2003 Year in Review

Oh, Really, O'Reilly!

I’ve received some interesting feedback to my series of three articles on Bill O’Reilly and his enterprising spirit. As often is the case, the feedback has been in support of O’Reilly, but it also reveals the writers have “spun” their criticism, either by a careless reading of my articles or by not reading the complete series. But O’Reilly is a man who engenders rabid loyalty or equally rabid hate.

I hasten to add that I neither love nor hate the man. I still watch his program on occasion. He has done creditable segments, such as the recent interview with Dr. Condeleezza Rice, and he has done incredibly sloppy segments. Like most news commentators, he likes to throw around the phrase, “My sources tell me…” to give authenticity to his opinions. For the most part, his “Talking Points” are pompous and pretentious. But, as I said, he has done some very good segments.

So when one writes about the rich and famous, one should expect the crude and rude to respond. The following responses are regarding the second article of three I wrote on “O’Reilly Reality – The Huckster Factor.”

Gary “rate[s] your performance as a poor ‘wanna be [sic] hatchet man.’ Sorry Gary, I’m not a “hatchet man.” My comments are entirely my own, without any ulterior motive.

Brian Johnson of West Hartford, CT, worries that I think “the people who enjoy his radio and TV programs are just mindless ditto heads…you[r] column implies that he is doing something wrong and I dissagree [sic].” Ditto heads, I believe is a term originally applied to listeners of Rush Limbaugh – so, no, Mr. Johnson, I’m not implying that. Is O’Reilly “doing something wrong”? I suggest you read the third column in my series to see what I take issue with as far as O’Reilly and his enterprises are concerned.

A reader from Orlando, Florida, Carol Lawson posted the following which bolsters my case: “There are so many TV personalities that write books (just about everyone); however, he is the only one I know that [c]ontinually pushes his books, continually…Oh, I forgot he needs the money!”

Joe Spearman of Baton Rouge, LA, writes “Bill forces no one to listen to his [programs] or buy his book…I listen to Bill most week days but had not intended to buy his book. After reading what Driver had to say, I will purchase the book. It’s the American thing to do.” Well, Mr. Spearman certainly put me in my place, did he not! It just cost him thirty plus dollars to do so. By the way, Mr. Spearman, I listen to O’Reilly on occasion – no one forces me to – just as no one forced me to read your email. But it is a rich reward to have a naysayer such as you hoist himself by his own petard in his “patriotic” fervor. Such an “I’ll show you” attitude as yours keeps Bill in the money.

A Search and Rescue Swimmer for the Navy, Kevin Franks from Gaithersburg, MD, states “…you have correctly [e]stablished the fact that O’reilly (sic) is rich and making more…money off [t]he general public…Who wouldn’t! And if you say you wouldn’t, [g]iven the opportunity, than (sic) you are a fake…What you have to mention is how he’s [a] fake. Or how he changes words to his advantage. Or how he’s wrong on everything he talks about. It seems to me, you’re spinning on your own web site! Now that’s funny:)”

First, Mr. Franks, let me say I appreciate the fine job you and your comrades do; it is arduous work. I’m sure you approach your profession with the same zeal you attached to your email.

Second, Mr. Franks, let me assure you that anyone – including O’Reilly – who offers an opinion on a topic is “spinning.” To spin a topic simply means you’re giving a particular view on the subject. So yes, I spin, but I try to keep as close to the truth as my perspective will allow. O’Reilly has tried – with some success – to appropriate the word and phrase to denigrate any dissenting opinion. If my spinning is funny, then you probably roll with laughter when you view the Factor or visit O’Reilly’s web site. O’Reilly himself often spins so fast it only looks as if he’s sitting still.

Third, in none of my three columns on O’Reilly did I refer to him as a fake. He’s no fake; he’s the real thing. Nor, in any of the three columns, did I say “he’s wrong on everything he talks about.” Here, Mr. Franks, you are doing the “spinning.”

In column three of my series, I pointed out some misleading information on O’Reilly’s web site. For example,

“We are assured that as premium members we will receive preferred access to offer [our] feedback and suggestions to Bill and his team in the production of new O’Reilly books, radio shows, and web site content.

“Our enthusiasm is tempered, however, when we read the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) to discover Bill has no shortage of topics and news stories to be covered on his programs. Additionally, he has a staff working full time to bring the latest and most interesting stories to his audience. In any case, Bill's sharp journalistic instincts and interest in delivering complete and fair coverage of current events to his audience prevail.”

As you can see, Mr. Franks, these two statements, carried at different locations on O’Reilly’s web site, are contradictory. The question arises: As a premium member, would my “feedback and suggestions to Bill” carry any weight when he has “no shortage of topics and stories to be covered”? Probably not since “Bill’s sharp journalistic instincts…prevail.” One statement is placed in a conspicuous position, the other hidden in the FAQ section, which many people never bother to read. But, that’s their problem, right, Mr. Franks?

In the same column, I took O’Reilly to task for his egregious marketing of the “autographed” copies of his books:

“In [an] interview on ABCnews.com, O’Reilly stated about The No-Spin Zone book '…I always tell everybody if you buy the book, the least I can do is sign it for you'…What he fails to say, however, is ‘sign it for you’ for an extra five dollars. If we are foolish enough to pay the additional fee, then we receive a copy of the book with O’Reilly’s signature on a bookplate [emphasis added], not a personally signed copy touched by the spinmeister.”

My comments obviously struck a note with his web site, because within three days from the posting of my column, the following caveat appeared on the web page where orders for the books are placed:

This book is autographed by Bill on a customized bookplate sticker. It is NOT personalized. Personalized books (i.e., including bookplates signed by Bill but also including your printed personal messages) are available separately.[Italics mine]

Even with this note, the statement is misleading. The books are not autographed by Bill. He signs a customized bookplate sticker which some worker places in the book. These bookplates add no collector’s value to the book. It’s as if Barry Bonds scribbled his name on a sticky note, attached it to a baseball and hawked it as an autographed baseball. There is a big difference between the fake and the real thing, wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Franks?

And then there’s the obligatory put –down from Carol in St. Louis: “I think you are the one that’s angry about [B]ill [O’R]eilly’s success – and [I] love every bit of it…he’s a lot smarter than you according to your pathetic article.”

No, Carol, I’m not angry about O’Reilly’s success. I’m sure he deserves it, and with followers like you, it’s sure to continue. What I take issue with is his marketing tactics and his duping of the very people on whom he depends for his success. He is as greedy as the corporate executives he so often criticizes on his programs.

Yes, I wish I had some of the monetary success of Bill O’Reilly – just a million or two would be fine with me. However, I do not want to get it by taking advantage of the millions of people who put their faith in those who profess to admire and protect them.

Thanks to those who read my column, and thanks to those who respond.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
November 7, 2003