Bill Oreilly on The Huffington Post

Olbermann Knocks O'Reilly For Obama/Osama Mistake While Doing It Live (VIDEO)

2009-12-03T08:31:32Z

Michele Bachmann was awarded the bronze medal for Countdown's "Worst Persons in the World" for some dubious logic and mangled language when she railed against government intervention in the private economy.

Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs brought home the silver for exclaiming about Obama "who the hell does this President think he is?" during a discussion about President Obama and the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Dobbs seems to think Obama was going to hold the U.S. hostage to some kind of binding international agreement on global warming. That is not the case.

Olbermann favorite Bill O'Reilly won top honors for failing to realize he was 'doing it live' on his show a few nights ago. O'Reilly thought he was taping a promo when he mixed up Osama's name with Obama. It happens to the best of us, but the added mistake of O'Reilly not knowing he was live gave Olbermann an excuse to run the now infamous 'do it live' tape from earlier in the Fox News host's career.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bill O'Reilly Mixes Up Obama And Osama, Asks For Do-Over On Live TV (VIDEO)

2009-12-02T10:19:30Z

In a rare appearance on live television Wednesday night, Bill O'Reilly mixed up the words Obama and Osama — and asked for a do-over.

O'Reilly, who typically pre-tapes "The O'Reilly Factor" in late afternoon/early evening, aired a live version of the show following President Obama's speech at West Point.

O'Reilly made the Obama/Osama flub while promoing a segment before commercial.

"Pinheads and patriots, on deck, tonight starring a Congressman who says, you're not gonna believe it, President Bush allowed Obam — uh, Osama," O'Reilly said.

"I'm going to have to cut that again," he followed-up, as the music got louder and producers cut to a commercial.

Watch (via Inside Cable News, h/t Mediaite):

Hannity Ousts O'Reilly As Top Cable News Telecast Of Week

2009-11-27T09:09:31Z

"Hannity" ousted "The O'Reilly Factor" as the top cable news telecast of last week.

Sean Hannity's Wednesday interview of Sarah Palin averaged 4.200 million total viewers, enough to crack the top ten telecasts in all of cable last week. And while Bill O'Reilly had five telecasts in the top 25, his best — his Thursday interview with Palin — averaged 4.120 million total viewers, landing at #14.

ESPN's "Monday Night Football" contest between the Ravens and the Browns was the top telecast on cable, averaging 10.196 million total viewers.

USA took the top spot in the cable network primetime rankings for the week, averaging 3.078 million total viewers on the strength of programs like "Monk," WWE Raw," "White Collar," and "NCIS." ESPN placed second with 2.933 million total viewers, and Fox News came in third with 2.435 million total viewers.

Elsewhere in cable news, MSNBC placed 25th with an average of 692,000 total viewers, while CNN placed 28th with an average of 627,000 total viewers.

Top 30 Cable Networks of the Week, 11/16-11/22

Cable Time Period Rank - Week of 11-16-09 _Live+SD_ -

Top 40 Cable Telecasts of the Week, 11/16-11/22

Cable Program Rank - Week of 11-16-09 - Live + SD -

Olbermann Names O'Reilly, Beck Worst Persons In The World (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T12:14:05Z

Keith Olbermann named both Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck among his "Worst Persons in the World" Tuesday night on "Countdown."

O'Reilly was runner-up, earning the "Worser Person" badge for claiming thathis producers' ambush interviews with Bill Moyers forced the PBS broadcaster to retire from his weekly program.

"In the ambush interview from O'Reilly's stalker producer [Jesse Waters], Moyers mopped the floor with the kid," Olbermann said. "He invited Waters to come on the show because O'Reilly didn't have the courage to do so, he said. A year later, O'Reilly sent his other flunkie, Porter Berry, to try to side swipe Moyers, and no one has seen Berry since. And these interviews from two and three years ago, that's what Bill-O thinks drove Moyers out of PBS. Bill also thinks he has his own police force and that he schedules the tides. Notice, O'Reilly never does these ambush interviews himself because, well--here kitty, kitty, kitty."

But Beck took top honors, winning "Worst Person" status for two reasons: his tireless promotion of gold and his branding of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) as a "prostitute."

"Once again, Beck's dirty little secret is that American society means as much to him as faith means to a televangelist," Olbermann said. "It's a scam. It's a cash cow. He's in it for the money. He keeps trying to sell people gold, largely because his a disproportionate number of his advertisers sell people gold."

Olbermann also asked why conservative feminists aren't responding in outrage to Beck's comments about Landrieu.

"Where are the conservative feminists?" he asked. "A women politician is called a prostitute and you're OK with that. It's OK if I call Sarah Palin that? The hell it is."

Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Spill O'Reilly: Bill O'Reilly Meets Sesame Street Counterpart (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T12:14:03Z

Sesame Workshop Executive Vice President Sherrie Westin appeared Tuesday on "The O'Reilly Factor" to discuss the recent controversy surrounding "Sesame Street's" Fox News joke and to unveil the newest anchor on Grouch News Network: Spill O'Reilly.

Westin — who is married to ABC News President David Westin — said that Oscar the Grouch joking about "trashy" Pox News was a parody — and even a compliment.

"If you looked at that whole parody," Westin said, "Oscar, the highest praise is being trashy."

"So he was actually praising Fox News!" O'Reilly said.

Westin also introduced Grouch News Network Spill O'Reilly, who follows in the footsteps of anchors like Walter Cranky and Dan Rathernot.

Spill shouted into the camera, welcomed viewers to "the No-Spew Zone," and even plugged his book, A Stinky Rotten Pile of Grouchiness.

O'Reilly told Spill he reminded him of Barney Frank.

Watch:

Olbermann Rips Glenn Beck For Calling Dem Senator Mary Landrieu A 'Prostitute' (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T08:14:44Z

On MSNBC's "Countdown" last night, IOlbermann awarded Carly Firorina the bronze medal for stating at a breakfast recently that she was opposed to bank bailouts, conveniently leaving out that last year she supported the mother of all bank bailouts when the financial system was perched on the edge of a cliff.

Bill O'Reilly brought home the silver for implausibly insisting that he and his ambush producer Jesse Waters were responsible for Bill Moyers retiring from PBS.

The winner of the gold medal was another Fox News host: Glenn Beck. On his radio show Beck crudely called Senator Mary Landrieu a prostitute for her work obtaining money in the health care bill to help pay for coverage of poor citizens of Louisiana. He then doubled down later on his television show, saying "So we know you're hookin', but you're just not cheap."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Spill O'Reilly! Sesame Street Talking Head Meets Fox News Host (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T02:11:16Z

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has been parodied on shows like Saturday Night Live and the Colbert Report. Now add Sesame Street to the list.

Earlier this month, O'Reilly aired a clip from a two-year-old episode of the popular PBS children's show featuring a character switching allegiances from the "Grouch News Network" to "Pox News," declaring, "Now there's a trashy news show!"

O'Reilly signed off, "We may have to ambush Oscar."

On Tuesday, O'Reilly was joined on his program by a new character, Spill O'Reilly, who has been added to the ranks of Sesame Street's Walter Cranky, Dan Rather-Not, Meredith Beware-a and Diane Spoiler.

WATCH:

O'Reilly Interviews Lawyer For 9/11 Defendant: 'You're A Weasel, You Know People Hate You' (VIDEO)

2009-11-24T13:36:40Z

On Monday night, Bill O'Reilly grilled Scott Fenstermaker, a lawyer for accused 9/11 terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali in a habeas corpus case challenging Ali's detention, about his role in the case during a heated interview on "The O'Reilly Factor".

O'Reilly began by asking if his client's defense is to hurl anti-American propaganda in the courtroom. Fenstermaker said no, explaining that Ali and his co-defendants would make a "justification" defense for their role in 9/11. The interview quickly got personal as O'Reilly pressed Fenstermaker on his own views: "Is there any justification on this earth to murder thousands of innocent people?" "Are you sitting here as a human being telling me the people on 9/11 weren't murdered?"

Fenstermaker insisted that that was for the jury to decide, and he is not a juror. This answer did not sit well with the host.

O'Reilly: Don't you think people watching you, and millions are right now, counselor, and I don't mean this with any disrespect, think that you're a weasel?

Fenstermaker: They might. That's fine.

O'Reilly: Cause I do. And you seem like a nice guy, but I'm saying this guy sitting in front of me doesn't think these people were murdered on 9/11 when we saw what happened; if he won't say they were murdered or not, he's a weasel.

O'Reilly repeatedly tried to draw out the defense strategy from the attorney but Fenstermaker kept dodging or rephrasing the host's questions in a more innocuous way, much to the annoyance of O'Reilly.

O'Reilly: You know people hate you. Do you care?

Fenstermaker: No, I'm honored that they hate me.

WATCH:

David Vines: If It Were Me, I'd Be Embarrassed

2009-11-21T13:50:00Z

It's nice to see that even after the election, conservatives are still playing the "liberal gotcha media" card every time they expose themselves as being shamefully ignorant regarding the issues they care about most.

Last Wednesday, a media firestorm erupted after a seventeen-year-old girl named Jackie was interviewed by MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell while standing in line during Sarah Palin's Michigan book signing. Jackie, wearing a shirt that read, "The US government handed out $700 billion in Wall Street bailouts and all I got was this lousy t-shirt," was caught off-guard when O'Donnell informed her that Sarah Palin was on record as supporting the bailout.

You can see the exchange below:

It didn't take long for Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to feature this clip on their respective shows and praise Jackie while condemning O'Donnell for her pesky questions backed up by fact-based research. Then, Jackie was given a platform to tell her side of the story by the blog, Red White & Conservative.

To summarize:

This all started as me, a young 17 year old American going to see a woman I admire and turned into this crazy event hah I'll start at the very beginning.

She had me read my shirt and then proceeded to ask me "Did you know Sarah Palin supported the bailout" to be 100% honest I was like, are you kidding me? She is trying to use my shirt against me. I was so shocked by the craftiness she had that I was truly stumped. I asked her where she got her fact and she read her little note. Then she asked me what I liked about Sarah, and I talked about the Constitution.

In one day I met a role model, and met the liberal media and their crafty schemes. I fell prey to liberal bias, but I'd like to think I did an okay job.

As a fellow high school senior, I feel a strong urge to respond.

This notion that a reporter is being "crafty" and "biased" when they correct factually inaccurate statements is ridiculous. Sure, Jackie might have a point if O'Donnell ran up to her at random and stuck a microphone in her face as she was walking down the street, but that was not the case. This girl was at the book signing of a prominent politician, wore a t-shirt indicating that she had strong political views, agreed to be interviewed, and failed to answer a very simple and straightforward question.

The job of a good reporter is not to ask softball questions or cast everybody they speak to in a positive light. A reporter's job is to collect facts and seek the truth. So, while some may object to O'Donnell's speaking to a seventeen-year-old girl, nobody can accuse her of reporting anything but the facts.

Which brings me to my final point: Jackie is seventeen-years-old, she's not seven.

In her piece for Red White & Conservative, she feels the need to drive home the fact that she's only seventeen four separate times, as if that were some sort of defense.

Now, I understand that much of the electorate is made up of low information voters who don't closely follow politics. That's fine -- it's not ideal, but it's perfectly understandable.

But according to her school profile, Jackie is very politically involved. She is an intern with the Michigan Republican Party and is clearly excited and passionate about what her political "role model," Former-Governor Palin, represents. And yet, when she cannot correctly identify one of Palin's most basic political positions, she plays the victim and blames everybody but herself.

Then, conservative members of the media take the bait and praise her as some sort of Republican hero. They are more than happy to glorify this culture of ignorance and hide behind the veil of "elitism" and "media bias" when anyone approaches them with facts.

All I can say is that if Glenn Beck had heard me express my political views and then assumed that I was a thirteen-year-old, I would not lift the paper bag off my head for quite some time.

*Correction: It has been brought to my attention that Red White & Conservative is Jackie's own blog. It is not, as I had previously written, the blog of someone else who had given her a platform to speak.*

"Hannity" Ratings HUGE On Sarah Palin Interview, Beats O'Reilly

2009-11-20T09:40:03Z

Now Bill O'Reilly might really be mad.

After O'Reilly reportedly threw a "hissyfit" because Sean Hannity's interview with Sarah Palin would air before his, the ratings show Wednesday's "Hannity" was a huge hit and even beat "The O'Reilly Factor."

"Hannity" was the top show on cable news Wednesday, averaging 4.200 million total viewers and 1.149 million viewers in the A25-54 demographic. That's more than O'Reilly's 3.868 million total viewers/1.065 million A25-54 viewers and enough for the second highest "Hannity" episode of 2009 (behind only Election Night 2009, when he averaged 4.224 million total viewers).

Palin recently lifted Oprah to her best ratings in two years.

Elsewhere at 9PM Wednesday, Rachel Maddow came in second with 957,000 total viewers and 273,000 A25-54, while Larry King placed third with 835,000 total viewers and 208,000 A25-54.

Rounding out the top five programs among total viewers in cable news Wednesday were three more Fox News programs: "Glenn Beck," which averaged 2.512 million, "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," which averaged 2.383 million, and "Special Report with Bret Baier," which got a boost from Major Garrett's interview of President Obama to average 2.235 million total viewers.

J. Richard Cohen: To Bill O'Reilly: You Lose Dobbs Bet

2009-11-18T12:39:11Z

To: Bill O'Reilly
The O'Reilly Factor
Fox News Network

Dear Bill,

You lost the bet. Time to pay up!

When I appeared on your show in July, you were so certain that the Southern Poverty Law Center's call for CNN to fire Lou Dobbs was a waste of time that you bet $10,000 (with the proceeds going to Habitat for Humanity) that it wouldn't happen.

"CNN's never going to fire him -- you know that," you said.

I told you that I disagreed, because I wasn't as cynical as you. I believed that if enough people spoke out -- and they did -- that CNN would do the right thing.

I expect you will argue that Lou didn't get fired -- that he got fed up and quit the network he had been with for three decades.

But as a litigator, I'd like to present Exhibit A: Dobbs' $8 million severance package, which was reported today by the New York Post. I think you'll agree that Mr. Murdoch's Post would never report such a thing were it not, indeed, a fact.

And would CNN fork over $8 million -- enough money to pay for 13 miles of electric border fence -- to an employee who simply wanted to walk away from his multimillion-dollar contract because he couldn't constrain his opinions on a news show?

I doubt it.

Maybe your fall-back position is that it wasn't a real bet. I don't know. But I think that if you'll stop spinning for a moment, you'll agree that in the court of public opinion, you lose. I know it hurts deeply to be wrong. (Although Lou won't admit it, it happens to the best of us). You can be assured that your loss will be a big win for a family in need of housing.

CNN did the right thing. Now it's your turn.

Sincerely yours,

J. Richard Cohen

Bill O'Reilly Had "Hissyfit" Over Sean Hannity's Sarah Palin Interview: The Wrap

2009-11-18T12:37:21Z

The Wrap's Dylan Stableford reports that Sarah Palin has caused tension inside the halls of Fox News — namely, between its two biggest primetime stars, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Both hosts landed interviews with Palin, and both filmed their interviews Tuesday. But Hannity's is set to air Wednesday, while O'Reilly's will air in three parts: Thursday, Friday, and Monday nights.

Stableford quotes a Fox News insider as saying O'Reilly had a "hissyfit" over the fact that Hannity's interview with Palin would air first, so he released the following teaser of his Palin interview on his YouTube channel, a move Stableford characterized as "going rogue" and a "pre-emptive strike."

Watch:

Olbermann Names O'Reilly "Worst Person" TWICE! (VIDEO)

2009-11-18T09:38:50Z

Bill O'Reilly achieved the distinction of being named not just Keith Olbermann's worst person in the world Tuesday night, but also his second-worst.

The Fox News host took both the silver and the gold in Olbermann's "Countdown" segment Tuesday.

First, Olbermann slammed "Bill-O The Clown," giving him the "Worse" badge over his recent legal debate with Judge Andrew Napolitano, in which O'Reilly said, "I don't care about the constitution" and called Napolitano a "pinhead" when he invoked it.

Next, Olbermann knocked "Bill-O The Fraud," giving him the "Worst" crown over comments so irrational even Glenn Beck had to disagree with them.

On Beck's radio program, O'Reilly predicted a "tax revolt" and said, "I think people, when they figure out how badly they're going to get hurt in the next few years, there's going to be a tea party on taxes and it's gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi's going to be bobbing up and down in Boston Harbor."

"I don't think that's necessary," Beck responded.

"If anybody else had said what O'Reilly had said about the Constitution and about, say, Speaker Hastert, O'Reilly would have called for their arrest!" Olbermann said, calling O'Reilly a fraud.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Cenk Uygur: Imagine if the Today's Right-Wing Were Around for Nuremberg

2009-11-17T16:16:59Z

I was talking to Frank Mankiewicz recently (he was the press secretary for Bobby Kennedy and campaign manager for George McGovern) and I asked him what's the difference between the right-wing in this country back in the 60s and 70s and right now. Certainly there were crazed conservatives back then, and in many ways they were even more dangerous and vicious back then. But Frank was more concerned about the right-wing of today. Why?

He said it's because back then they were considered the radical fringe and now they're taken seriously as part of the national conversation. Back then there were pockets of these guys in different parts of the country, but now they're national. So, every single issue is nationalized and made more partisan. The fringe is united behind their demagogues (mainly radio and television talk show hosts) and drive every issue into a senseless and fevered ideological battle.

It's as if we're taking the opinions of doctors and the lunatics at the asylum just as seriously. They are not equal and legitimate sources of information.

So, every week there's something else crazy that's discussed as if it's a legitimate issue. This week there are already two such topics, and it's just Tuesday. First, the right-wing is incensed that President Obama showed courtesy to a foreign leader by bowing to the Japanese Emperor. Are you kidding me? Bush practically made out with the Saudi leader at Crawford, but we didn't make that a real issue. You know why? Because it's not a real issue!

It was funny to see Bush walking hand in hand with King Abdullah, but we get why he did it. He was respecting their culture. Now, when Obama does something much less controversial, it's a nationwide debate (including a slight bow to the same Saudi Arabian leader). You can chuckle over Bush or Obama in local outfits or practicing what appears to be strange customs to us, but you can't treat it as if it's something that tells you about their leadership or as if it's a real national security issue.

Let alone what Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times, had to say about Obama bowing "controversy":

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

Look at these statements -- "natural instinct or blood impulse"; "sired by a Kenyan father"; "born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World." Again, are you kidding me? We're supposed to take these guys seriously?

Then there is the issue of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Bill O'Reilly had this thoughtful commentary on the KSM trial, "The guy's admitted it, so he shouldn't be going on trial anyway, he should just be shot." We're listening to these guys?

So, under that logic, if the authorities claim someone "admitted" a crime to them, we should just skip the trial and shoot them in the head. How very American!

Imagine if we these right-wing lunatics were around -- and were being taken seriously -- after World War II. We would have never had Nuremberg. They would have gone ballistic; screaming for blood and seething at the idea of bringing Nazis to justice. They would have exacted a terrible political price for trying to bring these guys to trial. So, instead of setting a history making precedent on how victors in war can be just and fair, we would have lynched those detainees, punished the rest of Germany and made the same mistake as almost every other country in history by brutally oppressing the defeated.

You think these guys would have gone for the Marshall Plan? Rebuilding your enemies? Giving tremendous amount of money and US resources to rebuild your two biggest adversaries who just killed millions of people in a terrible war they started? Inconceivable. They would have called the Marshall Plan an act of cowardice and appeasement that showed weakness to your enemies. They would have destroyed the greatest American diplomatic accomplishment. They would have tried to scuttle the very policies that made this country great -- that made it exceptional.

But the current right-wing radicals (which includes nearly every major conservative talk show host in the country; they were unanimous in their agreement that KSM should not be tried in the American justice system) aren't just crazy, they're un-American. They missed the whole point of the country. What makes America great is our justice system. We don't take people out and shoot them in the head without trials. That's what despots and dictators do. We are a country of laws, not men. We are supposed to be exceptional in our justice, fairness and jurisprudence. These people don't believe in any of that. They just want blood. But we might be crazier than they are for taking them seriously.

Watch TYT Here

Lou Dobbs Tells O'Reilly: I'm Staying "In Public Arena," CNN Didn't Want Me In Obama Era (VIDEO)

2009-11-16T17:54:54Z

***SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO***

Lou Dobbs guaranteed Bill O'Reilly Monday that he is going to "remain in the public arena," and suggested that the only factor that made his brand of "advocacy journalism" unacceptable at CNN was the arrival of the Obama administration into power.

In an appearance on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" set to air Monday night, O'Reilly welcomed Dobbs — who he described as "recently emancipated" — for his first cable news appearance since resigning from CNN last week.

"Now, there's been speculation you might run for the Senate in New Jersey. Is that on your mind?" O'Reilly asked.

"A lot of things are on my mind," Dobbs responded. "I'm not going to be coy about this....I'm thinking — my wife and I are thinking about a lot of opportunities. I'm very blessed to have a lot of opportunities. I can guarantee you 100 percent I'm going to remain in the public arena. These issues that matter so much to me, many of the same that matter to you, are not changing. What is immutable here is, I'm going to remain in the public arena."

A spokesman for NJ Senator Robert Menendez said "the senator's focus is on jobs, not Dobbs."

"Senator Menendez has his nose to the grindstone to help create an economic recovery for New Jersey families and will not be distracted by an election three years away," Afshin Mohamadi told the New York Times. "I'm sure that he would relish eventually having an opponent from so far out of the mainstream and who has never done a thing for the hard-working people of New Jersey, but the senator's focus is on jobs, not Dobbs. The senator has developed a record of delivering job-creating programs and tax relief, and as he builds upon it, 2012 will in large part take care of itself."

Dobbs agreed with O'Reilly's characterization that he was "demonized by the left" over his stance on illegal immigration, but said he did not believe CNN management "bought into" that position.

Instead, Dobbs hinted, it was the arrival of the Obama administration into power that changed the climate and made his brand of advocacy journalism no longer acceptable on the network.

"On CNN, you did quite well in the ratings when the immigration thing was in the forefront. And CNN actually moved you up from a -- what they call the early fringe to 7 o'clock, because your ratings were strong," O'Reilly said. "Then your ratings leveled, as well as all the ratings for
CNN, and began to go down. Just correct me if I'm wrong."

"I discern more of a difference between then, which was under the Bush administration whom I was criticizing, and now, when it is the Obama administration and an entirely different tone was taken," Dobbs responded.

"As soon as the new president came in, and you went after him, not only on illegal immigration, but economic issues...they don't like you anymore," O'Reilly said later.

"Well, I don't know whether that was the distinction that triggered any sort of response or difference in perspective on the part of CNN's management," Dobbs responded, "but it is the only difference between the way I was conducting myself under this administration and the previous administration."

The Huffington Post was on site for the interview.

Before he went on air, Dobbs seemed very much at ease in the green room, drinking Diet Coke, applying ChapStick, and laughing hysterically as O'Reilly pre-taped an interview with Cheech and Chong (set to air later this week on "The O'Reilly Factor"). Dobbs even laughed when Cheech and Chong came into the green room after their interview to wish him luck, and Chong joked that he looked forward to seeing him in his new show on Fox News.

After the interview, Dobbs was asked in the green room if it was weird to be on the other side of the interview.

"It's very weird," he said.

The interview airs tonight on "The O'Reilly Factor" at 8PM.

WATCH:

Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck Team Up For "Bold Fresh Tour"

2009-11-16T12:59:00Z

Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are going on tour (h/t TVNewser)!

The "Bold & Fresh Tour 2010" will pair the top two hosts in cable news in "an event that makes professional wrestling seem like a night at the opera," the tour description says.

"You'll hear from Bill, you'll hear from Glenn, and then...they'll take the stage together," it goes on. "What happens then? Heaven only knows, but one thing is for sure-you'll want to see it with your very own eyes."

The tour kicks off on O'Reilly's home turf, Long Island, before heading to Tampa, FL, N. Charleston, SC, and Norfolk, VA.

"It's time for the truth - straight up, whether you like it or not," the website says. "Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are teaming up and going on tour. Your town may never be the same."

TWILF Definition?: Sarah Palin Called TWILF In Current TV Cartoon (VIDEO)

2009-11-16T11:31:14Z

Former Alaska Governor and vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is associated with the word 'twilf' in a cartoon on Current TV called "The Stupid Virus."

The term seems to be yet another play off of MILF, similar to the VPILF Palin was associated with during the 2008 presidential campaign. Though some suggest it actually means "Tweep I'd Like To Follow." The cartoon also depicts Palin at her computer with her Twitter user name as "GUN-HO."

The cartoon is a spoof of some people's obsession with President Barack Obama's identity and whether or not he is truly a citizen of the United States of America. It includes Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and other prominent figures.

Palin enters the mix when she "tweets" that "Barack Obama is the anti-christ." During a "nightly newscast," Brian Williams says "Sarah Palin twittered...that's right, tweets are now news," with Palin's image and the word "twilf?" in the upper right hand part of the screen.

WATCH THE CARTOON HERE (Palin appears roughly 2:42-3:13):

Joe Peyronnin: Going Rogue : Gotcha!

2009-11-13T16:14:02Z

Never underestimate how much shear chutzpah, ambition and attractiveness can get a person in this day and age. Try at least $1.2 million.

Take former Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who stands to make a fortune from her personal memoir, Going Rogue. Meanwhile, a lot of media personalities are capitalizing on her box office drawing power for their own benefit. Only in America!

Palin's 413 page memoir was written at break neck speed with ghostwriter Lynn Vincent, who also helped write Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party. HarperCollins, owned by Rupert Murdoch, will publish a first run of 1.5 million copies.

The Associated Press bought a copy of the book and has printed some of the book's most controversial content. This led Palin to criticize AP for "erroneously reporting the contents of the book" in a Facebook sales pitch Friday, and to ask her fans to "keep your powder dry, read the book."

In Going Rogue Palin writes about her childhood, her family, Alaska and the 2008 presidential campaign. Palin says she did the interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric as a favor to her because she felt sorry for Couric's low ratings. She was asked to do so by Nicole Wallace, a senior John McCain presidential campaign adviser and former CBS News consultant.

The Couric interview took place over several days and covered a wide range of topics. In her book, Palin describes Couric as condescending, biased and "badgering." And she says CBS News left the most substantive content from the interview on the cutting room floor. Palin says she was taken aback by what she calls Couric's "gothca" questions. For instance, this exchange:

"COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this -- to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media --

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I'm curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news."

This interview was widely viewed, including by members of the McCain/Palin campaign, as devastating for Palin. Since her selection at the Republican convention her popularity had been soaring. The Couric interview was a critical turning point in the 2008 presidential election.

Friday, CBS News President Sean McManus reacted to Palin's charges, "In this case, I really do think that the quality of the interview and the quality of the questions speak for themselves." He went on, "It's really difficult for me to think that any of the questions were unfair or any of them were questions that a vice presidential candidate shouldn't be expected to receive."

Palin also criticizes ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson for his arrogance and line of questioning. For instance:

"GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."

Of course, the "Bush doctrine" was well covered by all the newspapers and news magazines for weeks before and after the Iraq war. This wasn't a trick question, nor was the question he asked that led her to observe you can see Russia from Alaska. Nor was the question two weeks later by Couric asking what newspaper's Palin read "to understand the world."

In "Going Rogue" Palin also criticizes the McCain campaign for keeping her bottled up, for making her pay $50,000 in "vetting" expenses, making her wear fancy clothes and mishandling her teen daughter's pregnancy announcement. Particularly noteworthy is that her almost son-in-law, Levi Johnson, is not mentioned in the book.

Now Governor Palin takes her book campaign on the road. Beginning with Grand Rapids, Michigan, she will visit states that any aspiring Republican presidential candidate would target. She has interviews with Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters and Rush Limbaugh. And then she runs the gauntlet on Fox News (also owned by Rupert Murdoch), Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren.

Remember, no gotcha questions, please!

Lou Dobbs To Fox News For Bill O'Reilly Interview

2009-11-13T09:07:00Z

Lou Dobbs is heading to Fox News — but not for what you might think.

Dobbs, whose announcement Wednesday that he is leaving CNN set off speculation that he's joining Fox News or Fox Business, will sit down with Bill O'Reilly for an interview Monday night, Daily Finance's Jeff Bercovici reports.

In July, O'Reilly defended Dobbs's right to free speech, and Dobbs almost appeared on "The Factor."

The New York Times reported in October that the Fox Business Network was eying Dobbs for a potential position.

When Dobbs announced that he was leaving CNN Wednesday, a Fox News spokesperson said "We have not had any discussions with Lou Dobbs for Fox News or Fox Business."

RJ Eskow: A Short Vocabulary Lesson for Sen. Lieberman (With Some History Thrown In At No Extra Charge)

2009-11-11T00:42:52Z

People who label Nidal Malik Hasan a "terrorist," like Joe Lieberman just did, literally don't understand the meaning of the word. And how can they keep us safe from terrorism if they don't even know what it is?

Here's what Sen. Lieberman said: ""There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."

Here's a fairly concise definition of the word 'terrorism', drawn from the Random House Dictionary: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." (emphasis mine)

Had Dr. Hasan become "an Islamist extremist"? It sure looks that way. But was the horrific slaughter he carried out intended to "intimidate or coerce" anyone? We've heard no evidence to that effect. These terrible killings may have just been an expression of inchoate rage. And if we don't know whether coercion or intimidation was the goal, than we certainly don't know if it was done "for political purposes."

Sen. Lieberman's statement, on the other hand, probably was made "for political purposes." And bigotry might be a factor, too, don't you think? After all, the Senator made no such statements about other shootings at military facilities.

Let's get one thing straight: This is not a liberal, knee-jerk defense of someone because he belongs to an unpopular minority (although defending unpopular minorities is generally a good practice). If we learn that Malik Hasan left a note saying "anybody who serves in the US Armed Forces must know they will face retribution," we'll know that he is a terrorist. He will have committed his murders in order to intimidate or coerce. But right now we don't have any evidence that suggests Hasan is any different than the civilian who killed 23 people at a cafeteria right down the road from Ft. Hood, shouting "This is what Central Texas did to me!"

Apparently that guy really hated Central Texas. But he wasn't a terrorist, because he wasn't trying to intimidate people or change their behavior.

So if the Luby's Cafeteria Murderer wasn't a terrorist, what does qualify as terrorism? Al Qaeda's dirty deeds do, of course. Those cowardly killings are intended to provoke US withdrawal from all Muslim countries. (No, they don't do it because "they hate our freedoms.") Christian extremist Scott Roeder's act of murder was terrorism, too, because he wants doctors to stop performing abortions. (He and others like him have nearly achieved their goal, too, which makes it pretty effective terror.)

The Irgun's bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people in 1946, was also an indisputable act of terrorism, designed to intimidate occupying British personnel and encourage their withdrawal from Palestine. The Irgun's behavior provoked the World Zionist Congress to condemn "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare," much as mainstream Muslim groups have repeatedly condemned Al Qaeda.

And it's not just a God thing. Muslims, Christians, and Jews are not the only ones whose followers have engaged in terrorism. Forty years ago terrorists in Europe and the United States were likely to be non-believing members of leftist groups like the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, or Weather Underground. Disbeliever Leon Frank Czolgosz shot President William McKinley, arguably an act of terrorism, because of his anarchist ideals. As Robert Pape's data analysis showed in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, even suicide bombers are more likely to be driven by powerlessness than religion.

When James David Adkisson killed those Unitarians in Knoxville, he wasn't trying to change anybody's behavior. He was acting out his rage against liberals - a rage apparently fomented by viewing Fox News and reading books by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Adkisson and Hasan are similar figures, both of whom are guilty of horrific behavior (assuming Hasan's guilt and conviction, of course.) But neither are "terrorists" by any rational definition (based on what we know today.)

If we had applied Lieberman-like logic after the Knoxville shooting we would have started profiling anybody carrying a book by Hannity or O'Reilly. (I can hear some of you saying "Good idea!" Knock it off, guys - this is America.)

I believe in strong, clear-eyed work to combat terrorism. We also need an effective strategy for spotting soldiers that are about to snap and go on a killing spree. But they're not the same strategies. It's beginning to look like some serious warning signs were overlooked in the Hasan case. We need to find out what went wrong and fix it. But a tough antiterrorism policy begins with a hardnosed, non-ideological (and non-prejudiced) look at the facts. The Lieberman definition of terrorism would have us squander our investigative resources by pursuing a lot of Muslims rather than a lot of potential terrorists.

I don't mean to pick on Sen. Lieberman. It's a soul-killing waste of energy to resent any individual politician, as tempting as some of them may make it. But Lieberman's a good proxy for all the right-wingers who have called Hasan's terrible act "terrorism." (And we can drop the pretense that Lieberman is anything but a die-cut, straight-down-the-line rightist.)

I don't object to the Joe Liebermans of the world because they're conservative. I object to them because they don't know what the hell they're talking about. Their goal is indiscriminate military aggression toward the Muslim world, not effective security for the United States. They seem to believe that comments like these build a case for that agenda and prove that they can keep us safer than those now in power.

They're really proving the opposite. They're showing that they're still likely to act before they've gathered all the facts. Once again they've responded to tragedy with their patented blend of blind fear, misdirected anger, and cynical rhetoric. They're reminding us one more time how often they've failed and flailed in the face of danger. And they're demonstrating that they don't understand the real threat any more now than they did when they blundered into Iraq. Yet despite one embarrassing display after another, they keep claiming they know how to keep us safe from terrorism.

Terrorism?

They don't know the meaning of the word.
_________________

UPDATE: A flock of rightwing trolls is attempting to "prove" that Lieberman was right and that Hasan is a terrorist, rather than a soldier who snapped. In so doing, they are consistently distorting my position - which is that we don't know which he was, and that strategies for soldiers who snap are not the same as strategies for terrorists. We need both, and we need to direct our resources where they're most needed.

Every definition of terrorism offered below includes the desire to intimidate or coerce, phrased in some way or form. Terrorist? Re Hasan, once again: We don't know. Wise military and police actions are based in finding the facts before we act, not reacting based on fear or political agendas. You're suggesting you know the facts of the case better than the military or the FBI. I'm sticking with the military and the FBI.

Lieberman's comments are intended to create a climate of fear for political purposes, not to provide better protection against violence. So are yours. Your agenda distracts us from effective war planning and policing. Each of you is helping me prove my point.

And here's an idea: Maybe everyone who claims they "know" the killer's motivation and have cracked this case - yes, it's terror, etc. - should show us their military or police ID. After all, they must be experts or they wouldn't be so sure, right?

RJ Eskow blogs when he can at:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Website: Eskow and Associates

Bill O'Reilly: 'We Can't Kill All The Muslims... So We Wanna Win As Many Hearts And Minds As We Can'

2009-11-10T21:18:48Z

Bill O'Reilly believes that the US effort to win the popular support of Muslims around the world is based on the notion that the US cannot kill every single Muslim. There are roughly 1.3-1.5 billion followers of Islam worldwide.

O'Reilly brought this up during a discussion Tuesday evening about alleged Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan. The Fox News host was discussing the alleged attack with novelist and retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters who was "outraged" that Obama did not refer to the attack as terrorism during his speech at Tuesday's memorial service.

WATCH:

Brit Hume Corrects O'Reilly On Public Option: "It Is Kind Of Popular"

2009-11-10T13:53:02Z

The Public Option! Like the sliced bread and soft ice cream of yore, it's something that's been crazy popular with the public. But for months and months, the naturally poll-obsessed media found many contorted ways to simply ignore the consistent and widespread favor that citizens of our fair Republic have showered on this idea. Until recently, anyway! That's when the House and the Senate, in separate bills, successfully preserved in each some manner of "public option-like material," and in that new dawn, suddenly the public option had "momentum."

Of course, that read of the situation is utterly false, and speaks solely to the fact that the media simply could no longer ignore its popularity. Still, now that the "public option momentum" meme has taken hold, we're treated to such spectacles as Fox News' Brit Hume -- who never misses a chance to despair at how awful health care reform will be on Fox News Sunday -- begrudgingly "correcting" Bill O'Reilly's contention that "the folks" -- THE FOLKS! -- "don't want [the public option.]"

[WATCH]

O'REILLY: They call it, you know, the public sector. What is the -

HUME: Public option, you mean?

O'REILLY: Public option, whatever. The folks don't want it. ... But it looks to me like they have maybe 55 votes to pass it. And that means they could be filibustered and never come up for a vote.

HUME: That's what it looks like right now. The public option, actually some polls show that the public option standing by itself is not at all unpopular, but it is kind of popular. But that depends on how the poll question is raised. ... We don't need to go into all that right now.

O'Reilly could use all the clarity he can get on the matter! Not too long ago, O'Reilly seemed to come out in support of the public option, saying, "I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks." THE FOLKS! Who now don't want it, I guess? SO FOLKING CONFUSED.

MORE:
Hume Corrects O'Reilly's False Claim That 'Folks Don't Want' The Public Option: It's Actually 'Kind Of Popular' [ThinkProgress]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Karl Frisch: The Right-Wing Media's Election Analysis Just Ain't That Good

2009-11-07T17:10:21Z

Back in 2001,
conservative media figures were
adamant. Democratic Party victories at the ballot boxes during
the off-year elections had little national significance.

Fox News contributor
Dick Morris said at the time, "[I]f you have a Republican president, people are
going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to
vote Republicans." Proffering further spin of the GOP losses, Fox News
contributor Mort Kondracke said, "We have no way of knowing" how the 2001
outcome would affect the 2002 midterms, a sentiment echoed by conservative
writer Michael Barone, who declared on CNN, "I don't think that the issues and
personalities" in the Virginia and New Jersey races "are going to be congruent
with very many" races in 2002 or 2004. Then there was Laura Ingraham on Fox
News' Hannity & Colmes noting
that "[b]oth sides are going to spin this," before offering her own spin: "[T]o
call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is
nonsense."

For anyone watching
Fox News in the weeks leading up to
this year's off-year election, it should have been apparent what was
afoot on the conservative network.

In the two weeks
leading up to their November 3 elections, Conservative Party congressional
candidate Doug Hoffman (NY-23), New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate
Chris Christie, and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News and
its personalities' radio shows at least 16 times for live
interviews lasting a total of 114 minutes and 36
seconds.

As leading Republican
politicians and activists celebrated
Fox News' role in pushing just the right
message and helping their electoral chances, two Fox News employees
spent time fundraising and recruiting volunteers in support of GOP-backed
candidates. Fox News host Mike Huckabee used network airtime to collect email
addresses for his PAC, which in turn used the addresses to
recruit volunteers for GOP candidates on Tuesday's ballot, including McDonnell
and Hoffman. Meanwhile, Fox News contributor Karl Rove was shilling
for the Republican Governors' Association to help Christie's bid in New
Jersey. All the while, Fox continued
to feature his spin of that same
election.

So, Fox News gave
Republican candidates a huge platform to communicate with conservative activists
and voters while Fox News employees recruited volunteers and raised money for
them.

What else did Fox need
to check off the list before Election Day? How about telling people how to vote
and pre-spinning Democratic Party losses before a single ballot had been
counted? Check.

One Fox News graphic
actually
stated that if the GOP were to win the gubernatorial races in
Virginia and
New Jersey -- races
with no direct influence over congressional efforts to reform health care -- it
would mean "no gov't-run option" in health care reform.

Sean Hannity, Fox
News' apparent GOP get-out-the-vote captain, went all out advising his radio
listeners how to cast their votes, telling
one caller to his radio show, "Don't forget -- go vote for Christie tomorrow in
New Jersey.
All right?" and his New
Jersey audience in
general, "get to the polls" and "stop Obama-care in its
tracks." On his Fox News program, Hannity told
Hoffman, "I hope I'm on the air this time tomorrow night and I'll be able to
declare you the winner." Marching to Hannity's tune, CNN's Lou Dobbs declared
Hoffman was "change [he] can believe in" while Fox News' Bill O'Reilly piled on
predicting a Hoffman win.

But what if --
right-wing media fear of fears! -- Democrats were to pull off a victory in
New Jersey? Well,
there'd be just one thing to explain it -- cue the ominous music -- Voter
Fraud.

Rush Limbaugh warned
his audience that "fraudsters" at ACORN, SEIU, and the New Black Panthers would
try to affect elections on Tuesday and that
"tomorrow's going to be a dry run for Democrat mischief and malfeasance, getting
ready for 2010 and 2012." Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com took the
bait, baselessly -- and predictably -- accusing progressives
of trying to "steal" the New
Jersey governor's seat. As did
Wall Street Journal columnist
John Fund who fabricated
evidence of voter fraud in New Jersey and anonymously
sourced voter fraud innuendo. Completing the circle, Limbaugh
echoed
Fund's baseless accusation warning of an "ACORN factor" and a "vote fraud
factor."

Fox News hosts and
political analysts capped off Election Day celebrating and
shilling for conservative and GOP candidates. When the dust
settled, Republicans had won the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests while
Democrats had won the open New
York congressional seat -- a
seat targeted by tea-partiers and not held by a Democrat in nearly 150
years.

While Fox News' Brit
Hume acknowledged
that "Barack Obama was not a central issue" in New
Jersey -- exit polls decisively
showed he wasn't an issue in any of the targeted races -- others in the
conservative media were blind to the readily available exit polls. Hume's Fox
colleague O'Reilly said the
New Jersey governor's
race was a referendum on Obama. El Rushbo dismissed the exit polls entirely, saying
the governors' races were all "about Obama" and that the election results show
"[t]here is no question this is an anti-Obama
vote."

Fox
& Friends graphics
described
the election results as "shockwaves," "winds of change," a "Republican revival,"
and a "blueprint for success." In a truly odd attempt at spin, Fox News declared
that the results meant "Obamacare" was dead, while its sister network, Fox
Business, claimed
the markets "like[d]" "Big GOP Wins In NJ &
VA."

So, exit polls said
Obama had nothing to do with Democratic losses in New Jersey and
Virginia, where,
incidentally, the GOP nominees downplayed
their right-wing positions -- and this is good news for
Republicans?

What about Hoffman,
the unambiguously right-wing Conservative party candidate in New
York who conservative media
types spent weeks
hyping? How would Fox News and company spin his loss of a
seat, again, not held by a Democrat in far more than 100
years?

In an attempt to paint
Democratic Party victor Owens as a conservative, thus explaining away his win in
a historically GOP district, right-wing bloggers sought to
highlight the "under-reported fact" that he "campaigned
against the public option" even though Owens had expressed support for a public
option since September.

Limbaugh blamed
"party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt [Gingrich]," who "screwed the
whole thing up," while leaping to the defense of Sarah Palin, who had championed
Hoffman. Limbaugh asserted
that Palin "is not damaged at all" by the loss of her candidate. And in an
about-face only fitting for someone of Limbaugh's ego -- errr ... stature -- the
conservative talker switched
his stance on "moral" victories, which he'd lambasted Democrats for in 2006,
declaring Hoffman had a "good
showing."

So, yes, if one thing
is clear after the 2009 off-year election, it's this: Conservative media figures
haven't a clue when it comes to election
analysis.

Oh and one last note
on Tuesday's election, did you hear the nasty anti-Obama election night story
that Fox News concocted out of thin air? The conservative cable outlet reported,
remember this is not true,
that President Obama watched an HBO
documentary about himself, rather than following the election
results. A story so grand -- gosh the president is such a narcissist! -- that
the fact-challenged liberal media bias hunters at Newsbusters wet themselves
over it before eventually conceding that Fox News had "misreported" the incident
-- a nice way of saying "made it up."

I guess, in addition
to the analysis, they haven't a clue when it comes to reporting
either.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair,
a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around
the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Eric Boehlert: The Myth of Fox News' Ratings Spike

2009-11-03T10:04:24Z

Fact: The breathless claim that Fox News' ratings recently spiked thanks to the White House's public critique is bogus hype -- hype that Fox News and the Beltway press have relentlessly pushed.

It's just not true.

No matter how many times reporters and pundits made the claim, a detailed analysis of Nielsen ratings numbers clearly indicates that in the two weeks after the White House in mid-October sparked a media controversy by claiming Rupert Murdoch's channel was not a legitimate news organization, Fox News' ratings did not soar or go "through the roof." In fact, not only did Fox News' overall ratings not soar, they experienced no significant increase at all. Instead, in the two weeks following the initial verbal jousts with the White House, Fox News' total day ratings virtually flatlined.

Another example of the Beltway press not letting the facts get in the way of a good story? It sure looks that way. In this case, we saw nearly universal agreement among media elites that the White House decision to publicly call out Fox News was monumentally dumb, thin-skinned, short-sighted, and uncivil. (Paging the etiquette police!)

Everyone said so. Therefore pundits were certain that Fox News' ratings were way up and that Obama and his aides had made a huge tactical blunder. The ratings angle simply provided statistical ammunition for what the Beltway press corps already knew to be the truth: Fact-checking Fox News, in the immortal words of The Washington Post's CW-loving Sally Quinn, was "absolutely crazy."

Except it turns out none of that was true. There was no viewer stampede toward Fox News.

Read the full Media Matters column here.