If O’Reilly wants to nutpick, there is plenty of nutpicking to go around

July 25, 2007

Nutpicking: (verb) 1. the practice of trawling through open comment threads in order to find a few wackjobs who can be held up as evidence that liberals are nuts.

About a week ago, Bill O’Reilly launched what might be the most high-profile nutpicking fight of all time, launching a massive offensive against JetBlue for its sponsorship of the YearlyKos conference. The Fox News blowhard picked a handful of obscure, intemperate comments from DailyKos threads to argue it’s a “hate site” along the lines of the KKK. The bullying worked; JetBlue backed out of its sponsorship agreement.

Last night, Howard Wolfson, Hillary’s Clinton’s Director of Communications, appeared on O’Reilly’s show to tell the host, “[W]ith all due respect for you, the days where you can dictate where Senator Clinton and other Democrats go, who we talk to, are over.” Wolfson added that O’Reilly had “cherry picked” some objectionable comments in order to “smear an entire community, hundreds of thousands of people … who participate vigorously in our democracy.”

There was also this exchange:

WOLFSON: Bill, even your website has things on it that you would find objectionable.

O’REILLY: That’s bull. Look, we know what you’re going to say because the Kos planted someone in there. But when we see objectionable things, we take it off immediately.

As it turns out, that’s not quite right.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress perused the O’Reilly messageboard (available only to paid subscribers) to examine the contents of the comments posted there. We found Bill Clinton referred to as “cow manure,” Hillary as “the she devil,” Obama as “the anti-Christ,” and other derogatory remarks. Contrary to O’Reilly’s claim that “objectionable things” are taken off immediately, these comments are still on the site this morning:

I thought that Bill Clinton was a piece of cow manure, but he still was the President of the United States. [posted by vvatc, 7/23/07, 8:23 PM PT]

Yeppers, the she devil is the smart one. A turn towards the right does that for people. She’s crafty! [posted by Martha Wells, 7/24/07, 3:11 AM PT]

Obama may well be the anti-Christ for the way the media builds him up as the savior for all of the ills in the country. [posted by Mike Piche, 7/19/07, 5:56 PM PT]

RE: Illegal immigrants worth fighting for??? they breed likes rats 100 make 1000 in 9 months [posted by bullpen, 7/16/07, 11:16 AM PT]

My daughters looking through it the other day, sees Chertoff, says, “is that the guy in charge of our homeland? He looks like a Nazi mom.” I concur. [posted by Debra Sanders, 7/15/07, 9:48 AM PT]

Aravosis found a contributor to O’Reilly’s site who even went so far as to threaten Sen. Clinton directly. There are a variety of similar comments here.

Now, last week, during the JetBlue offensive, O’Reilly dismissed the notion that over-the-top rhetoric was user-submitted, arguing that people can dictate what does and doesn’t appear on their own websites. Should one assume, therefore, that O’Reilly personally approves of the above comments?

Frankly, I’d much prefer that O’Reilly be judged on what he says and writes, just as DailyKos can be judged on the content of its front-page posts. That said, if O’Reilly wants to nutpick, there is plenty of nutpicking to go around

“Illegal immigrants worth fighting for??? they breed likes rats 100 make 1000 in 9 months”

Wow. Not only are O’Reilly’s fans hateful, they’re mathematically (and biologically) ignorant: for 100 immigrants to explode into a population of 1000 in one birth cycle, we’re talking about 18 children per couple – in a single pregnancy.

I guess this confirms the right’s complete lack of understanding of sex…

  • But with O’Reilly, you don’t even have to venture into the comments section. The worst of the trash comes straight from his own mouth – often just as bad as the worst comments he can find when he goes nutpicking. Anyone remember his public advocacy of terrorist acts in San Francisco?

  • The Kos! The Kos!
    The Kos! planted someone in there?!?!?!?! Given the right’s pattern of projection, it seems far more likely that The BillO! planted someone at DailyKos.

    For what it’s worth, someone over at DailyKos pointed out that since The BillO! began his most recent delusional jihad, DailyKos’ page hits are up roughly 20%.

    Bring it on The BillO!

  • 1) it getsa O’Reilly attention, 2)finds another angle to use to attack Democrats and Liberals, 3) (and most important) makes O’Reilly feel superior and authoritative. Just like his ineffective condemnation of France, O’Reilly speaks with an authority he does not possess, knowledge which is faulty and biased (still doesn’t know what “primate” means in relation to the catholic leader’s organization), and a record of hateful hypocrisy.

    He is becoming more desperate to keep an audience so he has increased his efforts to become more irrelevant. Typical O’Reilly. Only Fox could tout such tripe.

  • What’s the problem? O’Reilly says he censors “objectionable” things, and plainly he doesn’t find any of those comments objectionable.

    In that way, moderated comments are worse than wide-open comments. It takes time & effort, and at the end of the day, all you’ve done is limit freedom of speech. Second, if & when any “objectionable” comments slip through, you have in effect endorsed the content by not removing it.

  • A lot of people have been bringing up O’Reilly’s comments about San Francisco, but he made another less-noticed remark that, in my opinion at least, is just as bad. On his radio show, he said that he wished that the U.N. building was hit by Hurricane Katrina, that the buiilding be flooded, and that, in such a case, he wouldn’t help the people inside the building who were drowning. When a U.N. representative wrote a letter to him asking him to apologize, he refused, saying it was a “joke.”

  • Bill O’ would be well advised to stick to nitpicking* on his own website, instead of nutpicking on others.

    *nitpicking: the removal of lice spawn and eggs to prevent an infestation.

  • Ten comments and I’m really the first one to make the joke that “nutpicking” was what he wanted Mackris to do with that falafel?

  • I used to think that “the shrill little man-cub” was just another of Rupert’s yammering poodles. Now, I’m leaning towards “the intellectual re-embodiment of Nikita Krushchev.” How long before he starts pounding the podium with his clenched-in-fist shoe, I wonder?

  • You know what? Maybe its time we tried to FOCUS a little bit on the imporatant things.

    Bill O’Reilly is only as important as we let him be with all our outrage, week after week. HE is sucking power from US.

    If we are going to answer every Coulter, O’Reilly, nutcase around, with all their specious comments, we con’t have time or energy to do anythin else.

    Look at the alternative. Don’t FEED THE TROLL. Ignore the moron. What Bill O’Reilly “thinks” doesn’t even leave a blue stain. He would be POWERLESS, if we ignored him….playing to the 20% hard pro-Bushers, who wouldn’t change their minds if they found out Bush had death camps.

    It’s a losing game. Stop playing it. Let his “leftist” guestlist dry up. Don’t need a boycott of his advertisers. Just turn him off..when you see his name, don’t read the rest of the sentance, especially if it begins “Bill O’Reill said on his show…” just let it go. How long would he be on the air, just talking to fellow nutcases like himself?

    A little focus on important matters, and a little self-discipline please!

  • Tom,

    Any threat to a free society “ignored” is a threat to that free society “emboldened.” Get thee back to your history books, child, and discover that the rise of every mongrel connected to every political cult was enabled by a nation that would not stand up and challenge its vitriol.

    Boycott the advertisers—and the cameras—and the microphones. Hang up on the telephone pollsters. Walk away from the mall-roaming pawns with their clipboards, and verify the absolute authenticity of any signature-gathering effort before you lend your name to their petition.

    In short—shut them down—tight….

  • Steve…I’m really not a child, nor am I naive. I think elevating O’Reilly to the level of a “threat to free society” is akin to letting Al Queda have all the satisfaction of turning the largest military power in the world, into a Barney Fife country jumping at shadows.

    Meaning, yeah, they are a threat, but lets keep it in perspectivet too.
    An experienced fighter, fighting a newbie, feints a lot (if they even need to…say the newbie is a big strapping guy) if the newbie overreacts…the experienced guy uses little energy feinting, the big newbie uses up ALL his strength overreacting, nervous energy, til the big newbie…starts lowering his arms from fatigue. Guess what happens then.

    If O’Reilly breaks the law, have him arrested. But they have gotten looney enough, (and didja ever notice they seem to come up with the absolute most outrageous stuff whenever the “normal” news is on something imporatant? Almost like they want to break our concentration!) and they don’t go away, and guess what…we NEVER definitively beat them.

    So, history (and you’ll have to be more specific than just trying to send me to “the books”…clarify!) or not, we end up wasting space, energy and concentration, as WELL as help “compress” the news, such that it gets harder for the slower witted to see what REALLY is news and what is just sparklers and empty calories…see? All this flotsam and jetsam obliterates the OUTRAGE news….the news that on it’s own, ought to send shivers of outrage up the spine of anyone that knows what the USA is supposed to be about.

    So, no..I see O’Reilly as a rodeo clown, so as long as we act like the Bull, we are easily manipulated, AND we FEED HIM…we help him get ratings.

    To “ignore him” is to NOT ignore him, it is to DEAL with him. It’s a paradox, but true, ignoring him, destroys him. Responding to every inane piece of garbage out of his mouth, makes him powerful.

    And because of the limited synapse activity of his base, you will NEVER win an argument on his terms by their judgement.

    Which do you think is smarter?

  • Ah—the “rodeo clown” card, is it now?

    Eighteenth-century Europe viewed Napoleon as a “rodeo clown.” Most of the world viewed Mussolini, Hitler, and Hirohito as “rodeo clowns.” A sizeable portion of the United States once viewed Lenin as a “rodeo clown”—followed by a fat little man with green teeth and a teddy-bear-esque name of “Mao,” a handful of North African leaders, a few in South America, and some ayatollah-guy in Iran.

    The United States’ “official position” on Fidel Castro was once “he’s just some clown with a big mouth.”

    Go back and look at “the shrill little man-cub’s” ratings, Tom—they’re DOWN. Those ratings are down because his rhetoric—a rhetoric uncannily similar to the other “rodeo clowns” I’ve mentioned above, by the way—are now being effectively challenged. People are no longer being exposed to a twisted definition of “fair and balanced” without a counterpoint to the blowhards of the Right.

    Responding to every inane piece of garbage that comes out of his mouth does not make him powerful; it makes him angry, because he cannot hold sway over those who are not a part of his limited-synapse base. It forces him further and further into the frontiers of political oblivion.

    But—you would have us terminate the debate. You would have us reply to the stupidities and lies with silence. In short—you would have us capitulate, and leave the issue with only one side showing.

    I choose to do otherwise. I choose to not become a “surrender monkey….”

  • Steve…I choose to focus energy on:

    — the shredding fo the constitution
    — the gelding of Congress, the mad takeover by the white house
    — the mad war we are engaged in
    — the politicizing of science by this administration
    — the turning of government (we pay for) over to campaigning
    — our government lying to us
    — our government torturing people in our name
    — our government fixing it so we get perpetual blowback
    — etc, etc.

    YOU choose to do battle with a simple-minded hate monger, who after all is said and done…is a tv pundit. One with no particular expertise in anything. A blowhard. He is not an elected official, he is nothing and YES ignoring him hurts him. Pretending that some guy who actually didn’t threaten Hillary (very clearly states he needs to arm himself because he thinks there will be a civil war if she is elected) did, blah blah blah…
    it’s garbage. It makes us look stupid (because you have to pretend something that obviously was NOT meant, was)…it makes us look like GOP’ers that are constantly fighting straw men.

    Even if you consider Hitler a pundit, at SOME POINT he got into politics, if we deal with politicians, he still would have been dealt with.

    We disagree, Neither of us have the answers, but we are diametrically opposed, I think you are HELPING O’Reilly by giving all the attention.

  • Again, Tom, you fail to embrace the foundational concept. O’Reilly’s rating soared through the roof when no one dared challenge him; his rating went into a flatspin once people began standing up against his bullying rhetoric. Compare your above “list” with the recent commentaries by O’Reilly, hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, and all the rest.

    Have they not shredded the Constitution?

    Have they not participated in the gelding of Congress, and the empowerment of a “mad” WH?

    Were they not rattling tyheir anti-Iraq sabers before the sun went down over a freshly-collapsed WTC, a charred field in Pennsylvania, and a still-burning Pentagon?

    Have they not openly contributed to the politicization of science?

    Do they not argue for the indoctrination of various governmental departments?

    Do they not defend the administration’s lies—by feeding the People even bigger lies?

    Do they not endorse torture—and even murder of those who do not agree with “their” philosophical agenda?

    Do they not endorse—nay, create—the rhetoric and policy that subjects the Republic to the threat of perpetual blowback?

    The commentaries foaming from these “tv pundits” are near to where another series of inflammatory orations were, once upon a time in history.

    Germany—1932—and a visit to your history books will refresh your memory as to how that turned out….

  • So you believe, in all your wisdom, that if the Germans had just stopped the pundits of their times, the Holocaust would not have happened?

    Really?

    Or would it have been smarter (while one still could) to talk politics at teh office, at family meetings, on the street, to strangers, anytime you could ANSWER someone direct?

    See, it is you missing the point. You think you can argue with O’Reilly? you think if the pure facts haven’t gotten through to his listeners…what?

    It would be much better to fight for a return of the old fairness in practice laws that would allow for real rebuttal.

    We need to get serious about changing the laws back, the country back to the rule of law. O’Reilly is garbage. You can claim he is a Hitler in the making, but there were plenty of small men that didn’t rise to power, I say he’s one of them. The man is a cartoon. He’s like Robert Downey back in the 70’s. A joke. IF WE TREAT HIM as a REAL threat, he becomes one.

    Again, YOU are giving him power by concentrating so much on him.

  • I do not have to argue with O’Reilly, Tom; I can counter his every comment with ease, and never set foot into the same room as he is in. I do not have to engage his rhetorical bile; I merely thwart it by promoting the Truth. A lie unchallenged is a lie empowered, and to think otherwise is a foolishness beneath the intellectual baseline prerequisite for meaningful discussion regarding this topic.

    I believe that had the Weimar republic sought assistance from the Western powers to put down the NSDAP “revolution” on the grounds that they were openly fomenting the aggressive rearmament of Germany—in the summer months of 1932—that the Holocaust would never have happened. NSDAP was the foundation upon which the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz were built. NSDAP was the commencing element behind every shred of “the Final Solution.”

    But even after NSDAP came to power in 1933, the Western powers took the very course of action that you now demand of me—“ignore the problen; it will go away.” They, too, saw “Herr Hitler” as nothing more than a funny little man with a Charlie Chaplin mustache. France thought him a joke, until his Panzers flanked the Maginot. England thought him a comic until the BEF was pushed into the sea at Dunkirk. America laughed—until American merchant vessels met the Wolfpacks of the Kreigsmarine.

    And—Robert Downey didn’t have the financial and political backing that O’Reilly currently enjoys. His fans couldn’t openly say the things that O’Reilly’s fans have ben saying for the past 6 years. Downey was a powerless little cretin.

    Just out of curiosity, Tom—why is your diaper in such a bunch over my choosing to counter the hate; the lies; the subterfuges and deceits of Bill O’Reilly? You wouldn’t be a member of his fan club, would you now? You’re investing an awful amount of energy trying to get me to leave him alone—and you ought to know, it just isn’t going to happen. I will pound away at the shrill little man-cub and his message from now until the end of Time itself, if need be….

    • Comments are closed.