If we're graphing things out, my political views are probably as close to Bill O'Reilly's as they are to any telepundit. This political accordance, however, should not be confused with actually liking, trusting, or respecting the man. Lawrence Lessig provides the latest support for my view:
On February 4, 2003, Jeremy Glick was your guest on THE FACTOR. Glick had lost his father in the attack of 9/11. He had also signed an ad criticizing the war in Iraq. You were “surprised” that one who had lost his father could oppose that war. And so you had him on your show, presumably to ask him why. (Here’s a clip from Outfoxed putting this story together.)You might not remember precisely what you said on that interview, or more importantly, what Jeremy Glick said. So here’s a copy that you can watch. Nor may you remember precisely what the ad that Jeremy Glick signed said. Here’s a copy that you can read. And when you’ve watched what was actually said, and read what was actually written, I’m sure you will see that the statements you continue to make about Jeremy Glick are just plain false. Not Bill Clinton “depends upon what is is” false, but false the way most Americans learned growing up: just not true.
(Via Michael Froomkin.)
For a man who urges the filing of frivolous trademark infringement suits and screams "slander!" quicker than you can say "Michael Moore", this is some kind of delicious irony. If Mr. Lessig's report is right, O'Reilly may very well have slandered Jeremy Glick -- and the potential claim against O'Reilly and Fox seems light-years better that any "claim" O'Reilly has dreamed up of late. We're talking parsecs better, baby.
(Glick's not the only former 'Factor guest with a potential libel or slander claim, by the bye.)
I think we should all chip in for some anger management classes for O'Reilly. Based on how forcefully he was wagging his finger right in Glick's comparatively zen face, poor old Bill's blood pressure must be astronomical, and that's a one-way ticket to heart disease.
Posted by: Gromit | July 24, 2004 at 08:48 PM
If we're graphing things out, my political views are probably as close to Bill O'Reilly's as they are to any telepundit.
What the heck are his views? He just strikes me as a pandering pimp... oh wait, not that you're a [cough] lawyer [cough] pandering pimp. ;-)
I'm serious though, I don't think that guy has a compass as much as a wet finger.
Posted by: Macallan | July 25, 2004 at 01:33 AM
I'm more or less with Macallan on this, though I have to qualify by noting that I don't have cable tv, and have only seen a smattering of O'Reilly's show; my impression of him primarily comes from his writings, transcripts, and his occassional appearances elsewhere on tv.
But his chief view seems to be I Am A Great Big Man (who pretends to be one of you little people: admire me!). His number one secondary view seems to be Shut Up, Stupid! And his tertiary view seems to be I Am Always Right.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 25, 2004 at 10:16 AM
When Farber and Macallan are aligned, how can I disagree?
Posted by: von | July 25, 2004 at 10:31 AM
I was hoping that someone could tease out some actual O'Reilly views, actually, for some sort of wildly idealistic reason, I guess.
It's clear he has some sort of self-image as a brave, truth-telling-to-power populist, preserving the Goodness of a Latter Day.
I still don't know what that boils down to, policy wise; perhaps I should read his book.
It still wouldn't, of course, change his appalling public behavior (why this man deserves to be treated as a more serious political commentator than Jerry Springer, I don't know, but the same may be said of Limbaugh, Moore, Rall, and other evil clowns).
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 25, 2004 at 12:21 PM
Incidentally, I strongly object to characterizing lawyers, as a class, as "pandering pimps."
I think that's offensive, and entirely unjustified. And did I mention "offensive"?
I think the practicing of law is entirely honorable, and the fact that there are practioners who are not honorable merely means that the practice of law does not enoble any more than any other work.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 25, 2004 at 12:24 PM
Would this be a good time to trot out my extensive collection of lawyer jokes?
Posted by: Dave Schuler | July 25, 2004 at 01:03 PM