A fair and balanced look at Bill "Pinhead" O'Reilly
First, you have to read this crap he was spouting last night:
But that success has caused an incredible amount of anger among some in the elite media and among some liberal ideologues. And their attacks on us have now resulted in legal issues, such as trademark infringement and defamation.
The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. And that message has been sent by FOX. There's a principle in play. Vigorous debate is embraced by us, but smear campaigns will be confronted. It is simply a joke for The New York Times to editorialize that fabricated personal attacks are acceptable under the banner of satire.
Then read what he wrote today:
The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda as poll after poll has demonstrated that FNC's audience is across the board ideologically and demographically...
Using liberal-leaning newspapers and publishing houses, the critics of FNC have unleashed defamatory personal attacks on me and other Fox news analysts and have attempted to denigrate the entire network.
If Fox News crashed and burned tomorrow, these people would toast marshmallows in the flames.
Now Fox News is striking back by putting the demonizers on notice that they will be held responsible when they violate trademarks or launch defamatory personal attacks on Fox personnel.
It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a "satirist" by The New York Times.
Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire...
We don't do drive-by character assassinations and we don't denigrate opposing points of view by launching gratuitous personal attacks...
The pubahs at The New York Times know what a smear campaign is but apparently if it's directed at an enterprise the paper disapproves of it's okay.
I wonder how the Times' editorialists would react if their faces graced a book cover accompanied by the word "liar."
Wow! That's a lot of bullshit to have to wade through, so let's break it down:
- Fox obviously doesn't give a damn about "character assassination" or "defamation." They don't mention either of those complaints in their lawsuit, which is entirely about trademark infringement. As much as O'Reilly would like you to believe this is about his being libeled, Fox's lawyers knew better.
- As Joe Conason asks in Big Lies, the left-leaning "publishing houses" also publish rightwingers, so how could they be call "left-leaning"?
- O'Reilly actually has no problem with character assassinations or personal attacks.
In defense of (oddly enough) the First Amendment, O'Reilly admitted calling people names. "How many times on this broadcast do I call people pinheads? You know, it's just in basically the discourse, back and forth, the passion," he said (O'Reilly Factor, 5/01/2003).
After Michael Kinsley wrote something about him in Slate, O'Reilly's producer called to see if Kinsley would appear on his show. When informed that Kinsley was on vacation, O'Reilly called him a "coward" on his show for "refusing" to show up. Kinsley did come on the show later and had a great response: "Look, I debated Pat Buchanan for many years on 'Crossfire.' I do not need to be afraid of Bill O'Reilly." (O'Reilly Factor, 3/20/2001)
Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton has never been proven to have done anything wrong, O'Reilly smears her every time he brings up her name. On June 23, he said she had "so many skeletons in the closet, it's Halloween every day." He once wrote that "The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is putting forth a façade; she will not define herself as a real person" -- which is a sneaky way of saying she's holding something back, even thought there's no way for O'Reilly to know if that's true or not.
Not to mention he called Al Franken a "vile human being" and, as Bob Minzesheimer pointed out in U.S.A. Today, "the conservative talk show host first decried political commentators who "call people names." Then he called Al Franken , the liberal humorist, an "idiot."
- As for hurting a business because you disagree with them, isn't that exactly what O'Reilly did to Pepsi by launching a boycott against them after they hired Ludacris?
- Also, does Bill (and Fox) really welcome "vigorous debate"? When the son of a man killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center disagreed with O'Reilly, Bill told him to "shut up" and told the director to "cut his mike."
- The idea that O'Reilly and Fox aren't conservative is, well, just stupid. For more than two years O'Reilly's columns were published on Townhall under a heading that read (and still reads) "Conservative Columnists." Did O'Reilly complain, one wonders? He's constantly warning against "raging liberals" or calling them "weasels."
- And, despite his disgust that Franken could be called a "satirist" he has no problem accepting Ann Coulter's calling liberals traitors as her way of being "funny" and then giving her the advice that she doesnt want to be like "liberal bomb-throwers."
Obviously, as Franken said during his famous argument with O'Reilly, "there's a lot more," but who has the time? The man is clearly intellectually dishonest, at best. At worst, he's a serial liar who can't take a freaking joke -- at least when it's on him. Remember, this is the man who once said how he used to love to rip open the personal lives of the rich and powerful... until things changed. "At the time I didn't think much about it, because I thought the rich and powerful were fair game. But now I'm rich and powerful." What a pinhead.