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

O'Reilly's turn to distort CMPA findings - if the news for Republicans is bad it must be the liberal media

Reported by Chrish - November 7, 2006 -

In typical FOX fashion, Bill O'Reilly echoed a sentiment of his colleague John Gibson in criticizing a study on the media, twisting the analysis and claiming it supports the "liberal media" myth. Both these segments were opinion pieces on supposed news programs; FOX devotees, who tune the TV to FNC and leave it there all day for company, hear these opinions repeated and take them as fact.

His Most Ridiculous Item of Friday 11/3/06 said:

Our pals, Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz and ABC News anchor Charles Gibson had a little chat about me the other day.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, CNN'S RELIABLE SOURCES: "Bill O'Reilly says it's what he calls the left-wing press that is tilting against and is unfair to Bush and the GOP."

CHARLIE GIBSON, ANCHOR, ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: "Well, I don't think that that's fair. Look, you know, he sees the world through a more — through a particular political prism."

Now, with all due respect, this is so much baloney these guys ought to open a deli together.

A recent study out of George Mason University in D.C. says over the past two months 77 percent of all network news reporting on the Democrats has been positive; 12 percent of the reporting on Republicans has been positive.

Now I don't have a dog on the hunt. You know who you want to vote for. I don't have to tell you. But facts are facts. The elite media in this country leans left — big time. I back that up all day long in my book, "Culture Warrior." Howard Kurtz knows it. Charles Gibson knows it. So let's stop the nonsense. To not do so would be ridiculous.

Of interest: in an attempt to build the case that there are numerous entities out there supporting these numerous reports on FOX, O'Reilly chose to identify the same organization that Gibson railed against, the Center for Media and Public Affairs, by another name. While factually correct it creates an impression that there are two such organizations finding that the press is - in their twisted interpretation - unduly critical of Republicans.

But too bad for O'Reilly and Gibson. In correspondence with an executive at CMPA the unflattering analysis was confirmed to be not an indicator of bias but rather

"a depiction of a very bad time (scandal, war, corruption, dissatisfaction) in a mid-term cycle.

If the Redskins lose to the Cowboys on Sunday, and the Washington Post talks about horrid run defense or shoddy clock management, does that make the Post biased against the Redskins?"

If the truth is left-wing, does that mean that un-truths are right-wing?