Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. We'll get to the Michael Jackson (search) madness in a moment.
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in "The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of abuse.
News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics, Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials Say."
Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been reporting. It's as simple as that.
Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without hard evidence.
"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n. Everybody got it?
One more thing: There's a chance that Admiral Church didn't get the situation correct. There's a chance someone high up in the military at the Defense Department did condone or cover up abuse. That possibility exists. But responsible news organizations do not hype stories and headline innuendo on a possibility.
The crux of the Church report is that no one in the administration or at the Pentagon ordered anyone to be abused. "The New York Times," once again, buried the headline and went with more descriptions of alleged abuse. So you tell me, who is doing honest reporting on this issue?
And that's "The Memo."
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Time now for "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day"...
In Japan, they take their animal control measures very seriously at the Tokyo Zoo.
In this containment drill, a zoo employee dressed up like a lion — there's the guy — and then the zoo workers, they went out and they tried to capture him because this lion had escaped. See him. He looks pretty vicious to me. They better get him under control. Anyway, there he is.
Ridiculous? Possibly... In Japanese they say, "kudaranay (ph)."