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

O'Reilly lies and lies some more about his reprehensible comments about kidnap victim Hornbeck - part I

Reported by Chrish - January 19, 2007 -

Apparently there's a whole lot of outrage out there over Bill O'Reilly's "blame the victim" segment Monday night. Backpedaling hasn't been enough, and now the insensitive creep is outright lying - excuse me, misspeaking - about what he said. Even Bernie Goldberg isn't buying it.

Of course, his whole rotten segment Monday is recorded at Crooks and Liars and elsewhere, so he can deny until he's blue in the face but them's the facts.

Tonight on his Talking Points Memo, O'Reilly changed his tone calling the kidnapper "that despicable predator" and showing his trademark indignation on behalf of the boy he smeared two short days ago. He showed a clip from the boy's appearance today on Oprah (we learned later that he disapproved of the parents' allowing the interview; if it was HIS kid....) where Shawn said he slept a lot, watched TV, played video games, and prayed. Off- camera, O'Reilly says, Hornbeck told Oprah that he didn't try to escape because he was too scared.

O'Reilly said that now the case has become "political." What?? Oh, yeah, the "far left smear websites" are "vilifying" him "for raising questions about the situation."

For one thing, far right people including posters on this blog who normally support him are incensed - he crossed a line with his fictionalizing. For another, it's not the questions raised - many people, including his guest Greta Van Susteren, have wondered why Hornbeck didn't run away. The difference is we did not reach the conclusions he did; we gave the kid the benefit of the doubt and assumed there is a psychological explanation. And O'Reilly is the only one who insinuated that there was something wrong with the family before the kidnapping (at gunpoint) that motivated the child to stay away. Actually, he didn't raise any legitimate questions - he made up questions about people's character and relationships based on fantasy and speculation because the scientific explanation being tossed around, Stockholm Syndrome, is something he doesn't believe in. He is taking a page right out of the Kansas Board of Education handbook.

He took a moment to vilify the women of The View, where Joy Behar called his commentary "abominable" and Rosie O'Donnell said he thought badly of Hornbeck because he has a pierced lip, to which O'Reilly dismissively said "absurd - but what else is new." Ahem. "...he's, uh, he's got the piercings...this is a troubled kid!" Is that a smear, quoting him verbatim? I guess if he's talking shit and you throw it back at him, he might get smeared. Maybe that's it.

Bottom line, says he, is that parents need to use this incident to "instruct their children on how to confront evil, because sooner or later they will have to." What a dour, pessimistic attitude - is this the traditionalist view of the world?

Two things we must remember in this, he says two days late and a dollar short: Shawn Hornbeck is a victim. Funny (not), two days ago he was saying

"The situation here, for this kid, looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his 'old' parents. He didn't have to go to school, he could run around and do whatever he wanted, ...

Van Susteren interrupted and said "Some kids like school!" O'Reilly responded "Well, I don't believe this kid did. And I think, when it all comes down, what's gonna happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances. Now, it gets even more harrowing when the police announced today that they found child porn on Devlin's computer."


So just Monday he was saying, essentially, that he believed (based on his faith in himself as judge and shrink) that the victim was enjoying his captivity and stayed because he liked his circumstances. Yeah, real sympathetic. As others have pointed out, this could be used as a commercial for NAMBLA, which supports the right of men and boys to form "consensual" sexual relationships and puts forth the line that the boys want and enjoy the relationships.

Second, he says, American children must be prepared to fight against frightening things - those things are real. Is this really what we want for our children?