In the matter of O'Reilly v. Godwin

Media Matters - O'Reilly: No escaping "the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing": "O'Reilly: No escaping 'the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing'

Summary: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer's letter -- criticizing O'Reilly for a 'lapse of judgment' regarding his statement that he did not 'see any difference between [Huffington Post founder Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis' -- by defending the statement. O'Reilly said: 'If you look back at what happened in Germany, you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cutthroats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing now.'"

Yep. they both explore concepts and advocate positions that Bill cannot comprehend, due to his complete, willful ignorance.

In ordinary discourse, of course, it is considered to be a norm that a gratuitous comparison of a critic to Nazis amounts to a concession of the total argument.

Goddess, it becomes so damn embarrassing to even admit the slightest tendancy toward Conservatism in any way, on any matter, for fear of being confused with the mouth-breathing lickspittles that watch his show. But then I remember what the rest of the world calls much of what we think of as NeoConservatism.
NeoLiberalism.

Then I feel better.

O'Rielly promotes idea that "liberals are more dangeous than terrorists."

I blogged earliler about this,working just from a bare description. I still haven't found a transcript, but the reaction and outrage continues to spread.

The article linked below points out that Bill'O is very fond of Hate Speech, Nazi-style eliminationist rhetoric and conspiracy theories himself.

AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: Bill O'Reilly Compares Progressive Bloggers to Nazis and KKK: "O'Reilly Promotes Violence and Conspiracy, But Condemns Deliberative Debate

In this quote from the end of the book, D'Souza sent his 9/11 conspiracy theory a careening over the cliff of violent language and logic, making an argument plain and simple enough for even Bill O'Reilly to understand (emphasis mine):

In reality, the left already has a foreign policy and a strategy, and it is called working in tandem with bin Laden to defeat Bush. As we have seen, the left and the Islamic radicals operate like the two sides of a scissors, each prong working separately, but toward the same end. Conservatives need to identify the enemy at home and show its tacit relationship with the foreign enemy. Not only is there a close parallel between the rhetoric of the two groups, but they have the same goal of defeating Bush in Iraq, and they need each other to accomplish this goal. In short the left is the domestic insurgency that provides a counterpart to the Iraq insurgency. It is at least as dangerous as any of bin Laden's American sleeper cells.

(Dinesh D'Souza, The Enemy at Home, p. 269)

Now, at this point--most Americans would read this passage and think: Oh, my, god. This book accuses the "cultural left" of being "at least as dangerous" as terrorists plotting to kill Americans with poison gas and nuclear bombs. Yep. That is exactly what D'Souza argued in the book. Not satisfied with floating a crackpot theory about liberals causing 9/11, D'Souza drives right into crazy town--redefining liberals as terrorists. The result, for those who actually take D'Souza seriously, is the idea that America should be hunting down liberals in the same way that they are hunting down terrorists--to be a liberal is to be a violent enemy of America, the only rightful end for which is death. Although wrapped up in the niceties of academic language, D'Souza's book is essentially a 300-page call for the death penalty against anyone identified with the left in America.

I have already blogged about this sort of hate speech - and what needs to be done about it.

Graphictruth: "Why Do You Hate America, Mr. King?": "We don't 'hate America,' Willhelm. There are certain people who claim to be patriotic Americans, while disparaging the values expressed by our Constitution and the Inalienable Rights recognized by it, that we could frankly do without.

Yourself, for example. [There's more...] You are not representative of core American values, as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the letters of Franklin, the writings of Adams, or worthy of citizenship when you can speak about 'knowing our place.'

Sir, 'our place' is in the Militia, defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. You - and your self-deluded, authoritarian ilk - are precisely such a threat.

THIS - right here - IS such a 'well regulated militia,' using the power of the press under the aegis of the First Amendment. But if need be, we citizens are charged to do the same under the Second, should it come to pass that our government is suborned and becomes indistinguishable from any other Tyranny.

A Militia is any group of citizens coming together with their skills , talents and ability in common cause and without need to be told by some self-styled 'Commander in Chief' what to do or how to do it.

However, I do not actually hate you. Strong emotion can spoil your aim."

Bill-O Blitzed by HS Junior

Dear Bill O'Rielly: Do you KNOW how much your producer hates your loofa-waving guts?

The following painfully viral video demonstrates what happens when your staff doesn't care to send you out properly prepared, or do a decent background on the student. Oh, wait, maybe they mentioned he was on the debate team, and you didn't grasp the significance. Yeah, I bet that was the way it went down.

Of course, since you HAVE been "the driving force" behind this controversy, the Other Side sent their very best debater, prepared with - heh - evidence! Then he just had to wait for a lie he could document. And the "other side" was represented by someone who was apparently conservative - and whom I will bet is in the Drama club. He played the "good cop."

I give them a 1. You get a 4.

I mean, the kid didn't even have to break a sweat. All I can say, Bill, is you are lucky they didn't send a senior.

clipped from www.radaronline.com

Last week, O'Reilly imploded during an interview with Jesse Lange, a rising junior at Boulder High School in Colorado (video above). He was on the program to address O'Reilly's criticism of the Boulder High sex-education program. Lange tells Radar that he knew he was brought on for an opposing view, but his main concern before the show was how to address O'Reilly. "I wasn't sure whether or not I should call him Bill or Mr. O'Reilly," Lange tells Radar. "In the end, I decided to call him Bill, because if I called him Mr. O'Reilly, it would imply that I viewed him as some sort of expert or authority figure." Lange also says that in a brief pre-show interview, O'Reilly asked him not to quote the incendiary parts from The O'Reilly Factor For Kids. "Bill expressly asked me not to talk about it on the air," he says, but the book was the perfect counterpoint to O'Reilly's thinly constructed premise.

Oh, and the comments! My God, the comments! There are actually people who honestly think Bill won that exchange!

But I think the best summation comes from Bill's Arch Nemesis.



Ouch. That's gonna leave a welt.

Bill O'Rielly to John McCain:

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

Transcript courtesy Democrats.org

McCain failed completely to dissociate himself from this statement. I'm not much impressed by his attempt to duck O'Rielly's smug, cheesy racism.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

[crosstalk]

O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.

Democrats.org highlights the "I agree with you," no doubt hoping ot imply that McCain agrees that it is iimportant to maintain the white Christian male power structure.

Me, I'm not sure that's a fair statement, but on the other hand, McCain failed to punch O'Rielly in the face for sleazing him by implication. So either he does agree, or he figures he can't afford to offend people who like Bill.

Now, I think he's tragically wrong on that. I don't think taking Bill to the woodshed, verbally or otherwise, could hurt ANYONE's election chances. And if he cut McCain's mike - now that would be pure electoral gold.

Bill O'Rielly, John McCain, Racism, 2008

An Open Letter to George Soros

Dear George Soros:

It's come to my attention, via Bill O'Rielly, that all his critics are supposedly funded by you, in order to provide "lies and smears."

I didn't know anyone needed to be paid to pick on Bill. Making fun of Bill is getting cheaper every day, to the point of being a minor vice like chewing gum. If it were a full time effort, of course, it might be another matter; having to actually listen to every word of his would be for me right up there with golf, gardening and exposure to sunlight.

I can see asking for grants to ease the pain might be in order if I were dedicated to listening to and transcribing all the the conservative asshattery out there. And clearly, Media Matters deserves our support for all the harmless fun it provides us. So if you have been clandestinely slipping them money under the table - thank you. And if you haven't, why not?

Despite my impressively well-endowed IQ, I still don't quite understand how it would be wrong for you to fund Media Matters, or even directly fund a "smear site" that unfairly targeted Bill O'Rielly. Short of provably actionable statements, e have a First Amendment and last I checked, there wasn't an "except for rich people" clause.

Even stranger, it's seems to be OK by Bill if Sun Myung Moon, that Coors fella and Rupert Murdoch perform the same exact stunts he's accusing you of, to the tune of many, many millions more. Could it be that he sincerely believes that everyone is as obviously corrupt as he, with no motives but the ulterior? Or perhaps he simply can't understand that he and his ilk simply don't matter enough for you to notice.

I'm less concerned at the double standard, where "Lies and Smears" are bad for Liberals (and me) but OK for the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" I don't really mind being held to a higher standard than Bill and the Swifties.

It really isn't that hard.

But I do find it hilarious that Bill and his listeners are incapable of noticing a level of cognitive dissonance that should literally crack their skulls. Or at least Bill is. Perhaps by this point a significant fraction of his listeners are rolling in the aisles at his expense. I'm sure they are over at Media Matters. Hell, I wonder if there's a pool on Bill's next public meltdown?

Anyway, I must congratulate you on maintaining plausible deniablity in this matter of the funding you OF COURSE have not provided by way of the clever ploy of provoking Bill into this "hard-hitting expose.'" As most of America has come to realize, if Bill says it, it ain't plausible.

But I AM somewhat miffed at Bill's latest excretion, courtesy of Media Matters.

Now, I confess I've never actually had to lie about Bill, not with so many sharp and truthful rocks lying about, sadly unused. I'll admit to an occasional negative appreciation of him, the odd derogatory comment, but then, I'm an editorialist. I try and tell the truth as I see it, but it is my own humble opinion that he's a corrupt, lying, womanizing incompetent who WISHES he had access to as good a grade of pharmaceuticals as Rush Limbaugh. But having said that, I do understand that he may feel unappreciated by those of us with IQ's above that of tepid water and the capability to read and comprehend above a fourth-grade level.

No, what troubles me is that, despite our alleged collusion, you have yet to buy one of my t-shirts! These are very high-quality shirts, even a billionaire would be hard-pressed to find such a combination of ring-spun cotton goodness and hilarity. Furthermore, they are available in a full spectrum of politically relevant colors. They display a particularly skillful and unflattering image of Bill and the light-colored shirts feature a reverse (shown above) that says "No Whining."

Now, in the spirit of candor our conversations have always enjoyed, Iconfess that I'm not really a Liberal; I know that O'Rielly, Limbaugh and the like would say I am, even as they say you are, but I'm a Libertarian and you are a Billionaire, so I expect our mileage varies on a few, tiny, barely perceptible core issues of Liberalism.

But O'Rielly and those who find him compelling and persuasive continue to lump all their opponents together as "liberals," as if common sense, competence, ethics and a sense of proportion were the native fruits of any political philosophy. Would that they were, of course, but I doubt I'll live to see that day.

Still, I was somewhat miffed to find that we have been lumped together thusly and rudely by Bill: (Transcript, of course, from Media Matters,) apparently as a result of the gleeful fun-poking at his expense by all and sundry due to the Indiana University Study.

By the way, did you know that Soros' Open Society Institute donated $5 million to Indiana University? I'm 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. Most of the committed left press didn't mention the nutty Indiana paper. Only those truly bought and paid for elements at NBC News and Rosie O'Donnell spit it out there.

I confess a childish and sadistic glee in being able to write this headline: O'Rielly "less nuanced" than Father Charles Couglin. Other than that, the study was an exercise in quantifying the obvious; a five-finger exercise in sociology barely requiring statistical tools more complex than a clipboard and anti-nausea medication. But hey, what are undergraduates for?

For me, the sweetest bit is that references to Fr. Charles Couglin is probably lost on both O'Rielly and his core audience, making the allusion truly tragicomic. In Bill's case; "Those who will not remember history are forced to impersonate it."

Now, whether or not you cleverly funded this delightfully accurate research or whether it's the sort of thing students do when they are trying to find an easily documented research topic against a looming deadline with an eye toward sucking up to a particular professor is moot. As a result of being slightly associated with the production and enjoyment of these "inconvenient truths," you and I are now accused of being fellow "liberals."

But I suppose one could be called worse things; "Ineffective Liar" comes to mind.

I don't mind at all being called a Propagandist, that is what I am. However, there's white propaganda which relies on telling the most inconvenient possible truth in the most effective and damning way possible; "Black Propaganda," which is Karl Rove's forte' and then there's Bill - an embarrassment to competent propagandists everywhere.

You see, it's not so much his politics I despise, or even his lack of ethics both journalistic and personal. Even worse, in my mind, is the contempt for his audience his shoddy workmanship reveals. Cheap jingoism, clumsy and obvious false associations, moldy and unconvincing straw men and of course, the transparent appeal to the willful stupidity of anti-intellectualism, jingoism and racism. If carpenters built houses like Bill makes an argument, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.

However, I was trying to twist your arm, presuming upon our now obvious commonalities. Since we are now"Fellow Travelers" - along with Rosie O'Donald - may I point out that my Cafepress shirts now come in women's plus sizes?

Regards;

Bob King.

tag: Bob King, Graphictruth, Bill O'Rielly, Cafepress, George Soros, Media Matters, Indiana State University, quoted accurately, Kieth Olbermann, Liberal Propaganda, Inconvenient Truths, Propagandists,

O'Rielly "less nuanced" than Father Charles Couglin

Bill O'Rielly makes me snicker uncontrollably whenever he says he's "fair and balanced" or refers to his show as "The No-Spin Zone." Fact is, he's a hack and a mouthpiece, anyone who'd ever seen him on the trash-tv show, "Hard Copy" knows that his journalistic standards are short of that tolerated by the "National Enquirer."

But it's nice to have real data to expose the lazy, lying slug for what he is, using actual data based on his actual content.

When the data show you to be "less nuanced" than Father Charles Coughlin, you are not "fair and balanced," you are in fact fairly unbalanced. Perhaps even in a clinical sense!

Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor': "Using analysis techniques first developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Conway, Grabe and Grieves found that O'Reilly employed six of the seven propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute in his editorials. His editorials also are presented on his Web site and in his newspaper columns.

The seven propaganda devices include:

• Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
• Glittering generalities -- the opposite of name calling;
• Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
• Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
• Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are 'of the people';
• Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
• Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin."

tag: Hate Speech, Hate Radio, conservative radio, Authoritarianism, integrety. Bill O'Rielly, Fair and Balanced

Attention, Bill O'Rielly and Melanie Morgan

tag: Media matters, Hot Talk, hate speech, KSFO, Fox News, Melanie Morgan, Bill O'Rielly

Um, Bill? It's not that we can't have a conversation with you..

You usefully point out that you can't carry on conversations with computer geeks. Indeed there has been speculation about whether the ability to focus so valuable for technology jobs correlates with Asperger's Syndrome, a light form of autism. Nice job, making fun of people who aren't the social butterfly that you are.

Who's she talking at? Why, none other than our amazingly idiotic Bill O'Rielly, who has said this - and in public, no less!

I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod… If this is your primary focus in life - the machines… it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America… did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them? …I really fear for the United States because, believe me, the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there.

-Bill O'Reilly

I wonder if he's capable of realizing the true irony of a radio host and frequent TV personality talking about how hard it is to talk to "these computer geeks." Yeah. Geeks like Marconi, Edison and Bell.

Of course, I find it hard to talk to someone so stupid as to speak in such a way as to suggest that it would be better for us geeks to be "killing real people" instead of playing video games.

So, Bill, the reality is this; the geeks that make it possible for you to bloviate on the air likely can't be bothered to have a conversation with you, but aren't quite aspie enough to just tell you that.

Of course, if you do find this posted somewhere at Fox, don't bother checking the printout for fingerprints. There won't be any. And the video surveillance will clearly show it was Albert Einstein who tacked up the note.