Rating: 
Summary: Factual and Accurate
Review: If the endless stream of inaccuracies, distortions, and self-contradictory statements aren't enough to wreck O'Reilly's credibility, I don't know what is. The picture painted here is one of a man who is beyond paranoid and convinced that anyone attempting to correct his inaccuracies is a threat that must be eliminated. He rarely corrects his distortions and inaccuracies, and when he does it's in a very combatative, I'm-still-right-despite-pulling-my-"facts"-out-of-the-air attitude. Bill O'Reilly probably believes all the myths he's concocted about himself. If he doesn't, it would be very difficult to explain why he is so defensive about them. For instance, despite claiming that he was not a member of any political party, he had been a registered Republican until 2000. When he was informed of this, he said, "There was no box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status." Then, when confronted with a copy of his actual form, which clearly shows that there was a box labelled "I do not wish to enroll in a political party" and a nice, big check next to "Republican," he said that there must have been some mistake and that perhaps he was filling out the form too fast or something. With O'Reilly, you have to ask just how much disregard for the truth someone who fancies himself as a journalist can have before you can call him a liar.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book, then decide
Review: In his confrontation with Al Franken on C-SPAN earlier this year, Bill O'Reilly tried to dismiss Franken by saying "Is that all you've got?"
Peter Hart shows in great detail that there is no end to the distortions, contradictions, and outright lies emanating from the "No Spin Zone." From O'Reilly's ridiculous claim, "I'm not a conservative." (5/4/01)(p. 20), to his thuggish off camera comment to an anti-war guest whose father died in the World Trade Center ("Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f***ing pieces!" [2/06/03] [p.145]), Hart lays bare O'Reilly's brand of "journalism."
The point by point refutations of O'Reilly's misstatements are the heart of the book and can't be waved away. But for those who will continue to insist, "Is that all you've got?", perhaps Mr. Hart can be persuaded to start compiling volume two!
Rating: 
Summary: Kiss O'Reilly's credibility goodbye
Review: Is Peter Hart, the author of "The Oh Really? Factor", pursuing a fool's errand? As he so amply documents, anyone who has watched much of Bill O'Reilly's work has already heard him bullying guests, suppressing opposing viewpoints, and engaging in blatant self-contradiction often enough to raise suspicions that all is not well in O'Reilly land. Viewers who, in the face of this evidence, go on believing that O'Reilly presides over a "no-spin zone" may have already demonstrated their imperviousness to the kind of debunking undertaken in this book. On the other hand, casual viewers (as opposed to die-hard fans) may still be reachable, and if they are, "The Oh Really? Factor" is just the tool to do it. O'Reilly's misstatements and self-contradictions are legion, and his bias incontrovertible. And though anyone can make mistakes, Bill O'Reilly is often not just wrong, but flamboyantly, defiantly wrong. He speaks with the utmost assurance about things that he evidently knows nothing about. He pulls statistics out of thin air and then defends them doggedly. Sometimes, when challenged, he goes on the offensive: "You're either lying or can't read"; "You are basically calling every District Attorney in New York a liar". A couple of the vignettes in this book are priceless, such as the exchange in which New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman tries, repeatedly and without success, to explain to O'Reilly why some legislation he's filed doesn't contain a provision O'Reilly really, really wants it to contain: it doesn't have to be there, since it's already "the law of the land." O'Reilly simply refuses to listen. In interview with a representative of Qatar TV, O'Reilly admits to never having seen its broadcasts, then insists that though Qatar TV is "reporting the facts straight now", there's "no way", despite his guest's protestations, that this has always been true. Are there, as the one-star reviewers claim, cases of purported O'Reilly mistakes that may actually be matters of interpretation? Yes, but not many of them. And, in particular, not the only one that's been cited. This is the question of the size of U.S. foreign aid spending relative to that of the EU countries. Reviewers who haven't really read the book, but are just relying on the publisher's blurb, may be forgiven for thinking that Hart and O'Reilly are just dueling with statistics, with Hart preferring the per capita figure and O'Reilly the total dollar amount. In fact the figures for U.S. and European per capita foreign aid were cited by a guest, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, and O'Reilly responded by saying, "That's not true." Note: O'Reilly was not arguing that the total dollar figure was a better measure of U.S. giving than the per capita number, but rather that Bennis was wrong when she claimed that U.S. per capita foreign aid was lower than that of any country in the European Union. And she wasn't. (That these critics don't deserve to be taken seriously is demonstrated not only by their misunderstanding of this episode but also by their contention that "of course the per capita number is small, because the U.S. is such a large country." To the contrary, per capita figures are calculated specifically because they are useful in comparing populations of different sizes. Besides, it is odd to suggest that being a large country would drive down our per capita foreign aid drastically when it seems to have no corresponding effect on, say, our per capita GDP (second in the world) or CO2 emissions (third).) If you have friends or family who are in danger of falling under O'Reilly's spell, or if you're entertaining doubts yourself and want to know more, this is the book to have. If, on the other hand, you're a confirmed O'Reillyite, at least please read the book before you bash it.
Rating:
Summary: Kiss O'Reilly's credibility goodbye
Review: Is Peter Hart, the author of "The Oh Really? Factor", pursuing a fool's errand? As he so amply documents, anyone who has watched much of Bill O'Reilly's work has already heard him bullying guests, suppressing opposing viewpoints, and engaging in blatant self-contradiction often enough to raise suspicions that all is not well in O'Reilly land. Viewers who, in the face of this evidence, go on believing that O'Reilly presides over a "no-spin zone" may have already demonstrated their imperviousness to the kind of debunking undertaken in this book. On the other hand, casual viewers (as opposed to die-hard fans) may still be reachable, and if they are, "The Oh Really? Factor" is just the tool to do it. O'Reilly's misstatements and self-contradictions are legion, and his bias incontrovertible. And though anyone can make mistakes, Bill O'Reilly is often not just wrong, but flamboyantly, defiantly wrong. He speaks with the utmost assurance about things that he evidently knows nothing about. He pulls statistics out of thin air and then defends them doggedly. Sometimes, when challenged, he goes on the offensive: "You're either lying or can't read"; "You are basically calling every District Attorney in New York a liar". A couple of the vignettes in this book are priceless, such as the exchange in which New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman tries, repeatedly and without success, to explain to O'Reilly why some legislation he's filed doesn't contain a provision O'Reilly really, really wants it to contain: it doesn't have to be there, since it's already "the law of the land." O'Reilly simply refuses to listen. In interview with a representative of Qatar TV, O'Reilly admits to never having seen its broadcasts, then insists that though Qatar TV is "reporting the facts straight now", there's "no way", despite his guest's protestations, that this has always been true. Are there, as the one-star reviewers claim, cases of purported O'Reilly mistakes that may actually be matters of interpretation? Yes, but not many of them. And, in particular, not the only one that's been cited. This is the question of the size of U.S. foreign aid spending relative to that of the EU countries. Reviewers who haven't really read the book, but are just relying on the publisher's blurb, may be forgiven for thinking that Hart and O'Reilly are just dueling with statistics, with Hart preferring the per capita figure and O'Reilly the total dollar amount. In fact the figures for U.S. and European per capita foreign aid were cited by a guest, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, and O'Reilly responded by saying, "That's not true." Note: O'Reilly was not arguing that the total dollar figure was a better measure of U.S. giving than the per capita number, but rather that Bennis was wrong when she claimed that U.S. per capita foreign aid was lower than that of any country in the European Union. And she wasn't. (That these critics don't deserve to be taken seriously is demonstrated not only by their misunderstanding of this episode but also by their contention that "of course the per capita number is small, because the U.S. is such a large country." To the contrary, per capita figures are calculated specifically because they are useful in comparing populations of different sizes. Besides, it is odd to suggest that being a large country would drive down our per capita foreign aid drastically when it seems to have no corresponding effect on, say, our per capita GDP (second in the world) or CO2 emissions (third).) If you have friends or family who are in danger of falling under O'Reilly's spell, or if you're entertaining doubts yourself and want to know more, this is the book to have. If, on the other hand, you're a confirmed O'Reillyite, at least please read the book before you bash it.
Rating:
Summary: Kiss O'Reilly's credibility goodbye
Review: Is Peter Hart, the author of "The Oh Really? Factor", pursuing a fool's errand? As he so amply documents, anyone who has watched much of Bill O'Reilly's work has already heard him bullying guests, suppressing opposing viewpoints, and engaging in blatant self-contradiction often enough to raise suspicions that all is not well in O'Reilly land. Viewers who, in the face of this evidence, go on believing that O'Reilly presides over a "no-spin zone" may have already demonstrated their imperviousness to the kind of debunking undertaken in this book. On the other hand, casual viewers (as opposed to die-hard fans) may still be reachable, and if they are, "The Oh Really? Factor" is just the tool to do it. O'Reilly's misstatements and self-contradictions are legion, and his bias incontrovertible. And though anyone can make mistakes, Bill O'Reilly is often not just wrong, but flamboyantly, defiantly wrong. He speaks with the utmost assurance about things that he evidently knows nothing about. He pulls statistics out of thin air and then defends them doggedly. Sometimes, when challenged, he goes on the offensive: "You're either lying or can't read"; "You are basically calling every District Attorney in New York a liar". A couple of the vignettes in this book are priceless, such as the exchange in which New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman tries, repeatedly and without success, to explain to O'Reilly why some legislation he's filed doesn't contain a provision O'Reilly really, really wants it to contain: it doesn't have to be there, since it's already "the law of the land." O'Reilly simply refuses to listen. In interview with a representative of Qatar TV, O'Reilly admits to never having seen its broadcasts, then insists that though Qatar TV is "reporting the facts straight now", there's "no way", despite his guest's protestations, that this has always been true. Are there, as the one-star reviewers claim, cases of purported O'Reilly mistakes that may actually be matters of interpretation? Yes, but not many of them. And, in particular, not the only one that's been cited. This is the question of the size of U.S. foreign aid spending relative to that of the EU countries. Reviewers who haven't really read the book, but are just relying on the publisher's blurb, may be forgiven for thinking that Hart and O'Reilly are just dueling with statistics, with Hart preferring the per capita figure and O'Reilly the total dollar amount. In fact the figures for U.S. and European per capita foreign aid were cited by a guest, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, and O'Reilly responded by saying, "That's not true." Note: O'Reilly was not arguing that the total dollar figure was a better measure of U.S. giving than the per capita number, but rather that Bennis was wrong when she claimed that U.S. per capita foreign aid was lower than that of any country in the European Union. And she wasn't. (That these critics don't deserve to be taken seriously is demonstrated not only by their misunderstanding of this episode but also by their contention that "of course the per capita number is small, because the U.S. is such a large country." To the contrary, per capita figures are calculated specifically because they are useful in comparing populations of different sizes. Besides, it is odd to suggest that being a large country would drive down our per capita foreign aid drastically when it seems to have no corresponding effect on, say, our per capita GDP (second in the world) or CO2 emissions (third).) If you have friends or family who are in danger of falling under O'Reilly's spell, or if you're entertaining doubts yourself and want to know more, this is the book to have. If, on the other hand, you're a confirmed O'Reillyite, at least please read the book before you bash it.
Rating:
Summary: Couldn't put it down
Review: It was everything Franken's book should have been: thoroughly researched, smart, sly, and even with a subtle, edgy humor to it. I particularly like the structure of this book: first he presents a quote from O'Reilly, and then he amplifies on it. Once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down. You won't come away from this book believing you are supposed to now hate Bill O'Reilly (which, by comparison, seems to be a theme in Franken's) but you'll likely become a more discerning viewer, taking broad statements and statistics with a greater degree of skepticism. The facts are there. To quote Fox, "YOU decide." You can't get any more 'fair and balanced' than that!
Rating:
Summary: Great Reading
Review: Loved reading the truth at last.
Bill O'Reilly is a wind bag, with the brains of a gerbil.
Rating:
Summary: "SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIKE!"
Review: Not being American myself, I was pointed towards Bill O'Reilly by a friend in a chatroom, who claimed him to be the saviour of all people with a free mind. Reading some of his columns, and checking out his website, though, made me feel different. The articles I read supported a heavy conservative point of view, and his whole site seemed to have but one purpose: "Make me rich!". Member-secluded areas (access can be gained by whipping out the credit card), merchandise with his 'logo' on it, banners, etc. His
very articles seemed like nothing more than bantering from someone who is plainly biased, and afraid to admit it. While I am NOT someone to dismiss another point of view upfront, the turning point for me came after watching O'Reilly rip into a kid whose dad got killed at 9/11. When the kid tried (VERY Reasonably) arguing with O'Reilly, the latter responded by "SHUT UP!" eventually followed by "CUT HIS MIKE!". (Which apparantly is a favourite tactic of him). After reading the summary to this book, I decided to buy it, just to see what the big scoop was really all about. I was expecting the author to clearly show the times O'Reilly contradicted himself, did a 180 on certain points of view, etc. Unfortunatly, that's not exactly the case. Rather, the author starts off by what is (in my opinion) a nitpicking sort of way to address shortcomings in O'Reilly's articles. While this makes an interesting read, that was not exactly what I was hoping for. I was hoping for the "Bias, contradiction" stuff that was promised. Thankfully, the chapter labeled "O'Reilly Vs. O'Reilly" does just that. The chapter plainly shows O'Reilly's opinions switch completely, depending on how he can gain some points against his adversaries: On Boycotting - He first claims Boycotting is "Un-american" (12/29/00). Yet, O'Reilly's very own website sports "Do you want to boycott French products?" on the mainpage. On killing civilians - O'Reilly initially claims bombing civilians is something no civilized society would do. Yet, he quickly changes his point of view, and suddenly doesn't mind Serbian civilians, nor does he feel pity for the German civilians who were bombed in WW2. And when asked who will suffer when his plan to wipe out the complete infrastructure of Afghanistan, he pretty much shrugs it off and says it doesn't really matter. The moment where he most plainly shows his conservatist point of view (even though he tries everything to debunk that by disagreeing with other little conservatist points of view) is when he starts whining about the 10 commandments being posted in a public place by the governor of Indiana. He feels he has every right to read those fine rules his society was built on, and that his rights are being violated. Yet, when a female muslim police officer wears a scarf under her hat, he feels that religion and state should be seperated. Add to that his constant backlashing towards the Clinton administration (Come on. They guy's been out of office for nearly three years now), while supporting blindly whatever decision Dubya makes (Although when he DOES disagree with little things that the administration does, he starts by disagreeing, and then turning it into yet another backlash at the Democrats, preferably the Clintons again), and I can't help but form a picture of a man will twist and turn his very own words just to fit his believes, while never looking back to see if he's arguing against his own statements. "Judge Scheindlin has to go" (6/6/02)
"Just want to have an investigation into this. I'm not saying remove her yet." (6/7/02) The book was highly enjoyable. I read it almost without a pause. I am left, however, with a slight feeling of dissappointment because of the (in my opinion) weak few first chapters. But since it was a humorous read, and the author ended up making sure O'Reilly's very own statements were proven to go against earlier arguments, I'll keep it at 4 stars.
Rating:
Summary: A needed book
Review: Of the many things that irks me about O'Reilly is the way he keeps describing himself as a serious journalist. If this bizarre claim hadn't already self-refuted itself, this book helps. Watching O'Reilly on TV is an enormously frustrating experience. I think you respond to him like you would a cheerleader. If he pulls for your side, you like him; if he pulls for the opposition, you find him insufferable. I was always irritated because when I heard him I heard no content. This book validates that impression.
Rating:
Summary: It's because of the O'Reilly's I check out the facts
Review: Peter Hart has done the people a great service. He has exposed the spin in O'Reilly. I have noticed that conservatives on the various talk shows interrupt and won't let their guests or callers talk, they interrupt them, are rude, distract the listeners, etc. O'Reilly did it on C-span when a caller phoned and was talking instead of letting the caller make his point and then rebutting it, he stopped the caller from finishing his point and brushed him off. I have seen this happen with Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Tucker, Russiff and others and usually the person they are rude to has much better manners, lets them make their point and then will get lamblasted when he or she tries to make her point. They don't have the winning argument so they try to stop their opponent from voicing his. Anyway, Hart, shows O'Reilly for the conservatively biased person that he is over and over. I have listened to O'Reilly and his counterparts for so long (after 8+ years of Clinton bashing) and found the facts just weren't adding up, so I went and did a little research myself. I found the Clintons were pretty good people and when I looked at the Bush family background found a horror story. So what I hear from O'Reilly I take with a grain of salt and listen to what his spin is and then discern what he really means. Hart has done a great service in showing up O'Reilly's spin for what it is. Hopefully, more people will not be as gullible to what they hear on the news as they have been. Don't believe everything you hear, it just may be a spin.
|
