My favorite segment was the one where Saint Bill stoned the evil liberals for implying that Mel Gibson (and Bill) were racists. See, the liberals are “haters,” but Fair ‘n Balanced Bill and his team of eager young fact checkers couoldn’t find EVEN ONE example of a conservative doing something comperable to what Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald did when he “walked the line” about hinting that Gibson might be an anti-Semite.
Bill did concede that sometimes conservatives call people “unhinged” and “traitors” and such, but that’s just politics, and is acceptable under the O’Reilly Convention.
Bill’s main guest for this segment about how hateful the liberals are was Michelle Malkin.
Yeah, irony is dead.
Anyway, thanks to Think Progress, here’s a transcript for part of the conversation (emphasis added, but no photoshopping of smoke).
O’REILLY: [H]ave you ever labeled anybody a racist, a homophobe or anything like that?Yeah, anybody who would imply that Mel Gibson (and by extension, Bill O’Reilly) might harbor bias against certain segments of the populace is a hater. But Ann Coulter? She’s just a saucy name caller.
MALKIN: Well I call people what they are in my column. And occasionally that it does meaning taking liberal bigots to task for their hypocrisy. I was on your show back in the fall when I was on my book tour talking about “Unhinged” which has a whole chapter on unhinged liberal bigots who on the one hand talk about compassion an tolerance and on the other hand use the most vile epithets against their opponents.
And I think that there is a place for labeling it when it is .
O’REILLY: But aren’t they hypocrites rather than bigots? See, here is what I am objecting to. We had John Podhoretz, who is a columnist send – he is a conservative guy. He says that Al Gore is insane. OK. That is just the usual partisan rhetoric. Ann Coulter calls people witches, harpies, all kinds — retarded. Name calling is one thing but labeling a person a bigot, all right, saying they are anti-Semitic or homophobic, that elevates it up into here is a hater.
In any case, Bill really hates haters! In fact, as we learn from the day’s Talking Points Memo, Bill is devoting an entire chapter of his upcoming book to them (take that, Sadly, No!)
The smear merchants are now all over the mainstream media and have spread like lice on the Net. They are truly misguided and in some cases emotionally disturbed human beings.So how do you combat them? Exposition is the best way. My upcoming book “Culture Warrior” does that. It documents who these people are and what they’re doing behind the scenes.I can hardly wait! Then maybe we’ll get that list of meanie bloggers that Bill promised us some months ago.
Anyway, for the second part of the segment, Bill gave Michelle the floor to discuss the most important issue of the day: her new column about SlightlyDarkerSmokeGate (to steal Sadly, No!’s really clever term for it). And I am happy to report that said column, The Reuterization of war journalism, is everything that Michelle promised that it would be: pretty “meh”-inspiring.
Here’s a key paragraph:
Watch now for braying, rationalizing and messenger-shooting from the journalistic elite. You will hear them complain about the bloodthirsty blog mob. You will see MSM editors rally around Reuters and dismiss this debacle as a lone event. Adnan Hajj, the new international Jayson Blair/Mike Barnicle/Janet Cooke/Mary Mapes/Walter Duranty, will end up with a book contract and a job at Al Jazeera. Media veterans will hope that their professional apathy will snuff out probing questions like baking soda on a pan fire. After all, it’s “old news” already.Um, yes it is. And it wasn’t all that significant even when it was new news. But what caught my attention was the exclusion of the name of Jack Kelley from the list of media fabricators. I mean, geez, Kelley was WAY more significant than a mere Mike Barnicle. Is there some reason that Michelle (and the rest of the war-blogging right) has forgotten about USA Today’s own plagiarizing/fabricator, the handsome, all-American, Catholic Evangelical man who covered the Middle East-front? You know, the guy who saw severed hints blinking at him when they rolled down the street following a bombing of an Israeli pizza place? The reporter about whom Salon featured a column entitled Bood-thirsty Arabs, vigilante Jews? You’d think that his would be the first name that would come up when discussing faked Hezbollah smoke.
I will be waiting for Michelle to get back to me on why he was omitted from her report.
23 Responses to “How Soon They Forget”davboz Says:
August 10th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Cracking on Gibson is the drive-by media’s way of rationalizing their anti-Jewish bias and their hate for Israel.
Now ‘at ‘ere is funnay, Ah don’ care who y’are!
We take a Jew-hater to task for hating Jews because we ourselves hate Jews and Jew-hating ought to be the purview of the left (which includes an unusual number of Jews, I should point out)
Shame on Mel for beating us to the punch!