Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Culpability Factor
The first time I appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor," in 2004, I sat across from Bill O'Reilly in awkward silence while he shuffled papers and took notes.
Finally, he acknowledged my existence. "Thank you for coming on," he said. "Most people don't have the guts."
I said, "Well, you are one of the most-watched new shows on cable."
He swiftly retorted, "The most-watched new show on cable TV."
Let's face it: Bill O'Reilly is not only aware of his power and his reach, he's damn proud of them.
So I went on his show, time and again, even though many other progressives discouraged me. I went because I know what O'Reilly knows: It's the most-watched show, and I thought it was imperative that his audience also hear our viewpoint.
I also know that when you have a bully pulpit, you need to be held accountable for what you preach.
O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person. You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008.
O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.
That is why I made a personal pledge to no longer sit across from him after he called for people to converge on Tiller's clinic. I realized that appearing on the show would only legitimize his speech and that no good would come of my efforts.
So on Tuesday, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.
O'Reilly had the opportunity to apologize for his words, and he didn't. When restraint and perspective were called for, he fanned the flames higher. In fact, on his June 1 "Talking Points," he played the martyr, saying his critics were seeking to stifle any criticism of "people like Tiller -- that and hating Fox News is the real agenda here." On his show the next day -- the show I declined to appear on -- he again called a murdered man "Dr. Killer."
I admit that after the call from the producer, I hesitated. What an opportunity, I thought, to sit across from O'Reilly and call him out for what he has done and where his responsibility lies. To speak for everyone in America who is hurt and scared and angry. I have never been a Fox News hater; clearly, I've used the show for the benefit of my movement and my organization, and I've answered his questions on some of the toughest issues around. Didn't I have the right to also call him out for his speech?
But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?
Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York.
66 Comments so far
Show All"Who the fuck cares what Republicans think?"
Unfortunately, far too many people.
Which Clinton? Hillary or Bill?
Well put but I am not impressed by your ending.
"But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?"
You do not lose until you quit. O'Rielly's tactics, as all bullies, is to beat the hope out of you so they can feel like they won, proving to them that they are right.
You can't give up. You need to let the court of public opinion be the judge. You have the unique experience and opporunity to reach millions.
In basketball, as in life, "if you don't shoot you will never make the basket."
We the need to become the problem, like Ghandi, Mandela, Parks and King.
activism101.ning.com
How about like Washington, Adams, Fidel, Che and the others to whom the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence wasn't just BS?
A decision that should have been made in 2004. Going on those shows gives them the ability to claim, however disingenuously, the "fair and balanced" mantle, even though they're consistently able to rig the outcome through editing or the dispensation of airtime. Further, the "gains" to liberals or leftists are at the very best utterly marginal. We generally don't watch those shows, and those who do are largely beyond the realm of persuasion.
Let the right talk with each other, since they're doing that anyway with or without your presence.
No more collaborating with them, unless, of course, you're in it for your own gain.
"Let the right talk with each other, since they're doing that anyway with or without your presence. "
Agreed.
First of all, appearing on the Bill O'LIEly show is a complete mistake. The GDMFer holds the floor while the opposing guest doesn't. IF THE GAME IS "FIXED", DON'T PLAY IT. The author would be better off showing up on Amy Goodman's shows or at least moderately balanced shows such as on NPR.
who is Bill O'Reilly?
It truely is embarassing to see a liberal or progressive on ANY Fox Show.
The best way to deal with a rabid dog is to avoid it in the first place.
Ask yourself who the host is - who the audience is - and why you want to defend your message to this host and this audience in the first place.
Fox News Viewers are low life. Limbaugh listeners are low life. Hanniters views and listeners are Neandrethals.
There are millions of good people looking for a good message. Why waste it on Fox?
When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person."
How is saying the late Doctor is an executioner any different from what millions say about abortion, namely, that abortion is murder? That is hardly the same as urging his assasination. BO is not responsible in the least.
minimally, the attitude of vigilantism encouraged by bill o., rush l., et al, is problematic, don't you think? the innumerable lies, the fear- & hate-mongering, have ZERO effect in cultivating vigilantes? you really must be joking.
in a society where many people believe in the death penalty, indeed much of the "pro-life" community believes thus, calling abortion murder is tantamount to wishing abortionists were dead. since the state is failing in its duty to enforce the death penalty on wanton murderers, too cowed by godless liberalism to execute divine wrath on deserving sinners, somebody has to step up to the plate.
comparing tiller to hitler has NO effect? then why do it? we can't know whether o'reilly wanted tiller murdered (though i suspect he's happy w/the outcome), but how can you deny that he wanted his rhetoric to stop tiller and his "death mill"?
now, back to planet earth..
" the attitude of vigilantism encouraged by bill o., "
The "attitude of vigilantism" resides squarely in the one who did the shooting. BO said nothing that could be reasonably construed as encouraging the murder. All BO did was reiterate what millions of other people say about abortion doctors (the ones who do not call for their murders). That he has a microphone makes no difference.
comparing tiller to hitler makes no difference? auschwitz and a medical facility?
again, then why do it?
oh yeah, speaking to millions of people, day in & day out, for years, makes no difference.
then why do it?
"comparing tiller to hitler makes no difference?"
If he said that, no, it makes no difference. BO and millions of others beleive abortion is murder. You need to understand that.
"oh yeah, speaking to millions of people, day in & day out, for years, makes no difference."
Nope. The abortion debate is *already* at the forefront of issues discussed in the US.
"then why do it?"
To persuade others on your point of view, just like, for example, when Cindy Sheehan protests near GWB's home. She said Bush murdered her son.
right. no difference. so when bush or h. clinton compare the prez of iran (or saddam hussein or kim jong ill) to hitler, it makes no differrence? obvs, bill o. ain't the POTUS, but millions of americans listen to him, more than POTUS.
the comparison to hitler says to people do whatever you can, including murder if necessary, to stop someone. whether it's tiller or the prez of iran.
as dick cheney said, we don't negotiate with evil. we defeat it. if tiller is hitler, what other conclusion do you draw?
so bill o. definitely bears some responsibility for tiller's murder.
or was it justified, jake?
"the comparison to hitler says to people do whatever you can, including murder if necessary, to stop someone."
It does no such thing. It is up to the listener to decide first if someone is "like Hitler" just because they heard someone say so. It is then up to the shooter to decide to shoot. Just because BO the president or BO the commentator says something doesn't make it true.
funny, when a politician compares the enemy du jour to hitler, are they not justifying preemptive actions to stop that person/group/nation? how is reilly different w/respect to tiller? if he didn't think drastic preemptive action to stop tiller was warranted, why compare him to hitler? besides ratings, that is.
btw, tiller's actions were legal, regardless what the anti-choice crowd says.
so it was murder. right, jake?
"when a politician compares the enemy du jour to hitler, are they not justifying preemptive actions to stop that person/group/nation?"
I have no idea, you will have to ask the "politician" in question.
" besides ratings,"
As I stated before, to persuade people to one's viewpoint.
"btw, tiller's actions were legal, regardless what the anti-choice crowd says."
Ignores the *moral* argument that has been going on for decades, as to whether abortion is murder. Same with something like "collateral damage". The legal status does not matter to those who argue this point. There is no need for you to repeat this idea any more.
you don't know what a politician/journalist intends, yet they are trying to persuade a point of view? that doesn't make sense.
the question is not what a private citizen's moral viewpoint is, but what the law allows. the law itself enforces the distinction b/n legality & morality (e.g., adultery).
undoubtedly tiller's killer tho't it was justifiable homicide. a society does not determine the desirability (and thus legality and perhaps morality) of an action based solely on the intent of the individual committing an act. the US is divided on the morality of abortion, but has decided its legality.
unless you think murder is justified in deciding disputes b/n legality & morality. in a (supposedly) democratic society, where ideally one is to persuade others of their beliefs, and not with a bullet.
"you don't know what a politician/journalist intends, yet they are trying to persuade a point of view? that doesn't make sense."
It makes sense as soon as you realize that I can only guess. Your guess seems to be that someone is intentionally encouraging murder which is not reasonable. BO never said anything close to that.
"the question is not what a private citizen's moral viewpoint is, but what the law allows. "
True concerning the actions of Tiller's murderer. I'm not disputing this. But we were talking about people speaking out about abortion, and whether that can somehow be construed as vigilantism or encouraging the same. It does not.
"undoubtedly tiller's killer tho't it was justifiable homicide. "
Agreed, so?
you can only "guess" what pfizer means when they say "cialis will help you get your groove back," and show pix of smiling happy middle aged couples. (but somehow your guess becomes more probable when they mention the dangers of turning into Priapus).
and you can only "guess" what anti-abortionists mean when they compare abortion doctors to genocidal maniacs, the (supposedly) most evil men in human history, and show pix of aborted fetuses. much less the intimidations, harrassments, bombings, etc., that happen from time to time.
but you are right. one can only "guess." reilly saying "kansas is our munich, sebelius our chamberlain" might have been going too far. might have got in trouble for that one.
but again, we can only "guess" what these words "mean". like when the teacher says, 5 + 5 is not 9, it's not 11...so "guess".
"and you can only "guess" what anti-abortionists mean when they compare abortion doctors to genocidal maniacs,"
There are *reasonable* guesses and there are wild stabs. It's reasonable to guess in the above case that they beleive abortion is murder, and that the abortion doctors are committing murder on a large scale (thousands), and this is why they compare it to genocide. But it is *not* reasonable to say that they are encouraging murder by making the comparison. That is what you have been trying to do, and it's unreasonable without any good evidence. After all, it would be quite easy for someone to simply state that the doctors should be killed, yet this is not the case with O'Reilly or most ant-abortionists.
Therefore, I think your position is clearly unreasonable. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement and you haven't added anything new to your POV after several exchanges now. I think you are wrong as things stand, and see no place for this to go unless you add something substantial that you heven't yet done.
"but again, we can only "guess" what these words "mean". like when the teacher says, 5 + 5 is not 9, it's not 11...so "guess"."
If you wish to respond to what I wrote above, please stay focused on the topic and avoid this kind of tangent.
jake, it is, at this point in time, illegal to incite or solicit or encourage or advocate murder (private murder, not state murder). so that's never going to be said. certainly not on public TV.
so yes, all you can do is guess.
the teacher can't tell you the answer. that's called cheating.
thus the analogy b/n journalism & teaching. he's hitler, but you keep protesting, and trying to vote pro-life. and praying. but he's hitler. but you keep protesting. but he's hitler. keep protesting.
hitler : tiller :: deserves to die: protesting?
protesting hitler? doesn't hitler deserve to die? preemptively, if possible? either hitler doesn't deserve to die, or protesting is an insufficient response to tiller.
there is no other possible solution to this analogy.
(unless the analogy of hitler & tiller is flawed.)
clearly you are getting tired of this thread. fine. final question, no need to answer, i'm not looking back here:
did reilly address his relationship to tiller post-mortem? pro, con, apologetic, defiant, dismissive, whatever, anything. what was it?
"jake, it is, at this point in time, illegal to incite or solicit or encourage or advocate murder (private murder, not state murder). so that's never going to be said. certainly not on public TV."
You can certainly publically wish that someone would die, yet no one said that, or take any number of intermediate steps towards something like that.
"did reilly address his relationship to tiller post-mortem? pro, con, apologetic, defiant, dismissive, whatever, anything. what was it?"
AFAIK, he denounced the murder, did not pull back on anyrhing he had said about him previously, and argued in his defence that he was somehow responsible. I don't know of any "relationship" he had with TIller.
And I just heard him call Tiller's murderer a "domestic terrorist".
The Amish (and other religious groups to a lesser-known extent) practice what is called "shunning" when a member of their community commits what they consider a heinous offense. We as a nation and journalists and the news media in particular should learn to practice this with the likes of O'Reilly and Cheney.
Sioux Rose
Excellent reference, Elaine M.
years ago a wealthy client asked me to read a particular woman's tarot cards and I declined. My decision to not offer "help" parallels the decision of the Naral spokeswoman. As it was this particular woman had killed a man while driving under the influence. She came from a wealthy family and had no criminal charges, and continued to drink and drive. I told my friend (the wealthy client) that I had nothing to offer to such a person. If she could kill a person in cold blood and not alter her behavior, I felt my words however wise or otherwise, would be wasted.
The one difference here is that O'Reilly probably has some in the audience who are just there to conform to their particular group affiliations. Some probably question what these groups advocate when they are alone with their own thoughts and what remains of their consciences. It is that faction that sometimes can be touched, as if a light suddenly went off in a dark room, when an intelligent voice counters maniacal O'Reilly.
JAKE Newton: your lack of empathy is profoundly disturbing.
"JAKE Newton: your lack of empathy is profoundly disturbing."
Sioux: I was commenting on the Non Sequitur posed by the author of the article we are commenting on, I don't see how "empathy" would help make my point on that specifically. Does it help if I tell you that I think the abortion Dr. should not have been murdered?
Sioux Rose
JAKE: Yes. That helps, but this idea that words intended to incite aimed at a group that hardly thinks for itself mean nothing draws the boundary around self (and so-called freedom of speech) in a manner that presumes a great deal. As you know from my postings I take a spiritual-esoteric view of things, and we humans are not as separate (energetically) as the outlines of our bodies may suggest. Words (think Hitler and his command, almost hypnotic, over the masses of his era) can propel acts and indeed own a power that is also used in a variety of rituals to call upon forces that are not ensconced in physical dimensions. You know, Jake, Shakepeare introduced this important topic centuries ago, "There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio." Still holds true, if not more so.
"intended to incite aimed at a group that hardly thinks for itself "
Thank you for your response. I deny your apparent conclusion about intent, as well as your assumption that there is any "group" here that can't think for itself. The latter point is cliche, and the same is often said about those on the left. That's also a bad assumption.
Sioux Rose
I was referring to that group, in the millions, who STILL think Saddam was behind 911, who don't believe in evolution, who take Bush for a "man of God," who conceive of our times as END TIMES, and consider it "God's" will that an all-out battle take place in the Middle East to prove which God is the fittest. In short, they are risking to bet it all on destruction. This is a dynamically delusional bunch, and of the ilk defined by John Dean as natural "authoritarians," also known as conservatives without conscience. No, they do not think for themselves, are past the point they even can begin to do so having been conditioned by fundamentalist churches NOT to question all their lives, and otherwise programmed to believe in authority figures regardless of the fitness (or missing integrity) of said "leaders."
The left is parodied through the "impossible herding of cats" scenario precisely because we DO think for ourselves, and that makes for a lot of mini-universes as opposed to a singular bankrupt ethos (that of the right) where everyone lines up like the automotons they are, and just follows orders from ONE head, ONE command center, ONE father/fuhrer style figure. No arguments or debates invited or permitted.
I am done here, Jake. You are impervious to anything but a narcisstic reflection of what you have already convinced yourself to be true. You miss the forest for the trees on every occasion, and pride yourself on your respect for facts. I really hope you experience a spiritual reckoning before your Judgment Day. I know that I, for one, spend long hours in this forum trying to get through to minds potentially as closed as yours. I have had MANY validate having learned something from my posts. Your insistence on minutiae, a letter-of-the-law myopia that misses the big picture is crippling your higher understanding.
By the way, the John Belushi comment weeks ago was precisely sent to throw you a curve and to get you out of your linear mode by tweaking you with a humorous non sequitur. When was the last time you just stripped and went skinny dipping? You need to experience spontaneity, lest you dry up like a prune.
I deny that there is some homogenous group that simultaneously beleives all of several things you listed, nor that if any individual did beleive some or any of them, that it somehow proved that they couldn't think for themselves. People believe all kinds of things without rational reason Sioux, and I would point out some that you beleive in the paranormal area, and I would be loathe to criticize you for it.
"The left is parodied through the "impossible herding of cats" scenario precisely because we DO think for ourselves,"
I wasn't thinking of anything like that. I was thinking along the lines of "free" health care, lax border control, business men are "greedy", abortion on demand, environmentalism as religion, "right" to a job with a "living wage", etc., as items of widely held belief that would indicate to some that the left "can't think for themselves". But I wouldn't be the one make that charge. I'm just saying that this is a loser for you, to make sweeping generalities about the mentality of people who you don't agree with, and that if you are going to do it you should see how easily the tables can turn.
"I know that I, for one, spend long hours in this forum trying to get through to minds potentially as closed as yours."
My mind isn't closed. It's just that, in the present case as an example, no one has been able to make a good argument that Bill O'Reilly is somehow culpable in Tiller's murder. I pick my battles Sioux, I argue when I am quite sure I am right. In the current case, no one has been able to effectively support the argument put forward in the article, so maybe it really is bogus. Did you consider that?
"You need to experience spontaneity,"
This format is not particularly suited to spontaneity. I am *much* more spontaneous in normal face to face talk as well as musically. Sometimes to excess, but usually to good effect. There is a risk.
"When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person."
If Rachel Maddow says Cheney is a murderer and a torturer, and someone killed him, is she responsible?
I'd add that the anti-abortionists would have thought Tiller was an executioner with or without BO.
Couldn't the killing of Tiller be considered a very late term abortion. Or would only his mother have the right to make that decision?
was he born before or after Roe v. Wade?
Sioux Rose
MOJO: Your percentage is insane, not to mention inaccurate. You may have a lousy perception of Americans, but maybe 30% at most goes along with the likes of the right wing hate machine and its mutant message mongers.
Why is it that when O'Reilly talks about abortions he only talks about the women and the doctors? Last I heard, there still has only been one immaculate conception. No one mentions the responsibility the father of this fetus has. When I was in my youth and pregnancy was a possibility, I remember many instances with female friends and acquaintances, who got abotions because the father of the fetus insisted. Or, there was the case where the father tells the woman have the kid if you want; but, I don't want anything to do with the kid. I don't think people have changed any since then; and, we still have many a man who does not want the responsibility or the consequences of "sowing his wild oats." Would O'Reilly rail against these kind of men? Probably not.
So if O'Reilly is complicit in the killing of Tiller, I guess that makes you complicit in the killing of 60,000 unborn childen, many late-term! Tiller was a bad guy and O'Reilly was well within his rights to point out what the guy did. Doesn't condone murder, but let's not pretend this guy was some sort of humanitarian.
Any time a guy masturbates and ejaculates, he is killing millions of unborn children.
Sioux Rose
SEVENTH: Thank you. These righteous idiots who want to force women to have unwanted children only think of the sacred unborn and could care less about EVERY aspect that follows conception. Just as depicted on the popular TV drama, "Law and Order," plenty of them have vendettas against ONE woman, THE woman who did not want to have their particular child; or the woman they could not control. All this Biblical patriarchal bull shit is their way of trying to demand authoritarian allegiance to rules that favor men and their control over women and the birth lineage. Most of these guys make women's lives unbearable, and they're so convinced of THEIR rights that they are clueless to their innate sexism and lack of any capacity to remotely LOVE another person.
I love what Granny D had to say about this: That those who so vehemently identify with the fetus, this curled up potential living being, are really trying to claim the disowned portions of themselves that got lost to living by others' rules and never knowing their own freedom, or the innocence of following their inner calling. The unborn fetus symbolizes the lives they never let themselves live! They are fighting for this lost dream the way Don Quixote chased windmills, only some of them are better armed and undoubtedly dangerous.
I like Granny D's comparison. I had never thought of it in those terms before, but I suspect it is pretty close to the truth.
Knowing full well this post will be lost on you--hard to take a Randian seriously and all--at the very least get your information in order. Tiller performed late-term abortions on women who were at high risk for serious injury or death as a result of a complicated preganancy. So let's say, for example, that he was killing babies. He was also saving women's lives, in many cases. This is not the mark of a monster.
The Right has as usual selectively applied its principles to only one party. News flash my unidimensional friend, morality can, in fact, present difficult and complicated choices, and all the demanding for a simple, stick-figured world will not change that. BUt what you guys have done to Tiller absolutely obliterates any claim to high ground that you could possibly have. You're not pro-life, you never were. You guys don't give a shit about life. You have this bizarre, legalistic conception of guilt and innocence and since everything out of the womb is "tainted", it's cool to kill it. I think that's why fetuses/babies are so special to you: they're "innocent". I figure we should just argue that we're terminating the lives of the "future guilty"? A pre-emptive strike on potential sin?
Weird shit.
i'm happy to do my part to contribute to the killing of babies. i get no greater pleasure in life than in crushing babies' skulls and sucking their half-dead remains out the birth canal and tossing them in the trash can. so some rich white chick or minority welfare queen can get back to their carefree hedonism.
just not the living ones in gaza, iraq, pakistan, somalia, columbia, mexico, bosnia, vietnam, etc., etc., etc.
how can bombs be smart & abortions be stupid?
yeah. saving women's lives does not qualify as humanitarianism. if evil woman hadn't plucked the fruit, maybe they wouldn't have to die in childbirth. all the time.
Here's the utube video nw3vH27ibho
Mary Alice do we not reap what we sew? It is an extreme act to perform late term abortions. Those of us who believe in the full spectrum of life cannot separate an unborn child from life. Ending the death culture is a fundamental step in human sustainability, and abortion is a gross example of the continuing death culture. Life is sustaining.
The death culture is indeed pervasive, but a true life culture must still deal with death, and in the case of late term abortion the question comes down to whose death -- the imminent child's or the death-threatened mother's. In the bad old days, women routinely died in childbirth, and often the child survived. But now we can save the mother at the expense of the child, and so we have a uniquely modern dilemma. Since very few people are pro-death, we are only arguing about who gets to live. And we never actually know if a soon-to-be-born child will thrive outside the womb, nor if the mother would have actually died if she gave birth to that child. These are at best educated guesses. But the currently living always have a prior claim on remaining alive. To act otherwise is truly a death culture. It's the same path that leads to sacrificing living beings to appease dead ancestors, or sending more soldiers to die so that the previously killed did not "die in vain". That's death culture, not the decision to maintain a life that exists in the here and now.
Why do you type such nonsense as "the imminent child's or the death-threatened mother's."? Did you read the article? Tiller would perform a late term abortion on the sole criterion that the mother wanted it. Not in this report, but I heard on Democracy Now, that he would not state or report any reason whatever for the abortions he performed, despite requests from anti-abortion groups, and the governor of the state got involved, supporting Tiller !
so what if he did? the fact still remains that almost all late term abortions are due to health-related issues.
"the fact still remains that almost all late term abortions are due to health-related issues."
By going to the general, you ignore the specific issues of abortions provided by *Tiller*. I see.
well, i don't really give a shit what the reasons for the abortion are. not my body, none of my business.
but what are the specific issues related to tiller? that he didn't grill his patients about their reasons for seeking an abortion? that he didn't harass them w/gruesome pictures of aborted babies, make them sit thru a session of listening to the fetus' heart beat & watch it suck its thumb? though he was apparently religious, he didn't browbeat his patients w/stories of baby souls going to heaven, while abortionists go to hell?
in my understanding, there are THREE facilities in the US for late term abortions.
almost all late term abortions are for medical reasons.
ergo, almost all of the procedures tiller performed were to protect the health of the mother.
but please jake, enlighten us further.