Over the years, there have been several issues highlighted in American political commentator Bill O'Reilly's print and broadcast work. He has drawn criticism from several liberal individuals and groups including media personalities such as Al Franken, Bill Moyers,^[1] David Letterman, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Free Press, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Media Matters for America.

In early 2007, researchers from the Indiana University School of Journalism published a report in the academic journal Journalism Studies that analyzed the Talking Points Memo segment. opens most O'Reilly Factor broadcasts on Fox News Channel Using analysis techniques developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, the researchers compared O'Reilly's comments and style to a 1939 study of Father Charles Coughlin. Among the conclusions The study found that O'Reilly used propaganda far more often than Coughlin, and that he was three times more likely to engage in name calling, and consistently cast non-Americans as threats and never in the role of victim or hero. one of the propaganda techniques evaluated in the study. The report also found "a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public and never featured in the role of victim or hero."^[2][3]

O'Reilly criticized the study, asserting that "the terms 'conservative,' 'liberal,' 'left,' 'right,' 'progressive,' 'traditional' and 'centrist' were considered treated as name-calling if they were associated with a problem or social ill." The study's authors responded that O'Reilly was only partially correct and that "We did not count 'liberal, conservative, centrist' as name-calling unless they were linked to a derogatory qualifier. O'Reilly's reference to 'Kool-Aid left' is an example of what we counted as name-calling. Or is the reference to folks of a particular political persuasion as a cult on a suicide mission fair and balanced reporting?" as name-calling only linked to derogatory qualifiers such as Kool-Aid left. ^[4] O'Reilly also claimed that Indiana University has received millions of dollars from George Soros' Open Society Institute,^[5] to which the authors responded that they had "received no funding for this study". ^[4]

Fox News producer Ron Mitchell also wrote an op-ed criticizing the study, echoing O'Reilly's charge that too many terms were counted as name-calling and pointing to "buried headline" as an example. He also accused the authors of seeking to manipulate their research to fit a predetermined outcome. Mitchell argued that by using tools developed for examining propaganda, the researchers presupposed that O'Reilly propagandized.^[6] He also pointed to a section in which the authors describe making changes to their "coding instrument" because the first attempts generated "unacceptably low scores." The authors responded that their study had been extensively vetted through two rounds of anonymous peer review prior to publication. and that the methodology that Mitchell criticized was accepted scientific practice put in place to prevent bias, not to create it^[4] Specifically, A response piece by Media Matters for America said that Mitchell misunderstood the meaning of "coding instrument. what a "coding instrument" is. The methodology called for individual researchers ("coders") to analyze broadcasts and code their findings into a database. The response continued that the "unacceptably low scores" did not mean that initial methods found too few instances of O'Reilly calling names; instead, it referred to "unacceptably low" consistency between coders analyzing the same data.^[7]

In January 2007, St. Martin's Press released the biography The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, written by longtime Newsday TV critic Marvin Kitman. O'Reilly initially cooperated with the author by giving him 29 interviews. According to Kitman, O'Reilly was going to help promote and publicize the book until, just prior to publication, they had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chapter covering Andrea Mackris' 2004 sexual harassment lawsuit against O'Reilly.^{[8][dead link]} After the book came out with the chapter included, Kitman asserted that O'Reilly, instead of promoting the book, attempted to bury it by "intimidating" and "terrorizing" Fox News prime time shows to keep them from inviting Kitman to appear.^[9]

In an interview with Keith Olbermann, Kitman criticized O'Reilly as "kind of a hypocrite" by pointing out O'Reilly's belief that journalists should not attempt to flatter or indulge the people they cover. "Throughout all my interviews," Kitman said, "[O'Reilly] was telling me that nobody could ever tell him what question to ask, or what to say." However, when the subject was O'Reilly himself, Kitman said that "it turned out that he‘s not so much in favor of telling it like it is, but like it isn‘t".^[9] Kitman also said he found it strange that O'Reilly sought to suppress the book when it cast him in a generally favorable light. When speaking to Olbermann, Kitman said, "This is the only book that‘s ever said anything positive about Bill, except for the six he wrote about himself."^[9] Several critics agree that the book's portrayal is fair.^[10][11]

Peter Hart, a media analyst for the progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, co-authored The Oh Really Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.^[12] In the 2004 documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, Hart states that The O'Reilly Factor is a "perfect example" of what is wrong with Fox News, alleging that the Republican Party gets favored treatment over the Democratic Party on O'Reilly's show, as well as the network in general.^[13]

Critics (editor's note: cite specific examples not critics) of O'Reilly allege that although he claims to have a No-Spin Zone on his television program, O'reily in fact misleads his audience by presenting false information and selective editing. [citation needed?] They often point to an instance where he featured a story about a "national epidemic" of teenage lesbian gangs who carry pink pistols and try to indoctrinate young girls into lesbianism.^[14][15] O'Reilly later admitted the story was overhyped but defended its validity. "^[16] Furthermore, these critics Media Matters claims O'Reilly mislead his audience when he described his upbringing and that he overstates his influence such as when he pointed to a non-existent publication to support his claim that his a boycott of French goods cost the French billions of dollars. ^[17][18][19]

On the June 24, 2004, law professor David D. Cole told host and O'Reilly rival Al Franken about an alleged incident that occurred while he appeared on the June 21 edition of O'Reilly's show. Cole claimed that as the episode's Talking Points Memo segment was being taped, O'Reilly told his producers to re-record the segment in order to prevent the airing of footage showing New Jersey governor and 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean confirming that no evidence was had been found to suggesting a link between Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network. After this was done, Cole alleged that O'Reilly then claimed that Kean had confirmed that there was indeed a link between the two groups, without playing the footage. Cole also said that when he directly challenged O'Reilly's for his deception in the subsequent interview, O'Reilly went "berserk", callinged' his guest an "SOB", and "said I would never, ever be invited to be on the show again." Cole said that when the interview was finally broadcast that night, the portion of the interview showing Cole's confrontation and O'Reilly's subsequent outburst was edited out by Fox News producers^[20].

Franken also criticized O'Reilly for alleged selectively and misleadingly editing in a [[June 5]], [[2005]] interview of Senator Joseph Biden by George Stephanopoulos. In the interview Biden proposed the submission of legislation for an independent commission to look into wrongdoing in the U.S. Army's prison system at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.^[21] When O'Reilly analyzed the same interview on The Factor, the broadcast edited out all references Biden made to appointing an independent commission and only presented Biden's call to shut down Guantanamo Bay. O'Reilly accused Biden of misusing the prison abuse story and then presented the missing part of Biden's remarks as 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'Reilly.^[22]

O'Reilly has also been criticized for interview style such as when he and Congressman Barney Frank got into a very heated argument during a discussion of the ongoing financial crisis, ^[23][24][25] and when he cut off the micke of anti-war protester Jeremy Glick. ^[26][27] Furthermore, he has also been criticized for being insensitive to certain victims and groups. like An example of this was Shawn Hornbeck whom O'Reilly inferred that there was an element that he liked about this circumstances "^[28] and when he made comments to the effect that San Fransisco should not receive government protection from Al Qaeda after passing 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."^[29]

O'Reilly has been involved in numerous controversies and rivalries with various people and organizations. Some of the more notable are Al Franken, George Soros, Bill Moyers of PBS and Keith Olbermann.

Media Matters for America describes itself as a politically progressive, web-based, non-profit organization that reports and criticizes what it describes as "conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."^[30] O'Reilly is often the subject of Media Matters' online reports.

O'Reilly has referred to Media Matters as "smear merchants," and "the most vile, despicable human beings on the planet," and has expressed distaste for the site he claims is funded by George Soros.^[31] Media Matters maintains that it has never received funding from Soros "either directly or through another organization."^[32]

Al Franken's 2003 book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look At the Right included a picture of O'Reilly on the cover and a chapter devoted to him inside. In his book, Franken accused O'Reilly of distorting facts both to serve conservative politics and to improve his public image.

Prior to the release of the book, Fox News sued Franken for trademark infringement over the use of the phrase "fair and balanced" in the book's title. In an interview with Time, O'Reilly was asked if he "regrets pushing the lawsuit against Al Franken", to which he replied, "Not at all."^[33] When the case reached court, the presiding judge denied Fox's request for injunctive relief.^[34] Fox then dropped the suit.

Olbermann's show Countdown on MSNBC, which airs opposite The O'Reilly Factor, is highly critical of O'Reilly. Olbermann frequently names O'Reilly in the "Worst Persons in the World" segment of the program.

Bill O'Reilly has been involved in several controversies throughout the years.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, O'Reilly devoted substantial time on his television show and wrote pieces accusing the United Way of America and American Red Cross of failing to deliver millions of dollars in donated money, raised by the organizations in the name of the disaster, to the families of those killed in the attacks.^[35] O'Reilly claimed that the organizations misrepresented their intentions for the money being raised by not distributing all of the 9/11 relief fund to the victims.^[36] Actor George Clooney responded to O'Reilly's claims, accusing O'Reilly of misstating facts (including confusing the United Way with the Red Cross), sloppy reporting and harming the relief effort by inciting "panic" among potential donors.^[37] Congressional hearings were called on the matter and an investigation by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer took place. Bernadette Healey, the president of the Red Cross, resigned shortly thereafter.^[38] In a statement before the House Ways and Means Committee in November 2001, Congressman J.D. Hayworth asserted that media pressure, most notably from O'Reilly, helped cause the Red Cross to increase payments to affected people and helped cause other charities to participate in an oversight database established by Spitzer.^[39]

On the September 19, 2007 edition of The Radio Factor, prior to having a discussion about racial stereotypes with fellow Fox News commentator and author Juan Williams,^[40] O'Reilly mentioned a lunch he had with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem. Before Williams joined the discussion, he said that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Later on the show, while discussing how white America feels that gangsta rappers dominate black culture, Williams stated, "Oh, and it’s just so awful. It’s just so awful because, I mean, it’s literally the sewer come to the surface, and now people take it that the sewer is the whole story", to which O'Reilly responded, "That’s right. That’s right. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea".^[41][42][43]

O'Reilly also said, "I think that black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves, getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.'"^[44] Roland S. Martin of CNN said that the notion that black people are just now starting to value education is "ridiculous" and that the notion that black people let Sharpton or Jackson think for them is "nuts". He suggested that O'Reilly's view was "based upon a stereotype" and called on O'Reilly and others who think like him to "wake up".^[45]

Karl Frisch, spokesman for Media Matters, said O'Reilly's comments were "ignorant and racially charged." O'Reilly responded in his Talking Points Memo that he believed that Media Matters took him out of context. He defended his comments by saying, "It was an attempt to tell the radio audience that there is no difference black, white, we’re all Americans. The stereotypes they see on television are not true."^{[citation needed]} O'Reilly said, "Media Matters distorted the entire conversation and implied I was racist for condemning racism."^[46]

On the Huffington Post blog, author Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote that the comments "looked and sounded dumb and racist", but O'Reilly "didn't say anything that was earth shatteringly offensive" or anything that others might not say in private.^[47] Also on the Huffington Post, Eric Deggans, chairman of the Black Journalists Media Monitoring Committee, said that O'Reilly's history of using racially charged rhetoric suggests that he stereotyped black people as "either vocal protesters like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson or straight-up thugs like N.W.A." Deggans said that he found it unfortunate that it "took a lunch with Al Sharpton" for O'Reilly to realize otherwise.^[48] Juan Williams said the criticism of O'Reilly was “rank dishonesty” and that the original comments "had nothing to do with racist ranting by anybody except by these idiots at CNN."^{[citation needed]} Williams went on to say it was "frustrating" that the media try to criticize anyone who wanted to have an honest discussion about race.^[42]

On the Today show, host Matt Lauer said, "I thought Bill O'Reilly was saying that we should not be surprised." He said O'Reilly's point is that "the small group of people" who think that certain rappers represent all African Americans "need to get out and live life a little bit". Lauer later speculated that O'Reilly would want to get "a do-over" and phrase his comments differently.^[49]

Following the controversy, Jesse Jackson made his first appearance on the O'Reilly Factor.^[50] Jackson asked O'Reilly what he had intended by his comments and said that "to underestimate the civility of black people was offensive" but that the controversy over O'Reilly's remarks had obscured other, more important issues.^[51]

O'Reilly has long said that his inspiration for speaking up for average Americans, or what he calls "the folks", are his working-class roots. He has pointed to his boyhood home in Levittown, New York as a credential. In an interview with The Washington Post, O'Reilly's mother said that her family lived in Westbury,^[52] which is a few miles from Levittown. Citing this interview, Al Franken, Michael Kinsley, and others have accused O'Reilly of distorting his background to create a more working-class image.

O'Reilly has countered that The Washington Post misquoted his mother,^[53] and he said his mother still lives in his childhood home, which was built by William Levitt. O'Reilly placed a copy of the house's mortgage, which shows a Levittown postal address, on his website. Levittown was redrawn into a squarish shape^[54] to conform with the 11756 ZIP code, which was introduced in 1963. After this time the O'Reilly home was located in Westbury. On a 2005 episode of The Al Franken Show, Franken invited a Long Island historian onto the show, and she said that O'Reilly's statement about having lived in "the Westbury section of Levittown" was generally accurate and that the house could fairly be described as being in either town. She also said that O'Reilly's neighborhood was not the "hardscrabble" environment he suggested it was.^[55]

O'Reilly has also said, "You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale"^[56] and that his father "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life." Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has calculated that adjusted for inflation, $35,000 in 1978 would be worth over $90,000 in 2001 dollars.^[57] O'Reilly has retorted that his father's $35,000 income only came at the end of his long career, at which point O'Reilly would have been long independent of his parents. ^[58]

O'Reilly, Bill

The first known protest occured during a February 10th townhall meeting conducted by Obama in Fort Myers, Florida^[1] The next major protest occurred in Seattle, Washington on February 16th, the day before a new spending bill was signed into law.^[2] February 27th marked the next major date as the people of St. Louis showed their disapproval by dumping tea into the Mississippi River.^[3] The day also marked the first mass protests which took place in Nashville,^[4] Tampa,^[5] Omaha,^[6] Denver,^[7] Lansing,^[8] Fort Worth, Texas,^[9][10] and right outside the White House in Washington, D.C..^[11] The last tea party to occur in February was held the next day in San Diego and was organized as part of the "nationwide Chicago Tea Party" to protest the stimulus package.^[12]

March saw the second mass protest as Salt Lake City,^[13] Tulsa, and Oklahoma City all saw demonstrations on March 6th,^[14] with another in Harrisburg the next day. The protest in Harrisburg marked one of the few protests condemning both parties.^[15] The Ides of March saw the next rally as Cincinatti voiced it's unhappiness with the national government's programs.^[16][17] Two subsequent protests occurred on the 21st and 22nd in Raleigh^[18][19][20] and Orlando respectively with the latter introducing the "American Tea Party Anthem" which has since been adopted by other protest groups.^[21][22]

The "Republican Proffessionals" opened up the month of April with the next major event. The 2nd saw a gathering in Scottsdale, Arizona and heard Barry Goldwater Jr. speak.^[23] The first reported college protest occurred in colonial fashion just 9 days later on April 11th at The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.^[24] Four days later, April 15th, marked the first nationwide Tea party as people gathered for Tax Day in over 750 cities across the US to protest.^[25] Future national rallies are planned for July 4th, independence day, and a march on D.C. is planned on September 12th. ^[26][27][28]

Allegations of "astroturfing" first surfaced in a Playboy article in March 2009. The article was removed after libel claims, but no legal action materialized. The authors repeated and elaborated the allegations elsewhere.^[29][30]

In April 2009, the blog Think Progress stated that most of the 2009 protests were conservative lobbyist created "astroturf" projects and not spontaneous grassroots protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.^[31] Economist Paul Krugman picked up the story in his April 12 New York Times op-ed column, writing that, "The tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey...and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires." The Indypendent covered the story as did Steve Leser on OpEdNews.[.^[32][33] On April 15, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi agreed commenting that the "initiative was from the high end" and "It's astroturfing...to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." ^[34] On the same day, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow commented, saying that "corporate-funded PR shops and lobbying groups have done a lot of the organizing and promotion for these events...It‘s disguising a formal top-down organized paid for things as if it‘s some spontaneous grassroots event."^[35]

Participants vehemently deny the astroturfing charge. According to Atlantic Monthly, the three main groups that provide guidance and organization for the protests FreedomWorks, dontGO, and Americans for Prosperity state that the demonstrations are an organic movement.^[36] Organizer Glenn Reynolds argued in The New York Post that: "These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists."^[37]

In April 2009, the blog Think Progress stated that most of the 2009 protests were conservative lobbyist-created "astroturf" projects and not spontaneous grassroots protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.^[38] The story was picked up in a New York Times op-ed column by economist Paul Krugman, writing that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey." On April 15, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi agreed, saying "it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."^[39] On the same day, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow commented, saying that "corporate-funded PR shops and lobbying groups have done a lot of the organizing and promotion for these events. That's controversial because it's astroturfing. It's disguising a formal top-down organized paid for things as if it's some spontaneous grassroots event."^[40]

Allegations of "astroturfing" first surfaced in a Playboy article in March 2009. The article was removed from the website after possible libel claims, but no legal action materialized. The authors repeated and elaborated the allegations elsewhere.^[41][42]

In early April 2009, the blog Think Progress stated that most of the 2009 protests were conservative lobbyist created "astroturf" projects and not spontaneous grassroots protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by the lobbying groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.^[43] Economist Paul Krugman picked up the story in his April 12 New York Times op-ed column, writing that "The tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects." In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires.... And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News." The Indypendent covered the story>^[44] as did Steve Leser who stated on OpEdNews that well the next day On April 14, Steven Leser reported on the website OpEdNews that, the domain name "chicagoteaparty.com" was registered during the 2008 presidential campaign by "a right wing radio talk show host ... with ties to several major Republican think tanks".^[45] On April 15, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated: "This initiative is funded by the high end...it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America...to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." greed commenting that the "initiative was from the high end" and "It's astroturfing...to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."^[46] On the same day, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow commented, saying that "One of the controversies about the teabaggers is the fact that insider D.C. corporate-funded PR shops and lobbying groups have done a lot of the organizing and promotion for these events. That‘s controversial because it‘s astroturfing. It‘s disguising a formal top-down organized paid for things as if it‘s some spontaneous grassroots event." ^[47]

Participants vehemently deny the astroturfing charge. According to Atlantic Monthly, the three main groups that provide guidance and organization for the protests FreedomWorks, dontGO, and Americans for Prosperity state that the demonstrations are an organic movement.^[36] Organizer Glenn Reynolds argued in The New York Post that: "These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists."^[48]

Bridgett Wagner of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank, has compared the protests to the tax revolts of the 1970s and 1980s, which included the successful Proposition 13 in California that capped property taxes.^[49] Jeremi Suri, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, viewed them as "not dissimilar from what we had in 2003 with the anti-war protests, where a lot of people were uncomfortable with the war, but also uncomfortable with the anti-war position, recognizing there are terrorists out there."^[26]

George Tiller, a controversial abortion clinic doctor, was shot dead on Sunday, May 31, 2009 while serving as an usher during worship services at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita. O'Reilly has taken criticism from many sources for his labeling of Tiller, and the potential influence it had in the shooting.^[50]

Tiller was first discussed on The O'Reilly Factor on February 25, 2005. Subsequently Tiller was discussed in at least 28 episodes before his death. On the show he was sometimes described as "Tiller the Baby Killer" and O'Reilly warned of what Tiller would face on "judgment day".^[51]

On November 3, 2006, O'Reilly featured an exclusive segment on his The O'Reilly Factor, saying that he had an "inside source" with official clinic documentation indicating that George Tiller performed late-term abortions to alleviate "temporary depression" in the pregnant woman.^[52] Tiller responded to O'Reilly's statements by demanding an investigation into the "inside source" through which the information was leaked, suggesting that Phill Kline, then the Kansas Attorney General, was responsible. Kline subsequently denied the charge.

O'Reilly denied that his criticism of Tiller incited the violence, defending his coverage saying "every single thing we said about Tiller was true, and my analysis was based on those facts". O'Reilly also denounced the action saying "clear-thinking Americans should condemn" the killing.

Civil rights activist Burt Neuborne said that speech such as O'Reilly's does not legally qualify as incitement and that calling it incitement rather than political speech diminishes "the ability to speak vigorously".^{[53][54] [55]}