Billo also uses the “out of context” crap AGAIN, and as usual, does not show a clip of the context to prove his point
by Larry Simons
September 9, 2008
On yesterday’s telecast of FOX News’ #1 comedy, The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo sends out his favorite stalker/producer Jessie Waters to ambush the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Cynthia Tucker, at her home. What has Billo seething in his chair? The simple fact that Tucker wrote a column criticizing Loofah boy for his double standard in his reporting of the Jamie Lynn Spears/Bristol Palin pregnancies.
In short, Billo criticized the Spears family for Jamie Lynn’s pregnancy at age 16, saying there was no supervision. When it comes to Bristol Palin’s pregnancy at age 17, Billo seems to be completely nonjudgmental and impartial, stating there is “no proof” Bristol was not supervised.
Here is a portion of the dialogue between stalker Jessie Waters and Cynthia Tucker:
Jessie the Stalker: It seems like you’re comparing the Spears family to the Palin family. Is that true?
Tucker: I believe that I was criticizing Bill O’ Reilly. That’s what I was doing..and I stand by that criticism.
Jessie the Stalker: So, you’re comparing the Spears family to the Palin family?
Tucker: I believe that I was criticizing Bill O’ Reilly…and I stand by that.
Jessie the Stalker: You know there’s a difference here. You know Britney Spears and her sister were running wild with no parental supervision, and what evidence do you have that this was the case with Bristol Palin?
Tucker: I said nothing about Bristol Palin running wild…… what I inferred is that Bill O’ Reilly is a hypocrite.
Jessie the Stalker: Why? Why is he a hypocrite?
Tucker: I am going now in the house to finish my Saturday chores. Thank you gentlemen.
Watch the clip
Let me just point out the one part of this dialogue that hit me like a truck. Waters says, “You know Britney Spears and her sister were running wild with no parental supervision.” Hey Einstein, isn’t that usually how a teenage girl gets pregnant? Lack of supervision? Once again, the FOX News right-wing buffoons expect the people that are NOT religious (nor claim to be) to practice the higher standard.
Then Waters says, “what evidence do you have that his was the case with Bristol Palin?” Hmmm, let me think about this one for a second…oh yeah, you want the evidence? Uhhh, she’s PREGNANT! Billo and his goons want it both ways. They want to blame the Spears parents for their lack of supervision AND being a wild, out-of-control bunch, because if this was only an issue of poor supervision, then the Palin family is guilty as charged too!
Billo makes the exact same comment in his talking points memo (clip above) that “of course, there is no evidence that the Governor’s children are unsupervised”. So, Billo, you’re saying that Bristol may have been supervised? Did she fuck her boyfriend in the middle of the living room floor in front of the entire family? Now that beats reality TV! Doesn’t a pregnancy at age 17 and being unmarried constitute the very definition of “unsupervised?”
Billo then moves on to show a segment of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart where Stewart exposes the blatant hypocrisy of Bill O ‘Reilly (as I pointed out in the previous post) and after the clip, all O’ Reilly says is “8 out-of-context edits Jon…way to go… unbelievable.”
No, Billo, what is unbelievable is the fact that time and time again you keep using your failed “out of context” defense and nearly 100% of time you NEVER, EVER play for your comatose viewers the FULL context so they can see just what exactly you did say! It’s your show Billo. You can do whatever you want. So, why not show us the complete context of what you DID say? Why? Someone who was really pissed off would have re-aired the entire segment to show exactly where he was taken out of context. Nope. Proving his point is just not O' Reilly's style.
I will tell you why you Billo doesn’t show the full contexts. Because in most cases (if not all) where if he would show the complete context, his viewers would see that 1) The whole context did not shed any new light on what was presented in the edits or 2) Billo’s complete context is actually worse than the edited piece. He also knows that the zombies that watch his show never investigate anything, so when O’ Reilly shows a clip of someone editing him and he cries, “Out of context! Out of Context!”, his viewers actually believe that what is being edited out is something that would actually change the overall context.
Billo has been known on several occasions to play portions of his own context, but leaving out major incriminating parts, as I pointed out here.
Turns out, I found the complete context from the clips above that Jon Stewart edited. That’s right folks, isn’t amazing that you have to visit my site to get the complete contexts of Billo’s words? This is the dialogue IN FULL from Billo’s talking points memo from September 3, 2008:
Now, for the fair-minded media, this is a tough one. Certainly the public has a right to know about Governor Palin's life, and there are legitimate questions about her family's situation, but Americans are very protective of families in general. So the questions have to be fair and balanced. So does the analysis.
But fair is a word that ideological press people will never understand. Here's an example. Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, race-baiting columnist Mary Mitchell, who along with Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post are the worst in applying race to just about everything, said this:
"When an unmarried 17-year-old comes up pregnant on the South Side of Chicago, Republicans don't make it sound like a beautiful thing. They call it tragic and a moral failure, and they often blame the teen's parents… Conservatives like Palin have been hard on young, unwed, pregnant women in urban areas. Maybe now that she is in the same boat, they'll show a little more compassion."
Well that of course is brutally unfair. Critics of teen pregnancies have a perfect right to put forth that if children give birth to children, many bad things can happen, like society having to support both mother and child, like children being unsupervised because there's no father in the home, like mothers and fathers being emotionally unequipped to raise their children responsibly. Those are legitimate concerns, even if Ms. Mitchell spins it as a race situation, which it is not.
Millions of American families are dealing with teenage pregnancy. And as long as society doesn't have to support the mother, father or baby, it is a personal matter. Once the taxpayers do have to support the young family, it becomes a public policy matter.
It is true that some Americans will judge Governor Palin and her family. There's nothing anyone can do about it. And it's also true that Governor Palin will have a hard time running for vice president if there is much more family chaos.
So the governor is approaching the chaos zone, and John McCain can't be very happy about that. For the sake of her and her family, we hope things calm down. This country needs a vibrant policy debate, not a soap opera.
After reading this I quickly discovered why Billo didn’t re-air it. Because once again, his own context was worse than the edited piece done by Stewart.
These are the portions not found in Stewart’s edited piece that Billo did not want his zombies to see (with my analysis in purple):
“…Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post are the worst in applying race to just about everything, said this:
"When an unmarried 17-year-old comes up pregnant on the South Side of Chicago, Republicans don't make it sound like a beautiful thing. They call it tragic and a moral failure, and they often blame the teen's parents.”
(Yes they do blame the teen’s parents. You’re CORRECT Eugene. This is EXACTLY what Billo did to the Spears family….blamed the parents. This is why he didn’t re-air his own context)
“Critics of teen pregnancies have a perfect right to put forth that if children give birth to children, many bad things can happen, like society having to support both mother and child, like children being unsupervised because there's no father in the home, like mothers and fathers being emotionally unequipped to raise their children responsibly.”
(Or the grandmother of the child having to raise it because the mother is overwhelmed. If McCain is elected, how much time will Sarah Palin have for this? Not much. But you didn’t want to mention that, did you Billo?)
One of the biggest issues in this entire story (that I've not heard any pundits or political humorists talk about) is actually in favor of the Spears family. If the Spears family has a meltdown and begin to resemble guests on the Jerry Springer Show, who cares? None of the people in that household have anything to do with running this country. If McCain is elected, Palin will hold the 2nd highest office in the country and if her family begins to resemble the Lohans or the Osbournes, it will affect Americans in some way. If the Spears family all join the Satanic church and turn into Nazis, it affects none of us.
So, why do the right wing buffoons care about the well being of the Spears family? They don’t. The job of the O’ Reilly’s, Hannity’s, Coulters and Limbaugh’s of the world is to sit back and pose as these Christian conservative God-fearing people, when in reality they are the biggest hypocritical and Godless people on the Earth….and they actually hate our own Constitution.
Nothing makes them feel giddier than to attack others for not obeying standards that they are not bound to because they don’t profess to be religious. On the other hand, the very ones who claim to be walking in Jesus’ footsteps are racist (O’ Reilly and Limbaugh, and really ALL Neo-cons), take Oxycontin (Limbaugh), openly threaten to kill people on National TV (Coulter and O’ Reilly), sexually harass female staffers (O’ Reilly) and go nuts and shout profanities when he can’t read Teleprompters (O’ Reilly). Of course, I could name many, many more.
The ironic thing is, the above-mentioned people actually make Jamie Lynn Spears look……religious!