MRC director of research and NewsBusters senior editor Rich Noyes appeared on Friday's "Fox & Friends" to discuss the MRC's statement calling on CBS and CNN to apologize to Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.
Video (3:42): Real (2.76 MB) and Windows (2.32 MB), plus MP3 audio (1.06 MB)
Here's an excerpt from Noyes's appearance:
RICH NOYES, MRC director of research: What Media Matters did was they took quotes from Bill O'Reilly's radio show, took them out of context, tried to portray Bill O'Reilly as a racist. CNN decided they were going to simply make that their story of the day. They've been running it all over their network, even though if they listen to the whole show they'd realize these quotes were out of context and it's a totally unfair accusation to make. They're doing it, I think, for competitive purposes, but they're giving a lot of credibility to this group that is engaged in such dishonest and unfair tactics.
NOYES: CBS did basically the same thing, running two segments on this on Wednesday morning. I don't think they've done two segments on Norman Hsu, a big embarrassment to the Democratic Party. So you can just see that their liberal juices are flowing, their competitive juices are flowing and they're doing everything they can to help perpetuate this even though there's no merit to it.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sorry, but Hsu's been all
September 28, 2007 - 10:03 ET by rwestSorry, but Hsu's been all over the news.
But with what downplay or
September 28, 2007 - 10:06 ET by MightyMouthBut with what downplay or spin? And a headlined link or two would be nice.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Downplaying is right. The media "covers" the Hsu story
September 28, 2007 - 10:43 ET by RJwhile giving sympathetic coverage of claims from Hillary's camp that they "knew nothing" about him or his background.
Right, but as JUST news..
September 28, 2007 - 11:15 ET by rimskySorry, but Hsu's been all over the news.
Right, but as JUST news.. it's ironic, if the msm would just listen to themselves.. they report the Hsu-type stories, i.e., stories about people or events or issues that could easily be spun in disfavor towards the liberal left, as they should report all news stories. No spin, no opinionated statements, just who, what, where, when.. etc.
Not with the same
September 28, 2007 - 11:25 ET by HypocriteHaterNot with the same ferociouness that was reported about Jack Abramoff.
The way they report it,
September 28, 2007 - 11:42 ET by Chris NormanThe way they report it, Hillary was like a victim of Hsu.
Plus, there is no relentless drumbeat of stories, with momentum building to the point where they expect a withdrawal (if the candidate was Republican).
More out-of-context from the left
September 28, 2007 - 11:54 ET by acumenExactly Chris. Once again the left takes a conservatives remarks out of context. Rich did not say Hsu has not made the news. What Rich did say is; "CBS did basically the same thing, running two segments on this on Wednesday morning. I don't think they've done two segments on Norman Hsu, a big embarrassment to the Democratic Party."
Unless someone can provide linked evidence that CBS MORNING has done two segments on Hsu, Rich's statement remains accurate. Once again the left supports our point that the left takes conservative remarks out of context simply by commenting on a blog.
Why is this so hard to
September 28, 2007 - 10:06 ET by BeowulfWhy is this so hard to understand? I have a co-worker jumping all over this thing just like CNN, and when I tried to rationally explain the WHOLE story, he started spouting Lib talking points. I wound up, in my frustration, telling him to just shut up and go sit in his corner and color quietly. And to not spill his cool-aid...
If I were to say (using the so-called racial slur as an example), "Many people have the perception that black people sit around all day eating fried chicken and collecting welfare. Well, that is wrong and untrue on so many levels, and perpetuates the problem of racial divide in this country."
If I were quoted as only saying, "black people sit around all day eating fried chicken and collecting welfare", surely I would be labeled as racist.
This is EXACTLY what is going on with O'Reilly, not once, but twice during the last week. Once with the Sylvia's restaurant and more recently over a "black" concert he attended (Aretha Franklin?). I actually subjected myself to a few minutes of Keefy Olbermoron last night, and all he had to say was that O'Reilly was beating the "out of context" excuse into the ground. Well guess what Keefy (and this applies to everyone, not just O'Reilly), and all you other incredible morons spewing this trash, if a statement was so clearly taken out of context, it isn't an excuse. And if you are too stupid to realize it, or too lazy to check on it yourself, or so full of angst that you refuse to be fair about it, then you are to be pitied and despised for your narrow-mindedness. You are to be pitied for your sorry understanding of motives and facts, and you are to be despised for perpetuating the racial and social divides in this country, which with all the trouble in the US and the world, is beyond unacceptable.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
No Smear Zone
September 28, 2007 - 10:13 ET by allanfBoth Sharpton and Jackson are smart enough to realize that when you go after someone like O'Reilly, you'd better get him. Apparently Matt Lauer was incisive enough to recognize that. That's why they all declined to pounce on O'Reilly.
CBS, and CNN were not so smart. O'Reilly has the biggest megaphone in town now. He is far more infulential than anyone left at CBS News or CNN. Guess where his guns will be aimed no.
I belive the no spin zone is now a no smear zone
I don't understand...
September 28, 2007 - 10:24 ET by sarcasmoWhy is NB going after these clueless networks, instead of their MediaMatters source, despite having intellectual ammunition this-delicious? I'll wager my "what about Olberloon?" idea can get under those skins just as well as my ideas get under some of the skins here...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sure you do Sarc
September 28, 2007 - 11:45 ET by acumen"I don't understand..."
If none of the demedia picked up the rant from the "source" we would not be having this discussion - just some more unnoticed dead wood falling in Soros Forest. Sure, it's great kindling for the moonbats but that is not the targeted audience the demedia is pursuing. In this cased the demedia is attempting to pull away members of O'Reilly's audience if not have him shipped off to rehab in an attempt to permanently silence O'Reilly.
CNN and CBS could have easily cross-checked the allegation by the "souce" against transcripts of what O'Reilly actually said and that should have killed the story. However, discrediting, taking away his audience and/or silencing O'Reilly is much more advantageous to the demedia with a BIG election coming up.
As Rich correctly points out this is typical demedia biased journalism aimed at character assassination (racism) of someone they believe to be at the opposite end of the political spectrum and as a bonus they can potentially damage the competition.
The "source" is nothing without the demedia megaphone. The "source" should not be held to the same high standards we expect from journalists.
This is a continuing pattern of shameful behavior by the demedia. Post 2004 election, more ominous words could not have been spoken by the demedia; "We didn't get our message out." Post 2004 the message has turned from attempting to support self-serving gratuitous political positions into a full-blown assault on the opposition, replete with among other shameful behavior, fabricated stories (koran flushing), character assanination (macaca) and treasonous behavior (security leaks) all in an attempt to regain power.
Sure it's justifiable to highlight the despicable actions of the "source"; however, at least in this case, the demedia are much more culpable by continuing to "get their message out" regardless of the accuracy. Therefore, I think NB is taking the corect approach.
Maybe I worded it poorly
September 28, 2007 - 11:52 ET by sarcasmoI don't mind NB going after the networks on this, but IMO forcing MediaMatters into honestly addressing Keef's comment is an ideal way to annoy them. MediaMatters, if this is done, will be left with the unpalatable choice of attacking Olberloon's comment, or admitting he's as clueless/"racist" (I don't believe that too-often-used epithet in this case, I'm firmly with "clueless") as O'Reilly. This is a way of getting under their skins -- I'm pretty sure it will work because I know how they think & therefore what annoys them -- after all, I spent the entire Clinton Administration doing it. :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Maybe I worded it poorly
September 28, 2007 - 16:02 ET by TinianThat's not a maybe..
I kind of, sort of, think your proposed solution is to hold Olberdoofus to account for his over the top lunatic rant. As if that would ever work.
Nope, you need to read more-carefully...
September 28, 2007 - 16:05 ET by sarcasmoI was talking about annoying MediaMatters, not Olberdoofus, by forcing them to deal with this issue. Reading, as I keep saying around here, is fundamental...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Nope, you need to read more-carefully...
September 28, 2007 - 18:39 ET by TinianI briefly considered that was what you might have meant but I immediately rejected the notion.
The thought of "forcing" MM to deal with any of their mis-reporting, however wrong it is, is a total pipe dream. I cannot entertain such fantasies.
Well, entertain the fact
September 29, 2007 - 00:55 ET by sarcasmoThat I wrote what I wrote, and if you try to get snarky you're likely to get the respect you deserve (rather than the respect you apparently want) in attempting to correct me over BS. Which you just did, because that's my policy.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.