I'm generally inclined to leave Bill O'Reilly fact-checking in others' capable hands, but last night, the Fox News host made a comment that was pretty extraordinary, even for him.
For those who can't watch clips online, O'Reilly asked Fox News' Bob Beckel:
"Remember the outcry about waterboarding? You know, everybody jumping up and down? Uh, NBC News, I thought they were going to, like, melt down over there. You heard anything on NBC about the drones?"
It wasn't a rhetorical question. O'Reilly proceeded to insist that NBC News hasn't covered the drones story -- a detail he confirmed, he said, with his "staff" -- and spent several minutes condemning NBC News for the network's professional negligence.
The host added that NBC refuses to cover the drones story "because they are protecting" President Obama.
Um, Bill? NBC News broke the drones story. I know this because NBC News' Michael Isikoff appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, which has covered the drones story for quite a while, to put the newest developments on the national radar.
In fact, the reason the drones story has generated national attention this week is, in large part, because NBC and MSNBC put the story on the front burner.
I've never been entirely clear on O'Reilly's position on corrections, but I'll look forward to this one with bated breath.
Update: O'Reilly will reportedly "address" his comments on his show tonight.
Leave a Comment:
Reminds me of them claiming no terrorist attacks happened under Bush Jr... Oh, except for that whole World Trade Center thingy.
This is so delicious because Fox news is getting boxed into a situation of covering a major story when their editorial position is to defend Obama's policy.
Rachel, Alex, Chris and Lawrence are going way to the left of Obama and running stories critical of his policy, and what is Fox going to do? Let Obama lose the argument defending the imperial presidency that GOP presidents have carefully built up for their secret wars? Think of what Reagan would have done with drones in El Salvador and Nicaragua- or what Nixon would have done in Chile. They would have been far less constrained.
No- Fox is going to have to inject itself into this, and the dance they do is going to be comical.
Exactly this. It's like watching them try to divide by zero.
You forgot to mention the plane flying into the Pentagon, in addition to 3000 plus killed in New York City.
There will be a long wait for O'Reilly to make a correction about NBC and MSNBC because FoxNews considers them as part of the lame stream media and also the major media critics of FoxNews. There also will be a long wait for FoxNews to apologize for its unscrupulous, untruthful Benghazi campaign including its savaging of Susan Rice. Just as the wait will be long before FoxNews changes its Benghazi video. It only shows the burning consulate compound. I guess it is still burning to this day.
O'Reilly and FoxNews have their audience believing in their "fair and balanced" traditiion, especially when many of the cable companies do not carry MSNBC in their basic channel list. FoxNews says they believe in free speech, but they believe in censorship and distortion when it comes to Obama and the Democrats.
Belive me, O'Reilly's no spin zone will find a way to spin this in his favor. O'Reilly apoligizes to no one. Just ask Olberman
And the lemmings are using this talking point EVERYWHERE. The blogs are full of it. 'MSNBC isn't reporting on it!!!' Constantly we are linking stories that they are in FACT doing it and then they just 'dispute' it. The question WE ask is 'Do you WATCH MSNBC or are you just quoting FOX 'facts'?
Is it really that hard for people to look up the origin of the story, find Michael Isikoff's name and see that he works for NBC? I haven't been watching that much TV this week, and I saw Isikoff on two different MSNBC shows that I was just surfing through. This just confirms my suspicion of O'Reilly's approach to research, that is to just make up whatever story fits the narrative he wants to tell.
This is all over the conservative media, how the liberal media is ignoring the drone issues... They are safe in saying that because their viewers don't watch other outlets.
you just beat me to it.
I watched NBC break the story, but I don't think my brothers, the Fox News junkies will believe it originated from NBC's reporting.
if they getr caught watching any other net work they will be shunned
Bill'o lives in a special reality with subjective truth. That and he is counting on the fact that few (if any) of his audience actually watch MSNBC let alone the Maddow show.
I guess in Bill'o's reality there aren't interns whose job description is or includes watching Faux "News" to catch this kind of BS.
I hope MSNBC pays their people well to keep an eye on Faux, I'm pretty sure Colbert "Clockwork Oranges" his unpaid staff.
.
Don't hold your breath Steve. Fox never apologizes for anything. And their number one douche isn't about to break that tradition.
Bill was repeating the ridiculous meme that NBC, since it owns MSNBC, is hopelessly partisan by association. It's even funnier since he hosts the flagship show on a network that really is hopelessly partisan.
It also puts Bill in Hannity's hilarious position of trying to claim moral high ground since torture is somehow less bad than drone strikes.
Thanks for the laugh! Anyone on FAUX NOOZ that claims the "moral high" ground - need to be drug tested cause they're soooo NOT.....
Ahem.. correction.. that would be "Faux Snooze"
What he and others on FOX need is free mental health screenings and better meds.
When you succomb to your own delusions of graneur you tend to leave reality behind. The fact that these pitiful individuals are handed a platform from which to spread their delusions and a base of neurotic cave dwelling neanderthals convinced that these nuts are sane and inteligent feeds their fantasies of fame.
I think the only ones who watch are the ones who sign his paycheck, and a few of their relatives. Still, what does it say about a major country to have his type of pervasive garbage spread on its airwaves. There has to be accountability beyond what we have now.
What it says; this country holds freedom of speech as one of our highest rights, even if the person talking has their head of their arse.
The accountability; calling the dip out when he spews his erroneous information.
Just curious because I don't get my news from television, but has Scarborough mentioned drones on his show?
Republicans LIKE new ways to kill "ragheads" - since they can't get their sheets and ropes out any more here domestically.
Yes, morning Joe HAS talked about the drones, but no more than Rachel, Ed, Chris, or any of the prime time hosts.
Joe is against drones killing American citizens. He's been talking about it all week.
Well . . . it wouldn't be like O'Reilly (or anyone at Fox, for that matter) to let facts ruin a good story.
I saw this post and just laughed out loud, literally. How completely and utterly ridiculous that Bill-O KNOWS it's all over NBC & MSNBC because of Isikoff. They can't handle the fact that their ratings are in freefall and have to counter attack with their usual lies, fear, hate, etc. etc. Pathetic.
Wasn't the story, in fact, broke on Rachel show? Thats where I saw it first.
I don't think Rachel broke it, but she's devoted her A block to it every night this week so far.
As a matter of fact, the story was broken on the Maddow Show Monday night.
"condemning NBC News for the network's professional negligence?"Wow - I would be inclined to say well, that they condemn nbc news - rather for the netwoks professional intelligence. It's not even a close comparison. Its the only station I watch, and probably will be till the day I pass. Loved. (Jovian)
...and has Bill's company talked about the election rigging in GOP states? (I wouldn't know since I don't watch their garbage)
"Corrections? Corrections??!! We don't need no steenking corrections, steenking Yankee!" (with apologies to "The Treasured of the Sierra Madre")
Dance the jig.
You can send this bloviating sack of manure an email at oreilly@foxnews.com
Well, so far there seems to be only moderate interest on the part of the MaddowBlog faithful to comment on the Obama Administration's use of drones. A good portion of the comments tend toward making fun of Republicans for using this as a political issue. About the only criticism of President Obama is to commend Rachel and others for staying on top of the issue. Some are wary of such power in the hands of a President but apply their concern to what might happen IN THE FUTURE with some other President!
Yes, amazingly, there have been commenters on the drone issue who have stated they are OK with this power to be in the hands of Pres. Obama but they would NEVER countenance the same if it were in the hands of that "power-grabbing" George Bush. One commenter is so grateful that SOMEONE is out there doing the "dirty work" of keeping us safe -- and trusts that Obama will be judicious when it comes to utilizing these drone strikes.
Aren't these drone strikes just a modern day assassination squad, where individuals are selected, targeted, and killed without judicial review or any other sort of review outside of the Administration and its intelligence sources?
Isn't this the same group of commenters that railed on and on about Gov. Rick Scott for adopting a dog during a campaign run and then turning the dog back in to the kennel shortly after the elections? I can remember the name-calling, how Gov. Scott made them sick, and how Steve Benin vowed to make the "dog as campaign prop" a political issue when the election cycle rolled around again.
Because it isn't the subject of the thread.
I was commenting about the subject generally, to include discussions on the subject that have happened earlier. This was just the latest thread relating to the Administration's use of drones.
I would assume that you see it as preferable to land a hundred thousand troops, fight their way to the intended target, fight hand to hand in the hopes that the target hasn't been ushered out by the foreign government, remove untold numbers of wounded and dead to pacify your paranoia. I think this way is much better.
No, I don't like the idea of sending in thousands of troops and I have no paranoia. I am just pointing out the disparate reactions to, on the one hand, Pres. Obama sending a drone to kill an individual (even an American citizen) who had been deemed a threat to the US, while on the other hand Pres. Bush was regularly criticized for his power-grabbing "Cowboy" diplomacy -- you know, like wiretaps without judicial review, acting unilaterally or "on his own", and such.
What would you have us do UFO Pilot? Wage a trillion dollar war against a nation for no reason?
UFO Pilot huh? Apptly named, spaced cowboy. MUST be O'Reilly himself, sure sounds like the pompous, full of himself fool. Either way, get your head "out of orbit" Bill O and address the FACT that YOU, WERE, once again WRONG!!!! OR purposely LYING!!! Which is it this time Billy boy???? Enquiring minds would like to know!
?!
Another person living in a bubble. There have been lots of threads about the drones and how inappropriate it is for the president to deny Americans due process in this way, no matter what the perceived threat. This thread was specifically about the idiocy of O'Reilly and the right wing echo chamber in claiming that the so-called "liberal media" is giving the president a pass on this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is room for legitimate discussion about the drone policy, and many progressives are more upset about it than the right wing, whose only real objection is that a democratic president did it.
President Bush did use drones in such a manner against a US Citizen, on 3 November 2002 in Yemen. Condoleeza Rice defended it as constitutional as part of a broader new war authorized by the AUMF and Article 2 - the exact same justification the Obama Administration is using here. I did not object to those actions then either, thoguh I did have strong objections to wiretapping, torture, and a number of other issues, because they were in fact different issues. Just as our targeting of Yamamoto's plane in WWII and sniper attacks on Confederate officers in the Civil War (who were American citizens to boot) was legal as part of the traditions and laws of war, target killing of leaders of an adversary today remains legal. The fact that those leaders of enemy forces happen to be American citizens doesn't give them added protection. If captured, things would be different, but not on the battlefield (just as cops can shoot armed suspects resisting or fleeing, but cannot slap them around once detained).
I think UFO Pilot makes fair points, even if I am a little less alarmed by the drone program than he is (and perhaps I should be) I hated Bush and disagreed with what his administration did on nearly every issue. Nevertheless, in spite of all the mess they created, Pres. Bush and his administration had to respond to the threat posed by organizations like Al Quaida. The precedents set under both Presidents have been truly scary indeed. We may be able to live without some of their their ugly extremes (like waterboarding, Guantanamo/Baghram, extraordinary rendition, etc.) - but the war that is being fought right now has to be fought - it doesn't matter who is President.
I avoided the Ed show the last couple of days because Ed was carrying on about the Drones so much on his radio show I got tired of hearing it.
Yes, blasting people from miles away, or even half the world away, isn't a brave way to fight a war.
But if someones a terrorist they're the target.
If someones with the target they're in the blast zone.
Sorry.
But for Faux to say UAVs haven't been covered ? O'Really?.
.
I'm sure you'll still believe that the day some right winger in office decides you are an "enemy insurgent." Think it won't happen??
When Brillo there is talking about consulting his "staff", I somehow don't think he's talking about employees.
O'Really *has* a research team? Hmmm, whodathunk. Woulda never been able to tell from what he says.
I recall several years back that O'Reilly (perhaps thanks to his crack researchers) chewed up American solldiers for executing German prisoners at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge. The amazing thing is he did it twice, on successive nights, despite the fact that it was the Germans who massacred unarmed Americans. He never made a correction.
The "NBC Hasn't Covered Drones Story" meme is not the result of a mistake. It is not the result of an omission. It is not the result of an oversight. It is not a failure of research. It is not a goof, or a gaffe.
It is a talking point.
Deliberate. Calculated. Mendacious.
They know perfectly well their audience doesn't watch other networks and doesn't question the "truthy" nuggets O'Reilly and his colleagues feed it.
If you are into breaking stories why do you not talk about One Peoples Public Trust? We have been flash mobbing other news sites, but maybe you are waiting for us to drop on you? Or maybe you can comment on all the news tips the others are getting from this movement. Just get the name out there. No comments, nothing but the name and the initials. Wikipedia is blocking us but we keep trying. Just one small step for the world to change.
This reminds me of the John Kerry 'Swift Boat' attack ads. MSNBC broke the news on the 'secret' memo, and now FOX claims that they have ignored it. Rachel has been highly critical of the lack of discussion and debate regarding drone warfare for a long time. In fact, she spent a fair amount of time discussing that following the debates - which, completely failed to discuss it - to her frustration. To suggest that MSNBC has not been critical of the impact of drone warfare is utterly laughable, as the best I can tell, Rachel Maddow has been one of the ONLY voices in all media raising a concern of the policy.
The way you know BillO never read the drone memo - he would have seen NBC News stamped all over it.
Bill-O can't handle the truth.
Fox News is relevant! Just not on THIS planet.