the key sentence in the whole thing is:   "i couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in new york city."    "i couldn't get over the fact...."

The fact that CNN is actually airing a story on this provides textbook proof that the liberal bias in the media is very real and pervasive. ("Conservative misinformation"? LOL!)

Doesn't O'Reilly have more viewers in his timeslot than all of his competitors (CNN, MSNBC, Headline News) combined?

CNN is just coming across as a bitter loser. And MM just appears to be making another lame attempt to force O'Reilly off TV with another one of its bogus "outrages."

There's a stretch.  Let me see if I got this straight.

CNN has a lot of nerve repeating O'Reilly's racially insensative remarks.

Got it.

According to Shoes if the media report the racist ramblings of someone they are being "liberally biased".  I suppose that means that racists are necessarily conservatives by that reasoning.

"Racist ramblings"? Puh-leeze. Not even close. Juan Williams is shredding MM and CNN right now on TV. MM took one comment out of context from an hour-long interview and discussion on racism.

Why don't the cable networks jump all over liberals like Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, and Wolf Blitzer when they make notable remarks?

Olbermann's Nazi salute: The Anti-Defamation League took note and cited him. Where was the reporting in the television media? Nowhere.

Randi Rhodes compared the evacuation of Katrina victims to the Holocaust! Again, she was cited by the Anti-Defamation League. Where was the television reporting? Nowhere.

Wolf Blitzer, live during Katrina coverage, said of the victims: "They are so black." What?!? Again, no reporting from any mainstream outlet.

The liberal bias in reporting in the media is nothing short of staggering.

This is simply another weak, desperate play by MM. But, alas, MM has been exposed again.

you want to talk about everything but what o'reilly said, which is understandable.   to say you "can't get over the fact" that a black restaurant can be well run, or it's patrons behave, is totally offensive.  and that is exactly what he said.   he really got to that age and didn't know that?

"you want to talk about everything but what o'reilly said ..."

Uhhh. Did you actually read my comment above? Ugh.

I re-read your post above, and it seems to me that MEFIRST has it pegged.  You speak of everything except O'Reilly's racest comment.

uh, yes shoes, i did read your comments.  which was the basis for my comment.

Then you read the part in which I wrote that MM took "one comment out of context from an hour-long interview and discussion on racism."

Juan Williams actually particpated in the discussion in which this took place. He blasted propagators of this story for their "rank dishonesty." And that's what this is. Out of context from an hour-long discussion ...

WILLIAMS: You (to O'Reilly) said stereotypes are not true ... [I]t had nothing to do with racist ranting by anybody except these idiots at CNN.

Rank ... dishonesty. MM and CNN are exposed.

The RANK dishonesty is YOURS. Are you really arguing that if you are reasonable for MOST of an hour then say something as blatantly racist as O'falafel did that its somehow OK? Is there a point system? For every 10 minutes you are NOT spewing racist ignorance you get a freebie? Please tell me you are kidding? I dont care WHAT paid shill Williams is saying the O man let his inner racist out for a spin and a whole lot of people didnt like the look of him

That was because your "examples" were terribly weak.  Nothing you wrote compares at all to O'Reilly's racist remarks.

Sorry shoes, you don't have a leg to stand on. And what's with the Wolf Blitzer thing? Is he a big liberal boogeyman too? The guy is such a hack. He's pretty much been a shill for your heroes all along. Might as well work for FOX.

One comment in an hour long interview?

You don't know what the heck you're talking about. It was several comments and the interview with Juan was only one segment long...like less than 15 minutes.

And don't point out others' supposed bad remarks to defend O'Reilly's bad remarks. O'Reilly hates it when people justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. That's one of his big rules to live by. LOL!

Juan Williams is shredding MM and CNN right now on TV. 

That Juan Williams boy he's such a heavyweight.......NOT!

Pearl, the moment I read that comment I stopped and moved on to other posts in the thread. I refuse to read such nonsense. To say that Juan Williams shreds any topic is not only laughable but completely delusional. The only thing Juan Williams is good at is being Brit Hume's punching bag on Sundays, and he has perfected that down to the T!

Your post is PATHETIC. Forget the look over there dodge. What O'falafelman said was CLEARLY racists and no reasonable argument can be made it isnt. Evade the issue all you want it WONT change a THING. Let me translate your post for those who have trouble speaking WINGNUT. WWAAHHHHH stop pointing out the racist spew of O'Reilly. WWAAHHHH it makes him look bad WWWAAHHHH look over there at the mean liberal, not the racist bag of neurosis on MY side WWAHHHHH

shoes, what does the number of viewers anyone has have to do with this?   i think the answer is nothing.   it's the fact that he seems so totally taken aback that blacks can actually run a nice restaurant.   that's the point, which you're doing your best to avoid.

Shoes, what in the world are you talking about? O'Reilly said that he was surprised that black people could run and patronize a restaurant in much the same way as white people. Do you need to be black yourself to see how offensive that is? What part of this do you have trouble understanding? What does it have to do with his ratings? Nothing you said fits together in any logical way whatsoever. Can you clear any of it up?

SunDog- If Shoes is an Oreilly fan- logic would have to be suspended indefinitely. This is crazy making at it's best.. or worse.

Oreilly makes outrageous racist comments. That's  what they were. He's an ignorant fool.

Then the CNN masterminds "Dumb and Dumber" try and figure out how are O'reilly's comments racist, they have the exact quotes.

But somehow in the land of the no brains- because Media Matters highlights the ridiculous, inane, offensive EXACT comments Oreilly made -then according to BO and the clowns that covered this  Media Matters is somehow distorting Oreilly's ever so benign "golly gee black folk can run a decent restaurant, eat decent, and not spew profanities in public." Huh?

Oh yeah.

 Please for the love of sanity get this nimwit to Shut-up, along with all the other regressives.

Sundog, Shoes can tell you:  Bill O'Rudely FUXnews.

That's as clear as words can say it.

Shoes, I haven't read but the top of this thread, just your first post really.

MY GOD, MAN!?!?

I really hope to god you're joking.

shoes89,

Why don't you come down to Fox News and spend a day with this far-right loon Bill. Then post your comments.

You might get a Fox News tour with this News Corporation nightmare.

So a cable news show, talking about CLEAR racist BS from a MAJOR news personality is PROOF of liberal bias? THAT is proof of your complete disconnect from reality.

How is it a hatchet job when his words, in full context, were put out there for people to read? Tell me how that's a "hatchet" job again Bill O? Can you say, "No leg to stand on?"

O'Reilly really got caught with his pants down on this one.  There is no hatchet job here, his words are fully in context and they speak for themselves.  His demeaning patronization is inexcusable, instead of blaming MMFA as he usually does, he should fess up and take responsibility for his offernsive remarks.  Even an apology would be hollow for him at this point, but appearing this clueless, when he knows exactly what he said, only makes him look more asinine.

OReilly is more and more putting his foot in his mouth. Reminds me of Al Campanis and Jimmy the Greek. Why no more MSM coverage of this?

True.  At the rate he currentley is putrting his foot in his mouth he;ll have to borrow a pair of Shaqs shoes.

His past remarks pretty wellpaint him as the bigot he is.

One wonders if, in his simple mind, BO doesn't consider it a racist remark.  Many folks don't recognize it in themselves. My dear sainted mother (a jazz musician) said she definitely was not a racist.  "All the blacks she ever meet were very clean."

One wonders if, in his simple mind, BO doesn't consider it a racist remark.  Many folks don't recognize it in themselves. My dear sainted mother (a jazz musician) said she definitely was not a racist.  "All the blacks she ever meet were very clean."  Middleleft

IMO we all have friends who make statements that on their face appear racists but yet it was not their intention. I too have friends who have make statements not meant to be racially insensitive but insensitive never the less. Unfortunately I think Bill's statement are insensitive, racists (based on previous statements) and ignorant.

No Bill it wasn't a hatchet job, it was a mirror for you to look into.

Poor ignorant Bill. No wonder he likes Bush, neither one can take responsibility for what they say!

butbutbut...I thought The Republican Party was all about "Personal Responsibility". ; )

It is!  Republican's expect Democrats to take personal responsibility for the ills of society. 

He says that he's surprised that the black folks are sitting around eating just like regular people and there's no racial intent? What the hell? Why isn't this a bigger story?

dawg, it's because the media is liberal. We all know the liberals only eat their own. It makes no sense that they would try to pick on republicans to try to get a political edge on, remember?

A bigger story?  CNN is covering it, I'd say it has branched out to the mainstream media, at least on their network.  Where would you like to see it go?

That is good. Hopefully this will finally get pushed to the point where FOX gets confronted on why they continue to employ someone like Loofa Boy.

Problem is, Fox "News" wishes they had more idiots like loofa boy.

One thing I'd like to see is people telling businesses like bars, cafes, laudrymats and all these public places that leave FOX 'news' on all the time to change the damn channel. I mean talk about a discredited organization. And clearly they broadcast some pretty creepy stuff in terms of racism.

I can't go to the airport without seeing FOX on about ten TVs. Why should these businesses be putting someone like O'Reilly in front of the public? I've confronted people about this before and I don't give a damn about their incredulous reactions. It's either just a clueless, "huh?" from the clueless or some really sideways stuff from the obvious dittoheads who know exactly why they leave FOX on. I stopped going to one place and told the owner why. What if lots of people were speaking up this way? Why should we be subjected to this crap in public? If someone wants to sit home and wallow in it that's their business. But I don't want government propaganda and racist innuendo masquerading as news forced into my face when I'm eating lunch or having a beer.

My wife and I ALWAYS request the channel changed to a real news channel, or none at all.  When we get a dirty look, we shrug if off.  Once in a while a waiter or waitress will ask why, and when we explain, it's fun to watch their jaw drop and the deer in the headlights look slowly comes over their faces.  We then explain why they should vote for Democrats.

Nice to know I'm not the only one out there. Wish this would happen all the time. I mean FOX has responded to this latest bit of racism by saying it's just the fault of jealous liberals. What's it going to take?

To change the minds of politicians, you need enough social pressure to threaten their political future.

To change the minds of corporations, you need to hit their bottom line hard enough for them to actually feel it.  Unfortunately, because of the money that's backing FOX's propaganda, even a mass exodus of advertisers and viewers may not make that big of a difference.  Murdoch has his own agenda, and he has the money to back it, even if it means having some of his subsidiaries advertise on FOX in a cluster**** of advertising dollars instead of changing the party line, anti-Democratic (party and philosophy, of course) rhetoric that spews from his problem child of a Cable Views station.

They did cover this on Morning Joe, and even suprising to me Scarborough thouth the statement was offensive and he genrally downplays O'rielly's nuttiness. The statement speaks for itself and it's more than patronization and it gives a very revealing peek into the soul of someone like O'rielly. O'Rielly reinforces the otherness he considers of AAs and that these others are not like us really. He further in my opinion perpetuates this notion that's being circulated by the racist intellegnisia that those others those Blacks need special guidance because of their inferiority. So somehow sitting in a resturant acting like Whites do when they go to a restaurant means that Blacks have finally caught on and are taking their cues from the example that Whites have to set for them. To make a long story short their behavior reinforces the correctness of Bill's beleif in the White man's burden of leading these inferiors.

Why don't the "investigative reporters" pull up Media Matters and compare the audio on Media Matters to the clips they played?  Why don't they compare what O'Reilly said to what was written here?  Show the audience if it is a hatchet job or not.  You have all the resources you would ever need!

How is this a rebuttal for O'Reilly:

"Now, in fairness, he has a radio show and a television show. He's on the air for an awful long time. I want to find out, though, what our CNN contributor Roland Martin has to say about this after hearing some of this."  Is the reporter trying to say that because he has been broadcasting for a long time he is incapable of saying inappropriate things?

Lastly, Martin says he is a nice guy. SO WHAT?  Talk about what he said and how he said it.  Just because he has been cordial with you does not mean he isn't a jerk to others.  Why does this dialogue happen?

Yeah, O'Lielly is a nice guy. Isn't that what women who fall in love with murderers in prison say. He's always been nice to me. Same mindset I guess.

 "Is the reporter trying to say that because he has been broadcasting for a long time he is incapable of saying inappropriate things"

I think he's saying that when you do three hours of commentary every day you're going to slip up every once in a while. When you talk as much as O'Reilly does you're going to end up saying some things that are controversial. That's part of being a talk show host. I don't really think that what O'Reilly said is very controversial. It's possible that he could've eaten in other black restaurants in Harlem that weren't hospitable and had bad service. He may have been surprised that the restaurant that he went to with Sharpton was better than similar restaurants that he had been to in the past. He could've been commenting on how blacks have been progressing in this area over the years.

Rino,

I understand that O'Reilly has three hours a day on the airwaves and at times says something stupid or offensive, but it's his lack of personal accountability for what he said, his blaming someone else for taking it out of context instead of fessing up to it, owning it, and trying to make amends.  He can't ever do that, he won't, his ego and self importance will not allow him to admit to anymore than some innocuous mistake from time to time.  I have no respect for him.

As for this incident, it's his patronization that is so gauling here.  As I said before, that form of racial pandering and offensiveness is worse than an actual in your face hater - for it's far more sneakier and more hideous.  He said it, he should take responsibility for it. 

If you let a person talk long enough, you'll really get to know them because they'll tell you who they are.  O'Reilly might as well have said 'I'm a bigot.'  But, we knew that already.

I'm sure that many were offended by O'Reilly's comments, but I don't think that O'Reilly meant for his comments to be offensive or racist. I think that his overall point was how the black community is improving. I think he was basically saying that blacks have come a long ways over the years and have evened the playing field. He may have been comparing his current experiences to other experiences in the past where he got bad service in black restaurants. I don't really think that you can say that it was a racist comment without the proper context. But we just disagree on O'Reilly's intent.

You really can't see the inherent racial component in "patting someone on the head and say good job, you are really improving, keep it up, even your restaurants are getting better"?

I'm just saying that I don't believe that O'Reilly's intent was racist. I think that he meant to compliment blacks. But I'll admit he didn't say it in a very eloquent way. It didn't come across very good.

It doesnt MATTER if he intended to be racist. The fact he was acting suprised that blacks were NOT conforming to racist stereotypes shows a passive racism, that is SEEING black people as inherently inferior that is condescending, patronizing, insulting and ABSOLUTLY racist. There is no obligation that something be malicious for it to be racist.

RINO,

You're not helping.

Lynn,

If you're somehow saying that Rino's opinion is worrysome to me because he is a conservative, then you are mistaken.  Rino's opinions are his own, as are mine, as are yours.  

You're correct. I'm just speaking for myself and no one else. I criticize O'Reilly and Limbaugh from time to time as well. The other day I criticized Limbaugh for his attack on Senator Hagel. I don't always agree with these guys. I just call it like I see it.

I was talking to RINO not you. Rino is indeed entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. My comment was aimed at Rino's torturous efforts to explain what BO probably meant were not helping Bill’s cause. Bill was giving a compliment because he discovered that the Blacks weren’t hurling MFers across the room at each other as he expected they would be? That’s utterly ridiculous. Bill O’rielly is harboring racist attitudes and stereotypes about Black behavior and I wonder why any rational person is unable to see that. So Tommy I don’t understand the people running to Bill’s defense unless they harbor similar sentiments and this is why they understand what Bill meant.  

Lynn,

Thanks for the clarification.  Sometimes our intent and meaning is different than the way some people interpret the posts here......so I appreciate your answer.  I apologize.

I think Rino said it best when he said "I don't really think that what O'Reilly said is very controversial."

I'm actually gonna agree with Tommy way back there:  being on the air a long time and (presumably) slipping up doesn't absolve you of accountability. 

Jerry Lewis was on the air for 20 some hours and toward the end goofed up.  Some language bubbled up to the surface probably from years back and made it out of his mouth.  He kind of caught himself on air after it happened.  And later, when called to the carpet on it, what did he do?  Did he cry "Hatchet job?"  No, he immediately apologized unconditionally.

The key difference, though, is that I think Lewis knew instantly he'd goofed.  O'Reilly was oblivious to the racism in what he was saying as he said it.  It's not even clear that he gets it NOW.

We all have the baggage of our upbringing, good or bad.  We're all gonna "goof."  Those with character address the goof appropriately and make amends.

But to do that, you have to actually understand that you goofed. 

Bill doesn't follow his own advice. He never takes responsibility for what he says, he just tears into people for airing verbatim the clap trap only meant for the ears of his followers'fans to audiences that wouldn't be caught dead tuned into his one of his shows.

Tommy, I would NEVER think that because you and Rino are conservatives you have the same thoughts. I also don't think badly of either of you. IMO you have a better understanding and a willingness regarding social issues. Rino on the other hand is extremely defensive in his opinions. His beliefs and Bill's are similar on issues other than social therefore he cannot imagine that  Bill would have racists thoughts. That's just my opinion.

Pearl,

I know Rino and myself share many of the same ideological opinions, but not in this particular instance.  This further illustrates how people, liberals and conservatives, can have similar opinions on many things, as well as many stark differences.

Which is why I say we all speak only for ourselves, nobody else.

This further illustrates how people, liberals and conservatives, can have similar opinions on many things, as well as many stark differences. Tommy

Stay tuned cause you will see black folks appearing on Fox probably who feel like Rino that Bill did nothing wrong.

Good call pearlene.  So true.  I would put money on that!

Heck, you can find some blacks who will extol the virtues of slavery.  I guess that makes it okay then.  Jeesh!

Open, unfortunately I have a perfect example:

On September 21, 2005, Jessie Lee Peterson (black man) penned a column for WorldNetDaily, in which he accused African American people stranded in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina of being "welfare-pampered", "Lazy" and "immoral". 

Look him up, he'll make your head spin, seriously.

I get a good laugh out of reading Peterson. He reminds me of one of those caricatures from SNL and Mad TV. Max Blumenthal from the Nation exposed him a long time ago for being nothing but a minstrel for the hard right. What I find interesting is how he continues to have a plateform when he's one of the most unintentionally comedic "pundits" in mainstream media today.

I think most racists never intend to show their true colors.

I remember going into an English Restaurant...do they have those?...and all of the staff spoke English.

I went to a mexican restaurant, I think the cooks were illegal immigrants because the taco's tasted good.

FYI, RH, when you say "the black community is improving" , the black community is immediately offended and will consider you a racist from then on. You may not hate blacks, but you are a racist from the very structure of the  cells in your body. You cannot change who you are, but you can continue to self anylize and try to understand how a group of people will feel when some one says "the black community is improving"

You don't think the black community has come a long ways from being in slavery to being segregated to finally being treated like equals with whites? It sounds to me that you're the one who's racist. You seem to forget about what blacks have gone through in the past.

I don't think the context of "improving" here is economics, I think it's referring to behavior.  Like black people are getting more civilized, or some such patronizing garbage.

Tommy, I like all of your comments in this thread (to this point, anyway) :-).

Rino, Bill's comparison was with "white" restaurants not black.

That slip of the tongue business was not a slip. If you don't have those thoughts to begin with you don't usually say them.

And my point is that O'Reilly may have thought from experience that white restuarants had better service than black restuarants. And then the new restaurant he went to made him change his mind and come to the conclusion that the restaurants are equal. You don't really know for sure unless you have the entire context. That's all I'm saying.

Rhino,

The interesting thing is that O'Reilly wasn't commenting on the service, he was commenting on the clientele.

I think O'Reilly is a racist and the tragic thing is that he doesn't even know it.  Most of the restaurants I go to are owned, operated and patronized by Black people and I have never once encountered this phenomenon O'Reilly claims [or use to claim] goes on in Black restaurants.

Rino, Sylvia’s is not NEW. It’s been around for a long time.

Bill would have to dine in a “black” restaurants in order to have any comparison to "other" black restaurants. How many “black” restaurants has Bill dined in? None I would guess by his comments. Did Bill base his comments on his OWN stereotype of “blacks”? It would seem so.

"How many “black” restaurants has Bill dined in"

That's exactly my point. We don't know. And without that context I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that what O'Reilly said is racist.

Only a racist would hold that type of perception of places he's never frequented.

Bill would have to dine in a “black” restaurant in order to have any comparison to "other" black restaurants.

That is the point! His expectations of dining in a "black" restaurant are based on HIS stereotyping of blacks in general!

Rino, you really are missing the point. This reminds me of people who have shown themselves to be racist then explaining to me that it's because of something some particular person did to them. As though they had been granted special dispensationg to group all black people together and repeat hateful stereotypes because one black person had done something bad to them. As though if I punched the same guy in the face he would forever suspect all white guys are violent.

There really is no context to explain away saying what Bill said. You're surprised that black people can behave in a restaurant? I mean come on. If you can't see how that reads as insulting as hell towards black people I don't really know what to say.

See thats just it you didnt MAKE a point. Gee I dont know anything at all about this situation but I am going to make up some far fetched hypothetical to appologize for O'falefels racism IS NOT MAKING A POINT.

I doubt very seriously if Bill has ever patronized any business predominantly patronized by AAs, but Lostlogic made an interesting point on another thread. She said she had little contact with AAs until high school but she wasn't harboring any expectations that somehow they are inclined to behave uncivilly. I suspect that’s because her parents didn't put them in her head.

"When you talk as much as O'Reilly does you're going to end up saying some things that are controversial."

I could talk for twenty-four gours straight and I would not end up saying something that was out-of-character with who I am. Controversial, probably. But I wouldn't become a different person through sheer exhaustion of topics to discuss.

And I'm pretty confident that I wouldn't wind up saying something as demeaning and patronizing as "I couldn't get over the fact that blacks could run a restaurant as nice as whites".

And its POSSIBLE that Martians have eaten his brain. If YOU dont think what he said is controversial that is if you are saying it wasnt racist that says a lot about YOU. When will you stop making the dumb its possible arguments. Virtually ANYTHING can be justified with a far fetched enough hypothetical if you have no evidenciary back up then they are completely worthless as arguments.

Patronship? Does he mean, patronage? My spell check is highlighting patronship as I write this.

His comments certainly are a "target rich environment."

Doesn't it really all boil down to the fact that the media is mostly controlled by, and comprised of, white males. Not a complaint or criticism, its just a fact. They're not going deny racist sentiments by one of their own because that's the tribalist thing to do. Blacks do it also. it's just plain and simply tribalism. So don't expect the media to attack one of their own. It's sad but true.

I was really hoping this would hit the MSM wire.  I want O'Reilly off the air, but not for comments like this.  I think this is just a case of someone who is not racist but SHELTERED saying something extremely stupid. 

I want to get O'Reilly off the air because of his propaganda and LIES about the Iraq war and the fact that he reports on stupid stories about 80yr olds getting run over by illegals just to keep his senior citizen audience happy and to take attention away from atrocities occurring in Iraq - all of which he IGNORES.  He also keeps saying "Lets give Iraq another 3 months" and anyone with any sort of memory knows that he has been saying that for the last two years, and it is an obvious attempt to help the president buy more time.   O'Reilly is a lying bushbot and everyone who is new to MediaMatters will realize it about 5 seconds after perusing this website.

"I want to get O'Reilly off the air because of his propaganda and LIES about the Iraq war"

No. You want to get O'Reilly off the air because you can't handle dissenting points of view. So rather than try to debate someone in the arena of ideas you would rather silence them. But don't worry, you're very similar to most most modern day liberals.

Wow.  That was kind of rude.  Why do you hate Liberals so?

I don't. I just find it frightening that many liberals are so intent on silencing opposing voices.

You mean like this putz?

[link to thinkprogress.org]

Not all of us are like that.  O'Reilly is MMFA's bread and butter.  This site would suck much more without the material he provides on a regular basis.

I will never advocate silencing O'Reilly.  Anyone who does such a thing is just insecure in their own personal beliefs, IMO.

And I apologize for the rudeness. I just wish people would stop calling for censorship. It's scary.

And I wish people would stop calling any complaints about the ideas and opinions expressed on the public airwaves "censorship".

We as citizens have a right to hold public figures accountable for their words and actions, especially if they're expressed on public airwaves.

Here we go again with your censorship talk.

We, the basic common people, have no power of censorship. That is for corporations, and government. If we don't like a dissenting point of view, or opinion, it is our right to call out whoever is saying it, and to maybe ask for their sponsors and or their employers to think about putting them back on the air. That's not censorship, that's called using your freedom of speech. We're not saying Bill O and the other bloviating pretentious windbags don't have the RIGHT to say what they're saying, sometimes we say that they don't have the RIGHT to say it on the air, on TV, and on the radio. Again, they are free to scream it across the country on sidewalks, on a blog, or wherever, but nobody has an inherent right to say anything on TV and or radio. That decision is made by the company's the employ said talking heads, and or the sponsors who pay for advertising.

It's not censorship, and as soon as you learn that, the better off you'll be. As soon as the government starts cracking down on what you can, and cannot say, and makes laws against such speech, that is censorship. You still don't get it. But that's OK. Maybe someday, you will, but I doubt. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

The bottom line is that if you disagree with O'Reilly, change the channel and don't listen to him. You shouldn't want to get him off the air. After all, the folks at Media Matters wouldn't have anything to do without O'Reilly. But calling for someone to be taken off the air is very closed minded and simply shows that you aren't open to opposing points of view.

RINO, how many Dixie Chicks CD's do you own?

0. What's your point?

Do you think it's okay that they were censured because people disagreed with their opinion?

They weren't actually censored. They were criticized and boycotted. But to me honest I thought that the whole thing was way overblown. I didn't think that what their lead singer said was controversial at all. She didn't criticize the military or even the Iraq War. She simply criticized Bush, which I don't have a problem with. It got really old when O'Reilly kept bringing up that subject every night. I never really understood what the big deal was.

There is no difference between criticising the president and the military OR Iraq. We have EVERY right to do any of those things.

RH,

Later in this thread you say that boycotting is "legal censorship."  Does this mean that the Chicks were "censored" in your mind?

Thanks for the advice, but no.  The best response to speech (in this case, idiotic racist speech) is more speech.  Actions, too, are perfectly acceptable.  If people want to point out to other people that O'Reilly is a racist, people are free and encouraged to do so.  If people want to organize and blog and comment publically about O'Reilly's racist comments, people are free and encouraged to do so.  If people want to organize and boycott products advertised on O'Reilly's programs where he makes racist comments, people are free and encouraged to do so.  If people want to exercise their free speech to write to the heads of corporations that sponsor or put O'Reilly's racist comments available on their media outlets, people are free and encouraged to do so.

So you're free to leave your sets tuned to O'Reilly's programs and enjoy his racist comments.  But if the effects of all those other constitutionally allowed activities by those of us who disagree with O'Reilly and his racist comments actually end up booting him off the air... tough.  That's the way it works. 

People should be thrown off the air if their rhetoric causes harm to another human being.  The lies and propaganda of the Iraq invasion has caused the deaths of countless human beings.  A good case can be made for throwing him off the air.

Hmmm. So you're basically saying that anybody who supports going to war should be censored and taken off the air. That's nice. Welcome to Cuba.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious.  How do you gloss over words like "lies" and "propaganda" when you read?

And when I put MY liberal billboard in YOUR front yard and YOU dont like it you can look the other way. If you take it down you will be censoring me

I know RINO. I wish people would stop perpetuating ugly stereotypes because it's annoying, so what can I do but loudly and persistently criticize people who do this. Bill's free to say whatever he wants to and I'm free to comment on WHATEVER he says.

RH,

I am going to have to ask you this again.  A while back, there was a post on here about the two people who were non-disruptive at a Bush rally wearing what the organizers thought were insensitive shirts.  They were arrested.  It turns out that there is an entire manual written by the Bush people about stifiling dissent at Bush rallies. 

I asked you at that point to join me in writing to our Congresspeople because our freedom of speech was being threatened as individual citizens by the government and you balked.  You said that this would be best decided by a Court.  You did not step up to defend freedom of speech in its purest form.

In this example, you claim that people want censorship based on their outrage of racially insensitive comments.

In this case, O'Reilly clearly said that he thought that the patrons would be acting crazy and asking the waitstaff to bring them tea "m-fer."  He was amazed that the blacks acted like patrons at other restaurants.  He did not make any comments about the establishment itself, but rather the clientele.

Is it censorship to ask the people who broadcast and sponsor Mr. O'Reilly to confront him with his words?  If they don't agree with what he says and pull their ads, are they censoring him?  When statements like these are made, awareness is key.  I am guessing if you sponsored a show which suddenly made awful comments, in your mind, about Christians you would pull your support immediately and no one would blame you.

What is wrong with confronting those who support O'Reilly with his words and letting them choose if this is someone they want to support?

If Freedom of Speech is such a passionate issue for you, why do you want to let it go to the courts instead of fighting for it?  In other instances, you have said that you want issues decided by the people.  I would think, hope and pray that this issue would motivate you to do more than post on a website that does not cater to your point-of-view and do something about it.

No one is going to arrest O'Reilly for his comments or tell him what he can or cannot say, but the advertisers/supporters do need to see if O'Reilly's is a message they want to continue to support. 

"In this example, you claim that people want censorship based on their outrage of racially insensitive comments"

I was actually just responding to the Patraeus guy who said that O'Reilly should be taken off the air. His comment made it sound like he wanted to silence those with an opposing political view point rather than simply defeating him in the arena of ideas. He said nothing about boycotting advertisers and the like. He simply said that O'Reilly shouldn't be on the air.

And I agree with you about the protesters at the Bush rally as long as they aren't disturbing the peace by yelling during the speech. I just don't usually write to my representatives. I don't think that it usually does much good. And I just come here for fun. I know that I'm not changing anybody's mind, but I just like debating people that I disagree with. But my overall point is that I just don't like this attitude on the left that people on the right who say controversial things shouldn't be on the air. Whether it's done through legal means or not, I don't believe that you should ever want to boot someone off the air simply because you disagree with their political opinions. I strongly disagree with just about everything that Keith Olbermann says, but I'm not advocating that he be taken off the air. I support his right to speak his mind and say whatever he wants to say.

"His comment made it sound like he wanted to silence those with an opposing political view point rather than simply defeating him in the arena of ideas."

Is dishonesty a political viewpoint?  The comments were specific to behavior, which is valid criticism. 

RH,

It sounds like you think that anyone who is currently on the air has a lifetime contract.

Do you think advertisers have an obligation to  stay with their clients?

I realize debate is fun, but what does it take for you to stand up and be counted?

Are you ok with dishonesty and hateful rhetoric?

"Are you ok with dishonesty and hateful rhetoric"

Dishonesty and "hateful rhetoric" is basically just your opinion. Many of us feel that O'Reilly is not hateful and is accurate most of the time. In a free society you get to make choices about whether someone is hateful and whether you want to listen to that person or not. But when you say that someone is "hateful" you should realize that that's simply your opinion and nothing else. Many of us don't feel that O'Reilly is hateful, and we don't want him to be taken off the air simply because he offends certain people. I realize that there's nothing wrong with calling his advertisers and telling them you won't buy their products. It's basically a legal form of censorship. I just don't see why you bother when you can simply change the channel and watch Keith Olbermann or some other leftist.

Oh, brilliant.

Yes, hatefulness and dishonesty are subjective.  It's all about what makes a reasonable opinion.  You pretend as if all opinions are equal, therefore nothing can ever be fairly determined.

Godwin's law, but to show the silliness of your argument;you could brush off criticism of a Nazi if "many" agreed with that person's view.  It's like David Duke saying someone else isn't a racist.  That opinion obviously carries no weight, because he doesn't want to admit there's a racism problem anyway.  It's not a reasonable opinion, because of that.

I love the "honest most of the time" argument as well.  So if every fourth thing he says is a blatant lie, he's relatively honest.  Hilarious. 

Let me ask you this then, RH.  When has Bill made any type of remark even close to this about white people or Mexicans?

Has he ever said: "I went to that Mexican restaurant and no one said "Hey gringo we are invading your country."  They acted just like white people."

So you are basically saying that anyone on TV deserves to be there forever and if we don't like it, change the channel?  Where can I get a job like this?

You honestly think that asking advertisers if they agree with the message they are paying for is censorship????

Do the advertisers have to keep the lifetime contract? 

"So you are basically saying that anyone on TV deserves to be there forever"

Talk show hosts should be on T.V. as long as they are getting good ratings. O'Reilly has the #1 rated talk show on Cable News, so of course he's going to stay on T.V. If a talk show host starts to get low ratings and becomes a drag on the network he or she should be let go. But they shouldn't be fired simply because they offend certain people. In a business like that you're always going to offend somebody. You can't please everyone.

Can we distinguish between "not pleasing everyone" and making racist comments?  By your argument, someone could come out on the air and encourage their viewers to kill every "camel jockey" they know, and as long as they continued to pull a profit there's no problem.

Can you make some effort to understand the concept that there are some things that are almost universally offensive?  Racism is one of those things.

So, you would be ok with the David Duke show if it got ratings?

The Gen comments specified LIES. That is NOT an opinion but a matter of FACT and it is a FACT that O'Reilly spreads LIES. That is NOT covered by free speech. If you LIE about someone just talking on the street which OBVIOUSLY is more protected than your JOB or an audience, you can be sued. What he was calling for was NOT censorship but accountability.

That's not censorship Rino. No one is talking about repressing any facts. Ironically, everyone here would like to see a heck of a lot more facts reported. They're talking about an offensive opinion giving celebrity who has shown himself to be a liar and a hate monger and a loofa lover even when the loofa doesn't want to be loved.