Executive Editor Rich Riegel takes Fox’s Bill O’Reilly to the woodshed
First of all, I’m going to admit this is a bit off the usual track and tact of staying within the borders of our outer east Portland circulation area, but I am so tired of not seeing anyone comment on our blog site that I’m taking a chance.
I watched with keen interest the CBS 60 Minutes interview last night with Mike Wallace interviewing Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, purveyor of “The O’Reilly Factor” on that cable television network.
One of the first things that struck me is how, as Wallace touted, O’Reilly seemed to be taking on “Democratic” ideas, being the opposite of “conservative.” O’Reilly seemed to be for abortions, against the death penalty and, most striking, in agreement with the left that there is global warming.
What happens in my mind: If Bill O’Reilly thinks that there is global warming, and the man is such a dunderhead, then all of all of sudden I begin question my own beliefs in global warming. In other words, if he believes in something, then it’s got to be wrong! I know that is being arbitrarily contrary of me, but I don’t care!
And, refresh my memory: didn’t O’Reilly work here in Portland for a while on the tube? I also cringe when I heard that guy call himself a journalist. He’s not much of a journalist.
But, you know, even Mike Wallace can make mistakes. Of course, for me, being somewhat older and “Old School,” I’m wondering what I’m going to do when an old warhorse like Wallace retires or passes away, where am I going to go to get the “real scoop?”
But don’t get me wrong: In the past “60 Minutes” used to do that irritating Michael Moore technique of chasing people down in the street with a video camera, yelling at them to answer some inane question, expecting some response.
I didn’t think that was good journalism. It just made those people who avoided the camera look automatically guilty, whether or not they were.
O’Reilly just comes off as some arrogant know-it-all, and I really don’t think much of him. Watching him tell the supercilious Al Franken to “shut up” was shocking. My 6th grade teacher in elementary school didn’t like to hear the children tell each other to “shut up,” and we got severely chastised for using that term. It’s rude!
Of course, I’m no big Al Franken fan, he probably should have stuck to comedy; I loved him as Stuart Smalley on Saturday Night Live.
So what do you think?
And speaking of what do you think?: It’s my opinion that to be a truly connected human being in today’s modern, go-go world of the World Wide Web and cell phones, one practically has to be a media center oneself to be able to separate fact from fiction.
Who can you believe these days? Where can the truth be found? Ever since Watergate, everyone’s word is suspect. Even the President of the United States of America can be a Great Big Liar.
Although I’m loath to agree with anyone on any topic, I do take a cue and a clue from my publisher, Tim Curran: Listen and read all sorts of opinions, especially those with whom I do not agree. Like: Listen to Rush Limbaugh. And here’s one I like to do: Listen to local KBOO-FM news at 5 p.m. weekdays. Talk about getting away from the mainstream media!
All right. It’s your turn.
And, please, people, write in with something more relevant than Bill O’Reilly! What about our local issues? Are the public schools doing a good job? What about our local representatives at the Oregon Legislature?
What do you think about them?
You say… “In other words, if he believes in something, then it’ got to wrong!” Now there’s an objective journalistic remark, huh?
You also say “…O’Reilly seemed to be taking on “Democratic” ideas, being the opposite of “conservative”.
I suppose I’d call myself a fan of O’Reilly, and I would agree that he acts as if he knows everything, and it’s annoying.
However, I’ve been pointing out for years to a certain heavily liberal friends, that he has MANY of the same beliefs, and he’s far from a conservative.
Preventing global warming, gay adoption support, oil company loathing for excess consumer gouging, death penalty opposition, same sex equal rights w/ civil unions etc. are not things he’s suddenly “seems to be taking on”, but instead consistent opinions he’s had for years.
Those opinions are well documented, and the “attack” on him as being “conservative” still puzzles me. Leave it to Mike Wallace to define this as “a supposed “change of direction” for OReilly.
Whether or nor Bill O’Reilly lives up to his claim to be fair and balanced, I like the concept. In order to achieve it, one must be able to adopt an opinion based solely on the merits of an idea, regardless of which person or group claims ownership of that idea.
The polarizing of American society into Liberal and Conservative groups that wage constant verbal warfare in the media has not improved our situation. In fact, I suspect that it has been used much like an illusionist’s trick to divert attention from facts and events that should be brought to light.
“One practically has to be a media center oneself to be able to separate fact from fiction.” I really don’t think that is possible anymore, especially not with the assistance of the media. The media is in a constant process of fictionalizing the facts; emphasizing and denying the relevancy of information before it is presented, and most of all, presenting the information that is most likely to get and hold our attention and thereby sell advertising. The media is a whore, and the “news” that it presents is propaganda that is tailored by political and commercial interests.
That does not necessarily require an organized conspiracy. Sometimes it is simply the prejudices of an editor or writer. For instance: “In other words, if he believes in something, then it’s got to be wrong! I know that is being arbitrarily contrary of me, but I don’t care!” This sort of attitude is not the sort that helps determine fact from fiction in an objective manner, it is the type that makes the world fit into established opinions.