Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
My First (and Last) Time With Bill O'Reilly
by David Cole
It started innocuously enough. On Monday, June 21, a producer from Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor called to ask me to appear as a guest that evening to comment on a front-page story in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration had overstated the value of intelligence gained at Guantánamo and the dangers posed by the men detained there. I'm generally not a fan of shout-television, and I had declined several prior invitations to appear on O'Reilly's show, but this time I said yes. Little did I know it would not only be my first time, but also my last.
I sat in the Washington studio as the taping of the show began in New York with a rant from Bill O'Reilly. He claimed that "the Factor" had established the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and then played a clip from Thomas Kean, head of the Senate's 9/11 Commission, in which Kean said, "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."
I was impressed. O'Reilly, who had announced his show as the "No Spin Zone," was actually playing a balanced soundbite, one that accurately reported the commission's findings both that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11, and that there was some evidence of contacts (if no "collaborative relationship") between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Maybe all those nasty things Al Franken had said about O'Reilly weren't true after all.
But suddenly O'Reilly interrupted, plainly angry, and said, "We can't use that.... We need to redo the whole thing." Three minutes of silence later, the show began again, with O'Reilly re-recording the introduction verbatim. Except this time, when he got to the part about Kean, he played no tape, and simply paraphrased Kean as confirming that "definitely there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda." The part about no link to 9/11 was left on the cutting-room floor.
Now it was my turn. O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guantánamo detainees were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions holding the detainees at Guantánamo."
I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed to be low-level and had provided little valuable intelligence.
That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not dangerous. I replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk television.
But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
Apparently O'Reilly does not like being called "the pot." He exploded, repeatedly called me an "S.O.B." and assured me that he would cut my accusation from the interview when the show aired. He also said I would "never ever" be on his show again. At this point, I wasn't sure whether to take that as a threat or a promise.
Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired later that night, both Thomas Kean's statement about 9/11 and my charge about O'Reilly deleting it were missing. All that was left was Bill O'Reilly, fuming at the liberal media's lack of objectivity and balance, and ruing the divisive effect "spin" has on our national unity.
Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
about
David Cole
Legal Affairs Correspondent
David Cole (cole@law.georgetown.edu), The Nation's legal affairs correspondent and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, is the author of No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System (New Press), co-author, with James X. Dempsey, of Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties for National Security (New Press) and author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (New Press).
more...
also by
David Cole
No Blank Check
07/19/2004 issue
Outlaws on Torture
06/28/2004 issue
Letters
06/21/2004 issue
Taking Liberties: 'Bad Guys'
05/10/2004 issue
more...
related articles
Fox News Network
A Present for Murdoch
Jeff Chester
12/22/2003 issue
more...
Golly, I'm so heartbroken. I mean...Bill O'Reilly was my hero. Now, I feel I cannot trust the 10 minutes of my life I invested watching his show.
What's your next newsflash Wally? "Walt Disney Movies are Make Believe!"
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
The Nation exposed!
It's the same thing I mentioned in another thread. Both sides are marketing to a demographic. A "Fox News Network Exposed" headline attracts readers who might pay $.75 a day for this kind of news. Bill O'Rielly has a different audience that is clamoring for different angles on their news. That's just the way it is.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
I have taken to watching O'Reilly's show late at night at work.
It is possibly the most biased source of news I have ever heard. He goes to great lengths to insinuate his opinion in the "No Spin Zone"
I guess his audience wants to be told that they are "right"
He and Chris Matthews both need to try and center themselves a little more. I enjoy listening to Rush ocassionally, but sometimes he literally beats a point to death. All 3 guys are highly intelligent and when they're not on a soapbox, put out really great information and insight into political manuverings and behind the scences happenings.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
I enjoy listening to Rush ocassionally, but sometimes he literally beats a point to death. All 3 guys are highly intelligent and when they're not on a soapbox, put out really great information and insight into political manuverings and behind the scences happenings.
Rush is about a reliable as M Moore maybe less so and a bigot to boot. Hardly a source of unbiased reporting.
Why is it I don't hear complaints about bias about Rush ?
Rush is about a reliable as M Moore maybe less so and a bigot to boot. Hardly a source of unbiased reporting.
Why is it I don't hear complaints about bias about Rush ?
Maybe because Rush doesn't fool anyone. His followers love him for the despicable, drug using , bigotted, prevaricating buffoon that he is and the rest of us despise him for the same attributes.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
His followers love him for the despicable, drug using , bigotted, prevaricating buffoon that he is and the rest of us despise him for the same attributes.
These extreme positions, of course, are embraced by very few thinkers. They are cariactures constructed by the opposition to enhance the rhetorical advantages of dichotomy. They are not really held by anyone, but partisans think that their opponents are this foolish, thus fanning the zealousness of their own advocacy.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
These extreme positions, of course, are embraced by very few thinkers. They are cariactures constructed by the opposition to enhance the rhetorical advantages of dichotomy. They are not really held by anyone, but partisans think that their opponents are this foolish, thus fanning the zealousness of their own advocacy.
I am not partisan and I think Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite and a buffoon.
Most people in the middle think Rush Limbaugh is a joke.
I am not partisan and I think Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite and a buffoon.
Most people in the middle think Rush Limbaugh is a joke.
I can't stand Limbaugh myself.
This was directed at Wally's sentence:
"His followers love him for the despicable, drug using , bigotted, prevaricating buffoon that he is "
No such person exists except in Wally's (and perhaps others) mind. Don't worry, sooner or later a "righty" will post a similar cariacture and I'll post the same quote. It's these sorts of extreme cheap shots that have spoiled the atmosphere of political debate. Until this sort of thing changes, I don't see much hope for either Kerry or Bush being productive leaders.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
T.H. Huxley
Last edited by ajcardfan; July 14th, 2004 at 02:12 PM.
That's just the way it is.
Linear Mode
