Chris Aable's O'Reilly Watch
Below find letters authored by Chris Aable to Bill
O'Reilly, many of which have been posted across the internet or aired world-wide
on the Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor". This is not as much about
O'Reilly as it is the bigger issue - how Fox News can allow a person who lies so
much to panhandle his "no-spin facts" as truth when he lies almost every day,
either through self-deception or deliberate public deception. It is
indeed a mad, mad world and we do need to evolve higher standards for the Media
- because misinformed voters are just as deadly to a democracy as uninformed
voters. O'Reilly, as of October 2004, is being sued by one of his
female workers for sexual harassment. Even though he has claimed that
"this country has become a nation of lawsuit filers" - he is suing his alleged
victim. Ironically, O'Reilly also attempted to sue Al Franken, only to
have the judges throw the suit out of court as patently frivolous and without
merit. By the end of 2003, it was difficult to keep watching
all the lies and outright distortions that O'Reilly makes.
Mr. O'Reilly, as a psychologist I observe that you
have a difficult time holding a mirror to yourself when it comes to accepting
For years, you have been proudly touting your "boycott of France" because they
weren't stupid enough to get involved in a war against Saddam. If they had, the
Muslim riots we now see would have probably been far sooner and much greater.
You even bragged for years about how France's economy has declined, in the
context of your boycott. Sociologist and Economists know that boycotts can fuel
poverty which often fuels riots. True, there are many contributing reasons for
the riots, but pointing at other reasons in no way excuses you for your callous
role in all of this.
Los Angeles, CA
Your contract employee, Bill O'Reilly
Despite the repeated lies of Bill O'Reilly, Phil
Donahue and Michael Moore do not subscribe to the theory that "Bush masterminded
the 9-11 attacks. And, despite O'Reilly's repeated accusations (see Media Matters,
9/22/05), neither does Jeremy Glick, a one-time guest on O'Reilly's show
(2/4/03) whose father was killed in the September 11 attacks. When Glick
appeared on the show, he referred to the "political legacy" of the United States
"training militarily, economically and situating geopolitically" the Mujahideen
fighters in Afghanistan, some of whom (including Osama bin Laden) would later
form Al-Qaeda. Following Glick's appearance, O'Reilly attempted to twist his
remarks to suggest that Glick believed George W. Bush was involved in the
September 11 attacks (9/18/03, 9/19/03. 7/20/04).
Oddly enough, O'Reilly had recently explained (9/22/05) the "rules" for his
program as follows: "No slander and no personal accusations without facts to
back them up. If the guest violates those rules, they are scolded by me and will
not be invited back." And yet, he claims that the mother of her butchered son,
who is protesting Bush's war policy, is "being manipulated". How does he know
her motivations and what compels her? Could it be just grief and not wanting
other mother's to go through the same thing or can O'Reilly read her mind? Do
the rules he demands on his TV program apply to O'Reilly himself? O'Reilly also
repeatedly lies about the various blogs with thousands of independent negative
comments about his lies, saying "Nobody pays attention to those blogs." Quite
the contrary, people most assuredly do pay attention, with the BoBo (Bill
O'Reilly) site alone getting two million hits last month and climbing. But of
course, if you disagree with O'Reilly or display any respect for intellectuals
(who by definition respect intelligence) as John Stewart did when challenging
O'Reilly's constant ethnic stereotypes about the entire French nation, then
you're just a "pinhead" or as he tells his viewers, "you're drinking Kool-Aid".
Is this the professional language of a news commentator or a schoolyard bully?
Fair and Balanced? If so, why has Dick Morris been on hundreds of times with
sweeping and negative criticisms about Hillary Clinton? Why haven't one of the
millions of Hillary supporters been invited to present their opposing views if
you guys are so "fair and balanced"? Perhaps you're too busy booking other
guests who have also appeared on the show not dozens of times, but literally
hundreds of times in the past several years: Bill Bennet, Ann Coulter and Newt
Gingrich? Yes, "fair and balanced" all right, and unashamed to lie about it.
September 30, 2005
An open letter to Bill O'Reilly
In order to get power and retain it, it is
necessary to love power more than mercy and charity, although one can retain all
attributes. However, although you might mean it to be connected with goodness,
love of power consists of attributes that are the opposite of goodness, such as
too much aggression, cunning, and cruelty. As a psychologist, I have observed
that your words and actions on your show consistently meet the later three
behaviors, although I am sure you quite disagree. May you find a sense of
diplomacy beyond the embittered and embattled world of your own making.
Los Angeles, CA
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it".
March 10, 2005
Subject: Dan Rather
If any of your viewers think that Dan Rather should "retire" for running with a
counterfeit document, then by the same logic, Bush certainly should too. Bush
gave complete and deadly faith in a counterfeit "document" that stated "Saddam
has weapons of mass destruction". Without investigation, Bush thought it was as
real to him as Dan Rather and several others who examined the "Bush National
Guard document" thought that particular piece of paper was real to them.
Granted, both had their biases and may have wanted each document to be "real" -
but when you are the leader of the free world and lives are at stake- you should
be far more cautious and accountable than even the biggest news reporter. But
yet, Fox "news" spent an almost perverted three weeks headlining Dan Rather's
"dumb mistake", while putting Bush's far more deadly and costly "faulty
intelligence" in their back pages. We need not wonder why, since Fox "news" is
becoming increasingly more famous for being unfair, imbalanced - and unashamed.
Los Angeles, CA
March 8, 2005
To Bill O'Reilly
Ironically, you lie about your lies by arrogantly declaring that you have "never
told a lie" on your filibuster TV show and then challenging people to "prove"
it. Here are three for openers from just your 11/4/04 TV show: About last
November's election: 1.) Democrats "lost votes from four years ago." 2.) That
"18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls. 3.) That "committed Republicans
didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are
outright lies. I can list hundreds of others, but since you've only asked for
one, are these three "pithy" enough for you?
Los Angeles, CA
P.S. Or should I go into your other lies such as: 1.) "The war in Iraq will be a
cake walk". 2.) "Dean wants the troops out of Iraq right now" when Dean was
asserting that troops should "stay in Iraq for stability" before, during and
after your lie. 3.) "Hillary Clinton didn't go to one funeral or one memorial
service of any of the regular folks killed at the World Trade Center, even
though she's a senator of New York," despite the fact that Clinton attended
several memorial services, including one for 79 restaurant employees. (Your
propaganda also does not explain who those "regular folks" truly are.) Not to
mention the hundreds of times that you have told guests that they "can have the
last word" only to be interrupted by your last words, along with the hundreds of
times you have lied when stating you "do not favor Republicans" when Dick
Morris, Bill Bennet and Newt Gingrich are by far the most frequently appearing
"analysts" on your show. So much for the great big lie of "fair and balanced".
Your constant and consistent lies are not only a disgrace and danger to any type
of journalism, even lowly yellow journalism, but a disgrace to Fox News, with
its "flip-flop" propaganda spin. And that's saying a lot. The "spin stops"
where? The spin not only starts with you and Fox "News", but the lies about
your spin go on and on like a broken record. Your slogan should be revisited and
renamed to: "Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it." But I guess
somewhere down the line you and your conservative employers might have figured:
If the undigested slogans work for those you label as "religious zealots" and
"fascists" - why not you too? Some will believe your repeated lies and slogans,
others such as myself will not, and history will record more of the truth than
you care to dream of.
January 11, 2005
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Subject: Re: O'Reilly Brags About Fox's Lack of Skepticism
Congratulations to O'Reilly for finally "eating crow". With as many documented
errors as he had, as researched by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), he
should have a daily diet of crow. Remember when he said Iraq was going to be a
"cake walk"? After 1,400 American deaths and counting, I think he should now not
only be eating crow but should resign for misleading potential soldiers into
thinking this was going to be an easy adventure instead of the suicidal death
trap it has become and still remains. I don't feel more secure now then I did
before this war, I feel less secure, and any one who knows the psychology and
sociology of the Muslim world would feel less secure also.
Ted Turner did not call Fox "Nazis", he clearly stated that the "group
think" that many Fox "journalists" cling to is similar to what we saw in the rise
of the Nazi party. You and O'Reilly may not like the historical comparison, but
that does not make the facts of the comparison any less true. Fox's rare
reporting of the 1,400 American deaths and almost never mentioning the tens of
thousands of Iraqi deaths by our invasion is indeed highly similar to what the
Nazi's did, in that they somehow think that the lives of those in the "in group"
(us) is somehow more important than the "out group" (them). Fox is also similar
to the Nazi propaganda machine in that it blows their own horn all the time, as
if they are superior to every individual and group who disagrees with them.
Psychologically, you and O'Reilly can't seem to apprehend a comparison of Fox's
behavior with that of the Nazi's behavior, because the overriding hallmark of
Nazism was Genocide. But Turner is not saying anything like that at all, he is
making far more complicated and meticulous comparisons, those of which it seems
O'Reilly can't even begin to grasp through that black and white mindset he talks
and thinks through. You both seem to forget that the Nazi's were just as human
as you and I, and the fear, anger, divisionism and aggression which gave rise to
their power is not too distant from that which is in all of us. And neither of
you probably like that comparison either. Fortunately, there are those out there
who prefer to be ever mindful, ever watchful and ever vigilant of the ignorance
and hatred that can foment similar atrocities of what we've seen in the past.
Indeed, such atrocities are happening now in the Middle East, on both sides of
the fence, and who is doing the most should never be an argument or
justification for doing any.
Love and peace,