Bill O'Reilly Drops the Other Shoe; I go on CNN Sunday

The War on Christmas has turned him into a laughingstock. And the GOP's decisive electoral defeat in November made his views on the war suspect.

  So now Fox News Channel blowhard Bill O'Reilly is picking the last controversial fight he has left.

With the nation's TV critics?

Here's his rant, from Thursday's Talking Points Memo: "If FOX News is the dominant number one rated cable network, and our presentation appeals to millions, why are we hammered in the press? The answer, of course, is ideology.

We can't find one TV critic in the United States of America, not one who isn't  a liberal or a registered Democrat. Most are committed liberals, who dislike us for giving conservative and traditional Americans a fair shot.

By the way, if you know of a non-liberal TV critic, please let us know because we always want to be fair and balanced."

Of course, I predicted this nonsense weeks ago, when a researcher from O'Reilly's staff called to ask about my party affiliation and political contribution history. I predicted he would use his findings to pick a fight with TV critics across the country, and try demonizing our work through our affiliations.

What's also predictable is O'Reilly's twisted presentation of his "results." We don't for example, know how he knows what he says he does. Was this a public records search, phone calls similar to the one I endured, or more? How many critics are we talking about?

His phrasing is also suspect: "We can't find one TV critic in the United States of America, not one who isn't a liberal or a registered Democrat. Most are committed liberals, who dislike us for giving conservative and traditional Americans a fair shot."

He said they can't find a liberal critic, without saying what they've done to find one. My hunch is that a lot of us blew off the personal calls -- especially after my column about his nonsense surfaced in the Huffington Post -- and the records checks didn't reveal much. 

But what really spun my top, was when he went on to point out that industry magazines such as Daily Variety, Broadcasting and Cable and Publisher's Weekly are all owned by Reed Business Information, whose CEO is Tad Smith:

"And who is Tad Smith?

He's a far left guy who donates major money to people like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. Nothing wrong with that! But Smith also hires editors in his own image and his publications often disparage conservatives and praised liberals."

O'Reilly's no fool. So he knows critics like me will note that he is employed by right-leaning Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., which is owned by Australian mogul Rupert Murdoch -- a longtime Republican supporter whose holdings also include the right-leaning newspaper the New York Post  and the right-leaning magazine the Weekly Standard.

He knows we will also note that there are plenty of other right-leaning media moguls who copuld face similar scrutiny: conservative stalwart Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh billionaire who owns the local Tribune-Review newspaper and part of the conservative-oriented Newsmax Web site, also owned the American Spectator magazine when it decided to dig up dirt on then-President and Democrat Bill Clinton.

There's Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, a steadfast supporter of  Republican presidents Nixon and Reagan, who founded the conservative newspaper the Washington Times.

And there's David Smith, the conservative president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, a nationwide chain of more than 60 TV stations which refused to air Nightline's tribute to soldiers killed in Iraq (for fear it would hurt the war effort), and insisted its stations air Stolen Honor, a documentary supported by political opponents of Democratic candidate John Kerry which criticized his activism against the Vietnam War.  (though Smith has denied he has a political agenda, Washington Post noted his federal contributions to Republicans dwarfed those given to Democrats)

So if O'Reilly's conservative-backing boss can bankroll a "fair and balanced" news operation, why can't we TV critics overcome our party affiliations?

As usual, O'Reilly has exposed the silliness of criticizing journalists' political affiliations without also looking at the substance of their work.

And then we come to his primary piece of liberal bias evidence: that Fox News receives constant criticism from TV columnists despite the fact that they are the Number One cable news network.

To answer that, I can only note that the Number One non-sports cable show last week was World Wrestling Entertainment's WWE Raw show, with 3.5-million viewers.

And I'm sure no one would suggest there isn't lots to criticize on their programs.

The Last DEGGANS Punditry in '06

I just wrapped pre-taping a fun exchange with Batimore sun TV critic David Zurawik and Philadelphia Inquirer TV columnist Gail Shister on CNN's Reliable Sources regarding the state of TV this year -- including runaway coverage of lost climbers, the network news anchor wars and, of course, Donald VS Rosie.

The episode airs Sunday at 10 a.m., I believe, hosted by Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. Watch it while you're firing up the yule log and mixing up the egg nog...

Comments

Eeerrrr, Eric? You ARE an avowed liberal. You've written that you admire Noam Chomsky, for Gods sake. And the SPT really IS run and staffed by LIBERALS. If O'Reilly was wrong, you'd say "I'm not a liberal." Instead you offer up a twisted wordgame to try to discredit him. How silly. Step up and be the man you are. Instead of twisting the topic, have the balls to defend your nutjob commie beliefs.

[Eric Deggans]

I still don't understand why some people feel liberal is a dirty word.

And I really don't get the reference to "commies." Is it the 1950s all over again?

For the record, I have admitted in print many times that I am a liberal. And I have written many opinion columns supporting those views over the years.

Which means nothing in this debate. The point of my post was, if O'Reilly and all the other folks at fox news claim to be fair and balanced -- even though their owner is a longtime and heavy GOP contributor -- then why is O'Reilly assuming people registered to vote as Democrats can't do the same?

An enterprising reporter discovered that O'Reilly was a registered Republican at a time when he was telling everyone he was an independent. Under his own twisted logic, that makes his work even more suspect.

I'm just trying to understand why he brought all this up, given that Fox News is so vulerable on this issue...

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I always though O'Reilly was a parody. I actually think he's funnier to watch the Colbert.

Sometimes I have to wonder if people actually know what Communism (Or 'Commie' if you prefer) means. There are differences between an American liberal, a socialist, and a communist. The difference aren't exactly subtle either. But what can you expect from a product of Florida's public education system......

[Khan of the Wastelands]

Define Irony -

"Step up and be the man you are. Instead of twisting the topic, have the balls to defend your nutjob commie beliefs."

- Posted by Anonymous.

CLASSIC!

[Eric Deggans]

Khan, thanks as always for the incisive comments.

I stopped beating the drum about anonymity a while ago -- it's always the biggest jerks who want to take apart my opinions with insults but never attach their own name or identity to controversial stands.

Love me or loathe me, at least you know where I stand. And anytime you want to challenge a position i've taken, you know where to fine me.

Wish i could say the same for some of the less respectful posters in this space...

[Billy]

Well, Eric, you're intimately familiar with the industry. Can YOU name a conservative TV critic? That would have been the easiest way to refute what he said, but you didn't do it.

[Eric Deggans]

The fact is, I don't know the political persuasion of most TV critics with whom I am friendly. I don't know if they are registered to vote under any political party or whether they've given money to candidates of either major political group.

At any rate, my position has been from the beginning that looking at a critic's voting registration without considering their specific work is perpetuating a witch hunt mentality.

i also noted that such an approach would also call o'reilly's own program and host network into question.

Seems to me, pointing out the absurdity of his position is obvious and the easiest way to refute him. Sorry you don't agree...

[Ripclawe]

"He said they can't find a liberal critic, without saying what they've done to find one. My hunch is that a lot of us blew off the personal calls -- especially after my column about his nonsense surfaced in the Huffington Post"

If it happened that way, you proved him right.

[dugan]

This would have been a great opportunity to start a list, just like Bill suggested.......where is it? I would be glad to tell you that I am a conservative. If I were a TV critic I would not have been hired if the publication knew in advance of this thus we have what we have. It is not good or bad but at least those critics could be more honest.........geez what is the big deal? Are liberals ashamed of their position?

[susan helen rattray]

love your pieces on "the fox".
Am an aussie and just got this FNC 2 years ago, and was horrified but morbidly fascinated. Still cannot watch that thing named Hannity.

Have a happy holiday,
Susan.

[dugan]

Susan, its OK not to look, Hannity and Colmes is for the "hard core" inside the "beltway" down and dirty, finger pointing, back biting politics. I prefer to watch little kittens playing in the grass, you may want to do the same.

[TBDave]

Maybe I missed the point you were trying to make. But it seems to me that you were saying:

Fox News is owned by a conservative. Bill O'Reilly and others on Fox are conservatives. Yet despite their political views, they are "fair and balanced". So why should anyone think that liberal owners, critics, reporters can't be fair and balanced too?

The problem with that argument, is that you don't think Fox News is "fair and balanced". Do you?

And that just proves his point. If a channel owned and run by conservatives can't be "fair and balanced", then how can a media outlet owned/run by liberals be fair and balanced?

According to your article, every conservative owned and run media outlet seems to be biased. Are conservatives the only ones lacking the ability to be objective?

Personally, I think that if critics are going to call out Fox News for it's conservative bias, then Fox News has the right to call out those critics for their liberal bias.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

Quote "The problem with that argument, is that you don't think Fox News is "fair and balanced". Do you?"

I'm a Conservative and Fox News is about as balanced as Margot Kidder. The internal memo from Fox execs calling their staff to look for Iraqis celebrating the Dem victory last month was Orwellian.

Bill O'Reilly is absolutely absurd as a commentator, I mean truly, truly absurd. Only slightly less so than Rush Limbaugh, who is about as nasty a little cuss as they come.

Who does that leave us with? Well frankly I don't think people should be watching any of this junk. I celebrated when CNNs CROSSFIRE was cancelled. We don't need talking heads bitching back and forth as our means of political discourse in this nation. It makes us look like simpletons.

Eric mentioned the ratings of WWE wrestling earlier. Perhaps there's a tie-in somewhere.....

[Khan of the Wastelands]

Oh and I think it is 100% fair to look at Eric's politics and question the motivation or his perspective behind any article or commentary he writes.

But I don't think Eric has ever made an effort to hide his political persuasion. O'Reilly has and repeatedly tries to pass himself off as an independent populist ("I'm just looking out for The Folks") when he is in fact an RNC stooge.

Everything that he says and does must be colored by the fact that he is a registered R and likely votes a straight R ticket.

[Eric Deggans]

TBDave, I think I made my position clear in both my posting and this comments space. But I'll spell it out again, if it needs to be re-said:

Looking at a critic's political affiliations without considering their work is perpetuating a witch hunt mentality.

It is absurd for O'Reilly to say that, because a critic is a reigstered Democrat, he can't be fair. It is absurd to say that, because a CEO has given to Democratic causes, he can't run a news network that is fair to Republicans.

It is particularly absurd for O'Reilly to make these claims because, as Fox News' most popular personality, he has maintained for many years that his show and the network on which it appears is not biased towards the GOP.

But his boss, Roger Ailes, is a past advisor for Republican presidents going back to Richard Nixon (he even gave George Bush advice on how to cope with 9/11, despite the fact that he was running Fox News Channel at the time) And his boss' boss is a longtime and very visible contributor to Republican interests who also owns several pointedly conservative news outlets.

I have said repeatedly, O'Reilly needs to talk people's actual work, not their political affiliations. Criticizing a journalist without looking at the work they produce is...what's the word?

Oh yeah. Absurd.

[bigred]

So, you admit you're a liberal and you admit that you don't know of any conservative TV critics. I think you just made O'Reilly's point for him.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

Hey I think I took a logic course with that guy.

He was one of the Fs.... :+l

[bigred]

Eric, have you ever written anything about the absurd comments of any liberal TV commentators, like Olbermann, for instance? If not, I think that speaks volumes about your "actual work" and how it ties in perfectly with your political affiliation.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

What are some examples of Olbermann's absurd liberalism?

I must admit I don't pay much attention to Olbermann. I have heard some nice anti-O'Reilly rants by him though. Specifically some of his rants about O'Reilly continually mis-informing the public about the Malmedy massacre are downright hilarious.

[bigred]

Eric, you miss the entire point. There is a definate liberal bias among TV critics and you are just one example.

The point that O'Reilly correctly made is liberal TV critics like you use your bias to slam someone whose political ideology your do not agree with. And you stoop to name calling to do it: "laughingstock", "twisted" and "blowhard".

As a "TV critic", do you judge him on his abilities as the most successful talk show host in all of cable news? No. You're a ideology critic.

Do any TV announcers who vote the same way you do receive the same criticism? From you or any other TV critic?

You asked, "Why can't we TV critics overcome our party affiliations?"

Damn good question. Now give us an answer.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

So no examples of Olbermann's rampant liberalism Big Red?

[big red]

Too many to list here. Go to olbermannwatch.com and you can find hundreds for yourself.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I just asked for a couple, not all of them.

What are a couple that stand out in your memory?

[bigred]

His ridiculous statements that the Bush administration has stripped all Americans of the right to habeas corpus, the fact that every single show he does opens with a Bush-bashing segment, the fact that he never has guests on his show that offer an alternative viewpoint than his anti- Republican stances, the fact that his "worst person in the world segments" always feature conservatives and never, ever feature Dems or libs.

Need more?

BTW, Eric, still waiting for a response. Tick, tick, tick....

[Eric Deggans]

Big Red, I have given my response.

O'Reilly -- and you -- are not basing your criticism on specific stories or our specific work. When I have criticized O'Reilly, it has always been because of specific positions he's taken, ideas he's advocated or programs he has aired.

You want to talk about specific stories I or anyone else has written, I'm happy to debate. But I won't dignify his "guilt by association" approach by addressing some insulting generality.

I've already said I don't know the political persuasions of many other TV critics. That means I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.

So, to sum up my response: i'm not going to talk in generalities about my work; I don't know the political persuasions of many colleagues, and i think the whole concept is insulting, demeaning and inaccurate.

Hope this is a sufficient response for you....

[big red]

No, Eric, I'm referring specifically to your column above. Again, as "TV critic" you don't criticize his TV work, you criticize his ideology because it does not mesh with yours.

[Eric Deggans]

I'm not sure why i'm continuing this discussion.

But I will simply note that my blog post was a point by point criticism of a commentary he aired during his show. It was a specific, detailed examination of an argument he made -- not a sweeping generalization of his work based on his voting registration or political contributions.

That's a courtesy he denied all TV critics in the country in his original commentary...

[big red]

Has any TV critic in the nation shown him any courtesy? I can't think of any.

Can you? Certainly not you with the immature name-calling.

His point is accurate Eric. You guys are all liberals. None of you give him a fair shake. None of you rip on liberal TV hosts.

If O'Reilly is so far off point, give one critic who isn't liberal. Just one.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

>His ridiculous statements that the Bush administration has stripped all Americans of the right to habeas corpus, the fact that every single show he does opens with a Bush-bashing segment, the fact that he never has guests on his show that offer an alternative viewpoint than his anti- Republican stances, the fact that his "worst person in the world segments" always feature conservatives and never, ever feature Dems or libs.<

This is my problem with the punditocracy of America.

Politics is not all black and white Big Red. Being anti-Bush does not make one a liberal despite what Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or that local idiot MJ Schnidt may have you believe.

I voted for Bush in 2000 and am a registered Republican. In 2004 I had no other choice to vote AGAINST Bush (and for Kerry) due to GWs horrid domestic policies and more importantly, his war of aggression in Iraq.

Because I took umbrage with the war itself (let alone how the war was run) I also had to vote against those who enabled the President by permitting a complete lack of Congressional oversight. This put me at odds with the Republican party.

I am VERY fiscally conservative. Socially I could be called a liberal, but I tend to vote my pocketbook.

Just because someone is anti-Republican or anti-Bush does not make them a liberal.

You've been fooled into what the definition of "Liberal" actually is. This happens all the time because people sit down and watch shows like Bill O'Reilly who convinces people that Democrat=Liberal.

Or what's the new one I hear alot from him..... "Secular Progressives"

blech!

[Mark Harling]

Hmmm, sounds like O'Reilly hit s raw nerve with you. O'Reilly states right up front what he is and doesn't hide it. He is also willing not to take the straight party line and critize Republicans and conservatives when he sees them screwing up. I have yet to see a "liberal" say I'm "liberal" and be willing to critize fellow travelers. Bush has been slammed by my conservative commentators and I don't recall that liberal commentators doing the same with our previous President. I think it has something to do with the confidence in core beliefs. Liberals just don't have any confidence in what they believe in anymore. Otherwise they wouldn't be so schrill in pissing on their competitors and sycophantic in defending their own.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I think many on the right have a rather broad view of what a liberal is. In truth, there aren't many true liberals around these days.

However I think plenty of liberals had quite a few problems with Bill Clinton. (His stance on the death penalty for instance. Not to mention his signing welfare reform).

In today's America liberal basically means anyone to the left of whomever is using the term as an insult.