Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.
Have "The New York Times" and "The L.A. Times" declared war on the Bush administration? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
As we told you a month ago, some press people are using the terrible Abu Ghraib (search) prison scandal as a political hammer. Some people don't see that as a bad thing, but I do.
I think the story should be reported accurately and aggressively, but not used by the media to advance an agenda. Some facts -- "The New York Times" (search) has put the prisoner story on its front page for 28 straight days. A total of 50 front page articles. That's almost unprecedented in journalism. Only Watergate rivals that kind of exposition.
"The Los Angeles Times" (search) put Abu Ghraib on its front page 26 out of the past 28 days, running 42 front page stories on it. The question -- does this story rate that kind of coverage? You can decide.
But "Talking Points" believes "The New York Times" in particular has declared war on the Bush administration in its hard news pages.
Another example -- yesterday's lead story on the TV networks was the Justice Department saying seven suspected al Qaeda members were being sought here in the USA. "The New York Times" played that story this morning on page 16, essentially burying it.
The editors of "The Times" apparently think the Bush administration is trying to deflect attention from Iraq by scaring people over terrorists. Of course, that could be possible, but surely the mention of seven specific terror suspects rates the same kind of coverage as the 50th story about Abu Ghraib.
So "Talking Points" has come to the conclusion that both "The New York Times" and "The L.A. Times" have decided the Bush administration must be removed and will use all means possible to make that happen.
"The L.A. Times" recently appointed far left bomb thrower Michael Kinsley (search) as its editorial page director. What does that tell you?
So why is this important? Many of you don't read those newspapers. Once again, the pages of both papers are syndicated. That means hundreds of local newspapers all over the country carry their articles. And the network newscasts often follow their lead. Thus the tone those papers set is widely distributed and can quickly influence public opinion.
Once again "Talking Points" wants an aggressive, honest journalistic landscape. We should know everything new about Abu Ghraib, but the over reporting of the story and the obvious attempt to blame it on Bush is an example of a political agenda taking charge of hard news coverage. No doubt.
And that's "The Memo."
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day"...
The results of our billoreilly.com poll and whether we should invite Michael Moore on The Factor. About 35,000 of you voted. Sixty percent want Moore. Whoa. Forty percent say "no." So what you say goes. The invitation has gone out. We'll let you know how he responds. Also, my brand new column on billoreilly.com is very controversial this week as it calls for new rules regarding the interrogation of captured terrorists. You may want to check that one out. And a week from tomorrow, Friday, June 4, I'll be speaking in Washington D.C. at George Washington University, 6:30 p.m. Last appearance of the season. Full details on billoreilly.com or you can call WJFK (search), our crack radio affiliate in DC.
Finally, Father's Day is coming up fast. We have the absolute best stuff for dad on the Web site including signed copies of "Who's Looking Out for You?" Not ridiculous at all.
--You can watch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 & 11p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel. Send your comments to: email@example.com