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.
