O’Reilly to continue “expose” on NBC News…
FNC is airing ads for the next O’Reilly Factor…
Announcer voice…
Bill exposes NBC News’s liberal agenda and the man attacking our military.
I’m going to refrain from commenting on this until I see the actual segment Monday because it’s difficult to interpret exactly what Bill will be doing from the ad.
UPDATE: The quotes used in those frame grabs came from an Op Ed Arkin did in the Washington Post. Not NBC News. O’Reilly will have to explain how a Washington Post Op Ed ties to NBC News.
UPDATE 2: Arkin was on John Gibson’s radio show. Johnny Dollar has the (edited) audio.
I think it’s pretty clear what he’ll be doing. The only question is HOW he links liberals to terrorists. Report back - I can’t watch him without my stomach acting up on me.
Comment by Arthur — February 3, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
I’m worried that Mr. Bill may put Stephen Colbert’s writers out of business, since the real thing is becoming the parody. I wish he’d go back to his insinuations about poor Shawn Hornbeck.
Comment by museglet — February 3, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Did either of you bother to read the op-ed? It’s despicable.
“These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.”
“So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them,”
So, the soldiers should be grateful to us? For what? They’re over their dying and living in danger daily because their country asked them to, and we’re supposed to be grateful.
Look, this guy cites NBC throughout his report, he’s on the NBC payroll, and if NBC is going to bash O’Reilly on a nightly basis, he has every right to talk about crap like what Arkin wrote.
Comment by bigred — February 3, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
UPDATE: The quotes used in those frame grabs came from an Op Ed Arkin did in the Washington Post. Not NBC News. O’Reilly will have to explain how a Washington Post Op Ed ties to NBC News.
You can’t have it both ways. Both sides do this; pointing to things the other side does away from their main forum. O’Reilly has been held to account for things he’s done and said away from “The O’Reilly Factor.” If this guy is being paid to be an “NBC News Military Analyst,” why shouldn’t he be held to account for his views expressed in an op ed about the military?
Comment by erljr — February 3, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Just last night, Olbermann went after Fox News because Cal Thomas (who’s on the channel for 30 minutes a week) wrote something in his newspaper column!
Comment by johnny dollar — February 3, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
What O’Reilly… are you kidding me?! It’s so much easier to just make up stuff about him! Who cares about the issues he’s actually talking about, O’Reilly is a poopy pants.
/sarcasm
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 3, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Honestly, what is the point of yelling over how NBC is covering the War in Iraq when the vast majority of viewers of his program already have that feeling and most likely don’t watch the network or watch it knowing that angle.
Anyway, in all respects, O’Reilly needs to remember that no matter what angle you take, it’s a bias, whether it’s pro war or anti-war. NBC has taken a route of calling Iraq a “civil war” and the US government has reviews and AGREED on labeling the war that at this time, no matter what pundit or Republican official wants to say about it.
Comment by Chris — February 3, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
People lets wait to see what is this guys function at NBC and the extent to which he was featured as A MILITARY ANALYST. First of all its not like NBC knew the guys made such disparaging comments and hired him because of them,he was probably employed to them prior and i doubt NBC knew that these were his views on service men and women.
Comment by Sam — February 3, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
As “bigred” suggests, please read the article. Arkin disparages our military, big time, stating that they have vast amenities over there and they are basically mercenaries. He implies that their opinion doesn’t matter a whole lot (my conclusion). But I’ll let you read the item for yourselves.
Anyway, the article is mean-spirited and condescending, and whether or not O’Reilly plays up Mr. Arkin’s ties with NBC should be secondary in this case. The point is the guy thinks he’s some big expert and has no qualms about attempting to discredit our guys who are actually serving in the area of dispute.
Comment by Missy — February 3, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
You can’t have it both ways. Both sides do this; pointing to things the other side does away from their main forum. O’Reilly has been held to account for things he’s done and said away from “The O’Reilly Factor.”
And it is wrong when both sides do so. I’m not having it both ways. What O’Reilly does away from FNC has nothing to do with FNC, except to the people who just plain don’t like O’Reilly and are looking for something, anything to use against him. But their arguments are undercut by that.
If this guy is being paid to be an “NBC News Military Analyst,” why shouldn’t he be held to account for his views expressed in an op ed about the military?
I don’t know if he is being paid to be a military analyst. I have to say I can’t recall ever seeing him on MSNBC. They’ve had everyone on there since the Afghanistan conflict and I don’t remember seeing him in their news broadcasts, though it’s possible I’ve missed him. If Arkin is indeed a paid military analyst at NBC he’s way way down the pecking order. But what he writes on the pages of the Washington Post has nothing to do with NBC News if he doesn’t express those same opinions there.
And what Sam says is true. Let’s wait and see how O’Reilly makes his case. I’m trying to keep an open mind but what I’ve seen so far doesn’t look good.
Comment by Spud — February 3, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
I agree with what you say in #10, Spud. I, too, can’t recall ever seeing him on MSNBC. I made the mistake of thinking he was a former officer like most of the military analysts we see, but I don’t see anything identifying him as such.
The O’Reilly spot is very powerful. It had better live up to the hype. The article in the Washington Post had over 900 comments before they closed them off. Arkin did a later OpEd in response: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/02/post_11.html
Comment by erljr — February 3, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
O’Reilly is making absolutely no sense here. He takes issue with a blog post on the WAPO by a part time Nbc analyst and uses that as proof of NBC bias, but it seems that he doesn’t know that Arkin was reacting to a NBC news story. It seems as if he’ doing nothing more than trolling with this. I just wonder if he’ll have Bill Gertz on to talk about his claims that Arkin was a spy even though the pentagon called b.s. on that.
A question, with the first quote (well half quote, I guess the graphics department was busy and could only type in half the line) isn’t Arkin just mimicking the white house and republicans claim that it was the soldiers and not a systemic problem starting with at the top?
Comment by Steve — February 3, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
My husband and I were high school sweethearts for four years. We set our wedding date, he was drafted, the next year as the date rolled around he got his orders and one week after our wedding he left for Vietnam. They have rolled out Fonda and now this op-ed starts the real talk about how she and the FAR LEFT truly think. They act like it is Vietnam, we can come home, let the brutal slaughter take place then the war will be over. There is no “pro war” or “anti-war” — there is only “the war” and we must PREVAIL!
Comment by Aunt Mary — February 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
I don’t know Arkin’s current status, but he most certainly WAS an MSNBC analyst at one time. I remember him well as he was one of the reasons I stopped watching that network as much.
You can check his background at Wikipedia (I guess they’re as reliable as anyone, for now); he was in the Army for four years back in the 60s, and has worked at various other “think tanks” or whatever since then.
But whether he’s a janitor or a high ranking military official, his treatment of the military in the aforementioned article was vicious, IMO.
Comment by Missy — February 3, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
I just checked back and see a typo (that’s par for the course for me). He was in the Army in the 70’s, from 1974 - 78, per Wikipedia. Sorry.
Comment by Missy — February 3, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
YAWN..what children..BO gets pissed at everybody that doesnt agree with him.
AND
The ‘war’ is over in Iraq. We are over there doing the policing. Iraq should take responsibility and make things happen if they really want to have peace. Otherwise the US should adopt Iraq and make it theirs. BUT over there all they know is to fight in the street like dogs. I say leave and let it be and let them figure things out!
Comment by Big Dave — February 3, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
NBC doesn’t pay those guys. Jack Jacobs and guys who have to sit around all day for MSNBC get paid, but someone who does a sound bite for Nightly News on occasion is not paid… this guy certainly doesn’t have the great credentials as someone such as Col. Jacobs.. so I would need to see evidence that this guy is even on NBC’s payroll before jumping to any conclusions… but there’s a good chance he is not.
Comment by Not the Norm — February 4, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Well, he’s identified as NBC News’ William Arkin on MSNBC’s own website:
msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/page/3/
Comment by johnny dollar — February 4, 2007 @ 2:01 am
Arkin definitely works or worked for MSNBC. I remember him seeing him several times. I specially recall him saying before the war that we would not find any WMD in Iraq and to my surprise he was right. I was horrified to read what he said about the troops and to see how intolerant he is.
Comment by steve — February 4, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Dave, do you have a wager with someone on how many posts you can begin with the word “yawn” and follow with a pathetically condescending quip? The bottom line is that regardless of whether he’s affiliated with NBC (though JD’s post would make it appear so), Arkin has made some rather inflammatory comments for which he should be held accountable, and I can’t think of anyone better than O’Reilly for the task.
Comment by Caufield — February 4, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
If O’Reilly feels the need to hold Arkin accountable than why doesn’t he just go ater him? His attacks on NBC are getting tiresome and I get the impression he’s reaching a bit here. I’ve read numerous posts here where fans of FNC have lectured us on how we shouldn’t criticize all of FNC for a comment one of their hosts/reporters etc make.
Comment by myview — February 4, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
The problem is you lump Arkin’s statement, with the crap Olbermann spews nightly, with Democrat Chris Matthews, with anti-war protester Meredith Viera, with David Gregory & and the consistently wrong David Schuster, and there is no question NBC has a liberal tilt that they don’t even try to hide anymore.
I’m not saying everyone on NBC. Russert is exceptional at what he does.
Olbermann tries to call his show “journalism”, but it is an hour-long conservative hate fest every night. No other viewpoint is ever offered on that show.
And NBC puts him and Matthews on as their supposedly unbiased anchors on election night & the State of the Union.
NBC is going for the liberal viewers, obviously. They should at least admit it.
with Olbermann’s nightly propoganda fest filled with childish name-calling, and calling it
Comment by bigred — February 4, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
The problem with O’Reilly’s argument, as I see it, is that he uses the sweeping generalization that “NBC is a liberal outfit.” Sure, NBC (when you include MSNBC) has “liberal” hosts….Olbermann, for example. On the other hand, they also have Tucker Carlson (who bashes Democrats every day) and Joe Scarborough (a former Republican congressman). So to make a blanket accusation towards NBC is disingenuous.
In the broader scheme of things, O’Reilly is using this to tie into the thesis of his “Culture Warrior” book. He can hammer away at NBC all day and night, but he overstates the impact of such entities. For example, MSNBC has very low ratings as compared to Fox, so logically MSNBC isn’t the “threat” that O’Reilly makes it out to be. Then he will cover stories such as nude parties at a college or waitresses that wear skimpy outfits and lead his viewers to believe that America is in the middle of a “Culture War.” Last week he payed a lot of attention to the anti-war rally in Washington, DC and spent two nights on playing clips of celebrities bloviating. These are fringe elements in society and do not reflect mainstream American beliefs and values. O’Reilly, however, shows such incidents night after night to convice people that there is a big problem in America when, in reality, there isn’t.
When O’Reilly gives, for example, Evangelical Christians and their heavy influence on politics equal time (i.e. a critical examination), I will begin to believe that his show is an actual “no spin zone.” Until then, O’Reilly the “traditionalist” will remain a conservative under the guise of being a self-proclaimed independent.
Comment by FishOil — February 4, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
And FNC is going for the conserative viewers.
They should at least admit it and stop using the ridiciulous “Fair and Balanced.” slogan.
Comment by IceMan — February 4, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Of course they’re going for conservative viewers. The difference is, they actually allow the other side to offer their viewpoint, in every instance. From Democrat strategists to every prominent Democrat political figure out there, the other side gets heard on FOX.
There is never, ever any opposing viewpoint offered on Olbermann’s show. Yet, they try to portray him as a “journalist”, and put him front and center as the anchor on their big news nights.
FNC would never have Hannity and O’Reilly anchoring election night coverage, because they are commentators that offer a viewpoint.
Comment by bigred — February 5, 2007 @ 1:34 am
bigred, like Bill O’Reilly… you suggest the whole problem is again with Olbermann… not NBC. You can not even begin to suggest that NBC doesn’t get views from prominent Republicans any more ferociously than FOX gets Democrats.
Olbermann does cater to more liberal guests.. but Fox and Friends is certainly a liberal bashing show and I think John Gibson’s show is rather conservative focused. I don’t consider most of the Democrats on his show to be very prominent. Olbermann hosts Pat Buchanan every now and then too you know…
The biggest difference is that MSNBC isn’t nearly as liberal as FOX is conservative. I don’t buy your argument as Hannity/O’Reilly is not analogous to Chris Matthews and Olbermann. It is more analogous to Al Franken and Bill Maher of which host or co-host zero shows on MSNBC or Fox.
As for election night, the MSNBC election night panel almost always has Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and plenty of other conservative commentators. In the 2004 election, NBC called Ohio for Bush early like Fox did…. it was CBS, CNN, and ABC that waited on Kerry to concede.
Furthermore, Matthews is NOT as liberal as people portray him… however his opposition to the war has given him that stigma with conservatives who don’t really follow his show. He has stated he voted for Bush in 2000 and his brother is a Republican. I remember Matthews being very tough on the Clinton administration. The man is attacked from conservatives for being too liberal and liberals for being too conservative… so he attacks both sides of the fence rather viciously depending on the issue. He also frequently hosts Trent Lott, John McCain and Bob Dole on his show. Now, I would agree he has a liberal tendancy overall, but he’s rather moderate compared to O’Reilly or Hannity.
Comment by Danny G — February 5, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Danny G — I am a register indepentent and watch a number of shows to get different views. Hannity gives me the far right view for sure. I hardly every miss Hardball, I have watched Chris everyday since the O.J. days and I PROMISE you he is so left that he is almost far left. Tucker came to MSNBC with a republican slant, now he will give his view to his far left guests then when they speak he will say “I see what you mean” or “I can agree with you on that”. Tucker wants a job and is on a liberal network, he is no longer honest with his viewers — he does not have the same heart he had on “Crossfire”. I like Joe Scarborough but he has his finger to the wind (also has some Condit style problems that limit has job opportunities) and is following Olbermann’s ranting and bashing to get his ratings up (it is working). Joe has Pat Buchanan on often with several other way left guests that almost always over power Pat due to the way Joe frames his questions.
With that said — I like to watch Bill O’Reilly’s show to see all of his interesting guests. He talks about problems with the FAR RIGHT and the FAR LEFT, however very little of his show is like the others we are discussing.
Comment by Aunt Mary — February 5, 2007 @ 4:52 am
When is the last time Pat Buchanan was on Olbermann’s show? I don’t remember seeing him. And while Gibson certainly has a conservative leaning, many of his guests have a left leaning.
Chris Matthews was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and worked for Tip O’Neil. That’s all you need to know about his liberal slant.
And I’ll say it again… Olbermann and Matthews ANCHOR the big coverage nights. Election, State of the Union, etc. Olbermann’s show is the most biased in all of television, but on big nights, they go to him.
Not all of NBC News is liberal, but there are certainly a lot of liberal elements there.
Comment by bigred — February 5, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Olbermann does cater to more liberal guests.
Good lord, what does the man have to do before liberals will actually acknowledge that he’s a liberal? What, it’s still not obvious enough? And you actually expect to be taken seriously?
Comment by RW — February 5, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Wikipedia lists Buchanan as a frequent guest on Olbermann’s show and his most recent appearance I can find was December 27, 2006 according to Olbermann Watch : http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/12/index.php
I agree with Wikipedia as I’ve seen him on the show alot… so I’m not sure how you’ve missed him.
Seeing O’Reilly as centrist and Matthews as far-left only demonstrates to me how far-right many of the people on this board are. If Matthews is far left.. what does that make Mahrer, Donahue, and Franken?
O’Reilly and Hannity advocate issues. How many times does O’Reilly advocate against “secular progressives” and puts his agenda out there? You do not see Matthews advocate a pro-abortion rights or gay rights issue in the way you see O’Reilly.
I agree Olbermann is liberal, but he is still quite a tame one when compared to the conservatives on Fox. Listen to Mahrer or Franken to get the difference.
Comment by Danny G — February 5, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Nowhere did I say O’Reily is “centrist” or Matthews is “far left”. And if you think Olbermann is “tame”, you’re clearly too far bent to reason with.
Additionally, even if Buchanan does appear on the show, it’s not like he’s offering a different viewpoint than Olbermann. He’s anti-war, anti-”neocon”, etc. just like every other “expert” on that show.
Comment by bigred — February 5, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Danny G — Matthews lectures democrats all the time about even bringing up abortion and gay right. He thinks it is why they lost in 2004. You will not hear him state his views as he does not want it to be an issue. I admire Chris Matthews because I believe he truly loves this country and does not rant for ratings. I did not say Chris is “far left”, I said he is “ALMOST far left”.
Comment by Aunt Mary — February 5, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
“You do not see Matthews advocate a pro-abortion rights or gay rights issue in the way you see O’Reilly.”
And that is the problem. They will not come right out and say that they have an opinion about something… they show their opinion by their guests and their topics. The way they present the story, and when they talk about it.
O’Reilly comes out and says what his views are. Matthews and Olbermann still pretend to be “journalists” and not pundits. They deny their bias… which is the problem many conservatives have. By pretending they’re un-biased, they are misleading and rather blatantly lying to the public.
Additionally, how can you really compare Hannity with anyone from another station. Hannity works with Colmes… that’s what makes his right-wing opinions acceptable. It’s a debate show, between two people with dramatically opposite points of view. Reading the comments from some people, it’s clear they’ve forgotten that.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 5, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
ImNotBlue — I am not comparing Hannity to pundits from other stations. I love the fact that he is on with Colmes (who I never agree with) it is truly a “FAIR and BALANCED” show. I also listen to Hannity’s radio show. In an effort to understand the current issues and have good debates with my family and friends I listen to other opinions by watching many shows with different views. Hannity gives me the honest view of the far right as he does not hide the fact that he is a proud conservative.
Comment by Aunt Mary — February 6, 2007 @ 4:30 am
I agree Olbermann is liberal, but he is still quite a tame one when compared to the conservatives on Fox.
Apparently, his calling for the impeachment of the president, his shows that the GOP stole the votes in both Florida and Ohio in the ‘04 election, his reference to the GOP as the largest terrorist group in the US and his questioning of the timing about every subject except, well, the time, is still ‘tame’.
Which begs the question: how b@#$%it crazy does someone have to be in order to be considered a far left radical?
Comment by RW — February 6, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
If you don’t know by now that Bush stole the 2000 and
2004 elections, you don’t know anything and are not worth
taken seriously.
And if you do not think the Constitution-trashing,
preventive war criminals Bush and Cheney must be
impeached, what kind of American patriot are you?
Comment by bill lamdin — February 11, 2007 @ 2:43 pm