I've posted a lot of clips with Jane Hall on The O'Reilly Factor. She often was paired up with the uber-right winger Bernard Goldberg and usually BillO would wind up yelling at her because she didn't agree with his point of view. Her demeanor has always been gentle so I always found it upsetting that BillO would scold her. I mean, he even cut off her microphone once, which was odd for such a mild mannered speaker. She left FOX recently and I did wonder why.

Howard Kurtz tackled the "Should have the Obama administration called FOX News the opposition?" question in his Sunday "Reliable Sources" segment on CNN, and although Hall thought it wasn't a smart move by the administration, she let it out that she quit FOX because they stopped debating the issues. She cited Glenn Beck's "scary" presence as a reason why she left. It kinds of makes the arguments moot at this point by the mainstreamers who are sticking up for FOX. Can't they handle the truth?

Another big problem I have is the way cable TV uses pundits, and it's not just FOX. They constantly will pair up a right-wing opinionator with a journalist who they just assume is a liberal. The journalist usually will go on TV, but isn't in love with this because it puts their "neutrality" at issue. Hall also expressed her displeasure on that front.

KURTZ: Did you feel like you were being used to give Fox a certain degree of legitimacy, coming on as a media professor?

HALL: No, I didn't. The reason I left was in part because they've had less debates than they used to. Is it a fair point to say how much debate is there on MSNBC? How many Republican strategists? We have a bifurcation of the media.

KURTZ: Wait a second. The reason you left is because you feel they have less debate than they used to. In other words, it used to be "Hannity and Colmes," now it's just Hannity. It used to be Bernie and Jane. Now it's just Bernie.

HALL: I think there's less debate than there was. And I'm also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it's scary.

KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?

HALL: Yes, it was.

You can see that she didn't go on gunning to attack FOX; Kurtz simply caught a remark and seized on it. Then, as usual, Howie had to defend FOX News, but in so doing, he admitted that Lou Dobbs is an offensive right-winger, just like Beck, in his own commentary about the dispute.

KURTZ: Let me give you my two cents here. This is also polarizing. You either have to take the position that Fox is a courageous news organization or a threat to western civilization. I have criticized things that O'Reilly has said, that Hannity has said. Certainly, on this program, I told Glenn Beck that he was being offensive with words that he had for a Muslim member of Congress. At the same time, I don't think an entire organization should be judged by a few commentaries, any more than I think it is fair to judge CNN by the things that Lou Dobbs says. Look at some of the people at Fox.

I wrote down some names here. Major Garrett used to work at CNN. Bill Hemmer used to work at CNN. Greta Van Susteren used to work at CNN. Chris Wallace used to work at ABC and NBC. Did they all drink the Kool-Aid when they went there? Sometimes, Fox's reflexive opposition to Obama bleeds into its news coverage, as you were saying, Nico. But I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. You want to take that on?

Look, Howie, Ailes sets the agenda. Even if certain people working on Fox haven't been drinking the "Kool-aid" (*cough*Shep*cough*Smith*cough) the cable network is a propaganda arm. If you don't like Obama saying so, fine, but the truth is the truth.

PITNEY: I think you paint it a little too moderately. Take their flagship news program "Special Report With Brett Baier." George Mason did a study, 80 percent of the coverage is negative.

KURTZ: Toward Obama?

PITNEY: Toward Obama.

KURTZ: Is that on the opinion round table?

PITNEY: No. Just the first 30 minutes.

Says it all.

Countdown's Worst Persons for August 3, 2009 with winner Rupert Murdoch. Runners up Bill O'Reilly and Brian Stelter.

[H/t Media Matters]

Brian Kilmeade put on a classic display of the way today's right-wingers cling to old half-baked notions of race and eugenics yesterday morning on Fox and Friends, discussing a Scandinavian study of the benefits of marriage:

Kilmeade: Leave it to the Finns and Swedes to come up with something. Because that's a -- we are, we're a, we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other --

[Crosstalk]

Kilmeade: I mean the Swedes -- the Swedes have, uh, pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes. Because that's the rule. Finland -- Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody. So we marry Italians and Irish and --

Dave Briggs: OK, so this study does not apply.

Kilmeade: It does not apply to us.

Other species? We marry other species? Since when? What, is this the man-on-dog sex that Rick Santorum was on about?

And what the hell do "pure genes" -- whatever those are -- have to do with marriage behavior?

It's astonishing, really, the level of complete and utter idiocy that passes for professional news talk on our cable TV these days. Charles Pierce is right.

Scott Roeder issued a warming. More violence is on the way. I think it's time that the entire pro-choice movement, including groups like Planned Parenthood, NOW and NARAL, vow never to appear on The Bill O'Reilly show again. His vile treatment of Dr. Tiller along with his staunch opposition to a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices should make it clear that you will never get a fair shake from him.

I love the Washington Post article last week by Mary Alice Carr called: Why I Turned Down O'Reilly:

The first time I appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor," in 2004, I sat across from Bill O'Reilly in awkward silence while he shuffled papers and took notes.

Finally, he glanced up and acknowledged my existence. "Thank you for coming on," he said. "Most people don't have the guts." I said, "Well, you are one of the most-watched new shows on cable." He swiftly retorted, "The most-watched news show on cable TV." Let's face it: Bill O'Reilly is not only aware of his power and his reach, he's damn proud of them.

So I went on his show, time and again, even though many other progressives discouraged me. I went because I know what O'Reilly knows: It's the most-watched show, and I thought it was imperative that his audience also hear our viewpoint. I also know that when you have a bully pulpit, you need to be held accountable for what you preach.

O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.

You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.

O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.

That is why I made a personal pledge to no longer sit across from him after he called for people to converge on Tiller's clinic. I realized that appearing on the show with him would only legitimize his speech and that no good would come of my efforts.

So on Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.

---

But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?

The writer is vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York.

Good for Mary for finally realizing that Bill O'Reilly uses people in the pro-choice arena to further his agenda. He's very good at what he does and by nature is against the pro-choice movement, so the efforts to appear there to get your point across are completely wasted. He has little respect for any of the pro-choice groups, so why help his show? Why appear on The Factor? How does it serve the movement? And Bill O'Reilly's behavior towards Dr. Tiller was unconscionable.

I'm asking Cecile Richard, who is the head of PPFA, Nancy Keenan of NARAL, and Marcia Pappas of NOW to help get the word out. If Bill O'Reilly is unwilling to admit that the vitriol he spews as well as many from the anti-choice movement at the expense of women has a profound negative effect, then he shouldn't get the benefit of their presence. He does not deserve what he does not respect.

Please join me and contact every pro-choice group you know and ask that they boycott Bill O'Reilly to show support for woman's rights all across the world. It's time to take action because as Scott Roeder just proclaimed, more violence is on the way against a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.

When they announced yesterday that the Department of Justice was beefing up the antitrust division, the first likely target I thought of was cable TV. How about it, guys? We can't take much more of these monopolies' skyrocketing prices:

Last month, the nation's No.2 cable company Time Warner Cable announced plans to test a new billing system known as "metering" that charges Internet customers depending on how much they download. Customers who exceed their limit--say, by viewing online videos--would face steep penalties on top of their subscription rate.

Time Warner Cable's usage penalty would take the unlimited service we enjoy today (albeit slow compared to other nations), and make Internet more like cell phones, where you get overcharged by companies making record profits. It is the latest version of the Net Neutrality debate: should the companies that deliver Internet be allowed to block it, slow it down, or in this case, overcharge for it?

Here's why this issue threatens the Internet as you know it: Cable companies Time Warner and Comcast, and phone giants AT&T and Verizon sell the vast majority of high-speed Internet service in the United States. Phone and cable companies like these have no other competition in 97% of US markets, thanks to corrupt policies passed by the Bush Administration at the companies' behest.

Continue reading »