I think his logic was that “said” = “claimed,” and technically, if he misspoke, he never “claimed” to have won Peabodys.
If so, it would be chopping akin to defining “is,” but that’s my theory…
Regarding O’Reilly’s implication that he was missled by NPR into thinking that the interview would be about his book, he has a article on his site where he writes
Sounds to me like O’Reilly went in knowing it wasn’t going to be just an ad for his book, but his publisher pressured him to do it anyway for the publicity. In fact, the way he represents things here, he went in expecting things to turn out exactly as he felt they had comming out. So how can he think he has grounds for complaint?
Here’s a column that describes the facts of the Peabody claims, by someone else who failed to fellate O’Reilly properly.
In brief, his statement that he never claimed that he and his show won a Peabody is true, as long as 1.) saying something false and then correcting yourself a year or two later is equivalent to never having said it, and 2.) you can accept that his use of “we” did not include himself.
That he is willing to use this line of reasoning is not surprising. His vehemence about it is nothing short of mind-boggling. I really have to wonder about his grip on reality.
Dr. J
Once again, I stopped on O’Reilly’s show while scanning radio stations. I was able to stand it for 3 whole minutes!
He just kept on whining about all these liberals who are persecuting him, and how it’s all a big conspiracy. (I quess the press meets once week at Hillary’s house to discuss the best way to hamstring the tireless defender of truth) Poor guy!!
I had to scream at the radio "Dammit, Bill, GROW A SPINE!!!
For anyone still having trouble hearing the interview, I went to this site and used Media Player for both the O"Reilly interview and the Franken interview:
(I couldn’t get the earlier NPR link to work either.)
Finally got around to listening to this today.
Hilarious.
I’m ambivalent about it because for the most part I thought that Terry Gross’ relaxed, convivial interviewing style allowed me to view Mr. O’Reilly in a much more positive light than I am used to. He came off as much more human and reasonable than he has ever appeared to me on his own program.
Of course, he can’t help talking rot, but I was surprised to find that there are actually instances and issues where I agree with him.
I have a much more sympathetic picture of him now than I could ever have hoped to have gained through viewing countless hours of him in his more mendacious “This is my show and you’re in the hot seat” mode.
Of course, his meltdown didn’t really help with that whole thing very much.
Where the hell did he get the idea he was being persecuted? I thought Rush was the tweaker. Jesus.
Somebody get the poor fella some thorazine.
PunditLisa, I also cringed at Terry’s questions at first – until I thought about the Franken interview she’d done previously. That interview contained many of the exact charges against O’Reilly that Terry brought up in this interview, and it occurred to me that she might have conducted this interview to give O’Reilly a chance to defend himself against Franken’s charges. Wouldn’t it have been weird if she HADN’T given him the opportunity to give his version of events?
Yeah, she disliked him, I’m pretty sure. She asked him tough questions. However, the questions were very fair, and they addressed many of the concerns about O’Reilly that her faithful listeners would have. I think it was a very reasonable interview on her part.
Daniel
Of course he’s a hypocritical buffoon. I’m just saying that her motive for bringing up the article was clearly to discredit him or make him feel uncomfortable. And that’s not nice. Were this the Diane Rheem Show, it would have been a fair topic because the format of that show is debate. Fresh Air is not a debate show.
To use an analogy. Ellen Degeneres was on the show a few weeks ago. Gross did not begin the interview by reading unflattering quotes about her from Anne Heche’s book and then saying, “So, are you sorry you ever met her?” Not relevant, not nice, and not a good way to begin a friendly interview.
Exactly! So when she would not attack him, he had to invent apretext to storm out, taking his lies with him.
That’s called spin. Since O’Reilly is so unfamiliar with the concept, he spinned poorly. Of course, trying to spin these facts are like trying to pick up a 7-10 split.
But I think PunditLisa has offered a fair review of Gross, to be honest. IMHO, she would have been better served:
-
Starting off with a “Tell me about the book” question, or perhaps a “This is your third book; what’s your angle this time?” question. (I realize Gross does not normally do this, but she said as much later that she doesn’t conduct every interview the same way.)
-
Letting O’Reilly get his self-serving “middle class” upbringing and fight with daddy stuff out of the way.
-
Then get to the good stuff.
That way, she has met O’Reilly’s expectation, she’s made it quite clear she’s not interviewing him solely to attack him, she can build O’Reilly’s trust, and it would seem natural to probe into deeper issues.
Alternatively, she could set up the interview by saying “Franken’s made a number of allegations against you; this is a forum for you to attempt to rebut them.”
But, as it were, I did find her first question accusatory, and I did find O’Reilly taken aback. (The end, though, seemed pure theater by O’Reilly . . .) To me, that’s not a good interview. In fact, I wonder why “Fresh Air” took up this so-called “debate” between the two anyway. I expect more sopistication out of NPR.
Just to be clear, though. I love NPR. And I think O’Reilly’s an asshole.
Ugh. " . . . trying to spin these facts is like trying . . ."
Well, as HumanStromboli noted, that is spin–but it’s mostly a lie.
The point that he kept trying to hammer home was that he had “misspoken” Peabody when he should have said Polk.
The lie comes from the fact that he clearly associated himself with the Polk (misspoken as Peabody) on three separate occasions. His later claim was that he was associating himself with his former team because the award was given to his “team,” even if he had already left. Unfortunately, the award was not a general award to Inside Edition for general efforts in reporting. It was a specific award to Matt Meagher and Tim Peek for the article “Door to Door Insurance”. I am curious how O’Reilly would react to Bill Clinton saying “We overthrew Saddm Hussein” in a discussion of the Clinton presidency or even the military appropriations between 1993 and 2000?
There’s also the obvious hypocrisy of a guy who has made a career out of doing rude, confrontational interviews storming out of an interview in a thin-skinned snit when the tables are turned. Gross was not even close to as hyperbolic and hostile as O’Reilly is to his guests. He whines about Gross doing a “hatchet job” but he sems to think his own attack on Glick was just good journalism.
I have a friend who was interviewed by Terri Gross, and he says that Terri met him, they shook hands, and each went to a separate studio in the same building. She apparently prefers to experience the interview the same way her audience does, with a total absence of visual clues, which I think probably contributes to her success as a very specifically radio-oriented interviewer.
Okay, this is rude and off-topic, but is Terry Gross gay? I’ve long assumed she was, though I can’t put my finger on why (other than “On NPR” = Gay 
), but am curious if my totally unrequiteable crush is as unrequiteable as I assume, not that its totality would be significantly reduced were she straight.
As opposed to the hypocrisy of someone who makes erroneous factual claims while criticizing O’Reilly for making erroneous factual claims.
:dubious:
I like Terri Gross’ show very much, and I heard both the Al Franken interview and the Bill O’Reilly one. I agree with PunditLisa’s analysis about the O’Reilly interview.
Few points on the interview:
-
I don’t think the meltdown was staged only because Terry for some inexplicable reason went back to the idea of how Bill O Reilly (BOR) demonizes his critics while simultaneously claiming that others are demonizing him. There was no reason for her to go back to that issue. She had her chance initially in the interview and she blew it after O’Reilly clearly explained his theory on defamation. He claimed that NYT were personally attacking him (citing examples) and he also mentioned that if critics reviewed his book and not him, he would be OK with that. Now, taking all that at face value, they sound reasonable. Terry didn’t follow-up on any of that because she didn’t seem to care. Out of the blue, she again brings up the "People’ review of his book.
-
Terry really blew it with so many other things. I mean BOR proved that when confronted with facts he backs down. He admitted to:
(a) misspeaking Peabody/Polk (and what tomndebb said about the issue)
(b) registering as Republican (I could have accidentally registered with the wrong party!)
(c) may be mis-interpreting the review of the Al Franken book.
Terry gave him a free pass for all that and more. His take on the Glick interview was patently false. Glick did not accuse Bush of orchestrating the attacks. Terry Gross simply didn’t know how to follow up and was obsessed with proving BOR’s hypocrisy regarding demonization!!!
emarkp
How are these examples of “have you stopped beating your wife?”
Answers:
- Well, this does fall under “stopped beating your wife”
Yet, he said he didn’t sue Franken and that cleared the issue easily. (He did admit that they ran the suit by him before it was filed and listening to Terry’s reaction, it looked like she actually thought BOR was involved in the suit) - No, I didn’t (oh, c’mon, this is not “stopped beating your wife!”)
- No theater and showmanship. None at all.
The NPR Ombudsman is pretty critical of the Gross interview:
Which speaks well of NPR. Ever hear of such a thing on, say, Fox?
That selfsame network that broadcast Anne “Mad Dog” Coulter opining that liberals want more 9/11’s.
“Well, that was a bit over the top. Liberals don’t want more terror attacks, they just want free athiest daycare centers and heroin vending machines in the high schools.”
Dropzone, your craven lusts are moderately well placed, if you like the skinny, drop-dead serious type. She ain’t no Gwen Ifil.
“No! Her! HER! The sultry bitch with the fire in her eyes!”
- Elliot Gould, MASH