Jump to content

Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stanley011 (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 16 June 2006 (→Unsourced O'Reilly image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

O'Reilly claims he doesn't make personal attacks "here"

Media Matters is a partisan outlet...references from there should be carefully observed. Rarely is the democrat attacked by Media Matters.

O'Reilly saying "i don't do personal attacks here" might not be an accurate statement on his part but it was a sound bite with Mike Farell on the program...it is not a controversy.

Anonymous, Media Matters for America is indeed partisan. As clearly noted on their website, they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Since they do this with carefully reproduced transcripts and direct links to unedited video, I'm not sure why you believe references from them should be "carefully observed." Their facts and sources are reliable and accurate. That said, I agree with you completely that the "personal attacks" addition was ludicrous as written and had no place here.Hal Raglan 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He always says he doesnt do personal attacks on the radio. Insofar as that means he doesnt dig dirt on peoples personal lives, that is generally true (although he has threatened to dig up personal issues on some reporters who were reprting on OReilly's personal life). Insofar as calling someone a pinhead or stupid is a personal attack he does do personal attacks at least several times per show. Mrdthree 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


IQ Controversy??

I'm not sure why Bill O'Reilly's alleged iq is a controversy. A controversy is a statement or action that involves a back and forth debate...this IQ statement is not a controversy but if erased, it will be back tommorow... so whatever floats your boat I guess.--Bairdso66 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User:132.33.132.19 has reinstated the "IQ controversy" section, this time adding the detail that O'Reilly called Mr. Parfrey a "stupid dummy". The citation/link that is provided goes nowhere. I just performed a quick search thru Google with negative results for this alleged controversy. I have requested User:132.33.132.19 provide another citation that links to a source that can verify the details. If someone else can provide such a citation, please do so. Hal Raglan 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:132.33.132.19 has once again added this without providing a link that actually leads somewhere. Without any proof that this actually happened, one must assume it is simply a hoax.Hal Raglan 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Red Cross

I've added a request for citations for this section. To be clear, what I want are sources showing that 1) O'Reilly "constantly pressured" the American Red Cross and 2) this pressure led to the Congressional hearings. The American Red Cross article, which was used as a source for this controversy, doesn't even mention O'Reilly's name. If O'Reilly has made a claim to being responsible, partially or otherwise, for the hearings, a quote indicating that should be included here.Hal Raglan 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hal Raglan, I changed "constant pressuring" to a more objective description of what O'Reilly did and provided some sources. I think this should satisfy your first source request but let me know if you feel it needs to be further changed. Regarding your second request, when I wrote that section, I didn't mean to imply that O'Reilly's actions directly led to the congressional hearings. A subsequent congressional investigation on the issue O'Reilly trumpeted, though, did occur, so how would you suggest it be written about? Lawyer2b 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've rewritten the section and provided adequate sources, I have a question for you. Can this really be considered a controversy re: O'Reilly? Certainly it was a controversial issue for the Red Cross. The rest of the article deals with quotes or actions by O'Reilly that people found offensive or controversial in some way. If this section is indeed accurate, I would say O'Reilly's involvement here was undeniably a good thing, definitely putting him in a favorable light, especially the info about O'Reilly's subsequent assistance in writing Red Cross policy. As such, shouldn't this be removed from here and placed somewhere in the O'Reilly main article? It seems really out of place here among all the negative stuff. (I had originally requested that this be moved from the O'Reilly article, but now that you've written it in a much clearer way -- without the previous POV trumpeting about O'Reilly's "victory" -- I think it should be moved back.)Hal Raglan 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the positive feedback. :-) I'm fine with moving it back to his main entry; what should its subsection title be? Lawyer2b 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a new subsection under "Broadcasting career" devoted to "Noted accomplishments"?Hal Raglan 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia or encyclosmearia?

I know this is an article about "controversies", but quite frankly this is a series of O'Reilly-bashing rants and second-hand versions of Al Franken (haha didn't leftwing talk radio really take off!) O'Reilly bashings.

I'm not a fan of O'Reilly. But I am a fan of Wikipedia because, by and large, we fiddle around and ultimately end up with something that is, to coin a phrase, fair and balanced.

This article is not fair or balanced, and frankly it's unsalvagable.

However, I would imagine that those who create, "expose", write on Wikipedia about, and ultimately read about on Wikipedia, O'Reilly "controversies" are the same small number of interested ideologues. I don't wish to deny them either the privilege of serving themselves the red meat of O'Reilly "controversy" or the pleasure and humour that they understandably derive from it.

I'm a pretty big O'Reilly fan but I haven't seen anything glaring this page that is not factually accurate, unsupported, and/or written in a non-WP:POV. If you can point it out, I'll be happy to help fix it. Lawyer2b 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "This deliberate misrepresentation by selectively editing Sen. Biden's responses and in turn representing them as his own shows O'Reilly's lack of credibility and journalistic integrity.[24]". Of course, it is referenced, but presenting second-hand polemic or smear doesn't stop it from being polemic or smear. As it reads, the reference is presented as proving the self-evident conclusion that O'Reilly lacks credibility and journalistic integrity. I actually find him rather pious and arrogant, but I do believe he has integrity and credibility and I COULD write a Wikipedia article outlining how his coverage of specific stories proves this fact. However, MY assertions (whether attributed to someone else by way of footnote or not) wouldn't make it so, and neither does this one. I understand that this page is supposed to lay out "controversies" as viewed by his critics, but often this article doesn't even do that. For example, "All the while O'Reilly remained silent over Pepsi's endorsement of the Osbourne family, which made people cry racism". People? Which people? Not even an Al Franken or hard-left smear-blog reference for that one. But as I said, I think this page is pretty much by/for the same small group of people. But it is regrettable that, for example, there is no Al Franken controversies page -- not that I think either that OR a Bill O'Reilly one is valid Wikipedia material, but it does add a certain weight of credibility to the critique of O'Reilly that is not given to any pro-O'Reilly statements on the main article on him. I haven't edited anything because I don't begrudge the rights of his critics to get it off their chest in this way and I don't have the arrogance to come to massacre someone's hardwork whether it is, in my opinion, skewed or not.
I think you are dead-right with your two examples and I'm embarassed that I didn't catch them, especially since I try to keep an eye out for liberal POV on Wikipedia. I will edit those entries, though and encourage you to do the same because not just people who enjoy reading O'Reilly smeared will read that article. People whose opinions are open to influence will as well and I think they (and those who enjoy smearing O'Reilly as well) deserve to read as much an unbiased presentation as possible. In addition, I'm a believer in what wikpedia is trying to do and a biased POV in any article detracts from its overall goal. You obviously have a excellent critical eye and hope you will edit in the future or at least continue to point out ways to remove bias and/or improve articles in the future. Lawyer2b 12:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That whole Sen Biden stuff should be snipped. Its so poorly written that its almost incomprehensible, and what little does make sense reads like a POV editorial. Most importantly, the section is devoted to the ongoing Franken/O'Reilly "feud", and this barely relates to that.Hal Raglan 16:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a chance to check out the sources for this yet (one is a video that I can't access right now). I agree that the Biden paragraph is poorly written and has a fair amount of POV, the last sentance being particularly bad. My impression at the moment is that this paragraph is not strong enough to deserve it's own section and the article may indeed be just as well off without it. I might change my mind after consulting the sources though. -MrFizyx 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reorganized the Franken section a bit and toned down the POV. It's very possible that you'll still be unhappy with it, but hopefully you'll agree that it's better than it was. Oh, by the way, I fond a link to the fox news version of the story with Biden. I don't think Franken was particularly unfair here. Regards, -MrFizyx 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, no such proof exisits

I believe the claim stated above in the section about the boycott of french goods is wrong. this is the website stated for reference: Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. a orginzation like that has no credit. period.

please post whatever concerns you have on my talk page tiplickhahaha

reply-Mr. Fizy

I'll post my concerns right here thank you very much, and you should log in so that we know that your signature is not a forgery! An organization like what? A 501(c) (3)? I don't think their facts are incorrect. The boycott has had considerable coverage on The Factor (here are just a few examples):
I'll grant you that the Fox's partial transcript online for April 27, 2004[1] does not include the interview with Heather Mallick, but O'Reilly does make reference to it the next day [2] and the points have also been covered in Heather Mallick’s own column in The Globe and Mail[3] and in numerous blogs. "The Paris Business Review" has become a widespread topic of internet humor as a result of this incident.[4][5][6] So regardless of what you believe please check your facts before removing content. Thanks. -MrFizyx 00:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply to Mr. Fizy

Great name, BTW. All I was saying that the source used, an organization committed to spreading their beliefs about whatever things in life, checking the media for opposite "things" of their beliefs, is bound to have “bend" the truth. Just fact checking here... -tiplickhahaha

  • Actually its Fizyx, with an x. It can be pronounced "Mr. Physics." When I wrote the above note, I went overboard a bit, for some reason I was thinking that you had deleted the whole section. When I realized the small editing that you had done, I felt like a bit of an ass. You also deleted the wrong citation I think (though they had been out of order to begin with). Ah well, this is such a silly article anyway. My time would be better spent editing a more useful page. Thanks for the reply. -MrFizyx 16:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glick interview

Regarding this section:

O'Reilly has since maintained that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. While available transcripts do not support O'Reilly's claim...

According to a partial transcript here, Glick's words were:

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan --
O'REILLY: Who killed your father!
GLICK: -- didn't kill my father.
O'REILLY: Sure they did! The al Qaeda people were trained there!
GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghani people?
O'REILLY: See! I'm more angry about it than you are!
GLICK: So, what about George Bush?
O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had NOTHING to do with it!
GLICK: The Director -- senior -- as Director of the CIA.
O'REILLY: He had NOTHING to DO with it!
GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

I think it doesn't take much analysis or guesswork to realize whom Glick was referring to. "The Director - senior - as Director of the CIA." George W. Bush, Junior, was never Director of the CIA. George H. W. Bush, Senior, was. Glick seems to have been referring to Bush, senior.

Are there any objections to correcting the information in the article? Kasreyn 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Franken mention and chart in Ludicris section

Can someone explain why Al Franken's mention and chart comparing Ludicris' album and O'Reilly's book was added? Lawyer2b 17:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's a page about controversy...this chart displays why people are upset about o'reilly's comments towards ludacris. o'reilly telling his viewers that an album is morally backwards is nothing out of the ordinary - the controversy stems from the fact that a o'reilly's own creative work has the same features that he was criticizing ludacris for. the chart clearly depicts that. Strawberryfire 01:02, 07 June 2006

Brokeback mountain

He said the movie wouldn't sell well. It did. He made it a topic on his show about 1/2 dozen times, despite not seeing it. He said the awards it won was because of the alleged liberal biases in hollywood. Would this count as a controversy?

I'd say it's only controversial if someone publically called him out on his failed prediction. Did anyone besides you point this out? Kasreyn 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

This article needs to be organized better. It just seems like a laundry list of random issues at different levels of notability. Perhaps different sections devoted to people, events, and personal issues. Something like that. MrMurph101 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malmedy

Has anything further come of this incident? As the caregiver of a WW2 veteran, I was quite outraged to hear about this random act of idiocy from Bill. Rockhound 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally started the Malmedy section in the main Bill O'Reilly article and it along with the sexual harassment section were moved here. I notice the main Bill article controversies section keeps getting smaller, and then noticed the Malmedy section was reworded to say Bill made "factual errors" rather than my original wording of "false claims". When or how does repeating the same mistakes, failing to correct them, and then having the transcripts altered to deflect unwanted attention become "factual errors"? Bill repeated these claims twice, and on the second occasion, when a reader pointed it out to him, Bill dismissed it and continued to profess he was correct. At this point I believe it moves from "factual errors" to "false claims". If anyone rewords it again to "factual errors" please provide your reasoning here, and be willing to vote for it. Sysrpl 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "false claims" is appropriate especially for the second event, the first one was where it could (or was) considered a "factual error". Whoever changed my ameliorate to extenuate thanks for that amelioration, I will blame my illiterate ignorance on re-editing my sentence mid-thought and not reconsidering the verb, I think I was going more with O'Reilly was trying to ameliorate the US military's culpability. In a way O'Reilly's defense assumes the Iraqi account but assigns the marines a light-weight form of guilt, by saying it's business as usual, to be expected at times, or as an adolescent might say 'but everyone else does it'. Whidbey 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the paragraph added which referenced the billoreilly.com article [7] where Bill correctly described the Nazi SS Troops as the ones who massacred the surrendering US Army soldiers. The reason for the removal is that the article was made long before Bill made the following statemnt on his primetime TV program, "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre and the 82nd airborne who did it." This is a demonstrably false. The controversy is that Bill made this statement on air and has not yet issued a retraction. It does not include a web page article written before he made the false claim, unless you want to use it as evidence that Bill knew his facts and then misused them when it came time to dress down a retired four star General on air. If that is the point, then re-add it and note it as such. Sysrpl 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the article because O'Reilly did provide even within the Olbermann segment his intended meaning which was that he was trying to use the revenge killings of the US Military. The quoted column does support that O'Reilly has used that approach before. However, I provided a list of reasons why this statement is still controversial, it is both is inability to admit a mistake and his illogical approach and comparisons, while for all intents in purposes maligning the US military as having these injustices as part of their normative operations. Whidbey 06:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Malmedy article has notes about how diatrics should not be used in spelling Malmedy, so unless one convinces the editors of that article to accept 'Malmédy', please leave the spelling of Malmedy alone, in other words, no accents for the e. Whidbey 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 82nd airborne quote

Regarding Bill's October 28 Malmedy statements, I reviewed the video and Bill most definitely said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd airborne who did it" [8]. There was no break in his Bill's breath, all of his words were clearly audible, and when he finishes saying them his mouth was closed. Regardless of wether Bill might wanted to say more or not, those are the exact words that came out of his mouth. Please, leave his quote complete and let's not continue parse words. Sysrpl 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley011, what video clip are you listening [9] to? If it's the one on the site you linked to, listen closesly again, because that is exactly what Bill said. There is no alleging, in the video again you can clearly hear Bill say all those words. If you are saying you can't hear those words, in all seriousness I am sorry for you and maybe you should get your hearing tested. A simple google search will give you the complete quote [10]. As far as other different issues go (your other edits and lack of talk page usage), if needs be I will address them in due time. Sysrpl 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the same clip to which you referred and it appears to me that you are PROBABLY correct, though it is not as clear as you make it seem because as I stated, Clark cuts him off in mid sentence--also explain to me why the accompanying Media Matters transcript does not have O'Reilly saying "that did it." Stanley011 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now convinced that Sysrpl is correct about the quote, but I can certainly see why there is confusion. I downloaded both the windows media and the quick-time file. The quick-time file is a much larger download but the sound and video are both more clear. Throughout the segment the video runs just ahead of the audio. This makes it appear that O'Reilly's mouth stops moving before the sentance is complete, meanwhile Clark's mouth begins to move before you can actually hear him begin to speak--thus the ambiguity. It appears to me that you both have been editing in good faith and are trying to get the facts right. This is good! -MrFizyx 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[comment below repositioned 16:34, 15 June 2006, by Sysrpl]

Someone tell me why Media Matters, that infallible organization that comprises over 50% of the citations in this article, does not have O'Reilly saying "who did it" at the end of the "General, you have to look at... quote." I listened to the tape and certainly acknowledge that O'Reilly did say something after the "82nd airborne" that sounded remotely similar to "who did it" or "that did it" but he was cut off in mid-sentence by Wesley Clark. Don't you think that should at all be noted in the article, especially in light of the fact that the God-sent organization Media Matters doesn't even have O'Reilly saying anything after "82nd airborn?" Stanley011 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley011, please keep you comments grouped together when pertaining to the same subject. There is no need to start a new section at the end of this page rehashing the discussions we've been having above. Sysrpl 16:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the sake of all Wikipedia users, please check your hyperboles at the door. No one is or has ever claimed to be infallible, and no one is proclaiming God sent us Media Matters. Your dramatic statements lessen the chances of you being taken seriously. Sysrpl 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up and take a joke. Stanley011 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks for telling everyone your comments are a joke. We can now safely ignore them. Sysrpl 22:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, lets all do our best to keep the tone civil here. -MrFizyx 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sysrpl, I would greatly appreciate if you would avoid comments such as "we can now safely ignore them" (referring to my comments, 100% of which have been constructive). I refer you to wikipedia's policy on civility if you would like to learn more about contributing constructively to our encyclopedia. Stanley011 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a new section at the bottom of this page on the same subject. I was polite in pointing out where they should go, and asked you to please to check your hyperboles as they reduce the credibility of what you have to say. It was all good until you replied that it was a joke and made it personal by telling me to lighten up. Are you upset that agreed I with your statement about making joke comments, or that people should ignore your jokes? Either way I offer you my apology. I am sorry I said we should ignore your jokes. Now let's please drop the subject and all move on. Sysrpl 03:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very interested to learn in what way you consider "Lighten up and take a joke" to be constructive. I don't feel you have, in this case, any superior moral position from which to lecture to Sysrpl in such a way, or to take a condescending tone towards him. The "our" in "our encyclopedia" includes him. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I think they both could tone down the rhetoric, but why don't we move the civility discussion to Sysrpl's talk page since it has already continued there and doesn't help this article anyway. -MrFizyx 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry--in writing, it is difficult to decipher tone and when you said "we can now safely ignore them" I originally thought you were referring to my comments in general, not the comments immediately preceding your response. I was wrong--I hope you can forgive me. Stanley011 05:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased much?

I think the Malmedy section is kind of ridiculous, especially considering that is it true that American forces did kill German POW's, not by one source but by two. O'Reilly used an "authortarian" tone? That's how he always talks.

"First, O'Reilly incorrectly recounted the Malmedy incident to a decorated, four star general using a scolding, authorative tone and wording; no apology from O'Reilly, a professional commentator, has been given to Clark or the viewers for allowing what he considered to be a heated exchange to cloud his ability to relay important facts correctly."

Who cares that Clark was a "decorated, four star-general?" The author here is clearly trying to make the point that O'Reilly was harassing a man above his credentials about something he wasn't qualified to talk about. This has no place in an unbiased article. And I still argue that O'Reilly wasn't wrong about the incident, just inadvertantly misleading. And what place does the author of this article have to say that O'Reilly owes ANYBODY an apology?

I think this particular article should be marked as disputed neutrality since the original author of the section obviously has much against Bill O' Reilly. He really didn't say anything false. American troops did kill German POWs. I don't think he should issue a retraction or apologize the statement, what he should have said is "immediately following the events at Malmedy, American forces killed German POWS." To be honest with you, I think he was somewhat set up, as there is no name for the event considering the killing of the Germans, so the nearest event to it would be Malmedy. Either edit the section, mark it as disputed neutrality or get rid of it altogether.

-C


I will review the article and remove language that might seem biased that doesn't take away from important facts to allow others to form opinions (e.g. I'll remove decorated, although not four star general, even though both are true facts). However, a controversy implies a public dispute with opposing sides; Olbermann is the lead for making this a "public" dispute. There are four reasons given for listing it as a controversy, it would be good to tackle that reasoning. Because a controversy is a controversy, whether O'Reilly is right or wrong, being unfairly judged or not... the issue is that we are trying to record a public dispute. In fact, in this article there is an attempt to help explain how there might be a misunderstanding, but the fact is that it is still a controversy. Whidbey 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blog, not an article

This one has really gotten out of control and is unencyclopedic, lengthy crap. It is 64 KB; in contrast the article on Edward R. Murrow (not just "Edward R. Murrow controversies") is 32 KB. Few of the controversies here seem significant enough to mention. Suggest reducing this to a list with links to controversies that are notable enough to deserve their own article. The following controversies should have their own article:

  • Sexual Harrassment Case--cause celebre widely covered
  • War on Christmas--commonly used term among conservative commentators
  • Arguments with Al Franken (including Peabody Awards) (borderline)--generated lawsuit, widely covered
  • Jeremy Glick--Should be covered in article on Glick
  • Controversy about boyhood home--Seems trivial, but has received attention in press and mentioned by Franken in related controversy
  • Ludacris--barely notable, but did (arguably) contribute to cancellation of Pepsi endorsement deal

The following items have not received much attention outside of O'Reilly's own show, where he uses them to create a sense of outrage among his viewers that seems to drive his ratings. They are either not controversies, should be mentioned in other articles to which they relate or are not important enough to be worthy of discussion:

  • Malmedy massacre--Exhibit A in the case that this article is blog-like. It is an overextended, speculative essay rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • Hubcaps incident--Appears to have been mentioned once in "Reliable Sources."
  • Alleged liberal bias in the media--which conservative doesn't believe this exists?
  • Citizen boycott of French goods--More something for him to talk about on his show than anything real
  • Opposing the ACLU--He and a lot of other people criticize this organization; why is his opposition especially noteworthy?
  • Penalties on child sex offenders--Details fight with editor of Dayton Daily News, which who does not even have an article here.
  • Weapons of mass destruction--Like lots of other people, he thought Iraq had WMDs. The fact that he felt he had to apologize for this shows that he has a high opinion of his own importance but is not notable.
  • Jane Fonda--repeated common, but mistaken, belief about Jane Fonda and then admitted he was wrong
  • Military recruitment in San Francisco schools--Criticized San Francisco for not allowing military recruiters in the schools, to which a San Francisco supervisor (city council member) responded.
  • Cindy Sheehan--Like other conservatives he has criticized this woman.
  • Brown University SexPowerGod party--Criticized party at university. That's about it.
  • David Letterman--One appearance on late-night show. What's next, a separate article about Drew Barrymore flashing Letterman?
  • Shut-up--Not really a controversy, belongs in his article because it describes his interview style.
  • Neal Gabler--He and someone else at FOX exchanged criticism.
  • Keith Olbermann--Nonnotable feud with other "news personality;" seems mostly designed to prop up each other's ratings
  • American Red Cross--Like many others, criticized Red Cross
  • Stephen Rogers--O'Reilly gave contact info for a nonnotable reporter who was dead; how does this even remotely qualify as a controversy?

This article's history shows it is the subject of repeated edit wars; it is an invitation to POV-pushing by the subject's supporters and detractors. Since it contains little truly notable information and no notable information that could not be incorporated elsewhere, it should be turned into a list. --JChap 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment and the suggestion for turning the article into a list to eliminate POV-pushing on both sides.Dcflyer 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No arguement here. This article is silly and is too long to be worth reading by anyone. Even a list, however, is going to require some monitoring as it seems to usually be annons who insert new content here (and Oreilly's detractors seem to always find new content). -MrFizyx 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. I'm on board with it. Lawyer2b 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. This article could be considered a POV fork. The article is valid but it needs some serious cleaning up. What is considered a controversy here should be something that received notable mainstream media attention. If the issue just stays within O'Reilly's shows or only addressed by his critics, it is not really a controversy unless both sides continue to address it. If something is talked about at the time and forgotten about, it becomes trivial. MrMurph101 22:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on waiting a few weeks, turning a few of the sections into separate articles, and then submitting the article to AfD with the suggestion that it be turned into a list wikilinking to

individual articles. Any disagreement with that? --JChap 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of O'Reilly

I propose a new article called "Critics of Bill O'Reilly." Some of the entries here could be moved there since this article has become bloated. I think it will help manage NPOV. It is not controversial, in essence, to be critical of someone. This way we can identify those who criticize O'Reilly and state their accusations and people can decide for themselves what to believe. MrMurph101 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Neal Gabler" section

I am removing the following text from the article.

Known for his heated interviews and clashes with other media personalities, O'Reilly has entered into a feud with a fellow Fox News personality Neal Gabler, a member commentator on Fox News Watch. In December of 2005, during the War on Christmas commentary by the network, Gabler attacked O'Reilly as well as John Gibson and Sean Hannity for what he perceived as their overzealous demagoguery. O'Reilly initially ignored Gabler with a few simple remarks, but has since called for Gabler to be fired and referred to him as a "smear merchant" and a "rabid dog".[11][12]

I do not believe this incident constitutes a controversy and part of the reason can be found in the first sentence. O'Reilly is known for clashes with other media personalities and therefore the other personality needs to be more of a celebrity to generate controversy (e.g. Al Franken, or Keith Olbermann) There has been virtually no discussion of this incident in the media at all and even the media matters supporting links are neutral, simply confining themselves to detailing what Gabler said that upset O'Reilly and what O'Reilly said in his response. Lawyer2b 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the AfD

(or, How not to change an article you don't like...) It looks like the result of the AfD will be that the article will be kept on a permanent basis, at least based on the consensus of opinion expressed there. I still don't think this topic lends itself to a single, well-written encyclopedia article that hangs together well, but will support MrMurph101 if he wants to rewrite this (as he says above). I don't feel comfortable editing this article because any edit I would make would involve deleting major chunks of text. As I support deleting the article (eventually), it would probably be inappropriate for me to delete large parts of it after a Keep. --JChap 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The baseline version to be edited could be Dcflyer's last edit at 00:18 (UTC) on 13 June 2006. In my opinion (as I discuss in more detail above), the major problems with this version are that the article is overly long, contains a lot of trivial information and has some anti-O'Reilly POV (esp. the Malmedy section). --JChap 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The strong keep emerging from the AfD may indeed make your plan more difficult, but most of the voices there still recognize that something needs to be done here. If you want to again revert to the "baseline version" you mention, I'll support you (or even do the edit if you wish). I hate to admit it, but I agree with some of the cuts that Stanley011 has made, but unfortunately he has inserted a new POV slant into a few places and in general gone about business in a very negative way. -MrFizyx 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you cite specific examples of where I inserted right wing POV--and remove those rather than starting from a "baseline version" that might as well be found on DailyKos. Stanley011 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because I'd like to show respect for people who first discuss their edits on talk pages and try to build consensus. Its not clear to me that the current version is a better or worse place to start editing out biased statements. I really don't plan to spend a lot of time on this article myself, so if a majority of editors wish to start from your version I could live with that too. -MrFizyx 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started restructuring the article and created a "critics and rivals" section. I believe that this should be ultimately moved to the main article. MrMurph101 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! Much props to Mr. Murph. I think the new structure is awesome. Much improved. Very impressive. Wish I had thought of it. Lawyer2b 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :-). This was bugging me for a while and I decided to be bold. It seems that most are happy or at least not objecting. MrMurph101
The article is much better organized. Nice job. --JChap 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franken book controversy

I just watched the video of the ABA event discussed in this section. The section has several problems. To wit:

  1. Franken did not speak first, Ivins did. O'Reilly spoke second and Franken spoke last.
  2. Franken and O'Reilly argued after Franken talked about O'Reilly's Peabodys; Franken did not interrupt O'Reilly's talk.
  3. The fact that Franken exceeded the time limit is mentioned twice in section: Franken spoke for 20 minutes. O'Reilly claims the time limit was fifteen minutes but there is no other indication that this is the time limit.

I am going to make changes to the section accordingly.

The Peabody Awards controversy seems to have been largely instigated by Franken (who called the Washington Post about it) and this could be integrated here. --JChap 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Olberman

Regarding Keith Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" (WPW) television segment, I removed the following wording from the article:

"In this segment, Olbermann designates an individual, mostly public personalities (usually a conservative), who, some time in the week prior to that night's segment of Countdown, engaged in conduct or speech with which Olbermann disagrees, as the "worst person the world."

Reason, these statements are not factual. It is true Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter often make the list because they are public personalities that grab attention by making controversial statements, but the majority of the people highlighted in WPW though are random newsmakers (e.g. the woman who left her kid at Chuck E Cheese). All of this is handled with a humorous zeal as evidenced by the Keith's dramatic reading of the WPW title and the upside-down yellow smiley faces garbed in jailhouse uniforms that permeate the segment. This suggests that WPW are canidates are selected for their humorous effect and not because Keith disagrees with them. Either way, Keith's motivations for whom is picked is speculative, not factual, and as a consequence it doesn't belong in the article. Sysrpl 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Stanley011 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the time frame from when an event occurs to when it makes to WPW is arbitrarily based on when the news breaks. In the case of the many felons highlighted in WPW, that is when the media picks up the story which is sometimes months after the incident occured, and not necessarily "sometime in the week prior". If anyone wants to describe the WPW segment they should, get the facts straight, add it to the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article, and wiki-fy it here. Sysrpl 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced O'Reilly image

Unless a source is provided, this image should be deleted ASAP. Stanley011 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_image_of_Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&oldid=58958174"