Discretion?
Would this be considered shooting his mouth off?
This doesn’t look like discretion to me. He’s going to win no friends here by making an assertion and not backing it up.
It’s awfully hard to believe that discretion was on O’Reilly’s mind.
Bill O’Reilly is one of those really spooky conservatives — the kind who, aside from denying that he IS a conservative, is of the opinion that he knows what’s best for all of us, that anyone who doesn’t accept his model of ethics is a creep, and that anyone who doesn’t buy into his bullshit deserves to die.
I must live in a cave, cuz I’ve never heard, seen or been aware of this guy until last night. But then I don’t watch Faux News or listen to much of anything the Ranting Right (or Left) has to say.
Alaska’s full of caves, isn’t it? Or are those glaciers? 
BO’R’s really dug himself into a hole with the Franken thing, making him look increasingly humorless and pathetically insecure. In the Franken book, Al claims to have called BO’R personally first about the Peabody thing (this is SOP in addressing the conservatives and their statements that he writes about), and instead, like Jay Belanger says, of copping to the mistake, he gets confrontational and begins to go on the air denying he ever said these things (despite plenty of documentation) and accusing AF of trying to “get” him. Franken documents several other examples of BO’R being called on mistakes and, instead of correcting them and/or apologizing, gets into a Spin Cycle about he never said such things at all (again, despite plenty of evidence).
And, yes, SPOOFE, I’m hard-pressed to think of any responsible journalist, left or right, who’d choose to call someone a liar in an interview and not have even one example to back it up. He wasn’t being discreet, he was being a coward.
Sofa King prettyy much has it nailed down.
I won’t go so far as to say that I hate O’Reilly, but I strongly dislike him.
There have been several documented occasions on his show where he has tossed off statistics as THE TRUTH! and then the very next night he changed the statistics without apologizing for getting them worng the first time. The night after that he again changed the stats, again with no explanation.
As for the whole Peabody affair, O’Reill is documented as having said that the show he used to anchor won Peabody Awards while he was there.
It didn’t.
It won Polk Awards.
After O’Reilly had left the show.
Later when someone (not Al Franken) called him on this, he said, “Never said it. Nope. I defy you to find a transcript where I said it. Never happened.”
Christ, even the Weekly World News has better journalistic standards then that.
I’m wondering if ambushed is related…
Regardless of your political leanings, I strongly recommend the early chapters of Al Franken’s book which deal with Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. He points out some truly glaring examples of misstatements of fact on their part while being highly entertaining at the same time. Funny stuff.
To change the subject a bit, what is it with self-appointed experts writing books that are not appropriate for their areas of “expertise” nor ground-breaking in their content.
Bill O’Riley’s advice for good parenting: Spend lots of quality time with your kids. And don’t hit them so much.
Revelations from God, I tell ye.
Let me chime in by saying that the guy is a lying jerk who makes my bile rise. My hatred was justified when this gem spilled out of his blubbery lips:
Famous People: The New Second Class Citizen.
According to the Wash. Post’s Lloyd Grove,:
Some other examples of O’Reilly dishonesty are his claims that he is politically independent (Franken shows a photograph of BO’R’s voter registration in his book. He’s a registered Republican, has been for years and has lied about it for years) his assertions that he grew up in a poor Long island neighborhood when, in fact, he grew up in an upper class part of Long Island and went to a private school and his denials that he ever called for a boycott of Pepsi over the Ludacris thing despite video tapes and transcripts of O’Reilly doing that very thing.
Well hey, he does think that homosexuals can stick around so that they can parent all the orphaned or foster children that no one else wants. They just shouldn’t mention that they are gay on his show, that’s all he asks… even if he has them on to speak about gay issues.
Since the anti-Reilly side seems to be well covered, I’ll focus my attention on other matters:
ontro
Actually, he has a point, in that it is ridiculously difficult for a public figure to win a defamation of character lawsuit.
From Tom Tommorrow (quoting from a book):
(bolding mine) I guess liberals aren’t all that well informed either.
So O’Reilly didn’t listen to every single speech Clinton ever made? So what?
Oooooh, thank you, El Gui.
I really mean that, too. I’m perfectly willing to extend the benefit of the doubt out as far as it takes for Mr. O’Reilly to wrap his own noose.
After that, the bastard oughta be swinging like someone who brought the wrong kind of salsa to the campfire.
Yeah! It’s not like, I don’t know, Carol Burnette or Clint Eastwood or anybody ever successfully sued a tabloid or anything.
:wally
If I were sitting in my neighborhood barbershop bitching about politics with the other three old farts who have nothing better to do all day, than the above quote would be perfectly reasonable.
If, on the other hand, I’m hosting a nationally broadcast news/talk show, I think I can expect to be held to standards of accuracy that are just a wee bit higher. Besides, he doesn’t need to have watched every speech personally, that’s what interns and fact-checkers are for. He should use them once in a while.
In any case, he’d find himself coming under much less criticism if he said “my mistake, I take that back” occasionally instead of throwing a turbo-powered shitfit every time he’s found to be at odds with the truth.
Actually, he didn’t clearly state that it was won while he was on the show, it was a CSPAN interview, and the March 1, 2001 Washington Post article covering that lie/mistake/snafu/fuckup begins (which I saw yesterday but can’t find now) does not say he claimed to have won it while he was on the show, although the text of his statement could easily be interpreted to imply that. The Post article does not take issue with the show winning it while he was not there, merely with his untruth about the award itself. He screwed up Royally (as he is wont to do) by not saying, “You are right, I was wrong.”
Í’ve never seen the O’Reilly Factor, not having daily access to Fox News. I’ve read a few transcripts, linked to from Pit rants. And now, I’ve read this interview.
Let’s leave aside the man’s political leanings for a while. Based on what I’ve read, the guy is obviously a complete tool. He can’t argue his way out of a paper bag, he’s rude to his guests (especially if they happen to be from the left side of the political spectrum, which sort of doesn’t resonate well with the whole “independent” moniker he’s so proud of), and he’s the king of stating the obvious (as per his 10 Commandments for Raising Kids).
Can someone explain to me what his appeal is, then? I don’t have to agree with a journalist or commentator to appreciate their skill: I know tons of hyperconservative journalists on both sides of the Atlantic I really admire for their workmanship. But what’s this guy’s deal? Does charisma drip from your TV screens when this man is on? 'Cause in plain text, this guy’s as shallow and dumb as they come.
What gives?
His appeal, Coldfire? It’s right there in your second paragraph, beginning with “he’s rude to his guests” and continuing for the rest of the sentence.