O’Reilly at Sylvia’s: More write-ups…
Variety’s Michael Learmonth writes about the story…
Cut, parsed, and repurposed, and according to O’Reilly, taken out of context, the comments have been red meat for liberal groups as well as for O’Reilly’s 8pm rivals, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and CNN substitute host Rick Sanchez. Both have spent two nights keeping the controversy alive.
Williams, who was present during the discussion, called CNN’s coverage of the flap “dishonest.” O’Reilly accused Media Matters of “fabricating a racial controversy where none exists.”
The debate spilled over onto network TV Wednesday morning on “Today” when Matt Lauer moderated a debate between Media Matters’ senior fellow Paul Waldman and MSNBC conservative pundit Joel Watkins.
Watkins argued that O’Reilly was trying to make what he intended to be an uplifting observation about race relations in America by showing there was no difference between a black- and white-run restaurant.
“I do think if Bill O’Reilly were able to have a do-over in the way he phrased some of those paragraphs and be a little more articulate about this I think he would take a do-over,” Lauer said.
As does the New York Times’ Manny Fernandez…
Indeed, yesterday afternoon, as Mr. O’Reilly accurately described, iced teas were ordered with civility, not hostility. Servers behind the counter were shoveling ice into glasses and dishing out macaroni and cheese, greens, chicken and some of the other specialties. Black and white customers described Mr. O’Reilly variously as living under a rock, or ignorant of black Americans, or, in the words of one diner, George Hymen, 68, “nutty in the head.”
“The idea that people would be in here acting out, cussing, is kind of archaic,” said Beverly Wilburn, 63, a clothing designer who lives nearby and sat at the counter munching on a sandwich and sipping coffee. “I would laugh if I didn’t think it was sad.”
Some diners said they did not want to judge Mr. O’Reilly too harshly. Samuel Johnson, 49, who went to Sylvia’s after reading about the controversy, said he had met Mr. O’Reilly in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. He was working as a chef at a Lower Manhattan restaurant where Mr. O’Reilly had worked as a volunteer, serving meals. “When I heard the derogatory comments I was like, ‘Wow,’” Mr. Johnson said. “Over all, I don’t think he’s a bad guy. He just made some bad comments.”
““I do think if Bill O’Reilly were able to have a do-over in the way he phrased some of those paragraphs and be a little more articulate about this I think he would take a do-over,” Lauer said.”
I pretty much agree with Lauer. There were parts of O’Reilly’s comments that should have been worded better or more clearly so his viewpoint would be better understood. I wonder if O’Reilly would concede to Lauer’s point.
Comment by STP — September 27, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Why should he? Listen to the whole conversation between Mr. O and Juan Williams! He neither mis-spoke nor need re-phrase any part of it. I will say I am proud of Matt L. and Kiran C. for their defense in light of the context.
Comment by Nancy — September 27, 2007 @ 11:10 am
As I said somewhere else… it doesn’t matter WHAT O’Reilly said… the same band of haters would pick it up, pull out a sentence here and there, and warp it however they felt it should be warped.
That’s the magic of editing… and the danger of hate groups like Media Matters.
Comment by ImNotBlue — September 27, 2007 @ 11:35 am
I can’t believe there are still people who are blind to the (at least) insensitivity of O’Reilly’s remarks - the only explanation is that they are equally insensitive to ’some of my best friends are black’ prejudice.
What if I were to say something like this: “I went to a Christian church this weekend - I know some of you will find this surprising but it was really pleasant. No one yelled or ranted or told me I was going to hell, or called me hateful names, and everyone was very friendly. And they were just like normal people - no one spoke in tongues or passed out or prayed really loud or cried. It wasn’t at all embarrassing.”
While everything I ’said’ above could be considered positive, wouldn’t you assume that I held a lot of unflattering stereotypes about Christians as a group?
Comment by Arthur — September 27, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Art… not if you phrased it as, “People who don’t know any better would think that Church was like they see it on television and in the media… but it wasn’t like that at all…” That’s acknowledging some people’s stereotypes and media driven conclusions… and saying, in real life, it’s not like that!
As for those of us who are still “blinded”… I doubt we’re all using that “some of my best friends are black” line… some are using the “I AM BLACK” line. Which perhaps we can agree… carries a little more weight.
Comment by ImNotBlue — September 27, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
“That’s acknowledging some people’s stereotypes and media driven conclusions… and saying, in real life, it’s not like that!”
And if I said “I couldn’t get over the fact that the people at that church were no different from the people in my neighborhood”? Does that say anything about MY attitudes? or am I once again only acknowledging media stereotypes?
Comment by Arthur — September 27, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Nancy: “Why should he? Listen to the whole conversation between Mr. O and Juan Williams! He neither mis-spoke nor need re-phrase any part of it.”
I DID listen to the whole thing, Nancy. I heard it as it was aired and have re-listened to it since then too. My opinion is that O’Reilly did not communicate his viewpoint as well as he could have because of the way he worded parts of it. Sorry but I’m not the only one who has heard the whole thing and who thinks that some of the particular words he used are causing many people out there to misconstrue his remarks.
Comment by STP — September 27, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Did you think that as you heard it… or only after the controversy broke?
And why, for someone who consistent talks about how much he doesn’t like O’Reilly or his fans, listen to O’Reilly as much as you say you do? Not suggesting you don’t actually listen… so don’t get your underwear in a bunch… just wondering why you do.
Comment by ImNotBlue — September 27, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Art… what does it matter… that wasn’t the context of the discussion! You’re hunting for some way to say that O’Reilly is racist… some way to spin his words to fit your ideas of what you want people to think O’Reilly is.
The context shows that he wasn’t talking about it like that… he wasn’t being racist… he was simply saying that some people get the wrong impression from various media sources about other cultures.
You’re spinning so much right now, if someone going to sets up a fried dough stand next to you, people are going to think the carnival is in town.
Comment by ImNotBlue — September 27, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
“You’re spinning so much right now, if someone going to sets up a fried dough stand next to you, people are going to think the carnival is in town.”
Let’s talk about context here - this is the ONLY thread on this topic I’ve bothered to comment on, because it just isn’t that important a topic to me. You, on the other hand, are all over every thread on this; who’s spinning so much?
I never called O’Reilly a racist; I said (in so many words) that his word choice might lead one to assume that he had imbibed certain stereotypes that he himself is railing against.
The over-the-top defensiveness on this topic, from both O’Reilly and his apostles and apologists, leads me to believe they feel particularly vulnerable on race issues. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Comment by Arthur — September 27, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
You are you talking to me, ImNotBlue? I thought you said something about your having had enough debates with me and that it bores you? LOL!
At the risk of repeating myself (yes, I know it bores you when I do so), I’ve already said in another of Spud’s posts that “when I heard O’Reilly say that on the radio, I figured he was probably going to catch it”. So, yes, I thought that as I heard it. I guess I’m just surprised that it took so long for the controversy to erupt.
I don’t consistently talk about how I dislike O’Reilly. Nor have I said I don’t like his fans so knock it off. I have said that “I’m not a big fan” of O’Reilly (or KO, for that matter). But he’s good at what he does plus he’s a likeable sort of fella. His radio and TV shows can be very entertaining and informative so why shouldn’t that be enough of a reason for me to listen to him? Someone doesn’t have to be a big O’Reilly fan or agree with everyting he says to listen to his shows. I post on O’Reilly threads here when what Spud says or another poster says is of interest to me or when I’ve actually heard him say something that I think others might find interesting.
Comment by STP — September 27, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Why is it that out of the many offensive, lewd, hurtful, mean and hateful comments that are uttered every day by millions of people towards another individual, only the ones deemed offensive to blacks are unacceptable? There are people that go around, just waiting for someone to say something that offends them. Then they can go on tv and act like their life is over because someone said a hurtful word about them. People need to toughen up and grow up. Heck, don’t spend life fretting about hurtful words, instead, go out, live life and prove those detractors wrong.
Comment by california dreamin — September 27, 2007 @ 6:40 pm