First off, I never said he didn’t do it. He has done it… it’s the amount of TIMES he’s done it that’s the issue. Some will make it seem like he does this every show… that’s wrong. Some will make it seem like it happens whenever he doesn’t like what the other person is saying… that’s wrong. When he cuts off people's mics, or tells them to "shut up" then they are doing one of a few things:

1- Filibustering. When they don't answer the question, and instead start to dance, they're not helping anyone, they're wasting time. Why should they be allowed to waste time?

2- Slandering or lying. If someone starts lying... obviously lying, why should they be allowed to keep doing it? Isn't it more responsible to stop them, and use the time for something more worthwhile?

3- Constantly talking. If someone isn't allowing another guest to respond, why shouldn't they be cut off? Why allow them to monopolize all the time?


Now... the "shut up" or the "cut off the mic" is frequently brought up. But notice something in the clips you have provided... notice how old they are (old set, and he has more hair). O'Reilly has been on the air since 1996... and there are only a handful of times when this has happened. Again, I'm not saying it's never happened... but 5 or 6 times in the course of an 11 year program, does not a pattern make.

In the second clip, notice how many “shut up’s” were either from the same segment (ie. The Glick interview), a commentary (he’s not addressing a guest), or that clip of him at forum with Al Franken who was attempting to interrupt O’Reilly’s speaking time. It simply does not hold up under scrutiny. (And as an aside, I find it funny that “Outfoxed” was attempting to use the “Democracy” line… when they are the ones behind such groups as, “Newshounds” which are attempting to shut FNC down. Apparently, you don’t have to “Shut up” in a Democracy… unless you’re FOX News, in which case, you do. Hmmm.)


Yes, he knows it’s rude… and when it does happen, he talks about. I think I’ve only seen him cut off a mic once, and it was because the woman wouldn’t answer the question… she just started dancing, and then attacking a different candidate. If I remember correctly, I think she was talking about Hillary, but wouldn’t answer a question… and then started attacking Obama’s record instead. She got cut off… and IMO rightfully so. Anyway, he talked about it right as he was doing it, later in the show, and again the next day. Not hooting and hollering, but explaining why he felt it necessary.

Now, as to the Obama controversy… this is a good one. What did he do wrong? Was it wrong for him to call the guard an “SOB”? He thought it was, and apologized for it. Was it wrong for the guard to single him and his crew out, purposely stand in front of him, and prevent them from doing their job? No, that wasn’t right either. In fact, if you watch the whole clip online, you can see at the end, Obama actually comes over to O’Reilly, shakes his hand, and says they’ll “talk after the primaries.” O’Reilly thanks him, tells him he’s a “Good guy,” and says he hopes they talk soon.

O’Reilly’s a “hot-head,” there’s no denying that. However, much of his “heat” is because he believes strongly in what he’s talking about. He’ll debate someone strongly, instead of just throwing softballs around, or only talking to people who agree with him. You may not like his style… but other’s do. But I hardly think that’s reason enough to “hate” him.

I will admit that they are old clips and that the shut up addressed to Al Franken was not on the show but at some book signing event. However on that Glick clip the guest is not filibustering or lying or constantly talking. He is answering the questions he was asked. It is clearly not what BOR wanted to hear. I also thought it was really condescending for him to apologize to the guys mom and say what Glick's father's opinion would be of what he was saying.

I haven't watched his show in a long time and I never did regularly anyway so maybe my opinion of him is outdated or irrelevant.

Here you go Blue,

He made unwanted sexual advances and obscene remarks to a woman and denied he made them...until she pulled out the tapes. he then settled.

Who was looking out for her?

If she hadn't recorded the ass wipe she surly would have lost her job and career, maybe more...

he had April Winchell banned for life over a tantrum he had because his croissants weren't fresh.

O Reilly is a class "A" prick, not even realising how much he and Bill Clinton have in common.

I'm aware of the sexual stuff... and I have given it a lot of thought. Here's the conclusion I've come to: I don't care.

To me, there's "Bill O'Reilly" the guy on the television/radio who says stuff... and then there's "Bill O'Reilly" the real guy. I don't know the real guy... but I've heard some things that make him sound like a jerk. I've also heard some things from folks who work with him currently, that he's great... so who knows?

But you know what... it doesn't matter to me. I'm only really concerned about "Bill O'Reilly" the 'personality.' Why should I care about the other stuff? Does it make him a hypocrite? Maybe, a little... but again, so what? I'm not electing him my messiah, or leader of a particular group... just a guy on the tube who says interesting things. Beyond that, I don't think anyone should take this stuff too seriously.

Besides, if we castigated every celebrity in our society who is jerk in their personal life, television would be a lot quieter. The only reason these stories are a "big deal" is because of whom they're about. Actors, celebrities, and those in the public spotlight are often jerks behind closed doors. And in general, the public doesn't really care. Unless... there's something else. O'Reilly "jerk-ness" is just another mask for the underlying, "I don't like O'Reilly because he is successful at being politically different than me."

Well, he has mellowed with age a bit. Even over the last year or so... I've only been watching his show for about 3 years now, and only when I have enough time to. He still gets fiery every once in a while, but he's been spending more time (too much, if you ask me) on some fluffier things. 11 years is a long time to be doing the same shtick.

As for the Glick bit, in the clip, he talks about why he was disappointed in Glick's statements. He was hoping for a little more of a 'moderate' interview, than an 'America is responsible for everything bad' speech that Glick gave.

Additionally, Glick was doing a bit of dancing. Instead of answering the question, or explaining a point, he would start citing another "example" of whatever it was he was talking about. He was attempting to make a much broader argument, than what O'Reilly had invited him on for.

Also, do note that O'Reilly was attempting to end the segment (because it had gotten far off topic), and was interrupted by Glick. That's when he lost it.

As for the whole "mother" stuff... I agree, that was over the line. But far be it from me, a man who has spent many a minute "over the line," to forever "hate" O'Reilly for just that.



PS-
You’re opinion isn’t “irrelevant”… it’s just out-dated, and a little uninformed. But that’s pretty common, when talking about O’Reilly. There are a lot of people (websites, other news programs, authors, etc) who want to take O’Reilly down, and use the people who are uninformed as their pawns. If you already have a pretty negative opinion of the man, piling it on (untruths, or distortions of the truth) only draws them closer to their side.

Remember, before I started watching O’Reilly, I had a pretty low opinion of him. I only knew what I had heard from everyone else, and none of it made me want to sit and watch. However, after a few months of viewership… my opinion changed. There were (still are) things about him I don’t care for, and opinions I strongly disagree with, but I find his presentation interesting, and worthy of my attention.

I don't know why when submitting a reply it resulted in a downvote from me blue,
but for some reason plime won't let me fix it...sorry.

edit...fixed

I was just going to respond to your "Why should I care about the other stuff?" question with my own question

"If he did this to your mother, sister, wife, or daughter would you care?"
If your answer is "yes", then that makes both of you hypocrite's.

Yeah, that's true. If it happened to me, then I'd care. But it didn't. I'll care about the actual stuff that happened to my family, and not the theoretical.

I suppose if it happened to my family, then I'd either not have settled out of court, or talk about how nasty O'Reilly is when I can... and then turn off the tube.

If we start judging people on what they've done in their personal life, especially our celebrities and politicians, how are we going to get anywhere? We'd have like 4 people on television, and half a person in congress! Heck, I once threw a fit and called my mother a nasty name... does that now void my opinions?

I know what you're saying... but if we really applied that to all of society... we'd all be very lonely.