Jump to content

Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stanley011 (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 29 September 2006 (→Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home: added media matters as another source referring to fair as a liberal media watchdog). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Commentator Bill O'Reilly has been involved in numerous controversies.

File:Oreilly alt.jpg
Bill O'Reilly

Critics and Rivals

Main article Bill O'Reilly critics and rivals

O'Reilly has been involved in numerous controversies with various people and organizations. Some of the more notable are Media Matters for America, Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Moyers.

Disputes of Factual Accuracy

Malmedy massacre

On October 28 2005, O'Reilly falsely claimed, in an interview with Fox News Channel analyst General Wesley Clark, that U.S. troops committed the Malmedy massacre. O'Reilly stated "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd Airborne who did it." [1] This statement implied that American soldiers had massacred German prisoners of war in the Malmedy massacre. In actuality, it was the German Waffen-SS troops that massacred eighty-four surrendering American soldiers.

On May 30, 2006 O'Reilly again interviewed Wesley Clark. O'Reilly stated "In Malmedy, as you know, US Forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record and documented." Wesley Clark did not correct O'Reilly at any point during the interview. According to Media Matters for America, Fox News later edited the transcripts of the conversation inserting the word "Normandy" where O'Reilly had said "Malmedy." [2] [1]

In a later broadcast, O'Reilly responded to a viewer's attempt to correct his previous night's claim, stating In the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough... after Malmedy some German captives were executed by American troops". O'Reilly posted a column almost a year earlier on June 23, 2005 on his website, where he correctly described the Waffen-SS troops as the ones who massacred the surrendering US Army soldiers near Malmedy, and not the other way around. [3] In this column O'Reilly then used the example that the US Army's 11th Armored Division responded to the Malmedy massacre in the aftermath by carrying out revenged attacks on captured German soldiers. Although O'Reilly's column mentions only this one incident, it is typical of other reported incidents of US retaliation in kind. For another example, see Chenogne massacre.

University of Oregon Student Newspaper Controversy

On May 17, 2006 Bill O'Reilly while discussing controversial cartoons of Jesus that offended Christians published by a University of Oregon student newspaper, The Insurgent, he incorrectly claimed that the University's president Dave Frohnmayer had allowed the university's students to publish the cartoons. In fact, neither Frohnmayer nor the school has control over the content of the student-run university newspapers, because of the 2000 United States Supreme Court case Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. The Insurgent was apparently responding to rival The Oregon Commentator’s decision to publish controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which have sparked Muslim outrage and rioting around the world. O'Reilly never discussed this on his program and attributed the printing of the cartoons to students who "apparently hate Christianity", and had on his show the editor of The Oregon Commentator. During his interview with the editor, O'Reilly made a comparison between the two publications and claimed that The Oregon Commentator is responsible and that The Insurgent was irresponsible. He later commented on his radio program that if a student newspaper published anything attacking a minority group (like Muslims, a religious minority in Oregon) the university would intervene and remove funding.[4][5][6]

Disputed claims involving the War on Christmas

In the wake of O'Reilly's promotion of an alleged "War on Christmas" (see section below), Media Matters for America posted several reports on their website with links to news articles from Michigan’s WNEM-TV5 [7], the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[8], and the Washington Post [9], as well as to one retraction by O’Reilly himself[2], noting that several of O'Reilly’s allegations to support his theory were either false or inaccurate [3] [4]. Media Matters has asserted that one of O'Reilly's sources that he used to support the idea that there existed a "War on Christmas" was a skit on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart[10], one which O'Reilly had stated on his radio program happened "last night" on the Daily Show. Media Matters provided a video clip and transcript of a later Daily Show program in which Stewart and Samantha Bee claimed that the skit O'Reilly had originally referenced had been aired one year prior to O'Reilly's allegation [11].

Citizen boycott of French goods/Paris Business Review

In March 2003, O'Reilly called for a boycott of French products and services sold in the United States, due to President Jacques Chirac's stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[5] In April 27, 2004; O'Reilly claimed “they’ve lost billions of dollars in France” as a direct result of his boycott, referring to The Paris Business Review as his source, a publication that doesn't exist. O'Reilly than claimed about two months later (July 6, 2004) that the boycott caused France to lose in $138 million dollars in business compared to the previous year.[12][6] On Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, October 18, 2005, O'Reilly confirmed that the boycott is still in place, referring to the French as "our enemies". Bill O'Reilly then claimed almost a week later that his boycott had forced the French ambassador to New York to stop him.[13] As late as February 2006 Bill O'Reilly said in his show that "those who supported us, like Britain and Denmark, should be rewarded. Those who did not, like France and Spain, must be held accountable".

A survey conducted by Weber Shandwick in May 2003 found that 43% of U.S. citizens reported they were "less likely" to buy French products because of France's opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Drummond, Gillian, "New Yorkers Shun French Restaurants." Caterer and Hotelkeeper, May 15th 2003). An O'Dwyer's PR Services Report article of June, 2003 notes that "French sales in the United States represent $28 billion USD a year, making the United States the most important commercial partner of France after the EU." (McCauley, Kevin, "Political Consumers Punish/Support Brands," O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, June 2003). The CBC and Media Matters for America have stated that French imports to the US increased during the period of O'Reilly's boycott, citing U.S. Census Bureau figures. [7] [8] [9]

Peabody award

In a February 10, 2001 speech at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, O'Reilly incorrectly claimed that Inside Edition, a show he had previously anchored, had won a Peabody Award. After watching an airing of the speech a couple weeks later on C-SPAN, Al Franken stated that he performed a search on Nexis and found three previous occasions dating back to August 30, 1999 where O'Reilly had repeated the incorrect claim. [10] Franken called O'Reilly for a statement and O'Reilly admitted he had made an error, correcting himself and stating that the show had won a George Polk Award and not a Peabody [14][15]. Further research that Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them reveals that the Polk award was given one year after O'Reilly's tenure at Inside Edition and for work O'Reilly had not been involved with [16]) [11].

Franken called Lloyd Grove, a reporter for The Washington Post, who called O'Reilly and asked him about his statements. O'Reilly offered an admission of error, saying "...So I got mixed up between a Peabody Award and a Polk Award...". Grove published the story on March 1, 2001 in his column "The Reliable Source".[17]

On March 8, Robert Reno of Newsday reported "O'Reilly also has repeatedly boasted of his Peabody Awards... Actually, he has never won a Peabody...he got it confused with the Polk Award...which had been won by "Inside Edition" ..." [18]. O'Reilly rejected the characterization and stated that he was misquoted and had never made the attribution of having personally won the award. On the March 13th, 2001 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion on "attack journalism" O'Reilly says of the incident:

Guy says about me, couple weeks ago, "O’Reilly said he won a Peabody Award." Never said it. You can’t find a transcript where I said it. You—there is no one on earth you could bring in that would say I said it. Robert Reno in Newsday, a columnist, writes in his column, calls me a liar, all right? And it’s totally fabricated. That’s attack journalism. It’s dishonest, it’s disgusting, and it hurts reputations.

"Shut up" line

On November 15, 2002, a viewer criticized O'Reilly's interruption of his guests telling them to "Shut Up". O'Reilly responded to this statement contending that the "Shut up line has happened only once in six years". Appearing on CBS's 60 Minutes, O'Reilly claimed that his research department reviewed every "Factor" episode since its 1996 debut and had come to the conclusion that he said "shut up" six times. Slate.com author Jack Shafer documented 30 different programs where O'Reilly used the "Shut up" line at least once, 13 of which occurred before O'Reilly's contention. One of the most notable "shut up" lines was directed towards Jeremy Glick, a peace activist whose father was killed on 9/11. Shafer calculated that O'Reilly said the "shut up" line 200 times since his show premiered in 1996. However, most of the "shut-up" lines documented are not directed at guests on his show but are directed at his opponents or critics during his talking points memo.[19]

Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home

O'Reilly has long claimed that his inspiration for speaking up for average Americans, or what he calls "the folks.", are his working-class roots. He often points to his boyhood home in lower-middle-class Levittown, New York as a credential. Based on a Washington Post interview, Al Franken[20] and others have claimed that O'Reilly did not grow up in Levittown, but instead in a neighboring village, Westbury. The source the Post used for their assertion was O'Reilly's mother, who at the time a profile of O'Reilly was published in 2000 still lived in his boyhood home.[21] The issue was originally brought up by Michael Kinsley in an Op-Ed piece.

O'Reilly has alleged that the Washington Post misquoted his mother [22], though he is on the record saying his mother still lives in his boyhood home. O'Reilly placed a copy of the deed to the house on his website, which shows that the property had title and a postal address in Levittown [23][24]. The date on the deed indicates his parents bought a new or nearly new home in 1951 in the Levittown development[25], a mass-produced housing development, constructed by William Levitt between 1947 and 1952, that was to become archetype for suburbia.

William Levitt typically bought open farmland for development [26] and it is unlikely that the Levittown development in Westbury resembled the older, westerly parts of the village. The Washington Post confirms that the O'Reilly family home was built by William Levitt[27] hence the controversy arises from the redrawing of political boundaries. Levittown was redrawn into a squarish shape[28][29] to conform with the 11756 Zip Code. Zip codes were introduced in 1963. After this time the home was located in Westbury. The redrawing of political maps resulted in a similar controversy regarding musician Billy Joel's Levittown family home which was annexed by neighboring Hicksville.

O'Reilly has also noted that his father "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life." FAIR, an organization that both the Columbia Journalism Review and Media Matters have described as a "liberal media watchdog" [30] [31] has claimed that the equivalent income in 2001 of that amount earned in 1978 would be over $90,000 [32].

Controversial topics discussed by O'Reilly

Jeremy Glick

Main article: Jeremy Glick (author)
File:Jeremyglickinterview.jpg
The Jeremy Glick interview as seen in Outfoxed

On his televised program on February 4, 2003, O'Reilly interviewed Jeremy Glick, an author whose father had been killed in the World Trade Center attacks. Glick had signed an anti-war ad that made comments relating the September 11 attacks to atrocities in Baghdad, Panama City and Vietnam. O'Reilly told Glick that he doubted that Glick's father would approve of his anti-war stance. After Glick accused O'Reilly of evoking "9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide", and also of evoking "sympathy with the 9/11 families" to do the same, O'Reilly became visibly angered with Glick, stating "That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do" (see American Red Cross and the United Way for an example of O'Reilly's helping families of 9/11 victims). The short and heated segment ended with O'Reilly giving the command to his staff to cut Glick's microphone. Returning from the commercial break after the interview O'Reilly stated to his audience, "If I had knew [sic] that guy Jeremy Glick was gonna be like that I never would have brought him in here."[33]

O'Reilly has since maintained that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks claiming "Glick was saying without a shred of evidence that President Bush, and Bush the elder, were directly responsible for 9/11" and "He came on this program and accused President Bush of knowing about 9/11 and murdering his own father." [34]. Glick stated in the interview that "Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others." [12]

Media Matters for America has pointed out that Glick was incorrect in his claim that the president's father, George H.W. Bush, was head of the CIA when the U.S. funneled support to the anti-Soviet Afghan forces. CIA assistance to the Afghan fighters began in 1979; Bush was CIA director from 1976 to 1977.´´ [35].

Cindy Sheehan

Over a year after her son Casey died, mother turned anti-Iraq War activist Cindy Sheehan began a protest outside of Crawford, Texas, where President George W. Bush was spending time at his Prairie Chapel Ranch. O'Reilly stated that Sheehan's behavior may, in the eyes of some, border on treason. [13] He later said, "So it's obvious Cindy Sheehan has become a political player, whose primary concern is embarrassing the president. She is no longer just a protester. I don't think she ever has been, by the way." [14] In an interview with Phil Donahue on September 23, 2005, O'Reilly referred to Cindy Sheehan as "clueless". [15] He included her on his October, 2005 "Cowards List", which he described as comprised of "people who will not stand up and answer questions about their bomb-throwing statements." [16] On January 4, 2006, he remarked, "She's run by far-left elements who are using her, and she's dumb enough to allow it to happen. It's not a vilification, it's a fact" [17]

Alleged liberal bias in the media

O'Reilly regularly accuses the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, NPR, BBC, CBC and other major press outlets of leaning to the "political far-left" in their reporting. It is his view that these networks and publications undermine the Bush administration's war on terror. Template:Ref harvard Also very critical of what he describes as "far-left" columnists, which has resulted in frequent back-and-forth debates between his show and their columns. In one such exchange O'Reilly stated that columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Times is "most likely helping the terrorists" because of his refusal to condemn the ACLU for demanding that photographs of prisoners at Abu Ghraib be released.[18] On the media, O'Reilly has made the following argument: "The defense attorneys buy politicians off, especially in small states like Vermont where they give a lot of money, and the liberal media working against Jessica's Law for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons. And the folks have gotta know who the forces of darkness are."[36]

Most recently, O'Reilly has begun posting the names of various media outlets that he considers to be "defamatory" on a "Hall of Shame" page on his own website; this list includes:

Opposing the ACLU

O'Reilly has stated that the ACLU is "the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now,"[20] especially in their challenging of the Justice Department and the Department of Defense regarding the War on terror. He has also highlighted their pro-bono defense of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which is currently being tried for responsibility in the rape and murder of a young boy. The ACLU's defends NAMBLA's freedom of speech surrounding their publications and has said that the legal blame in the rape/murder should go to who committed it.[37] The ACLU has said that they sometimes have to defend "unpopular" speech or speech that they don't agree with, including the KKK's.[38]

Penalties on child sex offenders

Another recurring theme in his work has been the implementation of harsher penalties on child sex offenders. O'Reilly has frequently pointed out poor judicial handling of some cases. Named in memory of Jessica Lunsford, who was abducted and raped before being brutally murdered, "Jessica's Law" refers to the Jessica Lunsford Act passed in Florida that mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years and a maximum of life in prison for first-time child sex offenders. O'Reilly believes that this law will save lives and has called on constituents to write the governors of those states lacking these laws.

In March 2006, O'Reilly criticized a judge in Ohio for giving a sentence of five years probation to a sexual predator who admitted to molesting children, calling for that judge to be thrown off the bench. O'Reilly was joined by the state's governor and attorney general. In an editorial, Jeff Bruce, editor of the Dayton Daily News, stressed that while the light sentence shouldn't be ignored, that O'Reilly, the governor, and the attorney general, who Bruce claims in the article had each been the subject of scandal, shouldn't make a rush to judgment about the judge. That night, O'Reilly appeared on the Factor charging Bruce with endorsing the judge's sentence, even though Bruce had not endorsed the judge's sentence in the editorial of Bruce's that O'Reilly was discussing.


Weapons of mass destruction

On ABC's Good Morning America on 18 March, 2003, O'Reilly said "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." On February 10, 2004, during a Good Morning America broadcast, O'Reilly said, "My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all...I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time" [21]. While he continues to support the U.S. presence in Iraq, he remains critical of how the Bush administration is handling some aspects of policy. He believes the U.S. is not relying enough on Iraqi military support and is critical of the administration's failure to secure Iraqi borders. He has also criticized the time it takes to train Iraqi security forces, as compared to U.S recruit training.

Military recruitment in San Francisco schools

On November 8, 2005, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition I/College Not Combat, a ballot measure that declared the city's opposition to "the federal government's use of public schools to recruit students for service in the military" [22] In response, O'Reilly stated on his radio show, "You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right in to Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it....We're going to say, “Look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead”" [23]. San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly responded, calling for O'Reilly's termination [24]. O'Reilly refused to apologize, and claimed that his comments had been "obviously satirical" [25] The proposition's author, Todd Chretien, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor in response and stated that to the people of San Francisco, the issue was "no laughing matter." O'Reilly on that same program played a short clip of his controversial remarks and claimed the full clip could be found on his website; however the clip available on his website is not complete.[39]

American Red Cross and the United Way

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, O'Reilly devoted substantial time on his television show and wrote pieces alleging that the United Way and American Red Cross failed to deliver millions of dollars in donated money, raised by the organizations in the name of the disaster, to the families of those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[40][41]. O'Reilly asserted that the organizations misrepresented their intentions for the money being raised by not distributing all of the 9/11 relief fund to the victims. [42] Actor George Clooney defended the United Way from O'Reilly's criticisms of a telethon which ended up raising $129.5 million, plus an additional $12 million in CD and DVD sales, according to Jeannette Reed, spokeswoman for the United Way of New York City. The funds were given to victims and surviving families in the form of cash assistance, she said. Congressional hearings were called on the matter and an investigation by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, forced the president of the Red Cross to resign for her role in the situation, and then the Red Cross pledged that all funds would go to directly benefit the victims of the September 11 attacks. [43] In the aftermath, O'Reilly helped the Red Cross develop a revised policy regarding how donations would be distributed. In sworn testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in November 2001, Congressman J.D. Hayworth asserted that media pressure, most notably from O'Reilly, helped cause the Red Cross to increase payments to affected people and helped cause other charities to participate in an oversight database established by Spitzer [44].

On January 6, 2005 about three years after the Red Cross revised its policy on distributing its funds for the 911 families, O'Reilly claimed that a fund raising telethon by the United Way for the 2004 tsunami victims would end up the same as the 911 funds raised by the Red Cross. On January 10, 2005 George Clooney sent a e-mail to O'Reilly which pointed out that the United Way not the Red Cross sponsored the telethon and claimed that O'Reilly's comments were for personal gain and would cause less people to donate to the cause, Clooney also invited O'Reilly to present at the event and personally oversee and help the fund raising, O'Reilly responded later on his nightly show, "That sounds good to me, but I have to see what the format is." [45]

Ludacris

Ludacris

On August 27, 2002 O'Reilly started a boycott against Pepsi over their endorsement of rapper Ludacris. O'Reilly's reasons for starting the boycott was due to the fact that Ludacris's lyrics have been known to degrade women and support the use of drugs. Pepsi succumbed to O'Reilly's message and dropped Ludacris from their company.

Furthering the controversy, in response to the signing of the Osbourne family, music hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons organized a boycott against the company. Simmons demanded an apology from Pepsi to Ludacris and a five million dollar donation to one of Ludacris' charities. Eventually Simmons and Pepsi settled on an agreement to stop the boycott, right before it was to officially begin-- while Pepsi did not formally apologise to Ludacris, they did agree to donate millions of dollars over years to the Russell Simmons Hip-Hop Summit Action Network [citation needed].

O'Reilly remained silent over Pepsi's endorsement of the Osbourne family, which some critics described as "racial hypocrisy". [46] [47] [48] Further, O'Reilly denied calling for a boycott of Pepsi on February 4, 2003. [citation needed]

Ludacris' song "Blow It Out" (from the Chicken & Beer album), acted as a response to his critics, namely O'Reilly, who is mentioned by name in the following lyrics:

Shout out to Bill O'Reilly, I'm'a throw you a curve
You mad cause I'm a thief and got away with words
I'm'a start my own beverage, it'll calm your nerves
Pepsi's the New Generation—Blow it out ya ass!

Other

Hubcaps incident

In April 2003, O'Reilly appeared at a fundraiser for Best Friends, a charity benefiting inner-city schoolchildren. O'Reilly was trying to fill time before an African-American singing group called the Best Men was set to perform, and quipped "Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps." Some in the audience felt that it was a racially insensitive comment. O'Reilly claims the remarks were a reference to a common prank in the 1950s, and the event had a 50s theme [26] [27].

Later, on May 7, 2003, Atlanta-based libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz came on O'Reilly's show to discuss a controversial "whites-only" prom at a Georgia high school. O'Reilly decried the incident as non-inclusive, and Boortz repeatedly assured him that the event in question, while organized and promoted by students within the school, actually occurred off-campus. Boortz argued that it was a private gathering, and as such wasn't subject to equal protection clauses or anything of the sort.

The discussion turned sour when Boortz suggested that O'Reilly was cherry picking this issue as a publicity stunt, designed to assuage the recent hubcaps remarks O'Reilly made at a charity fundraiser. Immediately after Boortz brought up the hubcap incident, O'Reilly scolded him: "You know, you're a vicious son of a bitch for bringing that up." Boortz appeared a bit flustered, but mostly laughed off the insult, later buying the rights to www.viciousSOB.com and redirecting it to O'Reilly's website. [49]

David Letterman

On January 4, 2006, O'Reilly appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman. O'Reilly had previously praised Letterman as "a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy" and as having "the toughest interview show on television."[28]. When O'Reilly began a discussion on the alleged War on Christmas, Letterman replied, "I think that this is something that happened here, and it happened there, and so people like you are trying to make us think that it's a threat." Letterman accused O'Reilly of making up some of his claims on particular points on the Iraq War, and O'Reilly replied with, "Then I could write for your show." When O'Reilly attacked the motivations of Cindy Sheehan, Letterman took exception, saying O'Reilly had never lost a family member in a war, and therefore O'Reilly could not speak for Sheehan's motivations. O'Reilly then asked how would those who did lose a member in the war, feel about Sheehan calling terrorists "freedom fighters". Letterman eventually said, "I'm not smart enough to debate you point-for-point on this, but I have the feeling that about 60 percent of what you say is crap." (video). When asked by O'Reilly to give examples, Letterman stated that he never watched his show. The next day on his television program, O'Reilly criticized Letterman and called him "a card-carrying member of the secular progressive movement."


See also

References

  1. ^ Fox News (2006). "Ex-NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark on Afghanistan and Iraq Troubles" (HTML and Windows Media video). FOXNews.com web site. Fox News. Retrieved 2006-06-02. This page contains what it describes as a 'partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," May 30, 2006, that has been edited for clarity.' There is also a link entitled "FREE FOX News Video: Watch this segment" under the tab "VIDEO". The transcript text contains the word "Normandy" three times, once spoken by O'Reilly, once by Clark, and finally by O'Reilly. The video linked to has audio of those words, and video of O'Reilly's and Clark's faces as they speak. The pronunciation used by O'Reilly sounds more like "Malmedy", while the pronunciation used by Clark sounds more like "Normandy".
  2. ^ S.G. (2005). "O'Reilly admits he falsely accused Plano of banning red and green clothing". Media Matters.
  3. ^ J.B. (2005). "O'Reilly falsely claimed that "spiritual" Christmas stamps are no longer being offered". Media Matters.
  4. ^ S.G. (2005). ""Saginaw Township on the The O'Reilly Factor Radio Program"". WNEM TV-5.
  5. ^ Schweber-Koren, Raphael (2005b). "O'Reilly again trumpeted "annoying" French boycott". Wahington, D.C.: Media Matters for America (October 27). Retrieved December 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ G.W. (2004). "FOX's O'Reilly fabricated evidence of success of purported boycott". Media Matters.
  7. ^ CBC (2005). "Sticks and Stones"". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
  8. ^ R.S.K. (2005). "O'Reilly boycotts truth to spin French boycott; falsely claimed it "hurt France"". Media Matters.
  9. ^ U.S. Census Bureau (2006). "U.S. Imports from France from 2001 to 2005". U.S. Census Bureau.
  10. ^ Franken, Al (2003). Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Dutton Books. ISBN 0-525-94764-7.
  11. ^ Rotten.com. "Bill O'Reilly".
  12. ^ Media Matter for America (2004). "O'Reilly renewed 2003 attack on Jeremy Glick". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  13. ^ http://mediamatters.org/items/200508120006
  14. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165862,00.html
  15. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170195,00.html
  16. ^ http://mediamatters.org/items/200510270013
  17. ^ http://mediamatters.org/items/200601060009
  18. ^ O'Reilly, Bill (2005). "Those Who Help the Terrorists..." FOX News.
  19. ^ O'Reilly, Bill. "A Message from Bill: Media Operations that Traffic in Defamation".
  20. ^ G.W. (2004). "O'Reilly: ACLU is America's "most dangerous organization ... second next to Al Qaeda"". Media Matters.
  21. ^ Reuters (2004). "Conservative U.S. anchor now skeptical about Bush". Reuters (as published in The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 10). Retrieved December 27. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ San Francisco Department of Elections (2005). "No Military Recruiters in Public Schools, Scholarships for Education and Job Training". San Francisco Department of Elections. Retrieved December 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ Garofoli, Joe (2005a). "Talk host's towering rant: S.F. not worth saving". San Francisco Chronicle (November 11). Retrieved December 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ Garofoli, Joe (2005b). "Local leaders unleash vitriol at O'Reilly TV host should be fired for comments about city, Daly says". San Francisco Chronicle (November 12). Retrieved December 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  25. ^ O'Reilly, Bill (2005f). "San Francisco... Part III". FOX News Network, LLC (foxnews.com, "Talking Points," November 18). Retrieved December 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ Hart, Peter (2003). "O'Reilly's Racist Slurs--in Context". FAIR.
  27. ^ Connelly, Joel (2003-10-03). "In the Northwest: The hugely self-absorbed world of Bill O'Reilly". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. ^ O'Reilly, Bill (2001f). "The Letterman experience". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved January 6. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_image_of_Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&oldid=78501216"