First your link does not work. I don't think you can directly link to this.
Second, where is the controversy?
I am looking at the two statements, and really they seem like nothing but the same story with slightly different facts put out. That does not mean they do not coincide, just that different facts were taken.
Here are the quotes from the website:
O'REILLY: As for Pastor Leigh, he was one of many potential guests interviewed by Factor producer Kim Harvey. He was not selected. At no time was the pastor ever told what to say.
O'REILLY: That's a lie. That's a lie. Flat-out lie. We invited the guy on the program along with four or five other people. And we evaluated who would be the best guest. He didn't call back until late in the afternoon. And then told us, well, thanks for the invitation, maybe next time. We said sure, bishop.[/b]
The only thing I see here is that he was a potential guest, and was not chosen for the show. They decided to go with another person instead of him.
Anyway would this really be a serious issue anyway?
O'Reilly does sometimes not listen to people like he should, is very opinionated, of course, and frequently tells people they have the last word, then cannot prevent adding in his own comments afterwards.
There are a few other things I can point out, but again who cares? The only reason for this stuff is to attack him. Do they do this because they cannot debate him? I have seen lies, or twisted facts put out about O'Reilly before. When I have watched one of his shows, and then read about it someplace else, and what I saw and what they write does not coincide, you know it is nothing but a hatchet job.
Have you really thought about why they do this? They work so hard at trying to discredit him, but why? Why does your link have an advertisement, with an image of O'Reilly, requesting donations?
Why do birds suddenly appear, when you are... Oh, sorry, lost my train of thought.
To me this is again people who cannot win if they actually discuss the issues, and instead have to discuss the people. Too often means they cannot win the arguments, so must discredit the people.
Bill O'Reilly takes aim at San Francisco Fox host reportedly said it was OK for terrorists to target the city MSNBC Updated: 1:03 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005
Does Bill O'Reilly have it in for the city by the bay?
San Franciscans have been in an uproar this week over apparent comments by the host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that it was A-OK for terrorists to wipe the city off the map.
At issue are comments from O'Reilly's Election Day broadcast on his syndicated Westwood One radio show about a San Francisco ballot measure opposing the presence of military recruiters in city schools.
"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle.
"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.
Adding to the buzz was the archived version of O'Reilly's Tuesday show, which omitted the incendiary comments, according to Bay Area TV station KNTV.
City officials were not amused. "It sounds like he's on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,'' Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, whose district includes the tower, told the Chronicle.
Neither O'Reilly nor Fox News have yet commented on the dust-up.
'The big digit to the military'? As for the ballot measure, which urged local high schools and colleges to bar military recruiters from their campuses, it passed with 60 percent of San Franciscans in favor of it.
The radio show was not the only time O'Reilly commented on the ballot proposition. On his Monday night "O'Reilly Factor," he tangled with Angela Alioto, the former president of the city's Board of Supervisors.
"Why should the rest of the country protect your butt, with all due respect, OK, when it comes to the war on terror, if San Francisco is going to thumb your nose and give the big digit to the military? Why should ... why should we protect you from al-Qaida and terrorists if you're going to disrespect the military, by passing this ... even though it's symbolic ... this resolution?" he asked Alioto.
Alioto briefly tripped up O'Reilly during her appearance, pointing out that he had conflated the military-recruitment measure with another measure to ban handguns. That measure also passed, 58 percent to 42 percent.
Bill O'Reilly has been taking cheap shots at Northern California for ages; we use it as badge of honor...
I don't think people that have a brain actually needed him to go over the line and say that kind of stuff to start thinking he's a Pat-Robertson-style raving lunatic.
So I'm not surprised that nobody actually does anything when he comes up with this stuff -- which I'm not even sure is protected by the first amendment, because of the specific "invitation" he made (historically, when involving matters of national security, the first amendment has not protected them). But Bill O'Reilly, much like Pat Robertson, constantly walks the line on the first amendment, with many of his comments being easily in the region of Group Libel, Hate Speech, and Defamation, but somehow, he always gets away with it.
I'm pretty sure if it had been a liberal saying in a high-audience TV show that Texas was fair game for the terrorists because they forbid gay marriage, that not only he'd lose his job, he might even get sued.
So I am not understanding how you can make "hyperbole" about the deaths of Americans who don't agree with you...but God Forbid you relate American actions to a known political figure we were at war with? Where is the line drawn in this country? Who makes that line?
Why? Well, simply because it works...his job is essentially to get ratings, isnt it? We are all talking about it arent we? I doubt any of you actually believe he was serious.
And to the guy who wrote that if a liberal had said something similar he or she whould have been fired or sued, does Ward Churchill ring a bell?
"As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire, the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly...If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it"
Churchill's comments are protected by the first, he didnt lose his job, and he hasnt been sued.
I swear, its like people these days just look for a reason to morally outraged...they are just words spoken by an individual no one takes seriously anyways...who cares?
That wasn't all there was to the Churchill story. He got threats on his life because of what he said. While he still has his job, let's not pretend that he didn't have to deal with a shitstorm to keep it. It simply seems like the reaction is different by the general public based on the political affiliation of the person making the quote. Who cares? It definitely isn't keeping me up at night, but there is still the observation.
Well you beat me to the Churchill reference. I have to say Prof, you have completely proved your bias. Churchill did not simply "relate American actions to a known political figure." His exact quote is, " If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." Give me a break...
I guess we keep posting at the same time. I realize he had to deal with a shitstorm but 1)what makes you think O'Reilly wont 2)comenting on the actually deaths of 2000+ individuals is going to get a bigger reaction than commenting on the hypothetical deaths of an unkonwn number of people. If your son or father was one of those "little Eichmanns," Im sure you would have threatend his life too.
I seriously doubt that you honestly believe that since I am asking about one that this means I agree with his point of view. At least I hope you aren't taking that route. Truth be told, I could care less about what either of them said because their opinions mean very little to me. However, hopefully you haven't forgotten the many posts in this forum about how liberal all colleges were becoming and how detrimental this was to education, in part, because of teachers like Churchill. I am simply wondering where the similar outrage is on the talking heads of prime time news television. It isn't as if they have no influence at all.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever fool-assed thing you want, and then not have any criticism for it. I'm willing to wager that O'Reilly gets death threats on a semi-regular basis. He might not ever read them because of the volume of mail he gets, but I'll bet they're there.
Of course not! I apologize if it came off that way but I certainly didnt mean to imply anything of the sort.
Well, I truely dont care if America's colleges have a disproportional amount of leftists, as long as those on the right arent being overlooked because of their political beliefs. However, I think the comparison you've made doesnt really work. I think its clear there is far more of a balance in the news media then there is on most college campuses. This is just anecdotal but I live in a conservative part of Socal and have been in college for three years and have yet to have an openly conservative prof (I have had plenty of great professors though). However, I hear liberal commentary on the news every day.
As for Churchill, the issue of his job jeopardy was not strictly because of his hateful speech - Churchill has been an academic fraud his entire career, and his controversial comments just shined the lights into that space for him.
He only has a job because he stays under the radar. He comes out and faces the fire. But speech has limits, and always should. Anyone think a professor should be allowed to teach if he thinks we should return to race-based slavery? Me neither, First Amendment or not. Freedom to speak does not imply that you should be propped up or subsidized when you are wrong.
As for O'Reilly, I say this as a conservative, I can't stand the guy. Although, in truth, I don't think he is a conservative voice and he actually acknowledges this himself.
But he is nothing more than an arrogant carnival barker, no different than the contemptible Howard Stern of his subject matter. Controversy equals ratings, and every network - regardless of bias - have mortgaged their future on "opinion and analysis" shows to fill up their opportunities in the 24 hour news cycle.
They are nearly all useless, and O'Reilly is a fool. I've heard some say "well, I agree with some things he says" to which I respond even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There is a silver lining here - the fact that most people aren't particularly 'outraged' means that they don't the guy seriously. I think we have become numb to shrill talking heads - and we are better for it.
As for O'Reilly, I don't think he puts too much thought into what he says. This doesn't particularly bother me, but he has proved that he is an ass on many other issues. I think he was just exagerrating his point...
All I would do is consider the source. "O'Reilly said" should have the connotation of "this flaming retard said".