Customer Reviews

The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

I recently heard Bill O'Reilly on Terry Gross's FRESH AIR on NPR, and his behavior convinced me that he is either mentally ill or calculatingly manipulative. I tend to the latter. O'Reilly suddenly pretended to be outraged at what he alleged was unfair, biased questioning, but it was interesting that he allowed the interview to go on for 50 minutes, knowing that he was scheduled for a 55 minute time slot. It was obvious that he planned from the outset to blow up and get outraged, in order to have fodder for his own show. That was my impression at the time of the show, but my conviction has been consolidated by this book.

Bill O'Reilly depresses me, partly because who he is-a loutish, aggressive, rude, combative, uninformed bully-but partly about what he says about contemporary American politics. Several former high level Republican leaders-a former speaker of the house and a former senate majority leader(Bob Michel and Bob Dole)-have stated and lamented that a new aggressive, take-no-prisoners style began to emerge with the 1984 Congressional class, led by raucous, unpleasant individuals typified by Newt Gingrich. With Lee Atwater's leading the GOP, the Republicans took on a new hyper-aggressive, win-at-all-costs approach to politics. And with the emergence of pundits like Rush Limbaugh and billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife funding hordes of ultra Right Wing organizations and projects, any semblance of gentility disappeared, with Right Wingers accusing Democrats of every conceivable crime, knowingly manufacturing untruths (such as multiple accusations against Dukakis in 1988), and then-during the Clinton years-unleashing an unrelenting deluge of absurd charges and innuendos. Bill O'Reilly is another piece of this Right wing strategy to slant and mold political thinking in America. O'Reilly's contribution is unique in that he pretends to being unbiased and independent, and by taking the outrageous step of calling his show the "No Spin Zone," whereas it is "All Spin, All the Time."

I am tremendously upset that a book like this is needed. It hasn't been a good year for O'Reilly. First, he made a fool of himself at a table discussion featuring Molly Ivins (who managed to stay above the fray) and Al Franken (who I normally like, but who did, I'm afraid, did bait O'Reilly some, with tremendous success, and O'Reilly, who was unable to control the situation like he does on his show when he shouts people down, was made to look rather absurd). Then he attempted to engineer a lawsuit to prevent the publication of Franken's LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM, only to lose when the judge laughed the lawsuit out of court, all of which caused Franken's book to skyrocket to the top of the NY Times Bestseller List. He then made a fool of himself on the Terry Gross interview (though I'm sure his followers will not take the time to hear the entire interview, and will buy his own "spin" on what happened, which is a travesty of what actually occurred-anyone doubting me should go to www.npr.org, look up the Fresh Air link, and listen to the whole interview). Finally, Peter Hart brings out this book, which competently documents O'Reilly's tactics, ploys, and struggles with the truth.

I don't enjoy books like this, though they are needed. The book does a more complete job than Franken or Joe Conason in his book BIG LIES of documenting O'Reilly's claims. I was already aware of the nature of his strategy, of attempting to portray himself as an independent, whereas he is, in fact, solidly to the Right (though not as far as Rush Limbaugh). Hart quotes Bishop John Spong (a writer I normally dislike enormously), who tells O'Reilly quite accurately on his show, "You're Rush Limbaugh with perfume." It is helpful to have an extensive list of O'Reilly's factual errors. It become pretty obvious that O'Reilly in general just doesn't have a very good grasp of the facts, but tends instead, despite his claims to being a journalist, has the political grasp of a guy arguing politics in a barbershop. In fact, I became impressed with the overall resemblance of his style of "debating" with that of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's strategy was, when trying to prove a point, to spout statistics or "facts" that tended to bolster his position, statistics or facts that no one would be likely to be able to challenge on the spot, but which turned out to be untrue upon a reexamination. Basically, O'Reilly "spouts" pseudo facts to prove his point, but does not later correct himself on any of his errors. One thing that disturbs me about the Right these days is how comfortable many of its supporters are with factual inaccuracy. How can O'Reilly maintain such a large audience when he has such a weak grasp of the truth?

At any rate, this book is valuable for calling O'Reilly to the carpet for his lamentable weaknesses as a journalist. But to me, these faults pale in comparison to his unpleasantness as a debater, his aggressiveness towards those he considers his enemies, and his rudeness.

It was everything Franken's book should have been: thoroughly researched, smart, sly, and even with a subtle, edgy humor to it. I particularly like the structure of this book: first he presents a quote from O'Reilly, and then he amplifies on it. Once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.

You won't come away from this book believing you are supposed to now hate Bill O'Reilly (which, by comparison, seems to be a theme in Franken's) but you'll likely become a more discerning viewer, taking broad statements and statistics with a greater degree of skepticism. The facts are there. To quote Fox, "YOU decide." You can't get any more 'fair and balanced' than that!

In his confrontation with Al Franken on C-SPAN earlier this year, Bill O'Reilly tried to dismiss Franken by saying "Is that all you've got?"
Peter Hart shows in great detail that there is no end to the distortions, contradictions, and outright lies emanating from the "No Spin Zone." From O'Reilly's ridiculous claim, "I'm not a conservative." (5/4/01)(p. 20), to his thuggish off camera comment to an anti-war guest whose father died in the World Trade Center ("Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f***ing pieces!" [2/06/03] [p.145]), Hart lays bare O'Reilly's brand of "journalism."
The point by point refutations of O'Reilly's misstatements are the heart of the book and can't be waved away. But for those who will continue to insist, "Is that all you've got?", perhaps Mr. Hart can be persuaded to start compiling volume two!

I first heard of O'Reilly's show from my father-in-law who's one of the world's greater prudes. He showed me a few of O'Reilly's moralisms in one of the books the alleged unspinner markets. I read them then ignored them as I do most of what my father in law recommends.

But to hear O'Reilly on the tube! What is it about loudmouth windbags that appeals to people? Because that's all O'Reilly is.

To be honest, when I first saw this book advertised before it became available, I thought it would be thicker, a more "scholarly" documentary of what's wrong with O'Reilly. When I got it, I saw it wasn't that thick. It reminded me of some of those comedy manuals that made jokes of the inept rhetoric of Dan Quayle and George W. for example. So I opened it expecting to be disappointed. I wasn't.

The author does a pretty good job of refuting just about everything O'Reilly says. Billy boy claims he's not a conservative. But he says nothing positive about anyone remotely connected with the Democratic party, and nothing negative about right wing Republicans, not matter how outrageous the statement or act.

Yet O'Reilly still has the audacity to call his stands "unspin," where that's all he does but spin, spin, and spin some more for anything he chooses to believe in, any stand he chooses to make.

There's a lengthy section in which scores of O'Reilly's statements are listed, followed by an "Oh, Really?" in which the statement is always challenged, usually refuted.

There's an entire chapter dedicated to the many times O'Reilly has contradicted himself. And the section on the person on O'Reilly's show who had a relative die on 9/11, yet was opposed to the war is a gem! What O'Reilly said after the microphone was off is something that clearly contradicts any of the little moral platitudes Billy is forever shooting off.

By the way, what might be the antonym to "pinhead?" Because that's what the scholarly O'Reilly refers to anyone who might be audacious enough to disagree with him. And he, like a well-known and equally windy--and insubstantial--daytime radio "conservative", who, in fact, may be O'Reilly's political mentor, has mastered the art of simply tuning out those who disagree with him. When someone disputes him with simple things like FACTS, O'Reilly dismisses them all with, "Well, that's your opinion," and moves on.

Al Franken does a more amusing job of refuting O'Reilly but if you know anyone, father in law or other, who pays attention to this loudmouth, you might want to give them this book to put the guy in perspective.

Frankly, it's beyond me what appeals to anyone about the guy. I hope the people O'Reilly has on his show and whom he thinks he's defeating (because he has control over the show!) just refuse to appear with him any more. Then we'll be rid of O'Reilly's self praise (e.g., of awards he never received) and opinions based on nothing more than the fact that O'Reilly still has a breath.

Not being American myself, I was pointed towards Bill O'Reilly by a friend in a chatroom, who claimed him to be the saviour of all people with a free mind.

Reading some of his columns, and checking out his website, though, made me feel different. The articles I read supported a heavy conservative point of view, and his whole site seemed to have but one purpose: "Make me rich!". Member-secluded areas (access can be gained by whipping out the credit card), merchandise with his 'logo' on it, banners, etc. His
very articles seemed like nothing more than bantering from someone who is plainly biased, and afraid to admit it.

While I am NOT someone to dismiss another point of view upfront, the turning point for me came after watching O'Reilly rip into a kid whose dad got killed at 9/11. When the kid tried (VERY Reasonably) arguing with O'Reilly, the latter responded by "SHUT UP!" eventually followed by "CUT HIS MIKE!". (Which apparantly is a favourite tactic of him).

After reading the summary to this book, I decided to buy it, just to see what the big scoop was really all about.

I was expecting the author to clearly show the times O'Reilly contradicted himself, did a 180 on certain points of view, etc. Unfortunatly, that's not exactly the case. Rather, the author starts off by what is (in my opinion) a nitpicking sort of way to address shortcomings in O'Reilly's articles.

While this makes an interesting read, that was not exactly what I was hoping for. I was hoping for the "Bias, contradiction" stuff that was promised.

Thankfully, the chapter labeled "O'Reilly Vs. O'Reilly" does just that. The chapter plainly shows O'Reilly's opinions switch completely, depending on how he can gain some points against his adversaries:

On Boycotting - He first claims Boycotting is "Un-american" (12/29/00). Yet, O'Reilly's very own website sports "Do you want to boycott French products?" on the mainpage.

On killing civilians - O'Reilly initially claims bombing civilians is something no civilized society would do. Yet, he quickly changes his point of view, and suddenly doesn't mind Serbian civilians, nor does he feel pity for the German civilians who were bombed in WW2. And when asked who will suffer when his plan to wipe out the complete infrastructure of Afghanistan, he pretty much shrugs it off and says it doesn't really matter.

The moment where he most plainly shows his conservatist point of view (even though he tries everything to debunk that by disagreeing with other little conservatist points of view) is when he starts whining about the 10 commandments being posted in a public place by the governor of Indiana. He feels he has every right to read those fine rules his society was built on, and that his rights are being violated.

Yet, when a female muslim police officer wears a scarf under her hat, he feels that religion and state should be seperated.

Add to that his constant backlashing towards the Clinton administration (Come on. They guy's been out of office for nearly three years now), while supporting blindly whatever decision Dubya makes (Although when he DOES disagree with little things that the administration does, he starts by disagreeing, and then turning it into yet another backlash at the Democrats, preferably the Clintons again), and I can't help but form a picture of a man will twist and turn his very own words just to fit his believes, while never looking back to see if he's arguing against his own statements.

"Judge Scheindlin has to go" (6/6/02)
"Just want to have an investigation into this. I'm not saying remove her yet." (6/7/02)

The book was highly enjoyable. I read it almost without a pause. I am left, however, with a slight feeling of dissappointment because of the (in my opinion) weak few first chapters. But since it was a humorous read, and the author ended up making sure O'Reilly's very own statements were proven to go against earlier arguments, I'll keep it at 4 stars.

This book is like a scouting report for a baseball pitcher--in this case a righthander(read politically conservative) who claims to be ambidextrous (unbiased). It is not a penetrating study of Bill O'Reilly's inner psychology or motivation, and the author, Peter Hart says so. It simply tells viewers/batters what to expect each night when they face him.

The late great lefty, Warren Spahn, said "the art of hitting is timing; and the art of pitching is disrupting timing." That is the first thing that our scout, Peter Hart, tells his readers. O"Reilly claims to be "no spin;" he is, in fact, "all spin." When you face him you are going to get a lot of off speed junk, curves. He is not going to put any fastballs where you can hit them. He does not have much of an arm (read facts) to go all with his pitch (read spin). To beat you--and I am talking about "the folks," his target audience of working people who vote conservative and against their own self interest--he has to make you believe him about being "no spin." You must buy his deception. Hart adds, do not waste your time preparing to hit (read listen critically) a guy that throws with both hands. This guy never really has pitched with his left hand (read seriously espoused progressive positions). He just says he does to throw you off. He is just a righty (conservative) spinning tales.

That is Bill O'Reilly in a nutshell. And though it might be fun, I promise not to belabor this metaphor anymore. As a teacher of speech, I know that one of the first rules of rhetoric or persuasion is for the speaker to ethically tell people where he stands. To say that he is no spin does a disservice to his audience; they are not hitters he is trying to trick; they are people he should be trying to help and illuminate.

This handbook then is a manual on how he does not help and illuminate.

The first thing Hart does is give O'Reilly's positions on a bevy of social, economic, and political issues. Each position is deeply conservative. On the few issues that he claims a liberal
position, Hart shows that his position is either weakly held or a dissemblance. So now the reader knows how to listen to O'Reilly. Now Hart tells us what to listen for.

In a section called "The O'Reilly Fact-Check," Hart offers "at least" 100 lies and distortions--mostly lies that O'Reilly has told, mostly on the "Factor" TV show. The section runs 66 pages pp.53-118. It is filled with statements O'Reilly has made on the show, then Hart provides an "Oh Really" response. O"Reilly says "dozens of police officers were injured" by protestors in Sna Francisco and Chicago during anti-war demonstration in those cities; The Oh Really response: "the facts" are that only two officers were injured in Frisco and none in Chicago. O'Reilly claims that the US never supplied the Iraqis with chemical and biological weapons and that Donald Rumsfeld never meant with Hussein to close the deal. He tells a radio caller that is a "crazy thing that goes out on the Internet...and you guys think its true." The Oh Really response is that the account came from Newsweek and quotes the particualrs at length. And on it goes--plenty of O'Reilly's lies to enjoy.

Plus you must know that if O'Reilly wants 2+2=5, he will swing it so it does. His logic lacks internal consistency. He tells a high school student who supports Satanism in October 2002 that he "has no freedom of speech once he walks in San Mateo High." In November 2001 he applaudes a young man expelled for hanging pro-war in his high school for defending his "freedom of speech." He tells people who want to boycott Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh that boycotts are "unAmerican." "This is blatant censorship"..."You are against freedom of speech." He then turns around and calls for a boycott of Pepsi because the company hired the rapper Ludacris as a pitchman. He also calls for boycotts of France and many of those pesky countries who would not support our invasion of Iraq.

Like the lies, the inconsistencies go on and on. What's really good about this scouting report is that it teaches you how to face O'Reilly in the future. Since Hart's report came out a few months ago, O"Reilly has further dissembled. He defended Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie "The Passion" which depicts the Cruxifiction of Christ from charges of Anti-Semetism. He urges free expression and letting "the folks" make up their own minds. Then a TV movie about Ronald Reagan is scheduled to air this fall, and he tells CBS to pull it because "the folks" might take out their anger on the network. He abused Jeremy Glick brutally on his TV show; and he cries foul when Terry Gross asks him a few tough questions on NPR's "Fresh Air."

And he continues to lie. Remember the fiasco with Al Franken over the alleged two Peabody Awards he won while hosting Inside Edition. The book covers the incident before it became a major media bruhaha. O'Reilly got caught lying about something that could be easily checked and then compounded the situation by lying about the lie. Well, he has done it again. He claims his latest book "Who's Looking Out for You" is vying for number one nonfiction book of the year in sales with Hillary Clinton's book "Living History." Bookscan, USA Today and Neilssen all list it lagging badly behind both Hillary's book, and (this has to hurt big time) Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars." Bookscan has Hillary's book at 1.1 million; Franken's at 674 thousand; and OReilly's at 430 thousand. Yet he continually insists otherwise. And if Hart's scouting report is a good indicator, he will continue to do so.

If the endless stream of inaccuracies, distortions, and self-contradictory statements aren't enough to wreck O'Reilly's credibility, I don't know what is.

The picture painted here is one of a man who is beyond paranoid and convinced that anyone attempting to correct his inaccuracies is a threat that must be eliminated. He rarely corrects his distortions and inaccuracies, and when he does it's in a very combatative, I'm-still-right-despite-pulling-my-"facts"-out-of-the-air attitude.

Bill O'Reilly probably believes all the myths he's concocted about himself. If he doesn't, it would be very difficult to explain why he is so defensive about them. For instance, despite claiming that he was not a member of any political party, he had been a registered Republican until 2000. When he was informed of this, he said, "There was no box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status." Then, when confronted with a copy of his actual form, which clearly shows that there was a box labelled "I do not wish to enroll in a political party" and a nice, big check next to "Republican," he said that there must have been some mistake and that perhaps he was filling out the form too fast or something.

With O'Reilly, you have to ask just how much disregard for the truth someone who fancies himself as a journalist can have before you can call him a liar.

This book serves up poetic justice to Bill O'Reilly. Mr. Hart calmly and usually persuasively shows how often Mr. O'Reilly puts the shuck on his viewers, listeners, or readers. By the end of the book one must conclude that, if Mr. O'Reilly had a guest on "The Factor" who equivocated, prevaricated, or obfuscated as much and as often as Mr. O'Reilly does, the host would throw one of his tantrums.

On the other hand, Mr. O'Reilly broadcasts so much and writes so much that finding his mistakes is not very challenging and not revealing. What is revealing are Mr. O'Reilly's attempts to escape from his own errors, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies. O'Reilly wants to play the Tribune of the American People each night, but he also wants to be smarter than the average guy. As a result, Mr. O'Reilly too often agrees with positions that ordinary folk who have not thought matters through accept but invents novel reasons or factoids to bolster those popular positions. And, like any pundit, Mr. O'Reilly knows so much that is not true.

An advantage to Mr. Hart's compendium is that the author does not feel compelled to call O'Reilly a liar. Mr. Hart does better than Mr. Franken (although Mr. Franken is funnier) because he does not call every misstep or misinterpretation a lie. I have seldom caught Mr. O'Reilly in a flat-out lie, and I watch him regularly and listen to his "Radio Factor." Mr. O'Reilly instead looses blather and bombast on his listeners and viewers. That is, he is frequently dead wrong but almost always quite sincere.

The author does a bit too little analysis, or else I'd give the volume five stars. I would like to have seen more attention to the rhetorical techniques and logic-chopping in which Mr. O'Reilly engages. Mr. Hart could do many readers and viewers a service by showing how a little knowledge of a few fallacies or intellectual bad habits would explain Mr. O'Reilly's antics.

I thought that Mr. Hart might have devoted more space to Mr. O'Reilly's hypocrisy as well. When he is bullying a guest or shouting over a speaker, Mr. O'Reilly reeks of the incivility and ill-breeding that he piously laments. He rails about the excesses of Teddy Kennedy or others (and rightly so!) and how they are spoiling American politics. Then he behaves boorishly and intimidates those who come on his show. He profits from his perch on Fox News while ignoring much of the shock journalism and shlock that passes for content on Fox and other cable channels.

Mostly, however, this book is terrific at showing how often Bill O'Reilly is talking through his hat. Mr. O'Reilly is often the populist whom he plays on TV. He has the vices of his virtues. He wants viewers and listeners to believe that he knows much more than he knows (and occasionally much more than anyone could know)-- just like the loudmouth two barstools down. He clings to whatever he has long believed despite all evidence to the contrary -- just like ordinary true believers do. He denounces ideas new to him as ideological nonsense -- which saves him from admitting how mindlessly conservative he all too often is and how far he is from those conservatives who inspire admiration and belief for their learning and wisdom.

Taking the spin and the skin off O'Reilly is a public service!

God, I get sick of reviews from people who obviously haven't read a book.

The book is good, an easy read, and very revealing about Bill O'Reilly's qualifications as a journalist . . . I mean infotainer. I personally find it very hard to watch him. He just radiates negativity, and I just don't like to watch negative people. This is a great book for people like me, who have seen a bit of O'Reilly, found him off putting and unpleasant, and would like to try and understand why he is so popular.

I know it can be tough to read O'Reilly's books and watch his show, and although he claims it is a "No-Spin Zone", it is anything but.

This book shows O'Reilly's past lies (or is it O'Lielly) and shows you how to watch for his present and future lies.

O'Reilly's question: "Who's Looking out for You?"

My answer: F.A.I.R

Highly Recommended!