I suppose if we want to talk history, we might want to use the word "fraud." I mentioned his claim to winning Peabody Awards. Here's the story on that.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070

I guess if someone finds a fraud and a liar worth listening to or watching, that's fine, but dishonesty and resume padding turn me off.

BTW: Many private companies drug screen applicants and current employees, so it's not so much an apples/oranges thing. NFL players are not exactly government employees. I have no idea if FNC tests.

Luicrous idea.


Why is it not appropriate?



It’s only a racist reference if one makes it into one – as in this case. Is there the slightest evidence that Oreilles is “racist”? Or ever has been?

All this talk about the word "lynching" and "Michelle Obama" in the same sentence.

Does anyone here REALLY think BOR was actually talking about hanging her? Is this what we call unacceptable journalism?

BOR has used that terminology before, but nobody noticed because people weren't looking for it. For instance, had he said that about Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy or John McCain, nobody would bat an eye.

I guess anywhere where you CAN make a connection to racism - even a weak one - you SHOULD.

Bill O'Reilly likes to talk dirty to women. But I don't remember him being a racist.

/cue "Faux News" shrieks of disgust
//remember, if you say it enough... it must be true

"1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?"

Seriously? Comparing calling a group of young women "n*ppy-headed h*s" with a casual use of the word lynching?

"2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?"

I would say it was a bit "tasteless" of Bill O, but nothing serious.

"3.)To what extent should racist references and terms be allowed in public discourse? If we say it's "o.k." then what do we potentially open the door to?"

That all depends on who deems what racist. I do not see Bill O as a racist, and there are some who see him as nothing but, and are able to find "race references" and "bigotry" in virtually every single comment he makes. What you find to be racist depends on your own sensitivity. So really, this is just to subjective to try to set standards.

There isn't anything "casual" about the word. It's a loaded phrase that has a specific connotation, one that shouldn't be thrown liberally around, or in the context of talking about a prominent African-American, let alone, any African-American.



It does show that O'Reilly is rigid in his worldview and can't incorporate into his mindset, new information, or information that would contradict his construction of a 1950's America that he dreams of.



So the "N" word and references to lynching should be thrown around at will because people are too sensitive? Shouldn't there be some standard? Some form of common respect and decency that we all should agree to? At least, in regards to peer pressure on a collective scale-such as what is happening here to O'Reilly.

Anyone who heard what he said know the “lynch word” was not used in the context you imply. The fact is he didn’t even think of it.

Do we all have to think of every word and how it has ever been used when talking – when it is as clear as hell what we mean and what we don’t’ mean?

Now contrast this to the raciest hate speech that Mr. Obama didn’t feel badly enough about to leave his church over in 20 years – no comparison is there.