We will leave it up to the reader to determine whether Bill O'Reilly has made serious errors in in judgment. Bill has supported a Conservative Christian position especially when it comes to Church and State issues. But, it is apparent from the data collected, that the first amendment and his soul may be in danger from his past and future actions.

When we called Bill O'Reilly's office last year before the scandal broke (see below), they stated that his position is that there is no such thing as any religion but his version of Christianity, that all other religions weren't "Real" religions." What is a real religion, Mr. O'Reilly? What you have been practicing? If he is practicing a religion, it should be made illegal. Read the following and remember: "By their Works may they be known." This is a summary of information collected from several sources including Washington Post, Salon Magazine, Atlanta Journal Constitution and others about Bill O'Reilly

(Remember it is best to investigate on your own when looking at allegations about anyone. Don't believe us, think for yourself and investigate for yourself! And remember, the Religious Freedom Coalition does not represent any political party nor do we recommend any political candidate, nor are we involving ourselves in the political process.

For Comments about Gays and O'Reilly go to http://www.dynionmwyn.net/NationalPolitics/O'Reilly2.html

Ford’s Theatre Flunks O’Reilly’s Lincoln Book

The National Park Service finds that the Fox host's best-selling new book is riddled with factual errors, but what else is new when a proven liar writes a book.

Excerpts from articles in huffingtonpost.com and salon.com by Justin Elliott on November 11, 2011. Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com

Bill O'Reilly (Credit: AP)

See after this article for a second expert review trashing O'Reilly's book, finding more errors.]

A reviewer for the official National Park Service bookstore at Ford’s Theatre has recommended that Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling new book about the Lincoln assassination not be sold at the historic site “because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.”

Rae Emerson, deputy superintendent at Ford’s Theatre, which is a national historic site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, has penned a scathing appraisal of O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever.” In Emerson’s official review, which I’ve pasted below, she spends four pages correcting passages from O’Reilly’s book before recommending that it not be offered for sale at Ford’s Theatre because it is not up to quality standards.

For example, “Killing Lincoln” makes multiple references to the Oval Office; in fact, Emerson points out, the office was not built until 1909.

At one point O’Reilly writes of generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, “The two warriors will never meet again.” In fact, according to the review, Grant and Lee met for a second time in 1865 to discuss prisoners of war.

The book says that Ford’s Theatre “burned to the ground in 1863.” In fact, the fire was in 1862, according to the review.

I’ve reached out to O’Reilly’s publisher, Henry Holt, for comment, and I will update this post when I hear back.

O’Reilly’s book, co-authored with Martin Dugard, has spent six weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and is currently in the #2 spot, behind only Walter Isaacson’s blockbuster biography of Steve Jobs. Publisher Henry Holt said late last month that the title had sold nearly 1 million copies, the AP reported. The company also announced O’Reilly has agreed to write two more books, one of which will be a history of a not-yet-specified president.

O’Reilly’s book has received friendly media coverage from big outlets ranging from the New York Post to NPR. (Though the NPR piece had to be corrected because O’Reilly misstated the number of handwritten copies of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.)

One dissenting take came from University of New Hampshire history professor Ellen Fitzpatrick, who questioned the book’s sourcing in a Washington Post review.

‘Killing Lincoln’ also resurrects an old canard debunked long ago by serious historians: that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was involved in the plot to kill Lincoln, in the hope that he might ascend to the presidency. There is no credible evidence to support such an assertion, nor do O’Reilly and Dugard provide any. (In fact, ‘Killing Lincoln’ offers no direct citations for any of its assertions. In a three-page summary under the heading ‘Notes,’ the authors assure readers that they have consulted “hundreds” of sources; they list the secondary sources they have relied on.)

The book is also getting hammered in customer reviews on Amazon, with some charges of historical inaccuracy and an average rating of just two stars out of five.

***

Here is the full National Park Service review:

Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site

Review of Killing Lincoln, Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard

Reviewer for Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site, Rae Emerson, Deputy Superintendent

Eastern National – Cooperating Association

History

Eastern National, formerly known as Eastern National Park and Monument Association, is a 501(C) (3) not-for-profit “cooperating association,” that supports the National Park Service. Cooperating associations are recognized by Congress as a means to assist the educational and interpretive mission of the National Park Service. Cooperating associations provide various services, primarily by procuring, distributing and selling educational material in retail outlets located in national parks . . . .

Products

The products sold at Eastern National bookstores are a combination of Eastern National-produced items and merchandise purchased through outside vendors, including books, reproductions, apparel, and collectibles. All products sold in Eastern National retail outlets are evaluated by National Park Service interpreters for historical accuracy, quality, and relevance to park themes. Strict standards are maintained to ensure we offer the finest quality products that will enhance visitors’ experiences. As a cooperating association, Eastern National sells only products that the National Park Service has approved.

Reference: Eastern National

Product Selection Criteria – Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site

Relevance to park’s themes

Historically accurate

Publication has relevant citations

Reflects scholarship; the use of primary resources with documentation

Factual errors in publication

The following errors are noted in chapters the reviewer was well versed in the subject matter. Other chapters may also have similar findings noted by subject matter experts or other reviewers. These observations are not included.

Errors are identified by chapter, followed by passage where error is noted, then followed by a fact comment, which is followed by the reference for the fact comment.

Prologue

“He furls his brow . . . .” furl – nautical term to compact, roll up; furrows – narrow grove, depression on any surface, i.e., furrows of a wrinkled face

Chapter 15

“The two warriors will never meet again.”

Fact comment:

On April 10, 1865 Generals Lee and Grant met a second time at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. At that second meeting General Lee requested that his men be given evidence that they were paroled prisoners – to protect them from arrest or harassment. 28,231 parole passes were issued to Confederates.

Reference:

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park

Chapter 19

“After it (Ford’s Theatre) was burned to the ground in 1863 . . . . . . . “

Fact comment:

December 30, 1862, fire broke out and gutted the interior leaving only the blackened walls standing.

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; p. 11)

Chapter 21, 27, etc.

“Grant meets with Lincoln in the Oval Office.”

“Lincoln sitting in his Oval Office . . .”

Fact comment:

Oval Office built in 1909 during Taft’s administration.

Chapter 30

“On the nights when the Lincolns are in attendance . . . . . . . . . and a portrait of George Washington faces out at the audience, designating that the president of the United States is in the house.”

Fact comment:

Messenger arrived at the theatre from the White House about 10:30 a.m. (April 14, 1865) to reserve the presidential box for the performance that evening.

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; p. 53)

“Ford added an additional touch to these normal decorations of the presidential box when he placed a gilt-framed engraving of Washington its central pillar for the first time.”

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; p. 54)

“So Ford’s Opera House, as the theater is formally known, is his (Booth) permanent address.”

Fact comment:

During the period from December 1861 – February 1862, Ford rented the theatre to George Christy, who advertised the building as “The George Christy Opera House”.

After renovating the theatre in February 1862, the theatre reopened in March 1862 under Ford’s name: Ford’s Atheneum.

In February 1863 work started to rebuild the theatre after the December 30, 1862 fire. The theatre known as “Ford’s New Theatre” reopened on Thursday, August 27, 1863 and later referred to as Ford’s Theatre.

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pages 7– 13)

“The state box, where the Lincolns and Grants will site this evening, is almost on the stage itself . . . . . . . . . . distance traveled would be a mere nine feet.”

Fact Comment:

The presidential party occupied two boxes, # 7 and #8 which, when combined, are referred to as the presidential box; the state boxes are build on the stage proper; the distance from the state box to the stage is 11 and ½ feet to 12 feet depending on what end the box is measured. This difference is based on the rake or slant of the stage towards the audience.

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pp. 46, 51, 55)

“Booth has performed here often and is more familiar with its hidden backstage tunnels . . . . .”

Comment:

Booth played twelve performances from November 3 – 14, 1863. He will not perform again at Ford’s Theatre until March 18, 1865.

“In the southeast corner (of the stage) was a two-foot wide stairway along the south wall which led to the basement. This stairway also provided access to the orchestra pit and unhindered passageway from stage-right to stage-left through the basement and by the stairs along the north wall, to the small exit door at the rear alley. The passageway on stage-right varied in width according to the manner in which the scenery was piled along the north wall to the rear door. Generally this passageway was kept clear to provide for an orderly movement of stage scenery and for the unencumbered entrance and exit of actors awaiting their cues in the adjoining greenroom in the north wing. “

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pp. 36, 47)

“The show (Our American Cousin) has been presented eight pervious time at Ford’s . . . . . . .

Face comment:

Our American Cousin was performed seven times prior to April 14, 1865: Jan 11 and 12, 1864; Mar 11 and 12 1864; Aug 4, 1864; Aug 6, 1864; Feb 25, 1865

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pp. 111 -121)

Chapter 39

“Booth’s second act of preparation that afternoon was using a pen knife to carve a very small peephole in the back wall of the state box. Now he looks through the hole to get a better view of the president.”

Fact comment:

“Despite all attempts to prove, without success, that the hole in the door to box 7 was bored by Booth that same afternoon, a recent letter from Frank Ford of New York City (to Olszewski, April 13, 1962) may clarify the fact. In part, his letter states:

As I told you on your visit here in New York, I say again and unequivocally that John Wilkes Booth did not bore the hole in the door leading to the box President Lincoln occupied the night of the assassination, April 14, 1865 . . .

The hole was bored by my father, Harry Clay Ford, or rather on his orders, and was bored for the very simple reason it would allow the guard, on Parker, easy opportunity whenever he so desired to look into the box rather than to open the inner door to check on the presidential party . . ..

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; pp.55 -56)

Final disposition:

Publication (Killing Lincoln) not recommended as a sales item in the Eastern National Bookstore located in the Museum at Ford’s Theatre National Historic because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.

Second Expert Trashes O’Reilly’s Lincoln Book

A reviewer says the Fox host's bestselling Lincoln assassination history is plagued by factual errors, I guess Bill doesn't believe facts and the truth matter in the study of History, But then he works for Fox News, the kingdom of Lies and misrepresentation. When you get in the habit of lying, its hard to break the habit, huh Bill?

(Credit: wikimedia)

On Friday I wrote about the decision of Ford’s Theatre not to offer Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling new book on the Lincoln assassination at its bookstore because an expert National Park Service reviewer found the work to be riddled with factual errors.

Now, in a review in a leading Civil War magazine, a second expert has flunked O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln,” calling it “somewhere between an authoritative account and strange fiction.”

The review (which is not online) appears in the November issue of North & South, the official magazine of the Civil War Society.

“The narrative contains numerous errors of people, place, and events,” writes reviewer Edward Steers Jr., author of more than five books on the Lincoln assassination. He goes on to list about 10 errors of fact in “Killing Lincoln,” which O’Reilly co-authored with Martin Dugard and which has been atop bestseller lists for weeks.

A farm where John Wilkes Booth hid after the killing was not 500 acres, as O’Reilly says. It was 217 acres, according to the review.

O’Reilly refers to John Ford’s chief carpenter as John J. Clifford. In fact, according to the review, his name was Gifford.

“Lewis Powell, the man assigned to kill secretary of state William Seward, did not speak with ‘an Alabama drawl.’ He was from Florida,” the review notes.

Steers adds that one entire passage of the book about co-conspirator Mary Surratt is flat-out untrue:

The authors write that she was forced to wear a padded hood when not on trial, and that she was imprisoned in a cell aboard the monitor Montauk, which was “barely habitable.” She suffered from “claustrophobia and disfigurement caused by the hood,” and was “barely tended to by her captors.” “Sick and trapped in this filthy cell, Mary Surratt took on a haunted, bloated appearance.” None of this is true. Mary Surratt was never shackled or hooded at any time. She was never imprisoned aboard the Montauk, but taken to the Carroll Annex of the Old Capitol Prison before being transferred to the women’s section of the Federal Penitentiary at the Washington’s Arsenal.

Concludes Steers:

“If all of the above sounds like nitpicking, consider this. If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in ‘Killing Lincoln’?”

O’Reilly’s publisher, Henry Holt, has been asked to comment. So far None.

O'Reilly uses his position as the centerpiece of Fox News' prime-time lineup to serially misinform his audiences, consistently skewing his presentation to advance conservative viewpoints (though he did admit on July 19, 2004, that Fox News "does tilt right"). As Media Matters has documented O'Reilly's tactics and false statements, he has derided the organization on numerous occasions, at one point describing Media Matters employees as "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country." Media Matters named O'Reilly as its 2004 Misinformer of the Year.

O'Reilly frequently denounces "cowards" who refuse to face him on-air, saying, for example, "If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward." But O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Media Matters while refusing Media Matters President and CEO David Brock's request to appear on The O'Reilly Factor.

After a series of undistinguished broadcasting jobs in mid-tier markets, O’Reilly first rose to prominence though his CBS coverage of the Falklands War (see Margaret Thatcher). However, O’Reilly swiftly torpedoed his relationship with CBS by accusing them of stealing “his” footage and using it in another reporter’s piece. This incident was then recapped in O’Reilly’s 1998 novel Those Who Trespass, in which thinly-fictionalized versions of O’Reilly’s former co-workers are brutally murdered. Post-Virginia Tech, this sort of writing is known as “grounds for forcible institutionalization.”

In O’Reilly’s case, however, the CBS fracas propelled him into an anchor job on Inside Edition, a tabloid infotainment program to which O’Reilly later inaccurately attributed multiple Peabody awards, then still later inaccurately denied his initial inaccuracy and accused his chroniclers of describing his actions inaccurately. In 2008, a video surfaced depicting O'Reilly's jovial, warm attitude with his co-workers that made him a pleasure to work with, prompting him to deliver a graceful on-air response.

Ultimately, O’Reilly found his true home at Fox News, where he has used his own show The O’Reilly Factor to take down worthy targets ranging from the widows of 9/11 victims to the children of 9/11 victims. O’Reilly has successfully branded The O'Reilly Factor with the slogan “The No Spin Zone,” which is sort of akin to branding Tehran “America’s #1 Spring Break Hotspot.”

Personal Life

O’Reilly has shown interest in the traditional dick hobby of sexually harassing female subordinates. According to a complaint leveled by Andrea Mackris, a former producer, O’Reilly subjected her to a series of his carnal fantasies, including one involving Mackris’ “spectacular boobs” and the sexual use of a loofah, which O’Reilly later, inexplicably referred to as “falafel.” While O’Reilly is apparently in favor of using falafel as a sexual stimulant, he is much less in favor of the food’s area of origin, having referred to the Iraqi people as a “prehistoric group.” In the same broadcast, O’Reilly further cemented his reputation for fostering productive relationships, noting that, when it comes to U.S. intervention in the Muslim world, “What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them….no more group troops, no more hearts and minds. Ain’t going to work.”

In 2003, O’Reilly called for a boycott of French products in retaliation for French President Jacques Chirac’s stance on the Iraq war, later citing a non-existent publication as proof of the boycott’s success. O’Reilly has also consistently railed against what he calls the “War on Christmas,” a societal backlash towards the sacredness of a holiday marked by trampling deaths at Wal-Mart.

O’Reilly has continued to pursue a wide variety of questionable activities. During his show of September 19, 2007, O’Reilly expressed surprise at the fact that the primarily black patrons at a Harlem restaurant were quiet and well-behaved, comments that shocked and outraged anyone who’s never gone to see a movie above 86th Street. A month later, he referred to Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling as a “provocateur” for outing one of the book’s characters as gay, warning that the revelation would be of grave concern for parents “worried in America about the gay agenda and indoctrination of their children to see homosexuality in a certain way.” These comments, along with his recent suggestion that an imprisoned victim of kidnapping and horrific child abuse “liked” his situation, indicate that O’Reilly’s stupidity shows no sign of abating any time soon.

The O'Reilly Procedure

Excerpts from an article by Roger Ebert on June 14, 2009 in the suntimes news group web page.

Bill O'Reilly has been brought low by the same process that afflicted Jerry Springer. Once respected journalists, they sold their souls for higher ratings, and follow their siren song. Springer is honest about it: "I'm going to Hell for what I do, and I know it," he's likes to say. O'Reilly insists he is dealing only with the truth. When his guests disagree with him, he shouts at them, calls them liars, talks over them, and behaves like a schoolyard bully.

I am not interested in discussing O'Reilly's politics here. That would open a hornet's nest. I am more concerned about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society. He sets a harmful example of acceptable public behavior. He has been an influence on the most worrying trend in the field of news: The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature, the predictability of two of the leading cable news channels. A majority of cable news viewers now get their news slanted one way or the other by angry men. O'Reilly is not the worst offender. That would be Glenn Beck. Keith Olbermann is gaining ground. Rachel Maddow provides an admirable example for the boys of firm, passionate outrage, and is more effective for nogt shouting.

Much has been said recently about the possible influence of O'Reilly on the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder. Such a connection is impossible to prove. Yet studies of bullies and their victims suggest a general way such an influence might take place. Bullies like to force others to do their will, while they can stand back and protest their innocence: "I was nowhere near the gymnasium, Sister!" A recent study of school shootings found that two-thirds of all the shooters were victims of bullying, and perceived themselves as members of persecuted minorities.

What are TV shouters telling their viewers? They use such anger in expressing their opinions. Who are they trying to convince? They're preaching to the choir. Their viewers already agree with them. No minds are going to be changed. Why are they so mad? In a sense they're saying: You're right, but you're not right ENOUGH! I'm angrier about this than you are! Viewers may get the notion that there's unfinished business to be done, and it's up to them to do it.

How can one effect change? By sincere debate and friendly persuasion? O'Reilly sets the opposite example. He brings on guests who represent the "enemy," doesn't seriously engage their beliefs, and shouts: Be quiet! I'm right and you're wrong! I stand for good and you stand for evil! I'm not exaggerating. Sometimes those are the very words he uses.

O'Reilly represents a worrisome attention shift in the minds of Americans. More and more of us are not interested in substance. The nation has cut back on reading. Most eighth graders can't read a newspaper. A sizable percentage of the population doesn't watch television news at all. They want entertainment, or "news" that is entertainment. Many of us grew up in the world where most people read a daily paper and watched network and local newscasts. "All news" radio stations and TV channels were undreamed-of. News was a destination, not a generic commodity. Journalists, the good ones anyway, had ethical standards.

In those days, if you quoted The New York Times, you were bringing an authority to the table. Now O'Reilly--O'Reilly!--advises viewers to cancel their subscriptions to a paper most of them may not have ever seen. In those days, if the wire services reported something, it probably happened. Today the wire services remain indispensable, but waste resources in producing celebrity info-nuggets that belong in trash magazines. Advertisers now seek readers they once thought of as shoplifters. If nuclear war breaks out, the average citizen of a Western democracy will be better informed about Brittny Spears than the causes of their death.

I remember radio stations that provided variety during the day. News, music, variety shows, soap operas, nighttime comedy and drama, sports. All mixed up together. At night, a sleepy-voiced announcer presided over classical music, jazz, or torch songs. On Sunday mornings, WGN in Chicago had a guy who played pop tunes on a Mighty Wurlitzer. They weren't concerned about a tune-out factor. Millions of Americans watching Ed Sullivan saw opera singers as well as Elvis and the Beatles. Orson Welles might come out and perform a little Shakespeare before the trained dogs and the acrobats. Ed introduced every act in the same tone of voice--his only tone of voice, possibly. He wasn't trying to sell us on anything. He didn't talk like it was supposed to be good for us.

Now it's "more music and less talk." Or no music and all talk. Or all news and nothing else. Or all sports talk People aren't in the habit of searching the dial. Talk radio used to feature talkers who discussed things in general. Now most of them are political. Howard Stern is one of the few smart enough to win listeners who are actually interested in whatever he happens to say. It is hard to conceive of the 38 years during which millions of people "from coast to coast" woke up and tuned in NBC for Don McNeil's Breakfast Club, "coming to you live from the Tip-Top Tap in the Allerton Hotel, high above Chicago's Magnificent Mile." They went to sleep listening to, "From the Cinegrill Lounge of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel on beautiful Hollywood Boulevard, swing and sway with Sammy Kaye!" When I got to those cities, I made it my business to visit the Tip-Top Tap and the Cinegrill Lounge. Don McNeil was still in business, still issuing his "last call for breakfast."

Gone. All gone and almost forgotten. And the audiences gone too, those who sought companionship rather than goading. There is little comfort to be had from today's polarized shouters. They are discontented, and they think you should be, too. They inspire fear and suspicion. There is a conspiracy, and you are the target. Dark forces are at work. There was a time when ordinary Americans would have been deeply offended by the way O'Reilly speaks about their President--any President.

Sometimes O'Reilly is compared with Father Coughlin, a popular far-right radio commentator in the 1930s who fanned the flames against Roosevelt and warned about immigration and "foreigners," by which it was understood he meant primarily Jews. O'Reilly objects to such a comparison, and certainly there is no reason to consider him anti-Semitic.

But a team of media researchers at Indiana University studied every editorial broadcast by O'Reilly during a six-month period and found a similar nativist cast. Among the findings of their paper published in the Journal Journalism Studies was this one:

According to O'Reilly, victims are those who were unfairly judged (40.5 percent), hurt physically (25.3 percent), undermined when they should be supported (20.3 percent) and hurt by moral violations of others (10.1 percent). Americans, the U.S. military and the Bush administration were the top victims in the data set, accounting for 68.3 percent of all victims.

What were those "same techniques?" The Indiana team quoted an earlier study:

These techniques, first listed in the 1930s, paint an uncanny portrait of what you can see and hear any night on the O'Reilly Factor.

A Serial Bully is defined as one who takes behavior first employed in childhood and carries it forward into adult life, at home, in the workplace, or both. Here is what the British website bullyonline has to say:

The first technique cited on the Indiana list above is Name Calling. In using this practice Bill O'Reilly reminds me of columns Sydney J. Harris of the the Chicago Daily News liked to write, containing lists of terms headed "You say" and "I say." Here are some of mine:

And on and on and on. If generally neutral terms were used (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican) every discussion wouldn't be determined by the terms used to open it. That would lose viewers. Good. It would be healthier for the body politic if they just watched mainstream television.

Don McNeil's Breakfast Club. A kinescope of a live radio broadcast. Close your eyes. Don never shouted.

CNN's Rick Sanchez slammed Bill O'Reilly Friday afternoon for his claim that CNN didn't cover the murder of Army recruiter William Long until Anderson Cooper's featured the story on "AC360."

"CNN is supposed to be the news channel," O'Reilly said to Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp. "CNN says we don't do opinion, we do news. Only Anderson Cooper at 10:00 covered this story. Nobody else! All day long it wasn't news to cover an army recruiter gunned down in Arkansas?"

Sanchez then proceeded to play a "Daily Show"-like montage of clips of CNN anchors and reporters discussing the story all day.

"Let's see, that was Kyra Phillips, Tony Harris, Heidi Collins, Lou Dobbs, certainly you saw myself, you just saw David Mattingly there, Wolf Blitzer, we saw Kiran Chetry, we saw Erica Hill — that's nobody?" Sanchez asked.

"Let's add this up together now," Sanchez said. "We led with the story when it broke. We led with it again the next day. We analyzed the terrorism angle with experts and called former FBI agents to take us through it. And as a network, we covered the story umpteen times throughout the days, throughout all hours of those days. But Bill O'Reilly says he only saw it once. And since he only saw it once, well then that must be the truth. It doesn't matter what really happened. It doesn't matter what the record shows. All that matters is what Bill thinks he saw. We called Fox today, by the way. No response yet."

"O'Reilly did get one thing right," he said. "We here at CNN do say we're in the business of doing news. You know why? Because we are. And while we are far from perfect, we do check our facts before we say things. And if we get it wrong, we say so. And that is called reporting."

When Satan comes to collect the corrupt soul of Bill O'Reilly, (O'Reilly sold his soul many years ago) he will take him to the first circle of Hell. This is the place reserved for Conservative talk show hosts, whose lies know no bounds.

In our opinion, Bill O'Reilly is a ridiculous clown. He's a thuggish, pompous, preening caricature of a human being; a living illustration of conservatism's warped ideal of manliness. A know-nothing know-it-all, his clumsy lies -- which he mostly spits out off the cuff for fear of having his encyclopaedic ignorance exposed -- crumble under a bare minimum of scrutiny. He's a living paradox; a sexual predator who masquerades as an upstanding moralist, and an arrogant, slander-spewing bully whose own ego is of such crystaline fragility that any criticism directed towards him -- no matter how mild or undeniable -- is grounds for launching all out war.

In these wars, O'Reilly uses every weapon at his disposal. His prime-time perch on FOX News, his nationally syndicated, three-hour daily radio broadcast, his many books and his various newspaper columns have all served as ordnance in his personal battles against a host of blood enemies, including the dastardly likes of Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, the nation of France, people who say "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas", and the very concept of Truth, itself.

And yet, despite all the times he's been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite, despite every failed frivolous lawsuit, despite every dark threat of physical retribution, despite every time he's come off as an unhinged psychopath on the edge of total mental collapse... there he is, day after day, night after night, occupying prime real estate on our TV screens, radio airwaves and bookstore shelves.

The question is asked: WHY?! What purpose does it serve to have such a contemptible, shameless buffoon as the conservative movement's preeminent media personality? Nobody with a shred of common sense or a modicum of human dignity takes Bill O'Reilly seriously. They can't, because he won't allow them. O'Reilly swallows up all of conservatism's alleged character strengths and vomits them back up as perverse parodies of what they once were. Resoluteness becomes pig-headed obstinacy. Loyalty becomes blind obedience. Stoicism becomes shrill victimhood. Individualism becomes meddlesome pecksniffery. It's almost like FOX News is using O'Reilly as the human equivalent of one of those signs you see at the entrance to carnival rides: "You must be THIS STUPID to believe this crap."

Maybe that's it. Maybe by being so intolerably awful, O'Reilly and his ilk are helping to winnow the truth-hungry wheat from the unquestioning, herd-like chaff. Studies have shown that FOX News watchers know less about current events than people who don't follow the news at all. This apparent contradiction makes sense only if the purpose of FOX News isn't to inform, but to entertain and indoctrinate. And as the house organ of The Powers That Be, that's exactly what they're doing. They're leading by example, providing ready-made role-models for the day -- and if TPTB have their way, that day is coming soon -- when all those mindless, nihilistic couch-potatoes are called upon to serve as the citizen spies, conformity enforcers and concentration camp guards of tomorrow.

So you'd better get used to Bill O'Reilly's smug, blotchy face, because unless some drastic changes take place, it's the face in your future.

Friday, Feb. 15, 2008 - In his "Talking Points Memo" segment Thursday night, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly delivered an impassioned sermon against Senate Democrats who'd voted against so-called coercive interrogation (O'Reilly called it "coerced interrogation") and an extension of the Protect America Act.

"Twenty-eight Democratic senators have voted against coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects and warrantless surveillance of overseas phone calls made to suspected terrorist locations," O'Reilly said. "That means that these senators want only Army Field Manual interrogation procedures, which would allow only psychological interrogation, and want to ban immediate listening of terrorist communications. Do you" -- and here came a vocal stress and finger point so exaggerated that it was almost self-parody -- "feel safer because of that?"

Even for this veteran O'Reilly viewer, this particular "Talking Points Memo" was amazing, filled as it was with falsehoods, distortions, half-truths, even moments that would have been almost humorous if it were not for O'Reilly's sizable and presumably trusting audience.

When discussing waterboarding, O'Reilly used the famous "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify his support for the method, saying, "The president should have the authority to order waterboarding and other coercive measures in an urgent situation. Psych techniques are fine in the long run, but not when possible death is near."

Had O'Reilly concluded his segment there, that statement would merely have been factually challenged. But at the conclusion of his monologue, O'Reilly said, "The left often lives in a theoretical world, but I live in a real world."

The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a thought experiment -- it's almost purely theoretical. In fact, in our experience, people who defend torture by citing the scenario never cite a real-world example of its use. (Sometimes the Israeli precedent in relying on the scenario as the only legal justification for torture in that country is cited, but as Flore de Préneuf observed in Salon in 2001, "Palestinian detainees have often testified that interrogations stopped on Fridays and Saturdays, confirming the suspicion that torture had nothing to do with urgency.") And perhaps that's for good reason. Last year, Stuart Herrington, a retired Army colonel who's an expert in interrogation, penned an Op-Ed for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In it, he wrote, "The so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career."

When it came to his discussion of warrantless surveillance, O'Reilly had even more difficulty getting his facts straight. As previously mentioned, at the top of the segment, O'Reilly said, "these senators ... want to ban immediate listening of terrorist communications." Later, he added, "In this high-tech world, if U.S. intel cannot zero in on communications immediately, then crucial intel will be lost. Everybody knows that!"

Indeed, everyone does know that. That's why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act includes a provision -- unaffected by anything O'Reilly was discussing -- that allows surveillance to begin immediately and without a warrant if an application for one is made within 72 hours.

During the October 19 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Fox News' Bill O'Reilly the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly's response to criticism from guest Bernie Goldberg for not challenging right-wing pundit Ann Coulter during her October 15 appearance on O'Reilly's program. In his appearance with Coulter, O'Reilly stated, "I don't even care, to tell you the truth," about comments she had made the previous week on CNBC's The Big Idea to host Donny Deutsch that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected." Olbermann stated: "Even the endlessly belligerent Bernard Goldberg noticed that O'Reilly continues to go nuts over perceived slights against Catholics and Christmas, even the slights which only exist inside his own head." Olbermann continued: "But when Coulter-Geist came on, he didn't even suggest from a devil's advocate point of view that talking about perfecting the Jews might have been a bad idea." Olbermann then said: " 'I was waiting,' Goldberg said, 'for you two to French kiss.' Contain your nausea. Bill-O defended himself by saying he wasn't going to debate theology with a non-theologian, whereupon Goldberg said, 'Then don't have her on.' Whereupon Billy's head exploded."

As Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, here, here, and here), Olbermann frequently names O'Reilly during his "Worst Person" segment.

O'REILLY SETTLES SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT

"Citing a desire to shield his loved ones (sure), Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly said he had settled a legal battle over a former producer's allegations that he sexually harrassed her.

"This brutal ordeal is now officially over, and I will never speak of it again," O'Reilly, 55, said on Thursday night's edition of his talk show, "The O'Reilly Factor."

Of course he won't -- unless he wants Makris's attorneys' to release the audio tapes!

Andrea Mackris, 33, a former producer on "Factor," had filed a lawsuit against O'Reilly on Oct. 13, alleging he made a series of explicit phone calls to her, advised her to use a vibrator and told her about sexual fantasies involving her.

Several days after filing her sexual harassment suit, Mackris filed amended court papers, claiming that Fox had violated her rights under New York state law by firing her after she complained about being sexually harassed. Fox denied Mackris had been fired, saying she had simply stopped coming to work. (sure she wasn't fired)

SOURCE:
Bill O'Reilly settles dispute with show producer
By SAMUEL MAULL
Associated Press, October 29, 2004, 3:43 AM EDT

O'REILLY LIES AGAIN!!!! HE IGNORED THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND MISREPRESENTED THOMAS JEFFERSON'S POSITION

In his December 14 nationally syndicated column, " 'Tis the Season," Bill O'Reilly wrote that the "separation of church and state argument" is "bogus" because it "does not appear anywhere in the Constitution." O'Reilly continued, baselessly asserting that "[i]f Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner." In fact, Jefferson wrote a famous letter in 1802 in which he declared his support for "a wall of eternal separation between Church & State" and expressed his "reverence" for the First Amendment to the Constitution, which mandates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Additionally, Jefferson made numerous other statements of support for the principle of the separation of church and state. For example:

Ford’s Theatre Flunks O’Reilly’s Lincoln Book

The National Park Service finds that the Fox host's best-selling new book is riddled with factual errors, but what else is new when a proven liar writes a book.

Second Expert Trashes O’Reilly’s Lincoln Book

Personal Life

The O'Reilly Procedure

O'Reilly's Homophobia

O'REILLY LIES AGAIN!!!! HE IGNORED THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND MISREPRESENTED THOMAS JEFFERSON'S POSITION