This old people person (that's me,folks) knows that those so called
"news" A@@Holes are full of S...!
cuhulin

Online newspapers? www.kidon.com
cuhulin

ill O'Reilly
The O'Reilly Factor
FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

In May of this year, I asked that you allow me to come on The O'Reilly
Factor to discuss your attacks on philanthropist George Soros. Your
producer denied my request, saying you were no longer discussing the
topic. Yet in subsequent weeks, you continued to discuss Mr. Soros on
your radio and television programs. Despite my offer to discuss Soros,
you still did not invite me on -- even complaining during your June 1
Radio Factor, "I mean, we really can't get anybody in here [to defend
Soros] that's not a raving, raving Far-Left person, and why we would
want to do that, I don't know."

In recent months, you have repeatedly attacked me and my organization,
Media Matters for America:

On the June 28 O'Reilly Factor, you referred to Media Matters as a
"Far Left website";
On the August 5 Radio Factor, you likened Media Matters to Mao Zedong;
On the August 5 O'Reilly Factor, you claimed your critics are
"hiding"; in response, I reiterated my willingness to appear on your
television show;
During your August 7 debate with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman
on CNBC, you compared Media Matters to the Ku Klux Klan and Fidel
Castro;
On August 13, Media Matters noted your recent attacks on us, and
wondered how long it would be before you compared us to Nazi
propagandist Joseph Goebbels. It took less than a month: On the
September 14 Radio Factor, you referred to comments I made as "Joseph
Goebbels Nazi stuff";
On the December 9 Radio Factor, you called Media Matters "the most
vile, despicable human beings in the country";
On the December 14 Radio Factor, you called Media Matters "sneaky";
accused us of "tak[ing] things out of context"; called us a "Far Left,
deceitful, disgusting website"; and called us "character assassins"
and "despicable weasels."

As you can see, Mr. O'Reilly, you have repeatedly and personally
attacked me, Media Matters for America, and my fine staff, calling us
"vile," "despicable," and "weasels," and comparing us to the Ku Klux
Klan, Castro, Mao, and the Nazis. And you have refused my repeated
requests to appear on your broadcast.

You once offered your viewers your definition of the word "coward." On
the January 5, 2004, O'Reilly Factor, you declared: "If you attack
someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to
face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward."

Well, Mr. O'Reilly, you have attacked me publicly on numerous
occasions, and you refuse to face me. You, sir, are a coward -- by
your own definition of the term. You are "hiding under your desk" (to
paraphrase your August 26, 2003, claim about a "coward" who declined
to appear on your show) rather than allowing me on your program to
discuss your insults. You are "gutless," to borrow the phrase you used
on January 10, 2003, and February 8, 2001, to describe people who
would not appear on your program. I attach additional examples of your
pejorative descriptions of those who decline invitations to appear on
your broadcast.

Your frequent complaint that your words are taken out of context
appears to have spurred your recent assault on my organization. While
reasonable people can disagree about conclusions we, or you, have
drawn about your comments, you are simply wrong to say that we took
you out of context. I remain willing and eager to appear on either
your television or radio program to discuss your contention that my
organization has taken your comments out of context.

Should you continue to refuse this offer, it is only reasonable that
the American people will conclude that you are not only -- as you
would put it -- a "coward," but a hypocrite as well.

Sincerely,

David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America

http://mediamatters.org/



On 18 Dec 2004 14:10:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Sat 18 Dec 2004 12:11:50a, "Ross"
wrote in message
roups.com:

The problem with this is Bill O'Reilly is an inveterate
liar, the worst hypocrite to hit the airwaves in a
geneartion, and a total and complete coward. This is
proven.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412160011

If you believe anything he or Ann Coulter says, you are
mentally deficient.
Enough said.

Have a nice day



Would you agree that those who rely upon and place faith in
blatantly biased websites like mediamatters.org are not
equally (to borrow your phrase) "mentally deficient"?

-=jd=-

O'Reilly is a POS.
cuhulin

In article ,
wrote:

O'Reilly is a POS.
cuhulin

Quite a string of nonsensical posts.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On 19 Dec 2004 04:03:51 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:
Show me where the bias results in factal inaccuracy. Give me one
example of Brock lying. The right wing press as embodied in Fox News
lies a lot. Show me where Air America or Mediamatters lies.

Do you know Brock's history? He used to be one of them. He used to
be a lying right-wing hit man:

''Timeline of Brock's Career

1986: Brock comes to Washington to write for Insight, a conservative
weekly magazine published by the Washington Times' parent company

October 1991: Professor Anita Hill testifies at the confirmation
hearing for Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas. Brock later
recalls watching the hearings from his office at the Washington Times,
where he was an editor; and that at first, he "believed that what
(Hill) was saying was quite possibly true." About a month later, Brock
gets an assignment to write about Hill for the American Spectator, a
conservative journal based in Arlington, Va.

March 1992: The Spectator publishes Brock's sharply critical piece on
Hill, whom he describes as "a bit nutty and a bit slutty."

April 1993: Brock's book, The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story, is
published. In an interview on C-SPAN, Brock says the book's key
message is that, "when you look at the evidence, the battle of
credibility is settled hands down in favor of Clarence Thomas. Anita
Hill's testimony is really shot through with false, incorrect and
misleading statements."

December 1993: In the January 1994 Spectator, Brock, now on the
magazine's staff, writes about what would come to be called
"Troopergate": allegations by Arkansas state troops that they helped
procure women for Clinton when he was Arkansas governor.

October 1996: Brock's much-awaited biography of Hillary Rodham
Clinton, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, is an unexpectedly
sympathetic portrait that startles and angers many of his conservative
supporters.

July 1997: In an Esquire magazine article titled "I Was A Right- Wing
Hit Man," Brock writes that because of the way conservatives
dispossessed him over the Hillary Clinton biography, "I want out.
David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead."

November 1997: Brock is fired from the staff of the Spectator.

April 1998: In an open letter to President Clinton published in
Esquire, Brock apologizes for his "Troopergate" expose, which he says
was written not "in the interest of good government or serious
journalism," but as part of an anti-Clinton crusade.

June 2001: The August issue of Talk magazine publishes an adaptation
from Brock's forthcoming book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of
an Ex-Conservative. In it, Brock says he "lost his soul" by knowingly
writing things about Hill that he knew were not true, and became "a
witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine."



(weekdays)

''
(weekends)









Based on that copy/paste operation, it *is* apparently safe to
presume that your response to my former question (...Would you
agree that those who rely upon and place faith in blatantly
biased websites like mediamatters.org are not equally (to
borrow your phrase) "mentally deficient"?...) is a resounding
YES!

-=jd=-

O'Reilly LIES!! Limbaugh LIES!! Sean Hannity LIES!!

It's not spin. It's not bias. It's lying.

So instead of refuting my allegation that these people lie, you change
the subject.

Our country is doomed if people like me, who only insist on factual
accuracyin the news media, are branded as ''naive...extremists''.




On 20 Dec 2004 02:07:48 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Sun 19 Dec 2004 06:23:08p, David wrote in
message :


O'Reilly LIES!! Limbaugh LIES!! Sean Hannity LIES!!

It's not spin. It's not bias. It's lying.


Apologies if I struck a nerve. I've noticed extremists like
yourself tend to have very tender toes that are often too easily
stepped on. It's just a bit amusing to see you present yourself
and your preferred information sources as (purportedly) the
bastion of truth and unbiased information. It's cute in a "Puh-
leeeze!!" kind of way... Like I said before, if you want to wear
that yoke of hypocracy like a badge of honor, that's *your* bag.
Just don't cop an attitude if we get a chuckle out of your
naivety - and at your expense.

-=jd=-

"David" wrote in message
...

O'Reilly LIES!! Limbaugh LIES!! Sean Hannity LIES!!

It's not spin. It's not bias. It's lying.

Rather LIES! Moore LIES! Al Franken LIES!

It's not spin. It's not bias. It's lying.

You can't argue with an ideologue. It's like trying to deprogram a
cultist.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:51:02 -0600, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .

O'Reilly LIES!! Limbaugh LIES!! Sean Hannity LIES!!

It's not spin. It's not bias. It's lying.

Rather LIES! Moore LIES! Al Franken LIES!

It's not spin. It's not bias. It's lying.