In an interview will Bill O'Reilly, Terry Gross (host of NPR's "Fresh Air") called on O'Reilly to defend himself against various attacks on his program/person. O'reilly quit the interview early calling it unfair and complaining that the interview was to be used to discuss his new book. NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin had this to say.

Gross vs. O'Reilly: Culture Clash on NPR
"Fresh Air" executive producer.

The interview is available for listening here:
Bill O'Reilly
So who's right here? Was the "Fresh Air" interview unfair? Does this reflect on NPR as a whole?

In my area "Fresh Air" replaced my favorite NPR program ("The World") they were already in hot water, this is ridiculous.

I am surprised an NPR show would employ such tactics, even on someone who constantly attacked them. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash if O'Reilly ambushed someone under false pretenses, though. I tried to watch his show on several occasions, but got annoyed by the fact he just shouts over whomever he disagrees with when they just try to respond to his questions. Storming out? I think given his "tough" image, this and the Franken suit show him to be a whiny prima donna. I'm disappointed in the interviewer (esp. since it seems likely she effectively took the "bait"), but it couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy- b/c the more deserving guy is in rehab.

There's a part of me that actually likes Bill O' Reilly. I've seen him put Republicans and conservatives on the hot seat. But he's waaaaaay too thin-skinned.

He kept calling Al Franken's book a "defamation book" but he doesn't have the stones to pursue a lawsuit against Franken. He talked tough to Terry Gross and then he cut off the interview like a big wuss. O'Reilly did a lot better on "The Howard Stern Show" squeezed between the lesbian midget strippers and the Who Had Tacos for Breakfast flatulence contests.

What really strikes me funny is how little O'Reilly thinks of The New York Times, but seems pleased as punch that his book is number one on the New York Times bestseller list.

O'Reilly sneered at "hit books" that attack people personally such as Franken's book, but I'm unaware if he's expressed similar sentiments about the works of Ann Coulter or his Fox cohort, Sean Hannity. I think Terry Gross made a mistake in returning to the subject of Franken's attacks on O' Reilly's lies, distortions and character after spending the first 20 minutes or so on it. If I had been her editor or producer in this case I would have said, "You've asked. He's answered. Move on."

But O'Reilly was really classless by hanging up on Gross. He rattled on at length about what good journalism is and how a reporter doing their job would know what Franken's agenda was and criticizing how Gross and Janet Maslin did their jobs. However, I doubt he'd like it if a guest on his show got up and said, "You're biased against me and you didn't treat Dick Cheney like this and I'm outta here."

There's few things more unpleasant and stressful than a interview going badly, but it only gets worse when the interview subject walks out. It's embarassing for the journalist but it doesn't exactly cover the other person in glory either. That was a bush-league move on O'Reilly's part and he knows it (if he's the journalist he thinks he is).

If a interviewer is getting out of line and intruding into areas a subject doesn't wish to pursue, a terse "No Comment" always works wonders. A persistent interviewer may pursue the line of questioning or return to it later, but a smart one knows when to drop the matter and look elsewhere for fertile territory. The interview subject always has the option to limit the scope of the interview.

Terry Gross made some mistakes in her interview with Bill O'Reilly, but she can learn from her mistakes. O'Reilly's rudeness in pulling such a stunt as walking away in a huff may be far less easy to correct.

I've honestly never heard of NPR until I saw it mentioned in another thread. Looked clearly to be liberally biased once I visited the site. But that's just my rather "uneducated" about NPR, opinion. I DID listen to the O'reilly interview and without having heard the Franken interview as well, it would be hard for me to have an opinion one way or the other.

He accused Gross of giving Franken a "pass" and to going easy on him, to which she agreed had been the case. based on that alone it would be obvious that Gross had shown favoritism which is quite "UNfair and UNbalanced" however still not enough to draw a definitive conclusion.

Is the franken interview available? comparing the two could be helpful.


Edited to say...I FOUND the franken interview. lol

Franken and O'Reilly should be held to different standards and it makes sense to interview them differently. Franken is and always has been a comedian that has a political view - that's all. O'Reilly's ranting about Franken's "defaming" book is sad. I haven't read it, but even if it does make some outrageous and untruthful claims about O'Reilly, these are the outrageous and untruthful claims of a funny guy who is being funny. I was amazed that O'Reilly gave him that much respect.

I read "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" back when I was a liberal and thought it was cute, but no one should take Franken seriously, and I don't even think he intends for people to.

I also used to listen to Fresh Air all the time and used to love Teri Gross, and there is no doubt that she had a "special" tone of voice for O'Reilly from the get-go in that interview.

I agree that O'Reilly shouldn't have walked out. That was weak.

It's all much ado about nothing, though, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh come now. I'll give my full opinion later but I had to place a word in on this. Franken's Books (both "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and "Liars) are not billed as comedy and that is clearly not their purpose. To call these books satire is down right ridiculous. Take a look as the first editorial review on "Amazon.com"

Amazon.com on "lies"
Clearly the true purpose of the book is to provide political commentary (albeit in an entertaining fashion). Therefore he is not immune to charges of defamation. The book isn't supposed to be one big joke.

turnea,

Have you read the book? Read the intro on his website.

It's pretty funny, but to me it screams out "Don't take me seriously!".

Whether others are taking it seriously or not, I think his targets would be much better served to just laugh him off.

BTW: his website is NOT alfranken.com, which I tried first, and is a porn site. I figured the "18 or older" warning was a Franken joke... but it wasn't.

I haven't read the book I'm afraid (or glad). I read the intro, however, yes that's a joke but it doesn't take away from the portions were Franken makes his actual charges. A description of the book also from Franken's Website.

Somehow I don't get the impression he was joking about this part...
Neither do reviewers, they never say Franken touts his accusations as anything but fact. By making theses accusations he becomes 100% liable if they are slanderous.

Sure, the book has it's jokes. But as the "Amazon.com" review noted it also gets serious. Seriously accusatory.

I would like to give my 2 cents worth and comment on the quote from Nighttimer which is as follows:

There's few things more unpleasant and stressful than a interview going badly, but it only gets worse when the interview subject walks out. It's embarassing for the journalist but it doesn't exactly cover the other person in glory either. That was a bush-league move on O'Reilly's part and he knows it (if he's the journalist he thinks he is).


I don't really consider O'Reilly a journalist. To me he is just entertainment and to pump up the ratings. There is rarely any intelligent conversion on his part. The majority of the time he butts in and when the guest has some valid points,he is dismissed. We couldn't have the guest showing up O'Reilly.

Well I LOVE NPR. And I support my local NPR radio station. Terry Gross...well she is ok.. definitely not one of my favorite shows. She sometimes comes off full of herself and I have heard her take a condescending tone with others. I heard only the tail end of this interview as O'Reilly was being made fun of by another radio station here for having a public meltdown.

O' Reilly I listen to him sometimes and I do not really enjoy his show either, it is just one big commercial vehicle to promote his fox show, his book and basically himself. Not to mention I just do not like like that style of show.
I prefer to listen to others having a conversation or telling a story or experience of something or reporting, informing the listener of an event or occurence. I really do not like having others tell me how to think, what I should think and why I need to think that way.

This clearly indicates you do not watch the show regularly. I do and these charges are far from the truth...

Perhaps less hyperbole would serve the topic better.

I do watch part of his show when I am exercising on the stationary bike or just watching for humor. To illustrate,here is a excerpt from his last weekly column in the newspaper.

In the past ten years only two people have had three number one non-fiction bestsellers on the Times list: Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and your humble correspondent.

Now is this a person who is interested in being a journalist or just to pump himself up. Consider that he is proud of his bestsellers(which anyone has the right to be, no problem there),but at the last he says he is your HUMBLE correspondent. Do you see a problem with those two comments.

Mr. Webster defines humbles as: not proud,meek, and modest. Can you tell someone you are humble? Isn't that a contradiction.

My grandpa always said you can't tell someone you are humble, you have to show it by you actions.

This illustration is just to show you where O'Reilly is coming from and what kind of a person he is. I could go on all day with illustrations. But I think one is enough to give you the general idea.

I would place O'Reilly right beside Rush. Two people who are proud and arrogant and don't give a darn if you know it or not.

I've never been a huge fan of Fresh Air, and I wouldn't call it a news show - most of the interviews I've heard were with authors.

Al Franken is funny, but he is also serious, and as it turns out, quite a good researcher. He does point to specific things when he goes after O'Reilly or Coulter, or the administration. Is he right about every little thing? Probably not, but, having read Goldberg's Bias, Coulter's Slander and Treason, among others, I'd say he is not only more entertaining, but more often correct than those he targets.

O'Reilly certainly didn't diminish his reputation as a blow-hard by walking out of the interview.

By the way, all I can say after reading Treason is that Ann Coulter belongs in a freaking mental hospital. It's really, really mean stuff.

But I do get a kick out of the confused look on the faces of people who know me when they see books by Coulter, Limbaugh, and Goldberg on my shelves...

Having listened to the entire interview as well as the start of the Franken interview, what I found most interesting was Terry Gross' tone of voice. With Franken, she sounded like she was chatting with a pal; with O'Reilly, it sounded like she was interviewing a long-time enemy.

With that said, I would expect her to interview the two in a different manner. Each interviewee is different and needs to be handled accordingly. However, O'Reilly was supposedly on the show to talk about his book and, except for one part where O'Reilly compares it to Franken's new book, "Who's Looking Out for You" is never discussed. Thus, I believe O'Reilly had a right to be upset. He was brought there for an interview under false pretenses.

Also, in the Franken interview he states (essentially*) that the "Lying Liars" part of the book is the humor and the "Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" is the dry, clinical, factual component. Thus, his book is intended to be both satire, don't-take-me-seriously kind of stuff and accurate, researched commentary.

Popeye47: if you have watched O'Reilly's show you would have noticed that he refers to himself as "your humble correspondent" with a wry smile. Depending on one's perspective, it is either part of his charm or further evidence of his detestability.

Nighttimer: As O'Reilly mentions in the interview, to sue for defamation successfully you must demonstrate damages. Being at the top of the bestsellers' list does not help that position.

I also find it interesting that you are much more critical of O'Reilly than Gross. What if it had been Gross being interviewed on O'Reilly's show and she walked out? Would she be hailed for standing up to that "blowhard"?

M L Iserman

* I didn't want to transcribe his actual quote - he says this early on in the interview if you want to hear precisely what he says.

You should listen to the whole interview.

O'Reilly sits through question after question regarding personal attacks that appear in reviews of his book. Finally after more than a half hour of putting up with this, he leaves the interview.

Terry Gross preformed a liberally biases interview.

I don't support O'Reilly in everything he does, but he was right in this case. Gross' actions and line of questioning were an attempt to make O'Reilly look foolish because she doesn't like him.

She has no answer as to why she questioned O'Reilly in this manner, while admitting that she went easy on Franken.


As for all this talk about Franken's book being a only a joke without political intentions, why does he only target Conservatives then? Michael Moore’s movie has inconsistencies in it, and yet Franken is not concerned with that.

Sounds like Terry Gross thought it was payback time for O'Reilly. Not the best motivation, especially since NPR prides itself on being dignified and not stooping to such tactics.

I don't feel terribly sorry for O'Reilly. But considering that Gross's interview was deliberately confrontational, it doesn't seem that his walking away from it was all that unforeseen.

Well, chalk one more up to experience...there was no love lost between O'Reilly and NPR in the first place.

I get a kick out of right wingers that can dish it out but can't take it. I listened to the whole interview. She basically used a kinder/gentler version of his style interview on her show, and got his head handed to him on a platter. The talking head right winger types are such huge wussies! If any of his lies were remotely defensiable, he would never have had to walk out. My hat is off to Terry Gross!

two men - two books.

One, satirically based on conservative bashing full of demonization of opposition. The other, semi-autobiographical?

Gross, someone I've never heard of before clearly was content to antagonize O'Reilly with constant mention of "critical" reviews. was she interested in him? interested in the book? She didn't seem to be.

the interview with the author of the more controversial book, franken's, was jovial, less intrusive into his psyche and clearly non-confrontational.

If she wanted a response such as she got from O'Reilly, she succeeded. He on the other hand rightly surmised what the interview was really bout and NOT about. O'Reilly came to talk about his book. I'm assuming he was invited as a guest for the purpose of talking about the contents of his book and not the liberal criticism of himself and agreed on that basis. He got fed up and felt..."forget this AND you."

I would have done the same.

Why should I? I did not pass judgement on the actual interview myself, just the two persons involved. Two persons I stated as not being my favorite interviewers so why would I or should I have to listen to the two of them together?



Is this a complaint? I did not think it was no big secret and I am quite certain the Mr. O'Reilly himself was quite aware, that Terry's show is liberally leaning. No? Do we complain when O"Reilly performs a conservatively biased interview? I don't... it is what I expect of him, because regardless of his belief he is fair and balanced, he is quite conservative.




Well from my listening experience Bill is never one to take it...he is always whinging about something.

Because the interview is the topic for debate ...

O'Reilly was right to leave.

The interviewer had no interest in his book. She started by mentioning her interview with Franken, continued to ask O'Reilly about Franken's book and why he thought it was libel.

I listened to the whole interview, and I do not think she once asked about his book. HE tried to steer the questions to his book, but she never asked him about it. They talked a bit about Bill's past, his formative years, and everything seemed calm.

Then she steered the questions back to Franken and others who wanted to attack him.

He came on to discuss his book, not that other stuff.

When it became obvious that she had no interest in the book, O'Reilly ended the interview. I see nothing wrong in that.

I listened to the interview and I'm still unclear as to what the 'culture war' is over. Its hard for me to believe that NPR has some kind of a political agenda because they are allways balanced in their treatment of political views. But O'Reilly was claiming that there is a culture war. I think O'Reilly is anything but conservative in his views, he is clearly a progressive thinker. He mentions Robert Kennedy in the interview and that would never happen in an interview with say, Rush Limbaugh. I'm inclined that this is far more then an interview, O'Reilly didn't go out of his way to establish a point, he was claiming that there was an agenda. I just don't know what he figures is on the agenda.

Maybe I'm out of the loop on this, what is this culture war? I just don't get it

The culture war O'Reilly refers to is one between liberal ideas and moderate/conservative ones.

He refers to thing like the rampant P.C.-ism that appeared in recent years. He's talking about people who would have you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong. He's talking about people like the students at Berkley who protested soon after 9-11 saying the terrorists were right and sole blame for the attack rests on the shoulders of America. He was talking about people who attempt to paint social conservatives as backwards and living-in-the-dark-ages. He's talking about people who want our government to endorse atheism by removing everything related to the concept of a higher being from any action or building used by the government. He’s talking about people who don’t believe in marriage, but instead call themselves ‘life partners’ (Susan Surandon and Tim Robbins.) He’s talking about people who want it to be illegal to use race as a characteristic for profiling a criminal. (As is, if you receive a tip that a 6’0”, 220 lb., brown eyed, black man committed a crime, they think the authorities should also consider 6’0”, 220lb, brown eyed, white men as suspects.)

NPR does have a liberal slant as evidenced by the difference in treatment of O’Reilly (who is an independent, not a conservative) and a raging liberal, Franken.

there is a culture war of sorts.

Anyone preceived to be "conservative" by the liberalista elite is immediately taken as warmongering babykilling lockstepin Christian fundalmentalist lemmings. no, excuse me..."Sheeple." heh.

There is a republican in office. They HATE it. period.

When the country was Democratically run it was the same garbage. Republicans were still warmongering babykilling lockstepin Christian fundalmentalist lemmings who were out to "Kill Bill" with right-winged conspiracies. they did not like this.

To demonize is to do that "drastic" thing in order to get the message heard. Like burning the flag, yet unlike burning the flag as the hatred is based on at least hating half the citizens in the US, not all.

could be what O'reilly was get on about.

For more info on the "culture war", check this link:

The Second American Civil War

Bucket, you really should listen to whole interview if for no other reason than to have your opinion taken seriously. As Turnea said, that is the debate topic.

Also, when people go onto O'Reilly's show, then know what is going to be discussed. O'Reilly was on "Fresh Air" to discuss his new book, which was the last thing it seemed the interviewer wanted to talk about.

CruisingRam, exactly where was O'Reilly's "head handed to him on a platter"? It sounded to me like most of the items were topics O'Reilly had previously addressed and, in this interview, he once again addressed the concerns.

Coincidentally, I did say the book conference with O'Reilly and Franken. O'Reilly came across badly there. It was clear that he detests Franken and the loathing was interfering with his rationality. O'Reilly looked foolish and, through his conduct, handed his own head on a platter on that occassion.

M L Iserman

Of course he dislikes Franken! Franken took quotes out of context to make O'Reilly look like a fool in his book. Of course O'Reilly doesn’t like a man who took a set of facts, and filtered them through his own preconceived notions of right and wrong in order to pick out the pieces that helped him prove a forgone conclusion. Satire or not, that is not a proper thing to do.

I have always been under the impression that one was supposed to draw a conclusion based on the facts, not taylor the facts to fit a conclusion. Maybe I just don't understand the workings of the radical activist's mind though. Perhaps this is why Jessie Jackson assumed a lynching had occurred when a black teen commited suicide by hanging himself in his front yard in Mississippi or why Michael Moore presents half truths and opinions as a "documentary" film. Perhaps radicals feel that the ends justify the means and it is ok to trick people into accepting their beliefs.

SoCaliente_1, O'Reilly is anything but conservative, he may well be opposed to the to secularization of American society but that is to his credit. I'm not sure how he was treated unfairly and I can't really grasp how the interview was hostile to his views.



campbejm, Oh I agree with the view that NPR diffenently do have liberal views but the quote from People magazine was not actually an attack, was it?

That quote from People was definitely critical of O'Reilly. The whole point of that blurb she read was to say he was an inconsistent person. What in the world does that have to do with his current book?

The answer is nothing.

phaedrus


Listen to the Franken interview as well. O'Reilly spent nearly 40 minutes defending himself against things that people had written about him. Gross asks him about Franken's book, about a New York Times book review that was critical of him as a person, and tries to read him an attack from People magazine. She doesn't focus on the book. She doesn’t really even ask him about the book.

However, with Franken she has a laugh about how Franken missed our on group sex in the 70's. She asks him about the process of writing the book. She asks him about the law suit stemming from the book. She doesn't ask him to defend himself from the people who think Franken is a representation of the radical thinking that tears at the moral fiber of the people around the world.

That is how this is unfair. That is how this is unbalanced.

Campbejm,

I did not make any commentary on whether or not O'Reilly should dislike Franken. However, the manner in which he handled his dislike of Franken reflected poorly on O'Reilly. O'Reilly had the opportunity to rise above Franken by acknowledging his mistake regarding "Inside Edition"'s Polk award and asking about the degree of relevance of that mistake. Instead, he went on a verbal rampage which brought him down to the level Franken was dwelling.

M L Iserman

Phaedrus -

This is what I'm thinking. O'reilly was invited to be a guest on that show to promote his book.

Having listened to the interview in its entirety, it seemed clear that it wasn't the contents of his book that was being discussed but the man himself. The interviewer pretty much used the "book premise" as an aside to instead discuss (at least 90% of the interview) critics of Bill O'reilly, Franken and others, and what they say about him.

Bill perceived this as being such and was simply fed up with the interview. HE may have thought he was going to talk about his book but instead the interview was being hijacked into a "defending your life."

I do think he was correct. If the spot was to be about promotion of his work it was pretty disingenuous.

Well, I'm reading Al Franken's book and while it is tough on O'Reilly that's the downside of fame. You become a target and if O'Reilly can't handle it he should change professions. I think you have to be extremely naive to believe he didn't have anything to do with Fox News trying to sue Franken and he's still p.o.ed that he can't win a libel case.

Of COURSE, Franken has an agenda to make O'Reilly look like a fool. He DOES look like a fool when he makes assertions about the awards "A Current Affair" won and then once he's corrected, deny he made the remarks.

And many books use facts selectively to bolster the argument the author is making. That may not be fair, but books by known satirists rarely are. Franken is trying to sell a book just like O'Reilly is and guess what kids? Controversy always helps to sell a $25-$30 book. If I were Franken or O'Reilly's agent, I'd be giddy with all the free publicity all this drama is generating for both books!

As far as the "radical activist's mind" and the examples provided by campbejm, in the case of the black teen suicide, the young man was hanging from a tree limb with his hands tied behind his back and according to family had indicated no outward signs of depression.

Secondly, the issue about Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine playing fast and loose with the facts has been addressed before on this board and I would consider this a dead issue. If you don't like the movies Moore makes, don't watch them. Nobody will think any less of you as a person.

Finally, you're right when you write, "radicals feel the ends justify the means and it is ok to trick people into accepting their beliefs." Particularly so when the radicals are Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, the Project for the New American Century and the rest of that neo-conservative cabal that laid the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq.

And no matter how it's spun, walking off of any program just to show up the host is a bush league move. O'Reilly said himself he knew what he was getting into when he did Fresh Air. He's a big boy now and if you walk into a strip club there's a strong possibility you're going to see nekkid wimmen cavorting around.

For him to be shocked---SHOCKED---that there are "liberals" at NPR is a bit disingenuous. If I appear on Fox News I should probably expect a conservative approach from the interviewer. What's the difference?

Seems to me he may be holding himself up as a martyr to the left-wingers at NPR to goose the sales of his new book.

Naaaah. A straight-shooting, tough-talking, spin-hating regular guy like Bill O'Reilly would never cynically start a fight just to sell a book, would he?

Well, would he?

Archived Fresh Air shows can be heard from www.npr.org, so everyone can check out both the O'Reilly & Franken things.

I heard both. They were different. The subjects were different and reacted differently.

Franken didn't try to control the interview. O'Reilly did, and by gosh, that's pretty foolish when the person across from you is a pro.

But it is true that authors who get interviews expect to get their books pushed. To expect an interview on nationally syndicated FM talk radio to be only about pushing the book isn't wise. It is also about you, the author.

Gross yanked O'Reilly's chain; he beat his chest; she talked about his book; he calmed down. Then she yanked him again.

See yah #####!

I thought the interview revealed that the author is paranoid and hot-headed. I imagine the book to have the same content.

The Franken interview revealed an author who is a smart-*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** comedian. I'd imagine the book content to be smart-*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** comedy.

Anyway, you can expect to get a good impression of what authors are all about on Fresh Air. Sometimes sparks fly because Gross hits on sensitive points. I'll take that over fluffy gee whiz interviews any day.

BTW, O'Reilly wouldn't ever have had that interview was it not for Franken. O'Reilly worked it poorly. He is obviously no politician!

Was the interview a bunch of land mines? Yep. Authors should expect that, especially paranoid hot heads.

-Gratuitous profanity removed -Jaime

I'm wondering, have you read Al Franken's book, campbejm? Well, just in case your copy isn't at hand, I have mine right here.

Page 72, an excerpt from The Factor:

MUSLIM CALLER: There's a lot of anti-Islamic rhetoric on there. For instance, you know, you compared the Koran to Mein Kampf...

O'REILLY: No, I didn't. That's a total lie.

Franken points out that on the July 7, 2002 Factor, O'Reilly said:

I don't know what this serves to take a look at our enemy's religion. See? I mean, I wouldn't give people a book during World War II on the emperor is God in Japan, would you? ... I wouldn't read the book. And I'll tell you why: I wouldn't have read Mein Kampf either. If I were going to UNC in 1941, and you, Professor, said, "Read Mein Kampf," I would have said, "Hey, Professor, with all due respect, shove it. I ain't reading it."

Franken also points to numerous instances where Bill claimed that while he worked at Inside Edition the show won two Peabody Awards. Only they never did. It was one Polk, which they won after O'Reilly left. And though Franken points to several actual transcripts in which O'Reilly claims the Peabody awards, O'Reilly denies ever having said it on his own show, later.

Franken exposes O'Reilly on a number of factual errors and false claims. Of course there is a filter going on - as there is in any political discourse. Yet that filter is not quite as dishonorable as you would have us believe, campbejm. Please show me, since you seem so familiar with Franken's book, where you justify this statement:


When O'Reilly claims to be a registered Independent (part of the "cover" for his claim of "no spin"), and Franken shows us a copy of his 1994 voting registration card, with "Republican" checked quite clearly, and then Bill says, "When I registered in Nassau to vote in 1994, there was no box for an independent [oh, buit there was]. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status."

Franken says clearly that the problem he has with O'Reilly is not that he messes up his facts every now and then - it's that he gets so defensive and spins so madly to deny ever having made a mistake.

And bejm, not to pick on you, but:


This is some of the most disingenious spin I have yet seen on this site. Bravo. If O'Reilly's "culture war" is as you describe it, how could you possibly call him moderate or independent? That was like one huge paragraph full of defamation and innuendo.

It really doesn't matter that Terry Gross treated the two differently. She is in charge of her own show, which is syndicated by NPR. Bully interviewers like O'Reilly need to learn this: that which they sow, they too shall reap.

I remember that "No Spin Zone"...

He did not compare the Koran with "Mein Kampf". What he said was that forcing someone to study the teachings of the enemy is wrong.

The issue here was a college that made reading the Koran a requirement for all incoming freshmen. At the time, many people viewed the Koran as the teachings of the enemy (fanatical Islamists). What he was saying was that the kid that was on his show, who protested being forced to read the Koran, would be equivalent to a student in 1942 who objected to studying "Mein Kampf".

Where is any statement comparing the Koran to "Mein Kampf"?

Franken's take on the issue was completely wrong in this instance.

In full agreement with you Amlord. If that is one of the strong examples in Franken's book then he is really grasping at straws here. There is no statement comparing the two.

If you look at the positions O'Reilly takes on current political issues, you can see that some of them line up with the Dems, and some line up with the Republicans. This is a better indication of someone's political independence that a decade old registration card. This is a prime example of fishing around to find a small fact that the left tries to use to discredit O'Reilly. This is what I refer to. This voting card issue has been blown out of proportion by the left. Besides what evidence do you have that shows that O’Reilly didn’t leave all of the boxes unchecked? How do you determine that Franken is right and O’Reilly is a liar in this case? The answer is that you let you political bent decide for you. I’m pretty sure you have not gone back and seen a Nassau voter registration card from 1994 first hand. I’m also pretty sure you have not seem O’Reilly’s card first hand.

from NPR's ombudsman:




So by their admission, the interview was "unfair to O'Reilly". Case closed.

Amlord and Sleeper are correct. O'Reilly never compared the content of the two books. That each represented the teachings of the enemy is a factual statement which Franken and other critics have distorted to their own end.

As I said earlier, many of these controversies wouldn't be as big a deal if O'Reilly handled them with more aplomb. Specifically, the Peabody/Polk award and his voter registration. By focusing more on the fact that these are dug up as character attacks rather than focusing on correcting and atoning for his misstatements, O'Reilly appears to be attempting to deflect the questions and shift the focus to his accusers.

Quarkhead, how was bejm's statement "disingenuious spin"? What facts was he distorting? Also, it is not "O'Reilly's 'culture war'". I refer to you to the link in a previous post of mine which will give you more information.

M L Iserman

Well, there is a photocopy of the card in Franken's book. The square for "Republican" was checked. The square reading (clearly) "I do not wish to enroll in party" was left blank. The check looked to be in the same handwriting as the check in the box "citizen by birth."

The left isn't blowing it out of proportion. Franken uses it as one of numerous examples of how Bill O'Reilly lies, and then lies again when confronted by the truth.

If the photocopy was faked, I imagine the judge would have found cause for Fox's lawsuit.

Franken's point about Bill O'Reilly is not just that he lies. It is that he continually denies his lies, sometimes very blatantly. There were quite a few more examples, which would have taken me longer to type out. Try reading the book. Like I said earlier, I don't attack stuff I haven't read for myself. Where is your information coming from about Franken's book? You clearly haven't read it.

Was O'Reilly treated "unfairly" in the interview? Yeah. But so what? What's the big deal? How many of his interviewees does O'Reilly treat "fairly" on his show? I have to agree that Bill's reaction to the interview says more about him than it does about Gross or Fresh Air. Why would we not hold O'Reilly to the standard he sets on his own show?

You are missing the point entirely quark. This interview was supposed to be about his book, not about Bill himself as a political phenomenon(NPR's words). Plus NPR has admitted that O'Reilly was infact treated unfairly.

I went back and listened to the interview again and O' Reilly actually had some interesting points. One of the first questions was, "Are you a bully" and he went off into a rant about defamation. He was asked if "Are you sorry you sued Frankein" and O'Reilly said, matter of factly, that he did not sue him and that he was considering it but couldn't prove damages. The question came up how he could call what he did on the 'No Spin Zone' 'no spin' and he made an interesting point. There is a difference between a spin and an opinion. He claimed that a spin is a distortion of a fact and he did not do that.

By far the most interesting thing I came away with from the interview was the idea he had that the seculaization of American politics is at the top of the liberal agenda. He is very credible on this one and I agree that the liberal bias against anything even remotely religious is a direct contradiction of the intent of the founders of American governance. I made simular arguments in another thread and I cheered when I heard him take the issue up.

I think in the end he felt the conversation was going in circles and the frustration was provoked. I admire NPR and it is one of the best and most reliable newsources in the world. I think he made the case for bias and I applaud his effort even if he was a little too over-reactive.

Oh thanks for the advice...I find the attitude of some in this debate terribly exclusive. I would never require someone in a debate about drugs, or abortion to have to experience either of the two in order to have their opinions taken seriously.

I made no opinion on the debate itself to begin with so I have no idea why you are singling me out and offering up suggestions on how to have my opinion taken seriously.

I do not like or enjoy either of interviewers/radio personalities and I really have no interest in the liberal vs. conservative war mongering. I just do not think this one show reflects on NPR as a whole as I thoroughly enjoy NPR and find their reporting and most of their other shows to be top quality..I have never really cared for Terry Gross and rarely listen to her.

Bill Oreilly may be an independent I do not know..but he is certainly on the conservative side of the only black and white spectrum many like to believe exist in this country. I listen to him sometimes..and even agree with him on occasion I just completely disagree with his style.

I honestly do not understand what all the uproar is about? Seems like a lot of wasted energies to me.

From what you say. From what Terry Gross says in her interview. I have not read the book, but my last post only refered to what you posted about the book. To refute your argument in support of that book, i do not have to have an intament knowledge of that book as long as I can show that your logic is somehow flawed. I feel like I have done this.

It is invalid to use the contents of Frankens book to as external evidence supporting the claims made in Franken's book. Namely, it is invalid to say 1) Franken's book says O'Reilly is a liar because of a regestration card. 2) I know this is true because I read it in Franken's book.

At the very end of chapter one in Coulter's Treason, she says this:



Now, is this true, as in a fact? Of course not. And there is no specific target, or even any specific charge. It's a blanket attack, pure and simple. I couldn't charge Ann Coulter with slander.

When Al Franken presents something as specific as a photocopy of a voter registration card, used as evidence of O'Reilly's lie, this is a verifiable fact. That means that if it is false, there is a clear grounds for a slander charge. That is a pretty big deal, to have in a widespread best-seller. I have not seen thisinformation elsewhere, and I am willing to suspend my belief in its veracity, pending a slander suit from Mr. O'Reilly - one that doesn't get thrown out of court. If it turns out that Franken lied and made up the card, in fact made up any specific evidence about Mr. O'Reilly's false statements and subsequent denials, I will be among the first to condemn his actions. I am, however, inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt, as I am any writer, liberal or conservative - as long as they are presenting something that is within the bounds of reason.

As for this interview, I did say in one of my first posts here that I was not really a fan of Fresh Air. I believe I also said that Mr. O'Reilly was, in my opinion, treated unfairly. My only caveat was that I don't believe this is anything he didn't bring upon himself.

What I have objected to all along was not your conclusions about the interview itself - merely the contextual framework in which you place your conclusion. That is not a framework I believe to be true.

Umm... I thought the topic at debate was the interview? I would hope that a debate would be exclusive to the question.



To answer that third part, although the actions of an individual reflects upon the organization, I believe that the degree it reflects is too small to conclude that, based upon one show, the entire organization is biased.

I have heard some really dopey left-wing statements on NPR (e.g. interviewer to guest: Peace is one of the pillars of Islam, but does Christianity have such a tenet? - That's not precisely what she said, it was a year ago that I heard the show so I can remember precisely. I do remember my wife and I looking at each other shaking our heads. She's a self-described liberal and the obvious bias even disgusted her.)

On the other hand, my wife told me that, about a week ago, they had a lengthy piece talking about the good things happening in Iraq. So, I imagine that NPR is like most news organizations: they attempt to be unbiased by not overtly considering their biases, thus, ending up with bias. I wouldn't be surprised if Terry Gross hadn't even considered whether her approach to her interview with O'Reilly was different than Franken until O'Reilly asked during his interview.

That is one of the tough aspects of media bias. Because they are not intentionally endeavoring to be biased, they do not realize that their word choice, structure of pieces and choice of topics displays their biases.

I think that, if a news organization wanted to be serious about presenting unbiased news, they should create a bi-partisan committee that reviews the works of the staff to help guide them towards eliminating bias. But that is for another topic, another time, elsewhere on this site.

M L Iserman

I would have to agree here, and add a Ditto! for Rush while I'm at it (and this is from a conservative ). Not that this is really all that different from most in that position--I'd have to give Franken his due there, as well, as he seems to shrug off confrontation in an affable sort of way (which kind of gets to me, as I'd been looking forward to disliking him, but found I couldn't really do it ).

Miserman...

Are you familiar with NPR as a whole? Do you regularly listen to it and can say that you are familiar with the many radio shows it produces and supports? Are you familiar with Terry Gross's show and can say that you can make a fair analysis of what her show is like compared to the other NPR shows?

Because I am..so I thought it would be acceptable of me to answer the third question asked...


I can tell you that even tho I would consider Gross's show..liberal leaning..I would say so only in a cultural aspect. Honestly I can not ever remember her getting very political in any other show I have heard from her, and I do find her show to be mostly a discussion on cultural topics... music, arts, books, movies, etc. but not politics. Her approach with Oreilly was out of character not only for NPR as a whole but herself too.

Now if you are not familiar with NPR as a whole and went ahead and answered and debated that question I am not going to claim you should not be taken seriously...because yes I find that an exclusive attitude and I think that people make this sort of allowance for others all the time. No one ever claims that the abortion debate, drug debate etc. can only be seriously debated by those with first hand experience of the topic.

Bucket,

That's all well and good but in your original post you made no reference to any of the three questions. (Look back; I was not the only person who suggested you listen to the interview.)

Additionally, I, like any reasonable person, evaluate someone's opinion at least in part based upon their knowledge of the subject. When talking about heart conditions, I am much more likely to put credence into the opinions given by my friend who is involved in cardio-vascular research than the mailman.

Now, you may not because you consider that an exclusive attitude. Personally, I consider it sensible.

With that said, you come from a different perspective. Correct me if I am wrong but nothing Terry Gross could have done during the interview would change your opinion of NPR as a whole. (Unless, of course, she screamed into the microphone, "We are all leftist facists! Die infidel, O'Reilly!" And even then, it would be more reasonable to consider her as a whacko than to think she was stating a fact.) As such, I agree with you.

However, you also opined about O'Reilly. Your opinion of him outside the interview was not germane. The question asked, "So who's right here?" That is, within the context of the interview. The best that could be inferred from your initial post was that they were both wrong. However, you are not basing the opinion on the interview, thus, why post your opinion of Gross and O'Reilly? And why is suggesting you listen to the interview inappropriate?

M L Iserman

Because it is an OPEN debate board...if you have such a problem with me and my input why don't you go and make a suggestion to the board owners that all credentials of those posting on a particular subject should be checked and clarified to ensure only those with the right credentials can post

This is ridiculous.

Sorry I had no idea I was not allowed to just give an opinion...had no idea qualifications were needed around here. I also have absolutely no desire to listen to the interview...guess that makes me invalid

And you never answered my question tho...are you familiar with NPR as a whole?

Bucket,

I never said you couldn't/shouldn't post. I suggested that you discuss the topic. We weren't asked to give our opinion of the two players. We were asked to comment on the interview. Certainly, the personalities of the two enter into the discussion but that would be secondary to the topic, which, again, was the interview.

I acknowledged that your commenting on the third part of the question does not require hearing the interview; however, in what way did your opinion of the individuals matter?

If you simply said, "I didn't listen to the interview but it wouldn't change my mind about NPR anyway because I don't believe it is appropriate to judge the whole network based upon one show," that would have made your point. But you added your opinion of O'Reilly and Gross, which was superfluous to your point. So, I (and not only me) suggested that you listen to the interview.

Additionally, I could answer all three questions even if I never listened to NPR and only heard the interview. The third question is the only one that would require knowledge of the programming to give a fair opinion. To the answer, I could simply use a slightly altered version of the response I suggested you could have given: "I don't listen to NPR but it wouldn't change my mind anyway because I don't believe it is appropriate to judge the whole network based upon one show."

Ta-Da!

But, since it seems so important to you...

I listen to a variety of radio stations including NPR. I enjoy "Car Talk", "All Things Considered", "Wait, Wait! Don't Tell Me", "Talk of the Nation" (I especially enjoy Science Friday although I miss Juan Williams), amongst others. And I know enough to turn the dial as soon as I hear Garrison Keillor (BORING!)

Do I listen to it everyday? No. Is it my favorite station? No. Does it matter in regards to this topic? No.

M L Iserman

Guys, let's not get personal.

As a rule, however, and to be constructive to the debate, you should at least look at the source materials provided by the differing points of view before offering a rebuttal. It is generally hard to answer a debate question without knowing the informational context of the question.