Think Progress

O’Reilly Ignores Holocaust Museum Shooting, Wonders Whether It’s Even ‘Newsworthy’

Last week, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly went on a tirade against CNN for supposedly failing to cover the shooting of Pvt. William Long, an Army recruiter in Arkansas. Of course, O’Reilly’s claims were blatantly false — but that didn’t stop him from claiming to be “shocked” that he “can’t find any information about” the shooting in the mainstream media.

Exactly one week later, after a white supremacist shot and killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, O’Reilly never covered the shooting on his show. In fact, the only mention of the act of domestic terrorism came in a segment that, ironically, decried the media’s inadequate coverage of Long’s death:

O’REILLY: But the central question remains according to a new Pew study, the American media spent far more time on the murder of Tiller than on the murder of Private Long. … 10 to 1 the Pew study which was released yesterday, 10 to 1 more coverage. I mean, come on, come on.

[...]

O’REILLY: All right. Now, we had a murder today at the Holocaust Museum in D.C.

HENICAN: That was an awful case. Awful.

O’REILLY: Now, this is an 89-year-old anti-Semite bigot kills an innocent guy in the Holocaust Museum. OK? Now, what about the newsworthiness of this? … Is it as newsworthy as Private Long?

Watch it:

Sean Hannity, whose show follows O’Reilly’s, never once mentioned the Holocaust Museum shooting — though he did discuss Miss California’s firing and played host to Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, and a star of “Miami Ink.”

O’Reilly slammed Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson for having “ignored” Long’s murder, which he said was an ideological decision:

O’REILLY: Look, Katie Couric didn’t cover Private Long. Charles Gibson ignored Private Long. Ignored it. Didn’t — didn’t say a word about it. … It’s a news decision, and our news decision is based on what is important. Their news decision is based on ideology.

If O’Reilly bases his coverage “on what is important” and not ideology, why did he fail to “say a word about” the single largest news story of the day?

O’Reilly Apologizes For False Attack On CNN

On the Fox News this week, host Bill O’Reilly complained that he was “shocked that an Army recruiter in Arkansas got gunned down by some Muslim terrorist in the United States, and I can’t find any info about it.” Purporting to show “blatant media bias in America,” he criticized CNN specifically, claiming the network had largely ignored the story. According to O’Reilly, “only Anderson Cooper at 10:00 covered the story. No one else.” However, yesterday, CNN’s Rick Sanchez took O’Reilly to task for his misbegotten “media bias” claims, showing a lengthy clip of day-long CNN coverage of the shooting:

SANCHEZ: Bill O’Reilly says he only saw it once. And since he only saw it once, well then, that must be the truth. It doesn’t matter what really happened, it doesn’t matter what the record shows. All that matters is what Bill thinks he saw.

Watch it:

Last night on The Factor, Bill O’Reilly announced he had a “rare correction” to make. O’Reilly said that a “snide, surly guy on CNN” (Rick Sanchez) corrected the record about CNN’s coverage. “I was wrong. My apologies to CNN,” O’Reilly said. Watch it:

- Kyle Schmidt

Will O’Reilly Continue To Host Ann Coulter After She Refused To ‘Condemn’ The Murder Of George Tiller?

Despite his refusal to back down from his demonization of Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered on Sunday, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly has repeatedly said that Americans should “condemn” Tiller’s murder. “Clear-thinking Americans should condemn the murder of late term abortionist Tiller,” said O’Reilly on his Monday show. “Every American condemns the Tiller murder,” he added on Tuesday. Watch it:

But at least one of O’Reilly’s regular guests has refused to condemn the murder. In her column yesterday, Ann Coulter never explicitly condemned the murder. Instead, she mocked and appeared to excuse it:

The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an “absolute right to be born,” who’s to say late-term abortionists have an “absolute right” to live?

I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot one.

On Sunday, Adele Stan recalled how Coulter had previously mocked abortion-related murders, saying that victims, “depending on your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.”

According to a Nexis search, Coulter has appeared on O’Reilly’s show six times in the last six months. Considering that he believes all “clear-thinking Americans should condemn the murder,” will O’Reilly continue to host someone who refuses to do so?

O’Reilly Responds To The Tiller Murder: ‘No Backpedaling Here…Every Single Thing We Said About Tiller Was True’

After yesterday’s brutal shooting of George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who administered abortions, many anti-choice groups quickly condemned the murder and attempted to separate themselves from the actions of the killer. Even Operation Rescue, which made Tiller a special target of its harassment over the years, denounced the killing as “vigilantism” and a “cowardly act.”

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly had also singled out Tiller in the past. According to Salon, O’Reilly first discussed Tiller on Feb. 25, 2005, and subsequently did 28 more episodes mentioning the doctor. When Fox News announced that O’Reilly would be making his first comments on Tiller since his murder, some journalists believed that O’Reilly would “most certainly decry” the killing.

At the top of his Talking Points segment, O’Reilly did briefly say, “Americans should condemn the murder of Dr. George Tiller,” but he then quickly segued into more attacks on Tiller. He also used the opportunity to attack his critics, saying they were trying to “exploit” the incident to attack Fox News. In particular, he singled out the writings of Helen Kennedy of the New York Daily News, Mary Mapes on the Huffington Post, Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star, Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos. O’Reilly blasted liberals who were “very very sympathetic” to Tiller and said one of the first things that he thought of when he heard the news of the killing was…himself:

When I heard about Tiller’s murder, I knew pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters would attempt to blame us for the crime, and that’s exactly what has happened. [...]

No backpedaling here, madam [Mary Mapes]. Unlike you, I report honestly. Every single thing we said about Tiller was true, and my analysis was based on those facts. [...]

Now, it’s clear that the far left is exploiting — exploiting — the death of the doctor. Those vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like Tiller. That — and hating Fox News — is the real agenda here. Finally, if these people are soooo compassionate — so very compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others — maybe they might have written something, one thing, about the 60,000 fetuses that will never become American citizens. Or am I wrong?

Watch it:

Besides repeatedly referring to the doctor as “Tiller the Baby Killer,” what are some of the factual statements O’Reilly has made about Tiller over the years?

– “If you want to kill a baby, you hire Tiller. You’ve got to pay him $5,000 up front, and he’ll kill the baby.”

– “No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands.”

– “Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason, right up until the birth date.”

– “This man executes babies that are about to be born.”

– “This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union.”

In the past, O’Reilly has sent out producer Jesse Watters to ambush Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) and ask her about Tiller. Although many people disagreed with what Tiller did, as President Obama responded, such differences “cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.” “[T]he same bullet that killed George Tiller also shattered the moral underpinnings of the movement that inspired its firing,” wrote Hendricks.

Following Criticism For His Demonization Of George Tiller, O’Reilly To Address The Murder Tonight

Yesterday, after the news broke that George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who administered abortions, had been murdered while attending church, The American Prospect’s Ann Friedman pointed out that Tiller had been the target of “an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment” by anti-choice activists. The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan and Salon’s Gabriel Winant both quickly noted that one of the most prominent voices in the demonization of Tiller was Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.

According to Winant, O’Reilly first discussed Tiller on Feb. 25, 2005 and followed it up with 28 more episodes that mentioned the doctor. In the past four years, O’Reilly described the doctor as “Tiller the Baby Killer” and “a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida.” “This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union,” said O’Reilly on one show.

Jed Lewison has put together compilation of O’Reilly’s attacks on Tiller over the years. Watch it:

As Winant points out, O’Reilly’s rhetoric against Tiller was most troubling when he said that anyone who didn’t “stop” him would have “blood on their hands“:

This is where it gets most troubling. O’Reilly’s language describing Tiller, and accusing the state and its elites of complicity in his actions, could become extremely vivid. On June 12, 2007, he said, “Yes, I think we all know what this is. And if the state of Kansas doesn’t stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius.”

Three days later, he added, “No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller’s business of destruction. I wouldn’t want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just — you know … Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?“

TVNewser reports that O’Reilly “will give his first public comment on Dr. Tiller’s murder” on his show tonight. As Winant notes, O’Reilly can be expected to condemn the murder and “genuinely mean” it. But will O’Reilly admit that his rhetoric was “sensationally irresponsible?”

O’Reilly Defends Cherry-Picking Comments To Attack Blogs »

On Wednesday, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly attempted to demonstrate that the blogosphere is full of extreme hate-mongers. To do so, he pulled random comments from both ThinkProgress and Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air blog. However, he never noted that they were comments. Instead, he attributed them as official posts by the blogs:

ThinkProgress, another crazy website on the left: “It will be so funny seeing a bunch of old white guys questioning her during the Senate hearings.” Nothing racist about that. You know, these people — as I said on the conservative guy — they don’t think that they’re racist. They don’t think that they’re bigoted. But you know, it’s so obvious they are.

Malkin went on Fox and Friends the next day and responded that her site was “smeared” by O’Reilly.

Last night, O’Reilly responded to the criticisms, saying that he “should have been more precise” and identified that the remark was made by a “civilian” not by Hot Air’s staff. (O’Reilly never acknowledged that he similarly smeared ThinkProgress.) However, he then went on to defend his actions:

O’REILLY: Wow. Miss Malkin is upset, because I did not identify the Hussein comment was made by a civilian, not her or her staff. And that’s true. I should have been more precise.

But we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited, as we do on BillOReilly.com. That’s the point. The Daily Kos traffics in hatred all day long. It’s not enough to say, “I didn’t do it.”

And pointing out hateful things on any Web site is not a smear.

Watch it:

As ThinkProgress editor Faiz Shakir explained yesterday, “The comments policy of this blog — like most blogs on the Internet — is to allow postings from people with whom we agree and disagree. … Those comments do not always reflect the positions and views of the site’s editors and authors. As long as commenters abide by our terms of use, they are free to post whatever they’d like, even things which offend Bill O’Reilly’s sensitivities.”

But by O’Reilly’s logic, he himself should be held responsible for hoping that Hillary Clinton falls “into a moat filled leeches and (gulp) rats” and speculating that “it’s time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building.” As Hot Air writer AllahPundit noted, “if the O’Reilly Factor can’t figure out the difference between a blog post and a comment, they have no business opining about the Internet at all.”

If O’Reilly is sincere in his belief that he “should have been more precise” in identifying the source of the comment on Hot Air, we expect that he will do the same next time he highlights something written on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, or any other liberal blog.

Transcript: More »« Less

Clueless O’Reilly Launches Uninformed Attack On Bloggers, Including ThinkProgress

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly engaged in one of his usual diatribes against bloggers. In attempting to demonstrate that the blogosphere is full of extreme hate-mongers, O’Reilly criticized both conservative and liberal blogs for allowing commenters to freely post opinions with which the sites may not agree.

In his “policing the net” segment, O’Reilly displayed a few hateful comments against Judge Sonia Sotomayor that were posted on Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air blog. Then O’Reilly set his sights on ThinkProgress (aka “the insects”):

ThinkProgress, another crazy website on the left: “It will be so funny seeing a bunch of old white guys questioning her during the Senate hearings.” Nothing racist about that. You know, these people — as I said on the conservative guy — they don’t think that they’re racist. They don’t think that they’re bigoted. But you know, it’s so obvious they are.

In both cases, O’Reilly was not quoting posts on ThinkProgress or Hot Air. Rather, he was referencing a couple of the many commenters that post to each site. Watch it:

You have to forgive O’Reilly because he doesn’t actually “go on the Internet” to figure out what he’s talking about. Conservatives are rightfully criticizing O’Reilly for unfairly attacking Hot Air. Allahpundit writes, “Ah, there’s nothing like yanking a comment out of context and using it to smear the entire site.”

The comments policy of this blog — like most blogs on the Internet — is to allow postings from people with whom we agree and disagree. ThinkProgress values and appreciates an open commenting section that allows for a candid and frank exchange of views. Those comments do not always reflect the positions and views of the site’s editors and authors. As long as commenters abide by our terms of use, they are free to post whatever they’d like, even things which offend Bill O’Reilly’s sensitivities.

It’s worth recalling, of course, that O’Reilly’s own website has allowed commenters to post hateful things in the past. But thankfully, O’Reilly is around to help police us all.

Seemingly Forgetting That She Works For Fox News, Van Susteren Decries ‘Surprise’ Ambush Interviews

On Saturday, Politico’s Carol E. Lee wrote a blog post describing her failed attempt to interview “first dude” Todd Palin at Tammy Haddad’s brunch before the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. “Todd Palin was being led around the brunch by Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, who is apparently his host AND handler,” wrote Lee.

According to Lee, Van Susteren “intervened” when she “started to chat” with Palin, telling the reporter that the brunch was “off the record.” Writing on her blog the next day, Van Susteren expressed her outrage at being described as Palin’s “handler,” claiming that she was just showing “good manners” by stepping in when Palin was “ambushed by a surprise interview“:

A Politico reporter came up to our Fox guest Todd Palin with a pad to take notes and interview Todd Palin (it says “started to chat” but that is not what happened or what was going on….no one is that stupid to believe that.) It was an attempt to interview him when he did not agree to it or ask for it — print paparazzi at a brunch /party!

If Todd Palin had said something about coming there for a social event (instead of me), you know what would have happened — he would have been trashed….which would have been unfair. The reporter may have been working – but he was not. He was at a social event and not looking to be ambushed by a surprise interview.

At Media Matters’ County Fair blog, Jamison Foser notes the irony of Van Susteren’s complaints about “surprise” ambush interviews, considering that she works at Fox News, the home of the O’Reilly Harrassment Machine. “If Fox reporters are going to complain about people being “ambushed by a surprise interview,” they might want to denounce Bill O’Reilly first. Otherwise, they look like frauds,” writes Foser.

Though Van Susteren doesn’t send her producers to harass people who disagree with her like O’Reilly does, she has promoted Fox’s ambush journalism on her show. For instance, on the Oct. 30, 2008 edition of On The Record, Van Susteren aired footage of Fox reporter Griff Jenkins ambushing Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi and following him into an elevator. Watch that ambush interview: