Factor this

The Spin Cycle: One Week of GOP-TV with Bill O’Reilly

In case you didn’t know it, the country is at war. And I don’t mean in Iraq or Afghanistan, but right here in America, The U.S. of A. On one side are the secular-progressives (s-p's), those who do not recognize the nobility of America and disdain the role that religion plays in American society. They are the same people that advocate social reforms that mimic the social programs heralded in France and Holland. Their opponents are the traditionalists, those who think America is noble and that the world is better for it. Their natural leader is Bill O’Reilly, the original culture warrior.

He is a native New Yorker who has made his tough “hold no bars” attitude a brand name for prime-time TV talk shows. O’Reilly’s abrasive tone and offensive vocabulary have made him a right-wing populist hero with soaring ratings and a bulging wallet. Though he may have you believe that once The O’Reilly Factor airs that you will enter the “no spin zone,” but you will soon feel dizzy because there is nothing but spin. But this is putting it mildly.

He dedicates most of his hour long program to promoting himself and the ethos of the Republican/Conservative lobby but dare not call it such because there is no spin
allowed on The Factor. Instead he masks the values of the right and re-labels them under his self-defined term—traditionalism. According to his new book Culture Warrior Traditionalists believe in the “basic tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy and the competitive capitalism that the country was founded on.” He believes that America’s Founding Fathers realized that religion was a necessary defense against anarchy and crime, which is why they encouraged a society “under God.” He makes it seem as if the S-Ps are a totalitarian minority oppressing the traditionalist majority; because after all most Americans are traditionalists. But what does that mean?

After overcoming the painful task of reviewing his book, I noticed that there are no end notes, footnotes or references. It’s as if we are supposed to take his word on the validity and accuracy of his sources. And considering his reputation and that of the FNC one has to be curious. On The Factor he rarely cites his sources for statistics. But according to him, most Americans agree with O’Reilly’s traditionalist values and proves it by praising the high ratings, and FOXNews' number one status as the most watched cable news source.

It may seem that I am berating the point, but I feel that the combination of alarmist language and divisive ideology is problematic. He quotes statistics that support his views only and he never says from where. O’Reilly only quotes polls specifically if they come from his website daily poll question. It is true that he is not a journalist, he is a commentator but that doesn’t make him unaccountable to the tenets of responsibility and accuracy that should be the foundation of any member of the media community.

Touting himself as a “man of the people” who stands up against the onerous Goliath represented by large corporations, the wealthy, and the “liberal media” he is a TV personality that delivers news according to him; which basically means, if you want to know what really happened seek out other sources. As a warrior fighting the culture war which is most apparent in the media he aggressively outs his contemporaries and colleagues Rather, Jennings, and Cronkite as die hard secular-progressives (s-p’s). Citing these majors as S-Ps, he makes it clear that the majority of media is run and operated by S-P conspirators against the right. He identifies San Francisco as a bastion of S-Ps; the ACLU and people like George Soros and George Lakoff as the leaders of the S-P movement.

As a self-proclaimed media maverick that uses his daily evening program to promote his ideology, religion, political point of view, and lest we not forget his new book Culture Warrior, he gives himself way too much credit. For some one who has two masters degrees you would think that if he were to insist on insulting his guests he would refrain from calling them bigots. How many talk show hosts call their guests bigots? Or rather how many want to call their guests bigots, but don’t? I guess this is why he gets to consider himself a maverick. He has the combative interview style of Chris Mathews from MSNBC, but lacks the sharp wit. His guests seem exhausted and frustrated when they finish an interview because they probably feel like they just got punched in the stomach since he spent about seven minutes verbally assaulting them with his caustic verbiage and derogatory name-calling. No wonder he has high ratings. Watching the O’Reilly Factor is like watching WWF Raw but with out the fake plot lines and blood.

O’Reilly and his “fighting Irish” temper are indicative of the Fox News tone as a whole. Presenting itself as a media underdog fighting against the Goliath of the liberal media; fighting to present news that is “fair and balanced;” fighting its way to the top of the ratings, Fox News is a network at war. It’s almost as if, Fox News is playing to the “Go Get ‘em!” psyche that has plagued Americans since Manifest Destiny.

The FNC’s infamous reputation as GOP-TV is well-earned. The divisive nature and style of the reporting indicative of the Bush Administration and the Bush Doctrine; either you agree or not, either your with us or against us. Either you watch the Fox News Channel (FNC) because you want “fair and balanced” news or you’re watching the other networks that are promoting the liberal/left-wing conspiracy that has taken the media hostage.

Segment lead-ins are posed in the same way as well. The O’Reilly Factor is the worst culprit. Almost all of his segments lead in with a yes/no question. War on Religion? Democratic Shift? America, noble or not? School Overreaction? Terror Hype? Airport Anarchy? OJ despicable? Bad news? Foul Play? Double Standard? Factor Obsessed? Even when he asks his guests a question, they are usually in the yes/no form. Or the guest agrees or disagrees. This is how it is with Bill. It is black and white. Yes or no. You agree or disagree. Traditionalist or Secular-Progressive. Left or Not.

The problem with this line of questioning or posing of issues is that it precludes the perception of depth or multidimensionality. For example, regarding the recent vote by a school board council in San Francisco to ban the Junior ROTC he referred to it as the “Anti-Military City?” segment. First, O’Reilly detests San Francisco as a bastion of far-left radicalism. Furthermore, such posturing sets the tone and gives little room for difference in opinion. The impact of using the term “anti” and “military” is sensational. It is eye catching and intriguing. Or, in another segment that he did regarding the culture war going on between the S-Ps (secular-progressives) and the Traditionalists, the segment was titled, “Is America Noble?.” Even if guests wanted to answer beyond yes or no, Bill would insist that they answer in the yes or no form. There is no gray on the O’Reilly Factor. Only a fence, and either you’re on his side or you’re not.

In addition to using divisive questioning tactics, segments are given alarmist titles. For example, on a segment he did about airport security. It was titled Airport Rebellion? and Airport Anarchy? The words rebellion and anarchy are loaded. These are words used to describe political upheaval and social chaos. Long lines at check-in and crowded airports is not anarchy, its called Christmas and Thanksgiving. Commuters and travelers conveying their disappointment about the decline in airline customer service is not a rebellion. An airport rebellion would be travelers scaling the check-in counter to upgrade themselves to first class; or rushing the security check-in because they don’t want to take their shoes off or throw away their toothpaste. The use of such loaded language heightens the urgency and severity of matters to unnecessary levels. It is very effective marketing and keeps the viewers level of intrigue attentive.

Bill O’Reilly is a talk show host. He is not a journalist, but a commentator. The O’Reilly Factor is not a news source in the same way that maybe Anderson Cooper is. Viewers don’t, or shouldn’t watch The Factor to be abreast of world or domestic affairs. You watch The Factor for Bill, not the news content. Rather the appeal is to see Bill’s take on the news; his spin.

He even refrains from calling himself a Conservative, even though he clearly is, because doing so would “destroy the show’s premise of being TV’s ‘no-spin zone.’” Granted he does attack the left and the right, giving them both a fair punch, but his conservative ethics screams through his new self-titled identity as a traditionalist. But to prove that there aren’t republican undertones to the ideals of the traditionalists he considers Oprah a traditionalist as well.

The O’Reilly Factor is only suited for the Fox News Channel. Even though he berates the point about the liberal media conspiracy and argues that he is his own man, that Murdoch doesn’t own him, where else would Bill be but the Fox News Channel? Al Franken and movies like “Outfoxed” jokingly refer to the FNC as “GOP-TV.” With Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch at the helm, it’s a fair punch. Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) wrote an article in August 2001 referring to Ailes as the most biased man in news.

Ailes, a former political strategist for the Reagan and Bush (senior) administrations, built a reputation on his below-the belt name calling and clever way of coining terms that are catchy. According to an article in the Washington Post, when Ailes was a producer for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show he referred to President Clinton as a “hippie-President” and used terms like “liberal bigots.” Lee Atwater told a Time magazine reporter that Ailes worked at “two speeds—attack and destroy.” The terminology and combative interview style are pervasive throughout the FNC and The O’Reilly Factor; the network has Ailes’ personality written all over it. Even though, it is clear that the FNC is a top down organization with Ailes’ stamp on the news individuals like Brit Hume and Bill O’Reilly are what give the network its flare.

Even though the FNC has beaten out CNN in ratings and viewers they still consider themselves the media underdog because they see the majority of the media as having a left-wing slant. But as a left-leaning slanter I am perplexed as to how they arrived at this conclusion. First of all, it is empirically impossible to have a left-wing media outlet that is owned by a corporation. The two concepts are diametrically ideologically opposed. Most truly left-leaning media outlets are member supported or subsidized by the government, e.g. NPR and Air America. Secondly, media outlets run by corporations are concerned more about profits and shareholders not quality of news and accuracy in reporting. Third, how fair and balanced can a network be when Roger Ailes is the head honcho advocating an “attack and destroy” modus operandi with Brit Hume and O’Reilly as second in command. This is not bias, it is simple math. A man like Ailes that has a bias towards the left can not be fair and accurate. The very same man people praise and congratulate for his campaigning strategy for Reagan and Bush during the 1980s and early 90s. This is not a man who is intellectually capable of being unbiased and fair towards anything that isn’t right.

FAIR studied 19 weeks of Special Report with Brit Hume in 2001. According to the FAIR study 89% of the guests with party affiliations were Republicans. Out of the 92 guests attending Special Report, only eight were women and 6 were people of color, making 91-93% of guests White and or male. Out of the women and people of color on the show an overwhelming majority were either Republican or conservative. As for The O’Reilly Factor out of 37 guests total in one week 60% were White, 51% were White males, 32% White females. 37% of the guests were women, but from that 85 were White, 7% were black, and less than 2% were Asian or Latino. In addition, there was only one Black male guest. Similar to the statistics from Special Report, the majority of the women guests were center-right regardless of their race. Only two of the guests were academics; and one was a devout Catholic from Santa Clara State University in California. Eight guests were print journalists, radio talk show hosts, or fellow FNC employees like Geraldo Rivera. He had nearly 15 lawyers or legal experts on the show, this was mainly due to his coverage of the OJ Simpson interview. All of his guests were Americans.

During the week that I observed the show, there was no coverage of news about events occurring outside of the United States. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were discussed but not reported on. Concerns regarding Iran and Syria were also mentioned but only in regards to the terrorist threat. O’Reilly never spoke of news or issues in Africa, Asia, Latin America or Europe. The majority of the segments covered domestic news: Post-Election Analysis, Immigration, Sports Rage, the OJ Simpson interview on Fox, etc. On two shows, Thursday and Friday 50% of the segment was about the OJ Simpson interview.

The only relatively international issues related segment was the coverage of the Senate Committee Meeting with Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain and Genereal Abizaid. The news covered was domestic. There were a few “soft” pieces. He covered the Britney Spears divorce in three different segments and analyzed the body language of Rumsfeld and the Clintons to determine what they were really thinking. There is no on-site reporting, the show is done entirely from the studio. Out of the 8 segments he does 4 of them are interviews, discussions, debates, harangues.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Mr. O’Reilly, between the yelling or sheer aggravation you feel, it is therapeutic in some ironic way. During the one week that I was “forced” to watch The O’Reilly Factor I found myself feeling completely enraged for almost the entire hour. I felt a range of emotions that manifested in wanting to throw furniture, break glass, write hate letters, etc. What had incited such dramatic reactions was the way in which O’Reilly would deliver and present current events.

In true O’Reilly style, it is not enough to compartmentalize his personae or TV program with empirical analysis but to be on “his” level; even if it means you have to take the elevator down 30 floors. It doesn’t do Bill justice if I were to consider his treatment of guests inappropriate unless I too grab some mud and start slinging. There is something to say for his school-yard bully way of assaulting his guests that makes you resent the polite and professional manner of others like Anderson Cooper. The brash verbal beat down that he serves up to his guests and audience is almost like a blue collar battle cry against the white collar and proper networks like CNN; their greatest rival.

It is amazing to me that O’Reilly has not recognized his own hypocrisy and removed himself from public life for eternity in shame. Judging from the amount of despise so many have for him, he will probably take his growing fortune at more than $60 million a year and retire. For someone who heralds his program as straight talk and no spin, while working for a network who’s CEO was a Democratic party contract killer, and proudly admits that the traditional values well represented with analysts like Brit Hume and John Gibson are the reason for the ratings defeat of CNN; it is no wonder that people like Al Franken boil his blood. The Factor just doesn’t hold water. And just because you scrutinize the left and the right doesn’t mean you are fair; it means you are critical. O’Reilly argues with almost every body on his show, no matter their slant. The Factor is in the business of sensational news commentary. It is all about the entertainment value of watching Bill deliver his harangues at guests, not about the coverage of the issues.

As we have seen a decline in viewers of the traditional evening news shows The O’Reilly Factor has a place. As people increasingly get their news from the internet and less from traditional sources, The Factor presents an alternative to the traditional evening news formats pioneered by Cronkite and Murrows. After ten years of being on the air, the FNC has finally trumped the Turner card and become number one. Is the FNC the future of cable news? If it is, there is no hope. But, the fact of the matter is Americans are watching. Secondly, this is America, O’Reilly and the FNC have a rightful place. Even if it means that the news will never be the same again.