Video: O’Reilly reminds Mary Katharine Ham that the Internet can’t be trusted
posted at 9:08 am on January 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Rumors circulating about Obama being a Muslim? Women vloggers encouraging teen sex experimentation? Trust no one except big media, my friends. They know the difference between news and irresponsible speculation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I bet O’Reilly walked to school uphill in the snow both ways when he was a kid. And ate tree bark. He increasingly sounds like the crazy old man that shakes his cane at you and screams “get off my lawn!”
I try to avoid him.
robblefarian on January 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM
He also did his home work on the back of a shovel.
I try to catch his show often.
srhoades on January 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Especially when MKH is on
srhoades on January 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM
“If you read it on the net, just assume it’s not true.”
So that must mean everything at Billoreilly.com is a lie. Well, glad that’s cleared up.
Typhoon on January 17, 2008 at 9:18 AM
The same rule applies to The New York Times.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Fathead.
frreal on January 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Now, that I can agree with.
Why are all the stupid videologgers, with their sex-ed junk, always so ugly? Seriously, the easiest abstinence video would be: “Pre-marital sex makes you look like this lady. Be careful!”
And the car-lovin’ looked more like “I’m trying to kill my girlfriend in the back of the car.” Hilarious.
emailnuevo on January 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Critical thinking is important no matter what the source of information. Taking everything with a grain of salt is good practice. There are plenty of people who are downright dishonest. There are others whose reporting is skewed by personal bias or wishful thinking.
Always look for evidence for any claim.
backwoods conservative on January 17, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Billy hates the net because it spread his phone sex and loofah sessions far and wide. This guy is a pompous sanctimonious ass clown.
pjf626 on January 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Well, that explains the dubious characters at hotair.com ……
Thanks, Billoreilly.com !
locomotivebreath1901 on January 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Well, lets see, Obama’s father was/is Muslim. According to Muslims, the children are the religion of the father.
Hmmmm. . . Obama’s ‘Christian leader’ said that Louis Farrakhan embodied ‘greatness’, and Obama merely said that he didn’t agree with it. But he pointed to reasons why the decision would be made for his ‘Christian church’ to award a muslim anti-semite. If it had been David Duke, it would have been a no-brainer for the media.
So if we aren’t to trust anything on the internet, and I heard O’Reilly say not to trust anything on the internet while on the internet, then I’m not to trust him saying not to trust anything on the internet (yes, you can call me neo – woah).
O’Reilly still has some latent animosity for the broadcast TV stations looking down their noses at his cable TV show the same way he now looks at the internet. Of course, he has PREMIUM membership on his website ‘factor.com’ (or whatever it is) and he sells tons of merchandise and has polls over the internet. He embraces it but hates himself for it. . . sort of like the Catholic Church and pedophilia for him.
Really, O’Reilly is a sensationalist in the mold of Geraldo Rivera. He brings hot girls on and talks about sensationalist things. I don’t watch him anymore because of it. He rarely ads anything substantive to a debate.
ThackerAgency on January 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM
That’s right, Bill. We just sit around in our pyjamas typing a pack of lies. Don’t listen to us, put your trust in the professionals at CBS News, NYT, WaPo, CNN and Faux News. That’s the ticket! I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced.
infidel65 on January 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Did he mean that the internet is not to be trusted as an analyst?
Frozen Tex on January 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM
In a way he is right, I don’t trust much but the best way to go is verrify, verify and verify again
KBird on January 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM
O’Reilly is such a troll.
ronsfi on January 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM
The plain truth is anybody with internet access and some basic computer skills can go on the internet and post whatever they want. There is nothing which requires it to be true. Unlike peer reviewed scientific journals, there is no authoritative body to which the claims have to go for verification of authenticity.
Those of you who are using this as an occasion for O’Reilly bashing are ignoring the fact that he had a good point.
backwoods conservative on January 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
MKH is totally hot!
pilamaye on January 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
You can’t trust those mysterious “Interwebs”. BOO!
ronsfi on January 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Ha! “This is just a person” Jeeze BOR. So condescending. I can’t stand BOR any more. “and get all the blocks you can get” We’ll start with your head BOR.
ronsfi on January 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM
O’Reilly distrusts the net because it’s harder there for him to ask somebody a question and then step all over their answer before they can even finish it.
whitetop on January 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Does anyone under the age of 40 take O’Reilly seriously anymore?
Enrique on January 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Dude, without the internet fact checking CBS Dan Rather would still be on the air spreading his lies and agenda.
There are FACTS that might bring up concern about Obama’s Muslim heritage that the Secret Service will be well versed on in the event that he becomes president I assure you. Pointing those things out, whether on the internet or not, is about FACTS and not the medium by which it is exposed.
This whole amnesty thing would have gone through without the internet. The MSM was patting themselves on the back that they were showing the ‘bigotry’ of people against the bill. When the TRUTH was that the bill was going to rob American taxpayers of money. That TRUTH was distributed primarily over the internet.
O’Reilly does not have a point. The MSM is as susceptible to lies as any other media. It’s like guns. The guns don’t commit crimes, the people do. How about the NYT journalist who made stories up for years before he was discovered and fired a couple of years ago? It’s not either the internet or broadcast or cable, it’s the people behind it.
How about the media reporting that Edwards called Musharraf the day his country was in crisis without fact checking first? etc. etc. etc.
You expect Rosie on NETWORK TV spouting trutherisms to be more credible than anything you might find on the internet (fire can’t melt steel)? O’reilly doesn’t have a point. He’s just making noise.
ThackerAgency on January 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Excellent come-back Typhoon. I hope O’R isn’t referring to MM or Hot Air. He is such a schmuck !!
BTW – I wish someone would ask him how much of the revenue from his on-line store actually goes to charity. He just says “a portion” goes to charity. Is it one percent, ten percent, 25 percent or what? Don Imus tells you exactly which portion of the profits from his endeavors goes to charity – 100 percent. Why shouldn’t O’R tell us the same? I have a feeling that it would be very embarrassing if he told us the truth.
OBX Pete on January 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM
But he conveniently avoids the flip-side. When CBS News ran that hit piece on Bush in 2004, who debunked it? Was it another professional news outlet? No, it was us in the blogosphere. The MSM played no part whatsoever in debunking it. Had it not been for us, Bush would have lost that year. An injustice would have been done. There are countless other examples. Recently the NYT ran a story claiming that military vets were running amok all over the country murdering folks. Who debunked that story? CBS News claimed the suicide rate was higher among vets. Who debunked that story?
The rest of the MSM allowed those stories to pass into urban mythology, unchallenged. The vast majority of the population who don’t read righty blogs will believe them.
infidel65 on January 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM
For goodness sakes you guys need to take a minute here. The only thing I got out of OR was that you need check your facts. It doesn’t mean that every single source on the net is false by default. He’s merely pointing out that you can’t trust every source you read, listen to, or watch. He even pointed out Fox News’ mistake about the muslim school that Obama supposedly went to in Indonesia. He wasn’t claiming perfection. How old are all of you? You sound like a bunch of teenagers that are angry at their parents or something.
j_ehman on January 17, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Man, I really don’t understand the criticism here of Bill and this segment in particular.
For starters, he is one of the very few who dares speak up in defense of traditional America and in this segment he’s simply pointing out that the ‘net facilitates rumor, converting rumor to fact.
Yes, most of us here can discern the difference twixt fact and rumor but I’d give odds that the majority of ‘net denizens take what they read as gospel.
Frankly, if Bill’s daily hourly segment came at an additional cost to my cable provider I’d fork over the extra cost without question – as long as he stays a defender of tradition.
Onager on January 17, 2008 at 10:10 AM
How can we believe your statement? We’ve read it on the internet!
mycowardice on January 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM
…and my dad always defaults to this BS when I tell him something, and he asks where I heard it. I could be talking about something the Washington Times said, which he used to subscribe to, but if I tell him I read it on their website as opposed to their paper, he’ll disregard its authenticity at the drop of a hat.
Message to older generations: The popular belief that anything said on the internet is untrue was only valid ten years ago, when Geocities and Angelfire made up 75% of the websites visited daily. In the age of every major news organization being on the web, a strong blogosphere, and the surge in online reporting by people with better access to information than people on your normal flashing screen, this popular belief no longer is valid. No, not even with Wikipedia. Quit refusing to believe things you don’t want to hear because “it’s on the internet”. Bill O’Reilly is more full of **** than most of the internet.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM
So, no one should be allowed to air their personal opinions in public, Bill? For “the children”?
God, he’s as bad as Hillary.
amkun on January 17, 2008 at 10:24 AM
O’Reilly specifically targeted the internet. I didn’t hear him say “When you read it in the NYT, just assume it is not true.”
O’Reilly is a blowhard. I don’t know why MKH or anyone else would appear on his show. She wasn’t allowed to complete one sentence. This is typical of O’Reilly.
infidel65 on January 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM
This was his “Policing the internet” segment. Of course he was targeting the internet.
backwoods conservative on January 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM
My goodness the segment was on the inernet, he also busts on the NYT all the time
KBird on January 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Difficulty hearing? The point he made was a caution against taking what you read as fact. A good piece of advice.
For the children? You bet, he’s one of the few in the media who have..
Onager on January 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Then you are the perfect candidate for a premium membership to his website where you can read over the internet about how you shouldn’t trust anything over the internet.
Madison Conservative is dead on here. I have bought my last two vehicles off of Ebay. I saved so much money that I’ll never buy from a dealership again. People say ‘how could you do that’? Well one of my cars was a BMW 330xi that I bought, drove for a year and a half and put 30,000 miles on it and sold it for more than I bought it for. The other one was a souped up Hummer H2 that I got for half price.
Could I buy a car from a dealer? Sure. Does that mean that the used car dealer will be entirely on the up and up about the history of the car? If it is in person or over the internet does not matter. You can get taken in real life the same way that you can get taken over the internet.
I make a living over the internet. Lots of people do. People go to my website, get the information they need and purchase from me and are THANKFUL for the easy and convenient service. If you are too old to recognize the greatest sales tool in the history of mankind which is the internet, you don’t deserve to be a successful capitalist.
ThackerAgency on January 17, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Was referring to his snide comment about the woman putting her sex-ed videos up, as if she had no right to do so.
amkun on January 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Thank you and good night!
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Bill O’Reilly is not a jackass.
Signed,
The Internet
Jim Treacher on January 17, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Sorry – I donb’t do premium memberships, not Bill, not Rush, not any site.
I lost $400 on an Amazon.com auction purchase and know someone else who lost $1,200 on a laptop purchase. Regardless, I do most major purchases via the ‘net. I also bought a new Pacifica at the lowest price possible as a result of a ‘net search.
But that has squat to do with the point he made, which most here can’t understand because they get puffed up the minute they percieve some criticism.
Onager on January 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
BOR lost me when he flipped on the war.
ronsfi on January 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Did MKH say “supposably” ? just sayin….
max1 on January 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I was enjoying seeing and listening to MKH as always and then that last segment came on. Seeing that teen sex womans face did not make me think about having sex.
peacenprosperity on January 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM
…and this is why people lose money on purchases over the internet.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Careful – you read that on the ‘net.
I’ll make it easy to understand:
I don’t do auctions
I do make major purchases from reputable sites
Onager on January 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
True!
On B O’R, he’s morhping into a weird quasi-conservative larry king
HotAirExpert on January 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Plenty of “reputable” sites are just as, if not more dangerous and/or problematic than a great deal of sellers on EBay.
Honestly, in the 15 years that I’ve been using the net, and the dozens, if not hundreds, of testimonals I’ve heard from others about how they got screwed on the net, I could count on one hand the number of them that actually got screwed. All the rest disobeyed some basic bit of advice that I or others gave them; the most common being “Read the ENTIRE AD ON EBAY!” They get so angry because they clicked bid after looking at the picture and the price, or they gave their credit card number to some site I’ve NEVER heard of because they had a deal that was too good to be true.
Almost a decade into the new millennium, and people still don’t get the concept of “too good to be true”.
Hint: That’s because it’s not.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM
What’s the big deal? It’s not a bad idea to assume the web is wrong. Case in point, where do the 9/11 conspiracy theories thrive? On the web. On clips on YouTube etc. The internet is the new wild west, so to speak, so it’s always best to look at things with a skeptical eye. BOR isn’t saying something particularly inflammatory here. Even the best sites like this have ‘need to verify’ moments.
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Mary katharine Ham is a national treasure.
Bill O’Stuffedshirt is a pompous self-absorbed bore.
Always Right on January 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I know that this is Bill’s show, but I wish he would just shut up and let MKH talk.
d1carter on January 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
robblefarian sez…
That’s the truth. Sadly, madness draws ratings sometimes.
doufree on January 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Fixed it.
MrC_5150 on January 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Except that BOR is using the decade-old generalization. 10 years ago, validation and fact-checking were as regular on the internet as they are at the Associated Press. Now, lots of people are very critical and hold sites like these to high standards. Remember the “silly hat rule” from Politico? People scoured for verification, and guess what? We came up with internet-streaming video from CBS giving us a firsthand undeniable account. Now we scrutinize Politico and other such stories with even more oomph.
The point is that Bill is making his point that the internet is no more trustworthy than it was ten years ago, and that it certainly has NOTHING on the mainstream media. That’s hogwash.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I am the older generation and one of the very first pre-blog journalists. O’Reilly is simply not internet-savvy. Maybe that will change under MKH’s tutelage. Maybe not.
Connie on January 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM
If you say so. I’m not buying it. I watched the clip again and I didn’t hear him say it wasn’t more trustworthy than it was 10 years ago. I heard him say don’t default trust it.
The point you make about the Fred’s hat rule and Mitt’s say anything line, is the point. Both had to be tracked back to be put in the appropriate context, when, which down, refuted the original point of the reference in the first place. Both those charges were put online and because people did what Bill said (distrusted) they looked it up and proved it erroneous. That policy makes sense to me.
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Don’t bother.
A week is not complete at Hot Air without people getting off on bashing O’Reilly.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read “O’Reilly is such a douche” and such in threads like these.
(And for the record, I think O’Reilly’s “the Internet is always bad” crusade is getting a bit heavy handed and silly.
There, you see? I did that without hurling childish obscenities his way, or telling the world how much I hate him for the umpteenth time.)
You’d think O’Reilly was Keith Olbermann sometimes….
Hawkins1701 on January 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM
One is an arrogant blowhard. A person can be this and still make occasional good points.
The other is an outright liar. No comparison.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Rumor!
- The Cat
MirCat on January 17, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I like Bill, but sometimes he does seem out of touch. The world is changing around and and he just doesn`t get it.
ThePrez on January 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM
No.
steveegg on January 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I did not.
marykatharine on January 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I agree. There is no comparison.
But the way some commenters here let O’Reilly have it each week, you’d think he was Keith Olbermann (a man who actually deserves such vitriol, in my opinion). That was my point.
Hawkins1701 on January 17, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Didn’t he used to write a column for worldnetdaily? Does that count? Or is it automatically exempt from this rule because he wrote it? I used to be a fan back when I watched his show as a kid, but now he just seems over the hill. A tired old Dan Rather wannabe with a disturbingly good rapport with scum like Geraldo.
Grayson on January 17, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Love O’Reilly. Adore Mary Katharine Ham.
I would marry her in a heartbeat.
Jockolantern on January 17, 2008 at 9:13 PM
As I have a Sister Toldjah-certified Wisconsin accent, I’ll handle the challenge.
After further review, MKH did not say “supposably”. The ruling on the field is reversed. Touchdown, Hammer.
steveegg on January 18, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Comment pages: