Sanchez vs. O’Reilly: Sanchez “fact checks” O’Reilly…
Why not just apologize Bill? And then just move on - admit it was a stupid thing to say and just be done with it. Because racist or not…intentional or not…one thing is indisputable…it was a stupid thing to say…
Uh oh…
I find this Mr. Sanchez to be exactly what Mr. O’reilly said he’s trying to do.That is to incite fear and propogate futher rascist behavior.He continues to avoid the facts on out of context comments.It seems to me he has to create news rather than report the news.He’s treading on thin ice right now.Whats next,trying to create a war so your ratings can improve.Scary stuff!
Comment by jersincl — September 27, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
I really think this has become just one show on CNN. As far as I can tell, since Monday, everyone there but Sanchez has dropped it. Now,I haven’t been watching CNN 24/7, so someone tell me if I am wrong; but the shows I have watched on CNN, besides his, haven’t mentioned it.
Comment by erljr — September 27, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Has Sanchez asked the man who called Juan Williams a “happy negro” while on his program to apologize and admit that what he said was stupid as well?
Comment by california dreamin — September 27, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
O’Reilly is pissed becauce CNN and MSNBS are misreporting the program and the terrible atacks on Juan Williams.
Comment by Kirk G — September 27, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
I used to think Sanchez was all right, and didn’t see why so many hated him and thought he was such a drama queen. Now I know.
Sanchez must stop this, and O’Reilly must let it go as well. Anyone with half a brain will see that the comments were taken out of context, and those who don’t want to believe that will continue to bash O’Reilly, regardless of how many more times he defends himself. And O’Reilly is right in that whites will never bring up discussions on race again, since the occurence of miquoting seems prevalent.
Comment by Missy — September 27, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Ok…I haven’t weighed in on this until now. I think O’Reilly was taken out of context and is being beaten up based on an accusation that isn’t true. I also don’t think much of Sanchez’s grandstanding. BUT…I also believe O’Reilly should have known better and I do think he could have chosen his words better to make a reasonable point. When you wade into the subject that is race you have to parse your words very carefully otherwise you will piss people off even if your intentions are well meaning. But that’s not O’Reilly’s style either. Sometimes he can be a bull in a china shop…
In the end nobody comes out looking squeaky clean on this. Except maybe Sylvia’s, which is probably doing more business these days…
Comment by Spud — September 27, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
That subject is not going to be addressed because it’s not over…just in hybernation.
Comment by Spud — September 27, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
I think it’s time to break out the tazer
Comment by Nobody — September 27, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
I think the only thing O’Reilly did wrong in this is being a big white man named O’Reilly. If he was a white man named Clinton, no one would be talking about this, including Rick Sanchez.
I don’t think he said anything wrong, given the entire conversation, the fact the black man he was talking to was not offended by it and the large majority of his audience was not offended. The black man he was in Sylvia’s with doesn’t seem offended by it so far either, but he said he would listen to the entire tape before commenting further.
At this point, it would probably be best if O’Reilly dropped it, but he probably won’t.
Comment by Laurel — September 27, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
As someone who admittedly can’t stand O’Reilly, even I have to say that I think his comments were blown out of proportion, and don’t rise to the level of being ‘racist’. Were they stupid? Sure. Ignorant? Maybe. But racist? I don’t think it reaches that level, atleast not overtly so. So it would seem that he’s being targeted to an unfair degree.
Having said that, I honestly can’t muster up any sympathy for the man. I’m trying, but I just can’t.
Because I’m sure that he has *never* taken the words of Cindy Sheehan out of context. Or Howard Dean. Or posts on the Daily Kos.
I’m sure that he’s *always* been fair in covering judges while sanctioning his infamous video camera ambushes.
It’s obvious that he’s *always* been completely unbiased in covering John Edwards or George Clooney.
You can’t convince me that he *ever* ridiculed anyone who opposed the war.
I know for a fact that he’s *never* cut the mic of a guest whom he couldn’t best in an argument.
I can’t think of *any* occasion in which he was morally hypocritical, bashing the sexual lyrics of Ludacris while engaging in questionable activities in his own private life.
I am certain that he’s never *once* unfairly smeared George Soros, or Al Franken, or Sean Penn.
And now here he is. Talking about being treated unfairly. About being smeared. About being targeted. And he’s actually right! Yet still, I have no sympathy.
For the life of me, I can’t imagine why…
Comment by J — September 27, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
On second thought, I don’t think hardly anyone was offended until MM stuck their noses into it and it blew up. And that proves my further point - if his name was Bill Clinton and not Bill O’Reilly, no one would be talking about it because MM would never dream of going after Bill Clinton for any reason.
Comment by Laurel — September 27, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
As everyone who has watched him for any length of time knows (in their heart, at least, whether or not they’d admit it), O’Reilly has on occasion really come after people a LOT harder than anyone is coming after him with less justfication than the people coming after him have now. So, yes, this is being blown out of proportion, but…
a) O’Reilly is as responsible as anyone in keeping this story going & not letting it die and
b) It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy
Comment by Gramps — September 27, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
Laurel, I agree. It’s not really what is said but who says it. And as I pointed out on another post, Rush Limbaugh knows that MM et al are waiting in the wings to pounce on his every word, so he will not even quote certain controversial statements since he knows those words will be attributed to him.
Gramps, I do agree with you on point “a”. He should just drop it already; his viewers will typically believe him, and his detractors won’t. It’s not likely he’ll win anyone else over at this point.
Comment by Missy — September 27, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
I have to say that I have changed my mind since yesterday. Then I thought O’Reilly was dragging this out and blowing this out of proportion. Today, after seeing tonight’s O’Reilly Factor, I’ve changed my mind. Jesse Jackson, Bernie & Jane, Juan Williams - the best hour on race, one of the most compelling hours of cable news I’ve ever seen.
Comment by erljr — September 27, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
O’Reilly should keep this up as long as possible. Currently, it makes Sanchez and various MSNBC “talent” look ridiculous in their transparent attempts to siphon ratings. Also as Media Matters is exposed for what it really is, an obsessively partisan outfit masquerading as a legitimate “watchdog” group, it can serve to indirectly undermine people like Keith Olbermann who rely heavily on the trash that MM and others produce. I think that is the real reason why O’Reilly is pursuing this issue so intently.
Comment by Lt. Dan — September 27, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
I’m an “African American” (born in Eritrea, Africa) who reads this blog religiously, and have never before felt compelled to lend my voice to any issue ’til now. I am deeply disappointed. At a moment where Mr. O’Reilly dedicates an hour on his radio show to speak on issues affecting African Americans, which he does routinely on his TV show, he is piled upon with manufactured outrage, especially CNN’s, which has yet to learn how to earn a living by honest reporting.
It’s one thing to smear someone having not understood their intent. It’s another thing to smear them when almost every line not quoted clearly expresses just the _opposite_ intent.
I may have a good, or a bad hunch, but I keep seeing in my mind a CNN management meeting discussing how Olberman has permanently relegated them to third place, and deciding to snare back their lost viewers by replicating Olberman’s strategy of personal attacks against real or perceived conservatives, and competitors, with Bill O’Reilly fitting both bills. Pardon the pun. What’s better than killing two birds with one stone–You take Olberman’s excuse-for-being away, and attempt to dethrone, and defame, your chief rival while you’re at it. I went to bed thinking the era of personal destruction was over, and I wake up to see the unattractive reality of CNN.
I also pray George Soros’ fingerprints are not on this, considering O’Reilly’s been exposing the billionaire puppeteer. I understand Soros pays Media Matters’ bills, as well as MoveOn.org’s. Besmirching General Petraeus was unfortunate enough, we don’t need more personal attacks in this great country America. We don’t have to like O’Reilly to like civility. There’s an alternative to hating each other for our differences: We can love each other for it.
Comment by Haile Welde — September 27, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
I agree with #4. Sanchez is a B rate back-up anchor, trying to make a name for himself. CNN evidently believes that they hold the one and only exclusive right to racial discourse in this country.
Comment by spiffo — September 28, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Good grief. Just when you think CNN can’t get more pathetic… they do. O’Reilly said no one complained about his comments about Sylvia’s.
So CNN, again, takes words out of context and uses one caller….who wasn’t complaining that what O’Reilly was saying was racist… he was upset that O’Reilly criticized gangsta rappers.
Two entirely different subjects.
CNN is sad.
Comment by bigred — September 28, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Usually I would drop it, BOR. But MM and the dishonest media is smearing BOR’s character, Making him out to be a racist. NOT COOL! You have the media going to Silvia’s, feeding the black people there the one liner’s and having them turn on BOR. He needs to make a big stink to make it right.
Comment by Lurker — September 28, 2007 @ 12:59 am
#17 - Yeah, that was pretty sad.
If this is what CNN is going to use to refute O’Reilly, then they need to “drop it.”
Comment by FishOil — September 28, 2007 @ 2:01 am
Gee, I didn’t know CNN was owned by Media Matters.
Comment by Anne B — September 28, 2007 @ 6:42 am
The comments by O’Reilly are a throwback to the 1930’s…or even earlier. In this day and age they have no place on MSM but they are typical of some of the commentators who use issues like this to gain viewership…O’Reilly does it to gain viewers just as Limbaugh called US Military personnel in favor of troop reductions “Phoney Soldiers” which I guess include about the last 20 generals. It is a common trick…what they are they blame on others and then say “who me?” like alfred e newman.
Comment by hiflyer — September 28, 2007 @ 7:37 am
Let’s see….a CNN hispanic wannabe, with nothing to say, trying to hit the big time encouraging negative comments using another minority. Do I have this right?
Comment by john — September 28, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Pretty much, he is a spanish Nifong. It’s sad to criticize one being hispanic myself, but its shameful.
Comment by JayRock — September 28, 2007 @ 9:00 am
MSNBC keeps covering the story too - Abrams last night. Abrams turns my stomach - can’t believe I used to like the guy…thankfully, I had CSI to watch.
Comment by moonbeam — September 28, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Juan Williams was on c-span this morning and they had a few callers about O’Reilly and he supported BO again and again. If he believes BO why shouldn’t everyone else. He is the one who had the conversation with him. Also he explained the conversation and I could not find fault with any of it. Bill might need to give it up spud, but the other two networks really look stupid and I mean stupid. As I stated before on another thread I would freak if someone called me a racist and there is no telling how much yapping I would do.
Comment by Cathy — September 28, 2007 @ 9:57 am
It`s sad that CNN and MSNBC are still pounding on this story.
There is no story, move on please.
I am more surprise at CNN that overall wants be taken as a serious news organization
Comment by Bruce C Bouchard — September 28, 2007 @ 10:17 am
JayRock, I like that “hispanic Nifong”!
Cathy, that’s so true. If Juan Williams, party to the conversation, wasn’t offended, end of story. He was there and knew the context!!!
And moonbeam, I, too, used to like Dan Abrams, but I think I’m through with him as well after this incident.
Comment by Missy — September 28, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Have any of you been watching Ken Burns’ “The War?” It sure makes you think about how things used to be and how they are now, i.e., how we were all together and loved our country no matter what party you were in. There were so many real injustices to the Japanese and black people then and they were exposed and thankfully some progress was made to rectify those mistakes. I don’t know why I mention this except that sometimes progress isn’t progress when this country with all our advantages is so torn apart, so partisan, and yet when I see what those GI’s went through, I will be eternally grateful to them and that includes grandfather at Midway, and other relatives in Europe. I just wish we could look back and see what can be done when we are together but, of course, that will not happen but I, for one, thank those GI’s for what we have now and that includes Rick Sanchez’s freedom to make a complete fool of himself.
Comment by sophia — September 28, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Missy - on the Abrams Report, Dan seemed so sincere and fair but now he’s become a junior Olbermann. He’s become petty, smug and sarcastic too which makes him so unattractive. Dan, you ain’t that great pal.
Comment by moonbeam — September 28, 2007 @ 11:42 am
I am disappointed in Rick Sanchez I too thought he was alright but this shows there isn’t a core. All who are milking this know that O’Reilly is going to be exonerated and so does O’Reilly, the rest of is just a badly scripted cheap theater. I didn’t watch the Factor last night I watched The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I will go back to watching the Factor tonight, I am hoping there will be a new subject.
Comment by Ree — September 28, 2007 @ 11:46 am
O’Reilly lied! How shocking!
O’Reilly lies non stop. Nothing surprising about him lying about this.
Comment by MikeD — September 28, 2007 @ 11:55 am
“Juan Williams was on c-span this morning and they had a few callers about O’Reilly and he supported BO again and again. If he believes BO why shouldn’t everyone else.”
Because Juan Williams gets paid by Rupert Murdoch to cover for O’Reilly and the rest of the racists at FOX “news”.
Comment by MikeD — September 28, 2007 @ 11:59 am
O’Reilly lied! How shocking!
O’Reilly lies non stop. Nothing surprising about him lying about this.
Comment by MikeD — September 28, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Care to enlighten us on these words of wisdom there Mikey??
Lies? What lies? Who lied? What was said that is a lie?
Proof boy, get some proof!!! I’ll be waiting…and waiting…and waiting.
Comment by Kris — September 28, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
MikeD must think he’s posting on Huffpo or the Kook.
Comment by moonbeam — September 28, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
*****O’Reilly does it to gain viewers just as Limbaugh called US Military personnel in favor of troop reductions “Phoney Soldiers”*****
Is there some “no, I’m the most ignorant” contest going on?
Comment by RW — September 28, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
It’s interesting that people still trust Media Matters for quotes, even after all this. Now someone is using their Limbaugh quote as if it were the truth. It appears to have been another case of selective editing. Read the entire transcript of that segment:
http://tinyurl.com/26uqyw
Pay special attention to what Limbaugh said immediately after that call. Was he talking about “US Military personnel in favor of troop reductions”? Or what he talking about actual, proven phoney soldiers?
Whichever way you take it, one thing is clear: Media Matters DELIBERATELY omitted that from their transcript. As Mr Bill might say: dishonest, off the charts.
Comment by johnny dollar — September 28, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
“And 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 mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship”
N o amount of selective editing can make that sound like anything except a sentiment straight out of the 30s. What possible context for “I couldn’t get over the fact” could make that OK? He says that he–himself, not some phantasmatic Other whom he pretends to have been ventriloquizing–could not get over the fact. There’s no need to parse this as if we were Talmudic scholars.
Comment by moi-meme — September 28, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Spud (#7): If there is any criticism of O’Reilly, it is his going back two generations and using his grandmother as an example of someone who had no interactions with blacks to justify his comment that many white people only know blacks by the images given in the media.
Maybe because I live in a large metropolitan area and have also traveled extensively, but I find it hard to believe that in this day and age, most white people do not interact with blacks on some level and rely solely on what they see on TV. This even applies in States such as Montana, Wyoming and Alaska that have relatively small Black populations.
Otherwise I’m solidly behind O’Reilly in this so-called “controversy.”
Comment by Ira — September 28, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Why does it seem like so many comments made on this site fail to acknowledge that regardless of Mr. Sanchez’s reporting Bill O’Reilly did lie about “nobody” complaining about what he said. Bill has repeatedly lied when put on the spot about some of his more outrageous comments and this is just another example. Media Matters or not Bill flat out lied….doesn’t that count for anything these days?
Comment by Patrick in the city — September 28, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
O’Reilly meant the people who listened to the show were not complaining and they were the only ones listening that day until Media Matters took his comments of context and tried to smear him - there was no lie. It’s like Don Imus’ comments that the Rutgers’ team would never have heard if Media Matters hadn’t decided to go after him. At least this O’Reilly situation has backfired.
Comment by moonbeam — September 28, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
“O’Reilly meant the people who listened to the show were not complaining”
As the clip shows, though, at least one caller DID complain. But who are we to believe? Billy or our lying ears?
Comment by moi-meme — September 28, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
I hate to break it to yoou Fox haters but you really need to get over it - O’Reilly and Fox are #1 and will remain #1. CNN and MSNBC are the ones looking deceitful in their coverage. I am forever disgusted with Joe Scarborough, Willie Geist and Dan Abrams, guys I actually used to respect and watch. Tucker is the only one with any integrity left over there.
Comment by moonbeam — September 28, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Yes, but was the “caller” who complained a “listener” or a follower told to do so from one of those other websites?
Just because you call up a radio program, doesn’t mean you’re actually a listener too.
Comment by ImNotBlue — September 28, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Moi-meme, what did the caller take issue with? Was it O’Reilly’s comments about Sylvia’s restaurant? NO. It was that O’Reilly had the gaul to criticize gangsta rappers.
Is Bill Cosby a racist too? And Juan Williams? How about Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson?
Comment by bigred — September 28, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
HAHA,OREILLY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT? HE COULDN’T GET OVER THE FACT THAT BLACK PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME ASPIRATIONS,DREAMS,AND HOPES THAT WHITES DO–WHAT CONTEXT DO YOU PUT THAT IN THAT IS NOT IGNORANT AND REEKS OF CONDENSENION AND THE MOST BACKWARD RACISM. IF HE IS TALKING ABOUT WHITE AMERICANS NEED TO EXPERIENCE SYLVIAS ?WHAT IS THAT SAYING ABOUT AMERICA? I’D LIKE TO THANK O’REILLY THOUGH BECAUSE JUST LIKE KATRINA,AND JENA THIS LATEST INCIDENT HAS PULLED BACK THE SCAB EXPOSING THE UGLY TRUTH OF INEQUALITY AND INJUSTICE BASED ON RACE AND CLASS THAT STILL EXIST TODAY! tHANKS BILLO!
Comment by BACUMBELE — September 29, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
YASSA BOSS WE ARE FINALLY THINKIN’ FO’ OUERSLVES’,GLAD YU LIK WE FINELY DROPPIN’ TTHA NO GOOD JAKSUN’AN SHARTON BOY THEY SHO IS BAD…THANKS YA BOSS WE SHO THANKSYA!
Comment by BACUMBELE — September 29, 2007 @ 12:21 pm