Rachel Maddow Mocks Bill O’Reilly

Rachel Maddow had a hilarious segment about Bill O’Reilly and his problems telling the truth. She notes that when they contacted Fox for a statement about the blatant JFK investigation lie, they sent her a statement talking about how great his ratings are. As if that has any relevance.

httpv://youtu.be/UhgoOVZPEzA

"Gee, i musta missed the part where Ed said it was against the constitution. Maybe ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"Sarah Who? Oh her... had forgotten all about that particular word salad waitress."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
""Either she has absolute idiots for attorneys and they’re telling her she has some chance ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Trebuchet

    She notes that when they contacted Fox for a statement about the blatant JFK investigation lie, they sent her a statement talking about how great his ratings are. As if that has any relevance.

    On the contrary, the ratings are the ONLY thing having any relevance for Fox.

  • llewelly

    She notes that when they contacted Fox for a statement about the blatant JFK investigation lie, they sent her a statement talking about how great his ratings are. As if that has any relevance.

    In other words, Fox News is saying “ha ha, our total dishonesty is much more profitable than your reporting.”

  • Loqi

    His ratings are completely relevant in their minds. Their goal is to make money, not inform. It’s like a homeopath pointing to his profits when confronted with data that his product is just a sugar pill. They measure success using a very different metric.

  • hardindr

    Are Rachel’s claims about her past any more honest? One wonders…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000992307521 Cheron

    Maybe the car he was going to get was a Delorean so that he could get down to Florida the previous day.

  • Alverant

    Last week some troll on RawStory was going on about how high Billo’s ratings were going to be. I like what llewelly said, “Our lies are more profitable than your truth!”

  • scienceavenger

    “Our lies are more profitable than your truth!”

    Which is probably why they went to so much trouble to establish their legal right to tell them.

  • colnago80

    Re hardindr @#4

    The Daily Caller is about as reliable a source of information as Pravda and Izvestia were under the Soviet regime. They’re right up there with Breitbart and Stormfront.

  • scienceavenger

    @4 Surely you can’t seriously think that’s remotely relevant, or in the slightest bit similar. Its remarkable how far conservatives will stretch things to draw strained comparions in attempts to deflect attention away from the sins of their people. If you aren’t a conservative partisan, my apologies, but you sound exactly like them.

  • Numenaster

    hardindr #4, I looked at your link. It seems to spend an inordinate amount of effort wondering if Maddow is really a good or a poor shot and how accurate her story is of her first date with her wife. Apparently you are not familiar with the concept of a personal life and how it differs from a professional one. Here’s a hint: differences of the kind you outlined are trivial in a personal life because they affect the outcome of exactly nothing. Whereas Mr. O’Reilly has made statements of fact about things he allegedly observed as a reporter, which he could not have actually observed, and he made these claims ABOUT his professional life and in the course of his on-air commentary.

  • raven

    The Daily Caller is about as reliable a source of information as Pravda and Izvestia were under the Soviet regime. They’re right up there with Breitbart and Stormfront.

    Hardinar just vaporized his credibility. Or would if he had any.

    The Daily Caller is a lunatic fringe site.

    Right up there with Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, Rick Wiles, or Fox NoNews.

  • Chiroptera

    Holy crap! People read hardindr’s link and actually understood what it was trying to say?

  • scienceavenger

    @11 I thought “right up there with Breitbart” about covered it.

  • http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com SC (Salty Current)

    #4 – That post is hilarious. I’m not convinced it’s not a parody.

    Did Maddow tell Baird that she had Olympic dreams even as a senior in high school? We’ll guess that she did not.

    Why would they guess that? Plenty of athletic kids dream – in some cases realistically – of becoming professional athletes or Olympians in high school (and earlier).

  • raven

    Did Maddow tell Baird that she had Olympic dreams even as a senior in high school? We’ll guess that she did not.

    Whoever wrote that is claiming to be able to read the mind of someone backwards in time by 20 or so years. It simply isn’t possible.

    Lying or delusions of superpowers? Who knows, who cares. It’s gibberish.

  • caseloweraz

    That hit piece at the Daily Howler is absurd from the git-go. The headline reads “WHO IS RACHEL MADDOW: A hint of Pyongyang! ” Normally, that would convey the idea that Rachel Maddow has some connection to Pyongyang. Perhaps the article would assert that she’s actually a citizen of North Korea and we should ask to see her birth certificate.

    But no! The author is on about Maddow making overstated claims, like Kim Il-Sung. On reading the piece one sees the claims were invented by him (with one possible exception; but I’m disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

  • http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com SC (Salty Current)

    It’s just so grasping and silly. It’s not like she said she was on a direct and inevitable path to Olympic glory, or that the US Olympic volleyball coach was coming to her high-school games. Or like she didn’t actually play any sports. She just said she wanted to do that and dreamed of it.*

    And most of the profile they obsessively analyze seems to involve claims that others made about her, in any case. (I hate those sorts of born-to-greatness profiles in general – “You could already see the signs of inherent superiority from their precociousness at four! And they would have been successful in almost any endeavor!” – but they’re very common in our culture.)

    *She actually did claim on last night’s show to be a semi-pro drinker. :)

  • xuuths

    hardindr #4, I, too, looked at your link.

    Let’s see . . . it is a fact that Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar — which she never brings up on her show. It is a fact that Maddow has a doctorate — and yet she never goes by Dr. Maddow. It is a fact that she has won all kinds of awards — which she also never brings up on her show.

    Seems to me that she just isn’t the kind of person who likes to brag about herself. So, in her own mind, perhaps she isn’t as good a shot as she could be if she devoted herself to it, so she downplays her skill. Many high performers are like that. They compare themselves against their best possible results.

    Your link author clearly is jealous because they’re an wannabe, and don’t have any talent or ability, so they have to try and insult someone who is clearly successful on her merits. It doesn’t reflect well on them.

  • raven

    It’s just so grasping and silly.

    Of course it is.

    Who hasn’t had huge numbers of dreams, impossible or not?

    Who doesn’t still have some?

    Mine change all the time. The latest dream is that some day I will live in a USA that has the lunatic fringers like Fox NoNews or The Daily Pearl Clutcher where they belong. On the fringes, not running the place.

  • felidae

    SOP For Billious O’reilly: start with the ad populum attack–“I have the highest ratings”, follow up with the ad honimem–” So and So is a dirty lying, guttersnipe , far-left liberal, attacking our American exceptionalism and our whole way of life ” without directly addressing the issue at hand

  • dan4

    @8 and @11: It’s actually the Daily HOWLER, run by Bob Somerby, a liberal. I think @8 needs some reading glasses, since he or she was only able to read the “daily” part of “daily howler” and, thus, automatically came up with “That’s from the Daily Caller, a conservative rag!”