O’Reilly does the Tonight Show…
Bill O’Reilly will be hosting The O’Reilly Factor tonight and tomorrow night from Los Angeles. Why? Because O’Reilly will be doing The Tonight Show with Jay Leno Friday night to promote his new book “Kids are Americans too” wihch is scheduled for release the following Tuesday on October 16th…
Whats up with OR and kids books, cant he write anything for adults? Oh wait he has to make up for the Makris mess and reestablish his “Traditionalist” tilt.
Comment by Macjoubert — October 11, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Bill O’Reilly lost a fan today with his sanctimonious judgemental attitude about Don Imus. What a hypocrite. This is the man who settled out of court with a co-worker for sex discrimination, right?
Comment by Mel — October 11, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Shhhh! FNC’s PR hacks don’t like that being discussed around here.
Comment by Terance — October 11, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
I remember that story about Bill and I also remember him being a guest on Imus. What a dirtbag if it’s true
Comment by moonbeam — October 11, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
It’s actually good marketing by Bill and his publisher to do another kids’ book. While he has a loyal core audience, he can be a tad repetitive.
This way, instead of his fans having to choose whether to buy another book that pounds on the same themes as the one they read last year, they can buy it for their grandchildren instead.
As for the sexual harassment settlement, it never bothered his core fans one bit.
Comment by chalmers — October 11, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Man, You really believed BOR sexually harassed the women? Yeah right. She was in on it with him. All that dirty talk she recorded was true I believe but don’t even kid yourself that they didn’t have some sort of phone sex thing going on. You don’t want that kind of talk comming out so it’s smart to settle.
Comment by Lurker — October 11, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Mel: Given that Imus regularly bashed O’Reilly and just about anybody else on radio and TV, be glad for whatever support he now gets from media types.
Comment by Ira — October 11, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Wow, now our kids can understand Traditionalists (Mussolini righties) Secular-Progressives (a minute part of the left aka athiests). It just happens that according to Bill then an SP would be less than 10 percent of this country considering less than 10 percent of this country is athiest.
Comment by Aaron — October 11, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
Wow. What happened to this blog. For you uniformed commenting on a man’s personal life, 1- shame and 2- pick up a copy of Marvin Kitman’s book on O’Reilly. Anyone who saw Kitman’s book talk on CSPAN knows he’s no friend of O’Reillys.
But he was singularly sympathetic on this issue with Mr. OReilly.
Comment by upstate — October 11, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
I read and enjoyed Kitman’s book. I think his take was that O’Reilly engaged in boorish, inappropriate behavior that might be considered sexual harassment and certainly runs counter to Bill’s traditionalist image.
However, Kitman gives several details to show that Andrea Mackris behaved much more like someone who was using the incident to advance her career and finances than like someone who was personally offended.
He also writes about how O’Reilly demanded that the entire situation should be handled in three sentences, which wouldn’t be true even if the allegations were totally false. In light of what he learned, Kitman reduced his discussion of the subject from three chapters to one. Still, this wasn’t enough for Bill, who broke off communication because of the issue.
Comment by chalmers — October 11, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
“The title “Kids are Americans Too” tells me all I need to know about the intellectual level of O’Reilly’s audience. But I’m glad he thinks they are Americans, othewise we’d have to ship them off to Gitmo like the kid-catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. C’mere children….
Comment by DanOregon — October 11, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
O’Reilly’s new book, “Kids Are Americans….and So Can You” Hmmm, sounds familiar!
Comment by uruimiyru2 — October 12, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Is that the best O’Reilly haters can do? Anytime he has a new book come out, it’s all about an alleged sexual harassment suit, that never made it. And yet, some other guy… with a lengthy list of alleged sexual harassment complains… he’s still a saint. What was his name again? Bill… something… hmmm, well… I remember, I’ll be sure to post it.
O’Reilly has written a few kids books, as well as a number of books for adults. Sadly, people like “Macjoubert” doesn’t remember last year’s best seller “Culture Warrior”. You don’t have to look to far back to see his latest book for adults, do you?
The issue of raising and protecting children is import to the man. Isn’t that a good thing? “DanOregon” clearly doesn’t watch O’Reilly’s program, or he’d understand the title is a reference O’Reilly’s stance on protecting children from child molesters and rapists. I imagine this book will focus strongly on his work to get Jessica’s Law passed throughout the country.
But none of this matters to most of the posters thus far. All they see is “O’Reilly” and then just jump on the “Whatever he said/does/thinks is bad, bandwagon.” Except for Terance, who just doesn’t like anything. But most of you are window-glass transparent. You don’t like O’Reilly… we get it. But can’t you come up with some new material, already? I mean, it’s been quite a while with the same token insults being thrown around… if he’s as bad as you say he is, shouldn’t you have new stuff? You’re putting the audience to sleep.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 12, 2007 @ 12:58 am
INB - If OR is just a bulwark against enemies of America, how come he doesnt come out with a blistering book about the dynamics of the Iraq problem that he speaks of to no end, Afghanistan,Terrorism and the ineptitude of the government to find OBL?
His answer more kids books?Just regurgitated.
Comment by Macjoubert — October 12, 2007 @ 9:43 am
ImNotBlue, I hate to correct ya.. but I dig Shahar Pe’er!
“The issue of raising and protecting children is import to the man.”
I can fully agree with that. However, that “issue” starts and stops when it concerns the almighty Catholic priest and any other church pedophiles.. BO simply doesn’t lay the smack down on these people because he doesn’t want to turn away viewers who subscribe to those faiths. And in my book, that makes him concerned when convenient. (as to not rock the boat)
Comment by Terance — October 12, 2007 @ 9:54 am
“But none of this matters to most of the posters thus far. All they see is “O’Reilly” and then just jump on the “Whatever he said/does/thinks is bad, bandwagon.” Except for Terance, who just doesn’t like anything. But most of you are window-glass transparent. You don’t like O’Reilly… we get it. But can’t you come up with some new material, already? I mean, it’s been quite a while with the same token insults being thrown around…”
With a one word answer…No. These people can’t come up with anything new to say. just like their “hero” Keith O. who does the same schtick every night thinking that he gets ratings by doing this. As we all know, he doesn’t. These people want to make themselves heard, so to speak, and they will say anything to that end. Hence, the assinine comments we read here. It’s bash Bill O’Relly time kids, let’s go!! And these people will never stop doing it, even though they have no idea as to what they are talking about, referring too, commenting on. They don’t know squat. They THINK they know, but they don’t. I have mostly all of Bill’s books (don’t need any of the kids ones; no children yet)- maybe some of you should actually pick up a book, let alone one of Bill’s and read it. People like DanOregon, Macjoubert and Terance, you all REALLY need to get a clue.
Comment by Kris — October 12, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Now that you brought up KO it made me think.Yes, the BOR haters do need some new material to post just like the KO haters need new material.
Comment by myview — October 12, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Ira - I actually believed O’Reilly was fair and balanced. Boy, was I wrong. He used to be a regular on Imus for years and Imus was disgusted after the scandal and wouldn’t let him come on anymore. My husband always said Bill was a phoney and I refused to believe it..until yesterday.
Comment by Mel — October 12, 2007 @ 10:48 am
If Bill cared about children, he wouldn’t be trying to silence Don Imus. Besides all the charities and his ranch, etc. Imus is the only one in the mainstream media helping all of us parents with autistic kids. Bill doesn’t care about anything but himself. Signed, a former BOR fan.
Comment by Mel — October 12, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Kris, thats a pretty weak argument if you can call it that. Anyway, did you have something to say about BO giving pedophile priests’ a pass? Or do you look the other way too?
Comment by Terance — October 12, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Macjoubert - He talks about the failures, the messes, the mistakes, and the problems going on with the War on Terror all the time. However, wouldn’t it be foolish of him to render a judgment on things not yet complete, in a book? Unlike so many other authors who feel that they can write books predicting the future, O’Reilly (I’ll bet) is waiting until there is some sort of conclusion, before he writes a book.
Terance - Come on… that’s not true at all! He blasts pedophile priests, just as much as pedophile everyone else. Are there any examples of him not doing that… or is it just assumed because he’s got an “O” before his name?
myview - Yes and no. I’m starting to get tired of “bathtub boy” references… however, critiques of his ‘news style’ are still valid. Calling him out for not having opposing viewpoints, for bashing every other news station… except his own, for playing fast and loose with facts, and for throwing softball interviews at guests he agrees with, IMO are all still valid… and will remain valid until he stops doing them.
Mel – I’m not sure what you’re talking about. When did he try to silence Imus? I just watched the segment from the other night, and he did no such thing! He had two guests on to debate the point… and O’Reilly’s bottom line was that the marketplace should dictate his return. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 12, 2007 @ 11:34 am
ImNotBlue, sorry I’m not much in the “examples” type of mood right now. You can take my word for it! Seriously though, BO might cover the dirty priests’ who secretly desire little boys, but I DEMAND blanket coverage! Ummm, his name starts with O?? I guess you must be eluding to him being Irish and most likely Catholic, therefore covering up for his own? I was thinking more along the lines of not offending a major religion in this country regardless of whether its his own or not. Sorry to disappoint.
Comment by Terance — October 12, 2007 @ 11:46 am
ImNotBlue” I agree that critiques of KO’s news style are valid as are critiques of all anchors/commentators. What I am getting tired of is the same old , same old comments that some people (both KO and BOR haters) post over and over again.They tend to be immature in nature and surely don’t add to the discussion.
Comment by myview — October 12, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Terance… I think there is more blanket coverage. Yeah, I thought you were saying that he wouldn’t attack his own… because he doesn’t seem to mind attacking a lot of people at one time (*see France). I just don’t agree that O’Reilly ignores those stories. When your mood changes, we can talk again… try some applesauce… I find it’s impossible to be unhappy while eating applesauce.
myview - Agreed. Although KO is a poopy-pants… no denying it. ;)
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 12, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
INB, you said “…it’s all about an alleged sexual harassment suit, that never made it.”
It never made it because he settled. You can certainly defend him on the merits if you want, but to question the existence of the suit, and then to imply that it ‘never made it’ because it was somehow lacking, all while leaving out that little nugget about him having *settled* the lawsuit seems a bit disingenuous.
Comment by Jay — October 12, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
No, Jay… it never made it because it was never adjudicated by a judge. We do not actually know what the result was… There are rumors, but no concrete facts.
Therefore it stays “alleged”… it was a law suit that according to official record, never made it. Not disingenuous… just the truth.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 12, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
ImNotBlue You can’t reason with those people. They don’t control what Bill does so they go C#R@A^Z*Y! You people need a break don’t you? LOL!
Comment by SHANE — October 12, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Wow, that’s some parsing. Yes, I’m sure that Andrea Mackris dropped the suit on her own volition and she shook hands with Bill O’Reilly and they both had a great laugh. I guess the spin *doesn’t* stop here.
Comment by Jay — October 12, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
So under whose volition was she under?
She made the decision to drop the suit, as much as O’Reilly did. That’s it… and no amount of whining from people who want to call O’Reilly guilty (which he isn’t under the law) will make it so. Parsing… hardly… stating the facts is more like it.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 12, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Where did you people get the idea that O’Reilly trashed Imus and any possibly return to radio he may be involved in? He had two guys on last night and while O’Reilly let both men opine, I got the impression that he felt that Imus IS entitled to go back to work. Why not give us some proof of your allegations?
Comment by Missy — October 12, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Missy, I heard it was what he said on his radio show about Imus.
Comment by moonbeam — October 12, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Does anybody have what he actually said… because that would seem to contradict what was actually said on the television.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 12, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
O’Reilly spent a good amount of time on the priest-pedophile scandal WHEN IT HAPPENED. That’s been about half a decade ago, you may recall. Sorry he doesn’t mention it enough to please everyone. I remember it because it gave my first negative of him. I distinctly recall the words, ‘if I were Pope, I would…’ coming out of his mouth, along with whatever it was he would do. Those words have stayed with me, and they explain so much.
Comment by laural — October 12, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
“the priest-pedophile scandal WHEN IT HAPPENED”
You act as if this is an isolated event! It “happens” about twice a year! Oh, and then ya have nuns getting kicked out of their dwelling because the church is being sold to pay off pedophilia fiends’ bad deeds.
Comment by Terance — October 13, 2007 @ 6:41 am
But so far Terance, you haven’t given any evidence that he ignores those stories when they come up… so it’s difficult to defend an action, when we don’t have anything concrete to talk about!
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 13, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Oooh, meant to write ‘first negative impression of him’, if anyone cares at this point. The pope thing seems to me to indicate a vaguely messianic view of himself. Would be nice if he apologized to Shawn Hornbeck.
Comment by laural — October 13, 2007 @ 8:53 pm