The thing that gets me about O'Reilly is that he sets up himself up as objective ("this is the no spin zone. This is where spinning is not allowed") and than gives off his own spin on issues.

BF,

Unlike those many unbiased sources at say, um, the NY Times "The Paper of Record".

Starting a TV show is tough. However, you are free to try and is the audience like you enough advertisers will pay you to non-spin to the left.

Speaking of O'Reilly last night I went to The Anger Management Concert (headlined my Eminem) and at one point in the show he referenced O'Reillys topic for tonight (which talked about rap lyrics) by asking the audience to put up our middle fingers and repeat after me "F**K you Bill O'Reilly", a good time was had by all.

This is the continuation of a conversation that began on the board for the Michael Moore documentary Farenheit 9/11, which is aiming for a July 4, 2004 release date. (Man, that board’s already at 95K, and the movie won’t be out for at least over a month!). You can check out that thread here.

The exchange to which I am responding, which concerned the behavior of different political “talking heads” like Bill O’Reilly and Al Franken, began thus:

LUIGI NOVI: I really don't understand why O'Reilly is so excoriated by everyone. I've seen a fair amount of his material on air and skimming through his books, and a lot of what he says seems reasoned, even if I don't agree with all of it. Putting aside the personal tastes he inexplicably listed at the end of his first book (who cares if he doesn't like Chinese food? Is that relevant to anything else in the book?), the only big issue on which I can recall disagreeing with him was his position on the "Under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance with respect to that atheist father who didn't want his daughter to have to recite it.

Personally, I would've liked to have seen Moore on O'Reilly.

I do agree, however, having listened to much of his show, that Sean Hannity is just a hypocritical, ad hominem-using propagandist.

MikeC: I haven't listened to Hannity much. Actually, I think O'Reilly is pretty reasoned per se, it's just that he's so over-the-top on his show (and he brings on the goofiest guests sometimes), that I can't help but chuckle sometimes.

Brian Fitzgerald: The problem with O'Reily is that he claims to be "the no spin zone" and yet spins all of the time himself.

For example when he and Al Franken were at that thing where they were talking about upcomming books (they both had one comming out soon) Franken told a story from his book about some of the lies that O'Reily had told about himself. One was about inside edition the tabloid show that O'Reily had hosted in the past when asked about the show being a tabloid he said "we won 2 Peabody awards." Turns out the show really only won 1 Polk award and that was not while O'Reily was on it. For years O'Reily had claimed to be an independent and not a Republican. Turns out that was not true, he had been a registered Republican for years. When asked about that he said it was because the voter registration card only had 2 choices Democrat or Republican. Franken used the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of O'Reily's voter registration card, turns out there was a slot for Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independant and Other (where you could fill in anything else you wanted to) and I think even 1 or 2 other options. When O'Reily came up to the podium after that he called Franken an "idiot" and than proceeded to talk about how Franken is just into going after personal attacks on him, which is something that he never does to others (all this 30 seconds after calling him an idiot) and that all liberals just make generilizations about conservatives or some such thing.

On his show he interupts people who are making a point that he disagrees with and doesn't let them finish speaking. If they continue to speak he cuts off their mics.

Luigi Novi: Maybe I just haven't seen enough of his show to draw the conclusion you and Mike have, Brian. I saw his interview with (IIRC) someone who supported the aforementioned 9th Circuit decision regarding the "Under God" thing on The Pulse, as well as his primetime TV special on adult material aimed at kids in the mainstream media, and it seemed fairly reasonable.

As for Franken's book, I'm a fan of his, and enjoyed that book, but whereas Franken seemed dead-on when he talked about Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, I was perplexed that the only major "lie" he could come up with regarding O'Reilly was the Polk Award thing. I mean, was this really such a big deal? Wasn't it just a mistake on O'Reilly's part? And so what if O'Reilly wasn't on the show when that award was won? O'Reilly's point, if I understood correctly, was that he was defending the quality of the show he used to be on, not claiming that he was somehow responsible for winning it that award.

As for the voter card and his name-calling with Franken, perhaps those incidents are true, but perhaps compared to the other "conservative" talking heads, it's just a question of degree. Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh’s hypocrisy is so transparent, that by comparison, O’Reilly seems more reasoned to me. Perhaps he should be allowed some moments of human anger. I dunno. I also question the degree of credibility to which Al Franken should be afforded, in part because he himself resorts to irrelevant insults (referring to Bill O’Reilly’s complexion by calling him a “Lying, Splotchy Bully”), and in part because the fact that his books are humorous allows him to dodge criticism for this behavior.

I didn't say I felt O'Reilly was a big galoot or a hypocrite, I just said he was funny. He reminds me of John McLaughlin in that way that he doesn't seem to really listen per se to any of his guests.

O'Reilly also lets loose against conservatives (not as often, but he does).

Let's face it, the guy knows he has a bully pulpit, and knows how to use it.

I just wish I'd seen the one where he had Jenna Jameson as a guest.

I heard that he debated her! (Was it at Oxford, or something?) I heard, I think on Jenna's E! True Hollywood Story that she debated him on pornography, and was regarded as the winner, or at least having held her own. I also heard that O'Reilly asked her for one of her movies afterwards. I had no idea she was on his show. I've heard she's one of the most intelligent women in porn.

Wasn't it just a mistake on O'Reilly's part?

If it was just a mistake, then why did he attack people who reported it? Franken covers that in his book too. Franken also points out that O'Reilly often lies to cover up "mistakes" like when he didn't know what Sweden's population was (but for some reason he didn't point out how odd it was for Bill to mention Sweden when Japan and the U.S. were the countrys being discussed), when he gave false stats on single mothers on welfare and black enrollment in Florida colleges, all the whil bloviateing that he was absolutely right, and anyone who tried to correct him was wrong and got yelled at. He also denied calling for a boycott of Pepsi back when the soft drink company was going to use rapper Ludacris in commericals, about a month after he;d called for it. He even told listeners on his radio show after the incident at the booksellers convention that if "we'd ben in the old west I'd have put a bullet between his head," speaking about Al Franken.

Wasn't this guy discussed on another board a few days ago?
The No Skin Zone. Bill O'Reilly's obsession with porn.

The other thing that drives me crazy about O'Reilly is what I would classify as the O'Reilly "chuckle," which usually goes something like this.

SENATOR/DOCTOR/REV. SANDERS: Well, Bill, _____.

O'REILLY: (chuckles) Now REALLY Senator/Doctor/Reverend Sanders, do you really expect us to believe that?

I swear Bill exists just to argue with people.

O'Reilly is a phoney. He now pretends that he sympathises with gay parents trying to adopt AIDS children in Florida (rather than leave them in foster care). Considering all his other anti-gay rants, it's obvious he's being disingenuous and trying to appear fair.

Why don't you try taking the man at his word for once? He's certainly not shy about stating his true opinions. Therefore, I would tend to believe him on that one.

In the O'Reilly segment I saw, he seemed to be of the opinion that a) heterosexual couples are better to raise kids than gay couples, therefore b) gay couples should only be allowed to adopt if no heterosexual couple wants the children. That's what it sounded like to me, although I don't think he ever said it directly. And so he ended up disagreeing with both of his guests.

It was truly a low blow for O'Reilly to mock a tearful Al Franken (who was expressing compassion for the dead American soldiers on Canadian tv). Of course, it was in the context of his usual liberal bashing. He was attacking the CBC for criticising FOX. His guest was disgusted because Canadian tv interviewed some "stupidity" experts as to whether Bush was a "moron". Since so many have asked the question, isn't it a relevant question?

So David Letterman thinks 60% of what O'Reilly says is krap. Wrong, it's more like 90%.

Want fifty minutes of deceit everynight?
Watch "The Factor" on FOX every weeknight, as O'Reilly endlessly smears Michael Moore. MSNBC's Keith Olberman put it best; "Without personal smears, O'Reilly would be a mime".

A remarkably perceptive piece on O'Reilly from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060327fa_fact

Not much there that I didn't already know. It's mostly preaching to the choir. Nothing very insightful or perceptive.

I think it's perceptive because a lot of people lump O'Reilly in with commentators like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. They're different--it's a nuanced difference, but it's a difference. Perhaps it is preaching to the choir, but I don't think the choir is that big.

Well, I already knew that O'Reilly occasionally acknowledges things about Bush that are not favorable, and that he has criticized Coulter for her vitriol, but then that's not saying much coming from O'Reilly.

Keith Olbermann gloats over O'Reilly's ratings.

Just horrifying. Just when I thought people like O'Reilly couldn't get any more disgusting. I thought I had seen it and heard it all. But O'Reilly just surpassed himself.

O'Reilly's apperance on Oprah is discussed a bit here.

For more on Hornbeck, and what the police believe he suffered through, go here.

Roger Ebert rips into O'Reilly.

Meh. Doesn't do much for me. And I really wouldn't call it "rip(ping) into". More like a rebuttal. "Rip into" suggests more anger and venom than I got out of the essay.

Bill O'Reilly has lost his move for sole custody of his two teenaged children; he'll now have to share custody with his ex-wife. I guarantee you that this won't be a topic on The O'Reilly Factor tonight. Or ever. More here.

Fox News seems prepared to cut ties with O'Reilly, due to a slew of sexual harassment allegations and settlements. Some 50 advertisers have defected, and will no longer buy time on the Factor. More here.

O'Reilly has landed on a streaming channel titled "The First". (First what, I don't know. Amendment, I assume.) I know nothing else about it, and I have better things to do than to watch it.

Figures.