O'Reilly v. Krugman on Tim Russert Show this weekend

[TheFreak]

That's all I've got.

[aghast]

That's enough. I'll watch. (Actually, I watch Meet the Press every Sunday. But this Sunday I'll watch it enthusiastically.)

[SamFisher]

Its kind of a shame that Krugman is devaluing his rep as a serious academic by stooping to O'Reilly's level. Plus he's lousy on camera.

[aghast]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Its kind of a shame that Krugman is devaluing his rep as a serious academic by stooping to O'Reilly's level. Plus he's lousy on camera.

But that begs the question, Sam Fisher: How do you deal with O'Reilly and others at his level?

(I've tried ignoring them, but one look around shows that sure isn't working.)

As far as economists go, doesn't the dearth of the telegenic among them mean that they, and more importantly their opinions, get the media shaft?

Sort of like Brian Greene explaining quantum mechanics to us in little words, so that we peons can understand, don't we need a public face to explain the longterm impact of the administration's current fiscal policies? If that's the case, I fear Krugman's the coolest economist we've got.

[glynch]

FOX News or Fascist News?

We report, you decide.


by


Gerald Plessner





I try never to use the word "fascist" to describe someone. The word represents all the horrors of Nazi Germany. It is so loaded with hateful meanings that it is almost impossible to find someone who lives up to its horror.

But I am inclined to use fascist to describe FOX Network owner Rupert Murdoch, his main mouthpiece Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes, who runs FOX News. Murdoch's and Ailes' goals and O'Reilly's conduct share so much with the actions and words of the Third Reich it is frightening. A new movie proves this in very stark terms.

Murdoch began his career as a media owner in 1964 when he inherited his first newspaper. Today his newspapers --- most of which are tabloid scandal sheets --- his television stations, networks and satellite television systems reach 4.7 billion people.

OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is a new documentary film on DVD available only from selected websites.(I got mine from BuzzFlash.com.) "Outfoxed" tells the story of how FOX News, as the full time propaganda arm of the Republican party, has reshaped America by giving millions of viewers a diet of concocted outrage, glowing reports on the Bush administration, lies, distortions and the misrepresentation of facts.

The film shows how FOX News controls its message through a daily memo from Roger Ailes and other managers to all producers, directors and on-air personalities. Every employee is expected to follow and reinforce the daily line, which is enforced with Stalinist-style discipline.

The daily memo even issues words to be used by every on-air personality, words like flip-flop. So if you watch FOX and everyone refers to John Kerry as a flip-flopper, it's because the White House and the Republican National Committee did so and FOX backs their propaganda 100%.

Everything on FOX News is designed to advance the Republican party. One person in the film said, "Their slogan 'We report. You decide' is the greatest hoax. No news channel reports less and tells its viewers more of how to decide."

Bill O'Reilly is the on-air personality who best represents the FOX News style and philosophy. The film plays a disgraceful performance where O'Reilly verbally assaults a young man whose father died in the Word Trade Center atrocity. In this example of O'Reilly's thug-like behavior, he tells the young man that his father would be upset by his signing of an anti-Iraq war petition.

He repeatedly talks over his guest, tells him to "shut up", accusing him of disloyalty to America and what his father would think. It is a telling and distasteful performance, reinforced by later lies and distortions coming from O'Reilly.

Sean Hannity receives little attention in the film but is identified by one former FOX News consultant as a "Republican cheerleader". Brit Hume, the channel's featured respectable journalist, is shown as a brittle right-wing spokesman who mixes news with opinion.

One of the more laughable sections of the film explains how FOX News uses the phrase, "some people say" to confuse the idea of public questioning with editorial opinion. The entire film provides a valuable primer on propaganda and how to use it to shape public opinion. It should be required viewing in every high school civics class.

I once believed that Alan Colmes, who is Sean Hannity's limp foil, was the most pitiful person on FOX News. But after viewing this film, I wonder how anyone who works there can hold their head up at the supermarket. I am sure money has something to do with it, but even the guy at the news stand in the lobby must have trouble looking at himself in the mirror each morning.

This film proves that it is time to return the equal time provision to electronic media which use our airways to make billions. OUTFOXED, Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism should be exhibit one at the hearings.

link (http://www.geraldplessner.com/articles/latest.cgi)

[robbie380]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Its kind of a shame that Krugman is devaluing his rep as a serious academic by stooping to O'Reilly's level. Plus he's lousy on camera.

is o'reilly not educated enough to be considered an academic?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by robbie380
is o'reilly not educated enough to be considered an academic?

No, the fact that he is a tv talk show host, who, to my knowledge, currently holds no professorships, lecturerships, or any other position in academia of any sort is also generally enough to disqualify him from being considered an academic.

I hope they discuss taxes and fiscal policy; it's like Oprah debating Stephen Hawking on superstring theory.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Its kind of a shame that Krugman is devaluing his rep as a serious academic by stooping to O'Reilly's level. Plus he's lousy on camera.

I agree with this, but I think Krugman probably believes this is no time to hide behind the ivory tower, so props for him putting his rep on the line. He is lousy on camera, but he is also an academic from a confrontational field. I suspect he's had to heatedly defend or attack propositions in conference settings and the like.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by robbie380
is o'reilly not educated enough to be considered an academic?

That is pretty funny. You uncovered another liberal plot.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by aghast
But that begs the question, Sam Fisher: How do you deal with O'Reilly and others at his level?



I think you let Al Franken expose them. O'Reilly will still occasionally make comments about that. That book really burned him up. He was obsessed with it for a long time, and the residing bitterness he holds about it, shows that Franken struck a nerve.

The book exposed some lies, and touched a nerve. I like it.

[Mulder]

Originally posted by robbie380
is o'reilly not educated enough to be considered an academic?

From Bill's Bio:

"He graduated with a degree in history from Marist College, with a Master's Degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University, and attained another Master's in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government."

Wow, no sh*t... too bad he's still a dumbass.

[JBIIRockets]

Originally written by the moron Gerald Plessner

Bill O'Reilly is the on-air personality who best represents the FOX News style and philosophy. The film plays a disgraceful performance where O'Reilly verbally assaults a young man whose father died in the Word Trade Center atrocity. In this example of O'Reilly's thug-like behavior, he tells the young man that his father would be upset by his signing of an anti-Iraq war petition.

He repeatedly talks over his guest, tells him to "shut up", accusing him of disloyalty to America and what his father would think. It is a telling and distasteful performance, reinforced by later lies and distortions coming from O'Reilly.

link (http://www.geraldplessner.com/articles/latest.cgi)

They can blast ole Bill all they want! He's got the ratings. Articles like this show he has made it to the top and it is only expected that many people try to bring him down.

SCOREBOARD !!

[rimrocker]

First reports are in... see bolded..
____________

On ABC, CBS and Fox, a Whole Lotta Cross-Pollination Going On


By Lisa de Moraes

Friday, August 6, 2004; Page C07


Remember how the broadcast networks explained that they would cover only three hours of each of the four-day Democratic and Republican conventions because they are nothing more than infomercials out of which no real news comes?

This is why it's perhaps unfortunate that, just one short week after the close of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, both ABC News and CBS News will devote portions of their Friday newsmagazines to infomercials for products in which the networks have a financial interest.

Let's start with ABC News, which tonight on "20/20" will interview "the latest reality star" Victoria Gotti "about her hot new television show, 'Growing Up Gotti.' " Gotti, who also will discuss raising her three sons as a single mom -- they also star in "Growing Up Gotti" -- is the daughter of mobster John Gotti. Her show debuted this week to 3.2 million viewers, which, although not a number that will rewrite history books, is the biggest series debut in cable network A&E's 20-year history.

ABC is one of the owners of A&E.

Now on to CBS News, which tonight on "48 Hours" will speak to Yoanna House, who dreamed as a child of becoming a model. House is worth devoting a segment of "48 Hours" to because she developed a regimen that helped her lose 60 pounds. And if that isn't interesting enough, she then tried out for the UPN reality series "America's Next Top Model" and was one of 12 women chosen from 8,000 applicants to participate.

"Does House have what it takes to be the top model?" CBS News asks in its news release.

CBS is owned by Viacom, which also owns UPN; Leslie Moonves, who oversees CBS, including its news division, also oversees UPN.

To its credit, CBS News noted that UPN is owned by CBS's parent company. CBS has been extremely careful about noting such overlaps of interests ever since "60 Minutes" did an interview with Richard A. Clarke about his book "Against All Enemies" without noting it was published by Viacom's publishing division, Simon & Schuster. Even though "60 Minutes" Executive Producer Don Hewitt dismissed the criticism, saying something snappy like if that's the best his detractors can come up with, he'll take it.

Meanwhile, over at Fox, plans are to run a half-hour infomercial -- the same length as the speech given by former president Bill Clinton at the Democratic convention -- for the 20th Century Fox movie "Alien vs. Predator" on Thursday.

Fox and 20th Century Fox are both owned by News Corp. Hosted by the flick's star, Lance Henriksen, the "special," Fox says, will include "an exclusive behind-the-scenes peek at the new 20th Century Fox film," which, in one of those happy coincidences, opens the very next day. Better yet, this infomercial will contain commercial breaks. Which means you, the viewers, can experience commercials within a commercial.

Of course, Fox has no dog in the convention-coverage feud between the broadcast networks and political parties because the Fox broadcast network has no news division. And Fox's sister network, cable's Fox News Channel, was all over the convention, knowing full well what a great backdrop the conventions make for its talking heads.

We think Tim Russert has found a surefire way to get more viewers for his weekend CNBC show.

Book Bill O'Reilly as a guest with fill-in-the-blank from the New York Times.

Fox News Channel's chief talking head was invited to "chat" with Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist and author of "The Great Unraveling," after one of the "Tim Russert Show" producers learned that O'Reilly had issued a challenge to any New York Times reporter or columnist to engage in a debate with him.

"Eureka!" we're sure this producer must have shouted -- at least in his or her head -- knowing that Krugman was scheduled to appear on Russert's CNBC show anyway this weekend to discuss his book. The producer offered Krugman the opportunity to be that person; he agreed, a show rep assured the TV Column.

According to a transcript of their "conversation," a copy of which was given to the TV Column, it was everything you'd expect.

O'Reilly called Krugman a "quasi-socialist"; Krugman called that "slander" and said if he is a quasi-socialist then O'Reilly is a "quasi-murderer"; O'Reilly pronounced Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" a bit of "Nazi propaganda" that reinforced all of Krugman's "paranoid delusions"; Krugman insisted Moore's flick was "flawed" but was made by "a guy who really does love this country"; Russert hardly got a word in edgewise; and a good time was had by all. One of those exchanges that make you so proud to be a journalist.

During their give and take -- okay, maybe it's more accurate to say push and shove, or slap and smack -- O'Reilly would periodically accuse Krugman of not letting him get in a sentence, or words to that effect.

So we counted and, according to The Washington Post TV Team Transcript Tally, O'Reilly actually got in 321 sentences during the "debate," to Krugman's 258.

Remember when Oprah was going to do her daytime gabber only a couple of years into this millennium? And then she changed her mind and said she'd do it only through 2008? Well, she has cried wolf again, this time signing up to do the show through 2011.

In a news release from Oprah's Harpo production company and Viacom-owned King World, which distributes the show, Oprah said she decided to extend her cutoff date because "the thought of taking the show to its 25th anniversary is both exhilarating and challenging" and because "the years ahead will allow me to continue to grow along with my viewers and will give my production company the time and opportunity to use the show as a launching pad to create and develop additional projects and potential future shows."

Personally, we think it's because she finally started reading Leo Tolstoy's 838-page novel "Anna Karenina," the latest book she has picked for her Oprah's Book Club reading list, and has come to the realization that it will take her the three extra years to get through it.

Lucky she didn't pick Tolstoy's "War and Peace," which comes in at a denser 1,472 pages, or we might have learned today that she'd re-signed through 2020.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44149-2004Aug5?language=printer

[aghast]

Originally posted by JBIIRockets
They can blast ole Bill all they want! He's got the ratings. Articles like this show he has made it to the top and it is only expected that many people try to bring him down.

SCOREBOARD !!

I give up.

[Harrisment]

This is going to be on the Tim Russert show, not Meet the Press. It's actually going to be on CNBC at 6:00 cst tonight.

[whag00]

I think that Krugman made better points but O’Reilly sells it harder. Krugman was nervous and at times looked intimidated by O’Reilly. O’Reilly tried to bully Krugman by pointing at him and using an aggressive tone. Very interesting back and forth between the two and Russert did a good job of staying the hell out of the way.

[FranchiseBlade]

Did anyone see when O'Reilly got mad at Krugman because Krugman was going to be at a book signing with Al Franken?

That was hilarious. O'Reilly really can't take the fact that Franken exposed him. He's bitter. So much time has passed, and O'Reilly is still incredibily bitter. I love it.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Did anyone see when O'Reilly got mad at Krugman because Krugman was going to be at a book signing with Al Franken?

That was hilarious. O'Reilly really can't take the fact that Franken exposed him. He's bitter. So much time has passed, and O'Reilly is still incredibily bitter. I love it.
That blowhard Franken exposed nothing. In fact, it is Franken that holds a great deal of rancor for O'Reilly. Why is it that with you people that everyone on the right is a facist jerk and yet..... the Carvilles and Begala's of the world are well-meaning, good people?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
That blowhard Franken exposed nothing. In fact, it is Franken that holds a great deal of rancor for O'Reilly. Why is it that with you people that everyone on the right is a facist jerk and yet..... the Carvilles and Begala's of the world are well-meaning, good people?

I didn't make any comments about Bill being a facist or anything else. I just pointed out that he was still very bitter.

As for the facts mentioned in Franken's book, I've yet to see you refute them. There was one thing that Franken's book got wrong. It talked about 23 mentions of a topic as 23 seperate articles. While it is an inaccuracy it doesn't change the point Franken was making, and that puts his book at 99.99% accurate.

If there is anything in the book you find inaccurate please list them here, or another thread, and it would make a great discussion.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Why is it that with you people that everyone on the right is a facist jerk and yet.....
McCain. All the "lefties" of the board appear to love McCain. Explain that.

[ima_drummer2k]

Krugman looked a little, shall we say "irregular" and O'Reilly is just a self promoting blowhard who has a HUGE wrinkled up forehead.

Am I the only conservative that can't stand O'Reilly? He really should go back to A Current Affair or perhaps start a daytime talk show. That's really more his niche. He's a boob just like Franken.

[Chump]

TAIL-GUNNER BILL! Men like O’Reilly subvert the discourse when men like Tim Russert are cowards:
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004

TAIL-GUNNER BILL: “All right—to be continued,” Tim Russert said, at the end of the hour-long program. But was that a threat or a promise? Russert had just concluded an appalling session of his weekly CNBC program—a session in which his guest, Bill O’Reilly, showed the world what’s wrong with the devolving American discourse. O’Reilly appeared with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman—and Russert ought to be disturbed by what occurred on his show. O’Reilly name-called freely; made blatant false statements; and generally blustered and bullied throughout. The problems with “democratization of media” were on display throughout the hour. Inexplicably, Russert was eager to sign up for more when the session was done.

“To be continued,” Russert said. But why would anyone want more of this? Let’s break O’Reilly’s woeful performance into three troubling parts:

PROBLEM ONE—SHEER DUMBNESS: “To be continued,” Russert said. But who would want to extend a discussion as dumb as this one? Early on, to cite one example, O’Reilly attacked Krugman’s views about the Bush tax cuts. The Fox host blustered and bullied. But Mr. O was astoundingly dumb:

O’REILLY: You know, Mr. Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr. Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. You can read his book and see how wrong he was.

KRUGMAN: Actually, you can read it. I never said that.

O'REILLY: Sure you did—

KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to lousy job creation.

O'REILLY: —column after column after column. You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy.

KRUGMAN: No.

O'REILLY: They haven't been.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I'm sorry, that's a lie.

O'REILLY: It's not a lie.

KRUGMAN: Let me just say it's a lie. I said they were ineffective at job creation. And if you look at the Bush administration—

O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. Hold it. Now “ineffective at job creation,” what is that? Semantics now?

KRUGMAN: No, it means that—

O'REILLY: The economy is based on job creation, and you're saying it's ineffective.

Here we see the essence of the evening’s discussion, with Krugman—who knew what he was talking about—routinely cut off by O’Reilly, who didn’t. To O’Reilly, the difference between “a deeper recession” and “lousy job creation” is, somehow, a matter of semantics. The blustering Foxman soldiered on, but the dumbness only got worse:

KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said that they were going to cause a recession.

O'REILLY: You said—you—

KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said it.

O'REILLY: Look, you want to call it “ineffective in job creation.” What is a recession? A recession is when the GNP—

KRUGMAN: No.

O'REILLY: —goes backward. Everybody knows it’s going forward.

But what did this have to do with the question at hand—whether Krugman had predicted recession? O’Reilly behaved like a floundering schoolboy. The hopeless discussion ground on:

KRUGMAN (continuing directly): I—

O'REILLY: Pounded column after column: “Disastrous for the economy.” “Tax cuts are disastrous.”

KRUGMAN: No, I—

O'REILLY: It hasn't been.

KRUGMAN: I said the tax cuts were not going to be effective at creating jobs, and the job creation—

O'REILLY: And you were wrong.

KRUGMAN: —record is lousy.

Let’s face it—having O’Reilly debate Krugman on economics is like having Pee Wee Herman wrestle The Hulk. Laughably, O’Reilly played this segment on his program last night, apparently thinking that victory goes to him who speaks the loudest.

By the way, how thoroughly does O’Reilly talk down to Fox viewers? Last night, he played the tape of Krugman’s request: “Find a place where I said that [the tax cuts] were going to cause a recession. Find a place where I said it.” Days had gone by since the session occurred—but O’Reilly still gave no example! Why on earth would a man like Russert want his viewers to get more of this?

PROBLEM TWO—INVENTION: O’Reilly wasn’t simply dumb; he also seemed to make stuff up. When Krugman discussed the run-up to war in Iraq, O’Reilly cited a conversation—a conversation that doesn’t seem to have happened. Krugman argued that Bush rushed to war—that pre-war inspections should have continued. In reply, O’Reilly recalled what UN weapons inspector Hans Blix “flat-out” told him on his program:

KRUGMAN: Remember, we went to war when there was an effective inspections regime back in place. We did not have to actually go to war. We were doing, we were—we had Saddam pretty effectively caged.

O'REILLY: Well, not according to Hans Blix. He came on my program flat-out and said, “They’re not letting us interview the scientists,” which was a key.

From this statement, you might even think that Blix came on O’Reilly’s show and “flat-out” told him about the scientists. Just in case there was any doubt, O’Reilly described the occasion again:

O’REILLY: Blix came on the program and said to me flat-out, “They aren't cooperating. We can't interview the scientists, and we can't go where we want to go.” They gave him all kinds of time, Saddam, to stop the nonsense. Seventeen violations of the Gulf War cease-fire, 17. The guy obviously was defiant.

For reasons that must be fairly obvious, this claim seemed to strike Krugman as odd. A back-and-forth battle ensued:

KRUGMAN: I'm gonna wager that Blix—I don't have the record, but I'm gonna wager Blix told you that a number of months before the war.

O'REILLY: Yeah, he told me that before the war. That's correct.

KRUGMAN: Well before the war. Before the—

O'REILLY: Well, it was a couple of months before.

KRUGMAN: Before Saddam opened up a lot more under pressure. And nobody disapproved of putting extra pressure on him.

But in fact, Blix doesn’t seem to have said that to O’Reilly, before or after the war. According to every record we can find, the blustering talker never had that discussion with the UN gumshoe. O’Reilly may have been thinking of Joseph Wilson, who appeared on The Factor on January 13, 2003—two months before the war began—and discussed the question of interviews with Iraqi scientists. On that occasion, it was O’Reilly who raised the topic, paraphrasing what Blix had told the UN Security Council on January 9, four days earlier.“Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein will not allow his inspectors to interview Iraqi scientists out of the country,” O’Reilly told Wilson. “Blix said flat-out, his guys, his inspectors, can't talk to these scientists.”

So it seems that Blix didn’t flat-out say this to O’Reilly; according to the talker’s paraphrase, Blix flat-out said this to the UN. But we think you know how that can happen. You know: Someone says something to the UN—and you end up thinking he said it to you? According to all available records, Blix has appeared on The Factor once—on March 15, 2004, one year after the war in Iraq. The question of interviews didn’t come up. Bill did challenge Blix at the start of the session. “This is the no-spin zone,” the tail-gunner blustered, “so you’re going to give me it straight, all right?”

Did Blix appear with O’Reilly before the war? We can find no record of such a session, nor can we find any instance in which O’Reilly discussed such an event (although he often discussed Blix on his program). We’re certainly willing to be corrected, but it seems that Bill just made this one up. If so, why would Russert want more conversation with a man as “inventive” as this?

PROBLEM THREE—NAME-CALLING: But the biggest problem on Russert’s show was O’Reilly’s incessant, nasty name-calling. “To be continued,” Russert said at the end of the show. But in the previous several minutes, O’Reilly had name-called loudly and crudely, jabbing roughly at Krugman as he did (he raised his voice and glowered at Krugman throughout the program). Here’s a taste of what transpired when Krugman cited something O’Reilly said on his radio program—a quote transcribed by David Brock’s Media Matters:

O'REILLY: And where did you get that little “evil” quote, by the way? You don't listen to The Radio Factor.

KRUGMAN: Oh, no, but I get—but they have video clips. They have, they have a clip.

O'REILLY: Oh, who—well, who gave it to you?

KRUGMAN: Yeah, it is Media Matters.[Krugman had said this earlier.]

O'REILLY: Media Matters! Oh, I see! A real objective web site!

KRUGMAN: Hey, wait a second—

O’REILLY: Hey, Mr. Propaganda, you ought to take and do your own research, pal, and stop taking the left-wing garbage and throwing it out there for the folks.

KRUGMAN: What have I said that’s false?

O'REILLY: Do your own research!

KRUGMAN: Come on.

O'REILLY: That's out of context, and you know it.

KRUGMAN: It helps me. It is not.

O'REILLY: It helps you, baloney!

KRUGMAN: They've got the clip. You guys can listen to it.

O'REILLY: You are about the most unobjective person on the face of the—Media Matters!

KRUGMAN: Oh, come on.

O'REILLY: Why don't you just call Fidel? Call him up and have at it. He'll tell you what’s going on.

KRUGMAN: Oh, wonderful. Now that we got the great (unintelligible) ends up being a Communist.

O'REILLY: Media Matters! Oh, my. That's like me calling some Klan operation.

KRUGMAN: Hey.

O'REILLY: Why don't I call the Ku Klux Klan?

KRUGMAN: Here we go. Here we go. Here we go.

And yes, as a matter of fact, there we went—straight into the dumpster of democracy, as a loudmouth successor to Father Coughlin ranted loudly, wagged his finger, and refused to deal with the issue at hand. For the record, O’Reilly never answered Krugman’s question. (“What have I said that is false?”) Nor did he ever try to explain what “context” was missing from the quote Krugman read. (The quote is given below.) Instead, O’Reilly staged another loud rant. Brock was compared to Castro and the Ku Klux Klan. Krugman was suddenly “Mr. Propaganda.” The unexplained quote was “left-wing garbage.” But what was actually wrong with the quote? What kind of context was actually missing? O’Reilly, ranting, never said. And Russert knew not to ask him.

Indeed, O’Reilly’s name-calling continued to the end of the show. Here is the inspiring work that Russert wants to get more of:

O'REILLY: You call the left-wing hate groups up to get your propaganda. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Do your own research.

KRUGMAN: This—somebody who runs a Web site, that's the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan?

O'REILLY: Do your own research!

KRUGMAN: Come on, guy.

RUSSERT: All right. To be continued.

But who would want to continue that? Throughout the hour, O’Reilly showed what’s wrong with American discourse. Why on earth would a man like Russert subject us to more trash like that?

THE MORAL OF THE STORY: Tail-Gunner Joes are always with us; their instincts are hard-wired in the human gene pool. Once, our culture kept them on the fringes. Now, they’re thrown onto cable TV, where they’re encouraged to clown, spin, name-call, jab and rant. Endlessly, they fool the rubes, misleading them, spinning them, abusing their decency. These people will always prey on democracy—if they’re given a spot center stage.

Of course, it’s always been up to men like Russert to exercise a bit of discretion. But Russert likes being rich and famous. He put Matt Drudge on Meet the Press; he also panders to the great Limbaugh. In short, Russert is happy with Tail-Gunner Joes. They bring more viewers to his table. They help to make him more rich and famous.

Indeed, the breezes are cooling on Nantucket. “All right. To be continued,” Russert said. As long as Russert makes his home with the swells, he’s sure to be true to his word.

WHAT THE TAIL-GUNNER ACTUALLY SAID: A bit of background on that disputed quote which was “left-wing garbage” and “taken out of context.” The dispute began when Krugman discussed Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11:

KRUGMAN: Bill has said on air that Michael Moore believes that we are an evil country, and if you saw the film, you know that's not true, and actually you denied in the same program that you'd said what you just said. But anyway, I think that's a little bit of something to look out for with credibility.

O'REILLY: You want to quote me and give me the date of the program?

KRUGMAN: Oh, sure. June 28th on The Radio Factor.

O'REILLY: On The Radio Factor.

KRUGMAN: Yup. Not the—

O'REILLY: You're taking it not out of context, are you?

KRUGMAN: No, not at all out of context.

Eventually, in his one constructive moment, Russert asked Krugman to read the quote. Here’s what happened:

O'REILLY: Media Matters! Oh, my—that's like me calling some Klan operation. Why don't I call the Ku Klux Klan?

KRUGMAN: Here we go. Here we go. Here we go.

RUSSERT: Read the quote. Read the quote and—

O'REILLY: What a bunch of garbage! Media Matters!

KRUGMAN: Yeah, the quote is, “So this is the United States, who has freed the world from communism, freed the world from fascism, from the axis powers, freed the Pacific from Japanese, OK? All of this, but according to Moore we bring sadness and misery to places all around the globe—

O'REILLY: That's right. He said that.

KRUGMAN: “Thus says Michael Moore. He believes this. He believes that we are an evil country.” Now I saw a film, a flawed film, a lot of things that were overstated—

O'REILLY: OK. Read—

KRUGMAN: —but I think that there were a lot of things in that film that showed that this is a guy who really does love his country.

O'REILLY: All right. You want to think he loves his country, you go ahead.

KRUGMAN: And he loves the working people of America, and if you could watch that—

O'REILLY: Hezbollah feels the same way that you do.

KRUGMAN: Oh, come on. Guilt by association.

Now Krugman was compared to Hezbollah as the incessant name-calling continued. But one thing didn’t happen—O’Reilly never supplied the alleged missing context, nor did he deny the accuracy of the text Krugman read. And, of course, something else never happened; the trembling Russert never asked O’Reilly to say what was wrong with the quote. How was the quote taken out of context? This was the world’s most obvious question—and Russert was too frightened to ask. A tough-talking bulldog purred and mewed in the face of his Tail-Gunner O.

Our country has gone through troubling times when men like O’Reilly took over the discourse. It always happens because cowards permit it—cowards who live on fragrant islands and talk about how honest they are because of their Buffalo days.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081004.shtml

[Rocketman95]

What an ass.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by No Worries
McCain. All the "lefties" of the board appear to love McCain. Explain that.
Because he is friendly to their interests and is not what I'd call a conservative.

[basso]

saw a little of, and god, it was ugly. made me wanna abandon all political debate. o'reilly came across as a blowhard, and krugamn is, how can i saw this kindly, not TV friendly...

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by basso
. o'reilly came across as a blowhard, and krugamn is, how can i saw this kindly, not TV friendly...

We agree on something!

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
What an ass.
Originally posted by basso
saw a little of, and god, it was ugly.

Did he show his ass? I must have missed that portion. Thank you Jesus.

[JBIIRockets]

Originally posted by aghast
I give up.

what's your point?

[rimrocker]

Q: You just had a raucous encounter with Bill O'Reilly on CNBC's Tim Russert. What did you learn from that experience?

Krugman: What I learned is how hard it is to argue with a pathological liar.

Because the problem is in real time, as it's happening, you can't fact check everything.

We now know, a couple of people have checked it, in talking about the war, he talked at length about what Hans Blix told him on his program before the war, except Hans Blix never was on his program before the war.

So what do you do? Somebody just makes **** up, how do you deal with it?

So it was an interesting experience.
___________

Full interview at:

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/080804.htm#081204

...and with that, this keyboard warrior is signing off for a few days. Enjoy the discussions.

[Fegwu]

The Krugman guy is an ass.

[dugtzu]

Originally posted by Fegwu
The Krugman guy is an ass.

why do you think this?

[Fegwu]

Originally posted by dugtzu
why do you think this?

Because he just went on TV and made a fool of himself. I agree with the sentiment that he should not have gone in the first place.

IMO he got humiliated by O'Liely. It is one thing to know your stuff and it is another to be able to stress it on TV or over the radio. Pathetic.

[plcmts17]

O'Reilly is a blowhard idiot. His idea of a debate is shouting louder than his opponent. Put a muzzle on him already.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Because he is friendly to their interests and is not what I'd call a conservative.
Swing batter.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by No Worries
Swing batter.
McCain is not exactly a conservative. No denying that.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
McCain is not exactly a conservative. No denying that.
Pro choice.
Pro school vouchers.
etc.

What really pisses some conservatives off is that McCain is a pragmatist. He realizes that sometimes to get a deal done you need to compromise with the other side (e.g. campaign finance reform). In that vain, McCain is more of a statesman than partisan politician. Thus, McCain is attractive to the independent, swing voters and hated by the conservative partisan politicians.

[No Worries]

delete

[andymoon]

Originally posted by No Worries
Pro choice.
Pro school vouchers.
etc.

What really pisses some conservatives off is that McCain is a pragmatist. He realizes that sometimes to get a deal done you need to compromise with the other side (e.g. campaign finance reform). In that vain, McCain is more of a statesman than partisan politician. Thus, McCain is attractive to the independent, swing voters and hated by the conservative partisan politicians.

VERY good point. If McCain had won in 2000, I would not have any angst whatsoever as I would probably not be considering voting for a Democrat for president for the first time in over a decade.

[Dubious]

O'Reilly is like the Nazi brownshirts of media, subdue all debate with intimidation. Anybody that can't see how this is inluencing American democracy, no matter what their personal beliefs, is just blind to what America is suppose to represent.

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by andymoon
VERY good point. If McCain had won in 2000, I would not have any angst whatsoever as I would probably not be considering voting for a Democrat for president for the first time in over a decade.

And I'd probably be voting for my second straight Republican candidate for that office.

[MR. MEOWGI]

I can't stand anyone who yells, from talk show hosts to preachers. O'Reilly is a clown.

[MR. MEOWGI]

I can't stand anyone who yells, from talk show hosts to preachers. O'Reilly is a clown.

[ima_drummer2k]

I can't stand anyone who yells, from talk show hosts to preachers. O'Reilly is a clown.

[Chump]

highly entertaining video clip from the show with text overlays, the subtitles document facts that show how pathological O'Lie-ly's lies are

http://www.jimgilliam.com/video/krugman_vs_oreilly_200.mov


here is another clip from the outfoxed people that expose O'Lie-ly's lies about Fox being "fair and balanced"

http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Outfxd2/oreilly_lies.mov

[Harrisment]

Originally posted by Chump
highly entertaining video clip from the show with text overlays, the subtitles document facts that show how pathological O'Lie-ly's lies are

http://www.jimgilliam.com/video/krugman_vs_oreilly_200.mov


here is another clip from the outfoxed people that expose O'Lie-ly's lies about Fox being "fair and balanced"

http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Outfxd2/oreilly_lies.mov

Thanks, those are great!