In Defense of Bill O'Reilly
I REALLY hate being put in a position where I feel I have to defend Bill O'Reilly. I think he's a blowhard who is far too quick to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as "far left" (as if that alone makes the argument unworthy of even dignifying with a response). And I find him to be symptomatic of everything that's wrong with the neo-conservative led Republican party of the last 20 years or so.
Nevertheless, I feel like I have to weigh in on this latest flap about his "racist" statements on his radio show the other day. Now, granted, the quote as played (out of context) sounds pretty damning, especially the line "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City... even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship".
In context, though, if you actually listen to the full clip, he's actually presenting a very lengthy expression that he's NOT surprised by it. I think he may very well have misspoken when he used the phrase "I couldn't get over the fact", but the rest of it is actually quite a reasonable statement by O'Reilly that blacks and whites are NOT that different. And in context, my feeling is that the "I couldn't get over the fact" was a phrasing designed to get his message through to his audience, who would seem not to necessarily be the most tolerant of other races. Admittedly, this is my perception and may not necessarily be true, but I'm not sure that the "I couldn't get over the fact" line really indicates surprise.
And the thing that really bothers me about this is that it’s yet more form-over-substance arguing. O’Reilly has been calling Columbia University names for having invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak, then later in the same show admitting that he had also invited him onto “The Factor”. And O’Reilly continues to call people all sorts of names, but try to claim that when he does it he’s merely stating his opinion while when anyone else does it to him, they’re “far left smear merchants”. And O’Reilly continues to beat the drum and carry the water for what many are coming to believe is the worst administration in our lifetimes.
Focus on those things. Focus on the substantive. But if you take these little things out of context and beat him up with them, you’re reducing the validity of the rest of your argument. It becomes just too easy to dismiss your arguments against O’Reilly as just a personal attack instead of a substantive thing.
I may sometimes fall into the same trap, but we all need to try to avoid it, whenever possible.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 9/26/2007 07:19:00 PM
6 Comments:
I haven't followed any of this, but are you sure the "out of context" nature of this instance wasn't his own invention? Afterall, if he were ever perceived as nice or reasonable, wouldn't he be out of a job? It would be like if Hitler had actually liked puppies, but was willing to appear as if he didn't like puppies, just to get the public to think he was fierce, wouldn't it?
....only a thought.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:05:00 PM
That was sort of part of my point: For Bill O'Reilly, the larger context of the quote is positively inclusive and affirming. When his normal modus operandi is to insult and divide, he was being positively respectful by comparison, and I honestly think there's a good chance that this was poorly worded (if not intentionally worded that way to make the message more accessible to his listeners who happen to be racist and might need the implication of subtle racism on O'Reilly's part to accept the non-racist message).
As I said during the whole Imus flap a few months back, you've got someone who is on the air (radio and/or TV) for something like four hours per day, talking the whole time. How many people could talk that much and not occasionally put their foot in their mouth or say something they didn't intend or in a way that they didn't really mean?
And even if he DID mean it, even if he IS subtly racist, there are far worse cases. He's not advocating lynching or violence, he's not suggesting that people not go to the restaurant because it's run by black people and is thus less clean or something. The fact that he may have subtle expectations as to how one culture would behave vs another just doesn't seem that odious to me.
Think about it in this context: Suppose he'd gone to an Irish bar and expressed surprise that the atmosphere wasn't one of raucous drunken carousing? Or to a French restaurant and noted that the wait staff and customers weren't nearly as snooty as he'd have thought? In those cases, if the comment even caught notice, it wouldn't be taken as racism but merely as noting the difference between a cultural stereotype and observed reality.
Oh, and as to the other comment in the larger context that several people have been fixating upon, something to the effect of how black people were beginning to “think for themselves” and were no longer following “Sharpton” and “Jackson”, again, this is only racist outside of the normal context of O'Reilly's oeuvre. In context, anyone who has listened to him has heard him talk about people “thinking for themselves” as a contrast to blindly following either George Soros or MoveOn.org or Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. So in context of his larger body of spoken word, this isn't saying that blacks are incapable of thinking for themselves, this is standard Bill O'Reilly speak for people who don't agree with him.
Finally (because this comment is getting long), this whole tempest is really bugging me because it reminds me a lot of the over-use of the word antisemitism in some quarters today. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe there is antisemitism in the world. But it is not automatically antisemitic to disagree with some policy of Israel's just like it's not automatically anti-American to disagree with some policy of our own government's. It isn't antisemitic to be open to understanding BOTH sides of the Israeli/Arabic conflict any more than it is anti-American to be open to at least TRYING to understand the motives of the people who attack us.
It's all part of a larger context of form over substance. If we insist on using our most vile, heinous labels for things which aren't as vile and heinous, we don't serve to demonize(*) our enemies, we merely serve to dilute the term so that it no longer raises quite the same level of outrage even in true cases where it should.
Liam.
(*Why is it that demonizing our enemies is a bad thing, but Simonizing our cars is a good thing?)
Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:06:00 AM
"(*Why is it that demonizing our enemies is a bad thing, but Simonizing our cars is a good thing?)"
Ha! Now THAT's my Liam!
On Sunday a most thought-provoking person spoke at my church (I use the term church loosely, I'm Unitarian) on the topic of the history of the term Devil and on evil.
The issue of demonizing was discussed, describing how demonizing another is just a human tool to make others appear to be less than human in order to make attacking them easier, it's also a means to control people and make them be followers. That might explain why humans who hate or kill people don't like puppies.
...You make a good point about Imus or anyone who has a lengthy show on a regular basis. At least with a 5-hour show, a person's comments can be viewed in context. It's the soundbite approach of an O'Reilly and others that is a deliberate afront to all who love puppies... er, or something like that.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:02:00 AM
Y'know what, Linda, THAT is the best argument I've heard yet against O'Reilly in this case. It's not what he said, and I still deplore the tactics used against him... but they're his own tactics. He's being hoist upon his own petard, which you can even see in his diatribes against those who are doing this to him.
I still feel like I have to defend him, because I deplore the tactic enough that I feel the need to decry its use where-ever it occurs, but I feel better about what's happening because I also deplore hypocrisy, as evidenced by the David Vitter and Larry Craig cases: In neither case did I feel the acts themselves were particularly worthy of note, but in both cases I felt the gentlemen in question deserved what they got for the hypocrisy.
If you spend your life furthering your career at the expense of a certain class or group of people... and then turn out to be secretly a member of that class, then to me that's karmic justice.
Still, it feels to me like the Senators' actions actively tried to make life worse for gays and/or those who have sex outside of their marriages, and so I feel they should suffer the same punishments as they would publically call for upon others for their own gain.
On the other hand, O'Reilly isn't in a position of power (except the power of the pulpit), he can't enact laws or arrest anyone, and so I'm not sure his hypocrisy is at the same level.
I'm definitely going to have to ponder this case further!
Thanks, Linda!
Liam.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:02:00 AM
Media using out-of-context remarks to boost readership, support attacks or promote the view of some public figure is nothing new. It's never been right to do it, so it makes sense that you should deplore this, even if it was towards O'Reilly. Maybe O'Reilly will read your remarks and send you a nice email! What would he say? I bet he'd say "Thanks, Liam, but shhhhhh! Don't let my fans know I'm a softie. I'm building a hate base."
On the other hand, if I liked O'Reilly, I might deplore out-of-context quotes much more. And I would be less likely to suspect O'Reilly's motives or part in the matter.
The question is who was damaged or changed by the out-of-context quotes? O'Reilly? The public's view of him? Who gained from this incident? .... I find it easier to question the motives of everyone.
But you have more guts than I, acknowledging the hypocrisy even if you don't care for the guy. And frankly, that's the job of a good journalist like yourself (I know, it's just blog journalism), pointing out the hypocrisies of the world. You make us think.
I didn't follow this, as I said, so my question is who was it who misrepresented O'Reilly's comments (perhaps you said and I missed it)? And why would they do it?
Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:39:00 PM
I'll have to answer more fully later, but two things:
1) I feel the need to speak out when someone does something I don't like on both sides. I don't want to just be a constant nay-sayer about certain people, or else there's no reason to believe my opinions are anything other than personal. If I don't like something my friend does, or like something my "enemy" does, and I don't speak out, then I have less credibility (IMO) when it's my friend doing something I like or my enemy doing something I hate.
And as to who it was, there have been a lot of people asking the question "Will this be his Imus moment? Will he lose his job? Should he lose his job?"
I've seen it on MSNBC and all over the blog world and in several on-line news stories.
But I have to go now.
Thanks for the dialog!
Liam.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:52:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home