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

More outrageous remarks about Shawn Hornbeck on O'Reilly Factor

Reported by Chrish - January 23, 2007 -

Bill O'Reilly's guest tonight 1/22/07 was Jamie Allman, identified as a Radio Talk Show Host from St. Louis. It was not mentioned that he is part of the FOX News Radio lineup, so these two corporate brothers were reinforcing each other and simulating more widespread agreement on the issue. O'Reilly is following the tried and true tactic of repeating a lie often enough that it becomes truth and the original statement will be lost, but not if I can help it.

"The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, she was a child of privilege, all of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs, and she enjoyed it.

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, ...
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".

Don't forget that - that is what he said 1/15/07.

So tonight, day 5 of damage control, O'Reilly continues to claim that all he did was ask the question on everyone's mind - why didn't Shawn run? He had ample opportunity. He continues to ignore his comments, above, that speculate on the answer and assign very unsavory motives to the child victim, and that smear his family and home life before the kidnapping.

Tonight O'Reilly relied heavily on a Newsweek article that detailed gifts given to the boy by his captor, Devlin, and also cites sister company New York Post (without revealing that connection either) as saying that the boy's father, Walter Hornbeck, (biological, not noted) is a convicted sex offender. (He squints and grimaces at this.) He said it's a very bizarre case and we've raised questions about it from the beginning we've said Shawn is a victim (that's his run-on sentence) - what we don't know is how the victimization manifested itself.

Note: O'Reilly was using the royal "we" in his statements, as he often does. This allows him to make statements without taking responsibility for them.

To justify his question O'reilly had a poll on his website. Now nobody is upset about voicing the question ("should questions be raised about the Shawn Hornbeck kidnapping?"); it's the perverted answer that he put forth that has everyone disgusted. But he's ignoring that, and is vindicated in his own mind by the results that say 75% of those answering say "yes."

So Jamie Allman comes on and agrees; his listeners want to know what happened. Parents' worst fears, better off as parents and community to know, yea yea yea. But regardless of what level of cooperation or coercion, in the end, Hornbeck was a victim, and O'Reilly eagerly agrees to that, "any kid who is kidnapped is a victim." But then, said O'Reilly, the question becomes what is the association between victim and kidnapper? And what can parents do to keep their kids out of this situation? O'Reilly is glad that Allman's listeners want to know (they are most likely the same people who visited O'Reilly's website and voted in his useless poll), because he is "getting blasted by raising these questions." Liar - you're getting blasted for insinuating he liked his situation.

O'Reilly asked Allman what his listeners thought about the reports that Hornbeck didn't have to go to school and received gifts from Devlin. Allman replied that they were going back to the time of the kidnapping, when Hornbeck was only eleven years old, and said

"at that point, as anybody who knows eleven-year-olds know, that any kind of adult could say whatever they want to to an eleven-year-old, and that 11-y-o is pretty much going to, in certain circumstances depending on the quality of their family life beforehand, is basically going to buy into it."

Allman went on to speculate some more, just what this case needs, wondering if Devlin told Shawn he was his "real dad," or maybe that he was a friend of his "real dad," .... This ass just insulted every adoptive and step-father in the country by inferring that Craig Akers is not Shawn's "real" dad. Who set up the foundation and the website? Who quit his job and devoted himself to finding Shawn? His real dad, that's who. Maybe the 5-syllable "biological" is too much of a challenge.

His listeners "imagine" that Shawn Hornbeck is essentially frozen in time as an eleven-year-old
who didn't know any better. O'Reilly concluded that they are giving Hornbeck the benefit of the doubt. Allman continued to speculate and wonder aloud, and O'Reilly cut him off saying "we're only going with what's on the record."

It appears from that last statement that O'Reilly may have gotten some behind-the-scenes counseling about how close he was to slandering the Akers and Shawn Hornbeck, and has been told to stick to the known facts (that real journalists uncover for him.) Look for O'Reilly to continue to act as if he didn't say anything wrong, and to pretend the outrage is over his daring to ask the probing questions. He's a heroic figure in his own mind, and he's not going to let an unintentional glimpse into his ugly suspicions tarnish his self-image. But we know.