Skip to comments.FOX BULLY IS A CRYBABY ON CANADA (Here's the liberal reponse to Bill O'Reilly)
Posted on 02/01/2005 12:42:41 PM PST by UpHereEh
Fox News star Bill O'Reilly is a big fat baby.
Friday night, he wah-wah-wahed on his top-rated cable news show about last week's edition of CBC's the fifth estate.
The U.S. is at war, the Iraqis were voting, social security reform is a huge issue and this guy devotes precious TV time to denouncing Canada, Canadians and CBC, repeating the same tired and untrue lines about how Fox had been "banned" here.
"The Canadian government gives these people $1 billion of Canadian tax money, and the Canadian government is at fault here for allowing this kind of stuff to go on," he railed.
Titled "Sticks and Stones," the hour-long fifth estate report focused on the highly polarized political discourse in the U.S., devoting about 10 minutes to the loudest mouth of them all, O'Reilly.
O'Reilly, who can dish it out but can't take it, complained to his viewers that it was "dishonest" and "a vicious attack."
This from the guy who invented vicious and dishonest attack TV? Mediamatters.org and other watchdog groups have meticulously documented his distortions and deceptions.
CBC had a Friday night follow-up on The National by Neil MacDonald, who laughed off O'Reilly's contention that the public broadcaster was running scared now that Fox News is available in Canada.
Cross-border TV catfight!
But why is O'Reilly so defensive?
It's no secret that many media organizations in the U.S. offer up partisan hackery for cheap fun and easy profit and the fifth estate merely travelled the same groove laid down last year by filmmaker Robert Greenwald in his documentary Outfoxed.
Which is why CBC's magazine show ran tape of O'Reilly shouting "shut up" no less than eight times at program guests and at liberal broadcaster Al Franken.
But it can't be the first time that O'Reilly has heard Franken say that he "lies constantly," is a "big sanctimonious hypocritical jerk," and is "pathological."
Ever since Fox landed on the cable dial here late last year Roger's free digital preview ends in mid-March I have been mesmerized by how often O'Reilly accuses guests of not supporting the troops or being anti-American, making up factoids to suit his view of the world
For example, he once cited the "Paris Business Review," an economic journal that doesn't exist, to bolster his case that the right wing-led boycott of French goods over its anti-Iraq war stance had cost France billions even though the value of American imports from there increased in 2002-2003.
So anybody with half a brain and a finger on the pulse of some real journalism knows that O'Reilly's nightly, and laughably named, "no spin zone" is a wash.
As the fifth estate's Bob McKeown put it, "often what Bill O'Reilly has in mind is not debate but diatribe."
(For the record, Fox and O'Reilly refused to participate in the fifth estate documentary because they claim they're not conservative, but "mainstream." Well, maybe. From the Ku Klux Klan's perspective.)
Among the untruths allowed to stand on Fox on Friday night:
*Fox is seen "in about seven million or eight million homes" in Canada, said O'Reilly.
Not true. Not even close.
There are 7.2 million homes total in Canada with basic cable. Rogers boasts about 675,000 digital households. Many cable and satellite services don't even carry Fox.
*CBC "has enjoyed something like a monopoly on news coverage and commentary up until now, and true diversity is now arriving in broadcasting."
This from Carl Hodge, billed as a professor of "political sciene" (sic) at B.C.'s Okanagan University College. Hasn't he noticed that CTV, Global and Chum have all been doing TV news for some time now?
But do you think O'Reilly cares? He's all about selling mail order pet meds and second mortgages, according to the ads that I've seen.
Fact is, although Fox has more viewers than CNN, advertisers prefer the latter because they reach a better class of customer. Seems the thinking people are not watching Fox, except for a laugh or because they're paid to.
It's a dirty job, let me tell you. PRESS GANG: Look, I am as happy as the next person to see singing and dancing Iraqis getting to vote but when the cable news nets can devote hours of coverage to the elections and never once see a downside?
Come on. For an alternative view, check out Juan Cole's Informed Comment www.juancole.com.
POST SCRIPTS: All hell seems to have broken loose up in Don Mills where the National Post is published. Publisher Les Pyette, who took over in December, has been stomping on toes all over the newsroom.
He got off on the wrong foot by hiring sportswriter Scott Taylor to pen a freelance column. That after Taylor and the Winnipeg Free Press parted ways over allegations of plagiarism.
Last year, the Post packed off three writers and one editor for copying from others and/or making things up.
Now word is that editor-in-chief Matthew Fraser has come to the end of his rope and will move to a strategic planning type job at the CanWest Global mother ship.
This would explain why the paper's newly reconfigured Toronto section plopped on doorsteps without fanfare last Saturday. It is said to have been Fraser's baby and Pyette did not want to give it any promotion.
Watch for more changes this month.
Other editors are expected to go.
One last thing: Last week, I started asking questions about Post sportswriters having to do their reports off TV screens in Toronto but having their stories billed as originating from the cities where games were played. When Pyette heard I was nosing around, he ordered the writers to drop the phony "placelines'' he had instituted in the first place.
No wonder Posties are concerned about their credibility.
This catfight could get interesting. I can't wait to hear how BOR responds.
The Toronto Red Star has spoken. All will obey.
Is this the National Enquirer of Canada? "I Had Bigfoot's Baby" is a better story.
Interesting to see how this plays out.
Fox News was banned in Canada. It was ILLEGAL for cable or sattelite providers to allows Canadians to access Fox News Channel.
If that is not a "ban" then I do not know what is.
The Toronto Star is the equivalent to the NYT in Canada (we have many). They're pissed because the National Post is semi right-leaning and has been all over them for slanted reporting.
There are other cities in Canada besides Toronto and they have cable,Shaw cable...with Fox news and it is a pleasure to finally be able to watch it.
The amount of lies, and slants in that article is unbelievable. Bill never "denounced Canada, Canadians and the CBC" he only "denounced" CBC. I could go on and pick the entire article apart but then why stop there, the whole paper is spin.
I despise all things liberal, but I couldn't agree more with this article's take on BOR's blustering propensity to "exaggerate". He's blowhard and certainly not a conservative. I long for day he's removed and replaced. Ann Coulter anyone?
They fail to say why. BOR was telling Franken to shut up because Franken had more than exceeded DOUBLE the alloted time for him to speak and it was BORs turn.
Come on. For an alternative view, check out Juan Cole's Informed Comment www.juancole.com.
Want some Juan Cole? Here ya go...
He is none to happy about it.
Yeah but for them to distort the facts is propaganda. This is a story, not an editorial.
It reads like a gossip column. I can't take it seriously.
They do not want to carry FNC!!!
They fear FNC will trounce their news channels (which are pure garbage.
I consider it fascinating that these people see MediaMatters.org (a left-wing organization, run by left-wing advocate and formal mental patient David Brock, funded by left-wing moneyman George Soros) and Al Franken (who at least was listed as a liberal broadcaster, although not mainstream by any stretch) as credible sources. O'Reilly attacked Franken after he started gobbling up all of his press time, cutting into the alotted time of the other two. Franken made the ludicrous allegation that O'Reilly did not grow up where he said he did, when in fact O'Reilly later produced the actual deed.
I am not a BOR fan, but by the same token this hatchet-job is so error-ridden and obviously biased to anyone in the states that is is laughable. They're playing off the fact that many folks up North might not realize the nature of the people and groups referenced.
Another point: The KKK was never some sort of far-right movement. In fact, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) was a KKK member at one point. Then again, I am knid of new to the idea that Hitler was "right-wing" as well, having studied lots of older history books. Go figure.
O'Reilly's main fault is that he goes halfway in his responses. He either ought to follow Rush Limbaugh's lead by ignoring his detractors or go the whole way and rip harder. It would be better to ignore them, because like most little children, all the critics are looking for is a cheap plug on his program. Any attention is good attention.
It wasn't "banned" per se, it just was never approved for broadcast by the federal regulator, due to our antiquated and parochial Canuck Content laws. "Banned" implies something more sinister, but of course many of our numerous leftists would liked it banned in the classic sense.
All this being said, it has recently been approved for inclusion in digital channel line ups. I picked up my digital cable box last weekend, and now I have Fox News. It is an unbelievable breath of fresh air, and other than sports in High Definition, nothing else has been on my TV since.