Scott McClellan tussles with O'Reilly over White House talking points

Oh brother.

Scott McClellan, the former Bush press secretary whose kiss-and-tell book banished him from any friendly GOP circles, is embroiled in a snit with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly for suggesting that the conservative broadcaster was a shill for the White House.

The furor started last week when McClellan appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Asked if the White House distributed "talking points" to friendly Fox journalists such as O'Reilly, McClellan said sure.

MATTHEWS: Did people say call Sean, call Bill, call whoever? Did you do that as a regular thing?

McCLELLAN: Certainly. Certainly. It wasn’t necessarily something I was doing, but it was something that we at the White House, yes, were doing.

Then O'Reilly had him on his radio show yesterday, angling for an apology, insisting that he, the great ratings king of the Fox News network, did not need talking points from the Bush White House.

O’REILLY: Matthews played you. ... He played you! You should be mad at him!

McCLELLAN: So you don’t owe me an apology for calling me a liar?

O’REILLY: You are a liar! You said I received talking points and I didn’t!

McCLELLAN: No I didn’t! I was not confirming that. I’m telling you right now —

O’REILLY: Oh you’re parsing the damn thing! Come on, be honest! ... He baited you! He baited you! ... You’re crazy! You’re partners with [NBC] in selling your book!

McClellan, who claims in his book that he was misled by White House officials, conceded that he "messed up" by replying affirmatively to Matthews' question without rebutting the specific names Chris mentioned.

"I was specifically not trying to single anyone out, including you," said McClellan. "There were people, not you, but there were people."

-- Johanna Neuman

Comments

[Greg Sally]

Don't you think that the exchange, as you state it, is not quite the "full story"?? Please give all the facts and let us determine how it went down. I seem to recall that Mr McClellan admitted up front that he never intended to imply that the ratings king was getting talking points. Just a thought that the truth is what we need these days....

Thx!

[mike]

i have to agree with billO on this one. scott was a liar. He basically confirmed on Hardball that the white house gave talking points to Oreilly. He came on Oreillys show and eventually says he is sorry, but before that he says he messed up by leaving it open to interpretation. I am sorry, i saw that hardball live. I totally thought that the white house gave talking points to Sean Hannity and BillO, and you know what, I believed it coming from the former press secretary, now to find out he was lying. It kind of enforces the point the right makes about scott, that he is an idiot and kind of not worth listening to.

[Nick in Virginia]

McClellan was definitely overwhelmed by Matthews, but that is Matthews style, to yell and scream and spit all over the place. When Matthews said "did the White House call Sean, call Bill" and McClellan said "Yes", he was clearly confirming that Sean and Bill were receiving the talking points.

What McClellan SHOULD have said was "Not Sean or Bill directly, not to my knowledge, but some people over there". But he was not quick enough to respond that way (which was part of his problem as press secretary, by the way). Matthews just bullied him into saying something that was not accurate(actually, ALLOWING something that was false to be said) .

I heard the O'Reilly confrontation with McClellan live, and O'Reilly was definitely POd. And, in my opinion, was justified. McClellan did ultimately admit he was wrong, and finally apologized, to his credit. But if he had been a stand-up guy in the interview with Matthews to begin with, this never would have happened.

Now, we have to see how Matthews handles this situation. Will he have the personal courage to apologize for getting out a false statement, due to his uncivil behaviour, or will he just go for the ratings points and let things slide?

[Wallace]

This reminds me of the Bob Novak thing, where Novak says that someone in the McCain campaign told him they were going to announce their VP selection, but they didn't want it to just come out that way so they wanted Novak to put it out there. I thought it was funny for a journalist, or whatever Novak is, to say so offhandedly that a politician's office would call him up and say that they wanted him to put something out there and he did it.

[Dave]

Interesting...you know the "right" now has potential more ammunition in their argument that there is a media bias in the press. McClellan did end up apologizing to OReilly but even in your report on this fiasco, you left that part out.

[Acie D. Dye]

Billl O'Reilly is a stand-up guy, he gets it right more often than not.
He is right again, Scott M. is "pimping" his book to the only crowd that will buy it!
No self-respecting Conservative would give two cents for a book written
by this "modern day -Benedict Arnold".

[Rick]

The surprising thing to me in all of this, is the fact that this rag would publish a story that puts any socialist in a bad light.

[Marc]

Uhh, Mathews tried to pressure McClellan into saying "something?" Isn't that his (and O'Reilly's) job?

The point I'd like cleared up, exactly and specifically, is WHO gets "talking points" from who.
Dod McClellan send an email to O'Reilly? Of course not, they both have assistants for that.
But if Fox/Limbaugh/et al get notes from the WH, then I want to exactly who receives them and what is in those notes.
JUST like I would if an Obama WH is ending notes to NPR.

[Matt]

To O'Reilly supporters:

O'Reilly gets his facts wrong too and doesn't apologize for them. Oh AND he has someone edit the transcript too! It's the pot calling the kettle black. And here are the facts to back it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_yMT5V8SI&feature=related

Not saying Olbermann is "fair & balanced" but he nailed BOR on this one. Let's face it, you have your mind made up and just want to hear someone preaching to the choir like BOR does every night. You want REAL fair and balanced? Visit factcheck.org, watch Jim Lehrer's news hour, etc... (i.e. there are alternatives). Better yet, do your OWN research into facts instead of letting one guy dole it out to you.

[Raj]

It is so dishonest of BillO and others on FOX to deny that they receive talking points. Why then do they cover any story from the exact same vantage point. They were unwavering in their promotion of the Iraq war - a travesty, if every there was one. Not one person on FOX news had an alternate viewpoint.. How can that be? When Bush switched justification from WMD to regime change, all of the FOX clowns did the same. Then the great liar in the WH decided it was to bring freedom to the Mid East. And sure enough the puppets at FOX recited that line. If it is not talking points, then one would say the entire team shares a fraction of one brain. Of course they get talking points, the liars.

[Devin]

Bill O'Reilly and Fox news are absolutely ridiculous. As a news network, Fox News should be ashamed of themselves for being COMPLETELY biased and combative towards Liberals and Democrats. I think that Scott answered truthfully and afterwards got yelled at to much that he retracted and revised his answer and apologized to Bill O'Reilly. There's no way that Fox News can deny that they have a connection with the White house and the Republicans in government in general.

[Dave]

But O'Reilly is a shill for Bush and Republicans. How is that "news"?

[Bernie]

The FACT that O'Reilly publicly stated on his TV show that McClellan was lying, using that word, is proof enough for me that he doesn't get talking points from the White House. If McClellan wasn't lying he'd own O'Reilly after the Libel suit. Nuff said?

[Theo]

Anyone who believes that O'Reilly doesn't take talking points from the Bush White House lives in a fantasy land. Oh, But that's true, they actually believe his hate filled drivel and repeat his lies! That lunatic who killed those folks at the Unitarian Universalist Church last Sunday took his angry spiel to it's ultimate end.

According to the News-Sentinel, Knoxville police department investigator Steve Still wrote in the search warrant that Jim David Adkisson, the man who was arrested in the rampage, went to the church "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets."

Adkisson, who had served in the military, said "that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement he would then target those that had voted them in office," the search warrant states. Among the items seized from Adkisson's house were three books: "The O'Reilly Factor," by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," by radio personality Michael Savage; and "Let Freedom Ring," by political pundit Sean Hannity.

[Pete]

You dont have to like Oreilly, but it's another thing to say that he takes TPs from the WH. Only those who dont watch his program, or who get small sound bites from Olberman et al, could make up such nonsense. The hysteria over BillO is just that. He's the hard core libs' bogey man. They're frightened of him.

[Matt]

Nobody's afraid of BOR but I'm sure it's convenient for you to believe that. I posted a full report by Olbermann not a "small sound bite". If you can find evidence that the report is false then provide it. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe he & Fox News are truly "fair & balanced" when they're not. I have a problem with a news outlet constantly using the American flag to garner trust, saying they're "truthful" when you can see on more than one occasion they have edited their transcripts. Check google on how Hannity edited his transcript to not include McCain's comments "I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company." Well heck just did the work for you...

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/damaging-mccain.html

[Eddie]

I'm a Vietnam veteran. To be honest I'm for pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible. But what is this not to 'cut and run' to protect our honor nonsense. If our country was to have 'cut and run' in Vietnam in 1967 about twenty thousand guys my age would be walking around now. And oh ' yes the surge worked, but will it be working in two months. It is amazing how history and hind sight is 20/20. But this country hasn't won a war since World War II.