Bill visited Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air this week to push his new book. The interview, which lasted about an hour, ended when Bill walked out after lecturing the host on the unfairness of the interview. The interview can be heard here in stream. If you have the time click on the link and listen. I am interested in your opinions on this. Was Bill right? Was the interview that was supposed to be a book review, really a set up to attack Bill, or was he overly sensitive?
I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I do think that NPR only had him on in an attempt to make him look bad, but I also think that Bill played right into there hands with his attitude. I believe that he could have been a bit more cool about the whole thing and calmly turned it around on that wimp Gross. Instead he playedinto their hands and gave them exactly what they wanted.

It's pretty even handed. He reacted just the way she thought he would. On the other hand, he shouldn't have flipped out, which he does all the time.

The biggest problem with O'Really is that he flips out when he's caught in spin or lies. It makes him look bad. He has had some valid points to say, but he's an angry child that pouts, yells, and throws a fit, and then walks out when he is treated the same exact way as he treats his guests on his show. When the tables are turned, we see his true face.

For example, any other person being interviewed would have allowed the People story to be read, and then respond in a calm manner. Instead, he goes nuts before she even reads the piece.

She DOES get him with the NY Times review. He's crazed, saying that these reviews are unfair, and she drops a nuclear bomb on him with the Michael Moore review that ISN'T good. I had to laugh at that point. But to give Bill credit, he backs up and says he'll re-read the review. But THAT was a beautiful moment.

O'Really is his own worst enemy.

I agree he got a little out of hand. But his beef was still valid. It was supposed to be an interview about his book and I cant recall any questions she asked about the book itself, other than the minute or so they spent on the chapter about his father and a little on his views of secularism. You could see where she was, she admitted giving Franken a free pass. After, when she read what the People guy said, she didnt read anything about his review of his book, she read his response to O'reilly calling him out for bringing personal dislike into the review. So, you cant get an honest context of the guys review without hearing that first. Like most liberals, you could hear her thinly vieled disdain shrouded in her condecending politeness. It was very fun to listen to. O'reilly said some things I dont agree with but in other points he was right on.

Holy crap!! Was doing some investigating...one of O'Reilly's favorite movies is "Easy Rider."

WTF?

CHECK IT OUT

He like The Doors as well. I guess you libbies can't listen to them anymore now.

That's ok, I never listened to them before anyway. If I wanted to listen to a drunken baffoon, I'd put in The Guess Who. At least they weren't pretentious.

You have just totally proven your idiocy. How old are you anyway?

Well, if you are going to eliminate listening to music groups because they are pretentious, you end up eliminating 3/4 of all the bands out there.

27. What's your point?

Just wondering. I don't see how you can't like The Doors, thats all. Morrison was greatness!

Another thread Hijacked. What is the record I wonder, for a thread being hijacked totally off topic. In this case it was 4 posts. LOL

Hee hee hee...alllllll part of my diabolical plan for world domination. MMMWWWAHAHAHAHA!!!

If he really though his Fresh Air interview was going to be as innocuous as a Good Morning America, lookie-my-bookie interview. Then he got what he deserved.

A

And Jim Morrison died of boredom.

"riders on the storm................

......................

.................riders on the storm"

I disagree, have you ever listened to Fresh Air before? She usually strokes her guests. Most of the program is her, or her guest reading passages from the persons book and discussing it. This was clearly a departure from her normal style.

I disagree right back!

I listen to Fresh Air quite often. Theres a lot more than just reading passages going on, especialy from the guests who aren't authors!

She can and will get pointed and political.

The Gene Simmons interview was my favorite.

A

Just a small clarification, Morrison was a drunken baffoon that was high on acid.

You guys aren't gonna listen to some idiot meat slicer from Mobile Alabama, are you?

Pathetic.

I like Fox news. I also watch a little CNN and MSNBC from time to time to keep things unfair and unbalanced. o'Reily is annoying and too confrontational. His schtick is getting old. He claims a "spin free zone" but that's not true. His spin is pretty strong.

More Happy Fun Reading!!

Bill O\'Reilly Exposed

You know... I'm sure there are loads of people with personal websites dedicated to hating O'Reilly just like the one you posted. What's your point?

Every response on that website is Bullshit.

OK, I only read one of them, and I agree the guy is pushing it a bit...

BUT... MB, I have never seen someone so adamantly pro-O'Reilly as you. There are some things of his that are absolutely false, and you've passed them off as "an honest mistake" or the like...

I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I'm just curious how you came to be so resolutely in favor of some of O'Reilly's rantings.

Well...... My take on the "Fresh Air" interview with O'Reilly is.....

He never should have went there in the first place. He knew that it was going to be an "unfriendly" venue. After all, NPR is leftism on the taxpayers dime.

Seeing that he did agree to the interview, he should have stayed until the end and goaded comrade Gross into saying some more things she did not want to say.

The interview was supposed to be about him and his new book, not his responses to reviews in various biased publications of his book.

What was the deal with comrade Gross drilling him about his interview with that idiot Jeremy Glick? As source material she used an edited transcript published in an article in the very biased lefty Harper's Magazine. She even admitted to never reading the ACTUAL transcript from the show.

He was right... She was attempting a hatchet job on him. I thought he was doing alright exposing some of her bias. He should have kept it up. He also should have been better prepared walking into enemy territory. By that I mean he should have listened to or read the transcript of her Al Franken interview. He should have stayed until the interview was over and lambasted her on her bias. Like I said he should have been more prepared. Walking out didn't make him look too good. But then again I am sure the NPR crowd are not big fans of O'Reilly anyway.

O'Reilly is not the only person to walk out on her either. I think there have been quite a few over the years. Monica Lewinsky even ended an interview (She besmirched the legacy of the comrades hero).

You should also listen to comrade Gross interview ultra left wing columnist Molly Ivins. It's so nice when the interviewer has the same mindset and the interviewee. (Anyone ever notice that Ivins not only looks like a man who had a sex change... she also sounds like one?)

Would anyone else guess that Gross was a liberal just by looking at her?



One thing about O'Reilly....... I love how the left hates him. He must be doing something right.

Could have something to do with his hypocrisy...no spin zone indeed.

(There are some things of his I don't disagree with...but his claim of being a spin-free zone is absolute tripe.)

What is it you don't understand? If a guest starts lying or "spinning" the details, that guest gets called on it. That doesn't happen on 95% of all shows on TV.

Some of the other quick segments on the show are either his opinion or facts he or his staff have dug up and the viewers know that.

What is being spun on his show?

Well, one example is the oft-repeated story of his call to boycott Pepsi.

His spin - he never called for a boycott. I dunno.... saying "I'm calling for all americans to say, hey, pepsi, i'm not drinking your stuff" and then claiming he never called for one? What, because he didn't actually use the word "boycott?"

That's spinning in a big way.

If he never used the word "boycott" then it wouldn't be a boycott. The only thing I remember him advocating for a boycott was on French made products.

Regarding Pepsi... who are these people or media outlets, etc., that are "oft-repeating" this story? You sure there is no spin on their part? Identify them and we will see.

If my memory serves me correctly he had a problem with Pepsi hiring Ludacris as a spokesman.... which if they had any sense of social responsibility they would never have even considered. I recall he wanted people to contact Pepsi and let them know they were outraged that they were using him in their marketing. A marketing campaign aimed at children no less.

I could be wrong, then again I don't see every show but I think that is what happened.

Hey.... How about a "Moby No Spin Zone". I detect a little spin in your anti-O'reilly post... and you even claimed you never watch him, so I don't know why you hate the guy so much.

This isn't calling for a boycott??

Quote:

Hey.... How about a "Moby No Spin Zone". I detect a little spin in your anti-O'reilly post... and you even claimed you never watch him, so I don't know why you hate the guy so much.

I've read his Talking Points, I've listened to him on the radio, and I've seen him talk in person.

I don't bother with him anymore.

No... Not an outright boycott. I think you are probably selectively quoting him by just picking one sentence in a larger speech to fit your argument. What was his entire statement? You would have to look at it in that context.

Besides, Pepsi makes so many products, a boycott of Pepsi would have to include numerous soft drinks, snacks, etc.

Ahh... come on.... you do bother with him. You never miss a chance to sling mud in his direction. Why? Because you don't like the fact that he is a widely watched TV personality who does not parrot the same liberal crap that all the other TV channels shovel at the public. For that he is the enemy of you and the entire left.

I don't agree with all of O'Reilly's political ideals but...... Anyone or anything that gets the left wing/liberal elite establishment all in a twist must be doing something correct.

Ok, then. If Clinton never used the word "blow job" then it wasn't one, was it?

Then NPR, Al Franken, and Michael Moore must be doing something right to be getting the right all in a twist.

Just for contrast, Gross interviews Al Franken .

A fair question Moby...
I actualy don't agree with O'reilly 100% of the time, but when people claim he lies, its always the same two things over and over, The Peabody thing and the % of Black/minority/whatever students in Florida colleges thing. Other than that, people tend to bash his manner and tone way more than what they have to say about his issues. I agree no show can be absolutlely spin free, its human nature to do it even when you dont intend to. I watch him every night, he gets on the Bush administration constantly about what they are doing wrong...IE WMD's, the secretive nature of the administration, the fact that hardly any members of this admin will appear on his show until very recently. What I think the left hates, is that he also will praise this administration when he feels they have done something right. This is something the more liberal media outlets will not do.

The guy has strong opinions about right and wrong. Even if I dont like them all of the time I still like someone who is willing to stick by his convictions even if it pisses people off. I like that he calls people on stuff. I have only seen him cut people mics a maybe five times in the 4 years I have been watching him. I will go to my grave thinking that Glick POS deserved alot worse. I mean, come on, he was trying to claim that the Bush administration somehow orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as a prelude to war. O'reilly cut his mic and ended the interview.

I have to agree...as much as I can't stand him as a person, there ARE some points which O'Reilly makes that, honestly, are pretty good...

However, Bill can't run and hide every time he's being debated. It just looks bad. Every time he doesn't have control of the mic, he throws a fit and storms off. If he'd control himself and play it a little more low key, more moderates such as myself might like him. But he has no sense of humor, and completly turns me off by his baby-ish bully tactics.

I'll agree there Wilmac, sometimes he does start to spout off about there being no spin and never lets his guest finish thier point, or worse yet, doesn't hear the point they are making because he is too busy getting in thier face. Sometimes he needs to be abrasive (Glick), and sometimes not. A point I recall is when NJ eliminated the postion of Poet Laureate because they wanted to oust Amile Baraka (SP). The man's point (he was a black state assemblyman) was this; Fine, get rid of Baraka, his poetry is divisive and racist and full of hatred, but dont get rid of the post of Poet Laureate itself. O'reilly was so busy with his point that Baraka needed to go, that he totally missed the assemblymans point. They were actually agreeing, but O'rielly kept pressing the issue that didnt need to be pressed because they were in agreement. I will say that I dont think O'reilly lies nearly (not even close) as much as his enemies say he does.

Hey WilPac...

There is nothing at all "moderate" about you. You are an admitted socialist and a leftist.

You tell an awful lot of lies about yourself. Who is the real WilPac?

Ok, you want to open a whole other can of worms, here's where I'm moderate:

I don't believe in abortion, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and in cases of rape.

I don't believe drugs should be legalized.

I believe that the tobacco companies have been wrongly sued by people that knew they would get cancer from smoking.

I think term limits are a good thing.

I think the unions have been corrupted, and need to be overhauled, reorganized, or abolished.

Any other topics you want to quiz me on? I'll be glad to share my views.

I meant tell us about yourself. You have lied about your location, your occupation. Tell us about your truck.

What the hell do you do for a living that gives you enough time to be here posting all day? The truth this time.

I am a news photographer. I have NOT lied about my location, as stated in an earlier post, I am currently working on a documentary about the blues, thus I am in Alabama. On Sunday I travel to Mississippi. My location will change at that time, as that is where I will be.

My X is a 2000 blue SE. I haven't done any mods to it, as a news photographer's salary doesn't really allow me to. I got it because it works well for loading all of my lights, cameras, and tripods, for shoots where I can't get the news van.

Anything else?

EDIT: I'm on the night crew. I post during the day because I'M NOT WORKING DURING THE DAY. Notice I rarely post on here at night. We're here in Alabama shooting interviews with Willie King (travelling with him to Arkansas tomorrow for his show), and if you've never been to Alabama, there's nothing to do down here.

I don't know if you've ever been to a blues bar, but they're not usually open during the day, Dipstick.

It's true that the people who smoke know it could someday lead to cancer (for about the past 20 years now), but they (the smokers) were lied to about how additive the poisonous substance nicotine really is. The tobacco companies knew this fact, added ammonia to speed the nicotine delivery process from the lungs into the blood stream (as well as a slew of other dangerous goodies), and even went as far as to genetically enhance tobacco plants to produce higher amounts of nicotine. The worst part about this story is many other people outside the tobacco companies also knew the additive properties of nicotine (including the government), yet for years did nothing about it.

The faster the tobacco industry dries up and blows away the better I say. It REALLY erks me that a known highly addictive carcinogen (tobacco), which also creates an additonal burden on our already stressed health care system, is allowed to be legally sold in this country. Really, besides producing jobs for the tobacco industry, what good comes from tobacco use?

So how about making alcohol illegal as well? I am a bit shocked that you believe this. How about marijuana, should it remain illegal?

Someone is still asleep I see. Alcohol is not a carcinogen (definitly not in the amounts the average person consumes), and I've never heard of anyone getting cancer from breathing second hand alcohol fumes, liver diease maybe, but not cancer. As for your marijuana statement (that one came from left field didn't it), what relvance does this comment have to my original argument about tobacco? Come back to the debate after you've have your morning coffee, and you have something intelligent to add.

:rolleyes:

I dont know about what "good" comes from it, but I do know that chewing tobacco is fun and tasty, and that cigarettes make you look cool.

I swear I think she was blowing him while he was talking. Quite a contrast.
"No! No!, I dont want it to be over!"

I could not agree more. I figured in order to be a "fair and balanced" listener, it would only be fair to listen to both interviews. The whole tone is different.