On CNBC's Tim Russert, O'Reilly likened MMFA to the Ku Klux Klan

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408080001
(link includes video)

On CNBC's Tim Russert, O'Reilly likened MMFA to the Ku Klux Klan

From the debate between New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly on August 7 edition of CNBC's Tim Russert:

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

KRUGMAN: No, but they have video clips. They have, they have the clips.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but who gave it to you?

KRUGMAN: Yeah, it is -- Media Matters.

O'REILLY: Media Matters! Oh, I see! A real objective website. Mr. Propaganda! --

KRUGMAN: Hey, wait a second, sir --

O'REILLY: You oughta 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 they said that's false?

O'REILLY: Do your own research! That's out of context and you know it.

KRUGMAN: No, come on. It helps me. It is not. They've got the clips. You can actually listen to them --

O'REILLY: You are about the most un-objective person on the face of the earth -- Media Matters! Why don't you just call Fidel? Call him up in Havana. He'll tell you what's going on?

KRUGMAN: Oh, wonderful. Now we've got the great (inaudible) Whatever it is, it ends up being a Communist plot, you know?

O'REILLY: Oh my God! That's like me calling up some Klan operation. Why don't I call the Ku Klux Klan up and --

KRUGMAN: Here we go, here we go, here we go.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20040808punditpap.html

snip-

I was not disappointed. Krugman just plain rolled the FOX News propagandist. It wasn't even close; O'Really would push his usual selective facts or claim, say, that MediaMatters.org is "Liiiberal" in the most negatively insinuating manner possible, and Krugman would calmly -- or ever-so-slightly-sarcastically -- respond with simple, straightforward facts. Usually, O'Reilly would put that favored conservative tactic of constant interruption or cutting in just as Krugman was finishing -- but Krugman remained undeterred in his clear, concise answers.

As the debate progressed, O'Reilly became more and more agitated -- not as much as he had been when Al Franken skewered him at that book fair last year, but you could hear the frustration and bitterness in the FOX commentator's voice slowly rose as he tried unsuccessfully to bully Krugman from the get-go right up to the end. Toward the very end, there were a couple moments at which we could sense O'Reilly doing everything he could to restrain himself from turning beet-red and shouting, "Shut up! SHUT!! UP!!!"

It's noteworthy that when talk turned to Al Franken, O'Reilly refused to use his real name, instead referring to him as "Stuart Smalley." The irony is, of course, that the Smalley character gets to the heart of other characters' weaknesses, usually reducing them to tears in the process. We get the feeling that this supposedly insulting reference reveals more truth about the Franken-O'Reilly relationship than O'Reilly would wish.

O'Reilly's insulting, bitter invective (such calling economist Krugman a "quasisocialist" and characterizing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" as Nazi-style propaganda) undercut his arguments. Krugman's hilariously absurd reply to O'Reilly's socialist swipe was to say that makes about as much sense as calling O'Reilly a "quasi-murderer."

I saw the very last part of this interview and if O'reilly loses his cool this easy, I would point it out at every opportunity..


Al Franken puts O'reilly to shame!!

coming in November. Then so help me the media better make that smarmy little cretin squirm for all the lies that he's told and the damage that he's done. Same goes for Limbaugh.

Why would someone like Krugman even bother going on any show if they know that they had to face off with some patently offensive douche bag like O'Reilly?

Like the Joe Walsh album cover sitting in my stereo says: "YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH A SICK MIND".

They must hate having to defend every moronic, self-serving move of this administration. It must tie them in logical knots having to blame everything on the Clintons or Jane Fonda or the French or gays or environmentalists or ....

They'll be much more comfortable once they're on the outside of the Kerry Administration, where they can take cheap shots at every move Kerry makes to try to recover from four years of abuse by the likes of these jackals.

And forty-something percent of the voters in this country will be listening every day to their garbage. That's not going to change.

people's fears, frustrations, and hate are much more at home when they're attacking the United States government. It wouldn't surprise me if O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the rest are secretly hoping for a Kerry victory.

The whole thing was a set-up.

Did anyone notice how Russert presented the books? When he held up Krugman's they'd do a distance shot and he'd hold it slightly off camera and sling it around, and when he held up O'Reilly's book the camera would zoom in and he'd hold it front and center and perfectly still.

Russert just sat there for most of the interview.

If you can't laugh at this your sense of humor has been damaged.
OReilly is such a piece of .... work (there is a word!!!!)!
Sorta sad to see Krugman in this awkward place, but, shit, he can handle it I am sure.

all over him. I intend to email Russert and let him know the bias is quite obvious and he failed to control the situation. Why? Because he's too afraid - very sad!

I saw his interview with O'Reilly alone, and Russert kept asking O'Reilly why people refused to appear on the 'factor' and he said " I don't understand it, I mean, they are not treated badly..."

I don't think Krugman fared well, he was shaking with anger for the last 20 minutes. Someday someone is going to clean O'Reilly's clock, because he is so over the line. Maybe we can find the wrestler that broke Stossel's nose.

I despise it when he says PAL. *ugh*

I think Krugman did magnificently. I think O'Reilly is losing it and everytime he has to debate someone it comes more apparant. I loved it when after O'Reilly tried to talk over Paul for the tenth time Paul said " This isn't your show. You can't shut off my mike." And poor Bill cried foul. What a pr--k !!!!

he's just a f***ing bully. My ex Tombo's dad worked with O'Reilly's dad in Long Island and said O'Reilly Sr. was a big bully with a nasty temper. I think it's quite obvious Bill has major issues that truly need therapy.

would be offer Oh Really a hug for all the terrible abuse
his father put him through.

:evilgrin: I bet he would imediately blow his top at that
Bawahahahahahahahahahaha

Let's all send hugs and love to poor Bill and hope he finds a happier place.

the person to give that hug.

That's the formula. It's pure psychology, the only way to escape the feelings of abuse and violation is to become an abuser oneself.

And just attacks mindlessly, oblivious to any response or reason. He is a "special" case, for sure. He was actually in my class at journalism school. He was an arrogant twit then, and has not grown at all, except in volume. His hour of reckoning will come along within a year or so, I intuit. Just as it comes for everyone who turns their back on the qualities of respect and honest. The Wheel spins for all. Take your place on the Great Mandala, Mr. O'Reillly -- the Place of Rhetorical Shame.

In the way of the Long House among the Iroquois Six Nations in upstate New York -- the very people whose traditions were directly influential on Franklin, Jefferson, and other framers of the Constitution -- respect is fundamental.

If you and I are on opposite sides of an issue, I must listen to you carefully in respectful silence, and then repeat your argument back until I have satisfied you that I heard and understood all that you said. Then, I am free to speak my own thoughts and make my case -- to present my arguments to you. In turn, before you respond to me, you must repeat or paraphrase all that I have said. In this slow but thoughtful way, our debate progresses.

In this way there are no voids in our debate. Everything you say must be reckoned with through my powers of reason (such as they may be), and everything I say to you must be accorded the same basic and thorough respect. We may still wind up disagreeing, but we will at least fully understand each other's positions on the issue at hand.

Mr. O'Reilly represents the antithesis of this higher form of rhetoric, which is aimed at getting to the truth through reason, and ensuring that the important decisions that are made will benefit the next Seven Generations of children to be born in the community.

All O'Reilly does is to agressively stir a pot of shit, wherever he can find one, and hope the smell will entertain everyone while the clouds of emotional bombast obscure whatever truth may exist in a given case.

Krugman quoted O'Reilly as saying that Michael Moore's intentions were evil. O'Reilly never denied the quote. Instead, he asked Krugman for his source, which O'Reilly went on to abuse.

Krugman had a weak moment here. He should have asked O'Reilly, "Did you say it or not?" Or Russert should have asked this question. Both of them seemed intimidated by O'Reilly's burst of temper, so the question was never raised or answered.

What you describe is what I've studied for years, and thought I could find in others, but...... it's been a long, fruitless search. It's a much more productive way to communicate, but most people just can't be bothered, including those on the left. It's much easier to just go for power.

If we ever hope to really change things, this is where we must start.

I'm not holding my breath.

Kanary, who just finished writing a better response, sent it, only to find the topic was "locked". sigh....

If O'Reilly was pulling that shit on someone one day and his target just up and kicked O'Reilly's ass?

of the asian parliment coming to blows

i'd pay BIG bucks to see such a thing (as long as only ego's got bruised)

Smack in the nose. He wouldn't be able to see. Game over. ;-)

If someone could do like Jim Everett did to Jim Rome back in the day it would make my millenium.

Fox is a right-wing activist outfit, not a news network.

O'Reilly and Krugman were both guests on a Russert show. Aired on CNBC yesterday.

Russert is as bad as anyone on Fox. Probably worse.

:nuke: G.E.- NBC brings good things to life :nuke:

The CEO from 1981-2001 was Jack Welch, who many regard as one of the premier business managers of his era. Nicknamed "Neutron Jack", he presided over a 28-fold increase in revenue with his policy (referred to by detractors as "rank and yank") of sacking the worst performing 10% of his staff every year. In running GE's many diverse businesses he maintained a policy of only keeping those businesses which were #1 or #2 within their respective industries. In 1987, GE was the U.S.' second largest nuclear power company and third largest producer of nuclear weapons systems.
(snip)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/General_Electric

dissecting this tripe has me seriously concerned.

n/t

another hideous bastardaziation of journalism.

JonBenet's father.

This little man is in serious need of anger management, or zoloft. He's Mike Tyson with a talk show.

of Phyllis Diller and Joe Pyne.
Only in PNAC America would he be prime time
in a big market. Imagine Bill on CBC or BBC.

I just e-mailed CNBC:

"The next time you have Bill O'Reilly on to "debate" with another guest, please have a straightjacket & duct tape available so that the viewers can hear both sides. Mr. Krugman is too refined/intelligent to be paired up with this train-wreck personality."

I really don't know what he was expecting, a debate or something. One needs to know when something is beneath one, and this was way beneath Krugman.

and rightfully so as he can lie and distort at will when someone actually keeps a record of what he says... This whole incident has both confirmed my admiration of Krugman and my distain for Russert (O'Reilly acted exactly as I expected).

It doesn't surprise me that Krugman would beat O'Reilly hands down. After all, Krugman is a university professor, O'Reilly is a talking points reader on Fox.

The thing about guys like O'Reilly and Limbaugh is they are given a show where they can completely control the discussion; then, they actually come to believe that they can debate. Take them out of a forum where they are in complete control and their stupidity shines through.

at a bookstore/coffee house in Del Mar, CA (north San Diego County).

He was great. There were about 100 people there. I took notes on napkins. Since I'm a newbie, I probably can't post a new thread on this, but I'll try to sneak in some comments on other people's threads.

He was asked about the O'Reilly debate. He felt generally pretty good about his performance, but O'Reilly is so impossible that it's frustrating. Someone asked about how he and O'Reilly got along once the cameras stopped rolling -- commenting that sometimes opponents are friendly off-camera. He said something like: "No, I hate him" or "We hate each other."

I told him that he was a big hero on DU. He definitely knows about us.

There's a lot to report, but the bottom line is that he is really, really frightened by what Bush is doing to this country. He kept repeating words like "frightening" and "crisis."

He believes there is a possibility that the election will be disrupted in some way. "Last year's conspiracy theory is today's conventional wisdom....Each side simply can't contemplate the possibility of losing."

He covered lots of topics in the Q & A. I had a few minutes of one-on-one time with him at the end of the book-signing period.

and welcome to DU.

Just be stupid ... joe sixpack will never suspect a thing.

o'reilly was/is a bully - his body language; pointing at krugman, waving his hands - all clearly aimed at intimidating hsi opponent physically.

the 'media matters' crap was pure evasion. the 'outfoxed' crap was pure evasion - point out the specific exception to the general truth - that invalidates the general? no it does not.