1796 replies to this topic

[Julieyousuck]

To tie up an old issue, let me point out that Bill is lying about us "paying for the NPR" in any case, since the NPR isn't really a govennment-funded program, and therefore doesn't get our tax dollars the way O'Reilly claims. A quick check of their finacial breakdown (posted on their website) confirms that the vast majority of their money comes from grants and donations. So a big whatever, O'Reilly.

Secondly it's amusing to see Bill desperately try to spin his stupid book sales once again. Despite his "race" to "beat Hillary" in book sales (interesting that he doesn't compare his book sales to a more "liberal equivalent, like Al Frankern or Michael Moore. If he did he'd have even LESS of a chance to "win" then he does now), her tome continues to outsell his. This was reported on the Drudge Report. So of course, now he's "the enemy." And naturally Bill disputes this claim will contrary statistics and report figures that prove that his book isn't doing that badly. And if you saw THAT, then you must be watching a different show, because why do that when O'Reilly can merely accuse Drudge of "personal attacks" and lying with nothing to back this up but Bill's not-that-credible word. Interesting enough he never really gets into what Drudge actually said.

And now for a truly grasping-at-straws moment from Bill:

For example, at Costco, we've outsold Hillary since September nine to one.

Now, Hillary's book has sold more then Bill's overall, so why this is suppose to relevant, I don't know. But I guess Bill's petty ego needs some to celebrate some kind of "victory" so whatever.

[Fandomania]

Just to add some links and stuff from Julieyousuck's post:

Refuting O'Reilly's claim about the $$ NPR gets from the gov't here

And what the NPR Ombudsman has to say about the subject that O'Reilly constantly harps about here

And O'Reilly's been constantly shilling his stupid book almost every night on not only the TV, but the radio and internet as well....and still lags more than 500,000 copies sold behind Hillary Clinton's book. See the figures here on the O'Reilly-sucks message board and here on the Drudge Report (from Dec 18, 2003). Of course you heard Bill whining about Al and Hillary's books being bought by the DNC a week or so ago, but more than 500,000 copies? Ya...right.

[LouisVuittonRULZ]

It makes my heart happy that both Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter's books have pretty much bombed. Yay! There is a God after all.

[Fandomania]

Well, LouisVuittonRULZ, as much as I loathe both Coulter and O'Reilly, you can hardly say that their books bombed. 360,000+ and 400,000+ are pretty decent numbers in today's market. Certainly they're not Harry Potter numbers, but still that's a lot of people buying their crap (not counting the bulk buys of course).

[DeepRed]

The main topic of his show has become... O'Reilly. What with all the time he spends bitching about book sales numbers, who said what about (his/Hillary's/Franken's) book sales, then so-and-so's response to O'Reilly's comments about books sales, and what was wrong with so-and-so's response. And on and on.

I watched bits of the show last night, for the first time in ages. Bill had some writer from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as a guest. Did they debate, you know, some meaningful political topic? No. Bill was taking the guy to task over things he wrote about O'Reilly. And then he performed his trademark shabby, slick maneuver: He said something like (paraphrasing), That was a rather heinous misrepresentation of the facts on your part, Mr. Guest, and I'm sure you'd agree. Way to put words in the other guy's mouth! No spin here!

And then he picked apart something the reporter wrote about that young man's (whose dad was killed on 9/11) appearance on The Factor where Bill ended by telling the kid to Shut Up (see Franken's book for details). Jeez, he won't let this one rest! Do yourself a favor, Bill, and stop picking apart a kid whose dad died on 9/11 and who may have said some some ill-considered things in the heat of the moment. But no, O'Reilly has to have the last word, two years later even.

The show's all meta now. It's all about O'Reilly, and what people say about O'reilly.

[LouisVuittonRULZ]

Bill had some writer from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as a guest. Did they debate, you know, some meaningful political topic? No. Bill was taking the guy to task over things he wrote about O'Reilly

This is so crazy -- has he not heard of free speech? Hello Bill, people can write stuff about you, and no matter how hard you try, and no matter how much you whine to Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, they will and still can write shit about you. Get over it, and move on. He is the schoolyard bully IMO.

[Julieyousuck]

Bill obviously don't think his viewers pay attention. I love the way he can flip-flop about his position on the WMD without acknowledging his shifting viewpoint. Now he's saying that the CIA mishandled the WMD situation and may have overestemated the threat. Now even assuming that this is true (and I don't believe it is) he fails to mention that he reported this as complete fact in any case. So even if we're to believe that President Bush DIDN'T mislead the public about the WMD (HA!), O'Reilly sure did. Therefore he's just as guilty as the the CIA supposedly is. And of course his hypocritical rants came without apology or acknowledgment of mistake. This type of gross negligent journalism makes me think that they should take back his journalism award (you know, the one he didn't actually win.)

[pickering]

I'm conservative, and a proud Bush-supporter at that (so 'course I'd be disagreen' with you on the 'misleading us about the WMD...). I enjoyed The Factor once upon a time because I liked how O'Reilly seemed to address people head-on--truly a 'no-spin' zone. Of course, I did agree more than disagree with him because he does tend toward the conservative, which made him easier to like.

What turns me off so badly now, as has been mentioned quite frequently here, is the narcissistic way in which he challenges his guests' opinions. He goes off on a diatribe disputing an 'invited guest', and then with two seconds left, offers, "I'll give you the last word."

[Hasbro]

I'm an independant, social liberal, fiscal middle of the road, very supportive of the military, can't stand Bill. Got relatives who thing he's the shit and usaly here "O'Reilly said about three times a week," so I have to keep tabs on his bluster as more or less a deffence.

I also have a personal beef with Bill after I had to spend $60 on one of his stupid "The Spin Stops Here" doormats. Although I have to admit the rug really does tie the room together. I'm still holding out hope one of Jackie Treehorn's thugs will piss all over it.

As ethicaly questionable as using his hsow as an infomercial for his merchandise is, I have one complaint that sticks out amoungst the myriad of others that I have about the Big O. His association with Mel Gibson.

Bill sold the rights to his mystery novel Those Who Tresspass to Mel gibson's production company. And of course Bill has been one of the staunchest deffenders of Mel's contraversal upcomming film The Passion. Does this stike anyone else as a conflict of interest? TWT was out of print and is from what I've heard (haven't found a used copy yet,) a turgid, vanity project, detailing Bill's revenge fantasies on thinly vieled journalists. The detective is Tom O'Malley.

I'm sure the money wasn't as much the issue for egO'Reilly as was the fact that he gets to run around bragging about his book being adapted into a movie, which he is doing at the drop of a hat and in interviews. And for someone who decries celebrities for a living he sure found one he couldn't wait to climb inside. To be fair he and Mel a homophobic, loudmouthed, blowhards with a messiah complex so I'm sure they got on like a house on fire.

[Justin Cognito]

I'm a fiscal conservative, social moderate, religious liberal who would like O'Really to get his lips sealed shut. Mind you, it's mainly because:

a) I'm gay, and I'm sick of hearing yet another social conservative compare a loving bond between two partners of proper age to fucking goats;
b) my brother's an atheist who's pretty good about morals, so I'm sick and tired of O'Really going on and on about how secular humanists are raping American values.

[pickering]

I also have a personal beef with Bill after I had to spend $60 on one of his stupid "The Spin Stops Here" doormats. Although I have to admit the rug really does tie the room together. I'm still holding out hope one of Jackie Treehorn's thugs will piss all over it.

Good Lord, that's funny!

) I'm gay, and I'm sick of hearing yet another social conservative compare a loving bond between two partners of proper age to fucking goats;

See, that's the thing. O'Reilly's right on so many of the pertinent issues, and then he goes off and exaggerates on something imporant that turns off a substantial portion of the population.

[Hasbro]

See, that's the thing. O'Reilly's right on so many of the pertinent issues, and then he goes off and exaggerates on something imporant that turns off a substantial portion of the population.

Bill picks some obvious issues to grandstand on and make it like he is the only one in the media doing so. For instance his constant filtering of ALCU rulings to find the most outlandish cases to present. But how brave a stand is it to say "Child molestors are bad! Celebirities are flaky! I'm for Christmas, America, mom and apple pie! We must prevent terrorism! Think of the children! I don't like paying taxes! et al."

I agree with justin disagree with him on any issue he will tar you with an extreme brush. One of the people questioning The Passion got brushed off a "secularists who wanted to keep people from discovering Jesus," rather than some of the anti-semitism concerns. He regularly calls the ALCU fascists and even likened them to Nazis this week after he attacked MoveOv.org for posting submission doing the same about Bush (which were removed by the time he got around to his report.) And anyone who writes anything negative about him or even gives one of his books a bad review will castigated by him, usualy as a "smear merchant." I try to read whatever he is complaining about, it's usualy rather innocuos and makes him come off as at least thin skin and at worst paranoid.

[biakbiak]

O'Reilly's right on so many of the pertinent issues, and then he goes off and exaggerates on something imporant that turns off a substantial portion of the population

You agree with him on many pertinent issues, that doesn't make him right. It doesn't necessarily make him wrong. However, it doesn't mean he is right unless you mean in terms of a political spectrum.

It's why I can't stand him because he doesn't believe in debate. He doesn't believe that people who don't agree with them can be just as passionate and just as "right" in their beliefs as he is in his.

Edited by biakbiak, Jan 19, 2004 @ 1:48 AM.

[Hasbro]

For Valentine's Day you can pay Bill to write a message in Who's Looking Out For You? (Bill O'Reilly Trust No One Else But The Bill!) for your sweetie, but he says keep it clean, so I don't think you can get him to reprise his famous "white panties/ tounge moving rapidly" passage from Those Who Trespass Again a Thinnly Veiled Bill O'Reilly. However, I was wonder if I could get him to write out his reassurence that he gave Julia Styles the other day:

"Well, you can rest easy, Julia. I would never shoot you. I don't have a shotgun. And you're far too good looking for that kind of demise."

He's such a honeydripper!

[majenta]

my brother's an atheist who's pretty good about morals

I get what your saying, but there is tons of hypocrisy in organized religion.

Also did anyone see how outraged O'Really was at the Mass. high school that put on the Vagina Monologues? Because violence against women is good.

[rain2playn]

I'm new here, but you guys seem to be having too good of a time agreeing with each other. You need a conflicting opinion.

It's why I can't stand him because he doesn't believe in debate. He doesn't believe that people who don't agree with them can be just as passionate and just as "right" in their beliefs as he is in his.

Of course he doesn't think the other person is right. How can you have a debate if you believe the other person is just as right as you? I don't think you're right. After you read this you won't think I'm right. Does that mean that we don't believe in debate? Despite what post-modernism has taught us, there is right and wrong, it's ok to believe something is wrong, and the word right doesn't need qualifying quotes.

Also did anyone see how outraged O'Really was at the Mass. high school that put on the Vagina Monologues? Because violence against women is good.

Do you seriously believe that O'Reilly is saying that violence against women is good? He's not saying anything against the play, just that's it's inappropriate for children. It's talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman. Not appropriate for kids or school.

[Hasbro]

How can you have a debate if you believe the other person is just as right as you?

That would be fine if O'Reilly actualy debated people instead of shoutting over them and in one very famous case cutting off their mic. Anyone who actualy tries to engage him presenting a fact or statistic will get rebuked with "That's just your opinion!" Get him outside of The Factor wilts, such as his recent foibles on Conan, Fresh Air and the whole Franken escapade. He sets up rigged debates and struts around like he's Perecles. YET anyone who doesn't want to come on his show and participate in one of his ambushes gets derided as a coward, namely George Clooney, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark.

Do you seriously believe that O'Reilly is saying that violence against women is good? He's not saying anything against the play, just that's it's inappropriate for children. It's talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman. Not appropriate for kids or school.

Well he did endorse corporal punishment "as a last resort" for children in his book. I wonder what the greater danger is to society, a high school play or O'Reilly's authoritarian parenting style, which he got from his much admirred accountant father whose only redeming quality sounds like he beat the shit out of Bill O'Reilly.

And for all of his bluster about what's appropriate for children, do you ever notice that he almost never goes after a Fox entertainment product? And alot of the people he takes shots at as bieng bad for kids are ones he happens to be fueding with or just taken shots at him. His column on talk shows being left wing stooges, with the exception of Leno who had just kissed his ass, is an example. Listed amoung the left leaners was The Daily Show, Conan, and Letterman all of whom joked about Bill.

I know he says "I don't care what you do as an adult," but to me that comes off as an excuse to moralize and if he ever gets caught like Bennet or Rush he can fall back on that line.

[rain2playn]

I didn't see him on Conan, so I can't offer an opinion, but the Fresh Air and Franken incidents? I don't think "wilting" is very accurate. You make it sound like they engaged him a rational debate and he just curled into the fetal position and called for mommy. I'd say it was more like they started attacking him personally and he yelled at them. Whichever side you're on, it's hardly "wilting."

Please explain how objecting to this play has anything to do with spanking?
And it's not a "high school play." It's an adult play in a high school. That's why O'Reilly has a problem with it.

[majenta]

No he didn't wilt; he just turned into a madman. Since when is questioning someone's professional scruples a personal attack?

Despite what post-modernism has taught us, there is right and wrong, it's ok to believe something is wrong, and the word right doesn't need qualifying quotes.

Oh sure in math problems, but we're talking opinions here. Do I think Bill is right? No. Does that mean that he's unequivocally wrong? No.

Debates aren't for the benifet of the debators, but for the benefit of the audience. It's in the best interest of both parties to allow each other to make complete and cogent arguments.

High School students never talk about, think about, or have sex. Ever. Right. This is definitely a subject that has a great deal to do with them.

[biakbiak]

Of course he doesn't think the other person is right. How can you have a debate if you believe the other person is just as right as you? I don't think you're right. After you read this you won't think I'm right. Does that mean that we don't believe in debate? Despite what post-modernism has taught us, there is right and wrong, it's ok to believe something is wrong, and the word right doesn't need qualifying quotes.

Bill doesn't respect the opinion of the people he disagrees with which is why I said he doesn't believe in debate. He feels the need to vilify the other person and that lack of respect is clear when he talks to other people and when he shouts over people. No good debate can come of that.

I disagree with most everything that comes out his mouth, I think his opinions are wrong. However, I realize that is just my opinion. He believes (or at least comes across as believing) that he has the "right" answers to questions or issues that do not have absolutes. So, yes I feel the use of quotes was and is appropriate.

Edited by biakbiak, Jan 22, 2004 @ 9:15 PM.

[Hasbro]

Please explain how objecting to this play has anything to do with spanking?
And it's not a "high school play." It's an adult play in a high school. That's why O'Reilly has a problem with it.

I was pointing out he condones violence against children. It's just my opinion, but if Bill is half as influential as he thinks he is, he gave alot of people licence to abuse their kids, and this is from someone who sees media as a magic bullet and who is a self-proclaimed protector of children.

I also was making the point that O'Reilly's parenting style is IMHO more dangerous than spending a night seeing The Vagina Monolouges (I hated it.)

He might not have wilted, but he threw a tantrum, flew in a paraniod rage, went apeshit. Franken brought up Bill going around talking about the Peabody's which was false, and Bill likes to speak in absolutes, he still brags about "never having to issue a retraction," so proving him wrong is a valid point. I don't have the reporter's name handy, but when it turned out that The Washington Post won a pulitzer for Jimmy's World one of the things that came out about the reporter was she lied about her credintials (she went to toledo instead of Vassar,) so this is an issue of journalistic ethics.

I was including the lawsuit in the mess. Fox got laughed out of court and O'Reilly probably pushed Fox to sue Franken, admits he wanted to try a personal suit and condoned the suit (instead of saying "hey this will make me look like a jackass.") He might as well have bought Franken ad space.

The NPR interview he got asked some pointed questions, I've seen him do much worse to a person, yet oddly not to Richard Perle. Terry Gross didn't get into a shouting match with Staurt Smalley, but he was civil in the interview.

On his "never issuing a retraction" business, it doesn't mean alot because Fox News is an ethically bankrupt institution, roger ailes is content to let the egomaniac run around without a leash as long as he gets ratings, witness the aforementioned lawsuit.

[rain2playn]

Also, regarding Terry Gross, the point wasn't just that she was questioning his scruples. She was upset because she was giving him a hard time when she had been easy on Al Franken. She admitted on air that she had been much easier on Franken. So O'Reilly was right about that. He said that it showed she had an agenda and he left. Did she have an outright agenda? Maybe, maybe not, but you can't really claim that she's anything but liberal. So she was friendly with Franken and hard on O'Reilly because of it. Probably, if she'd thrown some hardball questions Franken's way, this wouldn't have happened.

He feels the need to vilify the other person and that lack of respect is clear when he talks to other people and when he shouts over people.

Look, no one on earth can claim that O'Reilly doesn't interupt people. I roll my eyes every time he tells someone that he'll give them the last word and then he interupts and finishes the segment with his statement.

But, I've also heard him, many times, concede points, tell his guest that he appreciates their opinion even if he thinks they're wrong, ask them to please return, and even joke with them. I've never heard him say anything disrespectful to anyone. He definately vilifies entities (the ACLU comes to mind), but I don't get the impression that he is trying to vilify guests personally on his show.

As for the Peabody vs. Polk issue, that has been resolved a million times over. On this board and elsewhere.

Don't make it personal. Talk about the show, not other posters.

Edited by Glark, Jan 24, 2004 @ 1:41 AM.

[Julieyousuck]

The thing I hate about the way O'Reilly treated the "Vagina Monolgue" thing was the fact that, as usual, O'Reilly's analysis is based on distortion and exaggeration. Worse, speculative distortion. If O'Reilly is going make it out like The Vagina Monologues are something explicitly pornographic (rolleyes), then he needs to offer up more concrete examples of what he means, rather then vague, nebulous ramblings. If O'Reilly has a case (and he really doesn't. Personally I think he saw the "Vagina" in the title and is immediately hoping that unaware viewers jump to a rash conclusion) then he needs to get more specific.

The weird thing is that this only seems to be a controversy in O'Reilly's mind. The rest of the community seems ok with it. And therein lies O'Reilly's REAL goal: moral grandstanding! The community Amherst doesn't seem to have a problem with this, so of COURSE, they're now "cowards" having their will crushed under an oppressive "liberal-lefty" school board overlord. Because of course "good" parents couldn't REALLY approve of this right? (Interesting how a guy who frequently champions the rights and role of parents is now basically telling them how to raise their children. Because parents ALWAYS love when total strangers and pinheads start breate them on that, right?) Don't they know that O'Reilly is the moral barometer that all parents and teachers must submit to before making a decision. Whatever. O'Reilly.

[LouisVuittonRULZ]

This SOB was in full force tonight about the "Hollywood" types. He was mad at Susan Sarandon for saying that "gay marriage and steroids in sports aren't the two biggest problems in America," which is true.

That was Meryl Streep who said that, and I totally agreed with her. They aren't are two biggest problems. It makes me angry to that Bill thinks that people like Meryl and other Americans as well can't possibly disagree with the President. It's called free speech Bill! Read up on it!

[Hasbro]

Ok point taken Kane. BUT let me say one last thing about the Necronomicon, like what you said about Bill being fair game because the show is all about him (his name is before the title for Crissakes! He isn't getting a "featuring Herman Menderchuk" type credit either,) the book is ALL Bill ALL the time. And in his NPR Interview (I can't get it download but have listend to it 5 times previous,) Big O complains that reviewers should review the book not him, which is hard to do when it's a first person screed on his philosophy. He also said the NYT reviewer was defaming him and I took it as most of the other reviewers were defaming him as well. So talk about paranoid. And further backing of egO'Reilly self-centeredness: his column was dropped by the OC Register and O said it was because the OC didn't want any pro-war voices on its editorial page. Thing was The Register had plenty of pro-war columnists (Safire, Sowell & Malkin) and the editor said it was because it was due to the column being "About what Bill O'Reilly."

MOVING ON!

Bill went on the war path on behalf of the passion again. The Papal secretary is deniying or recenting the Pope's alleged endorsement of the film. Bill takes the LA Times and the New York Times (free registration regired for both) to task for calling gibson a liar. I just have the transcript handy, but Bill fails to mention his business connection with Mel (didn't watch.) I have to say as a Jew this really insults me that O'Reilly lets such a blatant conflict of interest go on.

[Hasbro]

I'm not looking forward to the jew baiting that I'm sure will be an upshot of the contraversy over Mel's film. And since O'Reilly is taking his money he is commiting a major breach of journalistic ethics being The Passion's protector during his show. Mel's father also went on a bizzare rank denying the holocaust and going into conspiracy theories, (it was in the New Yorker I believe.)

For the record I didn't like O before I found out he sold out to Gibson and I'm a staunch deffender of the 1st Ammendment. If Mel has the right to produce a hypotheticaly (trying to reserve judgement) anti-semetic film I sure as hell have the right to take him to task for it.

Bill has selective enforcement issues on Freedom of speach anyway. Mention the word satire to him.