Defending Dishonesty, the O'Reilly Way

To the Editor:

A recent opinion from David Pasinski disapproved of having Bill O'Reilly speak at the Boypower dinner because "he doesn't represent either the best of journalistic ethics or a role model for scouts." I support O'Reilly's appearance.

Bill O'Reilly may express opinions, but the viewer knows they are his opinions. That is better than the CBS/Dan Rather brand of "journalistic ethics" where political opinions are expressed using forged documents, or other media outlets that express opinions in a less obvious manner.

I think we should teach our children to emulate the man who lived 2,000 years ago, was born in Bethlehem and died on a tree in Golgotha.

Beyond that, some people may have some characteristics that may be worth emulating, but we should encourage our children to think for themselves and be careful how much they emulate today's popular personalities.

I think the most important criteria for selecting a speaker is that the person supports the values the Boy Scouts try to teach. I suspect Bill O'Reilly supports these values, which is more than Syracuse University, since they stopped letting the Boy Scouts use the Carrier Dome for the Boypower dinner.

Paul

This is one of those letters that I really, really wanted to edit down... it's longer than it needs to be and really doesn't have very much to say. The only reason I printed the whole thing was so that nobody could say I'm unfairly editing letters to make my point.

The most laughable part of this letter is Paul throwing his support behind Bill O'Reilly's inclusion in the Boypower dinner, because 'the most important criteria for selecting a speaker is that the person supports the values' of the organization, but then saying that he 'suspects' Bill O'Reilly supports the values of the Boy Scouts. He admits he doesn't know for sure, but that doesn't stop him from throwing his full support behind O'Reilly, up to and including a letter to the newspaper. Now that's integrity.

Also, I wish Paul wouldn't make me throw in for Syracuse University... I deeply dislike the school. Regardless, saying that the University doesn't support the values of the Boy Scouts because it wouldn't compromise its dedication to nondiscrimination is about as valid as saying the Boy Scouts don't support the University's value of education because they wouldn't compromise their dedication to homophobia. The University made the right choice in sticking by its convictions in the face of a politically unpopular move.

Okay, all that aside, the real thing I want to tear into here is this part of the letter:

Bill O'Reilly may express opinions, but the viewer knows they are his opinions. That is better than the CBS/Dan Rather brand of "journalistic ethics" where political opinions are expressed using forged documents, or other media outlets that express opinions in a less obvious manner.

This might make my list of top ten ironic statements ever. It needs to be pointed out that while the far-right likes to keep bringing up the Dan Rather incident, there was never any evidence that the National Guard forms used in his reporting were forged. All evidence, in fact, points to the documents being authentic, but there is no way to absolutely verify them due to their age. It was a valid story, and the documents were only a small part of the evidence pointing to poor performance by Bush in the Air National Guard, but of course, for those with a personal stake in supporting the president, the story behind the story overshadowed the actual information. No surprise there, but if you're looking to be taken seriously, you should avoid comparing Bill O'Reilly favorably against Dan Rather.

Bill O'Reilly may indeed express opinions, but more importantly, he presents misinformation and fabrications as facts. He talks like a pundit, presents himself as a journalist, and lies like a white house press secretary.

Misinformation? You bet.

"They said they [9-11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, featured in the ad, and her late husband] voted for Bush [in 2000], but Bush opposed the 9-11 Commission -- which he didn't, by the way. He didn't oppose it. I mean, he had questions about it because he didn't want it politicized." - Bill O'Reilly

Of course, as reported by CBS News:

Mr. Bush said the investigation should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence. Therefore, he said, the congressional investigation is "the best place" to probe the events leading up to the terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, Bill didn't inform his viewers that this was 'his opinion.' much less that it is verifiably inaccurate.

Okay, okay, so Bill isn't always correct. But lies? That's a bit harsh, right?

"Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting... they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review.'" - Bill O'Reilly, speaking to a Canadian representative regarding US military deserters in Canada

Now, numbers don't agree with Bill here. U.S. Census Bureau reports show that in February of 2004, when this aired, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, compared to $2.18 billion in February of 2002. That could just be misinformation, though, right? Well, sure, if The Paris Business Review was an actual periodical. It doesn't exist. There's no such thing. Look it up. You won't find it, and you won't find where Bill O'Reilly corrected himself. He just made it up. It's a figment of Bill O'Reilly's imagination, which would be fine if he weren't using it as a reference to publicly support false claims. Bill O'Reilly, you see, is a liar.

Of course, you still believe that Bill is a man of integrity, because he stands behind what he says, right? Just like when he responded to a listener who criticized him for calling for an Al Qaeda attack on San Francisco.

"Wrong, sir. I gave Al Qaeda your address. That's just a jest. But here's some serious advice: Stay away from the far-left websites. They do not make you look smart." - Bill O'Reilly

Wrong? The caller was wrong? Wow, Bill, can we roll that original clip?

"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. ... And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." - Bill O'Reilly

Sounds like the caller wasn't wrong at all. Sounds more like Bill stepped over the line and, instead of owning up to it, wants to make excuses. What a great example to be setting for those Boy Scouts.

Of course, Bill does a lot of railing against those 'far-left' websites (which, in O'Reilly terms, means any site that criticizes him) and with good reason. Those websites do a great job cataloguing the proliferation of misinformation and lies coming out of his mouth on a regular basis. It's no wonder he warns his listeners against visiting Media Matters for America... if they were to visit, they would find page after page devoid of any personal attack by Media Matters but filled with facts and real, verifiable information debunking O'Reilly's nonsense. O'Reilly hates them for doing what he can't do: that is, make a case for a position without inventing any 'facts' or misrepresenting anyone else. In response, he discredits them with the same kind of misinformation they take him to task for in the first place.

Bill O'Reilly is a hack, and he's poisonous to political discourse in America. That may be a personal attack against him, but unlike Bill, I don't pretend to avoid personal attacks. Bill deserves every ounce of misery his debunkers cause him.