How does O'Reilly handle being scooped by Murtha?
Apparently not very well. O'Reilly is not widely regarded as an even-tempered, well-balanced commentator, and therefore frequent controversies over his positions or claims seem to be inevitable, if not a desired outcome for the sake of publicity and ratings . So, on first glance the recent controversy over O'Reilly's gross misstatement about the World War II Malmedy Massacre seems par for the course. The position that puts Bill O'Reilly in the best light possible is that he really did know that it was eighty-four US Army soldiers who were killed as they surrendered to Nazi Waffen-SS units, and not the other way around; it was just that he got his point messed up in the "heat of the debate". This would be taking his non-apologetic clarification at face value, when he said "[i]n the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough... after Malmedy some German captives were executed by American troops." Granted most of the heat was coming from O'Reilly rather than the calmer Wesley Clark. At the controversy's heart is O'Reilly's defamation of eighty-four massacred US Army soldiers and is unwillingness to admit the mistake or to apologize. It doesn't help that O'Reilly committed this mistake during his arrogant scolding of a decorated four star general for not better recalling military history, while he himself was making a double error which was to make a major factual error about a historic event, and using the wrong historic event to make his point. Apparently O'Reilly was speaking about the aftermath of Malmedy, not the event itself. It was akin to blaming the North for taking a pro-slavery side in the Civil War, while really wanting to blame the North for what would really be more debatable reconstruction activities. One would think at least a simple apology would be in order, but this is Bill O'Reilly, the man with an ego so big that he cannot give such apologies without excuses, he only gives 'clarifications'.
The bigger story is the context of this controversy and it brings out interesting insights on what makes O'Reilly tick, or better yet, 'ticked off'. Foregoing notions that O'Reilly is fair and balanced, one might think he is at least passionate about his views and defending them. But this controversy exposes how his ego not only stops him from apologizing for getting the facts wrong, but his ego actually gets him mired within details that makes him lose sight of the bigger picture, while trying to defend his image.
This Malmedy controversy mostly started with the May 30, 2006 interview with General Wesley Clark . However, Malmedy was not the main topic, it was actually Bill O'Reilly's criticism of US Representative John Murtha. O'Reilly started off by saying that "[Murtha] indicts the entire military on a national program and I'm mad about it and Murtha doesn't have the stones to come on this program and back up what he says." That is quite an ego of O'Reilly's, when it causes him to think a US congressman must appear on his particular show in order to substantiate his reasons as to why the military may be covering up the facts regarding the Haditha incident. Of course, there are many legitimate press forums and a congressman is not obligated to visit all of them, not to mention the rarely experienced value of open congressional hearings that can accomplish things that the press is not able to do (e.g. oaths and subpoenas). However, O'Reilly appears to believe that only his show can assure a fair and balanced hearing of these facts (isn't that the mantra of his show?). But really, why is O'Reilly so mad? Is it because Murtha indicted the entire military prematurely, and O'Reilly is offended on their behalf? Or is it because Murtha is doing his job, and O'Reilly is not doing his own? General Clark gives a clue to this when he said that Murtha had every right to say these things because Murtha is saying what he has heard under the legitimate function of the legislative branch. Now the first shoe is ready to hit the floor, because Clark further added, "just like it could have been your function. Look when another commander-in-chief was under investigation the news media had no problems talking about it." However, the most convincing clue that Murtha scooped O'Reilly comes from O'Reilly himself. The other shoe dropped down, when earlier in the interview O'Reilly said that he had acquiesced to the US Marine's request for him to wait until their own investigation is over before he would start using the Mai Lai Massacre as a comparison point to the Haditha incident. This was a bad judgment call for a fourth-estate person to acquiesce on, and certainly his judgment should not be expected upon members of the legislative branch. After all we expect each branch of government and the press to keep serious accountability checks on each other.
So what really has got O'Reilly steamed? Murtha hears a lot of information through his congressional roles, including things that O'Reilly hasn't heard. Murtha has decided to focus more on the military leadership behavior than on the actual Haditha incident. Murtha reserves his loudest criticism on the delays and cover-up type behaviors he has witnessed or heard about. In such a situation, one would not want to wait for an internal review by the US Marine leadership. Which is what Bill O'Reilly decided to do. An internal report is likely to be ineffective, if not an obstruction to uncovering any significant failures in the role of leadership, especially higher-up levels. So, Murtha is scooping O'Reilly over what is the real lead story which is a possible cover-up and not the actual massacre. Murtha already said that these massacres can happen, but what matters is how the leadership handles the situation. O'Reilly continues to limit his arguments to the incident itself and refuses to acknowledge Murtha's criticisms about what might be a partial breakdown of the command and control structure in the US military. Why? Becaues it's the only position O'Reilly can take unless he wants to admit to himself that he should not have acquiesced to the US Marine's request to wait. If O'Reilly has much of a conscience, he might realize that he, as Wesley Clark seems to indicate, has failed to carry out his legitimate function as a member of the press. Isn't it more likely that O'Reilly should direct his anger at himself and not Murtha?
Murtha and Clark saw enough evidence to warrant investigating whether there are more serious problems than the actual massacre itself. This is something that O'Reilly at least publicly has not come to accept. Clark mentioned near the beginning of his interview that when these "incidents start to happen [where soldiers murder and there is some sign of cover-up] that it can be an indicator that you are on the edge of feasibility of your policy, it's in an indicator that the stress on the units is such that standards of discipline and performance are breaking down at the margin. It's a real warning for us." Fortunately, we have General Clark, as well as, Murtha, a member of the legislative branch, who both see some warning signs and they are not willing to acquiesce to the military, despite Murtha's long positive relationship with the military and Clark's past career in the military. O'Reilly was scooped and outclassed by a US Congressman, simply because he failed to carry out the legitimate function of the press, and he is unable to admit it. So instead of staying quiet, O'Reilly goes on the attack like a sore loser, and is willing to frustrate legitimate investigations in a desperate hope that no cover-up can be proven. But then what do we expect, O'Reilly can't even admit making a clear factual error or give a retraction about who really killed who in a World War II massacre.
Apparently not very well. O'Reilly is not widely regarded as an even-tempered, well-balanced commentator, and therefore frequent controversies over his positions or claims seem to be inevitable, if not a desired outcome for the sake of publicity and ratings . So, on first glance the recent controversy over O'Reilly's gross misstatement about the World War II Malmedy Massacre seems par for the course. The position that puts Bill O'Reilly in the best light possible is that he really did know that it was eighty-four US Army soldiers who were killed as they surrendered to Nazi Waffen-SS units, and not the other way around; it was just that he got his point messed up in the "heat of the debate". This would be taking his non-apologetic clarification at face value, when he said "[i]n the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough... after Malmedy some German captives were executed by American troops." Granted most of the heat was coming from O'Reilly rather than the calmer Wesley Clark. At the controversy's heart is O'Reilly's defamation of eighty-four massacred US Army soldiers and is unwillingness to admit the mistake or to apologize. It doesn't help that O'Reilly committed this mistake during his arrogant scolding of a decorated four star general for not better recalling military history, while he himself was making a double error which was to make a major factual error about a historic event, and using the wrong historic event to make his point. Apparently O'Reilly was speaking about the aftermath of Malmedy, not the event itself. It was akin to blaming the North for taking a pro-slavery side in the Civil War, while really wanting to blame the North for what would really be more debatable reconstruction activities. One would think at least a simple apology would be in order, but this is Bill O'Reilly, the man with an ego so big that he cannot give such apologies without excuses, he only gives 'clarifications'.
The bigger story is the context of this controversy and it brings out interesting insights on what makes O'Reilly tick, or better yet, 'ticked off'. Foregoing notions that O'Reilly is fair and balanced, one might think he is at least passionate about his views and defending them. But this controversy exposes how his ego not only stops him from apologizing for getting the facts wrong, but his ego actually gets him mired within details that makes him lose sight of the bigger picture, while trying to defend his image.
This Malmedy controversy mostly started with the May 30, 2006 interview with General Wesley Clark . However, Malmedy was not the main topic, it was actually Bill O'Reilly's criticism of US Representative John Murtha. O'Reilly started off by saying that "[Murtha] indicts the entire military on a national program and I'm mad about it and Murtha doesn't have the stones to come on this program and back up what he says." That is quite an ego of O'Reilly's, when it causes him to think a US congressman must appear on his particular show in order to substantiate his reasons as to why the military may be covering up the facts regarding the Haditha incident. Of course, there are many legitimate press forums and a congressman is not obligated to visit all of them, not to mention the rarely experienced value of open congressional hearings that can accomplish things that the press is not able to do (e.g. oaths and subpoenas). However, O'Reilly appears to believe that only his show can assure a fair and balanced hearing of these facts (isn't that the mantra of his show?). But really, why is O'Reilly so mad? Is it because Murtha indicted the entire military prematurely, and O'Reilly is offended on their behalf? Or is it because Murtha is doing his job, and O'Reilly is not doing his own? General Clark gives a clue to this when he said that Murtha had every right to say these things because Murtha is saying what he has heard under the legitimate function of the legislative branch. Now the first shoe is ready to hit the floor, because Clark further added, "just like it could have been your function. Look when another commander-in-chief was under investigation the news media had no problems talking about it." However, the most convincing clue that Murtha scooped O'Reilly comes from O'Reilly himself. The other shoe dropped down, when earlier in the interview O'Reilly said that he had acquiesced to the US Marine's request for him to wait until their own investigation is over before he would start using the Mai Lai Massacre as a comparison point to the Haditha incident. This was a bad judgment call for a fourth-estate person to acquiesce on, and certainly his judgment should not be expected upon members of the legislative branch. After all we expect each branch of government and the press to keep serious accountability checks on each other.
So what really has got O'Reilly steamed? Murtha hears a lot of information through his congressional roles, including things that O'Reilly hasn't heard. Murtha has decided to focus more on the military leadership behavior than on the actual Haditha incident. Murtha reserves his loudest criticism on the delays and cover-up type behaviors he has witnessed or heard about. In such a situation, one would not want to wait for an internal review by the US Marine leadership. Which is what Bill O'Reilly decided to do. An internal report is likely to be ineffective, if not an obstruction to uncovering any significant failures in the role of leadership, especially higher-up levels. So, Murtha is scooping O'Reilly over what is the real lead story which is a possible cover-up and not the actual massacre. Murtha already said that these massacres can happen, but what matters is how the leadership handles the situation. O'Reilly continues to limit his arguments to the incident itself and refuses to acknowledge Murtha's criticisms about what might be a partial breakdown of the command and control structure in the US military. Why? Becaues it's the only position O'Reilly can take unless he wants to admit to himself that he should not have acquiesced to the US Marine's request to wait. If O'Reilly has much of a conscience, he might realize that he, as Wesley Clark seems to indicate, has failed to carry out his legitimate function as a member of the press. Isn't it more likely that O'Reilly should direct his anger at himself and not Murtha?
Murtha and Clark saw enough evidence to warrant investigating whether there are more serious problems than the actual massacre itself. This is something that O'Reilly at least publicly has not come to accept. Clark mentioned near the beginning of his interview that when these "incidents start to happen [where soldiers murder and there is some sign of cover-up] that it can be an indicator that you are on the edge of feasibility of your policy, it's in an indicator that the stress on the units is such that standards of discipline and performance are breaking down at the margin. It's a real warning for us." Fortunately, we have General Clark, as well as, Murtha, a member of the legislative branch, who both see some warning signs and they are not willing to acquiesce to the military, despite Murtha's long positive relationship with the military and Clark's past career in the military. O'Reilly was scooped and outclassed by a US Congressman, simply because he failed to carry out the legitimate function of the press, and he is unable to admit it. So instead of staying quiet, O'Reilly goes on the attack like a sore loser, and is willing to frustrate legitimate investigations in a desperate hope that no cover-up can be proven. But then what do we expect, O'Reilly can't even admit making a clear factual error or give a retraction about who really killed who in a World War II massacre.
posted by Pepper | 11:49 PM
|
0 comments
