The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

05 March 2006

Media Matters, Bill O'Reilly, Assorted Lunatics

MEDIA MATTERS DERAILS

Brock's Site Taken In By Moonbat Antagonism Campaign




While we would never accuse Media Matters of placing a particular emphasis on accuracy, it's stunning to see David Brock's leftist media site embrace an overt anti-Bill O'Reilly harassment campaign.

It's one thing to critique O'Reilly's show, quite another to encourage creepy stalkers to step up their efforts.

By highlighting and clearly misrepresenting a call O'Reilly was forced to cut off, Media Matters could potentially face real liability issues if crazed lunatics now feel emboldened to bring harm to O'Reilly, anyone at Westwood One or the FOX News Channel.

This issue transcends political ideology, Mr. Brock and you reap what you sow.


Don't take our word for it, read what the blogger apparently behind this months-long harassment campaign (he also points to an incident with O'Reilly from last October) has to say:


Bill O’Reilly: First Blood
Published by Mike ----- (surname removed) March 2nd, 2006 in Bill O'Reilly

We got him today. One mention of Keith Olberman and Bill wet his pants. After a week of pinpricks (about 3-5 mentions of Olberman), this one finally got to Bill…

In this call, you’ll hear Olberman’s name mentioned. It didn’t get broadcast - Bill dumped it. This sound comes from the Bill O’Reilly premium membership I just paid for. (I vomited in my mouth as I hit the “Finalize Order” button).

Tomorrow I want to have a big push. Today we reduced O’Reilly to making false and empty threats. Tomorrow, crush him.

Email me if you’re game. ----- (removed) dot m at gmail dot com.



In the huge number of comments that follow, it takes some time before anyone states the obvious:


Typical radio delay is 7 seconds. Starting with the point where the audio got cut off on the air, the next 7 seconds heard on the tape will be all that the guy could say before being cut off.


Exactly: even radio novices have heard about the delay, Brock no doubt among them. When the "dump" button is pressed, listeners simply aren't going to hear what was said in the previous seven to ten seconds.

Therefore, we're not hearing what really led to the caller being dumped, the most important portion of the conversation. That there was more to it than a mere mention of Keith Olbermann's name is quite obvious.

If O'Reilly were to let the offending language reach the airwaves, imagine the outcry from the left, not to mention the FCC.


And yet Brock's site
still published this dubious "transcript":



O'REILLY: Orlando, Florida, Mike, go.

CALLER: Hey Bill, I appreciate you taking my call.

O'REILLY: Sure.

CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day, I think Keith Olbermann's show --

O'REILLY: There ya go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.

HILL: Maybe Mike is from the mothership.

O'REILLY: No, Maybe Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?

HILL: That's fair.

O'REILLY: So, just -- all you guys who do this kind of a thing, you know, I know some shock jocks. Whatever. You will be held accountable. Believe it.

We'll be right back.


By giving this guy validation, as Media Matters has done, others are also now encouraged to follow suit. That's downright dangerous. Does Brock really hate O'Reilly and FOX News that much?


If somebody hurts him, David, what will you have left to write about?

Since 1993, either for political or personal reasons, I've worked with many hosts across the country who couldn't stand each other. Sometimes we would argue in the hallways, or the studio between shows.

If you ever wanted to bring everyone together in a state of solidarity, however, simply get us talking about the personal threats faced by crazed stalkers.

Since it's usually the same few lunatics going after everybody, names and experiences can be shared. In Seattle, one person was for years a major headache. To the side of the studio, we kept a photo of him (while under arrest) for identification purposes.

At two stations I've been associated with, shots were fired right at the facilities from the street. One had bulletproof glass, so it didn't penetrate the second pane, while the other had shards all over the front lobby.

Luckily, nobody was hurt.

As much as media egomaniacs might hate each other, they would never encourage potentially psychopathic stalkers to go after enemies. With this crusade, David Brock reveals the degree to which he's blinded by hatred, taking us all into unchartered waters.

UPDATE: Even the left-leaning TVNewser fell for this, pointing to "several stories" of FOX News security agents calling people at home. Sure enough, one of the two personal accounts featured at the site he references, again comes from our friend "Mike". While we're not disputing whether calls were made, we don't know the reasons. In addition, Mike is overtly organizing an anti-O'Reilly harassment campaign.

This is getting really out of hand.

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order! Because this investigative work is taking an increasing amount of our time, it's needed more than ever.

O'Reilly photo: Canadian Press

39 Comments:

  • I am told that the part that went over the air was missing the words "keith Olbermann", and the cuts that everyone is playing from the O' Reilly service are recorded pre-delay. Therefore, everything is in there unless they go in and excise something after the fact, as is reported to have happened once this blew up. After all, why censor a podcasting service that isn't intended for the public airwaves? It would be a selling point to offer it with no editing -- just like pay-per-view on cable does things that can't be done or said over the air. If that's true, then there's no hidden obscenity as has been suggested.

    But it seems to me a curious and wasteful strategy to go after crank callers, even if they're organized. After all, radio shows are inviting -- nay, BEGGING for --calls from the public. That's way different from a private telephone in someone's home.


    Crank calls are a healthy pinprick to the overinflated egos of many talk show hosts. I believe the modern evolution of the conservative talk host from checkered-pants clown in the 70s
    to Oz-like figure in the 90s and the 00s can be attributed in large measure to tightened call screening and the dump button, making them appear falsely omnipotent and omniscient. A think-on-your-feet media star should be able to handle cranks and hecklers.
    As seen by his collapse on the Pat Sajak Show in 1990, Rush would never have survived in the pre-
    hybrid with a dump button, pre-
    heavy screening era. He needs a cocoon of supporters to avoid looking stupid, like his clones, like O' Reilly, and for that matter, like Pres Bush 43.

    By Blogger smedge, at 05 March, 2006 03:41  

  • O'reilly is such a pussy. and you, maloney, for taking his side, when you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this caller "threatened" him, are just as big of a pussy. "we're going to call the cops on you!" what a douche. for someone who likes to portray himself as tough, he sure does go crying about it when someone isn't nice to him. i only say this because i know that you would be saying exactly what i just said if it had been Franken getting a call like that. you know, i hope that o'reilly really sees what a pussy this makes him out to be. why don't we now call it the "no-balls zone"?

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 05 March, 2006 11:39  

  • Well said, hardcore conservative genious.


    While we would never accuse Media Matters of placing a particular emphasis on accuracy
    Why not, what have they said that hasn't been accurate?

    it's stunning to see David Brock's leftist media site embrace an overt anti-Bill O'Reilly harassment campaign.
    They're embracing it by just posting a transcript of what went down? You're too much, Baloney.

    It's one thing to critique O'Reilly's show, quite another to encourage creepy stalkers to step up their efforts.
    Please point out where exactly they're "encouraging" anything.

    By highlighting and clearly misrepresenting a call O'Reilly was forced to cut off
    How did they "misrepresent" it?

    Media Matters could potentially face real liability issues if crazed lunatics now feel emboldened to bring harm to O'Reilly...
    hahahahaha. They post a transcript and all of a sudden they could be facing liability issues? hahahahahah. You're even stupider than you look.

    With this crusade, David Brock reveals the degree to which he's blinded by hatred, taking us all into unchartered waters.
    blinded by hatred? unchartered waters? Just by posting a transcript? hahahahaha. You are so overdoing, its hilarious. THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY.


    I don't even know why I bother with you. You never respond to my comments. You're just full of shit. You're worse than O'Reilly (and thats saying a lot).

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 05 March, 2006 12:05  

  • By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 05 March, 2006 12:12  

  • What a difference between O'Lielly and Randi Rhodes. Randi has fun with crank callers. No wonder O'Lielly's ratings are in the toilet.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 05 March, 2006 12:17  

  • I was reading up on this and apparently you can fine out what that caller said. Wouldn't getting it Straight from the caller himself be better than speculating?

    By Blogger Chris, at 05 March, 2006 16:54  

  • This is just one more wingnut wishing the truth was something other than it is. It's pandemic amngst the right... Reality doesn't work? Construct a ficticious world that doesn't force you to think about your dearly held, albiet objectively wrong, convictions.

    It's a form of cowardice.

    It's too bad too, because it reduces all of us. Yes, I am organizing a campaign to challenge O'Reilly. If telling the truth is harassment, well then I guess I'm guilty as charged. But I don't want to live in that Orwellian world.

    By Blogger Mike Stark, at 05 March, 2006 17:02  

  • O'Reilly threatened a caller and now Baloney wants to turn that around? LOL Too fucking much.

    By Blogger pbrauer, at 05 March, 2006 17:33  

  • Harrasment???

    You must be joking...

    It's a public call in show...with a screener.

    If lufa boy little brain can't deal with the word "olberman" he needs to get out of the biz

    By Blogger bacci40, at 05 March, 2006 17:47  

  • btw....

    lufa boy, by using faux security to harrass the callers, may be in some legal problems of his own.

    By Blogger bacci40, at 05 March, 2006 17:48  

  • Brian’s Lies Watch – Day 10 Post 12
    The anatomy of a lie:

    1) Rush Limbaugh, on his Feb 14 radio show, in talking about the Ohio Hackett/Brown Democratic Primary, said:
    a. “And don’t forget, Sherrord Brown is black” – this was not a lie, but a mistake
    b. He then said, “There’s a racial component here, too”
    2) Rush was then informed by listeners via e-mails that Brown was not black, and was, in fact, white. Paul Hackett was white, as well
    3) Therefore, there was no “racial element” to the story at all
    4) Rush “corrected” his mistake that Brown was black, but DID NOT retract or apologize for the “racial element” remark

    He made up the “racial element” angle, obviously. This was Rush’s lie. His next lie:

    1) He said “I’m not gonna apologize, ‘cause I don’t think it’s an insult to be black”
    2) Of course, this is a lie, too, because he should be apologizing for making up the “racial component” of the story

    http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/02/rush-limbaugh-cincinnati-sherrod-brown.html (the link on Brian’s page is about to disappear forever)

    Brian Maloney then reported on the story on Feb 20. He related the story as if the only element was the “error” Rush Limbaugh Made about Brown’s race.

    Of course, the real story was the “racial component” that Rush made up and then refused to retract.

    Hence, Brian lied as well.

    The elements of the story as I’ve stated above are incontrovertible fact.

    But don’t believe me, and don’t believe anyone else - Research for yourselves.

    By Blogger TJ, at 05 March, 2006 17:57  

  • 1. TJ: "But don’t believe me, and don’t believe anyone else - Research for yourselves."

    We have, TJ, and you've been debunked several times over already.

    2. Someone calling up O'Reilly and mentioning Olbermann is the equivalent of someone calling up Larry King and blurting out Howard Stern. It's child's play. O'Reilly has every right to dump callers like that.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 05 March, 2006 19:17  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 05 March, 2006 22:32  

  • He has a right to, but that doesn't mean he should. It just shows how much of an insecure, wimpy douchebag he is.

    Also, does he have any right to threaten them with visits from police?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 05 March, 2006 22:53  

  • 2. Someone calling up O'Reilly and mentioning Olbermann is the equivalent of someone calling up Larry King and blurting out Howard Stern. It's child's play. O'Reilly has every right to dump callers like that.

    Except that it is not - not by a far cry. King has no beef with Stern. King is not trying to get Stern fired because Stern highlights the lies, distorions and other moral failings of King.

    Most of fall, King does not engage in hypocritical behavior... he doesn't claim to deplore "smear artists" and then do his level best to destroy people like Jeremy Glick, Cindy Sheehan and, well, Keith Olberman.

    On the February 23rd episode of the O’Reilly Factor, he said, “…you lose credibility when you use personal attacks,” and, “I don't do personal attacks here, mister… We don't do personal attacks.”

    In December last year he challenged a guest: "If you guys -- if you guys can think maybe later on this evening, in a moment of leisure, of any far-right people who have shouted down, demanded people be fired, boycott somebody to shut them up, please let me know, and we'll put it on tomorrow.” - the clear implication was that boycotting or shutting down of speech was a bad thing to do.

    We spinners are simply holding O'Reilly to the standard he set. We will stop reminding him of his failings when he starts living up to his own set of rules.

    By Blogger Mike Stark, at 06 March, 2006 01:41  

  • frankenlies said that TJ "you've been debunked several times over already."

    This is incorrect. Not only did Rush invent the "racial component" in the Brown/Hackett decision, he also indicated the New York Times was some how at fault for not reporting it. So the Democrat's decision was racially motivated, and the New York Times was duplicitious by not reporting it.

    Here is the Rush quote: "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that.

    By Blogger Ezsuds81, at 06 March, 2006 02:30  

  • Mike's performing a public service. The only one guilty of harassment is Bill O'Reilly, who is the new face of fascism. If Bill wants to take on Keith Olbermann, he should stop hiding behind his viewers and show up once in a while. He's just a pompous sack o'shit.

    By Blogger Morse, at 06 March, 2006 07:52  

  • Every one just attacks Bill. I do not agree with him all the time but he does get his facts right. I have no bone to pick with anyone but the attacks on others than Bill are a joke. Mostly old news. I can not wait to see what garbage comes next. Media Matters crosses a line if they add threats to any host. I dislike most liberal news casters but I would never threaten them I turn them off. Maybe that is why their ratings are so low. Because thousands of other people seem to think the same way.
    Bill has a point when someone attacks you personally does he not have a right to defend his good name(Most of you question that but he does have integrity). We have seen lie after lie put on the front pages of the newspapers. Headlines say one thing and the artlcle says the opposite. When there are corrections it is somewhere buried where no one reads. So lies are continued as if they are truth but in fact the article people make their comments are have been corrected and found that they are on shacky ground.

    By Blogger Danfinrud, at 06 March, 2006 10:14  

  • Danfinrud,

    1. Media Matters never suggested threatening Loofa Falafel.

    2. Mike never threatened Loofa Falafel.

    3. It was just the mention of Keith Olberman that set Loofa Falafel off.

    4. It was Loofa Falafel who threatened Mike.

    Get your facts straight.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 06 March, 2006 11:18  

  • Ahh Brian, defending the indefensible. Good Boy Good Boy.

    Bill O'Reilly threatens a caller for merely mentioning the name Keith Olbermann and you blame the caller.

    Do you ever tire of shredding your integrity in public like this?

    By Blogger Robert, at 06 March, 2006 12:21  

  • Boy, you O'Reilly haters never do learn. Why would he be angry about some kook mentioning Olbermann? Olbermann is not even a remote threat to O'Reilly's ratings and never will be. The fact that the guy enjoy's Olbermann's show proves he's not too bright and it's most likely that before the made his threat or started cursing or whatever idiotic thing he did, there was nothing too bright spewing out of his mouth anyway. Nor will there ever be.

    If anything, this says plenty about the insecurity of the left. I'd never even think of calling a leftist talk show host. First of all, they don't encourage debate, so I'd never get on or they would just dump the call when they realize they're about to exposed as fools.

    Second, why bother countering a point a liberal host has made or getting into an argument with them at all? No one's listening. They can rant and rave all they want to their little enclave of listeners, but Conservative talk doesn't care because the libs aren't even considered competition.

    It's this second part that really sticks in their craw because this fact has even been able to penetrate their extra thick skulls...even if they refuse to admit it and keep trying to cook the numbers in their favor.

    By Blogger Dr. T, at 06 March, 2006 12:36  

  • "Why would he be angry about some kook mentioning Olbermann?"

    Because Loofa Falafel is unhinged.

    Why did he call up his producer for unwelcome phone sex? Why did he sue Franken for using the term "fair and balanced"? Why does he lie about growing up in Levettown? Why does he lie about being a registered Republican? Why did he say he wanted to shoot Franken "between the head"? Why did he cut off a caller and go ballistic when the caller used the term "fair and balanced"?

    Loofa Falafel ought to have a tabs of Rush's hillbilly heroin and learn to chill out.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 06 March, 2006 12:50  

  • dr. t,
    i just have to point this out - in your rant above, you say "when they realize they're about to exposed as fools." i believe you meant to say "when they realize they're about to BE exposed as fools." watch your grammar. you sound like a fool.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 06 March, 2006 14:01  

  • Why would he be angry about some kook mentioning Olbermann?
    Because O'Reilly is a lunatic?

    Olbermann is not even a remote threat to O'Reilly's ratings and never will be.
    Actually, in the "money demo" Olbermann has 75% the audience of O'Reilly. Not bad for someone thats been in politicas much shorter of a time and doesn't have a radio show or syndicated column to promote his TV show.

    The fact that the guy enjoy's Olbermann's show proves he's not too bright and it's most likely that before the made his threat or started cursing or whatever idiotic thing he did, there was nothing too bright spewing out of his mouth anyway.
    Those are just ridiculous assumptions.

    If anything, this says plenty about the insecurity of the left. I'd never even think of calling a leftist talk show host. First of all, they don't encourage debate, so I'd never get on or they would just dump the call when they realize they're about to exposed as fools.
    Second, why bother countering a point a liberal host has made or getting into an argument with them at all? No one's listening. They can rant and rave all they want to their little enclave of listeners, but Conservative talk doesn't care because the libs aren't even considered competition.
    It's this second part that really sticks in their craw because this fact has even been able to penetrate their extra thick skulls...even if they refuse to admit it and keep trying to cook the numbers in their favor.

    None of that is really true, but what does it even have to do with this?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 06 March, 2006 14:48  

  • Oh, the frenzy of it all. No doubt Brian laughs and laughs at your histrionics. My favorite: "I don't even know why I bother with you. You never respond to my comments". Keep waiting for the cluebat, dip$#!+. After you finish exposing and taking down O'Reilly, try not to be too smug at your victory tea party girls. You know Brockback don't take a shine to other divas in the room.

    By Blogger rhodeymark1, at 06 March, 2006 16:13  

  • dip$#!+
    Oh what, mommy doesn't let you use bad words?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 06 March, 2006 16:26  

  • Mike Strikes Again

    brought up one of my favorite forced birth conundrums the other day, guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?

    We just love Mike Stark, who takes this stuff to the streets. He called Andrew Wilkow's radio talk show and put the question to him, and Wilkow's head did, in fact, explode. He was reduced to a sputtering rage, screaming that he would not, in fact, save the two year-old child. Mike hung right in there with him and the results are predictably hilarious. You can just feel Wilkow's listeners flipping the channel and saying "fuck that noise, that guy's insane." It's a brilliant little sound clip.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 06 March, 2006 18:20  

  • So [i]you're[/i] the make-up artist for that pig O'lielly. Please don't sic the Fox cops on me, even though I agree that Olberman is better than the pig.

    By Blogger Honest Abe, at 06 March, 2006 20:01  

  • one important point that everyone is missing:

    Brian isn't championing this effort because he believes Mike Stark is dangerous, nor because he believes Mike Stark should be feared.

    Brian is reporting this (and will very soon be beating it to death) because Bill O'Reilly PUT BRIAN ON THE AIR ONCE (at least) and mentions this blog.

    Brian, having failed in radio as a partisan, is desperately trying to reinvent himself in "investigative reporting" as a partisan.

    He, like many, many others, is trying to do it the easy way - start a blog, and hope for enough noteriety to get some backing.

    Only time will tell if he gets to make a living spewing this crap day-in and day-out.

    However, while he does, expect much more in the way of kiss-ups to O'Reilly and any other more prominent person who gives him mention, as well as hyperbolic attacks against the perceived enemies of same.

    He's hoping, after-all, to make this his bread-and-butter.

    By Blogger TJ, at 06 March, 2006 20:25  

  • liberal outlaw said...

    dr. t,
    i just have to point this out - in your rant above, you say "when they realize they're about to exposed as fools." i believe you meant to say "when they realize they're about to BE exposed as fools." watch your grammar. you sound like a fool.


    If you want to play editor, Outlaw, you need to offer the same kind of generous help to other people who made grammatical errors on this thread and thus (in your words) "sound like a fool." For instance:

    Mike Stark said...
    Most of fall, King does not engage in hypocritical behavior...

    The expression you're looking for is "most of all."

    Ezsuds81 said...
    Not only did Rush invent the "racial component" in the Brown/Hackett decision, he also indicated the New York Times was some how at fault for not reporting it.


    "Somehow" is one word, not two.

    bacci40 said...
    If lufa boy little brain can't deal with the word "olberman"


    I'm guessing you're referring to "loofah" and "Olbermann."

    Dick Tuck said...
    1. Media Matters never suggested threatening Loofa Falafel.


    Again, it's "loofah." Please make a note of it.

    tj said ...
    He, like many, many others, is trying to do it the easy way - start a blog, and hope for enough noteriety to get some backing.


    The word you're looking for is "notoriety."

    Mr. Kite said ...
    You're worse than O'Reilly (and thats saying a lot).


    "Thats" requires an apostrophe.

    Well, I've done my part for now. Just trying to add a little volunteer assistance to your Grammar Patrol, Outlaw. No charge this time -- I know how much you care about the English language.

    Incidentally, Mr. Kite, how come you asked for ratings figures pertaining to Air America, then -- after I posted a comprehensive list of these less-than-stellar numbers -- you disappeared from the thread? Gee, I expected more appreciation than that for delivering what you claimed to want.

    Here's the link, in case you misplaced it:

    http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/02/
    air-america-gary-krantz-bill-oreilly.html#comments

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 06 March, 2006 23:45  

  • I used to leave the occasional comment at MMFA, and they even added me to an announcements list for immigration posts (without asking me first). However, I just gave up after I got tired of them continually deleting my on-topic, non-abusive, informative comments that showed how they were wrong.

    MMFA is frequently wrong, and I encourage you to leave comments there. Some of them might stick.

    I also suggest editing Wikipedia's entry on MMFA for accuracy. I added some of their mistakes there, but they were deleted.

    (And, don't forget to buy a pixel to save AAR Phoenix.)

    By Blogger LonewackoDotCom, at 07 March, 2006 03:14  

  • Incidentally, Mr. Kite...
    http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/02/
    air-america-gary-krantz-bill-oreilly.html


    Thanks. I must have forgotten about that. Knowing Baloney, I assumed he wouldn't respond so I figured checking on that post would be a waste of time. I didn't think one of his henchmen would be up to it. I left a response. I eagerly await one from you.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 07 March, 2006 11:09  

  • You read the comments on the blog and picked out one to quote. But you chose not to quote the comment from the original caller.
    Here it is:
    O’Reilly was able to tune out turn off my mike, because of the delay, but here is what I SAID:

    “….I like to listen to your show in the afternoon, KIETH OLBERMAN HAS THE BEST SHOW IN THE 8 O’CLOCK HOUR.”

    All that made it past his censor delay was “….Kieth Olberman….”

    Now, that IS NOT OBSCENE, unless you are Bill O’Reilly.


    This also fits a pattern. Remember when O'reilly and Fox settled with Andrea Mackris for over $10 million for her not to release the tapes of O'reilly harrassing her.

    Here is a quote from the transcript of the tape:

    "If you cross FOX NEWS CHANNEL, it's not just me, it's Roger Ailes who will go after you. I'm the street guy out front making loud noises about the issues, but Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what's coming to them but never sees it coming. Look at Al Franken, one day he's going to get a knock on his door and life as he's known it will change forever. That day will happen, trust me."

    O'reilly is a nut.

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 07 March, 2006 13:34  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 07 March, 2006 15:29  

  • "Therefore, we're not hearing what really led to the caller being dumped, the most important portion of the conversation. That there was more to it than a mere mention of Keith Olbermann's name is quite obvious."

    Actually, what the caller said was not obvious at all. And that's what your entire article rests on.

    If it was obscene, then BO was fine to cut it off. (Although you're wrong to claim the call was harrassment. It's a public call-in radio show.)

    If it was innocuos, then you'll look to be the foold you are.

    By Blogger jmaharry, at 07 March, 2006 20:29  


  • http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/02/
    air-america-gary-krantz-bill-oreilly.html
    Mr. Kite said ...
    Thanks. I must have forgotten about that. Knowing Baloney, I assumed he wouldn't respond so I figured checking on that post would be a waste of time. I didn't think one of his henchmen would be up to it. I left a response. I eagerly await one from you.


    Me, a henchman? Nahhh. Just someone who'd rather debate with facts and figures than endlessly play "the dozens." (Although I do enjoy poking the occasional rib.)

    Anyway, I've left my rather lengthy response on the other thread for your perusal. Enjoy.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 08 March, 2006 09:45  

  • I heard about you on the O'Reilly Factor last night and had to pop over here to see your blog. :) O'Reilly totally rocks.

    By Blogger Newbirth, at 08 March, 2006 18:50  

  • Let's not forget that poor little Bill isn't one to flinch from making some threats himself...

    http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/242177p-207535c.html


    Mackris also claims that O'Reilly threatened her.

    "If you cross Fox News Channel, it's not just me, it's [Fox President] Roger Ailes who will go after you," he allegedly said.

    Describing himself as "the street guy out front making loud noises about the issues," O'Reilly allegedly said Ailes "makes things happen so that one day, BAM!"

    O'Reilly allegedly suggested this fate would befall his liberal nemesis, comedian Al Franken.

    "One day he's going to get a knock on his door and life as he's known it will change forever," O'Reilly reportedly said. "Ailes knows very powerful people and this goes all the way to the top."

    When Mackris asked, "To the top of what?" O'Reilly allegedly replied, "Top of the country."

    Mackris claims O'Reilly continued to pressure her for sex and to buy a vibrator. "We should do it together; I could coach you through it," he allegedly said.

    Mackris says she declined, but that apparently did not deter O'Reilly, court papers say.

    By Blogger Marko, at 10 March, 2006 08:07  

  • "O'Reilly has every right to dump callers like that."

    Does he have a right to threaten them too?

    O'Reilly is a bully. And he appeals to bullies.

    I'd be willing to wager that over 80% of the people who love O'Reilly were beaten at home as a child.

    By Blogger Marko, at 10 March, 2006 08:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger