O’Reilly to run ambush segment tonight: ThinkProgress ‘hurt a rape victim and her family.’
By on Mar 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
O’Reilly to run ambush segment tonight: ThinkProgress ‘hurt a rape victim and her family.’
Over at its website, Fox News is saying that Bill O’Reilly will be running his segment on ThinkProgress tonight:
We’re eagerly awaiting how he justifies sending out his henchman to track me down this weekend, and how he spins his offensive comments about Jennifer Moore.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The power of de-press.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pmO’Lielly’s a coward.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pmlawwwwwwwwwwwwww suit
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 pmO’Reilly is making Morton Downey, Jr. look like Bill Moyers.
They are going after the Jerry Springer demographic now.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pmAmanda: I think you made a very big mistake by even talking to them. You should have flipped them the bird and told them if they continued to follow you, that you would call the police and turn them in as stalkers. It will never be a win situation if you try to reason with these jerks. They will simply cut your words until they are not recognizable and completely distorted.
I suggest you carry mace and the next time one of these guys approach you, spray them in the face with it and walk away.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pmCertain facts like where this incident took place won’t be in BillO’s story. His producers just happened to be in Winchester, VA when this all went down. There will be some spinning tonight, no doubt about it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pmWhat I don’t understand is this. I’m sure Mz. Terkel has a cell phone. This was an obvious assault by O’Reilly’s thug and a cameraman. Why didn’t she dial 911 and report an attack in progress? Let O’Reilly try to explain that away. Furthermore, why doesn’t she file a complaint against Fox Spews, O’Reilly, Jesse Watters and the cameraman? Also, a civil suit would be appropriate. Tie these a$$hole$ up in legal hell, with it’s attendant publicity, and maybe Rupert will get a clue and put BillO on a leash.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pmROFL!
Congratulations ThinkProgress. You have officially become a big enough threat to these unintelligent knuckleheads to show up on their radar.
=D
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pmI will have to wait for that viewing since I never watch O lilie…Don’t want their viewer number’s to go up…Don’t watch any of those gas bag’s..Blessings
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pmUmm … Bilbo Hussein Baggins:
You can’t spray a journalist in the face with mace if he or she is simply asking you to consent to an interview. It’s kind of … ummm … illegal.
For many years I did “man on the street” interviews for several newspapers, which required me to stand on the sidewalk and approach strangers and ask if they would like to be interviewed. I would not like to be sprayed with mace.
As I said earlier, as tacky and juvenile as O’Reilly’s crew’s antics were toward Ms. Terkel, they are perfectly legal and are protected under the law.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pmAll seems to be fair in Republican journalism. Just wait for Mr. O’Reilly’s show on how Jon Stewart went after Cramer because he was dressed seductively.
Or was he drunk?
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:29 pmWhy not loudly complain about being treated “like Andrea Mackris” and threaten the assailants with pepper spray? O’Reilly has so many embarrassing incidents to cite in order to scare these thugs off, why not just ask Watters about them?
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 pmThis should be interesting.
P.S. We support you, Amanda.
¶ AIO
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pmFergus: There is nothing illegal about a reporter and a cameraman approaching someone in a public place and asking if they would consent to be interviewed. And there is nothing illegal about having the camera rolling the whole time. You seem to be a bit confused about the law.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 pmPlease keep us informed after this segment airs. Of course, that will mean that you will actually have to watch Little Billy’s rant-fest tonight. Sorry about that but that’s why “you get paid the big bucks”.
As for me, this is one of those moments that I am happy I don’t have cable TV at home. I will be spared the temptation to tune in and waste my time on this gasbag.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 pmPlease keep us informed after this segment airs. Of course, that will mean that you will actually have to watch Little Billy’s rant-fest tonight. Sorry about that but that’s why “you get paid the big bucks”.
As for me, this is one of those moments that I am happy I don’t have cable TV at home. I will be spared the temptation to tune in and waste my time on this gasbag.
p.s. — I see you are still liberally sprinkling apostrophes all over your posts, Witch1; here’s a little advice for you –> if it’s a plural, it doesn’t have an apostrophe
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pmAndrea Mackris!!!
Say it Loud and SHAME ON O’Reilly for settling this sexual harrassment suit without letting us come to watch him slither into a court.
ANDREA MACKRIS!!!
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pmWe’re eagerly awaiting how he justifies sending out his henchman to track me down this weekend, and how he spins his offensive comments about Jennifer Moore.
_____________________________________________________________
Amanda, you’ve dealt with this creep long enough to know how he’s going to spin it:
“She hurt the family of this woman by repeating what I said!”
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pmSorry Tom, I’m from the old group of no schooling…Blessings
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pmWTF! Amanda, rip O’Silly a new one please!
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 pmO’Reilly must be losing it or else he is in self destruct mode.
It is all too easy to view this web site along with Media Matters and many others to see these sites are merely fact finding newsworthy sites designed to debunk the propaganda.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 pmDouglas Watts Says: As I said earlier, as tacky and juvenile as O’Reilly’s crew’s antics were toward Ms. Terkel, they are perfectly legal and are protected under the law.
This post doesn’t cover the confrontation but there is one that does. And there didn’t appear to be a polite ‘ask for an interview’.
When one asks nicely, one should accept no for an answer.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 pmAmanda, you should wear this as a badge of honor! You are a THREAT to them! They’re no longer afraid of the terrorists or the WMDs or Iraqis or socialism or marxism. The biggest threat to FOX is a blogger.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 pmi’ve made the comment earlier and
i’ve seen it here twice, so far, from
wellstone and brendan; why don’t the
people who are stalked by this creep
loudly bring up the subject of billy
and andrea makris?
judging by both of amanda’s posts she
seemed to be thinking of everything but that
and it really begs the question of why?
it’s not off limits and, under the circumstances,
it’s very much warranted.
***
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pmFOX are now in for all or nothing. They have become the TV ‘national enquirer’ network. They won’t be on my network line up anymore, even if it’s bundled. I’ll get my sports elsewhere too. So should you all.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm– The Ambush: Shortly after checking into our lodgings, we emerged and immediately saw two men walking toward us calling out my name. Watters said he was from Fox News, but never said his or his companion’s name, nor did he say he was with The O’Reilly Factor.
– The Surprise Attack: Watters immediately began asking me why I was causing “pain and suffering” to the Alexa Foundation. He never gave me the context for his questions. Confused, I repeatedly asked him what he was talking about and whether he could refresh my memory, but he just continued shouting his question.
The Fox/O’Reilly version of ask nice.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pmWow, and the Jerry Springer Mentality Lemmings will eat up every word of it as being absolutely true…
….go figure.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pmI’m going to echo Witch1, and say that I too will not watch O’rally.
Mr. Vibrator does not deserve my viewership.
Please keep us informed of the spin, especially the “hurting” of a rape victim and her family (and the not so subtle jab at MSNBC).
You are now on loofah boy’s radar.
Remember, facts have a liberal bias, and the right hates that.
In my crystal ball, I foresee an initial influx of trolls after the airing, followed by the inevitable and justifiable troll whacking (especially when supported by a link to your earlier thread).
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pmEither way, more traffic for TP!
Which the right also hates!
Mike Stark’s own ambush of O’Reilly:
Here and
Here
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Douglas Watts Says:
Fergus: There is nothing illegal about a reporter and a cameraman approaching someone in a public place and asking if they would consent to be interviewed. And there is nothing illegal about having the camera rolling the whole time. You seem to be a bit confused about the law.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
____________
In a public place, yes. If Amanda and her friend were standing on the sidewalk when they were accosted, it’s not illegal. However, if this assault took place on private property – in, say, the parking lot of the place where they were staying – it’s trespassing and an invasion of privacy.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pmSeriously, if they are going to target TP I advise you to look right into the camera,square your shoulders, smile big, and only say the words “andrea makris”. Use that name as your noun, verb, salutation, adjective, etc.,
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pmFox and O’Reilly (and company)=grocery store tabloid/paparazzi.
Amanda, doesn’t the middle finger on either hand work? I’m sure Watters would have understood that.
Then the pepper spray.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pmTo the posters above: I am not sure that following a columnist for two hours as she travels on vacation and then confronts her is protected by law. To me, it smacks of stalking, which is a crime. If Amanda chooses to file charges, I’m in support. You go, Amanda! Don’t back down! O’Lielly is a bully.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pmO my- sorry, slightly OT but did anyone else lol at the line in that screen shot, “can the president solve complicated problems? We’ll have complete analysis.”
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 pmAmanda, just as a precaution, you might want to unlist your phone number if it isn’t already…. DrxJ is correct, trolls will be a-coming after this airs…
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 pmKlatu, does that apply to the pics of you and the farm animals?
Any pub is good pub, right?
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pmSorry Tom, I’m from the old group of no schooling…Blessings
No apology is necessary. Wisdom does not come with education and the substance of your posts is always filled with wisdom. I was just trying to help you improve on that a bit by giving you a simple rule that will make your comments more readable.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pmI would love to see the stalkees pool their money and hire a few guys in an SUV to follow Watter and BillO around for a few days. They could jump out of their car with cameras and microphones at each and every stop, and yell nothing but “MAKRIS MAKRIS MAKRIS!”
That would make for some youtube gold.
PEACE
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pmKlatu Says:
I’ll go find some even more intellegent quotes to repost later.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
___________
If you really want to make us look bad, just repost some of your most moronic trolling attempts. As in everything you’ve ever posted.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pmI didn’t realize this joker was still on the air. Who watches a man who is sued by his staff for sexual harrassment. Orally is a joke.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmHoodathunk — I agree with you. Watters was trying to do a tacky and predictable “confrontation interview” with Ms. Terkel because O’Reilly’s producers thought it would make for “dramatic” footage that his moronic audience would enjoy.
What I am trying to point out is that there is absolutely nothing illegal about Watters did. It is perfectly legal.
Tacky and juvenile? Yes.
Illegal? No.
Also, if you are a journalist like Ms. Terkel and take on public figures like O’Reilly (which I heartily approve), this type of stuff comes with the territory. If you are a journalist, you have to allow the people you write about to have the opportunity to vent at you for what you write about them. Sometimes they choose to vent in less than polite ways. But part of being a journalist is accepting that if you dish it out, you also have to take it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm17. tom Says: p.s. — I see you are still liberally sprinkling apostrophes all over your posts, Witch1; here’s a little advice for you –> if it’s a plural, it doesn’t have an apostrophe
Umm…I dunno.
If you take a phrase like, “The Factor minions’ digusting nose-picking habits.” wouldn’t that violate the ‘advice?’
(Yes, I’m aware it could be rephrased, but this is also correct, yes?)
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pmp.s. — I see you are still liberally sprinkling apostrophes all over your posts, Witch1; here’s a little advice for you –> if it’s a plural, it doesn’t have an apostrophe
We’ve been through this before, Tom. Perfect grammar is nice, but substance counts most. Didn’t you receive a lashing on the last thread you saturated with your snotty grievances?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pmBLC Says:
I can’t wait for Bill to say “amanda terkel and tp declined an invitation to come on The Factor.”
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
__________
And I can’t wait for you to answer my question on the Bachmann thread. Or are you too much of a moron?
Stupid question, I know…
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 pmHow has Olbermann (or Maddow) not booked you yet for tonight?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 pmBut part of being a journalist is accepting that if you dish it out, you also have to take it.
Ahh, no wonder Rush and Hannity don’t like to be called journalists… but does BillO pretend?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pmSandoz76 Says:
————-
O my- sorry, slightly OT but did anyone else lol at the line in that screen shot, “can the president solve complicated problems? We’ll have complete analysis.”
I saw that too. As opposed to the dunder head Bush. Tying his shoes was a complicated problem for him.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pmDouglas, did you totally miss the part about not asking? About going to direct confrontation? You said, a journalist asks first. If the ask isn’t there or the answer is no, the journalist is entirely unjustified and in the wrong.
Quit trying to apologize for bad (and illegal) behavior. Watters was wrong.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:05 pmPennsylvanianne — It is perfectly legal for a newspaper reporter to follow someone for two hours — or even days — in order to seek an interview. It’s just part of the job. Thankfully, our legal system provides extensive latitude to reporters in this respect, provided, of course, that they are actually attempting to secure an interview.
If the intent is solely to harass someone, that is an entirely different matter, and that is not what happened here.
Again, I do not condone what Mr. Watters did. No ethical journalist would do what he did. But that is very different from saying what he did was somehow illegal. It’s not.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pmThis deserves the bold treatment:
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Again, Dougie…seek. Ask. What part of that are you not hearing?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pmDouglas Watts Says
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
For many years I did “man on the street” interviews for several newspapers, which required me to stand on the sidewalk and approach strangers and ask if they would like to be interviewed. I would not like to be sprayed with mace.
As I said earlier, as tacky and juvenile as O’Reilly’s crew’s antics were toward Ms. Terkel, they are perfectly legal and are protected under the law.
___________________________________________________________
It’s true that this ambush squad masquerading as a team of journalists may have been technically legal in everything they did. But you can’t compare their tactics to someone doing “man on the street” interviews, where (presumably) the potential interviewee is not stalked or tailed, is asked politely if they would like to be interviewed, not put on camera until they agree to be, and treated courteously if they decline. And the interview questions are most likely not shouted aggressively in a hostile manner.
What happened to Amanda is completely different. When you consider that Bill or one of his staffers could have solicited a comment from Amanda with a simple phone call, there is no reason for this display of aggression except to intimidate.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pmBLC Says:
I can’t wait for Bill to say “amanda terkel and tp declined an invitation to come on The Factor.”
Which could be true. Of course, he’d be failing to mention that Ms. Terkel already tried contacting Watters and FOX and was turned down.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pmLift a quote to prove a boatload of irony and get stalked.
Republicans have serious mob mentality problems.
Amanda, bless her heart, may view this as another day in the life of a coked-up paparazzi, but this clearly amounts to stalking.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pmHoodathunk — I said that what Mr. Watters did was totally unethical as a journalist. At any other news outlet except FOX, he would be fired for pulling this type of crap.
What I am saying is that Mr. Watters’ actions, as much as you and I might think they are tawdry, are completely legal.
I was specifically responding to a commenter who said Ms. Terkel should have sprayed mace in Mr. Watters’ face. I cautioned against that because it would be … ummm … assault and battery. Ms. Terkel handled the situation in a professional manner. So good for her.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm44. hanshiro Says:
17. tom Says: p.s. — I see you are still liberally sprinkling apostrophes all over your posts, Witch1; here’s a little advice for you –> if it’s a plural, it doesn’t have an apostrophe
hanshiro Says: If you take a phrase like, “The Factor minions’ disgusting nose-picking habits.” wouldn’t that violate the ‘advice?’
tom is quiet so I’ll answer my own query: yes, it is correct and would violate tom’s ‘advice.’
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Interesting part of it is if O’Reilly uses any part of the confrontation on TV, without written authorization from Amanda, they are in deep doo doo. This qualifies as a ‘voluntary’ interview and I believe requires signed permission.
Care to comment, Doug?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 pmAnd, Doug, you yourself said a journalist is required to ask permission to interview so what Watters did was not legal.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pmHoodathunk Says:
Douglas, did you totally miss the part about not asking? About going to direct confrontation? You said, a journalist asks first. If the ask isn’t there or the answer is no, the journalist is entirely unjustified and in the wrong.
Quit trying to apologize for bad (and illegal) behavior. Watters was wrong.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
__________
I don’t believe the actions of the O’Reilly producer are illegal. Distasteful and wrong, yes, and I’m certainly not defending them. But they’re not illegal, if the ambush happened in a public place.
I don’t believe the ask for consent is required in this case, as Amanda is a vortex public figure. Her right to privacy is superceded by the fact that she’s writing publically about the issue, and therefore willingly injecting herself into the public sphere.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pmAssault & Battery, my ass. What’s next in your arsenal, Mr. Watts, advice to Amanda that she apologize to the freaks ala Harry Whittington’s apology to Dick Cheney?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pmThanks for the high five Klatu. You ARE an ignorant piece of garbage and I wish YOU HAD crawled back under your rock it is where trolls like you belong. I never did understand why you stupid trolls would come to a site for no other reason than to try to annoy us. We appreciate the free clown sho sice you are so clueless you dont get how amusing your stupidity is but I am a compassionate liberal and feel embarassed for you parading your ignorance the way you do and being too stupid to get how you embarass yourself and our entire species
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm” When you consider that Bill or one of his staffers could have solicited a comment from Amanda with a simple phone call, there is no reason for this display of aggression except to intimidate.” — husseinmolly.
I completely agree with you. The entire purpose of Mr. Watters following Ms. Terkel was to catch her by surprise and get “confrontation” video footage, which invariably tends to make the interview subject look guilty. It is totally hokey, but for the IQ level of O’Reilly’s audience, makes them think they are watching 60 Minutes. It’s an old, hackneyed trick.
For this reason I think it is good that Ms. Terkel is calling out O’Reilly like this in a public forum. Actions have consequences.
My only cautionary point is that what Watters did is perfectly legal. Obnoxious and stupid. But legal.
Cheers.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 pmso im gonna go ahead and start a flame-war; obviously o’reilly’s an idiot and his producer’s thuggish behavior is inexcusable, but… i feel almost certain that dressing in revealing clothing IS likely to attract the attention of a sexual predator, just the way that dressing extravagantly is likely to attract the attention of a mugger or pickpocket. also, walking around alone, drunk, at night makes it less likely you’ll be able to effectively resist an attack.
now this certainly does not mean women do not have a right to dress any way they want to, and if a woman is attacked who is dressed the same way as the woman described in the original story, the fault is of course 100% with the attacker — but if it ends up being true that the way one dresses affects the likelihood of one being the victim of crime, statistically, isn’t it doing a disservice not to dissiminate this information? it occurs to me that it is actually jeopardizing women’s safety to imply that the way they dress is completely unrelated to their likelihood of being the victim of a crime, and i’m not clear why this is different from a wealthy person not showing off their wealth in order to avoid attracting the attention of thieves.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pmThis whole incident is just more proof that when a woman says “no,” what the reich wingers hear is her saying “yes, please, and plenty of it…”
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pmStupid bastard troll has the republican nerve to claim self-defense would be A&B.
They staked Amanda down in Winchester, Va. (How did they pinpoint this location?)
They then shouted questions in her face and talked over her.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pmhussein toasterhead — you are correct.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pmWell, for my part I’ll be looking forward to reading your report so I don’t have to watch that talking bag of crap any more than necessary.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pmPerhaps the solution is to do the old Jim Carry shtick and bend over to do the ‘interview’ ala talking butt cheeks… ;-)
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 pmThe camera man then continue to film her as she walked down the block.
Then one of the henchman probably realized they were crossing into criminal territory and called it off.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 pmBottom line appears to be we are a very sick society. You can’t dress as you like, go out in public if you have ever opened your mouth about anything where someone else has heard and privacy and personal responsibility are just words in the dictionary.
The National Enquirer is now the Bible (with pictures, no less).
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm65. highway Says: so im gonna go ahead and start a flame-war;
You should have stopped right there…thought about what you were claiming, then watched teevee instead….
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pmThank You Tom, I’ll work on it…Blessings
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pmI don’t know how they spin the articles that TP have done about Bill-O speaking at an event for a rape crisis center into “TP hurt a rape victim and her family”.
Then again, I’m not certifiable.
P.S. You guys are “far left”? I had no idea.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pmMy guess is Billo the Hypocrite Clown will NOT even mention Jennifer Moore . .
You, Amanda, will be vilified for smearing Alexa, the rape victim, whose parents [a/k/a the foundation] are probably diehard republican fox lemmings . .
Amanda, don’t even watch. You did nothing wrong. Billo is scum!! Let Keith tear the Pervert a new a**hole on this subject . .
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
Why does the EXTREMIST RIGHT, in cahoots with FOXPRAVDA, support a woman’s right to be raped?
.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pmDemonizing liberals is an old trick of Nazis and other degenerates.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pmit occurs to me that it is actually jeopardizing women’s safety to imply that the way they dress is completely unrelated to their likelihood of being the victim of a crime
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
citation
Is it jeopardizing woman’s safety to allow them to have parents and other relatives?
We need to deal with the attitudes that allow the rapist to justify their actions… saying ‘Don’t dress that way- just to be safe!’ doesn’t help…
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pmgoogle followed By Bill O’Reilly Producer and Amanda’s story is all over the first 1-1/2 pages.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pmDogfather — let’s not confuse the issues here. Ms. Terkel is a professional journalist who has written stuff about O’Reilly. If you are a professional journalist you have a professional obligation to defend and explain what you have written, especially to the people you write about. Every journalist understands this obligation, as does Ms. Terkel. Being a woman has nothing to do with it.
Obviously, if you feel physically threatened by someone, you have the right to ask that person to leave, or to excuse yourself, or to ask them to lower their voice, etc. etc. No journalist is expected to tolerate someone screaming at them or threatening them. But, as a journalist, you do have to put with people getting in your face about what you write about them (or their bosses). It comes with the job.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pmIs it jeopardizing woman’s
Damn it! And directly after the hanshiro/tom apostrophe wars I post this…
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pmIt seems the best advice to anyone confronted with a journalist is a dumb look. Silence is about the only golden thing left.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 pmsorry hanshiro but as a liberal i find this a part of left-wing orthodoxy that’s actually damaging politically and perpetuates damaging and unwise conduct in practice. i know the blinders are going to go up but the folks perpetuating these ideas that rape is exclusively an act of violence and power need to examine the possibility that their advice is increasing the incidence of crime. you guys have a moral responsibility too, not merely the privilege to judge others.
there’s the world we wanna live in, and then there’s the world we actually do live in.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:33 pmGee, highway, the next time you are being raped, apologize to the perp for asking for it. Same is true if they want to rob or murder you. I’m sure they will appreciate knowing it was your bad.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm65 – highway: Obviously you’re a man, because it’s only really stupid men who are actually ignorant enough to continue to posit that what a woman wears has anything at all to do with her being raped.
Rape is NOT about sex or sex appeal or hot chicks dressed in hot clothes.
It’s about power, and it has nothing at all to do with how a woman is dressed. Otherwise ugly or elderly women would never be raped.
Now, please, just shut up.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm70. hanshiro Says:
Perhaps the solution is to do the old Jim Carry shtick and bend over to do the ‘interview’ ala talking butt cheeks… ;-)
Meta….no? I meant Jim Carrey and here’s the aforementioned talking butt cheeks approach, just to have a template to work from…
I’d tune in to see it…
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 pmBLC Says:
link to source?
troll to flush?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 pmUh guys,….
How does this compare to the the wingnuts who would never convict a rapist because
a) the ladies asked for it
b) the ladies enjoy it
???????????????????????????????
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pmWhen women in business attire are raped in parking lots in broad daylight, the local news will recommend that women who have to cross parking lots in broad daylight be escorted by a man.
The onus of rape is ever on the woman. O’Reilly is serving the rapists when he blames women.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pmWe love you Amanda, you do a great jog here at TP…May I suggest next time these wackos get in your face call 911 and file a stalking complaint…Then or now file a huge law suit..No one should have to go through their treatment, a note to Keith may also be a huge sucess, he loves doing a number on O freakie…Blessings
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pmBLC Says:
Ms. Terkel already tried contacting Watters and FOX and was turned down.
link to source?
Haven’t you been reading this blog? Ms. Terkel said she had tried to contact them after this ambush.
And if you tell me that it’s her word over Fox’s, I think I trust hers a lot more than theirs.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:40 pmi know the blinders are going to go up but the folks perpetuating these ideas that rape is exclusively an act of violence and power need to examine the possibility that their advice is increasing the incidence of crime.
And you know those seventy-year-olds who get robbed of their SSI check while walking down the street were asking for it too, by looking like such an easy mark.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:41 pmok, this was predictable, but those who are asserting that they know what motivates rapists and that it’s exclusively about power — when i’m not sure why they think they would understand the mentality of such an individual or have even thought much about it in any kind of objective fashion… well, here’s the thing: you HAVE to be right. because if you’re wrong, you’re creating a lot of damage by giving out bad advice to young women. think about that. you don’t just get to judge, you also have a responsibility to others to examine your own preconceptions and consider whether you’re right. because from where i’m sitting this looks like perpetuating an orthodoxy by vociferously shouting down people who disagree.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pmHoodathunk Says:
It seems the best advice to anyone confronted with a journalist is a dumb look. Silence is about the only golden thing left.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
________
That or a “no comment.”
More than two centuries of Supreme Court cases have put the law pretty firmly on the side of the media, and against nearly every form of prior restraint. It is only when the media cross the lines of libel, slander, and invasion of privacy that the law begins siding with the person on the other side of the camera.
We may not like it when it’s one of our own being targeted by an O’Reilly asshead with a camera, but we should at least recognize the importance of the legal protections that guarantee us a free press.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pmAmanda, I like the witch’s suggestion. You are a journalist, when someone like Watter’s gets in your face in an inappropriate way just smile and dial.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pmLeftside Annie,
It’s that American Taliban mentality…
… Nothing short of a Burka is good enough!
.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pmBLC Says:
No source?
grasp at those straws a little more. you might find one.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pmIt’s about power, and it has nothing at all to do with how a woman is dressed. Otherwise ugly or elderly women would never be raped.
To those who hold with O’liar’s opinion on the subject of rape, it’s all about the inability for them to deal with their own repressed sexual urges.
Why else the focus on how “hot” a particular rape victim might have been?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pmHT, there are two freedoms here. Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. Nice thing is silence isn’t forbidden.
The Press can ask but no one says anyone has to answer. If they don’t want to play nice, too bad for them.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pmthe folks perpetuating these ideas that rape is exclusively an act of violence and power need to examine the possibility that their advice is increasing the incidence of crime. you guys have a moral responsibility too, not merely the privilege to judge others
Yikes! Seems to me that perpetuating the idea that a woman was ‘asking for it’ because she was dressed in a mini-skirt or was walking late at night because her ride left is saying that this type of crime is ok.
What exactly is rape other than violence and power?
Not sure how this logic works.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pmOf all the points covered on the current thread and contained links, the troll gripes for proof as to whether Amanda actually contacted Fixed News after being harassed?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pmFor many years I did “man on the street” interviews for several newspapers, which required me to stand on the sidewalk and approach strangers and ask if they would like to be interviewed. I would not like to be sprayed with mace.
There’s a difference between asking someone if they would like to be interviewed, and the stalk-and-ambush tactics she was subjected to.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pmAnd you know those seventy-year-olds who get robbed of their SSI check while walking down the street were asking for it too, by looking like such an easy mark.
barfly, the truth of the matter, and you know it, is that 70-year-olds ARE more likely to be robbed of their SSI checks, because they ARE easier marks. this in no way means they’re “asking for it”; it means we live in a horribly unfair world.
the “asking for it” strawman is rather overused. if people give women bad advice and that’s increasing the incidence of sexual assault, i actually think the moral culpability lies with the assilant and then with the people who give the foolish advice, not with the women who listen to said advice.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pmhighway~
By all means, tell your children to be safe- encourage them to be aware of their surroundings.
Tell them that they can call you at any time for a ride and that you will see that they are picked up, no matter what they’ve been doing or drinking…
These are all good things to tell your children… but telling them ‘you have to be aware of how you dress so you don’t get attacked’ is silly.
One, who can tell what another person will fetish-ize… rapists can hardly be thought of as ‘well adjusted’ sexually so who’s to say that there isn’t a rapist who is only interested in men in tan slacks or women in burkahs?
Two, it sends a message to the rapist that in some way we acknowledge that they would be unable to control themselves when confronted with those tan slacks… which is wrong. The rapist needs to be told that this is on them and they are the one who needs to take some ‘personal responsibility…’
I’m sorry… I don’t buy your or Bill O’s argument.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 pmyou HAVE to be right. because if you’re wrong, you’re creating a lot of damage by giving out bad advice to young women. think about that. you don’t just get to judge,
What the hell advice to young women has been given here other than there are idiots out there that think you are ‘asking for it’ if you dress in a manner that makes the idiot feel he needs to rape you?
It sounds like your advice would be: “When you go out with your friends then wear a burka.” and “Don’t let your ride let you down.” and “Don’t drink – ever”
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 pmthe “asking for it” strawman is rather overused.
Please tell that to Bill O. He is the one used it in the first place.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm84. highway Says: sorry hanshiro but as a liberal i find this a part of left-wing orthodoxy that’s actually damaging politically and perpetuates damaging and unwise conduct in practice.
That particular part of ‘left-wing orthodoxy’ exists in your mind only.
The distinction has not been made in O’Reilly’s piece, nor ferreted out in your comprehension, that there is a glaring difference between dressing “provocatively” but carelessly, and finding yourself dressed “provocatively” but inadvertently.
In other words, the hit piece by O’Reilly portrayed the girls as morons who would doubtlessly get into trouble…because they’re morons..provocatively dressed morons…who got their car towed because they’re morons:
The truth being that they dressed to go out and, finding their car towed, they were stuck dressed that way…for drinking/partying socially. They didn’t expect to be bereft of transportation (or even perhaps, coats) so the episode and their appearance was inadvertent. That is a far cry from what you are finger-wagging over in suggesting that they dressed to walk the streets.
Pick the correct subject rather than buying into the right-wing idiocy. If you’re condemning youthful ignorance and all it entails, we’d all be guilty at one time or another; besides, O’Reilly is hardly in a position to play the scold, as Mackris will attest…and BillO was old enough to know better….
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 pmwell thanks at least for being reasonable, belac.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:00 pmhighway, I’m not sure what country you live in but I sure as hell wish it wasn’t mine.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pmLeftside Annie Says
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Rape is NOT about sex or sex appeal or hot chicks dressed in hot clothes.
It’s about power, and it has nothing at all to do with how a woman is dressed. Otherwise ugly or elderly women would never be raped.
________________________________________________________
And you’d think that the fact this young woman was MURDERED as well as raped would convince one that it’s about violence, not lust.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pmThe only reason a 7 year old child or a 17 year old, can’t walk the streets of America buck naked is because people like O’Reilly and highway never grew up.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pmRules for Engagement with Stalking “Journalist”
1. Assume that Bill O’Reilly is involved.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm2. Use Bill O’Reilly’s name in every sentence you speak.
3. In every sentence you speak, use one of the following:
a. “Keith Olberman would suggest…”
b. “I don’t have a falafel”
c. “how am I similar to Ms. Makris”
d. “too much of a coward to interview me himself”
e. “FOX’s legal right to lie”
f. “trying for Worst Person in the World again”
4. Never answer one of the “journalist’s” questions.
Is Oreilly talking about HIS rape victim?
:|
Or another one?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 pmI vote for 4, PLC.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:13 pmDoncha just love people who talk in “quotes”. Doing the whole bunny ear thing with their fingers?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pmHoodathunk, unfortunately if all a person does is remain silent, then the “journalist” can show video of the no answer and claim that the silence is agreement, fear of being confronted with the truth, etc.
Anyway, I’ve gotta run. Play nice with the trolls tonight, everyone.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:16 pmThe original claim was “before” alleged “ambush” by “henchmen.”
Where was this?
I read this…
where’s this original claim?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:16 pm118. Hoodathunk Says: I vote for 4, PLC.
Or either reply in an obscure mandarin dialect, an impression of Austin Powers, or pig latin…
Or just repeat, “I’m sorry, OlbermannMakris?”
“Oh, OlbermannMackris, OlbermannMackris…” *nods head*
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:18 pmbelac, about the point with tan slacks… i think you are 100% right, and in fact you see it, with the history of sex criminals they tend to run the gamut in terms of what they’re likely to sexualize. at the same time, though, we live in a popular culture that intensely fetishizes a certain style of dress so those deviants who don’t have some sort of highly stylized fetish based on some deep-seated psychosis have an available mainstream fetish that they’ve been trained to think of as sexually alluring through television/movies/etc. since their birth, most likely. again, not talking right or wrong, here. just talking the world as it is.
hanshiro: you’re right, i DID miss that part of the narrative and if that’s true, bill-o’s just as much of a jerk as i always thought he was. didn’t he also blame a child captive once for his own captivity because he thought the kid was happy to get out of school? this is the sort of idiocy he regularly perpetrates and i distance myself from it vigorously however much others might want to associate me with it.
but the part i feel like folks are missing is i don’t think it’s right to call the women dopey or moronic or imply they’re asking for it in EITHER case, even if they were out on purpose late at night. but i think to go from there to say it’s wrong to ever point out that there is a connection between dress and risk of violent attack actually puts the people in a position where they’re perpetuating a dangerous untruth because they’re talking about a world they WISHED we all lived in (and i wished we all lived in too) and not the world we actually do live in.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pmhighway Says:
Rapists break into the homes of 70 year old grandmothers and rape them. STFU.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Leftside Annie Says
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Rape is NOT about sex or sex appeal or hot chicks dressed in hot clothes.
It’s about power, and it has nothing at all to do with how a woman is dressed. Otherwise ugly or elderly women would never be raped.
________________________________________________________
And you’d think that the fact this young woman was MURDERED as well as raped would convince one that it’s about violence, not lust.
I agree that rape and murder is about violence and power but I would also add that it is also about the complexity of the human brain and the many problems which result when the human brain is damaged or not working properly. So, some men do horrible things and even know it’s horrible when they are not doing it. It leads to the question: What are we, as a society, doing to help people that have brain dysfunction? Unfortunately, identifying and treating brain dysfunction occurs after horrible things have happened. Our society is not geared to identify such things before hand.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pmOr my favorite:
(loud enough for the camera to pick up…)“You’re that gang of killers that pose as a news crew!!!”
*THWHACK!*
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:21 pmBLC Says:
You NEVER back up the abject stupidity YOU post MORON.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 pmFolk’s, it seems opening your mouth for anything other than a belch or to vomit has come to mean implied consent. And a swift kick to the chods gets qualified as assault. I do like the hanshiro idea of responding (in whatever language) with something the ‘interrogator’ (pardon me, but interview implies consent) cannot accept or understand.
Smile and dial is still the best option.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmhighway
What skeletons do you have in your closet?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmBLC Says:
No source?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatsamatta? You have no BRAIN?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pmhighway, does that mean you can only wear your tutu at home?
Pity, the rest of the world might like it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pmHanshiro 112
Good post
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Hoodathunk, unfortunately if all a person does is remain silent, then the “journalist” can show video of the no answer and claim that the silence is agreement, fear of being confronted with the truth, etc.
Old saying…it is better to keep one’s mouth shut and have people think you are an idiot than to open it and confirm.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pmhighway is the kind of person that raises children who turn out to be rapists and murderers. What ever trouble they get into it’s the other guys fault. From the time my daughter was tiny and went to Gymboree you run into these people. When they’re kid tackles your kid it’s just “kids will be kids”. When they’re kid slaps your kid he was “just playing”. In school it’s always the teacher’s fault when they’re kid gets into trouble. And when their kid does drugs it’s because his friends made them.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pmbut i think to go from there to say it’s wrong to ever point out that there is a connection between dress and risk of violent attack actually puts the people in a position where they’re perpetuating a dangerous untruth because they’re talking about a world they WISHED we all lived in (and i wished we all lived in too) and not the world we actually do live in
highway, I appreciate what your saying but I think your leaning to far into the realm of fear mongering. As someone already pointed out, you teach your kids to be mindful that the world is not perfect. But you cannot believe that the best solution is to not go out at all. In this particular case it appears that the girls ultimate mistake was to fear calling someone for help because of the possible repercussions.
Once I was traveling in Europe and remembered advice I was given to put my wallet in my front pocket. Getting on a subway in Prague I had a small backpack on and a map in my hand. I looked like a tourist. As I felt the crush of people getting on I also felt something in my pocket. I turned as quick as I could and there on the floor was my wallet and no clue as to who did it. No one gave any look as to what just happened. I was lucky but that didn’t stop me from traveling. Shit happens and you try to protect yourself from shit.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pmAs I said earlier, as tacky and juvenile as O’Reilly’s crew’s antics were toward Ms. Terkel, they are perfectly legal and are protected under the law.
Only until the individual makes it clear their presence is not wanted. Once they’re told to leave someone be, it becomes harassment.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 pmpromoting stalking
and rape?
called me old fashion but
i just don’t think that’s a
good platform for conservatives.
:|
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pmBLC Says:
Reich-wingers everywhere are slitting their wrists because America is succeeding.
No thanks to obama…..
*
you can have the credit blt,
as long as your slitting
your wrists.
:)
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 pmBLC Says:
Ms. Terkel already tried contacting Watters and FOX and was turned down.
link to source?
Go back to the post where you made a complete jackass of yourself.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 pmBLC Says:
and how he spins his offensive comments about Jennifer Moore.
Does anyone have a link to anything that shows where the actual victim was offended?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sure we need a link to tell whether a rape victim is offended by telling her it was her own fault. Grow up
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pmBLC Says:
Reich-wingers everywhere are slitting their wrists because America is succeeding.
No thanks to obama…..
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You do KNOW you are an ignorant brainwashed moron dont you?
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:53 pmBLC, just bite the bullet and admit you have nothing. Believe me, you will either feel better or take less flack here.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 pmBLC, I’d ask how you would feel if the lady in question was related to you but I strongly suspect your ties to humanity just don’t exist.
Comes from being a troll.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 pmDoes your mother even acknowledge your existence?
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 pmSorry, BLC, that was uncalled for. Sheep can’t talk.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 pmWhat goes through a troll’s mind? Posting crap they glean from their masters, all for a silly nickle.
Oh wait. silly me, I assumed they had a mind. Just two fingers qualify a troll. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-P.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pmDouglas Watts Says:
Umm … Bilbo Hussein Baggins:
You can’t spray a journalist in the face with mace if he or she is simply asking you to consent to an interview. It’s kind of … ummm … illegal.
Isn’t it kind of ..ummm…illegal to stalk someone. So I will rephrase what I said. She should have told him to back off and leave her alone and when he didn’t, then she should have sprayed him with mace.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pmIt would entirely depend on whether the murdered woman was a conservative or not. Naturally, the more right-wing she was, the more semblance of compassion he’d try to work up for her. And the more left-wing she was, the more thrilled he’d be that she’d been murdered.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 pmYou can’t spray a journalist in the face with mace if he or she is simply asking you to consent to an interview. It’s kind of … ummm … illegal.
So is bombing the crap out of a country but GW thought it was fun anyway.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pmCan you pepper spray someone who doesn’t ask and just screams questions at you?
Just asking.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pmWoo hoo! I can’t wait, this will be so good. Fox Newz is one of the best comedy programs on TV!
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
It’s true that this ambush squad masquerading as a team of journalists may have been technically legal in everything they did. But you can’t compare their tactics to someone doing “man on the street” interviews, where (presumably) the potential interviewee is not stalked or tailed, is asked politely if they would like to be interviewed, not put on camera until they agree to be, and treated courteously if they decline. And the interview questions are most likely not shouted aggressively in a hostile manner.
That brings up an interesting question. Is it legal for them to use a person’s image if the person does not consent to the use? I was part of a crowd of people who were interviewed once for a documentary. We all had to sign a release to give them permission to use our images. Does that not apply to stalker interviews?
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pmBLC Says:
It just seems to me that the victims family would be outraged if there was a reason to be outraged or offended. I think you loons are guilty of “faux outrage.”
Sorry, but any compassionate human being with an IQ out of room temperature range (that would leave you out) would be outraged to hear anyone blame the victim when the victim was raped and murdered.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pmPutting the blame where it belongs: If a man knows he is a likely rapist, doesn’t he have a responsibility not to frequent places where suggestively-clad women may be found? If men would only exercise a little more responsibility, we might see fewer women raped and murdered.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pmem>highway, I appreciate what your saying but I think your leaning to far into the realm of fear mongering. As someone already pointed out, you teach your kids to be mindful that the world is not perfect. But you cannot believe that the best solution is to not go out at all. In this particular case it appears that the girls ultimate mistake was to fear calling someone for help because of the possible repercussions.
Once I was traveling in Europe and remembered advice I was given to put my wallet in my front pocket. Getting on a subway in Prague I had a small backpack on and a map in my hand. I looked like a tourist. As I felt the crush of people getting on I also felt something in my pocket. I turned as quick as I could and there on the floor was my wallet and no clue as to who did it. No one gave any look as to what just happened. I was lucky but that didn’t stop me from traveling. Shit happens and you try to protect yourself from shit.
thanks livelong. i’m not trying to fearmonger and i think the advice to put your wallet in your front pocket is good advice even if it didn’t work in your case… it’s sorta like those rare instances when wearing a seat belt actually makes an accident worse rather than better and yet it’s still a good idea to wear a seat belt. i think i take your point, you seem to be saying that you can be as careful as you want and there’s still a random chance of falling into an unfortunate circumstance, as the women in this story seem to have done. i totally get that, totally agree and feel that the women in this case are wholly blameless for what happened to them. they took common-sense precautions to protect themselves and yet were the victims of crime nevertheless.
what i’m trying to drive at is something different, it’s about a phenomenon in the current political environment. i feel that consciousness of dress should be among these common-sense precautions, and the reason it currently isn’t is largely because of the idea that rape is exclusively about power and not also about sex. I mean, have we not heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? I see no reason to think that rape can’t be both about power AND about an, albeit twisted and perverse, brand of sexual impulse i think the argument that dress IS a component in the criminal’s mind is too often used to blame the victim and that’s reprehensible and the “Rape is about power” idea was first put forward in a well-intentioned way to counter that. but the response has swung too far the other way to argue that dress cannot even be *mentioned* in this context or else you’re making the point that “they’re asking for it.”
it reminds me of another touchy subject: whether minority neighborhoods tend statistically to have less wealth and more crime. i think the facts are pretty clear on this but one side says, rightly, that this is reason to examine socioeconomic problems in our country, and the other side says, wrongly, that this is true because minorities lack character, have succumbed to entitlement culture, or what have you — they basically come up with a masked racist argument.
I think the left typically takes a reasonable position on this but what if they said, “we can’t even *discuss* whether minority neighborhoods are poorer or have higher crime rates or else we’re automatically making the argument the right wing makes?” I think that’s basically what’s going on here, I think it’s reactionary and unsound and I think it might be doing more harm than good.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:44 pmcrap, i messed up the italics.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm145. Adamkun Says:
BLC Says:
Ms. Terkel already tried contacting Watters and FOX and was turned down.
link to source?
Go back to the post where you made a complete jackass of yourself.
Er…that doesn’t narrow the search down much….
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 pmBLC Says:
Sorry, but any compassionate human being with an IQ out of room temperature range (that would leave you out) would be outraged to hear anyone blame the victim when the victim was raped and murdered.
Is that some kind of back-handed slam at the victims parents? They weren’t outraged.
I am sorry I ever responded to you. Check in to the nearest psychiatric facility.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 pmThink Progress should be rejoicing. If DK is an example of what happens when Olielly rants about a certain website, we should soon be experiencing a spike in traffic and new members.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 pmThere will be some spinning going on. No, on faux, there will be lying going on.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:08 pmBLC,
Your not knowing that the person you were talking about was murdered proves once again that you are always shooting off your mouth without the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
But take away the fact that she was dead when Bill O’ criticized her for being the victim of a crime—–do you think a rape victim would not be offended by a national tv show implying that she was to blame because she had been drinking and was walking (she did not know the car would be towed away)?
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 pmWitch1
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 pmWere you the one calling the Peter B Collins Show last week? The conversation ended with the caller saying blessings… the give away as a poster here, I think it was you, used to post that. Anyway, great call and I am going to miss him on am radio. Will look forward for his podcasts starting in June.
http://tinyurl.com/cvbcjh
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pmHoly sh*t, I just watched it. What a f***ing lier. He just turned the whole thing into an attack against the rape victim (which is what he did) instead of an attack against him and his comments insinuating that a rape victim who is drunk or wears a short skirt is asking for it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 pmkhamak Says:
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:24 pmYup that’s O reilly
Has anyone ever told you you have the loveliest loofah?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:25 pmDouglass Watts,
If he is being harassed she can call the police. If they refuse to let her be she can warn and mace them. I find it interesting how you define jounalism vs. harrasement.
In CA we have something called a paparazzi law. Part of it’s text is as follows.
Arnold Schwarnegger has signed an anti-paparazzi bill into law in California. It amends the Civil Code in order to provide for, among other things,
“physically invad[ing] the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical
impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person…”; “…constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used…”
It’s pretty obvious what O’Reilly does, there’s no need to defend him.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 pmHas anyone ever seen O’Reilly (or one of his pet producers)personally get tough with someone who could have actually done something about it? Seriously, I’d like to know, because they just seem like a bunch of physical pussies to me, like aq lot of their defenders here who talk smack as long as they’re out of reach….
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pmCall the police, report harassment.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:27 amThank you very much.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:51 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
Sesli sohbet
April 26th, 2009 at 9:24 amSesli sohbet
Sesli sohbet
Güzellik