Here is a link to the story on yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080105/ap_po/play_of_the_day_1

Apparently, a man of larger stature than O'Reilly was in the line of Bill's camera shot. O'Reilly, instead of asking the man to move, demanded that he move, insulted him, and then shoved him. Then Bill showed up at Hillary Clinton's campaign and tried to get an audience member to ask Hillary about her Iraq War exit strategy.

Questions for debate:
What can we expect from FOX News if a Democrat is elected President?

Should there be repercussions against Bill O'Reilly either legally or from his employer?

Does this change your opinion of FOX News' claim about being fair and balanced?

What can we expect from FOX News if a Democrat is elected President?

I should think the network figures out that the party is over. With literally nobody wanting to appear on its talking head shows, it might want to consider other personalities and formats. I'm not surprised that Democrats boycott Fox News.

Should there be repercussions against Bill O'Reilly either legally or from his employer?

He laid hands on a person and shoved. I believe that is considered assault under the law. However, to the staffer Billy O is a shrimp and irrelevant in the world. There will be no repercussions because the attacker and the medium are both meaningless entities in a changing world. This is like a scene from the entertainer has-been flicks. "How come nobody respects me anymore?" Well Bill, your fifteen minutes are up. Go write a stupid book or have phone sex or something.

Let's see how his ratings do from here on out. That's the best way to measure what his employer will do. If it's true that most of his audience is ready to kick the bucket, it's just a matter of time.

Seems that Obama came by to cool things off. There was only one hot-head in this scene.

Hillary, when he came there, stopped the crowd from booing. Looks like the tactic was not to give the bung hole any ammunition.

Does this change your opinion of FOX News' claim about being fair and balanced?

Nope. It's always been like the used car salesman, Honest Dick Weed.

Edit add: After reviewing the footage of this on YouTube, Bill was gently put off by Obama and kissed his tush to get something sometime. Obama said after the primary (New Hampshire). Meanwhile I saw footage of all the Demo candidates giving Billy O the cold shoulder, probably because he's been slinging mud at them regularly. It's getting pathetic for him and FN.

I'm not exactly sure what the linked article has to do with these questions, but ...

What can we expect from FOX News if a Democrat is elected President?

Probably the same. By that, I mean that FOX balances the appearances of Democrats with Republicans on a one to one basis, unlike other cable news networks.

Should there be repercussions against Bill O'Reilly either legally or from his employer?

I'm not sure that's in play here. "Shove" is a term that's not well defined here. Did the 6'8" staffer fall down? Then I'd say "maybe". Otherwise, what is the big news here?

Does this change your opinion of FOX News' claim about being fair and balanced?

The part about O'Reilly wanting to ask Hillary a real question and the fact that she would never, ever acknowledge O'Reilly himself to ask it? I'm not sure what the format of the event was, but I haven't seen any real questions asked of the candidates. The questions are mostly from some guy who has suffered since being a child of some environmental effects of being exposed to epoxy or a woman who can't get healthcare for her ailing sister or a guy who lost his job because his company moved overseas.

What can we expect from FOX News if a Democrat is elected President?

Um, let's see, more of the same? Fawning and wetting themselves over a repub, hysteria if it is Dem. IN fact, look at the way they keep attempting to smear Obama, calling him "Osama" and other nice things Faux is proof that a media outlet can't call themselves "conservative" and be anything but a straight up propaganda machine for the right. I mean, sure, maybe CNN and the others may or may not lean left, and it is open to debate- there is no debate that Faux is really Al-Jazeera for the right- except, that probably, Al-Jazeera is much more fair and balanced than Faux.

Should there be repercussions against Bill O'Reilly either legally or from his employer?

What happened there is legally assault AND battery. He should go to jail, legally. However, most true assault and battery cases never make it to trial and it is rarely enforced on anyone, unless there is blood gushing from the victim, or it is domestic dispute. That goes for the general public, so not charging Bill. However, if the staffer would have turned around and cold-cocked him, as long as it was only one or two punches, no jury in the nation would have convicted him, and probably, no charges even filed. The staffer is obviously a cool dude, and kept a cool head. I would have liked to see Bill's nose broken or jaw broken would have been even funnier.

The staffer does have civil grounds though, and should go for the money.

Does this change your opinion of FOX News' claim about being fair and balanced?

I believe that doesn't even pass the laugh test. Like I said- Al Jazeera is even more fair and balanced than Faux, and I am not joking. Al-Jazeera does a better job of presenting opposing viewpoints than Faux. I don't believe there is ANY "news" on Faux, just straight up unvarnhished propaganda for propaganda's sake. They are literally the same as Tokyo Rose or Baghdad Bob.

Should there be repercussions against Bill O'Reilly either legally or from his employer?


Here's part New Hampshire's statute involving simple assault.


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/L...631/631-2-a.htm

I think the incident qualifies as a misdemeanor under the wording "unprivileged physical contact to another."

I doubt O'Reilly will be charged, but I think it would be appropriate to put him in a cage with Brittney Spears for a month.

Should there be repercussions against Bill O'Reilly either legally or from his employer?

Lol, for what being Bill O' Riley? Truth is that guy is, and always has been blunt, and even insulting at times. He was a guest on the Daily Show and called John Steward a liberal pinhead who would be laughing, even if the world were to explode, and he said this to his face on Johns own show. Lol, I mean come on thats Bill O' Riley for you, what do you want to do put him in jail for being a prick? Be that as it may, he makes some very good points, and is interesting to watch. Whatever he's doing now, its working, he has ratings that Keith Olberman only dreams of, the best ratings in the business in fact. We need a cold cynic willing to say exactly what he feels, weather or not he offends people. Call me an advocate for free speech, he gets attacked by practically everyone as a result, which to him is fine, it just brings him more attention.

Does this change your opinion of FOX News' claim about being fair and balanced?

Well until more networks like MSNBC come out with a show that resembles something like Hannity and Colmes, where the news is debated through both a set of conservative and liberal values, then no. I see less of a mix of opinions on MSNBC than I do on Fox. although CNN is also a notch above MSNBC when it comes to varied view points. Ive watched all 3 of these top networks a good bit, and although there is favoritism on all networks, Fox is guilty of this no more than its competition. Ever wonder why there ratings are beating the competition?

You have to also understand that Bill O'rielly really loses every debate- ever, if he doesn't have control of the Mike Net- for instance, go to Youtube and look up when Bill visited Dave Letterman- someone who is NOT a political commentator. He whiped the floor with Bill. I would gladly appear on any show with Bill if he has no more control over the mike than I do. I would make him look like the bully and baffoon he is. And his stature doesn't bother me a bit. Afterwards, I would break his jaw as an exclamation point. It would be what we call "poetic justice".

It is unfortunate we live in a society where the bad guy doesn't get what is coming to him, immediately. It is said that it would actually hurt Obama's campaign by allowing the the staffer to retaliate against the bully. A bully getting his comeuppance in this case would be a good thing.

And even most conservative viewers realize that Hannity and Combs is biased, where Hannity just shouts down all opposing views as well. In fact, there is not a single conservative talk show host that could hold his own in a moderated debate, because they only know how to use the mike switch to defeat an opponent- by shouting over him or outright turning off the mike so they can launch into another rant or monologue. Conservative talk show hosts have 0 creativity or ability to write a clear rebbutal to anything. so do MOST social conservative writers, but not all. Some are very good. BTW- I read almost all the right wing talk show and leader's books, as well as those that are not of that ilk, and judge it both on content and ability to write. Like with my debate commentary, I try to make an objective observation of "how they did"- like Huckabee, who scares me to my shoes, did the best in the Repub debates, so, on his ability to write or speak- Huckabee wins, though with policies, his religious whacko-ism smacks of the other side of the coin of muslim extremism.

So I do have the ability, especially as an entertainer, to say "I don't agree with him, but damn fine show!" or "I agree with everything he says, but his show sucks"

Regarding the top rated right wing talk shows and TV programs, I haven't seen one that rises above the really bad reality TV shows.

Ah, the old "It's okay if it makes money" argument.

So if Fox gets better ratings for not being any more guilty than his competition, why doesn't the competition get the same ratings? Obviously, Fox and Billy O are guiltier.

Let's face it, people who watch this crap don't care about civil debate. They just want a good old fake wrestling fight. It has nothing to do with the truth. All of it is entertainment.

I love it that the Democrats are snubbing BO. Yep, he stinks.

What can we expect? 24-7 "hating" on their part. It will make the left's hatred of Bush pale in comparison. I'm not certain if there will be any repurcussions about this affair. For one, it's a rather minor matter and making a bigger thing out of it, is what Bill O'Reilly would want. It would help him rant and rave on his show, and would possibly earn him higher ratings. Heck, it could even help him with his lagging radio ratings. I never believed that FOX is "fair and balanced" in the first place. It is painfully obvious to anyone.

This whole matter was completley unnecessary and simply brought on by O'Reilly himself. Pushing your way through a crowd isn't a professional way to line up an interview. Having your people call his, is. Then again, Bill's phone line must've been busy.

What can we expect from FOX News if a Democrat is elected President?

Ha! Who cares? Perhaps more for them to talk about.

Should there be repercussions against Bill O'Reilly either legally or from his employer?

Nah. Bill-O isn't one to talk about who is classy and who isn't. I think nebraska29 is right on the money when he says why negative publicity might be sought by O'Reilly regarding this incident. Perhaps my mom's time-honored advice is appropriate here: Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

Does this change your opinion of FOX News' claim about being fair and balanced?

Nope. I don't watch FOX News. I wonder if Sean Hannity could even function with a partner who could and would hold his own on the "left"--you know, someone like Paul Begala or James Carville or just about anybody in that part of the political spectrum. As far as Bill-O goes, he just tells people to shut up when he's losing an argument. And he dares call someone else "low class"?!

"Fair and balanced" is hardly an appropriate slogan for FOX News Network.

Cant imaging it will have any effect unless the Dems really try to muzzle free speech with the “fairness doctrine” the left wing has been pushing.

Ya right. Maybe he was being actively blocked by the man. Do we really think he was welcome there?


They are exactly that and will stay that way. Unlike CNN – little doubt their 2 X viewer ship over CNN will only grow.

I saw an amazing thing the other day on Wolf’s show. CNN did a survey of voters, expecting no doubt, that if the election were held today Hillary would be the clear choice. Well as it turned out she was not. So was the headline – Republican’s can win in 08? NO – it was “disaster for Republicans – Only one can beat the leading Democrat! It was so ludicrous it was laughable.

Wow talk about a story with no legs.

What did Fox News do last time a Democrat was elected? Oh right they went to the number one spot in ratings... and they're currently in the number one spot... I suspect they'll go to a newly created Super Ultra Mega Number One spot.

The only repercussions that should happen is that anyone whining about this should grow a set and stop pouting like a little girl outside a dolly shop.

One more time because BDS clouds the mind. FOX News and Bill O'Reilly are NOT the same thing. Thank you. Goodnight.

Nobody's making a big deal out of this other than Fox:

Might have called him an SOB

And here's the non-fox footage:

You son of a low class geez i get no respect

What's low class is shoving your way through a crowd. I'm surprised the security guards didn't taser the bro.

But it is pretty funny how the FNC is working hard to spin this away. I'm enjoying the show, but only on YouTube. Rate that, FNC.

And finally, from the 6'8" staffer himself:

Never saw this happen before

You've got to be kidding me. A TV personality is arrogant and demanding that a lowly staffer get out of their camera shot? Wow, this must be the first time that has ever happened.

OK, now resume righteous indignation everybody.

Since you are seemingly using the the words "Wow, this must be the first time that has ever happened" tongue-in-cheek, can you do a little research and provide us with specific examples?

I don't think it matters. I'd like to make our New Year's resolution to debate things that aren't spurned specifically from our hatred and bias.

I will admit that I have done so in the past, but frankly it turns into rants and non-constructive debate.

This is how I feel about this one. Had it been a judge, or Martha Stewart, or whoever else, I think it would've never made it to AD. It's basically that people don't like Mr. O'Reilly that it became an issue.

Think... is it really that he was just like every other arrogant TV personality. Remind me to tell you about my run in with Terry Bradshaw one year on a flight from New Orleans to Shreveport. par for the course...

People in Hollywood truly believe that there is some magical force field around them that protects them from reality. Of course not all of them are this way (Shreveport has become a BIG movie market); specifically people like Kevin Costner (who I ran into at Cush's Grocery a while back), but many truly are.

Is Mr. O'Reilly drinking his own Kool Aid? Probably...

Yeah, any of us little people would have been tasered, bro. BO at least was recognized for what he is, I figure, part of the pseudo media, a star in his own, ah-hem, right, a genius in his own mind.

But I do go along with BoF on the challenge to come up with another example of a journalist (giving benefit of doubt here) muscling in through a security line to press the flesh with a front-running POTUS candidate. I think this comes under the heading of Really Stupid Things to Do.

I think it's also funny that those who trash the likes of Micheal Moore suddenly want everyone to give a pass to BO. Eh, forget it. BO deserves exactly what he's getting. The biggest jerk in town just met a bigger jerk.

And now, the BO Spin Factor's take on this:

Protecting the Constitution! er, yup

Yeah, imagine if it had been a little guy. I liked the SS guy who stood between BO and the staffer. I also thought the "shot" was a pathetic view of the back of Obama's head. And gee, the front-running Republican candidate loves BO! Gee, what a surprise.

I watched O'Reillys show last night to see if he would mention this. Of course, he did.

The story goes (and he has video proof) that they were at the Obama event and the camera guy was filming Obama while he gave his speech. This huge staffer comes over and stands in front of the camera. The cameraman moves and the staffer moves with him, blocking his shot again.

At this point, O'Reilly tells the guy to stop blocking the shot. The staffer mumbles something and doesn't move. The Secret Service guy was right there watching this all. O'Reilly then goes over and gives him a nudge (I wouldn't say it was a shove or much of a push), the guy moves a little and then comes right back. O'Reilly does it again and the guy finally moves.

By this time, Obama's speech is over and he's heading out when O'Reilly catches his attention and shakes his hand. I don't think Obama knew this was going on, even though he was only about ten feet away. Obama seemed to promise to talk with Bill "after the primary".

I really don't see anything wrong with what O'Reilly was doing. He was trying to do his job (covering the Obama rally) and the staffer was in the wrong here.

What I find very amusing are the titles to the YouTube clips. "O'Reilly Assaults Obama Staffer ", "Obama Staffer Says O'Reilly Got Physical", "Bill O'Reilly Fights with Obama Staff! THINGS GET PHYSICAL!", "Bill O'Reilly Beats The Crap Out Of Obama's Staffer".

I watched a couple of the videos, it is apparent that one of the biggest staffers they could find was intentionally blocking the shot. Why did he have to stand in front of the camera, and why was he not able to move one step to either his left or right? Just curious. Then, when O'Reilly (who I think is a blow hard, by the way) confronts him, the staffer laughs about it. Doesn't sound like the "victim" was too broken up over the event in an interview. I mean, what was his purpose for standing right in front of the Fox News camera? Security? Obama has Secret Service protection, what the hell is a volunteer staffer going to do that the Secret Service can't? The staffer was being a horse's arse, and O'Reilly responded equally.


Tazered? Seriously? Who would have tazered you? The staffer? What the heck are you talking about? I don't even think the Secret Service carries tazers.


This post is laughable at best. "muscling in through a security line " Could you find any wording that is more over dramatic? I didn't see this rampage that you speak of. Please provide a clip of him "muscling in through a security line". And what security are you speaking of? I don't remember seeing O'Reilly pushing through any lines, but maybe I missed that. Please provide a link to the video, if you can.


Thank you for sharing your irrelevant opinion of the shot. Do you have any points that make this post relevant to the discussion?

IT was quite interesting to me to watch the staffer being interviewed- he said "it was really no big deal, I guess I was blocking his shot, and he tried to push me out of the way, it was just wierd, this is my second compaign and I have never had anything were a member of the press has laid hands on anyone".

Kind of shows you who REALLY has class- the staff himself. I was impressed with the guy. IT is too bad in this day and age that he it would help Bill and harm the Senator's chance in the primaries if the guy had done what he should have been able to do- and that would be to beat the stuffing out of Bill. He certainly would have been justified, and it is always nice to see a bully taken down.

As usualy though, it is interesting to see the usual "pass" given for bad behavior on the part of right wing commentators.

He also said something to the affect of O'Reilly grabbing him and shoving him. I saw O'Reilly shove him once, if you want to call it that, and the guy barely reacted. Apparently O'Reilly didn't shove him very hard, and yet you want to justify that he could have "beat the stuffing out of Bill". If someone like Michael Moore, or Bill Mahr or any of the other talking heads for the left tried to get a Republican staffer out of their shot and did the same thing O'Reilly did, most people here bashing O'Reilly would be yelling fowl and reciting the First Amendment. This is just another spin and nothing more.

First off the incident happened after the speech when Obama was pressing the flesh and walking away from BO & crew. That's clear on all the vids.

Secondly, you are automatically in the wrong when you place your hand on someone and shove. That is assault.

Thirdly, the press must follow certain professional guidelines when around important people.

Fourthly, the Secret Service guy immediately put himself in front of BO ready to do what SS guys do, which is contain anybody getting out of hand, and BO was doing just that.

Fifthly, Fox and BO are creating winter tornadoes in the Midwest with their spinning.

Ah, scubatim? The "taser bro" thing is a joke, but what makes you think that the Secret Service does not carry them?

Actually, what is clear is that O'Reilly was standing where Obama was to walk past, and Obama was approaching that area. Obama walked past the area where O'Reilly was, heard him call out and turned around to shake his hand. That is what I saw.


Then file a complaint. Why has that not been done with Secret Service agents as witnesses? In the pure definition of assult, you might be right, but seriously you are really stretching here.


I would honestly be interested in reading in these certain professional guidelines that when someone is blocking your shot, you have to just allow it and let the horses arse do as he pleases to limit your ability as a jounalist to cover the story.


O'Reilly was out of hand? What a wonderful reality you must view this world. He was far from out of hand. I doubt the Secret Service guy gave to piles about what was going on between the staffer and O'Reilly. He did care about the fact that Obama was approaching the area and he took his position. It actually appeared that the Secret Service agent was disinterested in the event, just like pretty much everyone else in the country.


And you are doing what? Making a winter tornadoes with your spin and constant bashing. Waht color are you calling the kettle?


A joke that has been told more than once? Of course you claim that. Secondly, I don't recall stating the Secret Service does not carry them, however I did say that I didn't know if they did. In fact, my exact quote is "I don't even think the Secret Service carries tazers." If I had said that they didn't, then you would have an argument.

Moving on, since you seem to have a solid grasp on the situation and you are up to defend the staffer at all costs, you didn't answer these questions I posed:

Um, because it is his job to stand between the Senator and all unwelcome pushy poeple that are trying to get to him when the senator has his back to him>

Considering the lies and defamation that comes from faux, it was perfectly acceptable for the staff to block the shot. What is unacceptable is BO's attempt to shove past him anyway. Words are perfectly fine, when you get physical, you have crossed the line. BO crossed the line. He is not allowed, nor should he be, to use physical violence to "get the shot'.

I have a question for you scubatim. Assuming Obama's staffer was being a "horse's arse" does this justify O'Reilly's responding in kind?

From other incidents - bullying of guests on his show - being horse's arse seems to Bill O'Reilly's modus operandi. So, I'm not at all surprised.

No, like I said, he responded equally, meaning he responded as a horses arse as well.

What "lies and defamation" has O'Reilly spread about Obama? If anything, they are helping his campaign by being so anti-Hillary (many of the talking heads at least).

And did you watch the video? O'Reilly wasn't "shoving past" anyone at any time, so that statement makes me think you have no idea what happened here. If you did watch it and you characterize what happened as "violence", you have a pretty low threshold. The guy barely moved. I'm sure he was amused by the moment, but Bill was just trying to do his job which is to cover the candidates. The staffer was interfering not only with one guy trying to do his job, but with the press's access to the candidate.

Again, Obama himself was very cordial and friendly to O'Reilly immediately following the incident. He speaks well of him that he has more class than those that work on his staff.

Actually, security is being provided by the Secret Service. I doubt they need the help of some volunteer.


You think it is acceptable for a campaign staffer to knowingly prohibit a journalist from covering the candidate? Forget the fact that it is O'Reilly, let's say it was Couric or Schieffer. Would you honestly still hold the same position? Don't you think that is a violation of a journalists First Amendment right?

Let's ignore that it's a journalist entirely for a moment: does someone standing in front a camera have the right to in fact stand in front of that camera? Does it matter that the person behind the camera is a journalist in this case? The answers for me are: yes and no. But, perhaps, someone with more First Amendment background can answer this better.

If we take out all of the facts, we get this: Does someone have the right to stand in front of someone with a camera? But let's not lose sight of what the facts are. A journalist was doing his job by reporting on a campaign stop. A staffer of that campaign appeared to intentionally stand in front of the camera. This is intentionally not permitting the journalist to report the news. If it were accidental, and the staffer did not know that there was a camera behind him, that would be one thing, but he continued to block the camera, making it intentional. This is not illegal, but it is inexcusable. I also think O'Reilly could have reacted a little more civil, but I don't think classifying it as "muscling to the front" as one poster here labeled it was quite accurate either.

I did notice that when the situation was reversed, and I asked "say it was Couric or Schieffer. Would you honestly still hold the same position? ", you side stepped the entire conversation.

Bill O' Reilly presenting himself as the defender of The First Amendment is so funny I forgot to laugh.

Look, this is all about the fact that Barack Obama won't go on "The O'Reilly Factor." Hillary Clinton won't go on "The O'Reilly Factor." Nobody but Republicans go on "The O'Reilly Factor" because O'Reilly's not fair and he's not balanced. He's a guy with a point of view and a opinion and he's not interested in being a impartial journalist. He's a commentator who needs guests for his program to keep his ratings up. They won't stay up just with bringing on Dennis Miller and some flake who analyzes body movement and what it really means. Last week his producers booked some woman who used to be on The Love Boat for God's sake! Was Soupy Sales busy?

O'Reilly did something that Mike Wallace used to make a living of. It's called a "gotcha" interview. I walk in on your job with a cameraman and catch you in the act of doing something inappropriate. It's not particularly good journalism, but it does make for a great visual. Everybody likes to catch a politician yawning or scratching themselves or picking their nose.

This really is NO big deal. O'Reilly got pushy with someone bigger than him. Ho and hum.

Obama was courteous to O'Reilly but then again, Obama is courteous to everyone. If you think he's really going to do "The O'Reilly Factor" when the primaries are over, I've got a bridge or two I can sell you. Obama doesn't NEED to do O'Reilly's show or Keith Olbermann's either. They need HIM.

Politicians choose venues they know aren't going to make them look stupid. That's why most of them are cautious about going on Meet the Press because Tim Russert is excellent at piercing through the armor of most politicos. Russert does his research and throws your own words and inconsistencies back in your face. O'Reilly just jabs his finger and asks closed-end questions like, "Do you want America to win the war on terror? Yes or no?"

This too shall pass---and rather quickly because the news value is nil and the entertainment value is fleeting. Is Brittney Spears engaged in an armed stand-off with a SWAT team yet?

We haven't "taken out all the facts". It's important to get to the core of the "First Amendment" issue which *you* brought up. You seem to agree with me that a person does have the right to stand in front of someone else's camera whether they are a journalist or not. Correct? If not, please explain.


Agreed. It seems both people were behaving badly. Nevertheless, the person in front of the camera wasn't violating the First Amendment even if he was blocking the camera. No matter how upset the journalist was, he wasn't allowed to push the other person out of the way. At least, that's my take on the First Amendment.


How is the situation reversed? These folks are journalists too. How am I sidestepping?

I can read scubatim. You don't havd a corner on that market.

If the scenario was as O'Reilly spins it, was his action appropriate.

In other words do two wrongs make a right or in this case, what is to be made of two horse's arses mixing it up?

I recorded and watched the O’Reilly show yesterday where he showed what happened. The tall dope who worked for Obama campaign stood directly in front of the FOX cameraman. When the man moved to get his shot this moron then moved to block him. He did this twice before O’Reilly lost it – and justifiably so.

My point was that if the campaign, and that doesn't necessarily mean Obama ordered it, I am sure his campaign staffers act independantly, intentionally stood in front of the Fox camera because it was a Fox camera, and then refused to allow the camera to cover the speech, then that is violating the journalists ability to report the news. Now, since this isn't a case of governmental censoring, it isn't anything that anyone can file a complaint. I suppose it could be just coincidental that one of the biggest guys I have seen working for a campaign just happened to end up in front of a camera for a conservative talk show. But that would fall under the same category of all of the Clinton coincidents.


I agree, pushing is inappropriate, but the fact that this was a staffer who refused to allow the media to cover the speech after being asked to move shows intentionally elliminating a specific journalist. If this was just some schmoe standing there, the facts would be different, but that isn't the case. The campaign did this, and it can be argued that it was done intentionally.


The question was if the situation were reversed and Couric or Schieffer was in the place of O'Reilly and it was a Romney staffer blocking the shot, would you honestly hold the same position?


Ok, I don't know what you want me to say. I said that he responded as a horses arse. In simpler terms for you, he acted inappropriate. I don't know why it is so important for you to read me write that, but I just did. I also have never claimed otherwise. I am not sure what you are getting at.

Again you were the one that brought up the First Amendment, but now you're talking about something else: specifically, is it "okay" (in a moral sense) for this person to obstruct news reporting. I guess I don't have a particularly strong feeling on this. On the whole, people should be nicer to each other than they are. This seems to be a simple case of bad manners. I know that I try to give space to people taking photographs (unless they're being egregious). Bleh.


I don't know what to say to this. Why does it matter if this person is a staffer or not? Clearly, intentional shot blocking is bad manners. Have we established it was intentional?


I don't understand what you mean by "if the situation were reversed". A journalist's camera was blocked during a political rally. Whether or not the rally was Democratic or Republican is not relevant.

What else am I talking about? Question, does the media have a right to cover a story without someone on the inside of the story stopping them? When one particular jounalist is singled out, it is wrong. No matter how you want to spin it.


Because the staffer has a vested interest to not allow this particual individual journalist to cover the campaign. Because the staffer continued to move in front of the camera as the camera moves, I would say it is intentional.


Ok, let me put it another way. If Schieffer was trying to cover a Romney campaign speech, and a Romney staffer was intentionally blocking Schieffer's ability to cover the speech, would you think that the staffer was not in the wrong?

You are asking the wrong question and using a bad example. It isn’t the staffer we are talking about, but Bill O’Reilly.

Had this been Bob Schieffer, I think he would have handled the situation with much more aplomb and grace than did O’Reilly. Not that I am biased in favor of my hometown, but Schieffer has that special Fort Worth, Texas breeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Schieffer

There is an old saying that fits O’Reilly - “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

This guy wasn't representing the government in any way so it clearly isn't a First Amendment issue. This guy may or may not have intentionally shot blocked a journalists camera. If he did shot block, then it's bad manners. It's wrong because it's bad manners and not for any other reason. A journalist who then shoves the guy, no matter how lightly the shove, is wrong because it's bad manners AND because it is illegal (technically).


What's the vested interest?


I have already stated that I believe it's bad manners. What does the name of the journalist or the politician have to do it?

As I have said before, it wasn't illegal what he did. Did I claim that it was illegal. And yes, this has everything to do with the journalists First Amendment right. What was the journalist trying to do?


To not allow a conservative journalist the ability to cover the campaign speech of the candidate that he had worked for. He may not have invested money, though it is likely that he did, but he invested a lot of time and probably passion. He was part of the campaign.

Allow me to quote the First Amendment for you:
What law or enforcement of law was abridging freedom of the press (or speech for that matter)?


I don't understand what you mean. How does not allowing a conservative journalist covering of a campaign speech to a Democratic audience for the Democratic primary involve a vested interest? And apart from the possible bad manners, was in fact the journalist unable to cover this event?

Haven't I said twice prior to this time that it wasn't illegal? Do you really read the posts, or just skim past details?

You don't think the campaign staffers have a vested interest in the media coverage of their campaign? Really? Do you think they work for the campaign for free because they don't have anything better to do that day? Of course they have a vested interest in the campaign. To your second question, it appears that the journalist didn't cover the speech, instead, he was forced to cover the staffer that blocked the shot of the camera man. It appears the staffer did exactly what he intended to do.

So scubatim, you're implying that the Democratic staffers for Obama have directives to block BO's shot of the back of Obama's head as he shakes hands with his supporters. Let me whip out Occam's razor on this.

The simplest explanation is that this big guy standing 6'8" was trying to get out of the way of the shot, the camera guy had moved, and by getting out of the way, he was back in the way. Typical big guy behavior, downright clumsy. Bull in the china shop syndrome. Then you've got this little guy standing only 6'3" with a short man complex, probably not enough phone sex, yelling at you about The Shot! The shot! What shot? Where? Who's shooting? Then he shoves the big guy. Secret Service gets up into BO's gut, readying the phasers set on stun (pun intended). What's gonna happen next? The tension in the room builds.

Obama comes by to save the day with a display of real class. He shakes the little guy's hand. The little guy says something, Obama says something, the shot gets got, and there it is. A big fat bunch of nothing.

Except for those boorish comments and the shove. Also the Secret Service guy ready to put BO down if necessary.

This sure beats the conspiracy theory that Obama staffers are out to block BO's shots, being as there's no evidence to this effect other than BO's word. Oh yeah, and the vids all over the place showing what did happen.

Wow, are you dizzy? I'm dizzy! Bull in the China shop? Did I say that he had a directive? No, I don't think so. In fact, I remember me saying that I didn't imply that he was ordered to do so. Did he do it on his own, or maybe a small group of staffers came up with the idea? I can't imagine democratic staffers getting some fun out of causing trouble with a Fox News talking head. Can you?

C'mon, scubatim. You're the one who keeps bringing up the First Amendment. You keep writing that it's a First Amendment issue. How?


I wasn't asking if the staffer has a vested interest in their campaign. I was asking what was the vested interest in blocking the journalist's camera shot. Perhaps, you can lay out your argument more clearly as I'm not getting it via innuendo.


I doubt this is true. I'm sure this minor incident was a fraction of a percent of the total coverage of this event by the journalist. The journalist chose to focus on this trivial incident because he knows what sells.

BO has become the right wing equivilent of a the paparazzi. Taunting those kinds of poeple is fun, appropriate and ethical. Typically, you try to get the paparazzi to make some sort of illegal move so you can either revoke thier press privileges or have them arrested or sue them in some way. If I saw BO I would block the shot too- just for fun. I would make him either assault me or act the horses arse on camera. In fact, I would purposely hold my hand up in a manner that would not touch or physically intervene by touching the camera or camera man- I would just ruin the shot. Heck, you can see that happen just whenever the camera rolls in public, everywhere, with folks geting in the shot making faces.

O'Rielly reacted physically- I saw the vid, he shoved him, definately got physical, though in a small way. Legally, the staffer would have been covered if he would have taken one good swing at him, to disable him. A broken jaw would have been freakin' hilarious!

In fact, you could say it was the STAFFER exercising his right to free speech by not allowing BO to film, if he in fact did it on purpose- this too is making a statement. His statement is "I don't like you, and I am showing it publically by blocking your shot"- since the goverment was not involved, this would be MY avenue to show my disrespect for BO- by shadowing O-Rielly and mesing up his shots. I would do it for fun and for free if BO ever came my direction. MIght even get a few friends to join me "Patriot guard" style- by blocking him from getting any hot EXCEPT the patches on my jacket. Now THAT would be a statement.

However- like with the patriot guard (founded to counter-protest the Rev Phelps and his "gawd hates fags" groups) - you can not turn the event physicall- you have to hope the other side gets physical. Like with the Rev Phelps and his ilk- he knows that the bikers will have a legal right to defend themselves if Phelps gets physical- so they just have to stand there and try to look and yell over them. NO different for BO- I think it is a good idea to block ALL faux shots, perhaps that will be one of my new orgs- blocking the fake news of faux from getting good shots, a few hundred folks just get together to make it difficult, if not impossible, to get good shots of anyone- it is MY right of free speech that makes this an excellent protest idea. - considering that Faux is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the republican party.

Overall, this makes BO look like the horses arse he is, and makes Obama look like the gracious and perfect gentlemen he appears to be.

I like Bill O'Reilly..and pretty much because he's not a wimp and doesn't take crap from anyone, including a 6'8 goon intentionally trying to block his camera shot. This all just looks like a bunch of whining to me and if the guy that Bill O'Reilly shoved wants to press charges he is free to do so.

Some of you are really grasping.

I guess you are a big fan of bullies- your right I suppose. Bullies are like that- up in everyone's face, "not taking any crap"- until someone dishes it out, then they are complete wimps. You can see that when David Letterman called him on his EDIT. Bill O'Rielly is simply a bully, and can't take what he dishes out.

How many times have I brought it up besides in response to you? But, I will entertain your question. O'Reilly, no matter how much you don't like him, has the right to cover the speech as a professional journalist without the campaign staff intentionally impeding that process. Now, before you jump up and down, I will also state for the third or fourth time that what happened was not illegal, but O'Reilly does have that right. I don't think I can make myself any clearer, so if you don't get it by now, I guess it is too bad.


Well, let's see. A known and declared conservative journalist that is a common target by the left for ridicule because of himself being a blow-hard talking head is covering the campaign speech. So, instead of letting him do his normal style of coverage, send the biggest staffer to stand in front of said journalists camera. Again, I will say for the third or fourth time, I doubt the heads of the campaign ordered it, but I would have a hard time not believing some liberal campaign staffers wouldn't enjoy messing with O'Reilly.


Well, since you are so sure, we should let it rest then.

It is so trivial that you have continued to discuss it for two days.


Breaking someone's jaw because they "shoved" you? If that was a shove, you have an extremely low tolerance for violence. The staffer would not have had the right to pummel anyone that "shoved" him. There was not that level of threat where sending someone to the hospital would be justified. You just don't like O'Reilly, so you are creating different standards.


Then when the story breaks that your campaign is limiting the coverage of media, you would be the ones with egg on your face, especially with the viewership of the likes of O'Reilly. Way to make a statement. He wouldn't even have to do anything but show a shot of you acting like that and he could put any story he wanted behind it. Your campaign numbers drop, his ratings rise. Good plan.

I also didn't know that the First Amendment allowed one person to impede another persons practice of their First Amendment. Interesting interpretation.


Keep telling yourself that. It is the easiest way to counter anything that comes up. Very intelligent argument.


Since Obama wasn't involved in this incedent, I don't know how his actions are relevent.


Now, not only are we creating the argument that Fox News is "nothing more than the propaganda wing of the republican party", but we are name calling. Another intelligent argument.

The 6'8 wall that intentionally interfered with the media can also be considered a bully. Since he was bigger than they were, he bullied them by not being respectful and letting them do their jobs.

1. I never said I liked or disliked this journalist. In fact I am intentionally avoiding the name/politics/etc. because I think it's immaterial to the discussion.
2. We both agree that a journalist has the right to cover this event.
3. We seem to disagree that the person blocking the camera has the right to do so. I believe this person is well with his rights. You seem to think it violates the First Amendment. Nevertheless, it's bad manners.

So how am to interpret the following from an earlier post you made: