Could someone give me the link to the O'Reilly debacle on NPR?

[La_Serpiente]

Just looking for a link

[Paragon]

1. Here

http://freshair.npr.org/

Click on "Current Show"

[hlthe2b]

2. http://freshaire.npr.org

ENJOY.... preferably over a stiff drink...

[La_Serpiente]

3. Thank you

Thank you

[RobertSeattle]

4. It was on freshair

http://freshair.npr.org

Search DU for the past 24 hours and there were 2 or 3 threads about this.

[drdigi420]

55. I wish I could do a search

but that function is limited to those that arent too poor to afford it.

[RobertSeattle]

5. Damn we are a helpful bunch

:toast:

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Oh, cool!

I missed this show.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. OMG! He just said it.

He actually spoke out agaisnt Bush and said that saying "Saddam is his own weapon of mass destruction is spin. pure and simple."

[wuushew]

8. No he doesn't consider editorializing Spin

ergo, his show is a "No Spin Zone".

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Yeah...he said that too.

He's wrong there of course. It can be spin.

[DarkPhenyx]

10. Big cry baby.

Lying sack of shit.

[0rganism]

24. You got that right! Wow, what a whiner

"this interview is designed to trick me into saying something you can give to Harper's"?

What a paranoid freak.

Actually, some of the interview was okay, like the part about his family while he was growing up, but apparently you can't talk to him about the press he gets without tripping his paranoia switches.

[calm_blue_ocean]

11. Different opinion

I thought Interviewer Gross messed up.

She should have better explained why she took a more hostile stance in the O'Reilly interview than she did in the Franken interview. I am sure that she had good reasons for her marked difference in tone as between the two interview guests. Given the fact that O'Reilly had answered many adversarial questions, I think O'Reilly was justified in demanding her reasons for this difference. He didn't get a good answer from her. I think he was correct in terminating the interview in the way he did.

DISCLAIMER
I know very little about O'Reilly. The only times I have heard / read him in the past have been: (1) the Franken argument; (2) the Harper's transcript; and (3) a segment where he criticized rap music. I don't think he came off well in any of those exchanges and I certainly didn't agree with his point of view on any of those previous occasions. I thought he came off much better on the Gross interview, even though I didn't agree with much of what he said. Just don't want anyone to think that I support O'Reilly in general because I don't.

[wuushew]

13. Partially true

But Bill failed to realize that he was part two of the series involving both Franken and O'reilly. His job was to rebuttal what Franken had said reguarding the common topic(Bill himself, right-wing lies the media etc). O'reilly did himself a diservice by not listening to the segment involving Franken and mistankenly believing that this interview was a run of the mill opportunity to plug his new book.

[calm_blue_ocean]

15. Agree, but:

1. Interviewer Gross should have made that clear before the interview; and

2. she should have answered him with your answer during the interview.


Given the usual tone of Fresh Aire, the Interviewer should have warned of the planned departure in advance. I wouldn't say this if the show was 60 Minutes or Donahue because those shows foster(ed) different expectations. In the context of Fresh Aire, the adversarial tone of the interviewer amounted to a somewhat unfair surprise.

[ender]

17. bullshit

Terry Gross is probably the *best* interviewer on the air today.

She made him answer pointed questions, and he was totally unable to deliver. She was quite prepared for 1 of 2 things: 1) a pointed conversation defending his positions, or 2) a beligerent ad hominem attack on her, and his reality.

She took him to the cleaners. If you dont see that O'Reilly has made himself a fool, and irrelevant, than you havent listened to the same interview that i did.

and yues, i realize that last attack is O'Reilly-esque :-)

[calm_blue_ocean]

20. It might have been a different interview

In the interview I listened to O'Reilly gave responsive answers to all the questions she asked. I am not saying that I believed all his answers, but he was not dodging questions in this particular interview.

One of the reasons that Interviewer Gross is such a good interviewer is that she usually does not simply read long passages from negative reviews written by others and then say "can you respond to that?" Lazy interview technique in this case. I hope Interviewer Gross isn't slipping.

[AP]

21. He had just totally mischaracterized the review. He said that

the review was a witchhunt and defamatory. Gross read it to give him a chance to explain what parts of it were defamatory.

If O'Reilly had anything honest to say, he wouldn't have walked out of the interview.

[AP]

19. You are kidding; if Gross did anything to him, it was still 200% better

than O'Reilly treats guests on his show.

He's a total hypocrite if he dishes that shit out, but can't take it from Gross.

Also, I think a lot of shit he pulled was just for the sake of being sexist and aggressive towards a woman.

These Republicans are trying to engender an anti-woman backlash (see Arnold), and I bet what O'Reilly was very calmly calculated and scripted to achieve that end.

Republicans badger women, and it helps them get elected. It's part of their fascist strategy.

[calm_blue_ocean]

22. O'Reilly and Fresh Aire have different kinds of shows

That is why I listen to Fresh Aire much more often than O'Reilly.

Would Fresh Aire resort to Michael Moore's interviewing techniques if they interviewed Michael Moore? I hope not!

I expect better from Fresh Aire.

[AP]

23. Terry Gross tows the corporate line often enough.

She has industry shills on all the time.. Her Detroit Auto Show hour on the day that Arianna started her anti-SUV campaign was a doozy. She had a guy on, unchallenged, who characterized a study on SUV safety which I had read parts of and said the exact opposite of the truth. Basically, it was a one hour commercial for the auto industry, probably arranged by a lobbyist, and scheduled for a day that was going to be very difficult for Detroit. She's always having on people who have no problem getting access to all the commercial media outlets, and she rarely has on people who don't have access to commercial outlets. And she's a bad interviewer.

However, to pretend that there was something wrong with today's interview is laughable. That interview probably went exactly to script for O'Reilly, and Gross will get tons of mileage out of it too. It'll replace her Gene Simmons interview as her most famous interview, which will give O'Reilly even more mileage, just like Simmons benefited from beings bizarre and sexist. And, speaking of sexist, O'Reilly was more than slightly sexist, which, we've learned, is great for Republicans these days.

And to pretend that the interview could have gone any other way is laughable. O'Reilly is the issue. His book is about himself. They talked about him. And when you talk about him, this is all there is. He does little more than exaggerate, portray himself as a victim and pretend that the majority of the media is liberal. He got to make those three points today.

So if you're worried about O'Rielly, your anxieties are misplaced. He got exactly what he was looking for today.

It would have been a failure of an interview for both of them if they had just sat there and plesently shot the shit for an hour. That would have sold no books. It wouldn't have solidified the public persona O'Reilly is trying to create. And it wouldn't have helped Gross hide the fact that she is a very soft interviewer and basically a shil for the same corporate interests which drive commercial media.

You are very confused.

[calm_blue_ocean]

28. I am worried about Gross not O'Reilly

I would love for her to have done a good adversarial interview with O'Reilly. I would love for her to have done a good adversarial interview with Franken.

Maybe we agree after all: Interviewer Gross is very good at interviews with non-controvesial subjects (ie, novelists) and needs work at knowing when and how to be adversarial.

[AP]

29. That was about as good as you're going to get from Gross, in terms

of being quick on her feet. She's just not that quick on her feet.

As far as being worried about Gross, don't be.

She'll get more mileage out of this than she got out of Gene Simmons..and, yes, you should be asking yourself what the hell is he doing on NPR? Should NPR be in the business of promoting Kiss? No it shouldn't.

But , for the same reason Gross has on Simmons, she had this interview with O'Reilly -- it was just an opportunity for all of them to firm up their fictional public personas.

It was a victory all around.

The audience could have been better served, though, by a trial of O'Reilly, applying the rules of evidence, so that we could all seem him PROVED to be the liar that he is. I'd love to see that guy be put on trial.

[wuushew]

30. Were you bothered that she had to paraphrase one of the negative reviews?

She really should have had the text in front of her. Also it seemed strange to me flow wise that she would return and revisit a topic at the end of the interview and not address additional points. I feel this artifically limited the scope of the interview.

[AP]

31. O'Reilly has no limit to his access to the media. He has his own

show, on TV and radio, and everybody has him on. In fact, I remember back in Fall 2000, TOTN gave him a full 2 hours of NPR time to self-promote. It was the first time I'd ever heard of him or Juan Williams, and by the end of the first hour I thought, wow, this guy is cool. By the end of the second hour, I pegged Williams as media whore and O'Reilly as a narcissist with borderline-fascistic tendancies.

So, my point: on this show, one of MANY opportunities for O'Reilly to tell us all about himself, the subject was limited to the scope of issues raised by Lies and the Lying Liars, and his own book. His own book is a paper thin response to Lies and the Lying Liars, so it's fair to say that the whole interview was about responding to Franken (which is what would have happened if they had been on the same show).

So, the interview was fair. The scope was appropriate. And O'Reilly played to character -- nasty tempered, aggressive, sexist, liar.

[calm_blue_ocean]

38. No, my problems are different

1. She should have been ready to answer why she was so much harder on O'Reilly than Franken. (Better yet, she should have been as hard on Franken as O'Reilly -- I don't think Franken would have minded.)

2. I just don't think that reading long excerpts of published reviews is a good technique.

Example 1: If Interviewer Gross didn't like a book O'Reilly wrote, then Interviewer Gross should say "*I* didn't like your book for this reasons . . ." instead of "here's what reviewer X (not me) has to say about your writing . . ."

Example 2: If Interviewer Gross wanted to make the point that O'Reilly belittled his negative reviewers, then she didn't need to read long excerpts of the negative reviews themselves. She would better have said, "Reveiwer Maslin gave you a negative review and you responded by saying . . ." In this case, more paraphrasing is better. In this case, the substantive criticism of the negative review only distracts (unfairly to O'Reilly) from the question that O'Reilly is supposed to answer.

The only other interview that I can think of where they read so many negative reviews to the interviewee was when Ben Affleck got interviewed about Gigli -- and that was because that interview was a joke!

[wuushew]

39. I agree with most or all of your points

Bottom line

From a journalism point of view the interview was not as good as it could have been. However Bill O'Reilly still made an ass of himself with his wild accusations of libel, liberal bias and the nature of political satire. I think for those who want to see the ultimate O'reilly meltdown they should still check out the hillarious Press Club performance with Molly Ivins, Franken and O'Reilly.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Amen!

Gross is one of the best on her own turf, with an agreeable subject. That includes subjects willing to argue their points, and not just bully. I don't blame Gross for interviewing style as much as O'Reilly for being a lousy subject.

I heard Gross interviewed herself about the show, and she was talking about the many interviews that never get aired at all. Some subjects are incoherent, some are highly abusive, and some just storm out after a few minutes. There were a few times I thought of better responses than Gross's, but I've felt that way about many interviews, and I'm not the one on the spot doing it.

She can be intimidated and O'Reilly is one of the best bullies around. He is shameless about lying and spinning his own point of view. He takes great umbrage at anyone who dares to disagree with him about anything. Say something he doesn't like, and he goes into great high dudgeon and attacks relentlessly. It's tough for anyone to deal with that. Can't think of any interviewer who would do much of a better job. Some more prep and catching him a lie toward the beginning would probably just end the interview earlier.

The only time I saw O'Reilly shut up was when he interviewed the porn star Jenna Jameson. He tried attack her and the porn industry, and she shut him down with solid answers every time. It was amazing.

[muchacho]

44. MM

>>Would Fresh Aire resort to Michael Moore's interviewing techniques if they interviewed Michael Moore? I hope not!

And just what "techniques" are those?

[calm_blue_ocean]

47. Moore Techniques

Showing up with a person in a chicken outfit and a pesticide sprayer.

This technique is okay for Michael Moore in the context of a Michael Moore movie, but it would not be appropriate for Fresh Aire.

Also, several DUers have complained that the tone of the Moore interview of Heston was unfair given Heston's mental and physical condition.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. I think Terry was taken aback

by O'Reilly's tone. This guy is sick. He'd talk normal and nice, and then, zingo, he'd start attacking because he said he was attacked! Terry DID call Franken down about the 'chastity story' hoax he perpetrated, using a college letterhead. This was a section of his book that was citicized by the right wing, and Terry made sure to ask about it. The fact that Franken took it in good grace, admitted he'd erred, etc, made it non-confrontational, which is why, I assume, Terry forgot about it in the heat of the moment.

[calm_blue_ocean]

48. So comparing the Franken and O'Reilly interviews

Was Interviewer Gross equally confrontational with both Franken and O'Reilly?

I am sure she could have found plenty of negative reviews of Franken's book. Did she read any of those out loud for Franken to respond to during his interview?

I don't know the answers to these questions because I didn't hear the Franken interview. These answers would be helpful for this discussion.

[AP]

14. Gross, whom I don't like all that much, actually did fine, in my opinion

O'Reilly was an idiot. "I didn't know I was registered Republican. I don't know how it happened. A woman in my office found out and it was surprise...blah, blah, blah."

He made a lot of statements that sounded like he was stating facts, but, whenever he was confronted with facts, like the reviews, he was NEVER right. But then he would just say it's a matter of opinion and he stood by his opinion. But he had just acted like it was fact?

Also, does he love the word 'defame', or what?

He should probalby learn what it means.

[calm_blue_ocean]

16. Correction and my opinion:

O'Reilly didn't say that a woman in his office discovered his Republican registration, he said that an interviewer told him.

I don't know whether I believe him that it was a mistake, but: (1) he was awfully forthright in admitting his mistake; (2) he corrected his mistake (by re-registering Independent); and (3) so what? I wish Chimpy and Clinton would be half as forthright about the mistakes that they made.

[AP]

18. My point is that, if everything with which he was confronted (the

stuff that gross read to him) proved that he was lying, exaggerating, and/or spinning, how in the world can you believe that he was telling the truth about the registration.

Basically, in that interview he was either being proved a lying, blustering fool, or he was shouting and blustering and he wasn't confronted with facts.

He was, like, 0-3 when he was confronted, so I'm going to guess that if were confronted on every thing he claimed, he'd have continued on that trend.

[calm_blue_ocean]

25. I am not trying to convert anyone into an O'Reilly fan

I just expect better out of Interviewer Gross.

I thought she did a nice job asking about the Repub registration, the Harper's excerpt and the Peabody Award. O'Reilly didn't seem to mind those questions and he had his answers ready for whatever they are worth.

The thing that bothered O'Reilly (and disappointed me) was her reading of other people's published negative reviews of O'Reilly in the guise of interview questions. For a classy show like Fresh Aire, this is sub-standard technique and I am glad O'Reilly called her on it.

As I recall, the only time O'Reilly objected to any question was when Interviewer Gross announced that she was going to read yet another excerpt of a published review. Prior to that he didn't shout, didn't interrupt, didn't object to any question. (Very unlike his previous behavior at the book convention and in the Harper's excerpt.)

[AP]

27. He was angry and aggressive the entire interview.

He didn't leave until there were 7 minutes left, because he's a narcissist and he cares about his wallet, so he didn't play up the calculated scripted shit until he was sure that there was enough on tape that he'd get a full hour of publicity.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gross didn't expect this. I actually really wouldn't be surprised if she were in on it, but I admit that's a long shot.

The whole interview was great publicity for both of them.

[calm_blue_ocean]

32. I like your theory

If it true than Gross *really* should have ended on a much better question, instead of an intellectually lazy reading of somebody else's work.

If all her questions had been good (as some of them were), then O'Reilly would have had to storm out on a fair question which would have made him look bad instead of her.

[AP]

34. THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL!!

O'Reilly walked out because he didn't want her to read that passage. If she didn't read it, his walking out would have achieved its purpose -- to prevent having criticism of him read on air.

She had an OBLIGATION to read that paragraph once O'Reilly walked out. She had no choice. O'Reilly made that happen.

By the way, are youTerry Gross? Only Terry Gross benefits from this sort of argument.

We've already given that interview, which went down totally according to expectations -- no surpises at all--- way more attention than it deserves.

And either you're not reading my posts, or you're intentionally misreading them and/or ignoring parts to stretch this discussion out longer than it deserves to be stretched out.

Bottom line: Gross made NPR seem liberal (which it isn't) and she gave herself a soundbite for the spring pledge drive, and O'Reilly got to demean a woman, accuse the press of being liberal and act like a victim.

There's nothing more to say about what was a very boring interview on an EXTREMELY boring subject. It was a waste of an hour for me, and now I'm wasting more time writing about it.

[calm_blue_ocean]

40. Questions Gross could have asked instead of reading magazines

Have you ever voted in a Republican primary?

You say that you favor stricter environmental laws, how do you feel about the Kyoto agreement?

You say that you came to oppose the Vietnam War, does this cause you problems with fans of your Fox show?

If the Bush administration continues in its current vein about the WMD's for the next 9 months, is this an important enough issue to vote Bush out in the next election?

Thomas Jefferson argued to severely limit references to the Judeo-Christian God in the Declaration of Independence -- isn't this a secularist position by your standards?

There are all kinds of better questions that Gross could have asked instead of insisting on reading more press clippings.

[paulsbc]

33. I must be slipping

I just finished listening to the entire interview and box-end commentary from Gross and agree with the above poster.

IMO, the interview was horrible, only talked about the book when O'Reilly steered the interview in that direction, and was indeed an attempted hatchet job.

It certainly wasn't the theatrics I expected to hear based on this and the other threads, and there wasn't any massive O'Reilly rant, he was calm and made his points and left after finally giving up that the interview would turn into something more than an attempted hack job.

Is the Franken interview online, I want to see how that interview went, Gross said it "was different" and she was nailed on that issue...

[AP]

36. This interview was meant to be a retort of the Franken interview

And I'm sure it went exactly the way Franken and Gross mutually wanted it to go. It gave everyong a chance to play to (semi-fictional) type, which includes the fiction that NPR is at all liberal.

[wuushew]

37. The Franken Interview is funny and quite good

I definitely recommend it.

[calm_blue_ocean]

42. Comparing the Franken and O'Reilly interviews

Do you detect a pattern of liberal bias?

[bpilgrim]

54. lol

no i notice the difference between a FUNNY man vs a BLOWHARD... but maybe thats just me ;->

peace

[calm_blue_ocean]

57. So, she did treat the two guests diferently?

It is not clear from your response.

If there was differential treatment, she should have been more forthright about that in the interview. If she indeed has a liberal bias, then she should not try to hide it -- she should explain why her liberal bias is justified.

It has been stated elsewhere on this thread that the O'Reilly interview was supposed to be a rebuttal of the Franken interview. If that "rebuttal" characterization is correct, then I think Interviewer Gross should have been even-handed as between the two combatants, Franken and O'Reilly.

[Yupster]

51. Appreciate the link

I'd have to agree.

The interview was just as accusatory as could be. My ears always perk up when an interviewer says "many people say," or "critics say". It's a way to smash someone and hide yoursef behind someone else's words.

It was pretty bad, and will be used by NPR's opponents.

[Julien Sorel]

35. I just listened to it.

He got defensive as hell over the registration issue as well, and there was another point where she read back something that Franken said where O'Reilly let out a heavy sigh, and he was pretty terse in his response.

There is nothing wrong with reading excerpts from stuff O'Reilly has attacked as 'dishonest' and so on in the past, and giving him the opportunity to explain himself. That he couldn't, that he didn't even want to, told me the guy has no balls.

She was hard on him, but considering what a blow hard he is, he should have expected it and been better able to deal with it. Walking out at the end like that was a complete meltdown. I have never seen one of his shows, or heard his voice before, and I will say I was impressed by him --he was much brighter than I thought, and he spoke with calculated charm on occasion. But he's also one twisted kid. Paranoid, blatantly lying about stuff, like the voter registration ('I accidentally registered as a Republican???'), and walking out after a tirade like that were not the actions of a mature, reasoning adult. Such are the people who are influencing our country.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

12. Candid photo of Bill after the interview....

[inthecorneroverhere]

26. Terri Gross asked some tough questions

but she was fair. Bill O'Reilly went nuts at the end for no reason. Pretty sleazy and over-aggressive for a guy who claims spiritual guidance.

Fresh Air is more center-entertainment oriented than a lot of NPR.

Anyone catch Diane Rheem (sp.?) this morning? Great show. She did open lines and folks were strongly against the politics of personality in the Golden State.

[whirlygigspin]

41. Terri Gross was fair

She used the same style in that interview as she has in every other
I've listened to before, while O'reilly constantly warned her, snarked, barked and groweled, with invectives dripping with hate &
contempt. Finally, when she would insisted on reading a quote that he objected to, (who's show is it anyway?) he stomped off.

Maybe this was a publicity stunt on his part to increase books sales. There is a quote in the interview where O'reilly talks about
just trying to sell his wares--why not beat up on NPR to boost sales? indeed.

Reminds me of Morton Downey jr. being attacked my nazi's at SFO.

Put it in the bargain bin, I'll buy it for $1.00

[1gobluedem]

53. Terry Gross did ask tough questions

A new user weighing in here....I work for an NPR affliate and know Terry personally. I know that she asked O'Reilly to appear with Franken and he refused, saying he wanted to wait until his book came out. I also know that she personally reads every book that she discusses on the program. That interview was taped the day before it aired and, I'm sure, it was heavily edited. The fact that she left in parts that might have made her look foolish is to Terry's credit.

As for reading the other reviews, it was O'Reilly who said that book reviews should be about the book and not the author and then launched highly personal attacks and insults directly at reviewers who panned the book. That's what she was trying to illustrate.

Fresh Air is not a 'hard news' program per se but they do like to keep up with current news issues and the Franken/O'Reilly situation certainly is current. As far as being a 'corporate shill,' I can't answer that since I don't work on the program but I find that doubtful.

[newyawker99]

56. Hi 1gobluedem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[calm_blue_ocean]

59. O'Reilly's point about book reviews was correct

He said that book reviews should generally refrain from personal attacks for stuff done and said outside the book. He is correct on this -- book reviews should mainly focus on the book.

It was not hypocritical for O'Reilly to attack the book reviewers. His counterattacks were not book reviews or article reviews, they were commentary. O'Reilly illustrated his point by saying that he had commented negatively on Jesse Jackson in the past and would never review a Jackson book because his commentary would get in the way of a focused book review.

This makes sense to me: if I want commentary I come to DU; when I read book reviews I want something else. If book reviewers want to criticize O'Reilly's manners (and there is a lot to criticize), they should simply choose a forum other than a book review to do that.

I am not supporting O'Reilly's confrontational style. It is the reason I avoid his show. My only point is that, bully and blusterer, though he may be, O'Reilly is not taking a hypocritical position about his book reviews. IMO Interviewer Gross missed the target on this particular attempted point.







O'Reilly's response to the book reviewers

[LisaM]

62. I'm having trouble reading your posts

Since you are persistently calling Terry Gross "Interviewer Gross" (as if she were the Grand Inquisitor or something, once, maybe, but why on earth do you keep doing it?) and you also keep misspelling the name of her show. Is there something else going on here?

[calm_blue_ocean]

66. Answers:

1. The mispelling is an honest mistake, which I have corrected in more recent posts (cf, Manheim Steamroller's Fresh Aire series of albums). I am not sure why this minor misspelling made my posts hard to read.

2. "Interviewer Gross" sounds more respectful than just "Gross." Since I am highly critical of Gross's interview, I wanted to err on the side of respect, at least until some of her DU supporters started calling her Gross.

3. Is there something else going on here?

Maybe. I voted for Davis / Bustamonte recently and they lost big-time. I decided that it is time for the Democrats and other progressives to take a hard and searching look at their rhetoric and techniques, and to criticize accordingly. The O'Reilly interview seemed like a good place to start because I think it could have been quite helpful if she had handled it better. Missed opportunity. Time for DUers to jump on my bandwagon of introspection before we lose a more important election.

[LisaM]

71. Okay!

It's a great topic and obviously people are coming down on both sides of the issue - I thought she gave O'Reilly rope and he hung himself. My boyfriend thought otherwise. "Interviewer" Gross just sounded odd and it was distracting to me. That's all!

[Kenneth ken]

43. chiming in for $.02

I like Terry Gross. I know nothing of Bill O'Reilly.

I've always thought of her as a feature interviewer, as opposed to hard news. From that perspective, I wasn't surprised that she seemed (and probably was) caught off guard by O'Reilly attacking her; usually her interviews are cordial.

I'm not totally surprised that O'Reilly attacked her; too many of her questions were focused on, "this is what so-and-so said, how do you respond?" That said, he was her guest, and that's crappy behavior for a guest.

I think she could have done a better job of focusing her interview on his new book; she did say the interview was timed to coincide with its publication. As someone else posted, there were good follow-up questions to things he said, which she could have asked.

He was a much better interviewee than the one or two interviews I've seen/heard where Ann Coulter was the interviewee. I don't think I would like O'Reilly's tv shows; I don't think he would be a patient interviewer. What I like about Terry Gross, is she will ask her question, and then wait for the person to answer.


thanks for the link.

[Yupster]

52. O'Reilly patient interviewer...

No, you wouldn't like his show.

He has about six different segments in and hour show.

Sometimes he tells about a story, introduces a guest in the story, and then gives his opinion. If the guest is lucky he'll get to say "yes," "that's right" and "I enjoyed being here Bill"

Still, I think this NPR interview was accusatory in tone, and that seems kind of weird for a show called "Fresh Air."

It was 40 minutes of

People who don't like you say this about you... How do you respond?

[44g]

49. Terri seemed terrified of the bully

What is absolutely terrifying about the lying liar is the calm and careful manner in which he spews his mendacious thought. The only real way to deal with a bully is to kick his ass. In this case the lying liar needs an intellectual beat down as well as a physical one.

[carolinayellowdog]

50. Why are bullies so popular?

Hey,

I listened to all of the interview except for a couple of minutes in the middle. The obvious answer to the question about differing treatment of the two authors is that Franken came first because his book came first, and O'Reilly came second because his book did. It's entirely to be expected that when two feuding authors are interviewed, the second is going to be asked to respond to what the first said about him. If O'Reilly's book came first, Franken would have been asked to respond to his accusations.

Gross wasn't perfect but she did fairly well IMO whereas O'Reilly came off as an insufferably self-pitying loudmouthed bully. Threatening, accusing, intimidating, a complete jerk. This is obviously his shtick so I am left wondering how *anyone* could possibly *enjoy* listening to and watching such a hateful character. (Have never listened to Rush but assume the persona is the same.) Same goes for Coulter, a female incarnation of machismo (machisma?).

Whatever weird twist makes people enjoy O'Reilly and Coulter is involved in the Arnold phenomenon. It goes back to the psychology of the schoolyard, in which the biggest bully is the most popular kid. Taking it a step further back, it is connected to the alpha male phenomenon in apes. Democrats and liberals by and large hate and fear aggressive bullies; Republicans and conservatives love and admire them. I guess it has to do with symbolically identifying with the oppressor vs. the oppressed. America's presence on the world stage now is a perfect reflection of the O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Coulter loudmouth bully persona writ large.

CYD

[calm_blue_ocean]

58. So if I am hearing you correctly . . .

1. Interviewer Gross was indeed less confrontational with Franken.

and

2. This was justified because Franken was nice to her and O'Reilly was not.


My Comment:

Assuming the above two points are true, Interviewer Gross should have explained this during the interview when O'Reilly complained about unequal treatment. Given fresh Air's history (in general and with Franken particularly), the interview was an ambush.

If O'Reilly wanted an a confrontational interview, he could have gotten Michael Moore or Jon Stewart or Greg Palast to interview him. O'Reilly agreed to a *Fresh Air* interview, but he got something else. Since Interviewer Gross was being unusually confrontational, O'Reilly (and the impartial listeners) at least deserved an honest explanation from her.

[ender]

60. what the fuck are you balthering on about?

Terry Gross is probably the *best* interviewer in the business. She has had just about everyone on who matters - from Richard Perle to Paul Krugman.

She is fair, evenhanded, and asks pointed questions.

O'Reilly flipped out. He could have defended himself, and addressed his critics - IT WAS THE PERFECT FORUM TO DO SO, but instead he got downright abusive. His words tenor and tone were that of an ABUSIVE BULLY.

He was verbally abusing her, and SHE DIDNT TAKE IT. Sorry mate, but i think that she defended herself very well from his abusive rants and ramblings.

[calm_blue_ocean]

67. Who is the abusive bully now? nt

[1gobluedem]

61. Franken answered the questions

Al Franken answered every question Terry asked him. O'Reilly either danced in circles around the question or just didn't answer. So she pushed him. Most good interviewers will do that and should do that. If Franken did the same thing O'Reilly did, she also would have him as well. But she didn't have to.

[1gobluedem]

63. Oops

Actually, that last post should have said she would have pushed him as well. I forgot a word.

[calm_blue_ocean]

68. How many of Franken's questions took the form of . . .

"I am going to read verbatim a paragraph or two from a negative review of your book and you let me know what you think, Al?"


If Franken did get a couple questions like that, then O'Reilly was being a crybaby.

If not, the O'Reilly had a point and Gross should have moved on to one or more of my suggested questions without insisting on reading from People Magazine (if I recall correctly).

[NicoleM]

69. I heard both interviews.

I don't remember all of Franken's because I was really sick and throwing up at the time, but I listened to most of it. She did press him on the "Savin' It" thing, the fact that he said he was writing that book when he really wasn't and he used the Harvard stationery.

O'Reilly has made a career out of confrontation and being a "straight shooter." He can't stand it when anybody confronts him about anything, and he's been caught in several lies. I think it was perfectly fair for Terry Gross to use his own tactics against him, and to ask him to explain the many inconsistencies that he keeps trying to spin away.

The fact is, even though Al Franken has been around the entertainment industry for a long time, and he wrote the Rush book a decade ago, he has only recently come out really publically in a political way, so there just isn't as much, IMO, to press him on as there is O'Reilly.

And as somebody said before, when Al Franken was asked a question, he answered it. When O'Reilly was asked a question, he answered it if he liked the question. If he didn't, he threw a fit.

The difference between the Franken interview and the O'Reilly interview essentially comes down to the difference between interviewing an intelligent adult and a junior high school bully.

[calm_blue_ocean]

70. Disagree

"Lying Liars" received plenty of negative reviews -- Gross could have read off a couple for Franken.

I don't think Gross *should* have been reading negative reviews to either O'Reilly or Franken.

FAILING THAT: However, if she was going to do it to O'Reilly, then she probably should have done the same thing to Franken, given the notoriety of their feud and the heated, "satirical" invective that Franken has started used in his book. It would have been interesting to hear Franken aggressively challenged as to how he draws the line between (non-fiction!) "satire" and "bullying."

FAILING THAT (PART II): If Gross insists on reading negative reviews to O'reilly but not Franken, then she should have had a better answer to O'Reilly concerning whether and why-not the pair of interviews was fair when taken as a whole.

On another note: having Franken confess to a practical joke is not as confrontational as reading a negative review to an author. Not by a long shot.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. I listened to the link and O'Reilly seemed paranoid.

He admitted to his audience that he would be biased. He said that he knew NPR wouldn't be fair. So he went in looking for a fight....or something. But the interviewer's tone was fine, imo. That is the first time I have listened to that show. He was basing everything on Al. Al this and Al that. What a whiney bitchy baby. And did you also hear when he said his book is number 1 and his show is number 1? Blech!

[LisaM]

65. O'Reilly sounded like an idiot

She let him talk on and on about his background. He had clearly planned to find something near the end of the interview and then stomp off - apparently today he is using this on his radio show to incite his listeners to demand NPR funding be cut. The Franken thing made O'Reilly become completely unhinged. He is totally obsessed with the book and the picture on the cover, which he feels isn't a good one of him (he seems to have more problem with that than the fact that he is clearly and correctly labelled a LIAR on the cover.) As far as the voter registration issue, he is tranparently disingenuous if he thinks anyone would believe that. I doubt that he votes Independent - do you think he bucked the political parties and has voted for people like Anderson, Perot, and Nader? I highly doubt it.

Terry Gross gave Bill O'Reilly rope and he hung himself. He is so out of control over Al Franken that it's frightening. I'm surprised he didn't yell at her to shut up, though since she has editorial control, he probably did.

Hi, 1gobluedem! Welcome to DU:toast:

[eleny]

72. One thing that keeps coming back to mind is...

how he related the story about him and his father having a physical fight. He seemed proud that he gained his father's repsect in that episode. As if it were some personal passage. It really rubbed me the wrong way. And if I was interviewing him, I may have felt somewhat uncomfortable if only by his off notch bravado.

I worked in social services for almost 30 years, interviewing people in their own homes. And there were times when I interviewed mentally unsatble men. It's not that they ever made aggressive moves. It's in what they chose to tell me about themselves that felt menacing. This interview with O'R. brought all that back to mind.

There's just something wrong with O'R these days as someone pointed out, earlier. And it's more evident since the Franken episode, as they said.