Rating: 
Summary: What a Load...
Review: I read this book and laughed my ass off! I also cried... because I was laughing so much!!!!!! Whiney baby liberals: give me a break. Get over it, the liberal left is in the wrong, always have been, always will be. Thank goodness for folks like O'Reilly.
Rating: 
Summary: A valuable survey of Bill O'Reilly's "journalistic" tactics
Review: I recently heard Bill O'Reilly on Terry Gross's FRESH AIR on NPR, and his behavior convinced me that he is either mentally ill or calculatingly manipulative. I tend to the latter. O'Reilly suddenly pretended to be outraged at what he alleged was unfair, biased questioning, but it was interesting that he allowed the interview to go on for 50 minutes, knowing that he was scheduled for a 55 minute time slot. It was obvious that he planned from the outset to blow up and get outraged, in order to have fodder for his own show. That was my impression at the time of the show, but my conviction has been consolidated by this book. Bill O'Reilly depresses me, partly because who he is-a loutish, aggressive, rude, combative, uninformed bully-but partly about what he says about contemporary American politics. Several former high level Republican leaders-a former speaker of the house and a former senate majority leader(Bob Michel and Bob Dole)-have stated and lamented that a new aggressive, take-no-prisoners style began to emerge with the 1984 Congressional class, led by raucous, unpleasant individuals typified by Newt Gingrich. With Lee Atwater's leading the GOP, the Republicans took on a new hyper-aggressive, win-at-all-costs approach to politics. And with the emergence of pundits like Rush Limbaugh and billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife funding hordes of ultra Right Wing organizations and projects, any semblance of gentility disappeared, with Right Wingers accusing Democrats of every conceivable crime, knowingly manufacturing untruths (such as multiple accusations against Dukakis in 1988), and then-during the Clinton years-unleashing an unrelenting deluge of absurd charges and innuendos. Bill O'Reilly is another piece of this Right wing strategy to slant and mold political thinking in America. O'Reilly's contribution is unique in that he pretends to being unbiased and independent, and by taking the outrageous step of calling his show the "No Spin Zone," whereas it is "All Spin, All the Time." I am tremendously upset that a book like this is needed. It hasn't been a good year for O'Reilly. First, he made a fool of himself at a table discussion featuring Molly Ivins (who managed to stay above the fray) and Al Franken (who I normally like, but who did, I'm afraid, did bait O'Reilly some, with tremendous success, and O'Reilly, who was unable to control the situation like he does on his show when he shouts people down, was made to look rather absurd). Then he attempted to engineer a lawsuit to prevent the publication of Franken's LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM, only to lose when the judge laughed the lawsuit out of court, all of which caused Franken's book to skyrocket to the top of the NY Times Bestseller List. He then made a fool of himself on the Terry Gross interview (though I'm sure his followers will not take the time to hear the entire interview, and will buy his own "spin" on what happened, which is a travesty of what actually occurred-anyone doubting me should go to www.npr.org, look up the Fresh Air link, and listen to the whole interview). Finally, Peter Hart brings out this book, which competently documents O'Reilly's tactics, ploys, and struggles with the truth. I don't enjoy books like this, though they are needed. The book does a more complete job than Franken or Joe Conason in his book BIG LIES of documenting O'Reilly's claims. I was already aware of the nature of his strategy, of attempting to portray himself as an independent, whereas he is, in fact, solidly to the Right (though not as far as Rush Limbaugh). Hart quotes Bishop John Spong (a writer I normally dislike enormously), who tells O'Reilly quite accurately on his show, "You're Rush Limbaugh with perfume." It is helpful to have an extensive list of O'Reilly's factual errors. It become pretty obvious that O'Reilly in general just doesn't have a very good grasp of the facts, but tends instead, despite his claims to being a journalist, has the political grasp of a guy arguing politics in a barbershop. In fact, I became impressed with the overall resemblance of his style of "debating" with that of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's strategy was, when trying to prove a point, to spout statistics or "facts" that tended to bolster his position, statistics or facts that no one would be likely to be able to challenge on the spot, but which turned out to be untrue upon a reexamination. Basically, O'Reilly "spouts" pseudo facts to prove his point, but does not later correct himself on any of his errors. One thing that disturbs me about the Right these days is how comfortable many of its supporters are with factual inaccuracy. How can O'Reilly maintain such a large audience when he has such a weak grasp of the truth? At any rate, this book is valuable for calling O'Reilly to the carpet for his lamentable weaknesses as a journalist. But to me, these faults pale in comparison to his unpleasantness as a debater, his aggressiveness towards those he considers his enemies, and his rudeness.
Rating:
Summary: Dissatisfied
Review: I think the book was a waste of money!!!
I don't remember reading sooo much rhetoric in my life.
It's like the author just doesn't like O'Reilly so he writes negative and untrue things about the man.
Trust me, don't buy the book, you'll ask for your money back!!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Pathological Liar
Review: I think the term that best descibes Bill O'Reilly is pathological liar. He lies so much that its hard to tell if what he is "reporting" is truth or lies. He lies so much even he can't keep up with them. O'Reilly is a classic case of hating in others what he doesn't like in himself. Thus the accusations of "liar" flow freely from him. The man needs psychological help.
Rating:
Summary: Pathological Liar
Review: I think the term that best descibes Bill O'Reilly is pathological liar. He lies so much that its hard to tell if what he is "reporting" is truth or lies. He lies so much even he can't keep up with them. O'Reilly is a classic case of hating in others what he doesn't like in himself. Thus the accusations of "liar" flow freely from him. The man needs psychological help.
Rating:
Summary: Great book.
Review: I was never a fan of O'Reilly, due to the fact that 100 percent of the time, he has no idea on what he speaks of. I am not at all surprised that this book was released. In fact, it had to be.
Bill O'Reilly is no different tham any of these neo-conservaitve ideologues out there(Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Alan Keyes, Joe Scarborough, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, etc, etc) who whine about a mythical liberal media bias. O'Reilly, of course, is a straight up, pathological liar with NO MORAL VALUES WHATSOEVER. And he is by far the last person to be lecturing anybody on moral values considering his recent lawsuit and writing a book portraying teen crack whores.
Here's an example of his rants against the "liberal" media:
The New York Times: "Primarily a left-wing organization"
The L.A. Times: "The Pro-Palestinian newspaper of record out there in L.A."
NPR: "A liberal slant... twenty-four hours a day."
Foreign Press: 'Well. everywhere else in the world lies. If you see foreign coverage, it's just a bunch of propaganda."
No Bill, YOU are propaganda.
Rating:
Summary: I've Read the Book - Hypocrisy at its Core!
Review: I was unfortunate enough to endure FAIR's "The Way Things Aren't", a book of 100 of Rush Limbaugh's mistakes. The fact that ANY radio personality has made a mere 100 notable mistakes should be cause for celebration; most aren't that accurate. Most of these errors, in addition, are tiny mistakes, or mere areas where FAIR disagrees with the commentator. But I'm getting off topic. This new book latches onto a few errors of Bill O'Reilly. For instance, he confused two radio awards for a short period. These awards were about equivalent, but were latched onto by the media as evidence of a lying streak. If you want to read this kind of junk, go right ahead. FAIR.org stands with Al Franken, Ann Coulter, and others as vicious fact-omitting mudslingers with little room for pity.
Rating:
Summary: I've Read the Book - Hypocrisy at its Core!
Review: I was unfortunate enough to endure FAIR's "The Way Things Aren't", a book of 100 of Rush Limbaugh's mistakes. The fact that ANY radio personality has made a mere 100 notable mistakes should be cause for celebration; most aren't that accurate. Most of these errors, in addition, are tiny mistakes, or mere areas where FAIR disagrees with the commentator. But I'm getting off topic. This new book latches onto a few errors of Bill O'Reilly. For instance, he confused two radio awards for a short period. These awards were about equivalent, but were latched onto by the media as evidence of a lying streak. If you want to read this kind of junk, go right ahead. FAIR.org stands with Al Franken, Ann Coulter, and others as vicious fact-omitting mudslingers with little room for pity.
Rating:
Summary: Beware of this book
Review: I would just like to point out the author's own "spin" in the Book Description. First, he lambastes O'Reilly for saying that the US "gives far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else" and counters with a seemingly disparate statistic that states the US is near the bottom of the list for developed countries when measured per capita. Has Hart considered that both statistics may be true, since O'Reilly was most likely speaking of total dollars, which is what really matters / counts, than average dollars? The reason the average is so low is that the US is a really big country with lots of people. Second, I cannot comment to the veracity of the quotes regarding Libya but there is a trick with language that Hart has employed here that I find to be especially "inflammatory." He links up the Libya quote with another quote from O'Reilly regarding something completely different. "If you're not providing controversy and excitement, people won't listen or watch," is O'Reilly's commentary on the state of the media, of which he is a part, but has nothing to do with the Libya comment. Therefore, if one is not paying attention to the text, one might make the accidential conclusion that O'Reilly makes sensational comments so people will watch and listen, which incidentially is not true. I cannot believe that such a piece of tripe would come from an organization that would call itself "FAIR".
Rating: 
Summary: puh-leese
Review: I'm no great fan of Bill O'Reilly, although he does manage to get some interesting guests on his show. (If only he'd let them speak!) But this book is one long case of a strawman argument. For example, by saying that O'Reilly is wrong about U.S. foreign aid by citing PER CAPITA giving is a classic case of making statistics say what you want to. Here's a clue: take a large nation and your per capita ANYTHING is going to be small. O'Reilly is right, though, in saying in absolute amounts in both monetary and nonmonetary aid the U.S. is by far No. 1. And O'Reilly makes no secret of the fact that he offers opinioin on his show. Opinion is not spin. Spin is taking the obvious and trying to make it something else. Still, some interesting points here that would be good to help deflate yet another gaseous bubble.
|
