, , , , , , ,

It’s not a surprise that Fox’s Bill O’Reilly doesn’t like the New York Times; he considers the paper left-leaning and has targeted it many times throughout the years of his broadcasts both on radio and TV.  But, after last night’s program, in his own words, O’Reilly’s complaint against the NY Times has turned into outright “war” against the venerable newspaper.

O’Reilly’s “war” regards his claim that the NY Times “killed” a story regarding alleged ties between then-candidate Obama and the controversial ACORN group before the presidential elections and that, if the paper had run a story outlining alleged corruption within ACORN, it could have affected the results of the November elections.

O’Reilly’s attack last night against the NY Times came after an editorial in Sunday’s paper by Clark Hoyt who O’Reilly calls an “ombudsman” for the NY Times in which Hoyt briefly refers to O’Reilly.

Who’s right?

Your answer will probably depend on which side you lean more toward.  But to be fair about this, they both are valid in their claims although O’Reilly tends, later on, to jump off into the deep end leaving reality behind.

This beef centers around an interview by the Times that was being conducted with a former ACORN employee, Anita Moncreif, who claimed that ACORN broke the law by having partisan ties with Obama and that ACORN was actually supporting him for president.

To be fair to the Times, they were hesitant to run with the story based only on Moncreif’s claims because of her credibility:  Moncreif, according to the Times, had been “fired” because of misusing an ACORN credit card.

The NY Times did run another alternate story about potential corruption within ACORN from a more credible source.

O’Reilly has blasted the Times for not running Moncreif’s claims, accusing them of conspiring to throw the elections.

While it’s true that it might look better now, in retrospect, if the NY Times had run Moncreif’s story too, and also inserted that her claims weren’t entirely verified because of her credibility issues, O’Reilly is not being realistic in claiming that the Times decided to “kill a story” because they are, according to O’Reilly, “a dishonest publication” who were behind Obama’s election!

The links to both O’Reilly’s and the New York Times are below so you can check it out for yourself and decide.  A note about the Fox link:  go about 1 minute 40 seconds into the 5 /18 video for O’Reilly’s side of this issue.

Fox News Bill O’Reilly Link:


NY Times Link: