Bill O'Reilly: A Mathematical Analysis

Our colleague Jacob Sullum's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor has prompted Sam Smith of The Progressive Review to create the "first mathematical model of Bill O'Reilly." The results, he writes, "incontrovertibly proved what was previously believed only anecdotally: O'Reilly is a bully and a jerk."

That's not Sam or Jacob or me speaking, you understand. It's Science.

Comments

[scott]

I googled "sanctimonious, pompous windbag" and got a link to o'reillys website...

[The Mountain Goat]

Not having TV, I fortunately miss all this crud. Someone once loaned me an O'Reilly book, and I had trouble tolerating it. From the above, he sounds like a repackaged Morton Downey Jr.

Having enjoyed "For Your Own Good" I was planning on picking up Sullum's new book, and was surprised to get one in the mail yesterday from David Nott.

Anything that confounds people who consider themselves conservatives is fine with me.

[Peter F. Kuntz]

Jacob Sullum appeared with Carla Howell and some drug treatment advocates on Comcast's CN8 channel (New England Region)CN8 Nitebeat with Barry Nolan the same day. It was a much more civil exchange of ideas. I wish it was available for on-line viewing, but regettably it is not.

[Jim Walsh]

Go rent the movie "A Face In The Crowd," and ask me again about "Lonesome O'Reilly"...

[bomb bomb]

Mountain Goat: I consider myself rather conservative on many issues, perhaps enough that you could call me a conservative. But I think that the War on Drugs is a stupid thing, and I know a few other conservatives who agree with me. Not many, but a few.

Hey, its a start.

[leftborg]

yeah bomb bomb, but you are also a warmonger which means you are a neocon. i would rather march with communists, they are more freedom friendly.

[bomb bomb]

i'm a warmonger?

[Todd Fletcher]

Thanks for elevating the debate there, leftborg.

[Brian]

Ummm...if I get the reference in "leftborg"'s name correctly, I think he/she might mean that ironically...at least I hope...

It Friday, folks! Lighten up!

[bomb bomb]

Yes!!! Thank God it's Friday!!

Thanks for the reminder Brian.

I think I will go mong a war or two.

[Warren]

Looking at the page linked to in the post, I find first off the misuse of the word 'model'. This is mere analysis, no model has been created. A little more scrutiny reveals that if the data presented (in graph form) truly shows that "Sullum in 35 exchanges only managed to say more than 50 words (a little less than a half minute) on three occasions", then the following assertions are refuted by the same data set.

Sullum only got in 35 more words than the interviewer

O'Reilly got in the longest statements - 89 and 104 words

In 42.85% of the exchanges Sullum only managed to get in five words or less.

The assertion that "O'Reilly managed to get in four more last thoughts but they added up to 33 more words than Sullum was able to squeeze in" is likewise unsupported, but may reasonably be assumed to lie outside the reported data.

OK, so I'm the only person on earth that gets their panties in a bunch over flagrant mathematical illiteracy (even in humor) but sheesh, how hard would it have been to get the numbers right or present valid data?

Flying my geek flag high

[Kevin Carson]

Quite similar to the treatment of Jeremy Glick, of Not in Our Name. Glick attempted to point out that blowback from the CIA's training of a hundred thousand mujahedeen had something to do with the Taliban and 9-11. O'Reilly responded with reasoned comments like "I don't really care what you think," "so you keep you mouth shut," and "Shut up. Shut up. Shut up." He finished things off after the interview with "Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f**king
pieces!"

If nothing else, a host who invites someone on a show for the ostensible purpose of providing a viewpoint, and then uses him as a straight man for demagogic abuse, is a lying hypocrite. O'Reilly knew exactly what kinds of things Glick would say--he just wanted to score rating points by deliberately and premeditatedly abusing a guest.

In fact, I'm pretty confident O'Reilly knows something about how blowback from the Afghan war contributed to 9-11. He's not that ignorant. He's just disingenuous, pretending to know less than he actually does so he can win demagogic brownie points with people who really ARE that ignorant.

And in all the times he's used the phrase, I don't think O'Reilly has ever actually given anyone the "last word."

"No spin," my ass.

[Croesus]

O'Reilly likes to serve heaping ladels full of argumentum ad hominems to his audience.

Its best to read the transcripts from the show, than to actually watch it - you can dissect analyze the conversation more easily.

[Croesus]

BTW, O'Reilly needs to learn what a libertine is, before he starts using the term to label people. 🙂

[dhex]

there's a lot of things o'reilly should learn. like how to handle his temper so his heart doesn't explode in his chest. is one's opposition to woody allen/france/drugs/sex/books/fun worth all that rage?

[Scott Harris]

Many folks find Science dull because it must be so rigorous and unimpeachable in proving the self-evident.

[Jay D]

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9023.shtml
This was the only transcript I could find so far.

It seems to me that O'Reilly couldn't come up with a solid argument against Sullum so fell back on the old political mantra, "It's for the children".

[joe]

Bill O'Reilly would rather see 10 kids in my urban neighborhood get gunned down by gangsters than 1 of the rich white kids in his suburb smoke a joint.

[Anonymous]

"Many folks find Science dull because it must be so rigorous and unimpeachable in proving the self-evident"

Hey, Scott, speak for yourself. We like being bored stiff 🙂 etc

[dude]

You'd think O'Reilly's schtick would get grating and he go away, but apparently he pulls in big ratings for a cable news channel.

Anyway, I think the motormouth and ad-hominem attacks are a sign that he has no actual arguments or thought behind his stance, at least on this issue. It's just emotional (or maybe what he thinks the audience wants to hear to be cynical).

Prohibitionists are basically religious fanatics. They have incorrect or unprovable beliefs and insist that the rest of this abide by them.

[dude]

oops ". . .the rest of us abide by them."

[Cinquo]

O'Reilly is an entertainer. Only DU uber-leftists take him seriously.

[david f]

so is maureen dowd.

so is cnn.

so is the ny times.

where's the line between news/analysis and entertainment? is this tennesse williams giving us truth in the pleasant disguise of an illusion?

[twistedmerkin]

Did anyone else see the Sullum appearance? A friend of mine saw it before I did and said that it wasn't worth watching- O'Reilly didn't let Jacob speak, O'Reilly's just a loud mouthed asshole. Well, I can't disagree with that, but when I watched it, I found it very entertaining. I mean, O'Reilly didn't let Sullum say much, and I didn't get many details about Sullum's view (guess I'd have to buy his book to get that), but watching O'Reilly squirm and finally explode on his own show while Sullum calmly threw some verbal jabs at him- "You need to read more"- was quite gratifying. I also thought O'Reilly's views on the subject were very enlightening. He quickly conceeded that there is little difference between alcohol and other drugs (this seems to me to be an important concession towards a more reasonable consideration of drugs) and also admitted that he is in favor of a return to prohibition of alcohol. (I'd imagine that this would be a very unpopular viewpoint) And what, exactly, does he have against Libertines, anyway?

[Croesus]

Bush has apparently said "Vive la France" during his overseas trip.

[Russ]

"where's the line between news/analysis and entertainment?"

I didn't think there was one.

[Steve in CO]

I e-mailed O'Reilly moments after I watched his tirade against Mr. Sullum. Somehow I doubt my comments will be read by the cocky, self-appointed moralist hypocrite.

PS I really enjoyed Jacob asking Mr. "O'Really," if he objected to a few drinks and if he smoked (which he does apparently) for he didn't deny it.

🙂

[Tim Tighe]

The day after the interview, on O'Reilly's radio program, he stated that he did not believe the government had any business telling people what to do in their own homes, he favors de-criminalization of marijuana, and he thinks treatment is a better option for addicts then jail time. The man is very conflicted. I suppose the ranting is a result of cognative dissonance.

[david f]

hey Russ!

that's cool, but why then is everybody getting up in knots about maureen or the "liberal bias"? why arent the rationalizations used for bill or fox-jazeera or rush or ann coulter or whomever applied to this liberal entertainment?

if bill can be forgiven all of his inaccuracies, all of his rabble rousing, all of his clinton/ liberal bashing, why are righties so quick to howl "conservative bashing" or "christian bashing" or "unpatriotism". the Jam sings "that's entertainment" and bad religion has "only entertainment". both are excellent for this rainy, chicago friday...

thoreau said it best yesterday when he noted that since he has no real attachment to either side, he doesn't see this blanket bias.

happy friday!
drf

[James Merritt]

TwistedMerkin: I also have a tape of Sullum's appearance on O'Reilly, and confirm what you said (except that I didn't see O'Reilly actually come out in favor of alcohol re-prohibition -- it was certainly in the air, though). Sullum did, on the other hand, make a wonderful case for his book and his position in 30 minutes, on C-Span's Washington Journal, earlier that day. If you haven't seen that, I recommend it most ... er ... highly. (Seriously, it was great, and anyone who advocates an end to drug prohibition should commit the whole 30 minutes to heart. The handful of minutes that Sullum spent with O'Reilly were largely painful to watch, but probably O'Riled Bill's faithful viewers up enough to check out and maybe even buy Sullum's book. I hope so.)

[Steve in CO]

James,

I doubt the O'Reilly faithful by and large do much reading per se. His show is self-selecting for the most part. I watch him on rare occasions such as the Jacob Sullum interview, but can't say I enjoy Mr. O'Reilly's pompous act for very long without wanting to hurl a brick through my television. And since I like my TV, I usually have to watch the Daily Show or something soothing on Discovery HD Theater to get the taste out of my mouth.

I admit many "Factor," fans realize he's a jerk, what is very sad, is that is precisely why they watch and like him.

[Steve in CO]

drf,

I have noticed this [double-standard] too. Conservatives seem to get a lot of play attacking dubious journalism of liberals ... seems they are in season. By the way, Dowd's article was an "opinion," piece wasn't it? So, in her opinion the CINC is either capricious or a dunce. I think he's both personally, but I don't have a readership in the millions either.

What she wrote was luke-warm criticism compared to other outlets. It just seems the Times is under a rather thick magnifying glass being held by hypocritical moralists of the right. And the sun is still rising.

I just look forward to the day when their hay days are behind them. Because frankly, the bellicosity combined with their self-righteous indignation is no longer amusing to me.

Steve

PS Sorry for being a bit off topic in the above rant. Here's a stab at the topic at hand so to speak ... is it just a coincidence that most self-described drug warriors also happen to proclaim excessive levels of piety as well? Connection, hmm?

[Justin Slotman]

So who's got a transcript? That link somebody posted above is to an earlier appearance by Jacob.

[david f]

hey Steve in CO!

excellent. is this apparent double standard (where those who insult clinton (as bill "don't call me radar" oreilly does) get carte blanche, while those who don't support the war effort are branded unpatriotic) because of the absolutely disgusting behavior of the previous prez in the oval office when compared with this current one? and did yassir really get one of the monica cigars??????

see, none of this would have happened had more of us voted for bill the cat and opus.

cheers,
drf

[David 2]

Every time Bill O'Rilly says something that gets under my skin, I remind myself that this guy got his break hosting a nationally syndicated tabloid show called "Inside Edition", and the only thing that has changed about him is this illusion of credibility simply because he's now on a cable news network.

[Diana Hsieh]

I watched the interview... I think O'Reilly did his side a great disservice by becoming so emotional -- and that's is a good thing.

O'Reilly doesn't smoke or drink according to his books. He doesn't like to get into personal issues on air, which is why he refused to answer the question about that.

Always before, O'Reilly has steadfastly refused to connect the issues of drugs and alcohol. He did that himself this time, which forces him to either a libertarian or a temperance position. The more people see those as the two basic options, the better the case for a libertarian policy on drugs.

diana.

[SDL]

I'm no fan of Bill O'Reilly because I don't see him as being friendly to freedom per se. But I have to give him credit for at least having Jacob Sullum on his show.

[James Merritt]

I couldn't find a link to a transcript of the 5/28 O'Reilly show -- it doesn't look like anyone has posted a transcript yet, least of all Fox -- but while we're waiting, here's a link to the page where people can view Sullum's remarkable C-Span appearance, which I mentioned earlier.

http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJ

You may need to scroll down the page a bit, to see the 5/28 link to the Jacob Sullum segment.

I thought Sullum's handling of even antagonistic callers on the C-Span show was evidence of some considerable debating skills, and so I looked forward to the O'Reilly segment with no small optimism. Unfortunately, even an excellent debater like Sullum is likely to lose, when pitted against Bill, Fox News' undisputed "master debater."

[Steve in CO]

SDL,

What was obvious to me is that he was invited just to take a beating. However, any coverage of this sorely under-discussed subject, the failed War on Drugs, is better than none at all. Which is generally the case.

Steve

🙂

[Sam Grove]

Perception is paramount. People who are willing and able to spew (seemingly coherent) reasonably well constructed sentences out of the jumble that passes for thought processes are perceived as clever, hence entertaining.

[James Merritt]

Kevin Carson says, "In fact, I'm pretty confident O'Reilly knows something about how blowback from the Afghan war contributed to 9-11. He's not that ignorant. He's just disingenuous, pretending to know less than he actually does so he can win demagogic brownie points with people who really ARE that ignorant."

You may be onto something, there. O'Reilly was teamed onstage with James Carville, when both were guests for one segment of Leon Panetta's lecture series here at Cal State Monterey Bay (former Ft. Ord). This was back in 2001 (before 9/11, I believe). O'Reilly showed himself to be a pretty savvy guy and quite charming when outnumbered by Democrats. He clearly understood the showbiz that is American politics today, but was in the business of making points with his audience back in those days, by gleefully pulling the curtain away from the little man running the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz machine. These days, he certainly doesn't understand the political game/show any LESS, but he seems to me to be more of a co-opted player of it than he used to. He says he stands for the plain folks, but he himself is anything but plain. He is smart enough to spar with people like Sullum on a much higher plane, yet still make his "plain folks" points. He chooses the low road, unfortunately, which only serves to impoverish the national discourse of which he is a huge part, owing to the reach and ratings of his Fox show.

[MDJ]

Say what you will about O'Reilly, I don't think he'd every re-edit tape to remove things his guests had said.

[Jesse]

Hee hee.

[Wendy West]

I don't like Bill O'Reily. That's why I'm sending time and energy his way. (Like right now.)

[Ollie South]

You can judge a person's influence by the feedback.

THE SCORE (thus far):

Salam Pax - - - - - - - - - - - -1
Maureen Down & Sorkin - - -10
Bloomberg - - - - - - - - - - - 4
Republicans - - - - - - - - - -15
Blumenthal- - - - - - - - - - - 4
Bill O'Reilly - - - - - - - - - - 41

If you are not being criticized, you may not be doing much.

[Janet Helfeld]

A society that respects the rights of others is more likely to be comprised of independent, fair-minded, friendly, responsible, and fun-loving individuals.

The reason is simple: grasping the idea that it is in your own self-interest to respect other people?s rights, requires a certain level of intellectual development and sophistication that is socially desirable.

Consequently, you are more likely to be among admirable persons if you associate with genuine libertarians. Furthermore, you will have more economic, intellectual, and romantic opportunities in such a society because individuals who are rational, productive,
independent, joyful, and benevolent have so much more to offer than their toxic, oppressive counterparts.

[Chuck]

O'Reilly attacks almost every guest that has an opposing viewpoint, especially on an issue like drug use. He's just angry and ignorant, completely unable to accept facts that don't mesh with his opinions and agenda.

[L.Lane]

Sullum thought he might be able to expound on his topic? Heaven forefend! O'Reilly is an amazing creature, so full of himself he must leak as he walks the streets. Sigm on for your two minute spot and know you'll be lambasted for the duration. Next time, Jacob, relax, smile, make an opening comment, then put up a cardboard cutout and head for the door.

BTW, on his next day radio rant, O'Reilly allowed as how he "was right to go after him (Sullum)".

O'Reilly almost makes me long for the days of Joe Pyne...

[JDM]

There is nothing clever about this faux analysis. Smith destroys his own gag by quoting O'Reilly:

"Mr. Sullum, this is a *discussion*, all right. You let me get my points in. I'll let you get yours in, all right. Let's get that straight up."

Then proceeds with his argument as if Jacob's appearance had been an interview. His total word count shows that Sullum got just as much opportunity to talk as O'Reilly.

Just more nonsensical, preaching-to-the-choir yammering to support a priori conclusions from a website called Reason.

(Also, is there anyone on television who isn't a jerk? Is there anyone who watches television for meaningful content?)

[Xero]

Oooooh, Sam Grove! May I quote you? That's so well stated: "Perception is paramount. People who are able to spew seemingly coherent, reasonably well-constructed sentences out of the jumble that passes for thought, are perceived as clever, hence entertaining."

[Vinny]

Insert in the brackets below, any of the following:

Ann Coulter
Geraldo Rivera
Hillary Clinton
John Gibson
Rush Limbaugh
Oliver North
Pat Buchanan
Phil Donahue
Robert Novak
Sean hannity
Tony Snow
Etc., etc.

"[____________] attacks almost every guest or host that has an opposing viewpoint ... S/He's just angry and ignorant, completely unable to accept facts that don't mesh with his/her opinions and agenda."

(Not a tu quoque, just an observation.)

[cinquo]

Kevin and James proved my point:

"O'Reilly is an entertainer. Only DU uber-leftists take him seriously."

go back to posting your anti-chimpy remarks on DU kids...

[holger viking]

and there cinquo is again, falling out of that tree.
cnn is the best entertainment out there, then. "both sides" with jesse jackson should win an award.

[HERB]

When Bill started into something about Gettysburg being one of the great contributions of the US military I turned him off before he finished, and I don't expect to see him again. My folks were in the CS military.

[NIALL NESTOR]

I FIND IT AMAZING THAT IN ORDER TO EMAIL ANHEISER BUSH ONE NEEDS A PASSWORD??. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY TRYING TO PROTECT. THE FACT THAT THESE MONEY HUNGRY BASTARDS HAVE STOOPED TO AN ALL TIME LOW IN THEIR HIRING OF THE CESSPOOL RAPPER NAMED LUDACRISS. THANKS BUDWEISER FOR YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE YOUTH OF THIS COUNTRY. LEECHES SUCH AS YOU POSE MORE OF A THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE THAN ANY FOREIGN TERRORIST GROUP EVER WILL.

[Ahmed Saif]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 09:05:53
Unusual ideas can make enemies.

[Layton Zach]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 04:28:01
Those whose paths are not the same do not consult one another.