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.

[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.

[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.

[gcruse]

Hiccup!

[HarryH]

When I am talking to a die-hard democrat (yellow dog) and they start spinning lies, (they all do, you know) I try to interrupt too.. Most of the time, they just keep spreading the bull! I am a fan of Bill Oreilly.. so if you don't like him.. what alternatives do you have? There is always Donahue and King, and God forbid Dan Rather! Have you noticed a liberal New York Times reporter won't come in miles of Bill! As for as Rep. Ford (D)from Tennessee letter to President Bush, if I was the President I would tell Ford just where to put his political letter.

[let freedom sing]

Is Bill O’Reilly Losing It?

B.O' lost it.

[DB]

You weren't disgusted by the Saudi kidnapping incident?

[HarryH]

Adios, yebdu, don't let the door hit you anywhere on the way out! Go back to watching Donahue! :-)

[Tribune7]

Is Bill O'Reilly losing it? Yes.

[The Southern Right Winger]

I am starting to tire of Bill myself. He used to do investigtions into Jesse Jackson, now, as the author said, he has people on to defend "Gay" marriage and adoption. If I want to see that I can get it on every other channel. Doesn't he know this? He was popular when he was different.

[leprechaun9]

You can't lose what you DON'T have!

[Always Right]

Is Bill O’Reilly Losing It?

Absolutely. His attacks against the Pope and his overly extreme support of the gay agenda is losing O'Reilly audiance share. O'Reilly is gonna come down a notch or two in the ratings.

[ishmac]

I agree, he has gotten too full of himself. He's great when he exposes corrupt charities, vile lying lawyers, terrorist professors, etc. No one in the established media will touch these issues, and he should be applauded for taking them on.

He has, however, come to think of himself as a universal genius with a licence to opine about anything. Maybe it's the media success, maybe it's the bestsellers, maybe it's the Harvard degree. But he's totally out of his depth when he says things like, "the Old Testament has nothing to do with the New Testament." His treatment of the converted homosexual was out of line--whatever you think of homosexuality, the Bible certainly speaks ill of it, and the man had a defensible position. His conversion experience was worthy of a sympathetic hearing. Yet Mr. "No-spin" simply wrote him off as a "judgmental" "intolerant" fanatic.

[sinkspur]

You weren't disgusted by the Saudi kidnapping incident?

Not in the least. O'Reilly set some parameters for the meeting, and the meeting occurred.

Nobody else has done anything for SEVENTEEN YEARS! When O'Reilly does, everybody jumps down his throat.

These women are not going to leave Saudi Arabia, and Ms. Rousch needs to reconcile herself to that fact.

[Publicus]

I'm not so sure about Cantor-Fitzgerald's sudden "caring". There are millions and millions of dollars in that company's bank accounts both here and overseas.

Hasn't the company's manangement yet taken care of the families of THEIR employees who perished- like THEY said THEY would? (Remember the teary eyed declarations in television interviews and the print and television ads they spent all that money on?)

Are they trying to dodge THEIR obligations by trying to saddle the costs to others- i.e. us?

What's going on now?

I smell a rat and am beginning to get really mad now because you and I and the rest of our citizens have given with our hearts all we could.

Also, we are obligated to take care of our life insurance arrangements and beneficiaries ourselves.

Are certain individuals from Cantor-Fitzgerald trying to manipulate us into giving even more?

I am sure the families of the victims themselves would agree the American people have given more than enough now.

Did the family of the murdered CIA agent in Afghanistan get any of the money raised to help victims of terrorist attack?

What about the victims of terrorism in Oklahoma City?

What about the families of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines- who WILLINGLY risk their lives to protect us? (Remember Beirut? How about Khobar Towers?)

I'm tellin' ya gang, something VERY fishy is going on here and some sleazy idiots are pushing us down a VERY slippery slope while they divert mountains of OUR money AWAY from the victims and into THEIR pockets. HOW DISGUSTING!

Even worse, over a year has now passed and there are millions and millions of dollars unaccounted for.

That's it. Time's up.

Let your elected representatives know that we want those who embezzled huge sums that we gave for the victims to the charities to disgorge the monies they took and imprisoned. Then let's track the whereabouts of millions more in taxpayer funds and let the cards fall where they may.

What with the crooked individuals responsible for the rape and destruction of some of our corporations, we certainly don't need more such types embezzling charity organizations to line their own pockets.

[Guenevere]

O'Reilly is off my radar.

I won't watch him anymore.----I agree with the author.

[Jorge]

His interview the other night were he flipped out with the defense attorney was embarrassing. The interview were he called Bill McGurn a liar, among other things, was also bothersome. It seems to me that Bill, in these cases simply could not take the heat, and was angry that ANYONE could disagree or discredit his "heroic" work with the Saudi government. Meanwhile, he made the mother and the kidnapped girls and the parents of the murdered daughter look like fools. This is not necessarily good journalism. And in these cases, he made himself look like a terrible, uncaring egomaniac. He has to remember that there are many viewers who watch his show, not just adults. What would a 8-10 year old think of his angered outrage with the defense attorney?

Well said and worth repeating.

[Lanza]

"His treatment of the converted homosexual was out of line--whatever you think of homosexuality, the Bible certainly speaks ill of it, and the man had a defensible position"


I hate it I missed this show. A few years ago, I can't picture Bill treated a converted homosexual that way. Bill used to be intolerant of government corruption and things of that nature (like exposing the Red Cross over 9-11 donations), and I thought he was great then. He would get mad, but still have a humble side to him. He's not the same.

[DB]

Wasn't Rep. Burton in Saudi Arabia to meet with these women at the very time they were whisked off to England to meet O'Reilly? Wasn't he actively working on their situation when O'Reilly derailed it? Why didn't O'Reilly demand they truly be alone with him and able to speak freely? From my view O'Reilly was played.

[PolishProud]

O'Reilly is neither a Republican or a Democrat, he's a "Factorcrat." What ever increases his ratings is his ideology.

[Publicus]

Who else om the air today hold individuals accountable for the acts they commit without regard to said individual's current title or position?