Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

Commentator Bill O'Reilly has been involved in numerous controversies.

File:Oreilly alt.jpg

Bill O'Reilly

Sexual harassment lawsuit

On October 13, 2004, O'Reilly sued former O'Reilly Factor producer Andrea Mackris, her lawyer (Benedict P. Morelli), and Morelli's law firm for what he claimed was a politically motivated extortion attempt against him. O'Reilly's lawsuit contended that Mackris had privately demanded more than $60 million (USD) to settle a yet-to-be-filed sexual harassment lawsuit against Fox News, O'Reilly, and Westwood One. A few hours after O'Reilly filed his lawsuit, Mackris filed her complaint against Fox, et al., alleging that, in numerous conversations, O'Reilly made inappropriate comments . Andrea Mackris's Verified Complaint was filed on October 13, 2004 to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. In it O'Reilly is accused of making sexually-explicit statements involving a loofah and a falafel. [2] This has since been satirized by numerous individuals, publications and websites. [3][4][5]

On October 19, Mackris filed an amended complaint, providing further details of O'Reilly's alleged sexual harassment, asking for additional damages, noting no formal O'Reilly denial, and describing alleged actions of retaliation by Fox, et.al., for filing her original complaint. Mackris claimed to reveal a partial transcript of a telephone call (thought to be based on an alleged unreleased audio tape [6] [7] [8]) in which O'Reilly allegedly made lewd sexual suggestions towards her. Fox contended that Mackris was still on payroll without appearance for over two weeks and moved for court permission to dismiss Mackris.

On October 28, Mackris' case was settled out of court when O'Reilly agreed to pay her an undisclosed sum ; both parties withdrew their claims of wrongdoing, and agreed to keep the terms of settlement confidential. After the case was settled, O'Reilly's only public comment was "this chapter is behind me and I will never talk about it again."

Malmedy massacre

On October 28 2005, O'Reilly made false claims in attempting to extenuate US military responsibility for the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse by referring to past scandals in less controversial wars. With Fox News Channel analyst General Wesley Clark as his guest, O'Reilly lectured Clark by stating, "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre and the 82nd airborne who did it" which incorrectly implied that American soldiers had massacred German prisoners of War in the Malmedy massacre. In actuality, it was the Nazi SS troops that massacred eighty-four surrendering American soldiers and not the opposite as O'Reilly claimed. Media critics assumed that O'Reilly had made a slip of the tongue, although no correction or retraction has been issued.

On May 30, 2006 O'Reilly again interviewed Wesley Clark and this time attempting to palliate US military responsibilty for the alleged Haditha massacre he repeated the same false claims when he said "In Malmedy, as you know, US Forces captured SS Forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down. You know that. It's on the record and documented." FOX News has not issued a retraction of this second claim, but instead edited the transcripts of the conversation replacing the words "Malmedy" with "Normandy". . Two nights later, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the host commented in a rather severe tone of voice that both O'Reilly and NewsCorp, the parent company of FNC, were trying to rewrite history, stating "Abraham Lincoln did not kill John Wilkes Booth [and] Titanic did not sink a North Atlantic iceberg," and that the previous ninety-nine times he made untrue statements, he had acted like Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons whacking himself in the face with the rake handle, but then Olbermann turned serious stating "This was the one hundreth time. And this time, it's not funny."

In the same Olbermann segment cited above, a clip of O'Reilly Factor is included from the night following his second false claim. In this clip, O'Reilly responds to a viewer's attempt to correct his previous night's false claim about Maledy. O'Reilly's response is that "In the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough... after Malmedy some German captives were executed by American troops". This is not a completely new position, O'Reilly posted a column almost a year earlier on June 23, 2005 on his website, where he correctly described the Nazi SS Troops as the ones who massacred the surrendering US Army soldiers near Malmedy, and not the other way around. [9] In this column O'Reilly then used the example that the US Army's 11th Armored Division responded to the Malmedy massacre by carrying out revenged attacks on captured German soldiers. He further cited General Patton's encouragement to shoot German soldiers and how the US military is now too politcally correct to allow someone like Patton to serve in today's forces. He also mentioned that "folks back home never heard about [the killing of Japanese soldiers] or what techniques were used to interrogate prisoners who might know where the next ambush would be".

Despite O'Reilly's attempted clarification, several things continue to make his claims controversial. 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 his temper to cloud his ability to relay important facts correctly. Second, upon being notified of his mistake neither O'Reilly nor Fox Network has admitted this mistake and apologized for what was a maligning of the massacred US soldiers at Malmedy; instead they have tried to cover-up the mistake by editing the transcripts. Third, even with O'Reilly's clarification that he was really referring to the American troop's revenge killings of German soldiers, this situation is not a good comparison to the Abu Ghraib or Haditha scandals which for the most part involved the military killing or torturing civilians and not their combat enemy. After Malmedy, the American forces were instructed to kill elite German forces of the Waffen-SS and Fallschirmjäger on sight, but not just any German soldier, and certainly not civilians. This has some similarities to how spies can be executed as criminals, and not treated as uniformed prisoners of war. Even during the more calm post-war processing of justice, members of the Waffen-SS were considered war criminals due to the many atrocities they committed and they were not afforded the same rights as other German combat veterans during their trials and in the giving of penalities. Fourth, in his column, O'Reilly cited how the public never heard about the techniques used to interrogate World War II prisoners in order to find out where the next ambush would be. Ironically, the evidence indicates that the normative practice may have often been quite humane, even for those Japanese soldiers that were considered fanactical and implacable. Certainly the knowledge gained from the World War II experience indicated and should continue to indicate to military intelligence personnel today including those who were at Abu Ghraib that harsh interrogation treatments are ineffective compared to a softer, more guiled, if not almost winsome approach. In a June 2005 Atlantic Monthly article,[10], Stephen Budiansky describes how Marine Major Sherwood Moran who had tremendous success in gathering intelligence from Japanese PoWs wrote a report on his interrogation techniques that became a cult classic in military intelligence circles, and is considered a 'must read'. While O'Reilly apparently justifies times during a war where the US military can carry out scandalous, out-of-character treatments of the enemy, Budiansky gives a contrasting quote from Moran, a rational and proven interrogator. Moran stated that "strange as it may seem to say so," the most important characteristic of a successful interrogator is not his experience or even his linguistic knowledge; it is "his own temperament" and "his own character." In the end, as General Clark countered, any past injustices carried out by the US military, are not excuses for the government nor the military to ignore current breaches of conduct and injustices, otherwise there will be an erosion of the command structure and the rule of law.

Hubcaps incident

In April 2003, O'Reilly hosted a fundraiser for Best Friends, a charity benefiting inner-city schoolchildren. O'Reilly was trying to fill time before an African-American singing group called the Best Men was set to perform, and quipped "Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps." Some in the audience felt that it was a racially insensitive comment. O'Reilly claims the remarks were a reference to a common prank in the 1950s, and the event had a 50s theme .

On a later episode of The O'Reilly Factor in a heated interview with Neal Boortz regarding the whites-only prom that was held in Georgia, O'Reilly called Boortz a "vicious son of a bitch" after Boortz had insinuated that the only reason O'Reilly had condemned the prom was that he was trying to win sympathy after the hubcaps incident.[11]

Peabody Award

In a February 10, 2001 speech at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, O'Reilly falsely claimed that Inside Edition, a show he had previously anchored, had won a Peabody Award. After watching an airing of the speech a couple weeks later on C-SPAN, political commentator Al Franken performed a search on Nexis and found three previous occasions dating back to August 30, 1999 where O'Reilly had repeated the false claim. Franken called O'Reilly for a statement and O'Reilly admitted he had made an error, correcting himself and stating that the show had won a George Polk Award and not a Peabody [12][13]. Further research by Franken revealed that the Polk award was given one year after O'Reilly's tenure at Inside Edition and for work O'Reilly had not been involved with [14]) .

Franken called Lloyd Grove, a reporter for The Washington Post, who called O'Reilly and asked him about his statements. O'Reilly offered an admission of error, saying "...So I got mixed up between a Peabody Award and a Polk Award...". Grove published the story on March 1, 2001 in his column "The Reliable Source".[15]

On March 8, Robert Reno of Newsday reported "O'Reilly also has repeatedly boasted of his Peabody Awards... Actually, he has never won a Peabody...he got it confused with the Polk Award...which had been won by "Inside Edition" ..." [16]. O'Reilly rejected the characterization and stated that he was misquoted and had never made the attribution of having personally won the award. On the March 13th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion on "attack journalism" O'Reilly says of the incident:

Guy says about me, couple weeks ago, "O’Reilly said he won a Peabody Award." Never said it. You can’t find a transcript where I said it. You—there is no one on earth you could bring in that would say I said it. Robert Reno in Newsday, a columnist, writes in his column, calls me a liar, all right? And it’s totally fabricated. That’s attack journalism. It’s dishonest, it’s disgusting, and it hurts reputations.

Franken and his supporters summarize O'Reilly's inconsistent responses differently: "O’Reilly had lied to cover up his mistake."

Alleged liberal bias in the media

O'Reilly accuses the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, BBC, CBC and other major press outlets of leaning to the "political far-left" in their reporting. It is his view that these networks and publications undermine the Bush administration's war on terror. Template:Ref harvard Also very critical of what he describes as "far-left" columnists, which has resulted in frequent back-and-forth debates between his show and their columns. In one such exchange O'Reilly characterized columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Times as a "terrorist helper" because of his criticism of the war in Iraq and his support of the ACLU.

Most recently, O'Reilly has begun posting the names of various media outlets that he considers to be "defamatory" on a "Hall of Shame" page on his own website; this list includes:

- New York Daily News
- The New Yorker
- MSNBC
- US News & World Report
- St. Petersburg Times
- Newsday
- Atlanta Journal-Constitution
- Syracuse Post-Standard 

Although O'Reilly considers MSNBC as part of the liberal bias in the media, it is known that out of the three political shows from 8 p.m. to midnight every weeknight on MSNBC, two of them carry conservative hosts. O'Reilly's views about MSNBC may be based only on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Citizen boycott of French goods

In March 2003, O'Reilly called for a boycott of French products and services sold in the United States, due to President Jacques Chirac's stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In April 2004, he claimed “they’ve lost billions of dollars in France” as a direct result of his boycott, referring to “The Paris Business Review” as his source, a publication that does not appear to exist. On Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, October 18, 2005, O'Reilly confirmed that the boycott is still in place, referring to the French as "our enemies". As late as February 2006 Bill O'Reilly said in his show that "those who supported us, like Britain and Denmark, should be rewarded. Those who did not, like France and Spain, must be held accountable".

Opposing the ACLU

O'Reilly has stated that the ACLU is "the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now," especially in their challenging of the Justice Department and the Department of Defense regarding the War on terror. He has also highlighted their pro-bono defense of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which is currently being tried for responsibility in the rape/murder of a young boy. The ACLU's defends NAMBLA's freedom of speech surrounding their publications and has said that the legal blame in the rape/murder should go to who committed it.[17] The ACLU has said that they sometimes have to defend "unpopular" speech or speech that they don't agree with, including the KKK's.[18] O'Reilly's opposition to the ACLU can best be summed up by his statement that, "Remember, it is the American Civil Liberties Union which is now behind all abortion on demand, euthanasia, and coming soon perhaps, infanticide for impaired babies" .

Penalties on Child Sex Offenders

Another recurring theme in his work has been the implementation of harsher penalties on child sex offenders. O'Reilly has frequently pointed out poor judicial handling of some cases. Named in memory of Jessica Lunsford, who was abducted and sexually assaulted before being brutally murdered, "Jessica's Law" refers to the Jessica Lunsford Act passed in Florida that mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years and a maximum of life in prison for first-time child sex offenders. O'Reilly believes that this law will save lives and has called on constituents to write the governors of those states lacking these laws.

In March 2006, O'Reilly criticized a judge in Ohio for giving a sentence of five years probation to a sexual predator who admitted to molesting children, calling for that judge to be thrown off the bench. O'Reilly was joined by the state's governor and attorney general. In an editorial, Jeff Bruce, editor of the Dayton Daily News, stressed that while the light sentence shouldn't be ignored, that O'Reilly, the governor, and the attorney general (who themselves had each been the subject of scandal) shouldn't make a rush to judgment about the judge. That night, O'Reilly appeared on the Factor charging Bruce with endorsing the judge's sentence, when he did not - and may have also criticized Bruce because Bruce mentioned the 2004 sexual harassment against O'Reilly. The following day, Bruce responded in an editorial saying that "there are two things for certain when you wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it...this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Bill O'Reilly getting even."

"War on Christmas"

Since 2002, O'Reilly has been one of the chief proponents of the existence of a "War on Christmas" allegedly launched by secularists in America, who, he claims, are trying to strip the holiday of its religious meaning. He makes reference to lawsuits against public displays of traditional Christian symbols, such as nativity scenes, on public property, the exclusion of Christian groups from public celebrations, and the use of the words "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" as official company policy of many national retailers . Additionally, he was critical of the substitution of the greeting "Merry Christmas" with the more generic, "Happy Holidays" . Many of the cases that O'Reilly has cited to support his theory have been shown to be either false or inaccurate .

O'Reilly also took to the airwaves after Fox News revealed a poll showing only 42% of the public believed that the War on Christmas was real , and stated: "And the secular progressives made great inroads over the past five years in demanding that stores, other commercial enterprises, towns, villages not say 'Merry Christmas' or permit Christmas displays of any kind. And look, if you don't know that, if you don't believe that, don't listen to this program. You're a moron, and I don't say it with all due respect" .

Al Franken

File:Alfranken87.jpg

Al Franken

Franken book controversy.

The comedian and liberal political commentator, Al Franken wrote a 2003 book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look At the Right, which featured an unflattering photograph of O'Reilly on the cover and a chapter devoted to him inside. The two had a heated argument over Franken's repeated accusations regarding O'Reilly's previously acknowledged erroneous statements regarding a Peabody Award (see Peabody Award above) at a booksellers convention that aired live on C-Span . Franken spoke first and discussed the Peabody issue at length. During O'Reilly's speech, Franken interjected and was told by O'Reilly to "shut up" twice, and, approximately twenty minutes after having told the audience that he didn't resort to name-calling, referred to Franken as an "idiot" .

Fox later sued Franken and his publisher for using the words "fair and balanced" in his book's subtitle, claiming infringement of Fox News Channel's trademarked slogan. However, Fox dropped the suit after U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied their request for an injunction against the book, describing the case as "wholly without merit.".

Name calling.

Franken refers to O'Reilly as "Bill O'Lielly" and O'Reilly refers to Franken as Stuart Smalley, after an effeminate character the comedian once portrayed on Saturday Night Live. Franken's Air America radio program, launched in 2004, was initially titled The O'Franken Factor. (Franken specifically named the program this way to provoke O'Reilly. The name was changed three months later to The Al Franken Show.)

On June 20, 2005, O'Reilly called for Franken and all of his colleagues at Air America Radio to be prosecuted as traitors: "Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less".

Franken alleges "selective editing."

In an Air America broadcast on the Sundance Channel, Franken documented O'Reilly's "selective editing" of a June 5, 2005 interview of Senator Joseph Biden by George Stephanopoulos. In the interview Biden proposed the submission of legislation for an indepedent commission to look into wrong doing in the U.S. Army's prison system at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Franken showed that when O'Reilly cited the same interview on The Factor, Biden's entire explanation of an independent commission policy was edited out and only Biden's call to shut down Guantanamo Bay was presented. O'Reilly then alleged that Biden was misusing the prison abuse story and presented his own opinion: "The Bush administration should set up an independent commission to investigate American detainee policy across the board. The president must take the offensive on this, or else the country's image will continue to suffer and the jihadists and their enablers will win another victory." Franken criticized this as a misrepresentation by O'Rielly and suggested that viewers would not know that O'Reilly was in apparent agreement with Biden's proposal.

Jeremy Glick

Main article: Jeremy Glick (author)

On his televised program on February 4, 2003, O'Reilly interviewed Jeremy Glick, a man whose father had been killed in the World Trade Center attacks. Glick had signed an anti-war ad that made comments relating the September 11 attacks to atrocities in Baghdad, Panama City and Vietnam. O'Reilly stated that Glick's actions offended him, and told his guest he doubted that Glick's father would approve of his anti-war stance. He began raising his voice, finger pointed several times at Glick, and told him to "shut up." Glick defended his action in signing the anti-war ad by saying "The people of Afghanistan didn't kill my father." O'Reilly yelled back "Sure they did!" (Fifteen of the 19 terrorists on the four planes used on September 11 were Saudi Arabian, however the Taliban regime in Afghanistan gave safe haven to the al-Qaeda terrorist group, which in 1998 called for a violent Jihad, or war[19], against America[20] and was self-credited for the September 11 attacks). After the short and heated segment ended with O'Reilly giving the command to his staff to cut Glick's microphone, he apologized to his audience for the way things turned out, saying that "If I had knew [sic] that guy Jeremy Glick was gonna be like that I never would have brought him in here."[21] According to Glick, after the interview, an enraged O'Reilly shouted at him, "Get out! Get out of my studio before I tear you to fucking pieces!" [22]

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, Glick did state in the interview that "Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others." [23] Some of O'Reilly's supporters have pointed to this quote as a possible rationale for O'Reilly's claim.

Weapons of mass destruction

On ABC's Good Morning America on 18 March, 2003, O'Reilly said "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." On February 10, 2004, during a Good Morning America broadcast, O'Reilly said, "My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all...I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time" . While he continues to support the U.S. presence in Iraq, he remains critical of how the Bush administration is handling some aspects of policy. He believes the U.S. is not relying enough on Iraqi military support and is critical of the administration's failure to secure Iraqi borders. He has also criticized the time it takes to train Iraqi security forces, as compared to U.S recruit training.

Jane Fonda

O'Reilly continued to promote a discredited story that while she was visiting Hanoi during the Vietnam War, Jane Fonda passed secret notes from American prisoners of war to their Vietnamese captors, resulting in the POWs' torture and murder. O'Reilly pressed his case even as his guest, Reason magazine editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie, noted that "the story has been debunked." [24]

However, after one of his guests urged him to investigate the matter at snopes.com, O'Reilly admitted that the claim had, in fact, been debunked, and admitted he was wrong for assuming otherwise. [25]

Military recruitment in San Francisco schools

On November 8, 2005, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition I/College Not Combat, a ballot measure that declared the city's opposition to "the federal government's use of public schools to recruit students for service in the military" In response, O'Reilly said on his radio show that federal anti-terror funds should be withheld from the city, and that the United States Government shouldn't respond to a terrorist attack if one were to occur there, to make the point the military needed to be supported by the entire country; saying, "You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right in to Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it....We're going to say, “Look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead”" . San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly responded, calling for O'Reilly's termination . O'Reilly refused to apologize, and claimed that his comments had been "obviously satirical" The proposition's author, Todd Chretien, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor in response and stated that to the people of San Francisco, the issue was "no laughing matter." When asked about O'Reilly's comments, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom replied, "Consider the source."

Cindy Sheehan

Over a year after her son Casey died, grieving mother turned anti-Iraq War activist Cindy Sheehan began a protest outside of Crawford, Texas, where President George W. Bush was spending time at his Prairie Chapel Ranch. O'Reilly has made repeated derogatory comments about Sheehan's motives and intelligence. Early on, O'Reilly accused Sheehan of behavior that "borders on treasonous." He later stated: "So it's obvious Cindy Sheehan has become a political player, whose primary concern is embarrassing the president. She is no longer just a protester. I don't think she ever has been, by the way." In an interview with Phil Donahue on September 23, 2005, O'Reilly referred to Cindy Sheehan as "clueless". He included her on his October, 2005 "Cowards List", which he described as comprised of "people who will not stand up and answer questions about their bomb-throwing statements." On January 4, 2006, he remarked, "She's run by far-left elements who are using her, and she's dumb enough to allow it to happen. It's not a vilification, it's a fact"

O'Reilly has been harshly criticized for a perceived double-standard on his treatment of Cindy Sheehan in comparison to his treatment of the family of Terri Schiavo. Critics argue that while he repeatedly attacked Sheehan's association with leftist groups whose rhetoric, at times, has been extreme, he gave a free pass to the family of Terri Schiavo, who allied themselves with Randall Terry during their campaign to keep their daughter on a feeding tube. Randall Terry has at various times called for the execution of judges, abortion doctors, homosexuals and Democratic politicians, as well as for Michael Schiavo himself.

Brown University SexPowerGod party

On November 14, 2005, O'Reilly aired footage of the SexPowerGod student party thrown by the Queer Alliance at Brown University, taken by O'Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters. O'Reilly claimed not to care what students do on their own time, and justified the segment by professing concern over student safety and the use of University funds. However, O'Reilly and Watters emphasized that the party was "out of control" and "pure debauchery," prompting accusations of homophobia and potentially damaging the reputations of the university and the students captured in the footage. He continued his criticism of Brown by calling university administrators "pinheads" and implying that their liberal policies took precedent over their commitment to student safety. He also asserted that many of the students at the party were on ecstasy. The apparent subtext of his coverage was moral outrage over sexually promiscuous behavior at a university seen as emblematic of northeastern liberal elitism.

Controversy about boyhood home

O'Reilly has long noted his working-class roots as his inspiration for speaking up for average Americans, or what he calls "the folks." He often points to his boyhood home in lower-middle-class Levittown, New York as a credential. Based on a Washington Post interview, Al Franken[26] and others have asserted that O'Reilly did not grow up in Levittown, but instead in a more affluent neighboring village, Westbury. The source the Post used for their assertion was O'Reilly's mother, who at the time a profile of O'Reilly was published in 2000 still lived in his boyhood home.[27]

O'Reilly has alleged that the Washington Post misquoted his mother [28]. O'Reilly placed a copy of the deed to the house on his website, which shows that the property had title and a postal address in Levittown [29][30]. The date on the deed indicates his parents bought a new or nearly new home in 1951 in the Levittown development[31], a mass-produced housing development, constructed by William Levitt between 1947 and 1952, that was to become archetype for suburbia.

William Levitt typically bought open farmland for development [32] and it is unlikely that that the Levittown development in Westbury resembled the older, westerly parts of the village. The Washington Post confirms that the O'Reilly family home was built by William Levitt[33] hence the controversy arises from the redrawing of political boundaries. Levittown was redrawn into a squarish shape[34][35] to conform with the 11756 Zip Code. Zip codes were introduced in 1963. After this time the home was located in Westbury. The redrawing of political maps resulted in a similar controversy regarding musician Billy Joel's Levittown family home which was annexed by neighboring Hicksville.

David Letterman

On January 4, 2006, O'Reilly appeared on David Letterman's late night program (Video). When O'Reilly began a discussion on the alleged War on Christmas, Letterman replied, "I think that this is something that happened here, and it happened there, and so people like you are trying to make us think that it's a threat." Letterman accused O'Reilly of making up some of his claims on particular points on the Iraq War, and O'Reilly replied with, "Then I could write for your show." When O'Reilly attacked the motivations of Cindy Sheehan, Letterman took exception, saying O'Reilly had never lost a family member in a war, and therefore O'Reilly could not speak for Sheehan's motivations. O'Reilly then asked how would those who did lose a member in the war, feel about Sheehan calling terrorists "freedom fighters". Letterman eventually said, "I might not be smart enough to debate you point-for-point, but I have the feeling that about 60 percent of what you say is crap." (video).When pressed by O'Reilly to give examples, Letterman admitted to never having watched his show. The next day on his television program, O'Reilly called Letterman "a card-carrying member of the secular progressive movement".

Previously in 2001, O'Reilly had said about Letterman and the show "The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television. That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down" .

"Shut up" line

On November 15, 2002, a viewer criticized O'Reilly's occasional interruption of his guests telling them to "Shut Up". O'Reilly responded to this statement contending that the "Shut up line has happened only once in six years". Appearing on CBS's 60 Minutes, O'Reilly claimed that his research department reviewed every "Factor" episode since 1996 and had come to the conclusion that he said "shut up" six times. Slate.com author Jack Shafer documented 30 different programs where O'Reilly used the "Shut up" line at least once, 13 of which occurred before O'Reilly's contention. Shafer calculated that O'Reilly said the "shut up" line 200 times since his show premiered in 1996.[36] However, most of the "shut-up" lines documented are not directed at guests and are instead relegated to his commentaries.

Terry Gross

On October 8, 2003 O'Reilly appeared on the show Fresh Air hosted by Terry Gross.[37] O'Reilly walked out of the show mid-taping after he complained that she was asking him tough questions, but didn't ask tough questions of Al Franken, who had criticized O'Reilly in an interview two weeks earlier.

While NPR's ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin criticised O'Reilly's manner and response during the interview, he agreed with O'Reilly that the interview had been biased: "...it felt as though Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly."[38]

Despite the incident, Gross honored a prior agreement and appeared on the The O'Reilly Factor on September 21, 2004 to promote her book.

Neal Gabler

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".[39][40]

Keith Olbermann

File:Keith olbermann.png

Keith Olbermann

During a January 2006 "Talking Points Memo," O'Reilly claimed that NBC in general (and MSNBC) were "taking cheap shots at FOX News on a regular basis...for some time" and noted that NBC's "cable operations are dead last [in the ratings]," saying "that is no excuse for unprofessional behavior." O'Reilly also claimed that FOX News has "good relationships with ABC News, CBS News, and generally CNN.".

While O'Reilly gave no specific examples of MSNBC bashing FOX News, it is understood by most that he is referring to Keith Olbermann, the host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann (and could have also been referring to parodies of him on Saturday Night Live, performed by Darrell Hammond). Countdown is a news program airing opposite of the The O'Reilly Factor and frequently targets O'Reilly in the satiric "Worst Person in the World" segment of the program. On Countdown Olbermann had also previously initiated an unsuccessful campaign to "Save the Tapes". This campaign aimed to purchase taped phone conversations in which O'Reilly was accused of sexual harassment. Olbermann often references the sexual harassment suit, leading him to the name for O'Reilly's statements as "The Falafel Guy Fatwa" and running jokes about loofahs.

Olbermann responded to O'Reilly's attack on MSNBC by saying that FOX News is more likely to engage in the activities O'Reilly said MSNBC and NBC were neck-deep in (for example, on O'Reilly's claim that FOX News had a "generally good" relationship with CNN, Olbermann pointed out that FOX News set up a billboard across the street from CNN Center in Atlanta teasing them about ratings [41], that FOX News spokeswoman Tracey Spector compared CNN to the Titanic [42], that a FOX News spokesperson claimed that Ted Turner "lost his mind" [43], that Fox's Rob Zimmerman compared Paula Zahn to an outhouse [44], and that Roger Ailes himself compared her to a dead raccoon. [45])

On February 22, 2006 O'Reilly initiated an online petition to have MSNBC's 8 p.m. EST timeslot host replaced. The petition is in the form of a letter addressed to NBC chairman Robert Wright saying, "We, the undersigned, are becoming increasingly concerned about the well-being of MSNBC and, in particular, note the continuing ratings failure of the program currently airing weeknights on that network at 8:00 p.m. EST" [46]. Olbermann responded two days later on his Countdown program by playing O'Reilly's greatest hits and mocked the whole affair by joining MSNBC staffers in signing the petition to have himself removed.

O'Reilly's complaints towards MSNBC continue to not mention Keith Olbermann or his Countdown program. When a caller mentioned Olbermann on O'Reilly's radio show March 2, 2006, O'Reilly promptly disconnected him using the "dump button" that all talk radio show hosts have at their disposal and responded "we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to FOX security, and you'll be getting a little visit". [47] Although The Radio Factor has no association with FOX News (it is syndicated by Westwood One), at least two callers have allegedly received a callback from somebody identifying himself as the director of FOX News security. [48] [49]

American Red Cross

O'Reilly devoted substantial time on his television show The O'Reilly Factor drawing attention to the fact that the American Red Cross failed to distribute to the victims of the September 11th attacks the millions of dollars of funds raised by the organization in the name of the disaster. [50] O'Reilly asserted that the organization misrepresented its intentions for the money being raised by not distributing all of the 9/11 relief fund to the victims. [51] After Congressional hearings were called on the matter and an investigation by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the president of the Red Cross was forced to resign for her role in the situation, and the organization pledged that all funds would go to directly benefit the victims of the September 11 attacks. In the aftermath, O'Reilly helped the Red Cross develop a new policy regarding how donations would be distributed. [52].

Ludacris

Ludacris

On August 27, 2002 O'Reilly started a boycott against Pepsi over their endorsement of a popular rapper named Ludacris. O'Reilly reasons for starting the boycott was due to the fact that Ludacris' lyrics have been known to degrade women and support the use of drugs. Pepsi eventually caved into O'Reilly's campaign and dropped Ludacris from their company. The following Super Bowl, Pepsi began aired commercials of rocker Ozzy Osbourne and his family, a family known to curse each other out and use drugs.

Furthering the controversy, in response to the signing of the Osbourne family, popular music hip-hop mogul, Russell Simmons, organized a boycott against the company. Simmons demanded an apology from Pepsi to Ludacris and a 5 million dollar donation to one of Ludacris' charity. Eventually Simmons and Pepsi settled on an agreement to stop the boycott, right before it was to officially begin-- while Pepsi did not formally apologise to Ludacris, they did agree to donate millions of dollars over years to Russel Simmon Hop-Hop Summit Action Network.

O'Reilly remained silent over Pepsi's endorsement of the Osbourne family, which some critics described as "racial hypocrisy". [53] [54] [55] Further, O'Reilly denied calling for a boycott of Pepsi on February 4, 2003.

In the O'Reilly chapter of Al Franken's 2003 book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, a rudimentary content comparison of O'Reilly's novel Those Who Trespass and Ludacris' album Word of Mouf. [56]

Incidence	Those Who Trespass	Word of Mouf
Number of Murders Depicted	6	4
Oral Sex Scenes Involving Teen Crack Whores	1	0
Total Uses of the Word Fuck and Variants	39	68
Total Uses of the Word Bitch and Variants	12	41

Ludacris' song "Blow It Out" (from the Chicken & Beer album), acted as a scathing response to his critics, namely O'Reilly, who is mentioned by name in the following lyrics:

Shout out to Bill O'Reilly, I'm'a throw you a curve

You mad cause I'm a thief and got away with words

I'm'a start my own beverage, it'll calm your nerves

Pepsi's the New Generation—Blow it out ya ass!

A later song, "Number One Spot" (from the The Red Light District album) contains the line: "Hi Mr. O'Reilly/Hope all is well kiss the plaintiff and the wifey." This line references the O'Reilly sexual harassment lawsuit.

Stephen Rogers

In April 2006 O'Reilly was widely ridiculed for stating on national television that two men, among them, Stephen Rogers, a columnist of the Syracuse Post-Standard, were "irresponsible and reprehensible" for "smearing" him. O'Reilly's ridicule stems from the fact that he posted supposed contact information for Stephen Rogers, despite the fact that he has been dead since 2002.