O'Reilly Not Interested In News Corp. Scandal?
July 18, 2011 3:02 pm ET by Simon Maloy
On November 20, 2006, Bill O'Reilly interrupted his vacation to call in to his own Fox News program, guest-hosted that evening by Laura Ingraham, and gloat. Earlier that day, News Corp. had announced that Fox Broadcasting would not be airing a special based on O.J. Simpson's book, If I Did It. O'Reilly, who had been hammering at the story, wanted to crow about his influence and unquestioned independence from his corporate masters:
O'REILLY: You hit it on the head. It's a culture war victory. The folks did it, and I am the messenger.
But there's a few things that are really important to understand here. Number one, this should put to rest, once and for all, the independence of FOX News.
How many times, Laura, have you heard, FOX News is this; FOX News is that, bop-bop-bop-ba-boo? What other network, Laura, would have allowed its commentators to go on and to slam, to hammer the programming arm? FOX News Channel has nothing to do with FOX Broadcasting. We made that quite clear.
[...]
Here, FOX News stepped up big. And, once we did, the folks got it, because, obviously, we have a very big reach. And, when the folks heard it, just as you said in your "Memo," they let FOX know.
And, to its credit, to its credit, News Corporation, led by Rupert Murdoch, said: OK. We're hearing you. We're not going to run it. They did the right thing. [The O'Reilly Factor, 11/20/06, retrieved via Nexis]
It is true that, on this matter, he took on News Corp. and scored a minor victory in the never-ending culture war. In the past couple of weeks, however, as the rest of his network has slowly, begrudgingly, and inadequately covered the increasingly toxic News Corp. phone-hacking scandal, Bill O'Reilly has not uttered a single word about it on the air.
When viewed at the most basic level, that is surprising. O'Reilly's continued intense coverage of the well-aged O.J. Simpson saga and his near single-minded focus on the Casey Anthony trial are proof enough that he has a taste for the sort of tabloid salaciousness in which the News Corp. scandal is drenched.
But, more significantly, O'Reilly has made it his mission in recent years to expose what he sees as the unhealthy comingling of the media and government. And his primary target has been General Electric, the parent company of Fox News competitor MSNBC.
On April 23, 2009, O'Reilly launched one of his many broadsides against GE, claiming that he had sniffed out a conspiracy involving the Obama administration's push for cap-and-trade legislation and GE's promotion of green technology:
O'REILLY: According to reporting by "The Washington Examiner", GE is heavily lobbying the Obama administration for bailout money. The company is also pushing for the proposed cap and trade program. Apparently GE has set up a joint venture it hopes would manage billions of dollars in cap and trade transactions should that corporate carbon tax pass Congress.
Now, think about this, ladies and gentlemen. A failing corporation, General Electric, might reap billions of dollars if the Feds okay the carbon deal. By the way, GE is already getting taxpayer bailout money for its financial unit.
So it's not a stretch to assume Immelt would want to help President Obama as much as possible.
Now, we've asked Mr. Immelt a number of times to appear here on "The Factor," but he will not. And that's why we sent Jesse down to see him.
This is obviously a major story. When a powerful corporation, which controls a major part of the American media may be using its power and the airwaves to influence politics in order to make money from government contracts. That kind of corruption would make Watergate look small. We hope it is not true. [The O'Reilly Factor, 4/23/09, retrieved via Nexis]
O'Reilly's exposé suffered from the fact that cap-and-trade never came to fruition. But the sort of corruption O'Reilly thought he saw between GE and the Obama White House is actually playing out in the United Kingdom.
In a July 14 Telegraph column, Peter Oborne detailed how the British media -- led by the Murdoch empire -- "had taken over the function of Parliament" and warped the governing process:
These parties were, in effect, a conspiracy between the British media and the political class against the country as a whole. They were the men and women who governed Britain and decided who was up and who was out. Government policy was influenced and sometimes created. I doubt very much whether Britain would have invaded Iraq but for the foolhardy support of the Murdoch press.
The effect on government policy was wretched. Decisions were determined by consideration of the following day's headlines rather than sound analysis. Furthermore, private favours were dispensed; Blair when prime minister spoke to his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi about one of Murdoch's business deals in Italy. Of course it was all kept secret, though details did sometimes leak out.
It's a story that is (almost) tailor-made for O'Reilly's journalistic sensibilities. And yet, he's said nothing. Perhaps his "independence" from News Corp.'s influence isn't as beyond reproach as he would have us believe.
What say you, Mr. O'Reilly?








Wouldn't you Bow-Down & Grovel if you were Paid all that Green?
Bill O'Reilly is just a Clown with Heavy Make-up, minus The Red Nose & Big Shoes.
You expect too much from a Simpleton, that constantly get his Facts wrong, who hates Blacks & Jews.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Perhpas if more people would actually have high moral values, rather then just pretend to be that way for gain, Murdoch would have been found out and stopped long ago.
Let the slippery slope of excuse making begin.
He's already given the green light to murder a physician: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN6gr7KzMwE
So, I would guess the next step would be to personally go postal and start using 2nd Amendment remedies there at Fox Studios.
Well alrighty, then.
In fact, I'd be a bit surprised to see any media scandal stories covered on his show during the duration of this scandal. Any mention of other media scandals only highlights his silence on this one, and more than anything else, Mr. O'Reilly doesn't like being exposed as a hypocrite.
So, don't take his silence as him believing that MMFA is inconsequential, but instead, take his silence as fear. Because for Mr. O'Reilly, the only time he ever shuts up is when he's afraid.
Unvarnished hack journalist.
To quote you "You have no idea what I said, do you?"
Regarding your other post above, Mescal's summary was precise without being mean spirited, and without including a possible defect or handycap as part of MA problem. As Mescal stated it is a conscious choice, to remain that ignorant.
Mescal's comment was accurate and indeed brutal. Mean spirited no.
There is a difference, just as there is a difference between frustration and annoyance. Judging from your many other posts. I think you confuse the two.
If any woman ever breathed a word I’ll make her pay so dearly that she’ll wish shed never been born. I’ll rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she’ll be destroyed. And besides, she wouldn’t be able to afford the lawyers I can or endure it financially as long as I can. And nobody would believe her, it’d be her word against mine and who are they going to believe? Me or some unstable woman making outrageous accusations. They’d see her as some psycho, someone unstable. Besides, I’d never make the mistake of picking unstable girls like that.
". . I'll never speak of it again."
~~~Bildo
*
Quicksilver M.S. once showed me a neat trick to avoid the weird glyphs you get when pasting text. Remove and replace the punctuation esp. (').
But Bill-doe is probably worth, what?, $75 million, $100 million.
He probably doesn't really care one way or the other. He's got his pile. It's all gravy now. The only line Billy is gonna be in is the one trying to buy off politicians to lower his taxes.
newscorp is soros's puppet. this is huge.
This is ALL about Murdoch . . . Soros has nothing to do with this. This story is not just about the phone hacking which occurred several years ago, it's about the cover up which ensued.
It is always somebody else's fault, unless there is a positive outcome then it was free market and capitalism as fox knows it.
It has worked for a long time, and since they have trouble with change vs the status quo, unless it involves higher corporate profits and tax breaks for the parasites they call "job creators".
No he doesn't. People like him never do. He absolutely must get more and more, tomorrow and the next day, or his life will seem to end. If bashing conservatism started to become $10 more lucrative than advancing it, he'd start bashing.
On tonight's show:
- the debt debate
- is Rick Perry running for Prez
- how will the tea party affect the GOP's future
- union auto workers getting high before work
- Bernie and BillO talk about Mark Rubio (R)
- and, OMG, Jane Fonda got booted from QVC!!!!
Yes, folks, in the world of BOR, Jane Fonda and QVC is more important than the spreading News Corp hacking scandal, arrests, resignation and now a death. What a tool he is.
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
I've done my part.
Not necessarily. It's possible his indignation, which never included a threat to quit, was scripted as a means to minimize the humiliation of News Corp. in that fiasco.