Looks like Crain’s New York Business reporter Matthew Flamm royally screwed up with a doozie of a “report” today, which indicated Bill O’Reilly might be “anchoring” FNC’s Ohio and Texas primary coverage Tuesday night. This guy doesn’t just have egg on his face – he has an entire omelet. As soon as we saw this story, alarm bells went off. Anyone who covers FOX knows that Brit Hume would never be dethroned from anchoring the network’s political coverage.

As one wag us, “Just the fact that the notion of O’Reilly anchoring election coverage even passed Flamm’s smell test is off the charts. This guy should run fleeing from the media beat immediately before he suffers any further embarrassment.”

Big Head DC looked at some of Flamm’s previous “reporting” on Fox News and that turned out to be wrong as well. In September of 2006, he asserted that “FNC suffering from popular disaffection with Republican policies and the declining ratings could pose problems for cable subscription fees.”

It’s widely known that FNC made millions off the renewal deals charging nearly $1.00 per sub in the Fall of 2006 — in fact, News Corp is still referring to the profits made off these deals in their earnings reports nearly two years later.

Not to mention, is Flamm kidding in the way he referred to the ratings? Yeah, CNN and MSNBC have had big numbers with the Hillary-Obama debates – any network would – you could put them on the Weather Channel and get seven million viewers, too. Still, both networks have been unable to sustain the viewership.

In light of all this, we hear Flamm is being referred to as “Matthew Flailing” in some media circles today. The bigger question remains: how did such a woefully inaccurate story make it to print? Some insiders are even wondering whether Flamm will even have a job come Monday.

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (6) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who has accused Sen. Barack Obama of illicit drug use and of having a sexual encounter with him in 1999, has been deceitful, according to results of a polygraph released on Sunday.

The polygraph was performed by Ed Gelb, a world-renowned expert in this arena, and is being examined by a second polygraph expert. Sinclair has already passed a drug test that proves he was not using any substances that could have affected the outcome of the polygraph.

“There were two polygraph tests administered by Dr. Gelb on Friday, the first polygraph asked Mr. Sinclair on his sex claims,” according to WhiteHouse.com, the site that paid for the test and oversaw its administration. “The second polygraph test asked Mr. Sinclair on the drug use claims. There was deception indicated in both tests.”

With such high stakes riding on the outcome, some have questioned whether polygraph results can be trusted. Many respected polygraph experts, however, say that lie detector tests are up to 95 percent accurate and polygraph results are admissible in several states. Polygraphs are also used by the U.S. government in carrying out certain security clearance procedures, as well as in determining parole for some criminals.

Others have questioned the motives of WhiteHouse.com, suggesting that the site’s owner may have sinister political goals. Dan Parisi, the owner, has adamantly maintained in statements on the site and in private conversations that this investigation has not been politically motivated.

WhiteHouse.com originally offered $100,000 to Sinclair if he took the test and the results were positive. Sinclair later agreed to a $10,000 payment and is in the process of donating the money to charities. Sinclair claims he did not come forward with the story for financial gain.

The mainstream media to date has been slow to cover the Sinclair allegations, although several respected journalists from newspapers including The New York Times are believed to be investigating. FOX News personality Bill O’Reilly, without mentioning Sinclair’s name, has hinted about possibly covering the story at a later date, and the Globe tabloid has already featured an interview with Sinclair.

Sinclair’s story first came to national attention via a video he posted on YouTube in January, but he has been making the claims in private for several months — and, possibly, for several years. Sinclair recently said in an online interview that he hadn’t revealed the story in a wide-scale manner previously because Obama had not been Sinclair’s own state or national senator. Now that Obama has the opportunity to be president of the United States, Sinclair says he believes that all American citizens should know about the alleged encounter as they make their voting decisions.

On February 11, Sinclair filed a lawsuit in a Minnesota U.S. District Court claiming that Obama, as well as his campaign adviser David Axelrod and others in the Democratic National Committee have been working behind the scenes to defame Sinclair’s reputation. A blogger posting on the official Obama campaign Web site and other Obama supporters have claimed that Sinclair is mentally ill.

Other Obama supporters have maintained that Sen. Hillary Clinton is somehow behind Sinclair’s accusations. Sinclair adamantly denies this claim, and supporters close to the Clinton camp have told Big Head DC that the campaign is in no way affiliated with Sinclair and that he has made these claims on his own.

Obama has not denied the accusations to date, nor has the campaign responded to Sinclair’s lawsuit.

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (59) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

Barack Obama supporter Paul Tarlow, owner of a kiln-formed glass studio in Austin, Texas, has purchased and registered the domain name larrysinclair.com in an attempt to diffuse allegations of the brewing drug use and sexual encounter controversy that has erupted on YouTube and been briefly alluded to on air by Bill O’Reilly.

The site claims that Larry Sinclair is using his newly-found fame to harm the Obama campaign and benefit financially.

Tarlow told Big Head DC that he “picked up the domain to keep it out of general circulation –- a small contribution to the Obama campaign.” He added that he has no plans to sell the domain name.

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (17) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

What Democratic presidential candidate scandal was Bill O’Reilly referring to in this clip:

Referring to the New York Times‘ John McCain story, O’Reilly said he could “just as easily” expose a “longstanding rumor” about an unnamed “powerful Democratic person in this country.” “I could do it tomorrow,” he said.

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (48) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

…but O’Reilly says he doesn’t belong to a gym:

Whom to trust? The notoriously imaginative New York Daily News gossip duo? Or Bill O? We just don’t know!

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comment | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink