Mr. O'Reilly, please just stop.
Mr. O'Reilly,
You have declared a "war" on the New York Times. That's good for you, good for them, and good for our democracy: Strong opinions deserve strong spokesmen. Your battle will help sharpen a debate about matters important to the Republic.
But in waging this "war," you are continuing to abuse a man whom you have wronged, and to whom you owe an apology.
On February 4, 2003, Jeremy Glick was your guest on THE FACTOR. Glick had lost his father in the attack of 9/11. He had also signed an ad criticizing the war in Iraq. You were "surprised" that one who had lost his father could oppose that war. And so you had him on your show, presumably to ask him why. (Here's a clip from Outfoxed putting this story together.)
You might not remember precisely what you said on that interview, or more importantly, what Jeremy Glick said. So here's a copy that you can watch. Nor may you remember precisely what the ad that Jeremy Glick signed said. Here's a copy that you can read. And when you've watched what was actually said, and read what was actually written, I'm sure you will see that the statements you continue to make about Jeremy Glick are just plain false. Not Bill Clinton "depends upon what is is" false, but false the way most Americans learned growing up: just not true.
For example:
- in the February 4th interview, you said the ad "accused the USA itself of terrorism." Read the ad, Mr. O'Reilly. It says no such thing.
- in the February 4th interview, you said the ad "equates the United States with the terrorists." Read the ad, Mr. O'Reilly. It says no such thing.
- in the February 4th interview, you said the ad "absolutely says" that the United States is to be "equated" with the terrorists. Read the ad, Mr. O'Reilly. It says no such thing.
- on February 5th, you told your viewers that "Glick was out of control." He may have been out of your control. But you and our government have got to learn that just because someone disagrees with you, he doesn't become a security threat. Again, watch the interview, Mr. O'Reilly. He was not "out of control."
- on February 5th, you told your viewers that Glick was "spewing hatred for this program." Watch the interview, Mr. O'Reilly. He criticized you, not the program, for unethically using sympathy for the 9/11 victims for your own political ends. He was calling your behavior improper. You had not earned his hatred.
- on February 5th, you told your viewers that Glick was "spewing hatred for ... his country." Watch the interview, Mr. O'Reilly. He said no such thing. He specifically distinguished the people he was criticizing from "the people of America." He, like the rest of us, loves our country, even if we disagree with its political leaders, or your political views.
- on February 5th, you accused him of using "vile propaganda." What does "propaganda" mean to you, Mr. O'Reilly? He was disagreeing with your views. Why is that "propaganda"?
- six months later, you said that Glick said that the Bushes "were directly responsible for 9/11." Again, watch the interview, Mr. O'Reilly. He said no such thing. Indeed, he twice denied it.
- eleven months later, you said Glick "came on this show and accused President Bush of knowing about 9/11 and murdering his own father." This, Mr. O'Reilly, is a total, if not pathological, fabrication. Glick said nothing about Bush "knowing" about 9/11. He said nothing about Bush "murdering" his own father. Watch the interview, Mr. O'Reilly. Your statements characterizing what Glick said are absolutely false.
- just last week, you again repeated the claim that Glick said that President Bush was "responsible for his father's death." He said nothing of the sort.
- just last week, you repeated the claim that Glick "implied that the United States itself was a terrorist nation." Glick said nothing of the sort.
- just last week, you said Glick said "America itself was responsible for the 9/11 attack." Glick said nothing of the sort.
- And finally, and most extraordinarily, just last week you repeated the claim that "security actually had to take the guy out of the building, he was that out of control." This, Mr. O'Reilly, you know to be absolutely false. Indeed, it was you who threatened physical violence against Mr. Glick after his interview, and your own staff that apologetically begged Mr. Glick to leave as quickly as he could, fearing that if you saw Glick again, as they said, you would "end up in jail."
Mr. Glick is not the New York Times. He will not earn more money from higher ratings because you attack him so viciously. Neither he nor his widowed mother get any benefit at all from seeing Glick slandered by your show on a regular basis.
You are wrong about the facts, Mr. O'Reilly. And you are wrong to continue to do such harm. Have the courage to admit your error. Apologize to Mr. Glick, and let him go back to a life that has been made difficult enough by, as you said, the "barbarians" who killed his father. This family has suffered enough from barbaric behavior.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (86)
Is Dr. Lessig bothering to read the comments to his posts?
With pleasure, but I make it a rule not to respond where a response won't help.
And btw: I am no "Dr." Lessig, Larry, Lawrence, or idiot are all fine. "Dr." is not.
I apologize for addressing you as "Dr". It was purely a freudian slip. No disrespect intended.
I admire the fact that you took the time -- a la Al Franken -- to review the transcripts and tapes to set the record straight. What's remarkable to me is not that Bill O'Reilly is a propagandist who will state whatever he needs to for his own ideological and personal ends, but rather that he is so contemptuous of his own audience and historical record that he will pathologically fabricate inaccuracies and never correct them. I was stunned when he agreed that he was wrong about WMDs. But then he blamed it all on George Tenet, who is associated with Clinton, and thus able to be a target. Ditto, Louis Freeh gets a free pass at the FBI because Freeh was a Clinton critic even within his administration.
This is never a right/left issue, and yet it is always constructed that way. When Al Franken or Molly Ivins is incorrect about something they typically admit it, but not always. When they don't, I am as aggrieved at their factual inaccuracies as I am by anyone on the other side of the aisle.
If Ann Coulter is wrong about something, why can't she admit it when she's factually incorrect? If Michael Moore is wrong about something--well, he was re-editing his film in days before it was shown. (It may still have inaccurate elements, but many of the elements that are widely reported aren't in the film the way they're reported.)
Big-time pundits know that their audience doesn't care if they are accurate or not, that lying has no penalty.
Just take Declan McCullagh for an example close to "home".
Accuracy is a virtue to liberals and intellectuals, who believe in the power of truth - it's inconsequential to others, who believe in the truth of power :-(.
I believe it is unfair and a disservice (as well as, dare I say it, inaccurate) to characterize accuracy as the province of only liberals and intellectuals. While it does seem fair to suppose that intellectuals would prize accuracy more than the average Joe, I wouldn't want to claim that liberals can boast a better record in this respect than conservatives. I mean, maybe you could, but how does one measure that? I can think of many friends and acquaintences who are both conservative and also value accuracy. Moreover, I can also think of many friends who are liberal and yet may behave or speak without as much care for accuracy as they probably should. I know I've done it.
It's reasonable to expect that intelligent people who value accuracy will often come to different conclusions about the world. It's a complicated place, after all. I feel like the real trouble is that critical thinking requires effort and training. Most folks, even though they may value truth, are probably not born with a proclivity for analysis.
This, if true, would effectively mean that yes, lying may not have a penalty. But perhaps it's not because folks don't care about the lie. Perhaps it's just because it can be hard to see past rhetoric and showmanship to see that a lie is taking place.
I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I can't imagine that the current polarization between liberals and conservatives will be helpful to us as a country as we continue truckin' along into the next months and years and decades. It seems especially important to me to maintain a respect for the people watching and agreeing with the Bill O'Reilly's of the world. Shifting the anger, or constructing broad categorizations wherein "truth is inconsequential to those I disagree with" is, I believe, only serving to put up another obstacle. Lord knows we have plenty of those already.
I hapenned to be watching the interview as it unfolded. I wash shocked at the way Mr. O'Reilly behaved. I sat next to a friend who is normally an O'Reilly fan. He too was shocked by Mr. O'Reilly's behavior. He thought it was totally unprofessional, even though he was, in fact, a supporter of the war and the Bush administration.
Christopher:
All I know about political communication--and it's not a lot--is that the impartial studies I trust show roughly equal rates of honesty or dedication to campaign promises in politicians of both sides (in fact, both Democratic and Republican politicians tend to stick, at least nominally, to their campaign promises far more than most people think).
What's crucial here, though, is that this administration has an absolutely terrible record of distortion and blatant lies; while Kerry, Clinton, and Gore all engaged in spin, this administration has manipulated the public (with, at times, the complicity of networks such as Fox) to the point that a majority believe falshoods about the War on Iraq (according to a U. of Maryland study, 45% of Fox viewers believed all three questions to be true: that WMDs had been found in Iraq, that there were strong ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that world opinion was predominantly on our side--three beliefs that range from arguable misconceptions to incontrovertible lies), manipulated them into supporting bad decisions, ignoring incompetance, and engaging in reckless and damaging courses of action.
This is not, to me, a partisan issue. This is an issue of integrity and lies, responsibility and deceit. This is not, I hope, the blind rhetoric of a liberal hoping for his party to gain power (indeed, I am not overly fond of my own party frequently, as well). This is the outrage of a patriot at the liars who have controlled his country.
I didn't intend to make it a Democratic/Republican partisan issue. Rather, consider, who believes that truth matters? Broadly, this is either:
1) Those who believe truth is important for reasons of a love of knowledge itself - i.e. intellectuals
or
2) Those who believe truth is some type of political empowerment ("know the truth, and the truth shall set you free") - i.e. liberals
If people take offense to my calling that second group liberals, note it's almost always associated with a kind of rebelliousness against the status quo, from the powerless - people already in power don't have to worry about political empowerment!
Note also, I didn't mean to say all liberals prize truth. But rather that the truth-valuers who don't do it for intellectual reasons, do it for liberal reasons.
Now, the key element here is that these two groups are quite small. Hence the *popular* success of those who adopt lying as a tactic. Whether they achieve success in realms dominated by intellectuals (which is not Fox news!) depends on whether the power they amass outweighs the disgust of most of their colleagues.
Yes, there are issues where reasonable people can differ. But sometimes people just lie straight through their teeth, because they estimate it's worth it overall :-(.
From the ad: "WE TOO WATCHED with shock the horrific events
of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands
of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible
scenes of carnage–even as we recalled similar scenes in
Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam."
That certainly sounds to me like they're equating what terrorists did on 9/11 and what the U.S. did in "Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam".
I guess we could be disingenuous and say they're only equating the visual scenes themselves, but I don't think that was the intent of the comparison.
I read the passage to mean: "even" though we (the US) too have committed acts that have killed civilians, "we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead." Or is supporting those who killed on 9/11 the only way that one can believe that killing innocents is bad?
It seems to me that the intent of the comparison is in the comparison itself: to demonstrate grief felt for suffering caused by violence. Of course, I am not a native speaker of English, so I may be wrong.
Christohper-
I don't think that Seth's point was so much that Lefties are honest, righties are not, but that Leftist PUNDITS are -generally- honest, right wing ones, generally not. Clearly, this is a oversimplification, and many on both sides break this rule, but it's hard to argue that the bigtime pundits on the right are happy to play fast and loose with the facts when it suits them, but at the same time, they will call the leftist pundits (or politicians) on even the slightest error. Whatever the origin of this tendency is (Seth's explanation sounds good to me, but who knows), it's hard to argue that it doesn't exist.
O'Rielly must know he is a liar and a fraud. What he is doing is projecting his own actions onto everyone else. Very little of what O'Rielly asserts has the slightest truth. O'Rielly is a hate monger and a demagogue. So when he accuses others of lying and being hate filled he is really talking about himself. He is effective because he can channel his deep seated guilt at having sold out every principle he might of had to the politics of Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove.
Have some sympathy for his point of view. It can't be easy finding out what you think every day by reading a fax from Karl Rove or Grover Norquist. One minute Sandy Berger is being accused of leaking confidential information, so such acts must represent the deepest perfidy known to man. The next minute its Republican Senator Shelby and you have to explain why telling Al Qaeda that we can intercept their communications is something that we should just let slide.
Unlike Al Franken, O'Rielly does not understand humor, Fox news employees contracts require them to have their humor removed surgically when they join. If you look closely at the set of the O'Reilly factor you can see his stored in a little jar on a shelf. It is somewhat shrivelled up these days which is probably why Al Franken is beating O'Really in the Arbitron ratings for the 15-55 age group in NYC in his first three months on the air.
Dan:
I actually agree with everything you've written. Both the record of the current administration as well as that of Fox News makes me furious. I share your outrage. I was merely responding to what I thought was an unhelpful generalization by Seth. However....
Seth:
I misinterpreted your comment, I'm afraid. As is probably clear, I took it to be in the context of a "blue/red", "Democrat/Republican", "liberal/conservative", "us/them" distinction. My concern was over the problems that are so common with "us/them" distinctions. But I see that I misread what you meant; thanks for the clarification.
Mike:
Again, I wasn't trying to defend any pundits...especially not Fox pundits (perish the thought!) Just trying to defend viewers from being lumped together and unfairly characterized as being somehow scornful of the truth.
Wow. Here in NZ, the most fox we get is "Fox Friends" and I thought that was bad.
"Shut up"? "I'm not debating this with you"? "Cut his mike"?
Bill got owned. And if he's still bringing it up a year later, then he knows it.
I was speaking with a couple from England a few months back. They mentioned Fox news, which they get on satellite. They said they and their friends watch it occasionally for entertainment purposes, it is so absurd, but they are appalled at the thought that anyone in America takes it seriously or as a real source of news. They call it obvious propaganda.
Having read the ad and watched the interview, I have to say that I agree with O'Reilly (and with Mr. Glick, in the interview: "it's actually a material equivalency") that the ad poses an equivalence between the terrorist of 9/11 and the US. (I'm not sure that the difference between hating someone and "merely" accusing them of exploiting the dead is worth exploring, nor the difference between hating Mr. O'Reilly rather than his show.) In the interview Mr. Glick does make clear that he hold George H. W. Bush responsible for the murder of his father, because of the actions taken by G.W.H. Bush as CIA director. Further, Mr. Glick insisted that the current President Bush inherited that legacy--the legacy of responsibility.
Lessig's description of the interview is actually less accurate that O'Reilly's, which is really hard to imagine. I mean, everyone knows that O'Reilly is a hotheaded blowhard, while Lessig is a respected law professor. But Lessig's description of this interview just ignores what was said. I encourage everyone who reads this post to actually watch the interview and pay attention to what Mr Glick says. Mr Glick is the sort of deranged partisan who holds George H. W. Bush responsible for the actions of the Carter administration years after Mr. Bush left the CIA. Professor Lessig skips by all the trash in the interview--perhaps he doesn't understand it (though he's very smart), or perhaps he agrees with it--and instead focuses on O'Reilly's recapitulation of the interview. O'Reilly's taken certainly appears to exaggerate some points (Glick doesn't look out of control during the interview, though things may have changed off camera. But many of the charges O'Reilly made are substantiated by the interview.
I've only watched O’Rielly a few times. Don't really watch Fox "News". But most thinking people know that O’Rielly is an idiot. Like others of his ilk, such as Joe Scarborough, their goal isn't accuracy, but to stir up their base. It is unlikely that anyone who follows Fox news or similar shows is going to read anything tha tis going to draw them to this blog and they probably wouldn't understand the issue anyways.
For those who are curious about whether this whole "lying" thing is a recurrent phenomenon on the right, and for Christopher, who wonders how it can possibly be measured, you can check out the excellent Media Matters website, which documents conservative distortions in the media.
The site's been up for less than three months, but already a simple search for [o'reilly] brings up 84 results.
Oreilly, coulter, limbaugh, all together have as much influence as Father Coughlin did. Watch your ass, Larry.
Aaron:
That's a really interesting survey of the media, but what about everyone else? (On a tangent, is there a similar website run by conservatives? I'd be curious to see it...) What about water-cooler conversations and parties and lunches and office meetings and, don't forget, we're not limiting ourselves to political conversations, since we're just talking about accuracy in general, not necessarily just in political discussions....
I don't mean to beat a dead thread that was founded on a misinterpretation, but I just can't help pointing out that, really, something as broad as "accuracy is only important to group A" seems like a pretty hard thing to research. What's an acceptable metric for accuracy, especially as it relates to a huge and poorly defined "group A"?
That said, this is certainly not my field, so mayhaps there's a perfectly good metric out there of which I'm completely ignorant. Anyway, I've officially gotten far afield from Mr. Lessig's original post, so I'll shut up now.
Christopher says:
You might try http://spinsanity.org, perhaps.
Nate:
I'm British and what your friends say is exactly how I feel too. I cannot believe it passes for news out there and am gobsmacked at the behaviour of the presenters who talk over their guests constantly, shout, opinionate and make insulting comments regularly. I watch it because it is the only US feed we get 24/7, and so is readily available to get news from across the pond. Makes much better viewing if you mute it, watch the ticker and play the kind of tunes you find in elevators.
No-spin-zone, more like no-manners-zone.
There isn't much that I can think to say other than Bravo.
Nicely pit together account of O'Reilley's inanities, invective, demonizing and ghastly lies. Why is this tolerated?
And it was suggested that we're supposed to respect the people who belive this stuff? My 15 year old daughter can see through this stuff - the adults who can't are... what? Deluded, stupid, mean, troglodytes... what?
You have to be lazy and mean to believe this drivel/bile - The people who diseminate falsehoods and propaganda should be called on their behaviour at every turn. It's dangerous. He's Joe McCarthy with his own tv show.
These people seek to creat a divide where there is none because they are on the wrong side of a lot of issues and so are busy reframing the questions.
We need that fairness in media law back. The one that Reagan did away with in the 80's. That's how Hannity, Limbaugh et.al. happened. Gotta' change that no matter what!
100% Free MMORPG Exploits, Secrets & Strategies @ http://www.gamehaqs.com
Jane Akre, a Florida news reporter, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against FOX in 1998 after being fired for refusing to report a story she and producers knew to be false. In its' defense, Fox argued that "there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news".
Personally I am surprised there are viewers using Fox News as their sole information source. Then again, I have a feeling that the same audience that is watching Bill O'Reilly also talk about Jerry Springer's guests during dinner.
That said, Yank's need to really start thinking for themselves a bit if they want to stop their empire from crumbling. You did not declare war on al Qaeda, they declared war on you. They did not hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon to make Americans sad, they picked sites with strategic and economic importance so stop referring to it as a "terrorist" attack instead of a surgical strike. The casualties suffered at both sites and on the fourth plane are indeed terrible losses, but they are also collateral damage. Currently 13,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by the USA but rather than express empathy like you've shown for 9/11 victims there is only apathy and greed. You've brought this on yourselves by letting the wealthy, relgious, and power hungry control your government instead of forcing accountability. You let your dogs off the leash, they let theirs off the leash. Sucks to be you.
HHZ, all I can say is that whenever these monsters strike again, I hope they get you and yours. For you, it will be going out in a blaze of glory, I'm sure. I can only imagine the look on your face as you jump from your tower, or as your plane descends to your death! And at that time I'll think: well, sucks to be you!
For what it's worth, I'm intellectually conservative and tend politically to support Republican candidates. I will vote for George Bush in November, albeit without much passion.
I find Bill O'Reilly to be a noxious fool. Like excessively fundamentalist Christian leaders whose excesses merely advance the cause of irreligionists, O'Reilly (and those like him, such as Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest of that non-serious group) do little more than serve as straight-men for those on the Left who would deny the possibility of serious and responsible conservative political thought. He is an embarrassment to serious conservatives. And on the topic of Glick, Lessig is simply, apolitically correct -- O'Reilly is making things up and using his position to unjustly crucify a guy who has more than suffered enough. Left, Right, Democrat or Republican -- that's just not right. Bill, please just shut up.
I'm not familiar with the US law, but certainly in the UK O'Reilly would probably guilty of libel since it could be argued that what he has said is demonstably untrue and will have harmed his reputation. How about someone taking his case and sticking it to O'Reilly and Fox?
I'm a registered liberal but find myself agreeing with more centrist views... but that really has not much to do with what I have to say.
I watch O'Reilly regularly, and I admire his intelligence and capabilitiy to debate... note, I don't always agree with him, but it's fun to watch. I have heard his recent views on the NYT, (a paper I must add, I do not read very often).
I watched the interview from the clip here on the website. It scared me. They have waged "war" on the NYT? What's next? Waging war on me if I disagree? I hope our government doesn't feel the same way he does... I'd be afraid of voicing my opinion because of the backlash. Isn't this what we just "liberated" Iraq from? Who'll be here in the future to liberate us if things keep going like this?
My last question... has Lessig ever appeared on O'Reilly? Has he ever been invited? Would he want to?
Mr. Lessig,
I admire your courage in attempting dialog with these propagandists. O'Reilly and his sponsors are truly a threat to our nation. I had almost given up in trying to communicate with those on the right who are totally blinded by years of reading their own propaganda. I have to go back to the 60s when I was a young boy to remember a time when we were this polarized as a nation.
You words are encouraging, your arguments coherent and thoughtful. I've also been reading your works on patents, software, and copyright and was pleased to see you joining the board at the FSF. As a programmer of many years I know only too well the importance of what you are doing. I wish you nothing but success
Kind regards,
Bob Dionne
Newbury, Vt.
Larry, great job in getting the facts straight. The current crop of "loons" in the media can't seem to keep myth from reality straight. I guess when these guys tell so many lies, over and over again it gets pretty hard to tell any more what is the truth.
sams
I disagree.
Wow! I never knew how far left the far left actually was. Be careful out there so as not to fall off the edge of the earth, OK?
While I'm not in favor of personal attacks, the lack of argumentative skills by some of the responders to this post amuses me. I find it ironic that some view Mr. O'Reilly as a demon. What I really find amusing is the fact that some host of a TV show rips at your liberal being and agitates you in such a way that you cannot think for yourselves. Very funny to me. You spin, he wins. I don't agree with everything Mr. O'Reilly says, but if he's got the goat of liberals, they must be worried. I don't listen to anything Al Franken says, because I find his beliefs to be too far out there to have anything in common with me or anyone I know. He doesn't agitate me because I pay no attention to him. I don't worry about what he says. Yet all sorts of left wingers hate what O'Reilly says. O'Reilly, as with anything else on the tube, is "entertainment". He's a news analyst, not a reporter. If you view it as anything else, you need to get a life. Fast.
All these "said nothing of the sort" comments is a bit extreme, and those are not factual statements, just your opinion of them. Technically you may could say Glick said nothing of the sort, but he heavily inferred the same thing you say he didn't say, so in that regard, you're spinning again.
Hey, it's your blog and your opinions, but that is a key point about your rants about Mr. O'Reilly...they are simply your opinions. As such, they cannot be wrong or right. I admire the attempt to display the ads and interviews so that "you report, we decide". But you put your spin on things just as you've accused O'Reilly of doing. I've come to the conclusion you have some valid points of argument, but also you have some leftist bias in some as well, which cloud the unsubstantiated "facts" you so hope to convey. But, that's just my opinion.
Fox news -- always right, sometimes correct.
Since only a couple commentors said anything, let's trying this again but in WWNCD? (What Would Noam Chomsky Do?) form:
WE TOO WATCHED with shock "A". We too mourned the "B" and shook our heads at "C" – even as we recalled similar "D"
A = the horrific events of September 11, 2001
B = thousands of innocent dead
C = the terrible scenes of carnage
D = scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam
In the first order analysis, they're comparing the scenes: B and C are similar scenes to D.
However, Noam Chomsky would seek the deeper meaning, and he would say they were comparing what terrorists did on 9/11 to what the U.S. did in the places mentioned in D.
But you put your spin on things just as you’ve accused O’Reilly of doing.
Mike, there's always going to be some spin; blogs would be mighty tedious if they didn't take a stand. But there's spin and there's character defamation. There's spin and there's fantasy. There's spin and there's lying. If you watched the clip that Larry graciously provided and still say with a straight face that what O'Reilly did was a matter of mere spin, equivalent to the opining of Mr. Lessig in this post, then I'm afraid there's little we can do -- you're an ideologue. As a former journalist and a dedicated follower and critic of the media, I can safely say that O'Reilly goes beyond any precedent for a television pundit (with the possible exception of Michael Savage, who was rightly dismissed for his excesses), moving from the zone of spin into an area that can only be described as criminal. Can you not see the distinction?
Larry,
you write that the ad does not equate the US to terrorists. You are either being disingenuous or you actually believe what you write. In either case, you write as if your opinion is fact. Although the ad did not literally accuse the USA itself of terrorism, that certainly seems to be the intent of the ad. Of course, that is just my opinion.
However, the ad does equate the US to terrorists. That is a fact. You can attempt to explain it away and say that we misunderstand, but the statement 'even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam' equates the US to terrorists. To come up with a different meaning for that statement is to go way out of your way to explain it.
A human death is a human death. While the American people who have to fight the politician's wars should be helped through the horrible guilt of killing, we cannot pretend, for their protection, that the thousands dead in Vietnam, Panama City, and Baghdad did not have families, did not have lovers crying at their death. While 911 was a horrific unimaginable tragedy to all Americans, the honest reaction is the same as that of an Iraqi widow: profound sadness. Not fear, not revenge. The world will suffer for too long because of Mr. Bush's lack of strength and leadership after this tragedy.
The cause of terrorism is US weapons, sometimes in the hands of the Israeli or Eqyptian governments, sometimes in the hands of US soldiers. Any statements to the contrary are prolonging the period of deaths. The neocon success at turning the tragedy of terrorism into a military industrial complex economic boom will haunt us for years and will only cause more people to become terrorists.
However, the ad does equate the US to terrorists.
No, it equates the suffering that we felt when we were attacked, to the suffering that we have caused to others. It happened that we were attacked by terrorists, but that does not mean that warfare is equal to terrorism. Nonetheless, even legitimate warfare, played by the rules, causes suffering. The issue is whether the suffering caused by our policies is necessary. One could make the case that the American public supported the war in Iraq without fully thinking about the consequences. Raising the issue in an ad is legitimate debate.
The problem with O'Reilly and his supporters is they cannot comprehend honest political discourse, let alone subtle nuances. They are always looking for the knife, or the smear, since that is all they know.
Prof. Lessig deserves our thanks for taking a stand. I think he got it right.
TomB--thanks for standing up for nuance, but if Mr. Glick was making a "nuanced" argument, you're out of your mind. You did notice that he's crazy, didn't you? I mean, beyond the pale, out of his f-in mind, like a fox, crazy. George H. W. Bush is responsible for the mujahadeen? His son inherited that responsibility? What kind of crazy stuff is this? How are these paranoid fantasies nuanced?
No, it equates the suffering that we felt when we were attacked, to the suffering that we have caused to others.So, you do not think that a reasonable person could believe that the add equates the US with terrorists? Larry is stating his opinion as fact. That, imo, is the problem with most liberals - they believe that their opinion is fact. For some reason, liberals think that they know what is best for me. I might agree with more liberal concepts if liberals were not telling me how to think and trying to take my money to pay for their agenda.
Since you mentioned political discourse, do you see any problems with Moore's movies or do you think that they are honest political discourse?
I'd like to touch on two things.
1. The dialogue between seth and christopher.
As a disillusioned conservative, I have to say that seth is onto something.
There seems to be an increasingly dominant strain in conservatism that believes that might makes right. This vision of power ultimately views the truth as either a propagandist tool or a silly delusion that losers comfort themselves with.
2. I do agree that the left is being less than forthright about the "moral equivalency" question, but moral equivalency is a term used by the right and it doesn't properly describe the left's position.
The left is rightly contemptuous of the far right's easy view that america is the embodiment of good in the world and that those with antagonisms toward us are pure unadulterated malignancy. The right wing has slipped into a very manichean view in which all the light is on our side. The left should be quite open about reminding people that our own history and behavior is more problematic than the simple visions of the right. I have seen no definition of terrorism that the US would not stand morally condemned by as well, whether it be killing innocents, brutalizing non-combatants, engaging in vigilante justice, acting outside of the bounds of international law, using weapons of mass destruction on civilians(people seem to forget that we are the only nation in history to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians using strategic nuclear weapons not once, but twice, and we slaughtered those civilians to demoralize the enemy). In truth, what we are really arguing is nothing more than that the state is the only legitimate practitioner of violence.
If one is of the belief that ones enemies are pure evil, then by definition such people can have no valid grievances and they can have no legitimate interests. The facile dismissal of many people's sense of being wronged by US foreign policy is a big part of what fuels hatred of the US and a willingness to resort to violence. Once someone becomes convinced that their interests will never be recognized as legitimate and that there is no hope that the other side(which holds a disproportionate amount of power in the world) will ever have anything other than contempt and disregard for their concerns, what remains is "its either them or us".
Once WE accept the pure evil malignancy argument there will be only one response from the state, the destruction of that pure evil. We set ourselves on a fanatical path that IS the mirror image of terrorist logic. Each side believes the destruction of the other is the only possible outcome because each side believes the other is unredeemable evil.
In other words both sides have subscribed to a vision of the world in which their enemies are no longer human but demonic. Such a vision can only end in the destruction of one or the other or, more likely, the destruction of both.
The left should keep reminding us that being civilized means refusing to be pulled into that fanatical logic and they should make this argument in a fully open way without talking around the point for fear of being condemned as "aiding the enemy".
I must say I was shocked to see the way the Bill O'Rilley treated an invited guest on his program. It was unbelievably rude and crass.
It would be interesting to draw Bill O'Rilley into a proper debate, with "fair and balanced" rules. You histrionics allowed, no interruptions, and no cutting of the oppositions mics.
I dont understand why anyone would agree to appear on a Fox interview, given the treatment thats dished out.
However, the ad does equate the US to terrorists.
Of course it does, and it infuriates Americans (Liberal & Conservative) because it speaks of a unspoken truth, the American people have the blood of others on their hands.
To admit such a thing would mean that America might have to change its foreign policy to something a lot less like "do as I say, not as I do".
The American Corporate government is not interested in spreading the basic tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights around the world, scarily they seem more interested in curtailing them at home. Bill O’Reilly applauds such actions and for that he should be demonized.
I suggest that Mr. Lessig is being distracted by the personal nature of sensation TV, and his time would be better spent fighting the "Patriot" act than sparring with O’Reilly.
Glenn Fleishman wrote:
What's remarkable to me is that he has an audience at all. As a Canadian, I cannot understand the mechanism here. Do people in the US really prefer so much the drama of the program that they are willing to overlook the continual misrepresentation of fiction as fact?
simon woodside
While I don't condone Mr. O'Reilly's tactics, I do believe that Mr. Glick must share some responsibility for what transpired on the O'Reilly show.
Like Jerry Springer, who leverages his combatants (read: guests) against each other and the audience for maximum dramatic effect, O'Reilly brought Mr. Glick on to his show to lambast him with his radical rightist views, to the titilation of his viewers. (A fact Mr. Glick was aware of, as seen by his preparation for the interview).
To believe that the O'Reilly show was a forum for honest discourse was oxymoronic: O'Reilly is the host, controls the show (and the security detail) and the length of the segment. Mr. Glick had no outcome other than to be demonized for the pacification and validation of O'Reilly's viewers.
Mr. Glick would have been better served (and ostensibly renumerated) by sharing his views with like-minded listeners, or at least a moderated forum/debate.
When "far left" is used to refer to anyone's viewpoints that do not include dismantling of capital, forfeiture of private property and redistribution of power to the masses, you know that far left must only be left of far, far right.
Mike never listens to those who he disagrees with. That makes him less informed than someone like myself, who does. I don't really care what he thinks, because I already know he will dismiss me right out of hand.
Glick went on O'Reilly solely to make his first point, in the two or so seconds he knew he had before being shouted down, hoping to perhaps get his point-of-view to the small percentage of Fox News viewers who are unlike Mike and actually willing to listen.
It's a shame that centrism is now considered fringe. That the debate is no longer about capitalism or communism, but about capitalism or theocracy, with captialists being the left wing.
The guy speaks with a lisp, too. I'm surprised Bill didn't crucify him for supporting the degredation of our great moral society and gay marriage.
"What’s remarkable to me is that he has an audience at all. As a Canadian, I cannot understand the mechanism here. Do people in the US really prefer so much the drama of the program that they are willing to overlook the continual misrepresentation of fiction as fact?"
I'll tell you exactly why O'Reilly is so popular in the United States, which happens to be the same reason why I watched him for a while.
The American people are dissolutioned with politics (and leaders in general). The whole Clinton/Lewinsky mess, Jim Traficant, Bush and the war, Halliburton, Enron, Global Crossing...etc. It seems as though every time one turns a corner they're witnessing another scandal.
O'Reilly comes across, ostensibly, as a product of a middle class family who worked his way up by his own merit. He *appears* to be the only figure on television that tries to expose corruption and dishonesty. (Many people love him for his watchdog actions regarding 9/11 and aid funds distribution). Regardless of whether you approve of his methods or agree with what he says, one can't argue that O'Reilly at least *stands for something*.
I don't watch his show anymore, and I think he often loses control of his resoning abilities. Honestly though, I can't help but admire him for his firm convictions and his willingness to defend them.
TomB wrote: "The problem with O’Reilly and his supporters is they cannot comprehend honest political discourse, let alone subtle nuances. They are always looking for the knife, or the smear, since that is all they know."
Thomas replies to TomB with: "You did notice that [Glick]’s crazy, didn’t you? I mean, beyond the pale, out of his f-in mind, like a fox, crazy."
No further comment.