Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly Edited My E-Mail

Reported by Deborah - December 22, 2005

After reading my post More O'Reilly Nazi Talk and Lies, Brian Skibo contacted the News Hounds to let us know that he had written one of the e-mails read that night and O'Reilly had edited and distorted it on air. Here's what O'Reilly said taken from a transcript of The Factor on 12/13/05.

Brian Skibo, Hermitage, Pennsylvania: "You laughed when Ann Coulter called liberals 'Nazi block watchers'."

I laughed at her ridiculous hyperbole, Mr. Skibo, as anyone watching the segment would know. But since you didn't watch it and took your information from a far left smear site, you disqualify yourself from being taken seriously.

Here's the comment sent by Brian to the News Hounds.

Hey all.
I would like to comment on this post SINCE IT INVOLVED ME. I was the emailer that O'Reilly said that I was discredited for getting my information from a "far-left smear site." But there was one HUGE problem with his remark.
1) He edited my comment. In his posting of my email it read: Brian Skibo, Hermitage, Pennsylvania: "You laughed when Ann Coulter called liberals 'Nazi block watchers'."
O'Reilly responded saying: I laughed at her ridiculous hyperbole, Mr. Skibo, as anyone watching the segment would know. But since you didn't watch it and took your information from a far left smear site, you disqualify yourself from being taken seriously.

What I actually wrote (I'm glad I save my emails that I send to these people):

Bill,
You have some nerve saying the group "The World Can't Wait" was promoting hate speech when they compared Bush to Hitler and said they were fascists. You are guilty of the same kind of talk. You laughed when Ann Coulter called liberals "Nazi block watchers" (Dec. 1, 2005). You called for terrorist attacks in San Francisco (Nov. 8 on The Radio Factor), but you said it was satire with a "serious point" ( in the Coulter segment you condemn satire). You call the ACLU the Taliban (Jan 18, 2005). You call scientists fascists (August 2, 2005). You may disagree with them, but you are promoting hate speech as well. Hypocrite.

Now, there are several points to this issue here. One, he presented a portion of my email as my main point. However, it was only ONE EXAMPLE. Secondly, he ASSUMED that I got the material from a website. Well, I actually watched his show (so that contradicts him on one point). Also, I did get my analysis from a website: LexisNexis. I have access to all transcripts that are available, hence the dates presented with each comment. Lastly, and most importantly, his ENTIRE segment was to chastize hate speech. My argument was that he did NOTHING to condemn Coulter from calling liberals Nazis. All he did was laugh. Saying that he was laughing at her exagerration is a cop out since it is not evident, despite what he says. If that doesn't convince you, here is what he writes about the "The World Can't Wait":

"The ad goes on to say, "People look at [the Bush administration's policies] and think of Hitler - and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come."
Now that kind of extremism is just stupid."
So he laughs at Coulter's remark and expects us to go into deep reflection of what his laughter truly meant, but he is very blunt about this ad calling it "stupid."

Brian

comment: This makes me wonder how many other e-mails O'Reilly has changed to suit his purposes. In fact, it makes me wonder how many he's made up totally especially those e-mails from grateful parents praising his
book for kids. Bill O'Reilly is definitely not the role model or mentor I would choose for my child.

I watched and posted about the show in question. O'Reilly was laughing the same way Sean Hannity laughs when Coulter says something both shocking and pleasing. There is always that bully-buddy note of appreciation and agreement in those little chuckles and never a move to challenge what she says.

I also wonder if O'Reilly read and processed Brian's original e-mail. Did he connect with anything Brian said or was his rational mind taken over with a need to smear Brian in some way for daring to criticize him? The thing I'm most curious about is how does he think he'll keep getting away with this stuff?


Comments
Post a comment




Remember Me?


We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.