Bill O'Reilly on Sarah Palin email hack

Looks like Bill O'Reilly skipped the First Amendment section of Journalism 101. He thinks owners of websites that posted Sarah Palin's hacked emails should be prosecuted along with the hacker who broke into her account. When a Fox news anchor attempts to explain why the websites can't be prosecuted, he refuses to accept it, arguing back with bad analogies, which the news anchor handily demolishes. It's fun to watch.


  1. I cannot express in words the feeling of wonderment I get when folks on either the left or right extreme begin arguing. . . Fanatics of all kinds are so convinced that they (and they alone) have the ‘correct’ opinion that nothing will convince them otherwise.

    How does one get so far away from true center as to believe that nothing anyone can say against them can hold any merit, whatsoever?

    Sad. Amazing, but sad.

  2. He is an ignorant douche. It’s been said before, but if it were Joe Biden’s email account, the Biden version of this conversation would have never happened.

  3. I Bill O’Reilly is so adamantly belligerent against the First Amendment then he should voluntarily self-censor. Stuff a sock in it Bill.

  4. But it’s mail! But it’s mail!

    It’s unbelievable what a poor listener he is. He truly refuses to hear anything that contests his personal opinion. Great person to have on national television setting an example for the ignorant. [sigh]

  5. I think we’re overlooking the fact that a FOX correspondent not only knew what she was talking about, but didn’t cave in to Bill-O saying that he was right.

  6. Wow, he is SUCH a terrible listener. He won’t even BEGIN to listen to someone more knowledgeable than he. It’s so frustrating that this man is on the airwaves, that thousands of people listen to HIS opinions, when he’s so incredibly uninformed.

  7. I was thinking it would have been interesting to hear her say something along the lines of…

    “Who is the Attorney here Bill… come on say it Bill…”
    “Bill.. say it”
    “But But…”

    “Alright you are…”

    “And thus who is likley to know how the law works, a Talking Head like yourself or myself a practicing Attorney?”

    “Im not a..”

    “You are.”

    “Thank you.”

    Thats my fantasy…

  8. Kelly seems to be a pretty straight shooter. And “douchebag” is the perfect O’Reilly description.

    I still love the “it’s legal so therefore it’s OK” argument though. Moral philosophers all. Thank God we’ve never had that logic in our laws before.

  9. What’s sad is that so many people watch this ignoramus; what’s sadder is that most of his viewers will think he’s right.

  10. Well, since his website also got hacked, I’m sure we can expect much more belligerence and posturing from him.

    The only net positive about O’Reilly is that he makes John C. Dvorak look calm, rational, open-minded, and huggable by comparison.

  11. I don’t think B. O. really believes everything he says. He talks about what he believes should be (or pretends to believe should be) in terms that imply that’s the way it is. I don’t think he’s stupid — I think he’s pandering to his conservative audience, using the same black and white world view that they’ve got.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that he’s SuperConservativeMan, but I also think he’s kicking it up notch for the camera.

  12. What do you think the worst-non accidental- thing an influential person can do in the iraq green zone, when there are a hundred thousand hungry zombies outside, and ten thousand people inside?

    For some people, being eaten was not good enough.

  13. I started watching the clip, but my speakers were off. Just watching his lying liver-lips move for 3 seconds convinced me to turn it off. I felafel every time I watch Billo.

  14. Part of being intelligent is knowing when to quit arguing and the measure of true intelligence is not how many desperate analogies you can fit into a 3 minute segment.

  15. Before Colbert and Carel went on to bigger things, they used to do a bit on “The Daily Show” called “Even Stevens”. The two of them would just yell past each other until one of them, usually Carrel, had an emotional breakdown.

    That’s pretty much the bulk of these “opinion” shows as I see them. Grown men and women, yelling at each other. I think, consciously or otherwise, they’d love to see the other person crack and just start crying. Because then you’d have a winner!

    It does make me sad that for too many people this is what passes for political discourse. Shouting.

  16. I would like to second the Hiphopopotimus.

    There are no words to explain how much I truly hate Bill O’reilly. His face, his voice, his opinions make me want to hurt myself and others. If I saw that man on the street, I truly would be hard pressed not to just break his legs with a baseball bat.

    He is without a doubt, the person I hate more than anyone else on earth.

  17. where are all the o’reilly trolls? wow , 24 comments and not a single one espousing his right to his pig-ignorant point of view. he should be tried for treason for what he and fox news has done to this country.

  18. Random “hacker” reads Palin’s email = treason.
    The NSA reads your email (via AT&T) = patriotic terrorist busting.

    And 2+2=5.

  19. I wonder what O’Reilly’s opinion is on the monitoring of Internet traffic, including emails, running through AT&T’s servers???

  20. Okay, Mintphresh, I’ll ‘defend’ Bill here. There is one thing he said that was right. If you take the kids card with the $50 in it…and give that to someone else…both of them can be charged. That’s about the only thing I saw in there that made any sense whatsoever. The rest is indefensible.

    I tried to think of his reasoning as to why email is the same as mail, which is the same as some commercial product (like a car). SO..theft is theft is theft…

    I think the FBI needs to open an investigation into Bill’s show…see if ANYTHING they used as ‘news’ (yeah…it’s a stretch) was taken from a source who ‘stole’ it. Man…wouldn’t it be great to see Bill in cuffs…

    and now I need a drink…

  21. @Mr Voodoo – definitely a quote we should emblazon somewhere – “It is a federal offense to access someone’s private email without authorisation with the purpose of obtaining information”

  22. yeah, where ARE the trolls?


    Perhaps even they’ve reached their limits on the current surreality scale.

  23. By Bill O’Reilly’s reasoning, I should go to jail for having a copy of the “stolen” mail in my browser cache. And I can’t clear the cache because that would be destroying evidence.

    Oh, hold on, there’s a knock at my do

  24. Here’s the part I loved:

    You don’t think if Fox News received an email that showed a massive conspiracy among the presidential candidates, we wouldn’t put it on there air? You’re darn right we would.

    Yes, and on Fox News, the headline would read Barack Obama Involved in Massive Conspiracy.

  25. @madfist: “How does one get so far away from true center as to believe that nothing anyone can say against them can hold any merit, whatsoever?”

    Totally agree. I don’t consider myself a part of either the right or the left, but political discourse in this country has devolved into such ignorance and ad-hominem nonsense, I am ashamed for both sides.
    Between the right putting douches like this on TV, and the left living in a fantasyland of nonissues like the “torture” the three-squares-a-day-for-the-first-time-in-their-lives treatment detainees are receiving, I just don’t even listen anymore.
    I plan to not encourage either of those bastards by voting for them.

  26. The trolls are all over in the Star Simpson thread, busy beating up on her and explaining why she asked for it.

    The bully mentality that finds O’Reilly appealing or logical is found in folks who like bullying better than anything. They’ll get around to defending this toxic windbag here as soon as they tire of that thread. That’s assuming they don’t get distracted, say, by spotting something like a blog on kidnapped victims of trafficking who they can damn for being sluts, on the way over here.

  27. It’s clear that Bill O’Reilly is just an egomaniac.

    He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and his opinion can’t override someone who actually is in the field and knows the law. No matter how many different analogies he comes up with. He may want things like that, but that’s not what the law actually is.

  28. It’s not news, folks. It’s Faux News. That’s entertainment. You can tell he is deliberately saying even things he does not believe. He’s not a very good actor. Surprised you folks don’t deal with this part of his act more often.

  29. Oh, and all she has to say is this is information, not material. The problem here is also the DRM issue. Information is free, folks. That’s what the 1st amendment says, that’s what she is saying. That’s what Bill O’Reilly and the RIAA don’t get.

  30. I always thought Bill O’Reilly was just pretending to be stupid in order to torque some radical right wing spin on the “news.” Nope. Clearly he is terminally stupid. Cheers to the attorney for standing up to his bluster.

    Ironically, Sarah Palin got her grossly inflated reputation as a “reformer” when she “stole” e-mails by hacking a computer of fellow Alaska Oil and Gas Commissioner Randy Ruderich. She turned in state Republican chairman Randy Ruedrich after discovering he was using his state e-mail account to conduct party business. Sarah accessed his computer, then pried through his discarded e-mails and made them public.

    Palin and Ruedrich were serving together as commissioners on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a state regulatory agency, at the time. Ruedrich resigned from the commission in November 2003, and was later fined $12,000, according to a 2004 article in the Anchorage Daily News.

    In 2006, Palin found herself asking forgiveness for a similar offense from her past, according to a July 28, 2006, article in the Anchorage Daily News. She had sent campaign e- mails from her Wasilla mayor’s office in 2002, when she made an unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor.

    “For any mistakes like that (were) made, I apologize,” Palin said of the e-mail controversy in July 2006, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

    Palin has maintained personal e-mail accounts through which she conducts state business in order to illegally avoid transparency in government as mandated by the Alaska Open Records Act.

  31. Wow. I’m sure a little digging could turn up some illegally obtained letters that were later published by a news agency… oh wait! any and all “leaked” government memos fall under this category!

    Like holy geez folks. Leaked by gov’t official, stolen by hacker, same thing really. O’ Reilly however isn’t a journalist by any stretch of the imagination so I’m not surprised he doesn’t know this.

  32. …”and the left living in a fantasyland of nonissues like the “torture” the three-squares-a-day-for-the-first-time-in-their-lives treatment detainees are receiving”…

    drive-by trolling… sometimes my dad fishes that way.

  33. Hey, how ’bout that Megan Kelly, though? She took him to task with admirable persistence backed up with those pesky facts that always get ol’ Bill all worked up! He came out looking utterly ridiculous. And it’s one thing if Al Franken comes on to the show and makes B.O. look ridiculous, but it’s so much more rib-ticklin’ fun when it’s one of Fox’s own correspondents and an attorney to boot!

  34. Gaaaaah! He’s just so… OLD, and out of it and never joined the information age. This is a massive problem: the old guard not learning about the internet age. We are f*cked if McCain wins.

    And when I grow up to be a big important journalist (even if it is just for Fox news) I certainly hope that I am referred to as a “tough cookie” by the old geezer who’s my boss! Maybe if I’m lucky and do a really good job on a story he’ll pat me on the ass on the way out.

  35. megyn kelly did an excellent job explaining the law, and, thanks to bill o’reilly’s ignorance and poor listening skills, i learned some good examples of where the law was, and was not, applicable.

  36. I wonder if O’Reilly thinks the “$50 bill” analogy applies to information gained via wiretapping?

    I’m not suggesting for an instant that he’d advocate wiretapping for any reason.

    Or that he’d argue that any information gained that wasn’t “stolen merchandise” and that the people who stole it should go “go to prison for a very long time.”


  37. @MHammer8: “the left living in a fantasyland of nonissues like the “torture” the three-squares-a-day-for-the-first-time-in-their-lives treatment detainees are receiving, I just don’t even listen anymore.”

    Okay, the left has a lot of faults, and might be living in a fantasyland, but I really don’t think Guantanamo Bay is a non-issue. And I’m sure all the people imprisoned there are delighted by having three square meals a day when they’ve been taken from their families for years with no formal charges coming forth. The government ignoring peoples rights to due process is a pretty major issue.

  38. Except for Mr. O’Reillys idiocy concerning the first amendment, my favourite part is in the beginning where he’s like “The FBI already knows who this is and they’re going to be waterboarding him soon enough!” (well, I’m paraphrasing). If this guy’s an idiot, it certainly could be true enough (all you’d have to do would be to subpoena Yahoo for the IP address and then subpoena the ISP for the identity of the person). But if the guy is smart enough to break into a presidential candidates email account, he’d have to be a colossal idiot to do it without hiding his identity. I’d be willing to bet he used TOR (that should be required knowledge for anyone hanging around 4chan).

    Personally, I want to see this guy go to jail, because it is not ok to break into computer systems. But my loathing for Bill O’Reilly frankly overpowers my disdain for this guy. I want to see him make the FBI chase their own tail, if only to screw with The Ultimate Douchebag’s worldview. Yes, a 14-year-old script-kiddie can flummox the FBI. Doesn’t matter how smart or tough they are. It doesn’t matter how much money or muscle you have, on the internet, the nerds reigns supreme.

  39. Bill O’Reilly exposed himself for what he really is again, said in many different ways here, and I agree with most of it. Kelly may have a bright future in news, but needs to leave Fox for a legitimate news organization. The hacker should be charged and the website not. Missing in all of this is what about Sarah? If I used private email for company business that was hacked and exposed, I would be fired immediately. Besides, private company email is generally much more secure than public accounts. I can’t believe that the State of Alaska IT would not provide a difficult to hack account. Is Sarah going to discuss national security secrets over public email if she and what’s his name get elected?

  40. How does one get so far away from true center as to believe that nothing anyone can say against them can hold any merit, whatsoever?

    Great question. No doubt the answer is complex. But it’s my opinion that it’s in large part due to the gradual evolution of the two political parties into extremists in their own right. There’s no benefit to either party in speaking moderately, and so they focus on the issues that divide the country, no matter that they have so very little effect on most citizens.

    Note that this isn’t limited to the right. The left can be just as strident and abusive in their propaganda. Even as I identify most often with so-called liberal ideals, I find myself cringing on a regular basis at the way in which they are often spoken about.

    A recent documentary, Split: A Divided America covers the above theory and a number of other compelling ideas, many (if not all) of which surely are contributing factors:

    * Self-selecting media. Decades ago, media choices were limited and for any media source to be successful, it had to appeal to a broad audience. Now, media can (and does) focus their slant to specific audiences, even at the expense of truth.

    * Lack of public discourse. With leisure activities becoming less social, and with communities becoming more homogenous, individuals are much less often exposed to ideas dissimilar from their own. With TV-watching being a huge part of American life, this is a two-pronged problem, because of the “self-selecting media” issue.

    * Negative campaigning. It’s disgusting, but it works. Not only does it sway some voters against a candidate, it also has the effect of discouraging many of the most moderate voters from participating at all, which of course increases the polarization of politics.

    They cover lots of other issues and ideas in the documentary, but the bottom line is that American society, media, and the political system all conspire to produce the system we have today.

    Solution? Well, unfortunately there’s no obvious one other than an American populous that simply insists on taking the system back for themselves. But people are lazy, and fixing the system takes work (including making some significant lifestyle changes).

    In my opinion, one of the most productive things that we as a nation could do would be to get rid of the two-party system by making all elections follow the “instant run-off” model. Australia may be the best-known country to use this style of election, but it’s already in place in certain districts in the US, including San Francisco, and in Pierce County in Washington State. With the “instant run-off”, voters have no penalties for voting their true first choice, making independent candidates much more viable.

    Of course, to change voting nationwide would require both major parties to cooperate, when in fact it’s not in either party’s interest to implement the “instant run-off” elections. That’s an obvious, apparently insurmountable obstacle. But, if anyone’s got any bright ideas, I’m happy to try to help. :)

  41. There’s a certain tendency among people who are either tremendously stupid or tremendously stubborn. When they argue, every time one of their points is assaulted, or even proven irrelevant, they cling to it like it’s sacred.

    Doofus:[emphatically communicated opinion]

    Person 1: [complete rebuttal], that happens to be irrelevant.

    Doofus: But my point is so awesome! [repeats it in different words]

    Person 1: Yes but I’m afraid that doesn’t apply here.

    Doofus: But I’m so right! [repeats again, exaggerates to the point of self-ridicule]

    Person 1: I’m afraid that’s just not the case, [thorough explanation]

    Doofus: That just can’t be right! Did you hear what I was saying? Because, well, it was really awesome, and I must be right, if I can say something that awesome. [repeats it again, polarized and exaggerated even more]

    Person 1 (aside to the camera): Jesus, is this guy just plugging his ears while I talk and repeating himself angrily after every reponse?

  42. He was actually far more polite to this correspondent than he is to many of his “guests”. I didn’t hear him shout her down with “SHUT UP!” once. What a blow-hard.

  43. Is it really “hacking” when you simply guess the persons stupidly easy secret question to reset their password? Isn’t that more like identity theft?

  44. Between the right putting douches like this on TV, and the left living in a fantasyland of nonissues like the “torture” the three-squares-a-day-for-the-first-time-in-their-lives treatment detainees are receiving, I just don’t even listen anymore.
    I plan to not encourage either of those bastards by voting for them.

    A perfectly understandable reaction. Unfortunately, it’s exactly part of the problem (as described in Split: A Divided America, referenced in my previous post above).

    Say what you will about the candidates, Obama is the only candidate that has for years been walking the walk, talking the talk of reconciliation and compromise. And voting for no one just plays into the hands of the extremists, causing exactly the polarization we decry.

    Could Obama be corrupted by the political machine? Sure. After all, it happened to McCain (who used to have nearly as good moderate credentials as Obama). There are no guarantees. But, as far as I can see he’s the best chance we’ve got for the moment.

    Long-term, we need to fix the system so that it’s not so polarized. But we need to pursue short-term solutions too, and opting out just makes things worse. Don’t let the extremists take over; you just play into their hands when you refuse to vote.

  45. it has been posted before – but no i don’t think Bill kicks it up a notch for the camera – here he is when he thinks no one is watching.

  46. Oh, and as far as O’Reilly goes…

    Duh. Of course this is how he presents his “position”. He’s just a character, and a predictable one at that. Anyone dope could write his show.

    No doubt if and when some Republican hacker breaks into a Democrat’s email and posts it on the web, O’Reilly will be 100% behind the 1st Amendment rights of third-parties not directly involved with the hack.

    It’s all part of the formula.

  47. Oh my goodness, a Bill O’Reilly gaffe? Say it ain’t so!! Seriously people, does this need discussion?
    Whatever he is doing sells a lot of advertising, and you guys are just encouraging him.
    I wish people had taken this level of interest in Al Franken. Then there would be no debate.

  48. nonissues like the “torture” the three-squares-a-day-for-the-first-time-in-their-lives treatment detainees are receiving

    Yeah, they don’t even have to chew and swallow, and they can chill out in the restraint chair for a few hours when they’re done – what are they complaining about?

  49. I wish people had taken this level of interest in Al Franken. Then there would be no debate.

    Not that there’s much debate here. Seems like everyone’s in violent agreement. :)

    Speaking of Al Franken, there’s a great clip of him at the end of Split: A Divided America. He’s commenting on how people have pointed out that Franken has been on several USO tours in support of our troops overseas, while people like O’Reilly and other right-wing pundits have not. In Franken’s inimitable way, he points out “well, that’s not really fair to those guys to complain that they haven’t done a USO tour; after all… [extended pause] …they have no talent.” (paraphrasing…I can’t recall the exact quote off the top of my head, but Franken’s delivery is of course perfect :) ).

  50. Oh my goodness, a Bill O’Reilly gaffe? Say it ain’t so!! Seriously people, does this need discussion?

    It’s not that it’s utterly shocking, it’s that it is hilarious. We all know he’s an idiot, but seeing him be humiliated is just plain fun.

  51. #59: it’s the same under the law. Yeah, it’s pretty simple to do, but it’s still unauthorized access of a computer system.

  52. Both parties are a complete mess, and once again in my fantasy world there would be a third, fourth, or fifth candidate. Up until a week ago there was no way I was going to vote for Obama, something in my core makes me fear the charisma, and that’s euphoria. However, this is all getting a little bit frightening. Palin is a female Huckabee, the most dangerous kind. The camera lovveesss her.

    Obama has a slim lead, we were robbed at least once, I argue Gore gave it away, maybe twice; it cannot be this close again. It’s hard to believe the dividing line has barely moved after everything that has happened. It seems there are is a large pile of people determined to remain ignorant. Imagine what it would feel like if you if you came out of that coma.

  53. AHHHAHAHHHHH crap. I was having such a nice and calm saturday up until now. I have the guttural hate for bill and fox.

  54. I don’t think “tough cookie” is a sexist phrase, but it sure as hell is patronizing. I don’t doubt that he is sexist, there’s just nothing intrinsically sexist in the phrase.

  55. I thoroughly enjoy how Ms. Kelly played off the 1st amendment in the beginning of the conversation like it was some far-flung, arbitrary law.
    bill o’reilly viewers must be put on an emotional rollercoaster multiple times on a daily basis…
    …don’t worry he’ll be off the air once all his viewership dies of heart conditions.

  56. Don’t believe it Ustinjay, just drop by a Chik-fil-a on family night for a good scare. Their rasin’ a whole new crop. Remember Chik-fil-a, that’s the one closed on Sundays.

  57. Correct me (or forgive me) if I’m wrong, but I thought newspaper organizations, in print or online, ARE held liable if they use material that was illegally obtained – or is that only if the material used concerns defamation?

  58. Sorry to be OT, but I second RICHSPK’s comment above. I’ve heard the phrase “tough cookie” all my life, but never until this moment heard it called sexist. I mean I see how it might be construed to be, as females are sometimes disrespectfully referred to that way. But if memory serves it seems to be used to describe either gender.

  59. RICJSPK@71: Yes, it is patronizing, but it is also sexist if you would never hear the same term applied to a man. I have never heard “tough cookie” applied to a guy.

  60. Just in case anyone thinks that his physical mail analogy applies, it isn’t the correct analogy. Nothing was actually ‘stolen’, per se. The correct analogy would be someone breaking into your mailbox (an offence, I’d assume), then photocopying the mail inside and giving the photocopies to the press. Note that the press are not in possesion of any stolen goods, just the information on them.

  61. Pawn shops are full of stolen property. If you find your stuff in a pawn shop and they turn it over in they don’t arrest the shop owner.

  62. Is is that because she’s a conservative, and not a privacy advocate, that no one here cares about Sarah Palin’s privacy rights? Can we at least agree that Governor Palin is the victim of a crime?

  63. I’ve noticed a trend lately, that most of the “Fox anchors” have begun to question, and argue with O’Reilly, and stick to their points. There’s no question before that they were expected to let him win before, right or wrong.

    Has that policy been rescinded? Is Fox trying to hang their warden, as Machiavelli suggested?

    It looks like they are trying to re-establish their credibility amongst their main body, while isolating the pundits. I’m sure if McCain wins, they’ll go back to business as usual, but if Obama wins they might adjust their tactics to stay popular. Hmm.

  64. Between the right putting douches like this on TV, and the left living in a fantasyland of nonissues like the “torture” the three-squares-a-day-for-the-first-time-in-their-lives treatment detainees are receiving

    You should start watching the douches. Something tells me you’d really enjoy their point of view.

  65. Is is that because she’s a conservative, and not a privacy advocate, that no one here cares about Sarah Palin’s privacy rights? Can we at least agree that Governor Palin is the victim of a crime?

    Sure, in the same sense that if I had evidence related to a crime that I refused to give to the authorities, and that evidence was stolen by a private citizen.

    You might not be aware that the email account in question is involved in the ongoing abuse of power investigation of Palin. It contain(ed) email related to official Alaska state business, and Palin refused to make it available to investigators.

  66. Correct me (or forgive me) if I’m wrong, but I thought newspaper organizations, in print or online, ARE held liable if they use material that was illegally obtained – or is that only if the material used concerns defamation?

    They can only be held liable if they had some role in illegally obtaining the material in the first place. If a burglar breaks into the white house and finds proof that the president eats babies, then the New York Times is allowed to follow the story afterward.

    Defamation is another issue involving communication of a statement that makes a false claim. That would only apply if a news organization made a damaging statement that was either a lie or showed willful disregard for the truth.

  67. hey PHIKUS, you should talk to Pat Benatar about the phase tough cookie. then you might try getting off your shelf and living the rest of your life considering that there are no absolutes. maybe have a cup of tea. oh and getting back to the thread. vote bill o’rilee 08 yada yada yada…

  68. “I’m sure this hacker is already in handcuffs.”

    Really Bill? Really? Someone needs to tell this blithering buffoon how the internet works! Guess what you can fake an IP! Or better yet find an unsecured wifi and go from there! Anonymous and the /b/tards may be immature but they are NOT idiots!

  69. Bill O’Reilly isn’t paid to make sense. He’s paid to make viewers watch.

    One way to do that, with Fox News’ demographic, is to incite people into taking action that feels good. O’Reilly knows he’s incorrect, and he doesn’t care.

    He’s assuming the role that he thinks viewers want from him: a champion who will defend a Republican candidate who is the victim of an illegal act (hacking an e-mail account) – regardless of how her own incompetence made her vulnerable to the act – by calling, tacitly or explicitly, for changes to the laws to make what is now considered inordinate, illegal prosecution of Web sites that post the information acceptable.

    It’s like your buddy being robbed, so in response, you call on the government to jail the robber AND all witnesses who talked to others about watching that act.

    It sounds good to law-and-order people whose stance is that nobody should derive amusement from a violation of the law, but it’s impractical and unethical, and constitutional, to enforce.

  70. I’m pretty sure the first amendment doesn’t cover illegally gaining access to someone else’s computer system (including email), Mark.

    Also, the first amendment doesn’t apply in any way to the people publishing the emails (wikileaks) because they’re not located in the U.S. So you can’t claim its protection.

  71. Never debate with a Cylon.

    My favorite part of this segment is when he says something unbelievably clueless and she just looks up in disgust as if to say “lord, give me strength” before responding.

  72. Every Commentary/Discussion/Arguement ever made by BoR summed up in one paragraph:

    (Please note that BoR will interject this speech after every word you say so by the time you have said “Hi glad to be here” he will have gone through this entire spiel at least 5 times)

    “No! No! No! No! No! You’re wrong! You Sir are Wrong! No! No! No! You are not right! No! No! No! No! You are Wrong Sir! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! No!”

  73. I’m glad Fox likes to put people on who hold there own against O’Reilly. It is much more informative than Olberman and MSNBC where everyone treats Olberman like god and nobody stands up against his demagoguery.

  74. Wow, she’s a Fox news anchor? I mean, she’s paid by Fox and I actually agree with her? What is happening to the world?

  75. since it’s impossible to reason with O’Reilly, the only way to win an argument with him is to make fun of him. watch him try to interview Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Colbert especially. I bet a few members of O’Reilly’s staff got their marching orders after that one.

  76. B.O. isn’t stupid or clueless – he is stubborn. If he was willing to listen to what Kelly was saying about the law, he would be able to understand it. The key is, the information does not fit with what he perceives to be the truth, and thus he dismisses it as incorrect. Someone who is stupid or clueless is potentially capable of learning, but someone who refuses to listen cannot be taught.

  77. Watching this just makes me sad. Here you have, whether you like him or not, a very influential and highly watched new anchor, who fundamentally misunderstand the freedom of the press. And we wonder why the media didn’t do a better job questioning the government over Iraq.

  78. So, it occurs to me that the weirder thing about this news story than O’Reilly being pigheaded in his opinion is that Fox News have apparently assigned their attorney/journalist to seek out and prosecute a private citizen for an alleged crime that was committed against someone with no official affiliation with the news organisation.

    Does that strike anyone else as remarkable?

  79. I have to say the words “Fox” and “news” don’t really belong in the same sentence.

    Bill O’Reilly is a poster child for everything about Fox News that is destructive to America:

    1.) He encourages many of the worst aspects of arguing, such as shouting over people when they’re trying to talk, and bullying them down. It’s a bit like watching a miscreant 13-year-old talking back to their parents when they find out they’re grounded for a month. What’s worse is he isn’t the only person on Fox who does this. (How on Earth did “Crossfire” ever make it onto the air?)

    2.) He shoots off his mouth so frequently and so famously as to make Pat Buchanan’s most horrendous statements look tame by comparison. The difference is, Rupert Murdoch is paying Bill to say these things and attract ratings.

    3.) Fox has been cynically capitalizing on the notion that offensive TV makes for good ratings to keep this on the air. By virtue of this, Bill’s paranoid opinions end up getting inserted into the political dialogue of America by default.

    4.) In some of the most backwoods parts of the US, Fox is the main source of news. Considering this, it’s no surprise that people even now think W Bush is a great man, and that Bill O’Reilly is looked upon by the most isolated and ignorant followers of Falwell as being in the same league as Larry King.

    It seems to me, Fox has fast become a harbinger of America’s destruction. Mr. Murdoch does not seem to care if he destroys America. And the ignorant pawns of the religious right will never know what they’re doing until the damage is irreversible.

  80. I have to say, here’s a tip of the hat to Megan Kelly for standing up against one of the largest media giants on her own network. She was probably fired after that, so here here.


  81. Well said Jack, we’re surrounded by places where fox news is on all day, every day.

    They can’t let the US fail, they need us, wer’re the USArmy, USNavy, USMC, & USCG. They’re extending their hand, they’re going to reform the US.

  82. Um… Murdoch has heaped praise on Obama and called McCain “unpredictable”…

    He also hosted a fundraiser for Hillary back in 2006 for her Senate race.

    A guy as rich as Murdoch will stay rich whether a commie, liberal, conservative or libertarian is in charge.

    Also I know it’s hard when liberals are used to news and editorial being in the same paragraph, but O’Reilly heads the editorial block… BoR, Hannity/Colmes, Great are not and never have been “news” — they are opinion journalism — always have been and have never been advertised as anything else. I don’t watch that much FOX, but even a cursory glance at that lineup shows it’s not objective news — as if there were such a thing.

  83. #97:
    Can’t BillO be stupid, clueless, and stubborn?

    Is This Lawyer Megyn Kelly’s “Lord Give Me Strength” look?

    I can see BillO arguing, why two homonyms aren’t the same thing:
    “But they’re the same thing!”
    “Yes, they’re pronounced the same way, but… ”
    “You’re wrong! They’re the same!”
    “To the ear, of course, they sound the same, but they represent different–”
    “No no no no no. You’re wrong. They’re the same. Give you the last word.”

  84. You know they’re not news, seems we know they’re not news, but there’re a few million out there who would srongly disagree.

  85. O’Reilly doesn’t seem to have considered that there could be a distinction between what he believes is wrong and what is illegal under US law…

    Then again, how ~could~ a true patriot countenance such a thought.

  86. I don’t Sammich… ask John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln (and FDR). True patriots contemplate a lot of things whn they perceive a real threat.

    I’m not comparing O’Reilly to them (he is far from it obviously), but if it’s wrong for him to question his enemies’ patriotism, isn’t the opposite true?

  87. Floyd T @ 109 – You don’t consider that there could be a distinction between what you believe is wrong and what is illegal under US law?

  88. Please don’t link to the same thing more than once.

    Maybe there’s a better place to ask the question, but if so it’s not obvious to me. So…

    Why not?

    I understand why you’d not want spamming of comments with the same link over and over again.

    But each of my messages was in fact a legitimately new point. Providing the same link in each is not only a matter of convenience with no harm to the forum, it avoids making the assumption that every person reading has read in detail every single message posted.

    I don’t know about you, but I have been known to skim past some messages. Usually this is a good thing for me, but I admit…it does occasionally cause me to miss something important or useful.

    So what happens now, if someone skims past the first post I made, seeing only the Al Franken mention but not realizing there’s an actual URL link somewhere that can take them to an interesting and useful web site?

    There’s a reason the “foolish consistencies…” aphorism exists. :)

    1. Because it’s a conversation, not a soapbox. If your comments are sufficiently scintillating, readers will follow your links.

  89. Sammich… a LOT of things that are legal are also morally wrong. I don’t think Gawker should be prosecuted (and I bet BOR doesn’t either — he’s just bloviating — especially if he thought through the consequences of such action on all forms of journalism), but neither do I think they are “right” morally. They are well within the law under every case going back to at least the Pentagon Papers decision.

    I don’t have a problem with the hacker going to the Fed pen. Fraud and theft carry consequences. People of “principle” (and I would doubt his, but that’s a political debate and I don’t know the hacker) suffer consequences. Private e-mails should be protected by law.

    But I think lots of sincerely wrong folks are patriots. I don’t think Barack Obama hates America. I think a lot his policies are bad for our country, but I give him the respect of right motive if not right policy. This country is based on the ideal of civil discourse. That’s what so distressing about the Bushhitler crowd (and the Clinton is a drug fealer/murderer crowd back in the 1990s).

  90. #68 but wouldn’t the fact that the “hacker” simply followed the prescribed tests for password retrieval then make him/her an authorized user? To the system he/she was authorized through security questions as having the right to be there. It’s sort of like the person who enters a house without permission but the front door is open, is it breaking and entering or just trespassing?

  91. Because it’s a conversation, not a soapbox. If your comments are sufficiently scintillating, readers will follow your links.

    They will? How can they? They can’t follow a link they don’t see.

    I don’t get it. If you have a logical explanation, it hasn’t been explained adequately. Saying that users will click on links they never see seems especially fallacious.

    I don’t see the harm in allowing the link more than once, and there’s a clear disadvantage to not doing so.

    If I were promoting my own web site, and especially if I were doing so without contributing anything new to the conversation, I could see the point behind your complaint. But I’m not guilty of either.

    That said, you obviously have the right to set whatever parameters on posting that you like, no matter how arbitrary or meaningless. I admit, I wish it was possible for you to explain the policy in a way that made sense. But even though it seems not be, I will refrain from linking to the same URL more than once.

  92. FloydT @ 116

    I think we,re talking at cross purposes, probably due to my first clumsy comment…

    I just meant to say that I felt O’Reilly was getting caught up arguing for what he felt was right, i.e. that the recipients of the stolen emails were in the wrong as much as the original hacker, and that he seemed unable to accept that they weren’t therefore culpable under US law.
    At the same time, he himself seems all to ready to accuse his fellow Americans of not loving their country if they question either the laws/policies/actions of the US state, or HIS own idea of what is right for the US.

    I may be wrong…

  93. FloydT @ 116
    Also, thanks for adding “bloviating” to my vocabulary – cool word :O)
    Bloviate = “to speak pompously and excessively,” or “to expound ridiculously.” – for those still learning, like me.

  94. Billy O is Fox network’s main man because of reactions like the one’s that have been posted here. Those who adore him love him all the more because of reactions like these from those who hate him. He is the ultimate lightning rod. There appears to be no middle ground with this man, you either love him or you hate him. The best way to deal with Billy O? Ignore him. The less hoopla that revolves around him, the less impact he makes. The less impact he makes, the higher probability that Fox loses interest.

  95. Let’s not give these guys too much credit. They weren’t “hacking”, just answering Palin’s security questions. They were “breaking in” to her e-mail account after a fashion, but her questions were so stupid and easy that it’s

    Somebody cannot be prosecuted for spreading information, however it was obtained. Information cannot be “stolen”, Bill’s stupid analogies aside, because it is infinitely duplicable. He plainly doesn’t understand technology and law.

  96. SONNY@87: Hey, I was just expressing my opinion, dude. The others that posted on the sexism or non-sexism of the comment seem agree with me on the criteria.

    I would entertain the idea that the difference may be a regional thing, as to the colloquialism’s tendencies to be applied to either gender, if one were to engage me in a polite discussion about it, which it would seem you are not. The rest of your assumptions are unnecessarily callous and presumptive; worthy of someone who espouses proof from Pat Benetar lyrics, relying on the “absolute” certainty that she wrote those words to a guy. Even if this is the case, it proves nothing in so much as it may still be a regional usage, being only a single instance.

    Maybe you know better though. Maybe only Bill O’Reilly, his disciples, and Benetar fans use that term anymore.

  97. have you ever seen the documentary outfoxed. bill answers a letter from someone who mentions how it would be better if he didnt tell his guests to shut up and he is like ive never told anyone to shut up. then it like flashes back to him telling tons of people to shut up. there are similar things on youtube about obama and mccain. i just cant pull myself to vote for a lesser of two evils scenario you know. if this were like a true democracy we would have trouble deciding which to choose cause they are both so awesome.

  98. How nice it would be to have a Dennis Kucinich vs Ron Paul vs 3 or 4 other candidates election. How can we oust the blow-hards, instead of making the pie higher?

  99. I only watch Fox because it’s the most entertaining propaganda outlet. Looking at O.B. just about makes me physically ill, though. He’s always wearing so much make up he looks like a court dandy.

    Megyn Kelly is a sexy beast.

  100. It always bothers me that how little the people on my side of the political spectrum grasp tech. I’ve got Mr Bill Hacking is Teh Evils O’Reilly, Sentor Ted Series of Tubes Stevens, and more. God helps us if these types ever pick a side on net neutrality or internet taxation.

  101. That boy is mental. I’ve seen some of his other stuff. But if your not British, check out Jeremy Paxman. He would eat O’Reilly alive, because generally he is supported by facts.



    [pounds sand while surf washes over feet]

  103. Pathological narcissists will always bend any issue to finally be about themselves. That’s all his behavior reflects. Everything that enters his world must be given the O’Reilly imprimatur. How monotonous for the rest of us.

  104. Hey Sutra, see GRIMC #6.

    No follow up on the O’Reilly hack? that was my big laugh in a pretty heavy news day, yesterday.

  105. Fox news as a whole is a joke. Their reporters so constantly report their own ‘opinions’ as if they were facts that I don’t even watch them anymore. It’s pointless.

    Being a TV reporter/producer myself, and priding myself on ethics and sticking to the facts, I take particular offense to how Fox gives good reporters a bad name.

  106. That’s the thing with O’Reilly and his right-wing ilk. They already possess all knowledge, and no one can contribute anything further to their perfect understanding of “their” world.

    “Only a fool knows everything. A wise man knows how little he knows.”

  107. Re #1’s comment and other following it wondering how we got so far afield. How people just shout at each other now with derision. As my previous hobby consisted of arguing right-wingers on line, the answer I got for their disdain, their need to not give anyone’s opinion credence or respect is:

    the opinion of anyone opposed to them was so childish, ill-informed, stupid, that they shouldn’t have to pretend it gets respect.

    “Would you give someone respect who argued that the world is flat?” they would say. “No, but I grit my teeth and try to listen to you tell me it’s 4000 years old,” I would think to myself and spare another bio-genesis, carbon 14-dating argument.

    The other factor in the divide and ferocity of opinions is the legislatures being thoroughly overun by attorneys, and the law takes an adverserial position. Listen to the prosecutor — the defendant is the devil. Listen to the defense — his client is Christ. The stakes are high, no one wants to lose.

    Then throw this in — right-winger’s opinions are tied into their religion, so there’s a fervor not to lose — you could be letting your god and church down. They’ve co-opted this argument with their new one “science people adapt science as their god and thus can’t be reasoned with” …

  108. @#113 HarveyBoing

    Please don’t link to the same thing more than once.

    Maybe there’s a better place to ask the question, but if so it’s not obvious to me. So…

    Why not?

    Because of the potential for abuse (link spamming), and the hassle it causes the moderators, removing all silly and/or unnecessary and/or duplicate links. Same reason that people’s personal sites go in their profile.

    If your earlier link is still relevant to the new point you’re making, just reference your earlier post (“See my previous comment”); you could even provide the post # if you wanted to be super-nice to those reading your scintillating comments (as Antinious says).

    @#145 BBNinja (What’s with all the “Boing” related names. it’s not like you’re all commenting off site somewhere :) )

    Being a TV reporter/producer myself, and priding myself on ethics and sticking to the facts, I take particular offense to how Fox gives good reporters a bad name.

    How do you expect to make any money here? Surely that’s really where the game’s at. Benjamins.

  109. 27, “where are all the o’reilly trolls? wow , 24 comments and not a single one espousing his right to his pig-ignorant point of view. he should be tried for treason for what he and fox news has done to this country.”

    thy’r nt pstng bcs thy gr wth y. rprtng th nws s th sm s trsn. nspt f hs shtng, bll ‘rlly s mr cnsstnt nd mks mr sns thn nyn hr, nd ‘m nt th nly n wh thnks s.

  110. Also, Re: Yay Megan Kelly

    She certainly seemed somewhat disappointed that the sites in question should be immune from legal or civil suit, and certainly nodded right along with Billy’O when he accused them of, what was it, “trafficking in stolen merchandise.” MK: “Yeah, they are.”

    Good to shoot down Bill, but not the greatest explanation, seeing as she generally agreed with him. “I don’t like it either,” etc. At least she understands how the law actually works.

  111. @#152 A Frozen,

    thank you for contributing some levity to what would otherwise be a horribly serious situation.

  112. minTphresh,

    What on earth would have made you think that it was a good idea to jump up and down in the middle of the bridge?

  113. @156 “What on earth would have made you think that it was a good idea to jump up and down in the middle of the bridge?”

    Unsavory habits tend to crop up in communities that are overwhelmingly of one side of the political spectrum. When you have post after post of “lets laugh at stupid conservatives” comments its only a matter of time before you start seeing the worst of both sides: Annoyingly loud and ignorant defenders of of right wing policy, and leftist snarks who love nothing more than poking at the monkey in the cage.

    I think BB fares much better most places on the internet in keeping the partisanship polite, but some people just want to see sparks fly.

  114. Bush’s Conservatives/ McCain’s Base – people who have twice voted for GWB; have listened to this shit for twelve fking years; viciously support their leader, whom they see as the victim of a traitorous opposition, in time of war no less; even those who feel W&Co have made serious mistakes will not speak out against the war, only that it should have been done differently; in the end they are defined by voting their values, which are under attack.

    Nothing short of a confession and apology from W will ever provide them an out from their inflexible, peer pressure filled positions. The bridges are burned, they can’t change horses, its sink or swim.

    Additionally, many people wouldn’t vote for a non-white for any office; they have other names for Obama.

    McCain could win, Palin could become president, Bill has over 3 million radio listeners.

  115. yep. Which might be a good thing in the end. A full blown global depression, a semi contained nuclear war, the final loss of ALL civil rights – yeah, maybe then the average moron might wake up.

  116. #127

    What is you looked under a door mat and the spare key was there, you used it to enter, would that be breaking and entering? Seems like this situation is similar to that.

  117. we are talking about a news station that was hand fed it’s talking points every morning by the bush administration itsownself! sorry anti, but this bear needs poking. AFROZEN is entitled to his ignance. but, not only would i love to see that , but i would love to see this ENTIRE admin ( foxnewz, cheney,rummy,rice,bechtold corp, halliburton, kbr,mpri, blackwater security, diebold, tiger ent., pnac, both geo. bushes, the carlyle group, etc, etc, ad nauseum…) brought before a neutral court and tried for war crimes. a fair trial, then hang ’em! and i know i’m not the only one who thinks so!

  118. Yikes! That’s dark, Takuan. Which is not to say that I haven’t considered the ex-pat path myself (trying to dodge some of the worst of it), but I reconsidered when I thought about how ex-pats might be treated following your scenario.

    Aw, man. Now I need a drink. This is all Bill O’Reilly’s fault…

  119. 1 To every thing there is a season, and a time
    to every purpose under the heaven:
    2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time
    to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is
    3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to
    break down, and a time to build up;
    4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time
    to mourn, and a time to dance;
    5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather
    stones together; a time to embrace, and a time
    to refrain from embracing;
    6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to
    keep, and a time to cast away;
    7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to
    keep silence, and a time to speak;
    8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of
    war, and a time of peace.

  120. #161:
    This “breaking and entering” analogy is starting to become just as strained as Bill’s.

    Suffice to say that experts agree it’s quite illegal to pretend to be someone else for the purpose of accessing their private email without permission, even if that person has easy-to-guess security questions.

  121. this frustrates me so much

    As a proud conservative I am appalled by Bill O’Reilly constantly.

    Should the Hacker get jail time? Of course. But these websites are invulnerable here. As they well should be. While I haven’t yet decided if the full force of the 1st Amendment applies here, the fact remains the same, you can’t send these people to Jail for publishing something that was leaked.

    I’m so sick of seen my Republican Party standing on the wrong side of these sort of issues. Do I think it was appropriate for these sites to carry the info? No. Do I think they did anything criminal? No. But it’s bad enough that people like O’Reilly support the Patriot Act, and claim to stand for freedom.

    One final thing… STOP Calling Him a Hacker! For the sake of all us Hackers call him a Cracker or a Black-Hat Hacker!

  122. Th frst mndmnt ds nt gv ndvdls th rght t nvd n prvt ml ccnts nd splttr th cntnts crss th wb.

    nd gr wth ll cmmnts tht pnt t th typs f spprtrs bm hs r xctly f ths lw bs brn mndlss lk. nd th cmmnts tht pnt t hd th sttn bn rvrsd, th md wld hv crtnly sd nthng nd lt t d, nd pssbly cndmnd th llgl ctns f th prptrtr.

  123. You know, before I say this let me state I hate O’Reilly, so much I forbid myself to watch antyhing from him lest I go into a fit and have to end up at a hospital..

    But what I find a little amusing here right now is that among all the “He doesn’t believes in the first amendment!” posts there are a lot of “Why is he in the airwaves?” and “He shouldn’t be on TV” posts…… Pretty ironic.

    I’ll remind you of a good phrase to live by, even if it’s hard for one at times (and I know, sometimes I need a lot of effort to stick to it myself) “I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”

  124. I’ve been watching a series of O’Reilly clips on YouTube and noticed how often he:
    – Doesn’t listen to the interviewed person
    – Gets angry/screams at the interviewed person
    – Insists on his opinion despite being given new information which has the potential to make him change that opinion.

    I also noticed how quickly he condemns others who get angry and express similar agressive behavior to his own.

    And finally, I find it odd how all right-wing people have exactly the same opinions on the same topics, whereas left-wingers tend to have a variety of different opinions on the same topics.

  125. @170 – “I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”

    I would never deny Bill his rights.

    His soapbox, however….

  126. “Also I know it’s hard when liberals are used to news and editorial being in the same paragraph”

    At least I got to read something on this here thang with a redneck accent. Didn’t you mean LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! or at least “lib’ruhls”?

  127. exactly of this low base born mindless ilk

    Yes, it’s because they were “born” that way. Their mindlessness is as natural and indelible as…the color of their skin.

    Why not just come out and say what you really mean?

  128. Oreily cares about Oreily and will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to keep his job or to set himself up for the future. He cares not about the people or the country. Most of his interviews are shallow. You find yourself saying, “what’s the point” after watching his interviews.

  129. Whatever Bill’s motives, either not to sound wrong on air or to deliberately spread false information, he pretty consistently seems put that goal first before actually disseminating facts to his audience.

    Yeah. What a douche.

  130. The guy is Bill O’Reilly. What did you expect? That he would sit patiently and listen? He’s an obnoxious loud meathead and he always will be.

  131. So now that the CTunnel guy has given the info to the FBI, it’s moot, right? Did he not know or care that according to the woman talking to O’Reilly he could have denied this info about the anonymous person who stole the data and posted it to the web using his anonymous posting service?

    That’s what is being said, right?

  132. if there is an arrest made in this case, please post an address for his/her legal fund. i would definitely like to donate.

  133. since it’s impossible to reason with O’Reilly, the only way to win an argument with him is to make fun of him. watch him try to interview Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Colbert especially. I bet a few members of O’Reilly’s staff got their marching orders after that one.

    Oh man, thank you for recommending that.

    I looked for a clip of Colbert on O’Reilly’s show and even someone in the studio burst into laughter at one point.

Comments are closed.