Priceless: O’Reilly, whose crew regularly stalks people, freaks out at guy approaching him with camera

You have to watch this video from PFAW's RightWingWatch, it's priceless (and only 55 seconds long). Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, who regularly sics his crew on people, in essence stalking them (even on vacation) so they can get you on cam when you least expect it and then pepper you with difficult, accusing questions, found himself at the receiving end of a camera last night, and didn't like it one bit. Not only did O'Reilly appear to shove his umbrella at the guy, but O'Reilly then went up to a cop - looks like Secret Service - and told him to arrest the kid.

I'm not always such a fan of jamming cameras in people's faces, but O'Reilly does this all the time. ALL THE TIME. Remember when he did it to the Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel (who was then at ThinkProgress)? It's creepy, and he loves to do it. But when he's on the receiving end, he kind of loses it. Read the rest of this post...

Bill O'Reilly's book on Lincoln won't be sold at Ford's Theater—too many factual errors

In two separate posts at Salon, Justin Elliot reports on the fate of Bill O'Reilly's bestselling book, Killing Lincoln, which was being considered for sale at Ford's Theater, the site of Lincoln's assassination. The site is run by the National Park Service and contains a bookstore at which Lincoln–related material is available for purchase.

In the first post, "Ford's Theater flunks O'Reilly's Lincoln book", Elliot reports on the recommendation of the book reviewer assigned by the NPS:

A reviewer for the official National Park Service bookstore at Ford’s Theatre has recommended that Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling new book about the Lincoln assassination not be sold at the historic site “because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.”

Rae Emerson, deputy superintendent at Ford’s Theatre, which is a national historic site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, has penned a scathing appraisal of O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever.” In Emerson’s official review, which I’ve pasted below, she spends four pages correcting passages from O’Reilly’s book before recommending that it not be offered for sale at Ford’s Theatre because it is not up to quality standards.

Read the rest of the post to see Emerson's full review. Some of the items she found are less "off" than others, but all are factual errors, and there's quite a list.

In his second post, "Second expert trashes O'Reilly's Lincoln book", Elliot implies that the NPS has taken the reviewer's recommendation and declined to offer the book (my emphasis):

On Friday I wrote about the decision of Ford’s Theatre not to offer Bill O’Reilly’s bestsetlling [sic] new book on the Lincoln assassination at its bookstore because an expert National Park Service reviewer found the work to be riddled with factual errors.

The first article doesn't say whether the bookstore had made a decision, but based on the above, it certainly looks like the No is official.

That second post goes on to detail further factual problems, as noted in a book review from the November issue of North & South, "the official magazine of the Civil War Society". That review is not online, but there's a good write-up of it in Elliot's Salon post.

Each is an interesting read, short and to the point.

This kind of performance doesn't surprise me from O'Reilly, whose mouth makes factual errors all the time. I'm more concerned that the publisher, Henry Holt, allowed them to remain in the final version. Elliot says he's contacted the publisher, but hasn't heard back.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Forbes: Could Bill O’Reilly drag Fox News into the hacking scandal?

Forbes:

According to Gawker, the top-rated Fox News host is the prime mover behind a highly irregular police investigation in his Long Island hometown. A detective working for internal affairs was allegedly asked to meet with private investigators who were trying to build a case against another detective, who had become romantically involved with O’Reilly’s wife while the two were separated. This, by the way, is the promised bombshell that prompted Fox News’s bizarre and dishonest reports about how Gawker is “dying.”

To build a case that News Corp. constitutes a corrupt organization under anti-racketeering statutes, prosecutors have to show that there exists a pattern of wrongdoing sanctioned at the highest levels of the company.

I’ve said I consider it unlikely that such a pattern can be established. But the charges against O’Reilly make it that much less unlikely. As Gawker notes, his boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes, has a habit of using local cops as though they’re his personal employees. 

Read the rest of this post...

FOX uses footage from CA to suggest that WI protests are violent

Only at FOX. Brian Beutler has more. Check out the final seconds of O'Reilly, and the violent protests in "Wisconsin", PALM TREES AND ALL.

Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly suggests that God is behind ocean tides

A very weird comment by Bill O'Reilly, about 1:50 into this video. He not only seems to be suggesting that God is behind the ocean's tide, but he also says, repeatedly, that we don't know what causes the tides. Uh, yes we do - it's the moon (along with the sun and the spin of the earth).

Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly causes mayhem on set of 'The View'

Read the rest of this post...

Bill O'Reilly on tax cut debate: Boehner 'was caught in a tanning bed'

Meow!

Rep. John Boehner "was caught in a tanning bed" and "didn’t really hear what was going on" during the public debate over tax cuts, Bill O'Reilly told me today. That is how he explained Boehner’s "blink" on the tax cut stand-off when the Ohio Republican said he would vote to extend just the middle-class cuts if it was his "only option."

Speaking of tanning beds. I just find it funny that a party that goes out of its way to gay bash (no gays in our military, thank you very much), and even subtly imply that Democratic candidates aren't as manly as they should be, has a party leader who spends his time cultivating a perpetual tan. I don't think I know any straight guys who get perma tans. I mean, sure there's Charlie Crist... And don't even get me started on the eyebrows and the make-up in his official photo (and tell me he's not wearing make-up). Imagine what the Republicans would do if our party leader had that as his official photo. Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly laments that you can no longer make fun of Arabs in America

O'Reilly's version of the famous Niemöller quote: First they came for the racists...

Read the rest of this post...

David Brooks attacks Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and O'Reilly

Coming on the heels of Lindsay Graham's criticism, this is very interesting. It suggest to me that, whether or not Graham and Brooks coordinated their public rebukes, they certainly are reinforcing one another. There may actually be some backlash finally coming to the surface among non-crazy Republicans who have had it with the Teabag crowd, and their masters.

So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche — even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.

But, of course, we shouldn’t be surprised by this story. Over the past few years the talk jocks have demonstrated their real-world weakness time and again. Back in 2006, they threatened to build a new majority on anti-immigration fervor. House Republicans like J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both of Arizona, built their re-election campaigns under that banner. But these two didn’t march to glory. Both lost their seats....

Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.

Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly vs. Steele on the Public Option

Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly supports the Public Option

I think this just might give the Democrats a wee bit of cover now. Unless O'Reilly is the left of the left?

Read the rest of this post...

Boehlert: "Militia-style vigilante rhetoric has become a cornerstone of the conservative media movement in America"

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters on O'Reilly's incendiary rhetoric and the abortion doctor murder:

Please note what you did not hear from virtually anyone on the far right who addressed the Tiller story last week. Yes, they tried furiously to distance Bill O'Reilly from the controversy or suggest there was nothing problematic with the "baby killer" rhetoric he used. But what you did not hear was anyone condemn, or even take issue with, O'Reilly's on-air crusade.

Why the silence? Because militia-style vigilante rhetoric has become a cornerstone of the conservative media movement in America, and it's now proudly championed by Fox News on a nearly hourly basis.

Eric raises another point that I've heard mentioned repeatedly:

Noise Machine leaders claimed that liberal commentators do exactly what O'Reilly and Beck have been accused of: using violent political hate language that puts people's lives in danger. That claim has been made over and over, yet conservatives can't actually produce any proof -- can't find any hateful liberal quotes -- to buttress the claim.

That's because both talking points are complete fabrications.

Republicans, when pressed about how hateful their intellectual leaders like Limbaugh, Savage, Medved, Beck, and Coulter are, like to respond by claiming that liberals are just as hateful. They then cite Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. Yes, Jesse Jackson made some pretty hateful statements about Jews... back in the 1980s. He's now never even heard from in Democratic circles. He's hardly a leader of the party. Al Sharpton? Funny man, but same as Jackson, irrelevant on the national scene. Which leaves us Michael Moore. First off, Moore doesn't keynote Democratic party events across the country. He's hardly the intellectual leader of the party that Limbaugh is to Republicans. (You won't be seeing the chair of the Democratic party reflexively apologizing to Michael Moore any time soon.) Second, when has Michael Moore said anything hateful? Sure, you may not like his criticism of Republicans, but we're not talking simple criticism. We're talking the sexism, racism, homophobia, and overall hate and rage that pours forth from Republican intellectual leaders on a daily basis. There simply is no one on the Democratic side to compare. Read the rest of this post...

CNN's Rick Sanchez rips Bill O'Reilly after catching Bill-O in a lie

CNN's Rick Sanchez calls FOX's Bill O'Reilly out for lying about CNN's supposed lack of coverage of the military recruiter shooting last week. O'Reilly tried to slam CNN as not being a real news station, and seemed to hint that CNN had a soft spot for Muslims (i.e., CNN hates America), because, O'Reilly wrongly claimed, CNN only reported once on the shooting. In fact, as Rick Sanchez shows, CNN reported on it all day long in about ten different segments or so. It's a good video, watch it.

Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly ambushed Tiller twice

No wonder O'Reilly is freaking out. Media Matters reports that O'Reilly's crew ambushed Tiller twice. Here's the video of the 2007 confrontation:

 Read the rest of this post...

Bill O'Reilly fantasized, on the air, about getting his hands on Dr. Tiller

O'Reilly really wanted to get his hands on Tiller. Media Matters found the clip:

Just a figure of speech? Yeah. Wink, wink. Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly to address to criticism over his demonization of pro-choice doctor who was then assassinated in church

The fact that a lead GOP front man has to explain himself over a murder speaks volumes to just how extreme the GOP has become. What do you think? Can speech alone incite violence? Or do you subscribe to the notion that speech doesn't kill people, people kill people - i.e., in the end we're all responsible for our actions, regardless of whether someone else inspired them? Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly compared murdered doctor Tiller to a Nazi, called him a "baby killer," and warned of "Judgment Day"

Salon has the story:

[T]here's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer."

Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

O'Reilly has also frequently linked Tiller to his longtime obsession, child molestation and rape. Because a young teenager who received an abortion from Tiller could, by definition, have been a victim of statutory rape, O'Reilly frequently suggested that the clinic was covering up for child rapists (rather than teenage boyfriends) by refusing to release records on the abortions performed.

Jed Lewison has the video from some of those 29 segments:
Read the rest of this post...

Funny, Bill O'Reilly didn't think gay marriage was wrong in 2002

Bill O'Reilly went off the other night about how gay marriage could lead to goat, duck, dolphin and turtle marriage - oh yeah, and polygamy. It's funny, then, that back in 2002, Bill O'Reilly told my friend Michael Giltz in a bombshell interview for the Advocate that he couldn't care less about the issue of gay marriage. At first, O'Reilly told Michael that he was opposed to gay marriage. Then when pushed by the reporter, O'Reilly finally conceded:

"Look, I couldn't care less, to tell you the truth.... You want to get married? Knock yourself out. Go to Vegas. Have a good time. If you can get that changed, I'm not going to jump up and down and say I think it's wrong, because I don't."

This was the same interview in which O'Reilly referred to anti-gay religious right activists as "fanatics" and "holy rollers" who were a bit "ridiculous." O'Reilly went on to express his support for laws protecting gays in the workplace and more. Shortly after that, O'Reilly ripped a religious right representative, on camera.

Well, the religious right went nuts. And suddenly, Bill O'Reilly had an epiphany. Suddenly, after being harshly criticized by the "fanatics" for being too tolerant, Bill O'Reilly became very anti-gay again. Imagine that. Read the rest of this post...

Dear Spain

The people who watch O'Reilly are not only a minority of our country, but they generally don't have money, passports, or any interest in visiting any country that can't be covered by a trip to the Epcot Center.

Love, JOHN Read the rest of this post...

Roger Ebert discusses Bill O'Reilly's, uh, mouse-like appendage

Hysterical column from Roger Ebert about Bill O'Reilly having declared the Chicago Sun-Times public enemy number one for dropping his column.

Here are the first three paragraphs. You really need to read the rest, including the last paragraph, that I'm not quite sure I can post without peeing my pants:

Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your "Hall of Shame." To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.

Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.

I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that "very few" readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, "many more complained about Nancy." I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that "wow" was "mom" spelled upside-down....

Read the rest of this post...