[vmpaul]

Just a FYI.

I know O'Reilly came up last month in thread about Al Franken so I thought people might be interested in hearing his side. I don't watch him but it should be interesting to hear side on the whole lawsuit thing.

If you can't hear the show live today it's usually available via RealPlayer after the fact as well.

[zigzag]

If it's anything like the Gene Simmons interview it should be interesting.

I expect that it'll be a relatively subdued affair. Gross seems more interested in exploring people's minds than in confronting them about their hypocrisies. Maybe she'll get him to admit that he really likes Al Franken and wants to schedule a play date.

[zigzag]

LOL - well, I was wrong about it being "subdued." O'Reilly gets irate and pulls the usual "I can confront you, but if you confront me, I'll call you names and whine about vicious, slanderous attacks."

It's too bad because O'Reilly can be a sharp interviewer and is capable of independent thought. Unfortunately, he's only good about half the time - the rest of the time he's just a self-righteous hothead.

Judging from this and the Simmons interview, I don't think Gross is particularly good at controlling contentious interviews. She gets flustered too easily. The genteel manner that makes her so good in other settings doesn't work well in contentious ones.

[vmpaul]

No, that was not 'subdued' at all. I missed some of the bit in the middle but heard the beginning and the blow-up at the end.

O' Reilly has a debate technique that is very familiar on boards like this where issues are discussed. Take an isolated incident, blow it up and mischaracterize it as a general trend and when confronted with facts, either attack the person or make a grand indignant statement and walk-off (or don't respond to others posts).

It's tougher to expose on a radio show than a message board where there is a paper trail (of sorts) that traces the conversation so everyone can see. And it's impossible to win when he controls the pacing and content of the show. That's why hardly anyone gets the best of him on his own show.

Agreed, Gross isn't particularly good at handling it (either am I) but she doesn't get much practice either. It's not her forte. I have to listen to the bits I missed tonight.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No, that was not 'subdued' at all. I missed some of the bit in the middle but heard the beginning and the blow-up at the end.

The middle part was actually more like I expected and more like a typical Gross interview - she let O'Reilly talk calmly about his childhood and his beliefs. But as soon as she got back on the subject of his inconsistencies, he went into self-righteous/paranoid/spin mode and hung up.

[adamk]

one thing that i find interesting is that the clip on o'reilly's website is only six minutes of the interview. while during the introduction on NPR they played a clip of o'reilly's show last night where he dared NPR to air the entire 50+ minute interview, which they did. but he doesn't do it himself.

the 6-minute's are the last minutes of the interview and is partially taken out of context (a practice o'reilly disapproves over earlier in the Fresh Air interview). particularily, when he references defending himself for the past 50 minutes against numerous defamations. which i thought was stretching the reality a little.

anyway, when i've seen o'reilly off the factor, he seems like a pretty good guy, eloquent, laid-back, witty, which seems to go with the Fresh Air style. too bad that the factor o'reilly showed up at the end.

adam

[spacefreak]

What about O'Reilly's point that he was defending himself for much of the interview? And Gross calling Franken's book 'satire', and when he asked why she didn't go after him a all, she says "well, that was a different type of interview"?

I see you all criticizing the man for getting audibly upset, but I don't hear anyone discussing the actual substance of what he was saying.

As for O'Reilly not airing the entire 50 minutes, and Gross did air all 50 minutes, perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the interview was Gross' show. O'Reilly has his own show with his own guests, and he doesn't even get 50 minutes of airtime (when you consider the commercial breaks).

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What about O'Reilly's point that he was defending himself for much of the interview? And Gross calling Franken's book 'satire', and when he asked why she didn't go after him a all, she says "well, that was a different type of interview"?

I see you all criticizing the man for getting audibly upset, but I don't hear anyone discussing the actual substance of what he was saying.

As for O'Reilly not airing the entire 50 minutes, and Gross did air all 50 minutes, perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the interview was Gross' show. O'Reilly has his own show with his own guests, and he doesn't even get 50 minutes of airtime (when you consider the commercial breaks).

good points. The haters here are ready to dismiss him out of hand and toss various labels at him, yet they don't take on the substance of what he says, nor are they capable of putting forth a convincing argument to counter.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

As for O'Reilly not airing the entire 50 minutes, and Gross did air all 50 minutes, perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the interview was Gross' show. O'Reilly has his own show with his own guests, and he doesn't even get 50 minutes of airtime (when you consider the commercial breaks).

He could stream it like they do or if there is a contractual prohibition he could at least link to it on his website. NPR makes all their shows available as archives. Maybe he has, I haven't been to his website.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
He could stream it like they do or if there is a contractual prohibition he could at least link to it on his website. NPR makes all their shows available as archives. Maybe he has, I haven't been to his website.

He does just what you suggested, vmpaul. He links to the NPR's site.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Take an isolated incident, blow it up and mischaracterize it as a general trend and when confronted with facts, either attack the person or make a grand indignant statement and walk-off (or don't respond to others posts).

Some people have jobs, a house, and family to take care of, so don't take it this way every time someone doesn't respond to your post.

[ink]

I just listened to the whole thing, and Bill O'Reilly seemed completely within his bounds to say what he said. The book review exchange was way out of control (for both of them), but this fresh air was not even attempting to review his book at all; Terry just kept on bringing up nit-pickish quotes designed to prove he isn't perfect. I almost felt proxy-embarrassed for Bill having to listen to her a-a-a-a-a-a-a-tempt t-t-t-t-t-o ask him q-q-q-q-q-q-uestions that she knows are below the belt.

[zigzag]

It's not that O'Reilly never has a valid point, it's that he's utterly deaf to legitimate criticisms when they do arise. His whole schtick is "no spin," yet when he's caught spinning he throws a temper tantrum (or files a frivolous lawsuit). It's childish.

There are half a dozen books and websites about O'Reilly - no need to recount all of his famous spins here. No one's going to change their minds about him anyway.

No question that Gross was more sympathetic to Franken - they have more in common culturally and politically, plus Franken's a comedian. But if O'Reilly wasn't willing to answer Gross' questions, he shouldn't have gone on the friggin' show!. He's constantly berating people who won't go on his own show. Instead he throws a tantrum. It's just another example of dishing it out but not taking it.

I happen to like O'Reilly. I think that if he dropped the belligerent attitude and the "no-spin" schtick, he could be one of the more interesting commentators on the air. But it won't happen because yelling and screaming is what people seem to want.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Some people have jobs, a house, and family to take care of, so don't take it this way every time someone doesn't respond to your post.

No you're right. I've let responses slide because I have to attend to life as well.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by ink:
I just listened to the whole thing, and Bill O'Reilly seemed completely within his bounds to say what he said. The book review exchange was way out of control (for both of them), but this fresh air was not even attempting to review his book at all; Terry just kept on bringing up nit-pickish quotes designed to prove he isn't perfect. I almost felt proxy-embarrassed for Bill having to listen to her a-a-a-a-a-a-a-tempt t-t-t-t-t-o ask him q-q-q-q-q-q-uestions that she knows are below the belt.

sheesh, im feeling the same way listening right now. i dont know this ladies typical debate style but it certainly seems like she is intentionally pitting franken against him (among other things) for little ittie bitty things in an attempt to get a rise out of him. Now, I didn't hear the franken interview but i've read on several message boards she says that interview was "different"-why? Was she taking a hard line questioning attempt against him as well when it came to oreilly?

and damm, her stuttering is annoying.



there is a clear difference in her mannerism and questioning around the 18 minute mark and after the misguided "spin" question. The questions about the war, format of the show, political views of this that would surpise people, his childhood-all interesting and suited to the interview I think. Seems like maybe she needed some time to regroup herself-she starts drawing some quotes from his book instead of others which makes sense given the interview is around his book.

also, at the 31:30 marks she says "now here's the conlusion"....did she cut something there or was that just a seemingly abrupt continuation line?

[boots]

She starts stuttering when she's nervous. You almost never hear that. This was a very atypical interview.

Two things:

1) she wass easier on Frankin...partly because when she asked him a tough question (she did grill him about the "abstinance stories" memo) he would give an answer (usually saying "yeah, it was stupid) then make fun of himself as well as the subject he's discussing.

That makes for a much different interview, and it is as much the guest that sets the tone as the interviewer.

Frankin is a satirist so he will be a much different guest than O'Reilly

2) O'Reilly has some interesting view that I happen to agree with. Unfortunately he seems to be an ego maniac. His constant refereal to his success was kind of annoying. Not because it is untrue, but because he attributes it to his "problem solving" and "truthful" style. In fact, I find him abrasive. Another interpretation of his success is that he is abrasive, and people like to watch that because its entertaining. Look at the success of all the "reality" TV programs. Fear Factor is successful because it is so "out of the norm" for most people. I think O'Reilly's style is out of the norm for most people. He call a guest to task in a confrontational way, and I think many people wish they could do the same thing...kinda like the admiration we tend to have for a quick and witty comeback. We all wish we had that gift.

As I said, I dislike his show, but I like many of his views. He's anti-death penalty, for example, and last night he talked about holding Bush accountable for the mess in Iraq. He has some pretty progressive ideas.

But he takes himself too seriously, and that is what made him such a great target for Frankin. Frankin looks for people who take themselves too seriously, and then takes then too seriously too. It works for satire.


Kudos to Terry for airing the interview. I remember having a lot of respect for her when the Gene Simmons interview went wrong too. It wasn't a great interview, but she still aired it rather than sweeping it under the rug.

[daimoni]

.

[adamk]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
He does just what you suggested, vmpaul. He links to the NPR's site.

the segment yesterday was only six minutes long. glad to see that it was changed.

i went and listened to the al franken interview afterwards, and it was a different interview. you'd need to ask her why. having just read franken's book, there are some things i think she could have been a little more probing in the interview concerning his book.

okay, zigzag already said most of that, and more eloquently.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Some people have jobs, a house, and family to take care of, so don't take it this way every time someone doesn't respond to your post.

adam

[zigzag]

I think you're right on target, boots.

Simmons was rude, but in a rock and roll sort of way, which she should have anticipated. He was also utterly frank about the realities of the music biz and his life. Instead of exploring that, she became priggish and judgmental and lost control of the interview. Simmons is an a**hole but he was exactly right when he said that Gross and NPR in general can be hopelessly genteel.

She lost control of O'Reilly for different reasons, but it still showed that she's not particularly adept at tough interviews. However, when the subject is willing, she can be terrific.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
also, at the 31:30 marks she says "now here's the conlusion"....did she cut something there or was that just a seemingly abrupt continuation line?

O'Reilly said that it was 50 minutes, and she didn't contradict him. If so, where are those 10+ minutes?

O'Reilly a coward? He did do the interview w/NPR. Meanwhile, Franken hides from each and every mid-to-conservative radio and TV talk program that may challenge him.

Anyone think Gross's line of questioning was influenced by the fact that O'Reilly doesn't think NPR should be so publicly funded, and that in the past, he has called for public disclosure of their books to determine if they even need the $billion + they receive from the taxpayers?

And what's up with the branding of Franken as a satirist? Franken is no more a satirist than Rush Limbaugh.

[clarkgoble]

I think O'Reilly didn't handle it terribly well and by and large I agree with most of the criticisms of him. I can't stand watching him simply because I think he doesn't want those who disagree with him to be able to fully explain their positions. He is definitely a member of the "sound bite philosophy" school of journalism. And it is that approach to news and ideas that find disturbing. Far more disturbing than his ego.

Having said that though, I must admit that Fresh Air by and large isn't fair to conservatives. When they are on they tend to be attacked or challenged far more than those on the left are. Don't get me wrong. I love the show. But unbiased it isn't.

I think I'd have enjoyed it far more if she didn't feel compelled to bring up all these negative reviews of O'Reilly and read them to him. No offense. But that's not much of an interview. The segment in the middle was more of her typical style and was quite good. But really. Why keep reading all those things? It isn't as if her show is hard news. So why, when a conservative is on, pretend it is? Further most of the articles she read were harping on the same point over and over again. I mean she made her point a few times. Why keep bringing it up? Move on.

Further if she had something about those she wanted an answer to, a more indirect approach to get O'Reilly to open up would have been much, much better. If the interview became basically an edition of O'Reilly's show it was because Gross made the format become that and O'Reilly reacted accordingly.

The Simmons interview, which I also heard, was actually interesting. I learned a lot about the guy. But clearly he is a player and a bit misogynist. If you don't like it fine. But why harp on it? Once again while Simmons was an ass, the interview went horribly awry because Gross couldn't separate her personal feelings from her job as an interviewer. It is very easy to interview people you like and admire. It takes a bit more skill to do it with others.

Those aren't the only interviews she screwed up on. I can think of several others, although they never really got heated. There was an interview with a conservative tax critic a week or two ago. (She totally lost control and obviously wasn't expecting coherent answers) The rejoinder to the Krakauer interview from last month by the LDS church also wasn't that good. (She wasn't particularly probing on Krakauer but then let the LDS spokesman basically just read a statement without getting to the heart of the divide)

She just doesn't handle controversial issues well at all. Ideally she should just recluse herself on those interviews and stick to what she does best: interviews of artists.

[clarkgoble]

And what's up with the branding of Franken as a satirist? Franken is no more a satirist than Rush Limbaugh.

Actually I think Limbaugh is more a satirist than he is an analyst. Look at his show - especially the satirical segments.

[Gee-Man]

I generally think O'Reilly is a very good broadcaster and I do agree with him sometimes, but he seems remarkably thin-skinned and has a tendency to lash out when challenged outside of his own show. Some of the responses in the interview were just not credible to me - for example:

Gross asked him about being a registered Republican, which I think is a fair question for someone who frequently states that his doesn't belong to a party. His response that he didn't know how that happened didn't seem credible. The thing is, even if he was registered Republican, he could have just said so, and said that he changed it because he really believes he's an independent now. I don't think anyone would have cared, it's obvious to anyone who listens to O'Reilly that he's more Republican than Democrat. There's no law that says that a member of a party has to agree with ALL of the party's positions, there are "liberal" Republicans as well as "conservative" Democrats. But instead, the explanation he gave seemed like an overly elaborate excuse rather than "no-spin" as he likes to talk about.

Also, I found the segment where he said that Janet Maslin "loved" the Michael Moore book to be kind of funny - Gross even quoted Maslin's obviously negative final summary paragraph and O'Reilly still insisted that this was a positive review. I guess he was trying to make a point about bias in book reviewers, but in the end, he just came off as stubborn in the face of clear evidence.

I'm not sure I buy his "review the book, not me" argument. The books he writes generally ARE about him - there is no rule that says the reviewer can't criticize the person's point of view as expressed in the book, as long as it isn't overtly personal. I watch the O'Reilly Factor frequently, and too often, O'Reilly mistake criticism of his point of view or something he said as a personal attack, and responds accordingly.

I found it strange that he accuses the New York Times of attacking people who criticize them, yet he frequently does the same thing on The O'Reilly Factor ("Ridiculous Item Of The Day") and doesn't recognize the same behavior in himself. His on-air obsession with negative reviews of his book is interesting, to say the least.

Overall, while I do think that Gross was harder on him than she would have been on a more liberal guest, that doesn't excuse O'Reilly reacting the way he did. She was leaking her point of view into the interview, as O'Reilly does on his show, but this was not "an interview designed to trap him into saying something Harper's can use", he was just being overly dramatic.

[zigzag]

Well said, clarkgoble. When she started reading verbatim (and rather hurriedly) from that one long review, I think she lost her way. She might have had a valid point to make, but she was rather clumsy about it. You've got to make your point and move on.

Oh well, another exciting day in American media.

[zigzag]

Also well-said, Gee-Man. O'Reilly is hopelessly defensive about things that no one else cares about - being a registered Republican, growing up comfortably middle-class. Why be embarrassed about growing up middles class? I think what happened is that by marketing himself as the working class no-spin man, he painted himself into a corner. It's now impossible for him to admit that he has sometimes gilded the lily, so when people call him on it, he throws a tantrum.

He should just say "I wasn't working class myself, but that's what my parents came from and I strongly identify with that sensibility." No problem, many Americans are the same way.

[boots]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And what's up with the branding of Franken as a satirist? Franken is no more a satirist than Rush Limbaugh.

Satire (as a working definition) is taking a serious subject matter and presenting it in a bizarre extreme to reveal something enlightening about the subject. Mark Twain was probably the best example...Huck Finn was brilliant in this respect.

Satire is a subtle thing...if you don't find it funny, then it sounds like bizarre opinion or even hate-mongering.

We label Frankin a satirist because that's what he is. His books are often found in the humor section. He markets himself as a satirist. He's just more direct than others. IMO, a truly great satirist is much more subtle ... like Mark Twain.

Rush's books are not found in the humor section, and he doesn't claim (over-all) to be a satirist. Though he does pull it off once in a while, and it's funny when he does.

I don't find Don Rickels funny, but I still think of him as a comedian. I just don't like his stuff. I go more for the "stand-up philosopher" style than the insult comic. I never got why Andy Kaufman was so funny either. But he was still a comedian.

Frankin's style (as I've said a number of times) is to look at someone who takes themselves too seriously and then hold them to it - in the extreme. If you don't find it funny, move on. But that doesn't mean he isn't producing satire.

[boots]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
O'Reilly said that it was 50 minutes, and she didn't contradict him. If so, where are those 10+ minutes?

She always leaves room at the end for an book or movie review. This time, she just gave the movie review a little more time. So it wasn't like she was left with 10 minutes of blank air-time. it was only a couple of minutes shorter than normal.

[vmpaul]

I agree with much of what Gee-man and clarkgoble said.

The problem is when you set yourself up to be an arbiter of truth or 'No-Spin' like O' Reilly does, you're going to get challenged. You should expect tough questions. It's the same situation O' Reilly puts others in on his show every day. The difference is that Gross was willing to let him fully answer the questions she raised. Something that O' Reilly doesn't do on his show. He interrupts, rolls his eyes, shifts in his chair and generally expresses contempt for someone he thinks is bullsh*tting. That's all well and good if you want to put on a 'show' in the guise of a news program but it isn't a 'No Spin' approach to the issues of the day.

Gross obviously caught him mischaracterizing the Maslin review and he, I think, panicked. That preceded the indignant statements and the walk-off. A more experienced interviewer, at least one who is used to confrontational situations, might've backed off for the moment and let him regain some composure. She didn't and he did the only thing you do when backed into a corner, lash out.

On one hand I'm impressed he put himself in a position to be questioned but on the other it was childish to act the way he did. Many others don't even dare to appear on programs where their integrity can be challenged. Wouldn't you like to see Jesse Jackson in that position? I would.

[ink]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Well said, clarkgoble. When she started reading verbatim (and rather hurriedly) from that one long review, I think she lost her way. She might have had a valid point to make, but she was rather clumsy about it.

She was trying to get him to admit to some discrepencies in his own "spin" (heh); but instead of simply coming out and saying so, she tried to sneak it in there. Admittedly, Bill could have just said, "yeah, I try to minimize spin in my life/show, but nobody is perfect as you can OBVIOUSLY prove" -- but instead he became upset, as he always does in these situations. He doesn't take criticizm very well; but she didn't really need to pour it on to do a review of his book (which, unlike the previous two, has little to do with him).

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
And what's up with the branding of Franken as a satirist? Franken is no more a satirist than Rush Limbaugh.

Actually I think Limbaugh is more a satirist than he is an analyst. Look at his show - especially the satirical segments.

a bit off topic but shawn hannity's show had a hillarious bit yesterday after a discussion on the prop. 54 defeat. For about 3-4 minutes he was asking callers what race they were when they called up and if they said white, he'd say, "hold please". and it was like machine gun pace, one caller after another being put on hold. i dont think they ever found a black/minority caller, which in itself was amusing.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
[B]His response that he didn't know how that happened didn't seem credible. ...But instead, the explanation he gave seemed like an overly elaborate excuse rather than "no-spin" as he likes to talk about.....Also, I found the segment where he said that Janet Maslin "loved" the Michael Moore book to be kind of funny....in the end, he just came off as stubborn in the face of clear evidence.

Completely agree.

I'm not sure I buy his "review the book, not me" argument. The books he writes generally ARE about him - there is no rule that says the reviewer can't criticize the person's point of view as expressed in the book, as long as it isn't overtly personal. I watch the O'Reilly Factor frequently, and too often, O'Reilly mistake criticism of his point of view or something he said as a personal attack, and responds accordingly.

im not so sure he care if his opinion is criticized-after all, the book is nothing but a long opinion piece-but moreso when his character is attacked. I think his point is valid and true.

I found it strange that he accuses the New York Times of attacking people who criticize them, yet he frequently does the same thing on The O'Reilly Factor ("Ridiculous Item Of The Day") and doesn't recognize the same behavior in himself. His on-air obsession with negative reviews of his book is interesting, to say the least.

He doesn't profess to be unbiased. Objectivity is not a premise behind the show. When you read a book review in the NYT, that is expected to be paramount.

I disagree on your last point but respect that you can say it eloquently and rationally.

[clarkgoble]

I disagree with his characterization of book reviews also. He seems to suggest that book reviews ought to take the book on its own terms as a review. That's certainly one tradition of book reviewing.

However an other tradition, one that goes back several centuries, is that the book reviewer engages the book and its author. You see this especially in philosophical or similar books. The review isn't just like an Ebert movie review, giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down. Rather it is an engagement with the text and author and places it in a larger context. Indeed many reviews of that sort become very significant texts of their own. (I have book reviews by Peirce, Russell and others that are philosophically significant, for instance)

That O'Reilly seems ignorant of this is rather surprising. (He went to Harvard, didn't he?) If he wishes to write political or ideological books surely he shouldn't expect them to be reviewed as if they were a film independent of the author.

This really seems either naive or disingenuous of him.

Gee-Man: His response that he didn't know how that happened didn't seem credible.

You see this was one of the many places I had trouble with Gross. I thought O'Reilly handled it amazingly childish-like. But Gross ought to know that when a guest gives their view of what happened, to sort of hint that they are simply lying is problematic. It moves the interviewer from doing an interview and adopts the stance of a debate, much like O'Reilly does on his show. At a certain level you have to say, well, he gave his answer. What more can I do?

Having made similar mistakes before, I can certainly understand O'Reilly. Just because people want to think him Republican doesn't mean he was. I think this is an example of people disbelieving him simply because of preconceptions. He may well be lying. But how do you show that?

Had Gross left it at that, it would have been fine. But she pretty much kept doing this over and over again and didn't exactly hide her incredulity very well.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:

He doesn't profess to be unbiased. Objectivity is not a premise behind the show. When you read a book review in the NYT, that is expected to be paramount.

Not to be argumentative but isn't that what the whole 'No Spin' premise is all about? Being objective and looking at just facts?

[nvaughan3]

clarkgoble, your point on different kinds of reviews is well said. However I dont think in the slightest any reviews (especially negative)-and certainly not within the length of a newspaper review- even go near touching the depth that such a review would require. Nor do I think that is the intent, although perhaps on the shallow face of it some may claim that.


ironically i came across http://bcpeace.vegdot.org/story/2003/3/7/85035/33529 decrying her as part of the right-wing establishment. perhaps she goes both ways but is divisive as it suits her.

i'll asnwer that spin question as soon as NPR's website is up and I can hear his definition again.

[clarkgoble]

Not to be argumentative but isn't that what the whole 'No Spin' premise is all about? Being objective and looking at just facts?

I thought he answered that fairly well. He even went into the history of "spin" as found in the Nixon White House. Spin is trying to downplay facts. Opinion is the inferences you draw from those facts. What is or isn't a fact can be debatable, of course. But by and large they are what objective observers agree upon.

Still O'Reilly is hypocritical when he suggests he doesn't spin at times. Like others I'd appreciate him a lot more were he to be a little more humble and admit his mistakes. His complaint about the "positive" Franken review was a good case in point. He wasn't dealing with the facts.

I dont think in the slightest any reviews (especially negative)-and certainly not within the length of a newspaper review- even go near touching the depth that such a review would require.

I disagree. While I disagree with them a lot, I think the Village Voice is a newspaper that engages books/films while being fairly brief. I think Slate and The New Republic do as well.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
Also, I found the segment where he said that Janet Maslin "loved" the Michael Moore book to be kind of funny - Gross even quoted Maslin's obviously negative final summary paragraph and O'Reilly still insisted that this was a positive review. I guess he was trying to make a point about bias in book reviewers, but in the end, he just came off as stubborn in the face of clear evidence.

Obviously negative? Perhaps you should have read the entire review. It doesn't sound so 'obviously negative' in its entirety.

BOOK OF THE TIMES | 'DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY?'
Man With a Mission: Regime Change
By JANET MASLIN

Published: October 6, 2003

In his latest book, Michael Moore reveals the identity of his favorite political candidate: someone who bracingly advocates "a free country, a safe country, a peaceful country that genuinely shares its riches with the less fortunate around the world, a country that believes in everyone getting a fair shake, and where fear is seen as the only thing we need to fear." Oh, wait a minute — he's talking about himself.

When "we, the people" enters the vocabulary of someone who likes to give marching orders, watch out. Our self-appointed spokesman may have an agenda of his own. At the end of "Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore almost ruined an otherwise terrific documentary by grandstanding with Charlton Heston and a photograph of a dead child. As someone with a penchant for demagoguery, someone who thinks that the present political structure needs "to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control," Mr. Moore plays to the camera even when he's doing it on the page.

Mr. Moore's previous book, "Stupid White Men," was such a hit that it was last year's best-selling nonfiction book. It was in its 52nd printing when he completed the very timely "Dude, Where's My Country?," a book eager to mention its author's accomplishments. Mr. Moore's antiwar outcry at this year's Academy Awards presentation is also immortalized, supposedly mentioned to him by a great-granddaughter named Anne Coulter Moore: "Mom said you were once famous for a few minutes for yelling about something during one of the oil wars. Now all we have is this old photo of you with your mouth open and pointing at something." That sounds about right.

"Dude, Where's My Country?" includes one chapter in which Mr. Moore adopts the voice of God — only playfully, of course. In another chapter he invites you, the reader, to join what he calls Mike's Militia. And then he gives out instructions, "as your commander in chief." The smart, subversive sense of humor that brings one million visitors a day (another number trumpeted here) to Mr. Moore's Web site (where they can relive his speeches and take more of his instructions) is seriously strained by the burden of so much self-promotion.

When "Stupid White Men" appeared, its brand of name-calling was more of a novelty on the best-seller list. Now it is luxuriantly in flower. Mr. Moore will no doubt share a readership with Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" (which is funnier), Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose's "Bushwhacked" (which is better informed) and Joe Conason's "Big Lies" (also better informed), if not with Bill O'Reilly's "Who's Looking Out for You?" (politically opposite, but no less self-serving). But Mr. Moore, through real conviction along with showboating personality, does make himself the most galvanizing and accessible of the lot.

With any such book, you — or "the American people," as Mr. Moore repeatedly speechifies it — can expect a certain amount of over-the-top invective. As he draws on earlier books, notably Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil," to identify connections between the Bush family and Saudi Arabian royalty, Mr. Moore exhorts: "George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops?"

But at the same time Mr. Moore is rounding off sums of Saudi money to the nearest trillion, he is being more precise in other areas. For instance, he identifies such members of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq as Palau, a group of North Pacific islands, with a population smaller than the audience at many rock concerts. Palau has "yummy tapioca and succulent coconut but, unfortunately, no troops."

This isn't new information, but it is deployed effectively here. So is a demonstration of how unreadable the text of the U.S.A. Patriot Act is, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Service has a specific form for tax refunds of $1 million or more. (It is reprinted here.) And so is Mr. Moore's digging into underpublicized news events like a Taliban visit to Texas, for oil-related reasons, in 1997. He wonders why 20-year-old video images of Donald Rumsfeld embracing Saddam Hussein have been broadcast only by Oprah Winfrey. She, incidentally, is his draft pick for president in 2004 — though he also sees Wesley Clark "or any one of the Dixie Chicks" as possibilities.

"Dude, Where's My Country?" is much sharper about election strategy than it is about uncovering the Bush administration's transgressions. One chapter here, entitled "Bush Removal and Other Spring Cleaning Chores," presents ways for Mike's Militia to get out the vote. ("We've got the people on our side.") However outnumbered the left may feel ("go crawl into that phone booth with the Noam Chomsky fan club, you miserable loser!"), Mr. Moore devotes a chapter to arguing that American voters are more liberal than they know.

In "How to Talk to Your Conservative Brother-in-Law," Mr. Moore has some specific hints. He recommends agreeing that men and women are different, that animals don't have rights, that granola is fattening and that a little sunlight is actually good for your health. "We have a namby-pamby way of saying things," he writes, along with "a hoity-toity view of religion." He asks readers to recognize that "this arrogance is a big reason the lower classes will always side with the Republicans."

Mr. Moore has marshaled all of his impassioned, populist bluster to effecting that change. That makes "Dude, Where's My Country?" a bumper sticker that doubles as a book.

Moore, as O'Reilly noted, is using blurbs of this review to promote the book.

[clarkgoble]

That's interesting when read in context. Clearly the "bumper sticker" comment was meant as a compliment. O'Reilly didn't really explain that well as he came off as being duplicitous. But I have to admit now that this makes O'Reilly look much better.

[nvaughan3]

"I disagree. While I disagree with them a lot, I think the Village Voice is a newspaper that engages books/films while being fairly brief. I think Slate and The New Republic do as well."


My apologies, I was applying that standard strictly to reviews of Mr. O'reilly's books.

[boots]

While I agree that the last statement is (in context) not a negative as Terry Gross was trying to portray it, the first half of the review is not complimentary. In the end, I would call it a mixed review. Moore's book is put in the same company of some others, and is found wanting by the reviewer.

So I can see where the last statement is somewhat ambiguous...but certainly to Moore's liking. He'll take any publicity he can get. Not as negative as Gross thinks, but not as positive as O'Rielly thinks either.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
That's interesting when read in context. Clearly the "bumper sticker" comment was meant as a compliment. O'Reilly didn't really explain that well as he came off as being duplicitous. But I have to admit now that this makes O'Reilly look much better.

Really? I guess two people can look at the same thing and see diametrically opposing views. On the whole, it reads as a negative review to me. It's mild and she does give him some backhanded compliments but if I was an author I wouldn't want my book to be compared to a 'bumper sticker'. Sounds like overall she's just calling it a not-to-effective book of propaganda.

Mr. Moore will no doubt share a readership with Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" (which is funnier), Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose's "Bushwhacked" (which is better informed) and Joe Conason's "Big Lies" (also better informed), if not with Bill O'Reilly's "Who's Looking Out for You?" (politically opposite, but no less self-serving).

Saying it's not too funny, less informed, and self-serving isn't the kind of praise I'm sure he was looking for.

[clarkgoble]

Saying something else is better or funnier isn't to say that something isn't good. Further the author says those are only better on certain points. Overall the author says, "but Mr. Moore, through real conviction along with showboating personality, does make himself the most galvanizing and accessible of the lot." So how you can say that is negative escapes me.

It definitely isn't a gushing review. But the bumper-sticker comment appears to take its meaning from the author's discussion of Moore's populist approach. The author apparently doesn't personally buy the populist approach nor Moore's view of "hoity-toity" rhetoric of the left. But they do praise Moore. And, in the context of the 60's and 70's left, I think the "bumper sticker" is meant as a complement, albeit a slightly backhanded one given the nature of poplist messages.

[zigzag]

I think that Limbaugh and Franken both embody a mix of satire and commentary, but I think the balance is somewhat different. Franken is a comedian/satirist first, who has delved into politics. Limbaugh was a disc jockey, not really a professional comedian or writer, who then delved into politics with a dose of satire. I think that, for all of his clowning (and I have found some of it to be pretty funny and pointed), Limbaugh still strives to be taken seriously, not unlike Michael Moore. I mean, he has a huge following and is often referred to as THE voice of conservative America, which no one would say of Franken. Franken seems more concerned with the media meta-debate than with specific political issues. And I can't picture anyone hiring Franken to do serious sports commentary.

Both hide behind the "entertainment/satire" cloak to a degree while advancing their agendas, but I regard Franken as more of a satirist/comic and Limbaugh as more of a political commentator. But I probably don't see enough of either to say for certain.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Overall the author says, "but Mr. Moore, through real conviction along with showboating personality, does make himself the most galvanizing and accessible of the lot." So how you can say that is negative escapes me.

Again, not to be argumentative but that statement is a backhanded compliment if I've ever seen one. It's like saying you're one of the better players on the Detroit Tigers (43-119). That 'lot' is basically a bunch of ideological demagogues who put in maximum effort to make their opposition look bad. Hardly enlightening reading. To ME, based on that review, I wouldn't read it. I'd read Franken's book if I had nothing else but only because it's funny.

The point is though it's not the gushing (I don't know if he used that word) review that O'Reilly claimed it to be. Would we agree on that?

[clarkgoble]

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say a "backhanded complement." I actually nearly said that myself and then reconsidered.

Clearly the author doesn't like the genre. But, given the genre, she clearly thinks Moore does a very good job. I don't like populism either and that is one (among many) of the reasons I don't care for O'Reilly or Limbaugh. I prefer reasoned debate where we try to understand and see the points being made. The "bumpersticker" format of sound-bites is not at all conducive to that sort of enlightenment.

I don't know. Probably I'd give a similar review to Moore were I to review the works I'm familiar with. He is very talented. The audience that is interested in this kind of thing will find Moore very enjoyable. But I don't care for the overall approach.

In the same way I might review Snoop Dogg. Don't care for most of his music. I find the genre ("look how great I am and look how misogynist I am") rather distasteful. But there's no doubt in my mind he is extremely talented and that his are amongst the best in the genre. (Well, not up the Aesop Rock or Jurassic Five - but once again slightly different genre)

Getting back to O'Reilly. I don't recall him saying it was gushing. Just that it was favorable. But, to be honest, I don't recall the exact context of how it even got brought up. If it was an example of how O'Reilly is treated differently than Moore or Franken, I think he had a point. It would be interesting to read the same author's review of O'Reilly. Anyone have it handy?

[moki]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Not to be argumentative but isn't that what the whole 'No Spin' premise is all about? Being objective and looking at just facts?

No, I believe "No Spin" refers to "no bullshit, no agenda" not "no opinion". Very different things.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Obviously negative? Perhaps you should have read the entire review. It doesn't sound so 'obviously negative' in its entirety.

Thanks for posting that, it's good to have it in the context of this thread. For the record, my comment was referring to the last paragraph that Gross quoted (my actual words: "obviously negative final summary paragraph"), not the entire review.

I stand by my earlier statement - this is not a book that Janet Maslin "loved", as O'Reilly put it. At best, you could, as Gross did, call it a mixed review, but you'd be hard-pressed to call this a rave, which diltes the point that O'Reilly was trying to make about Maslin giving a pass to "defamatory" books while criticizing his.

As to Michael Moore using quotes from the review to promote his book, of course he would - as long as he chooses them carefully and out of context. There certainly are some positive things about the book buried in the review. But do you think he would use this quote verbatim:

When "we, the people" enters the vocabulary of someone who likes to give marching orders, watch out. Our self-appointed spokesman may have an agenda of his own. At the end of "Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore almost ruined an otherwise terrific documentary by grandstanding with Charlton Heston and a photograph of a dead child. As someone with a penchant for demagoguery, someone who thinks that the present political structure needs "to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control," Mr. Moore plays to the camera even when he's doing it on the page.

...to promote his new book? I have no doubt that a similar statement made about O'Reilly would have had him telling everyone within earshot that he is a victim of "character assassination".

This Franken thing went beyond a feud (which is totally understandable on O'Reilly's part - most would have been pissed, too) to just obsessive - so if somebody reviews Franken's book, and if they have any positive things to say about it, then they, as well as Franken, are "character assassins" and part of a "culture war"? Even Ann Coulter or Michael Moore, both heavy-handed demagogues in my opinion, don't play the martyr role as much as O'Reilly does. Which is too bad - because I do appreciate his skills as a radio and TV pundit, but this victim thing doesn't suit him, and he should drop it and just ignore stuff like an occasional bad review. That's what most celebrities do, he should act no different.

[zigzag]

OK, I read the Maslin review and I don't see anything remarkable about it at all. She basically characterizes the book as amusing, which it probably is (except to those who hate Moore). But she also reminds us repeatedly of how clownish and self-serving Moore is.

When she says "This isn't new information, but it is deployed effectively here," I don't think she's endorsing Moore's politics - she's saying that he can, on occasion, be both funny and pointed. One could probably say that about any book in the satire genre, conservative or liberal. You don't have to agree with P.J. O'Rourke to appreciate how funny he can be about the foibles of the left.

What some, including O'Reilly, want is for Maslin to scrutinize Moore's book as if it were a serious, scholarly political treatise, and tear it apart page-by-page. But that would probably miss the point of the book, which is mostly satirical. Indeed, Maslin effectively says from the start, "This is an amusing book but don't take it or Moore too seriously. It can be pointed and funny like a bumper sticker but it has no more substance than a bumper sticker."

O'Reilly is not a satirist - he takes himself quite seriously - and as I understand it Maslin gave him a negative review. So O'Reilly accused her of "slander," and Gross was trying to ask him if that was fair, whereupon he launched into a tirade about how the NYT is out to get him and how Maslin reviewed him instead of his book. I haven't seen Maslin's review so I don't know if it was fair or not.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by moki:
No, I believe "No Spin" refers to "no bullshit, no agenda" not "no opinion". Very different things.

As I recall, he basically defined spin as mischaracterizing "facts." In his mind, everyone starts with a common set of facts and derives opinion from those facts. He says he doesn't mind differences of opinion, only mischaracterization of the underlying "facts," which invalidates the opinion.

This is a noble sentiment but isn't very workable, since everyone including O'Reilly relies on and emphasizes different facts, and disagrees as to the veracity of those facts. When people confront O'Reilly with facts that contradict him, he snarls "That's not fact - that's your opinion and it's wrong!"

A couple of weeks ago he had a constitutional scholar on, about the No Call List case. The scholar was pointing out that the 1st Amendment makes no distinction between non-profit and for-profit speech. O'Reilly went ape and said that that was just his opinion and that he was wrong and then said something about how it's a fact that the Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness (it doesn't) and that this means that Congress can do whatever it wants if a majority of people want it, etc. all of which is complete BS.

He has some good moments but you really have to keep your sense of humor when watching O'Reilly.