MRC's Bozell: CNN & CBS Must Apologize to O'Reilly

By NB Staff | September 27, 2007 - 17:11 ET

MRC President Brent Bozell this afternoon called upon CBS and CNN to apologize to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly for promoting the false charges of a left-wing hate group:

"Bill O'Reilly's accusers -- the dishonest leftists at Media Matters, CBS and CNN -- have gone beyond the pale. There was absolutely nothing that Bill O'Reilly said that was in any way offensive," stated L. Brent Bozell III, President of the Medias Research Center. "People are sick and tired of these far-left character assassination campaigns, whether they come from Media Matters or MoveOn.org.

"CBS and CNN must distance themselves from dishonest, far-left, hatemongering organizations such as Media Matters," Bozell continued. "Media Matters and MoveOn.org have two things in common. Both are funded by ultra-leftist billionaire George Soros and both have rich histories of sleazy character assassination campaigns. Those who continue to associate with disreputable organizations such as these are only embarrassing themselves.

"Mr. O'Reilly's words were taken out of context -- deliberately. Yet, neither CBS nor CNN checked the facts before giving credibility to the smear against him. Failing to apologize now makes them willing participants in this smear."

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A phone call! Brent is a

A phone call! Brent is a genius. If only we all did this everyday...

I'm going to make more phone calls

There was absolutely

There was absolutely nothing that Bill O'Reilly said that was in any way offensive," stated L. Brent Bozell III

  • "It is very insulting," said restaurant manager Trenness Woods-Black, granddaughter of the famous Sylvia Woods.
  • A family spokesperson for Sylvia's Restaurant said O'Reilly's comments were "one of the worst
    stereotypes ever of our customers, of our people," "extremely insensitive,
    " and "outrageous."

I don't think its up to Mr. Bozell to decide what was offensive.

the right to be offended:)

nor libs

our constitution gaurantees the right to be OFFENDED

God Bless America!

Correct, it's up to those at

Correct, it's up to those at Sylvia's Restaurant. Since O'Reilly's comments were exposed to the public, those at Sylvia's have been given a platform to speak and they've spoken out with their disgust. Just like with the Olberman thing, it's not our place to judge it as offensive unless Roscoe Parrish comes out and says the comments offended him. And given that he is a pro football player, he definitely has a platform if he wants to speak.

no its not just up to those

no its not just up to those at sylivia's restaurant my friend - sorry - thanks for playing...

and if Rush had made the chicken and waffles comment on ESPN he would have been re-fired once again...

that's our point here - get it now? i'm not holding my breath on it...

I suppose that what he's

I suppose that what he's saying is Brent Bozell has no right to express an opinion on the subject. This is par for the course.

correct - conservatives have

correct - conservatives have no right to an opinion - those are the rules...

No, all i'm saying is that

No, all i'm saying is that for Mr. Bozell to say "absolutely nothing" O'Reilly has said is "in any way offensive" is ridiculous when that is clearly not the case and completely untrue. Like I posted above, those employees at Sylvia's were clearly insulted, therefore making Bozell's comments totally false.

you can't judge

you can't judge that Brent's comments are false - it's his word against yours and theirs and niether can difinitively judge neither...

and again in America you have the right to be offended, anyway...

we're here, we're American, get used to it...

(repeat as necessary)

Of course I can. I already

Of course I can. I already posted the response from some of the employees at Sylvia's. They were obviously offended and shocked. Thus, meaning someone was offended by his comments. The people treated him well and they felt he made some "extremely insensitive" comments the next day. Since he offended the kind people at the restaurant, and since it genuinely seems like he cares about them, then BOR should apologize to them, but not to anyone else, just those at Sylvia's. This will give him a chance to explain his intentions and accept their forgiveness. We should all stay out of it, really.

BS

how do you know they're not just saying they were offended - Brent is saying this is all just manafactured to exploit alleged victimization...

these are all SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS AT BEST - but more likely these are lies to gin up sympathy and take down conservatives...

my word against yours, end of story...

and so they were offended - big f*cking deal - the DNC, liberals, and MSM offend the hell out of me all day long - are you going to demand they apologize to me too?

I believe if they say they

I believe if they say they were offended, then they were offended, especially given the comments from Bill. I'm not going to sit and speculate that there's some kind of conspiracy theory concocted by those at Sylvia's to gain from this by making up that they were offended. O'Reilly said they were great people at Sylvia's, we should take his word for it.

And as far as you saying "big f*cking deal" that they were offended. That's fine. But I think Mr. O'Reilly, being of the good character that he is, shouldn't think like that. He should apologize if he genuinely cares about those at Sylvia's.

 

it was a compliment - it's

it was a compliment - it's only "offensive" thanks to the PC gestapo

he has nothing to apologize for, but they should apologize to Bill according to your logic - he should certainly feel offended now...

If someone mischaracterizes

If someone mischaracterizes what I say and some other people are offended by that mischaracterization, then why should I care about the opinion of those offended? The offended should be annoyed with the liars, not me.

I believe if they say they

I believe if they say they were offended, then they were offended...
Uh, huh... do I really need to remind you of the political leanings held by said "offended" people? No? You see how they might just have a bone to pick with a conservative talk-show host? Good.
He should apologize if he genuinely cares about those at Sylvia's.
How about he takes the reasonable stance and throws PC out the window? He has no obligation to apologize for someone's being offended by his comments, regardless of whether or not such offense is real. If some people want to add non-existent meanings onto his comments, he should correct them, denounce their sleazy tactics, and move on. If he really cares about the poor, "offended" people from Sylvia's, he'll tell them to clear out their heads and try a clear view of the world.

http://www.rhjunior.... Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

do I really need to remind

do I really need to remind you of the political leanings held by said
"offended" people? No? You see how they might just have a bone to pick
with a conservative talk-show host?

Are you suggesting the employees at Sylvia's have a political agenda?

He has no obligation to apologize for someone's being offended by his comments

I didn't say he has an "obligation." But I did say since he is a good man and said himself that he was treated very well at the restaurant; that he should apologize to them and have the chance to explain his intent and ask for their forgiveness in the misunderstanding.

If he really cares about the poor, "offended" people from Sylvia's,
he'll tell them to clear out their heads and try a clear view of the
world.

Now that's just getting out of control. WWJD?

"Wisdom", that's weak

The point is that you don't know whether or not the quoted Sylvia's employees have an agenda or not.  Therefore, quoting them is little more than carrying gossip.

Actually, you may not have said it point-blank, but you strongly implied that O'Reilly has an obligation to apologize.   To claim otherwise is not intellectually honest.

Yawn.  That's enough for me tonight.  I'm off to bed.

No Americans has the right

No Americans has the right not to be offended....unless in the context of a lobbying group employing a groan-inducing pun to question a military general's statements about a war....that's when conservative heads start to explode at the very affrontery of it all.

And just as we don't know the "motives" of the restaurant owners and patrons, you don't really know the "motives" of Media Matters and the big scary left-wing conspiracy. It's all speculation, yes?

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

The offense is legitimate

The offense is legitimate as long as the person feels offended. No one else has the right to point out that they shouldn't be. Got it.

unless you are Christian -

unless you are Christian - then you should never be offended - just "change the channel:)"

Yeah, funny how that works,

Yeah, funny how that works, huh? We are counseled to not take things too seriously, where others are encouraged to be as offended as much as they can and more. Is this another form of soft racism by lowered expectations?

yes, we also call it

yes, we also call it second-class citizenship - these are the PC rules

these poor "offended" sylvia's owners ought to watch a watch a devout Christian like me sit through a day of "comedy central"

I'll show you disgusting, bigoted offense, people...

Taking offense vs. giving offense

If someone has particular feelings, fine, it's a free country. But they don't have the right to impose their feelings on everyone else and treat it as law. No society can survive if we must accept every individual's subjective feelings of offense at face value. There has to be something objective. That's what law is.

Bozell can't pass judgment on private feelings, but he has every right to express his opinion on what society should objectively count as legitimate offense. What O'Reilly said was not objectively offensive.

OK, I admit, I can't take this one seriously. I keep thinking of the opening scene in "Blazing Saddles," where the white cowboys were expecting the blacks to sing "Camptown Races," only to hear Cleavon Little break out with Cole Porter. The cowboys expected the blacks to act like fools, but instead the cowboys made fools of themselves. In my opinion, even if you thought O'Reilly was revealing his prejudice, the worst you could say is that he made a fool of himself for expecting a black restaurant to be filled with George Jeffersons or Amos and Andy. But in the context of what he was saying, it sounded to me like he was ridiculing that expectation himself.

Can't take any of it seriously.

It's his opinion, just as

It's his opinion, just as it's yours or anyone else if you or they think what Bill said IS offensive.

Quotes Without Cites?

Can you give us a second and third source for the restaurant worker quotes? Or at least a URL so we can decide for ourselves what was actually said?

Mahalo

Sure, I compiled the quotes

Sure, I compiled the quotes from a couple different links..

http://www.nydailyne...

http://mediamatters....

the second one has video footage incase you refuse to read anything from media matters. Scroll to the end of the video to see interviews with Sylvia's employees

So they heard the radio show?

You have that link?The one that says the folks were offended even after hearing the radio show.

Right, and you know that

Right, and you know that CNN/CBS or whomever presented the people in the restaurant with the same exact out of context distortion as they put on TV. Have the people in the restaurant seen the FULL context? probably not.

Thanks Brent!

Thanks Brent bozell!  Thank you for being a fine Christian Soldier and telling me whats offensive.  I mean, why wouldn't I go to a stony white conservative who has made a name for himself labeling everything he disagrees with as being 'traitorous' and 'liberal propaganda' to put my finger on the pule of race offensiveness?  I mean, to ask a black person would be ludicrious!  Surely Brent knows exactly what is offensive and what is not.

Lets See, Clinton getting Oral Sex from an Intern:  Offensive enough for the death penalty.  Larry Craig getting into his THIRD "alleged" gay trist in a public bathroom?  Liberal Media Bias.  Senator Vitter cheating on his wife with a slew of Prostitutes?  Well, those are Christian values right there, he asked for forgiveness didn't he?  Don Young and Ted Stevens from Alaska accepting money, favors and bribes from Alaskan Oil interests?  Well, thats just Traitorous liberal Character Smears!

Thanks again Brent.  Way to put your "Christian Values" on display.  No remark is offensive unless I say it is.

Does the "d" in your name

Does the "d" in your name stand for delusional?

How original!!

Thanks for that completely original comment.  You have added such a great idea to the board.

Brent says its not offensive, so i agree with him.  i mean, surely a man of his Christian credentials is qualified to tell me whats offensive and what is not.

So, whats your take on Vitter, Craig, Young, and Mr. bridge to the Bank?

So you were in the stall with Craig?

You heard him proposition the cop?

Watching Jesse Jackson on

Watching Jesse Jackson on The Factor, and I can't believe the ridiculous statement he just made. He said that blacks have more reason to fear whites than whites have to fear blacks because whites have never been enslaved. Well, besides being factually incorrect, I have to ask, when was Jesse Jackson enslaved? Slavery ended 150 years ago, yet people like Jesse are STILL living in the past.

He also implied that having no father in the home isn't really a problem in the black community, and then followed that by saying the real problem is the high expulsion rate in high school. Gee, reverend, do you think that maybe not having a father in the home might result in black kids becoming discipline problems at a higher rate than others, which in turn results in a higher expulsion rate?

70% of black kids have no father present, and Jesse doesn't believe it's a problem.

Scary

That was a strange interview.

Just say NO to Al and Jessie

Sounds like whiteys fault.....send Jessie more money.

I normally change the channel when Al or Jessie come on but I stuck around for Jessie tonight. That won't happen again!

Hey B.O., aren't there any other black leaders out there?

If being a Black Leader was a performance based position Al and Jessie would be selling used cars by now!

I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.

 

BOR

Bill O'Reilly just thanked Brent Bozell & the MRC for his (their/our?) support.

Hmmm....think BOR will soon have a nic here?

How fun would that be?

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Wisdom, Quick question

Wisdom,

Quick question were the people in the restaurant offended by what Bill said or by what was reported to have been said by Bill?? Second question do you believe it is acceptable for CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC to misrepresent what Bill actually said?

  

I'm sure in this case with

I'm sure in this case with all the exposure, they have gone and listened to the audio tape themselves. But, I honestly have no idea. And about your second question, I don't think its acceptable at all for any news organization to misrepresent what Bill said.

Link please

Your assuming something.Were all guilty of it but unless you have esp it is just a assuption.If you do have esp..what h#ll are the Red Sox thinking.

WOW!

Anyone notice how many previously unheard from seminar poster sleeper cells have been brought to life here in the past 3 weeks?

I've been posting here well over a year, but since early last week have seen many squirrels come crawling out of the woodwork with totally unfamiliar screen names. Yet when you check their profiles, the majority of them have been "members" here for a year and 12 weeks, or a year and 42 weeks, etc.

Why the sudden activation now?

Del, at least a few of those "long-term" members

probably come to us through hater, who, after he was banned went to another site to openly recruit leftists to come here.  He also supposedly taught them how to register multiple names.   They were told to let them sit dormant until wanted in the future.

This is not paranoia or fantasy on my part.  I read his postings over there for awhile, until I got bored.  He was quite open about what he was doing.  At one point, he was even advocating for everyone to bomb the site with these registered names at a given time....like election day.  

Cyber Jihad!!

I noticed it also. Especially about the last week and a half.

Hey RJ do they still have a NB fetish over at SFN? haven't been there since that whole deal broke here.

Don't know, masters

A few came here for awhile and even boasted about it over there, but I lost interest and stopped looking in.

In case that post was

In case that post was regarding me.... I enjoy the site, read it everyday. I am just particularly well-versed in a few areas, race relations being one of those issues I'm well educated in. So when the discussion comes in, I try to take part so new ideas can be thrown around and discussed... Also, I just answered a question you asked about wanting some links in an earlier post.

*edit* just read RJ's post, that's definitely not me

Thanks Wisdom

Thanks to Wisdom for keeping things above board. I appreciate your taking the time to make civil comments.

 The whole point is that the Sylvia's people were told of the out of context quotes, and asked to comment on them. The quotes were taken out of context and exploited by Media Matters, then further exploited by CNN, MSNBC.

I don't believe (and Bozell doesn't either) that the Sylvia's people would be at all offended if they heard the quotes in context. I can spot something mildly offensive from a block away in my HR work, and this was not one of those items, as long as it's read IN CONTEXT.

So, the offense is not genuine, as the quotes were not genuine.

Intent is what matters

This discussion is missing a very key element....intent. 

Let's examine the intent of the parties involved.

O'Reilly's intent was obviously to inform his audience that the perceived fears that whites have against blacks are largely unfounded.  If you listen to the tape, it is clear that he was not trying to offend anyone.

The intent of Media Matters is obvious.  They used portions of O'Reilly's dialogue out of context to question his character.  Since Media Matters purpose is to attack conservative media, one has to judge their intent to be far more self-serving than O'Reilly's.

The intent of CNN, CBS, NBC, etal is not as obvious.  Sensationalism has been part of television news for a long time and race related stories seem to draw higher ratings.  In that sense, these media outlets are self-serving, but not more than usual.  However, I must also mention that there seemed to be more media figures who initially defended Imus than O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's intent in accusing the MSM of lazy journalism is less virtuous but not more or less self-serving than the MSM.  His continued reporting about this story gives legs to the story and helps his ratings as well.

The people at Sylvia's may or may not have self-serving motives.  But if they were offended after listening to the tape, then a full explanation of what offended them would be enlightening.  However, I am almost certain that the offended parties at Sylvia's did not listen to the whole dialogue.  To me, that means they have no right to an apology because they weren't willing to research the context behind the statements.

What I find most telling about this story is how quickly the MSM took on the talking points of Media Matters.  That, my friends, is not only poor journalism, but downright scary as well.   

Which was offensive ?

Was O'reily's comments offensive ?...or was it the way his comments were assembled, reproduced, and presented by CNN that created the Offensive sound bite  ? 

I'm sorry, but there's nothing there.

I'm sure the Jena 6 victim was offended by his need to be hospitalized........and when one loses consciousness because of a beating, they mentally suffer for months from concussion like symptoms.

Bill O is a long way from being anything like the "Jena 6" syndrome. 

I was insulted by the PBS debate and some things that were said on that stage.....I was outraged....but CNN isn't covering my outrage.  

I'm sure the Retaurant manager was not as outraged initially, as he was shortly after Bill's Visa payment was approved.    

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE