Skewered by 'Dean of Mean' Bill O'Reilly -- a Survivor's Tale (Barf Alert!)

Los Angeles Times ^ | February 21, 2003 | Bruce Kluger

[RayChuang88]

Earlier this month, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly found himself on the other side of the firing line for having used the term "wetback" in a discussion about illegal immigrants on his nightly program, "The O'Reilly Factor."

Indeed, the uncomfortable position in which this puts the pugnacious host is pure poetic justice: For seven years, the former "Inside Edition" anchor has brought a brand of dyspeptic discourse to the airwaves, lording over a talk show that's as much about his bully tactics as it is about the issues of the day.

[RayChuang88]

Mr. Kluger has done it AGAIN.

It's small wonder why Bill O'Reilly was upset on his radio show this morning, to say the least. And you wonder why conservative talk radio, the Internet and the Fox News Channel is wiping out broadcast network news, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and most newspapers.

Sheesh.

[ladtx]

O'Reilly gets in trouble for using an appropriately descriptive term? Only in the leftists Bizarro world.

[Rockiesrider]

O'Reilly's like Limbaugh to me. Always "tootin his own horn". I like the message but the messenger is sometimes too much.

[ken5050]

O"Reilly: "I didn't say beaner..I said 'Beemer'..I was talking about my new car..

[presidio9]

I'm confused here. Hillary Clinton's support of the Estrada philibuster and calls for crackdowns on mexican immigrants lead me to believe that she hated Mexicans. Do Bill and Hill finally agree on something?

[sauropod]

O'Reilly does have bad manners. One needs very quick wits to be able to evicerate him. Evidently, Mr. Kluger does not.

[Mr. Mojo]

'Dean of Mean'

The so-called 'Dean of Mean' does more to affect positive change in this world in one waking hour than this putz Kluger has done is his whole lifetime.

[elbucko]

The LAT considers itself to be the English language version of Spanish language paper. It panders to the Spanish speakers in its circulation area (as well as to the socialists in West LA) in hopes of saving a declining influence.

John Balzer doesn't know it yet, but he has found a deck chair on the "Titanic".

[aeronca]

Actually, I saw that segment on O'Reilly: he was talking about the border problem and those who take money to help people get over the border illegally. When Bill said "wetback"---he corrected himself IMMEDIATLY and spoke the word he meant to use--- "coyote".
I didn't get the impression that it was anything more than him getting border-slang words mixed up.
If O'Reilly were an elected official, it might raise eyebrows (such as Pelosi's recent comment about black men and rape)
By the way Bill, we DID hear you slur the Shi---word last night! LOL
(in appropriate reference to that cretin, Kinsey)
Other than that...O'Reilly NEVER claims to be perfect, and will tackle topics that the mamby-pamby other news stations WON'T.

[Dionysius]

"Wetback" became "Illegal Alien" which became "Undocumented Immigrant". What's next? "Ambassador Without Portfolio"?

[jraven]

I was in the news biz for many years. A few things on this piece:
a)I read it and it was interesting.
b)It WAS an op-ed piece.
c)They clearly did NOT want to give O'Reilly a chance to respond to it. USA Today will often run two opinions on an issue side by side. In this case, the LAT simply decided to give him a forum and not let O'Reilly Respond.
d)I am a HUGE O'Reilly can (I love his tv show, radio show and books). It is not unimaginable that he or any other host of a provocative show would want to control the agenda of an appearance since the host does have the right to control the course of discussion...and the mike. So the answer to that charge is: SO??? Doesn't 60 Minutes do the same thing? Doesn't PBS? Doesn't National Public Radio?
The BOTTOM LINE: The LA Times has a right to run an op ed piece, but one that so completely focuses on ATTACKING someone would usually be accompanied by a companion column.
The editorial page editor clearly agreed with the writer and felt O'Reilly's response was unwarrented or, more likely, dangerous since it would undermine the charges against him.
In other words, they DID seek to run a one-sided piece -- and they will defend it since it is (true) an op ed piece.
But the LAT undermined it's own credibility.
(I generaly love the LA Times by the way; I enjoy it more than any other daily newspaper).

[Burlem]

I could not access the article, said you had to be registered.

[reagandemocrat]

I read the article. The author enjoyed being compared to George Clooney, a "Hollywood stud". Then he started sobbing that even his friends and family weakly supported him.

Chalk one up for O'Reilly.

RD

[eeman]

user ID: annoying

password: annoying

It works at the NYT, LAT. I learned this from a freeper who posted this little tidbit just a couple of weeks ago

[js1138]

O'Reilly's like Limbaugh to me. Always "tootin his own horn". I like the message but the messenger is sometimes too much.

I can live with Rush because he has a sense of humor. O'Reilly takes everything too seriously. What he says might look OK written down, but his tone of voice annoys the heck out of me.

[Burlem]

lol, but they also want name address and etc...., those blanks are astericked with a red star.

[Erasmus]

lol, but they also want name address and etc...., those blanks are astericked with a red star.

That's only if you're registering as a new user.

What you need to do is use the "login" form directly; it's the one that you encounter first. It has only two blanks: one for login name ('annoying') and the other for password (also 'annoying').

I just tried it on the link at the top of this thread and it worked. (I half expected the LAT to have noticed this little subterfuge and deleted the account, and maybe hacked their registration code to disallow that username, but no, not yet.)

[Erasmus]

"[...] Barney Frank turned beet-red at having his words twisted by O'Reilly; Susan Sarandon sadly shrugged at not being able to speak her mind; [...]"

What, you mean she couldn't even get a half second in edgewise?

~<]B^)