O'Reilly Tears Into the New York Times

NewsMax.com ^ | 9/03/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

Leftists never learn not to tangle with Fox News star Bill O'Reilly. When his Irish temper is aroused he can be tough, something the New York Times got a taste of last night.

The Times, which cozies up with the likes of O'Reilly foe Al Franken, recently exposed as having lied to Attorney General John Ashcroft, carried a column by Judith Maslin that says the alleged satirist "makes a bull's-eye out of Mr. O'Reilly" for having told whoppers.

In his Talking Points memo last night, O'Reilly fired back at the newspaper, which "is leading the charge to turn America into a secular nation and return political power to the left wing of the Democratic Party."

Raged O'Reilly, "Over the Labor Day weekend a New York Times reviewer named Janet Maslin attacked me in print - what else is new - but Maslin's gleeful libel demonstrates the viciousness that has enveloped the Times."

Noting the recent Jayson Blair scandal, which he said badly damaged the "troubled institution," the top-rated commentator recalled how the Times "inaccurately reported the battlefield situation in the opening days of the Iraq war." He said the Times' "hard news coverage was shaded to bolster its editorial position that the war was wrong."

"I knew that once I took on the New York Times the paper's character assassins would take dead aim on me," said O'Reilly, noting that "few journalists will ever criticize the Times. They know the paper will come after them in a very personal way. Therefore there is no check on the power of the New York Times. It prints what it wants with impunity."

He let loose at Maslin's "recycling of the bogus charges that impugn my integrity. Writes Maslin, 'Mr. Frankin makes a bulls-eye out of Mr. O'Reilly … he shows how Mr. O'Reilly's erroneous claim that he won a Peabody Award evolved into even bigger fibs once it was challenged.'

"Maslin must know by now that I never said I won a Peabody Award," O'Reilly explained. "Transcripts prove that, and the defamatory charge has been refuted time and time again. I simply defended my previous program, Inside Edition, by saying it won a Peabody. But I made a mistake. The program actually won a Polk Award. I corrected the record on March 2, 2001 and March 8, 2001 - two and a half years ago. Yet Maslin spreads the lie once again as well as hooting that I am a registered Republican -- something terrible to her - when the truth is that I changed my voting registration to Independent years ago.

"She also recycles the incredibly asinine assertion that I did not grow up where I said I grew up. My mother has lived in a Levitt house on Long Island for more than 50 years. The Arts & Entertainment 'Biography' program actually photographed the house and gave a brief history of the Levittown area. Yet this is not enough for Maslin."

Calling this "journalistic terrorism designed to punish people who hold opposing points of view," O'Reilly said he was not going to "deal with these attacks again on this program, but I will tell you that I am not alone. The New York Times actually called Mel Gibson a 'Jew-baiter' for daring to film a movie based on the passion of Jesus. The Times knows that the courts will allow this kind of libel because in this country famous people deserve no protection, but defamatory descriptions are disgraceful, and so is the Times for using them time and time again."

He concluded: "This is a high-stakes power game that influences political decision-making in America. The New York Times is pushing its far-left, secular agenda hard and will use any and all methods to hurt and diminish those who stand in its way. The culture war in America is getting bloodier. It will be interesting to see who will ultimately prevail."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Media Bias

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Congratulations and good luck! Best of wishes to your daughter and her fiance.

Thanks! We have another daughter getting married June 19!

[cwb]

From your original post:

"I certainly would like to know about the WMD's in Iraq."

I think everybody would like to know about the WMD's in Iraq...but let's have some perspective. It took 4 years after the 1st Gulf War until we found Saddam's weapons cache; and that was only the result of a defector who tipped us off. As one US inspector said, "if it had not been for the informant, the UN inspectors would've never found them." And this occured just prior to the debate over giving Saddam a clean bill of health and lifting the sanctions. Aside from the fact that we've only been in Iraq for 5 months, we practically gave Saddam an 18 month window to move everything thanks to the forced diplomacy. And, we're still at war.

"I'm a registered Republican, and I feel we need to hold our elected officials accountable, regardless of ideology."

Agreed. But who are you going to hold accountable? The CIA, NSA, Bush, UN, EU, Clinton, etc. No one ever objected to this war on the basis that they didn't believe these weapons existed. On the contrary, everyone of these entities at one time or another acknowledged their existence. The dispute was over the remedy. From my perspective, it wasn't enough to merely disarm Saddam...he was the destabilizing threat. He could be weapons-free for several months only to return to his WMD program once the inspectors left...and even Scott Ritter said as much in 1998. It may seem cliche...but he was the WMD.

[cwb]

Yeah...this looks like a great book. I always liked Posner's perspective on the History Channel. He spoke of Osama's refueling of his jet in Qatar and how Clinton (administration) was informed of it and how they passed on holding him. I didn't quite catch if this event was in 1996 or 1999...anybody? I also liked the story about the Arab prisoner who thought he was dealing with Saudi government officials (when they were really US officials) and how he gave them a phone number to one of the Saudi's Princes to get him released...and, who also knew that something big was going to happen on 9/11. Posner really lays into Clinton (and I thougt he was liberal), but here is where O'Reilly disappointed me again. He was basically saying Clinton shouldn't be held responsible.

[marvlus]

What's your problem Gramps! What did I do to offend you?

[Fledermaus]

All you have to do is read and listen to Kay himself. Around middle August it was widely reported about some of the "evidence" they are preparing to release.