Noting the success of a recent righteous indignation thread based on Rupert Murdoch’s The New York Post and Fox News Channel, I thought some recent comments by Bill O’Reilly deserve some scrutiny. Sorry, but just I couldn’t think of anyway I could work this into the “War on Terrorism” section, so I’m putting it in media.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=13975&st=0



http://mediamatters.org/items/200701170009



http://mediamatters.org/items/200701190009

Questions for debate:

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apololgy?

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?
Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. I think that's about as in depth an analogy that I can give. He cannot comprehend complex issues. Personally, I don't understand why this is a national issue. I live in Missouri and I could really care less. I would not try to analyze Shawn Hornbeck's situation. I would interview him, ask him questions such as, "why didn't you try to escape," and take him for his word. The media outlet is dissecting this case and giving their opinions. That's not their job. In O'Reilly's case, it is his job, he has declared he is not a reporter; he is an analyst, for whatever that's worth.

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apology?
I have to say no he does not owe an apology to Shawn or his family. Bill probably believes he is making an accurate assessment. If Shawn Hornbeck goes on O'Reilly's show and convinces Bill that he was incorrect, then I think Bill would be inclined to apologize for doubting Shawn. Why Shawn would want to speak to O'Reilly is another question, but I would not demand an apology from Bill.

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?
No, FOX is a network that operates outside the normal guidelines. FOX can do what they want, how they want, because there is a large majority of Americans that still breath with their mouth open. FOX doesn't need to have journalistic integrity or even be correct in their reporting. The standard is considerably lower for FOX than other networks. FOX network has hired Bill O'Reilly, a Hardball Reject, Geraldo Rivera, orchestrator of the Al Capone safe fiasco and chair to the face recipient, Ollie North, the war criminal and co-conspirator of genocide in Guatemala, and Newt Gingrich, the guy that put a Contract out on America.

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?

Bill who? Oh yeah, that guy. I don't care what Bill thinks, his show is a big act and he admitted to it on the Colbert Report, caught the news of this on NPR this morning. He comes off as a real political commentator and journalist, but he's a faker. The person who lampoons Bill, Colbert, wondered that if Bill is a gigantic sham, then what is Colbert?

I know the answer! Colbert is a mocking caricature of a fraud! That's why it's so funny.

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apololgy?

Bill does not have the moral capital to offer anything to anybody. He lives a fake life.

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?

Why? Bill makes FNC a lot of money, and that's all that counts in these people's lives. Well, phone sex has its appeal. There might be a glimmer of hope for Billy Boy, as in one natural function still seems to work. It has been perverted along the way, but maybe, just maybe there's a shred of an honest person left.

1. I'll take "intemperate" and "insensitive," but pass on "inflammatory." Look kids, O'Reilly is about as warm and sensitive as a cold toilet seat. Expecting anything remotely resembling intelligent comments from Bill O' Reilly is like putting lipstick on a pig. All O'Reilly wants to do these days is sell his crummy books, brag how he is "looking out for you" and run off at the mouth at "secular liberals" who hate America and want the terrorists to win. Yawn. His act is tired, his show is tired and I'm tired of Bill O' Reilly.

2. Sure he does. Speculating without a shred of proof about the situation Shawn Hornbeck was in is just plain stupid. An arrogant blowhard like O'Reilly has to keep throwing out raw meat to hold on to his audience. They sure aren't tuning in just to hear him brag about how his book, Culture Warrior has been Number One on the New York Times Book Reviews (Funny, I thought O'Reilly hated the Times)

They won't get one though. That would force O'Reilly to admit he was wrong. Never happen.

3. Well. let's not act like Keith Olbermann doesn't have an ax to grind here. He's staked out the unique position as the Left-wing version of O'Reilly and he's had a lot of fun taking swipes at Big Bill. Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post wrote an article recently about the Olbermann/O'Reilly kerfuffle.

Besides, O'Reilly has already tried to get MSNBC to fire Olbermann.

Olbermann, who faces off with O'Reilly at 8 p.m., has been denouncing his rival for years. He positions his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to the "O'Reilly Factor" and frequently bestows on "Bill-O" his "Worst Person in the World" award. "Countdown" was up 60 percent in the fourth quarter over a year earlier, to 656,000 viewers. But "Factor," despite a 21 percent decline during the same period, still dwarfs the competition with 2.049 million viewers.

Several times over the last year, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because they were describing private conversations, O'Reilly's agent called Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC's television group, urging him to tell his MSNBC commentators to back off. O'Reilly also posted an online petition demanding that NBC dump Olbermann.

Fox News isn't about to fire O'Reilly. If they did they would only replace him with some really annoying right-wing talking head like Michelle Malkin or Michael Savage.

No, FNC has no intention of firing Bill O'Reilly; he says whatever he wants whenever he wants! Why should this utterance be any different?

1. No. They are bleeping stupid.
2. No. He's a blowhard who says things so people will talk about them. It's pretty much his job.
3. KO is as big a dimwit as BO. The two of them should play catch with a toaster in a tub of seawater.

"Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?"

I believe they were insensitive. At this juncture there is no way to know this boy's intentions. I do believe however that it is possible the boy could have been motivated by what O'Reilly suggests. The problem is that it is too early to introduce this possibility and may well be inappropriate once we find out more.

"Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apololgy"?

No. He has said nothing necessitating one. He should be careful nonetheless.

"Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?"

Olbermann is an a_s. He says these things purely in an effort to distinguish himself in some self-righteous way as the "sage of the left." His notoriety is almost totally as a reactionary - feeding only off someone else's (usually someone on the right) point-of-view. Generate your own material Keith and let the chips fall as they may.

"Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?



At this time we have the ideas of a trained former FBI profiler, Cliff Van Zandt, against assumptions made by Bill O’Reilly, who to my knowledge, has no training in psychology. I’ll go with Cliff Van Zandt.



http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200701/200...8_284_112.jhtml

If it can be demonstrated that O’Reilly is wrong and Van Zandt is right, I hope Shawn Hornbeck’s family sues Bill O’Reilly for slander.

Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apololgy?

Yes, but a nice monetary settlement from the deep pockets of O’Reilly and FNC would be even better.

Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?

No. I don’t watch FNC, period and that includes Bill O’Reilly. In general, O’Reilly is part of what we must endure to protect the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is bigger than Bill O’Reilly. Yet freedom of speech is not absolute and slandering a minor’s reputation with no evidence and no training to do so may fall outside the scope of the 1st Amendment.

To quote BoF,

"At this time we have the ideas of a trained former FBI profiler, Cliff Van Zandt, against assumptions made by Bill O’Reilly, who to my knowledge, has no training in psychology. I’ll go with Cliff Van Zandt."

This seems reasonable. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. I'm sure Mr. Van Zandt has seen this before.

BoF again,

"If it can be demonstrated that O’Reilly is wrong and Van Zandt is right, I hope Shawn Hornbeck’s family sues Bill O’Reilly for slander."

Your reaction reminds me of the "tempest in a teacup" over Nancy Pelosi's inconsiderate comments to Sec. Rice. Once given the opportunity, the more extreme elements of either side of the isle will pull out their battle axes. Calmer minds will prevail BoF-put your sword back in the garage.

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?

Yes. It is part of a commontator's job to spout off opinions before all the facts are in, but to so offhandledly claim the kid liked it when rape is still an allegation should be far beneath any adult human being.

If the evidence had been leading in the direction that these kids ran away from home and the suspect had simply given them a place to live off the street, then O'Reilly might have found some context to qualify such an opinion. But as things stand, the last thing a victim need to hear is that the third-most-popular TV personality thinks he liked it or deserved it.

Righteous indignation, indeed. Shame on you, Mr. O'Reilly.

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apololgy?

If the suspect is eventually convicted of victimizing the Hornbeck, O'Reilly should singlehandedly fund his college education -- by lawsuit if necessary.

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?

If I were O'Reilly's boss, I'd have a stern talk with him. If he had any other job, I might consider firing him. But let's face it, if FNC fires O'Reilly, he'll be on CNN the next day earning twice his current salary, and all his advertisers would follow him. FNC won't fire O'Reilly to avoid liability in a lawsuit because they've got so much insurance on O'Reilly that it won't matter. I doubt they would fire O'Reilly unless his ratings significantly drop.

This is really just another "pathetic" salvo in the war between TV's two most dimwitted megalomaniacs in trying to get each other fired, as the AP reports. Although MSNBC has tried to put a deceitfully positive spin on Olbermann's almost non-existent ratings, the Neilsen cable news rankings (PDF) for calendar 2006 tell the story of who is most likely to get canned (order is most-watched to least-watched):


Note that even among his own NBC channels, Olbermann doesn't even beat cable reruns of cheesy game shows like "Deal or No Deal" and "1 vs. 100"; whereas, even reruns of O'Reilly beat CNN's top show. So, Olbermann will probably be fired long before O'Reilly even gets his hand slapped by Rupert "Howling Mad" Murdoch-- not because Olbermann's various paranoias are well-founded, but because only the few who share Olbermann's strange delusions actually seem to tune in.

I'd sort of like to see them both fired, but I doubt it will happen. (Edited to add-- That's just me being flummoxed. It's a free country, let them say what they want, and I probably won't stop monitoring them occasionally, they're occasionally thought-provoking. Shame on them both when they attack victims, though.)

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?
They were certainly insensitive, but they come nowhere close to the level needed for slander. His comments were no worse than the near child abuse of Hornbecks family trotting him on Oprah like a show pony. I guess money heals all wounds.

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apology?
It wouldn't hurt. I'd like to see him understand that some of his tirades are immature, and take responsibility for his words.

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FANG should fire Bill O’Reilly?
Aah....O'Reilly and the anti-O'Reilly. Olberman is as much if not more, of a buffoon than O'Reilly is. For him to call for O'Reilly to be fired is laughable in itself. What ever would Olberman talk about if his nemisis wasn't on the air?????

Ah- O'Rielly- the "American Idol" for conservatives - it is a well known psych phenomenon that the kid was exhibiting- there was actually quite a good case on this very issue in Canada- a couple kidnapped a 17 year old girl, held her as an BDSM slave for years- even went back to visit her family TWICE during this period- the couple had her so wrapped up psychologically, she thought a "corporation" after she had signed a "contract" would come and get her if she ever ran away- this is a 17 year old female now, that had basically been independent for a couple years- they had her confined to a pine box the size of a coffin underneath thier own bed- and they kept her there for a couple years before allowing her to venture out. During the trial- this issue came up that she was there "voluntarily"- which, of course, she was not- but the fact that she even visited home and returned "willingly" almost gave this guy an out! In the end, the man was convicted, the wife was not (of course, even though it was pretty obvious later that she was part and parcel of it- just like the Ken and Barbie murders (Holmka)- women just don't pay the price for thier crimes in western society it seems )- regardless- it doesn't take to long to brainwash a 14 year old, when their very lives are at stake, day after day.

In fact- the goverment uses this very type of conditioning when they torture or "pressure/interogate" alleged bad guys.

If you really want to see how "good" Bill O'Rielly is- watch the David Letterman interview with him on youtube- where David says "well, my head isn't full of artificle facts" and "no, I don't answer that way because I am thoughtful"- it REALLY highlights the idiocy of RW media.

I am hoping some more monetary lessons for the kinky sex offender O'Rielly- but his last settlement didn't seem to slow him down too much.

Correction! The "tempest in a teacup" you mentioned involved Senator Barbara Boxer and Sec. Rice - not Nancy Peolsi and Rice.

There's really no comparison between the two cases. Hornbeck was 11 years old when he was kidnapped and is yet three years short of adulthood. Are you comparing a minor of this age to a powerful adult like Sec. Rice - who shoud be able to take the heat associated with her job? On the other hand, I don't recall that being abused by a media thug like O'Reilly is part of kid's job description.

I was thinking about putting the sword back inthe garage and getting out the guillotine. Seriously though, I would love to see some substantial monetary blood of Bill O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch spewing from the blade of that guillotine. It's called "accountabgility." I'm sure O'Reilly has a passing knowledge of this word, especially when he applies it to others.

Vangaurd- O'Rielly has basically implied that the victim of sexual abuse liked it so he stayed there, getting raped over and over again by a pedophile.

Don't you think that is a little more than a temptest in a teacup?

Yes on all counts. O'Reilly's comments were absurd and offensive. To suggest that an 11 year old boy [who may or may not have been sexually abused] enjoyed his captivity is one of the most obscene, non-loofa related things O'Reilly has said.
Uh, yeah.
Keith Olbermann is a sanctimonius, fork-tongued demogogue and no better than O'Reilly. I mean let's look at this from a straight-up business perspective. Should FNC fire their biggest star, who has the top rated news/talk show in his time-slot...Of course not and of course they won't, unless people stop watching his show because of his offensiveness. The market is a beautiful thing.

On Edit: This isn't a First Amendment issue as the government is not involved. Congress cannot regulate speech, FNC and any other private entity can.

CP

First, it goes without saying that the hypocrisy that those deriding Fox display without recognizing the similar bias in the other networks is fairly astounding. But then, it is such thinking that allows all such programming to succeed, as no one seems to admit to the bias in programming that agrees with their particular viewpoint--which is precisely why that bias is catered to. Why do you think Olbermann goes off on O'Reilly so much? Because he is catering to the anti-Fox market. Think what you want of Fox...but note where catering to the anti-Fox market has placed Olbermann's show in the ratings.

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?

Inflammatory, intentionally. O'Reilly's comments are pretty off base. What will happen because of the controversy over them? Their ratings will probably spike. People make stupid, idiotic comments all the time for precisely this reason. If you doubt this, listen to any sports talk show, any time. Without controversy, there really isn't anything to talk about in the sports world...so the hosts are constantly saying controversial things to stir up ratings. It's how the game is played. And the more we talk about such comments, the more we justify their utterance.

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apololgy?

If facts demonstrate the inaccuracies of the comments, then probably. Will it happen? Not sure, and don't really care. The thoughts or words of television pundits carry essentially no weight with me anyway, so whether or not they apologize for any comments they make is pretty irrelevant to me.

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FANG should fire Bill O’Reilly?

For having the number one rated show in its segment? Hardly. Olbermann, of course, should be extremely worried for the very same reason. Which is too bad. I like Olbermann, and MSNBC is, in general, the most neutral of the various networks. I would like to watch his show more, but his personal vendetta against O'Reilly is way too much. Even when his rants have validity, they get completely drowned out in his tone. O'Reilly has been on Olbermann's Worst Person in the World list like 90% of the time. Regardless of your opinion of Fox or O'Reilly, that's simply ridiculous. I mean...how many people has O'Reilly tortured to death? In fact, it would be hard to watch Olbermann's rants against O'Reilly and not conclude he was farther along on the evil scale than O'Reilly could ever hope to be. He comes off as borderline maniacal.

Ok, let’s forget Olbermann. I should have known better than to give some of you a crack to wiggle in a defense of Bill O’Reilly. I asked if he was right or wrong about a specific issue – namely firing Bill O’Reilly. Some of you have given us far more than that. Here’s an example.



According to Media Matters, it seems that O’Reilly got some heat from FNC viewers. So, it's not just Olbermann who finds O'Reilly's latest misspeak obnoxious.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200701170009

Ahh, biased in your opinion much? Thank you for so effectively demonstrating the point I was making regarding the hyprocrisy on this matter.

I am curious who those here are that you accuse of defending O'Reilly? Everyone here has indicated that they thought the stance was insensitive and inflammatory (and all have indeed answered the question you posed regarding his firing). Yet when the same is pointed out regarding the very pundits stating that, and the commonplace occurence of such events from all opinion journalism, you want to disregard it. How very.....typical. Or do the rules somewhere state that insensitive and inflammatory comments are only to be discussed and criticized when they come from the right? If so, please reference said rules. You mention that there are many FNC viewers who did indeed criticize O'Reilly on this matter. Where, I wonder, are the critics of journalists of the opposing ideology when their pundits step over the line? Silently (or loudly) applauding, generally. The difference is rather striking, and certainly doesn't provide much groundwork for any indignation on their part.

I hardly make your point. You must have missed these two partial defenses of O'Reilly.

Question 2

I must say BoF, it's good to see you on the side of the child victim on this one. I hope you will join me in hoping they put away this guy for a long long time for what he did to this boy.

Onto the debate questions..

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?

He should feature his own comments in his 'Most Ridiculous Item of the Day' segment. because that is what they were ridiculous and insipid.

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apology?

I think he does. But O'rielly is bullheaded and don't think he will.

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?

Irrelevant to me because I think Olberman is irrelevant.

Here's the real problem... You're really going to be hard pressed to find anyone coming to BOs defense on this. He's a talk show host. That's it. He's says things. It's his job. Gotta fill that hour up somehow.

My point BA is that B'O doesn't have the credentials to diagnose what psychological motivatioin the kid had for not escaping.

I taught special eduction for 25 years. One thing we were advised, though I think I have a better grasp on psychology than O'Reilly, was not to diagnose or do a borderline diagnosis as did O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's background is in history, not psychology. Sans credentials, he should shut his damned mouth on subjects of this nature. This subject sould be left to professionals, not a person who's job it may be to stir up controversy. That's why I hope the parents file a law suit on O'Reilly's worthless rear end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Re...tor)#Early_life

What did he say that was slanderous? What caused damage? I think he liked being in captivity because he could run around whenever he liked and not go to school... I get it, you're angry. Do us and the world a favor and leave lawyers out of it.

Whether I'm angry or not is beside the point.

The decision to or not to bring lawyers into this is up to the parents, not you or me.

I thought I explained why O'Reilly doesn't have credentials to make remarks like you have quoted. :rolleyes

For your Information I will repost a link to someone who does have credential.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200701/200...8_284_112.jhtml

Ok i'll be the one to admit it. I watch the O'reilly factor. I guess I can't deny I like it since I watch it. I'll even admit I watch it partially because it validates much of my thinking. I know i'm the only one here that does this of course. Everyone else here is objective. I guess i'm just a sheep.

Except....wait a minute. I had an original thought. I watched this particular piece and was thinking in my head....What the hell is Bill talking about? How stupid to speculate on this! Give the (13 year old) kid the benefit of the doubt for petes sake. He's making himself sound like a moron.

I'll even give you one more! A while back, Bill was talking about the Malmedy massacre and incorrectly attributing it as an American atrocity (when in fact Americans were victims of a Nazi atrocity). I guess he was doing this to make a point that atrocities by americans have happened in past wars (it was during the whole Abu Ghraib thing). In any case, its not really germane to the subject at hand except to say...Bill needs to do a better job of checking his facts. Heck, i'll even say he needs to do a MUCH better job (before someone accuses me of being an apologist for Bill). It was another dumb statement.

I also remember Keith Olberman's response to this statement. To say it was apopelptic is a complete understatement. While Bill was definitely wrong, but you would have thought by Olberman's response that O'reilly just shot someone. It was over the top...and just as stupid as O'reilly's statements.

Hobbes is right. There certainly seems to be only one type of stupid, biased radio/talk show host out there according to what I see here on AD. And that type of person is CONSERVATIVE....like Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Of course we all know how angelic hosts like Al Franken, Keith Olberman, and Alan Colmes are. The virtual paragons of fair and balanced!!!!

Anyways on to the questions:

1. Yes. The comments were premature, insensitive and just plain dumb.

2. Probably. Will he give one? Who knows, but he might. Then again, it only seems to be a big fuss here on AD so its a non-issue. I doubt he's even given it much of a second thought.

3. Keith Olberman as the guardian of truth and justice. The man has a vendetta against Bill O'reilly (and vice versa). I think this kinda smacks of the same crap hes been spewing about O'reilly for like...oh...the last 2 years or so? I say Keith...give it a rest buddy! (Same to you Bill for goodness sake!). To answer the question...no. This does not rise to the level of someone losing their job over IMHO.

We both agree he's an idiot. We both agree he's unqualified to make this and many other statements.

Where we disagree is his right to say whatever he likes. It's his show. When his star falls, and it will, he'll still say lots of stupid things you just won't hear about them.

PS - You'll never, ever get me to click on an Oprah link. She's as bad as he is - just with nicer presentation.

We're getting closer, I guess. Should Bill O'Reilly be held accountable for the remarks he makes? Isn't taking responsibility part of the conservative creed? If so, who should hold him accountable?

The link was not to something Oprah said, but an FBI trained former profiler, who gave an explanation as to why a kid, who was 11 when he first kidnapped, didn't escape. I don't like Joe Scarborough, but I watch him and sometimes Tucker Carlson to see where the right is headed, what they are babbling about. It's my capsaulized version of right-wing news.

I agree with you about the sexual abuse thing. We don't yet know, or haven't been told, if either of the two boys were molested.

BO says repeatedly he's not a Conservative, of course he's to the Right far more than he's to the Left, so he's under no obligation to uphold any Conservative Creed - if there is one.

Why is Bill O'Reilly's self assessment important?

At one time Barry Godwater's Conscience of a Conservative, 1964, was pretty much conservative creed. I have read a number of web conservatives lamenting the right's moving away from Goldwater.

I don't think Goldwater, who helped depose Nixon, would think much of BO.

Maybe YOU should decide if he's a conservative while you're at it. Even YOU can't decide

Maybe this will help:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060327fa_fact

Are you capable of more than one line answers? I can't say in a polite manner what I think BO is.

The point is that there are conservatives, who think not just BO, but today's right in general, has moved far away from Goldwater's ideas. I'm not a conservative, so I don't really care.

Hobbes- I agree with you 100% and CP as well- however- as far as a civil case goes- suggesting that a victim of sexual abuse "liked it because they could play all day and stay out of school (when, most likely, in this horrific setting, that very well may be one of the things they missed) - well, I am not sure if that reaches to slander or defamation- which, your right to free speech ends at the point you slander or defame- do you agree? I am not sure if it is a clear cut case- or, do I even know case law or if there is a precedent in this case- but, I am hoping there is a lawyer that does have an answer, and an answer that costs BO a few more million in "shut up" money.

I am sure Hobbes and CP- you are not suggesting slander and defamation is protected under the 1rst amendment?

And, point to make as well- this kind of "staying with the kidnapper" is not even recently new- anyone remember Corey Stayner?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16690437/

Or Elizabeth Smart?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16610373/site/newsweek/

So it was not like BO didn't or shouldn't have heard of this before- especially as a supposed "informed" person.


Edited to remove comments responding to removed post. - Jaime

First things first. In order to qualify as slander, O'Reilly must be knowingly saying something harmful and untrue about this kid...He isn't so this isn't slander. Second, I wasn't saying that slander is protected, I was simply saying that this isn't a 1st Amendment issue at all because Congress was not involved in this particular instance. That's really all I meant to say.

CP

I see what you are saying - and you are correct- like I said- I myself am not so sure it rises to slander- or defemation either. But I am no legal expert- it would be nice if he is though.

Gotcha CR, I think we're on the same page then
Link

Just some fuel for the fire here. Apparently this kid told police in 2003 about a missing bike, but didn't mention the fact that he was kidnapped...I'm not saying Bill is right, but damn, maybe he was.

CP

I guess it is hard to understand from a layperson's viewpoint, if you haven't had much exposure to this kind of thing, unfortunately at times- I am around it more than I wish. This is not uncommon- and BO, supposedly being an informed talking head, full of facts, knowing about issues like this and whatnot- certainly, apparently, well enough to comment on it in front of the nation - should have known better. I will try to find the link and PM you a specific case- but here is some info on pedophiles, and how they groom and abuse kids:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/...dophiles/7.html

Every parent should know this- it is very important to recognize CORRECTLY the predator.

BTW- we all here at work commonly "pull a frist" - trying to guess who is really a sexual predator, as far as celebs- BO has been a " for sure" guy here since his revelations about his sexual stalking of his assistant.

Of course- it is jut a stupid, silly, possibly even wrong, dark game we do here, when celebs are accused of certain things, of a dark nature relating to what we do for a living. It is not always a good thing though, to think that everyone that is nice to your child means harm- but safer I suppose. It is the way we deal with the horror we see done sometimes.

Wow, I leave for just a few hours and all hell breaks lose!

To quote BoF,

"There's really no comparison between the two cases. Hornbeck was 11 years old when he was kidnapped and is yet three years short of adulthood. Are you comparing a minor of this age to a powerful adult like Sec. Rice - who shoud be able to take the heat associated with her job? On the other hand, I don't recall that being abused by a media thug like O'Reilly is part of kid's job description."

Yes, there is a comparison. Both are examples of how partisans will inflate the newsworthiness of certain stories in order to "grind their axes" ad nauseum. Granted, O'Reilly's comments were quite calloused though they do not merit your conniption. My bets are that the young Horbeck will weather this "assault" better than you will though!

The BoF train continues,

"Ok, let’s forget Olbermann. I should have known better than to give some of you a crack to wiggle in a defense of Bill O’Reilly. I asked if he was right or wrong about a specific issue – namely firing Bill O’Reilly. Some of you have given us far more than that. Here’s an example."

QUOTE(vanguard @ Jan 19 2007, 11:57 PM)
Olbermann is an a_s. He says these things purely in an effort to distinguish himself in some self-righteous way as the "sage of the left." His notoriety is almost totally as a reactionary - feeding only off someone else's (usually someone on the right) point-of-view. Generate your own material Keith and let the chips fall as they may.

You asked the question about Olbermann's suggestion BoF - it can't be scrapped that easily only because someone has called into question the ulterior motives of your idol. My comments about Olbermann were germane to your question as almost everyone seems to know but you that Olbe's stance is out of control. Again, no, O'Reilly should not be fired.

To quote C-Ram,

"Vangaurd- O'Rielly has basically implied that the victim of sexual abuse liked it so he stayed there, getting raped over and over again by a pedophile.

Don't you think that is a little more than a temptest in a teacup?"

First off, it is ironic you would be the first to call into question the possible use of hyperbole. Nonetheless, I don't get why O'Reilly's comments plague you so? And if he were molested? How does O'Reilly's insensitive comments have any bearing on what needs to happen for Hornbeck to recover? -News flash!- Young boy found after 4 years. Suspicion of ongoing sexual abuse by kidnapper. Years of counseling and constant love/support from his parents needed if the boy is to have a chance for recovery. But wait! O'Reilly thinks he may have enjoyed aspects of his captivity! The horror! God help this boy now!

Get real...

Vanguard- I suppose I do take this issue more than a bit personally- because there is this continueing "thing" (for lack of a better expression) to still blame the victim to some degree in this case. On the scale of really bad things to say about a child, in, what he brags to be as the highest rated cable show on earth- to spread this manure he did, in the manner he did, well, it is quite bad. I don't know if there is enough "hyperbole" to say how bad this is- so bad, that Van Zandt felt compelled to pretty much go on the "circuit" to explain how bad it is to assume what BO said.

I am an emotional person- I am not sorry for this- and I put aside certain aspects of my personality to deal with the people that I must deal with as a proffesion.

And this is a real affront, a very bad one.

You are correct of course- the parents are the key to the kids healing, but making public statements that he "enjoyed it"- he didn't say "certain aspects"- he pretty much said, or implied quite clearly to me, that the kid enjoyed his life with the pedophile- and, in the realm of politics and such that we discuss here- for me, this one is off the scale. Ya, america is on "outrage burnout" now- there is just so much to be outraged about- the president getting a illicit, on the side BJ from an intern, and lying about it. Should be outraged. Another one lying over and over, and his followers giving him a pass every time, even though soldiers are being wasted daily- but for this, this is beyond the pale for me- accusing a child of "liking" the captivity he endured.

I know quite a few parapalegics. they ski, they bike, and do active stuff, and seem to enjoy thier lives. Well, to quote one "I don't think about being crippled every day, but yeah, I hate it, I don't like it, but I endure and enjoy life as I can anyway"- that is kinda what you see in kids like this- especially, when they have been abused, brainwashed and threatened into compliance as this kid, and others I have mentioned, have been. They don't think, every minute "here is my chance" instead, they think "here is a moment of not-terror-horror". So they do bike around, and don't escape, because the 300 pound dude that is 6'4" tall has told him, after beating and raping him mercilessly, that his parents are next if he talks. And, since he has been told this since age 11, and considering the conditioning that has been going on- he believes it- and it is at the back of his mind, every day.

So, if it seems a bit "hyperbolic" - I am going to go out on a limb here, and say "well, child sexual abuse really has no hyperbole when it comes to talking heads making these statements".

I think, that,in the grand scheme of things, this is as bad as it gets for a media type stupid -horrific/horid=comments. And I am saying this in the context of US media- not Al Jazeera or some such.

So please don't link me to beheadings today- mmkay?

If all hell breaks loose while you are gone, I guess you will just have to stay glue to your computer or make peace with the idea tht the board continues when you are not around.

Yes, there is a difference in an 11 year old boy who is snatched from the streets and an adult who gets clobbered by another adult at a Senate hearing.

Regarding Olbermann. My question for debate concerned one statement he made, - Bill O'Reilly should be fired. You expanded your answer beyond yes or no to a generalized attack on Olbermann in which you skirted the profanity filters to call him an obscenity.

That Olbermann is my "idol" is pure conjecture on your part.

Settle down.

Ask me a complex question or make a statement that requires more than one line to answer or correct you.

You say BO's a Conservative in one setence and he's NOT in another. He says he's not a Conservative, you say he's not a Conservative - what precisely would require a longer response?

C-Ram -

If this is going to turn into a thread about the travesty of child sexual molestation then it sounds as though you and I are on the same page. I'm surrounded by the issue of abuse on a daily basis in my profession and I never want to become calloused to this. It is good to be reminded that though you and I are on the opposite end with so many things we can certainly come together on one of the most important issues.

As I'm sure you'll note, my original post on the topic of O'Reilly's comments suggested that those comments may well be inappropriate as more info is revealed. No one is giving Mr. O' a pass. I hope that as this story unfolds he'll rethink his stand. While Mr. Hornbeck's situation is probably worse than we realize, granting O'Reilly so much consideration is indeed making a tempest out of teapot.

To quote BoF-

"If all hell breaks loose while you are gone, I guess you will just have to stay glue to your computer or make peace with the idea tht the board continues when you are not around."

NO, NO I refuse to accept this!!!! While I am gone you must unchain yourself from your computer board until I return, BoF!!

Seriously, your concern about the inappropriateness of Mr. O' is well-founded. You must be careful though not to allow your other more partisan passions to confound and detract from your point. There is more than one poster on this thread who believes this is the case.

You have stumbled onto an example of where you & I can be in agreement. Mr. O' should not have said anything about this. It will pass though, really. My bets are that O' will retract in some way his earlier comments once it becomes obvious that Hornbeck's experience was much more than a chance to "skip out of school."

P.S. My alleged profanity about Olbie' was only an admission that he was a "flaming democrat" and hence, a "donkey".

Vanguard- I agree and perhaps there was a misunderstanding in typing, not to mention the fact I was a bit more than fatigued yesterday, the computer was helping me to stay awake during a 16 hour shift while I was coalating several different psych reports and gettng them ready for court- all sex offender cases.

The pass I am refering to- is some poeple seem to think that BO didn't understand that it was not all bicycles and missed school- it was rape, on a regular basis.

He mentioned stolkholm syndrome, saying "he didn't buy it"- which means, he knows what is going down and is rationalizing it, or, he doesn't (which I doubt seriously- do you think he could really be THAT stupid?) and is commenting negatively on something he did no homework on and no idea what he was talking about- and, as a political commentator- that is unexcusable as well.

Hyperbole and rhetoric are certainly part of the politica landscape, comes with the territorey- however, when it focuses on a private citizen with no political affiliation, even worse, a minor, then it is very, very bad.

And yeah, I definately concede to you your point on the "temptest in a teapot" as far as granting BO that kind of power- I guess, as a society, we do grant too much power to our talking heads. If folks just turned off the TV on BO after this- BO would fade quietly into the night, we do in fact, give him this power.

Good point.

so did i somehow miss the episode of countdown where olberman spouts the nambla party line, smearing a possible sexual assault victim? because i can't think of many things that even come close to being that morally reprehensible.

No probably not, but then you hear things BO never said. His statement is moronic on its actual merits - there's no need to add to it because when you do this you are marginalilzed and give the idiot the ability to slither out of his idiotic statement.

BO - paraphrase: Why didn't he just escape? He had the chance. I think he liked not having to go to school, playing all the time.

That's stupid enough. It doesn't need anything else to make and keep it stupid. Leave it alone. Don't add some twisted fantasy the BO is saying the kid liked being raped - it doesn't help.

Because it is the moral equivilant of me saying "hey, she had a mini-skirt, she was ASKING for it. I was hoping, for the most part, that part of our past was behind us.

It isn't. It's not even close. Until there's some indication that there's been sexual abuse comparing a rape to kidnapping is pure fantasy. It's also very easy to dismiss someone who makes that stretch. Once that dismissal is made it's easy to go on to dismiss the slander/smear/crime committed. See also Bush AWOL.

There's a perfectly idiotic statement to slam BO with - use it, unadorned.

So what exactly do you think he was implying with this statement? Especially since he started out with "Idon't buy this stockholm syndrome thing"?

I'm not interested in his implicated statements. I'm interested in his actual statements.

I suspect though BO was likely thinking this about Stockhom Syndrome:

The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.

You know the original meaning. The one used before the sexual abuse piggybacked on it.

To quote C-Ram,

"So what exactly do you think he was implying with this statement? Especially since he started out with "Idon't buy this stockholm syndrome thing"?"

Am I reading you correctly when you seem to suggest that O'Reilly implied the victim enjoyed his sexual abuse? Where do you make this link from O's comment on the Stockholm Syndrome? Where in the rationale for the Stockholm Syndrome does it argue that disagreement with it's premise necessarily leads to approval of the victim being sexually abused?!! BA nails it right on the money - criticize Mr. O' on the merits of what he actually said. It's quite a stretch to read more into it, it calls into question your ability to tease out the pertinent issue from his comments, and it muddies the legitimate complaint against him.

What say you (or anyone else) regards to C-Pat's comments earlier suggesting that Mr. O' might be on to something?

To quote C-Pat,

"Just some fuel for the fire here. Apparently this kid told police in 2003 about a missing bike, but didn't mention the fact that he was kidnapped...I'm not saying Bill is right, but damn, maybe he was."

Be careful C-Pat, you may be accused of being a NAMBLA-lover..

Guess I'll weigh in on this one, too.

1. Were Bill O’Reilly’s comments intemperate, insensitive, or worse inflammatory?

They were about as sensitive as those of any disc jockey who makes remarks to get a rise out of people--the more controversial and apt to be repeated at the office water cooler, the better for ratings.

They were insensitive and stupid. I would place the remarks in the same category as the jokes that were circulating after the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion (e.g.: Q. What were Christa McAulliffe's last words? A. "What does this button do?").

2. Does O’Reilly owe Shawn Hornbeck and his family an apology?

I would say only if Shawn Hornbeck and his parents state that they were offended by what O'Reilly had to say. I suspect that they all have enough on their plates right now to completely disregard what this guy said, unless someone is crass enough to repeat it to them.

3. Do you agree with Keith Olbermann that FNC should fire Bill O’Reilly?

I like Keith Olbermann. His is the type of propaganda I enjoy, especially when he is talking about Bush. But I think that while many of us would like to see "Papa Bear" (ala Stephen Colbert) actually have to eat his words from time to time, O'Reilly shouldn't be fired over it.

Besides, since when did anyone at the FOX network really give a rip about what anyone thought of their heavily-biased pundits? Why should they care as long as O'Reilly's show is bringing in the ratings?