Surprise! O'Reilly is a hypocrite!

I saw this last night and nearly fell off my chair laughing. Forget about this whole "atheists deifying Darwin" schtick. If we're going to deify anyone, it should be Stewart; I for one prefer a god with a sense of humor.

This is much worse than O'Reilly criticizing Washington for accurately portraying what happened to the Native Americans in the 1800s.

I wonder if O'Reilly has ever caused someone to facepalm themselves unconscious.

I would like to see a death bed conversion by shit bag O'Reilly. "There is no god, only Darwin!"

Thats ace. Busted, as it were.

TRF

Surprise! O'Reilly is a hypocrite!

Stop the freakin presses.

In fairness, those celebrities he was defending have their privacy invaded on a daily basis and the people who were ambushed by fox news (with the exception of Angelina) do not have to live with that.

This is the way to handle stalker producers, ala Bill Moyers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2IZT4VgDY

The fact that he keeps on uttering "no spin..." should be a dead giveaway.

Any idea what day this was aired? Can't watch those videos from Canada

OK, I've already watched this twice, so should I watch it again now that PZ has posted it?

Duh! *watching again*

If it weren't for The Daily Show, I would have no idea what goes on on Fox News.

The Bill Moyers clip was excellent.

Sauve: it aired last night, 2/9.

I think we all secretly know that O'Reilly is an elaborate Poe. One of the greatest ever, and as such, we should honor him.

O'Reilly pulling a facilis! I love it.

I think Olbermann gave good advice on what to do it you are ambushed by Bill O's producer/stalker:

Just yell Falafel into the camera!

The Canadian link:

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/showdetails.aspx?sid=3350

It's clip 2

Fucking Canada, I can't even see the clip here, I gotta go to the intolerably slow-loading Comedy Centra CA website ... I waited for over 20 mins for it to load and it never did; shit.

I really wanted to see some O'Reilly-crushing. :'(

Ouch.

So that's what whiplash feels like.

Mine pour brane.

How come Billy's never out on the ambushes? Is he only a tough guy when he can cut the mike?

The guy's a Grade A douche. Why you Americans bother growing corn for biofuel when you've got a nearly inexhaustible source of fat in these guys heads....

Stewart's show is real genius--not sure if his degree is from Columbia or BC. But to be fair, O'Reilly draws blood from himself, and he does it because no matter what infantile twaddle he delivers, a substantial (though falling) number of Americans nod sagely. Many of those people would not hesitate to say it exactly like Stewart did, sans irony: Stay out of my face, but I can get in your face, because you're wrong, you're gay, you're a liberal, you're an elitist. To the hypocrite, hypocrisy is not worth a shrug, especially if we've got a show to produce.

And I'll guarantee: somewhere, probably more than one somewhere right now, O'Reilly or his flying monkeys are defending O'Reilly by attacking Jon Stewart with non-sequitur red herring tu quoques and ad hominem false dichotomies, all without a hint of irony.

ice

#6
In fairness, those celebrities he was defending have their privacy invaded on a daily basis and the people who were ambushed by fox news (with the exception of Angelina) do not have to live with that.

In fairness, those celebrities he was defending choose a profession which places them squarely in the public eye and then utilize the media to increase their visibility and, likewise, their marketability. Then, those selfsame celebrities complain when the media also profit from their sensationalism.

I would feel much worse for them, except that there are plenty of A-listers who don't put themselves on display and aren't constantly hounded by the media. Also, I don't buy or view celebrity gossip, so my hands are clean. Yes, there is a line that should be drawn on the level of harassment; but, frankly, we already have stalking and harassment laws and standards of expectation of privacy. The fact that these people choose to be visible should not mean they are entitled to an increased level of privacy than the rest of us.

Yes the Bill Moyers clip (see #7) is worth watching. Very impressive.

#6 "In fairness" Don't you mean, "In fairness and balance?!" ;^)

I used to laugh and then be disgusted when I heard that most young people get their news from sources such as Jon Stewart. I figured it was erosion of society and of general give-a-shit. And that they couldn't tear them selves away from their PSPs or texting devices.

Well .... since about midway through the 2008 election, I no longer blame them one little bit.

Stewart is both more entertaining than almost all of the "info-tainment" that purports to be news these days and is more accurate. (Not to mention that I love how he skewers the blowhards like Bill O'Lielly.) Compare Stewart to your local TV "news"! What a joke. Or compare him to Faux News -- if you can stand FN.

It almost makes me consider getting cable TV -- but why spoil a perfect 30-year record of avoiding it?!

RE: the Bill Moyers clip @7

I've seen a man look so much like he's fighting the urge to cry as Porter Barry did in that video.

So sad; if I were him, I'd take Moyers up on his offer to find him a job at a real news agency.

Stewart seldom fails to draw blood.

that's in no small part because the skin he punctures is so thin.

he's also an astonishingly acute interviewer, especially since he's gotta deliver schtick along with the pertinent points.

He's one of the really smart guys, it seems to me...

Check out this clip of Olbermann delivering his best snark. His best answers to an O'Really??? stalker come at the end.

Remember Malmedy, Mackris, loofah.

#18 Bumdark: Try hulu.com? I have terrible luck with Comedy Central's site, but Hulu always comes through.

Celebrities get paid their handsome fees for one purpose: to pose in the public eye, to activate our fantasies, to inhabit our dreeams. That's their fuuking JOB. It pays well. When you stop liking it, just fuuking quit! Til then, just fuuking SMILE, beyotch...

Calling Bill O'Reilly scum of the earth is an insult to scum.

I mean, I've never seen a man look so much like he's fighting the urge to cry.

Ogre O'Reilly is dead to me. Every time I see or hear him now, I think of the Producer's Cut of "We'll Do It Live"...

Bwa Ha Ha Bill O~!

http://digitalbasement.blogspot.com/2008/05/well-do-it-live-unseen-foot…

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

Bill O, just like Ann Coulter, are among the biggest self serving hipocrites that get air time! This was no suprise, nor was it a suprise that I laughed for hours!

But then again, this is the type of logic right wing, evangelicals use to consistently deny and lie about evolution and try to prop up their own deluded ideas. I can't say anyone here should really be suprised.

As one of the subjects of her majesty's devolved kingdom, you've no idea how I envy you chaps across the big pond.
Me and my Mrs in the UK watch The Daily Show religiously.

When you stop liking it, just fuuking quit! Til then, just fuuking SMILE, beyotch...

You've got mental problems. Really. And where did you learn to spell "fuck"?

Bill O'Reilly does have an avenue of defense. He can claim that his "ambush" journalism targets figures of legitimate public interest, whereas celebrities are stalked for no good reason.

That depends on whether "why did you boycott my cable channel?" counts as legitimate public interest.

I truly hate FN & Billo!

I've even complained to my gym -- I've been stuck in front of the TV tuned to FauxNoize the last few times I've been there. BillO the BLoviator really pisses me off - even when all I get is closed captions!

Unfortunately I'm in Northern GA where FN is considered reputable! (I've asked for it to be replaced by Comedy Central, but that was shot down)

In fairness, Fox has done some good coverage.
http://www.upcheer.com/images/foxnews/

Wow. That was hilarious! Jon Stewart is awesome - that just made my day.

If you want to see a REAL interview, go see the interview John does with Huckabee. John just totally and completly tears apart all of the nonsense Huckabee spews. It. Is. Glorious.

It's awesome because you would never see this on normal tv news networks.

Also that one interview where he actually criticized Israel for their aggression at the beginning of this year. Normally you would be blasted as a anti-Semite for even doing so.

I think that if it wasn't for the Daily Show that my head might explode. We know what assholes they are on Fox, and what hypocrites they are, etc, but watching that segment, though, was truly painful...

Tony, for under ten bucks you can get a tiny little keychain universal remote to surreptitiously change the channel away from Fox.

@#18 Bumdark
Then, you can perhaps use a (fast) U.S.-proxy to see it instead (if there are any such proxies).

I'm not American and I didn't have to use a proxy.

Jon Stewart is my god and the daily show my prophet!

LOL

http://shows.ctv.ca/video/ for the Canadian audiences. If it doesn't work for you, it has to be your connection. I watched this clipped earlier today and I just brought it up again instantly. (I think it uses the same service as the link posted earlier, but you can always try this one.)

And to think, there were people who actually thought that the election of Obama meant the death of teh fonny.

“Liberal comedians and cartoonists have expressed great anguish at the rise of Barack Obama to the presidency, because having a perfect president makes it impossible to make fun of Washington,” says Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.

#7

Then there's the more direct Buzz Aldrin approach.

In other news, water found to be wet.

To be completely fair, Jon Stewart pointing out the hypocracy of Bill O'Rielly, is like shooting fish in barrel, one with no water in it.

To be completely fair, Jon Stewart pointing out the hypocrisy of Bill O'Rielly, is like shooting fish in barrel, one with no water in it.

...and the fish are nailed to the bottom of the barrel, and one is using a grenade instead of a gun...

See also our shocking expose later on this same channel: bear filmed shitting in woods.

Despite all of that, it was still so satisfying.

Next, the pope filmed being catholic

As a Mythbusters fan, I have to say Adam and Jamie proved that the shock wave from the bullet hitting the water actually killed the fish in the barrel. They didn't need to hit the fish with bullet. So talk about easy...

Any one reading down here that hasn't see the Moyer video in #7, you need to. It is superb! A definite favorite add from me.

O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are the same person.

More info on the Oberman video in #27. Keep these three words handy in case you get ambushed by O'Rielly hacks:

http://multifariousramblings.blogspot.com/2007/10/malmedy-mackris-loofa…

-Quote-
Malmedy, Mackris, Loofah
What am I referring to?

Malmedy:

On the June 1 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann noted that Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely accused American troops of committing the massacre at Malmédy, Belgium, during World War II. During a discussion with former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark on the May 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly attempted to compare the incident at Malmédy to the alleged killing of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. soldiers in Haditha, Iraq. O'Reilly stated: "In Malmédy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. Been documented." In fact, the result of the massacre was reversed -- 84 American bodies were found at Malmédy, murdered by SS troops. O'Reilly had made the mistake before, during an October 3, 2005, interview with Clark. Olbermann called attention to O'Reilly's falsehoods, saying, "the victims at Malmédy in December 1944 were Americans, Americans with their hands in the air, Americans who were unarmed."

Mackris:

Andrea Mackris (born 1971) is a former FOX News television producer in the United States who accused cable talk show host Bill O'Reilly of sexual harassment. She alleged both of the legally cognizable types of sexual harassment, quid pro quo and hostile work environment.

On October 13, 2004, after settlement talks had failed, Mackris filed suit against O'Reilly and FOX News in the New York Supreme Court (in that state, the "Supreme Court" is a trial court) for $60 million dollars in damages, which exceeds the jurisdictional allowances of the court.

Loofah:

In her complaint, Mackris produced what she claimed to be quotations from phone conversations between herself and O’Reilly in which he suggested various sexual practices for the two. A widely publicized such conversation included a scenario where O'Reilly would massage her with a loofah in the shower. At one point during the conversation, O'Reilly mistakenly referred to the loofah as "the falafel thing." "Falafel" eventually became a short-hand reference to the affair for O'Reilly's critics. The complaint detailed a number of other sexual conversations and encounters between O'Reilly and Mackris [1] [2], as well as some of a non-sexual nature, such as O'Reilly stating that radio talk show host Al Franken would "get what was coming to him" [3], and that any woman who crossed him or Fox would be destroyed. -endquote-

I'm about to grit my teeth and TRY to watch Billo, starting in a bit. Wish me luck. I'm already feeling a bit nauseous. I hope I don't succumb to the Tinkerbell Factor

O'Reilly is the "No Spin Zone!"

No really, he goes from wash and rinse straight to air.

"Surprise! O'Reilly is a hypocrite!" In other news, water found to be "wet..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart#Crossfire_appearance
---
In January 2005, CNN announced that it was canceling Crossfire. When asked about the cancellations, CNN/US' incoming President, Jonathan Klein, referenced Stewart's appearance on the show: "I think he made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day."[53] Soon after, Stewart quipped on The Daily Show that "I fought the law, and the law lost!"
---
The entire section on that is quite interesting. I've watched The Daily Show pretty much ever since Jon Stewart took it over, and that was a pretty nice moment in the show.

The Daily Show pretty much has more power for positive change than all the news organizations combined. As Stewart often says "It was always the Court Jester that could get away with pointing out the truth."

Stewart often opens the show by pointing out something stupid the other news organizations have done, and that's my favorite way to get the news.

Of course, Colbert gets a mention for being the Lord of all Poes, particularly his dinner with George W Bush.

The comedy network blocks non-US access, but Canadians (maybe others?) can get the feed from

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca

O'Reilly stating that radio talk show host Al Franken would "get what was coming to him"

and so he did, or, at least, likely will.

http://www.alfranken.com/content/splash_recountBrief

Irony is funny, eh Bill?

Falafel Fucktard! Alliteration makes everything sound better.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire was possibly the most honest piece of television I've ever seen.

@JBlilie (#24):

This reminds me of a survey that I read during a political science class. The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of political awareness of people based on their news source. People who used The Daily Show and The Colbert Report shown greater knowledge of current political issues than Fox News.

This of course was a while ago and I can't recall who conducted the survey or whatnot, but anecdotally I have found that to be true.

Hmm, so now reporters chasing down legitimate news stories are to be identified with the paparazzi?! This is a joke, right? The inability to grasp simple distinctions is apparently a recipe for good comedy, even if it's a recipe for disaster when it comes to clear thinking.

legitimate news stories

Define pleae

please that is

Confronting people in their private time is only fine when they aren't a celebrity...

I think you are missing scare quotes around "reporters" "chasing down" and "legitimate news." Only in the bizarro universe is the idea that Angelina Jolie banning Fox news from a movie opening a legitimate news story. O'Reilly and his ambush crews are no more doing legitimate news than the old Candid Camera crews or the Show Us Your Boobs guys.

Natural Cynic, my thanks, kind Sir/Lady, for the most excellent link. That was great! And to PZ for the post, as that was so so good. Y'all made my night. :)

My favorite bit of Daily Show will always be Governor Bush debating President Bush. W arguing for entirely opposite sides, both with the same vauge certainty that his "feeling" is absoloutly correct.
Unlike my spelling.

I didn't know about this Malmédy thing. To me, it's incredible that O'Reilly could get away with it and not be literally torn apart. I mean, unarmed US prisoners shot by SS... and he turns it the other way round? How much more un-American can you get? Where are the rabid patriots when you need them?

#62

I go all the time on the site from Greece, so maybe its not all non-US countries that are blocked.

Can O'Reilly be a "hypocrite" when he is not really an idealogue? Many seem to think he is "right wing" or a "conservative", when really he is a reactionary populist. His ethics are situational and emotional. He may be a traditionalist socially, but he has no conservative instincts. He turns to the government to solve every problem. He harangues government regulators for not doing somethings "right now", even when they have no operational role, such as during the power blackouts of a few years ago. He has asked for the military to patrol the Mexican border for years in violation of posse commitatus, even though tens of thousands of border patrol agents could have been hiered over that time. He demands government regulation of corporate executive salaries. He is clueless about economics, you should have seen his eyes glaze over when someone tried to explain to him why the double taxation of dividends was bad for the economy. He is calling for the removal of the children from the octet mother for reasons of insanity and for having the medical license stripped from the MD that implanted the embryos in her. We must see past his traditional "family values", to see he has the same left wing bias that all lazy reporters slip so easily into, even though he is now a "commentator". It is much easier to depict a problem or "crisis" and then ask the government "what are you going to do about it", than it is to do real investigative journalism into the actual causes and possible none governmental rememdies to the problems.

Can someone who is so totally situational, reactionary and unprincipled really qualify as a "hypocrite"? What principles does he have that can be violated? With Americas move to the left, O'Reilly must be classified as a centrist, populist demagogue, who connects with a lot of people based upon the ratings. What is it about modern human nature that reponds to such appeals? Are we descended from those who survived by being in accord with others when there were collective sweeps of extreme emotions? When there are personality cults and emotions are running high, can "intellectuals" fake it well enough to survive? Perhaps there is a time when being a critical, questioning thinker does not increase "fitness", as when one is living under a Stalin, Mao, Saddam or Kim Jong'll.

The good news is that critical thinking must make some contribution to fitness, to have survived what must have been the multiple purges of our history.

um AG, did you watch the clip? The hypocrisy was nothing to do with him acting contrary to conservative principles (which he may or may not hold) it was about him acting contrary to his repeatedly stated belief in privacy.

Matt Heath,

O'Reilly cites privacy in some instances and other concerns in others. You may conclude that he is a hypocrite, I conclude that he doesn't really believe in privacy except as a vague emotional concept, easily overridden by his next reaction.

Africangenesis,

Yes, but he's appearing to be concerned about privacy and then doing the exact opposite.

Hypocrisy isn't necessarily about whether the behaviour is contrary to one's true nature; it's that it's contrary to one's stated opinions. In fact, for hypocrisy to be a true character defect the act that creates the hypocrisy must be the one closer to the hypocrite's true nature - as is the case here.

For example, a Christian one of the many, many Christians who decry promiscuity from the pulpit and then get caught sleeping around are hypocrites, whether or not being promiscuous is their 'true nature'.

I conclude that he doesn't really believe in privacy except as a vague emotional concept, easily overridden by his next reaction.

Holy shit, I agree. And that's the point of all of this.

Rev.BigDumbChimp,

But O'Reilly was not selected for a hypocrisy demonstration, just out of the blue. He is popular and perceived (incorrectly I argue) as being "right wing". A better example of "privacy" hypocrisy might be a person, who is pro-choice on the basis of privacy arguments, yet sanctioned the perusal of public records for dirt on Joe the Plumber. If general hypocrisy was the concern, Obamas use of the politics of fear to push the stimulous package rather than on its relative merits, in contradiction of his compaign against the politics of fear, or John Kerry opposing the "draft" for political reasons, while having no compunction about requiring mandatory public service for graduation from high school.

Is it human nature to prefer more principled people like GW Bush to waffling unprincipled situational ethics people like John Kerry? If there is, I suspect it is related to principled peoople being more consistent and thus predictable, trustworthy and sincere. GW Bush didn't set the standard particularly high, but John Kerry clearly couldn't exceed it.

But O'Reilly was not selected for a hypocrisy demonstration, just out of the blue.

Correct. And there are many other examples of O'Reilly demonstrating his inability to live up to the standards he seems to require of others. The Falafel incident is a great example. This example cited here is another. I do think O'Reilly is right wing, but only because it is the easiest cause for him to take up and still be relevant with his style of "I CAN YELL LOUDER THAN YOU SO I AM RIGHT" entertainment.

He misses yet a more obvious connection, though--O'Reilly goes on about how celebrities are having their constitutionally protected right to privacy infringed upon, and that this is unacceptable. Yet he doesn't seem to care very much about private citizens of the US having their constitutional rights to privacy infringed upon by their country's government, with the warrantless wiretapping and Patriot Act.

Besides, it seems odd to evoke a constitutional right to privacy when talking about paparazzi, who are not agents of the government. It seems to me rather like bringing up the constitutional freedom of religion as an argument against door-to-door proselytisers. Still O'Reilly opposes the right to privacy in the cases where it is actually specifically applicable, with the government as the acting force, because that's all necessary for the war on terror.

Bill OæReilly is one of those with two assholes,and there seems to come more shit out of the top one than out of the other (haven't really checked, but if the opposite was the case he would have to make all his appearances sitting on a toilet).
Maybe he should learn to walk on his hands??
Or wear two diapers since he appears rather incontinent?

Why is Africangenesis still here? I though that P.Z. asked him to piss off? I'm by no means the board police; I'm just wondering.

PZ asked AG to piss off for at least 24 hours. That time is up. AG is still on the road to plonking though. If AG was smart, he/she/it would limit him/her/itself to say 10 posts per day. Or, better yet, find another blog to play in.

"I wonder if O'Reilly has ever caused someone to facepalm themselves unconscious." (#2)

Why yes, yes he has. My doctor has banned me from ever watching O'Liely again...

Jon Stewart has it easy, he only has to watch Bill for his material. On the down side, he has to watch Bill for his material...

*sigh* The right to privacy being Constitutionally protected means the government can't interfere with it. Ah, I see Maria has already beaten me to that point.

It's also a pretty legally dubious interpretation of the Constitution. It's accepted now, but was hardly the sharpest piece of jurisprudence (and yes, I do believe in the positive value of many of the effects, such as abortion choice and decriminalization of homosexuality (somehow, when Xtians say they just want to "lovingly" redirect homosexuals they forget that when they had their way they wanted to throw them in jail)).

Point being, I'm surprised to see O'Reilly advocating a Constitutional right to privacy in any form, given his obvious problems with most of the outcomes.

Posted by: David vun Kannon, FCD | February 11, 2009

Jon Stewart has it easy, he only has to watch Bill for his material. On the down side, he has to watch Bill for his material...

That is what his staff is for.

That is what his staff is for.

There's a joke in there somewhere...

Nerd of Redhead, OM:

PZ asked AG to piss off for at least 24 hours. That time is up. AG is still on the road to plonking though. If AG was smart, he/she/it would limit him/her/itself to say 10 posts per day. Or, better yet, find another blog to play in.

I prefer to use the Biblical notion of a day, and think that P.Z. really meant millions of years!

There's a joke in there somewhere...

There might very well be, but I don't think Bill would be laughing after experiencing the staff. Then again.. he's catholic, right?

Finally had the chance to see the vid. awesome. :)

Occasionally Bill's pinheadhood is a bit endearing, but at the end of the day he's a rocket arse and his behaviour doesn't justify his position of influence.

It should be legal for people to beat Bill O'Reilly over the head with a sledgehammer.