The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

21 July 2006

Ted Rall, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Smear Websites

'SMEAR WEBSITES'

Rall's Redesign Bolster's O'Reilly's Case





For several days, your Radio Equalizer has been intrigued by a conversation that took place between Bill O'Reilly and syndicated radio talker Laura Ingraham on July 18th's O'Reilly Factor.

When asked whether so- called "smear websites" serve to intimidate the opposition by bullying them right off the 'net, Ingraham took issue with O'Reilly, maintaining that a strong backbone is needed to enter the political fray.

Today, however, a redesigned hate site truly seems to bolster O'Reilly's case. More on that in a moment.


First, from a transcript at the leftist Media Matters site:


O'REILLY: OK. I'm not happy, and I'll tell you why.

INGRAHAM: OK.

O'REILLY: Because this money going to be used for, as I said, nefarious purposes. And here's how it's going to be used. The pipeline is the money goes to smear websites, right? Gets into the smear websites. And the websites can say anything about Laura Ingraham or Bill O'Reilly they want to say. OK?

INGRAHAM: Yeah.

O'REILLY: They can lie. They can give directions to our homes.

INGRAHAM: So what?

O'REILLY: OK. Well, puts us some physical danger, Number 1.

INGRAHAM: No. I'm not worried.

O'REILLY: There's defamation, Number 2. Well, you're much more courageous than I am. Defamation, Number 2. And they can --

INGRAHAM: No, I'm not, but -- they're losers.

O'REILLY: -- and they can basically do all of these things. But it comes out of the smear websites and it goes into the far-left newspaper columnists.

INGRAHAM: It's not working, though, Bill, Bill --

O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. It does work. Here's how it works.

INGRAHAM: Soros spent $50 million in 2004. It doesn't work.

O'REILLY: Laura, here's how it works. It intimidates good people who may want to come into the public arena as politicians or commentators. It intimidates them. They don't want to put themselves --

INGRAHAM: I disagree. I hate to disagree with you, Bill, but I disagree. If someone is intimidated by George Soros and Media Matters, then they have no business being in politics or in our business. If you can't stand up for what you think is right and for the values that you think most Americans hold and for what you think is good for this country, then get out of the game, get out of the kitchen, whatever you want to call it, because these people are going to do that. That's the nature of this game. That has been politics for longer than you and I have been alive, and it's going to continue to be politics. And I understand what you're saying. I mean, it's amplified because of the new media and the Internet and everything.

O'REILLY: I'm not going to go over the Limbaugh thing in Palm Beach, which was a total setup. I'm not going to go over Bill Bennett, who said a remark metaphorically, and it was used to bludgeon him. And this kind of stuff -- I know you're just saying, hey, you gotta to take it. This kind of stuff is dangerous, Number 1, because kooks are out there.

INGRAHAM: Well, it's disgusting. It's disgusting.


At the time, it seemed that Ingraham had the better point, given that politics can be a blood sport. Without a thick skin, it's no doubt very difficult to survive in this crazy business.

But isn't there a difference between lefty attack sites that usually stick to points, such as Media Matters (when it isn't editing O'Reilly segments for "clarity") and others that exist only to slime somebody in the meanest way possible?

In the latter camp, blogs such as Sadly, No! and even the Huffington Post seem to get meaner by the minute. Rather than do the heavy lifting, is it simply easier to get nasty?


For some time, we've chronicled the effort by leftist groups to undermine Michelle Malkin through vicious personal attacks. But a newly- reworked Malkin Watch hate site seems to take the cake.

Featuring a new logo designed by "progressive" cartoonist Ted Rall, it certainly makes O'Reilly's case that some websites exist only to single out a person for daily helpings of vitriol and bile.

There isn't much of an attempt to dispute the points Malkin makes on a daily basis, instead, it's all about trying to inflict personal damage upon her.

Here is a smaller version of the new Rall- designed logo, click the image to enlarge it.


One big question is why we should pay attention to Malkin Watch at all. After all, Michelle's own websites have at least 1000 times as many daily readers. In addition, by bumping up its visitor traffic levels, our link to the site assists Malkin Watch.

In this case, however, your Radio Equalizer feels you are better off actually seeing what they're really all about: hate. So, in the name of public awareness, we'll swallow a bit of poison today.

Rall's hate-filled Malkin Watch redesign makes the situation clear: some websites really do exist for the sole purpose of causing personal harm to political opponents.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to support this site's efforts. Thanks!

30 Comments:

  • Most of these sites are underground Hitler Youth wannabe sites anyway. They can't match up to the school of thought, so they don't worry about sweating the small stuff like the truth. They hate our country and they can't stand the fact they aren't in charge. The major problem is that these lost souls sit in front of their computers reading content from sites from the losers at the dem underground and kiddy porn sites. Now we know why the lib judges are giving pedophile's probation. They'd lose voters. If these dweeb's would get some sun and interact with something other than their blow up girlfriends, they might be a little more sane.

    They have my pity.

    By Blogger Owen, at 21 July, 2006 20:51  

  • I'm pretty sure media matters is one of the sites Bill was referring to.

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 21 July, 2006 20:56  

  • When you read a post like Owen you immediately know they are from some hick town in Kansas where everyone looks like they were in the movie Deliverance because they all are screwing their cousins.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 21 July, 2006 22:37  

  • Media Matters (when it isn't editing O'Reilly segments for "clarity")

    Please give an exampe of this. Or better yet, give an example of where mediamatters has been misleading or dishonest. Since Bill O'Rapist has some trouble doing that, may be you can.

    I love that Billow has without pause called MM a 'smear site' yet can't actually name any smear it has inflicted on him. Quoting him and posting video/audio is not a smear.

    And for the love of God, Baloney, are you still on this retarded site? Are you ever going to get your own site? You are beyond laughable. You try so hard to be a real journalist but the fact that you don't even host your own damn site puts below 'blogger' level.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 22 July, 2006 00:46  

  • Digged:
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Left_wing_Smear_Websites

    By Blogger Edward Orysiek, at 22 July, 2006 00:57  

  • Brian:

    The links in comments have the "nofollow" tag, (supposedly) meaning that search engines won't assign those links with any weight.

    However, in the post, you've given the hate site a regular, none nofollow tag.

    Meaning that they've got a nice link that will give them a search engine boost, while we commentors get no such boost.

    In fact, this comment is very similar to one I left a few months ago:

    buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/24/spam-slime/

    Solution: remove the nofollow tags from the comments, and put one on the link to the hate site.

    By Blogger LonewackoDotCom, at 22 July, 2006 02:02  

  • Meant to add:

    Regarding MMFA, they put me on a mailing list for their immigration-related articles (without asking me first).

    On at least one occasion and probably more, I would go read that entry, and then leave a comment informing them of how they were wrong. No personal attacks or bad words, just listing some of the things they forgot to tell their readers.

    They deleted at least two such comments, and probably more.

    Obviously, no site is required to carry my comments, but every time that someone has deleted my comments it's not because they had bad words or similar. It's because that site is afraid that their readers will see how they're being misled.

    MMFA has a quasi-scientific tone, but their "analysis" is just hot air.

    By Blogger LonewackoDotCom, at 22 July, 2006 02:15  

  • Media Matters is a great site. It deals with facts and backs them up with the actual transcripts. I think O'Reilly is just pissed off because he gets caught by them quite often. You don't necessarily have to agree with every point they raise to appreciate the service they provide.

    Some of us out here realize that much/most of the media is highly slanted, both left and right wingers..MM just shows you how right wingers are doing it.

    If anyone has a problem with Media Matters its because they don't like seeing intelligent rebuttals to their supposedly unassailable points of view.

    By Blogger ohio, at 22 July, 2006 13:45  

  • In case any one has any doubt, Media Matters is a George Soros funded site and is run by a Clintonista. It has on staff both Duncan Black and Oliver Willis, two far lefties who are capable of saying almost anything. Do not be fooled into believing this is some kind of moderate and "Truth telling" site, unless your definition of truth is found in the truth to power mantra of the far left.

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 22 July, 2006 20:01  

  • In case any one has any doubt, Media Matters is a George Soros funded site and is run by a Clintonista. It has on staff both Duncan Black and Oliver Willis, two far lefties who are capable of saying almost anything. Do not be fooled into believing this is some kind of moderate and "Truth telling" site, unless your definition of truth is found in the truth to power mantra of the far left.

    Good job, Captain Republican Talking Point

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 23 July, 2006 02:34  

  • I took a look at Media Matters. Sure there are some facts, but the ubiquitous liberal slant is overpowering. Examples:


    1.) Wash. Post Mischaracterized NAACP Audience Reaction As Approval For Bush

    This is strictly an opinion piece. How dare the NAACP approve anything President Bush has to say!


    2.) Republicans Dominate Network Coverage of Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict

    The reason is simple. The Democrats won't and can't respond with anything logical. Israel was attacked and Israel is defending herself.


    3.) Sunday Morning Talk Shows Imbalanced - Results suggest that the three programs in question have done little to address the overt imbalance in guest appearances. (too many Republicans, not enough Democrats)

    They use a lot of facts and graphs, but they have no conclusions other than it just isn't fair. The Democratics continue to keep their heads in the sand and that is not news.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 23 July, 2006 06:01  

  • I respectfully suggest that the correct punctuation is

    progressive "cartoonist" Ted Rall

    rather than

    "progressive" cartoonist Ted Rall

    The results when Billy supposedly takes over Family Circus are vastly superior to Ted Rall's work.

    By Blogger James, at 23 July, 2006 11:46  

  • HAHAHA, You're such an idiot, Benson. Did you even read the text of the entries on MM? From your page, Benson, you look like a decent old man. May be you can try not being a moron and live up to your decent old man image.

    1.) Wash. Post Mischaracterized NAACP Audience Reaction As Approval For Bush
    This is strictly an opinion piece. How dare the NAACP approve anything President Bush has to say!

    This had nothing to do with opinion. MM was pointing out that the article in the Washington Post was misleading and biased. I thought you guys were against that?

    2.) Republicans Dominate Network Coverage of Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict
    The reason is simple. The Democrats won't and can't respond with anything logical. Israel was attacked and Israel is defending herself.

    You're an idiot.

    3.) Sunday Morning Talk Shows Imbalanced - Results suggest that the three programs in question have done little to address the overt imbalance in guest appearances. (too many Republicans, not enough Democrats)
    They use a lot of facts and graphs, but they have no conclusions other than it just isn't fair. The Democratics continue to keep their heads in the sand and that is not news.

    They use a lot of "facts and graphs" to prove their point. They don't need any further conclusions than "it isn't fair" because that isn't MM's job. Their job is to point out conservative bias in the mainstream press and the fact that you can't deny what they say leads me to believe that they're doing it right.


    CAN ANYONE PLEASE POINT OUT SOMETHING UNTRUE THAT MEDIAMATTERS HAS SAID. UNTIL YOU DO THAT, YOU ALL LOOK LIKE FOOLS FOR TRYING TO CRITICIZE IT. SAYING MM IS MISLEADING DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 23 July, 2006 13:06  

  • I am going to repeat some advice here. When typing in all capitals fails to make your point, try pounding on your keyboard really really hard while typing as it will surely help to make your point. Failing even that start a bunch of ad hominem attacks on the posters such as calling them idiots. It really disguises that you have not been able to make your point with cogent arguments. If all else fails, barnyard epithets are the way to go.

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 23 July, 2006 13:48  

  • I was typing in all caps because I though that might help. Anything to get you guys to notice it. I can't type in color, now can I?

    And there's bothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 23 July, 2006 15:58  

  • "And there's bothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot."


    So..... tempting ... Must resist

    By Blogger Lokki, at 23 July, 2006 16:17  

  • ODub is just an idiot, but Atrios aka Duncan Black is one of the sleaziest bloggers around.

    Another person MMFA has on staff is Max Blumenthal. You can judge his support of the U.S. by reading this entry:

    huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/walkout_b_18016.html

    Oddly, the examples of MMFA getting it completely wrong appear to have been deleted from this page:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

    If you've got a few minutes, you might want to correct that problem.

    By Blogger LonewackoDotCom, at 23 July, 2006 20:34  

  • Oddly, the examples of MMFA getting it completely wrong appear to have been deleted from this page:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

    If you've got a few minutes, you might want to correct that problem.


    Feel free to look through the history and find it. I went back some entries and I didn't see any "examples of MMFA getting it completely wrong." Care to point out where they are?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 23 July, 2006 22:55  

  • Mr. Kite:

    Here is an example of Media Matters for America being totally dishonest:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200005

    Michelle Malkin simply accurately quoted text from the book written by the head Swift Boat vet, yet they smeared her.

    Read several of the comments under the article, from those who were not fooled.

    I do not know of any retraction.

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 24 July, 2006 14:43  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 24 July, 2006 23:30  

  • Mr. Kite:

    Here is an example of Media Matters for America being totally dishonest:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200005

    Michelle Malkin simply accurately quoted text from the book written by the head Swift Boat vet, yet they smeared her.

    Read several of the comments under the article, from those who were not fooled.

    I do not know of any retraction.


    Are you for real? Honestly, I think you're trying to be sincere, but it seems you just don't get it. All MM did was post the transcript of here conversation on the retarded Matthews Show. How are they smearing her? Also, since you seem to be upset with Matthews (though you're blaming MM because Bill O'Reilly told you to), I should point out that there is nothing wrong with questioning the ridiculous claims of the SBVFT (what a ridiculous name).

    I'm still not sure what anyone did that was wrong here. Malkin was quoting that book because she agreed with it and was defending it (nothing wrong with that), Matthews was questioning the authenticity of the claims (what the media is supposed to do), and MM posted the transcripted because they liked that he was questioning the claims. Where is the problem? Is Matthews not allowed to question the claims?

    Personally, I think Matthews is shit, and in this case, I think you agree. But I don't see what MM did wrong by posting that transcript.

    Also, she was basically implying (via quoting that book) that John Kerry intentionally hurt himself. I don't think people get purple hearts for that. Malkin is an idiot. But thats a discussion for a different time.

    ----------------------------------

    C'mon guys, I'm still waiting for mediamatters dishonestly. You're going to have to try harder.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 25 July, 2006 01:37  

  • I used to read Media Matters quite a bit. But after a few weeks you just realize that its just the same story again and again, with nothing much really new to learn.

    After a while, you just don't really believe anything you hear on the radio anymore, not that its false, just that most hosts consistantly use half truths and cherry pick their data. (Rush and Hannity are the worst offenders)

    Its up to us to find the rest of the story; the hosts surely won't do it for us. That would make them appear weak to their knee-jerk faithful. Too bad. That would be a show I'd really like to listen to, a host being a host...to those offering both sides of a story.

    By Blogger ohio, at 25 July, 2006 09:40  

  • Mr. Kite: "CAN ANYONE PLEASE POINT OUT SOMETHING UNTRUE THAT MEDIAMATTERS HAS SAID.

    Maybe this site willl help:

    "Media Matters Watch" :: Media Matters Debunked :: A rebuttal to some of the errors, lies, and misleading work of MMFA

    A number of falsehoods etc. from Media Matters have been chronicled.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 25 July, 2006 21:25  

  • Wow, something substansial. That is, in relation to the things I've been given so far.

    Thats still the same old crap, just links to garbage like newbusters or AIM, or bitching about semantics, or disagreements on how much is a lot/little or who's a lib/con. Some entries don't even deny what MM is saying, just criticize a tengential item.

    Some of the articles don't even have links to the MM page they're criticizing.

    I really like the info in one of the posts that Bush's 2nd term started with a lower unemployment rate than Clinton's 2nd term. Just like O'Reilly and Co., the writer (is it you?) neglects to mention that the reason Cintons was a little higher was because he was still bring down the unemplotment rate after Bush I. Likewise, the reason W's is a little lower is because the rate was so low at the end of Clinton's 2nd term that Bush hadn't yet been able to raise it above 5.3 (though he had been trying, it seems). Got it?

    Nice try, though.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 25 July, 2006 23:54  

  • *tangential
    *bringing
    *unemployment

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 26 July, 2006 10:04  

  • Mr. Kite,

    Your response:

    Are you for real? Honestly, I think you're trying to be sincere, but it seems you just don't get it.

    All MM did was post the transcript of here conversation

    A first rate organaization would have reported that Malkin's quotes were accurate.

    A first rate organization would have an accurate headline.

    A first rate organization would know that they look like fools if the headline is not supported by the article.

    Think back to the reports about Jimmy Carter and the killer rabbit. Of course it is a wild story, but people who accurately said that so-and-so reported that Jimmy Carter said it were themselves not making a wild claim!

    Can't you see the difference?

    Obviously, since MMFA has STILL not corrected this omission, any claim that they are a first rate organization is weakened.

    And, of course, Olbermann's fawning praise of Matthews just adds to the fun.

    The redeeming thing is that Rush invited Michelle on to his show the next day, so many millions heard her side of the story directly from her.

    Good advice: If you want to claim that something is not in a book, maybe think of reading the book or at least having a copy of the book in your possession while "discussing" it. Having your associates raid the dressing room of a guest for a copy is comical.

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 26 July, 2006 10:13  

  • What the hell are you going on about? Just the headline? Just one word: "outrageous"? The claims in the book were outrageious, and she was repeating them. Whats the problem?

    What omission are they yet to corrent?
    What does Olbermann have to do with this?
    Who is claiming what isn't in a book?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 26 July, 2006 13:07  

  • Mr Kite:

    One responder summarizes what I have tried to say quite well, so I will just repost them.

    As to Olbermann, MMFA cites him so much, I consider him unofficially part of their team.

    The response, from CJ Horne, a person I do not know personally:

    Matthews booked Malkin to discuss her book and then went on to bombard her with a debate that was totally out of left-field. Matthews should talk with his producer from time to time, or keep up with current events--he didn't even know there was a book, Unfit for command. Malkin actually had the book with her and the hardball staff were unaware that her comments were in regards to the book. I cannot believe that a man with seven years on the air would not know about a book that has caused a great divide between the parties. Matthews made an ass of himself; no wonder his ratings are pathetic. I probably will continue to watch his show, but I've lost a ton of respect for this political phony.

    I'm shocked the Brock would put this on the website in this context. I have respect for Mr. Brock and keep up with Media Matters to stay informed, but your staff fabricated this story (Totally out-of-context), such as it is displayed on your site, then I have my doubts concerning other stories. I realize that this is a partisan website, but what happened to the brutal truth? Mr. Brock you were honest in your book, Blinded by the right; how about that same honesty on your website. The truth concerning Hardball: Matthews was an ass and he ought to apologize to Malkin, or have her back on and discuss her book, which is the real reason she was booked. Damn, this partisan crap is pathetic.


    - C.J Horne / Friday August 20, 2004 02:12:45 PM EST

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 26 July, 2006 17:27  

  • Michelle made the mistake of simply taking the "self inflicted" gist from Unfit for Command and running with it. It is in the book, but its inconclusive and Runyon and Zaldonis weren't the ones that implied the wounds were self-inflicted. Matthews caught her flatfooted on a topic she wasn't prepared to speak on.

    By Blogger Statbuster, at 27 July, 2006 01:36  

  • Statbuster:

    "Matthews caught her flatfooted on a topic she wasn't prepared to speak on."

    She was prepared to discuss her own book. She offered to come in one segment early. She did a credible job.

    Matthews was the one who had his foot in his mouth, not even knowing about the "Unfit.." book. The staff should have had graphics from the book available. They were totally unprepared and miffed that Michelle would not explain what self-inflicted means.

    Your spin is absurd!!!

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 27 July, 2006 09:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger