positive" reaction, 28 percent gave it a "somewhat positive" reaction, and and 26 percent said they had a "negative" reaction. But O'Reilly did not tell the viewers that 50 percent of the poll's 323 respondents were Republicans, only 23 percent were Democrats, and 27 percent were Independents.And he did not report the 26 percent who gave it a negative reaction at all, which is very high for a poll that sampled 50% Republicans.
For the record, Gallups own voting survey from 2004 states that 34% of voters are Democrats, 34% are Republicans, and 31% are Independents. This proves that CNN/USA Today/Gallup added a 16% Republican bias to their poll to make Bush look better. And it proves beyond a doubt that O'Reilly is a biased, spinning, partisan right-wing hack with an all spin zone. In fact, it's hard to decide which is worse, the fact that CNN/USA Today/Gallup is rigging their polls, or the fact that O'Reilly used a rigged poll to spin it and make Bush look better.
CNN/USA Today Gallup Bush Iraq Speech Poll
- 6-22-05 -- O'Reilly: FBI should arrest the "clowns" at Air America Radio for being traitors. "So, all those clowns at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care."
In O'Reilly's world reporting the truth about him, Bush, the war, and the Republicans is treason. He should move to China or Russia where the state controls the media, he would love that. There the Government can do anything they want without fear of the media reporting it. Somehow in his warped mind he has decided that reporting the truth makes you a traitor. Funny how he never had any of these thoughts in the 8 years when Bill Clinton was President. Somehow then it was ok for Republicans to disagree with everything Clinton wanted to do, yet they were not traitors. But if a democrat/liberal disagrees with Bush or refuses to support his illegal war, they are called traitors. O'Reilly should be locked up and forced to take a class on free speech and what it means to be a patriotic American.
Full Story Here: FBI Should Arrest The "clowns" at Air America Radio
- 6-17-05 -- This is getting old, but O'Reilly is lying again. This time on the Geneva Conventions. O'Reilly said to get Geneva Convention protections you must wear a uniform, this is a lie, a flat out 100% lie. Human Rights Watch has a detailed report on who is protected, here is what O'Reilly said.
O'REILLY: According to the Geneva convention, to be a POW and to get protections under it, you've got to wear a uniform, judge. They don't wear uniforms.
Here is the truth, look it up for yourself if you have any doubts.
People who are POW's get the full protection of the Geneva Conventions, but persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status have been described as "unlawful combatants" or "non-privileged combatants, " although neither term is found in the Geneva Conventions. Such persons are still protected under the Geneva Conventions, under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.
Read More Here:
- 6-10-05 -- Bill O'Reilly is the king of speculation, yet he denies he speculates and he gets mad at other people in the media for speculating. I have a question for Bill O'Reilly, were you born this stupid or did you work at it. Did you actually earn those college degrees, or did you buy them, you are a liar and a moron. Read the statement below from Bill, and then read how he speculated on the missing girls death in Aruba.
On June 9, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly explained, "As you may know, we do not speculate here on 'The Factor.' We have no idea what happened to Natalee or why she left the bar with some Aruban men. I've heard some irresponsible media speculate about that, and it makes me angry."
6-6-05 -- O'REILLY: "Looks like she's dead because the five people, two arrested, three interviewed, are all shady characters."
6-6-05 -- O'REILLY: "I think this was a straight abduction scene. OK? Was she probably -- she went to a Boyz II Men concert before she went to the bar, where she danced and partied. All right? Then she indeed and everybody saw her leave with a couple of guys. Now after that is when I-- obviously, she got into trouble."
6-6-05 -- O'REILLY: "But to me, I mean, a woman like this, 18 years old, we know her background, doesn't have sex with three guys she doesn't know. I mean, that doesn't happen."
6-8-05 -- O'REILLY: It's either she's held captive someplace, because there is that sex trade in the Caribbean. So there is a possibility that they didn't do that [murder]. But if you don't have a body, if they threw the body in the ocean, and there are a lot of sharks, you know.
Earth to Bill, that is speculation you idiot. I speculate you got your college degrees out of a bubble gum machine, oh did I mention I never speculate here at www.oreilly-sucks.com. You speculate she is dead, you speculate she did not have sex with guys she dont know, you speculate she is a sex slave, you speculate she was thrown in the ocean, and you speculate her body was eaten by sharks. Then you get mad at other people in the media because they speculated, look in the mirror hypocrite. You are in the media, and you speculate as much or more than anyone. And did you notice I did not say journalist, that's because you are not a journalist.
- 6-4-05 -- O'Reilly is caught lying again, this seems to be a never ending pattern. Bill was caught lying about the marriage rates in Sweden, and that they passed a gay marriage law. Both of those statements are lies, marriage rates have not declined in Sweden, and they did not pass a gay marriage law.
O'Reilly falsely claimed that in Sweden, "marriage between men and women declined drastically since gay marriage was legalized there." "These stats are irrefutable. They're government statistics," O'Reilly insisted. In fact, recent demographics show that since Sweden passed its 1994 "Registered Partnership Law" establishing same-sex civil unions, marriage rates have increased.
Despite O'Reilly's claims, "gay marriage" is not legal in Sweden, or in other Scandinavian countries. Those countries have versions of civil union laws that offer both heterosexual and homosexual unmarried couples most of the same rights as heterosexual married couples.
Contrary to O'Reilly's claim that the number of heterosexual marriages has declined in Sweden since the domestic partner law took effect in 1995, marriage rates for people aged 15-64 years rose to 7.0 per 1,000 people in 2000 from 6.0 in 1995. According to figures from the Statistical Office of the European Communities.
O'Reilly's false claim was a reference to an argument by Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution. So O'Reilly's Government statistics turn out to be right-wing propaganda from a conservative think tank. But even Kurtz did not say marriage rates in Sweden have declined because the partnership law was passed. That was the spin O'Reilly put on his research, good job Bill, you have crossed into the twilight zone again.
- 5-11-05 -- Bill O'Reilly was caught red handed misrepresenting what an editorial said in the Houston Chronicle. He was also caught lying about a quote in the editorial, the quote he read on the air was not in the editorial, not one word of it. I am calling for Bill O'Reilly to resign for lying to the people in this case and for all the other lies he has told on the air.
Here is the editorial O'Reilly mis-quoted and mis-represented. Read it and then read the quote from O'Reilly below, not one word of the quote from O'Reilly is in the editorial. Then he says the counselor is misleading the audience, when he is the one misleading the audience by making up quotes that are not even in the editorial.
Florida's sex offender law has emotional appeal. But it's not the best way to stop sexual predators from preying on children.
This is the quote O'Reilly made up that was not even in the editorial.
O'REILLY: Let me just read you what they say, because you are misleading the audience, counselor. This is a quote from the editorial in The Houston Chronicle.
"Ultimately, the Jessica Lunsford Act makes a good headline and addresses fears of stranger danger, but essentially makes people feel like they can abdicate their responsibility to protect their children." No, it doesn't. All right, it doesn't. It holds child molesters accountable.
Here is the transcript from the factor that details the lies and the spin on the Chronicle editorial.
Here is the response to O'Reilly from the editor of the Chronicle.
The No Facts Zone
- 4-16-05 -- More lies from O'Reilly, he called the Pope senile then denied it. When you catch O'Reilly in a proven and documented lie he calls you a left-wing nut who is slandering him and putting out left-wing propaganda. How is publishing his own transcript that shows him saying it, then showing his denial slander and propaganda when it is 100% true and verifiable. Here is the transcript from the factor, it is O'Reilly's own words, yet he still denies it. Maybe the senile one is O'Reilly, he says things then denies saying them.
From the December 12, 2002, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Well, wait a minute. Hear me out. We all know, everybody knows -- even Law knows. Everybody but the pope, who's too senile to know, and I say that with all due respect. I don't think the pope is lucid, I don't think he knows what's going on, and I say that because Law's been in Rome for five days, has not seen the pope, has not even talked to the pope, and this is the worst scandal in a century.
MORAN: He's going to meet with him.
O'REILLY: -- in the Catholic Church, and the pontiff can't talk to you, and you're there for five days. There's something going wrong there. But, anyway, everyone knows, including Cardinal Law, that because of his actions as leader of the dioceses of Boston, children -- children -- hundreds of them -- were damaged for the rest of their life. Now everyone knows that. You can hide -- you can say the legalisms, tort, depositions, civil. Everybody knows that.
And here is O'Reilly with his denial that he ever said it:
From the April 8 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
[CALLER]: Thanks for takin' my call, Bill. Well, I think -- you know, you're doing a lot of really good work in terms of spirituality and protecting the young. But one of the things I had a question for you -- is about 12 to 18 months ago you were saying that the Pope was also autocratic and senile. And you didn't like him.
O'REILLY: And senile? Is that what you said?
[CALLER]: You did say that.
O'REILLY: No, I didn't.
[CALLER]: -- on some of your radio programs if you check the archives.
O'REILLY: Well, look, you're takin' the Catholic League -- you're taking their pronouncement, correct? Am I correct, [caller]?
[CALLER]: Now, I don't know anything about the Catholic League pronouncement.
O'REILLY: Whadda you takin' then, Media Matters?
[CALLER]: No, I'm not takin' that either.
O'REILLY: All right, well, you're takin' some kinda propaganda 'cause I never said the pope was senile. Now, you've got crazy left-wing nuts who distort what's said on this program every day.
- 2-8-05 -- Bill O'Reilly showed his true right-wing colors. Mr.great neo-con American Bill O'Reilly interviewed Grege Noone, Former. Judge Advocate General about Professor Ward Churchill and the controversial statements he made about the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Big bad Bill not only wants Mr. Churchill fired, he wants him charged with treason and sedition. Why, for killing someone, child molesting, rape, no, no, no, because Mr. Churchill dared to exercise his free speech rights, he dared to say something Mr. all American Bill O'Reilly don't like. So much for the 1st amendment and the constitution and the bill of rights, they are meaningless to O'Reilly when you say something he don't like. Talk about ridiculous, only a nut would call for the man to be fired and tried for treason for exercising his free speech rights. Thank God Judge Noone understands the constitution and the law, and he informed O'Reilly there is no case for treason or sedition. Ann Coulter would be proud of you Bill, I never thought it could happen, but you have topped the insane Ann Coulter, be proud Bill you have crossed the line into the twilight zone. Nobody should be fired or charged with treason for speech, period.
O'REILLY: OK, would you -- the last treason case was brought in 1949 in the USA. Do you think that Churchill runs the risk of being tried for treason here?
NOONE: In my opinion, Bill, no. There have been only been 30 prosecutions in the history of the United States. The last eight or so related to World War II, what you're talking about.
O'REILLY: All right, he's not there yet. All right, let's go to sedition, a federal crime supporting revolution against the government. Certainly he's doing that, or supporting an enemy of the nation in time of war through speeches, publications, and organizations. Certainly he's doing that.
The problem is we're not in a time of war because Congress hasn't declared war.
O'REILLY: Can you get him on sedition anyway?
NOONE: No, I don't think we can. I mean, you know, this guy -- I think the only thing we can charge him with at this point is exceeding his 15 minutes of fame and give him a one-way ticket back to obscurity. This is guy is not someone who's going to rise to the level of treason or sedition.
- 1-24-05 -- Bill lied his right-wing ass off about the Iraq war, Kofi Annan, and legal scholars. So much for the no spin zone, it's more like the no truth zone.
ROTHCHILD: The Iraq War was a clear violation of international law.
O'REILLY: No, it isn't.
ROTHCHILD: Sure it was.
O'REILLY: Every legal scholar in the country says that when you violate 17 U.N. mandates, all right, the violator is outside the law. Yes, everyone. Everyone I've spoken to, and I've spoken to Democrats and Republicans, nobody...
Hey Bill, read this for the real no spin truth.
Law professors declare US-led war illegal
Legal experts in the United States and Britain have declared the Iraq war illegal. In January, 315 teachers of law from 87 law schools across the US stated that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America’s treaty obligations and a violation of US and international law.
ROTHCHILD: Come on, Bill. Kofi Annan says it was a violation of the Security Council.
O'REILLY: No -- Kofi Annan does not.
Ummm, yes he does Bill, so much for no spin.
UN chief Kofi Annan tells the BBC the Iraq war was illegal
- 12-23-04 -- www.oreilly-sucks.com gives Bill O'Reilly the 2004 hypocrisy of the year award for this statement. "Americans deserve honest, fair reporting from all news organizations. In this age of terror, we must have accurate information and hear both sides of the issues in order to adequately protect ourselves and our families. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. This is an honesty issue. The country needs its premier newspapers to be trustworthy and look out for us, but not so bitterly ideological that they can't report the news straight."
FOX News and Bill O'Reilly violate everything in that statement, they lie, they spin everything to the right, and they do the opposite of honestly report the news with no ideology.
- 12-21-04 -- O'Reilly claims to be an Independent with a no spin zone. Even though it is clear to anyone who watches the show that O'Reilly is a Republican with an all spin zone. I would say O'Reilly leans right about 90 percent, that makes him a Republican, O'Reilly seems to be the only person in America who can not comprehend that. With that claim O'Reilly loses any credibility he might get, when you lie about your ideology you lose all credibility. I own www.oreilly-sucks.com and I lean 90 percent left, that makes me a Democrat and a Liberal, at least I have the honesty to admit my ideology.
- 12-20-04 -- Bill O'Reilly wins "Misinformer of The Year Award" from www.mediamatters.org/. Since launching in May of 2004, Media Matters has identified and corrected more than 70 examples of O'Reilly lying, exaggerating, or distorting the truth. Bill calls them smear merchants, despicable weasels, and character assassins when all they do is publish quotes and transcripts from O'Reilly, and then show you how he put his spin on the issue or flat out lied. Among O'Reilly's most egregiously false and misleading claims were false assertions that President Bush did not oppose the 911 Commission; repeated declarations of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link; and one instance where O'Reilly fabricated a Paris newspaper to support his claim of a successful French boycott.
Update -- 6-12-05 -- mediamatters.org now has 213 documented lies and distortions from Bill O'Reilly. All that in little more than a year, great job Bill, keep up the good work you right-wing propagandist.
- 12-15-04 -- O'Reilly flat out lied about averaging 6 million viewers a night. O'Reilly was talking to Ashleigh Banfield about why there are no women news anchors on the big three networks. At one point Banfield said "there's a real upheaval it seems in broadcast news. And why is that? Because people like you are getting 2 million viewers a night." Then Bill promptly corrected her -- he told her the Factor gets 6 million viewers a night. According to the Nielson company the factor averaged 2.7 million viewers a night for the month of October and the month of November in 2004. These numbers are right from Nielson, not from the warped mind of Bill O'Reilly. To get 6 million viewers a night O'Reilly would need to average about a 5.7 rating, which has never happened in the history of the show. Do not e-mail me about this unless you know what the hell you are talking about.
Click Here and look at the ratings for yourself
Update: Factor Averages a 2.1 For January of 2005
Update: Factor Averages a 1.9 For April of 2005
Update: Factor Averages a 1.7 For May of 2005
- 10-13-04 -- Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against host Bill O'Reilly for sexually explicit phone calls and conversations. The charges were never denied by O'Reilly or his attorney, instead, they argued that such behavior does not constitute harassment. In a statement on the factor O'Reilly said he would fight the charges to the bitter end no matter what, and that it is time to stand up to the smear merchants. Then Billy Boy found out she had tapes of his phone sex calls, suddenly the fight to the bitter end was over and he reportedly paid her $10 million dollars to shut her up and make sure the tapes never become public. During this whole time Mr. Morality was married with a child.
- 2-26-03 -- Right before the Iraq war started Bill O'Reilly said this: "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me." So basically if you do not support the war you are a traitor, that is how it is in the world of Bill O'Reilly. Even though we now know the anti-war people were right, there were no WMD's, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, or any terrorist act in America. Notice how O'Reilly says support the military, as if you oppose the war you do not support the military. That is wrong, I support the military 100 percent, what I oppose is the Bush administration who took us into an un-needed and un-justified war that has killed over 1,300 Americans and wounded over 15,000.
- 2-6-03 -- During an interview with Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D.-Texas) O'Reilly called mexicans who cross the border wetbacks. The incident was explained away by Fox officials as an unfortunate gaffe, but the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call had O'Reilly using the same racist term in a speech earlier in the year: "O'Reilly criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Service for not doing its job and not keeping out the wetbacks."
- 9-17-01 -- O'Reilly Advocated Violating The Geneva Convention by Bombing Civilian Targets. OReilly said that if the Afghan government did not extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S., "the U.S. should bomb their infrastructure to rubble-- the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads." O'Reilly went on to say: " This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period." O'Reilly added that in Iraq, "their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain.... Maybe then the people there will finally overthrow Saddam." If Libya's Moammar Khadafy does not relinquish power and go into exile, "we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand."
It's unclear how O'Reilly is able to reconcile his claim that "we should not target civilians" with his calls for decimating the infrastructures of at least three countries and starving their populations.
The Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1, Part IV, Chapter III, Article 54) are very clear that "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." They specify that "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," including water and food supplies, are not legal military targets. Violating these strictures, which are legally binding on the U.S., would constitute a war crime, and might be considered a crime against humanity.
The Geneva Conventions also state that combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives" (Part IV, Chapter I, Article 48).
If actually carried out, the proposals made by Bill O'Reilly would certainly result in civilian deaths totaling in the millions. Suggesting that killing large numbers of civilians is an acceptable political strategy only legitimizes the logic of terrorism.
- 3-6-01 -- In an interview with Rev. Al Dixon (who is African American) O'Reilly told him to go back to Africa because he had complained about some problems in America. Mr. Dixon declined and informed Mr. O'Reilly that he was born in New York and America is his home. O'Reilly later denied he ever told any black man to go back to Africa, here is the quote. "Reverend, you can go back to Africa if you want to. I mean, you could go and repatriate back to the continent or anywhere. Not any country will take U.S. citizens, but African countries will."
- For the record, O'Reilly is hiding under his desk in fear of this website and the owner of this website, which happens to be me. This website has exposed thousands of lies put out by O'Reilly and he will not answer to any of my facts or allow me to be a guest on the factor. Talk about coward, O'Reilly is not only a biased right-wing liar, he is the real coward.