人兽性交

A week ago today, I went on CNN鈥檚 鈥淓rin Burnett OutFront鈥� show, where I was asked if anti-black racism was on the rise. I answered in what seemed to me a calm way, relying on actual research rather than offering a mere opinion.

鈥淚 think the best data shows that in fact anti-black racism has risen over the last four or five years,鈥� I told Burnett, . 鈥淭here鈥檚 polling that shows that both implicit and explicit anti-black attitudes among American whites have gone up quite significantly between 2008 and 2012, to the point where now more than half of white Americans have these anti-black attitudes.鈥�

Over at Fox News, that didn鈥檛 go over so well with Bill O鈥橰eilly. Here鈥檚 what O鈥橰eilly said on 鈥淭he O鈥橰eilly Factor鈥� the very next day, according to an E-mail his producer just sent me with the 鈥渙fficial鈥� transcript of the show: 鈥淣o, it's simply not true, all right. We looked at the AP study that Mr. Potok cited and it's not even close to being true. So, we suggest that Mr. Potok reread the study and stop demonizing white America for being racist because that's insane. There are racists 鈥� every color, every creed. But to the [sic] zero in that, somehow, in America, white people are becoming more anti-black when you don't even read the study properly. 听I want everybody to go to the Associated Press and punch it up, pinhead of the week, all right.鈥� And he designated me as his 鈥�.鈥�

听

Not even close to being true? Let鈥檚 check in first with the original 2012 report from The Associated Press, which commissioned the poll that was conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan, Stanford University, and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

The AP story reporting the results was headlined, And here鈥檚 the bottom line under that unambiguous headline: 鈥淚n all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election.鈥�

I wrote O鈥橰eilly and Factor producer Nick Robertson early this week, asking sweetly if they might put me on to defend myself and show that what I said was based on real data. Today, in an E-mail from Robertson, they refused.

Although O鈥橰eilly never made this point on air, Robertson also said via E-mail that the AP poll 鈥渄id not specifically break out anti-black attitudes among WHITES. The poll was about anti-black attitudes among ALL Americans.鈥� I had merely made an 鈥渦nproven assumption,鈥� he charged, that most whites had anti-black attitudes.

In fact, the study, if you bother to look into it, found that implicit anti-black attitudes among whites went from 49% in 2008 to 59% in 2012, a shift of 10 percentage points. And explicit anti-black attitudes among whites went from 57% in 2008 to 60% in 2012. In other words, the change was more marked among whites than the population as a whole. (And by the way, I didn鈥檛 say more than half of whites were 鈥渞acists,鈥� as O鈥橰eilly claimed; I said, as you can see above, that they had 鈥渁nti-black attitudes.鈥�) In addition, I spoke today to Josh Pasek, the study鈥檚 lead author and an assistant professor of communications studies at the University of Michigan, who said that while some of the underlying numbers were sometimes fuzzy, any change among whites clearly had been 鈥渋n a basic anti-black direction. There鈥檚 nothing significantly trending in a pro-black direction, 鈥� he added.

In other words, O鈥橰eilly was totally wrong. It wasn鈥檛 the first time.

I went through a remarkably similar exercise with O鈥橰eilly back in early 2011, after he completely mischaracterized something I said that apparently contradicted his worldview. Once again, I had been on CNN, where I was asked by Suzanne Malveaux if 鈥渞adicalizing Muslims鈥� was 鈥渙ur biggest homegrown threat right now.鈥� I replied: 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 not our biggest domestic terror threat. I think that pretty clearly comes from the radical right in this country. Although I would certainly not minimize the threat of jihadist terrorism in this country.鈥�

O鈥橰eilly wasn鈥檛 listening too carefully, apparently, because he then went on the air to pillory me for saying, as he put it, that 鈥渢he biggest terrorist threat is coming from the radical right community.鈥� But that was false. I was comparing the threat from homegrown jihadists versus the domestic radical right, as I said clearly on CNN. What I said was backed up by numerous independent scholarly studies.

That time, O鈥橰eilly allowed me on his show to do battle with him. He was as slippery as an eel, acting disingenuously like I was there to simply clarify something erroneous I鈥檇 said on CNN. A friend and colleague who now posts regularly here at Hatewatch, David Neiwert, in a post at Crooks and Liars. The bottom line is O鈥橰eilly just never would admit he was wrong, although he patently was.

Had enough? Okay, just one more example.

Back in 2007, my then-colleagues at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Susy Buchanan and David Holthouse, wrote a of a particularly rancid piece of 鈥渞eporting鈥� from 鈥淭he O鈥橰eilly Factor.鈥� In that segment, entitled 鈥淰iolent Lesbian Gangs a Growing Problem,鈥� O鈥橰eilly and 鈥淔ox News crime analyst鈥� Rod Wheeler presented a terrifying, and completely false, report. The country, they alleged, was being overrun by hundreds of lesbian gangs armed with pink pistols. In Tennessee, they said, these gangs were 鈥渞aping young girls.鈥� In Philadelphia, a gang called Dykes Taking Over was 鈥渢errorizing people as well.鈥� 鈥淚 mean,鈥� Wheeler told O鈥橰eilly, 鈥測ou go from New York to California to wherever you want to name, you can see these organizations.鈥� At another point, he told O鈥橰eilly that in the Washington, D.C., area alone, there were 鈥渨ell over 150 of these crews.鈥�

The pair even used video footage from completely unrelated stories to illustrate their 鈥渞eport.鈥�

After we wrote a story about this remarkable exercise in fantasy, Wheeler, at least, was apologetic and ready to cop to the truth. The day after our story was posted, he issued a 鈥渃larification and apology鈥� saying he had only 鈥渋nadvertently stated鈥� that lesbian gangs carry pink-painted pistols, that he hadn鈥檛 meant to say that there were 150 lesbian gangs in the D.C. area, that he was wrong in claiming there was a 鈥渘ational epidemic鈥� of lesbian gangs, and that he hadn鈥檛 meant to defame the Pink Pistols group, which is a real lesbian shooting club.

O鈥橰eilly wasn鈥檛 so forthcoming. A day after Wheeler's statement, he offered his own weak clarification, saying that the show鈥檚 assertions had been 鈥渙verstated,鈥� but insisting that they contained a core of truth.

Bill, it鈥檚 time to man up and tell the truth. Who鈥檚 the real pinhead here?