Posted on 11/16/2006 5:52:54 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
A few minutes ago, Bill O'Reilly spent the first two segments of his Fox News Channel program, The O'Reilly Factor, condemning the upcoming Fox Network interview program featuring O.J. Simpson's quasi-confession to murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. O'Reilly's guests criticized Simpson, Judith Regan, Harper-Collins Books, and the Fox Network. O'Reilly also criticized Simpson and threatened to personally stop buying any products of companies sponsoring the program. However, O'Reilly himself did not criticize Regan by name, nor did he himself make a single negative remark about the Fox Network for broadcasting the interview.
Also conspicuous in its absence was the name of Rupert Murdoch, the multi-billionaire media mogul who owns the Fox Network, the Fox News Channel, the New York Post, and many other media properties. It's virtually inconceivable that the Fox Network announced that it was airing the Simpson interview without first getting Rupert Murdoch's approval for so doing. Indeed, ask yourself this question: How likely is it that the Fox Network suits agreed to pay Simpson a reported $3.5 million and agreed to risk the reputation of the Fox Network brand without checking with Rupert first? I'd say the answer is clear: the likelihood is nil.
Rupert Murdoch knew about this program and Rupert Murdoch approved of its airing on the Fox Network. Why, then, should he skate on this issue? Where are the stand-up guys at Fox News who are willing to call the big boss to account for giving this double-murdering monster, Simpson, the stage at the Fox Network, one of Murdoch's premier media outlets?
Is it the case that all member-generated posts belong in General Chat? If so, I'll note that for future reference.
Guess O'Reilly has an iron-clad contract.
Criticism of Rupert is grounds for dismissal? A 'no-biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you' clause? Could be...
Pardon my cynicism, but I think it's just marketing. One of the best ways to sell a book is to get someone, somewhere to ban it. Conversely, one of the better ways to ensure that people watch a TV program is to generate some controversy about it.
There is rarely any such thing as bad publicity.
Oh, I agree that all of this discussion is hyping the program. But my specific point was to note the apparent invisibility cloak that Rupert Murdoch is wearing through all of this. Why should his billions shield him from criticism for his willingness to immolate morality on the altar of ratings? It's pathetic.
Did anyone just see Mark Fuhrman tear into Alan Colmes on H&C on this subject?
Yes, I just saw that. Good for Mark Fuhrman...Colmes was plain wrong (as he often is, unfortunately). Sean Hannity tried to deflect some of Fuhrman's anger, defending his (Hannity's) publisher, Harper-Collins, and his (Hannity's) editor, Judith Regan, and even the airing of the interview. To his credit, Fuhrman distanced himself from Harper-Collins, even though that company published his book. Props to Mark Fuhrman, although I'd like for him to have mentioned Rupert Murdoch's name...
Here's something that I haven't heard anyone bring up yet. The Medford, OR Fox affiliate has just said they won't run the OJ interviews. There could be many more affiliates that do the same thing.
Local Fox station won't show Simpson interview (4:55 p.m.)
The Medford Fox television affiliate, KMVU-TV, won’t air a two-part interview with O.J. Simpson promoting his book, “If I Did It.”
The exclusive interview with Simpson by publisher Judith Regan is set to air on the Fox network nationwide Nov. 27 and 29.
“We have the right at this station to choose to run it or not,” said Cary Jones, KMVU’s general manager. “The decision was really easy. I don’t want to contribute one iota to the promotion of his book or keeping him in the spotlight.”
Substitute programs will be announced later, but Jones said he was considering extra episodes of “The Simpsons.”
“We like the good Simpsons, not that Simpson,” he said.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that report. Could be the start of something good...
"Why should his billions shield him from criticism for his willingness to immolate morality on the altar of ratings? It's pathetic."
The one network that is (arguably) most likely to criticize his actions is not going to bite the hand that feeds.
Based on what we've seen this evening, it's hard to disagree...
both Hannity and Colmes looked like idiots in that interview...only Fuhrman was the rational one
Yes, indeed.
It's generally not a good idea to publicly attack your own boss, or your boss's boss, if you yourself wish to remain employed.
I may be a bit naive about this, but my opinion is that all of this stuff is far below Murdoch's level in decision making. I doubt that he watches over Judith Regan's shoulder on which books to publish, or oversees individual shows on the Fox Network. In another interview on O'Reilly, it was brought up that ABC and Barbara Walters had been offered the Simpson interview and had passed. It therefore seems that the decision on the book and on the show were separately made and related only by the generally tabloid and sensational tone of Murdoch's businesses in Australia, Britain, the U.S. and around the world!
Whichever it is, Fuerman wasn't having any of it. He responded to Allen's stupid questions and comments with intelligence along with obvious annoyance.
Before the interview was over, Allen managed to get in his obviously planned question regarding Fuerman's past racist comment(s) which were brought up in the trial.
Fuerman wouldn't bite, and ended up telling Allen: "You have a chip on your shoulder".
Colmes belongs to the 1/1000th% of the population who believes OJ is innocent.
Hannity entertains the idea that Simpson's conscience has been bothering him these many years...ergo the TV appearance and the book.
Fuerman, countered with the experience he's had for years dealing with sociopaths. They can commit murder and then go to Kentucky Fried Chicken or have a beer afterwords.
Someone with a reasonable degree of intelligence would define "Kentucky Fried Chicken", in this instance, to mean the perp had no feelings of guilt and stopped at a fast-food place, or wherever, to grab a bite.
But not ALLEN COLMES! In his weird little excuse for a brain, he interpreted Fuerman's comment as racist...chicken? black people?
Unbelievable!
But even if Rupert Murdoch wasn't consulted before the interview was done and Simpson was paid and Regan was paid and advertising/publicity was prepared and then disseminated, he certainly has known about it for a couple of days now and at any time would've been in a position to cancel the broadcast of the 2-part (!) interview. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened. That makes him a responsible party, too, in my view. It's his network and the buck(s) stop with him. And somebody at Fox News (or elsewhere) should at least mention this fact.
" The Medford, OR Fox affiliate has just said they won't run the OJ interviews"
And you'll never be stopped for no reason in a roadblock in Oregon either. This little town is looking better and better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.