August 14, 2004 6:44 PM
As a followup to my Krugman vs. O'Reilly clips from earlier this week, the Outfoxed team put this two and half minute video together of O'Reilly's smear campaign against us, along with a point-by-point rebuttal from the film.
O'Reilly's smear campaign -- in Quicktime (08.14.2004)
Next Entry: McCain-Feingold -- a huge failure? (08.14.2004)
Previous Entry: More theaters for Outfoxed (08.14.2004)
Movie link is broken...
Sat Aug 14 2004 8:43 PM
Paul Stone:
Nice job with the videos. It amazes me that O'Reilly keeps trying to lie about his own past statements, when he should know by now that he's going to be caught.
Sat Aug 14 2004 11:53 PM
tony:
nicely done jim
will o'reilly, once he admits defeat, say that he was spinning or lying?
Sun Aug 15 2004 2:26 AM
Those are very large wingtips: how does he fit them all the way into his mouth?
If I were him, I'd just shut up.
(You're doing a hell of a job, Jim. Kudos.)
Sun Aug 15 2004 10:16 AM
I think he'll use the classic line: "my analysis was wrong."
Happens to the best of us.
Sun Aug 15 2004 11:36 AM
Michael Edwards:
Modern Conservative Ideas:
Idea of Compassion: A good beating
Idea of conversation: I talk you listen.
Reaction to a progressive, open minded, or tolerant idea: Shear terror followed by knee jerk reaction of anger.
Reaction to losing an arguement: Hit the mute button - Bash Clinton.
Problem solving (the easiest solution): Bash it, Kill it , make it disapear.
A winner: Anyone who thinks like me.
Balancing the budget: Increase military spending.
Environmental policy: Save the large companies.
A good economy: My company is doing fine.
Good Sex: Screwing a liberal in the ___.
Sun Aug 15 2004 11:59 AM
NightandFog:
The is only one word to discribe Bill OLieLee.
Oink.
Sun Aug 15 2004 7:00 PM
Anonymous:
Great job. I really enjoyed that.
Mon Aug 16 2004 3:04 PM
newsjunkie:
Thanks Jim. Great job.
I really enjoyed that.
Mon Aug 16 2004 3:05 PM
Daniel Barnett:
I can't believe he compared medimatters to the KKK, but then I don't watch much of this clown. Great job Jim this little clip convinced me to order Outfoxed, I'm looking forward to watching it.
Mon Aug 16 2004 4:04 PM
Baps:
I was not planning to see outfoxed. Now after watching these clips, I am going to see it and show it to my friends.
Mon Aug 16 2004 6:09 PM
noseitall:
Krugman was obviously intimidated by the big loud mouth, probably kicks his dog too. To bad he doesn't run up against someone that is itching for a fight like he is, then they may get a word in, Spike Lee said it best when asked why he son't go on his show "Those kind of shows are rigged"
Mon Aug 16 2004 10:15 PM
hteah:
i saw outfoxed and thought it was good, but its sooo obvious that fox is propaganda, took me about 30 seconds watching it to figure that one out.
like the "somepeoplesay" part
Tue Aug 17 2004 5:35 AM
McG:
I think Bill would just assume die than admit to being wrong.
Tue Aug 17 2004 11:48 AM
Bill:
I'd be nice if the link worked.
Thu Aug 19 2004 10:47 AM
victoria:
I watch the Fox network and the O'Reilly show so I can be even more motivated to spread the word that we need a new president like now!!O'Reilly,did'nt he work as an anchor for a gossip show?O'Reilly is rude,he only sees it one way ..his!New York Times..Rocks!O'Reilly so called show is a farce for his narrow opinions.
Thu Aug 19 2004 11:31 AM
Terry:
I thought liberals liked diversity? Oh I see, you can dish it but you can't take it.
Fri Aug 20 2004 7:58 PM
Steve:
Terry, your statement is completely false.
Bill O'Reilly dishes it out, but when it comes back at him, he silences opponents by saying "Shut up."
It is not liberals who "can dish it out but...can't take it." It is conservatives who "can dish it out but...can't take it."
Wake up!
Sat Aug 21 2004 10:51 PM
Bob:
Definition:
Liberal
adj.1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
It puzzles me the way people are accused of being liberal as if it's something bad, aren't even Republicans, by definition, liberal? Unless of course, they're not broad-minded, tolerant, or open minded.
Sat Aug 21 2004 11:18 PM
Have you seen the following article that was e-mailed to me yesterday?
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON, Editor, Capitol Hill BlueJul 28, 2004, 08:09
President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately. "It's a double-edged sword," says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally." Angry Bush walked away from reporter's questions. Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay. "Keep those motherfuckers away from me," he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I'll find someone who can." Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts. Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac" and "untreated alcoholic" whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad" showcase Bush's instabilities.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated." Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School. The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President. "President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds. The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article. Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are "powerful medications" designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease. It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office. One long-time GOP political consultant who - for obvious reasons - asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush. "We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes," he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country."
Just the FAQsWho, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?
Capitol Hill Blue was launched by ex-newspaperman Doug Thompson in October 1994. That makes us the oldest surviving news site on the Internet. But don't take our word for it. Go to Google and see if you can find anything older.Blue's editor is Terry Hampton, another journalist who began her career with newspapers. She is joined by a rotating group of current and ex-newspaper men and women. Some still work for news organizations and use Capitol Hill Blue as an outlet for the stories their outfits don't have the guts to publish. Others are retired, but can't give up the Muse.
Nobody here draws a salary. Blue is a not-for-profit operation where everyone donates their time. Although we run ads, all revenue from those ads goes to charity.
How do I reach you?
You can reach our editors at [email protected]How often do you publish?
Capitol Hill Blue is produced daily, seven-days-a-week, 365-days a year (366 on Leap Years) and is updated throughout the day.What are your politics?
None. We believe it is the job of journalists to report the news, not be influenced by political beliefs or bias. Our publisher took break from journalism in the 80s to work for Republicans but is, and always has been, a registered independent voter. Neither he nor our editor have ever voted a straight ticket. We consider ourselves recovering newspapermen. A few also served sentences on Capitol Hill. Experience in either, or both, of these endeavors creates political agnostics.We subscribe to legendary Chicago journalist Finley Peter Dunne's believe that it is the role of a newspaperman to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
Should we believe what you print simply because you say it is so?
Absolutely not. You should read many publications and draw your own conclusions. We insist that every story published on Blue have at least two independent, verifiable sources for any and all of the information in that story. We have a good track record but, as with any product produced by human beings, we can -- and do -- make mistakes. But when we are wrong, we admit it. Thankfully, we seldom have to.Who owns Blue?
Blue is owned by The Save America Foundation, a private foundation funded entirely out of Thompson's personal resources. Like its benefactor, Save America has no political leanings, no hidden agenda and owes nothing to nobody. Our only goal is to follow the truth wherever it leads and then print it. Once we do, we don't much care who gets mad about it.Why is it called Capitol Hill Blue?
We're not really sure. If there was a reason back in 1994 it has long since been forgotten.
Sun Aug 22 2004 7:15 AM
spree:
This site here, is very cool.
At first, I posted this huge comment(I looked back at it and said "I can't post all of this...lol). I just want to say Great job! I think anyone who believes Bill O'pile-ee and the O'Pile-ee Sphyncter, are a buncha fecalphiez. I guess a seccessful "terrorist" would be successful in corupting the media, the American economy and ensuring that they are immune to our justice system. I think the mass media is doing a great job for their terrorist employers! I say terrorist, because I feel that's what they are if they are going to sell America out like that. When O'Pile-ee's drugs kick in, I wonder where America's awareness level of the complicity will be...or will Orwell's prophecy be at fruition(If it isnt already...lol). Sorry for the long post...Remove it if it sucks.
Sun Aug 22 2004 4:11 PM
Craig:
As someone who agrees with the larger message in Outfoxed about the problems with Fox and Murdoch, and the criticisms of Bill O'Reilly in general, and is happy to see him and Fox exposed - I thought the 'shutup' sequence in Outfoxed was not that strong.
Some of the shutups did not fit the kind he said he'd only done once - when he directly ordered a guest to shutup. For example, when he was saying he wanted to see a certain group of people 'shutup'.
The example here, with the gay man, doesn't fit either as I see it: what he meant when he said he 'wants him to shut up about sex' seems to mean that *when he was a teenager and came out*, O'Reilly wanted him to shut up about sex instead of coming out - not telling him to shut up then.
Including these sorts of examples may increase the number of times the words shut up comes out of O'Reilly's mouth, but they undermine the point: if he said it'd happened once, and these samples can't even include all examples that are legitimately him telling a guest to shut up, it implies that over a long period of time it was very rare that he did it.
While it scores a 'debater's point' that he said it was only once and it was a little more, that's not the sort of important exposing that's needed for him and Fox, and the inclusion of misleading examples leaves a stronger impression than catcthing him in that error or small lie.
Truth-exposing documentaries are often judged largely by their weakest item, and I see no reason to include anything dubious for them to be able to hold up in interviews like that on TV. Stick to the unassailable facts about important issues - despite the good *look* to the segment.
Unfortunately, that good look to the shutup sequence came at the price of partly vindicating O'Reilly in his claim of the sequence being 'propaganda', upon examination.
But keep up the good work and thanks for exposing so much.
Mon Aug 23 2004 9:18 AM
Sergio:
************************************
Liberal
adj.1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
************************************My only problem with this is the fact that with the liberal concept of "tolerance" comes the tolerance of anything and everything...including idiotic beliefs.
Tue Aug 24 2004 7:30 PM
psatm:
Glad to see the footage on O'Reilly, especially glad that he and others are starting to be held accountable for their smear tactics and distortions of the truth.
I have to say that I'm really getting tired of seeing those representing the left, or the Democratic Party, or liberals in general, coming off as weak and spineless in the face of the likes of O'Reilly and others whenever they are in a debate.
Krugman may be highly intelligent and dead-on with the facts, but he was shouted down by O'Reilly at every turn. Shaking one's head, smiling, and muttering to one's self does not make a strong impression on the audience against the likes of O'Reilly.
What are we afraid of, anyway? Who's right and who's wrong? Take Michael Moore's cue, stand up and make a strong point. All of us. Right now.
Wed Aug 25 2004 4:18 AM
None of the links work on this page. and I can't select or email this page. whats up?
Wed Aug 25 2004 7:55 AM
The link:
The link does work. It just takes about 3 minutes for it to activate.
Wed Aug 25 2004 11:37 AM
Dan Fox:
Killer site Jim! Keep up the good work. Seriously thinking about changing my last name....
Thu Aug 26 2004 12:58 PM
Josh:
This is a pretty weak argument against O'Reilly. Face it - Krugman looked like a lost child and used too much of his time making childish one-liners. Now, Krugman may write a good article, but he should stay away from any debating.
I keep hearing charges that FNC is right-wing, but there is a large lack of evidence here. The small stats about Brit Hume are misleading. Anyone who watches FNC regularly knows that they have left and right presenting opinions on just about every issue.
Tue Aug 31 2004 2:57 PM
Skye:
The reason Krugman seemed so weak is because he is accustomed to civil discourse, not a fight club. He even told Bill O,Really? that "it is impossible to have civil discourse with you". I'll bet he thought he would have a fair shot on "neutral" territory.
Russert let O'Really? control the show (a set up?).
People on the left usually have the goods on the conservatives, but they get Outfoxed. The Foxers (mainly Hannity and O,Really?) use bully tactics like interrupting, yelling, and constantly changing the subject in order to keep the leftie off-balance.
You have to prepare for a Fox appearance, as it is a booby trap. Howard Dean was ready for Hannity, and Outfoxed him. He was literally laughing at Hannity.
The Outfoxed DVD is a mighty sword because it tells you specifically what you are walking in to.
Tue Aug 31 2004 7:09 PM
Ray:
Why do you post the definiton of the word liberal and imply the left wing fits it? It does not. You are not open minded when it comes to poeple in your own party who disagree on issues such as abortion. Nor do you allow poeple of color who disagree with Affrimitive action to speak and be heard.
As for Fox news, Why are they rated so high? Because all poeple are stupid and easily fooled? We need Moveon.org to show us the way? I think not. Use your money to slove a real problem and stop your lies and smears.
Wed Sep 1 2004 6:41 AM
Craig - with regard to the "shut ups" in Outfoxed, I have to disagree with you. I believe it shows quite well how O'Reilly thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him should just shut up. If the gay kid is harassed after coming out, O'Reilly's response isn't to attack the harassers, it's to tell the kid he should have just "shut up about his sexual orientation." The argument in the movie wasn't - hey, look how many times O'Reilly tells people to shut up! - it just showed the shut ups without any precise argument - O'Reilly's tactics speak for themselves.
On O'Reilly in general - No matter what party you belong to or whether you agree with O'Reilly or not, I do not see how any thinking, reasonable person could have any amount of respect for O'Reilly. Thinking, reasonable people should be capable of having a calm, rational DISCUSSION about any issue, without resorting to shouting and finger-pointing.
During that exchange between O'Reilly and Krugman, it seriously looked like O'Reilly was about to jump out of his chair and pummel Krugman. And over what? A discussion about THE EFFECT OF TAX CUTS ON THE ECONOMY. There is no reason that a discussion about fiscal policy should result in fisticuffs (I love that word). To say that O'Reilly somehow won "the debate" with Krugman just because he yelled louder and Krugman just sat there is ridiculous.
The major problem with O'Reilly as I see it isn't his viewpoint (which I tend to disagree almost every time), it's the manner in which he tries to get his viewpoint across. I'm not going to seriously consider his opinion if he communicates it by shouting and pointing his finger in people's faces. I'm sure Krugman would love to sit down with anyone and have a serious discussion about economics. It's just impossible to do that with O'Reilly.
Wed Sep 1 2004 9:48 AM
mpd:
Outfoxed is simply just cuts of video parts put together. Krugman for most points is a complete and utter moron. He never answers really any question that is asked and keeps acting as if the debt ceiling for the congressional extention of the modetary policy has ever been denied (it hasn't)
The largest holders of the national debt are foreign and if they ever choose to dump the dollar it hurts them as us exports are chepaer and imports are more expensive.
Like it or not people tend to get more conservative as they get older. We have 75 million baby boomers about a quarter of the country that is set to retire soon. I highly doubt they will feel togetherness with the democratic party now that it has tried to add platforms of gay marriage and appeasement.
Thu Sep 16 2004 6:22 PM
Vaughn:
"Like it or not people tend to get more conservative as they get older"
This another false generalization from the right. In fact, the baby boomers lived through the great cultural and ideological revolution of the '60s. Personally, I have never seen such an outpouring of disgust for right-wing bigotry, hatred, and big corporate greed. Anyone who thinks the Democratic party consists mainly of young people is delusional.
Fri Sep 17 2004 5:53 AM
Jeff:
If the clips of Outfoxed you have on this site are anywhere near the best you have, you have a problem. The only people you are convincing with this snivelling lesson in semantics are the ones who were already convinced. The most interesting thing about what I've seen of your "O'Reilly lies" clip is what you DIDN'T "correct." Maybe some of your sheep will take a closer look at the fact that the liberal media (redundant) didn't even review O'Reilly's book when it was outselling everything on the shelf?
Sun Sep 26 2004 7:39 PM
elesterb:
Fox/O'Reilly/Bush succeed because they traffic in oversimplification. Bush is applauded for "believing what he says". But what does this mean?
Doubt is a function of intellectual vigor. Doubt is created by challenging our own assumptions. The ability to doubt allows one to change one's mind in the face of facts. Celebrating Bush's "believing what he says" is tantamount to celebrating his inability to doubt, or put more directly, his inability to think.The fact the Fox News has a large audience or that O'Reilly's books sell well has nothing to do with their journalistic/intellectual honesty--which are the matters at stake here.
Fri Oct 1 2004 1:07 PM
Null:
O'Reilly is an agrogant lamer who definately can't take opinions not on common ground with his own.
Yes he bullied Krugman into shutting up and sitting there, but you could easy see O'Reilly trying to bring together lies to defend himself, and trying to stretch an agrument to his favor, failing in the process.
If I was Krugman, I would have sit there shaking my head with the "You are soo full of shit" look on my face.
You let O'Reilly talk his way into a nice fat trap then tear his ass apart with the truth. Krugman lacked the later part til the end, You could see Krugman was getting ready to lay down some law and let O'Reilly have it, but like Krugman said, it's not his show and his mike could be just shut off.
I bet if you stuck O'Reilly on the street and he got into the same debate, he would back out like a chump, he's empowered by TV, and it's his ego being feed that makes him agressive, take that away and he's nothing, a nobody, powerless, no skills, a weak little prick who is at the mercy of those around him.
Wed Oct 6 2004 2:16 PM
David:
The sick sad truth is that I had to nearly force a friend of mine to sit through this movie. ( he is a rabid Fox watcher )
It's a near insanity, to be programmed so well that even the idea of watching another point of view caused him physical pain. But he sat through it. I think I may have permanently distroyed or harmed our friendship. But now he admits it's all
political ass kissing.As for Bill O'Reilly , he is in a word .. Crasy
He has lied so much and so often that it is part of who he is. Yes, he is so insaine he actually belives what he is saying. and thus , the insaine cannot be prosecuted.It's a mad mad world. 10's of thousands dead. of that, 1000+ dead american soldiers (and counting)
all based on lies.Freedom is just an illusion now, Wrapped in gleaming red white and blue Fox Graphics
Thu Oct 7 2004 1:38 PM
http://www.educate-billoreilly.com/home
check and help develop
Fri Oct 8 2004 4:12 PM
Joe:
If this is such a great cause, why not go after CBS and the lies they have reported against Bush? Try GRASSFIRE.NET for another viewpoint. At least FOX tells the truth and reports news, not spins and lies. What about a petition for Rather must go? I know why...most media wants John Kerry! I am afraid for this country if he gets elected. Again, try GRASSFIRE.NET and may God have mercy on our souls for supporting a baby killer and a fake christian.
Tue Oct 19 2004 4:07 PM
Bob Vick:
It makes me sick to keep hearing poor old rodney Dangerfield's voice when he has been in the ground for six months. Whats with that Bill?
Tue Aug 23 2005 1:42 PM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
