I have some very major problems with Mr. O'Reilly, and the way he conducts his show.

1. I have yet to see one guest on his show receive equal time. He always cuts in, interrupts, and most often won't let a guest complete an entire sentence before 'jumping down their throat'. Then he'll come on air and publicly criticize people who won't appear on the show to "debate" him, which seems to more frequently amount to listening to him rant for the duration of the segment.

2. Certain segments of his show should be allowed more time, particularly, those issues which are sensitive, and require more than 10 minutes of discussion time to get it all out on the table.

3. I've heard him call for attorneys to be disbarred for defending criminals. Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but isn't every criminal in this country entitled legal representation? If we disbar all the lawyers that perform the task, may we just as well be throwing away the entire judicial system?

4. More often than I hear him come up with an intelligent argument, I hear Mr. O'Reilly respond to a point with statements like... "No sir, you are wrong." and, "That is absurd.", backing them up with nothing, while his fans at home cheer, "YOU GET 'EM, BILL!"

For these reasons, and more which I'll reserve for now, I have very little respect for his arguments and his opinions. Any other thoughts on this?

Actually, the occurances of this incident is when the attorney KNEW his client was guilty

Remember Samatha Runnion & the guy who killed her?

His attorney for Samatha's killing KNEW that the guy was guilty because the guy told his attorney so but the attorney told him that they could possibly win

Note: The guy raped 2 girls before he killed Samatha Runnion & he failed the polygraph in that case but he was found "not guilty" in that case because the jury thought the 2 girls were "liars"

Bill O'Reilly does give me some problems.....but in this instance I have to agree with GoAmerica about the comment regarding disbarring attorneys for defending criminals. O'Reilly's argument is with attorneys who defend criminals they know are guilty.

As I recall he really got onto this on the subject of the attorney who defended David Westerfield (the kidnapping/murder of Danielle VanDamm in San Diego). That attorney apparently not only defended a man he knew was guilty but made up a story as part of the defense.

(I think the attorney's duty is to see that his client gets a fair trial - not aid him in making up fake stories/alibis.

What sometimes riles me with O'Reilly (pun intended ) is when he gets his facts wrong and then instead of admitting he may be in error, just shouts louder.

As for his proclivity for outshouting his guests, that's a fault of quite a number of talk show hosts. It doesn't make it right, but it's not unusual. At that point I use the remote and pick up a book.

Or I go to the computer look at this site, where everyone is sooooooooooooo polite.....lol, lol !!

First of all, Mr. O'Reilly makes the ASSUMPTION that the attorney knew he was guilty, but unless he's done some consulting with Miss Cleo, or is some sort of mind-reader himself, he has no way of knowing that for sure. Secondly, guilty or not, EVERY defendant has the right to legal representation in court if they stand accused of committing a crime. Even IF a client admits his guilt to his defense attorney, that attorney is bound legally to keep that priveledged between himself, and his client. He may decide to drop the case or continue to provide the best defense possible in accordance with the law, but he's in no way obligated by any law or statute to "drop the client like a hot potato", as Mr. O'Reilly suggests.


An attorney's job is to provide the best defense possible for his client. It is the Judge's job to see that the defendant gets a fair trial.

I don't have a big problem with Bill. I understand that he has an entertainment edge to his show. I agree with a lot that he says, but it's not exactly where I get my hard news.
Sure he's loud, sure he's opinionated, but who cares, you don't have to watch him.

I like the fact that if he thinks something is stupid, he calls it stupid.

But I respect someone else's opinion of him, he isn't for everybody.

BGW, I think his radio show is better, less scripted.

I cannot stand him. Once in a great while, when I'm in the jeering mood I'll tune in and he hardly ever disappoints me.

What bothers me the most is how he tries to push his morals off on others. Such as his constant Rap bashing. I don't need Bill O'reilly censoring my music or television. I don't care if he thinks the Soprano's sends the message that mob violence is cool. Some of us realize the difference between real life and entertainment.

I would just like to tell Bill to let me worry about what my kids are being exposed to, what it means, and how to handle it.

I also want to know what Bill watches and listens to so I can keep my kids away from it. I would be very disappointed if they turned out anything like him.

He is a televison bully. He almost never backs up his statements with fact. Maybe he should get Carville on and then we would see Bill O'Reilly sweat.

I do believe that O'Reilly and Carville have already met and 'faced off' and O'Reilly showed quite a bit of it on his show. I think it was on a college campus. It was very interesting - the two of them are meant for each other

In the case of the Westerfield trial, after the trial, facts came out that proved the attorney knew that Westerfield was guilty. In this case the attorney did not merely represent his client, he made up an alibi for his client.

If you want the details, let's start another thread. The trial was here in San Diego and the case was all over the news as you can imagine. I believe some legal action is going forward against the attorney by a board of ethics for his action.

Bill O'Reilly? Who is that?

Stefan, do you hate the fact that he doesn't allow people to basically go off and try and "spin" something? I watch Bill ...and yeah he can be a bit overbearing but, he's fun to watch and listen too. I don't see the problem with someone asking a straight forward question and getting a strait forward answer. Heck, he's givin Al Sharpton a TON of time on his show not to mention a ton of liberals.

As far as the "mind reading" that is ludicrous. It is a FACT sir the attorny did know.

I have seen him extend the show for some topics.

I have a question for you Stefan, how many times have you watched his show and have you read any literature from him?

Darcaine

I watch and listen to the O'Reilly factor regularly. I have noticed his critics make much more out of his "rudeness" than is actually true. He does not often drown out his guest. He raises his voice when he senses a speech coming on, but actual yelling is quite rare. As an interviewer he is the best on the air. He forces his guests to think on their feet which few other host really do. I do agree the segments are too short, he need a two hour show

As for his opinions, I don't always agree with him but he has many good points. He's no me but he'll do.

I don't watch Donahue for the same reason as stefan's #1 point,
different strokes...........

I have only watched Bill O'Reilly three times, and each time my blood pressure went throught the roof. It bothers me that he interrupts his guests, and rudely at that, because I'm genuinely interested in hearing the responses to what are usually good questions. Bill O'Reilly seems to want to humiliate his guests without any true desire to obtain knowledge. In my opinion, that's bad journalism, and his behavior with the German ambassador was appalling to me. To each his own, I guess, but it's not for me.

The one with the German Chancellor was extremely irresponsible. If anyone could be worse at foreign diplomacy than Bush it would be O'Reilly. I think he crossed the line in that segment and he was an embarrasment to our country.

Darcaine, have you ever considered that if only one person is doing the talking then only one person can be doing the spin? And it isn't just the interruptions, it's the smarmy and accusing voice he uses when he asks the question's that he will not allow the person to defend or (in most cases) correct. He just interrupts until he claims to run out of time. Then, he comes back with a recap of still more of his opinion before he really is out of time.

Good thing for Bill his show isn't two hours long. He might have to account for some of his statements of his own if it were.

I did like the show with Scott Ritter, though. Scott was more than his match. I loved seeing Bill make zero points with the one guest that should have been a piece of cake for him. That one had to hurt.

I also saw the interview with Ritter, that was less a debate than question-and-answer session. Ritter certainly didn't make a dent in O'Reilly's position. He was, however, very informative much more so than in any of the other interviews I'd seen.
Regarding the German chancellor, that I agree was a mistake which he has pulled back from, although quietly. O'Reilly spins on occasion, but that is insignificant when placed beside his skills as an interviewer.

Again, I watch the show all the time, rude interruptions are few and far between. Of course, I don't consider controlling spin rude.

He does have a two-hour radio show which he handles very well. I am listening right now

No, Bill has stated that in the Samatha Runnion case, the guy who killed her failed a polygraph exam in a trial that involved the rape of 2 girls

He came down hard on VH1 for allowing Inmates in a prison to make money off a "band" they formed behind bars

He came down hard on the 9/11 charities who were making chaos

He has numerously came down hard on Jesse Jackson, who boycotts everything that doesn't seem on his side

I will give you that Mr. O'Reilly asks some great questions of his guests... Now if we could just stop him from answering them all himself, he really might get something going there. I don't suggest that I ALWAYS disagree with him. Sometimes, I think he hits the nail on the head, but as I said... He needs to allow his guests equal time to get their views on the table too, and I don't feel, in most instances, that he allows his guests to do that.

As to the Runnion case, if somebody wants to start a thread on it, I'd probably be inclined to hop in on it... I'm sure that comes as a great shock to everybody...

I love him, once in a great while when I'm in the cheering mood I'll tune in and he always does great. O'Reilly get respect for once reason from me. He exposes the idiocy of liberal Hollywood blockheads. Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Rob Reiner, these people get a free ride by the Today show, CNN, who grovel for the crumbs of their "views". Bill O'Reilly recognizes that these people are not intelligent, are duplicitous in their holier than thou rants against SUV's, the military, conservatives, yet drive around in their hummers, escalades, range rovers. I love it when he exposes the acidic disgust the Hollywood crowd has for family values, their attempt to "pornify" entertainment, their greed, their anti-american beliefs. O'Reilly serves to bring light to the fact that Hollywood may represent the Democratic party, but it does not in any way shape or form represent America.

No, I hate the fact that he most often won't allow people to say anything, without being constantly interrupted. I've yet to see a guest of his finish making a point before O'Reilly begins his long-winded tangent that he sometimes has the audacity to refer to as a rebuttal.

If he's going to do that, why bother having guests? He most certainly has enough to say on his own to fill his hour-long program each evening. Unfortunately, Mr. O'Reilly seems to think that any viewpoint that differs from his own is nothing but "spin", and that is, by far, the biggest problem I have with him. Its easy to dismiss a view as spin, and much more difficult to try to argue a point with facts, as anyone who debates here well knows.

Actually argue with facts is precisely what O'Reilly usually does. It is when his guest get away from factual arguments or are taking too long for the admittedly short segments that he usually interrupts. Again I watch regularly, guest usually have the opportunity to make their point as long as it is on topic.

I love it when he exposes the acidic disgust the Hollywood crowd has for family values, their attempt to "pornify" entertainment, their greed, their anti-american beliefs. O'Reilly serves to bring light to the fact that Hollywood may represent the Democratic party, but it does not in any way shape or form represent America.

OMG, You are just like him. I feel sorry for you. Blaming all of the social ills of the country on Hollywood and not recognizing he is just as much a part of that evil media entertainment business you hate. He's making money the same way the actors and entertainers do. His show is not news. It's entertainment disguised as outraged opinion. His views are fed to you buy his tv show, his books, his radio show and you swallow it up just like a rap fan listening to Snoop Dogg. Only difference is they usually understand the difference between entertainment and reality...unlike the O'reilly customer base.

Danya: Hey! I'll have you know I'm quite cheap and haven't bought a bit of his merchandise. Oh, and I believe I have a excellent grasp of the differences between entertainment and reality, of course I am a bit biased

Generalizations are not your friend

That reminds me when you mentioned CNN.

He BLASTED Ted Turner when Teddy said that the 9/11 Hijackers were "Brave but a little crazy":lol: :

Ted Turner & 9/11

...as evidenced by how little money the "pornified" film industry makes these days.

And, speaking as a passport-carrying American, much of Hollywood - particularly many of her better writers and directors - does represent my America - in many ways, shapes, and forms. And, indeed, many of her more outspoken celebrities express opinions similar to my own - some of which, like it or not, HR, are shared by a majority of your fellow citizens.


As it happens, we already have a thread on the political views of celebrities. Perhaps this strain of the current discussion should be moved there (though, interestingly, O'Reilly crept into the celebrity thread, so maybe it's only fair they creep into his).

This man is sick.
"On another front, Talking Points is distressed to see some American reporters doing sympathetic pieces about the Iraqi people.

What they don't mention is that after the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqi people had the opportunity to overthrow this terrible dictator. They did not. Now the American people must provide billions of tax dollars in order to remove him.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Iraqi people. That being said, I believe the American military will protect as many civilians as possible, as they did in Afghanistan."

Talking Points
Boo Hoo the poor American's must spend billions of dollars to kill these ungreatful people.

I can only assume he is talking about the pieces where the reporters on location are asking the Iraqi's what they think of the U.S. and if they are afraid of the coming war. Mostly they show smiling citizens and children waving from big yellow schoolbuses. You know, the people that are only weeks away from being murdered.

Of course I had to send Bill an email. I asked him which it was...are we the big heroes going in to liberate them or are they deserving of death? Leave it to Bill to blame the victims. I also mentioned the fact that as a 'journalist' he should want to get all sides of the story. But perhaps Fox should send him on location to do the stories right once the bombs start dropping. What a jerk.

If you watched "Hannity & Colmes" last night, you'd noticed that Colmes tried to interrupt Congressman Watts while Watts was talking about Iraq.

Of course I had to send Bill an email. I asked him which it was...are we the big heroes going in to liberate them or are they deserving of death? Leave it to Bill to blame the victims. I also mentioned the fact that as a 'journalist' he should want to get all sides of the story. But perhaps Fox should send him on location to do the stories right once the bombs start dropping.

I watched the segment of his show tonight where he reads the letters he get's. He mentioned how people need to remember to include the name of their city if they want to have their message read on the air...he then added that he received an interesting one that he couldn't add because 'the woman didn't include her location'. He worded it to sound as if the letter was negative. I swear I think he is talking about mine. Of course I no longer have a copy of my email but I sent him a follow up just in case and included my town and a rundown of the original message in case he want's to read it.

Hannity and WHO? This thread is about Bill O'Reilly. If you'd like to discuss Alan Colmes, please start another thread.

IMO, Bill is slime. Here he is talking about using the military to patrol our borders. Notice how he uses racial slurs to get his point across.

QUOTE

We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes -- they're not going to do what they're doing now, so people aren't going to die in the desert. So we save lives, all right, and we seal it down and make it 100 times harder to come across.

Transcript

Uh, Danya..that IS supposed to be the purpose of the military.

Darcaine

Uh, no, it's not.
That role has been the jurisdiction of the Border Patrol, Coast Guard and the US Customs Service.
It now falls under the Department of Homeland Security.

None of the above have control of, nor is it the purpose of the military.
There are some good arguments for use of the military on the border, and O'Reilly brings it up a lot, but there are legal questions to be raised before that happens, such as the Posse Comitatus Act.


edited for spelling

And the fact that a mainstream journalist calls them wetbacks completely zooms over your heads.

What if he said WOP's or Spics or niggers? I suppose that would go unnoticed as well. Maybe I'm just too PC. But I'll take that over racist anyday.

The link below should be added to Bill's thread.

Listen to the interview with Glick (the son of a 9/11 victim) done by O'Reilly where O'Reilly get's so upset he yells at the kid to shut up and cut's his mike.

Audio/written transcript

Glick was your typical liberal moron. He had nothing to add or say...Bill was right on the money.

Darcaine

Uh, you are mistaken.

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE01/jscope01.html

Darcaine

So, the fact that he blames US foreign policy for the death of his father isn't even worth considering? The victims from 9/11 are only worthy if they subscribe to Bill O'Reilly's ideas of American agression?

It was just another example of how he has to control the interview at all costs. Why did he even have him on the show if he wasn't going to let him explain his position?

Uh, take your border discussion to the existing thread for it or make a new one. This is about Bill and his pathetic show.

Danya did you even listen to that miserable wretch? He didn't even try and have a discussion..he does like all typical liberal morons like him do..when they get on the air somewhere they start spewing crap and being rude. Bill was well within his rights to nix that guy.

Darcaine

Did you hear the same interview I did? When was Glick ever rude? It's obvious who was being attacked in that piece and I can't believe you pretend not to see it.

Danya, he was trying to interview this guy and he just kept going on and on and on about stuff that had NOTHING to do with the discussion. Glick is a moron and he sacrifices his dead fathers honor by spewing crap and signing that paper. Bill was well within his rights to keep it on track...not let this guys diatribe on the evils of the US. You can see that here on this discussion board quite enough. Unlike you I watched it on his show in context.

Liberals see what they believe and Conservatives believe what they see.

Darcaine

OK. Maybe I'm confused then. Why did he have him on the show? What was the topic supposed to be? Glick seemed to think he was on topic. The transcript doesn't start at the beginning so you tell me what the topic at hand was.

He was talking about the organization that had his name in it...don't recall it. Bill had that movements leader on a couple of nights ago and this was a follow up. Glick started going into things that had NOTHING to do with the interview. Glick was all over the place and Bill tried several times to get him back on track.

Darcaine

Bill was right on with the Glick kid. This is a kid that saw an opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame and possibly some cash. I watched the interview and applauded Bill for cutting the kids mic and booting him off the show. Bill then came back and apologized to the audience for losing his temper but he feels the kid is disgracing his father and all the other victim's with his liberal drivel.

Bill O is the single most popular prime time news program on cable today...As Shep would say PERIOD....

There is a good reason for his popularity as well as G. Gordon's and Rush Limbaughs. The reason is best stated in a song by Charlie Daniels...." You intellectuals may not like it but there aint nothin you can do, cause there is a whole lot more of us common folk then there's ever gonna be of you".

Quite simple really..

Bill is if nothing else fair and balanced. Try watching sometime for yourself Danya. He jumps on Bush in a hurry...in fact he was all over Bush and his administration during the ENRON thing. He felt Busj didnt act fast enough or hard enough and he let the public know it. The fact he is so popular doesnt mean we all agree with him ALL the time. It just means we think he is right more often than the competition. We like his no nonsense style. Though he comes off as arrogant he is also self critical as well.

When he signs off he does it as your humble correspondent...a wink and a smile...that tells those that watch he knows he isnt humble he knows he can be abrasive etc. he knows he isnt always right he just has an opinion. More importantly he isnt afraid to share it no matter the consequences.

WOuld I want Bill as President? Heck no...he wouldnt do well at that job. But as a commentator he is top notch. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings etc step aside there is a new Sherriff in town and his name is Bill O'Reilly...

GBYA

Aahz

He was an author of Not In Our Name and his comments were directly related to that statement. Which is why he was on the show, right?

Not In Our Name Statement

The Not In Our Name statement, signed by over 50,000 has already appeared in over 45 newspapers across the United States.

And Bill invites him to the show and says, "I don't care what you think." Then yells for him to shut up and cuts his mic because he's offended by liberal views? If you aren't interested in hearing any facts or more than one side of a story...if you just want blind, hateful, conservative rhetoric I guess Bill really is your man. He'll spin anything to fit that view.

Well no Danya not exactly. The author of the document I believe is the priests that signed it first.

Jeremy Matthew Glick, coeditor of Another World Is Possible from the site you linked.

All he did was lend his name to a book someone else wrote. I say lend I should say SOLD his name to this book. Sure he is listed as coeditor. Do you know what a coeditor is? Typically someone with a name that they can attach to a lousy book to help it sell....hmmm ya dont reckon that might be the case here do ya?

Just a guess..

GBYA

Aahz

Right. Us liberals are so brainwashed not even the death of a loved one could sway us. Accusing him of trying to capitalize from his dad's death is a pretty strong character attack. Do you believe this because his views don't correspond with yours or do you have some other basis for it?

And you are totally out of context Danya because Bill was right and you are wrong.

Darcaine

Darcaine there can NOT possibly be a right and wrong when discussing someone's interpretation of another's actions/words.

Why don't you give us something of more substance than that?

____

Thank you for the factual information about the group, Aahz.