Bill O'Reilly interview on NPR

I have listened to Terry Gross's interview of Bill O'Reilly three times. Once by myself (Liberal), once with a die-hard conservative friend and once with my middle-of-the-road girlfriend. All three of us regularly listen to Terry Gross AND Bill O'Reilly.
We came to these conclusions.

1) It was not the best interview Terry Gross has ever done. She stuttered, made amateur mistakes, (Like losing an article she was going to quote.) and didn't do thorough research. (Her first question was flat-out wrong.)

2) Terry didn't do anything she doesn't do to all her other guests. She asked tough questions, but that is her job. Bill O'Reilly also asks tough questions on his shows.

3) Had Mr. O'Reilly not had a tantrum, he would have come out of this interview smelling like a rose. He answered all questions eloquently, thoughtfully and completely.

4) O'Reilly has shown himself to be intelligent yet thin-skinned and intolerant of criticism. The real reason he stormed off of the interview was that he is not used to not being able to hang up or bully his opponents when they annoy him.

5) Bill O'Reilly is not nearly as right-wing as most of the other people you see & hear in the media. Compared to Rush, Savage and Hannity, he's a Left-wing wacko.

what a blowhard! Love the royal use of "we"

The most revealing bit was when he talked about his father. That line of questioning seemed downright sly - it really explains a lot about his character. That and getting picked on in school...

because he wanted to make sure they had enough to run the show, because he knew it would be good publicity for him.

The guy isn't smart, except in the sense that he knows how to sell the snake oil he passes off as informed political opinion.

I don't like Gross that much, but I wasn't bothered by the interview. Every time she had evidence (the articles) they totally rebutted O'Reilly's claims.

It makes you wonder about the truth of evrything O'Reilly said which wasn't rebutted with direct evidence. He was 0 for 3 when there was rebuttal evidence.

The biggest thing about the interview was that it consolidated the image O'Reilly wants to promote of himself as a sexist, bullying victim of the left-wing press, and it give Gross an undeserved veneer of liberalism.

And this is why I think we're still talking about what was a boring, predictable interview three days later.

I've never thought Terry Gross asks anybody questions that are all that tough...she generally softballs most guests, and from the excerpts I've seen she didn't ask O'Really any killer questions...he just seems upset that anybody DARE ask him ANYTHING.

Anybody got a link to a transcript? I can't access audio files and I've only seen a few portions...

talking points of the day?

OhReally is an arrogant POS. Like most neocons OhReally loves to hear himself speak over his opponents, and when pressed with the truth will either turn tail and run or start barking out of fear. In this instance he did both.

Yes, I listened to the interview as well.

Compared to Rush, Savage and Hannity, a POS is still a POS.

I don't have cable, so I've been spared Mr O'Reilly's antics for the time being. I've relied on transcrips, which don't convey the man's obvious love of his own voice and supercilious tone when dealing with anyone else. All I could think when I listened to the interview was, "What kind of desperately bored people tune into this narcissistic boor night after night?"

I think they're people who think they're way too posh for Springer, but who love to see choleric nitwits blow their tops.

At least the interview file didn't come with video.

brainshrub wrote:

3) Had Mr. O'Reilly not had a tantrum, he would have come out of this interview smelling like
a rose. He answered all questions eloquently, thoughtfully and completely.

WRONG, he lied his ass off, and never answered one question with the truth.

He did answer the questions, but it was all spin and lies.

Read this Posting I made:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=509939

he continued his pattern of lying over and over again, and figures he's the only one who can judge whats spin and what isn't.

if you didn't know what was behind a lot of all that, he did make his point of being the poor little kid being picked on. He was talking to the vast number of people who don't follow him that closely and who would fall for his crap.

That's his greatest talent-- he can shamelessly lie and spin and come off not looking like the bully, but the victim, to the uninitiated.

As I said in another thread, Gross is a great interviewer, but she can be intimidated, and this guy is one of the most intimidating subjects around.

He kept referring to "The Factor" in a way that made him look like a megalomaniac; i.e. "You don't have to watch the Factor...", "If you'd been watching THE FACTOR", etc. It got real fuckin old quick.

Plus his arguments were total straw men. He claims that the People magazine writer wrote a review criticising HIM, not his book. What's the difference? Is not your book a product of your amazingly fertile and creative mind? Aren't those YOUR thoughts on the pages? Don't they represent your opinions and viewpoints? So, then, explain the difference to me.

He kept trying, like an artificially tolerant but angry schoolteacher, to define the difference between "facts" and "Opinions." WHich does OhReally cater in? Opinions, stated in the tone of voice one usually reserves for facts. This man is obviously in need of a blowjob from an intern.

When he really got ranting, he asked if they had treated Al Franken the same way, y'know, doing a "hatchet job" on him. Bill, if you could get your pinhead out of your ass long enough, you'd realize that there no longer is an FCC regulation providing for enforced "fairness" in broadcasted discourse. So, just like on your show, when you're a guest, you're asked tough questions. ANd if you have no sense of humor, chances are you won't be able to rebut questions with jokes or satire like Al Franken. It's you're problem if you cn dish it out but can't take it. Shut UP! Shut Up! Shut Up!

IMHO, he came off like a paranoid megalomaniac obsessed with revenge and settling scores. Petty. Plus, revealing the abuse he suffered as a child just gave to us a reason why you're such an asshole; If you're abused, don't pass it on to others.....

She treated him better than he treats his own guests.

How many times did she tell him to 'shut up'?

Newt Gingrich has a new book out right now called "Gettysburg."

It's a "what if" book basically covering all the "what ifs" of the Gettysburg campaign that history buffs like me always debate over. What if Jackson was there to storm Culp's Hill before dusk? What if Stuart came back quicker? What if Lee was more assertive? What if Lee followed Longstreet's advice and moved to the right?

I thought it was a fun read, but I'm a Civil War buff.

However, if someone did a review of this book, and their review was about how Newt tried to cut medicare and brought down Speaker Wright, well that review would suck.

I would argue that Newt and his book "Gettysburg" are not the same thing even though he wrote it.

Writing about a historical event from another perspective is not the same as proclaiming 'Who's Looking Out For You?' I haven't read the book, but I assume it's Bill O'Reilly who is 'looking out for us.' Therefore it is about him -- you can't separate the two.

O'Reilly was there to sell more copies of his book, Who's Looking Out for You. He wants you to know that he's Who's Looking Out for You. Your friends and family aren't Who's Looking Out for You, but good old Bill O'Reilly is Who's Looking Out for You.

He came off like an unstable, lying shill. Even before he threw his little hissy fit. Which he only threw because you need to know that NPR isn't Who's Looking Out for You.

apparantly the "wholey without merit" judgement did not register. He has an unhealthy fixation with Al Franken. If he feels threatened by a comedian/satirist, how much of a bully can he be?

O'Reilly was spoiling for a fight. He needs the controversy to stimulate book sales. That's why he deliberately broke decorum. That's also what he did at the Book Expo where he was destroyed by Al Franken.

O'Reilly's claim to being Mr. No Spin is now gone. No serious thinker could hear O'Reilly's sad lies about the Peabody Award and his alleged registration as an Independant and not know they are listening to a liar. O'Reilly could have corrected himself at any time (as Al Franken noted). O'Reilly didn't. He's damned.

Someone on another thread said that Gross read a review of Al Franken's book during the O'Reilly interview. I can't recall that. Did he, triplicate listener?

what does a stumbling Gross being lectured to by O'Reilly have to do with Arnold?

Explain!

The original poster listened to the O'Reilly with atwo different people in two different non-DU places on the political spectrum. The original poster concluded that O'Reilly came off well except for an insufficiently provoked tantrum at the end. I came to much the same conclusions about the interview, as I have stated extensively on other recent DU threads.

However, many DUers seemed to have perceived O'Reilly as a raving lunatic over the course of the entire interview. It is clear that these posters perceived O'Reilly's performance in the interview according to preconceived notions of the man, instead of objectively as a centrist or an uncommitted voter might.

What has this got to do with California?

The Democrats clearly misperceived Davis' popularity and misperceived Arnold's. There was a tin ear for how the electorate heard adjudged candidates. Don't get me wrong: I voted no/Bustamonte. However, there was a certain unmistakeable hubris that brought Davis down in CA. I detect that same hubris when I hear all these posters "grossly" mischaracterize O'Reilly's demeanor in this particular interview.

I am *not* arguing that we should compromise our progressive beliefs to come to agreement to popular kids like Arnold and O'Reilly. However, I think we should learn how non-Progressives perceive these popular people, we should unlock the secrets of their popularity. This knowledge, I think will help us start to more effectively counter these opponents than we do now when we address the non-Progressive, less staunch segments of the electorate.

All of this is why I applaud the original poster for taking the time to listen to the interview with a conservative and a centrist. that helped the original poster hear the interview in a more accurate light. If the original poster were to now interview O'Reilly in the light of his experiences, I think O'Reilly would have come off a lot worse than he did, which is good for us! That is the important thing -- how can we learn to do Terry Gross's job better than she did. Simplistic demonizing of O'Reilly is not the path.

Terry Gross was hardly demonizing O'Reilly, she was pretty damn inept and hardly much of a "liberal."

"All of this is why I applaud the original poster for taking the time to listen to the interview with a conservative and a centrist. that helped the original poster hear the interview in a more accurate light."

Accurate? How? If I were to listen to the interview with a Nazi, a Scientologist, and a long dead Anarchist of Some Kind, I still would've thought O'Reilly was frothin' mad.

Are you suggesting that we're all somehow completely blinded by our ideology and can only see the accuracy of O'Reilly through the prism of a handy conservative?

I listened to the interview on a boring car ride with some non-Dem types myself, one of which claimed to watch "The Factor" and thought Bill "made a lot of sense" - but NOT on this interview... Mr. Makes A Lot of Sense was shaking his head in embarassment by the end of it, mumbling "he's nuts."

But that's essentially meaningless anecdotal "evidence"

Yes, a lot of Duers (and apparently you in particular) are blinded by ideology in this instance.

What should Gross have done -- what is the path?

1. She should have made a point of being tough on Al Franken as she was on O'Reilly. The feud between these two is notorious and apparently their interviews were scheduled in tandem. In order to appear more objective, Gross should have considered her upcoming interview with O'Reilly when interviewing Franken. We know that Franken could have better withstood a tough interview, but the people who are undecided as between Franken and O'Reilly don't know that. The message that these people get is that NPR is more hostile to O'Reilly than Franken. In other words, NPR is no more fair and balanced than Fox is. Gross unfortunately allowed O'Reilly to plausibly make these kinds of accusations and now he has.

2. She shouldn't have relied so heavily on reading long excerpts of negative reviews. I don't care how confrontation or non-confrontational is meant to be -- you simply don't read multiple, multi-sentence excerpts of negative reviews to an author who is promoting a book. This is intellectually lazy and not particularly fair. Maybe it is okay to do this once or twice in an interview, but Gross abused he privilege. It is noted that O'Reilly didn't complain the first couple times she did this, but he eventually put his foot down because the offense that Gross was committing was of a cumulative sort. In light of this, it made sense that the interview lasted 45 minutes instead of 5 minutes. (Note: some posters have read the length of the interview as some kind of evidence of O'Reilly's bad intent when it really shows some measure of patience.)

3. ***** MOST IMPORTANT IMHO *****: When O'Reilly complained about the last question and refused to let her read yet another negative review, Gross should have graciously moved on. Her insistence on reading from a whole paragraph from a magazine (People Magazine, I think) was a form of bullying. Sweet, passive agressive, stumbling, stuttering bullying, but bullying none the less. Most importantly, Gross could have used this opportunity to ask some decent follow up questions that she somehow missed during the interview. Answers to these questions could have really helped show what kind of a man O'Reilly is and gotten his beliefs clearly on the record. What are these wonderful questions that Gross somehow missed. I have posted a few examples on another thread and will now repost them here:



Have you ever voted in a Republican primary?

You say that you favor stricter environmental laws, how do you feel about the Kyoto agreement?

You say that you came to oppose the Vietnam War, does this cause you problems with fans of your Fox show?

If the Bush administration continues in its current vein about the WMD's for the next 9 months, is this an important enough issue to vote Bush out in the next election?

Thomas Jefferson argued to severely limit references to the Judeo-Christian God in the Declaration of Independence -- isn't this a secularist position by your standards?

"Yes, a lot of Duers (and apparently you in particular) are blinded by ideology in this instance."

what ideology am I blinded by particularly in this instance? You don't know the slightest thing about me or my politics, except the fact that I thought O'Reilly came off like a blustering control freak in that interview.

"She should have made a point of being tough on Al Franken as she was on O'Reilly."

Why? How? What's there to be tough about, what lies has Al Franken told? What awards did he claim to have won?

hell, I've never defended Gross. I can't stand her voice and don't like her interviewing style.

She could've asked about the weather and O'Reilly would've managed to somehow turn it into a tirade about the liberal media. This was a calculated ploy on his part to appeal to his dimbulb audience and sell more books...

You are blinded by your preconception that O'Reilly is a bad man and therefore has nothing constructive to say.

During the interview, O'Reilly said that he wanted tougher environmental laws. What a great missed opening! Gross could have gotten O'reilly talk talk about this issue. If there had been probing follow-up questions O'Reilly would have either: (1) admitted that he wasn't really for tougher environmental laws; or (2) criticize *'s environmental policies (eg, Kyoto agreement, *'s new EPA head). Either of these alternative outcomes would have helped the cause of progressive politics.

During the interview, O'Reilly said that the * administration should provide better answers as to why the WMD pronouncements were wrong. What a great missed opening! Was he saying that the WMD representations were an important underpinning to his support of the Iraq War? What kinds of innocent mistakes did he think might have been made? If the mistakes were not innocent, would that be a problem for him? Sure, he would try to spin answers to avoid losing face. A good, confrontational interviewer knows this and it is a point of professional pride to phrase questions so that O'Reilly really has to lay it on the line and show himself as either: (1) not the quite right winger we thought he was; or (2) a hypocrite.

During the interview O'Reilly said he came to oppose the Vietnam War when he found out that the situation on the ground over there was too horrific. What a great area for further discussion! How horrific is too horrific -- we need to know because we are currently planning to stay in Iraq for a while and things could get horrific there, too.

Imagine how much more helpful the interview could have been to Brainshrub's centrist and conservative friends if Gross has taken the interview in these directions.


How To Be Tough on Franken
=============================

No, Franken hasn't been accused of lying. Gross would have had to be tougher than Franken on other counts. Some ways to be tough on Franken:

- His book was criticized as not being funny, as being too shrill to be funny. His book has been criticized as being satire in the sense that playground taunts of second graders are satire. Why write such an intellectually degraded book? Franken has shown himself capable of much subtler and funnier humor.

- At times Franken has acted like a disruptor who disrupts poorly (eg, book convention). True, O'Reilly takes the bait and makes an ass of himself because he is a hothead. Nevertheless, even Skinner doesn't tolerate disruptors just because they are successful in flushing out Freepers with their disruptive tactics. Is Franken's behavior justified in a book convention setting? Wouldn't it be more civilized and polite to limit his inflammatory comments to more appropriate settings?

- Hey Franken, what do you think about Israel's plans to kill Arafat? Should the US withdraw military support and get with the rest of the UN on this issue?

I am sure that with a little research, I could come up with other ways to be tough on Franken. O'Reilly wanted Gross to have sat there and read Franken long excerpts of negative reviews of his book and persona (yes, they exist). That would have made things more even-handed, but I would have preferred that Gross was more creative and independent in her tough questions for *both* of these feuding men.

" You are blinded by your preconception that O'Reilly is a bad man and therefore has nothing constructive to say."

ah, ok. You win. I was wrong the whole time. O'Reilly is a VERY GOOD MAN, is always WATCHING OUT FOR ME, and has MANY constructive things to say.

I'm off to go buy 12 copies of his new book - no more blindness for me!

Let's try to just work on getting rid of the blind spot altogether so that you can see the whole picture in regards of O'Reilly.

I am pulling for you!

Thank you. You very nicely summed up most of what I didn't like about that interview. I posted in another thread that I was not impressed with Gross in this interview but I was in the minority.

Another question that I wish Gross had asked is "What liberal solutions to our countries problems do you, or would, you support?" At one point during the interview O'Reilly claimed that he was about solving problems and that he thought that sometimes conservative solutions were the way to go and sometime liberal solutions were. I think this is total bullshit. It is part of the "fair and balanced" facade that he tries to maintain to hide the fact that he is partisan as hell. I've seen him strike this same phony conciliatory note with Jeneanne Garofalo (sp?) and with Molly Ivins.

As I posted on another thread, Terry invited O'Reilly to be on the air with Franken and he refused saying that he wanted to wait until his own book was released and talk about that. But he didn't talk about his book. He fixated on Franken instead and how Terry treated him as opposed to O'Reilly.

For someone who complained bitterly that NPR ignored his books and never invited him on to discuss them, he blew his opportunity to rectify that by his immature and belligerent behavior.

And now he's going to take NPR down by advocating for no government funding? Newt tried that, Bill, and it resulted in the largest swell of financial support ever. And, um, where is Newt now? Just asking.

Gross could have asked a question or two about O'Reilly's book.

Maybe she could have read a passage out of the book instead of trying to insist on reading People magazine to him.

Okay. I just listened to the intro of the interview again. Terry says that she invited O'Reilly to come on the program '...after Al Franken satirized him in his book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them.' She then says that the interview was timed 'to coincide' with the release of O'Reilly's new book which just nudged Franken's out of first place on the NYT best-seller list.

So. Was he invited to talk about his book or was he invited to respond to Franken's statements and interview?

When I have time, I'll get the transcript and/or listen to the whole thing again.

I never said O'Reilly came off as a lunatic, I said he lied his ass off, and he spun
his ass off.

But to the average viewer he probably came off pretty good until the very end. I
am not the average viewer, so I knew he was spinning and lying about everything.

I agree that he came off pretty well, until the very end. The people here know him
fairly well so they knew he was lying and spinning the whole time.

He is very good at scamming the uninformed masses.

If you did not know what we know, you might think he did very well.

Bill O'Reiley had accused the author of that review of slandering him. Her point was that the reviewer was saying what Franken had said and had in fact dismissed some of it.

see also post #24, 2d half

I curious to see it deconstructed while the O'reilly interview is still fresh in everyone's mind.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1419191

I also think Gross could have approached the pair interviews by tossing up softballs for both Franken and O'Reilly. If Gross wants to be uniformly non-confrontational that is okay by me.

Given her personal style that might have been the better approach -- leave the streetfightin' to Ivins and Garofalo.

she didn't do that bad either and O' Really came off as his typical liar self.

People who don't like you say this about you...

How do you respond?

It's a way of insulting someone without doing it.

I thought this interview was too much of that.

intelligent? please.

In particular that ANNOYING way he kept saying, "All right?" As if people didn't understand what he was saying. If someone prefaced every other remark to me with "All right?" as if saying, "do you get it?" I would be tempted to punch them in the nose.