Are websters second-class citizens? Bill O'Reilly seems to think so
Many of you enjoyed Ron Mitchell's Blowback column "Stop calling O'Reilly names," a rebuttal to Rosa Brooks' column on Bill O'Reilly's name-calling. We figured O'Reilly would also appreciate our giving a soapbox to one of his producers. Alas, it turns out the post-modern hothead is also an internet snob. Here's how he characterized Mitchell's article in his "Most Ridiculous Item" yesterday:
L.A. Times Flubs Correction
I was all set to compliment the Los Angeles Times, and they hosed us, in the end. Last week their far-left columnist, Rosa Brooks—who works for George Soros, if you can believe it, but The Times doesn't tell its readers that—harpooned me about this bogus Indiana University study that says I insult people once every 6.8 seconds.Well, Factor producer Ron Mitchell has blown the lid off that study, and you can see it on BillOReilly.com. I mean, we just destroyed it.
So we called the Los Angeles Times and said this is a bogus study. You've got to print Mitchell's article. They said they would, and they put it on their Internet site. Not good, you guys. You guys have really got to be more honest.
The Los Angeles Times strikes again.
Just when I think I've arrived in the MSM, I get a reminder of how many layers there are above me: At some level of media privilege, you can actually have one of your staffers send in a column about a column—not even bothering to sign it yourself—and expect that a newspaper is going to hop to and make room for it in the tiny news hole it has in its print edition? Bill, I just wish I lived in your world!
For the record, Mitchell's rebuttal would never have run in the paper under any circumstances as it was too long for a letter to the editor and cited no factual errors in Rosa Brooks' column (even if it had cited errors, those would have been handled through our corrections process, not by giving the subject space for an Op-Ed-length reply). We never told Mitchell, O'Reilly or anybody else that "Stop calling O'Reilly names" would appear in the print edition, and in fact I specifically told Mitchell, well ahead of publication, that it would not be appearing in the paper for the reasons cited above.
Happily, the world wide web (a wonderful new medium that Bill O'Reilly should look into one of these days) allowed us to print Mitchell's rebuttal in full, and we were happy to do so. (Regular readers of Opinion L.A. will recall our examination of rejectedletterstotheeditor.com, which touched on some of these matters.)
Again, you can read Mitchell's piece here, and you may also enjoy checking out more of Rosa's columns—there's a new one today.
O'Reilly's claim that Mitchell's piece "has blown the lid off that study...I mean, we just destroyed it" is simply wrong. On the contrary, Mitchell and O'Reilly have both shown that they don't understand the study and it's methodology.
A full explanation of Mitchell's errors can be found here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200705110001?f=h_top
Posted by: Rick | May 11, 2007 at 05:00 PM
So you can run whatever you want in the paper be it truthful or not and if someone proves you wrong you tuck it away in the corrected area that you know no one reads. No wonder papers all over this country are losing readers YOU GUYS DON'T GET IT. Most of us who read the news can figure it out for ourselves no need to tilt it the way you see it. I will be happy when the only paper out there is the nickel ads at least they are more truthful.
Posted by: Troy | May 11, 2007 at 05:03 PM
This is hilarious. O'Reilly's producer couldn't even refute a single item from Brooks' column. Just like O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo in response to the IU study which didn't refute a single finding in the study.
I produced an interactive portrait of O’Reilly that puts his unique abuse of language on display. Check it out: Bill O’Reilly: Propaganda Pimp
Posted by: Mark @ News Corpse | May 11, 2007 at 10:11 PM
So you can run whatever you want in the paper be it truthful or not and if someone proves you wrong you tuck it away in the corrected area that you know no one reads.
The above sentence is wrong on every point. You cannot run whatever you want in the paper and by both industry standards and the order of the civil courts you have to verify all factual claims. When an error is demonstrated, the correction is not tucked away in whatever you think the "corrected area" is: In the L.A. Times, it runs on the same page of the paper where the original error occured. The Web allows an even greater level of transparency, in which the correction can be made and the original error acknowledged in the original story itself.
None of which matters in this case because, as noted, there was nothing to correct in Brooks' column. If anything demands a correction here, it's O'Reilly's inaccurate reference to a "Correction" in his headline. I demand a correction! No, I demand ten minutes of uninterrupted airtime on O'Reilly's show, and if he gives me anything less I'm gonna throw a hysterical hissy fit just like O'Reilly!
Posted by: Tim Cavanaugh | May 12, 2007 at 09:01 AM
This is, after all, the "Los Angeles Times", a newspaper that, except for the New York Times which is a truly tinfoil hatted leftist loon publication, is practically there as are all Soros-backed tinfoil hatted leftist loon supporters. Why anyone except these types believe anything is beyond me. They have been outed very clearly and definitely as a untruthful rag.
Question: if, as has been proven repeatedly, 85-95% of all academia, MSM, and government bureacracies are tilted left, how can you not believe that the sky is black when it is blue? Forty years in the stranglehold of socialism and everyone now believes this trash. My only consolation is that when my head is bobbying down that blood flooded street yours and everyone else's will be bobbing right along side mine.
Posted by: sharinlite | May 12, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Tim, I think O'reilly is entertaining but I wouldn't entertain the idea of going on his show if I were you. Short format, partisan hackery TV is no place for a real conversation about real issues. KCET would be a much better venue. And they might actually give you 10 minutes.
Posted by: Graham | May 12, 2007 at 11:31 AM
As a long time avoider of Bill O'Reilly's "show" - and that is the most generous characterization one can make of the "No Truth Zone" - I am bemused by the appeal that this blustery future-footnote of social commentary seems to hold over otherwise rational people. But, wait, let's read what "sharinlite" has to say about this:
"Forty years in the stranglehold of socialism and everyone now believes this trash. My only consolation is that when my head is bobbying down that blood flooded street yours and everyone else's will be bobbing right along side mine."
Okay, forget what I said about "rational people".
Posted by: WakeLtd | May 12, 2007 at 10:42 PM
One of O'Reilly's most otrageous smears is his slandering of George Soros. George Soros is philanthropist who with his billions has tried to promote open democracies across the world, most notably in the former Soviet republics and other members of the "Iron Curtain". Is that is "far left" then I guess O'Reilly hates democracy. I think I hit on something...
Posted by: Steve Bremner | May 14, 2007 at 06:07 AM
o reilly is a laugh and blowhard, who cares what he says. he just lies and puts it out like the truth.
he is a moron.
Posted by: linda b | May 14, 2007 at 09:07 AM
There are those who read papers, those who read websites and those few who do both. The LA Times put Ms Brooks article in the paper and the website. It would seem that the fair thing to do would be to print AND post the reply. By the way, calling Mr. O'Reilly more names seems to make his point about the biased nature of this paper.
Posted by: Robert Pastor | May 14, 2007 at 10:10 AM