It's a Small 'World' After All

Don't ever tell the CrapMaster 'you just couldn't make this stuff up'. Because that's exactly what they do. Updated!

You Mean Bill O'Reilly Was WRONG? So screams a headline at the aptly named World O' Crap, one of those blogs that takes shots at the favorite targets of the echo chamber--and you know that has to include Fox News and Mr Bill. The article is unsigned, but presumably written by the Crap Webmaster, who remains conveniently anonymous. Probably a wise move in this instance:
I happened to see the segment about this case (a case which prompted Bill to claim several times that we were currently experiencing an "epidemic" of missing women and children).

The CrapMaster is off to a good start, racking up two falsehoods in a single sentence. O'Reilly used the term "epidemic" not several times but once, and he wasn't even talking about "missing women and children":

O'REILLY: ...the epidemic of crimes against women and children in America".

A good start, but the CrapMaster is just getting warmed up:
Bill talked to Greta Van Susteren, who was on location in Wilbanks' town...Bill asked Greta if the police had any clues about who had taken the woman...

Unfortunately, he never asked any such question
...because it was obvious that she was the victim of a crime, and was most probably dead.

Another unfortunately: he said nothing about her being "probably dead". CrapMaster is on a roll!
Greta quickly replied that the cases of Audrey Seiler (the Minnesota coed who faked her own kidnapping) and Elizabeth Smart show that Wilbanks could still be found alive. Bill pompously said that this case was different, in that Wilbanks was very close to her family, and was very responsible, so she obviously didn't just run away. Plus, it was only luck (he repeated that: "only luck") that Smart wasn't killed by her abductor.

Mr Bill did not say she "obviously didn't just run away". And as for the generous two-word quote offered by the CrapMaster, he didn't even get that right:

O'REILLY: Elizabeth Smart actually was lucky that she wasn't killed, all right? That was just luck that that nut who took her didn't do her harm.
VAN SUSTEREN: Absolutely.
Bill added that Seiler had some mental problems, and in every case like hers there are some signs that point to a hoax, but Wilbanks was 32-years old and had never done anything flaky before, and wasn't the type to cause her family so much worry, so it was clear that she had been kidnapped or murdered.

O'REILLY: I hate to say it, but I do believe that it's a crime.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know Bill, I think it is too. I'm just hoping that--
O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean, we all are.

Um, is there something here we're missing? We were under the impression that saying "I believe it's a crime" is not the same thing as saying "it was clear she was murdered". Isn't one a statement of opinion or analysis, and the other an assertion of fact? Is the CrapMaster so ill-informed as to think one is the same as the other?
Greta defensively said that we had to hope that she would be found alive, even if Bill was right about her not having just gotten cold feet and ran away. Bill smugly said something about knowing enough about these kinds of cases to say...

Where did the CrapMaster get this about Mr Bill saying "something about knowing enough about these kinds of cases"? He made it up! say with certainty that Wilbanks was the victim of some crime ... and then he asked about the status of the fiance's polygraph..

Where did he get the notion that Mr O'Reilly claimed "with certainty" that she was a victim? He made that up too!

O'REILLY: I don't think the woman, based upon her 32 years on this planet, has ever demonstrated any kind of behavior that would, she would run away. Now, the lie-detector--
VAN SUSTEREN: Agreed, agreed. But there's hoping, there's hope that she's done that. But I agree with you.
But the thing that bugs me most about this isn't that Bill, the pompous jerk, was opining about something in the absence of evidence and turned out to be wrong (we have to expect that of Bill)...

Oops, here the CrapMaster slips and shows his hand. Bill was "opining"? That's exactly the point we have been making: he kept saying "I don't think...I believe...". So why all the phony quotes about him saying "with certainty" that she was a victim, when you now admit he was just offering an opinion?
...but that he kept hyping the story as being another case in the "epidemic" of missing women and children who are later found to have been murdered by their husbands, or raped and murdered by degenerate child molesters.

Mr Bill's one and only mention of an "epidemic" is cited above, and it still doesn't refer to "missing" women or children. But if the CrapMaster keeps repeating it, the gullible will fall right into line.
Sure, it's just a ploy to attract viewers, but it causes harm, in that people start believing that attractive, white women are disappearing at an alarming rate in this country...

Yes, we can't have people believing that women are missing in this country. According to the CrapMaster that's all a tricky PR stunt. Even though CNN reported:

According to the FBI's National Crime Information Center, right now there are more than 22,000 women over the age of 18 reported missing, 22,000. It's possible that could be just the tip of the iceberg, because as one Justice Department official told us, thousands more never even get reported to the FBI.

Wow, that Anderson Cooper is dangerous, citing such inflammatory statistics. Doesn't he know that if he keeps reporting this news, it will "cause harm"?
...the more realistic dangers (like domestic violence to regular women, and kids dying from abuse and neglect caused by people in their own households) are ignored...

They are? Perhaps the CrapMaster would care to examine the last six months of The O'Reilly Factor and see just how much coverage they have given to the issue of state agencies failing to protect children from neglect and abuse. Why not do a breakdown of how many stories Mr Bill has run and compare them to, say, Keith Olbermann or Paula Zahn? In fact there was a story on the same broadcast that the CrapMaster wrote about! Somehow it didn't get a mention.

No, it was more important to bellow that Mr O'Reilly was "wrong". One wonders why the CrapMaster didn't scream just as loudly about Ms Van Susteren, who by the Crap definition was also "wrong".

Or John Walsh on CNN: I don't think she ran away. There's no indication.

Or Mark Potter of NBC News: There was some talk that maybe she got cold feet and ran away but the more time passes, the more that theory diminishes. They are also not putting much stock anymore in the idea that maybe she had been hit by a car along the road and left to lie there. So increasingly, this is taking on the look of a criminal case.

Or Dan Abrams on MSNBC making insinuations about the family: No, but I guess what I‘m saying, Mr. Clark is that I wonder whether the family is using that as an excuse not to speak to the media. And you know you‘ve got to wonder, when someone is missing, generally we see people want to get out there....I mean is there something odd if the Mason family is saying that to the media? ...Do you—but it must lead your ears to go up a little bit when you hear the fiance say, I am going to wait a day to let you know whether I‘m going to take a polygraph. Doesn‘t mean anything apart from—I‘m saying from a law enforcement perspective, it must make you say, what‘s going on here?

All these media experts--and more--were as "wrong" as Bill O'Reilly, if not "wronger". But there are no World O' Crap articles filled with misquotes and falsehoods to try to make them look bad.

Does the CrapMaster ever go after, say, Keith Olbermann? The last time he mangled a quote and lied about it on the air, did World O' Crap nail him to the wall? Unlike the O'Reilly segment, there would have been no need to rewrite what Olby said and falsify his quotes to show he was "wrong". But that's not the CrapMaster's game. His "World" is not exactly spherical. It doesn't include Olbermann or Dan Abrams. The World O' Crap is much smaller, and only seems to encompass those on their ideological enemies list.

The ultimate irony: while the Crap Webmaster is courageously anonymous, the blog itself is affiliated with And we all know just how much credibility and ethics they have.

Update: The ever-reliable Crooks & Liars, which linked to Crap's falsified report, has gleefully posted video of Mr O'Reilly admitting his opinion on this case was in error. Mr Bill of course gets no credit for openly admitting his mistake, and in the most prominent fashion possible--at the top of the program. We know other alleged "journalists" who simply stonewall and refuse to correct errors and lies, but that's of no matter to the C&L gang. Ironically, though they claim to expose "crooks" and "liars", C&L reprints several phony quotes from Crap's dishonest article, even after our tivo has proved them to be false (portions in bold represent statements falsely attributed to Mr O'Reilly--in other words, lies):
...when Bill asked Greta if the police had any clues about who had taken the woman, because it was obvious that she was the victim of a crime, and was most probably dead. We all figured that must be the case. Right?

posted: Sun - May 1, 2005 at 07:54 PM       j$p  send 

Didn't know how else to bring this to your attention, but check out what happens when someone actually tries to refute the pups! They get called STUPID!
May 3, 2005, 5:18:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Or they get banned! But you'll always be welcome here, Dude.
May 3, 2005, 5:27:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply