PDA

View Full Version : "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken


michaello
Sep 2, 2003, 12:10 PM
Read it yet? What do you think?

zimv20
Sep 2, 2003, 12:13 PM
don't have a copy of it. but i have read "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and thought it informative and a good read.

michaello
Sep 2, 2003, 12:17 PM
Check this one out, it'll blow your mind -

It's a stretch of clarity in a world of chaos - funny as hell, too.

frettedfive
Sep 2, 2003, 08:30 PM
I'm in the process of reading it. I just bought the book this past weekend on a trip to St. Louis.

So far, it's been a great read. Thus far, Al has pretty much ripped into Ann Coulter and her ilk with a passion, and exposed several bald-faced lies in the process.

I love this guy's style, and his sense of humor.

mcrain
Sep 3, 2003, 12:28 PM
What I love is how up in arms the conservatives like O'Reilly and FoxNews got about the book. They can sure dish out the crap, but when the time comes for them to take it, they get completely nutty.

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
What I love is how up in arms the conservatives like O'Reilly and FoxNews got about the book. They can sure dish out the crap, but when the time comes for them to take it, they get completely nutty.

Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, and should not be lumped with the likes of ULTRA conservative Ann Coulter, and very conservative George Bush. I'm very mad that Franken has taken a cheap shot at one of the great independent thinkers of out time, Bill O'Reilly. Would you be mad if someone put your picture on the front of their book called Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them? That is downright immoral, yet Franken claims to be a 'satarist', so it is fair game. I thought Franken was very funny until he picked a fight with O'Reilly at a book convention based on one small mis-speak of O'Reilly in the 7 years he has been on The Factor. He has lost all of my respect and credibility, although it is a shame since he is right in bringing out the truth about how wrong Ann Coulter and George Bush are. No one can touch the Great Bill O'Reilly, who in my opinion would make the best president if he ran (espically compared to Bush and the 9 dems running now, although Nadar would give him a good run for his money)

--Waluigi

zimv20
Sep 3, 2003, 12:51 PM
found this on salon a few months ago, think it bears repeating:


Salon didn't go down for Saturday's White House Correspondant's Dinner and its corresponding Bloomberg afterparty this year, so we instead relied on the eyewitness reportes of trusted its trusted spies attending the annual gala where the most powerful people in the country rub shoulders with entertainment powerhouses like Dr. Ruth Westheimer and [comedian] Richard Belzer.

This year's kitsch a thon, sounds like it was far more sober this year.

President Bush cracked no jokes at dinner, instead using the podium to honor journalists who were killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

No one it seems, was in much of a clowning mood.

Take the exchange we heard about between comedian/smart *ss Al Franken and Deputy Defense Secretary Frank Wolfowitz.

Franken: The Clinton military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?
Wolfowitz: ******* you.

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, and should not be lumped with the likes of ULTRA conservative Ann Coulter, and very conservative George Bush. I'm very mad that Franken has taken a cheap shot at one of the great independent thinkers of out time, Bill O'Reilly. Would you be mad if someone put your picture on the front of their book called Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them? That is downright immoral, yet Franken claims to be a 'satarist', so it is fair game. I thought Franken was very funny until he picked a fight with O'Reilly at a book convention based on one small mis-speak of O'Reilly in the 7 years he has been on The Factor. He has lost all of my respect and credibility, although it is a shame since he is right in bringing out the truth about how wrong Ann Coulter and George Bush are. No one can touch the Great Bill O'Reilly, who in my opinion would make the best president if he ran (espically compared to Bush and the 9 dems running now, although Nadar would give him a good run for his money)

--Waluigi

I enjoyed Bill O'Reilly for a while as well, but ever since Bush 43 was elected, Bill has turned from raking the administration over the coals (which he did admirably, if a little vociferously, during the Clinton years) to being the moral police of our nation. Most of his show is no longer dedicated to "no-spin" analysis of politics, instead we see Bill focusing on those he feels are not of his high moral fiber.

I found this little article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087706/?0si=-) that I know was written by the "liberal press" but its not so much opinion as the words that come out of Bill's mouth.

Fox News channel talk show host Bill O'Reilly says "shut up" the way other people say "um."

On his daily show, The O'Reilly Factor, he uses it as a place-holder for an idea still formulating in his brain. As a way to begin a sentence, end it, or punctuate it. Sometimes he says "shut up" with fury, eyes bulging. When he's being dismissive, he delivers it offhandedly and without real malice. Other times he says it gently, with a minxlike twinkle in his eye, signaling to all the world that he's just being frisky.

O'Reilly wants specific individuals to shut up, and he names them. He would like all gays and lesbians to zip it—even though he's invited them on his show to talk about … homosexuality. He's even heaved this impolite language at entire nations, demanding they recuse themselves from the international conversation.

Shut Up for Freedom
"And it is our duty as loyal Americans to shut up once the fighting begins, unless—unless facts prove the operation wrong, as was the case in Vietnam."
—Feb. 27, 2003

Shut Up, Pinhead!
To Mike McGough of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial page, who accuses O'Reilly of exploiting a murder victim's sister who appeared on O'Reilly's show:

"Hey, Mike, shut up. I resent the fact that you said that we exploited this woman. We gave this woman a voice. That's something that you and your stupid newspaper would never do, you pinhead. You would never do that. "
—Nov. 13, 2002

A Viewer Protests the Treatment of McGough
"Paula Evans, Winston-Salem, N.C. [writes]: 'Bill, if you are so concerned about public figures being bad role models for children, please stop interrupting your guests and telling them to shut up!' "

"Well, the 'shut up' line has happened only once in six years, Ms. Evans, and that's because the editor from Pittsburgh was filibustering, after accusing me of exploiting the families of the murder victims. The no-spin zone is a tough place, and lies and unreasonable discourse will be stopped in their tracks."
—Nov. 15, 2002

That's just a couple of the good ones. There are lots more if you bother to read the article.

Taft
Sep 3, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, and should not be lumped with the likes of ULTRA conservative Ann Coulter, and very conservative George Bush. I'm very mad that Franken has taken a cheap shot at one of the great independent thinkers of out time, Bill O'Reilly. Would you be mad if someone put your picture on the front of their book called Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them? That is downright immoral, yet Franken claims to be a 'satarist', so it is fair game. I thought Franken was very funny until he picked a fight with O'Reilly at a book convention based on one small mis-speak of O'Reilly in the 7 years he has been on The Factor. He has lost all of my respect and credibility, although it is a shame since he is right in bringing out the truth about how wrong Ann Coulter and George Bush are. No one can touch the Great Bill O'Reilly, who in my opinion would make the best president if he ran (espically compared to Bush and the 9 dems running now, although Nadar would give him a good run for his money)

--Waluigi

The funny thing about labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative' is its totally subjective. I'm sure that, according to Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly isn't conservative. But that doesn't have a lot of meaning. I mean I could say that I wasn't liberal, but anyone here who knows my views probably thinks I am.

And thats how it goes with Bill O'Reilly, too. He claims to be completely moderate, fair and balanced, but many people who have heard his opinions and seen his show think otherwise. Those people, and I am in their ranks, think that he is quite conservative and that its a joke that he claims to be moderate, fair or balanced.

For my part, I think the "Great" Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, a bully and a coward. His "no spin zone" is an excuse to bully and walk over guests who don't share his viewpoint, and little serious debate happens on his show as a result. He also plays very fast and loose with the facts.

As an example, lets take the "altercation" at the book convention that you brought up (and incidently, Fox did as well in their law suit). Franken called O'Reilly on a very legitimate error in O'Reilly's rhetoric: his overstatement of an award he won at Inside Edition. Now, despite O'Reilly's claims, it wasn't a single instance of him lying, rather, it has been well documented that he falsely stated that he had won a Peabody award on many occasions.

O'Reilly screwed up. Period. Now he should apologize to his fans and the public he deceived. But he doesn't.

Also, for all of your denouncements of Franken's actions with his book, you overlook one crucial fact: a judge described Fox's suit against Franken as "totally without merit." Fox has also pulled their lawsuit, presumably realizing that it was without basis. The point? Fox (and you) are wrong in the eyes of the law.

As for morality, I find it comical that you would envoke such a principal in a conversation about Bill O'Reilly. His distortions are well documented on the web. Go here (http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyspin1.htm) to see many examples of one of his favorite tactics. (Actually, browse the site, you might learn a bit about O'Reilly's tactics and lies).

The tactic goes like this...

Step 1- Use a grossly inaccurate statistic to back a point you are making to a guest.
Step 2- When the guest questions the statistic, become indignant and tell them they are wrong.
Step 3- When the guest again complains, tell them what they are saying is not true. The more vehemently the guest replies, the more caustic you should become.
Step 4- Never repeat the incident again. Never check your facts and report corrections on the next show. And, most importantly, NEVER admit you are wrong.

See, this tactic can't fail. Bill, on national television, tells his guest they are wrong. Who is the audience to believe? Some guest that is trying to "spin" his way out of a tight spot, or the good, caring, ever vigilent, and always looking out for you, Bill O'Reilly. Because O'Reilly never admits when he's wrong and never prints a retraction for a bad statistic or "fact" cited, his audience remains blissfully unaware that O'Reilly was the one "spinning," not his guest.

In my eyes, Bill O'Reilly has lost the right to claim the high moral ground in any argument. His show may as well be staged. He is right up there with Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh...only worse. At least those people don't pretend to be un-partisan.

Taft

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 02:38 PM
Taft and Mactastic

You present some good points there. O'Reilly does tell lots of people to shut up. On the day of the blackout on the east coast, he told ALL of the politicians to shut up, stop fighting about it, stop pointing fingers at each other and do something about it (using the very words 'shut up'). While he may be fiscally more conservative, he is actually liberal on some social issues. For example, he really is into higher gas mileage, even if it comes out of the expense of the big car companies, because he actually cares about the environment, unlike Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't think global warming is real.

At the book convention, O'Reilly challenged Franken to point out all the bad he has done in his time on the O'Reilly Factor, and the only thing Franken could think of was the time he misspoke about winning the award. Bill was wrong, I admit, and made a fool out of himself there. But the fact is, Franken couldn't pin anything meaningfully wrong down on Bill O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly certainly isn't as conservative as Sean Hannity, and doesn't support the Republican Party as most conservatives do. Notice how Hannity is now referring to Bush as "our commander in chief', but NEVER referred to Clinton as such? That is because he is partisan. Bill O'Reilly is not partisan, and does not show such love and admiration towards Bush. He is an independent thinker, and voter, unlike Rush and Coulter who are avid Republicans. I think it is great that Bill is thinking for himself, and not becoming a puppet of a political party.

Yes, O'Reilly is a big bully, and to tell you the truth, that’s why I watch! I find conflict intriguing, and if Bill just let every nut preach what they wanted, it wouldn't be The O'Reilly Factor. The show is all about Bill writing a very nice essay at the beginning, and starting crusades (the white prom, NAMBLA, ACLU, Pepsi, etc) that are in the peoples best interest for them to be exploited so the citizens can take action and stop them. I'd love to have him on my debate team, because he is so intimidating, physically daunting at 6' 4", and a hell of a good writer.

Again, I like Al Franken's previous books, and I loved the time he went on Letterman a few years back. He is a very funny man, but he just picked a fight with the wrong person. Why single out Bill O'Reilly to be put with ultra economic, and social conservatives? For an Irish Catholic, O'Reilly is surprisingly liberal in social aspects. In case you missed the time he had a priest and a rabbi on discussing Mel Gibson's new movie 'The Passion', he was so good, and was seriously fair and balanced.

Fox News is clearly a medium that the Bush Administration is using to brainwash the people that watch it, but Bill O'Reilly is the one exception. He is a good guy, who has done a lot of good with children’s issues, is an extremely talented writer, and is very smart (he got his masters from Harvard).

The lawsuit was dismissed by the judge, and rightfully so. It was ridiculous! However, I don’t care about the ‘fair and balanced’ slogan as much as falsely defaming Bill O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly is NOT in the same class as Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh on the political spectrum, and is a very misunderstood, humble correspondent. Go O’Reilly!

--Waluigi

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 3, 2003, 02:39 PM
maybe Hannity & Colmes would suit you better taft.

Taft
Sep 3, 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
maybe Hannity & Colmes would suit you better taft.

Bah! Colmes is such a wus. (Is that how you spell wus???) Occasionally, he pulls a punch or two, but Hannity is obviously the dominating force on that show.

I know some of you guys disagree with me, but I think its a tragedy that Fox can even use the phrase "fair and balanced." It is such an outright lie. The other news channels might be bad about "spinning" the news, but at least they don't plaster "fair and balanced" on the screen while they do it.

Taft

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
In case you missed the time he had a priest and a rabbi on discussing Mel Gibson's new movie 'The Passion', he was so good, and was seriously fair and balanced.

You do know O'Reilly has some business relations with Mel Gibson, right? I mean, that's why he's so up in arms about people getting upset about "Passion" and about Gibson in general. Something of a conflict of interest IMHO to allow Gibson to plug his movie left and right on O'Reilly's show as well as to belittle Gibson's critics to try to boost attendance of the movie.

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
You do know O'Reilly has some business relations with Mel Gibson, right? I mean, that's why he's so up in arms about people getting upset about "Passion" and about Gibson in general. Something of a conflict of interest IMHO to allow Gibson to plug his movie left and right on O'Reilly's show as well as to belittle Gibson's critics to try to boost attendance of the movie.

1. What are the business relations (I really don't know)? If it has something to do with FOX, I could care less because I already hate FOX, but if it is personal, that’s could be a whole different story. Also, Matt Drudge, who is Jewish (and I believe saw a screening of it?), was talking about this movie a lot on his radio show, and thought it was very good. In fact, so was everyone at the time O'Reilly did because it was the hot news topic at that time!

2. The point was that O'Reilly wasn't so wrapped in ideology that he couldn't accept anyone else’s point of view about religion. He did a wonderful job at allowing both a priest and a rabbi to give their thoughts on a very touchy issue of Jesus’ death. He did a great job at that, and that was such a great thing, especially compared to how the middle east is where people of different religious points of view kill each other, rather then have an excellent discourse, as Bill O'Reilly had successfully facilitated.

--Waluigi

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Bah! Colmes is such a wus. (Is that how you spell wus???) Occasionally, he pulls a punch or two, but Hannity is obviously the dominating force on that show.

I know some of you guys disagree with me, but I think its a tragedy that Fox can even use the phrase "fair and balanced." It is such an outright lie. The other news channels might be bad about "spinning" the news, but at least they don't plaster "fair and balanced" on the screen while they do it.

Taft

I agree with every point you made there! I think it is so funny how the only 'liberal' on fox is a twit like colmes who can't win an arguement, and is overshadowed by the HUGE chin, and neck muscles of sean hannity. By the way, I really can't stand Hannity, in case you didn't catch it from my last post ;)

--Waluigi

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 03:29 PM
Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26384)

Mel Gibson, a powerful Hollywood filmmaker as well as actor, has purchased the movie rights to Bill O'Reilly's novel, "Those Who Trespass."

Liz Smith got the scoop on the deal in her entertainment column, a story confirmed by O'Reilly – the Fox News Channel star and WorldNetDaily columnist.

"It's true," said O'Reilly. "I hope he makes it. And the way Hollywood feels about me – it's also a miracle."

Quid pro quo? Hard to say, but it sure has the "appearance of impropriety" that Bill hates so much in others.

IJ Reilly
Sep 3, 2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Bill O'Reilly is NOT in the same class as Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh on the political spectrum, and is a very misunderstood, humble correspondent. Go OReilly!

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

(Of course later in the "interview" he told his guest to "shut up" several times, before he cut his mic. They don't get any humbler then that!)

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

(Of course later in the "interview" he told his guest to "shut up" several times, before he cut his mic. They don't get any humbler then that!)

Wow, I wonder how Bill O'Reilly came to the conclusion that he was dealing with a nut?

Glick was the only one who "Signed an anti war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism" out of all the people who lost relatives in the 9/11 attacks. He was taking his fathers death, and using it to promote a twisted political agenda. It is one thing to be against the war, which O'Reilly is fine with. It is another thing to accuse the United States government of being solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It was an intelligence failure, not an intentional failure on our part, but an attack on the terrorist’s part.

O'Reilly got mad because this punk kid wasn't respecting his father, thats it:

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.



You see, you have to put it in context. O'Reilly was respecting his father who was killed by terrorists on 9/11. How much more humble can one get?

--Waluigi

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 03:53 PM
I saw that show when it aired, and I have to say Bill shamed himself that day by showing that he simply couldn't debate with anyone who disagreed with him. That was one of the last times I ever watched the show.

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I saw that show when it aired, and I have to say Bill shamed himself that day by showing that he simply couldn't debate with anyone who disagreed with him. That was one of the last times I ever watched the show.

I saw it too, and have the sound bite it you want it :D

Anyway, that’s fantastic that you, the viewer, make up your own mind. If you don't like him, don't watch him! I guess not to many people agreed with you, seeing as he has the highest rates in cable news. But lets be real, this guy wasn't there to discuss, he was there to say a calculated speech, and wouldn't even fathom the opposing side, the same way that Sean Hannity, Jessie Jackson, and Ann Coulter do. Since Bill isn't going to take that from anyone, he slammed him down! It should also be noted that he has slammed Jesse Jackson, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity (on his radio show a few months ago) for preaching an extreme position, without much leeway for opponents. He doesn't like extremists, on both sides of the isle. But, he lays it all out for the viewer to decide, and I guess most people like it.

Still, why does everyone always pick on Bill? He is a very fair guy, with a very clear, and good intentions!

--Waluigi

Taft
Sep 3, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Wow, I wonder how Bill O'Reilly came to the conclusion that he was dealing with a nut?

Glick was the only one who "Signed an anti war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism" out of all the people who lost relatives in the 9/11 attacks. He was taking his fathers death, and using it to promote a twisted political agenda. It is one thing to be against the war, which O'Reilly is fine with. It is another thing to accuse the United States government of being solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It was an intelligence failure, not an intentional failure on our part, but an attack on the terrorist’s part.

...

You see, you have to put it in context. O'Reilly was respecting his father who was killed by terrorists on 9/11. How much more humble can one get?

--Waluigi

Just as you say this man was using his father's death to promote his agenda, so was O'Reilly.

And look carefullly at what O'Reilly said: "Out of respect for [your father] ... I'm not going to dress you down anymore"

He was saying that he was going to "go easy" on the kid and not rip on him anymore out of respect for his father. Nevermind that the kid could argue for himself or that O'Reilly became enraged when Glick made valid points. O'Reilly envoked the memory of the guy's own father and said he would go easy on him.

And how patronizing can you get. O'Reilly actually used this line: "... I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this." How the **** does O'Reilly know what this guy's father would approve of?!?!? What a jerk.

Taft

Taft
Sep 3, 2003, 04:10 PM
Also, so that people can judge for themselves. Here is the full text of the interview.


O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.


Taft

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26384)



Quid pro quo? Hard to say, but it sure has the "appearance of impropriety" that Bill hates so much in others.

Thanks for the link!

Well, they have had prior business negotiations, that is an undeniable fact. However that doesn't equate it with conflict of interest, and is not an attempt to bump the audience numbers. First, these are both individuals, not corporations. Second, 'The Passion' and "Those who Trespass' are two completely separate projects, and O'Reilly has nothing to do with 'The Passion'. Next, 'The Passion' isn't going to be a summer blockbuster by any means, no matter what O'Reilly does, he isn't going to pack more people into a theater to see a Jesus movie. Just not going to happen. Finally, Gibson bought the rights to the movie, and although I don’t have the contract, normally, Bill would be out of the picture by now, and it is all up to Gibson to make the movie.

O'Reilly was discussing an issue that was both all over the news, and also a very hot topic and issue that he felt he should discuss. He did two or three segments about it, and hasn't done anything about it for a long time. He gave it the same coverage he gave to Jenna Jameson's Pony shoes, so are you going to now accuse Bill of plugging Pony left and right?

Bill O'Reilly was concerned about this movie because if people are uninformed, they might misunderstand it, and could be very offended. That’s why he brought in religious experts of all religions to talk about Jesus’ death, and how it is portrayed in the movie. Give the man some credit, he has taken a lot of heat for taking on the head of his church (the Pope) and the Catholic Priests who molested children. Furthermore, he provided a great discourse on a hot topic before it could have exploded into religious war in America. Bill O’Reilly is a good citizen, and exemplary leader.

--Waluigi

Taft
Sep 3, 2003, 04:23 PM
Looking at the interview's text, Bill makes some pretty outrageous statements.


Glick says: "The people in Afghanistan didn't kill my father."

He's right. The people of Afghanistan didn't kill his father. al Quida did.

But Bill says: "Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there."

Which is a half truth, but doesn't address the point Glick was trying to make.


Bill: "Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this."

WTF??? How does he purport to know the mind or politics of his mother? O'Reilly is taking his own self-righteous indignation with Glick's statements and projecting it onto all of the American people--including this guys own mother and dead father.


GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.


O'Reilly completely ignores the man's point. We DID train al Quida members during the 80s in an attempt to combat communism's spread. Does that really have NOTHING to do with 9/11? Is the fact that a victim's son would bring up these issues so abhorrible?

Face it. O'Reilly was a complete *** in this interview. He had every right to argue against this guy's points, but he didn't do that. He ignored his points and basically said, "I'm a bigger patriot than you. I do more to help families of 9/11 than you ever will. I care more about your dead father. So SHUT UP!"

He envoked the memory of his dead father (and his living mother) to shut him up. O'Reilly's position was defensible. It was even the side of the argument I identify most with. But his tactics here, like in many other instances, stink.

Taft

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Just as you say this man was using his father's death to promote his agenda, so was O'Reilly.

And look carefullly at what O'Reilly said: "Out of respect for [your father] ... I'm not going to dress you down anymore"

He was saying that he was going to "go easy" on the kid and not rip on him anymore out of respect for his father. Nevermind that the kid could argue for himself or that O'Reilly became enraged when Glick made valid points. O'Reilly envoked the memory of the guy's own father and said he would go easy on him.

And how patronizing can you get. O'Reilly actually used this line: "... I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this." How the **** does O'Reilly know what this guy's father would approve of?!?!? What a jerk.

Taft

1. What is O'Reilly's agenda he was promoting?

2. O'Reilly sees a young misguided kid. This kid is obviously very saddened, and angry over his fathers death (and most understandably so), but he has misplaced his anger to resentment of the establishment. O'Reilly certainly wasn't comforting, but he was being frank, and honest. I remember how pissed off I was on 9/11, and I was enraged at the Taliban. This kids father DIED because of that, and instead of being angry at the enemy, he got caught up in a group of political extremists and is being used to voice their extreme views. I think every American was mad at the terrorists that day (set aside Bush, who won the 2004 election just by being in the right place at the right time), and being that his father was killed by 19 terrorists, who do you think he'd be mad at? The government? No, the TALIBAN! They killed him, and usually it is the killer that people blame. Blaming society or the government doesn't solve anything, and is wrong.

Bill O'Reilly was right to be upset, but since he was so emotional about the issue, he stopped being a professional, and spoke out of rage of the terrorists.

Both O'Reilly and Glick were very upset, and they both could have channeled their anger better in that 'discussion'.

--Waluigi

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Glick says: "The people in Afghanistan didn't kill my father."

He's right. The people of Afghanistan didn't kill his father. al Quida did.

But Bill says: "Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there."

Which is a half truth, but doesn't address the point Glick was trying to make.

I agree that The people of Afghanistan didn't kill his father. But, the corrupt government there helped train the people who did, and were suppressing the people to sub-human levels. Your correct in saying that Bill didn't address his point though.


Bill: "Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this."

WTF??? How does he purport to know the mind or politics of his mother? O'Reilly is taking his own self-righteous indignation with Glick's statements and projecting it onto all of the American people--including this guys own mother and dead father.

Ok, his mother has been though a lot, being that her husband is dead, she might still be grieving, and also has to still help her son grieve too (because that’s what most moms do, a very unselfish and loving act, but also very hard on the mother). She is going through a lot now, and then her son goes on national TV to make a fool out of himself by going off on a very out there conspiracy theory that somehow George Bush planned these attacks. That would be pain on top of an already wounded heart of the mother.


GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.


O'Reilly completely ignores the man's point. We DID train al Quida members during the 80s in an attempt to combat communism's spread. Does that really have NOTHING to do with 9/11? Is the fact that a victim's son would bring up these issues so abhorrible?

Yes, we did train some terrorists in the 80's. Yes, that was stupid in hindsight, but we didn't do it just so they could attack us in 20 years. We did it because sometimes we support the lesser of 2 evils, and at the time they were the lesser compared to the soviets. That certainly was a factor that contributed to rising hate of America in the Middle East, but does not paint a complete picture of why 9/11 happened. It isn't just that Glick is questioning the Government. He is jumping to wild conclusions without really much time to heal from the loss of his father (which makes him more emotional, and less rational), and without much knowledge of the BIG PICTURE of what lead to 9/11.
Face it. O'Reilly was a complete *** in this interview. He had every right to argue against this guy's points, but he didn't do that. He ignored his points and basically said, "I'm a bigger patriot than you. I do more to help families of 9/11 than you ever will. I care more about your dead father. So SHUT UP!"

He envoked the memory of his dead father (and his living mother) to shut him up. O'Reilly's position was defensible. It was even the side of the argument I identify most with. But his tactics here, like in many other instances, stink.


O'Reilly is the toughest in the business, and that certainly is no walk in the park for Glick. O'Reilly plays hardball, and Glick should have known that going in. But, in the end, the results are good in that the truth is usually exposed on The Factor, although this interview was more of a yelling match, with no outcome.

--Waluigi

IJ Reilly
Sep 3, 2003, 07:24 PM
My point in posting this exchange was in response to the argument that O'Reilly is "a very fair guy, with a very clear, and good intentions." Add all the "context" you want, but the fact will always remain that O'Reilly invited a guy on his show who he then proceeded to rip up one side and down the other, told him to shut up several times, and in the end, cut off his mic. But speaking of context, according to accounts from the people who were there, the exchange really ended with O'Reilly saying some very foul things to the man -- which of course were not aired.

This are not the actions of a fair-minded person with good intentions. This is the behavior of an inflexible ideologue with a seriously bad attitude.

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
My point in posting this exchange was in response to the argument that O'Reilly is "a very fair guy, with a very clear, and good intentions." Add all the "context" you want....But speaking of context, according to accounts from the people who were there, the exchange really ended with O'Reilly saying some very foul things to the man -- which of course were not aired.


There is an inconsistency in your argument. When I put the quote someone took into context from documented sources, that wasn't good. But apparently, you can add in hear say, and think that that is putting it into context. That facts are on my side here, and I did put it into context, so don't be messing with that!

he then proceeded to rip up one side and down the other, told him to shut up several times, and in the end, cut off his mic. This are not the actions of a fair-minded person with good intentions. This is the behavior of an inflexible ideologue with a seriously bad attitude.

O'Reilly plays hard ball, and this is how he uncovers frauds. Glick was misguided, and wasn't being real when he claimed that the US government was solely behind the 9/11 attacks. Bill O'Reilly is about as fair and open-minded person there is. He has consistently badgered the Clinton administration as well as the bush administration. He always brings in different opinions, and respects them if the people present them in a logical, and thoughtful way (ie: Some well known rapper (I think it was Dr. Dre?) was on The Factor confronting Bill about Rap music, and even though they differed, since he made such strong, and thought out arguments, O'Reilly conceded on a few points, and gained respect for his point of view). Bill O'Reilly is NOT an ideologue! He is out crusading against those very people every night on The Factor! He does not belong to a political party, and is independent from voting just based on what party your in, thus he is not an ideologue. All his points of view are based on one thing: what’s good for the folks, NOT what’s good just for Bill O'Reilly. Bill is a true independent, and unlike Sean Hannity, he actually can change his viewpoint on a given subject, when given enough credible arguments, thus he IS flexible to an extent. His attitude may come across as being mean spirited, but that is because he is the most misunderstood man on television. He really does have good intentions, work ethic, and he sticks to his morals (read his books for countless examples). He isn't afraid to say his opinion, or to take heat. He is an American icon; being in the top 10 most recognized people on TV! People watch him more then anyone else because he is really a good guy, fighting the good fight.

--Waluigi

modyouup
Sep 3, 2003, 09:08 PM
That book is ************. It's some pro-bu$h ass (and he works for faux news if i'm not mistaken) who runs around waving the flag, yelling at innocent french people, and dreaming about sleeping in bu$h's bed.

He's a stupid conservative war/fear mongering **** off! Less conservative books, more government bashing dammit! :)

If he wants to use the "off with their heads" idea for liars, then why doesn't he waltz right into the white house and condemn them all? That's where you'll find the biggest organization of liars in the country.

modyouup
Sep 3, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
I agree that The people of Afghanistan didn't kill his father. But, the corrupt government there helped train the people who did, and were suppressing the people to sub-human levels. Your correct in saying that Bill didn't address his point though.

The U.S. government trained Al-Quieda. We gave them tons of weapons, funding, and gave Osama CIA training so he and his boys could kill lots of innocent Iranians. Then he killed 3000 other people that happened to be on our soil! He used out training and funding against us. I think our government is more to blame since Osama is just some religious crazy who wants every person on earth to be muslim. And don't get me started on how our government totally allowed 9/11 to happen.

mod. edit - Personal insults are not tolerated. First and only warning.

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by modyouup
The U.S. government trained Al-Quieda. We gave them tons of weapons, funding, and gave Osama CIA training so he and his boys could kill lots of innocent Iranians. Then he killed 3000 other people that happened to be on our soil! He used out training and funding against us. I think our government is more to blame since Osama is just some religious crazy who wants every person on earth to be muslim. And don't get me started on how our government totally allowed 9/11 to happen.

The US government trained some people who later went on to turn against us. We didn't train the hijackers, who preformed the act of terror. We had legitimate reasons for funding Osama Bin Laden back in the day, and if we had known the consequences, we would not have done it. Again, it is not the government’s fault that Osama Bin Ladin and Al Quieda were determined to attack America by any means possible, and did so.

--Waluigi

Waluigi
Sep 3, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by modyouup
That book is ************. It's some pro-bu$h ass (and he works for faux news if i'm not mistaken) who runs around waving the flag, yelling at innocent french people, and dreaming about sleeping in bu$h's bed.

He's a stupid conservative war/fear mongering **** off! Less conservative books, more government bashing dammit! :)

If he wants to use the "off with their heads" idea for liars, then why doesn't he waltz right into the white house and condemn them all? That's where you'll find the biggest organization of liars in the country.

Please rewrite that in a more legible form, otherwise, it isn't worthy of an intelligence response.

--Waluigi

Flowbee
Sep 3, 2003, 11:22 PM
My copy of Al Franken's new book arrives tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it. I've read the first chapter... very fun. :D

IJ Reilly
Sep 4, 2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Waluigi
There is an inconsistency in your argument. When I put the quote someone took into context from documented sources, that wasn't good. But apparently, you can add in hear say, and think that that is putting it into context. That facts are on my side here, and I did put it into context, so don't be messing with that!

This is a complete nonsense argument. I think you need to spend some time watching a journalist who knows how to get a story without telling his interviewees to shut up or otherwise abusing them.

mactastic
Sep 4, 2003, 08:19 AM
Sheesh, I didn't add context because I didn't want to take up too much forum space. That's why I provided the link! You click the link, you get the context. My point was that O'Reilly does not treat his guests as he would like to be treated. Glick came on his show in good faith wanting to talk about his views which I'm sure O'Reilly's advance team pre-screened him for. O'Reilly wanted no part in an actual debate, he just wanted to hassle this guy and "dress him down" on national TV.

If you think B. O'Reilly is the most fantastic human on earth, I could care less. I don't agree with you and that should be ok with you too. I wasn't trying to change your mind, just showing you that there are other viewpoints. Watch O'Reilly all you want!

Taft
Sep 4, 2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Ok, his mother has been though a lot, being that her husband is dead, she might still be grieving, and also has to still help her son grieve too (because that’s what most moms do, a very unselfish and loving act, but also very hard on the mother). She is going through a lot now, and then her son goes on national TV to make a fool out of himself by going off on a very out there conspiracy theory that somehow George Bush planned these attacks. That would be pain on top of an already wounded heart of the mother.


You are completely missing my point.

What right does O'Reilly have talking about this guy's mother. Let's say your father died (sorry to use so personal of an example, but hopefully it'll drive the point home). Now I come along--a complete stranger, mind you, who has never met any of your family before--and say that your father would be dissapointed in what you are doing. I also say that I hope your mother can't see what your doing now. YOUR POOR MOTHER! How EMBARRASSED and DISTRAUGHT she must be at your actions! But your father DIED because of these ***holes!!! Don't you care at all!!!!! What kind of monster are you anyway!!!

Do you see how presumptuous and pompous that would be??? I'm a complete stranger. For all I know, your mother might be proud of you. For all I know, your father might AGREE with what you are doing.

O'Reilly was envoking his parents to shut this guy up. O'Reilly didn't know his parents, and in reality, his parents had NOTHING to do with the argument. Yet O'Reilly envoke his parents in order to draw emotion into the argument to cloud the points Glick was making.

Also, you questioned me when I said O'Reilly was using his dad to promote his agenda. What agenda? O'Reilly has opinions which are very popular in this country. O'Reilly's principles line up very well with the principles of the average american. Notice I'm not commenting on the validity of those principles.

O'Reilly makes his money by going on the air and talking about his principles. People enjoy that because O'Reilly says things they like to hear. Now, if guests were to come on the Factor and make good points against O'Reilly's arguments and make O'Reilly's opinions look less valid, it would make his audience less happy. They would be proved wrong, too.

O'Reilly's agenda is to promote his world view unfettered and unmolested by his detractors. Thats how he makes his money. His show wouldn't succeed if he didn't bully his guests, bring on members of the FAAAAARRRR left and make them look like idiots, and generally just make the right look good and honest and the left look like a bunch of ivory tower ***holes.


Yes, we did train some terrorists in the 80's. Yes, that was stupid in hindsight, but we didn't do it just so they could attack us in 20 years. We did it because sometimes we support the lesser of 2 evils, and at the time they were the lesser compared to the soviets. That certainly was a factor that contributed to rising hate of America in the Middle East, but does not paint a complete picture of why 9/11 happened.

You've unwittingly just proved my point. Look at the arguments you are making here.

Do you see how rational you are being? Do you see how much sense you are making? Do you see how you left emotion out of the argument? Do you see how O'Reilly did NONE of those things???


It isn't just that Glick is questioning the Government. He is jumping to wild conclusions without really much time to heal from the loss of his father (which makes him more emotional, and less rational), and without much knowledge of the BIG PICTURE of what lead to 9/11.

That is unfair. This was a guy who saw the US as culpable in the events of 9/11. That is a reasonable assertion to make given all of the evidence of support to Afghani groups in the 80s. What you and O'Reilly view as opportunistic, I view as a dissenting opinion.

What you are effectively saying is that its allright for the family members of victims of 9/11 to speak, but only if they are saying things pro-American and supporting the war on terror the way Bush is running it. But if they have don't support the war effort, SHUT THE HECK UP!

It should also be noted that throughout the interview O'Reilly "paraphrased" Glicks position as "equating the United States with a terrorist nation." Glick, however, said that wasn't exactly what he was saying. You see, O'Reilly took Glicks nuanced arguments and spit them back at Glick as "the US are terrorists." OF COURSE that makes him look irrational. But was that exactly what he said?

Nope. He said that the US is but one of the hands that caused the 9/11 attacks. And thats an argument I think a lot of people agree with: our past actions are at least partly responsible for the severe anti-american sentiment in the world right now and for supplying weapons and money to some VERY nasty people.


O'Reilly is the toughest in the business, and that certainly is no walk in the park for Glick. O'Reilly plays hardball, and Glick should have known that going in. But, in the end, the results are good in that the truth is usually exposed on The Factor, although this interview was more of a yelling match, with no outcome.

--Waluigi

I don't mind hardball, as long as its played fairly. O'Reilly, however, doesn't play fair. He used emotion to confuse the argument. He arrogantly told a stranger that his parents were ashamed of him. He twisted his guests arguments into a simplistic statement which was far more inflammatory than the guests actual arguments.

In short, his tactics suck. I don't see Glick as even slightly culpable for the escalation of this argument. It was O'Reilly's presumption, emotion and aggresive nature which turned the interview into a train wreck and prevented Glick from making his point.

If you can't see that, then I'm afraid I don't know how much more we have to discuss. I think anyone reading the interview can see where the aggression and emotion in this argument came from.

O'Reilly

Taft

modyouup
Sep 4, 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Waluigi
The US government trained some people who later went on to turn against us. We didn't train the hijackers, who preformed the act of terror. We had legitimate reasons for funding Osama Bin Laden back in the day, and if we had known the consequences, we would not have done it. Again, it is not the government’s fault that Osama Bin Ladin and Al Quieda were determined to attack America by any means possible, and did so.

--Waluigi

Ummmm can you explain ANY legitimate reason for training a group of terrorists? They were terrorists back then too you know. The didn't become muslim extremeists overnight. Legitimate reasons???!! You call killing innocent Iranians a legitimate reason?

Waluigi
Sep 4, 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Taft

If you can't see that, then I'm afraid I don't know how much more we have to discuss. I think anyone reading the interview can see where the aggression and emotion in this argument came from.

O'Reilly

Taft

Ok, I think your right about O'Reilly being a big jerk durring the Glick interview. I can't defend him anymore in this particular situation.

--Waluigi

mactastic
Sep 4, 2003, 12:05 PM
Hehe... somehow a thread about Al Franken turned into one about Bill O'Reilly. How ironic.:D

Taft
Sep 4, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Hehe... somehow a thread about Al Franken turned into one about Bill O'Reilly. How ironic.:D

Somehow, I'm not surprised. Where Fox really screwed up was ever instigating the suit in the first place. Now Franken's name may as well be "that guy who got sued by Fox...and has a new book out."

I'm just surprised that the legal team at Fox would have made such a serious error. Did they really think they could win the case? Did the suits at Fox think about the ramifications of such a suit? (IOW, the publicity reaped by Franken).

Dumb move. I wonder if the rumors of Bill O'Reilly being the driving force behind the litigation are true. I guess it would explain the stupidity of the suit.

(Not that I'm saying O'Reilly is stupid, just that he has a chip on his shoulder against Franken...and probably rightfully so. Franken is, afterall, trying to undercut O'Reilly's credibility. Which, as I've said before, is essential to his career.)

Taft

mactastic
Sep 4, 2003, 01:15 PM
Yeah FOX probably doubled or tripled the sales of Franken's book with their lawsuit. Someone didn't think that one through.

Flowbee
Sep 5, 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah FOX probably doubled or tripled the sales of Franken's book with their lawsuit. Someone didn't think that one through.

I'll bet O'Reilly's show has seen a ratings spike in the last few weeks because of the publicity. Compare the cost of a quickly dismissed lawsuit with the cost of a national advertising campaign, and you might come to the conclusion that Fox made a pretty shrewd move. :eek:

mactastic
Sep 6, 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Flowbee
I'll bet O'Reilly's show has seen a ratings spike in the last few weeks because of the publicity. Compare the cost of a quickly dismissed lawsuit with the cost of a national advertising campaign, and you might come to the conclusion that Fox made a pretty shrewd move. :eek:

Maybe... but getting a spike in ratings for the #1 rated cable show at the expense of sending Franken's book to #1 doesn't seem that great, espescially when the book is critical of Fox and O'Reilly. I'm guessing O'Reilly had some words with the FOX execs and put some pressure on them to file. Just a guess though.

Taft
Sep 6, 2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Maybe... but getting a spike in ratings for the #1 rated cable show at the expense of sending Franken's book to #1 doesn't seem that great, espescially when the book is critical of Fox and O'Reilly. I'm guessing O'Reilly had some words with the FOX execs and put some pressure on them to file. Just a guess though.

Exactly. While FOX may have netted some extra ratings points, Franken's book got WAAAYYY more publicity than it would've otherwise. And that equates to *tons* of bad publicity for FOX.

Then again, they say that ANY publicity is good...even the bad publicity. FOX might be hoping that "conservative America" will pick up Franken's book and instead of hating FOX because of it, the book will just validate what FOX has been preaching all along and people will hate Franken instead.

Given the apparent stupidity of the move, I'd say that either FOX had an alterior motive or O'Reilly "made them do it."

Taft

Waluigi
Sep 11, 2003, 04:29 PM
All--

None of you might believe this, but in order to be fair, I'm giving Al Franken a shot to prove his points. As was suggested here, I picked up my copy of Al Franken's new book, and so far I love it! I definitely recommend it for everyone (especially Ann Coulter fans!), even though I've only read the first 7 chapters. Even if he does tear apart my hero Bill O'Reilly (haven’t got to that chapter yet), he exposes with great detail and exactness the likes of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and George Bush, so it is definitely worth it. It has some eye opening statistics, quotes, and overall a laugh out loud satirical writing style. I'm going to read his other books after I finish this one.

--Waluigi

zimv20
Sep 11, 2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
I picked up my copy of Al Franken's new book, and so far I love it!

awesome! you win the Open Mind of the Week Award.