Thursday, February 28, 2008
|
|
O'Reilly Last Night
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
11:28 AM
|
I was on, talking about the Internets as usual, when Bill went and compared vile commenters at HuffPo, and by extension Arianna Huffington herself, to the Klan and Nazis.
I said, "uh, what?" and made it clear that I disagreed with him on that one. As much as I dislike Huffington's politics and some of the site's practices, the idea that she and her commenters are morally equivalent to Klansmen or Nazis is just ludicrous. And, if we claim they are, we're as bad as the Bush Derangement suffers constantly calling the president a Nazi.
Is there a disproportionate and unfortunate amount of death-wishing for conservatives on Left blogs? Yes. Every time a conservative gets hurt or dies, there's inevitably a celebration comment thread at a prominent Left blog. It happened when Tony Snow's cancer came back and when William F. Buckley died yesterday (the Democratic Underground thread was a gem). These threads often feature a few brave souls who discourage the trash-talk, but they're usually greatly outnumbered by haters. Does Arianna Huffington need to take personal responsibility for the comments in those threads when they get out of hand on a site with her name on it? Yes, and she has to some extent, already. There is a moderation policy in place, and threads are often shut down when the they're likely to get dicey. The thread about William F. Buckley's death, for instance, was never open for comments yesterday as far as I could tell.
As always, I'm on the free-speech side of this issue. Each site's proprietor has a responsibility to not allow his comment sections to become racist, sexist, violent cesspools, and some sites are better at fostering a decent comment culture than others. But just because some sites become nasty is not a reason to demand regulation of the Internet, as Bill sometimes suggests, or to suggest that because some people in a comment section are juvenile jerks, that a site is Nazi-like in any way. The best way to deal with coarse commentary on the Internet is to point it out, shine a little sunlight, and push site proprietors to foster cultures of decency on their own sites.
Comments sections can be nasty places, and there are very few sites that can claim theirs are totally and completely clean (including this one), no matter what moderation policies are in place. Things will always get through, but the important thing is to make sure the nasty comments are the exception, not the rule. The Left blogs could do a much better job of curbing the culture of conserva-hatred in their comments sometimes, but I'll stay on the right side of Godwin's Law on this one, thanks.
Here's a Left blog's take on the segment last night.
|
|
The glasses worked. ^_^
http://www.pc-live.tv |
|
is primarily mad over the transcript being made public on the Internet showing him to be a lecherous person in regard to that sexual harassment suit involving his producer.
As for nasty posts on the Internet anything on sites like the Daily Kos are matched by equally nasty posts placed on website like the misnamed "Free" Republic. |
|
...you read the nasty threads at places like DU, when someone on the right dies, you start to understand why the far left loves the authoritarian socialism of Hugo Chavez, and the Castros, so much. Castro and Chavez don't have to just sit back and wait for these "happy events." They can be proactive about it.
|
|
The expression on your face when he said that was priceless. It was the "I'm on TV with a crazy man" sort of look.
|
|
the left is much more closely aligned with the historical reality of the National Socialist Party and with the USSR's Communist Party, we on the right usually don't go off calling them Nazis or Stalinists. We defeat them with logic, facts, and the Constitution. You did well holding that point while Bill went off the reservation last night. As for the glasses...good for a change of pace, but our MaryKat could go sans make-up and with hair a wreck and still be much nicer looking than what the other side offers (Susan Estrich anyone?).
Anyway...since the conservatives seem to not be the 'real GOP' these days, I've come up with a conservative party platform. I've posted parts 1 & 2, with the final part to be posted tomorrow. I'm sure the HufPo and DailyKos folks would not survive reading them, since their rage would raise blood pressure to somewhere around 400 over 300. Stop by if you get a chance. |
|
Does Godwin's Law apply to television?
|
|
|
I looked for hateful comments on Free Republic yesterday regarding Senator Byrd's hospitalization. There must have been some inappropriate comments because they were edited out; that is the difference, we police ourselves and dismiss the cruder comments, we don't glorify their comments. References to his klan membership were mentioned, but I did not hear any death wishes, people were actually suggesting prayer for the man. |
|
|
I think you can make that argument. I would take it further and say it can be applied to neocon talk radio. |
|
|
I have to confess that it has been awhile since I have been there, so I'll take your word for it. In the past they were pretty foul. Nowadays, other than this one board I avoid other political bulletin boards as being a waste of time that can be put to better use such as research and reading articles. |
|
Trying to think of a single example of "neocon" talk radio, and can only come up with plain old right-wing talk radio...
Do you know what "neocon" really means? And no, it's not "anyone to the right of Obama."
|
|
Miss Ham, we always look forward to your spots on Bill's show...u r quite knowledgeable but Bill never lets you complete a sentence without interrupting you and launching into one of his mini-monologues..we grasp for the few words you r allowed to say...u r not unique as he treats all his guests this way...we luv Bill and his show...the glasses are quite becoming and accentuate your lovely face...thanks for not choosing those tacky red frames that so many people wear nowadays... |
|
Sure, I can give you examples starting with Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Medved. Shoot, as far as I am concerned it is all these people who are featured on Clear Channel or Salem.
As far as knowing what neocon means I most certainly do. I've been following their antics for years. In a nutshell, someone who believes in the permanent revolution as in trying to foist "democracy" worldwide. |
|
|
It is safe to say that there are wing nuts in both parties and I too set down on the side of free speach, however, I believe it is the responsiblity of any site to clean out or up the unwarented viscious threads. They serve no purpose except to incite more visciousness. Objecting to someone because of their stance on an issue that is important to one is great; saying that someone should die is nonsense - and should be treated that way. Cheering about someones cancer is beyond decency. The anonymity of the web allows many to smear, spew bile, and, generally, be disgusting without the social ramifications that would assail them if their words were attached to them. When I read bile, I remember that it is reflective of the person writing it rather than their target. If anything, bile causes me to become more firm in my positions. Ha, the exact opposite of their intent. |
|
|
By O'Really and everyone else. We hear the word Nazi tossed around far too often, when in fact many simply want to refer to fascist behavior. The left is all a flurry over Jonah Goldberg comparing today's liberal fascists to Hitler, but they do what so many others (including the shallow B.O.) do - that is they confuse 'comparison with' and 'identical to.' Many politicians have fascistic tendencies - from Mike Huckabee wanting to prevent smoking throughout the U.S. to Mississippi lawmen wanting to prevent the obese from being served in restaurants. Hate language on the internet, when directed at a particular group, is 'fascistic,' but it doesn't make the perpetrators Nazis. And, even if the 'right wing' blogs are better regulated (isn't that fascistic?), you still see plenty of hate language from the right - so the problem cuts both ways. Bill, and others who make the absurd leap to labeling people with fascist behaviors as Nazis, serve to dilute the horror of the Nazis and confuse the issue - which makes it harder to identify and denounce destructive fascist behavior we don't like in the first place. |
|
Don't try to take O'Reilly's comments literally. He is the Howard Stern of political opinion media. That is, nearly everything he says is said for shock value, to get a response.
I watched his show for about a year, then stopped. I had seen too many interviews in which he either talked over a guest, or when he appeared to take the opposite position to someone with whom you would think he would agree (like black inner-city conservatives).
And much of O'Reilly is about selling O'Reilly. He's looking out for us-great! I was worried, because I need Bill O'Reilly to look out for me.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be on, which is one conclusion one might draw, if we take his remarks about "hate speech" to a logical conclusion. If you don't agree with him, things he says might be offensive, and you could say that that is hate speech. No, I'm just saying that we should take what he says with a grain of salt, just as I would say about things Alan Colmes says.
Censorship is not the answer, Bill, open and vigorous debate is, along with applying tradtional morality. We should hold people who gloat that Nancy Reagan broke a hip in contempt, but they have just as much right to make stupid comments, as you do.
Hillary delenda est. |
|
|
I have to leave home in ten minutes but when I have time later I will be glad to copy for you, from my notes, with names and dates, some of the posts that have appeared on townhall. Detailed plans are frequently suggested here for the torture and murder of Democrats and homosexuals. Democrats are routinely called Communists and Socialists. Note also that when a person on the Right says something hateful (as Bill Cunningham did of Barack Obama in his now-famous introduction of John McCain) this is hotly defended as "free speech". |
|
MKH do you talk to this guy at all before or after the segments?
I get the idea from them that O'Reilly is completely clueless about what the Internet is, how it works or what's on it. Is that actually the way it is?
I understand he's not a wired kind of guy, but does he ever say, "Hey, care to talk a little afterwards and explain some of this stuff to me?"
I do remember a segment awhile back in which he seemed actually stunned that you were doing election-night commentary and that your views were to the right. You'd think he'd just be...I dunno, at least that up-to-date with the people he has as regulars.
Maybe he might want to do just a little research and ask you a few in-depth questions. There isn't another segment on his show that makes him look so completely and repeatedly like an out-of-touch buffoon. |
|
Ms. Ham,
Thanks so much for linking to one of my favorite blogs, Crooksandliars.com
All y'all should take a look.
Bill O'Reilly is full of crap, as usual. I'm surprised you go on his show. He has no interest in journalism. He only really has interest in his own ego. Its pretty much the same schtick he was doing on Inside Edition - or whatever that show was called.
I think Huffington Post and other high volume blogs just don't have the staff to monitor all their emails. Maybe they have a commenting policy that only rules out direct calls for violence, not just bad taste. As others have said, I don't think this is a "left wing" phenomenon. I was stunned by many of the things I read at Little Green Footballs (although I haven't been there in years).
Nancy Reagan always seemed a little like Paris Hilton or Zsa Zsa Gabor, to me - in a completely different reality, but not necessarily malicious. I have to admit, I did have a hard time being respectful when Jerry Falwell died. |
|
Ryan01, you got nearly 20% of the actual "neoconservative" definition. That's not a very good hit rate...
And no, pretty much ALL of the people you mentioned are plain old right-wingers or Republicans, and have very little of the actual "neocon" agenda as part of their shows.
Once again, we have the case of a leftist "definition" that mostly works in ignorance of the actual thing they're trying to define.
|
|
... all the trolls get in? I never noticed them here before.
O'Reilly's tendency to histrionics is the reason I don't really bother with him. Like MM, it is only a matter of time that BOR disenfranchises our heroine, MKH, with some puerile idiocy. |
|
|
I caught the tail end of MKH's segment on last night's 'Factor'. I'm with MKH on this. I don't know how much of Bill O's ranting is schtick and how much is how he really feels. It is getting so tedious though that I find myself watching less and less. I would like to hear more of what his 'guests' say and much less of him interrupting them - which seems particularly excessive when MKH is appearing. Maybe I am mistaken, but I have the impression he particularly interrupts conservative women. If he is going to invite them, then he should let them speak. |
|
Yes, they're annoying. However, they do serve a useful purpose or two:
- In their own way, they keep this place from being an echo chamber.
- We get to sharpen our skills in the debate against them.
- They are crunchy and taste good with ketchup :-) |
|
|
I don't know how you put up with that guy, MK. (And yes, the glasses worked for me, too.) |
|
I just realized...if you and MK got together you'd be...
Ham and eggs.
Oy....that does it, I'm taking a vacation! |
|
I suppose I should comment on the issue at hand. They do expose themselves when they open up their fists and pound away at the keyboard.
How to deal with them is the conundrum of the Internet. It does give them a larger platform than they're used to (I don't know if I can go as far as "deserve"; after all, I'm one of the "unwashed masses" that they come from). I honestly don't like throwing the ban at them; I prefer to combat "bad" speech with more speech. |
|
|
Since that's the other topic du jour (especially on the Hot Air thread), I guess I could comment on that as well. You're too young to have to need glasses, especially since they don't do anything for me (either positive or negative). |
|
|
Why do I feel like it's the end of October all over again? |
|
Tell you what, you seem to know so much about neoconservatism, why don't you give me your definition?
What I gave you was the key componet of it. |
|
MKH:
Bill was way over the top last night. Yes, there are terrible comments on most boards and yes, HP has a bunch of commenters that are extreme as well as writers that are extreme. I thought you handled wild Bill very well. Keep up the good work. BTW, I like the glasses. |
|
... who grew up in the era of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
They are such cute and innocent little things!
They have been brought up to buy into all that crap about 'offensive' and 'hateful' language being WRONG when used against Liberals (and their beloved special interest) BUT PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE when used against the RIGHT.
Come'on MKH grow up. |
|
|
Good comment. Godwin's Law seems to be something that O'Reilly needs to get familiar with. I stopped watching his infantilism years ago, though. |
|
Mary,
You said "Is there a disproportionate and unfortunate amount of death-wishing for conservatives on Left blogs? Yes."
How do you know that. Is it just a gut feeling or can you point me to some "CREDIBLE STUDY"?
mickh |
|
|
I like him but he does get a little ridiculous at times. The Huffington website is pretty nasty though. |
|
|
O'Reilly owes his "style of political demagoguery" to Joe Pyne and Morton Downey Jr. He does not function in the same universe as an esteemed political commentator like William F. Buckley. |
|
Bill O'Reilly has some strange views on free speech considering he makes his living on that very right.
But, of course, I'm one of those who doesn't exactly trust Bill O'Reilly to "look after" me.
His nasty attitude toward the Swift Boaters was as bad as anything written at DU. Well, not quite but it does raise the point -- when it comes to free speech, who gets to decide where the line is drawn?
If some had their way, O'Reilly would be labeled "racist" or "fascist" and would be taken off the air.
I suspect he would find that unfair.
|
|
I haven't been to Townhall in a few weeks, what with the animous toward a certain presidential candidate from Arizona. I won't say his name because you'll all get mad.
But I have to chime in and defend Bill O'Reilly. BOR was not calling Arianna and HuffPo Nazis. He was comparing the hate and propaganda on their site to the hate and propaganda the Nazis circulated in the years leading up to WWII. You know, like Keith Olbermann circulates hate and propaganda nightly on his miserable show. (shudder) Why else would Olbermann Watch compare him to Joseph Goebbels?
BOR was exhibiting his controlled anger when discussing HuffPo.
I can understand why some of you are dissatisfied with BOR. He's a fair-minded independent; conservative on some views, liberal on others. He goes by the facts, not ideology. I know you'd like to hear every pearl of wisdom MKH wants to say (just like the Hot Air crowd wanted to hear everything Michelle said while she was a regular guest). But "The O'Reilly Factor" is the No Spin Zone and her segment is only five minutes. There's only so much that can be discussed in that short amount of time.
There are times when I feel like MK is a conservative secular progressive (SP). I'm not saying she is, but it just feels that way sometimes. I like MK; I wouldn't be here if I didn't.
But I can't change any of your minds, nor am I making sense anymore. You may tear me to shreds now. |
|
There's a reason why Democrats are routinely called socialists and communists. Their political ideas and ideals are straight from the communist and socialist playbooks. If you support socialist policies, it is quite normal for you to be considered a socialist.
Why is that so hard for the left to understand? |
|
whatever he wants. To threaten a presidential candidates spouse with "lynching unless" and have no backlash is ludicruos.
Someone could lose thier job for saying the word "pimping" but not "lynching". Just goes to show it is not what you know but who.
I think a lot of people look and listen to him for comic relief, I know I do. He will say almost anything about anyone and nothing is done about it. His racism is very strong and on a daily basis he reveals it many times in code. But still I watch, because I need to know how these people think.
What can be done to him? Abosolutely nothing.
|
|
Another great reason to read The Corner. No comments! Just a great range of conservative opinion, well written.
Well, that and all the "neocons." :) |
|
|
Really now, that is not what he said - gawd, he was defending her and did say that he didn't like how they were trying to lynch her in the press. He said (my words not his) it was a tempest in a teapot. He said he thought the whole dust up was over the top. Write or call his show and get a transcript or listen to it |
|
BillOReilly.com has the full first hour of "The Radio Factor" from last Tuesday:
http://billoreilly.com/blog;jsessionid=3CA747C5EA256B27BDD2 C23A8FE9E0F6?action=viewBlog&blogID=38119537527356149
"Listen to the audio of the Tuesday, February 19 Radio Factor program and see for yourself how the left-wing media has once again taken Bill's comments in regard to Michelle Obama out of context."
You don't have to be a premium member to hear the clip. In this case, it's free.
I have to admit, though, when I heard him say "lynching," I knew it was going to create a far-left/racial opportunist firestorm by taking him out of context. |
|
|
When I saw MK wearing glasses, I said to myself a la Steve Somers of WFAN: "Mary Katharine Ham with the glasses already!" That meant I couldn't believe she wears glasses. I do, too. |
|
I too saw the show and saw your reaction - priceless. Bill O'Reilly is a passionate guy and sometimes does get carried away letting his passion guide him and not his intellect - fortunately his gaffs are well spaced out.
I did go to the liberal site you posted - of course, they clipped his comment on the lynching - he immediately corrected himself and I was amazed at the nature of the comments. I found them to be devoid of discipline, in some cases devoid of clean language, and it was general just people ranting.
I am very new to blogs. I have admired our founding fathers not just for what they did, but how they communicated their thoughts and concerns. They could have fisticuffs in writing, make their point and be clean and civil, while they vicerated the other party with language.
my blog: http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com |
|
|
You're right, BOR will occasionally get carried away when passion overrides everything else. Exposing media corruption, internet hate/smears, and harsh punishment for sexual predators and sex offenders are three things he's very passionate about. |
|
|
She may or may not be a Nazi but her idiot followers certainly are the most foul mouth bastards on the planet. I'll give Bill the benefit of the doubt until Huffington proves otherwise. |
|
|
|