The Hypocrisy Of Bill O'Reilly, Pt. II

Another day passes after Bill O'Reilly said it was terrorist open season on San Francisco and he still has a job. Unbelievable. O'Reilly defends his statements (as do some of his colleagues) but at the same time his website's transcript removes the remarks. Would Wolf Blitzer or Keith Olbermann still have a job today if they had the same exact, word-for-word, remarks about a red-state city? Would the right-wing allow it? No.

Remember back in 2001 that Bill Maher got fired from ABC for making controversial remarks about terrorists in the wake of 9/11. This lead then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer to remark: "all Americans ... need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is..." (a comment they at one point tried to deny was said). Note that Mr. Maher's comments, while controversial, did not endorse a terrorist attack on an American city.

Remember just last year that Dan Rather, one of the most respected journalists on the 20th century, was shamed into retirement because of a story on the President's National Guard service that was poorly researched. Right-wing bloggers exposed the story and continue to use it as an example of liberal media bias. Several CBS executives lost their jobs over the story. Dan Rather retired early. Note that no one died because of the story and, again, no one endorsed a terrorist attack on an American city.

Note that, even in non-political news, Infinity Broadcasting had Howard Stern suspended just for discussing his move to satellite radio. I didn't hear the show that lead to the suspension, but I'm fairly sure Howard didn't endorse a terrorist attack on an American city.

And do I even need to discuss the backlash to Michael Moore's works?

But O'Reilly appears to be untouchable. Why? Because he's O'Reilly. Because he's one of the Fox News guys. No one takes them seriously. When I told some of my friends this, they laughed as if it to say 'Well what else do you expect from one of them?'. The journalist expectations people have for the O'Reillys and Hannitys and Limbaughs are so low that when one of them makes remarks like this, everyone blows this off as if a cartoon character had said it. And yet, simultaneously, we are meant to look up at the Fox crew as the top journalists of their game- #1 cable news network. But I don't see why it should be blown off. No one blew off Bill Maher. O'Reilly has a huge audience on both radio and TV and, sadly, is watched by millions of people everyday who trust him to be a sane voice of the average American. Remember- Bill O'Reilly is looking out for you.

Despite that image he created for himself, he is not just a moral hypocrite who sexually harassed an employee, he is one of the most guilty of the hate speech he accuses his enemies of. I admit to being amused by his blustery ways and his pure partisan anger, but his remarks about San Francisco have crossed a line. Unless he is willing to apologize to not only the city, but his listeners and viewers, it is my belief that he deserves to be removed from the airwaves where he is so influential.

Some examples of his hypocrisy (I'm sure others can come up with more)...

This past August, and since then, O'Reilly has been one of the biggest attackers of anti-war Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan has received great criticism (some justified, some not) for many inflammatory remarks made about the war on terror. Because of these remarks, Sheehan's profile in the anti-war movement has diminished. As recently as late September, O'Reilly has ranted about Sheehan on his program, stating she is "radical" and her statements aid terrorists.... I wonder what Mr. O'Reilly would say in his Talking Points segment if Ms. Sheehan had made the comments he made.

Earlier in the year, Bill O'Reilly and others demanded the firing of Ward Churchill, a college professor who wrote an extremely controversial essay on 9/11 which stated that many of those workers who died deserved their fate for their role as 'little Eichmanns' in the capitalist machine. Those like O'Reilly called Churchill and a traitor and all-around horrible person. Yet, as a Slate editorial on the matter noted: Churchill's 9/11 comments were patently offensive. But they were not hate speech, they were not treason, and they were not in any sense a call to imminent violence on the part of his listeners.... Many might not remember it now, but the Churchill remarks were a HUGE story at the time. Yet, Mr. O'Reilly hypocritically has done worse than Churchill and stated that an entire city deserves a terrorist attack simply because they voted in a way he disagreed with. And yet not a peep from anyone, except some bloggers like myself.

Conservatives, where is your anger now?

In airports you can get arrested for joking about terrorism. It's an understandable law. Yet one of the nation's most listened-to pundits can endorse an act of terrorism (and defend the remark) and apparently it's no big deal. O'Reilly states his remarks were justified because San Francisco barring military recruiters from schools hurts and endangers our country. Hurts the country? You mean like Scooter Libby and other White House officials did by outing a CIA agent who dealt with weapons of mass destruction? Like the White House did by rushing to war (leading O'Reilly to not trust them anymore, wink wink)? If terrorists did attack San Francisco, would that hurt the country? Would O'Reilly care if he doesn't consider it a part of the country anymore?

I wish Bill Maher were on this week; I'd like to know how he feels about this.

This goes beyond punditry as usual and should not be dismissed.

Make your voice heard. Help boycott O'Reilly and his radical message.
OPERATION: FALAFEL