Bill O'Reilly slowly going off the deep end?(very mild rant)

[Nobody]

When I first started watching the O’Reilly factor, I really got into it. I enjoyed the fact that he didn’t ask softball questions, and he did one thing that I never saw any interviewer done before, repeat a question of the interviewee dodged it. I think I’ll have to explain this one. I had seen other interviewers before interview important people, like high level government officials and so on. And there are plenty of times I’d see a question asked, and the interviewee would give a responce that had nothing to do with the question. The interviewer would just nod their head, agree, and move on. If an interviewee does this with Bill, he’ll stop them, and ask the question again, demanding an answer. I found this refreshing.

However, I noticed that, just like DR. Laura, his, I’ll be tough when I have to, approach became more and more of a, I’m going to be tough on just about everybody, approach. Watching him, I see parallels between his behavior, and what drove me away from DR. Laura. With DR. Laura she seemed to slowly burn out, and after a while it seems like her show was like:
DR Laura “Hello Caller, you’re on the air, what’s your problem?”
Caller “Yes, hi DR. Laura, how are doing?”
DR Laura “I’m doing fine, but what that have to do with your call? If you have a point, please make it!”

And I’m noticing with Bill too that he’s gotten to the point, that it doesn’t take much to rattle him up, or piss him off. For instance, just, yesterday, or the day before, I forget exactly, he was interviewing Laura Ingraham about her new book “Shut up and sing…” (and for those of you who don’t know who she is, she’s a syndicated conservative talk show host (and no, not the same as DR. Laura :P)) Anyway, you know what his biggest complaint was? In the book, she refereed to former secretary of state Madeline Albright as Madeline Halfbright. Ha, ha, she changed Al to Half, no big deal, right? Wrong! It irritated the hell out of Bill. In fact, I think he said that it offended him, because people like Laura and himself are supposed to be better than the “hate merchants”, and name calling is wrong, unless you use generic terms like “pinhead” then it’s OK. He then spent the rest of the interview trying to convence her how she had done a bad thing by calling Albright, Halfbright. So, in other words, before calling somebody a name, I guess you should check with Bill to see which ones he approves of?

So anyway, is bill just going to keep getting worse until he burns out? Can a person so easily annoyed really be a happy person? I don’t think that his progressively more and more pissy attitude is for TV only, because in his interview with Rosie O’Donnell a while ago, when talking about being sued by her magazine, bill mentioned one the complaints is that from time to time, when in meetings, she’d yell at and swear at her employees. She more or less defended this as a common business practice, and got Bill to admit that at times he does the same. So I don’t think what you see on TV is an act, I think that’s how he really is, and I find that kind of sad. I kind of pity him because I’m at the rate he’s going, he is going, I can easily see him crashing and burning. Then again, he may not.

But anyway, what do you think? Is he slowly going over the edge?

[lissener]

So easily annoyed? What about so thoroughly and blithely dishonest?

[wring]

I was nowhere near him when it happened, really! I’ve got proof!!! I’ve got witnesses, I din’t do it!

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by lissener *
**So easily annoyed? What about so thoroughly and blithely dishonest? **

Proof? Cite? Evidence?

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by wring *
**I was nowhere near him when it happened, really! I’ve got proof!!! I’ve got witnesses, I din’t do it! **

Now now, save it for the judge

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**Proof? Cite? Evidence? **

Well, Al Franken’s book, “Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them”, might be an interesting read for you. He mentions that Bill was quite dishonest about being an independent, when he was actually a registered Republican. Then there was the time that he told everyone that he had won a prestigious Peabody award for his work on “Inside Edition”. It wasn’t a Peabody though, it was a Polk award, and they won it after he left the show. Proof is provided in the book, including a picture of the voter registration card that he filled out.

Those are only two examples. The man is a liar.

[Ravenman]

The best TV interviewer on political issues right now is Tim Russert, hands down. He is proof that a journalist can ask tough questions, point out dodges, without being a prick. Which makes the likes of Bill O’Reilly even more intolerable.

[Short]

I had a (poorly formatted) post a few weeks ago on some of Bill O’Reilly’s “conservative” rantings (don’t conservatives find this insulting?). I specifically avoided his numerous lies in that post, but it does indicate Bill went off the deep end some time ago.

But of course, his conservatism also subtends* a lie, since he claims to be a moderate.

Remember when Bill got into an argument with a constitutional law lawyer (Volokh) about the wording of the first amendment? Yep, Bill was wrong.

Remember when Bill told his guest (Bennis, of the Institute for Policy Studies) that the US “give[s] away far and away more tax money to foreign countries.” When Bennis corrected him, pointing that per capita contributions were lower than any EU nation, he told her she was wrong. She wasn’t.

Remember when he cut off the mike of Jeremy Glick, whose father died on 9/11? Yeah, damn unpatriotic bastard; he disagreed with O’Reilly. When confronted with facts about why Glick opposed the war, Bill said “I’m not going to debate this with you,” and “I don’t want to debate world politics with you,” and finally “shut up.”

Of course, who can forget that “58% of single mothers are on welfare?” The next day he said that 52% of welfare recipiants were single (yes, he reversed the stat and changed the number), and following that the number changed again. He was, every time, wrong.

O’Reilly doesn’t let facts get in the way of his view. If reality doesn’t fit his view, reality is wrong. He is a liar.

*And another mathematical term is corrupted by politics.

[jayjay]

Slowly?!

[rjung]

Bill went off the deep end years ago. Anyone who would make death threats to his “guests” needs to be fitted for a jacket whose sleeves tie in the back.

A second on Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, which has numerous documented examples of Bill’s bullshit (off the top of my head, Bill claimed that Senator Hillary Clinton didn’t visit any surviving families after the 9/11 NYC attack, even though she attended two funerals and eleven services in that period). There’s also The O’Really? Factor, in case Franken’s book left you wanting more.

[kp_72110]

Actually he seems of late to be trying to prove he isn’t a “conservative”, he’s an independent (dependent?). ok, Bill. If you say so.

I know a lot of people on this board think Fox News is not exactly honest and that it panders to the right. I can’t disagree that it slants, however a lot of newscasts do slant. I happen to believe it is a good news sourse. But then again, I listen to NPR so what do I know?

I also like Chris Matthews because he too is tough. Bill is tough but it’s too bad he is also obnoxious. Ratings are not only your friend, Bill. But also your enemy (best? worst?). Honest? As always, we’ll let the viewers decide!

My only point, I suppose, is that I wish people on both sides would just sit down and honestly listen to the other side and then decide both are full of shit. There is a good middle ground.

Walk towards the grey area. It isn’t mediocrity.

[Zoe]

Ravenman, I agree with you that Tim Russert sets the standard for political interviewers. Can you imagine his leaving a Fresh Aire radio interview with Terry Gross?

[Coldfire]

I’ve never seen an O’Reilly show, since they’re not aired here. Still, I read the pit threads devoted to him with interest, and I can’t help but come to the conclusion that this man is an utter buffoon. I decided to check out the FOX website for his show, and came across a rather interesting transcript in which Bill O’Reilly and a guest compare sexual education in the US to the approach in Europe.

It’s un-fucking-believable. I’ll quote some highlights, just for laughs:

But here – here’s the discussion, and here’s – you just heard the sound bites that I got. These kids – I spent, you know, a couple of days with them, 12 to 15, and they all have condoms given to them by their parents, all right. They all are conversant in every sexual thing you can imagine.

Their childhoods are gone. I mean they don’t have a childhood anymore. They’re into the sex deal at 12 and with their parents’ blessing. I don’t think our society here in America for a variety of reasons wants that. Am I wrong?

Yes, Bill, you’re wrong. I’d say getting pregnant at 15 would constitute the end of childhood more than carrying a condom in your wallet does. You fucking idiot.

O’REILLY: But the Europeans say, look, you Americans are failing your children.

PINSKY: We’re too uptight. That we’re too uptight about. That’s what they say.

O’REILLY: Yes. Well, I – who cares about that? I mean, you know, you go over there. They can do whatever they want. We’re the most effective society on the face of the earth and the most productive. So they can say whatever they want.

God bless America! Who cares if teen pregnancies occur four times as often in the US than they do in France and Sweden! They’re not the mighty US of A, so they can’t possibly be right about something. Duh!

PINSKY: But let me tell you something that the Europeans do that we don’t do, is they base their public policy on research and not ideology, and if our desire is really to help young people, why don’t we just look at the research and apply what works? Very simple.

O’REILLY: I’ll tell you why. Oh, I’ll tell you why. Because what works in one area doesn’t work in another. One of the things that the Europeans have is a homogeneous society, OK. They don’t have the diversity that we have here.

The fuck? Yeah, we’re all white middle class socialist factory workers over here, Bill. No diversity whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, what does this have to do with the effectiveness of sexual education? Kids will try to fuck each other, whether they’re poor, rich, black, or white.

O’REILLY: There’s a lot of fractured families over there, and there are a lot of libertine families. There are guys running around in France. I mean, if you don’t have a mistress, you’re a wuss. I mean come on. You know what the deal is over there.

Oh, great. The Great Myth of the Promiscuous French rears its head again. Does anyone want to talk about the difference in divorce rates, or are we going to take the claim that having a mistress is somehow widely accepted in France for granted? Yeesh.

And this is the most succesful TV show on American television, right?

WHY?

[rjung]

Because this country is being overrun by stupid people who love this shit?

(Quick, clone Cecil!)

[HumanStromboli]

*Originally posted by Coldfire *
And this is the most succesful TV show on American television, right?

Well no, it’s really not. Nowhere near. It is the most successful show among a (relatively) tiny cable niche.

(My apologies if you are instead mocking a grandiose O’Reilly claim, and I got whooshed.)

[Miller]

*Originally posted by musicguy *
**Well, Al Franken’s book, “Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them”, might be an interesting read for you. He mentions that Bill was quite dishonest about being an independent, when he was actually a registered Republican. Then there was the time that he told everyone that he had won a prestigious Peabody award for his work on “Inside Edition”. It wasn’t a Peabody though, it was a Polk award, and they won it after he left the show. Proof is provided in the book, including a picture of the voter registration card that he filled out.

Those are only two examples. The man is a liar. **

In fairness, the Peabody/Polk thing is a little more complicated than that. He confused the names of the two awards, which is understandable, and he never claimed the show won the awards because of his work there. Someone had challenged his credentials as a journalist by calling his old show, Inside Edition, “tabloid journalism,” and O’Reilly justly responded by pointing out it had won journalism awards. (The Polk not, apparently, being that much of a step down from the Peabody.) The lying didn’t start until a reporter brought up the inaccuracies, at which point O’Reilly went on the offensive, denying that he had ever said the show had won a Peabody, and then later denying that he had ever denied the show had won a Peabody. He could simply have avoided the whole thing by acknowledging that he mispoke originally, but O’Reilly seems to be pathologically terrified of ever being wrong about anything.

However, this is not the only O’Reilly lie Al Franken documented, and O’Reilly isn’t even the worst offender in the book.

[Short]

There’s also The O’Really? Factor, in case Franken’s book left you wanting more.

I’ve not read it, but I think you mean The Oh Really? Factor and not The O’Reilly Factor.

[Beagle]

O’Reilly is a drug Nazi. YEARS ago,* I wrote him with the stats on drinking deaths versus marijuana deaths. It makes him angry, not reasonable. Which sounds like I agree with the OP. He really thinks that he, alone, is right – on everything. He’s obviously wrong about any social issue, bats .1000. I only surf in on the way elsewhere now.

[aside] OTOH, our culture is a lot more diverse than Yurp if you are using race as the criterion. Maybe it’s where you happen to be sitting. Amsterdam is very diverse. That’s not representative of Europe as a whole, although that is changing if considering trends. Orlando is very diverse. That is representative of Florida as a whole. It’s representative of the nation as a whole also, especially considering macrotrends, but moreso.[/a]

What that has to do with using research as a public policy tool has me scratching my head, still. After considering whether it was even worth trying to salvage one stupid irrelevant point made by O’Reilly. Still scratching. He went to an Ivy League school, correct? He’s just wrong in so many ways.

For one thing, state and federal governments do use research to determine what works. Often redundant to start with. Then they do more research. More. Sometimes they follow that research. Sometimes the program is cancelled, resurrected, changed, cancelled, resurrected. It’s politics. Ideology does not enter the picture in European decision-making? That’s laugable on its face.

*Seriously, don’t watch. If you are yelling at the TV, that’s not healthy. Don’t let him trap you with his abrasive wiles. Based on the number of pit threads, there are plenty of willing flies for the O’Reilly spider. If you already have cable, and you do, what’s your excuse? [sub]blipverts, subliminal ads (WATCH O’REILLY, SUFFERING IS ENJOYMENT) – fnord.[/sub]

[amarone]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
**[aside] OTOH, our culture is a lot more diverse than Yurp if you are using race as the criterion. **

Why should we use race as the criterion for culture? Why not use culture as the criterion for culture?

[John_Mace]

It’s a bit of a shame, because O’Reilly has what it takes to make a good politcal analysis show-- he’s bright, quick on his feet, and a good speaker. The problem I see is that he’s just too full of himself, and he wants everything to be a spectacle. I saw a tape of him talking to Harvard students awhile back and he was sharp, funny, very well received. None of the sensationalistic crap he gets into on his FOX show.

And I agree on the Tim Russert endorsment. I’ve also gotten to like Chris Matthews quite a bit. He, too, makes interviewees back up their statements with facts.