CN8 Host fired for criticizing Bill O'Rielly

I got this from Crooks & Liars the other day, so I'm getting most of my information about this story from that site, which, by the way (as I frequently mention) is arguably the best liberal blog and information site on the Internet (along with HuffPo & Think Progress). The people over at C&L do tremendous work, and liberals owe that site a debt of gratitude for the hard work they put in by bringing us spot-on commentary and raising and highlighting issues that otherwise wouldn't get the attention they should. I get lots and lots of my video clips from that site, too. I don't always remember to post h/t's (hat tips) to C&L for providing video clips, but I try to remember. Anyway, if you haven't visited that site, 1. Where have you been? It's the best, and 2. Please spread the word and support C&L, a site that I hope CMB is 1/8th as good as, some day. Anyway, moving on...

This is the most stark example I've seen in quite some time as to why our corporate media needs to be broken up - now. More on that point in a minute.

Barry Nolan of CN8 in Boston, Comcast's news channel, has been fired for daring to criticize the fact that Bill O'Reilly, of all people, was being honored at the Emmy Awards.

I am appalled, just appalled," [that O'Reilly was being honored] Nolan told the Track. "He inflates and constantly mangles the truth... and his frequent target is the 'left-leaning' media - the ones who do report the news fairly. And those are the same people who will be sitting in the room honoring him."... More Here.

It's pretty refreshing to see someone have the balls to put his job on the line for daring to oppose this blowhard:

"Their take is that I was insubordinate," Nolan told us yesterday. "They wanted me to sit down and shut up." The host of "Backstage With Barry Nolan" had argued that O'Reilly, the volatile Fox News host and former Channel 7 anchor, was unworthy of the Governor's Award. (Past recipients include the likes of Mike Wallace, Ken Burns, and Natalie Jacobson.) "The idea of honoring someone who does their job with constant factual errors, name-calling, and mangling of the truth... It's ridiculous," said Nolan...

We're told Nolan was warned by his bosses at CN8 to pipe down, but at the May 10 dinner honoring O'Reilly he handed out a six-page document listing some of O'Reilly's wackier errors, utterances, and information about the talk-show host's sexual harassment settlement. Seems Comcast was concerned that Nolan's actions could harm the network's relationships with the academy and Fox. He was immediately suspended without pay for two weeks and then fired over the phone Tuesday.

One particular instance that I find incredibly nauseating is how O'Reilly goes after crime victims (or victims' surviving family members, like when he attacked the son of a man killed in the World Trade Center on his show, an then threatened him with violence). John Amato over at C&L has thoroughly documented and written about how O'Reilly went after Shawn Hornbeck, an 11-year old who was held captive for over four years by Michael J. Devlin in Kirkland, Missouri. Devlin is currently serving 74 life sentences, and if there's any justice in this world, a prisoner where he is incarcerated will test out a new shiv on him. (Posted above is video O'Lielly discussing attacking Hornbeck during a discussion with Greta Van Susteren, the princess of plastic.) Take a look at the video - it's just plain sickening and revolting. By the way, O'Lielly's attack on Hornbeck got him uninvited to a speaking engagement to the National Center for Missing Kids. (Due in part to the efforts of Amato over at C&L; predictably, no comment from BOR.)

This is just one example of the kind of sewage and filth that O'Reilly continually spews forth to his listeners. The truly frightening thing is that people listen and believe a great deal of it.

As Amato succinctly put it over at C&L the other day (and I whole-heartedly agree) - it's worth considering whether Rupert Murdoch is now going after anyone who criticizes O'Reilly, his networks or their executives? After all, he's not above going after NBC over Keith Olbermann's criticisms of Roger Ailes, the head of Fox Noise Channel.

As Howard Kurtz of WaPo has reported, last summer Ailes threatened to go after NBC if Olbermann didn't cease going after him and Fox, using BOR and The New York Post.

This is exactly why our corporate media conglomerates must be broken up. I find it outrageous that any CEO of a corporate media entity would see fit to going after a critic by using TV stations, commentators and newspapers as cudgels. But, that's exactly what Murdoch has been doing for years. Phew! Thank GOD his corporation was permitted to buy The Wall St. Journal!

I'm very thankful (and hopeful) that if Barack Obama gets elected, he will reverse this troubling trend in our press. He recently stated that if elected, he feels it's time the U.S. government start enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law that is still in the books (if you can believe that) that would break up these multi-media giants. I don't care if we're talking about liberal or conservative media conglomerates - they all are a threat to destroying our free press. (I do wonder and worry that Obama may have incurred the wrath of these multi-media giants by saying he would like to bust them up, before he wins the election. God only knows what lengths these companies will go to in order to get McCain elected now. We've always known that our corporate media is on McCain's side - Obama's recent comments did nothing to ameliorate this worrisome concern.)

In the meantime, O'Reilly goes on as one of the loudest mouthpieces for Murdoch's News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, carrying out his marching orders from the abominable Murdoch.

Picking the Fox scab, & finding lots of pus

What's been going on for over a year is now beginning to pick up steam - the Swiftboating of Barack Obama. There is so much crap and misinformation floating about on the Internet now, and I just hope Obama's campaign (or Hillary's, if she is the nominee) acts swiftly (pardon the pun) to refute the lies and misinformation. Anyway, the people over at Fox Attacks have put together a number of insightful videos that are great montages of the attacks against Obama over the last year and a half or so by Fox and its talking heads.

Evidence of Fox's smear campaign against Obama is not hard to unearth - the difficult part is documenting it all, since there's so much of it: the bogus madrassa story, lies about his not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and his egregious offense of not wearing an American flag lapel pin every minute of every day, and so on. In many ways, Fox and its disciples are like the ocean tides - it just keeps on coming. But that doesn't mean the truth should remain hidden behind the network's blatantly obvious partisan and biased reporting.

This one's a blast from the past - Part I from February '07...

(I know I just posted Part I last week, but in case you missed it (or even if you didn't), it's worth another look.)

My personal favorites from Part I:

"Barack Obama in a bathing suit!"

"...The network America trusts for fair and balanced reporting." *Snicker*

All of the "he's a black candidate" crap, as well as the fact that Obama is "surrounding himself with white people."

"Barack... HUSSEIN... Obama"

"He is, get this... a cigarette smoker" [Emphasis in Original]

"Apparently when he was a little boy, he attended a Muslim school, a madrassa... THIS... IS... HU-YOOGE!" [Emphasis in Original]

"We're gonna be the headquarters for the 2008 election..."

Um, yea, maybe the '08 headquarters for intellectual midgets and right wing neo-cons who want to practice cognitive dissonance by listening to O'Lielly blathering about the Nazis, or Sean Insanity blubbering endlessly about Obama's middle name. I don't know many people outside of those categories who take Fox seriously. But, there are enough people who do for it to be necessary to refute these distortions and outright lies.

And here's Part II, just released by Fox Attacks...

Yep, the latest installment has some pretty good highlights, too. Here are my favorites, in no particular order:

"He's a 'half-rican' anyway..." Really? This Rush Limbaugh-ism is so overtly childish and racist it defies description, but I'll try. Of course, some would say, "but Obama is!" but that doesn't necessitate bringing it up. For instance, I don't hear anyone calling Limbaugh "Limbephant" because of his pachyderm-like appearance. Bringing up Obama's ethnicity, that he's half black, is the same reason that all Fox announcers never miss an opportunity to say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"; it's to exploit people's fears and prejudices about race and religion, PERIOD.

"People are literally passing out at Obama rallies." First of all, I haven't heard that, but if it's true, it's almost as if the talking heads at Fox are jealous of Obama's surging popularity. Even if it is true, it still contrasts pretty nicely to McCain rallies, where people pass out because they haven't had their afternoon nap. Okay, that was low, but hopefully you get my point.

"...the kind of popularity that Chairman Mao only dreamed of." Which is it? Is he a Muslim or a communist? Maybe both? I haven't heard of many Muslim Communists, but I guess the do exist. Far-right Repubes really need to come up with better material than calling someone a communist; that's so, um, 1950.

"Will President Obama blame America first?" This was in the aftermath of Michelle Obama having the temerity to say that she wasn't proud of her country. In the aftermath of this, it also became an "issue" that Obama doesn't consistently wear a "flag lapel pin." (the faux "necessity" of wearing something representing an American flag reminds me of something else [at right], at the risk of inciting Goodwin's Law.) Obama has sagely pointed out on numerous occasions that you "don't have to wear a lapel pin to be patriotic," and he's absolutely right. Brit Hume's assertion that outright displays of patriotism for the Obamas is "a little icky" is, sadly, exactly the type of churlish comment I've come to expect from a once-respected journalist. I really wonder how these people at Fox look at themselves in the mirror every morning - making no doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions to intentionally distort, deceive and lie. I couldn't do it.

However, my personal favorite from the above vid - the "Jeremiah Wright" mention by college drop-out Sean Hannity. I guess it's not enough that Obama has repeatedly distanced himself from and denounced Wright's controversial comments. Since when does a church member follow or believe everything that his/her member of the clergy practices or preaches? It's ridiculous. For example, the pastor of the church I went to when I was young had a sexual affair with a young staffer, and as a result, his wife divorced him and he was kicked out of my church. Does that mean I support or believe in adultery? No. Put differently, should certain Catholic congregation members be accused of supporting or condoning pedophilia because their priest has a penchant for altar boys? Please. This is simply a sad, pathetic, transparent attempt to find dirt on Obama - sadly, this "controversy" seems to "have legs" as the saying goes, in the non-Fox mainstream media - it's been all over the news lately, including NBC News, Time Magazine, CNN, etc. Here's hoping that Americans who think for themselves (non-Fox viewers) will see it for what it is - a network with an agenda that will stop at nothing to smear Obama. It's Bill Clinton all over again. Sadly, many will believe what they see and hear on Fox.

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq, there are a record number of mortgage foreclosures, oil is trading above $110 a barrel & our economy is collapsing, yet Fox wants to insult its viewers with tales of what Obama's pastor said years ago? I just don't believe these "Karl Rove" tactics are going to wash in 2008. I pray I'm right. But, Democrats cannot and must not take anything for granted - there are millions who believe all of this stuff. Speaking of Rove, is it ANY SURPRISE that Fox has hired this guy? The "network" really is a disgrace.

I find it astounding, but not surprising, that Repubes consistently whine and complain about the "librul media" (Bush pronunciation) when the highest rated cable news network is Fox, and one of the most visited Websites on the 'Net, and definitely the most visited political site, is the Drudge Report. Both of these propaganda media drive the rest of the media - Tim Russert taking his cues from Fox News in Part II above is a stark example of this.

And the Russert example above is not an exaggeration - it happens all the time. There are numerous examples of stories that first appear on Drudge, and it quickly makes its way into the rest of the media, reported as news.

By the way, guess which current federal office holder holds the record for Meet the Press appearances - it's John McCain, with 52 appearances. The media must be librul, right?

Yet, despite these truths, even some smart people drink the Fox Kool-Aid. I received this e-mail from one of my best friends yesterday about Obama:

Coming Home to Roost

Jeremiah Wright = Swift Boating 2008

As I said in my last e-mail - Obama needs to somehow sidestep his 20-year relationship with this time bomb, and even if he does, this one is not going away. What was a whisper is not being shouted from major networks.

First, he mentions "Swift Boating 2008" as if it's a good thing. My ill-informed friend no doubt has not seen the video comparison above, nor has probably seen any of the Democratic debates. Even if he has, his mind has no doubt been polluted by the intellectually dishonest snake oil salesmen at Fox, and its disciples.
~~~
However, the best interpretation of just what Fox, Roger Ailes & Rupert Murdoch are up to comes from the aforementioned Fox Attacks in a recent blog entry:

I had a very disturbing talk with my dad about Barack Obama.

I was on the phone with my parents telling them about the video I was working on, FOX ATTACKS! Obama Part 2: Spreading the Virus, and brought up how FOX (Sean Hannity, in particular) has been desperately trying to create a connection between Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama because a magazine founded by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and run by Wright's daughters recently gave Louis Farrakhan an award. I told my parents how Hannity went from saying the magazine gave Farrakhan the award to claiming Wright gave him the award (which he didn't) to saying that Obama "associated" with Farrakhan (which he hasn't). Hannity would mostly use these "stories" so he could rattle off some of Farrakhan's most offensive comments and mention Obama in the same breath, effectively linking the two in the minds of FOX viewers. He just wants to say, "Obama — Farrakhan — racist — anti-Semite" over and over again until they are linked, just as FOX did with "Iraq — Al Qaeda — 9/11 — terrorism" in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Of course, Hannity almost never mentions that Obama has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan's racist, anti-semitic, and inflammatory remarks, has called for more cooperation between the black and Jewish communities, has spoken before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and has been defended by the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other prominent Jewish organizations. But Hannity doesn't want his viewers to know this. He just wants them to have a vague impression that Obama is an anti-semite and a black separatist.

When I mentioned this example to my parents, my dad said, "Wait, didn't Louis Farrakhan give Obama an award and Obama accepted it?" When I told him that this was completely off, he said, "Oh, I guess I must have heard it wrong."

Somewhere, Sean Hannity, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are poking holes in an Obama voodoo doll, laughing.

Dems dump Fox debate for Ailes joke

So, the Democrats have finally wised up - there will be no Democratic debate on Faux News this August. I have no idea what the Democrats were thinking in the first place by agreeing to cosponsor a debate on Fox. Can anyone imagine the likes of Sean Hannity or Chris Wallace asking unbiased, relevant questions to Democratic candidates for president? I can't, either.

Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, made some jokes on Friday night about Barack Obama and the Democrats. One in particular caught the ire of Democrats nationwide, in particular the party's leadership.

The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner. The joke underscores a sophomoric dig that Republicans like to take at the popular Obama - making fun of his name by comparing it to terrorists.

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," said Ailes. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called [Pakastani President Pervez] Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?'"

No one ever accused me of being unable to take a joke, but Fox's digs about Obama's name are getting old, fast: Calling him "Osama" and never missing the opportunity to say his middle name, "Hussein", for example, has got to be getting on Obama's nerves, and hopefully voters as well.

Less than 24 hours later, the Democratic National Committee announced a pullout of the August debate on Fox News. I don't know what's more entertaining - Ailes trying to do stand-up comedy, or the networks's reaction following the announcement.

Ailes' jokes in the video above speak for themselves - this guy is about as funny as cancer. The hilarious Fox statement:

"News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not he Democratic Party," said Fox News Vice President David Rhodes.

I think Rhodes is off his meds.

John Edwards also played a part in the Democrats' pulling out of the Fox debate, announcing on Thursday that he would not participate in the debate, citing Fox's participation in the debate as part of the reason.

Who can blame Edwards? Ann Coulter slanders him, and Fox has her on immediately thereafter, treating her like some sort of folk hero.

Note to Fox execs - if you want to continue this charade of "fair and balanced," don't put a hate monger on your network less than 72 hours after she makes uncouth, hateful remarks about a Democratic candidate for president.

It appears that MoveOn.org played a pretty big role in the cancellation, too, and that doesn't sit too well with Republicans, or Ailes, who took a swipe at the political organization and Edwards during his speech Friday night, saying pressure groups were now urging candidates "to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage."

That doesn't quite capture it, Rog. MoveOn's campaign to get the debate cancelled is called free speech. Also, who can blame Edwards and Obama for dissing Fox after the treatment they've received from the network thus far in the campaign, even at this early stage? You don't have to go far to dig for examples, either: the phony madrassa story about Obama's childhood school, the network saying "Barack Osama" by "mistake" on more than one occasion, hosts deriding Democratic candidates at every turn, etc.

I'm for a free and open press, but when thinking about this, I put myself in the shoes of Edwards and Obama - why would I give Fox any attention when there are numerous other media outlets to use? That's just being smart.

Of course, this is all part of Fox's modus operandi - slam Democratic candidates, and when they fight back, hide behind a free press and cry wolf. I ain't buying it, and I can only hope moderate voters don't buy this crap, either.

Only time will tell - 308 days until the Iowa Caucus.

Blowhard Bill never runs out of gas

O'Lielly is at it again - he's now calling George Soros "the most dangerous man in America."

The sexual harasser is angry because Soros pays lots of his own cash to try to get Democrats elected. Seems to me that the "culture warrior" is also angry because Democrats now have their own Richard Mellon Scaife ~ that is, a man with deep pockets who isn't afraid to put his money where his political mouth is.

However, there's one big difference between Soros and Scaife - one has a soul, and the other, well, to call him soulless would be too kind.

Soros (right) has a bad hairdo, but is a self-made billionaire who knows what it's like to be persecuted, and have no money. (His family endured the Nazis in Hungary during World War II, and the Soviets afterward.) He became very wealthy by earning his money, not inheriting it. Yes, there have been some accusations of wrongdoing - he was convicted of insider trading in France, but he denies guilt and claims the information he knew was public knowledge.

Scaife (below) is another type of animal altogether. He's little more than a right-wing nut job with a fat checkbook. He inherited almost all of his wealth, and he's paid millions trying to defame and destroy those who differ with him politically, socially and philosophically. His funding of the Arkansas Project is the subject of many books, articles and even a few documentaries.

The best book about Scaife's b.s. is The Hunting of the President, an eye-opening page turner that is worth a read if you'd like to know how a billionaire with a hard on for Democrats will go to any lengths and will make up almost anything in an attempt to destroy someone.

Scaife's ties to Kenneth W. Starr are not well known, but they're not well-hidden, either. Starr was named the first dean of a new school on public policy funded by Scaife at Pepperdine University. When controversy arose over this appointment, Starr decided against taking the position. Of course, Pepperdine denied any link between Starr and Scaife. Ummm Hmmm. Once the controversy passed, Starr became dean of Pepperdine's School of Law in 2004.

Now you tell me, who is a more dangerous man in America - Scaife or Soros?

The biggest right-wing shill in America would be wise to rethink calling Soros "the most dangerous man in America" by looking inward toward his own twisted political party.

I've got my own nominee for the moniker Most Dangerous Man in America - how about Roger Ailes?

One thing I like about Obama already

His honesty.

The 2008 presidential campaign isn't even a zygote yet, and the gotcha politics and garbage media coverage has already started. The big buzz about Barack Obama right now (at least according to Fox News, and they typically operate in an alternate, parallel universe anyway) is whether Obama's admission that he used drugs as a teen should disqualify him.

Absolutely not.

I'm tired of these types of questions asked of every candidate when they run for public office. The teenage years should probably be excluded entirely. We all make decisions we're not proud of as teens. Most of us then grow up, realize right from wrong, and become responsible adults. Okay, if someone committed murder or rape as a teenager, that's a different story, but aside from serious felonies, I'd love for the mainstream media to get beyond this type of "issues" reporting, and that goes for candidates of any party.

Every single closet has skeletons, and no one is perfect. Guess what? Obama's no exception. I love it that this issue is already out there for him, so there won't be some crank trying to make money off of Obama's candidacy or fame by selling his story to the National Enquirer or some other media outlet of ill repute. For some examples of this, you need look no further than Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones or Donna Rice. It's a non-issue with Obama, as it should be, and his admission in his book 11 years ago assures that it will remain a non-issue. There are much more important questions that we should be asking our candidates who aspire to public office.

Let me clarify - I'm talking teenage years here - not coke snorting fiends who think it would be a good idea to run for the U.S. Senate. But, teenage years are different, and we shouldn't be excluding and crucifying candidates based on what they did as teens.

So, Obama is already something that both President Bush and President Clinton were not during their campaigns -- honest about drug use as young men. Clinton's "I didn't inhale" fiasco will live on in presidential lore -- what a stupid answer to an even dumber question. Clinton grew up in the 1960s, for Christsakes. Smoking pot during that era is about as exclusive as being a Chinese citizen.

And Bush was even less forthcoming during his '00 campaign when asked about the issue - he simply answered that he wasn't going to answer questions about his past when it came to drug use and rumors of his cocaine use. I've already stated that I feel it's irrelevant when talkin' teen/college years, but in his case, it was different. There were allegations that he was on the drug well into his 20s and early 30s. I have no idea whether it's true or not, and neither does the rest of the nation. And that's my point. The fact that he wouldn't answer it left many to believe that there was probably some guilt involved, but no one knows for sure.

Anyway, on to my point for bringing all of this up -- an example of contemporary media coverage of Obama and his past drug use. Surprise -- it's from Fox News, which recently ran a segment on "Obama's Cocaine Confession."

Their conversation took an unusual turn, however, when Fox reporter Kirian Chetry said President Bush had also admitted to using cocaine.

Obama "talks very candidly, as did our current president, who admitted to using cocaine, correct? [Listen to the others' hem and haw - hilarious] Well, who wrote, somebody wrote in a book -- well, he admitted that he had an alcoholic, he had a drinking problem. Who was it who said they witnessed him using cocaine? It was somebody who wrote a book..."

Ha! Start revising that résumé, Ms. Chetry. I love it how she rained all over this segment's parade, a segment that I'm sure was clearly aimed it slamming Obama and bringing up Clinton's drug use. But, it backfired when Chetry brought up Bush. Oops. Roger Ailes must have been pissed. Too bad.

The clip is below...



Anyway, this is just the kind of garbage that I wish the media would get past when reporting on presidential candidates (and any other candidate for public office, for that matter). Most Americans are sick and tired of it. But, I'm not holding my breath that this type of reporting is going to end anytime soon.