Bill O’Reilly is the most imposing figure in television journalism. Standing 6-foot-4-inches, he dominates his guests and has cut them off by yelling, “Shut up,” or “Cut his mic.” His ominous stature also looms over the profession. He masquerades as journalist but is nothing but an opinionated bully.
Commentary journalists take situations and analyze them intellectually. They do not label or accuse people of things without the facts. I am not, nor do I pose as, an experienced columnist. However, I have taken professor Reese Cleghorn’s class, JOUR 324: Commentary and Editorial Writing, where I learned a few simple rules about opinion journalism.
One: The writer “should present facts honestly and fully. It is dishonest to base an editorial on half-truth. The writer should never knowingly mislead the reader, misrepresent a situation or place any person in a false light. No consequential error should go uncorrected,” according to Cleghorn’s textbook for the class. On June 26, Roger Aronoff of Accuracy In Media wrote, “Last October, O’Reilly was interviewing former Gen. Wesley Clark – O’Reilly said that there have always been atrocities, even by Americans, committed in war. He said ‘General, you need to look at the Malmedy Massacre in World War II in the 82nd Airborne.'”
In December 1944, SS officers captured and massacred 86 American solders at Malmedy, Belgium, who had surrendered.
Aronoff also says O’Reilly repeated the error on May 30, 2006, saying to former General Clark, “And in Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces, who had their hands in the air. And they were unarmed. And they shot them down. You know that. That’s on the record. Been documented.”
O’Reilly confronted his mistake on May 31 when reading a viewer’s letter. According to Aronoff, O’Reilly said, “‘Bill, you mentioned that Malmedy was the site of an American massacre during World War II. It was the other way around, the SS shot down U.S. prisoners.’ O’Reilly responded, saying, ‘In the heat of the debate with General Clark, my statement wasn’t clear enough, Mr. Caldwell. After Malmedy, some were executed by American troops.'” This hardly fulfills the requirement of correcting an error.
Two: The writer “should draw fair conclusions from the stated facts,” says the textbook. On Aug. 15, Bill O’Reilly came out with his guns blazing, saying, “The anti-Bush crowd is furious with last week’s terror arrests in London because it might help [the] Bush administration and the Republicans in the critical upcoming November election,” according to a transcript on Foxnews.com. He says this while citing no source.
O’Reilly makes no attempt to define the “anti-Bush crowd.” I certainly don’t agree with the president on every issue. Am I then a part of that crowd? If so, I can’t imagine anyone being upset at the thwarting of a terrorist plot other than the terrorists. This is one example of O’Reilly making a blanket statement about a group of people. In this case I don’t even know whom he is talking about.
Three: “Voice should be given to diverse opinions, and edited faithfully to reflect stated views,” according to Cleghorn’s textbook. O’Reilly’s most famous breach of this rule is his 2003 interview of Jeremy Glick. Glick, whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks, signed a petition against the war in Iraq. The interview quickly became heated and ended with O’Reilly telling Glick to “shut up” and ordering his staff to turn off Glick’s microphone.
O’Reilly has repeatedly referred to this interview. On July 20, 2004, O’Reilly said, “Glick said President [George W.] Bush and his father [former President George H.W. Bush] were responsible for his [Glick’s] father’s death,” according to Mediamatters.com. Glick actually said, “Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that’s responsible for training militarily, economically and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others,” according to Mediamatters.com. And again on May 28, 2006, on Fox News’ The Lineup, O’Reilly said of Glick, “If I could have whacked him, I would have,” according to Mediamatters.com.
O’Reilly often uses catch phrases and labels as a short cut to thinking about criticisms. He calls those who protest the Iraq war “cut and runners,” anyone who criticizes the Bush administration the “anti-Bush crowd,” and almost any publication besides The Wall Street Journal the “liberal media.” One thing O’Reilly may not understand is that the editorial/opinion staff of a newspaper is separate from the news staff.
Here’s the problem: O’Reilly lacks several essential qualities of a “fair and balanced” opinion writer. His show is supposedly the “no-spin zone,” but it offers little other than fragments of truth wrapped in ideology. If he would just “shut up” and listen to what other people had to say, it would lend him some credibility. And that’s “The Memo.”
Sean Norris is a 2006 alumnus. He can be reached at sseannorris@hotmail.com.
