Is Bill O’Reilly Losing It?

BushCountry.org ^ | 09/22/02 | Steven Fantina

[justme346]

Is Bill O’Reilly Losing It?
By Steven Fantina (bio)

Other Articles by Steven Fantina
Back to News / Home Page

When the Fox News Channel began taking the media world by storm, one of the most enticing factors was unquestionably Bill O’Reilly with his brutal brand of journalism where the truth was uncovered by whatever means were necessary. Liberals crowed that he was a conservative hawk, and the likes of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy refused to appear on his show. Still, O’Reilly’s acerbic grillings have an equal opportunity track record. He rightly criticized presidential candidate George W. Bush for failing to reveal his 25-year-old drunk driving arrest when it was mysteriously discovered in time to nearly derail his election. Attorney General John Ashcroft--hardly a liberal icon--has also taken a permanent pass from appearing on “the Factor” because the host has made no secret of his desire to unearth why he has neglected to prosecute those Clinton administrators who egregiously flouted the law.

The charges of right-wing extremism hurled against O’Reilly become even more dubious in light of some of his boasted opinions--opposition to the death penalty and support for global warming theories among others. Despite the vacuous claims of liberals, and the inconsistent support of any ideology, most reasoned viewers saw O’Reilly as embodying the Fox mantra, “fair and balanced.” His probing was mordant and insistent but never exploitative nor inappropriate.

However, something has shifted lately. Around the time O’Reilly started hosting his unsuccessful radio show, the host transmogrified from an obstinate journalist extraordinaire into a flip-flopping egomaniac. Some of his recent declarations have been almost comically untenable and inconsistent, and his response to any criticism has been self-servingly childish. Where once he could take it as well as dish it out, he has resorted to calling his adversaries liars (William McGurn) or morbidly joking that they should be killed (Matt Drudge.)

The contradictory nature of his stances on certain controversial issues suggests he sees salesmanship as more virtuous than principle. Like all decent people O’Reilly was angered about the recent clergy scandal within the Catholic Church, but the targets of his rage were way off mark. He said that such a debacle was inevitable because the Church is a “dictatorship.” Such behavior doesn’t seem to be pandemic in the likes of Iraq, Syria, or North Korea. Furthermore he heaped much of the blame upon Pope John Paul II. Even perpetual Catholic-haters found that one too much of a stretch to promulgate. In an interview with Don Imus, O’Reilly serious dismissed the pontiff as being out of it, purporting that the pope sleeps twenty hours a day. Pope John Paul’s historic reign has earned him legions of opponents-none of whom would utter such a foolish charge. Media outlets are overflowing with stories of how the pope’s physical strength has failed while his mental acuity remains stellar.

Bill O’Reilly’s justified if misplaced umbrage at the Church’s disgrace looks more like a publicity stunt when contrasted to another of his recent forays into polemic topics. He has recently backed both gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples. Like other advocates of alternative lifestyles, his loquaciousness surceases concerning the inconvenient fact that over 90% of abuser priests violated adolescent or older males. If O’Reilly’s capricious call came true, what response would he have to rampant reports of gay parents defiling their adopted sons? After unveiling this new gay-friendly posturing, he invited ex-homosexual Stephen Bennett on his Factor. Rather than his standard no holds barred interview, O’Reilly prostituted himself to name-calling and bigotry dismissing those who accept Biblical teachings on homosexuality as “fanatics.”

If these straddling stands did not set off enough caveats, his nadir had to be the nefarious act he pulled regarding the kidnapped American girls imprisoned inside Saudi Arabia. By now everyone knows, that O’Reilly arranged with the ever-gracious Saudi dictatorship for the girls to fly to London and be interviewed on “the Factor.” He also allowed for a Saudi thug to be their constant companion, and during the exchange, the young women stated that they wanted to stay in Saudi Arabia (surprise, surprise.)

O’Reilly sententiously claims that he outwitted the Saudi government by having them concede to his demands. Considering that the interview was conducted on a different continent with a fundamentalist censor present throughout, acquiescing to O’Reilly’s “demands” doesn‘t sound to difficult.

What makes this incident all the more offensive and insulting is that O’Reilly--whom nobody would call a dunce--obviously knew the score. He was not trying to help rectify a tragic situation; he wanted to hit ratings pay dirt and possibly even breathe some life into his moribund radio gig. He marred two innocent young women’s chance at freedom to stroke his own ego and has the audacity to claim that he had noble motives. Further proving this point has been his infuriated reaction to any and all who called him on his spin. Repeatedly screaming “that’s a flat out lie” at Wall Street Journal chief editorial writer William McGurn--who helped expose the extent of O’Reilly hypocrisy--was a puerile response to getting caught. Oh-so-subtly besmirching the enslaved girls’ mother further indicted O‘Reilly as he continues to proffer his false rational for this headline grabbing move.

O’Reilly has earned the distinction of having cable TV’s most watched news program, and his opinionated column is popular across the nation. (The radio fiasco is another story.) Still, hordes of Factor viewers are now starting to wonder if the No-Spin Zone is really just a dizzying milieu for a sanctimonious talker with an out of control ego.

[Zubercyber]

You have said it all so nicely so we say "ditto" to your comments.

Time for O'Reilly to look at himself.

[sinkspur]

It is FOXNEWS DUTY to corral this man and give him the training he needs to prevent an implosion.

FOXNEWS will continue to let O'Reilly be O'Reilly, which is why he is as successful as he is.

I'd wager his IQ is higher than yours, and his research staff is crack (witness the stuff they uncovered about Jesse Jackson).

You and all the other O'Reilly bashers here simply don't know what you're talking about. The author of this article is jealous that he can't command the kind of audience O'Reilly does, since nobody's ever hear of him.

[marvlus]

I agree with you Sinkspur. Good rebuttal!

[DeFault User]

Did you happen to see MAD TV's parody of O'Reilly Saturday night?

The parody did not have to exagerate much to skewer O'Reilly's spleen venting. The takeoff had O'Reilly "interviewing" Condi Rice regarding the "War on Terrorism", which ended up being O'Reilly's attack on Canada, France and Germany. Condi, of course, was not able to complete a sentence. He gives her the last word, then interrupts to say he is out of time.

It was so much like the real thing that it almost didn't achieve parody status. It was somewhat ironic to see a FOX show slammed on the FOX network.

[cubreporter]

I politely disagree when you say Bill does not allow the screaming and over talking to happen like it does on Hannity. Bill himself overtalks the guests. I guess I am on the fence with him. I don't watch as much as we used to and may have to stop altogether very soon. I hate that because I think he was the best thing on TV for a long time. As for Hannity and Colmes...can't stand watching Colmes...takes the opposing view ALL the time to the point of ridiculous.

Actually, I've stopped watching a lot of shows period. I figure once hear a bit of news that's it. I don't need to hear it over and over and over again by this guest and this host and then again with this guest and this host. It just gets sooooo tiring and gets beaten to death.

I will wait until we actually go to war. Then I may watch some of the TV but...it's too depressing and irritating with the naysayers talking party lines and not much more.

Gets old and have kinda had enough. I DO listen to Rush though. Oh yeahhhhh.... :)

[ConvictHitlery]

I lost a lot of respect for O'Reilly. Here are several reasons.

He interviewed a black man who gave him the so often quoted out of context line from a Lincoln letter (I paraphrase): "... if I can avoid the war without freeing one slave I will do it". Bill O. was totaly unaware of the letter and the debacle surrounding it.

Bill O. was totally oblivious about the role played by April Gilespie (airhead US ambasador to Iraq) in Iraq invading Kuwait.

His vitriolic rantings about Cantor & Fitzgerald "not paying enough" to the victims of Sept. 11 were absurd and outright dangerous. Cantor & F is paying EXCESSIVELY to the families of victims, had no legal or moral obligation to do so, AND creates an absolutely dangerous and wrong precedent for other companies AND US government to follow.

[alrea]

O'Reilly and a few others continue to swamp the Liberal Socialist Juggernaut that is threatening life on earth. Without butt kickers like O'Reilly you get Chung Pravda Rather All the Time Network.

His wackiness and interruptions are just part of the territory, as are conservative attacks on him. We need him.

The Democrats fear him more than they do Rush. They can't label him as easily. Persons from the Clinton Administration are said to be afraid he might be the one that breaks the truth that puts someone in jail.

[Palladin]

O'Reilly has morphed into Donahue-Lite. His fifteen minutes are almost over.

[hgro]

O'Reilly can't lose it - he never had it.

[hgro]

O'Reilly can't lose it - he never had it. You can't take much pride in being ahead of Larry "the felon" King.

[DeFault User]

The Democrats fear him more than they do Rush.

Do you really think so? Rush has 20 million listeners. O'Reilly has 2 million.

I don't think anyone on this thread wants O'Reilly off the air, but many of us would like to see him get his act together to be more effective, whether we agree with a partiuclar position or not.

Hysterical rants, poor preparation for interviews and constant interruption of guests will not keep his ratings up or make him an effective voice.

[Lanza]

"My theory is that he started going downhill when Arthel Neville left FNC to go to CNN. While Arthel held leftist opinions with which I disagreed strongly, I think she acted as a "court jester" with Bill O'Reilly to keep him grounded in reality"


I totally agree. He seemed like he could laugh at himself then, and even admit how stupid some of his comments were. He takes himself way to seriously now. I think the failing of the radio program has done something to him too. He appears to be so angry, stressed out and out of control. Maybe he has personal problems too. Who knows, but he is not the same. I used to love watching his show, even when I disagreed with him.

[upcountryhorseman]

Yes, I have noticed that He has been almost "out of control"
lately. On some issues he yells and rants at his guest,
making it impossible to have a civil discourse. I don't
watch him anymore!

[Nogbad]

bump

[maxwellp]

I think O'Reilly's TV show is excellent and he accomplishes many good things - a few that come to mind are going after the Red Cross after 9/11 and forcing them to hand over the money they collected to the victims' families, bringing Al-Arian (sp.?), the terrorist University of Florida professor and exposing him for what he is and now Westerfield's attorneys. I'm very grateful to Mr. O'Reilly for what he accomplishes.

[cricket]

O'Reilly has always claimed some Lib territory; he would offer 'Libertarian'. . .that said, have noticed as well, that he has become - at times - more than his usual 'heady' self. . .

Appreicate his success. . .but do think he needs to watch more often now, where he puts his feet. . .

[yendu bwam]

Like other advocates of alternative lifestyles, his loquaciousness surceases concerning the inconvenient fact that over 90% of abuser priests violated adolescent or older males.

When O'Reilly considered the Catholic sexual abuse scandal, but couldn't even find a way to make mention of the fact that it is overwhelmingly a case of homosexual molestation of teenage boys, I knew that he was no better than the people he attacks. He was purposefully hiding the truth and could not be trusted in other matters. Goob-bye Mr. O'Reilly.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Oh, the horror, the horror! Bill O'Reilly only agrees with me 75% of the time, instead of 100% of the time! Whatever shall I do?

[BriarBey]

I am going to like anyone who calls the Roman Catholic Church for what it is. When the sheeps clothing fall off and you find yourself in the teeth of the wolf, you will call her for what she is too...but...will be to late.

[gcruse]

When O'Reilly's attacking them, he's a genius who grasp of world affairs is astonishing.
When O'Reilly's attacking you, he is being fair and balanced, and you should keep an open mind.
When O'Reilly's attacking me, he is a shrill fool who is blind to the obvious.