17 Oct 2003 | flowb33 said...

I'm a fan of Gross and Fresh Air, but I have to say I think I agree with O'Reilly. There was this feeling the whole interview that Gross was hastily attempting to take O'Reilly to task and confront him with his own hipocrisies instead of letting his own word bury himself. Of course, the man uses the same tactics on his own show. But I think her inexperience playing devils advocate lessened the impact of her roast.

17 Oct 2003 | dudeman said...

To quote my #1 dude, Gene Simmons. She should have greeted him with open arms.... and open legs.

18 Oct 2003 | Woody said...

I listened to this and I thought O'Reilly got the best of her.

18 Oct 2003 | Mike said...

A couple fun links for you guys to peruse:

Some enlightening Googling I did with the words "Bill O'Reilly" and some interesting characterizations.

And a rotten.com biography of the man himself.

Mike

18 Oct 2003 | dmr said...

I'm a fan of Fresh Air and I found Terry's questions to be on target with past interviews. O'Reilly is a quim. He was critical of people making personal attacks in the first 15 min of the interview then resorts to personal attacks against Terry Gross only 15 min later. She should have been more tough on him; the guy pretends to stick his balls out and "get tough", so some reciprocality would have been good, but I don't find Terry Gross to be a confrontational and aggressive person.

18 Oct 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

O'Reilly was hilarious; he reminded me of a high-school bully. All bluster, intimidation, and thin-skinned defensiveness. The only valid point he made was that Terry Gross hadn't grilled Al Franken in the same way, and thus he had grounds for feeling unfairly treated. But if he had nothing to hide, then why should he have felt uncomfortable being questioned? If he had a solid basis for his claims, he should have been comfortable answering any of Gross's questions in that interview. Instead he was defensive and frequently gave responses that would be impossible to verify independently, saying "you can believe what you want, but I'm telling you the truth." Right.

His tactic is to claim the high ground and then dismiss anyone who questions his claims as politically biased, not "fair and balanced" like he is. This is a typical far-right ploy: if you take a closer look at all the think tanks in Washington, DC that describe themselves as "nonpartisan," most of them are actually conservative.

18 Oct 2003 | Michael Bee said...

I am such a geek! When I first read this, I thought, "Why in the hell would Tim O'Reilly get in a fight with Terry Gross over his tech book publishing?" I glanced over the first few comments and it still didn't make sense. It makes MUCH more sense after reading the Fresh Air link that Bill O'Reilly would be mixing it up.

What a disturbing way to start off the morning. I hope I can shake this before lunch.

18 Oct 2003 | ~bc said...

I wrote about this a little while back but I'll sum up: its hysterical to see O'Reilly bested at his own game, by a little woman who doesn't have to raise her voice to overpower her guest, and O'Reilly revealed his hypocracy in that he calls people "pinheads" for making personal attacks, then personally attacks people.

Was the interview about the book? It was talked about. Was it biased? No more than BO's own "interviews." So in that case, I guess it balances out.

19 Oct 2003 | Woody said...

Al Fraken
LIES: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
I think his book title is an autobiography
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/frankenabs1.html

All he does is take personal shots at people who aren't liberals. Look at his book titles. He is a very negative person (like most liberals) who hides his politcal agenda with "sarcasm".

19 Oct 2003 | Arthur said...

I listened to the whole interview. O'Reilly may have his own bias, but if you didn't hear the NPR left wing agenda that is coming from a place that is oh-so jealous of his power and popularity, then you are in denial.
For every one of you that can't stand to watch O'Reilly there are maybe five or ten who cannot stand to listen to NPR.

19 Oct 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

NPR left wing agenda that is coming from a place that is oh-so jealous of his power and popularity

I don't think NPR wants power or popularity. That's not their thing, though it might be Bill O'Reilly's. And how much "power and popularity" does he have anyway? I'd never even heard of the man before listening to the interview.

19 Oct 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

For every one of you that can't stand to watch O'Reilly there are maybe five or ten who cannot stand to listen to NPR.

I'd like to see where this data comes from.

Oh wait. Right, silly me.

19 Oct 2003 | Mike said...

That sounds like a made-up statistic ala O'Reilly :)

19 Oct 2003 | Woody said...

"I'd never even heard of the man before listening to the interview."

This kind of comment can only come from someone who probably gets their news from MTV and watches too much reality tv.

19 Oct 2003 | ed said...

woody, your first comment was about how Al Franken points fingers and calls people names, then you proceeded to do the same. On your second post, you continued to point fingers and call people names. Do you have anything important to say?

Back to the initial subject: I actually listen to NPR much of the day and I watch Fox News at night, to see what the opposing viewpoints are. and I do have to point out that the only reason why Fox News is so popular is because it prays on the ignorance of ordinary joes. Take a show like Hannity and Colmes. Hannity is a neo-conservative. Colmes, myabe a democrat but he is so far to the center that leftie viewpoints are rarely expressed, and when they are, their passion and fire has been nuetered. To make a show like Hannity and Colmes "fair and balanced" you'd have to send Colmes back to dullsville and rename the show "Sean Hannity and Amy Goodman". The point I'm trying to make is that Fox News presents opinions across the entire right leaning spectrum and the only left leaning opinions are those of the middle of the road democrats. When a really left leaning guest appears on the show, the commentators take him/her to task (here is a link to a Bill O'Reilly interview with the sun of a fallen 9/11 Port Authority worker as a case in point:
http://www.joannemcneil.com/blog/archives/000210.html). The end result is a news network telling the average joe that it's ok to have opinions on the far to middle right, and you can be a middle road democrat (if you wanna be a wimp and it is ok to be a wimp), but anything else is pure Black Helicopter Conspiracy Nut Job territory. The Terry Gross interview on NPR was a fluke. Terry was probably trying to get Bill at his own game (box him in the corner and go for the kill - but Terry just couldn't beat him at his own game - which is understandable, Bill has a really good game). But I Bet you if Amy Goodman had done that interview, Bill would have walked off that show before he ever got the chance to say all the crap he did. Amy woulda opened up the can of whoop-ass, for sure. But just as Bill "dresses down" people who refuse to appear on his show, it'll be a cold day in hell before you here Bill O'Reilly on Democracy Now. and that's the truth, Ruth!

20 Oct 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

This kind of comment can only come from someone who probably gets their news from MTV and watches too much reality tv.

Actually it came from someone who doesn't watch TV.

20 Oct 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

"...the commentators take him/her to task..."

Radio hosts (liberal or conservative) - I believe - rule the airways when they have someone of opposing thought on their show. I didn't catch this specific NPR interview, but have seen clips of O'Reilly in other situations apparently losing his cool. But then again, I caught a moment of Hannity's radio program this past Friday night. Somehow, he got Ted Kennedy on the phone and just lambasted him with questions to the point of having Kennedy seemingly only able to mutter "duh, duh, duh"...and finally get of the air in frustration - apprently similiar to O'Reilly in his NPR interview.

Point is, a "good" talk show host is not going to let someone else make a legitimate opposing point on their show. This doesn't just apply to Gross or Hannity, even your local small market hosts do it.

20 Oct 2003 | Todd Dominey said...

Terry Gross was, from the out-set, obviously uncomfortable and off balance compared to how she usually conducts interviews. She fumbled her words, spoke in circles, and generally had a difficult time getting down to the root question at hand. To my ears, she was unprepared and anxious about interviewing O'Reilly.

Truth be told, I listened to the interview expecting O'Reilly to be a prick. But Gross was clearly looking to goose O'Reilly.

20 Oct 2003 | Darrel said...

All he does is take personal shots at people who aren't liberals. Look at his book titles. He is a very negative person (like most liberals) who hides his politcal agenda with "sarcasm".

Woody...you actually need to *read* the book before you can *judge* the book. I think there is an old saying about that somewhere...

BTW, the personal shots he takes in the book are nothing more than fact checking. He delivers the fact checking in a funny way, but he's simply pointing out the obvious.

20 Oct 2003 | Darrel said...

BTW, I thought it was a rather bad interview.

Gross was ill prepared and O'Reilly (in usual manner) seems painfully insecure with himself. I think if he'd drop the whole 'why is everyone picking on me' schtick I might actually listen to him a bit. I actually thought he had some potentially interesting things to say.

20 Oct 2003 | Wilson Miner said...

Both Gross and O'Reilly do "opinion" shows. They're not editorial news, they're essentially op-ed columnists on-air. There are plenty of things I can't stand about both of them, but I'll give O'Reilly credit for at least admitting he has an opinion, and an agenda, whereas Gross just thinks she's "right" (and "unbiased").

It's like somebody telling me "I'm not prejudiced." No human can say that and not be lying. Don't expect me to listen to you when you start out by lying to me.

20 Oct 2003 | Toby said...

I heard it when it aired and -- even though I'm a Fresh Air fan -- I thought Terry wasn't on top of her game during the interview. O' Reilly is an ass, but Terry went into the interview based on the assumption that everything O'Reilly's critics (Franken especially) say is true. It just wasn't Terry Gross-ish to put her guess on the defensive like that.

For the record, my wife can't stomach NPR -- not for the politics, but for the fact that all their anchors sound like they just had dental work done. Plenty of teeth sucking, spittle spraying juiceyness in the NPR sound.

20 Oct 2003 | One of several Steves said...

I haven't heard the interview, but from the accounts I've read and talking to people who did hear it, it doesn't sound like Terri Gross' finest hour. And O'Reilly has shown repeatedly that he cannot take even a tiny fraction of what he dishes out, so he likely would have imploded on his own without Gross needing to bait him.

The man's childish, petulant and completely incapable of handling differing viewpoints. His feud with Franken's a hilarious example. I'm not saying Franken's all sweetness and light, because he's not, but the fact that O'Reilly is so incapable of handling being treated the way he treats everyone else speaks volumes.

The funniest thing in all this, though, is the fact that some people are amazed that NPR is liberally biased, or Fox News is conservatively biased. Duh. Anyone can figure that out within 15 minutes - and that's if you're really slow - of listening to either's programming. My only gripe with Fox is the "fair and balanced" nonsense. There's nothing wrong with having a viewpoint. Just acknowledge it, and I can apply the appropriate filter when listening to you.

I wish the American media would drop the objectivity and fairness nonsense. The press in other countries make no secret of their leanings, so you know what you're getting when you pick up a copy of the Guardian or the Times in the UK, or Die Welt or Sddeutsche Zeitung in Germany, etc. That's the way it used to be in the States too, and I think a return to that would be a good thing.

20 Oct 2003 | Jonathan said...

Todd Dominey got it right. Terry Gross was obviously not excited to be sharing the air with Bill O'Reilly. There were long stretches of uncomfortable silence where she seemed to reluctantly search for the next question to continue an interview that did not excite her.

The interview overall was pretty good, however. Bill O'Reilly, despite his bias that Terry is left-wing, opens up and answers most of her questions at length. Whether you think he was just filling the air with his bias or actually going along with the interview, it does give you an interesting look at Bill O'Reilly who normally is a quite a character in his interviews.

His issues at the end are legitimate, and even Terry Gross says without remorse, that she did not grill Al Franken as she was grilling O'Reilly. Her excuse that Al's book was satire as a reason for going easy on Al is shallow. I was only slightly disappointed in both. I think they got done what they ought. We learned a lot about both of them through the interview.

O'Reilly's point about "No Spin" was interesting. He seems to be looking for objective truth. How quaint.

The ironic thing about the interview, is that Terry Gross' style is nearly the same, in this interview, as Bill's. She takes lots of facts obscure and known and seeks to reduce the O'Reilly spin. I think she just did step over the line of being cordial but O'Reilly has thick skin, he should have endured it even through to the end.

The People quote, was silly and explained away by Bill. She should not have persisted as she did. People Mag does not have the credibility to use it as fact or source material in any interview.

20 Oct 2003 | Jason said...

I think she was pissed. Like, so pissed that it was hard for her to figure out whether to ask the next question on her list or tee off on the asshole.

Politics aside, O'Reilly is a distasteful ass. He has that weasely habit of ending all of his sentences with "mm'kay?" which indicates that he's not sure he'll be believed by the person he's speaking with. Plus, he did more straight up selling of his book than I've heard in a long time.

Finally, I love how he thinks his cable ratings matter at all in the real world. He might have the #1 rated cable interview show, but how does that even compare to something like "60 Minutes II" or even PBS's "NewsHour?" I think his attitude has a lot to do with always being the square, especially at Harvard where smarter and wealthier classmates likely left him out of all their fun.

21 Oct 2003 | pb said...

I have to disagree pretty strongly with O'Reilly critics here, all of whom I presume are knee-jerk liberals. O'Reilly's points are so much better supported than his adversaries and critics. Sure he comes across as holier-than-thou on occasion. That's certainly no reason to consider him an ass and all of his view-points without merit. Gross should be embarassed for lining up with Franken. It seems that noone actually listens to his points before rendering their vitriol.

21 Oct 2003 | tomas said...

The NPR Ombudsman says: " I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview."

21 Oct 2003 | pb said...

Tomas, you're probably the only person on this thread that actually read that even the NPR Ombudsperson felt the interview was unfair.

BTW, is that the Michael Moritz from Sequoia?

21 Oct 2003 | Arthur said...

Thanks tomas for pointing that out. It's so nice to see NPR actually owning up to their bias. Towards the end of the Ombudsman's piece he hits the nail on the head when he writes:

"...Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction, O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote anyway.

That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and should not be used on NPR.

I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias..."

He weasled out a bit at the end there: "the belief, held by some..." but by then he'd already damned Gross.

21 Oct 2003 | Wilson said...

The funniest thing in all this, though, is the fact that some people are amazed that NPR is liberally biased, or Fox News is conservatively biased.

The primary difference being that Fox News is not publicly funded. My tax dollars don't support Fox News' bias.

21 Oct 2003 | Karle said...

The primary difference being that Fox News is not publicly funded. My tax dollars don't support Fox News' bias.

I'm so glad someone brought this up. I agree (although I'm an NPR listener and lover). It does bother me that public dollars support a public media station that is clearly biased. Public media can take positions, but they should be balanced by positions on the other side on the same station. NPR *rarely* hosts conservative opinions.

21 Oct 2003 | ed said...

It does bother me that public dollars support a public media station that is clearly biased.

Why should it bother you, or anyone else for that matter, that NPR is a publicly funded left leaning media outlet? NPR and Pacifica Radio are drowning in a sea of media outlets owned and operated by a few large conglomerates, who dictate the content and opinions expressed on their programs based on the positions of their advertisers. And these corporations who pay for ad time are by their very nature, conservative, if not adverse to *sticky* subjects like corporate and political corruption. If not for NPR, who will bring up these subjects? Al Gore's "liberal" leaning TV station? He couldn't even get people to advertise on it, so he decided to spin it as a youth oriented political station (it's still debateable if he can get people to advertise even now). The corporations that own the media outlets and the corporations who advertise with them are inherently conservative and as long as this the norm, I say PLEASE spend my tax dollars (and your tax dollars) on NPR, because without the public funding that NPR recieves, they will most surely need to take more money (than they already do) from crappy corporations like Monsanto, Bechtel and Halliburton. and that's my 2 sense.

21 Oct 2003 | jay said...

I fully understand why some people are bothered by NPR's liberal bias given that it is publicly funded. But on the other hand, it seems like it is just the nature of the beast.

Let me put it this way: can you think of any non-religous, right leaning, non-profit organizations? Probably a few, but not nearly as many as secular liberal non-profit organiations. Of the academic types that are likely to be drawn to relatively lower paying radio work, what percentage are conservative? Very few I would guess. On which side of the political spectrum do most people living in major urban population centers fall? I'd say liberal, by a fairly good margin.

So to sum it up we have a non-secular, non-profit organization, which pays a relatively low salary, is for the most part produced in large urban areas, and is run by educated people. How could such an entitly possibly be anything but liberal?

I'm not saying this to slam anybody, but I'm just pointing out the fact that almost any non-profit, secular media organization is going to be liberal.

21 Oct 2003 | Darrel said...

*is* NPR liberal leaning? Our local station seems to host its fari share of conservative lawmakers and pundits. I'm not even sure if Fox is right-leaning. They're definitely loud-opinionated-let's-have-an-argument based, but that's just good ratings.

Also, are we really that divided of a nation? Are we only liberal or only conservative?

I don't like O'Reilly. Not because of his political leanings (I think he's actually somewhat centrist) but because he's an insecure ass. His show is just a yelling match most of the time. I'm a fan of Gross's show, namely because she get's good guests...not necessarily because she's a good interviewer.

BTW, very little of our money goes to support NPR. Actually, percentage wise, not a whole lot of money, in general goes towards more 'liberal minded' pursuits like education, the envioronment health care, etc...

21 Oct 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

I think a distinction needs to be made between bias in the "opinion" section versus bias in the newsroom. Bias on the editorial page of a newspaper or among the editorial commentators of radio or TV shows is normal and expected. But most reputable news organizations try to limit bias in the newsroom.

It's impossible for anyone to be totally objective, but objectivity is at least a goal for most reputable news reporters and editors. The New York Times is known as a "liberal" newspaper (at least among conservatives; most liberals I know think of the Times as too conservative), but I used to sit in press conferences next to one of their environmental reporters who later got reassigned to cover the IRS because the Times felt he was too biased in favor of the environmentalists' point of view. And they were right: he and I covered the same stories and were frequently interviewing the same people, and I often felt when reading his articles that he'd distorted the facts or omitted credible counter-arguments.

The Wall Street Journal is known as a conservative newspaper, but I've read some great environmental reporting there, much of which totally conflicts with the newspaper's positions on their editorial page. That's the way it should be.

So while I agree that NPR has a liberal bias, both in their ediorial commentaries and in the stories that they choose to cover, I don't think their straight news reporting is particularly biased. Terry Gross falls into the "editorial" category; she's not a news journalist. She makes no attempt to hide her agenda and her liberal viewpoint, although at least she keeps herself in the background and doesn't pontificate. I don't expect objectivity from her; I expect her to find interesting people and ask them interesting questions. She didn't do either in the case of Bill O'Reilly, and I even wonder if it was her idea to interview him in the first place, or whether someone else convinced her to do it.

21 Oct 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Addressing several comments at once:

The primary difference being that Fox News is not publicly funded. My tax dollars don't support Fox News' bias.

Well, pretty much all coporations get some sort of indirect tax support through the tax code (and that's not even getting into rates; I'm just talking the same sorts of things in the code that force me to subsidize someone's choice to own a home or have a child or invest in new plant equipment or whatever). And the amount of tax money that goes to NPR is infinitessimal as a fraction of tax dollars - and a pretty small chunk of their budget.

Besides, I don't buy the "my tax dollars shouldn't go to X" argument. We don't get to pick and choose what our tax dollars go toward. I was opposed to the war in Iraq - should I get to say I shouldn't have to subsidize that? Some people don't support the Clean Air Act. Should they get to opt out of that? Given the fact that all public broadcasting money - and throw in the NEA and the NEH into the mix as well - amounts to just a fraction of a percent, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, even if I had a problem with NPR. Just as I don't lose any sleep over the ridiculous flat-note pro-American radio broadcasts in the Middle East we're paying for right now.

It's impossible for anyone to be totally objective, but objectivity is at least a goal for most reputable news reporters and editors.

This is going to seem like I'm just picking nits, but I'll say this is wrong and one of the many misconceptions about how media operate in the States. Most reuptable news reporters and editors realize objectivity is an impossibility and a canard. They strive to be as fair as possible. It's a subtle but huge difference.

So while I agree that NPR has a liberal bias, both in their ediorial commentaries and in the stories that they choose to cover, I don't think their straight news reporting is particularly biased.

There's the key - the stories they choose to cover. And the questions they choose to ask. And the sources they go to when covering a story. That's where bias and perspective show up, and there's no way of avoiding that. You cover the stories you choose as fairly as you can, but your perspective and, yes, bias influence all of the things I just noted.

Now, most reporters are well aware of their biases and leanings, and will try to work to balance them out. But that's a tough task, because the very nature of such things is that there are questions and ideas you don't even consider, or things that you don't consider suspect because they're such a key component of what you believe.

The bigger problem in the media today is the idea that, when covering an issue, you go interview the two extreme sides of a position, and that's somehow "balanced" coverage. And that misses the fact that on most issues, most people are somewhere in the middle of the extremes.

21 Oct 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Steve, great points and lucidly made, as usual.

Agreed on "objective" vs. "fair" -- that's an important distinction that I was missing. I was trained as a scientist but ended up in journalism, and I guess I thought I tried to be "objective" in my reporting. But it's more accurate to say that I was trying to be fair.

The bigger problem in the media today is the idea that, when covering an issue, you go interview the two extreme sides of a position, and that's somehow "balanced" coverage.

That's a very important point. When I worked as a journalist the main issue I covered was climate change, and it always burned me up when the media gave as much weight to the 10-12 climatologists who were deeply skeptical about global warming as they did to the several thousand who felt the evidence was strong enough to warrant concern.

Now, it's true that science isn't done by vote, and one scientist who is right is worth 10,000 who are wrong, but when you're trying to base public policy on science it makes sense to listen to the majority opinion. There will always be skeptics...there are people out there who believe the earth is still flat, but you don't see public policy being made on that assumption. Hmmm, or do you? Maybe in the Bush administration...

21 Oct 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

The part of this I worry about is not the collection of "news" but the use of it. I wonder how many people get their "news" from only one source. And I don't mean just one type of source (ie, paper, TV, radio, Web), I mean the people who read the local paper and that's it.

Growing up our town had 2 big newspapers. One delivered in the morning, and one delivered in the evening. One was definitely conservative, one was liberal. It was good because (and this was before the Web;) because you got to see 2 different treatments (for lack of a better word) of a story. Having both also spurred both papers to be very good.

So when the conservative one bit the dust it because a diservice to the community in a way. Now there was only one version of a story and reporting/journalism (I see a big difference) degraded in quality.

I worry about the opinions of people who form their view of the world though one filter. I form my opinions (about most things) through many filters. I hope this makes my opinions better informed.

I view O'Reilly and Gross much like the 2 papers I grew up with. They do interview some of the same people. And, even though I don't much like O'Reilly, and I don't think much of Gross, I'll watch/listen when they have people on who I find interesting. I don't go for them, but for who they talk with/to.

21 Oct 2003 | Darrel said...

So...are there news sources that are neither liberal nor conservative?

21 Oct 2003 | wppk said...

Neither liberal or conservative? I would have to say Janes. It's not based on any political affiliation to my knowledge.

21 Oct 2003 | Someone said...

tThe O'Reilly proves that Gross has a liberal bias. Compare this interview with Al Franken's interview and the bias is obvious. She does a fluff piece for Franken and attcks O'Reilly rather than talking about his book. If NPR wants a liberal bias, that's fine with me, but they shouldn't be taking govt. money if they are, and I hope the GAO examines incidents like this and takes away NPR's funding for pushing a political agenda.

21 Oct 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

I hope the GAO examines incidents like this and takes away NPR's funding for pushing a political agenda.

Fresh Air is produced by WHYY in Philedelphia. WHYY is like an NPR affiliate. NPR promotes and distributes the program. Perhaps people who have trouble with this bias issue should talk to WHYY and not NPR (though probably both is a good idea if you take issue with this). But then you should also call up Fox and do the same thing.

If NPR wants a liberal bias, that's fine with me, but they shouldn't be taking govt. money if they are...

And once again, all "news" outlets take money in some form from the government. Based on the above logic, all of them shouldn't be taking money from the goverment.

Either you don't want bias in your "news," or you just want to bitch about the "other side." Choose.

21 Oct 2003 | Darrel said...

If NPR wants a liberal bias, that's fine with me, but they shouldn't be taking govt. money.

So, only conservative biased organizations should take gov't monies?

BTW, I'm not sure how Gross, herself, is proof that the entire NPR system is biased one way or the other.

for pushing a political agenda.

What political agenda?

Ok...who has some other non-biased new sources? Are they out there? Or do they all lean one way or the other? Does it really matter?

22 Oct 2003 | Zachariah said...

I listen to both of their shows, though I've listened to Terry Gross for much longer than I have Bill O'Reilly and I'm disappointed in the blatant bias Terry displayed on Fresh Air. The interview was supposed to be about Bill's book, yet it was more about Bill's show and reactions than anything. Bill kept giving hints to Terry, feeding her any way to save the interview such as his discussion of reviews of him versus reviews of his book, but all to no avail. No surprise the NPR Ombudsman comes out on Bill's side here. I think I'll be listening to more of Bill these days and less of Fresh Air.

22 Oct 2003 | One of several Steves said...

So...are there news sources that are neither liberal nor conservative?

Plenty. Mainly because there are a whole hell of a lot more perspectives than those two. For instance, the Orange County Register, which is one of my local papers, is more libertarian than anything. The Chicago Tribune is pretty liberal on social issues, pretty conservative on economic issues. The Washington Post tends to the liberal, but was a pretty big supporter of the Iraq war. Business Week is rather conservative fiscally but has been pretty hard on Bush and was pretty skeptical of the war, etc.

Matthew, you're completely right regarding getting news from multiple sources. My typical daily and/or weekly news consumption consists of the following: LA Times, Business Week, The Economist, The Guardian, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, Slate, NPR.

I'm pretty mixed in generally left and generally right there, I think. I mix American and non-American sources. If my German was better, I'd throw Der Spiegel and Sddeutsche Zeitung into the mix more than occasionally as well. I do think getting a non-American perspective is just as important as balancing out left and right.

22 Oct 2003 | ernie johansson said...

Thanks to commentators above for their insights. A pleasure to read them. I was curious about why BO had so little magnanimity considering his audience and his books (his three best sellers). Losing his temper had the consequences most have noted. Terry was off her game, but she never savages her guests; in this case she tweaked BO (and badly, too) and found his tipping point with the People Mag quote. Why was he unable to stand that one, why did that one send him off when he's survived T's other questions?

Part of the answer is psychological: note his frequent references to libel and slander, everyone is out to smear BO and his take on what's fair and balanced. The People Mag quote was like a stake in his heart, water to the wicked witch of the north.

Notice also how it got his Irish up, the change in his own tone when he asked terry about the franken interview and she said al's book was satire. "Oh so it's satire is it" and he was off. He's also big on shaming others. "Terry you ought to be ashamed" Plus inadequacy charges: If you can see that, understand that, etc., then I can't help you. He is further preoccuped with polarities and absolutes which dominate his answers. BO is unable to contemplate ambiguity, problems which have to polarities. It's either his way or the highway.

22 Oct 2003 | S Trauth said...

I heard the O'Reilly interview and read a lot of comments both pro and con on the web -- but the point is -- that Terry had him on there to talk about his book -at least ostensibly - but she never really seemed to get around to it.

Now I had read something about O'Reilly's book in a Newspaper magazine the Sunday before the interview - it seemed like pretty tame stuff (ok in my mind it looked like nothing all that interesting); I have no idea why you ask a guy all these contentious questions, when the entire interview was supposed to be about yet another self-help book ( from what I could tell it probably was not all that politically charged - at least not like A Franken's writings).

The question is: Why? (And it's a rhetorical one)

22 Oct 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Blah blah blah let's kill this thread and get a new one, k?

I mean ... it's liberal vs. conservative; it'll never stop, never be solved, no common ground, whatever.

22 Oct 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

Don,

Yes it will be solved, there is common ground, there is whatever.

If we can all just agree to work together toward...

Oh you're right. Nevermind.

;)

22 Oct 2003 | shallow asshole said...

I couldn't let someone as ugly as Terry Gross get under my skin. If I were O'Reilly, I would have laughed uncontrollably, knowing that though I may be percieved as an asshole, she would forever be considered incredibly unattractive.

22 Oct 2003 | gsh said...

According to Ira Glass via WBEZ's director on WBEZ's pledge drive this morning, NPR receives approx. 8% of its total funding from the government. He went on to say that they could lose this small percentage and be fine.

24 Oct 2003 | Vehre said...

I heard both the Franken and O'Reilly interviews and I think the big difference was that Franken was there to talk to Gross, while O'Reilly was there to condescendingly lecture "the infidel" NPR listeners. That Terry was uncomfortable with the guy is clear, but I don't think it was his politics. Bill exuded arrogance, hostility and pomposity. He would not answer her attempts at straight questions but used them as launching pads. Setting himself up as the fount of truth made it natural to question him differently than the entertainer Franken. She should not have become so obviously frustrated with his off-point and preachy "answers." I think that his pontificating deliberately goaded her into baiting him so he could stalk off the show in a huff. He intended the grandstand walkout from the beginning. Now he can cry about it for years.

While I have no doubt about Gross's politics I have heard her interview conservatives such as John McCain and military people and normally she is fair. She let O'Reilly get to her and thus did not do her usual good job.

That said, how would he have reacted had a guest tried to turn his show into an in-your-face pulpit? Such a show would never have aired. That's the real difference between the two people and the two networks.

24 Oct 2003 | Mike said...

In my opinion, both Gross and O'Reilly had a separate agenda before going on the air. Although I'm not familiar with Fresh Air, I do watch The Factor at times. It appers to me that Bill went on the show to sell his book, yes, but also to try and catch NPR broadcasting liberal views, proving his accusations are correct. Gross played well into the latter. It seems that her underlying agenda was to mention the book, but never talk about it and rather spin the interview as an attack on the book, as well as O'Reilly.

Now, did Bill handle the interview well? I would think so, up until the point he walked out. That's not like him, and he should not have done that. He's portrayed on the factor as a tough, hard-nosed guy that wants his opions expressed at any cost, so walking out of a tough interview due to losing his temper was not a good choice.

Did Terry handle the interview well? Not entirely. She managed to keep her composure but her line of questioning was totally objectible to the purpose of the interview. Also, at times, she let O'Reilly be in charge. I know he is overbearing, but a good journalist should always be in charge of their interviews.

26 Oct 2003 | Janet said...

Terri Gross had a chance to show a better approach than bias and confrontation. She didn't. It was an understandable, however unfortuante missed opportunity on her and NPR's part.

28 Oct 2003 | John Holmes Motherfucker said...

MY GOD, HAVE I BEEN TRANSPORTED TO THE BIZARRO WORLD? Terry Gross unfair to Bill O Reilly? Well , first of all, who cares? Has anybody seen Bill O Reilly's show lately, or ever? The man needs to be challenged, and he doesn't deserve softball questions. I've seen the show exactly three times and each time the bellicose host, in my opinion, was talking out of his ass, i.e. completely ignorant of (or completely ignoring) important facts in the case. Before he goes on, I think they must clip the microphone to his boxer shorts. If Bill O'Reilly was a fictional character in a movie, he would be cited as evidence of a liberal media bias. Since he exists, he's the Loony Right's new darling, at least for those who are tired of that wimpy Rush Limbaugh. If this is the new face of conservatism, it makes me wonder just when "screw you" became a traditional value.

But I don't think Terry Gross was unfair at all. As an interviewer, Gross acts as the representative of her audience, and the NPR audience isn't the Fox News audience, thank God. She asked the questions I would have wanted asked. She also confronted a controversial figure with the charges of his critics, and gave him a chance to respond-- which I think is completely fair. After all, it isn't as if Mr. O'Reilly doesn't have a platform for his own views.

Up until his final bellicose tantrum, I thought he had represented himself quite well.

28 Oct 2003 | John Holmes Motherfucker said...

PS
I can't be sure, but I think "shallow asshole" is Bill O'Reilly writing under a pseudonym.

Did Gene Simmons really say that? What a thoughtful comment! Maybe Fox News should give Gene his own show!

28 Oct 2003 | cmhughes said...

I've really enjoyed reading this discussion.
One comment about Terry Gross's interviewing. One of the things I love about her is that she asks what she wants to ask and often ignores whatever it is the guest is ostensibly there to promote. Sometimes she does a straight piece about the guest's 'latest project', but often she'll only give it a short mention and ask really interesting questions.
Those of us who are loyal listeners often hear guests say "you, know, Terry, no one has ever asked me that before" or "that's a really good question". And these are often guests who've been 'media-d' to death.
But I will agree that this interview was not her proudest moment and I think she'd agree. She let herself be set up.

30 Oct 2003 | Ann Schwartz said...

I listened to both the Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly interviews. I think it was proper to give Bill a chance to respond to Al's allegations. Although in the beginning, it seemed to be percieved by Bill to be a promotional interview about his most recent book. So they talked about his childhood and such, sort of interesting. Like where he was really raised, a hard luck, no money 'pulled up by your bootstraps' or privilaged moneyed advantage. He seemed to imply that his father helped create his lack of tolerence by bullying him, so it's natural for him to then in turn bullys his guests. Where bravado and exaggeration are built in defenses.

What I found most revealing and interesting about what he said was when he was describing interviewers who bully and insult their guests, it sounded like he was simply describing himself. It was as if by accusing others he was actually saying this is what he does and believes. Much like saying you are fair and balanced when in fact you are promoting your agenda through manipulation and insults.

I found both interviews enlighting and entertaining. I came away with more information to base my opinions on than I had to start with, which is the point of an interview. Terry did not try to insult or shout down either guest and gave them a chance to speak thier opinions in full. What more could you ask for?

As far as the comments on this site, it seems the bulk of the right wingers didn't hear the interview and are responding in defense of thier idelogue. I mean why would they listen to Terry Gross when she conducts an interview after doing research about her subject and letting them speak thier minds? She never insulted Bill or told him to shut up and she let him respond to Al's allegations about the lies he's told. He called them 'mistakes'. We choose who we believe. It's really that simple.

30 Oct 2003 | Janet said...

One thing I did want to add. I don't think it was Terri's style nor best interview possible. And I am not right wing. I listen to Terri every chance I get, and have never listened to O'Reilly. So to me, saying that Terri could have resisted taking the Right Wing approach isn't to say I'm for o'Reilly. It's to say that if you are going to show there is a better way to discuss difficult topics, and to have a discourse with people who have a different point of view than you have - you need to be consistant. To show your anger at that approach and resort to it yourself is something that we teach our children not to do at a very young age. And to me, Terri missed an opportunity to act more mature than o'Reilly.

16 Jan 2004 | Rook said...

At WWDC, I listened to Apple representatives make some excellent points about taking the time to build a 100%-compliant Aqua application, and I think all developers need to look beyond the code and listen to what the folks at Apple have to say