O’Reilly’s Lincoln book banned from Ford’s Theater

MoonHowler

From Politico:

Bill O’Reilly strongly defended his best-selling “Killing Lincoln” book on Monday after the Ford’s Theatre bookstore refused to sell it because of alleged historical inaccuracies.

The Fox News host told POLITICO that the attack on his book about President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination is “a concerted effort by people who don’t like me to diminish the book.”

The alleged mistakes by O’Reilly and co-author Martin Dugard start in the prologue and are found in other places in the book, according to Emerson’s analysis published in The Washington Poston Saturday. O’Reilly claims Ford’s Theatre burned to the ground in 1863, but it actually happened on Dec. 30, 1862. He writes several times over that Lincoln held meetings or sat in the Oval Office — a nice image. It turns out, however, that the West Wing’s Oval Office wasn’t built until 1909, during President William Howard Taft’s administration, Emerson wrote.

Should it matter if the book contains inaccuracies?  None of us were there.  How about the book that claims the Grand Canyon was part of the great flood and is only 6,000 years old?  That book got to sit right in the Grand Canyon book stores.  I saw it with my own eyes, several times.  I think a book like that is far more damaging than O’Reilly’s book that might have an inaccuracy or so. 

I bought the O’Reilly book as an audible.  I haven’t listened to it yet.  I was curious about what he had to say.  O’Reilly’s historical street cred is fairly good, while not adorned with academic honors, he has taught the subject.  If it were too academic, the average Joe, including me, probably wouldn’t want to read it.

Who has read it and who will read it or do we just trash it on the say-so of Ford’s Theater?

Media Matters: Fox News’ ever-expanding ethics nightmare

MoonHowler

Faux News Strikes again.  The following story is hot off the press about Fox News folks being too firmly entrenched in the various conservative political movements. I am not aware of any scandals but why would I be? I keep Faux News on a lot. I consider it to be a fairly good source for what ^&*() is going to hit the fan next which I need to keep the blog up.

On another note, Jon Stewart seems to be running a one man show with the same objective.  Stewart is calling them out left and right.   He makes fun of the hypocrisy he sees.  Maybe that is the best way.  I watch.  It is like turning your face away from a train wreck.  I can’t do it.  See  Jon Stewart’s Punching Bag, Fox News. (New York Times)

So, my challenge is, for the conservatives here to disprove this story. I know that Media Matters is scoffed at because it is liberal. You all help me understand if these ethic nightmares are valid or not. There is not a soul who isn’t aware of my opinion of Fox News. I am biased. No fair shot from the Moonhowler.

Media Matters: Fox News’ ever-expanding ethics nightmare

Another week, another handful of ethical scandals that should permanently sink Fox’s claim of being a legitimate news organization.

To recap: Last week, they gave us twin scandals starring Fox News stalwarts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. “Furious” Fox News execs pulled Sean Hannity from his planned show filming/fundraiser for the Cincinnati Tea Party after numerous news veterans and watchdogs called foul.

O’Reilly spent last week reminding us of his willful ignorance by repeatedly falsely asserting that “no one” on Fox promoted the falsehood that “jail time” was a penalty for not buying insurance under the health care reform bill. He was outrageously wrong.

Though Howard Kurtz reported that Fox plans to “keep a tighter rein on Hannity and others” in the wake of the tea party scandal, we remain skeptical. Fox has a long history of promising change in the wake of damaging ethics scandals, then failing to deliver on those promises.

Indeed, despite cancelling Hannity’s tea party event, Fox News has yet to cancel a planned appearance by Fox Business host John Stossel at a paid event for a nonprofit organization with very close ties to the energy industry. If history is any indicator, Fox will hold its breath and hope that everyone forgets about the Stossel fundraiser.

Of course, this being Fox News, Stossel’s planned fundraiser wasn’t even the cable channel’s biggest ethics scandal this week.

While a great deal of attention has deservedly been given to Rupert Murdoch’s statement that Fox News “shouldn’t be promoting the tea party,” the rest of his comment — “or any other party” — is equally notable. So, how’s Fox’s supposedly frowned-upon promotion of that “other party” — the GOP — going? In a word: lucratively.

As we detailed last week, Fox News hosts and contributors have raised millions of dollars for Republican candidates and causes using PACs, 527s, and 501(c)(4) organizations.

In a follow-up report this week, we detailed the massive scope of Fox’s fundraising for the GOP:

In recent years, at least twenty Fox News personalities have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances and in at least 49 states. Republican parties and officials have routinely touted these personalities’ affiliations with Fox News to sell and promote their events.

In their defense, they did miss Wyoming.

Were Fox an actual news organization that cared about journalistic standards, all of these ethics scandals would be excellent fodder for its weekly media criticism show, Fox News Watch. Unfortunately, as we noted last weekend, they ignored the O’Reilly and Hannity scandals in favor of such pressing stories as media coverage of the new Oprah bio. Forthcoming coverage of the Fox Newsers’ fundraising seems unlikely.

Media Matters reporter and senior editor Joe Strupp pointed out that while Fox News Watch was once a source of legitimate media criticism, the show has increasingly transformed into yet another megaphone for GOP talking points. Strupp quoted former Fox News Watch host Eric Burns (no relation to Media Matters President Eric Burns) saying: “The show was getting to be more and more of a struggle to do fairly. There was a progression of interference to try to make the show more right-wing. I fought very hard against it.”

As Media Matters President Eric Burns pointed out on MSNBC this week, “When you have a famed, well known Republican hitman — Roger Ailes — running a news network, this is what you’re going to get.”

Fox News has a slightly different take, however. As Fox News Watch put it in the promo for its segment on Ailes’ new ratings high, “Fairness plus balance equals success.”

Take note, CNN.

Bill O’Reilly Slams Laura Ingraham over Michelle Obama

MoonHowler

Hard to believe, isn’t it?  Bill O’Reilly attended the White House Christmas party and had some rather nice things to say about the first lady, Michelle Obama.  Ingraham accused O’Reilly of gushing over her.  O’Reilly has that Irish temper and we got to see a bit of it.  In short, he calls Ingraham out and tells her she is an idealogue and is hooked up to an IV kool aid drip.  The moral of this story is not to piss off O’Reilly. 

Read More

O’Reilly takes on Law and Order over Immigration Episode

MoonHowler

The video speaks for itself.

Isn’t art supposed to imitate life? I watched that episode of Law and Order. The rhetoric sounded to me an ordinary day on at least one local blog. On the other hand, as you saw in the video, O’Reilly was named as one of the haters who stir up people on the right about illegal immigration. I am not so sure O’Reilly is all that vitriolic on this subject. He is actually rather tempered from what I have witnessed. However, his outrage and tantrum over Dick Wolf weakened his case.

The plot can be seen at this site. And to set the record straight, Law and Order SVU has only been on the air for 11 years. The show often incorporates current issues into the plot as the detectives try to solve crimes committed against special victims.