Master (race) baiter O'Reilly still rampaging after Syracuse professor
Reported by Chrish - May 15, 2008 -
This is getting as bad as the Rosie O'Donnell and Jeremiah Wright nightly obsessions on the Factor. Last night 5/14/08 O'Reilly continued his campaign against Syracuse University professor Boyce Watkins, framing it as an election issue. He has been accusing people (known on his show as "loons") who have been upset with the excessive coverage and mischaracterization of Jeremiah Wright of defending hate and black racism to benefit Barack Obama. After his Talking Points Memo rant he turned to Laura Ingraham, his permanent substitute host and acknowledged right-wing conservative, for "another view." Fair and balanced, Factor-style.
One of O'Reilly main complaints this evening is that some people, according to exit polls and common sense, are choosing a candidate based on race and that's just wrong. I happen to think it's a poor reason for choosing your candidate too, but it's not up to us to determine "proper" or legitimate reasons for voting for a candidate. I'm pretty sure an acquaintance's wife who voted in 2000 for Bush solely because of name recognition was not alone in her ignorance, but in this country even the most poorly informed are allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice for whatever reason they want. So this focus on race as a factor in personal decisions is disingenuous at best, just a distraction and a way to create unease with the black candidate.
O'Reilly claims that his crusade against "race baiters" is the reason he's come down hard on Syracuse University for employing Dr. Boyce Watkins. He accuses Watkins of "hate speech" and cites his description of O'Reilly friend and guest Juan Williams as "a happy negro." In reality, O'Reilly is attacking Watkins for organizing a movement to contact O'Reilly's staff and sponsors to complain about his race baiting disguised as reporting on Jeremiah Wright.
O'Reilly took a sentence from a blog post - "O’Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are in the same tradition as those who killed Dr. King and Malcolm X. " He leaves out the context
"It is time to fight the hate and oppression. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and others represent the ugliest of American traditions. As our country tries to move forward with peace and equality, these men use their platforms to engage in the facism and white supremacist mindsets our country fought during World War II.
O’reilly and others are nothing new to America. For the past 400 years, there have been those who fight against racism and those who work to oppress those individuals. Terms like “reverse racist” or “black racist” are designed to alleviate America of the guilt of what it has done to every black man woman and child for the past 400 years. Our country has not even apologized, nor taken personal responsibility for the damage done by slavery. 400 years of continued, terroristic destruction doesn’t go away with 20 years of Affirmative action."
that tells the reader/viewer that they are trying to suppress speech contrary to their own views - that tradition. How deliciously ironic that even as O'Reilly attacks him he silences his true views, misrepresenting him with emphasis on "killed" and calling him "not only a hater but also a certified loon."
Replaying the footage of stalker producer Porter Berry harrassing Chancellor Nancy Cantor he bemoaned that she would not condemn the "hate speech" and hypothesized that if Watkins was a member of the KKK she would quickly silence him, effectively comparing the Dr. to a Klan member. He called her liberal and left-wing for differentiating between a school-sponsored mascot (an American Indian, back in her days in Illinois), a Syracuse U student TV show that included crude racial humor, and Dr. Watkins' points of view on his personal website. (Have we mentioned it is his personal website, not affiliated with Syracuse in any way? O'Reilly is harping on the fact that, in his bio, Watkins mentions that he is a professor at Syracuse University, as he also identifies himself as a graduate of several colleges. To O'Reilly's twisted thinking, Watkins is purporting to "represent" Syracuse.)
O'Reilly says that Watkins "and others" are creating an atmosphere where any "criticism of Obama" can be called racism, as if someone intelligently disagreeing with his proposed policies or goals would be attacked on those grounds. In reality what has been criticized as racializing of the election are his, Hannity's and Limbaugh's constant hyping of the Wright/Obama relationship and the implications that he and Wright are the same - haters. Additionally, O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh (and their echo chamber) are creating an atmosphere where anyone noting improper racializing can be attacked for "race hustling." Activists who have been speaking out for years and who are finally hopeful of actually being heard and respected are being demonized in order to
diminish silence their voices.
When Ingraham came on for "another view," she offered that not all the people who answered the exit polls "yes," that race was a factor in their vote, were necessarily racist. They're just concerned that Barack Obama may hold the same (hateful, anti-American, anti-white) views that Jeremiah Wright supposedly holds. O'Reilly argued that that's not racism, that's about associations and judgment and honesty. However these two decide to box it, Obama is being lumped with Jeremiah Wright, who has been branded with those short clips forever, and whose vehemence scares the bejesus out of O'Reilly's folks.
O'Reilly quickly leapt to Watkins, keeping the stream of "hatefilled" black men flowing, washing Obama downstream with them. He claims that "people ought to know what's going on here" but totally, completely fails to mention Watkins' exasperation with their humble correspondent and his drive to get O'Reilly off the air or to at least sway some sponsors. O'Reilly is merely vengeful and is out to get Watkins' job as retaliation. He proceeded to tell viewers (and Ingraham) that Watkins and others are setting up this scenario where criticism of Obama can get you labeled racist. Ingraham agreed, saying the left is obsessed with race; that's all they want to talk about. (As a card-carrying member, I assure you we would rather talk about Iraq, healthcare, inflation, jobs, global warming, disappearing civil rights, privacy, peace, justice, impeachment, a whole slew of topics not mentioned on FOX "News.")
She thinks O'Reilly should ignore Watkins, brush him off like a flea, as O'Reilly is too big for him. This is his biggest day; without O'Reilly he's an unknown. O'Reilly (who we know has revenge in his heart) says it's bigger than Watkins, it's the school. Hannity and Limbaugh are conservative Republicans, we know, and O'Reilly is being lumped in with them even though he's "been fair to Obama." (!! Something like 20 TPMs and counting about Wright, race, Michelle... yeah, real fair.) Watkins is demonizing him, and that's why O'Reilly can't let it go.
He's a fool, says Ingraham.
We can't help but note the ridiculous overuse of the word "hate" in all its forms. People who oppose Bush policy and anti-Constitutional behaviors are "Bush-haters." People who object to American foreign policy as it is now are "America-haters." Now outspoken black men with an audience who call for justice and equality are "haters," America-haters." Their speech is labeled "hate" and their websites "hateful," all so they can be immediately dismissed rather than acknowledged. When O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh et al (Watkins calls them "the axis of ignorance") trivialize people and their ideas and perspectives like that, they reduce them to emotionally-motivated nonsense-ranters rather than fellow citizens with alternative, thoughtful perspectives to be considered and processed. Which is, of course, the whole idea.