This all makes me think about another NPR interviewer, forget his name, who commented to the subject that he had to do his journalistic duty and "turn over the rocks."

That's what Gross was doing with O'Reilly, and he invites, through his overly gruff attitude, for his rocks to be turned. Some liken this to a culture war as O'Reilly does, but I am sorry. This is the nature of real journalism.

I just wonder if O'Reilly would have been so pushy with someone 6'8" and running around 300 lbs., perhaps an NFL linebacker turned journalist? One of his comments was about finally beating the stuffing out of his abusive father. He seems to have a thing about the physical side, perhaps even a warpage of character. Anyway, Gross is petite woman. It must have been distracting that she has such a strong arm with the chains.

Thought it was hillarious when he lectured her at the end about how to be a real journalist, plus going off on the name of the show. Whew! This guy needs to discover what business he is in!

But his book beat out Frankens on the NYT *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** list! Haw! Take that you, you, um, whatevers!



Oh, I get it. You *do* know the biz. Maybe.

Overall, O'Reilly reminds me of the ignorant rantings that my family engaged in before I went to college and realized that it is all a game of dominance practiced by emotionally insecure types. So if there is a culture war, it's between intellectuals and those who win by tossing the chess board across the room.

We all get treated unfairly at times. How we react to this determines our levels of maturity and strength (not physical).

So. Does Gross throw temper tantrums like a frustrated two-year-old? Haven't witnessed it if she does. But O'Reilly has demonstrated this behavior.

I'm feeling a little sorry for the guy. He might be in over his head.

O'Reilly has the most popular show on cable news, his radio show is on 600 stations and he has written two hugely successful books.

I don't think he is over his head...

Also, I believe the interview was done over the phone, if I remember correctly. So physical size has nothing to do with it.

I guess NPR's admission that the interview wasn't focused on the book and was "Franken-phillic" has no relevance...

I already said that I did hear some of the interview because many are making fun of him, with no political commentary or agenda, for having a public meltdown. Which it sure sounds like he did in fact have.

Why didn't he handle it more professionally? You guys are so upset about Gross's inappropriate behavior but what about his...why does he get a free pass on this?

Because O'Reilly's time is valuable. He was invited to the interview under false pretenses. Having listened to the entire interview, it is clear that the intent of the host is to have O'Reilly defend himself against charges made by many critics. It would be reasonable to expect some of this during the interview, but this is the content of most of the interview.

Why should O'Reilly stick around when he was lied to? He was there to promote and talk about his book. That did not happen. What other opportunities did he have to promote his book that he turned down to go onto "Fresh Air"? (I don't expect anyone to know if there was any nor what they were. This question is rhetorical.) Gross was wasting his time. If someone brought me onto a show under false pretenses and then wanted me to defend myself against my chief critic's charges who happened to have recently been on the show and given a free ride, I'd be angry too. I'd also walk off.

Now, was that he only reason he might have walked off? Doubtful. (He has to think of the ratings for his show.)

Gross set herself up. O'Reilly predicted that the interview would be like this. She could have left him with egg on his face if she had performed the same type of interview she did with Franken. Then, either O'Reilly's prediction would have been wrong or, if he ended the interview in the same manner, he would have looked like a fool.



Are you sure that this is the best frame of reference from which to reach your conclusions?

To turn it around, why have you given Gross a pass (even though her employer hasn't)?

M L Iserman

AMlord,



I just listened to the interview again, and yeah, it seems to be over a telephone. However, if you listen to it again, imagine Jesse Ventura's voice instead of Terry Gross'. You'll get my drift.

Listen to it here:

O'Reilly Interview

Regarding being in over his head, that's an observation of his emotional state, not financial. This biz can rack your little ego, so you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out. He can sure dish it out! He implied that Gross 1) could not read 2) could not think 3) could not do a decent interview.

If you listen to this guy, his tone is strident all the way through, starting out just a little condescending, rising to a tone of moral indignation, and finally hitting the high C of strident.

Well. Yep, Bill O came off as a jerk. He accusses everyone else of the very things he does.

And if you can't hear that, you can't listen

Oh, I also noticed on the second listening all the times that he had forced Gross into a corner, smuggly declared victory for himself, and then she came out swinging. He sure didn't like that.

Tesla, if you listen to the interview that is the subject of this debate you will find that O'Reilly has considered filing a defamation suit against Franken. The reason he has decided not to is because he feels he cannot show damages. To win that kind of suit you have to show that 1) the material in print is not true and 2) demonstrate damages. O'Reilly felt he could meet the first criteria, but not the second. The fact that he did not file a law suit is therefore does NOT indicate that Franken is telling the truth.

Guess I'm deaf then...

Guests are invited onto O'Reilly's show to discuss specific issues that they are notified of in advance. O'Reilly tells everyone his show is supposed to be the toughest on television. He uses aggressive interviewing tactics in order to have guests answer pertinent questions. He applies that standard to any interviewee (barring figures of sympathy). Chris Matthews is the only one that can give him a run for his money (he's a wee bit biased sometimes, but he's a crafty one).

Gross on the other hand is a very different sort of interviewer. Listen to the Franken interview, it's also available. Listen to any other interview she does, for that matter. O'Reilly was singled out for this type of interview. Is was not the type O'Reilly gives. It was not the type she usually gives, it was an attack interview. She read off claim after claim while ignoring the topic he was invited to discuss: his book.

This isn't payback, it's a poor, probably ideologically driven, interview by Gross. She may not have raised her voice, but she made her aim clear.

Well when you start off with, 'are you a bully'. That is like inviting a professor on and saying, 'some of your critics call you a moron, is that true?' I noticed that Gross got very quiet while O'Reilly made his case for a culture war and quickly changed the subject. I think he was hinting that she was useing ad hominem arguments which she did seem more interested in lawsuits and personal views then his book. It should tell you something when his religious views are misrepresented, and then he claims that religion is under attack it hardly draws a follow up question. I wonder why this little rant was ignored, it cant be because it was baseless, this one of the issues he is actually credible on.

I am sorry I had not thought I had given Gross a pass...? I gave no reasons for her interview, offered up no excuses or claims to how her time is valuable.....
as if some of us and our time may infact be of less value?

The only people here I am defending is NPR as I feel this is not the norm for them at all and really not even the norm for Gross herself so I would have to agree that she went waaaaaay out of her normal line of questioning and programming with Mr O'Reilly...hardly giving a pass imo

Regarding the value of O'Reilly's time... when evaluating whether or not they should do something, some people consider the value of their time. For example, if someone made $80K/year, they would consider whether or not shopping for groceries is worth $40 an hour or if they should use a service that costs a few dollars per delivery. As such, O'Reilly makes millions of dollars a year, thus, his time is very valuable to him and much more valuable than your or my time.

How much would you or I get paid for a speaking engagement? How much would O'Reilly make? I don't know either but I will go out on a limb and speculate that O'Reilly would get a few bucks more.

Additionally, if he is doing interviews to promote his book, the time he spends participating is an expense. NPR cost him money by wasting his time. Of course, O'Reilly, to a certain extent, "rectified" that by making a scene. Now he gets extra free press. However, that does not excuse the actions of Gross.



Yes, but even in this quote you have not criticized her. You say that she interviewed differently than she normally does. There was no judgement of her behavior included. Would you say she acted less than professionally as that IS a charge you made against O'Reilly's behavior?

Also, I don't believe anyone has offered excuses for O'Reilly. Excuses are made when someone has done the wrong thing. Why was it wrong for O'Reilly to walk out? Is he obligated to stick around when he was brought there under false pretenses and treated less respectfully than other guests on the show?

M L Iserman

Okay, I've listened to both Franken's and O'Reilly's interviews again and counted up the questions that Gross asked. Here's what I found:

Franken:

Personal - 4

Book - 6

Opinion - 6

Past Book - 1

Total - 17



O'Reilly:

Personal - 10

Book - 5

Opinion - 16

Past Book - 0

Total: 31

Franken kept a pace that evoked many opportunities for laughter from Gross, and I laughed too; the man is a good comedian. He also brought the question, even if it wasn't about his new book, back to the subject of the book. This in effect bent, say an opinion question, back to his desired subject.

O'Reilly got a bunch of opportunities to refute Franken's allegations and took them. He could have bent the questions to his book as Franken did, but he chose to go down the tangents. This evoked follow-up questions from Gross, which anyone in journalism should expect.

After about 17 minutes of this, Gross brought the interview to the book. O'Reilly could have taken the lead and run with it, but he didn't. Then after about 35 minutes, he tosses his cool, rants about wasting 50 minutes and stomps off after telling Gross she should be in some other business.

Overall: Franken was entertaining, relaxed, and paced. He effectively sold his book as what it is: political satire (entertainment) that also attempts to debunk right-wing myth.

O'Reilly had a chip on his shoulder to begin with; talked fast and tough; and had nearly twice the opportunities to express his opinions, hawk his show, praise himself, and sell his book. I think he blew his opportunity, but then maybe this was a form of negative selling (beating up those evil liberals).

Now that I think of it, that's exactly what happened. And I think the term "bully" fits.

Question AM. If O'Reilly rants for 50 minutes and leaves the interview early how come he has almost double the questions as Franken does. Plus, just from your numbers alone O'Reilly's interview was 102 minutes, AND he left the interview early??

If O'Reilly controlled the interview how did Gross get all those 31 questions in?

AM you are liberal, so your evaluation of the two interviews would also be biased towards the liberal. I am conservative so as mine will be biased towards O'Reilly.

NPR has already stated that the interview with O'Reilly was unfair.

O'Reilly may be pushy but calling him a bully was out of line. The incident in question was over a guest on his show making baseless accusations about 911. When challenged to produce proof, O'Reilly claims and I quote, 'he had none' the interview was over at that point. He is accused here of being a bully based on that incident and I just don't see it. I don't think it is slander or defamation either.

I found it interesting that the lawsuit Fox filed against Frankein was found to be 'wholly without merit'. Still O'Reilly claims throughout the interview he is being defamed and slandered. That being true he should be suing people all over the place. The interview turned into a petty spat and I think they should have focused more on the book and less on O'Reilly. I don't like ad hominem arguments and I think that, that, was the focus from the beginning. I personally expect better from NPR.

Fox sued over (perceived) copyright infringement which is not defamation/slander. The two are very different.

Sleeper, the math is not 17 + 35 + 50. Re-read the post. However, you are absolutely right. NPR admitted that Gross did the wrong thing.

AuthorMusician, what I found interesting was Gross' tone of voice from the beginning of each interview (before either guest has answered a question). Her tone with Franken is jovial and is definitely not that way with O'Reilly. Did you hear that too?

M L Iserman

I find nothing unusual about Gross' jovial tone with Franken and a different tone with O'Reilly. That is usually the way O'Reilly conducts his interviews. I don't condone that behavior but in dealing with O'Reilly, I would probably use that angle.

True enough but clearly Fox and O'Reilly felt they were being maligned and the difference is semantics not substance. The context of the questions and the answers make it clear that this was about character and credibility. There is a clear difference but I dare say that they are not 'very different'. They are clearly related as substantive issues, Fox didn't appreciate being misrepresented through association with a copyrighted expression. I think they had a point but the issue of damages is question of degrees. They didn't make the burden of proof but they made their point, even if in a legal context it was without merit, it was not without substance.

Sleeper,

Both interviews ran about 38 minutes each. O'Reilly misspoke about having been going for 50 minutes (a tendency to exaggerate). It's a fact that he lost his cool, and if you listen to his performance, you'll hear that he had ample opportunity to bend his answers back to his book, if he wanted to do that. Maybe he's not as good at this as Franken.

Maybe if Franken had made as many mistakes in his life as O'Reilly has (registering as Republican for example while claiming to be unaffiliated), then Gross may have asked similar questions of Franken. But what has he claimed that isn't true about himself? That he's a political satirist who plays pranks? A comedian?

Meanwhile, O'Reilly jumped on Gross when she asked if he was sorry he tried to sue Franken, when all along it was Fox that sued and lost. Of course O'Reilly didn't push for this lawsuit. You know, like he didn't register as a Republican or pan his critics or have a pretty affluent life as a kid. He even denies (according to Franken) where he grew up--and this isn't spin?

Oh, speaking of spin--Gross did not *call* him a bully. She asked if this was a fair assessment of him. I think it is from his behavior on the interview.

Well, yeah, I'm liberal. But O'Reilly claims to have both liberal and conservative views, which I'll buy. I really didn't know much about him until this interview and what Franken said. My assessment of his bully status is based on his behavior in the interview.

Link for the NPR apology?

How about O'Reilly's counter apology? It's only civil to apologize for rude behavior, that is if you give a hoot about people.

miserman,

Yep. Franken kept Gross laughing. O'Reilly did not and had no intention of being jovial or even polite. Now that I understand his reputation, Gross approached him like a live bomb.

And it went off.

Apologies to the board for posting twice in a row, but I had two direct questions and didn't want to jumble them together or wait for someone else to post first.

Excuse me? Why are you taking this argument?
You add my time or your time or anyone's time up and the sum you come up with is life...a person's life. Bill O'Reilly's life is certainly not more valuable then mine or yours. Not to mention he choose to do the interview...that was a free choice he made on how to spend his time..and he should not take anyone to task for wasting his time except himself.

Sorry I am not saying exactly what is is you want me to say about Terry Gross..but not everyone is going to be saying the same things you hear in your head or out of the mouth of Bill O'Reilly...we all spend our time differently and THANKFULLY that makes us all invaluably different

Bucket,



We are approaching the "value" statement differently. I am speaking monetarily; you are approaching it, uh, chronologically? (I'm not criticizing; I simply can't think of a better word at the moment.)



O'Reilly was invited onto the program to discuss his new book. NOT to answer question after question about charges made by his enemies. He made his decision based upon a misrepresentation by "Fresh Air". Is their dishonesty not unprofessional and worthy of criticism?



I just don't understand why you have not seen fit to criticize Gross' interview. Do you think she acted inappropriately? If not, why?


AuthorMusician wrote:


Did Gross ever mention this in the interview?



But if she intended to simply talk about O'Reilly's new book, why was she so tense even before O'Reilly had uttered a word? She did know what was coming but how much did that have to do with her knowledge of questions she was going to lay on O'Reilly?

Bucket said:


What is that statement supposed to mean? Am I supposed to take it personally?

I used to watch O'Reilly semi-regularly a few years back. I now catch the show only about once every month or two. I stopped watching because he was becoming increasingly hysterical with each successive show. When I happened to catch his performance on C-SPAN for the Book Expo this past May, I realized that he was even more, uh, nutty? He behaved like an utter and complete fool that day and Franken loved ever minute of it. (Who could blame him? O'Reilly did almost everything wrong that in regards to Franken.)

I am mentioning all this to make one thing clear. I am debating the topic. The first two questions dealt specifically with the interview. No matter what my opinion of O'Reilly and Gross, the fairest way to evaluate and answer the questions is to consider the interview only. To that end, I have to agree with the NPR Ombudsman:



Gross vs. O'Reilly: Culture Clash on NPR -- (here's the link you asked for, AuthorMusician.)

So, Bucket, why is the NPR Ombudsman wrong to criticize Terry Gross?

M L Iserman

miserman,

You call *that* an apology? This NPR piece is a fair and balanced *self-critique*!

Listen: I know what Gross was up to. I also know what O'Reilly was up to. You will never see or hear O'Reilly's herd doing a fair and balanced self-critique. Nor will any apology issue forth from his busy mouth.

The Gene Simmons (KISS) interview was brought up by an NPR listener in this self-critique piece, a college professor. I heard that one too, and Gross walked into a trap from that other busy mouth/tongue. It all started from a question about his band's makeup and degenerated into an argument about how women have the alternative of prostitution to make money, while men like Simmons have to work real hard to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** people out of their money.

Anyway, there was no apology from NPR. NPR admitted that the journalistic interview mistake of "empty chair" was used. However, that's not quite true. That's too much self-flagelation. O'Reilly *was* in the chair and *did* have influence over the interview.

That he used his influence to push one of his pet peaves (NPR is *gasp* liberal!) is a matter of public record.

I've studied both interviews at length now. Franken got six direct questions about his book. O'Reilly got five.

Gee. One less question. O'Reilly didn't talk much to the book. Is this because the content is so sophomoric? Because all his ideas are old, worn, torn, or debunked?

I rather think so. One thing struck me as pointing to this, and that is his choice to believe in God. He did so just in case there might be a God.

Um, that was argued by Blaise Pascal in the 17th century:

Pascal's Wager

Yet O'Reilly, claiming to be an expert in history, doesn't seem to understand. He thinks he has an original idea, or so it seems. His theology is simple but not spiritual and is based on a tongue-in-cheek notion near 400 years old.

In any case, NPR admitted to not handling O'Reilly in a fair and balanced way. NPR admitted to screwing up, but no apology was made to O'Reilly.

AuthorMusician,

I don't think I ever referred to it as an apology. If I did, please, point it out; if not, please do not put words into my mouth.

Let's go ahead and examine it as a non-apology. That would mean that NPR admitted that the interview was unfair to O'Reilly but they won't apologize for it. How does that support your position?

Who exactly are "O'Reilly's herd"? I didn't know that they were part of the debate topic. I'm trying to avoid partisanship in this debate by concentrating on the players involved and the interview.

I don't understand the relevancy of the number of questions asked about the book. NPR has acknowledged that O'Reilly's interview was unfair. But for Gross' actions, O'Reilly would not have walked out. If she had interviewed him fairly and he still walked out then he would obviously be in the wrong and worthy of boat-loads of ridicule. As it is, those more critical of O'Reilly in this case are folks who already didn't like him.



Have you read O'Reilly's new book? O'Reilly, like many people, definitely has ideas that are older but that certainly doesn't mean they are wrong. There are many new ideas that are fresh, innovative and just stupid.

Should we get rid of ideas that are...

Old - no, age has no correlation with value,
Worn - no, wear could be an indication of heavy use due to their effectiveness,
Torn - not necessarily, if they still work well but need to be patched, then throwing them out is wasteful,
Debunked - yes, they were either wrong to start with or are no longer valid.

AuthorMusician, getting back on topic, where exactly do we disagree on the topic's questions?

Going backwards...



I think we agree that it absolutely does not.



I think we agree that it was.



This seems to be the point of contention. Right? To try and find middle ground, would you agree with the following:

The question of "who's right here?" really is better described as a question of "who's more wrong?" In that case, Gross would be because she conducted an unfair interview as acknowledged by NPR.

However, O'Reilly comes short of being "right" and is instead only "less wrong" because he arguably blew the situation up intentionally. That is, his motives for storming out were not simple "moral outrage". He stormed out in part because it would get him free press and because he had to make it clear the interview went badly to confirm his earlier prediction.

AuthorMusician,
I think our departure is in the percentage of "moral outrage" versus "shameless self-interest" that was O'Reilly's motivation. I happen to lean more towards the former whereas you lean more towards the latter.

Is that a fair analysis?

M L Iserman

miserman,

Okay, I'll go with your take. NPR admitted that Gross treated O'Reilly unfairly.

It takes a big person to admit to being wrong, eh? So yeah, I'll go with the take that this is a reflection on NPR--a positive one.

I haven't read O'Reilly's book, but what he did bring up during the interview wasn't very notable, IMO.

Besides, money's so dang tight I have to depend on public libraries, the Internet and one-on-one interviews for materials. Can't get the current books I want to check out let alone those containing recycled stuff. Maybe that's why I notice the recycled ideas from current reviews of books.

Gross caught criticism for yanking the musician's chain as well, even though he was definitely itching for a fight. How do you deal with people who want to push their agendas even to the point of sacrificing credibility?

Maybe you yank chains and beg forgiveness later?

Or maybe just admit that, yeah, we treated you like you treat others and that's pretty darn unfair?

Whatever. I now know a lot more about O'Reilly than I did before. Also a lot more about the dynamics of the radio interview process. I bet Gross & crew learned from this situation, too. I wonder if O'Reilly learned anything?

Could be. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding the validity of new ideas versus old, I think that's a valid point but not of much importance to the debate. You see, a new book should promote either new ideas or new ways of handling problems utilizing older ideas (with credit given to the originators). I was surprised O'Reilly didn't put his take on God in reference to Pascal's Wager, something any undergrad who had Philosophy 101 should remember. Maybe it's in the book.

I'll just have to wait for the local public library to get that on the shelves to find out. Don't think I'll be impatiently tapping my foot, though

But I have...see I did not hear the entire interview and was told I could not be taken seriously on what I have not experienced first hand Yet I did state that I have heard her get condescending with others ..so I would not be surprised if she took that tone with O'Reilly and I would not want the same kind of tone directed at myself.
I also said that I had never really considered her very political and that if she did take a liberal political stance in the interview I felt that was a deviation for her, which would lend one to believe that she must have been pursuing an agenda.



No it is not at all a personal attack. I just am not going to say exactly what it is you think, or O'Reilly thinks, about this interview. I think differently and that is ok
As I also do not view a person's time in solely monetary terms and do not feel that if one has a higher monetary value it gives them less of a need to be courteous, respectful and kind to others. My view on this applies to all, O'Reilly and Gross included.

I listened to the links provided for both interviews, (thanks for providing the links and giving me the opportunity to review them from a fresh start) and really don't feel Ms Gross was unfair or out of line at all, she was simply reflecting a different personality in each interview, and adapting to the person in front of her, which is a good technique IMO. She asked questions of both personalities, Al Franken answered them, and O'Reilly got mad at the questions. It just struck me that Al Franken was just a whole lot smarter and more informed than O'Rielly, and O'Rielly got frustrated when his ignorance and lies were put into the light, outside of the format of his own show.

I don't think this reflect negatively on NPR, and in fact quite the opposite, it reflects positively, it is time that someone started asking frank questions from pundits on both sides of the aisle, and shows thier actual homework, and apparently, the dog ate O'Rielly's LOL

AuthorMusician said:


I agree wholeheartedly. It was a pleasant surprise to see NPR step as they did. It is uncommon for people/organizations to step up to the plate like that. And again, Terry Gross' did not reflect on NPR as a whole. It only reflects on her.



I asked because it sounded as though you had read the book. I haven't read it either and currently have no intention to do so. It just doesn't grab me. However, I'm sure you would agree it is fairest to reserve judgement until it has been read.



That question could just as easily be applied to O'Reilly dealing with Gross as Gross dealing with O'Reilly.



Has Gross apologized/asked for forgiveness? I thought that you didn't consider the NPR statement an apology?



As far as I know, O'Reilly does not invite guests onto the show to discuss a topic and then discuss something different. This a simple, professional curtesy.

Let me put it this way, your friend invites you to a party. You show up to discover there is no party. Instead, we have arranged an intervention for you to get you off the sauce. Are you going to be understandably upset?

This is not to suggest O'Reilly wouldn't benefit from an intervention. Their seems to be a direct correlation between his level of hysteria and his shows ratings. As his ratings increase, so does his bombast.

In regards to Pascal's Wager, it is possible that O'Reilly has not heard of it. As such, to him it is a new concept. Additionally, with the wealth of information in the world and the impossibility of being aware of everything, it is quite possible that the concept will seem new to a lot of people as well. I would hope that if O'Reilly knows or if someone pointed out the original published source of the concept that he would read up on it and give it some mention.

Bucket said:


Bucket, please listen to the interview. I, and no one else, has suggested she was condescending during the interview, thus, citing that as an instance where you were critical of her for her handling of the interview does not apply.



This is not true.

Earlier you stated:


Your two statements are in direct conflict.



Bucket, I take exception to theses statements because of what you suggest. By your stating "that is ok", it is suggesting that I do not believe that it is. Otherwise, why include it?

Duh! Of course it is ok for you to think differently. Who is disputing that? My problem is that your opinion of the interview is not based upon the interview.



Are you suggesting I do view a person's time in solely monetary terms? I think you are putting words into my mouth. Please, show me where your quote above is a direct response to a statement I made. In other words, where did I say something that contradicts your statement?

Bucket and AuthorMusician,
I make a concerted effort to answer every point made by someone in their post when I reply. Please, when you reply do not just pick points you feel you can attack and ignore points that you can't.

Thanks,
M L Iserman

No they are not...and I clarified later on...you just omit that bit. I think it IS possible to be liberal in many factors in life...don't you?
To re-clarify myself by re-quoting myself...






Because when I asked why you have given Oreilly a pass on his behavior in this interview, because I feel he was rude and unprofessional. You told me it is because his time is worth more than most. I don't agree, and I am allowed to disagree with this point, this is why I seem to have to be reminding you that everyone has different value systems that we evaluate others and their actions with. I think Oreilly was wrong to be so rude, and I do not give him any exception for it, regardless of how much money we can attribute to his "time" If Gross was rude...then imo the same logic applies.

I really do not have any more to offer on this debate and I feel like I just keep saying the same thing over and over. I am sorry you took my comments personally...they were not meant to be, I was just trying to show how *I* personally feel about how we ALL must treat one another regardless of our monetary situations. I was just explaining how I reached my own conclusions and asking you to clarify your own.

O'Reilly makes the case that the Franken book is slander and here is one bone of contention from the interview. He claims the New York Times is pursuing a secular agenda.



New York Times review of Franken's book

O'Reilly responds that he did not lie he misspoke and corrected the technical error on his program repeatedly. If this is a lie by that standard then perhaps Fresh Air and NPR should held to the same standard. The first question was 'Are you sorry you sued Franken?' he replies that he did not, she immediately corrects herself saying "yes I know, Fox did". A lie, (or a spin as O'Reilly calls it) is a deliberate distortion of the truth. Both statements are untrue but a lie goes back to intent to deceive or distort the truth. The New York Times statement is clearly a spin.

O'Reilly never claims to be an expert on the subject of America's cultural foundations. He simply states the fact that it was not founded a secular state. You don't need to be an expert to realize that, you just have to read their writings and he has a complete collection of their private letters to one another. The liberal cultural agenda to transform America to an exclusively seclular state despite the intentions of the Founding Fathers is obvious. O'Reilly makes an excellent point and the subject was changed to critics of O'Reilly. Unfair and unbalanced describes the interview pretty well.

Maybe unfair and unbalanced does describe the NPR interview, but not because Bill O'Reilly didn't lie about the Peabody.

In February of 2001, O'Reilly gave a speech seemingly taking credit for winning a coveted Peabody award while an anchor at the tabloid TV show Inside Edition. After comedian Al Franken pointed out that the show never won a Peabody, O'Reilly retorted, (O'Reilly Factor, 3/13/01): "Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago, 'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it."

But on his May 19, 2000 broadcast, he repeatedly told a guest who brought up his tabloid past: "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?" (Inside Edition won a Polk Award, not the better-known Peabody, for reporting that was done after O'Reilly left the show --Washington Post, 3/1/01.)

So, not only did he lie about the award, but he then lied about ever claiming to have won the award, and dared people to prove him wrong . Only when they did prove him wrong, did he correct himself. Kind of hard to keep the lie going when they have you on video-tape, saying it in your own words.

Bucket,

O'Reilly's time IS more valuable than most people's when you evaluate it's monetary worth. That is a fact. You cannot dispute that. You see, you are accusing me of rejecting YOUR value system, when in fact, you are rejecting MINE. (Well, it's not really mine except for the purposes of this debate.)

But even using your value system, which I acknowledged as a perfectly reasonable position in a previous post, O'Reilly still could have stormed out because of the value of his time, which Gross was wasting.

Bucket said:


By this statement, you propose that, because we all spend our time differently, it assigns a value to each of us which is beyond calculation. Thus, O'Reilly's time (like your or mine) is very valuable; in fact, it is invaluable. Therefore, if O'Reilly stormed out because he felt his highly valuable time was being wasted, this would fit into your value system quite snuggly.

We are having a circular argument because you claim that when you state that someone is behaving out of character, that statement is a criticism of her for acting inappropriately. Or, because you stated that she spoke condescendingly towards others in the past, we are supposed to conclude that you are being critical for her actions during her interview with O'Reilly. To which I say, "huh?"

I thinks this all gets back to my original point. You feel that O'Reilly acted inappropriately by walking out on the interview. However, you do not know what preceded his walking out because you have not listened to the interview. Are there no circumstances under which you feel it would be reasonable it walk out on an interview? Unless you answer "no" (to which I could provide numerous examples where it would be reasonable) then the only way you could fairly criticize O'Reilly for walking out is by actually listening to the interview to know WHY he walked out.

Let's just say there are mitigating circumstances, which you refuse to consider by your refusal to listen to the interview. (Keep in mind that the value of his time was not the only reason I gave for justifying his early exit.)

Here's a point-blank question for you:
You assert that O'Reilly was "rude and unprofessional". Do you think that Terry Gross was also rude and unprofessional?



These are the type of statements to which I am taking exception. Why do you think you have to be reminding that everyone has different value systems? When did I ever state that people cannot have different value systems?

I did state this in response to your question of why I was evaluting O'Reilly's time monetarily:
- note: emphasis added

And, later, I also said:


How do those statements give an indication that I believe that other people cannot have a different value system. In fact, they illustrate THE EXACT OPPOSITE! (Could anyone else who has been following this thread back me up on this, please?)

I do not appreciate your efforts to put spin on what I write. It seems to me you are attempting to discredit me by distorting what I have stated. I hope you will retract your previous statement as quoted above and apologize accordingly.

Edited to add:

You're right, NiteGuy. O'Reilly seriously damaged his credibility on that one and quite foolishly. How hard would it be for someone to check on that? Not very.

I'm a bit more forgiving about him saying "we won" instead of "my old show won". A lot of people take ownership in a job and feel connected to the place even after they leave. I know I do. But, I am only a bit more forgiving because it is actually rude of him to take partial ownership of an award given to his former co-workers that was in no part awarded to him (assuming he names the right award).

Ultimately, he may not have lied (or intended to lie) when he said "we won a Peabody" but he most certainly lied when confronted about his statement.

M L Iserman

Jaime,

I am taking it personally because he is distorting (lying) about what I have stated. What recourse do I have other than to confront him?

Edited to add:

It's actually ironic. I am being accused of holding on to a value system and refusing to recognize the validity of others when the value system in question is not even my own. I would hate to live my life constatntly thinking, "should I mow my lawn, or is the opportunity cost so much that I should hire the neighbor kid."

I presented the monetary value system as a hypothetical. (I don't know if O'Reilly values his time this way.) And now I am being accused of holding it so highly that I don't recognize the validity of any other value system.

So, yeah, I take it personally.

Thanks for your time,
Matt