In what can probably be seen as a classic case of projection, Bill O’Reilly accused the New York Times of being “an extension of the Democratic Party.” After guest Laura Ingraham agreed, O’Reilly upped the accusation to “basically running the Democratic Party.” Why? Because in its "Bridgegate" coverage, the Times portrayed Governor Chris Christie as a bully.
In a discussion about the Christie scandal last night, O'Reilly sneered, “Of course the New York Times… has been hammering (Christie) as a bully." But instead of delving into whether or not Christie really is a bully and whether the Times reported accurately (maybe O’Reilly was afraid of the results), O’Reilly declared that the characterization must be unfair. Why? Because O’Reilly feels he is sometimes unfairly characterized as a bully. He said:
The bullying thing is interesting because I get that, too. Whenever you’re passionate and you’re mad… Any man who is passionate and who, you know, treats women and men equally – as I do on this program – you’re gonna be a bully.
So that was the first thing the New York Times – which has now become an extension of the Democratic Party. I hope everybody understands that.
Ingraham said, “Of course.”
So O’Reilly continued:
That paper is basically running the Democratic Party – the New York Times.
Ingraham replied, “Sure.”
Apparently, if a news outlet doesn’t do the bidding of Republicans – like a certain cable news network we know of does – then it’s doing the bidding of the Democrats. That shows not just Fox News’ black-and-white thinking (no pun intended) but also, I think, their rationale for doing what they do.
The right can scream “Innocent because Bengahzi!” until it makes their voice permanently raspy (Believe you me, that’s exactly what they’re doing), but the damage is done. The only way Christie’s getting back in is through an election fix.
Ellen, that’s my vote for Outrageous Quote of the Week.
Which ever it is it’ll be well rehearsed, carefully worded and heavily edited that will be meet with the approval of political and legal advisors.
Nothing new here, just passing by.
They don’t always have identical talking points, but when something big happens, you could practically reproduce the memo word for word from what their on-air people and the Web site all say. But Bill-O takes his own road.
The Times sounded more like an extension of the GW Bush white house, Judith Miller wrote those pieces about Iraq’s WMDs before and after the 2003 invasion.
“I hope everybody understands that.”
What I understand, BillO, is that the NYT is one of the daily papers of a city (New York) that just happens to be at one end of the bridge (the GW) that’s at the center of this scandal.
That COULD be as much, if not more, of a factor in the NYT’s coverage of this scandal as their alleged status as an “extension” of the Democratic Party . . . and I would think anybody who gave this at least a second of cursory analysis would come to that conclusion . . .