He dresses her up like the ultimate shoulder candy and doesn't even have the respect to accompany the woman down a steep set of metal steps. ___________________________________ Let's start with a couple of segments of television tributes to the now "fired", O'Reilly. The segments are a bit long but good for our digestion of the O'Reilly termination. Stephen Colbert
Trevor Noah at the 26-second mark of The Daily Show
We move now to those Twitter posts: Russia/Trump, Presser problem, Ted Nugent (mega racist) and family privilege. Both Putin and Trump have declared no election interference via Russian operatives and hackers. The truth be told!
A Naval Armada
No matter the reasoning, the lies or the ineptitude, the Trump false statements about a naval armada has proven embarrassing and an indicator of an administration far from fit to lead a nation. ABC News; great read and video embed below.
We really must stay mindful of a military action launched just after Trump took office. Someone in Trump's administration authorized a woefully inept infiltration mission into Yemen; thirty 37 civilians killed, one American navy Seal killed and an American eight-year-old killed. A mission President Obama was reported to have turned down twice prior to leaving office. Trump Press Secretary didn't perform well today when asked about the Trump comments and false blustering.
International affairs isn't an episode of The Apprentice.
NFL Champions And The White House
A reflection on the winner of the Super Bowl and NFL Championship Patriots and 2015 vs 2017 (Obama vs Trump) White House visits. Sparse crowds are following Trump around like a dirty blanket.
No matter your political persuasion or inclination Ted Nugent is a mega-racist who is nothing shy of reprehensible. The others pictured above? You can apply your own personal adjectives (even if complimentary).
I am not a Saturday Night Live viewer,. Yegt from time to time, and increasingly so now that you have given Trump the Oval Office, I check for great video on the following Sunday. Well, last night's show was apparently a good show. The opening segment is linked below via the Daily Motion. After that segment I have embed a classic segment with Alec Baldwin spoofing both Trump and Bill (hands on) O'Reilly.
When a president offers so much material from CNL, one has to know there is trouble in the administration.
If you need perspective, AOL News offers a brief and non detailed synopsis under the umbrella of Ruppert Murdoch's Company will investigate Fox News. A concept which is a bit perplexing since Fox News and O'Reilly have issued $13 million in lawsuit settlements to five women. And that is in addition to Gretchen Carlson walking away with $13 million based on surreptitious tapes of Roger Ailes,former Fox News head, harassment. AOL News
'When you're a star you can do anything', said Donald Trump…
What would our world be without a few islands of credible journalism and its commitment to informing the nation? The New York Times is one such organization and a media outlet which has received much scorn from Donald Trump.
With consideration of the video and the typically Trump message from the video, I ask: "Which media outlet did Trump seek yesterday when he offered up comment about a fake news story regarding former NSC head Susan Rice?" He sure didn't seek Breitbart (AKA "Trumpbart"). He didn't even seek out Fox News. What does that say about his personal credibility or lack thereof? He summons the "failing" New York Times.
Over the past few days, the New York Times reported Fox News and O’Reilly have paid about $13 million since 2002 to five women to settle complaints about O'Reilly alleged sexually abusive behavior. The Times also reported more women have come forth with similar complaints. What would you think the nation's 45th President would have to say about the settlements from his personal find and his favorite cable news network?
"I think he’s a person I know well — he is a good person,” said Trump of the O'Reilly Factor host while speaking from his desk in the Oval Office. “I think he shouldn’t have settled; personally I think he shouldn’t have settled. Because you should have taken it all the way. I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”
What follows pretty well nails the Trump support for O'Reilly.
Despite Trump's support, which should not surprise when we consider this from the uber wealthy abuser who went here in 2005:
The BBC offered a full transcript of the historically disgusting remarks from one who sought to be President and won the election.
I digressed a bit. Let's get back to O'Reilly and responses from his huge complement of advertisers. The number of advertisers is dropping comparable to the number of daily Fox News fake news stories.
As of yesterday afternoon, the number of advertisers cleansing themselves of O'Reilly's show is 47.
The following list of companies has taken ads off The O'Reilly Factor. The list will be updated.
Mercedes-Benz
Mitsubishi
Hyundai
Lexus
BMW of North America
Constant Contact
Ainsworth Pet Nutrition
UNTUCKit
Allstate
T. Rowe Price
GlaxoSmithKline
Sanofi
Credit Karma
Wayfair
TrueCar
Rollins, Inc
Bayer
Esurance
Society for Human Resource Management
Coldwell Banker
The Wonderful Company
H&R Block
Weather Tech
BambooHR
Jenny Craig
Ancestry
Subaru
Old Dominion Freight Line
Amica Insurance
LegalZoom
CarfFax
Invisalign
Pacific Life
VisionWorks
Stanley Steemer
Eli Lilly and Company
Allstar Products Group
Advil/Pfizer
Propane Council
Reddi Wip
GoodRX
Southern New Hampshire University
Touchnote
BeenVerified
Consumer Cellular
MilelQ
Peloton
The number is stark, but recognize those 47 companies will probably be replaced as sponsors paying less for O'Reill air-time. Would you expect a different future for The Factor advertisers when the nation's 45th President offers sanctuary to O'Reilly's apparent sexual harassment?
Throwing stones when the closet is full. But, hey it entertains the Fox News minoins.
MUST WATCH: In 2002, Bill O'Reilly successfully pushed Pepsi to drop its sponsorship of @Ludacris calling him "a man who degrades women" pic.twitter.com/XjuxgQxXyV
Yesterday we published a piece (along with a thousand other social media points of information) about Bill O'Reilly's latest foray into his brand of racism. Yes, his comments about the hairpiece of storied Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), touched squarely into the psyches of Fox News viewers who relish early morning garbage (oratory) to feed their lust for bigoted conservative ideology.
Last night CNN's Don Lemon hosted a panel which on first sight (and not words) denoted the perfect CNN back and forth segment. The panel was staffed with a noted Trump talking head from the state of Arizona and two very loquacious and effective spokespeople who took exception to O'Reilly's racism as well as the inane blabber from the conservative talking head.
I will leave the assessment of the conservative talking head from Arizona (bottom left on Lemon's panel) to your personal perception. As I posted yesterday, I have never heard O'Reilly mention the personal choice of any white woman who chooses to wear a hair piece. Nor, have I ever heard of O'Reilly poking fun at Trump's comb-over.
Yesterday we published a piece which included Fox News's most recent and most blatant example of booking "fake" guest for spewing utter lies on its most popular news shows (e.g. O'Reilly, Hannity).
The short story about the 39 second YouTube segment which follows is: this guest is an outright liar, convicted and NOT in any way an official for Sweden.
First view a quick reminder of how O'Reilly and Fox News arrived at a common place (a story with a lying guest who is a literal fraud.) Donald Trump during a recent rally speech followed the misleading lead of another Fox News host's, Tucker Carlson, misleading news segment. Trump spoke about Sweden Muslim immigrant riots when there was no such civil unrest.
After Swedish officials and Swedish citizens disavowed any civil unrest we felt compelled to comment via a post. If you did not visit the link, the essence of the post was the following video from an utter fraud.
If you wish to view the full four-plus minute segment with O'Reilly and his producers at that lying best, click here.
On Monday night, the anticipated took place. O'Reilly on Fox News airtime, again admitting a "fake news" story. As you view the segment notice O'Reilly places a barrier between the psyche of his sycophant viewers and the reality of a "fake news' guest via the use of the world's "left-wing" media.
A couple of points. What if left-wing media wasn't monitoring Fox News? Yes, of course, the lying guest and Fox producers would have successfully handed yet another "fake news" story to their viewers. Moreover, the network would have successfully fulfilled its role as a broadcast division of GOP and conservative international communication.
Trump is no longer a lying presidential candidate; he is a lying US President.
While somewhat unnecessary, we thought we'd end this piece with a couple of fact checks regarding Trump's Sweden unrest.
What would a piece about Fox News read like without mention of its newest propagandist: Tucker Carlson? Arguing with Bill Nye is fruitless when the topic relates to climate change.
What happens when a multi-millionaire Fox News demagogue and chief bloviatorliterally attacks and threatens to dismantle "Black Lives Matter?" In addition to the Fox News mouthpiece making a fool of himself outside of the Fox News audience, and specifically his audience, he runs the risk of drawing a responses from other television new hosts...who happen to be 'black."
We realize Fox News has to provided daily Obama hating substance to its viewers, but one would think even Fox News producers would respect their audience enough to fact check a bit before developing an over-the-top 'false story."
From a fake story to one that sheds more light on the highly doctored video from anti-abortion activists and their dedicated propaganda network: Fox News.
Donald Trump borrows Sarah Plain;s claim of the "Gotcha Question."
Now, let's visit that all to familiar refrain from conservative politicians who cannot answer question critical to understanding the depth and scope of their potential to serve the nation. The ever-present assertion of "gotcha question." If you think for a bit the existence of the fictional "gotcha question" wouldn't be a deflection tool if the person could answer the question.
As we considered media, have we developed to a point of host interviewers only offering platforms for interviewees to babble uninterrupted about nothingness.
As you consider an interview with a right wing radio host and Donald Trump, know the aftermath of the interview included Trumps claims of "Gotcha." But, notice the very first question from Hugh Hewitt instantly generated a quick lie from Trump. His response was "YYYYYYEEEEEESSSS" as he contemplated not knowing the person of which Hewitt posed the question. The first response was to lie and after realizing a followup quest would follow, what does the carnival barker do, he reports with a form of question or Trump sought a clarification that would give him the answer.
Net-Net Trump labelled Hewitt a "Gotcha Guy": and ,of course, Trumps minions are following suit.
US Media has no viable relationship to past news media and the few conglomerates who own the full measure of US media care nothing about presetting pure garbage to viewers. Any network that will give Dick Cheney time to sit on-air and spew inane babble about the world crisis and "WMD", is a network that has no respect for its high information viewers. That said a number of cable networks are doing just that and I suspect over the coming weekend viewers who care to watch will be offered mega doses of a man who is literally responsible to the strife that is engulfing the entirety of the Middle East and Northern Africa.
Cheney’s claim that non-nuclear weapon countries cannot enrich uranium for peaceful purposes struck us as dubious. It was. False, says PunditFact. http://bit.ly/1O0yuvZPosted by PolitiFact on Thursday, September 3, 2015
Editor's Choice Ezra Klein's Vox
Make no mistake: This is a situation where there is a right thing to do. And we are not doing it.
Embed in the July 23rd piece we find a clip of Clinton's position of email requests with reference committee Co-chair, Cummings, comments of reporting inaccuracies regarding what the GOP hopes is a nomination killing scandal.
Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to new accusations involving the private email account she used when she was secretary of state. Watch in Times Video »
Days later and on consecutive days, the Times posted corrections to the July 23 article. The corrections clearly point to the Time's failure in verifying information it received from what is being referred to as anonymous sources. (Linked: to comply with NYT copyright notices, also linked : July 23, 2015 above)
Now let's go back to March 2015 and watch MSNBC's morning conservative crew attempt to corner David Brock, Media Matters founder, regarding the New York Times "story." Arch conservative Bob Woodward, even attempted to label the story "a good story."
After Brzezinski stated. "I am not sure what planet I am one," the interview came to a fairly non-productive end. But the segment was not broadcast for issues resolution talk. It was broadcast to do exactly what it accomplished, feeding the minds and psyches of MSNBC morning conservative viewers.
Brzezinskishould probably seek more often to determine what planet "she is on."
The Independent Journal finished their online report as follows.
Brock said The New York Times was hoodwinked by the ‘dying’ Benghazi scandal, and that Congress wanted a ‘fishing expedition’ into Mrs. Clinton’s email:
“The New York Times got snookered by the Benghazi folks.”
Now jump forward to July 23rd and the current revelations of New York Times reporting as flawed and inaccurate. Why would an alleged storied print publication fail in its chartered mission to provide news and related information tot he public?
Vox's Jonathan Allen suggested that House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy knew about the request to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton's email practices "at least a day" before The New York Times published its botched story relying on anonymous sources that "had it wrong" according to "a top-ranking editor directly involved" with the report.
On July 23, the Times published a report headlined "Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton's Use Of Email" which stated that "[t]wo inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state." The Times has since issued two corrections, acknowledging that the referral in question was not criminal and did not specifically request an investigation into Clinton herself. They have yet to correct the piece's remaining error to indicate that the referral was actually made by only one inspector general.
While March Morning Joe segment and the eventually revelations about the New York Times being "snookered", appears as very different issues, we do not feel as such and we find the continuing efforts to derail Hillary Clinton's candidacy a typical GOP operative issues replete with potential leaks from "high government" officials who happen to be Republican.
Two final points. The issue of Clinton's use of a private emails server isn't an issue we will stand tall and argue in defense, as we feel she should not have maintained the serve at her home. We admit to reticence regarding Clinton's decision to store information outside of government computer systems. However, we note White House systems have recently suffered Russian hacks as well as a year long Chinese intrusion via the into OPM computer systems. Are US government computers systems actually more secure the the serve Clinton used? We have no evidence it was hacked or violated via international adversaries.
The last point. We hope someone will offer Mika Brzezinski an opportunity to "phone home" from that planet on which see seems to inhabit.
As Fox News's Bill O'Reilly continues to "whitewash" cop brutality in African-American Communities, the network's chief entertainer and resident demagogue rhetoric doesn't stand deep scrutiny.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes hosted a segment last night that provides a great preamble for deep scrutiny of O'Reilly's version of black on black crime vs. cop abuse ad killing by cop. If you are a progressive or liberal who follows MSNBC segments, I am certain you viewed last night's segment. Yes, it is a bit long (nine plus minutes), but it is based in fact ad presented by experts.
The Hayes segment was relevant and important from start to finish. Conservatives continue to rail about "black on black" crime without any regard for information that places their rhetoric squarely in the realm of white privilege demagoguery. As a matter of fact, the unquestioning recipients of the demagogues message black on black crime messages are enablers. People who fold the messages into their psyches like bird feed into a mindset, and as I frequently state the next step in that absorptive process is demagogue constructed paradigm with you as the demagogues receptacle.
Hayes and his guest addressed O'Reilly's bigoted remarks with a great deal of professional expertise. Data and facts as are critical to building points of view and "arguments." O'Reilly on the other hand, uses common conservative (one-sided) rhetoric to feed his vast audience. The ultimate tragedy is the following 2013 data goes unreported to his viewers. Thus, he spreads misrepresentations.
Take a look at 2013 FBI data related to Murder. Remember, the FBI will admit collection of such data is difficult, yet a fair representation of the facts. Murder
How convenient is the demagogue's slanted view and reporting? It is equally misleading to use the "black on black" crime at 90 to 90%, when the context of the comment of argument relates to cop abuse and killings of black males.
An incomparable purveyor of the under-reported truth is Rudy Giuliani used old data (probably 2010 or 2011) during this linked Meet The Press segment . Why make the analogy when the topic is often about cops abusing or killing African-Americans and the evidence is clearly irrefutable via the advent of the video camera? Giuliani as a former federal prosecutor and former mayor of the nation's most populated city, knows that murder is a crime of proximity and convenience (in a twisted sense). People kill people with whom they are for various reasons in close proximity. Another key point right-wing demagogues refuse to emphasize, is the impact our segregated nation as on the data in the image above.
(NOTE: I do to believe the imaged data includes cop killings in the course of their "duty.")
If right-wing demagogues are going to have free and unfettered opportunity to spread misleading information, it is the responsibility of the media host to question them with possible refuting evidence.
A few short video gallery that stands as fact while the demagogue reaches to refute with unbalanced reporting of crime. What does cop abuse discussion have t do with this?
Exhibit I. South Carolina traffic stop (five shots to the back) murder
Exhibit II. Also South Carolina traffic stop (Multiple shots wounded driver)
Exhibit III. Exhibit of Arizona Fake Cop Insurance Executive killing of drug offender while held to the ground. "I' Sorry did he say?"
Exhibit IV.Non-shooting/non death beating applied by California trooper on a black woman
Yet, these and other episodes of cop on African -Americans killings result in right-wing rhetoric about regarding "Black on black" crime. The following Facebook post support both the comments in the Chris Hayes segment and the FBI data posted above.
A post via a Facebook friend....
In case you don't want to read the whole report, here's the stand out paragraph:
The pattern is striking: the data tell us that in 2014, Missouri’s African-American drivers were 75 percent (1.66/.95) more likely than white drivers to be stopped on Missouri’s roads. Just 14 years earlier, in 2000, the difference was only 31% (1.27/.97).
Concerns by the citizens of Missouri and the Missouri legislature regarding allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement prompted the passage of state law Section 590.650, RSMo (2000), which was enacted...
AGO.MO.GOV
The Atlanta Black Star published a piece in early March regarding the convenient demagoguery of "black on black" crime. The Black Star piece placed the discussion where it actually belongs: violent crime in aggregate.
Key excerpts
Violent Crimes
Whites are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes, according to the FBI. With respect to aggravated assault, whites led Blacks 2-1 in arrests; in forcible-rape cases, whites led all racial and ethnic groups by more than 2-1. And in larceny theft, whites led Blacks, again, more than 2-1. Williams asks: “Given this mathematical truth, would anyone encourage African-Americans to begin shooting suspicious white males in their neighborhoods for fear that they’ll be raped, assaulted or murdered?”
The ‘Monster’ Effect
Amazingly, according to the FBI stats, women committed 36 percent of the murders committed by white people against white people. This number is far higher than you see with Black women. Aileen Wuornos, who was found guilty of killing six men and was later executed in a Florida prison, is widely regarded as the country’s first female serial killer and was the subject of the 2003 film Monster. Wuornos’ murderous run was glorified in the film, and Charlize Theron won an Oscar for Best Actress for the role. Listverse names 10 female serial killers — and all are white
Historically, Politically Ignored
President Barack Obama and none of the white previous presidents have ever spoken a word about the phenomenon of white-on-white crime. Vox, under the headline, “White-on-White Crime is Out of Control,” says, “Indeed, looking back on America’s political iconography, there are disturbing trends toward the glorification of white violence. Peer inside the US Capitol building, and you’ll find a monument to Confederate Jefferson Davis — the leader of an insurgency that caused an unprecedented quantity of violent white deaths.” Around the country are white mass murderers of Blacks in particular who are memorialized.
The Poverty Argument
Experts and analysts have consistently crafted theories on crime based on income and employment levels. The less you make, the more likely you are to commit crimes, the theory goes. But the number of murders committed by white people specifically in the United States, according to Vox, casts doubt on this. The white population in America is considerably richer than the national average — and yet there are more white murderers.
Let's do a bit of deductive reasoning or construct a form of syllogism (if you prefer).
If.......Blacks are killed by cops at a higher rate than whites are killed by cops....If......Blacks are stopped for vehicle searches and close scrutiny (frisking) than whites......And if......Whites are much more likely to respond to cops via discharging a firearm and other forms of violence than blacks (who data shows more often attempt to run or exit the interaction in some form)....And if..... Whites commit far more violent crimes than blacks and kill other whites at the level of 83%. )and African-Americans at 90%......
Cop abuse in the back community (an irrefutable reality) shouldn't provide a shield for cable news entertainers and conservative politicians who refuse the reality.
Well, it wasn't a "nice neat' syllogism, but it was set of deductions that accurately depicts O'Reilly's ranting rhetoric to his sycophant viewers and the deductive exercise places conservative demagoguery (black on black crime) in perspective. A closing piece about crime, cop killings and the Justice system (or lack there of).
For those still denying a problem of disproportionate police violence against people of color...a new database shows...
Posted by Tim Wise on Tuesday, June 2, 2015
