http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090001On pages 67-71 of Lies (hardcover), Franken detailed O'Reilly's inconsistent positions. Franken offered three instances in which O'Reilly claimed that Inside Edition won Peabody Awards, such on the May 19, 2000, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
ARTHEL NEVILLE (former Fox News anchor): You hosted Inside Edition --
O'REILLY: Correct.
NEVILLE: -- which is considered a tabloid show.
O'REILLY: By whom?
NEVILLE: By many people.
O'REILLY: Oh, does that mean --
NEVILLE: And even you --
O'REILLY: -- we throw the Peabody Awards back?
NEVILLE: Even you -- even you would admit to that. Come on, now.
O'REILLY: No, I wouldn't.
NEVILLE: Come on, now.
O'REILLY: I would not.
NEVILLE: And despite your fight to be a hard-hitting journalist, some people would say you sold out.
O'REILLY: Well, they're crazy.
NEVILLE: You sold it.
O'REILLY: We won Peabody Awards.
NEVILLE: You got a lot of money, and you sold out.
O'REILLY: We won Peabody Awards.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511070003On the November 4 broadcast of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks falsely claimed that during their presidencies Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan saw their job approval ratings fall to "the 20s." During a discussion with nationally syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Brooks argued that President Bush's recent slide in the polls is "not irreversible. Clinton was much lower than Bush is now. Reagan was lower." When Shields countered, "Not in the job ratings," Brooks replied, "They [Clinton and Reagan] were in the 20s."
Bush's lowest approval rating to date was a 35-percent mark in a CBS News poll from October 30-November 1 (with a margin of error of +/-3 percent). According to the polling archive of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Reagan's lowest approval rating was also 35 percent, in a Gallup Poll from January 28-31, 1983. The Roper Center lists Clinton's low at a 36 percent, according to a Yank/Time/CNN Poll from May 26-27, 1993.
Fox Says White House Is Stunned By The Allegations Against One Of Their Own
I almost fell off of my chair when today on Studio B with Shepard Smith, correspondant Greg Kelly said that the White House was stunned by the allegations against one of their own.
He was filing a report on the new ethics classes that all of the White House staff is required to take sometime this week or next week. The classes are also supposed to tell the staff how they are supposed to handle classified material.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/08/hannity_once_again_defends_swift_boat_veterans.php#moreDick Armey (R - Former House Majority Leader) and Geraldine Ferraro (D - Former Representative and Vice Presidential candidate) were interviewed on Hannity & Colmes last night to discuss the dirty campaigns that are being run in the New Jersey Gubernatorial election.
1. Hannity states the Veterans (Swift Boat Veterans) gave "eye-witness accounts of John Kerry". This seems almost impossible, since many of the members did not serve at the same time or same place as Kerry. Many of the claims the SBVT were proven to be false after the fact, and were simply smears on Kerry.
Nez Dragon said:Well, now we have to start up a thread called Left Wing Lie of the Day... I'll be done with it in a few years...
Nez Dragon said:Well, now we have to start up a thread called Left Wing Lie of the Day... I'll be done with it in a few years...
Deegan said:I think that about sums it up, nothing to see here, move along.
cnredd said:A Conservative tried this idiotic stunt not too long ago...
Some thought he was a dipshit, too...:roll:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3569
Nothing new...Just a Liberal saying to a Conservative, "I can be as stupid as you!"...:shrug:
hipsterdufus said:3 republican responses and not ONE refutes any charge, only name calling. Typical.
"I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel."
Zell Miller
cnredd said:If you "duel" by using, as your weapon, an admittedly biased website, then I suggest you walk out of the forum, take a deep breath, then come back in and HOPEFULLY the members won't remember your first impressions on this thread...
Your idea of refuting is pathetic and an insult...
"A slanted website says "this"....Now go refute it."...:roll:
Can you hear it?...Listen close....There it is again!.....
DemocraticUnderground is calling you...:2wave:
hipsterdufus said:At first glance I see seven threads on "liberal bias"in this forum. Have you vilified those thread starters too and asked them to go back to Freeper world? :spin:
Note - 4 responses and counting....
Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --
...
Q He didn't ask for an exemption --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --
Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --
Q You're not answering -- yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.
cnredd said:From my first comment....
A Conservative tried this idiotic stunt not too long ago...
The only thing your dissenting on is the BIAS,...that is NOT the issue...
The other threads you speak of are not doing the same thing you are doing...which is just throwing out articles followed by articles followed by articles followed by articles...no debatable questions...no topic "angles"...just articles after articles...
I'm pretty sure anyone over the age of 6 could do that...Why bother?
You say "refute this", but put up multiples events!....What are we supposed to do???...Hunt down opposing positions for the next three hours in hopes that we find one that matches even ONE of yours????...And even if we did, your just gonna cry "partisan" anyway...:roll:
This whole thread reeks of you screaming... Well how about THIS?"...."Well what about THAT?"..."You didn't mention anything about THIS ONE!"...on & on ad nauseum...
The only difference between what you've done and my link is that you followed the forum rules and actually provided a link...
But the message behind it is still the same...:roll:
BTW - You know how much credibility someplace like AnnCoulter.com" would have if I used it as a source?....MediaMatters is much worse...
They even admit they target Conservatives in their "about" section...
They only thing more childish in a debate forum than using partisan sources is using photoshopped pictures....
So far you're 0-for-2...
O'Reilly's Ridiculous Omission
On last night's O'Reilly Factor, the Bloviating Billster used his "Most Ridiculous item of the Day" segment to gloat about the falling circulation figures of what he termed the "left-wing" newspapers. In typical O'Reilly fashion, he neglected to tell his viewers the whole story.
O'REILLY: "Time now for the most ridiculous item of the day. The nation's newspapers continue to lose readership. Many of them deserve it. New circulation numbers say the biggest drops are happening at left-wing newspapers. The L. A. Times down another 4%. Houston Chronice 6% down. Boston Globe down 8%. Atlanta- Journal-Constitution down almost 9% and the San Francisco Chronicle down an astounding 17%. Now, our pals at the TampaTribune and St. Petersburg Times - we'll deal with the St. Petersburg Times again tomorrow - are also down. What's happening here is that the internet is much easier to access than a newspaper but also millions of traditional-thinking Americans have stopped bying the left-wing papers. All and all, unless the left-wing press becomes more fair and balanced, things will get even more more ridiculous. Bank on it."
COMMENT
The newspaper the right-wing loves to hate - the New York Times - actually saw a slight INCREASE in circulation of 0.46%. O'Reilly never told his viewers that.
Nor did he tell them that Murdoch-owned tabloid, the New York Post, lost 1.74% in circulation.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/08/bill_oreilly_muddled_master_of_misdirection.php#moreBill O'Reilly: Muddled Master of Misdirection
O'Reilly Links Riots in France to Iraq War and French Refusal to Help Bush
"Well, if you don't believe in karma after this story, what can I say. Let's start at the beginning. If France had demanded that Saddam Hussein allow the U.N. weapons inspectors full access, there would not have been a war in Iraq. But as you know, France was making millions under the table by working with Saddam. And that corrupt bargain hurt us all. Also, let's not forget the Chirac government and the French media have consistently undermined America's War on Terror. That's why [The O'Reilly Factor is] boycotting France."
COMMENT: O'Reilly's exhibiting signs of mad FOX disease here, i.e. claiming that the U. N.inspectors did not have full access to Iraq, when in fact they did. The French actually favored permitting those inspectors to continue doing their job for several more months and opposed what they and other countries rightly perceived to be a misguided, unnecessary American misadventure in Iraq.
France was not the only country involved in the Oil-for-Food Scandal. Five U.S. companies and/or individuals have also been implicated. O'Reilly's statement here is simplistic at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
hipsterdufus said:O'Reilly is always good for a lie, or in this case, an error of omission. Here's one of his for today:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/09/oreillys_ridiculous_omission.php#more
hipsterdufus said:It's like shooting fish in a barrel with O'Reilly. Here's another lie from the same day.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/08/bill_oreilly_muddled_master_of_misdirection.php#more
Deegan said:“NAME THE LIBERAL HYPOCRITE” QUIZ
From Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy, by Peter Schweizer
Here's what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo
Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Why did they blame America first?
Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"
Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R)
"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage
"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R )
"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will
either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."
-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media
hipsterdufus said:Well there's cerainly enogh hypocrisy to go around. I love these gems.
Deegan said:I will stand up and say these folks were wrong, and that they now appear hypocritical, can you ever do the same?
hipsterdufus said:If they all pan out to be true I would say sure. I would like to see the sources first of course. You only provided the name of the book, but not the actual sources.
Deegan said:I am told by researchers that it is all true, and the book stands up to any and all critics, they actually take much pride in their findings. This of course is only a few folks that I trust, but I do trust them, and I believe you should as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?