Mary Alice Carr has a really poignant piece up at the Washington Post about why she has chosen to never go on to O'Reilly's show again after having faced his hypocrisy in the past.
[O]n Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.O'Reilly had the opportunity to apologize for his words, and he didn't. He had the opportunity to say that this tragic outcome was something about which he felt sorry. He didn't. When restraint and perspective were called for, he fanned the flames higher. In fact, on his June 1 "Talking Points," he played the martyr, saying his critics were seeking to stifle any criticism of "people like Tiller -- that and hating Fox News is the real agenda here." On his show the next day -- the show I declined to appear on -- he again called a murdered man "Dr. Killer."
I admit that after the call from the producer, I hesitated. What an opportunity, I thought, to sit across from O'Reilly and call him out for what he has done and where his responsibility lies. To speak for everyone in America who is hurt and scared and angry. I have never been a Fox News hater; clearly, I've used the show for the benefit of my movement and my organization, and I've answered his questions on some of the toughest issues around. Didn't I have the right to also call him out for his speech?
But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?
Naturally, I don't have the kind of profile or connections that land me in a seat in front of the jerk myself, but I can say from my small world of fighting with people on the internet at a certain point you have to decide what you can and can't do. It is really powerful that Carr said no, because it is such an incredible opportunity for exposure. But bet the producer didn't understand why she would chose not to. The problem with going against conservative pundits is that for them it is funny hour, their news spots are just more time for them to act like jerks and say off the wall things (that they unfortunately believe) that gets them higher ratings. For people like Carr who have dedicated their lives to actual policy change, it is not worth doing a show like that just for publicity if it doesn't result in fair exposure, confidence in the movement or is attached to a campaign goal. Perhaps it is time we stop giving him the opportunity to talk to us since he is so unapologetic about his relationship to the assassination of Dr. Tiller.
We talk about this a lot at Feministing, how we choose to devote our energy and to who. It was an early moment in my career at Feministing I remember sitting in a panel with Lynne D. Johnson and Professor Angie Colette Beatty at WAM and Dr. Beatty was talking about how she had given up talking to brick walls. I always think about that when I am engaging in especially painful conversations that don't seem to be moving, my words not being absorbed but merely bouncing off the density. At a certain point you have to think about if you want to talk to a brick wall, is it even worth it? The sad thing is that Bill-O has such a huge viewership and it is an incredible opportunity. But perhaps facing him head on is not the way to do it, perhaps the way to do it is to campaign against media consolidation and ownership and fight to give more voice to the pundits that do say the things we need them to and train new, up and coming voices.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is it even worth going against Bill-O?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14120
But is Bill O'Reilly the person whose mind we seek to change? No. He gets paid not to change his mind. But millions of conservatives that watch his show aren't.
Bill O'Reilly is the attorney asking hostile, loaded questions to his guest, the defendant on the stand in this analogy. The defendant isn't trying to change the mind of the attorney, but the jury. And millions of conservatives are a pretty hostile jury. So, the real question about going on Bill O'Reilly should be whether or not you think the relative value of the audience mind-changing you do will be greater than the relative cost of the damage O'Reilly can do to your argument/issue with loaded questions.
That will have a different answer for every guest and every issue.
I have to agree with Carr on this one. Whereas Bill O subscribes to the idea that any exposure is good exposure, Carr is standing firm in her beliefs.
@Dangerfield, you make a good point. IMHO, that audience is not going to be swayed by the guests that appear on the show. Most people have their minds made up already if they're watching him. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe moderates do watch Bill? I somehow doubt it, but I don't have any evidence other than the anecdotal.
I used to/sometimes watch the show with my father. He is a follower and reader of O'Reilly's work, but thankfully he never refuses to acknowledge the guests. We actually have some interesting discussions while watching the show.
My dad is against abortion, and even used to vote for "whoever is against abortion." However, he doesn't keeps his mind completely closed anymore, and I think if I wasn't there, he would eat up everything Bill has to say without giving guests a second thought.
Yes, we are watching and we are decontructing what this man spews.
**deconstructing!
People who watch Bill'O and Hannity (and Olbermann and Maddow for that matter) aren't watching to be informed by anyone other than the host. They don't watch this for news, they don't watch it for opinion, they watch it for Gladiatorial combat, and I think this is exclusive to Bill or Hannity--at least Maddow and Olbermann offer actual journalistic reporting and have a discussion with their guests that doesn't presuppose that the guest is an idiot pinhead. O'Reilly viewers are watching to see Bill O'Reilly scream at some liberal guest until the guest is forced to submit. They aren't listening to the guest. They're watching O'Reilly yell at the guest and getting their jollies when O'Reilly continues hammering on his guest before he reaches his rhetorical climax by turning purple and ejaculating "Pinhead!" or "Socialist!" or "Cut his mic!" People watch O'Reilly because they lurve the authoritarian domination of their political opponents.
On the rare occasions where O'Reilly gets ahold of himself long enough to admit that the decision should be between a woman and her doctor, it's because he knows that he's about to say something so completely over-the-top that he would alienate everyone except for the complete wingnutty fringe, and he tries to dial it back because he makes such a big deal about being an "independent" who just happens to side with the religious right 99% of the time. But declaring that husbands need to watch their wives die and children need to watch their mothers die because the dead baby rattling around inside her womb is causing septicemia and it's wrong to take that out is so completely beyond the pale that no one but the complete unabashed misogynist would sign on to that.
I totally support her decision to stay off his show. Not that it will do her any good, he'll probably send his team off to stalk her for being such a bitch and not letting him yell and dominate her, but I see no reason that she should sit there and be subjected to that. And if O'Reilly sends his little camera crew to troll her for not having the guts to appear on his show, then she should basically just point out that Tiller was stalked too, and it's likely that his killer was an O'Reilly fan, and it's nice to see that O'Reilly is so committed to proving that he's not a misogynist stalker douchebag that he went off and stalked her.
I watch Bill O'Reilly and I very, very rarely, if ever at all, agree with anything that comes out of his mouth. I think Bill is pretty much an idiot, but it's an unfortunate reality that he is an influential figure, and I watch just to be informed. It's also often very unintentionally funny, and I especially love it when Bill O gets totally schooled by one of his guests. It doesn't happen often, but it's definitely awesome. With that said, I do support Carr's decision not to go on the show. Considering the undeniable influence that Fox News and Bill O absolutely had on the man that killer Dr. Tiller, I wouldn't want to indulge Bill either.
But, as far as Keith Olbermann goes, you have to admit, he does rarely invite people of differing opinions to speak on his show. And I know Bill O is really, really awful, but let's not forget that Keith has made some startlingly sexist and misogynistic comments in the past. Remember the Paris Hilton story he did on his show, with the headline "A Slut and Battery", and how he always attacks Ann Coulter for looking like a man and "having an adam's apple" (because honestly, you've got plenty to rag on Ann Coulter about without dragging her appearance into it). I know Keith is a liberal, but he can be just as bad as Bill O'Reilly sometimes.
Keith Olbermann had Mancow on a few weeks ago to talk about being waterboarded. He invites people on, they just rarely accept the invitation. When he had Mancow on, it wasn't to gloat, it was to talk about his experience and discuss political commonalities that could be explored.
I'm not trying to defend Olbermann as some sort of feminist, I'm not really sure where you're getting that from. I know his track record and that's immaterial to the discussion at hand: I know that on the rare occasions where he gets someone of a different viewpoint on his show, he at least treats them respectfully and doesn't just shout them down.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to insinuate that you saw Keith Olbermann as a feminist or anything--I apologize if my comments seemed random or irrelevant.
I just find that Olbermann is often just as bad as Bill O'Reilly in how he degrades and disrespects people who think differently than him. Even if he might not shout down at his guests in particular, he does say some pretty awful things about people, which is perhaps even worse, because he gets to trash someone without dealing with the trouble having them try and defend themselves.
I guess it just annoys me that people like Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher become sort of like "darlings of the left" (I know you didn't mention Maher, I'm kind of on a tangent now) when I feel like they too represent the same things I hate about people like Bill O'Reilly--which is that attitude of, "if you don't think like I think, you're an unenlightened moron".
But I will give Keith Olbermann credit for maintaining his compusure better than Bill O does. You're definitely right about that. It's crazy when you see Bill fly off the handle like he does sometimes. Did you ever see the clip of him screaming obscenities at a guest on his show who was the son of a victim of 9/11 and was an anti-war protestor? Scary stuff. And that kind of reaction really only reveals that Bill doesn't really have a logical leg to stand on most of the time.
Journalists and pundits are there to report on events and to stir up dialogue, to help us hear both sides of the story.
This isn't the case with Bill Klan O'Rally. He's a bigot, a racist scumbag who wants to spew out his hateful rhetoric to many people. He will not listen or be open-minded. He is not a pundit-- he is a fraud.
While we're on the subject of Bill O'Reilly, I thought this might interest some of you. Daily Kos put together a montage of Bill O'Reilly demonizing George Tiller in the past.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/1/737462/-Bill-OReillys-jihad-against-Dr.-George-Tiller
People like O'Reilly are what's wrong with this country. Unfortunately, right-wing bigotry will get worse before it gets better, I fear.
That's like asking if I want to play somebody in Street Fighter II when they can rip the controller out of my hand and/or turn the Nintendo 64 off and declare themselves the winner at any time.
And there are no opportunities in Bill's audience; if there is, the marginal utility is so flat as to be close to zero. Quarantine, not debate.
I just wrote a blog about people taking joy out of this. I submitted it to Feministing but it's not up yet. Anyway, the kind of behavior being shown by O'Reilly is just sick. Taking any joy out of an act of terrorism, such as saying "he deserved it" is somewhat condoning murder. This is how Roeder first started. Do they really want to go down the same road?
Back in February of 2003, Jeremy Glick (whose father was killed in the 9/11 attacks) was on the O'Reilly Factor. Glick made a few remarks that irritated O'Reilly, who, in his usual fashion, interrupted Glick numerous times, told him to 'shut up', ordered his microphone turned off, and told Glick (off-air) no less to get out of studio before he "tore him to pieces." I have nothing against people who do go on the O'Reilly Factor (such as Courtney Martin), but I see point in anyone stooping to his level; O'Reilly is a step above (and not that high above at that) Savage and Coulter. These people are not pundits, they are vitriolic, virulent goons interested only in media attention, diatribe, and the opportunity to sermonize to their dittohead audiences and/or play the victim. Why afford them the chance?
"The problem with going against conservative pundits is that for them it is funny hour, their news spots are just more time for them to act like jerks and say off the wall things (that they unfortunately believe) that gets them higher ratings."
I agree with this. Over the last year, I've stepped back from commenting on an Internet message board that was a big part of my life for basically this reason. The guys who run the board are the asshole type of libertarian, and there honestly is no point in debating with them because no matter what you say, they'll just twist it and make fun of it. There's no point in playing a game with someone who won't follow the rules, and there's no point in having a debate with someone who's not willing to address your points in a fair and reasonably respectful manner.
I'm not familiar with O'Reilly's show, but from what other commenters have said, it sounds like the guests are there basically just to serve as straw men for O'Reilly to attack. If a person is just going to treat you like the verbal equivalent of a punching bag, which is what it sounds like happens on O'Reilly's show, there's no point in going in and letting yourself be punched.
This is a very interesting topic. I was never invited on any show or anything, but I come across this question a lot. I have some friends who are conservative, and despite living in blue Massachusetts, many (MANY) of students at my former high school were conservative. When some questions (like abortion) came up, I saw myself alone against 20 other students. If immigration came up it was even worse, because I am an immigrant, and feel sort of weird talking about it.
So, I often wondered if it was worth talking about these issues with people who didn't seem to be persuaded at all. I love debating, my mom is pro-life, but she's open to my ideas and perspectives, it's no fun talking to people who aren't open to your view.
BUT, perhaps there are people watching O'Reilly who WILL be persuaded, who may change their minds, or think about the issue, see it through a different angle. I actually know a couple of people who watch him, and it's good for them to listen to a different opinion.
At the same time, I know how he can be, and if he's going to yell over someone, distort what the person said, and just be a plain jerk, it may hurt the cause, not help it.
I saw David Sirota and Naomi Klein on Fox; they were great, the hosts were awful as always, and were very unfair, but I still think they did a good job. Never mind Rachel Maddow, before msnbc, when she went to conservative tv shows. She was AMAZING.
I wouldn't go because I don't trust myself enough, I think (at least NOW) that I would hurt the cause by being too weak, not thinking fast enough and so on. But I want progressives like Sirota, Maddow, Klein, to go to shows like O'Reilly's because they may open other people's eyes.