From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Krugman vs. O'Reilly -- watch the video

August 8, 2004 11:34 AM

Here is the full show in a 79 meg quicktime file on bittorrent.

I'm working on getting a few excerpts up.

UPDATE: Here are the excerpts.

UPDATE: Media Matters has a video clip of O'Reilly equating Media Matters with the Ku Klux Klan.

UPDATE: Here's the full transcript.

More from the archive in Media, Outfoxed.

Krugman vs. O'Reilly -- watch the video (08.08.2004)

Next Entry: O'Reilly lied about Outfoxed (08.08.2004)
Previous Entry: Outfoxed storms the box office on opening weekend! (08.08.2004)

Read the 47 comments.

Richard de los Santos:

I saw the Krugman O'Reilly exchange and I was angered, but not surprised. Today I went to see Outfoxed. It was dead on. Foxnews must be put down by the people.

O'Reilly would look very comfortable in knee high black boots screaming at those who disagree with him right before he sent them into the ovens.

What is happpening to this country?

Sun Aug 8 2004 2:06 PM


Observer:

Krugman folded like a house of wet cards, just goes to show that writing from behind the sheltered existance of a typewriter/computer is a lot easier than engaging with people face-face.

Sun Aug 8 2004 4:29 PM


sgo:

Where are the Liberals with the balls reach up and snap off that finger OReilly keeps giving us.
(see video, finger pointing at Krugman was rampant)

OReilly gets loud,,, we get silent,,, It's time to fight back, to stand up to this bully, even if it takes a screaming match. Someone needs to Tell him to Shut the Hell up, and mean it and back it up.

No More ,,If he gets loud,,we get loud...what's he gonna do ,, kick yer ass,, give me break...

Sun Aug 8 2004 6:43 PM


Brian M. Williamson:

No name "observer" ? Says "Krugman folded like a house of wet cards". Example please. I saw the last half. Krugman was articulate, interesting and reasonable. O'Reilly was busy with pre-emptive name calling. Example, paraphrased,
Krugman: we should roll back the tax cuts to the 2000 levels so we can have the government programs middle america expects.
Example, paraphrased
O'Reilly: You are a quasi socialist who wants government make work programs.

Who knows where I can get a transcript? I would like to be accurate as I refute Mr. "not post his name wet cards guy or girl". Was he even watching the same show? Don't even get me started on the whole O'Reilly gets called on the transcript and bait switches to the rant against Media Matters.

Sun Aug 8 2004 6:49 PM


jerry:

it is true that Krugman looked shakey. But he is not a t.v. personality. That said, when you can't refute the facts the only options are to yell,point and posture like your going to do something.

Sun Aug 8 2004 7:18 PM


Richard in SF:

This is my first time using bit torrent. I know it's a peer-to-peer method of distributing video for downlaod... but is it really supposed to take 2 hours to download a 79meg file -- at a rate of 3 kilobits per second?

not to be ungrateful but --- that's awfully slow... I thought one of the whole purposes of bit torrent was to speed up the process of downloading videos by breaking large media files into chunks that could then be more easily managed as download packets. but then again, i'm not a techie, so i probably have it all wrong. ... still, i'm confused.

Sun Aug 8 2004 7:59 PM


Jim Gilliam:

Actually, it's really just a way to share the bandwidth costs amongst a bunch of people, so no one site or person gets a huge bill.

Sun Aug 8 2004 8:08 PM


Chris McDevitt:

I thought Paul Krugman was calm, cool and collective in the face of a person who was
clearly out of control. I thought Krugman did
the best he could do, despite the fact that
Russert did not stop O'Reilly from interupting
Krugman or stop him from abusive labels. Also,
I think Russert owes his viewers the truth about
O'Reilly's false claims about the OUTFOXED movie.
He clearly lied and next week Russert should
call him on it. O"Reilly is a proven liar with
an anger management problem. I could win every
arguement with someone if I stood up and threatend
my opponent and then pummeled him with insults.
Also O'Reilly has claimed that Al Franken has lied
about him on numerous occasions, but he can never
cite a specific instance. Can we ask O"Reilly
what Franken has lied about ?
Again, Krugman did the best he could in the face
of a lunatic. Ask Jeremy Glick how imtimidating that kook can be ? The next person O'Reilly
does that to, the person should get up and deck
that idiot.

Sun Aug 8 2004 8:21 PM


Chris McDevitt:

I think Fox News should be renamed the Archie
Bunker Network. This is the network where a bunch
of bigots can get together and share their views.
Fox News is a joke, but everyone knows it. If
you don't want your narrow minded conservative views to be challenged this is where you go
to hide.

Sun Aug 8 2004 8:28 PM


Mike:

I saw Outfoxed this morning, you've done an amazing job. Had lunch with father and grandfather and told them briefly about the film, they were aware and seemed to have been innoculated against it already by Fox because they seemed to know a few talking points, as they did when I told them about F9/11.
Anyway I surfed around to Jim's blog as well as News Hounds and just watched Russert and while nothing I've seen surprises me, it does appear like a more organized coherent strategy by Fox and O'Reilly than I had previously given them credit for. First thing I saw when I went by Fox today was "fearmongering"

Oh yeah, Dean was great on MSNBC...

Keep up the good work!

Sun Aug 8 2004 10:17 PM


Anonymous:

I'm seeing 140+ kb/s download speeds with 24 seeding.

Thanks for sharing this, there's quite a few posts about this confrontation at various political forums so it's nice to be able to see the event.

Sun Aug 8 2004 10:25 PM


brian kuhlmann:

i wish someone would let me debate o'reilly..i'd call him on his lies and if he got physical, beat him down....

Sun Aug 8 2004 11:36 PM


john:

Just finished watching the entire segment.

Krugman is definitely not a TV personality, but he's definitely got considered, substantial points to make. O'Reilly did little more than point fingers, shout and practice the same kind of defamation he so famously deplores.

...Which is why I was completely taken aback to see what the Freepers are saying about it (their thread happens to be the first link that comes up on a Google search for "O'Reilly Krugman"). They seem to think that O'Reilly cleaned up which change to spare. Did I miss something?

Mon Aug 9 2004 9:08 AM


Robby:

I guess I could call 9/11 legitimate if I did it in a calm voice. People talk loud when they are passionate. I guess when you here Michael Moore blaming america for the worlds problems you agree because he says it softly. Martin Luther King spoke loudly too. Was a a lunatic? So lets end that arguement right now.

Everyone knows how well Fox News is doing, and Oreilly is cleaning up him time slot. Its not even a close race. But lets not focus on Oreilly, but foxnews in general.

Fox news is a joke? How come its kicking the other networks' collective butts? Explain to me why that is someone? Maybe people are tired of turning on CNN and watching some terrorist tell us how bad America is. America is a beacon of freedom on this planet, but if you were to watch the CNN or read the Times you would think that we were the scurge of the world.

When is the last time CNN or New York Times reported anything good going on in Iraq. How about the Children getting vacinated? How about the olympics teams that wont be tortured if they loose this year? How about the new schools that are springing up? How about the Newpapers which now total over 200 and are freely reporting in a country that would have killed them and their children a couple years ago.

You dont hear these stories on other networks and you certainly wont find them printed on the front page of the Times. When an American gets there head chopped off its on page 14 on day two. An terrorist stands naked with underwear on his head and it runs everyday for months on the front page and claims nothing but outrage. You may find that fine, but I dont.

Its simple, I just ask myself which network the terrorists would rather watch, then pick the other one.

Way to go Fox News and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Mon Aug 9 2004 12:21 PM


Mike:

Agree wholeheartedly with Robby. The main problem with liberals is that they think they are more enlightened and therefore smarter than everyone else. That's how they come to think America, by virtue of being a superpower, is wrong to assert itself while any disaffected group, no matter how violent, must be "understood" That thinking permeates the Times for sure. They illogically blame the government (Bush or Clinton) for a failure to "imagine" and prevent 9/11 but are against preemption. Watch who screams the loudest when another attack happens.

Since they are smarter, they also think that there is a government "program" (fueled by higher taxes) that will fix everything, forgetting about how most poorly bureaucracies work. Been to any Motor Vehicles Dept. lately? Enough, I'm for a government that protects us (its primary function) by playing offense not defense and lets us spend our own money more productively than government can.

Mon Aug 9 2004 12:51 PM


Juan:

You know what I found humorous about O'Reilly's critique of 'Outfoxed'. He said they just cut and pasted things to make him and the Faux News Channel look bad. Then, when watching his show last week(I find his rants and misinformation amusing) he cut and pasted his highlight of the debate with Krugman. Man, he is so dishonest it is scary.

Mon Aug 9 2004 1:59 PM


Letsatdelc:

The link to the video doesn't seem to work. Any chance for a fix?

Mon Aug 9 2004 4:29 PM


Paul Stone:

Robby said, "When is the last time CNN or New York Times reported anything good going on in Iraq."

If you really want some good news, the only good news I can see is that this failed war and it's disastrous consequences are going to be Bush's legacy and will haunt the Republican party for years to come.

Mon Aug 9 2004 7:19 PM


Dan K:

Krugman is an academic. A professor of economics with degrees from Yale and MIT. With that said, I don't know why he was debating a bitter washed up tv personality who berates every person who disagrees with him. O'reilly called himself an 'analyst' - and said to Krugman, 'i'm an analyst you're just an op-ed guy who spreads propoganda' (i'm paraphrasing)
Then he proceeded to yell yell and yellllll

Tue Aug 10 2004 12:19 AM


mike:

Robby

Please re-read your post and fix all errors so you don't so dumb. Thanks buddy

Tue Aug 10 2004 1:28 AM


Stan G.:

Mike--

"so you don't so dumb?" Huh?

Pot, kettle, black. I've seen said.

Dan K.--

O'Reilly's washed up? Really? I'd love to know where you drew this absurd conclusion.

O’Reilly uncompromisingly held Krugman to account for some of the outrageous (and outrageously wrong) things Krugman’s written in his Times columns. In one case, when Krugman denied what O’Reilly accused him of having said, O’Reilly told him, “Don’t call me a liar, pal. That’s what you do all the time, and I’m not going to sit here and take it.” We should all do that by reading the Wall Streey Journal instead of the Times.

Tue Aug 10 2004 5:15 AM


DRC:

For the O'Reilly supporters out there in TV land: where did Bill "Inside Edition" O'Reilly, in a calm articulate INFORMED manner, refute what Paul was saying? Does a Polk award also equate to an economics degree? The only thing O'Reilly 'uncompromisingly held' was his feeble manhood in a screaming contest. And as far as Bill being a honest fellow and not slandering people, he's had to apologize to Molly Ivans and was damn near about to get sued by Eric Alterman for saying Eric was a fan of Castro. He has constantly misrepresented his little scream fest with Jeremy Glick (which either shows he's a liar and deliberately spinning or a liar and a mental midget concerning international affairs and history and shouldn't be looked up to for world affairs commentary and news.)

Tue Aug 10 2004 8:28 AM


Brian U:

To Stan G.
Since you are accusing Krugman of being “outrageously wrong” with out context, I want to set the record straight.

Krugman argued all along in his column that if we want to use Keynesian (stimulus) economics to spur the economy the best way to do so would be to give the economy an IMMEDIATE injection of stimulus (either non-military spending or tax cuts because both work equally well for a Keynesian).

Bush’s tax program gave the bulk of the tax cuts to the rich. (the rich do not increase spending, instead they invest. Investment is important; however, the economy did not have a lack of capital it had a lack of consumer confidence.) Furthermore, most of the tax cuts were slated to begin YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. How does this help spur the economy?

The whole tax break system was an inefficient plan to create job growth. I am defining inefficient in the number of dollars spent to create a job. There are much cheaper ways to get at Bush’s meager job growth.

Tue Aug 10 2004 8:39 AM


Bobby H:

FYI:

Paul Krugman - Ph.D., M.I.T. in Economics, Bachelor's degree from Yale

Bill O'Reilly - Master's in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Master's Degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University, Bachelor's degree in history from Marist College

Tue Aug 10 2004 9:51 AM


Robby:


Paul's post is a perfect example to prove a point. He doesn’t have any idea that anything good is coming from this war because the liberal networks refuse to show him any. I guess you can’t consider freedom for the people of Iraq good news. Your politics are so blind you discount the greatest benefit of the war.

Do you realize what Saddam was like? Imagine Bush sent chemical weapons to Mass. and killed 180,000 people because they disagreed with him.
This is the leader who would still be in power if this "failed war" never took place.

This leads me to the situation I just can not understand. The arguments against this war, if sincere and not merely for political gain, promotes the agenda of the former dictator. Whether it is intentional or isn’t, it provides comfort to the enemy. It's the same thing with Michael Moore's movie as well as the words from the liberal leaders such as Kennedy. Do you realize these words are being used TODAY to promote the cause of the enemy? Do you know the most quoted American on Al-Jazeer is Sen. Kennedy?

Listen. Liberals love to point the finger at Bush and say he made the word hate us. But at the same time, the Michael Moore's of the liberal party are making movies and giving speeches which are being used by terrorist organizations for promotion or evil.
Just think. The movie that you praise is also being praised by the same people who slaughtered 3000 of your fellow Americans. Doesn't that ever make you stop and think? How do you square that with yourself?

I wouldn’t be able to sleep. I couldn’t. I would question my affiliation everyday, every hour, every second.

Tue Aug 10 2004 10:19 AM


Paul Stone:

Robby said, "Imagine Bush sent chemical weapons to Mass. and killed 180,000 people because they disagreed with him."

Bush sent American troops to Iraq and killed upwards of 11,000 civilians because he wanted to play cowboy.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/index.php#iraqi

Robby said, "Do you realize these words are being used TODAY to promote the cause of the enemy?"

Hogwash.

Tue Aug 10 2004 11:22 AM


Pauly Krutulski:

I would just like to say to all you left wing, liberal, facist bombthrowers that the only reason you have to criticze O'Reilly is because he backs up everything he says with FACTS, something you liberals don't deal in! If you in any way support Krugman, then perhaps they should rebuild the soviet union so you could move there you commies!!

Tue Aug 10 2004 11:24 AM


Friendly Liberal:

I believe kerry when he said he wants a more sensitive war. I for one want to get Saddam released from Americas torture chambers. America clearly has no idea how to run Iraq. Let Saddam go back to power he at least had control over his own people. What the heck is a matter with you Republican Neo nazi's?

Lets get Kerry into office so I can travel to France without fear of people acting mean to me.
It hurts my feelings. We all live on the same planet we need to learn to tolerate our differences.

Tue Aug 10 2004 2:46 PM


Don't mess with Texas:

Someone give this guy a Hug

Tue Aug 10 2004 3:20 PM


Paul Stone:

Robby, is this the good news you are talking about?

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005333.html

Tue Aug 10 2004 4:50 PM


Quattro:

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past.

But now that he's become Sen. John Kerry's leading campaign attack dog, positioning himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.

It's time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why Sen. Kerry's chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words Mary Jo Kopechne out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of
the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking
and partying with the young campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.

Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats'leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier -- for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final.

Or why the USArmy denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.


And if the Republicans don't, let's do it ourselves by passing this forgotten disgrace around the Internet to wake up memories of what a
fraud and fake Teddy really is.

The Democratic Party, not to mention Sen. John Kerry, should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman.


Who out there wants to admit they support Ted Kennedy and his opinions on what is right and wrong? Which one of you agrees with this man?

Wed Aug 11 2004 6:54 AM


Quattro:

May she rest in peace.

Wed Aug 11 2004 7:07 AM


Quattro:

http://www.ytedk.com/mjkopechne.htm

Wed Aug 11 2004 7:07 AM


Max:

What might be more fun than breaking O'Reilly's finger off re:

"Where are the Liberals with the balls reach up and snap off that finger OReilly keeps giving us."

might be to mock him in the same manner. In other words, every time he starts wagging his finger, every guest on his show who knows better starts wagging their finger back and asking "What is this, what is this finger wagging? Don't you have any manners?" Best of all, since O'Reilly would be talking, he couldn't really edit it out... Shame's a powerful force, and the best way to get someone to alter their bad mannerisms is to embarrass them using the same. "Good God, O'Reilly, did you just fart?"

Wed Aug 11 2004 8:00 PM


Luis (jetblue71@comcast.net):

Your link to the video doesn't work - it downloads a 26kb file "2004-08-07_russert_oreilly_krugman[1][1].mov[www.lokitorrent.com]," which isn't playable. I'd really like to see the video. Thanks.

Thu Aug 12 2004 5:13 AM


ARK:

This is probably the best post I've seen on this:

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

O'Reilly basically makes stuff up. He can't point to sources of anything ever (case in point: claiming that Krugman said there would be a recession).

And saying there are more liberals than conservatives on Fox? Come on.

Nowhere on the clip http://www.jimgilliam.com/video/krugman_vs_oreilly_200.mov did I see Krugman shaking. I think that's just post-game analysis by right-wingers. Krugman was calm because he knows O'Reilly is a nut who only gets ahead by yelling at people and calling them names.

Thu Aug 12 2004 7:44 PM


tekstacer:

Today is the day that bill O'reily caught you guys cutting and pasting your information. That is the worst offense commited by a journalist. Shame on you, Krugman is a illusionist and you all buy it. Put the facts out, not some edited version of the quote: way it should be.

Sat Aug 14 2004 8:04 PM


Jim Gilliam:

Uh, we did put the facts out, tekstacer.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/08/oreillys_smear_campaign_in_quicktime.php

And the quote wasn't edited.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/08/oreilly_lied_about_outfoxed.php

Sat Aug 14 2004 8:09 PM


Yuma:

There just may be a reason The Right's greatest, or at least most commonly received in the field of political analasis, haralds come in the form of people whose sole idea of debate is belittling anyone who has a contrary opinion. As for the reason, I can't say.

Sat Aug 14 2004 8:47 PM


Michael Edwards:

Americans like Shwartzeneger type personalities. Guys who like to kick ass. Its unfortunate that they usually do not listen to the cooler more rational minds because they are perceived as weak.
I don't see many liberal minds that are as beligerent as these conservative talk show guys. I guess what we are still looking for is someone to tell Oreilly to calm down or shut up. See how good that feels. I think we should offer suggestions through this forum so that whoever steps up to the plate against these guys has some amunition. What we need are many great one liners and then two or three facts or statements to back them up.
1.) Tell Oreilly that all he does is take cheap shots. (just like he acuses others of) and give 3 examples.
2.) Look him straight in the eye and tell him to calm down or shut up.
3.) Ask him if all conservatives have no manners and go around waving fingers in peoples faces.
4.) Tell him to get his finger out of your face before you break it off and shove it up his large nostril.
5.) Tell him that bullies are just over compensating, fearful cowards.
6.) Since when did all disagreements with government policy become traitorous acts? Truth only threatens the guilty.
7.) Ask him why he spends an inordinate amount of time trying to defend what he perceives as attacks against him. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
8.) Spending much of his air time accusing other people of lying about him makes him look silly. Like a guy who is terrified of loosing his job or position. Are you really just a scaredy cat underneath that bullies exterior Bill?

Anyway you get the idea. Arm yourself with powerful one liners and use great cliches from popular movies. Deliver the punch lines. Always have at least two and better three facts to back yourself up in case of retorts. This is what the American people want to see. They would love someone to start kicking ass.
Remember Clint Eastwood. He goes into town, tries to do some good, gets caught and beat up by the bad guys, recovers with some help from his friends, comes back and kicks ass. This is what America loves.

Now go kick some butt.

Michael

Sun Aug 15 2004 8:12 AM


Tom:

As long as we have O'Reilly's in the media we will have fear. As long as we have Lumbaugh's we will have distrust. They will not go away, they feed off the dark side of human nature's need to hate others because they are different. The worst thing we can do to hate-mongers is to ignore them and boycott their sponsors. We need to understand the issues; learn about them from a variety of news sources and decide things for ourselves. As far as Bill O'Reilly is conserned and others like him, I think the latin phrase is illigittimi noncorburundum. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

Sun Aug 15 2004 4:16 PM


Michael Edwards:

There's problems with liberals and conservatives.
In the extremes it is an unresolvable dilemma.

Conservatives believe in what they see around them, which is in short survival of the fittest. So it’s too bad for the weak or the doomed.

Liberals, on the other hand, have a sense of entitlement. I am a good person and should not be having a hard time. Those with, should give to those without. Screw the corporations and all those who live their life in the pursuit of money. Money is the great corruptor. However, I sure liked riding in your Mercedes it is too cool. And, many of the more well off liberals rale against the establishement which endowed them with the money in the first place. We should do right by all the poor people but don't take my stuff ok?

So the prime difficulty is different in each case.

For conservatives it is greed and selfishness.

For liberals it is hypocracy and selfishness.

Conservatives try to deny the greed saying they are doing so much good by creating jobs etc. Meanwhile they're robbing anybody blind who will buy their bs.

Liberals have a passive agressive selfishness. They seem to be in complete denial that they have all the traits they are accusing others of having.

There are two things I can't stand. Blatantly selfish uncaring conservative bastards and oh so caring liberals spouting hypocritical utter nonsense.

I see no solution. Just inevitability.

Ultimately we have to learn to get along with all types of different races, religions, cults, sexual orientations, cultural preferences, lifestyle preferences etc. etc.. This is a liberal idea. It is inevitable. And I don't think we can do it. So there is going to be hell to pay with the polarized going after one another in holi Jihads of east and west, black and white, etc etc with high casualties and much collateral damage. In the end it will truly be the meek who inherit whats left. What has to be done is nothing short of the breaking down of every religion into pieces, every prejudice into pieces, every misunderstanding into understanding. How can we do it? I don't think we can. Religion has become the antithesis of spirituality. Religions instead of being great uniters have become the great polorizers. Instead of teaching spiritual activities they have become weapons of faith in the fear of their own disolution. "Every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints." For when you look at it only in black and white, good and bad, opposite polarities, then this chaos is the inevitable. There are many ways to think. but very few ways to live that will not, in the end, further humanity’s suffering.

Sun Aug 15 2004 8:20 PM


Yuma:

Very poetic Michael; you make a valid point. It is of the utmost importance that people don't let themselves become subjigated to the titles such as liberal or conservative. The ultimate repose will be the day that the American people make decisions based solely for the sake of the advancement of humanity, here and throughout the world, versus the preconceived doctrines of the political machine. I do, however, have one suggestion concerning this: That we, the American people, place first concern in the destitute and those who feel disenfranchised of this country, before we spill American blood for the sake of doing the same around the World. Unless we do so the fate of our very Republic may be at risk.

Mon Aug 16 2004 9:28 AM


Skye:

O'Reilly was trying to explain how the economy works to Krugman, a professor of economics (I think I'll help Vijay Singh with his putting). Krugman told O'Reilly that, "It's impossible to have civil discourse with you". He said this because the Foxers interrupt, shout, and intimidate "guests" on the left. This is what O'Reilly did to Krugman.

When NPR has guests from both sides on, they give them equal talk time without interruption or spin, and lets the listener decide.

It's called civil discourse.

Unlike O'Reilly Factor, they do not explain (spin) an interview to you that they just showed you. They don't have to, because they know their listeners are critical thinkers who do not need to be led by the hand.

Can you imagine Terri Gross telling someone to shut up, or cutting off a conservative guest's mic (CUT HIS MIC! CUT HIS MIC!!)? Have you ever seen George Stephanopolis point his finger in someone's face and yell at them (SHUT UP!!)?

Someone speculated that Libs think they are smarter. I can see why we would think that when you watch Fox and listen to Hannity and Rush, then turn on NPR. It's like going from Jerry Springer to Phil Donahue.

Mon Aug 30 2004 10:34 AM


Anonymous:

Syke O'reilly will never ever call you out for own opinion. When you state delusions, or distort facts that's when he goes into attack mode. Guys like Al Franken and Moore are first class sh1t rackers who paste,cut, and edit their so-called references and facts..taking them completely out of fucking context. It's these guys who will bash you for having an opinion that differs from them and it's just sad to see people sticking up for scumbags like Franken and Moore who decry this great country and all that it stands for, yet make millions because of the opportunities offered. First class hypocrisy across the fucking board.

I'm not a left wing radical pinhead or an ultra conservative elitist prick but in all honesty O'Reilly has far more integrity than the Moore's of this world who rake sh1t so skillfully and deceptively they could have you believing Saddam wasn't an imminent threat to the US and it's surrounding countries.

Tue Sep 7 2004 4:57 PM


raging red:

Man, you are seriously deluded if you think O'Reilly has journalistic integrity. That is such a ridiculous statement it almost renders me speechless.

Tue Sep 7 2004 9:50 PM


Richard:

Krugman is a hypocrite just like all the left wing..... he knocks O'reilly for quoting a bias study from the Washington Post, then turns around and completely misquotes the unemployment numbers!!! What a hypocrite, at least O'Reilly came outright and told everyone where his numbers came from before he quoted them. Krugman didn't even say where his numbers were from...


Prof. KRUGMAN: "George Shultz is a good economist and a partisan Republican. He's a good enough economist that he knows how to make a chart that is true but misleading..."

"The fact is--simple comparison--in the 2002 economic report of the president, which they--you know, this is the Bush administration that's put out after 9/11, it's put out after the stock market crash--they said by--you know, on average in 2004, we're going to have 138 million payroll jobs in the United States. The actual number right now is about 131 million..."

OMG!!! he didn't even say that the private sector has increased jobs that account for about 6 million, a 230% increase. wow, it's also funny he didn't want to mention we have the lowest unemployment rate since the middle of Clinton's admin. it's too bad Liberals rarely know the facts!! i wish he would have brought up minorities, so we could say that black home ownership increases are up 2% since clintons regime, and poverty enttitlements are higher than ever b4.

Wed Mar 15 2006 1:58 PM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart