Back to O'reilly Watch page

December 8, 2003

Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of one of the greatest documents in the world, our U.S. Constitution, has written: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."  How is gay marriage between two consenting adults an act that is directly injurious to you or any other? I was surprised to hear you use a misleading and irrational comparison of gay marriage eventually leading to people marrying animals. That is as ridiculous as stating that if we allow South Vietnam to fall to the communist, the rest of Asia would also.  One act does not necessarily have to follow another, unrelated act, and in fact, often does not.
Chris Aable
L.A., CA

 

March 12, 2003

It is a shame that a man of journalism uses words to divide caring people into categories rather than trying to unite them. Your biggest spin is that you claim to be a person of reason while having faith in an invisible god floating in an invisible kingdom. But as you are fond of pointing out, the majority of people do believe in silly things. This is the primary reason why you are popular among the self-proclaimed "Fox ditto heads".
Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

March 10, 2003

It's hypocrisy to pretend that people don't listen to celebrities who they admire and then get a conservative celebrity, Pat Sajak to "go up against" Larry King, who is often labeled a "liberal". If Fox News is so "fair and balanced", why don't they get a liberal celebrity with their own show instead of piling in more conservatives? The truth is, Fox News is neither fair nor balanced and even some of my conservative friends have conceded that.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

February 25, 2003

Bill, why do you think it's not practical for Saddam and Bush to have a four hour debate? Aren't we a civilization built on diplomacy and free communication that enlightens us to both sides of an issue? Perhaps a debate could be held on Television or the relatively neutral space under the U.N. umbrella. If Saddam does not succeed in communicating his message, then Bush gets more support on his side. If Saddam does succeed, then perhaps the world can avoid a costly war that may have to be paid for with billions of dollars and millions of lives. Either way, it seems it would be a debate that would cost much less, gain much more, and enlighten us all.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

February 6, 2003

You state that Mr. Glick deserved to be thrown off your show for his "wild ravings"? Your spinning again, Bill, and projecting your own ravings onto someone else. I never heard an adult tell another adult to shut up so many times in my life, and you only did it because you couldn't interrupt him enough. You also are spinning when you pretend you are in the right because your audience "supports" your claims and views. Most people who watch are probably already biased in favor of you or else they wouldn't watch. I and some of my professors watch you because your rantings are an interesting study in psychology and sociology. What is popular is not always true, and what is true is not always popular.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

February 4, 2003

On one hand you tell Jeremy Glick that he is entitled to his opinions and on the other hand you tell him "you need to shut your mouth". I don't agree entirely agree with him either about many issues, but what I heard was him attempting to answer your questions during your constant interruptions. No matter how much we disagree with someone, we should still respect their right to give a dissenting voice. You then apologize for Glick when you should have apologize for not taking responsibility for your own temper. Communication is a two-way street in a democracy, no matter how much we hate the other' person's message.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

February 2, 2003

Ms. Van Susteren, I think you are generally a nice and fair minded person, which seems to be a rare exception at Fox. Why you would become friends as someone as unfair as Mr. O'Reilly (I've seen at least a hundred of his shows), is beyond me.
- Chris
 

The following was posted on Bullentin Boards and e-mailed to other anti- Hate Speech sites (Note that it is the hateful speech being attacked, not he person in total):

 

Bill O'Reilly proves that he is the master of "spin" once again. On his January 30th show on Fox TV, he sum-totaled columnist Bruce Kluger as unworthy of respect because he wrote something mean-spirited about Creta Van Susteren. O'Reilly claimed this eliminates his creditability. Reason doesn't work this way. No matter how distasteful Kluger's statement about Creta is, his statements about O'Reilly are not challenged by O'Reilly spinning back to Creta over and over again. In fact, O'Reilly seems to prove Kluger's point about how mean-spirited and ill-mannered O'Reilly often is. Bill ends on the note that the only thing he respects about Mr. Kluger is his being on his show.

If people judged O'Reilly by the same fallacy based on all the hateful things he says, he would be one of the least respected persons in the world. And perhaps he is, and maybe that is why is ratings are so high. Seems people like to watch others rant and rave while not backing up their claims with reason. Anger sells to many, logic is boring except the few who are passionate about it. Hitler and Mussolini knew this long before O'Reilly did. No comparison of personalities here, just methodologies and techniques. O'Reilly himself admits quite frequently on his show "It's all about the money". It's a shame that money is more important than being fair and balanced to some people. No wonder, as he claimed after my last e-mail to him, that "people are afraid to appear on his show". There is never enough time on his show to articulate very complex issues, and when one tries, they are interrupted and berated. Recently, O'Reilly accused a guest of making an "ad hominem attack" on him while immediately stating "most of the viewers now think you're a fool". Doesn't O'Reilly recognize his own spin when it comes to ad hominem attacks? People are way far too complex to sum-total with labels like "Pinhead" "Lunatic" and "Fool". But yet this is just some of the undigested slogans O'Reilly shouts out consistently to the quests he disagrees with. No wonder people are afraid to appear on his show. But O'Reilly also doesn't seem to understand that few people have neither the time nor the interest to go to his studio and be badgered so he can increase his ratings.

Yes, while they do let other voices on, there is very little fair and balanced about The O'Reilly Factor. The same applies to many of the other shows on Fox. I teach psychology and sociology at the University level. While that might not make me especially bright in the eyes of some, to me, Fox News is no where nearly as whole in the department of being "fair or balanced", as they keep claiming. Perhaps this fact is underscored more in that many people still think that news should still be objective and give a voice to all dissenting opinions. I cannot "trust" anyone who keeps proclaiming they are both fair and balanced when they are neither so seldom, especially in a profession that demands both constantly. Sure, we have a right to be angry about the negative events in the world, but should it lead to that much consistent bitterness and yelling down of opponents? It may be sadly amusing for a few weeks, but one can only watch the anger and ranting for so long before it starts to become overdone and boring. In the meantime, I wonder what they think all that hatred and bitterness is teaching children who watch? Hannity, O'Reilly and others on the Fox channel have mastered the art of negative labels - the act of diverting opposing facts by sum-totaling an opponent some shade of bad so that everything their guests say and do afterward is misconstrued as negative. It's hard to be fair and balanced when the view of others is filtered through labels born of an angry imagination. One need only watch the ranting and ravings for a few moments to see their "journalism" staff's extreme, reactionary and negative opinions that Fox attempts to pass off as "the most trusted news source". Trusted? Fair and balanced? To whom? Not to me, and not to most of my students and many friends. But what do we know? As too many of their staff would say, we're just "a bunch of liberals". After all, many of their staff have sum-totaled many people who work in Los Angeles this way for voicing different opinions to their own. What they don't seem to get is that most people have both liberal and conservative qualities. People change and grow and are far too complex to sum-total and compartmentalize into neat little labels, even when the label is self-inflicted. People who work with words should perhaps know this better than others. To say a person "is stupid" (or "liberal", or "a lunatic" or any other label) by definition is to say the person is "equal to" stupid. Of course, the fact is that few of us are "equal to" stupid. We all do and say stupid things, and brilliant things, and thus we're all a complex mixture of many things. Statements and actions should be judged, not the person in total, and certainly beyond the labels that too many on the Fox Staff so dearly love to use.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

January 31, 2003

You sum-total columnist Bruce Kluger as unworthy of respect because he wrote something mean-spirited about Creta Van Susteren. You claim this eliminates his creditability. Logic doesn't work this way. No matter how distasteful Kluger's statement about Creta is, his statements about you are not challenged by your spinning back to Creta over and over again. You helped prove his state that you are sometimes mean-spirited and ill-mannered ending on the note that the only thing you "respect" about Mr. Kluger is his being on your show. If people judged you in total based on all the hateful things you say, you would probably be one of the least "respected" persons in TV journalism.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

January 30, 2003

Bill, you state that Secularism is destructive to America because this country has few moral boundaries? Last time I checked the nation-wide surveys, most Americans claim to be "faithful Christians". The best way to do good and be good is with no expectations of the of heaven and hell. Otherwise we're being good through threat of punishment or reward. Subscribing to secular or religious philosophy in itself does not make anyone more or less moral. One need only look at some of the religious leaders and many of their followers to know this. For example, the three Jims - Jim Baker, Jim Swaggert and Jim Jones. Both believers and non-believers have been known to do good and bad, and surveys in the penal system indicate that our prisons are filled with more believers than non-believers. Belief is not truth, or it would not be called belief.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

January 29, 2003

You want to take a vote to see how many people don't want to criticize their own country while spinning that those who do are on the side of Saddam? What kind of ethnocentric nonsense is that? Of course most people are going to vote that we are the best country in the world, almost all nationalist in over two hundred nations do. What is popular is not always true, and what is true is not always popular. I love this country, but it's not without many faults and failures. It is through opening our eyes to our past aggressions and transgressions that we make progress and improve, not through your brand of blind patriotism.

Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

January 28, 2003

The e-mail last night about you being the master of spin was correct, Bill. No one has enough space to site all the evidence in the short e-mails you allow on the show. Your biggest and most repeated spin occurs when you keep pretending that people who will not appear on your show have something to hide. The "no-spin" facts are that these people don't want to appear in your Kangaroo court because they are only allowed a few minutes to voice very complex issues, and you berate and interrupt them during what little time you do give. Fair and balance? Neither.

Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA

 

January 27, 2003

Stating that you would tell your son to run away from a man who dresses like a woman demonstrates little faith in your child. When I was seven years old, I saw drag queens for the first time on TV and I was confused too. What's wrong with confusion? We get confused, we ask questions and we get answers. Men have been wearing dresses for as long as history goes back, be it Kilts in Scotland, skirts in Thailand, robes in Japan and Greece or drag queens all over the world. Seeing men dress as women didn't make me consider dressing like a girl any more than seeing Jesus with long hair and a robe make me want to take up his style. Children should be taught to respect diversity, not fear it. Fear of differences only leads to hatred and misunderstanding, and it's a shame that you would be projecting your own unfounded fears of such diversity onto any child.


Chris Aable,
Los Angeles, CA