PhotoDude.com

Fri. Aug 15, 2003

A Fair and Balanced Fisking

A Fair and Balanced Fisking – There’s a most telling title on the latest “Talking Points Memo” from Bill O’Reilly, “The Best Defense is a Good Offense.” O’Reilly does not once mention Al Franken or his book, but it is clear who he is talking about, and adds credence to Matt Drudge’s report that O’Reilly lobbied hard for this suit to be filed against Franken. To me, the title itself implies the best way to fight what’s coming out in that book is to sue to keep it from coming out. On any basis.

The man is both amazingly transparent, and as purely pot black as the kettle he attacks: “And their attacks on us have now resulted in legal issues, such as trademark infringement and defamation.”

Stick to the issue, Bill. The lawsuit was filed strictly on the basis of trademark infringement, and the only “defamation” in it is the snide ad hominem language it uses in an attempt to make its sad little case.

“The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. And that message has been sent by FOX.”

The pure unadulterated irony of that remark leaves me speechless. Thankfully, below we’ll get to some O’Reilly generated examples of the phenomenon he decries, yet engages in regularly.

“There’s a principle in play. Vigorous debate is embraced by us, but smear campaigns will be confronted. It is simply a joke for The New York Times to editorialize that fabricated personal attacks are acceptable under the banner of satire.”

What is simply a joke is the fact O’Reilly is so unacquainted with the legal concepts of free speech and fair use. The legal definition of “fair use” specifically exempts works of parody or satire from this kind of prosecution. As some judge will surely tell you most any day now.

“I guess The Times editorial board would be yucking it up if their pictures appeared on a book cover accompanied by the word ‘liar.’ Satire, my butt.”

Your butt? Let’s go to the books:
sat·ire \”sa-’tir\ noun
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

Nope, nowhere does the definition include O’Reilly’s ass, despite his claim. However, it does seem to very precisely cover Franken’s work, and O’Reilly is one of those being held up “to ridicule or scorn.” It’s got his panties all in a wad, and he’s in a position to lobby/bully Fox’s legal department into a most dubious act. That appears to be the fair and balanced truth of this spat.

“There’s no question that many of the attacks launched against FOX personnel are designed to injury and demean. It’s unfortunate, but in this country, if you’re successful or famous, many courts will allow defamation, slander and liable to go unpunished.”

It is amazing that O’Reilly gets away with saying so many things without getting sued. But I guess that’s not what he means. And, after all, he’s protected by the fact he is editorializing on a national news network. It’s just opinion. Someday, the rest of us will get to have one, too. Maybe even express it without getting sued.

Meanwhile, you might want to reread that silly book about how everything you needed to know you learned in kindergarten. The phrase that sticks in my mind is “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” If you can’t handle the fact that placing yourself in the spotlight also makes you a target for words intended to demean, satirize, or ridicule you, then stay at home on the couch and watch Gilligan’s Island. You can’t even publish a weblog without opening yourself up to those kinds of attacks.

Get a helmet, Sparky, and quit your litigious whining. You seem to be the only one who doesn’t see how weak this looks; and I believe that’s the definition of “clueless.”

“The point is accountability. We are shining a spotlight on the haters and the enablers. You can decide if that spotlight is aimed in the right direction.”

I thought the point was trademark infringement. So, can we expect that everyone you “uncover” and deem a hater and/or enabler will get a lawsuit, perhaps about an unrelated matter? Like trademark infringement? Is that the manner in which you shine a spotlight and let your audience decide if it was pointed in the right direction? File a lawsuit and see what kind of reaction it gets?

How did this one work out, Thin Skinned Billy? The man with the name you refuse to use, Al Franken, now has the book that is #1 in new orders on Amazon. The book you were trying to stop people from reading is now a guaranteed best seller.

Today, you are being publicly ridiculed by hundreds of people. A Technorati search for the keywords ”fair and balanced” pretty well chokes the system before it eventually spits out about 850 weblogs, all of whom mocked your thin skin as part of a special Fair and Balanced Day.

Nice job! Can’t wait for your next performance.

“Talking Points cannot understand how people could side with the defamers and their pals. But it’s important to know just who these people are. For as Don Corleone once said, ‘kept your friends close, but your enemies closer.’ ”

So, those who have a different opinion, those who “side with the defamers,” are both your enemy and someone you need to keep track of? Perhaps for future litigation?

Reid Stott. R-e-i-d S-t-o-t-t. Get one of your staff people who understands the Internet to figure out how to get in touch with me, and then add my name to your Enemies List, Mr. Nixon.

Why? Because I’m going to mock you with your own words from August 6: “The only candidate we sought who told us to stuff it is Governor Howard Dean, who showed up on Larry King last night. Unfortunately, few watch that program. Ratings were very low.”

Why would you use words like that to demean a man who probably entered the business before you entered puberty? I hope he doesn’t file suit against you, you probably hurt Larry’s feelings. But you have given me at least one thing to like about Howard Dean.

“Dean is the current darling of the elite media, getting news magazine covers and mostly favorable attention in the print press, but his refusal to enter the no-spin zone is interesting because you’d figure the guy would want to raise his profile. And this program is by far the most watched news forum in American primetime TV with a very diverse audience, according to the research.”

Two sentences that reek of “I’m the well deserved King of this Media Hill, at least that’s what my staff tells me all the time, and it is therefore unthinkable that a Presidential candidate would not come kneel before me.”

No wonder O’Reilly’s feathers are so easily ruffled. They are regal feathers. But it wasn’t always that way.

On July 9, O’Reilly admitted, “You may remember that I anchored the program Inside Edition for six years. And we certainly did our share of celebrity scandal stories there. At the time, I didn’t think much of it: The rich and powerful were fair game.”

“But now I’m rich and powerful. And almost every day, I see vicious, untrue stuff written about me. And I see the pain it brings my family and friends. So my attitude has changed somewhat, perhaps selfishly, but maybe I’m just getting smarter.”

Or maybe it’s just that you’re now a target, when you used to consider such people fair game. And to this day, you make demeaning attacks on those you consider your enemies. You’ve become perhaps the ultimate public example of … “I can dish it out, but I can’t take it.”