Why Joan Walsh Went on The O’Reilly Factor
Jun 13th, 2009 | 11 responses
For the sake of full disclosure:
Am I a Democrat? Guilty!
Do I like Joan Walsh? Guilty, Guilty!
Do I dislike Bill O’Reilly? Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!
Since I stopped watching “The O’Reilly Factor” a long time ago, I did not watch last night’s Bill O’Reilly’s so-called interview with Joan Walsh.
The subject was Dr. George Tiller and late-term abortion.
In an article on Salon.com, titled “Why I went on ‘The O’Reilly Factor,’” Ms. Walsh tells us how she was warned against appearing on “the spin-stops-here, fair-and-balanced” Factor.
To her credit she did the interview.
As Walsh wrote her initial article before the O’Reilly segment aired, she tells her readers how much of her appearance was “a kaleidoscopic nightmare, a TV acid trip…” So much that she couldn’t quite remember whether O’Reilly screamed at her to “Shut up” or “Be quiet.” But she does clearly remember O’Reilly shrieking at her “You have blood on your hands!” and calling her “vile.”
After recalling more bits and pieces of this so-called “interview,” “debate,” whatever, Walsh seems to apologize for her performance: “I’m a little embarrassed because they make me look like a liberal Pollyanna, a lamb ready to lie down with the lion — to be eaten! Live and learn.”
By the time I read Walsh’s piece, the interview had been aired, so I watched it on the video reachable through this link on Walsh’s blog.
(Make sure you watch both segments)
Yes, it was tough, Ms. Walsh. O’Reilly was his usual fuming, boorish, uncouth, ill-tempered, insulting, arrogant, uninformed “personality.” And I may add in this case, when he was hosting a lady, totally unchivalrous. But, what else is new?
But, Ms. Walsh, by being cool, calm and collected—and, under the circumstances, as courteous as anyone could expect you to be—in my opinion, you won the debate, you won the day.
Now, since O’Reilly, as is so typical of him, did not give you the chance to fully express your opinions, or even respond to his truly vile accusations, I would like to take the liberty to quote from Salon.com what you would have discussed and debated, had you been given such an opportunity:
Thanks for having me Bill, maybe this is the first step in what I talked about on my blog: Dialing down the extreme rhetoric and hate. If we can sit here and talk calmly, maybe we’ll set a good example for others.
My basic issue is that we are a nation of laws, and abortion is legal. Late-term abortion is legal. It’s heart-wrenching, and it gets a lot of attention, but we should note that only 1 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are after 21 weeks.
What bothers me, Bill, is that you started a crusade against a doctor who was doing his legal job. You have an enormous audience, the top show in cable, and I think you have a responsibility to think about the impact of your words. And on the issue of abortion, there’s a terrible history of violence in this country. At least four doctors have been killed, multiple clinics have been bombed. Dr. Tiller himself had been shot twice in 1993, Bill. His clinic had been bombed and repeatedly vandalized. He was in clear danger, and yet you attacked him, 42 times over four years, and at least 24 times you called him a “baby killer.” (That’s from the nonpartisan fact-checker Politifact.) You accused him of “murder,” “you said he had blood on his hands,” you said he “had to be stopped,” and the people of Kansas were a “disgrace” for not stopping him — even though he was acquitted by the courts multiple times of various legal charges against him.
I know you have decried vigilante justice, and I believe you mean that, but we saw vigilante justice in this case. Every time I’ve written about it, Bill, I’ve been sure to say you did not cause it. The only person responsible at this point is Scott Roeder, unless we find he had formal accomplices, no word of that so far. I’m just saying that in the wake of Dr. Tiller’s tragic murder in a church, no less, you might have expressed some remorse. Instead, you turned your show into a pity party, and made yourself the victim, and honestly, Bill, I don’t often agree with you, but I thought you were better than that. I was disappointed. That’s what I said.
If you really wanted to be fair and balanced, you could have said in every segment, “Some call him Tiller the baby killer, others call him Dr. Tiller, the hero, because he has performed this legal but rare procedure for women in dire circumstances: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer; for a 9-year-old girl raped by her stepfather, who didn’t know she was pregnant, for women who found late in their pregnancies that their babies had brain and heart deformities that would kill them early in their lives, but not without a lot of surgery and suffering. The two sides probably can’t meet, Bill, but there is another side. And again, only 1 percent of abortions are late-term abortions, taking place after 21 weeks. One percent, Bill.
I am a pro-choice Irish Catholic. I have agonized for years, but I am pro-choice. I have one Catholic aunt who works at Planned Parenthood, escorting women past clinic protesters. I have another Catholic aunt who loved Obama’s economic policies but couldn’t vote for him because of abortion. I love them both, and they love me. After prayer and soul searching I came to believe the only answer is that this is the woman’s choice. We live in a pluralistic country, Bill, people disagree. People don’t agree on when life begins. They’re not sure the right course here. So abortion stays legal. People stay uncomfortable with it, for sure. It’s true. But it is legal, and if you don’t think it should be legal, work within our great democracy to change the laws.
Finally, Bill, you yourself have demonized folks on the left for saying things that you believe could lead to violence: You’ve railed against Hollywood, you’ve railed against Rosie O Donnell and Janeane Garofalo and Michael Moore for saying things you believed were irresponsible and could foment violence. Just last month, you criticized Google Maps for making it easy to find the homes of people who gave money to Prop. 8, because they might get hurt. Antiabortion crazies regularly published the address of Dr. Tiller’s home, church and clinic. So I think you’re inconsistent on these issues, you call out the left if you think their speech could endanger conservatives, or just Americans, but I’m a pariah for raising the same questions about your Tiller speech? I don’t understand it, but I hope we’ve improved the terms of the debate tonight.
11 Responses to “Why Joan Walsh Went on The O’Reilly Factor”
Its odd how I so often am the voice of dissent here, heheh. As much as I side philosophically with this woman, who I am not familiar with, it is ridiculous to blame conservative cable television, even in a glancing way like this, for an assassination. O'Reilly has a place in the media, just as wackos like Micheal Moore do. Forces on the left demonize forces on the right all the time… and there is always the stereotypical example that goes something like…
If you don't defend the right of people to say things that make your blood boil, you don't really believe in freedom of speech. B.O. is a hypocrite, but I fault him not one bit for espousing his opinions passionately. He's a commentator, thats what they do, and I'm actually thankful for their existence and wouldn't expect them to think about what some crazy person might do if he expresses his beliefs. Nobody should limit what they say based on how insane people will respond, thats ridiculous. Not only that, I think they do our society the great justice of exposing how cartoonish their beliefs are to the majority of people who think they're wack jobs. O'Reilly might be the most popular show in 'news', but just like Rush, a vast majority of people get ill when they watch too much of his show, or Hannity, or Olberman… because they're so out in right or left field.
It's all First Amendment stuff. We're all free to say what we want, but then we should take responsibility for that, as well.
I don't think any well balanced person would listen to Bill O and then go kill someone. Just like no one would listen to the Beatles and then go kill someone. Scott Roeder was imbalanced, and has a long record to prove it.
Instead of blaming people for expressing their opinions, can't we actually talk about why a person like this was able to own a gun in the first place? Same thing for the guy at the Holocaust museum. It wasn't hate speech that killed anyone. It was an unbalanced person with access to a weapon.
“Same thing for the guy at the Holocaust museum. It wasn't hate speech that killed anyone. It was an unbalanced person with access to a weapon.”
Interesting.
Without passing judgment on above, I find it an interesting combination of
“Guns don't kill people, people do”
and
“Hate speech doesn't kill people, people do”
Just an observation
Regardless of whether or not O’Reilly has blood on his own hands, he remains an irresponsible, foaming at the mouth, whacko. . . and hypocrite. As with Rush and Hannity, it's kind of amazing that someone can actually make a living doing that, which is more than anything else, a testament to the ease with which weak minds can be harnessed and exploited.
JS – and Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, et. al., have also become millionaires exploiting weak minds on the left. It is too often presented as a one way street, rather than the shout-fest from both sides it has been for years.
That is why I watch and listen to NONE of them, myself, except the occasion YouTube snippets when something particularly stupid is said.
I still can't believe how people will discuss anything but what is actually going on. People need to think only of what is actually going on with the unborn!!! Let's put all our efforts and resources in doing what is right instead of who won the debate. Orielly can be rude but I admire his passion for the unborn human babies!! I wonder if Walsh's ill affections are so evident to the point that she would hurt for the fish caught on a hook then a baby being aborted.
Abortion should be allowed, what's it to u if a woman whom you have no understanding about
Gets an abortion. You act as if you know the circumstances. You can't! You aren't gonna raise the “child” so what's it matter to you? Yea that's all we need more orphans in America . Whom no-one adopts anyway,ppl always seem to adopt forigen children instead. An another thing why don't ppl from other countries want to adopt our orphans?hmmmmmm (not saying a word) I think America is a pretty darn good place to live in I would think twice before killing any more ppl in America. Don't let your hate consume you.
Yea if you kill your just like an abortionist and your whole argument goes out the window that ur “Pro-Life” Lmao
@SatansChild
It matters to people who think that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. To them ending that life is the same as killing a grown person. Most people, somewhere in the nieghborhood of 60-70%, don't see a fetus as a human being. This has a basis in science, as for a long time the fetus is essentially a clump of cells, then it begins to take shape and shows no signs of consciousness.
In my opinion a human body does not a human being make… its the consciousness that makes this body a human BEING… so whenever that happens, whenever that fetus gains consciousness, I think it deserves the same rights as everyone else. Just like I would tackle someone if they were about to shoot somebody near me, if I had the power, I would stop someone from a late term abortion if I could and I think that aborting a child that could just be born instead is wrong.
Both you and againstabortion are showing hate. She said nothing about killing anyone.
There's a relatively thin sliver of ground to pursue the point of where one person's words impact another person's actions. For someone like Charles Manson, that sliver exists because he intended for his “family” to go out and kill when and where he told them to do so. I don't think Bill-O's rhetoric rises to anything close to Manson's.
We all say things that a deranged person might want to use as an excuse to hurt people. That doesn't mean we are liable for their actions.
As far as gun laws are concerned, I think there is room for protecting the rights of most people to buy guns while finding a way to keep them out of the hands of those who would hurt those around them. I don't think the political courage exists, however, to attempt it. So we get all or nothing.
Thurmanhart:
Whether O'Reilly incited others to do harm–intentionally or unintentionally–can be debated till hell freezes over.
However, what is not subject to discussion for people who have eyes and ears and are minimally objective, is the boorish, intimidating, arrogant, uncouth, ill-tempered, insulting, and—considering he was host to a lady, totally unchivalrous manner that this fuming, huffing, puffing man treated Joan Walsh.