MRC Echoes WND, Calls Yoga 'Dangerous' To Christians Topic: Media Research Center
Usually, it's fringe outlets like WorldNetDaily who spend way too much time freaking out about yoga being some sort of secret sinister religious practice. Apparently, the Media Research Center has decided it wants in on some of that action.
Matthew Balan had to go pretty far afield to get outraged in a March 28 item -- specifically, to a article in Quartz, "an online magazine from the parent company of The Atlantic," that turned a spotlight on "yogaphobic" Christians. Balan complained that the article's author -- a professor at "Indiana University-Perdue [sic] University Indianapolis" -- used a "left-leaning/pro-yoga spin," as if yoga someone turns people liberal.
After highlighting that the article noted criticism of yoga by Catholic officials, Balan sneered, "In other words, how care the Catholic Church point out how non-Christian religious practice can be dangerous for the spiritual health of believers!"
Balan concluded by asking whether the article's author really thinks "Christians are going to end up persecuting Hindus because of supposed 'yogaphobia.'" The greater risk, arguably, is more uninformed articles like Balan's.
After all, why should WND have all the uninformed rants?
MRC Mad That Media Identified New Taco Bell Ad As Dystopian, Not Commie Topic: Media Research Center
It apparently was a slow day at the Media Research Center. How else to explain this March 26 item by Joseph Rossell:
Many in the liberal news media again demonstrated their inability (or unwillingness) to identify communism when they see it.
Fast food restaurant Taco Bell “pulled out all the stops” with its new ad released March 24, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Although the ad did not mention McDonald’s by name, The Daily Mail also said the video portrayed “McDonald’s as a communist dictatorship where boring breakfasts rule.”
However, several news outlets, including Associated Press, either failed to understand the nods to communism or simply ignored the connection. Only a few sources including The Hollywood Reporter noted that a new Taco Bell ad obviously “painted McDonald's as a communist state.”
Yes, that's the whole point of Rossell's item: that some media outlets didn't refer to the imagery in the Taco Bell ad as communist, obviously because they are "liberal."
Rossell complains that some outlets likened the imagery to the dystopias of "The Hunger Games" and "Divergent," sneering that those were merely allusions to "pop culture." But he doesn't explain why communism is the only possible correct answer for the imagery inspiration.
If the MRC's anti-media argument has descended to being not politically correct enough to identify the right dystopia in a Taco Bell ad, maybe it was never that strong in the first place.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Blind Eye To Right-Wing Journalistic Misdeeds Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center couldn't scream loud enough over Brian Williams' exaggerations. But when Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing journalists are caught in similar exaggerations, the MRC doesn't want to hear about it. Read more >>
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Reporting Background Info Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock grumbles in a March 22 NewsBusters post:
On Sunday, 60 Minutes devoted 12 minutes towards fawning over celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Yet, the Charlie Rose-hosted segment never mentioned his repeated fake quotes, including a slam against George W. Bush that Tyson repeated for years. Instead, Rose fawned that the TV personality has followed “Carl Sagan as the country's most captivating scientific communicator.”
Whitlock might have a point if, the very next day, the MRC's Matthew Balan hadn't devoted a post to another segment from that same edition of "60 Minutes," in which "Lara Logan refreshingly brought new attention to the plight of the ancient Christian communities in Iraq on Sunday's 60 Minutes, as they face annihilation by ISIS."
Nowhere does Balan mention that Logan spent several months suspended from her "60 Minutes" correspondent job after a report featuring "an actual eyewitness of the attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya; it was later revealed that the purported eyewitness, Dylan Davies -- who went by the pseudonym "Morgan Jones" -- told authorities he didn't witness the attack. Logan also failed to disclose a book by Davies was published by a division of CBS, which airs "60 Minutes." The publisher pulled Davies' book from the shelves.
If you'll recall, the MRC studiously ignored Logan's bad reporting, even though "60 Minutes" is a prime MRC target, because Logan was supporting the cause of perpetuating Benghazi as a right-wing cudgel against the Obama adminstration.
MRC Excuses Netanyahu's Racist Appeal As Just A Get-Out-The-Vote Effort Topic: Media Research Center
Last time we checked in with the Media Research Center's manufactured outrage over media figures calling out Benjamin Netanyahu's racist, anti-Arab appeal to fearmonger his supporters to get to the polls, it was justifying it by claiming that Arabs are anti-Semitic.
The MRC has now expanded on its defense of Netanyahu. Rich Noyes complains in a March 21 NewsBusters post:
In attacking Netanyahu’s campaign tactics, some liberal journalists smeared American conservatives as well: “In what appeared to be a panicked last-ditch ploy to turn out right wing voters today, he took another page in the American playbook, resorting to demagoguery,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes announced on Tuesday night, saying of Netanyahu: “He is Israel’s George W. Bush.”
On Wednesday, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg hit the same note on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports: “He kind of played the Israeli version of the Southern Strategy and basically tried to scare his base into coming out and giving their votes to him by saying, essentially, ‘the Arabs are coming.’...He used that as a scare tactic. So it’s a pretty brutal 48 hours from certain perspectives.”
Here’s what Netanyahu posted on his Facebook page on Tuesday that so offended journalists: “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out.”
The various Arab parties that cooperated to form a Joint List for Tuesday’s election all vehemently opposed Netanyahu for Prime Minister. So how is it wrong to point out, in essence, that “the other side seems to be getting its voters out, so we’d better, too.”?
That's right -- Noyes is justifying Netanyahu's racist appeal as a mere get-out-the-vote tactic.
Any U.S. politician making a similar appeal by singling out an entire race or ethnic group would be called out for doing so -- and if that politician were a liberal, the MRC would be at the head of the pack. But because Netanyahu is a popular right-winger, he gets a pass from the MRC.
Finally! MRC (Briefly) Mentions O'Reilly Honesty Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
This week marked the first time in two weeks that the Media Research Center has made even an oblique reference to the growing controversy over the accuracy of statements Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has made about his reporting.
A March 16 post by Kyle Drennen grumbles that NBC's Chuck Todd praised how his network handled similar allegations against news anchor Brian Williams while Fox tried to deflect the accusations against O'Reilly by running a "political campaign." Drennen comments no further on O'Reilly.
A March 17 MRC item by Jordan Ecarma is focused on repeating Barney Frank's criticism of Hillary Clinton's email controversy. Almost as an afterthough, Ecarma noted that Frank was asked "if he was 'enjoying' the current controversy surrounding O’Reilly. The TV host was recently accused of lying about or exaggerating his war experiences, similar to the revelations that crumbled the reputation of longtime NBC anchor Brian Williams." Like Drennen, Ecarma does nothing further with it.
Previous to these posts, the last mention of the O'Reilly scandal at the MRC was on March 2, and that was to attack George Soros for funding groups that have highlighted it.
By contrast, the MRC couldn't say often enough that Williams was a liar despite doing basically the same thing O'Reilly has been proven to have done.
MRC: Netanyahu's Racist Attack On Arabs Is OK Because Arabs Are Anti-Semitic Topic: Media Research Center
When media outlets highlighted the racist nature of Benjamin Netanyahu's ranting about Arabs voting in the Israeli election in an attempt to boost right-wing turnout that would support him, the Media Research Center took exception.
The MRC seems to know that Netanyahu's remarks are indefensible. So it's taking a diversionary tack by arguing that israeli Arabs are anti-Semitic.
Curtis Houck complained hat CNN's Christiane Amanpour noted criticism within Israel of Netanyahu's Arab attack, then added: "While Amanpour was mounting a full defense of Arab-Israelis, she failed to cite the fact that the Arab parties that combined to form a joint list for the election include members who have some radical and arguably anti-Semitic policies themselves."
Clay Waters follows in those footsteps by dismissing criticism by New York Tiems writers of Netanyahu by asserting "Speaking of racism, official Palestinian Authoritarian descriptions of Jews as apes and pigs was left unremarked upon by the hypocritical Times."
Waters then huffed, "Israel must count itself fortunate indeed that the liberals on the Times editorial page know what's best for a country thousands of miles away and surrounded by enemies who want it wiped off the map."
Meanwhile, Netanyahu must count himself fortunate that American right-wingers like those at the MRC will give him a pass on his racism by making the lame equivocation that his enemies are supposedly even more racist.
The MRC has so little problem with Netanyahu's racism, in fact, that it's running a promotion A March 18 email to its mailing list complains that MSNBC "went out of their way to attack the sitting prime minister" by having on a guest who highlighted the racist attack, as described in an item by Kyle Drennen.The MRC then promoted its anti-NBC petition.
At no point does the MRC deny that Netanyahu's words are racist; they are simply attacking anyone who points that out.
MRC Attacks Writer For Reporting Facts About Margaret Sanger Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a fund-raising campaign going on now featuring the grim, bearded visage of Brent Bozell and the slogan, "Join the MOVEMENT and demand TRUTH in media." But there are sometimes when the MRC doesn't want the truth to be told.
In a March 13 MRC article, Katie Yoder goes after a writer for Christianity Today simply for telling the truth about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:
Does Margaret Sanger’s legacy have redeeming qualities? One Christianity Today board member thinks it does.
For Christianity Today, Rachel Marie Stone discussed how “Contraception Saves Lives” in a March 11 piece. Stone, who sits on the editorial board of CT, attempted to redeem Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger through her birth control support – and “give the charge of ‘eugenicist’ a more complete background.” Facing a Twitter backlash, she later defended her story by tweeting about Sanger’s “compassion.”
To begin her piece, Stone told the story of Margaret Sanger as a “young nurse” who promised to make contraception “widely available to working class and poor women” after watching a woman die after an attempted abortion.
Stone went on to detail how she encountered a midwife, Lena, in Malawi, Africa who studied at the Margaret Sanger Center in Lower Manhattan. “A great woman, Margaret Sanger!” Lena told her.
While Stone “wasn’t sure how to reply,” she explained how “Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, which, contrary to what Sanger would have wished, is today the largest provider of abortions in the United States.”
“Sanger herself opposed abortion,” Stone said, by “saying that ‘no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.’”
Huh. Wonder if Stone also knows Sanger described birth control as “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit” for a “cleaner race.”
Stone admitted Sanger, “like many medical professionals in her day, did hold eugenicist ideas,” and while she didn’t want to “excuse” Sanger, she did “want to give the charge of ‘eugenicist’ a more complete background.”
We can't have a "more complete background" on someone who's been dead for decades yet remains someone right-wingers like Yoder and the MRC consider a sworn enemy, can we?
At no point does Yoder prove that anything Stone wrote about Sanger is wrong. Instead, she's objecting to it having been written at all. Yoder invokes a professor who furthers the attack on Sanger under a piece less-than-objectively headlined "Margaret Sanger’s legacy is not salvageable, so let’s not try." So much for objective research, eh, prof?
This just shows that Yoder isn't interested in facts when they don't agree with her right-wing agenda -- and that the MRC doesn't really want "TRUTH in media" when it doesn't benefit them.
MRC's Graham Baselessly Attacks Anita Hill Again Topic: Media Research Center
The fact that Anita Hill has never been proven wrong about her sexual harrassment allegations against Clarence Thomas hasn't kept the Media Research Center from holding a grudge against her for more than two decades. For instance, MRC official Tim Graham branded Hill as a liar despite offering no proof (or any consideration of the possibility that Thomas is the one who's lying by denying Hill's accusations), and Scott Whitlock baselessly suggested that Hill's only motivation was money.
With the news of a TV movie in the works about the Hill-Thomas conflict, Graham was in grump mode in a March 14 NewsBusters post:
HBO is making another liberal propaganda flick – and it’s sloppy seconds to Showtime. Lesley Goldberg of The Hollywood Reporter had the exclusive: Kerry Washington, star of ABC’s Scandal, will play Anita Hill in the movie Confirmation.
In 1999, Showtime aired a similar "fact-based" film called Strange Justice, based on the Clarence Thomas-attacking book by liberal reporters Jill Abramson (later executive editor of The New York Times) and Jane Mayer.
The film is expected to detail “the explosive 1991 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings (at which Hill testified), which brought the country to a standstill and forever changed the way people think about sexual harassment, victims' rights and modern-day race relations.”
Translation: the sympathetic star won’t be seen as a liberal activist who wanted to sink the Thomas nomination anonymously, but was forced into testifying and offered unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment by Thomas (which remain unsubstantiated, but endlessly regurgitated by liberals.)
Needless to say, Graham offers no evidence that Hill was solely "a liberal activist who wanted to sink the Thomas nomination." Indeed, all he's doing is regurgitating Thomas' own attacks on Hill -- as if Thomas' word should automatically be trusted over that of Hill's.
But then, the MRC has always denigrated anyone who makes sexual harrassment claims against its favorite conservatives. In 2011, for instance, the MRC similarly denounced harrassment claims made against would-be GOP presidential candidate (and personal friend of MRC chief Brent Bozell) Herman Cain as "unsubstantiated" -- even though it was on record that the National Restaurant Association, while it was headed by Cain, reached monetary agreements with two women to settle harassment claims -- and the MRC's Dan Gainor similarly played the gold-digger card against Cain's accusers.
MRC's Graham Twists Evidence To Perpetuate 'Liberal Media' Conspiracy Topic: Media Research Center
Here's the genius of the Media Research Center's anti-media agenda: Any evidence that disproves their claims of "liberal bias" can be portrayed as evidence of bias.
On March 8, the MRC's Tim Graham helped feed right-wing speculation that the New York Times deliberately cropped former President George W. Bush and his wife out of a photo of a march in Selma, Alabama.
This manufactured outrage was enough for Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to investigate. Her finding: The Times itself never cropped the photo; the photographer stated that in the photo he took, "Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade" and that the photo is a bad photo technically.
How did Graham respond to this reasoned investigation? By reframing it as more evidence of the conspiracy:
The paper didn’t alter a photograph. But the Bushes were “cropped” out – metaphorically. Their presence didn’t have “impact.”
Obviously, conservatives disagree there’s “no evidence of politics” here. Announcing the photo the Times used “has impact” is code for “makes Obama look good on a notable day in U.S. racial history.”
By contrast, consider the Times on January 12, 2015. They had two large color photos with “impact” on the front page from the unity march after the Charlie Hedbo murders by Islamists. Obviously, there was no Obama in that picture to “crop” out. But the front-page news account by Liz Alderman never used the name “Obama” and waited to mention Attorney General Eric Holder being in Paris until paragraph eight.
In fact, a review of front pages from that Monday through Friday showed no focus on Obama on the Times front page that week. This story ended up on page A-12: “White House Acknowledges Error in Not Sending a Top Official to March in Paris.”
Everything the Times decides is “news” seems very carefully reviewed for its “impact” on Obama.
See? Lack of proof of any actual cropping becomes proof of "metaphorical" cropping. Any evidence that disproves Graham's conspiracy can be twisted to mean the opposite.
Even if the Times had run that bad photo with the Bushes in it, Graham would have, in all likelihood, complained that the Times ran a poor image of the Bushes to make them look bad.
The Times just can't win -- which, presumably, is the way Graham and the MRC like it.
MRC Rushes To Defend Ben Carson Over His Anti-Gay Comments Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's philosophy: If a journalist dares to question a conservative about his views, you are clearly a liberal or, even worse, an "activist."
The headline on Matthew Balan's March 4 NewsBusters post sums up that philosophy nicely: "LGBT Activist in CNN Anchor's Clothing Cuomo Hounds Carson on Marriage." Balan is appalled that CNN host Chris Cuomo would dare to question conservative darling Ben Carson about his views on homosexuality:
On Wednesday's New Day, CNN's Chris Cuomo likened traditional marriage legislation to legalizing slavery as he interviewed Dr. Ben Carson. When the conservative personality suggested, on the issue of same-sex "marriage," that "civil issues of that nature should be determined at the state level," Cuomo retorted, "What if people of a state vote for a law...that winds up infringing on the rights of a minority – like happened very often with slavery; like, many would argue, is happening now with people who are gay?"
The anchor acted as a left-wing activist on the subject, as he has done in the past, as he and Dr. Carson sparred for the remainder of the interview segment:
Balan buried Carson's bizarre claim that being gay is a choice because "a lot of people who go into prison – go into prison straight – and when they come out, they're gay."
Apparently, Balan believes any claim made by a conservative is never to be challenged by the media.
When Carson's claim proved to be too toxic for even him to defend, he walked it back in a Facebook post.
But that's not the lead of Kristine Marsh's March 5 NewsBusters post. Instead, Marsh helps Carson play the victim by hyping his assertion -- made to Sean Hannity, whom Carson knows will never challenge his anti-gay views -- that CNN "prodded" him to answer a question about the nature of homosexuality, then "spun his comments."
Marsh simply pasted a screenshot of Carson's Facebook walkback of his comments, declining to comment on the complete nature of his capitulation. Carson also declared he supports civil unions for gays and anti-discrimination laws that cover gays -- both positions that right-wingers like the MRC abhor.
LGBT writers have questioned the sincerity of Carson's apology given his victim-playing on Hannity's radio show. But Marsh didn't mention that, either.
MRC Upset That CPAC (Where MRC's Bozell Spoke) Is Accurately Painted As 'Hardcore' Extremist Topic: Media Research Center
Jeffrey Meyer is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would identify the Conservative Political Actuion Conference for what it is. From his March 1 NewsBusters post:
On Friday’s PBS NewsHour, New York Times columnists David Brooks and Mark Shields used their weekly appearance to trash the attendees of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as representing the extreme far right of the Republican Party.
So-called conservative columnist David Brooks opined that “[t]here’s conservatives, and then there’s conservatives, and then conservatives, and then way over on the other side of the room is CPAC...So this is like the hardest of the hardcore.”
The anti-CPAC discussion began with Mark Shields smearing the conference as promoting “the kind of language of no consensus, no compromise, compromise is capitulation, compromise is surrender.”
Meyer didn't identify how any of that is incorrect. He also didn't disclose that his boss Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell -- who has feuded with CPAC for years -- spoke at this year's gathering, a sign that the group has moved sufficiently rightward for Bozell's tastes.
Bozell and the MRC have boycotted CPAC in previous years for letting gay and atheist groups take part; Bozell also pulled the MRC out CPAC mid-gathering over a snit about getting a sufficiently prominent speaking spot.
And can Meyer plausibly argue that "no consensus, no compromise, compromise is capitulation, compromise is surrender" is not the core message of the majority of CPAC speakers, including Bozell himself?
The MRC talked trash about CPAC when it allowed a group Bozell opposed to take part. This year, the MRC is hiding the extremism of CPAC's speakers.
MRC Attacks The Messenger, Won't Admit O'Reilly Is A Liar Topic: Media Research Center
In promoting the Brian Williams controversy, the Media Research Center wanted to make sure you knew that Williams was a liar. With Bill O'Reilly, not only does the MRC refuse to concede he has lied, it's attacking anyone who dares to point out that inconvenient fact.
Jeffrey Lord made the MRC's O'Reilly agenda clear in a Feb. 28 NewsBusters post declaring that O'Reilly lies are irrelevant:
There is a lesson from all of this O'Reilly story, a reminder of exactly how the American Left works. Make no mistake. This story of what Bill O'Reilly did or did not say or do decades ago during the Falklands War is not what this latest dust-up is really all about.
The first objective here was to try and ruin Bill O'Reilly's career. To get him off of Fox News and shut him up. Not coincidentally sending a torpedo into Fox News itself - and more. Much more.
The disturbing fact is that Bill O'Reilly is but the latest figure in what is called "conservative media" to have this experience. And worse? This obsessive drive to destroy - not disagree with, but destroy - conservatives or even those like Bill O'Reilly who do not self-identify as a conservative, (O'Reilly sees himself as a traditionalist or "T-Warrior" as in "traditionalist warrior" and is well out there, as here saying that "I vote all over the map") has spread well beyond conservative media.
Lord makes no mention of Williams -- probably because he cannot plausibly claim that the right-wingers who glommed onto that controversy were not motivated by an "obsessive drive to destroy" Williams. Indeed, as we noted, the MRC was fundraising off it.
The MRC's hypocritical strategy was made even more clear in a March 2 MRC item by Mike Ciandella huffing that "liberal groups attacking Fox News host Bill O’Reilly about his past reporting got more than $15 million from left-wing billionaire George Soros." It's so insidious, according to Ciandella, that "Even some outlets pushing this story that are not funded by Soros have Soros connections."
At no point does Ciandella dispute the accuracy of what this outlets are saying about O'Reilly -- he's just trying to kill the messenger.
And that's the MRC's agenda. Conservatives never lie and anyone who point out that they do obviously has a nefarious puprose. It's easier than admitting the truth.
MRC Not Interested In Correcting False Anti-Gay Post Topic: Media Research Center
WorldNetDaily wasn't the only one to fall for a false anti-gay story peddled by a right-wing legal group.
In a Feb. 6 MRC TV post, Kristine Marsh uncritically repeated the Pacific Justice Institute's claim that "a Bay Area high school’s freshman English classrooms were taken hostage by the school’s “Queer Straight Alliance” group and grilled about each student’s opinions on gender and sexuality."
Marsh quotes only from a PJI press release, adding that PI and its leader, Brad Dacus, "have good reason to complain. This isn’t the first incident of sexual propaganda and intimidation students have undergone at Acalanes High School."'
But as Media Matters reported, the story is bogus. Unlike Marsh, Media Matters contacted the school district, which confirmed that PJI's biased version of events "does not reflect what actually took place."
Will Marsh correct her blog post? It appears unlikely -- it's been nearly two weeks since PJI's deception was exposed, and her post remains uncorrected.
MRC Still Won't Call Out O'Reilly's Lies, Instead Attacks His Accusers Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went nuclear on the exaggerations of NBC's Brian Williams, despite the fact that MRC chief Brent Bozell is guilty of much more serious falsehoods. But the MRC won't call out Fox News' Bill O'Reilly for making similar exaggerations, and as they continue to pile up, the MRC has now taken to sniping at O'Reilly's accusers.
Bozell has been utterly silent on O'Reilly -- after all, liars stick together. Thus, the role as chief sniper has fallen to Tim Graham, despite his role in helping Bozell hide the fact that he ghost-wrote Bozell's syndicated columns for years. (If Graham didn't speak out on the issue, he helped conceal it.)
Graham grumbled in a Feb. 24 NewsBusters post: "The left is trying to knock off O’Reilly after the Brian Williams scandal." As if the MRC's attack on Williams wasn't motivated much more by partisan hatred than concern for journalistic integrity.
The fact that Graham's post is mostly about an irrelevant side issue of whether a Washington Post blogger should have disclosed his wife's employment with Mother Jones, the magazine that first disclosed O'Reilly's exaggerations, shows that the MRC will be playing blame-the-messenger on O'Reilly in a way it didn't regarding Williams.
Indeed, Graham attacked another messenger in a Feb. 25 post, bashing GQ for daring to opine on O'Reilly:
No one looks to GQ for political analysis. It would be like looking to Rolling Stone for religion coverage. But they can still ape the rest of the liberal media and mock Fox News. As the Fox haters campaign to get Bill O’Reilly canned, GQ (not an abbreviation for Genius Quotient) has come up with a mocking list of “18 Things That Actually Would Get Bill O'Reilly Fired.”
Graham took it even farther promoting his post on Twitter, seemingly questioning the sexuality of anyone who questions O'Reilly by sneering that GQ is "Foppishly against Fox":
In a response to ConWebWatch, Graham denied he was questioning the sexuality of O'Reilly's critics: "'Foppish' doesn't mean gay, you doof."
Graham's not alone in aggressively ignoring the substance of the charges against O'Reilly. In a Feb. 25 NewsBusters post, Randy Hall similarly borrowed from the kill-the-messenger playbook: "Could this assault on the most popular person in cable news for 15 years be an attempt to balance the scales after the liberals recently lost former NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams? Only time -- and ratings -- will tell."
At no point does Hall acknowledge the factual basis behind the accusations against O'Reilly.