Think this might be part of Bush's little media blitz? ----------------------- "I'm feeling the sting of media's lefty bias" A recent Gallup poll says nearly half the country believes the media are biased left, and this poll proves one thing: The people who told the pollsters that are smarter than I am. For most of my journalistic career, I did not believe there was institutional bias in the media. I felt there was exclusionary bias. That is, certain opinions and issues simply were ignored. I worked for two network news companies, and the only time you'd hear an anti-abortion opinion would be if some nut blew up an abortion clinic. But I've learned the hard way that liberal bias is a way of life at many media organizations. Over the past few months I've been smeared and pilloried, primarily by leftists who do not approve of my commentary. I'm not whining, I'm reporting. To put things into perspective, what actors Mel Gibson and Arnold Schwarzenegger recently have suffered at the hands of the left-wing press makes my situation look like an episode of "Happy Days." These guys have been viciously attacked; even their fathers have been used against them. In my case, the attacks are personal but designed to advance the far-left agenda. Item: When my new book, "Who's Looking Out for You?" hit No. 1 on The New York Times best seller list, it was called an attack vehicle. In reality, it is a primer for everyday Americans on how to achieve success and stability. In the past decade, only two people have had three No. 1 nonfiction best sellers on the Times list: Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and your humble correspondent. Yet somehow the Times has not gotten around to reviewing any of my books, while tomes by the liberal "satirists" are given major exposure. Item: People magazine assigned a man who loathes me (I know, I know it's hard to believe) to review "Who's Looking Out for You?" News flash - he didn't like it. Item: A National Public Radio interviewer insisted on reading that People magazine review on the air during her chat with me. When I suggested she read the very positive review in Publisher's Weekly magazine as well, she refused. Item: Matt Lauer on the "Today" show sat smirking as one of the far-left "satirists" defamed me. When my publicist called the show asking for a chance to respond, the program turned me down. To be fair, Barbara Walters gave me fair play on "The View" and did challenge the "satirist," so we're not talking about a left-wing monolith here. But no question, many left-wing press people have emerged from the closet and are out for blood, just as hard right-wing ideologues were during the Clinton administration. But the hard right did not have access to the elite media. The assault from the left is a direct result of the unprecedented success of Fox News Channel. Perceived by the "progressive" community to be conservative, the network drives the far left crazy. That politically correct bastion CNN has been trounced in the ratings by FNC, and traditionalists finally have a place on television to express their views. Of course, liberal voices get the same opportunity on Fox, but that doesn't matter to far-left ideologues. For decades, they controlled the agenda on TV news. That's over. So, they're counterattacking. My name is no longer Bill O'Reilly. It's "gasbag," "bully," "liar" and "blowhard." Those descriptions are not confined to opinion pieces but are used in hard news stories as well. There's good news, though. Never again will some news organizations be able to claim fairness or nonpartisanship. They've been exposed for all to see. Excuse me for a moment - something just went whizzing by my head. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/128561p-115013c.html
What a gasbag! (Tongue planted firmly in cheek.) I heard the interview on NPR. I didn't think that the "liberal" interviewer was attacking him at all. She started to read a review, that HE brought up by the way, so that the listeners could here what the author in People had written and then get comments on why O'Reilly was mad about it. He asked why she wanted to read it. She said that O'Reilly said it was ahatchet job and she wanted the readers to here what he was talking about. Kind of like "WE report, you decide." You would think he would understand that. He said why don't you read the good review. Sge said she wanted to read the Peopel review so that her audience could hear the review he was so upset about. He got super pissed and stormed out. Like a lot of people, including liberal media types, he has gotten used to his show, his way.
Regardless of views, this guy thinks way too highly of himself in that article! I've only seen his show a handful of times, but does he always toot his own horn that much?
He toots his own horn even more in his books. I have to admit that he lies less in his books than Ann Coulter does in hers, but it is really hard to lie more than Coulter does in her books.
From the NPR Ombudsman (entire article here): ...I agree with the listeners who complained about the tone of the interview: Her questions were pointed from the beginning. She went after O'Reilly using critical quotes from the Franken book and a New York Times book review. That put O'Reilly at his most prickly and defensive mode, and Gross was never able to get him back into the interview in an effective way. This was surprising because Terry Gross is, in my opinion, one of the best interviewers anywhere in American journalism. Although O'Reilly frequently resorts to bluster and bullying on his own show, he seemed unable to take her tough questions. He became angrier as the interview went along. But by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop. By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly. The "Empty Chair" Interview Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction, O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote anyway. That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and should not be used on NPR. I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias. It left the impression that there was something not quite right about the reasons behind this program: Bill O'Reilly often loves to use NPR as his own personal political piñata; and NPR keeps helping him by inviting him to appear.
So, is an "empty chair" interview similar to cutting someone's microphone off and not letting them respond?
Also from the article...emphasis my own. Danny Miller is the executive producer of Fresh Air. I asked him if he thought the critics have a point: Terry was tough on O'Reilly, not unfair. And I think O'Reilly drove the interview directly towards the conclusion he was hoping for. He was looking to butt heads. He's obviously still really steamed that the case against Franken was thrown out of court -- and came to our interview with the expressed goal of demonstrating his belief that NPR has a liberal bias, and that Fresh Air (like Franken) was out to defame him. On his own show he said: "I'll go on this program [Fresh Air] just to show you what they do, to expose what they do. Cause I knew what was going to happen... " It's pretty difficult to for an interviewer to maintain a high level of rapport with someone who wants to prove that you're out to get them. O'Reilly is one of the most controversial and powerful broadcasters in the country -- Terry asked him about how he uses that power to pursue issues, and settle scores with his critics. Terry wouldn't have been doing her job if she didn't address that (which is why she brought up the Janet Maslin and People magazine pieces). And O'Reilly is smart enough to know it.
I didn't think the interview was unfair. O'Reilly has had some charges leveled at him. She questioned him about those charges and presented the evidence. O'Reilly almost had a point about her being easier on Franken. The only difference is that Franken's book is very well researched, and nobody has written a best seller about him exposing several of his lies. If that did happen I would expect Fresh Air to be as hard on him as it was on O'Reilly. Even in the interview Bill made a bullying boast that he couldn't back up. O'Reilly was saying he could prove that a review from the New York Times raved about Michael Moore's book and slammed Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly said those were the facts and that he could prove it. Gross then produced the review of Moore's book, and read it. The review was definitely a mixed one. O'Reilly then admittted that he could be wrong. This was minutes after huffing that he could prove his point about the NY Times reviewer giving a total favorable review to Moore.
That's one of the first sensible things I've heard him say. Good for you, Bill! You've taken the first step to admitting your problem.
Does anyone want to read an excellent excerpt (from a conservative's book review of Franken's latest, no less) about O'Reilly and his ilk? http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1066391961270050.xml
The biggest problem with O'Reilly is that he rebuts charges of being a loud obnoxious bully by acting like a loud obnoxious bully. he's his own worst enemy. he could have handled the Gross situation differently, but he chose to do his normal childish act.
Then he better not do an E! Entertainment news show, or that Jules Asner will grill him until the cows come home.
I used to admire O'Reilly as a somewhat overly aggressive but still interesting conservative who had some original ideas. Now, I think of him as a fraud after reading Franken's book. It's not that he was simply wrong about certain issues - it's that his methods show little regard for truth.
