Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

[MariaBonita 11]

I report, you decide.

Bill O’Reilly calls the New York Times “quasi-socialistic” and has placed the newspaper on his enemies list. Last night, he devoted an entire segment of his show to attacking the Times for not covering the arrests made in an alleged JFK airport terrorist plot on the front page.

“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on — ready — page 37, right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant,” O’Reilly said. He claimed the Times “isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11.”

O’Reilly explained the conspiracy: “The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point,” and since the Times “desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, The Times is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again.” O’Reilly called this “the hallmark of the far left.” Watch it:

Video here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/oreilly-lies/

One problem: the New York Times did cover the JFK terror plot on the front page of its Sunday edition. You wouldn’t know it from watching O’Reilly, who chose to show only the top fold of the front page during his broadcast. “Now I’m not making this up,” he told his viewers. “You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact.” But O’Reilly is lying.

Here’s the front page as shown on O’Reilly:

But the Sunday New York Times did feature a headline on the alleged JFK terror plots on its front page. It was just below the fold, which O’Reilly chose to hide.

Transcript:

O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Relax, the war on terror is not that big of deal. That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo.

Over the weekend, four Muslims were accused of planning to blowup JFK Airport here in New York City. That comes on the heels of six Muslims arrested for planning to kill U.S. soldiers in New Jersey. But hey, don’t be alarmed. According to John Edwards and The New York Times, this is no big deal.

In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.

Now apparently The Times isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11. On page one of Sunday’s New York Times was this story. Some poor people in India making bricks.

Now I’m not making this up. You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact. On page one, The New York Times instead of the JFK terror arrests we saw some Indian people with bricks.

Now why did The New York Times do that? It’s not hard to figure it out. The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts.

Since The New York Times desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, The Times is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again. Then The Times will say despite the fascism of the Bush administration, it could not protect us.

So The Times wins both ways. The paper diminishes the war on terror by putting it on page 37, but if something bad ever happened, it can attack President Bush.

Now this is the hallmark of the far left. We saw it again last night in the Democratic debate when the far left candidate John Edwards once again called the war on terror a bumper sticker.

[Yoink 7]

I feel sorry for Republicans who listen to Bill or Rush and think they are getting political news... I think they are funnier than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert

[Mononoke28 135]

O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Dobbs can all go to where the sun doesn't shine. I never read, watch or listen to anything they have to say, it's a waste of my precious time.

Done and done.

Diana

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't care about this #######. Conspiracy theories be damned! Also, it happened back in 2008, that's forever ago!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I feel sorry for Republicans who listen to Bill or Rush and think they are getting political news... I think they are funnier than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert

Yep...both sad and funny at the same time.

[Nagishkaw 510]

I feel sorry for Republicans who listen to Bill or Rush and think they are getting political news... I think they are funnier than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert

Yep...both sad and funny at the same time.

I agree.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

O'reilly is dishonest.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

It sells,

They like to create this atmosphere because that's what puts bread (Houses, million dollar contracts, TV ads, book contracts etc) on their tables.

I compare then to the WWF, if a show can sell tickets and breaking a chair on a man's back sells, bring it on! and I applaud their "skill"

[MariaBonita 11]

Agreed Tavo.

Good honest journalism doesn't sell anymore. Anger, sensationalism, and hate sells fast and for lots of money.

[HAL 9000 96]

Agreed Tavo.

Good honest journalism doesn't sell anymore. Anger, sensationalism, and hate sells fast and for lots of money.

There is a market for it. Definitely.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

fueled by an insecure and uninformed audience

Edited February 12, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[HAL 9000 96]

fueled by an insecure and uninformed audience

Oh that can definitely be a good part of it. But there's the other part: fueled by an insecure and quite intentional audience.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I feel so much harmony in this thread, so I won't be the first one to spoil it.

[MariaBonita 11]

I feel so much harmony in this thread, so I won't be the first one to spoil it.

How are you going to spoil it? Lying like Bill?

Oh nos, your name is Bill??

Joking, say what you have to say. It's ok.

[alienlovechild 75]

Oh that can definitely be a good part of it. But there's the other part: fueled by an insecure and quite intentional audience.

Oh course, there's nobody scrutinizing the rest of the media. Just keep repeating the mantra there's no such thing as liberal bias in most of the media.