'It's Rank Dishonesty!'


J$P Video! Juan Williams slams CNN and MSNC for smearing Bill O'Reilly.



From The O'Reilly Factor, September 25 2007:

A smear from Media Matters was circulated by CNN and MSNBC, and Juan Williams is not happy about it:




See also: Media Matters: Caught in Another Lie!

posted: Tue - September 25, 2007 at 12:22 PM       j$p  send 

SteveMG
This is a smear. O'Reilly made a couple of poorly worded sentences to be sure; but one can only misinterpret his entire statement if you only examine those sentences.
 
One can do this to anyone. Isolate a few sentences, ignore the entire context and voila! A bigot is made.
 
Some of this admittedly falls on O'Reilly for his poor phrasing. 
 
I'm not surprised that Media Matters would smear him. That's their claim to fame. But for CNN to repeat the smear without, apparently, checking out the entire matter is unforgiveable.
 
That the clowns at MSNBC repeat the claim isn't surprising at all. Clowns do what clowns do: clown shows.
September 25, 2007, 9:51:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


victor young
Flat out dishonesty on the part of CNN. This makes my blood boil. Bravo to Juan Williams for speaking up. No big surprise from CNBC.
September 25, 2007, 10:41:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


victor young
Again Bravo Juan Williams. If you could not get the ubove Homepage the correction is here. Sorry
September 25, 2007, 10:46:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Nelson
Wow. What are the chances that Fox owned Juan Williams would stick up for the klan man Bill O. Face it. All of you Fox watchers are closet racists. Just admit it. Ever see an African American in line at a BOR book signing? How about just anybody under the age of 75? Never seem to see any non-whites outside the windows of your idiots Fox and Friends either. Keep your heads up your asses people.
September 25, 2007, 10:54:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Actually if anyone owns Juan Williams it's NPR, but thanks anyhow for your insightful comment.
September 25, 2007, 10:57:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Nelson... do you need a hug?
September 26, 2007, 12:05:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Peace
Remember, submit to the black agenda or you are a racist.
September 26, 2007, 3:26:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Maurice
Nelson, King of Stereotypers.
September 26, 2007, 8:37:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Astro
Bill's comment was: 
 
"And *I* couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."
 
Bill couldn't get over it. He wasn't speaking for others. Not his grandmother and not some unenlightened racist out there. "He" [sic] was the one who was surprised there was no difference.
 
I also recall Bill not long ago chatting with John McCain, positing himself as a defender of "the christian, white, male power structure" in this country. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBjr7EU52hE
 
O'Reilly may be a bit surprised by the furor over this because in his mind he probably thinks he was being complimentary and somehow forward thinking in observing that blacks can run a restaurant no differently from whites (he would be quite progressive circa 1960), but his recent remarks were at best condescending. Is O'Reilly is an old-fashioned Bull Connor racist? Probably not. But he frequently holds himself out as some sort of authority on the African American community, and his latest comments show he is anything but.
September 26, 2007, 12:15:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply


SteveMG
O'Reilly said he was "surprised" at how the restaurant was run because he expected it to have a black-oriented cuisine/menu or environment.
 
If you go to an Italian-American diner, you would expect an Italian menu and environment. If you go to a Chinese-American restaurant, you expect a Chinese menu and Chinese themes.
 
The fact that the black-owned restaurant did not have black "themes" or a black-centered "menu" was the "suprise" that O'Reilly was talking about.
 
He wasn't "surprised" that it was well run or run like any other restaurant. He was "surprised" that it wasn't a place that catered to a black clientele.
 
Very simple concept to understand. Unless one has malicious intent.
 
SMG
September 26, 2007, 1:59:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Astro
"Very simple concept to understand. Unless one has malicious intent.
 
SMG
SteveMG"
 
Very simple to accept that explanation, if one is interested in being an apologist.
 
I note you didn't bother with the link I included wherein Bill touts himself as a defender of "the Christian, white, male power structure" in this country, even though that sort of statement gives a pretty strong marker as to his racial attitudes.
 
As for your innocent explanation about the cuisine, the rest of the O'Reilly quote:
 
"And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference. There's no difference."
 
So, this society is really all about being able to get non-themed food at an ethnic restaurant? 
 
Moreover, later in the same interview, Bill expatiated further by saying: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-Fer, I want more iced tea." He was clearly talking about culture/behavior and not the menu items.
September 26, 2007, 5:09:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> later in the same interview, Bill expatiated further
 
Yes, did you notice the three dots just before that quote? Why do you suppose Media Matters left that part out, and then lied and claimed they didn't?
September 26, 2007, 5:36:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


SteveMG
"He was clearly talking about culture/behavior and not the menu items."
 
Please, listen to the entire monologue, not bits and pieces. He was saying that the restaurant was not a black-themed or oriented business. 
 
Even if he was - for the sake of the argument - talking about "culture", that's NOT racist. Culture is not race. Race is innate. Culture is acquired. 
 
At worst, you could accuse him of being an ethnocentrist.
 
You folks are getting tendentious information from Media Matters or are selectively picking out a sentence here and a sentence there without including the entire context or focus of the show.
 
The focus of the show was O'Reilly contrasting the behavior of black Americans in the restaurant with the behavior of black Americans as shown in our media.
 
The point was that too many white Americans - like his late grandmother - are getting negative images of black Americans in our media. And they are assuming, INCORRECTLY, that that is how black Americans behave. 
 
His anecdote of the lunch in the black-owned restaurant was to illustrate that black Americans, OBVIOUSLY, don't act the way they are portrayed too often in our media. 
 
He has said this repeatedly when talking about the negative images of black Americans in our media. That is that most black Americans do not act the way they are portrayed in our media. And they need to rise up and complain about it.
 
It's the very OPPOSITE of racism. A racist would say, "Yes, the way black Americans are shown in the media is how they actually behave". David Duke would say this. And O'Reilly would vehemently disagree. Because, as we know, it's bullshit.
 
I will certainly agree that if you isolate some of his statements, one could interpret them harshly. But to do this one must ignore - completely ignore - the central theme being discussed.
 
SMG
September 26, 2007, 6:24:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Astro
"> later in the same interview, Bill expatiated further
 
Yes, did you notice the three dots just before that quote? Why do you suppose Media Matters left that part out, and then lied and claimed they didn't?
johnny dollar |"
 
The three dots were substantially before that quote. Both audio and transcript were clearly marked (by a ping and an ellipse, respectively) to show that they were jumping ahead to a different part of the show. Link below. If you can show where MMFA excised a portion and then lied about it, by all means show me. 
 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007
September 26, 2007, 8:39:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> If you can show where MMFA excised a portion and then lied about it, by all means show me. 
 
Well since you seem to be unable to read the front page of this blog, I'll do your research for you:
 
http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/C1049953760/E20070926121225/index.html
September 26, 2007, 9:23:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Astro
The Media Matters site didn't include the entire show, if that's what you think the "lie" is, but they included large portions of the show, including the context that people in debating this have sited in arguing that Bill is not a racist. 
 
Juan Williams, for example, went on a later edition of Bill's show and stated that if he heard just that one statement, he would have wondered what Bill was saying, but he was part of the conversation and therefore knew the intent. But the MMFA audio/transcript included a lot of their back and forth and their reasoning, including the portions that Williams regarded as exculpatory of O'Reilly's intent. The text/audio for long portions surrounding the highlighted remarks are there for all to see. 
 
MMFA nor any other site legally includes full archived versions of other people's shows because it violates Fair Use laws (as I'm sure you, Waldman and anyone else who runs or seriously frequents blogs know). 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Times_v._Free_Republic
 
MMFA did not -- as O'Reilly's supporters imply when they state he was "taken out of context" -- chop up his comments to make him appear to say something he did not. It was clearly to this inference that Waldman was responding. 
 
Thanks to you and others for your civility in discussing this topic with me. Good evening.
September 26, 2007, 10:56:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On the Mark
Those who are too willing to defend O'Reilly are too forgiving of him, and those so gleeful about his remarks, are too strident. The remarks were inarticulate, they do underscore an institutional racism that is pervasive in America and they are indicative of a very flawed man with a tremendous, overpowering ego. That's not unique to O'Reilly or to FOX, but I do think O'Reilly has cemented a very negative image so many people have of him. This presented an opportunity to change that image. He failed to take it. It's his loss.
September 27, 2007, 4:25:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scott
Amazing the Astro's of the demonnut party call racism on all not demonnuts. That demonnut party is the reason we have KKK Byrd in the Senate, for what 100 years, between his lynching parties. No bitch there from the demonnut party. Who brought us welfare and the "great society," LMAO, for the black vote? the demonnut party. But, the topper besides their American hating is their BETRAYAL of those that they promised would get the troops out of Iraq as soon as they were put in power. Now Clinton et. al are telling their idiots that troops will be there till at least 2013. You Kosmonuts got screwed by your master's. Life is GREAT!!
September 28, 2007, 8:28:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Guest
[message deleted for rules violation: hilariously, deleriously off-topic]

Edited By Siteowner
October 3, 2007, 5:19:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply