Bill O’Reilly is well aware of the status of each award. How much would you respect an actor who repeated referred to himself as an “Oscar Winner” who, when it was brought to light that he was not an Oscar winner but only won a Tony, attacked the person who corrected him as “Viscious with a V”?
Whether its mistated credentials or a soldier wearing medals on his uniform that he never earned, a Lie is a Lie. Beyond that, the true test of character is what the person does once its brought to his attention. Did O’Reilly hold a press conference and say “I have no excuse for this error, but I accept full responsibility for it. When its all said and done, the buck stops Here.” ? Did he even take the time to accept responsibility for his actions on camera? Or did he just try to Weasel and Worm his way out by impuning the character of the person who brought the truth to light?
You don’t have to like Al Franken to be disgusted by Bill O’Reilly’s lack of spine and character.
So presumably is Molly Ivins, who in the C-SPAN broadcast indicated that the Polk and Peabody were both very prestigious journalism awards.**
I think the “viscious” characterization was aimed more at Franken’s overall political M.O. than at the specific point about the award.
By the way, saying someone “only” won a Tony is foolish – a Tony award is the highest honor for a Broadway show. You’re right, it would be odd for someone to claim they had won a film award instead of an award for a live stage performance. Here’s a better analogy for you: someone claims to have won a People’s Choice award when they actually won a Golden Globe. **
Unless the the speaker did not intend to mislead. If O’Reilly just mixed up the Polk and Peabody, he wasn’t lying. If he mistakenly used the wrong pronoun, either out of outright error or out of feelings of collegiality with his former colleagues, then he wasn’t lying. **
As I’ve said, O’Reilly could have handled things better by making a brief correction on his television program. I hardly think the garment-rending stuff you describe is necessary. Newspapers don’t do that in their correction section, after all.
I disagree, because of the context in which O’Reilly would flag the Polk award. It was always brought up in response to criticisms of his former show, as a demonstration that his former show was a quality program. I’ve never heard O’Reilly bringing up the award in response to criticisms that he, himself was a poor journalist.
I’ve seen him bring it up more than once in response to being called a “tabloid” journalist. He’s used that “we won two peabodys” line several times on the air. It wasn’t just once, and he was clearly trying to imply that had personally had some hand in winning the awards. Even if the show did win awards, that doesn’t mean O’Reilly wasn’t a tabloid journalist or that he got his start by digging through celebrity garbage cans. He certainly never tried to dissuade any false perception that he was an “award winning” journalist before he was called on it.
That’s not the point, Skip. Had Franken taken Chopra to task over the above, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. The point is that Franken pitched a fit because Chopra criticized him, and printed innuendo and personal bullshit. He cheerfully admitted as much in the book.
Like I said: He’s a dangerous person to have around you.
And if you had pointed out an instance where Franken had done the same thing to a person who doesn’t medically mislead a sizeable number of the public by offering up lies and misinformation about his fantastical, magical Ayurvedic blathering, then yeah–I’d agree with you.
However, since Chopra does promulgate pseudo-science in the same “I irresponsibly make up as much medical-sounding swill as possible and sell it to the public for a profit” manner that Robert Barefoot does, I don’t see Franken’s actions as sin-worthy.
I understand what you’re saying; I just disagree about the severity because Chopra is the “victim” here, that’s all.
Suffice it to say our recollections are simply different, although I admittedly don’t watch O’Reilly very often. FWIW, the quotes at the FAIR website are consonant with the notion that he was referring to the program and not himself personally. Given that FAIR has a vested interest in putting up the most damning quotes possible, I really think you need a citation to the transcripts.**
Of course not. That’s a perfectly legitimate point. It is a perfectly sensible retort to say “sure, Mr. O’Reilly, Inside Edition has periodically done good work, but the stories you were associated with were of a tabloid nature.”
Again, I’m not an O’Reilly fan. Indeed, I think “tabloid journalist” is an appropriate moniker for him. I just think this silly jihad Franken is waging over the Polk/Peabody award is quite foolish.
Come on now, Friend O’Reilly has been handing out balderdash and part truth of a good many years now and there is a fair piece of the public that thinks his sputum is the touch stone of government, politics and public life. When he falsifies facts, as opposed to dispensing unfounded opinion, he needs to be called on it, no matter who does it. To insist that O’Reilly is entitled to the level of civility and decorum he denies the people who fall within his sights is to afford him a privileged position to which he is just not entitled. Them what lives by the sword….
When Franken gets too full of himself he will get the same treatment, and deservedly so. There is a long list of political humorists who will sooner or later be hoisted on their own petard just as soon as they start regarding themselves as the exclusive guardians of truth and the American way. P.J. O’Rourk is not the least of these nor are O’Reilly and Franken the first in line.
