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!