Bill O'Reilly criticized the Girl Scouts for hiring a spokesman who, according to O'Reilly, is a member of a "controversial punk band with homosexual overtones."
During the February 19 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly interviewed Girl Scouts spokeswoman Kelly Parisi to discuss whether the organization had begun "leaning left." O'Reilly questioned Parisi about the employment of Josh Ackley, a spokesman for the organization that O'Reilly claimed was a member of "a controversial punk band with homosexual overtones":
O'REILLY: Let's get on to a spokesperson who I don't think works for you now but certainly did, was a member of a controversial punk band with homosexual overtones. ...[added space] When I saw that you guys hired, paid a guy in a punk band with homosexual overtones, I'm going 'is that a good choice for the Girl Scouts?'
O'REILLY: You then have to understand the flak when conservative Americans see a spokesperson for the Girl Scouts who is a member or was a member of a punk rock band with homosexual overtones. They're going 'what the deuce is going on?' Surely you understand that.
The spokesperson in question is Josh Ackley. Last December, Breitbart.com's go-to anti-gay extremist Austin Ruse published an article attacking Ackley for his involvement in a "homo-punk" rock band called The Dead Betties. The article was part of a smear campaign Ruse has led against Ackley since late 2011, in conservative publications like The Washington Times and National Review Online.
On February 18, O'Reilly picked up Ruse's efforts, mentioning Ackley by name while discussing whether the Girl Scouts had been taken over by "secular progressives."
It's not the first time O'Reilly has worried about homosexuality in a national scouting organization. In 2004, he said that it would be "impossible for... any children's organization to admit avowed homosexuals because of the potential liability."
After loudly and falsely claiming that a new Congressional Budget Office study reported that the Affordable Care Act will "kill" more than two million jobs in coming years (it did not), Fox News talkers and the right-wing media industry quickly opted for a second (and equally phony) line of attack this week. They condemned the sad state of the American worker, suggesting they're shiftless and lazy and blamed the Obama administration is turning them into ungrateful sloths.
Focusing on the CBO projection that Obama's health care reform may prompt two million workers over the next ten years to voluntarily leave their jobs, or cut back their hours, Bill O'Reilly announced the administration is "creating a class of layabouts." Stuart Varney compared the worker choice trend to "extending the hand-out society." And Brian Kilmeade bemoaned how "the whole work ethic and self-esteem" thing was being undercut by Obama.
A miffed Greta Van Susteren was also deeply offended by the prospects of American workers choosing to work less in order to strike a better balance in their family lives without living in fear of not being covered by health care insurance. "Do you know anyone who has gotten successful by working less?" she asked Staples CEO Tom Stemberg, a longtime critic of Obamacare.
Why the anti-workout freakout?
After all, the key point here is that Obamacare will soon give a portion of workers a choice of whether they want to work or not (perhaps even temporarily) or whether they want to cut back the hours they work. Why the new choice? Because Obamacare will allow people in lower income brackets access to affordable health care coverage regardless of whether they're employed. So people who feel trapped in jobs that are used primarily as a way to obtain coverage will suddenly have options. (That workplace condition is known as "job lock," something Republicans had previously opposed.)
Millionaire Fox pundits might not realize it but most Americans, and certainly most young American families with two working parents, lead complicated lives as they juggle responsibilities that entail more than taping a 60-minute television show five times a week. (Bill O'Reilly earns approximately $80,000-per episode.) Flexibility for them is a good thing.
Still, the condemnation rained down.
It's a rather startling, judgmental attack when you consider that the employees in question might opt out of their jobs in exchange for early retirement, to better care for family members, or to start a company of their own. None of those scenarios would even remotely reflect poorly on the workers.
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly is now demanding a new congressional hearing on the Benghazi attacks held to his personal specifications.
On the February 6 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly demanded that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) subpoena former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to ask him whether he told President Obama that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack when he first informed him of the attack on September 11, 2012. O'Reilly's insistence that this question "is the crux of the matter" about Benghazi makes no sense, given that the president called Benghazi an "act of terror" several times in the days after the attack -- a fact that Fox News continues to ignore.
From the February 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly baselessly claimed that the "explosion of disability payments in this country" is an "undeniable" fact that contradicts President Obama's point that "we have not massively expanded the welfare state."
O'Reilly's comments came on the February 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends during a discussion of his recent interview with President Obama. O'Reilly cited disability benefits as an example of what Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy called the "massively expanded the welfare state" and claimed that government is "getting conned like crazy" by disability beneficiaries. He failed to cite any further examples of the supposedly expanding "Nanny State" that Fox's on-air graphics hyped.
In reality, a recent study from the Social Security Administration's actuaries found that the total allowance rate for disability benefits has fallen significantly during Obama's presidency. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has noted, "[s]tandards don't become more lax in recessions, and stories that focus only on the growth in applications omit that crucial fact."
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): When he said we have not massively expanded the welfare state, how could coffee not shoot out through your nose? I mean, that's just -- that is just not true!
O'REILLY: Well, it's theoretical and I wanted to stay away from that, but I had to hit him with the disability because that's the -- if you want to point to something that is undeniable, it's the explosion of disability payments in this country because as I pointed out, the workplace is safer than it was 20 years ago. Then what are all these people getting paid for? If you go into welfare, he'll go into recession. It's not my fault. I had to bail these people out. They're dying. If you go into unemployment, he's going to go there. He's going to use the economic maladies as justification. But if you go to something like disabilities where that's somebody who is going into the government saying look, I can't do this, give me money and the government says sure and doesn't check it out and everybody knows it. That's what I said, you see you're getting conned like crazy. It all goes back to the fact that he doesn't see this stuff as a welfare state. He sees it as necessary.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): And that's the one thing that I don't get. That's an issue its not his fault, not his administration's fault, disability is exploding. That's where you focus on. 60 Minutes did 30 minutes on just the disability explosion in this country right now. And it would be apolitical and help our economy. But yet he doesn't see it that way. And unfortunately, we got three more years of this.
Despite President Obama's efforts to address problems that plague the African-American community, Fox host Bill O'Reilly insisted Obama never addressed the problems explicitly and lectured him on how save the black community. In his interview with the president, O'Reilly continued his condescending effort to attribute historic problems in the black community to what he called "the culture."
On the February 3 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly played unaired portions of his interview with Obama. During the interview, O'Reilly asked the president why he and first lady Michelle Obama never "explicitly" address problems in the black community, citing statistics about families (emphasis added):
BILL O'REILLY: One of my points on the Factor is that poverty is driven by the dissolution of the American family; that is the prime mover. OK? On your watch, median income has dropped 17 percent among working families in this country. That's not a good record, it's not all your fault, part of it was this terrible recession, we all know that. Everybody knows that.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK.
O'REILLY: All right. But 72 percent of babies in African-American community are born out of wedlock now.
O'REILLY: Why isn't there a campaign, by you and the first lady, to address that problem very explicitly?
OBAMA: Yeah. Actually, Bill, we address it explicitly all the time. I'll send you at least 10 speeches I've made since I've been president, talking about the importance of men taking responsibility for their children. Talking about the importance of young people delaying gratification. Talking about the importance of when it comes to child rearing, paying child support, spending time with your kids, reading with them. So, whether it's getting publicity or not is a whole different question.
O'REILLY: But I don't see the pressure from the federal government to go in and say, "This is wrong. This is killing futures of babies and children."
OBAMA: Well first of all, I've just got to say it, Bill; we talk about it all the time. We'll continue to talk about it. We're convening, for example, philanthropists and business people city by city who are interested in addressing these problems at the local level. There is an economic component to it as well, though.
Unfortunately for O'Reilly, President Obama has been consistent about his message to the African-American community. In a June 2008 speech in in one of the largest black churches in Chicago, Obama sharply criticized absent black fathers, explaining, "[w]e need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception." Obama continued:
"Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes," Mr. Obama said, to a chorus of approving murmurs from the audience. "They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it."
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's Super Bowl pre-game interview with President Barack Obama showcased a laundry list of previously answered questions based on Fox's phony scandals.
On February 2, President Obama sat down with O'Reilly on Fox's broadcast network for a live interview ahead of Super Bowl XLVIII.
O'Reilly's questions were largely focused on Fox conspiracy theories regarding the the September 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and the IRS targeting investigation. O'Reilly questioned the president on whether his advisors told him during the attacks in Benghazi that it was a "terrorist attack." Obama pointed out that he called the attacks "an act of terror" the morning after they occurred and later criticized O'Reilly and Fox News for continuing to focus on the phony scandals, saying, "These kinds of things keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them."
The media has extensively reported on the Republican National Committee's decision to boycott MSNBC following an offensive tweet for which the network subsequently apologized. But they've spent far less attention on the fact that the RNC denounced MSNBC while on Fox News -- a network that has frequently aired offensive and derogatory comments.
From the January 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Tapped to interview President Barack Obama on Super Bowl Sunday, professionally hostile Fox News host Bill O'Reilly insists he's deeply interested in what the president has to say. "We do want to hear his side," O'Reilly said last week. "I think that's the key thing. I'm genuinely interested in hearing his response to my questions."
If the Fox host wants to pay attention to Obama's comments, maybe he'll let the president actually answer his questions this year? In 2011, the last time O'Reilly sat down to interview Obama for a Super Bowl telecast, the host famously interrupted Obama.
He cut the president off, constantly interjected comments, and redirected the interview midstream. O'Reilly often asked Obama questions that required complicated answers and then jumped in with new ones after giving Obama just a few seconds to answer the first query. It seemed like he didn't want the president finish a sentence. O'Reilly kept up the constant stream of interruptions even when the interview shifted towards non-combative topics, such as the pending Super Bowl. (O'Reilly: "You know blitzes and coverage and all that?")
Here's the clip Wonkette put together of O'Reilly spending much of his 2011 White House interview trying to talk over Obama, butting in nearly 50 times during a 14-minute Q&A. (That's once every 17 seconds.)
But maybe that's just O'Reilly's style, right? Perhaps he's trying to drill down and not let his interview subject off the hook? Following the Super Bowl interview, O'Reilly defended his interview-by-intrusion by insisting, "The truth is that TV interviewers who want to get answers must--must--interrupt their guests."
But when he sat with President George W. Bush for an exclusive interview in 2006, those trademark O'Reilly interruptions were nowhere to be seen. Previewing his three-part interview with Bush, O'Reilly told viewers that you "cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States. You can be direct, but you can't be disrespectful." He certainly kept his word during his sit-down with Bush.
Noted one analysis:
In the entire 14-minute interview of Obama in 2011 the President's longest answer was 51 seconds long. President Bush's first answer to O'Reilly's question lasts 69 seconds. Later in the interview Bush is allowed to speak for two minutes straight, something President Obama could have only dreamed of 2011.
See here as O'Reilly sat respectfully silent and stone-faced while Bush answered question after question, uninterrupted, for more than a minute at a time.
The Fox hosts insists he respects the presidency and wants to get Obama's take on key issues. If so, he should let the president actually answer the questions this year.
From the January 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
"I don't care about the bloody report!"
With that, Bill O'Reilly delivered the climax to a night of Senate report denialism on Fox News.
This week, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the results of its investigation into the 2012 attacks in Benghazi. The report dispelled many of Fox News' favorite conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks, including the myth that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up by suggesting the attacks may have grown out of protests outside U.S. facilities in Benghazi over an anti-Islam video, an idea then-U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice suggested in a series of interviews on the broadcast Sunday shows three days after the attacks.
And yet, Fox hosts Bill O'Reilly and Bret Baier continued to push these myths, even when covering the Senate report that debunked them.
On the January 16 edition of Special Report, guest A.B. Stoddard pointed out that the report found no evidence of a cover-up, and Baier responded, "You said no cover-up, but there's clearly an open question about this story about the protests, and about where that all came from."
Bill O'Reilly went even further, peppering guest James Carville with questions about the origins of Rice's suggestion that the attacks may have originated from a protest over the film. Carville attempted to explain that the Senate report answered O'Reilly's question, but the Fox host repeatedly interrupted him, finally yelling, "I don't care about the bloody report":