Associated Press
We talked yesterday about Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, who told his audience on Wednesday night that NBC News hasn't reported "anything" on the drones story. It was, of course, a deeply odd claim -- NBC broke the drones story, which was then amplified right here on MSNBC.
We learned yesterday afternoon that O'Reilly intended to "address" his error, which I hoped meant he'd issue a correction. He didn't.
At the very end of his broadcast, O'Reilly complained about "more deceit from the far-left." It went downhill from there:
"I put forth that over at NBC News and other media places, they were hysterical over water-boarding but muted over President Obama's drone attacks, at least until yesterday.
"Immediately, the far-left machine cranked up, 'O'Reilly didn't say that NBC News broke the drone memo story. He's a deceiver.' True, I didn't say NBC broke the memo story because we weren't talking about that. Water-boarding versus drone strikes. Well, once again, we have a propaganda campaign designed to make ignorant people on the left, even more ignorant.
"Factor Tip of the Day: don't deal with loons. I have to. You shouldn't have to. And that is it for us tonight."
Look, I don't want to belabor the point. How O'Reilly chooses to correct his own errors is between him, his employer, and his audience.
But there's no ambiguity here or room for interpretation. O'Reilly spent several minutes complaining -- on the air, live and on camera -- insisting that NBC News didn't report "anything about the drones." He and his staff, he said, "haven't heard anything over there about" the drones story. O'Reilly added that journalists at NBC News "don't care about drones," and he concluded that all of this is part of a larger scheme to "protect" President Obama.
Reality shows otherwise. It's not a matter of opinion or spin or subjectivity. Pointing out basic, demonstrable facts is not evidence of a "propaganda campaign designed to make ignorant people ... more ignorant"; it's the opposite.
Leave a Comment:
That's great advice there Bill'o now run along and go get yourself a felafel while the adults discuss whats going on in the world.
Thanks Buhbye.
That's like the bishop telling the faithful, "don't listen to that Imam next door."
It's astounding the amount of time and resources MSNBC spends watching Fox News. This has to contribute to the their ratings. Is this another one of those "Lean Closer" moments when O'Reilly was speaking of another subject?
Would MSNBC, NBC, Fox News and all News corporations be better served concentrating more on their own News cast?
I agree. Fox lies, O'Reilly lies, it's preaching to the choir.
We could use some reporting on the good things the left and the President are doing, to give Americans some hope and a more positive outlook about our government and media.
"Factor Tip of the Day: don't deal with loons. I have to. You shouldn't have to."
Folks, you're missing an opportunity here. There's some truth to this. O'Reilly is telling you that it is absolutely pointless to engage with disrupters like the odious Hemorrhoid aka Blanks aka Airball aka shooter aka ...
We have people to do that for us. Like MMFA, Maddow, Benen, ...,
In conservativeland Daddy is never wrong. Bill can't shatter their world. Poor, poor conservatives.
Bill sort of covered the "Daddy is never wrong" issue last night, too. He covered Chris Rock saying we should do what President Obama says because the President is "boss" and "father" and we should listen to both of those. Yet, this was not his opinion when Bush was President. So, it was the Left proclaiming that "Daddy is never wrong" not those in conservativeland.
When you try to justify what comedians say and pin that on Obama, you are either a crazy right wing nut or scraping the bottom of the barrel because the fact that Obama got elected for a second term. Or a crazy right wing nut. I think it is a little bit of both.
No surprise here. Fox News, Rush et al haven't lived in reality for years so why start now? Just another example of the Conservative Right Wing Entertainment Complex feeding faux fodder to their sheeple because they know that's what the sheeple want to hear. Pathetic.
Stop making this mistake. They absolutely live in reality, they just reject it and manufacture their own. However, the (willingly) duped people they are selling to their advertisers absolutely do not live here with the rest of us.
Who is manufacturing their own reality? I say it is those who are saying in effect:
We covered the drone killing. We did. We have had a couple of stories on it. Don't lie about us. Yes, sure we covered the torture of a few terrorists over and over and over again and many on our side called then President Bush a war criminal. And, we have not made any such accusation against the current President who has killed American citizens, but hey, don't say we haven't done a story or two! (Oh, we could try to prove our point with emperical data by comparing air time on the two stories over given time after public knowledge, but that would just prove O'Reilly's larger point...so, we ain't doin' that!)
Yeah! Who IS manufacturing their own reality? I say it is those who are saying in effect:
I am a troll who posts absolute nonsense and will keep posting idiotic statements because I am so mad that Obama got elected a second time.
Dude, you are no better than blanks with your crazy troll self!
Fishing for relevancy! The new pastime of one Billy O'Reilly!
He may every once in awhile land a whopper, but never will he speak of the little ones that got away - wet stories, the lot of 'em!
Oh, Billy, retire already! Or do us a favor and change your first name to Dick! -Kevo
When you are paid the obscene amount he is , you do in fact believe your $hit don't stink.
If they are paying me so much , how could I possibly be wrong?
He must have a very interesting entourage.
"Why yes Mr O'Reilly"
"Why certainly Mr O'Reilly"
Yes, that- and he has not one, but TWO books on the (haha) Best Seller List.
(Apparently quite few of his listeners know how to read!)
Do those books come with their own crayons? Or do you have to buy your own?
And if I do remember correctly at least one of the books was "factually challenged"
Was that an autobiography? Seems like it would be.
(Apparently quite few of his listeners know how to read!)
Facts not in evidence!
a) Buying a book doesn't mean reading it. It says all the same things he says on TV, so there's not much point.
b) Right wing pundit books are routinely bought in bulk by right-wing organizations and then given away as membership premiums.
He's been called out over the past couple weeks for lying in his Kennedy book, too, and that's after Ford's Theater stopped selling the Lincoln book in their historical society bookstore for being so riddled with errors.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/oreillys_jfk_assassination_fib/
Was'nt there a poll that showed those who watched only Fox News aka Foxbot Robo Dummies knew less about what was going on than people who watched no news at all? If so I can see why.
It was Fox news vs the Daily Show and the Daily Show won by 4 points.
Clearly Billo was surprised. He couldn't believe that somebody from TMS would do oppo research.
While Isikoff might have broken the story and Rachel has been examining it nightly since, that is merely what is happening in the real world. In Fox bubble land the liberals are trying to bury it.
Clearly you struck a nerve and Billo whining about it to the sheeple was proof of it. I think maybe Billo is right we should "leave the loons alone".
Okay, you caught him. But his point was that the major news networks have not covered the drone killing of US citizens with anywhere near the intensity or volume that they did the accused torture of terrorists.
There's not doubt OReilly got the specifics wrong, NBC has had stories but you could easily correct his major point by saying NBC covered the torture accusation with "x" minutes over 6 months of it becoming public and have covered the drone killing of Americans with "x" minutes since it became public. My guess this will not be the next post here.
Why? Because O'Reilly was right on his point.
Rob: You are the false equivalency master on these boards. Torture and drone killings are apples and oranges. Torture is from medevil times, drone killing is brand spanking new. For hundreds of years civilized peoples have abhorred torture, it took wingnuts to bring it to America. The "morality" of drone kills is fluid, the "morality" of torture is an oxymoron...
So, it is okay to kill to save lives but not okay to toture to save lives?
Now one could argue that torture does not give good information and if that is the sole argument then I understand its merit.
But, for argument sake, lets say torture could be effective to get actionable information, would you still hold the same opinion?
And what about the constitutional right to due process? Do you just casually throw that aside? To say that torture and killing are not comparable is to be blind to the end results of the two.
Why don't you run for office, win, and get everything on your agenda done.
No? Then STFU.
And you aren't looking for any type of rational discussion because your use of false equivalencies, simplistic bullsh*t statements, shifting the goal posts to start that whole cycle again troll posts with everyone on this site.
At least blanks is upfront with is right wing troll rants...sheesh.....
If you no longer live in America, and are the leader of a terrorist organization that's goal is to kill innocent American citizens, in fact there is significant intelligence that links the leader to failed attempts on U.S. soil. Are you still entitled to the benefits of a constitution that you no longer respect? I say no, you forfeited that right.
Gosh, Donna, you must be obsessed with me. Or, you really don't like having your preconceived ideas challenged and don't know how to handle it but to attack the individual.
Tractorbeam, who gets to determine if you meet that criteria you have layed out?
"So, it is okay to kill to save lives but not okay to toture(sic) to save lives?"
Based on military history, yes. In war, targeted killing is considered justifiable if very controversial.
In WWW2, the US military learned that Admiral Yamamoto, the brilliant architect of Japan's early success would be traveling to a particular destination. A flight of P38 fighters was launched to intercept and kill Yamamoto. They were successfull. Also, the British and the Czechs’ launched an attack specifically to kill German SS General Reinhard Heydrich in 1942. It is generally accepted that targeted killing of high ranking military leaders is justifiable in time of war.
Torture on the other hand has been condemned since before the Geneva Convention. Going as far back as the Spanish Inquisition, there has been outrage against torture. Nations that use torture are generally considered immoral by the world a large. That is why the Bush administration tried so hard not to use the word torture, but "enhanced interrogation." There remain a few who would argue that water boarding or other employed techniques were not torture.
What makes the current situation so controversial, in my humble opinion, is not the action being taken, but the method used to accomplish the action. The use of unmanned drones is psychologically terrifying. We can romanticize (treat as idealized or heroic-Websters) the killing of an enemy by a trained team of Navy Seals, but how do you make a hero out of some guy sitting behind a console killing people while never being in danger himself? There is something inherently unfair about it.
The fact is, our morality is lagging dangerously far behind our technology.
Sarah: Very well put. The only relationship that drone killing and torture have is the Wingnut-Ding-Obama potential. It is actually a line in the Republican Civil War. Some like Hannity go all-out to ding Obama on drones, and others like Mark Levin make sure to point out that any killing of any Muslim is good. These nuts can't decide which way to turn...
So, terrorism is an act of war to those on the Left and not a criminal matter? So, why was the Left wanting terriorist tried in criminal courts? And is the Department of Defense who is carrying out these drone killings? And who are we at war with where these drone killings are utitilized? I challenge you to answer those questions.
I concede that killing is a part of war and not torture, but historically it has been done in the heat of battle. Granted, traditional battle has changed but are you comfortable with the President having the ability to determine to target a US citizen for assassination?
Don't flatter yourself, robtroll.
Don't get it twisted either: You are just like blanks and I call bullsh*t on your posts.
And you paint quite a picture of victimhood. Nice try, but it won't work. You are a troll. And will always be a troll. Your posts show that.
I'm no victim. You do attempt to bully, demean, and generally dismiss those with whom you disagree (may want to check into that). I'm happy to let my posts speak for me. Thanks.
Actually, you play the victim card well, robtroll.
And I don't bully I tell the truth about bullsh*t posts like yours. The fact that you are intimidated by it is your problem.
And you may need to check into a mental institution because you are clearly delusional.
And you have an over inflated ego to compensate for your little mind and little...well you know exactly what that is(you may want to check into that).
And your posts do speak for themselves, and you get the smack down by many people other than myself over, and over, and over, and over again.
Your posts say alot about you, and none of it good.
He certainly knows his base. They would never bother to listen to the "loons". Bill's version of making a correction is to double down on the fallacy.
TRUTH and FOX NEWS do not go together
With due respect to MSNBC and NBC, no one in the major media covered much about drones until this memo and white paper were put out/leaked/whatever.
Aulaqi was killed in 2010...it's now 2013...where have you all been for the last 3 years? Aulaqi may have been first, but he wasn't last. As TRMS said on air last night, 4700 people have been killed by drone attacks, since the program started. For years this has been going on with nary a blip on the media radar.
I don't agree with Bill O, but the kernel of truth in his brashness is that no one covered this story for the last 3 years with any kind of intensity.
Hogwash... The media has covered this all along. If you did not see those reports, you must not follow what is going on very closely. That applies across the board. Now the right wing media smells blood in the water because they feel Obama can get dinged, so a segment of them jumps in.
Your correct in 2 senses:
1) The "media" including all forms of broadcast, print and internet, have covered the topic.
2) Covered in the sense of reporting that attacks occurred.
Neither of these are to the point, which is that there has been no questioning, discussion, or pressure, on the administration or congress about the morality or legality in the major broadcast media.
John that is simply not true. Interested people discuss the relative morality of war and tactics continualy. Yes, the folks following the Kardashians are likely ignorant, but you and I follow this.
Jeez, if he started telling the truth or Fox morphed into something resembling journalism it would blow the whole business model.
Unfortunately, I say thank GOD! International affairs and National Security have been areas that President Obama could operate without his hands bound by the "loons" we call Congress. Think for just one moment, if a terrorist attack would have happened during Obama's first term in office, imagine just imagine the "CRAZY" that would have been let loose on our President. It would be unbearable, look at the bullsh*t poor Susan Rice had to endure just for going on a Sunday show and saying exactly what she was instructed to say, the Republicans would have continued to beat that dead horse over and over and over and over and over and over and over. 4700 is not the number of Americans killed but terrorists and their families, who would be the next generation of terrorists.
I am sure Paddy Chaevsky can work the Fox News into Network II, but the lead in the movie can be O'Reilly. It is easy to picture O'Reilly opening his window and shouting "I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore" while shaking his fist at the sky. Or possibly George Romero can do another zombie film.
Thinking that O'Reilly (or FOX for that matter) will EVER deal it straight with their viewers is, in fact, approaching lunacy.
It's still rather upsetting to me that an entire network (FOX) works so hard to lie and delude its viewers. Maybe I'm the loony one.
What seems to be lost in the entire drone argument is that that drone attacks have increased in proportion to the withdrawal of conventional ground forces. I will take drone attacks with all the moral implications any day over waging full scale wars in countries that cannot control terrorists within their borders. I also note that Rachel omitted the repeated attempts by GOP questioners at Brennan's hearing to revive the effectiveness of torture argument and that torture was responsibly for getting OBL. Why would they do this if there is a directive to not torture???? The GOP seems to be more intersted in revisionist history on the practices of the Bush administration than looking to the future of preventing terrorism. Maybe they realize that Obama has been much more effective against terrorism at much much much lower costs to miltary spending, military casulaities and most importantly collateral civilian deaths. Why is nobody looking at the big picture?
The drone issue is complex. No, it has not been covered in depth or with any regularity (unless one is purposefully seeking out stories) until recently. Yes, we knew there were drones and that they were used to kill people in faraway places. I, for one, had no idea so many people had been killed using drones. It's sobering. Appalling. And, as part of the complex reactions, satisfying.
Yes, the use of drones to kill anyone not in an actual war is legally problematic, and using a drone to kill a US citizen (even a terrorist) is more problematic yet. Yes, the "war on terror" is not an actual war. It has been fought in actual war zones -- war zones in which the US was the original aggressor, so I'm not sure that counts. Killing, not in war, is immoral -- isn't it?
Yes, it is more cost-effective to use the drones; they also save lives of US soldiers. Those are both good points.
Yes, it's both uncomfortable and very comfortable that the operators of the drones are not themselves at risk. Both cowardly and awesome.
Yes, most liberals are rather conflicted -- often partly because we do not want to criticize Obama. And partly because many of us don't mind killing terrorists as much as we really should, since we believe in rule of law and prefer criminal courts with due process and evidence. Some of us believe in those things rather strongly -- yet a sick, atavistic bit of id is pleased when a terrorist (who doesn't care about such things as laws or rights and who would kill any of us in an instant) is shot down. And I, for one, like it that so many terrorists are out of the picture. I feel ashamed that I like it but there it is.
Yet we worry that this is generating more terrorists yet. Just as the war in Iraq did. Which makes us fairly sure that, despite the many conveniences and effectiveness of drones, it's probably a bad thing on a practical level as well as a moral one.
So, yes, it's all complex.
Bill O'Reilly gaslights on the grand scale. Up is down, down is up, and everything you think you know is wrong. He uses his sense of authority to define reality, regardless of what anyone else says. He talks regularly about what people are "thinking" and what they 'want" as if he can read their mind. He defines what other people are "thinking" without their consent in a way that's almost impossible to contradict. Classic gaslighter.
"This isn't the wretchedly inaccurate verbatim quote you're looking for."
O'Reilly Ben Kenobi's mind trick works on the feeble-minded so don't expect to get through to them with your trifling, lesser tools: logic, consistency, documentation, video footage, long term memory, etc.
Democrats/liberals REALLY need to get up to speed in using "the Force".
There is this scintilla of truth to O'Reilly's claims: the mainstream media (and msnbc) did not jump on the drone-story until Mr. Isikoff released the memo via NBC, but the story has been out there for a good two years. It has been one of the reasons that I almost didn't vote for Obama this time around (but then the thought of a possible Romney-Ryan win was just too chillingly frightening). This is a deeply disturbing policy, not least because it strikes me as a crime against humanity--and I so very much had hoped that THIS president was above that kind of justification of American bullying. And now I am being disappointed ever more every day.