Crazy Like A Fox: Chapter Eight

“The O’Reilly Factor”

Day Four

Thursday’s “Factor” was canceled for the non-partisan (or was it bi-partisan) lovefest at Ground Zero, so my week of O’Reilly viewing was truncated by a day. Forgive the lateness in posting my take on Friday’s installment, but I was… well… attempting to have a life.

O’Reilly introduced his show by discussing what he called “Sarah Palin vs. Charlie Gibson.” Though he meant it disparagingly, I like that a reporter and a politician are presupposed to be adversaries. I am uncomfortable with the kittenish attitude displayed by most members of the White House Press Corps, and though I think Charles Gibson is a far cry from a great journalist, I don’t think any of DC’s finest (including Bob Schieffer, whom I happen to respect a great deal) could have done a better job under the circumstances.

O’Reilly thinks the Bush Doctrine was “the effort to marginalize terrorism by promoting democracy.” Gibson believes the Bush Doctrine is “the use of military action to prevent terrorist attacks.” Can’t we all just get along?

Who in the hell are “the secular media?” O’Reilly was up in arms about what he perceived to be a bunch of godless heathens with press credentials. O’Reilly believes these infidels berate any politician who believes in God. As if Palin’s beliefs encapsulate what the majority of Christians believe. I maintain the reason Christianity gets a bad rap from the media is because religion has no lobbyist campaigning (and bribing) reporters to put a positive spin on, for lack of a better phrase, the product they are selling. The pope in no way reflects the true face of Christianity. The leader of the Christian church was and continues to be Jesus Christ, and He doesn’t issue press releases or lead news conferences these days. Within that vacuum of living authority, self-proclaimed religious leaders like Al Sharpton on the left and James Dobson on the right step in and distort Christianity to suit their respective agendas. And absent divine intervention, the press cover it as the gospel truth, so to speak.

“Hurricane Hype?” Yes, gentle readers, O’Reilly suggested the liberal media was inflating the potential devastation of Hurricane Ike. Al Gore’s inconvenience aside, I didn’t think it possible for weather forecasts to be considered a political issue. Geraldo Rivera was at large in Galveston, TX to dissuade O’Reilly’s fears. Geraldo made special mention that the city’s “Hooters” was unlikely to survive the hurricane. Oh, the humanity.

Karl “Satan” Rove did a segment on O’Reilly, adding his spin to “the no spin zone.” Rove stated what he believed to be the Bush Doctrine: “State sponsors of terrorism will be treated the same as terrorists” coupled with the “doctrine of preemption” mentioned by Gibson. Rove then blundered, by my standard, by referring to Gibson’s question to Palin as “overly sophisticated.” To me, it is a bad idea to suggest your candidate isn’t sophisticated enough to wrap her brain around a reporter’s question, particularly given the reporter.

Rove’s current electoral map looks like one of those Rorschach ink blots. I saw a bunny.

O’Reilly spoke with a pollster who studied the Obama interview. I know this will stun people, but the pollster thought O’Reilly did a great job in the interview. The pollster believes Obama does better when he is standing as opposed to the way he sat in a chair during the O’Reilly interview. As someone who earned a degree in communications, I know that whether a person sits or stands can affect another person’s perception, but to suggest that sitting in a chair could actually impair one’s ability to answer questions sounds absurd.

In a bizarre mischaracterization of the facts, what we mortals call a lie, O’Reilly referenced the footage shown of the “Muslim world” dancing in the streets upon first hearing the news of the events of 9/11/1. He either intentionally or unintentionally left out that the footage shown on newscasts at the time turned out to be old footage of people celebrating for reasons in no way related to the attacks on America. Because one lie isn’t enough for O’Reilly, he stated the “Muslim world” didn’t demonstrate any support on this most recent anniversary of the attacks. First, there is no “Muslim world.” There is only the world in which we all live, and it contains people of many different faiths. But if O’Reilly had done even a tiny bit of research, he might have uncovered the blogs of a dozen or more Peace Corps Trainees currently living in the Muslim nation of Kazakhstan (where I served as a PCV), and those blogs contain examples of the support given to us by the Muslims in that country.

Gina Gershon actually does a decent impersonation of Sarah Palin, though it would seem O’Reilly disagrees.

When chatting with a Democratic pundit, O’Reilly chastised her, saying, “when you hear me trying to talk, that means you have to button it up, with all due respect.” To me, that is like saying, “Please shut up.” The female pundit laughed off O’Reilly’s rudeness, but imagine if Charles Gibson had said that to Sarah Palin. The streets would run red with liberal blood.

Pamela Anderson believes Sarah Palin can “suck it.” Well, if anyone would know, it would be Pamela.

At the beginning of the week, I stated I saw more similarities than differences between “The O’Reilly Factor” and “Countdown.” I still believe that to be the truth. The programs are more alike than either host would care to admit. Both shows waste a lot of time on trivial issues. Both shows engage in a very negative war of words which ultimately lowers the level of public debate in this country. Both shows can, at times, use humor to successfully get viewers to swallow an otherwise difficult pill. Both shows feature hosts and guests with tremendous charisma and very healthy egos. Both shows preach to the choir.

I do, however, see one significant difference, and that is the unprofessionalism of Bill O’Reilly. His rudeness to guests, his pathetic need for constant on-air praise, his disrespect for his own audience, and his ability to lie, both directly and by omission, makes him a fraction of a man in comparison to Keith Olbermann (who isn’t exactly a candidate for sainthood, either). O’Reilly is not a broadcaster, he is not a journalist, and he is not even an entertainer. He is a snake-oil salesman, perhaps the best who ever lived, but that is hardly an estimable distinction. He is peddling fear and hatred to the masses, and all signs seem to indicate the masses are buying what he is selling.

That so many Americans regularly watch “The O’Reilly Factor” and willingly subject themselves to O’Reilly’s mental molestation frightens the living hell out of me.