Pages

Showing posts with label Pittsfield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pittsfield. Show all posts

Police Union Prez' Emailed 'Threat' May Violate Fed Laws

Allege: Pittsfield Police Conduct Records Search on Journalist Without 'Probable Cause'

by G.M. Heller
Published: April 2, 2011 06:30AM


Pittsfield, Massachusetts -- A top union official in the local that represents the City of Pittsfield's police officers and police administrative personnel recently sent an email to union 'rank and file' containing what could be construed as a warning and threat of retaliation if any member were found passing along embarrassing departmental information to journalists investigating the scandal-plagued police department.

This comes in the midst of an investigation by a multi-agency federal task force looking into alleged widespread use in Pittsfield of anabolic steroids, the illegal doping drug favored by body-builders.

A probe, acknowledged to be "ongoing" by a U.S. Postal Inspection Service information officer in Boston (with agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration allegedly participating), has resulted in at least one Pittsfield Police Department detective and one Massachusetts State Police trooper being temporarily re-assigned.

Marc Maddalena, president of Local 447 of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union), which local also calls itself the Pittsfield Police Patrolman’s Union, acknowledges in an online comment posted April 1st to sending the recent email message "to my fellow officers and civilian staff".

Officer Maddalena further admits in his comment that in fact he "did ask them to stop talking to people like Mr. Valenti" (the reference to 'people like Mr. Valenti' apparently referring to anyone engaged in investigative journalism).

But, claims union president Maddalena, "not becaue their (sic) is a cover up going on, but simply because whoever is providing this information is not someone partaking in the investigation and thus is spewing information without all of the facts causing more harm than good and distrust within the comunity (sic) needlessly."

He goes on, "When the investigation is complete the facts will be brought forward and people can develop their opinions then. I am disappointed in the person providing incomplete information as I believe anyone would be. That is all."

Local journalist Dan Valenti, on his Web site PlanetValenti, claims to have obtained a copy of the Maddalena email, and describes the document, saying "It basically warns members to shut the heck up and don’t speak to Valenti. You get caught speaking to Valenti, you’re busted."

Mr. Valenti went on to explain, "We’re exaggerating our paraphrase here for effect. There were members who did not appreciate getting scolded."

Those union rank and file to whom Mr. Valenti refers apparently have good reason not to appreciate 'getting scolded'.

That's because the content of union president Maddalena's admitted email communication to union members, especially if it contains the warning and implicit threat Mr. Valenti claims, likely violates sections of not less than three separate federal statutes.

The specific laws applicable to a union official making specific or implied threats to rank and file in order to intimidate individual members either from exercising their right of free speech, and/or right of association, and/or from going public with information of suspected governmental wrongdoing, include the 'Wagner Act' aka 'National Labor Relations Act', the 'Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959', and of more recent vintage, the 'Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007'.

Dan Valenti, Publisher, PlanetValenti.com

What's more, Officer Maddalena's apparent disregard for federal statutes is not limited just to ignoring the laws governing labor relations and whistleblowers.

Officer Maddalena, who serves as a uniformed officer in PPD's Patrol Division, also appears to have difficulty complying with Constitutional guarantees set forth in the Bill of Rights.

It was Officer Maddalena himself, in a comment the union president posted March 31st onto PlanetValenti, who reminded Mr. Valenti that indeed he should remember just who Officer Maddalena is.

That's because Officer Maddalena says he once stopped Mr. Valenti in downtown Pittsfield for what appears now to have been a minor traffic violation, so minor in fact that, according to Mr. Valenti, no ticket was ever issued!

Here is Officer Maddalena's description of that first encounter with Mr. Valenti, followed by Mr. Valenti's own recollection:
Officer Maddalena: "Mr. Valenti, I am an officer with the PD and the union president. You know who I am because I have stopped you for a motor vehicle infraction before on North St.".
Dan Valenti: "As to the matter of 'You know who I am because I have stopped you for a motor vehicle infraction before on North St.', officer Maddalena has the advantage. The Planet doesn’t know who he is because of this. We couldn’t pick him out of police lineup. Here are the facts, which we have no problem sharing. The Planet was stopped (guessing six years ago) by a patrolman in a squad car as we traveled east on Linden Street taking a left to go north on North Street. We assume that is officer Maddalena’s reference, since we have never been stopped downtown otherwise. The Planet is one of the world’s safest drivers, you see. Ask Mrs. Planet. The patrolman stopped us and said we went through a red light. We didn’t. The light was green, turned yellow in the middle of our turn, and red by the time we got safely onto North Street. After we discussed his version versus mine, a most professional and cordial conversation, he decided not to issue a ticket. In other words, he agreed we were right — no violation. Glad to clarify. We remember the officer for his professionalism and politeness."

Now does Officer Maddalena seriously expect the public, reading his own words on PlanetValenti, to swallow the line that he remembers a name, face, and uneventful traffic stop from more than half a decade earlier involving a greying middle-aged driver to whom he did not issue a citation?

Or is it more likely that Officer Maddalena, having heard of, or read, the various insider revelations pouring forth lately from Mr. Valenti's computer keyboard onto the Planet Valenti web site relating unsavory goings-on within the Pittsfield Police Department, simply decided either on his own or with the aid of others in the department -- with no probable cause whatsoever to believe that Mr. Valenti had engaged in any sort of criminal act -- to do a little research, detective work, to scope out just who is this fellow Dan Valenti?

It would appear that without probable cause, and in direct violation of Mr. Valenti's Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure, Officer Maddalena ran Mr. Valenti's name through the police department's computer database in order to see just what could be discovered about Mr. Valenti and his sources of information.

What Officer Maddalena apparently found was information about one lone traffic stop sometime about six years ago for which no ticket issued. <<<<<

The following are excerpted comments posted to PlanetValenti on the thread dated March 31st:

From:
Marc Maddalena
March 31, 2011 at 5:48 pm

Mr. Valenti,

I am an officer with the PD and the union president. You know who I am because I have stopped you for a motor vehicle infraction before on North St. I would like you and everyone to know that we support both officers Mchugh and Ofc Kirchner fully. Both are highly respected officers within the department as a result of their work ethic and commitment to their fellow officers and their community. Despite what many, including you, may think these officers have provided a great service to this city over the years that has gone unnoticed as it does for all our officers except amongst each other. If only this city had an idea of what really takes place out there. The only source of information, the Eagle, barely scratches the surface of the incidents this department responds to. Over 40,000 calls for service a year and over 1400 arrests.

In regards to our Chief Michael Wynn, this union is also in full support of him and his ability to run this department. We have complete confidence in our chief and his ability to CONTINUE to take our department in a positive direction as he has done since taking over. Again, all going unnoticed since it does not sell papers or is not “Sexy” enough for your blog.

This department is made up of many incredible men and women who start their work days by putting on a bullett (sic) proof vest and no matter what you or anyone else says or may think of any of us, if you ever have to dial those three numbers…..We will always be there and it will go unnoticed.

Respectfully,
Ofc Marc Maddalena
President, IBPO 447
Pittsfield Police Patrolman’s Union

----------------------------------------------------
From:
Marc Maddalena
April 1, 2011 at 6:43 am

Sir,

The Pittsfield Police Union, since I have been at the head, is not against drug testing by any means. As firefighter Bartini stated, it has to be negotiated into the contract and has been on the table each time the last three one year contracts that I have been apart of. However, due to the economics of the city, the negotiations have been a quick 1%, 1 year deal with the hopes of expanded negotiations and a longer term deal that very well could include a form of random drug testing. I speak for all of my officers when I tell you that we are not against random drug testing.

In regards to my email to my fellow officers and civilian staff. I did ask them to stop talking to people like Mr. Valenti not becaue (sic) their (sic) is a cover up going on, but simply because whoever is providing this information is not someone partaking in the investigation and thus is spewing information without all of the facts causing more harm than good and distrust within the comunity (sic) needlessly. When the investigation is complete the facts will be brought forward and people can develop their opinions then. I am disappointed in the person providing incomplete information as I believe anyone would be. That is all.

And thank you to all who do support your civil servants of this community. I cannot express how much we all appreciate it.

Ofc Marc Maddalena

-----------------------------------------
From:
danvalenti
April 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm

The Planet got word of the e-mail President Maddalena sent to the members immediately after it was sent … well almost. We were a step ahead (though we admire the move by Ofc. Maddalena in trying to head that off from the pass in his second letter to this website) and 15 steps ahead of the BB. The memo quotes from The Planet’s reportage. It basically warns members to shut the heck up and don’t speak to Valenti. You get caught speaking to Valenti, you’re busted. We’re exaggerating our paraphrase here for effect. There were members who did not appreciate getting scolded. Despite what some may want to say, The Planet isn’t manufacturing any of this. We are reflecting what’s going on in the department. We are neutral. Mirrors don’t make judgments.

---------------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm

Mr. Valenti,
Is there any state or federal law that addresses union officials ‘warning’ union members not to engage in free association and/or free speech under ‘threat’ of union punishment?
In other words, is it even legal for a union official to make threats of that nature?
If possible, please publish on your Web site the email you received (redacting, of course, any information that would identify from whom you received this document.

----------------------------
From:
danvalenti
April 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm

Don’t know.
Also, I wouldn’t classify the union head’s communication with the members as a “warning” with a “threat.” It was a request for all troops to lower the Blue Curtain by stop talking to the press.

----------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Understood, but you, yourself, construed that email as saying that “It basically warns members to shut the heck up and don’t speak to Valenti,” as you so succinctly stated above.
No doubt your source for the email also construed it similarly (otherwise why bother forwarding it to you).

----------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 2:02 pm

And you further paraphrase the email as saying,“You get caught speaking to Valenti, you’re busted.” You don’t consider that giving a warning and making a threat of retaliation in the event that warning is not heeded?

----------------------------
From:
danvalenti
April 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm

I won’t characterize it other than what I’ve written.

----------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 2:48 pm

Mr. Valenti,
Please post the wording of the email so that your readers can decide for themselves whether there was a warning and/or threat implied in this email from local union officials to union members specifically not to exercise their free speech rights.
Thank you. <<<<<

-------------------------------

Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Trashing Bill O'Reilly -- Professional Jealousy or Sanctimonious Drivel? ---- The Berkshire Eagle Dumps on the King of Fox News!




Top: Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor.
Middle: Milton Bass, Berkshire Eagle columnist, on a trip in Switzerland, a few years ago.
Bottom: Clarence Fanto, Berkshire Eagle columnist and former editor.


What is it with The Berkshire Eagle's columnists Milton Bass and Clarence Fanto?
They both feel the need to rant about Bill O'Reilly and anyone else affiliated with Fox News, traditionalism, or political Conservatism.
Bass ought to stick with a subject he knows something about: music -- especially jazz.
Given Bass's and Fanto's predisposition for dismal, too often factually-challenged, quasi-Socialist commentary, Bass's review today (and Fanto's of 12/28) will likely not disappoint their hundreds of loyal Berkshire fans.
(Both columns are reproduced below in their entirety due to The Eagle's inexplicable habit of mysteriously deleting articles from its own Web archives.)
According to Fanto, he and O'Reilly even shared proximity at CBS News in the early 1980's at an early stage in both their careers.
So how has it come to pass that competing against the best journalists the other networks have to offer, O'Reilly has succeeded in becoming one of the nation's pre-eminent broadcasters -- watched, listened to, and read (even admired) by millions?
The O'Reilly Factor beats ... no, correct that ... destroys its competition -- at MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN -- nightly in the Nielsen ratings war.
Whereas, what is the career status of Mr. Bass and Mr. Fanto?
Best we can tell they're at the peak of their respective powers right now.
Their columns appear regularly (and seemingly only) in a New England daily best known for its former glory, but now mostly for struggling with withering circulation.
In addition, while Bass sanctimoniously rails against O'Reilly's personal ethics for an alleged involvement in a sexual harassment matter at the office, and Fanto targets what he calls O'Reilly's 'ultra-right demagoguery' and 'propaganda techniques', it cannot help but be noticed that neither columnist has ever uttered a peep when media people in The Eagle's own figurative front yard commit the same transgressions for which O'Reilly is being trashed.
The "political venom" referenced by Fanto is indeed "spewed daily" on-air right here in Berkshire County.
Local radio/TV superstar commentator and fellow Eagle columnist Alan Chartock has a reputation throughout seven states for ultra-left demagoguery and shrill propagandizing against the Bush Administration, American foreign policy, and the Republican Party.
(A Washington, D.C.-based NPR news producer who heard one of Chartock's rants while driving through upstate New York even remarked on it to a Baltimore reporter saying, “If you took a photo of me in the car my jaw would have been on the floor.")
While Bass focuses on O'Reilly's alleged treatment of a single co-worker, compare that to the repeated allegations against Chartock, whose absolute control at WAMC Northeast Public Radio for 27-years, has resulted in a lurid history of regrettable office behavior -- accusations he, of course, also denies.
(Of perhaps greater import, though -- the thing that should assumedly matter to holier-than-thou, finger-pointing types like Bass and Fanto: The retired SUNY professor apparently enjoys an almost total lack of fiscal accountability at his $7 million-a-year Albany-based public broadcasting charity cum cash machine. Fanto's stunning lack of curiosity on this latter point cannot be so easily excused. His most recent full-time position was as WAMC's news director, hired by Chartock. Fanto thus appears to be ethically-challenged, at least when it pays to look the other way.)
Bass also claims that "O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably" during the co-worker "ordeal", and that somehow this tells us "a great deal about the people who watch him."
This slap at O'Reilly's audience could just as easily be aimed at the WAMC audience who regularly listen to Chartock's loony rants.
Chartock is able to meet ever-higher fundraising goals at WAMC in spite of (or perhaps because of) the professor's ultra-left rhetoric and dominance of the station's talk format.
Is it not analogous to say that his audience's continued and increasing support for WAMC translates into telling us a great deal about those who would actually tune in regularly to this venomous propaganda?
Bass's and Fanto's disingenuous diatribes about O'Reilly make us wonder whether either has ever actually watched The Factor (rather than just regurgitated what Web sites like MediaMatters.org say), let alone been regular viewers.
It sure doesn't sound like it because their respective claims that the program puts forth lies and displays a bias are wholly without merit.
Sure, O'Reilly has his strongly-expressed personal points of view, but then so does the Bush/Cheney-hating Chartock, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, NBC's Chris Matthews, NPR's Daniel Schorr, PBS's Bill Moyers, and every other network 'commentator'.
Yet, O'Reilly also takes pains nightly on his program to interview those whose views directly contradict or contrast his own and/or those of his other guests.
He offers guests a world-class soapbox (The Factor has worldwide distribution) from which to clarify their respective positions without 'bloviating' (O'Reilly's favorite word).
In fact, one notable invitee who has steadfastly refused (without explanation) O'Reilly's invitation to appear on camera is none other than Great Barrington's own Selectboard co-chairman Ronald Dlugosz.
It was Dlugosz whose misguided political correctness regarding the town's pathetic Christmas lights display generated in the first place the present controversy for which The Eagle is now eviscerating The Factor host.
So it certainly can't be said that O'Reilly doesn't at least try to be fair.
(Versus The Eagle whose editors will either refuse to publish letters-to-the-editor with which they strongly disagree (like a shortened version of this column), or simply fail to enable their Web site's 'Comments' function on opinion pieces written by Bass, Fanto, Chartock and other dilettantes for whom the editors decide that readers' Internet responses will not be allowed.)
It's as though Bass and Fanto blame O'Reilly because some of those news makers upon whom he focuses his Factor spotlight, like Dlugosz, chicken out and refuse the opportunity to go on record to clarify and/or to defend the actions and/or positions they take.
What makes O'Reilly different -- and the real reason why Bass and Fanto (and by extension their enablers at The Eagle) are taking after him -- is because O'Reilly disdains the Liberal dogma that Bass and Fanto (and most so-called mainstream media) embrace.
The self-righteous Fanto stridently proclaims that "O'Reilly and his ilk ..... spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse."
Anybody familiar with O'Reilly on-air or in-print knows this is just plain hogwash (and if anything, putting forth such blatant untruths and misstatements of fact reveals gobs about Fanto's own warped left-leaning mindset).
The Factor program and O'Reilly himself are admired by regular viewers (whose loyalty has been hard won over the years) specifically because the show makes a determined effort to provide the Fairness and Balance about which parent Fox News is always bragging and has a lot riding.
This effort has paid off, in audience and advertising revenue, especially when one compares F&B on The Factor to the ofttimes utter lack of it in news programming cranked out nightly by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC (these last two being called by wags, respectively, the Clinton News Network and the New Clinton News Network).
Now in comparison, Bass's and Fanto's angry charges and uber-Left excoriation are regularly read and admired by a Berkshire audience of -- would it be exaggerating to say a few thousand?
(Of which many of these are best described as the paranoid, delusional political fringe -- the types who steadfastly maintain that Al Gore and John Kerry actually did win but were robbed of victory, and that controlled demolition is what brought down the WTC on 9/11.)
Kudos, Milton and Clarence!
Looking forward to your respective next big career moves.
Waiting especially for the two of you to make that long-awaited jump to cable TV.
I can just see it now: "The Bass and Fanto Factor" on Pittsfield Community Television.
At least it's likely to have a good jazz intro!
* * * * *
The Lively World
O'Reilly's sleazy résumé
By Milton Bass
Sunday, January 06
RICHMOND

There's no denying Bill O'Reilly has the tickets to be a news commentator on cable television. His education has been textbook with both undergraduate and graduate degrees from top colleges and universities, and his experience as a reporter and analyst all over the world has been outstanding.
He is also a genius at marketing. He knows what a certain segment of the public wants and he directs his viewpoints straight at them. He has established himself as an ultimate Catholic who single-handedly protects Christianity from the pagan hordes that have them completely surrounded, and he is also the Ultimate Patriot who smites the enemies of the United States wherever they might stand, sit or creep.
As a consequence he has the highest-rated "news" show on cable television and something over three million rabid listeners on the 400 radio stations that broadcast his program. He also writes a syndicated column and has had seven books published.
The problem with all this is that the man is obviously of low moral character and has hurt many worthwhile people with his righteous wrangling and wrongful purposes. The most recent victim has been the town of Great Barrington and its Selectmen. The excuse for the attack was that Great Barrington shut its (Christmas) (holiday) lights off at 10 p.m. in its bit to save electricity and help contain global warming. An O'Reilly producer came to a Selectmen's meeting with the program's version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" and then showed selected bits on the O'Reilly program. As a result of this, vicious e-mails, containing threats and vituperations of the basest sort, were sent by O'Reilly regulars to Great Barrington and environs. Peace on earth, good will to men.
The thing about O'Reilly (God's henchman), however, is that the history of the man has been lost because he keeps launching attacks that keep everybody so busy that they don't have time to bring up his résumé.
In 2004, which is just three years ago, a 33-year-old female producer on O'Reilly's TV show sued him for "sexual harassment." She brought the suit because O'Reilly had launched a suit against her claiming she was trying to shake him down for $60 million, which happened to be the amount grossed yearly by O'Reilly's show at that time.
The producer, Andrea Mackris, claimed that the then 55-year-old O'Reilly through personal conversations, a great many of them by telephone, made her feel "absolutely threatened" and forced her to earn her living in "a hostile work environment." She claimed in her lawsuit that O'Reilly continually insisted on describing sexual fantasies, masturbation and the use of vibrators, a practice in which he seemed to consider himself a master teacher. She said that he sometimes obviously "pleasured himself" while describing these things to her on the phone.
The details were so graphic that objective bystanders figured the young woman had taped some of these conversations after they had been going on for a while. She claimed that O'Reilly continually talked about how powerful he was and that he could assemble a horde of lawyers that would beat down anyone who opposed him in any legal matter. He also implied that Roger Ailes, the president of the Fox News Channel, had the power of extra-legal means to take care of any enemies that might take on O'Reilly.
Mackris hired a powerful legal team of her own and negotiations began. Word on the street was that parley broke off when the Mackris people felt that an offer of $2 million from O'Reilly was not enough to stop the matter from going to trial. However, before too much time elapsed a settlement was reached and all parties agreed to keep silent on how much money changed hands. O'Reilly was making about $9 million a year at the time and Fox was part of the settlement so there was much conjecture about how many million dollars the young woman received.
O'Reilly made a statement that there was "no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone" and he ended what he considered a "brutal ordeal" without issuing an apology. The young lady subsequently purchased two condos in New York so her ordeal seemed to end comfortably. By the by, O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably during his "ordeal." Which tells you a great deal about the people who watch him and send out vicious e-mails in his behalf.
For those who might be interested in what Mackris claimed to have endured, the court file is available for view on the Internet.
So this is the man who has set himself up as the defender of the faith and the protector of his country. He calls himself an independent, but it is obvious where his political agenda lies. And lies and lies and lies.
Great Barrington has been besmirched in that it was forced to be part of his machinations. If you do not wish to watch O'Reilly in person, Stephen Colbert is more than a reasonable facsimile and quite funny in his impersonation of "the real thing."
Milton Bass is a regular Eagle contributor.
* * * * *
Bill O'Reilly: Voice of fear and ignorance
By Clarence Fanto
Friday, December 28
The recent dustup between blowhard broadcaster Bill O'Reilly and the Great Barrington Select Board over holiday lights is a wake-up call for many here in the Berkshires who are insulated from the hard-right political venom spewed daily over the nation's commercial radio airwaves as well as via cable or satellite on the Fox News Channel.
O'Reilly and his ilk, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck, reach an estimated 30 million-plus Americans every day as they spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse.
Unfortunately, they far outnumber, in reach and influence, the liberal Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and the temporarily-sidelined equal-opportunity political satirist Jon Stewart and his fellow Comedy Channel protégé Stephen Colbert (whose faux-right wing spoof of O'Reilly & Co. is so spot-on that some viewers don't see through it). They've been sorely missed, even though the Writers Guild of America strike they've honored by remaining off the air is a just cause. They'll be back, most likely without their writing staffs, on Jan. 7.
Ultra-right demagoguery has a long, dishonorable history in American broadcasting, dating back to the radio days of the late 1930s, when Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitic, pro-Fascist ravings found an all-too-ready audience of sympathizers. Famously, he blamed the Great Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers," the same group he claimed was responsible for the Russian Revolution.
Carried by hundreds of stations via CBS Radio (!) and, by some estimates, reaching as many as one-third of Americans, Coughlin's sympathetic expressions of support for Hitler and Mussolini finally were forced off the air in 1939 after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, a precursor to U.S. involvement in World War II. But other, less extreme right-wing broadcasters like Boake Carter and Fulton Lewis, Jr. continued to attract huge audiences.
University of Indiana media researchers released a study of O'Reilly's commentaries earlier this year, finding that he consistently vilifies certain groups and presents others as victims as part of his skewed world view. The analysis found that the broadcaster used derogatory names every 6.8 seconds, on average, during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his infamous, ironically titled "No Spin Zone."
"If one digs further into O'Reilly's rhetoric, it becomes clear that he sets up a pretty simplistic battle between good and evil," said Maria Elizabeth Grabe, an associate professor of telecommunications on the Bloomington campus. "Our analysis points to very specific groups and people presented as good and evil." The researcher found that O'Reilly employs propaganda techniques eerily reminiscent of those 1930s radio hatemongers.
Utilizing propaganda tools familiar to students of World War II, the researchers identified O'Reilly's major patterns, all part of his effort to inject fear into the body politic. These include name-calling, "glittering generalities," card-stacking, the bandwagon effect (catering to the widespread desire to follow the crowd), and a pseudo-populist "plain folks" appeal to listeners in an effort to convince them that his ideas are "of the people." The Indiana University study team compared O'Reilly's approach to Father Coughlin's, even reaching the conclusion that the Fox newshound is a "heavier, less-nuanced user of propaganda devices" than Coughlin was.
Key findings pinpoint the use of fear in 52 percent of O'Reilly's commentaries — for example, he moaned that the U.S. was "slowly losing freedom and core values" at the time when "left-wing" media were "unfairly" criticizing the now-disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
In the World According to O'Reilly. "politicians and media, particularly of the left-leaning persuasion, are in the company of illegal aliens, criminals, terrorists — never vulnerable to villainous forces and undeserving of empathy," the study concluded. "Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public."
Victimized by this vast left-wing conspiracy are most Americans, the U. S. military and the Bush administration, he argues as he casts himself as the chief protector of our fundamental freedoms. He's fond of inviting those he portrays as liberal East Coast elitists and "secular progressives" on his show so he can bully them into submission.
O'Reilly has every First Amendment right to air his views as he has evolved into the advocate-in-chief for neo-cons and disaffected fundamentalists. It's his style and his extremist techniques that are so offensive.
We knew O'Reilly slightly during our CBS News days in the early 1980s, when he was a promising investigative reporter and news correspondent who left the network in a huff when colleague Bob Schieffer used some film footage shot by network crews originally assigned to O'Reilly. Bloated egomania already was becoming evident.
With 10 months of the presidential campaign still ahead, O'Reilly will find plenty of fodder to support his hate-based cottage industry. The $10 million a year man is a self-described frequent visitor to the Berkshires; in the unlikely event that you encounter him on the streets of Great Barrington, be sure to give him a warm greeting.
Clarence Fanto is a regular Eagle contributor.

Search This Blog

Followers

Powered By Blogger