NationStates Jolt Archive


O'Reilly essay

Exham
22-08-2004, 02:52
This is a work in progress essay which I am doing on 'The No Spin Zone' by Bill O'Reilly. Feedback appreciated.

The No Spin Zone, written by Bill O’Reilly is a compressed collection of interviews and commentaries. Bill O’Reilly states in his introduction, “We are chasing down the truth here and that is a hard game.” The book’s declared intention is to moderate and discern the facts while revealing the nature of interviewees who are caught lying. That is the stated intention and more often than not Bill O’Reilly is a capable interviewer and able to out-talk his guests, however in his commentary Bill O’Reilly often presents opinions which are unreasonable, unrealistic or just plain ill thought-out.
The book begins with a chapter focusing on pedophilia and an organization known as NAMBLA, which is being defended by the ACLU in a criminal case over its website, which encourages pedophilia. An ACLU attorney named Floyd Abrams was defending the ALCU’s choice to defend NAMBLA for O’Reilly’s interview. The dialogue is very compact and there is no elaboration on the actual case or how NAMBLA intends to defend itself. The interview instead focused on weather or not it was right for the ACLU to represent NAMBLA. Mr. Abrams took the position that every person or group which goes to trial deserves to be defended while O’Reilly argued that the group’s actions were too illicit for it be given any kind of legal support by the ALCU. O’Reilly has a point that NAMBLA encourages actions which are morally wrong, but the legal process must be implemented in all cases, no matter who the accusations are leveled at. The opinion that Neo-Nazis, Klan’s men or NAMBLA members must be denied any kind of legal aid rather than letting their case go and trial be argued on legal grounds sets the precedent for a dangerous slippery slope. Following is a chapter, which is dedicated to the subject of sex education in school classrooms. O’Reilly interviewed former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. O’Reilly’s position is hard to determine, since he wants children to be educated about sex, but at the same time feels that schools teaching about sex is the same as them condoning teens to have premarital sex. The interview does not address that issue and is a superfluous tangent in the chapter. Next are a pair of chapters which are dedicated to the issue of how children are exposed to sex and violence in entertainment. O’Reilly, who just one chapter before was advocating parents taking responsibility for explaining touchy subjects to their children, blames television and music stars. He interviews Steve Allen and Sean Combs, both times insisted that they are obligated to create unoffensive entertainment. Trailing those chapters is an interview with the radio talk show host Dr. Laura and her opinions on what the proper family life should be. Bill O’Reilly gets right to the point, explaining some relevant background and her position of “…advocating a return to a traditional society”

The subject of affirmative action is next and Al Sharpten, a staunch advocate of the policy is interviewed.

Following that, both Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton’s

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

One of the biggest problems with The No Spin Zone is that there is a lot of style over substance. Chapter three which focused on sex education is a prime example of filling space with content that is not productive to the debate at hand, the first three pages of the chapter are devoted to a useless anecdote that serves only O’Reilly’s ego and does not give the reader anything of value unless they are naïve enough to believe that teens really listened to someone which talked down to them in such a condescending manner. Another chapter rife with red herrings is chapter thirteen which is supposed to be about the failure of the media to report on wealthy or important individuals, but what O’Reilly uses as a personal platform to rant about the injustices he has supposedly suffered for his rebelliousness and style of reporting. O’Reilly has constructed a vast conspiracy which works against him, and summons evidence for it out of every negative occurance which he experiences. Something else which is greatly troubling about the book is that when O’Reilly does give a serious alternate to a problem the solution is not properly thought out and would create problems worse than the original. The most obvious example of this type of thinking is O’Reilly’s position on capital punishment, which simultaneously manages to be more inhumane and more logistically stressful without any apparent gain as a means of deterrent to future criminals. In his own words O’Reilly’s says, “I’ve got a better idea. Punishment more appropriate-and much more terrifying –for McVeigh and others who commit crimes against humanity (this includes murder, rape and large-quantity hard-drug dealing) would be to sentence them to life in prison in a federal penitentiary in Alaska.” O’Reilly thinks that this method will deter the criminals who are not fearful of the death penalty. What O’Reilly doesn’t seem to understand is that someone who is not afraid of death is probably either so psychologically disturbed or so committed to an ideological belief that no punishment will effective deter them. The Timothy McVeighs of the world, who welcome death, would just as easily welcome one of Bill O’Reilly’s gulags. Even if a psychopath or an ideological militant was intimidated by O’Reilly’s labor camps that would not stop them from acting out, because someone who commits a crime doesn’t expect to get caught, they expect to commit a perfect crime and get away without being punished. Why would a person be afraid of any kind of punishment if they never expect to face it? The second main reason why O’Reilly’s plan is rendered completely unfeasible is the sheer logistical constraints. Construction of the facilities would be very expensive and take years to complete. Assuming the project was not bogged down in the early stages it would then require constant upkeep and re-supply. Everything would have to be shipped in from other states to keep the prison system running. The most severe problem would be transporting materials for the hard labor to and from the prisons. There is virtually no way that any kind of profit could be made due to the extensive shipping requirements, so forcing the prisoners to work is in the end nothing more than useless spite. Justice should be fair, it should be stern, it should protect the innocent; it should not doled out in anger or with useless embellishments which only serve to inflict pain. Though for all of the book’s faults, there are some positive aspects. The interviews with Dr. Laura, Susan Sarandon, Al Sharpton and Sheldon Cohen are completely successful in exposing their hypocrisy and unfounded views, and his interviews with George Bush and David Walker are partial successes.
The No Spin Zone sets out to critique the news media on under-reported issues and is successful in exposing of the illogical positions of some pundits and news correspondents. However, the entire book in marred by Bill O’Reilly’s egotism and refusal to accept any opinion, which does not agree with his as valid. Bill O’Reilly’s best statement-which ironically is one which could put him out of business-is for readers to make up their own minds on an issue rather than having a viewpoint few to them by a news analyst.
Nehek-Nehek
22-08-2004, 03:22
Some O'Reilly related reading

Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them-Al Franken

Bill O'Reilly Is A Big Blubbering Vagina-maddox.xmission.com
Meatopiaa
22-08-2004, 03:30
Well, speaking of Al Franken, then you must read this site. It has plenty of info on Franken and O'Reilly


http://www.lyingliar.com/ (http://www.lyingliar.com/)


...
Exham
22-08-2004, 03:31
Some O'Reilly related reading

Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them-Al Franken

Bill O'Reilly Is A Big Blubbering Vagina-maddox.xmission.com
Unfortunatly, this essay has to be on 'The No Spin Zone' and not a comentary on O'Reilly as a whole.

(BTW, Maddox is my fucking hero)
Sydenia
22-08-2004, 03:44
Just a few things:

You might want to be careful using 'slippery slope'; some people consider it an utter falacy, and get annoyed at its use.

He interviews Steve Allen and Sean Combs, both times insisted that they are obligated to create unoffensive entertainment.

I think you mean to say "insisting".

Something else which is greatly troubling about the book is that when O’Reilly does give a serious alternate to a problem

I think you mean to say "alternative".

someone who is not afraid of death is probably either so psychologically disturbed or so committed to an ideological belief that no punishment will effective deter them

I think you mean to say "effectively".

Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but I felt it would be better to point those out. Some readers can be picky about things like that.
Exham
22-08-2004, 03:50
Just a few things:


Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but I felt it would be better to point those out. Some readers can be picky about things like that.
No, this is kind of stuff I'm looking for too. The essay was written over the course of serveral weeks and generally out of order, so grammer problems are bound to occur.
Exham
22-08-2004, 06:02
Well, speaking of Al Franken, then you must read this site. It has plenty of info on Franken and O'Reilly


http://www.lyingliar.com/ (http://www.lyingliar.com/)



...Franklin has some good stuff
Pongoar
22-08-2004, 07:03
good essay
Proud Socialists
22-08-2004, 07:08
Yeh that was good, I bet all those dickhead America-Lovers will come along now waving flags and singing praises to the President.

What the hell happened to patriotism that it is now 'ask no questions, cover your eyes, and block your ears'
BLARGistania
22-08-2004, 07:16
PS, calm down, don't be a moron.

O'Reilly is an idiot, a liar, and has a very poor vocab choice (should you read his uneditied transcripts). But that's besides the point. The essay itself is good and raises points about O'Reillys styling, but it seems to be a bit blunt.

I'd suggest you transition a little more. Take one point, like O'Reillys logical fallacies, back it up with three examples, move on to the next point. Don't let your points pile up on each other, limit if you have to.

Other than that, good points, good grammar, good subject.