ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

O’Reilly Attacks Me As A ‘Villain’ For Highlighting His Rape Comments

By Amanda Terkel on Mar 23, 2009 at 9:51 pm

As promised, tonight, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly aired his segment alleging that ThinkProgress caused “pain and suffering” to rape victims. Our unspeakable offense was contained in a March 1 blog post, which reported that O’Reilly had been invited to speak at a fundraising dinner for the Alexa Foundation, which supports rape survivors.

Our post highlighted the fact that in the past, O’Reilly has implied that women who dress in a certain way or consume too much alcohol should perhaps expect to be raped. Here is what he said on his radio show on Aug. 2, 2006, about Jennifer Moore, an 18-year-old woman who was raped and murdered:

Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.

Our post never criticized the Alexa Foundation. Nevertheless, tonight on his show, O’Reilly claimed that ThinkProgress — working with NBC News — deliberately tried to cause pain and suffering for these rape victims. To make his point, he aired a highly-edited ambush interview with me from this past Saturday and concluded, “While Ms. Terkel is certainly a villain, she was obviously used by NBC News.” Watch the segment:

Here are the two things that O’Reilly conveniently left out of his segment:

– His Original Comments. O’Reilly said that he posted the full Aug. 2 interview about Moore on his website. (It’s here.) But he did not repeat his comments on air, nor did he try to defend them — perhaps recognizing that they are indefensible. These comments elicited outrage from more than 900 signatories to a petition by the Concerned Citizens Against Sexual Violence.

– His Harassment. O’Reilly never mentioned to his viewers how he scored that interview with me. He never contacted me for a statement or the chance to appear on his show before deploying his harassment machine. Instead, he sent his producers to stake out my apartment, follow me for two hours, and accost me while I was on vacation in Virginia (and the least prepared to recall a post I had written three weeks earlier).

Producer Jesse Watters — who carried out the stalking and harassment — was right; I didn’t remember O’Reilly’s comments about Mel Gibson in that interview. While O’Reilly may think that on vacation, women sit around thinking about his old radio interviews — prepared to talk about them at any moment — the truth is that they don’t. However, we went back and checked out those specific comments, in which he equates Gibson getting drunk and making anti-Semitic comments to a woman getting raped while she is drunk:

I think it’s safe to say that if Mel Gibson didn’t get drunk, he wouldn’t be in this terrible situation he finds himself in. And if a young woman, 18-year-old Jennifer Moore of Harrington Park, NJ, didn’t get drunk, she’d be alive today.

To recap: I write a blog post highlighting comments O’Reilly made during his radio show. He sends his henchmen to harass me. I can’t immediately recall a three-year old O’Reilly interview when accosted on the street. He refuses to explain or apologize for implying that a dead rape victim should have been expecting the crime. And I’m the villain.

Related Posts

Health

Wyden: Republicans Will Never Support A Public Health Option

By Igor Volsky on Mar 23, 2009 at 9:01 pm

wyden1.jpgThe POLITICO reports that Republicans are turning their backs on Obama’s public health plan proposal:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has filed the only health care reform bill with Republican cosponsors, said he spoke with 85 senators as he developed his proposal over the last few years—and found no GOP support for a plan that included a government option. “From a raw political standpoint, having talked to a lot of senators, I wouldn’t have any Republicans on the Healthy Americans Act as cosponsors if we had a public option,” Wyden told POLITICO this week.

Gloomy news, but certainly not a death sentence. Part of the problem is that nobody has spent much time sketching out the details for how to foster fair private/public competition. Republicans have hijacked the concept and confused it with socialist medicine, and progressives are only now starting to push back against their rhetoric.

For instance, the New America Foundation’s Elizabeth Carpenter explained to me that Len Nichol’s recent ‘A Modest Proposal For A Competing Public Health Plan‘ “was really designed to turn the debate from “the public plan is socialism” to a more substantive conversation about how to design the public plan.” Other papers are also in the pipeline. (Next Monday, CAPAF will release a new paper by Peter Harbage titled, Public Plan Choice.)

It’s also worth noting that while Republicans have already slammed the book on the public option, the public supports the idea. A new poll released today by Lake Research found that a whopping 73% of voters “want everyone to have a choice of private health insurance or a public health insurance plan while only 15% want everyone to have private insurance.”

Economy

MSNBC’S O’Donnell Hits Gregg On Budget Reconciliation: ‘Are You Flip-Flopping Around?’

By Pat Garofalo on Mar 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Recently, the White House has said that it may use budget reconciliation to pass key portions of its budget, such as health care or cap-and-trade. Reconciliation allows some legislation to be protected from filibusters and passed by a simple majority.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has been an outspoken critic of reconciliation, saying that it would “create real consternation, be regarded as an act of violence” against Republicans, and likening it to “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

It’s been noted before that Gregg was not so wary of reconciliation when President Bush was in office. Today, MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell pushed Gregg on his apparent double standard, brandishing a list of the instances in which Gregg voted for legislation passed through reconciliation and asking him “are you flip-flopping around?” Watch it:

Gregg argued that the reconciliation process should only be used for adjusting existing programs “at the margins.” But then how does he square his support for using reconciliation to approve drilling for oil in ANWR? “The president asked for it, and we’re trying to do what the president asked for,” Gregg said at the time.

Gregg also voted for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, both of which were passed through reconciliation. In fact, the 2003 cut passed with only 51 votes. Does Gregg really think a tax change adding about $1.7 trillion in deficits while overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthy was an adjustment “at the margins”?

But even if we apply Gregg’s standard to health care reform, then it too could pass through reconciliation, as Obama’s reforms simply build on the current system. So, yes, Norah. Gregg is indeed “flip-flopping around.”

Climate Progress

What are your thoughts on the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster?

By Joe Romm on Mar 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this inauspicious occasion. I have three:

  1. Climate change is not the only reason to wean ourselves from oil.
  2. In the past 20 years, Exxon saw staggering profits and became the primary fossil-fuel company funding climate disinformation.
  3. The company still gets better media attention than it deserves (see NYT suckered by ExxonMobil in puff piece titled “Green is for Sissies”).

Here is a good E&E News PM (subs. req’d) story on how, “Two decades after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the oil spill haunts the Prince William Sound ecosystem, Alaskan fishing communities and the nation’s energy policy”:

Read more

Yglesias

US Housing Stock Rushing Toward Liquidation

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 23, 2009 at 6:23 pm

0324_biz_webexist.gif

Jack Healy’s writeup of the latest data on home sales quickly turns into a discussion of whether or not prices are close to “reaching bottom.” Hope springs eternal, but in many parts of the country they still seem significantly above trend. What I would say is that the combination of large declines in sales prices with large increases in sales volumes is good news in the sense that it means that whether or not prices are currently at the bottom, they’re moving aggressively in that direction.

Since most people own homes, people aren’t, in general, enthusiastic about price declines. But the worst possible situation is really one in which nobody will pay what people are asking for houses, but nobody will agree to sell for what people are willing to pay. That kind of scenario might give people who aren’t actively looking to sell some comfort, since they see high list prices. But ultimately it’s a false comfort—a house is only worth what someone is actually willing to pay for it. And in economic terms, I don’t think dragging out the needed adjustment in home values accomplishes anything for anyone. All it really does is hurt people who might be looking to buy, since they would continue to face a frustratingly overvalued market and thus perhaps not be able to find the kind of housing they’re looking to live in.

Meanwhile, mortgage rates are heading down “The nationwide average for a 30-year fixed mortgage is 5.08 percent compared with 5.62 percent a year ago, according to Bankrate, and many lenders are offering loans with interest rates near 4.75 percent.” This, like the fall in home prices, is good news for people who’d been staying out of the bubble market but would still like to own property in which to live. But while the mortgage rates have gotten a lot of discussion in terms of the potential for their impact on house prices and foreclosures, I think the bigger deal is the potential impact on regular old refinancing. Low rates ought to make it possible for a fairly large number of people to refinance and reduce their monthly payment. That, in turn, frees up money that can be used to buy goods and services—leading to more employment, etc.

Politics

O’Reilly Lies: I Always Let People Explain Themselves Or Appear On My Show Before Harassing Them

By Amanda Terkel on Mar 23, 2009 at 6:00 pm

ap070118055469.jpg The harassment I experienced at the hands of Bill O’Reilly’s henchmen this past weekend was unfortunately not the first such incident by the network. Other victims include the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg, Gov. Jim Douglas (R-VT), the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker, and the Columbia Journalism Review’s Mike Hoyt.

On Aug. 24, 2007, O’Reilly defended his harassment machine:

As you may know, “The Factor” occasionally sends out producers to confront people who will not answer serious questions about controversial things they do, like judges giving child rapists probation, for example.

Now, some object to displays like these. But we feel they’re a vital tool in holding public servants accountable for their actions, and we do not go after people lightly. We always ask them on the program first, or to issue a clear statement explaining their actions.

For the record, I am neither a public servant, nor was I ever contacted by Fox News for the opportunity to issue a statement or appear on the O’Reilly Factor. Similarly, O’Reilly lied on-air after Watters’s ambush of Hertzberg, claiming that he had invited the journalist on the show. (He hadn’t.)

We have now contacted multiple people at Fox, including Watters himself. We have yet to receive a response from anyone at the network.

During that same August 2007 show, O’Reilly even asked Watters if he feels “afraid” during his ambushes. Watters joked, “No, I’m just afraid to come back empty-handed for you.” O’Reilly said that Watters was becoming a “big star all over the world.”

Update

Jon Stewart sums up O’Reilly’s hypocrisy on Americans’ right to privacy and his alleged belief that paparazzi are the “scum” of the earth:


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
Bill O’Reilly’s Right to Privacy
comedycentral.com


Update

,Watters is also under the delusion that in 2007, he single-handedly saved Christmas.


Update

,Media Matters has video of the 2007 segment here.

Yglesias

Distributing the Bank Rescue Surplus

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 23, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Eric Umansky writes: “Citibank up 20% and BofA, up 26% on Geithner’s plan. Does that mean it’s a good plan…or really really bad?”

It means it’s good for shareholders in troubled large banks. As for whether that’s a good sign or a bad sign, one should consider the possibility that these aren’t exclusive choices. One option for dealing with current problems is simply for the federal government to continue offering implicit guarantees to big banks, combined with low interest rates. That will allow the banks to operate profitably, and over time they’ll recapitalize themselves out of profits, and the crisis will resolve itself. But that will take a long time and be very bad for everyone. Geithner’s plan, by contrast, will almost certainly succeed in restoring the banks’ capital positions more quickly. That will create a better overall situation than the alternative.

The question around the plan concerns how the “betterness” is distributed. During the previous economic expansion, an absurdly large proportion of the growth was pocketed by a relatively small number of people working in the financial sector and, apparently, earning a living by selling snake oil. One question facing current policy is when will we shift into the next expansion. But another question is what will the expansion look like? How much of its gains will go back into the pockets of finance? Shifting from a “years of depression” scenario to a “deep recession followed by swift recovery” scenario generates a lot of extra wealth and well-being for everyone. But how much of it will actually go to “everyone” and how much will go to the owners and managers of large financial firms? A plan can work and help restore growth while still being unduly favorable to the interests of finance.

Climate Progress

George Will’s Lies Live On

By Brad Johnson on Mar 23, 2009 at 5:43 pm

George F. WillWith the publication of George F. Will’s error-filled “Dark Green Doomsayers” column of February 15th, the Washington Post failed to abide by its guiding principles. Despite the publication of a mildly critical ombudsman’s column, a strong rebuke by guest columnist Chris Mooney, and a letter to the editor from the misattributed United Nations World Meteorological Organization, the Washington Post editors have not issued a single correction to the column, which was syndicated to dozens, and possibly hundreds, of newspapers across the nation. After Eugene Meyer bought the Post in 1933 and began the family ownership that continues today, he published “These Principles“:

The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth may be ascertained.

The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.

As a disseminator of the news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.

What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as for the old.

The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of the owner.

In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good. The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.

Will’s column, distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group syndicate, ran in dozens of newspapers. Until the Writers Group issues a correction — George Will himself does — his lies will live on. Based on Nexis and online archives, these papers include: Read more

Politics

Fox News VP: Fox is ‘the voice of opposition’ to the Obama administration.

By Matt Corley on Mar 23, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Though Fox News is widely known to be biased in favor of conservatism, the network likes to claim that is “fair and balanced” and that the objectivity of the “hard news” they do is “is not in question.” But in an interview with NPR, Fox News’ Senior Vice President for Programming, Bill Shine, admitted that the network is consciously aiming to be “the voice of opposition” to the Obama administration “on some issues”:

“There were a couple of people who basically wrote about our demise come last November (and) December and were, I guess, rooting for us to go away,” said Bill Shine, senior vice president for programming at the Fox News Channel. “With this particular group of people in power right now, and the honeymoon they’ve had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?”

Fox News has wasted no time in opposing the Obama administration’s agenda. For example, the network has unleashed a steady drum beat of misinformation and propaganda against the Employee Free Choice Act. In fact, when it comes to challenging the Obama administration, Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has compared the network to “the Alamo.”

Climate Progress

Chicago shocker: Tries to meet 20% renewables commitment with 20-year-old rip-offsets

By Joe Romm on Mar 23, 2009 at 5:08 pm

At one time, Chicago was a serious contender for America’s greenest big city. Now they appear to be mostly contending for biggest greenwasher.

I didn’t learn the stunning story about what Chicago is trying to get away with until I was interviewed by a Chicago Tribune reporter. His story “Chicago’s ‘green’ promise fades: Chicago taxpayers on hook for carbon credits that do little to fight global warming,” was published yesterday:

Mayor Richard Daley promised long ago that his administration would start fighting global warming by buying 20 percent of its electricity from wind farms and other sources of green energy.

But more than two years after the deadline he set, the city continues to get nearly all of its power from coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, according to records obtained by the Tribune.

Daley administration officials contend they have kept the mayor’s promise by buying carbon credits, a controversial way of offsetting pollution by paying money to producers of green energy. The credits are supposed to lower the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere.

But most of the credits Chicago has bought over the last two years didn’t reduce carbon emissions at all, energy experts and the city’s own broker on the deal said.

So what exactly is the city of Chicago wasting its citizens’ money on? Good old-fashioned rip-offsets — in this case, emphasis on the word “old”:

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up