Time Magazine: 10 Questions For Bill O'Reilly

[Regnad Kcin]

In the "10 Questions For" segment of the October 6th Time Magazine, Bill O'Reilly is asked whether he regrets pushing the infamous lawsuit against Al Franken:

Not at all. This man is being run by some very powerful forces in this country, and we needed to confront it. I was ambushed at a book convention. He got up in front of a national audience and called me a liar for 20 minutes. President Andrew Jackson would have put a bullet between his eyes. Franken's job is to do exactly what Donald Segretti did for Nixon — dig up dirt on people. He is not a satirist; he is not a comedian. He's someone who wants to injure people's reputations, and I think people have got to know that. (Emphasis mine.)

Frankly, I'm astounded.

Never mind the loaded word "ambushed," which leads the reader astray from the fact it was O'Reilly who spoke first (at the convention), going on the offensive against Franken who then directly responded when it came his turn. And never mind the rather strange conjecture that pretends to answer the question WWAD (What Would Andrew Do?). If any person, president or otherwise, "put a bullet" between someone's eyes, he would be tried for murder. And rightly so. With his bombastic comment, O'Reilly seems to be condoning violence against a fellow citizen for simply speaking an opinion. (An opinion that centered on, as I understand it, verifiable information.) How irresponsible, how petty, how un-American.

Naturally, Time did not follow up by asking Mr. O'Reilly to comment on the specific examples Mr. Franken discussed during the incident. So an uninformed reader is left to believe that it was poor put-upon Bill who was wronged by mean ol' Al.

 

[DavidJames]

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC did a nice rant on that last night. I don't recall the details but I do recall smiling a lot during it

 

[corplinx]

I think he called it an ambush because they let Franken go over his allotted time and didn't stop until Bill interrupted the ad hominems 10 minutes later.

Ambush? I don't think so. Telling a speaker to wrap up his presentation is a delicate matter and most organizers have no way of controlling it other than turning off someone's mic.

 

[Malachi151]

The same Andrew Jackson that was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Native Americans, who voided our treaties with the Cherokee Nation in Georga and made them march on foot to Oklahoma? No, surely not.

Wow, what a pillar of virture he picked as his role model I think that speaks volumes.

And for the record, he IS a liar

 

[LFTKBS]

O'Reilly 9/30/03:

"You have fanatics on the left and the right who will do anything to destroy people with whom they disagree. It's vicious, it's un-American, and it needs to stop."

O'Reilly (speaking to Jeremy Glick) 2/4/03:

"O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father."

Clearly Jeremy Glick is an insane, un-American fanatic, who can be seen in this transcript freaking out at poor O'Reilly, yelling and cutting Bill off in mid-sentence.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Jeremy+Glick%22+transcript+O%27Reilly&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Upchurch]

I love listening to O'Reilly going off on Franken. It's like a live version of a bad troll trying to flame another poster.

 

[Reager]

I think he called it an ambush because they let Franken go over his allotted time and didn't stop until Bill interrupted the ad hominems 10 minutes later.

Ambush? I don't think so. Telling a speaker to wrap up his presentation is a delicate matter and most organizers have no way of controlling it other than turning off someone's mic.

Actually, Franken went over his allotted time by a whole five minutes. Among other things, O'Reilly needs a good wristwatch.

Mike

 

[Tricky]

O'Reilly (speaking to Jeremy Glick) 2/4/03:

"O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father."

Here's the way Bill sees that incident:

Time: When you tell someone to shut up, have you failed as a host?

O'Reilly: Absolutely not. I only do that very rarely. I maybe a handful of times told somebody directly to shut up. And that's when they were being dishonest or offensive.

 

[corplinx]

Actually, Franken went over his allotted time by a whole five minutes. Among other things, O'Reilly needs a good wristwatch.

Mike

No, I guess I do. I thought I had read that it was 10 minutes but indeed if it was 5 than so be it. Not the first time I've been wrong.

 

[corplinx]

I feel bad defending O'Reilly, mostly because I don't care for his show or his brand of news.

However, if you read the entire transcript of the interview it becomes clear what was going on.

The host had this guy on the show and the guy turned out to be a "cia trained bin laden" nutjob.

I think the reason so many people look bad on O'Reilly for the interview is because so many people believe that particular urban legend (or want to believe it).

 

[Reager]

No, I guess I do. I thought I had read that it was 10 minutes but indeed if it was 5 than so be it. Not the first time I've been wrong.

You've got one up on O'Reilly then. This whole Franken-O'Reilly debacle could have been avoided if, from the start, Bill admitted that he was "mistaken" about Inside Edition winning a Polk award instead of a Peabody. But like most egocentric blowhards, O'Reilly is incapable of admitting error. When shown to be wrong, his reponse is to attack, lie, and bluster. Fair and balanced my a$$.

Mike

 

[Tricky]

However, if you read the entire transcript of the interview it becomes clear what was going on.

The host had this guy on the show and the guy turned out to be a "cia trained bin laden" nutjob.

I've just read the entire text of the interview, and I don't see exactly what makes him a "nutjob". Perhaps his points weren't well supported, but at no point was he behaving like a "nut". On the other hand, Bill was an absolute pr!ck. For example:

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

and this:

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

And this subltle piece of misdirection:

GLICK: The director -- (Bush) senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

O'Reilly cut him off every time he tried to make a point. He never let him finish a sentence. Glick was incredibly polite, considering O'Reilly's behavior, never once rising to the bait.

Yes I agree. Read the whole interview if you want to see O'Reilly at his worst. He's not always this bad, but it should be a cautionary tale to those who would go on his show. He is capable of just about any breach of manners.

 

[corplinx]

I've just read the entire text of the interview, and I don't see exactly what makes him a "nutjob". Perhaps his points weren't well supported, but at no point was he behaving like a "nut".

Whenever I see things like "ruling class", florida coup (referring to bush trying to steal florida and not vice versa), and cia-trained bin laden in the same diatribe. I just label the person a nut.

However, I have to tell you. My wife was watching the show the night this interview aired and I had to turn it off. On one hand you had a misled conspiracy woo-woo and on the other hand you had the host handling it gow awful. It was TV at its worst.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

In an attempt to be "fair and balanced", I tried to read BO's book "No Spin Zone". I had only seen snippets of his show and was looking forward to a "60 Minutes" attack style on various newsworthy topics in the book. I found the book way too preachy and BO seemed to be his biggest fan. I didn't get beyond page 100. Kinda a waste of good reading time.

Charlie (I quit at page 50 of Coulter's book as well) Monoxide

 

[corplinx]

In an attempt to be "fair and balanced", I tried to read BO's book "No Spin Zone". I had only seen snippets of his show and was looking forward to a "60 Minutes" attack style on various newsworthy topics in the book. I found the book way too preachy and BO seemed to be his biggest fan. I didn't get beyond page 100. Kinda a waste of good reading time.

Charlie (I quit at page 50 of Coulter's book as well) Monoxide

You're a braver man than me. I don't waste time reading these people's books.

Bill O'Reilly is now shilling his latest masterpiece called "Who's Looking Out for You?". My guess is the answer to the question is Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Words.

You'd think that people in positions to know better would understand. They're just words. Let it go.

With that in mind, while I'd have recommended that Mr. O'Reilly long ago simply knock the ball back over to Mr. Franken by way of some well-written quips along the lines of Al knowing a thing or two about lying or somesuch, thereby maintaining the civility of engagement, I'm stuck. Something's wrong. (Well, besides the strained construct of this paragraph's first sentence.)

O'Reilly should've just given Franken a bit of his own, and then moved on. However, he didn't. He has upped the volume. Bill O'Reilly has provided a tacit endorsement of violence against Al Franken. Note that it's not the punch in the nose variety, either. Just 'cause Franken called him a liar (and not without reason).

Talk about thuggery. And all because of (a safe guess I think) a bruised ego. So talk, also, about petty vindictiveness.

I suppose it's the nature of the beast, but still!

Edited, because that's what I do.

 

[pgwenthold]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all. This man is being run by some very powerful forces in this country,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so how about supporting this? Who are those "powerful forces" that are running Al Franken? On what basis does he claim that those powerful forces are "running" Al Franken?

Jeez, why doesn't he just come out and say that he has turned to the dark side of the force?

 

[Upchurch]

Time: When you tell someone to shut up, have you failed as a host?

O'Reilly: Absolutely not. I only do that very rarely. I maybe a handful of times told somebody directly to shut up. And that's when they were being dishonest or offensive.

Bill O'Reilly Wants You To Shut Up

Bill must have big hands.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Bill O'Reilly Wants You To Shut Up

If he would have taken his own advice he wouldn't be the target he is now. Before all this foofara with Al Franken, I really didn't think much of BO. Now it's kinda entertaining to see him to be the twit that he is.

Who are those "powerful forces" that are running Al Franken?

Errr, could that "powerful force" be good old capitalism. AL Franken is giving the public exactly what they want, exposes of blow-hard pseudo-rightwing hypocrites.

Charlie (part of the left-wing conspiracy) Monoxide

 

[LFTKBS]

However, if you read the entire transcript of the interview it becomes clear what was going on.

The host had this guy on the show and the guy turned out to be a "cia trained bin laden" nutjob.

I think the reason so many people look bad on O'Reilly for the interview is because so many people believe that particular urban legend (or want to believe it). [/B]

Yeah, that's exactly what I didn't think when I read the transcript and listened to the audio. May I point out that the mujaheddin were in fact assisted by the U.S. beginning in 1979? And that the Afghan war against the USSR led to the rise of the Taliban? And that the Taliban and bin Laden were buddies?

Mr. Glick didn't exactly get the chance to give O'Reilly the history lesson he so desperately needs, in part because B.O.'R. would not let him speak.

Do you think that the transcript reflects a thoughtful man interested in finding out the truth, or a low-class bully, using his position as host to prevent someone from speaking their mind?

I think O.'R. thought this particular guest would be an easy mark, then, when he realized he was in way over his head, decided to take the coward's way out.