July 24, 2004  ·  Lessig

Mr. O’Reilly,

You have declared a “war” on the New York Times. That’s good for you, good for them, and good for our democracy: Strong opinions deserve strong spokesmen. Your battle will help sharpen a debate about matters important to the Republic.

But in waging this “war,” you are continuing to abuse a man whom you have wronged, and to whom you owe an apology.

On February 4, 2003, Jeremy Glick was your guest on THE FACTOR. Glick had lost his father in the attack of 9/11. He had also signed an ad criticizing the war in Iraq. You were “surprised” that one who had lost his father could oppose that war. And so you had him on your show, presumably to ask him why. (Here’s a clip from Outfoxed putting this story together.)

You might not remember precisely what you said on that interview, or more importantly, what Jeremy Glick said. So here’s a copy that you can watch. Nor may you remember precisely what the ad that Jeremy Glick signed said. Here’s a copy that you can read. And when you’ve watched what was actually said, and read what was actually written, I’m sure you will see that the statements you continue to make about Jeremy Glick are just plain false. Not Bill Clinton “depends upon what is is” false, but false the way most Americans learned growing up: just not true.

For example:

  • in the February 4th interview, you said the ad “accused the USA itself of terrorism.” Read the ad, Mr. O’Reilly. It says no such thing.
  • in the February 4th interview, you said the ad “equates the United States with the terrorists.” Read the ad, Mr. O’Reilly. It says no such thing.
  • in the February 4th interview, you said the ad “absolutely says” that the United States is to be “equated” with the terrorists. Read the ad, Mr. O’Reilly. It says no such thing.
  • on February 5th, you told your viewers that “Glick was out of control.” He may have been out of your control. But you and our government have got to learn that just because someone disagrees with you, he doesn’t become a security threat. Again, watch the interview, Mr. O’Reilly. He was not “out of control.”
  • on February 5th, you told your viewers that Glick was “spewing hatred for this program.” Watch the interview, Mr. O’Reilly. He criticized you, not the program, for unethically using sympathy for the 9/11 victims for your own political ends. He was calling your behavior improper. You had not earned his hatred.
  • on February 5th, you told your viewers that Glick was “spewing hatred for … his country.” Watch the interview, Mr. O’Reilly. He said no such thing. He specifically distinguished the people he was criticizing from “the people of America.” He, like the rest of us, loves our country, even if we disagree with its political leaders, or your political views.
  • on February 5th, you accused him of using “vile propaganda.” What does “propaganda” mean to you, Mr. O’Reilly? He was disagreeing with your views. Why is that “propaganda”?
  • six months later, you said that Glick said that the Bushes “were directly responsible for 9/11.” Again, watch the interview, Mr. O’Reilly. He said no such thing. Indeed, he twice denied it.
  • eleven months later, you said Glick “came on this show and accused President Bush of knowing about 9/11 and murdering his own father.” This, Mr. O’Reilly, is a total, if not pathological, fabrication. Glick said nothing about Bush “knowing” about 9/11. He said nothing about Bush “murdering” his own father. Watch the interview, Mr. O’Reilly. Your statements characterizing what Glick said are absolutely false.
  • just last week, you again repeated the claim that Glick said that President Bush was “responsible for his father’s death.” He said nothing of the sort.
  • just last week, you repeated the claim that Glick “implied that the United States itself was a terrorist nation.” Glick said nothing of the sort.
  • just last week, you said Glick said “America itself was responsible for the 9/11 attack.” Glick said nothing of the sort.
  • And finally, and most extraordinarily, just last week you repeated the claim that “security actually had to take the guy out of the building, he was that out of control.” This, Mr. O’Reilly, you know to be absolutely false. Indeed, it was you who threatened physical violence against Mr. Glick after his interview, and your own staff that apologetically begged Mr. Glick to leave as quickly as he could, fearing that if you saw Glick again, as they said, you would “end up in jail.”

I understand how someone loses his temper, Mr. O’Reilly. I have done the same myself. But a decent man apologizes for his lack of control, and he certainly doesn’t continue to abuse someone he has wronged.

Mr. Glick is not the New York Times. He will not earn more money from higher ratings because you attack him so viciously. Neither he nor his widowed mother get any benefit at all from seeing Glick slandered by your show on a regular basis.

You are wrong about the facts, Mr. O’Reilly. And you are wrong to continue to do such harm. Have the courage to admit your error. Apologize to Mr. Glick, and let him go back to a life that has been made difficult enough by, as you said, the “barbarians” who killed his father. This family has suffered enough from barbaric behavior.

  • jt

    Is Dr. Lessig bothering to read the comments to his posts?

  • lessig

    With pleasure, but I make it a rule not to respond where a response won’t help.

    And btw: I am no “Dr.” Lessig, Larry, Lawrence, or idiot are all fine. “Dr.” is not.

  • jt

    I apologize for addressing you as “Dr”. It was purely a freudian slip. No disrespect intended.

  • Glenn Fleishman

    I admire the fact that you took the time — a la Al Franken — to review the transcripts and tapes to set the record straight. What’s remarkable to me is not that Bill O’Reilly is a propagandist who will state whatever he needs to for his own ideological and personal ends, but rather that he is so contemptuous of his own audience and historical record that he will pathologically fabricate inaccuracies and never correct them. I was stunned when he agreed that he was wrong about WMDs. But then he blamed it all on George Tenet, who is associated with Clinton, and thus able to be a target. Ditto, Louis Freeh gets a free pass at the FBI because Freeh was a Clinton critic even within his administration.

    This is never a right/left issue, and yet it is always constructed that way. When Al Franken or Molly Ivins is incorrect about something they typically admit it, but not always. When they don’t, I am as aggrieved at their factual inaccuracies as I am by anyone on the other side of the aisle.

    If Ann Coulter is wrong about something, why can’t she admit it when she’s factually incorrect? If Michael Moore is wrong about something–well, he was re-editing his film in days before it was shown. (It may still have inaccurate elements, but many of the elements that are widely reported aren’t in the film the way they’re reported.)

  • http://sethf.com/ Seth Finkelstein

    Big-time pundits know that their audience doesn’t care if they are accurate or not, that lying has no penalty.

    Just take Declan McCullagh for an example close to “home”.

    Accuracy is a virtue to liberals and intellectuals, who believe in the power of truth – it’s inconsequential to others, who believe in the truth of power :-(.

  • http://www.chrisashworth.org Christopher Ashworth

    I believe it is unfair and a disservice (as well as, dare I say it, inaccurate) to characterize accuracy as the province of only liberals and intellectuals. While it does seem fair to suppose that intellectuals would prize accuracy more than the average Joe, I wouldn’t want to claim that liberals can boast a better record in this respect than conservatives. I mean, maybe you could, but how does one measure that? I can think of many friends and acquaintences who are both conservative and also value accuracy. Moreover, I can also think of many friends who are liberal and yet may behave or speak without as much care for accuracy as they probably should. I know I’ve done it.

    It’s reasonable to expect that intelligent people who value accuracy will often come to different conclusions about the world. It’s a complicated place, after all. I feel like the real trouble is that critical thinking requires effort and training. Most folks, even though they may value truth, are probably not born with a proclivity for analysis.

    This, if true, would effectively mean that yes, lying may not have a penalty. But perhaps it’s not because folks don’t care about the lie. Perhaps it’s just because it can be hard to see past rhetoric and showmanship to see that a lie is taking place.

    I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I can’t imagine that the current polarization between liberals and conservatives will be helpful to us as a country as we continue truckin’ along into the next months and years and decades. It seems especially important to me to maintain a respect for the people watching and agreeing with the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world. Shifting the anger, or constructing broad categorizations wherein “truth is inconsequential to those I disagree with” is, I believe, only serving to put up another obstacle. Lord knows we have plenty of those already.

  • http://www.dilvie.com/reality/ dilvie

    I hapenned to be watching the interview as it unfolded. I wash shocked at the way Mr. O’Reilly behaved. I sat next to a friend who is normally an O’Reilly fan. He too was shocked by Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior. He thought it was totally unprofessional, even though he was, in fact, a supporter of the war and the Bush administration.

  • Dan


    All I know about political communication–and it’s not a lot–is that the impartial studies I trust show roughly equal rates of honesty or dedication to campaign promises in politicians of both sides (in fact, both Democratic and Republican politicians tend to stick, at least nominally, to their campaign promises far more than most people think).

    What’s crucial here, though, is that this administration has an absolutely terrible record of distortion and blatant lies; while Kerry, Clinton, and Gore all engaged in spin, this administration has manipulated the public (with, at times, the complicity of networks such as Fox) to the point that a majority believe falshoods about the War on Iraq (according to a U. of Maryland study, 45% of Fox viewers believed all three questions to be true: that WMDs had been found in Iraq, that there were strong ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that world opinion was predominantly on our side–three beliefs that range from arguable misconceptions to incontrovertible lies), manipulated them into supporting bad decisions, ignoring incompetance, and engaging in reckless and damaging courses of action.

    This is not, to me, a partisan issue. This is an issue of integrity and lies, responsibility and deceit. This is not, I hope, the blind rhetoric of a liberal hoping for his party to gain power (indeed, I am not overly fond of my own party frequently, as well). This is the outrage of a patriot at the liars who have controlled his country.

  • http://sethf.com/ Seth Finkelstein

    I didn’t intend to make it a Democratic/Republican partisan issue. Rather, consider, who believes that truth matters? Broadly, this is either:

    1) Those who believe truth is important for reasons of a love of knowledge itself – i.e. intellectuals


    2) Those who believe truth is some type of political empowerment (“know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”) – i.e. liberals

    If people take offense to my calling that second group liberals, note it’s almost always associated with a kind of rebelliousness against the status quo, from the powerless – people already in power don’t have to worry about political empowerment!

    Note also, I didn’t mean to say all liberals prize truth. But rather that the truth-valuers who don’t do it for intellectual reasons, do it for liberal reasons.

    Now, the key element here is that these two groups are quite small. Hence the *popular* success of those who adopt lying as a tactic. Whether they achieve success in realms dominated by intellectuals (which is not Fox news!) depends on whether the power they amass outweighs the disgust of most of their colleagues.

    Yes, there are issues where reasonable people can differ. But sometimes people just lie straight through their teeth, because they estimate it’s worth it overall :-(.

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    From the ad: “WE TOO WATCHED with shock the horrific events
    of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands
    of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible
    scenes of carnage�even as we recalled similar scenes in
    Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam.”

    That certainly sounds to me like they’re equating what terrorists did on 9/11 and what the U.S. did in “Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam”.

    I guess we could be disingenuous and say they’re only equating the visual scenes themselves, but I don’t think that was the intent of the comparison.

  • lessig

    I read the passage to mean: “even” though we (the US) too have committed acts that have killed civilians, “we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead.” Or is supporting those who killed on 9/11 the only way that one can believe that killing innocents is bad?

  • http://oknarb.web-log.nl Branko Collin

    It seems to me that the intent of the comparison is in the comparison itself: to demonstrate grief felt for suffering caused by violence. Of course, I am not a native speaker of English, so I may be wrong.

  • Mike Payson

    I don’t think that Seth’s point was so much that Lefties are honest, righties are not, but that Leftist PUNDITS are -generally- honest, right wing ones, generally not. Clearly, this is a oversimplification, and many on both sides break this rule, but it’s hard to argue that the bigtime pundits on the right are happy to play fast and loose with the facts when it suits them, but at the same time, they will call the leftist pundits (or politicians) on even the slightest error. Whatever the origin of this tendency is (Seth’s explanation sounds good to me, but who knows), it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t exist.

  • Phill H-B

    O’Rielly must know he is a liar and a fraud. What he is doing is projecting his own actions onto everyone else. Very little of what O’Rielly asserts has the slightest truth. O’Rielly is a hate monger and a demagogue. So when he accuses others of lying and being hate filled he is really talking about himself. He is effective because he can channel his deep seated guilt at having sold out every principle he might of had to the politics of Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove.

    Have some sympathy for his point of view. It can’t be easy finding out what you think every day by reading a fax from Karl Rove or Grover Norquist. One minute Sandy Berger is being accused of leaking confidential information, so such acts must represent the deepest perfidy known to man. The next minute its Republican Senator Shelby and you have to explain why telling Al Qaeda that we can intercept their communications is something that we should just let slide.

    Unlike Al Franken, O’Rielly does not understand humor, Fox news employees contracts require them to have their humor removed surgically when they join. If you look closely at the set of the O’Reilly factor you can see his stored in a little jar on a shelf. It is somewhat shrivelled up these days which is probably why Al Franken is beating O’Really in the Arbitron ratings for the 15-55 age group in NYC in his first three months on the air.

  • http://www.chrisashworth.org Christopher


    I actually agree with everything you’ve written. Both the record of the current administration as well as that of Fox News makes me furious. I share your outrage. I was merely responding to what I thought was an unhelpful generalization by Seth. However….


    I misinterpreted your comment, I’m afraid. As is probably clear, I took it to be in the context of a “blue/red”, “Democrat/Republican”, “liberal/conservative”, “us/them” distinction. My concern was over the problems that are so common with “us/them” distinctions. But I see that I misread what you meant; thanks for the clarification.


    Again, I wasn’t trying to defend any pundits…especially not Fox pundits (perish the thought!) Just trying to defend viewers from being lumped together and unfairly characterized as being somehow scornful of the truth.

  • Anonymous

    Wow. Here in NZ, the most fox we get is “Fox Friends” and I thought that was bad.

    “Shut up”? “I’m not debating this with you”? “Cut his mike”?

    Bill got owned. And if he’s still bringing it up a year later, then he knows it.

  • Nate

    I was speaking with a couple from England a few months back. They mentioned Fox news, which they get on satellite. They said they and their friends watch it occasionally for entertainment purposes, it is so absurd, but they are appalled at the thought that anyone in America takes it seriously or as a real source of news. They call it obvious propaganda.

  • Thomas

    Having read the ad and watched the interview, I have to say that I agree with O’Reilly (and with Mr. Glick, in the interview: “it’s actually a material equivalency”) that the ad poses an equivalence between the terrorist of 9/11 and the US. (I’m not sure that the difference between hating someone and “merely” accusing them of exploiting the dead is worth exploring, nor the difference between hating Mr. O’Reilly rather than his show.) In the interview Mr. Glick does make clear that he hold George H. W. Bush responsible for the murder of his father, because of the actions taken by G.W.H. Bush as CIA director. Further, Mr. Glick insisted that the current President Bush inherited that legacy–the legacy of responsibility.

    Lessig’s description of the interview is actually less accurate that O’Reilly’s, which is really hard to imagine. I mean, everyone knows that O’Reilly is a hotheaded blowhard, while Lessig is a respected law professor. But Lessig’s description of this interview just ignores what was said. I encourage everyone who reads this post to actually watch the interview and pay attention to what Mr Glick says. Mr Glick is the sort of deranged partisan who holds George H. W. Bush responsible for the actions of the Carter administration years after Mr. Bush left the CIA. Professor Lessig skips by all the trash in the interview–perhaps he doesn’t understand it (though he’s very smart), or perhaps he agrees with it–and instead focuses on O’Reilly’s recapitulation of the interview. O’Reilly’s taken certainly appears to exaggerate some points (Glick doesn’t look out of control during the interview, though things may have changed off camera. But many of the charges O’Reilly made are substantiated by the interview.

  • Jojo

    I’ve only watched O�Rielly a few times. Don’t really watch Fox “News”. But most thinking people know that O�Rielly is an idiot. Like others of his ilk, such as Joe Scarborough, their goal isn’t accuracy, but to stir up their base. It is unlikely that anyone who follows Fox news or similar shows is going to read anything tha tis going to draw them to this blog and they probably wouldn’t understand the issue anyways.

  • http://www.aaronsw.com/ Aaron Swartz

    For those who are curious about whether this whole “lying” thing is a recurrent phenomenon on the right, and for Christopher, who wonders how it can possibly be measured, you can check out the excellent Media Matters website, which documents conservative distortions in the media.

    The site’s been up for less than three months, but already a simple search for [o'reilly] brings up 84 results.

  • Medievalist

    Oreilly, coulter, limbaugh, all together have as much influence as Father Coughlin did. Watch your ass, Larry.

  • http://www.chrisashworth.org Christopher


    That’s a really interesting survey of the media, but what about everyone else? (On a tangent, is there a similar website run by conservatives? I’d be curious to see it…) What about water-cooler conversations and parties and lunches and office meetings and, don’t forget, we’re not limiting ourselves to political conversations, since we’re just talking about accuracy in general, not necessarily just in political discussions….

    I don’t mean to beat a dead thread that was founded on a misinterpretation, but I just can’t help pointing out that, really, something as broad as “accuracy is only important to group A” seems like a pretty hard thing to research. What’s an acceptable metric for accuracy, especially as it relates to a huge and poorly defined “group A”?

    That said, this is certainly not my field, so mayhaps there’s a perfectly good metric out there of which I’m completely ignorant. Anyway, I’ve officially gotten far afield from Mr. Lessig’s original post, so I’ll shut up now.

  • http://electronictiger.com mike weber

    Christopher says:

    That’s a really interesting survey of the media, but what about everyone else? (On a tangent, is there a similar website run by conservatives? I?d be curious to see it?)

    You might try http://spinsanity.org, perhaps.

  • James


    I’m British and what your friends say is exactly how I feel too. I cannot believe it passes for news out there and am gobsmacked at the behaviour of the presenters who talk over their guests constantly, shout, opinionate and make insulting comments regularly. I watch it because it is the only US feed we get 24/7, and so is readily available to get news from across the pond. Makes much better viewing if you mute it, watch the ticker and play the kind of tunes you find in elevators.

    No-spin-zone, more like no-manners-zone.

  • Anonymous

    There isn’t much that I can think to say other than Bravo.

  • dividedandconquered

    Nicely pit together account of O’Reilley’s inanities, invective, demonizing and ghastly lies. Why is this tolerated?

    And it was suggested that we’re supposed to respect the people who belive this stuff? My 15 year old daughter can see through this stuff – the adults who can’t are… what? Deluded, stupid, mean, troglodytes… what?
    You have to be lazy and mean to believe this drivel/bile – The people who diseminate falsehoods and propaganda should be called on their behaviour at every turn. It’s dangerous. He’s Joe McCarthy with his own tv show.
    These people seek to creat a divide where there is none because they are on the wrong side of a lot of issues and so are busy reframing the questions.
    We need that fairness in media law back. The one that Reagan did away with in the 80′s. That’s how Hannity, Limbaugh et.al. happened. Gotta’ change that no matter what!

  • HHZ

    Jane Akre, a Florida news reporter, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against FOX in 1998 after being fired for refusing to report a story she and producers knew to be false. In its’ defense, Fox argued that “there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news”.

    Personally I am surprised there are viewers using Fox News as their sole information source. Then again, I have a feeling that the same audience that is watching Bill O’Reilly also talk about Jerry Springer’s guests during dinner.

    That said, Yank’s need to really start thinking for themselves a bit if they want to stop their empire from crumbling. You did not declare war on al Qaeda, they declared war on you. They did not hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon to make Americans sad, they picked sites with strategic and economic importance so stop referring to it as a “terrorist” attack instead of a surgical strike. The casualties suffered at both sites and on the fourth plane are indeed terrible losses, but they are also collateral damage. Currently 13,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by the USA but rather than express empathy like you’ve shown for 9/11 victims there is only apathy and greed. You’ve brought this on yourselves by letting the wealthy, relgious, and power hungry control your government instead of forcing accountability. You let your dogs off the leash, they let theirs off the leash. Sucks to be you.

  • Thomas

    HHZ, all I can say is that whenever these monsters strike again, I hope they get you and yours. For you, it will be going out in a blaze of glory, I’m sure. I can only imagine the look on your face as you jump from your tower, or as your plane descends to your death! And at that time I’ll think: well, sucks to be you!

  • bondra

    For what it’s worth, I’m intellectually conservative and tend politically to support Republican candidates. I will vote for George Bush in November, albeit without much passion.

    I find Bill O’Reilly to be a noxious fool. Like excessively fundamentalist Christian leaders whose excesses merely advance the cause of irreligionists, O’Reilly (and those like him, such as Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest of that non-serious group) do little more than serve as straight-men for those on the Left who would deny the possibility of serious and responsible conservative political thought. He is an embarrassment to serious conservatives. And on the topic of Glick, Lessig is simply, apolitically correct — O’Reilly is making things up and using his position to unjustly crucify a guy who has more than suffered enough. Left, Right, Democrat or Republican — that’s just not right. Bill, please just shut up.

  • Alex

    I’m not familiar with the US law, but certainly in the UK O’Reilly would probably guilty of libel since it could be argued that what he has said is demonstably untrue and will have harmed his reputation. How about someone taking his case and sticking it to O’Reilly and Fox?

  • Fred Richards

    I’m a registered liberal but find myself agreeing with more centrist views… but that really has not much to do with what I have to say.

    I watch O’Reilly regularly, and I admire his intelligence and capabilitiy to debate… note, I don’t always agree with him, but it’s fun to watch. I have heard his recent views on the NYT, (a paper I must add, I do not read very often).

    I watched the interview from the clip here on the website. It scared me. They have waged “war” on the NYT? What’s next? Waging war on me if I disagree? I hope our government doesn’t feel the same way he does… I’d be afraid of voicing my opinion because of the backlash. Isn’t this what we just “liberated” Iraq from? Who’ll be here in the future to liberate us if things keep going like this?

    My last question… has Lessig ever appeared on O’Reilly? Has he ever been invited? Would he want to?

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Lessig,

    I admire your courage in attempting dialog with these propagandists. O’Reilly and his sponsors are truly a threat to our nation. I had almost given up in trying to communicate with those on the right who are totally blinded by years of reading their own propaganda. I have to go back to the 60s when I was a young boy to remember a time when we were this polarized as a nation.

    You words are encouraging, your arguments coherent and thoughtful. I’ve also been reading your works on patents, software, and copyright and was pleased to see you joining the board at the FSF. As a programmer of many years I know only too well the importance of what you are doing. I wish you nothing but success

    Kind regards,

    Bob Dionne
    Newbury, Vt.

  • Anonymous

    Larry, great job in getting the facts straight. The current crop of “loons” in the media can’t seem to keep myth from reality straight. I guess when these guys tell so many lies, over and over again it gets pretty hard to tell any more what is the truth.


  • Mike

    I disagree.

  • Mike

    Wow! I never knew how far left the far left actually was. Be careful out there so as not to fall off the edge of the earth, OK?

    While I’m not in favor of personal attacks, the lack of argumentative skills by some of the responders to this post amuses me. I find it ironic that some view Mr. O’Reilly as a demon. What I really find amusing is the fact that some host of a TV show rips at your liberal being and agitates you in such a way that you cannot think for yourselves. Very funny to me. You spin, he wins. I don’t agree with everything Mr. O’Reilly says, but if he’s got the goat of liberals, they must be worried. I don’t listen to anything Al Franken says, because I find his beliefs to be too far out there to have anything in common with me or anyone I know. He doesn’t agitate me because I pay no attention to him. I don’t worry about what he says. Yet all sorts of left wingers hate what O’Reilly says. O’Reilly, as with anything else on the tube, is “entertainment”. He’s a news analyst, not a reporter. If you view it as anything else, you need to get a life. Fast.

    All these “said nothing of the sort” comments is a bit extreme, and those are not factual statements, just your opinion of them. Technically you may could say Glick said nothing of the sort, but he heavily inferred the same thing you say he didn’t say, so in that regard, you’re spinning again.

    Hey, it’s your blog and your opinions, but that is a key point about your rants about Mr. O’Reilly…they are simply your opinions. As such, they cannot be wrong or right. I admire the attempt to display the ads and interviews so that “you report, we decide”. But you put your spin on things just as you’ve accused O’Reilly of doing. I’ve come to the conclusion you have some valid points of argument, but also you have some leftist bias in some as well, which cloud the unsubstantiated “facts” you so hope to convey. But, that’s just my opinion.

  • Scottie

    Fox news — always right, sometimes correct.

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    Since only a couple commentors said anything, let’s trying this again but in WWNCD? (What Would Noam Chomsky Do?) form:

    WE TOO WATCHED with shock “A”. We too mourned the “B” and shook our heads at “C” � even as we recalled similar “D”

    A = the horrific events of September 11, 2001
    B = thousands of innocent dead
    C = the terrible scenes of carnage
    D = scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam

    In the first order analysis, they’re comparing the scenes: B and C are similar scenes to D.

    However, Noam Chomsky would seek the deeper meaning, and he would say they were comparing what terrorists did on 9/11 to what the U.S. did in the places mentioned in D.

  • http://pekingduck.org richard

    But you put your spin on things just as you�ve accused O�Reilly of doing.

    Mike, there’s always going to be some spin; blogs would be mighty tedious if they didn’t take a stand. But there’s spin and there’s character defamation. There’s spin and there’s fantasy. There’s spin and there’s lying. If you watched the clip that Larry graciously provided and still say with a straight face that what O’Reilly did was a matter of mere spin, equivalent to the opining of Mr. Lessig in this post, then I’m afraid there’s little we can do — you’re an ideologue. As a former journalist and a dedicated follower and critic of the media, I can safely say that O’Reilly goes beyond any precedent for a television pundit (with the possible exception of Michael Savage, who was rightly dismissed for his excesses), moving from the zone of spin into an area that can only be described as criminal. Can you not see the distinction?

  • Austin

    you write that the ad does not equate the US to terrorists. You are either being disingenuous or you actually believe what you write. In either case, you write as if your opinion is fact. Although the ad did not literally accuse the USA itself of terrorism, that certainly seems to be the intent of the ad. Of course, that is just my opinion.

    However, the ad does equate the US to terrorists. That is a fact. You can attempt to explain it away and say that we misunderstand, but the statement ‘even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam’ equates the US to terrorists. To come up with a different meaning for that statement is to go way out of your way to explain it.

  • http://www.dinosaurtrainer.com Jay

    A human death is a human death. While the American people who have to fight the politician’s wars should be helped through the horrible guilt of killing, we cannot pretend, for their protection, that the thousands dead in Vietnam, Panama City, and Baghdad did not have families, did not have lovers crying at their death. While 911 was a horrific unimaginable tragedy to all Americans, the honest reaction is the same as that of an Iraqi widow: profound sadness. Not fear, not revenge. The world will suffer for too long because of Mr. Bush’s lack of strength and leadership after this tragedy.

    The cause of terrorism is US weapons, sometimes in the hands of the Israeli or Eqyptian governments, sometimes in the hands of US soldiers. Any statements to the contrary are prolonging the period of deaths. The neocon success at turning the tragedy of terrorism into a military industrial complex economic boom will haunt us for years and will only cause more people to become terrorists.

  • http://fanac.com TomB

    However, the ad does equate the US to terrorists.

    No, it equates the suffering that we felt when we were attacked, to the suffering that we have caused to others. It happened that we were attacked by terrorists, but that does not mean that warfare is equal to terrorism. Nonetheless, even legitimate warfare, played by the rules, causes suffering. The issue is whether the suffering caused by our policies is necessary. One could make the case that the American public supported the war in Iraq without fully thinking about the consequences. Raising the issue in an ad is legitimate debate.

    The problem with O’Reilly and his supporters is they cannot comprehend honest political discourse, let alone subtle nuances. They are always looking for the knife, or the smear, since that is all they know.

    Prof. Lessig deserves our thanks for taking a stand. I think he got it right.

  • Thomas

    TomB–thanks for standing up for nuance, but if Mr. Glick was making a “nuanced” argument, you’re out of your mind. You did notice that he’s crazy, didn’t you? I mean, beyond the pale, out of his f-in mind, like a fox, crazy. George H. W. Bush is responsible for the mujahadeen? His son inherited that responsibility? What kind of crazy stuff is this? How are these paranoid fantasies nuanced?

  • Jackson

    No, it equates the suffering that we felt when we were attacked, to the suffering that we have caused to others.So, you do not think that a reasonable person could believe that the add equates the US with terrorists? Larry is stating his opinion as fact. That, imo, is the problem with most liberals – they believe that their opinion is fact. For some reason, liberals think that they know what is best for me. I might agree with more liberal concepts if liberals were not telling me how to think and trying to take my money to pay for their agenda.

    Since you mentioned political discourse, do you see any problems with Moore’s movies or do you think that they are honest political discourse?

  • steven

    I’d like to touch on two things.

    1. The dialogue between seth and christopher.
    As a disillusioned conservative, I have to say that seth is onto something.

    There seems to be an increasingly dominant strain in conservatism that believes that might makes right. This vision of power ultimately views the truth as either a propagandist tool or a silly delusion that losers comfort themselves with.

    2. I do agree that the left is being less than forthright about the “moral equivalency” question, but moral equivalency is a term used by the right and it doesn’t properly describe the left’s position.
    The left is rightly contemptuous of the far right’s easy view that america is the embodiment of good in the world and that those with antagonisms toward us are pure unadulterated malignancy. The right wing has slipped into a very manichean view in which all the light is on our side. The left should be quite open about reminding people that our own history and behavior is more problematic than the simple visions of the right. I have seen no definition of terrorism that the US would not stand morally condemned by as well, whether it be killing innocents, brutalizing non-combatants, engaging in vigilante justice, acting outside of the bounds of international law, using weapons of mass destruction on civilians(people seem to forget that we are the only nation in history to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians using strategic nuclear weapons not once, but twice, and we slaughtered those civilians to demoralize the enemy). In truth, what we are really arguing is nothing more than that the state is the only legitimate practitioner of violence.

    If one is of the belief that ones enemies are pure evil, then by definition such people can have no valid grievances and they can have no legitimate interests. The facile dismissal of many people’s sense of being wronged by US foreign policy is a big part of what fuels hatred of the US and a willingness to resort to violence. Once someone becomes convinced that their interests will never be recognized as legitimate and that there is no hope that the other side(which holds a disproportionate amount of power in the world) will ever have anything other than contempt and disregard for their concerns, what remains is “its either them or us”.

    Once WE accept the pure evil malignancy argument there will be only one response from the state, the destruction of that pure evil. We set ourselves on a fanatical path that IS the mirror image of terrorist logic. Each side believes the destruction of the other is the only possible outcome because each side believes the other is unredeemable evil.

    In other words both sides have subscribed to a vision of the world in which their enemies are no longer human but demonic. Such a vision can only end in the destruction of one or the other or, more likely, the destruction of both.

    The left should keep reminding us that being civilized means refusing to be pulled into that fanatical logic and they should make this argument in a fully open way without talking around the point for fear of being condemned as “aiding the enemy”.

  • damien

    I must say I was shocked to see the way the Bill O’Rilley treated an invited guest on his program. It was unbelievably rude and crass.

    It would be interesting to draw Bill O’Rilley into a proper debate, with “fair and balanced” rules. You histrionics allowed, no interruptions, and no cutting of the oppositions mics.

    I dont understand why anyone would agree to appear on a Fox interview, given the treatment thats dished out.

  • RushingtoOblivion

    However, the ad does equate the US to terrorists.

    Of course it does, and it infuriates Americans (Liberal & Conservative) because it speaks of a unspoken truth, the American people have the blood of others on their hands.

    To admit such a thing would mean that America might have to change its foreign policy to something a lot less like “do as I say, not as I do”.

    The American Corporate government is not interested in spreading the basic tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights around the world, scarily they seem more interested in curtailing them at home. Bill O�Reilly applauds such actions and for that he should be demonized.

    I suggest that Mr. Lessig is being distracted by the personal nature of sensation TV, and his time would be better spent fighting the “Patriot” act than sparring with O�Reilly.

  • S Woodside

    Glenn Fleishman wrote:

    “What�s remarkable to me is not that Bill O�Reilly is a propagandist who will state whatever he needs to for his own ideological and personal ends, but rather that he is so contemptuous of his own audience and historical record that he will pathologically fabricate inaccuracies and never correct them.”

    What’s remarkable to me is that he has an audience at all. As a Canadian, I cannot understand the mechanism here. Do people in the US really prefer so much the drama of the program that they are willing to overlook the continual misrepresentation of fiction as fact?

    simon woodside

  • Arikawa

    While I don’t condone Mr. O’Reilly’s tactics, I do believe that Mr. Glick must share some responsibility for what transpired on the O’Reilly show.

    Like Jerry Springer, who leverages his combatants (read: guests) against each other and the audience for maximum dramatic effect, O’Reilly brought Mr. Glick on to his show to lambast him with his radical rightist views, to the titilation of his viewers. (A fact Mr. Glick was aware of, as seen by his preparation for the interview).

    To believe that the O’Reilly show was a forum for honest discourse was oxymoronic: O’Reilly is the host, controls the show (and the security detail) and the length of the segment. Mr. Glick had no outcome other than to be demonized for the pacification and validation of O’Reilly’s viewers.

    Mr. Glick would have been better served (and ostensibly renumerated) by sharing his views with like-minded listeners, or at least a moderated forum/debate.

  • Lefty

    When “far left” is used to refer to anyone’s viewpoints that do not include dismantling of capital, forfeiture of private property and redistribution of power to the masses, you know that far left must only be left of far, far right.

    Mike never listens to those who he disagrees with. That makes him less informed than someone like myself, who does. I don’t really care what he thinks, because I already know he will dismiss me right out of hand.

    Glick went on O’Reilly solely to make his first point, in the two or so seconds he knew he had before being shouted down, hoping to perhaps get his point-of-view to the small percentage of Fox News viewers who are unlike Mike and actually willing to listen.

    It’s a shame that centrism is now considered fringe. That the debate is no longer about capitalism or communism, but about capitalism or theocracy, with captialists being the left wing.

  • Anonymous

    The guy speaks with a lisp, too. I’m surprised Bill didn’t crucify him for supporting the degredation of our great moral society and gay marriage.

  • jt

    “What�s remarkable to me is that he has an audience at all. As a Canadian, I cannot understand the mechanism here. Do people in the US really prefer so much the drama of the program that they are willing to overlook the continual misrepresentation of fiction as fact?”

    I’ll tell you exactly why O’Reilly is so popular in the United States, which happens to be the same reason why I watched him for a while.

    The American people are dissolutioned with politics (and leaders in general). The whole Clinton/Lewinsky mess, Jim Traficant, Bush and the war, Halliburton, Enron, Global Crossing…etc. It seems as though every time one turns a corner they’re witnessing another scandal.

    O’Reilly comes across, ostensibly, as a product of a middle class family who worked his way up by his own merit. He *appears* to be the only figure on television that tries to expose corruption and dishonesty. (Many people love him for his watchdog actions regarding 9/11 and aid funds distribution). Regardless of whether you approve of his methods or agree with what he says, one can’t argue that O’Reilly at least *stands for something*.

    I don’t watch his show anymore, and I think he often loses control of his resoning abilities. Honestly though, I can’t help but admire him for his firm convictions and his willingness to defend them.

  • http://ennui.org/rone/ rone

    TomB wrote: “The problem with O�Reilly and his supporters is they cannot comprehend honest political discourse, let alone subtle nuances. They are always looking for the knife, or the smear, since that is all they know.”

    Thomas replies to TomB with: “You did notice that [Glick]�s crazy, didn�t you? I mean, beyond the pale, out of his f-in mind, like a fox, crazy.”

    No further comment.

  • Fenris

    I watched the interview… (thanks for the link, btw) and I have to say, Glick was doing his level best to interrupt, and initially trying to out-volume O’Reilly. I am no fan of O’Reilly, but the fact of the matter is, Glick was being very rude to O’Reilly until he had enough of it. Sure, it’s a silly show with a silly host, but it’s HIS silly show and HE’s the host… not Glick. Only after Glick repeatedly tried to talk over O’Reilly, and after O’Reilly tried to stop him without being a complete jerk, did O’Reilly tell him to “shut up.” Simply put, want to air your views and not answer questions from the host? Get your own show.

    Glick’s conclusions were textbook groupthink anyway. It’s not like he had some revelation to tell Bill (even Bill had heard them as well, I bet.) So in effect, Bill got angry at Jeremy for legitimate reasons. I don’t see it as a monstrous attack on Glick.

    A couple of points: Glick referred to the Al Qaeda hijackers as “freedom fighters trained by the CIA” on several occasions throughout the course of the interview. He immediately rebuffed O’Reilly each time O’Reilly mentioned terrorists. And Glick laid the blame on the Bush Sr. CIA for the whole problem in the first place. He said it, plain as day…. this was not a new argument, but Glick seemed to think no one had heard it before.

    Tell me honestly, if someone interrupted you on your show constantly, would you have handled it better? Perhaps Mr. Glick needs to realize as a guest, you don’t get to run the show.

    Just a thought….

  • James


    Rude as both parties may have been, I think the continued mentions listed by Mr Lessig show that this is far beyond the one interview.

    If blame can fall on the CIA for 9/11, I do not think it unreasonable for people (with emotions attached) to be able to blame them for the rise of al Qaeda following Afghanistan. Although the literature shows that its a more complex issue, it is still an assumption that one could quite easily make.

    Just my views, of course.

  • http://www.vs82.com Andrew Magnus

    If this forum is for intellectuals only, excuse me. I’m sure I could comb through this comment and ‘Harvard’ it up, but I’d rather just let it shoot… I just don’t get attacks from the left on the grounds this forum is trying to stand on.

    I watched O’Reilly live (taped) the night of the Glick interview. I completely understand being mad at O’Reilly for his unprofessionalism, this is a left-leaning blog and I wouldn’t expect to find any praise for O’Reilly or FOX under any circumstances. However, how can you possibly choose Glick as your poster child for framing an argument with O’Reilly??? Glick was obnoxious. Glick was not there to debate. Glick was smug, unresponsive and combative from the get-go. O’Reilly didn’t ‘baby’ him or cut straight to commercial like a true industry professional may have, but isn’t that why he enjoys the ratings and attention he gets?

    I have a feeling that the members of this blog don’t tune into FOX on a regular basis. Sure, you tune in to FOX a lot like I tune in to CNN; you just want a chuckle. I like that O’Reilly will unleash on a knucklehead. I don’t like how Larry King Live is the first place anyone that needs a softball interview will run to. I like that a left is paired with a right in nearly every FOX segment. I don’t like when I flick over to CNN to find the desk personality in a one plus one interview. In my opinion, it should be one on one. And even if O’Reilly puts his tongue in his cheek to ‘argue’ with a Republican about something, it leaves me with a feeling that a debate is framed with both sides represented. I find it disingenuous (spelling please…) for people to complain about O’Reilly’s singeling out of Glick for his rants all while you single O’Reilly out for your tirades on inconsistencies. I think I am able to step outside of my political beliefs to decide for myself who’s more right in this issue. Should O’Reilly go hard after the New York Times over this? No. Is the Times more out of line to represent the Glick interview as a standard episode of the O’Reilly Factor? Yes, absolutely.

    But will ONE person please attempt to explain this to me: Left-leaning ‘journalists’ at the Times hammering O’Reilly but not any of CNN’s embarassing ‘interviews’. Where is CNN on Theresa Heinz claiming within seconds that she did not say “Un-American”? Where is the debate from the left concerning the editing out of all of Kerry’s positive comments about Bush from ABC and CBS townhall style specials? Is deceipt by omission worse than deceipt out in the open? I don’t need these questions answered, I have the answers stored away already. But where is the debate from you people who claim that you seek honesty and truth above all else? All of you who claim that you are not being partisan about this critique. Those of you who explain your backing of leftists becuase they correct their lies after they publish them, please show me where Michael Moore admits he totally lied? And if you are willing to twist the 9/11 commission’s findings from ‘no operational connection as it concerns 9/11′ to ‘no connection whatsoever’, why still lay claim to Moore’s first strike in Fahrenheit (the Bin Laden flight)? Will someone please push some links to where the truth seekers in this forum have objected to leftist falsehoods, I’d be very interested.

    Andrew Magnus

  • http://uspolitics.about.com/ kathy gill

    This is a most interesting thread and I thank Larry for initiating it.

    First, I was educated as a journalist and I join the prior voice that O’Reilly’s behavior was rude and beyond the pale. “Shut up!”?

    Second, to the person who thought Glick was rude, I ask: how would you propose to “answer” O’Reilly? Glick studied O’Reilly’s methodology and learned that a guest has only about 10-13 seconds to get a word in edgewise before being cut-off.

    Third, regarding “the ad” — it does not say what O’Reilly says it does. As this thread shows, there are various *interpretations* of the ad — but it does not SAY (quotes) what O’Reilly says.

    Fourth, part of the dialog in this thread is representative of the black-and-white thinking that characterizes the Bush Administration. You’re either “for us or against us” — dissent is unpatriotic and treasonous. “Good v evil” … “security v peril” … the dichotomies in the rhetoric are widespread.

    I’d encourage everyone here to visit http://www.propagandacritic.com/ .

    If you’re interested in exploring this fundamentalist thinking, I recommend a new book by a colleague at the University of Washington, God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, The “War on Terror” and The Echoing Press. I read most of it on a red eye last night.

  • mark

    Alex says (above) that under UK-law a libel suit can be succesful. The same goes for Dutch law. Maybe what we call ‘laster’ (defamation?) is harder because that requires indeed that the person stating the facts has to know that these aren’t true (but is this criteria not objectivated?, i.e. that a person as O’Reilly who runs a political show, can be reasonably held to be able to interpret clear statements in a veritable way, meaning that this suit can be won by Glick as well), but a suit on the basis of ‘smaad’ (libel) has a lot of chances because that is for accusing someone of facts thereby harming good name and reputation. I would think that there is an equivalent in US-law.

    It is another question whether you want to settle this dispute in court (the way Outfoxed is showing the events is maybe a more effective method), but I think that Franken’s legal advisor wasn’t right.

  • Andy Jones

    I’ve just watched this clip and caught his show a few times on digital telly over here (Britain). Let’s face, if you disagree with him on his show then you get shut straight down.

    Someone mentioned here he was an analyst, not a journalist. How’s he supposed to analyse anything if he cut’s off people’s mic because they’ve said something he disagrees with?

    At the end of the day, he’s a nut-job who just intimdates guests, or ends whatever discourse might have happened if he’d been prepared to even LISTEN to what the other person has to say.

    It would probably be bearable to watch if he was the same with all guests, but you can blatantly tell his political leanings just from watching like 3 interviews the blokes made (I have no knowledge of him other than his show, and it looks like my interpretation of him was right ;)

  • Harry Porterfield

    I think it would be fun to attach a blood pressure monitor to Bill during his show and you could watch his b.p. rise, fall and spike during his show. You could put it on a ticker on the bottom of the screen along with his pulse rate. I wonder how high it gets and if so, how long until he gets a heart attack from the stress he puts on himself. Or maybe he has this Hannibalistic zen/psychopathic ability to keep it low and he’ll out yell and outlive us all.

    Lessig, You and Jennifer G. are still my heros.


  • stopping by

    i was browsing the comments of this page and something kind of struck me as funny. a couple people seem to think it’s some sort of blasphemy to equate Panama City, Baghdad, and Vietnam to the 9/11 thing. it may be hard for some to grasp but they are similar…just because the other three didn’t happen here doesn’t make the innocents killed any less human or worthy of living a longer life then they were allowed.

  • Nomen Nescio

    Thomas wrote:
    “George H. W. Bush is responsible for the mujahadeen? His son inherited that responsibility? What kind of crazy stuff is this? How are these paranoid fantasies nuanced?”

    Thomas, Glick was refering to this information:
    “Bin Laden Comes Home to Roost”

    Don’t forget that we supported with money, training, and arms the Mujahideen who were fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. That is what Glick was refering to.


    Bill Oreilly is a Master Spinmeister and Master Manipulator of public opinion and unethical in his practicioneer of professional journalism and news correspondence.
    Concerning Moores debate with Bill O’rielly. Read the following.


    “Way to go Billy………….. Ya’ fricken DipSHIP!”

    What many people have failed to realize is that Bill O’reilly is consciously self-awared that he can and does manipulate public opinion simply by constantly repeating the same expressed point over and over and over and over and over and over and over until calls start flooding his phone lines in accordance with what he wants the listening audience to agree with. This is why when someone is make a valid point opposing his view, O’rielly will cut them off, immediately so that point of view doesnt reach “his” listener. O’rielly is just as shrewd as he claims Micheal Moore to be.
    Abruptly telling his tech-guy who operates the audio to “Turn him off! Turn down his mic! Turn him off!”
    This is the reason why Bill Oreilly is trying to downplay how the debate between Micheal Moore and him went. He knows Moore humiliated him and shut him up, so now he must try his hardest to do damage control concerning his humiliation. Because he isnt confident of what happened. Because today, on July 29th, 2004 he has his own supporters telling him the debate was a stalemate or it could have went either way. Bill claimed he received 25,000 emails concerning the debate. Bill states claim that some of Moore’s followers & listeners wrote in. How come Bill O’reilly didnt read some of the emails from Moore supporters, followers, or listeners?????? How come????? Because Bill is trying to manipulate the public into believing he won that debate. If he truly did win the debate he wouldnt need to try and manipulate public opinion concerning the results of who he thought won. Now would he?
    Billy needs desperately to downplay the heart of the matter at what Moore was getting at: asking him would he send other people’s children to secure Fallujah. {Not to even mention a war based on lies, false claims, and unfounded information} This is exactly what George W. Bush Jr did!
    If you notice O’reilly had to sit and ponder a response to Moore’s question concerning sending kids to Fallujah because O’reilly knows the moment he does answer that question by agreeing to sending kids to Fallujah his very own followers would finally realize he is a heartless callous spindoctoring journalist who premeditates his answers to ultimately manipulate and win over public opinion. For support. Billy O’reilly doesnt just have his own opinions. He uses premeditated calculated responses in order to manipulate and convince people of his ideas. This is why I said he doesnt speak from his heart and doesnt feel compassion for H U M A N B E I N G S dying on a battlefield. And if you disagree with him he will denigrate you and attack your ability to reason with yourself. This is supposedly to serves as warning to other people from objecting whatever idea he is trying to convince the masses of.
    Oreilly does not answer from the heart, and he is a callous and soulless individual who would get other peoples children killed in war. A war we now know was founded on lies and misleading information.
    [Someone lied intentionally in those many reports that claimed Saddam had WMDs. That lie was given to Bush Jr. Bush then lied to the American people to get support for the war. O'rielly doesnt seem to get that through his skull.]

    It’s not rocket science and Bill Oreilly needs to avoid the simplicity of that fact alone and get into technicalities to divert the fact that over 900 human beings have died over false, deceptive information and he himself agrees to this war!!!! When Moore ask Bill why did we go to war in the first place Orielly’s response was to remove an oppressive regime or evil dictator. O’rielly knows this was not the original reason we went to war. The original reason was because the so-called intelligence communities claimed Saddam Had WMDs. If O’rielly knew thats the original reason why didnt he state that response to Moore’s question of why we went over there??????????????? Because he was spinning and dancing away from the original reason for war.

    [Which we later found out was deceptive, misleading, and false information given by the C.I.A.]

    Not because Saddam sits on top billions of dollars of oil.

    O’rielly gave the back-up answer to Moore’s question concerning why we went to war.
    So Just as Oreilly claimed Moore is shrewd, Oreilly was just as shrewd in NOT responding. Because Oreilly does the same thing when debating other people. So the same thing Oreilly is claiming of Moore he needs to admit to his followers he does exactly the same thing. He answers politically while people like Moore who are humanitarian in their persona are simply concerned for the well being of H U M A N LIFE. As well as concerned for those risking themselves for causes UNWORTHY, FALSE, DECEPTIVE, INCORRECT WRONG INFORMATION.
    Moore is awared of O’reilly’s manipulation of public opinion so Moore effortlessly backed Oreilly into a corner in which Oreilly had to PLEAD THE 5TH! This is why Oreilly lossed the debate. Moore shut him up!
    Name another person O’rielly has debated who shut Orielly up like that! Oreilly did not answer his question because O’reilly would have to adhere to agreeing to sending people into a war that was founded on lies & false information. Such as going to Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein for weapons of mass destruction that didnt exist. The end result once US troops got there found NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. OVER 900 TROOPS DEAD OVER FALSE MISLEADING TRUMPED-UP INFORMATION. ALL LIES. HAD WE HAD TRUE INFORMATION THOSE 900+ HUMAN LIFES WOULD BE SPARED. O’REILLY CANT SEEM TO GET THAT POINT THROUGH HIS OWN THICK SKULL. OR HE DOESNT CARE ABOUT THE LIFES. YET HE’D RATHER TRY AND STEER A DEBATE AWAY FROM THOSE FACTS THAT FALSE INFORMATION PUT CHILDREN OF AMERICANS IN THE GROUND, IN CASKETS!!!!!!! THIS IS THE HEART OF MICHEAL MOORE’S CONCERN AND THIS IS WHY MOORE IS GETTING SUPPORT FROM FOLLOWERS. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY CONCERNED FOR THEIR CHILDRENS LIFES. Oreilly had to run away from answering that because he would have exposed himself as a heartless soulless individual who doesnt care about the life’s of other people and he doesnt care about those people getting killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless its his own child, because Oreilly WOULD NOT SEND HIS OWN CHILD TO WAR, he would rather send himself. Which is what he said. Oreilly must be concerned for his own hypothetical childs life if he wouldnt send his kid into war. This is why he would not answer Moore’s question ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Because he would show everyone he DISAGREES WITH WHAT BUSH JR DID. O’rielly doesnt blame Bush because O’rielly agrees with Bush’s policies, period. So O’reilly steered away from answering that and said he’d send himself. Classic spinmeistering on O’reilly’s part vs. Michael Moore.
    Now its the second day since Oreilly got exposed as a spinmeister and Oreilly is still talking about the debate with Moore. Its clear that O’reilly himself is unsure of how he came off because he continues trying to downplay Moore’s question to him about sending children to Iraq to secure Fallujah. By O’reilly continuing to talk about that specific question he pleaded the 5th to, it becomes clear as to why he keeps bringing up why he didnt answer it. Because he is feeling some insecurities about how the “debate” went. If he was certain it went well he wouldnt have to continue saying, “I’m confident with what transpired.”
    Continuing to say that denotes insecurity on Billy’s part.
    O’rielly cant let it go because he stalked Moore for two monthes, claiming to people Moore was scared to debate him. Then when he catches up with Moore in Boston he hounds him to come on his show and then walks away unsure whether he won the debate or not.
    Now, That IS Funny stuff!
    What should be apparently clear in anyone’s mind who watched Moore totally destroy O’reilly on Oreilly’s own show on July 27th, 2004 is that #1. Oreilly is unconcerned about loss of life of US troops because its not him risking his own life. #2. Oreilly clearly demonstrated hesitation for premeditation to manipulate public opinion, plus save-face, upon answering a simple “Yes” or “No” question.
    If you watch Oreilly today all he is doing now is trying to convince everyone how the debate went. “Bill the debate went as expected. You got walked into a brickwall like a boyscout walks an old lady across the street!” Get over it and move on. People saw what happened. You know firsthand what happened. Now get over it. Period.
    Remember people. Oreilly is the same guy crying about people personally attacking Bush Jr. and how they get no respect from him for personally attacking Bush. Then Oreilly personally attacks Micheal Moore by calling him a “fat tub” when he saw Moore walking down the street near the democratic convention.


    Lie, (n) 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.—v. lied, ly-ing, lies.

    Orielly claimed Moore was lying about Bush by Moore stating Bush lied to the American public about WMDs.
    But the above definition supports Moore’s claims about Bush being a liar and lying to the American public, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Orielly is wrong. Moore is correct.
    Moore gutted Orielly laid out his innards for all to see what Bill is truly about.

  • http:www.christopherhuffman.com/chris/ Chris

    Umm, Larry, I think you just got comment-spammed!

  • dano

    Regarding the references to Declan McCullagh way up at the top of the page, let’s not forget that it was Declan McCullagh who converted Al Gore’s statement that he was an early supporter of the Internet into the “I invented the Internet” fabrication that was quickly picked up by the media and the spin machine and used for the subsequent 18 months to smear Gore.

    Declan was the creator of the lie. At the time he thought it was hugely funny and he was quite proud of the way it spread across the ‘net and then into the non-Net media. He really enjoyed seeing what mischief he had wrought, and he never did write about any regret for having created what was arguably the biggest smear the right wing used against Gore in the campaign.

    It seemed to me that Declan McCullagh had more to do with GWB winning the election than Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly combined, because without that single lie that Declan created and spread across the net, none of the following smear would have been possible.

  • http://www.vs82.com Andrew Magnus


    Probably think you slam-dunked McCullagh there, but you’re wrong. Gore didn’t just say that he was an early supported, he said, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” That is a direct quote, no converting there.

    And it’d be one thing to catch Gore in one slippery statement. He said this crap consistently and was called on it by people it insulted and yes, people who had political reason to call him on the carpet for things he said. That isn’t smearing, that’s politics. Gore was playing politics in taking credit for taking the initiative to create the Internet, and McCullagh was playing politics when he put it out there for everyone to laugh at.

    Think I’m nit-picking? Nobody made Gore say crap like, “I certainly learned a great deal from 3,000 town hall meetings across my home state of Tennessee over a 16-year period”. That’s a meeting every other day over that 16-year period.

    And if you’re a Gore fan, besides feeling sorry for you, I have to ask: when does it stop becoming a coincidence that these statements almost make sense if VERY carefully explained away and when does it start becoming a pre-planned attempt by Gore to mislead us??? Be real, he says this junk on his own. Quoting him is not smearing him. Nobody sets him up for this, he plans it out ahead of time and says it with a straight face.

    One point I never saw given enough attention in my mind was this: Gore was unable to carry Tennessee. People talk about picking a VP based on his ability to pull a region, or at least his home state into their column. Gore couldn’t carry his own home state, what does that say about the man? The people who know him best would not select him. It’s obvious that dano is stuck in November 2000, and that is sad. That’s a lonely place to be stuck, surrounded by bitter whine-bags and crying about the ‘selected not elected’ Bush. Give it up. Gore was a joke and everyone should thank God (or nature, I don’t want to offend the Dem base) that Gore didn’t find his way into office. Step outside of your political affiliation and seriously consider what Al Gore would have done after 9/11. NOTE: if you can’t picture what he would have done, or if what Bush did and your hatred for Bush come to mind first, look up how Gore and Clinton reacted to terrorist attacks on American interests abroad throughout the 90′s.

    Argue with me dano. I know you won’t change your mind or admit you’re out of line calling McCullagh a liar and blaming Gore’s downfall on him, but I would like to have your wiggling on the record in this forum.

  • A Brit

    To all other Brits who say we use manners on TV: pull your heads out. You’ve clearly never watched Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman who speaks louder than any guest he’s ever had to answer skewed questions purposefully leading the interviewee and audience. This is the same tactic used by Mr O’Reilly.
    To the ranting loon who wrote a thesis on Michael Moore: Please do yourself a favour and check out http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html and possibly http://www.spinsanity.com But PLEASE do your own research before trusting anyone (print media, celluloid, and ether) who makes any form of profit by discussing news/politics/etc. This goes for CNN, Fox, Time Warner, the lot.
    Anyone considering the Bill O’Reilly show as ‘news coverage’ needs a reality check. He’s no more than Larry King with a more politically slanted, angst-ridden agenda to sell. Are these the same people who learn about things watching Jerry Springer? It’s entertainment, pure and simple. Agree/Disagree with Bill, makes no difference as its his show. Don’t watch if it angers you. Flick on Will and Grace (unless you’re a homophobe).
    Fox News got a base of viewers tired of hearing Ted Turner’s take on things in America (my opinion, nothing more). Incorrect? I’m sure they are sometimes but I don’t watch news programmes without a pinch of salt in how the newsreaders face and reactions are skewing my perception of the story.
    On that point, a recent survey of journalism students said 57% were going into the field ‘to make a difference’. Not to be unbiased, not to just read facts, but to make a difference?! They want their own stamp on things just as Mr Moore and Mr O’Reilly do. How journalism has changed over the years………..

  • bbridges

    I personally know Jeremy; we’re both in PhD programs at the same university. He is a brilliant, careful thinker. He had enough experience with Bill O’Reilly’s “interview” style to know that anyone who disagrees with the host will have the opportunity to get out maybe one salient point and he came prepared to say that. O’Reilly doesn’t interview anybody; he uses right-wingers to puppet his views and lefties as foils so he can pontinficate. His “questions” are usually long monologues. I believe that if the network would allow it, he would just blather on incessently for an hour. Furthermore, I find it enlightening that O’Reilly finds it treasonous and unpatriotic to criticize the president or government; oddly, he didn’t feel the same way when Clinton was in office, and I’m sure that he’ll 180 that position when/if Kerry is elected. It would be so bad if he weren’t such a pompous pseudo-intellectual lightweight–at the very least, Pat Buchanan is intelligent.

  • Jack Dominey

    Andrew Magus:

    Gore didn�t just say that he was an early supported, he said, �During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.�

    That’s an accurate quote as far as I know. Thank you. Now why do you characterize it as “a slippery statement” or “crap”? It’s not. At worst, it’s a politician blowing his own horn. By any reasonable standard, it’s absolutely true . Don’t believe me? Try this on for size:

    Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet

    The flaming liberal Gore-lover who made that statement? Newt Gingrich.

    For full documentation, see http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

  • Michael

    As a Canadian, I cannot remember when the US was so rancorously divided in its opinions in a presidential election year; when the personal and smearing attacks against Democrats were so prolific. It seems there is something seriously wrong with your country’s political elite. You have a lazy and facile Nero when a tactically erudite Domitian is required; you have the raucous caw of neo-con harpies on the television; and you have the constant, politically expedient and demoralizing ‘terror alerts’ whenever ‘Dubya’ needs a boost.

    O’Reilly, like Coulter & Limbaugh, are NOT journalists, they are comic caricatures – organs for the State as Pravda was for the USSR. He is a buffoon who, unfortunately, has a large, televised and cleverly masked bully pulpit from which to vomit his bile.


  • Kai

    To even mention Paxmen in the same breath as O’Reilly is an insult to a truly great journalist. Whatever you think of Paxman’s aggressive style, he uses it on every guest before him, regardless of political leaning or their position on the argument in question. Everybody that he interviews walks out of the studio having said more than they wanted. They invariably end up hating him, too.

    If both sides hate you you’re doing something right. He’s an obnoxious so and so, but he’s absolutely nothing like O’Reilly.

  • David

    …when the personal and smearing attacks against Democrats were so prolific

    Let’s be fair and balanced, shall we? While there are certainly unjustified attacks against Democrats, and this nation has indeed become severly polarized, it doesn’t follow that one side is pure and innocent. The personal and smearing attacks against Republicans has reached a fever pitch as well. As a Libertarian I am able to distance myself from the debate and view both sides objectively. From what I see, neither the Dems or the Reps have much moral integrity left. The politics here have become one of shouting lies back and forth, with biased media on both sides gladly acting as megaphones.

    O’Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh may not be journalists, but then again, neither are Franken or Ivens…

  • josh

    “You have a lazy and facile Nero when a tactically erudite Domitian is required”

    Are you serious? The rule of Domitian over Rome was one of conquest and terror by a dictatorial government. His rule ended when he was assassinated as a tyrant.

    I’m not a huge Roman history scholar, but I do know I’d rather not have the US follow the same path Rome did.

  • Foxtrot

    “I guess we could be disingenuous and say they�re only equating the visual scenes themselves, but I don�t think that was the intent of the comparison.” — The Lonewacko Blog
    Yes, we could interpret it that way. In fact there are many disingenuous ways of interpreting the ad. Another would be to assume that it accused the nation of terrorism. That is why it is inaccurate to state as fact either interpretation. All that is clear about the statement is that it juxtaposes terrorism on 9/11 and US action in Baghdad, Panama City, and Vietnam. The nature and intent behind the statement can be anything from calling the US a terrorist nation to a simple hint that the US is also responsible for violence. It’s in the eye of the beholder. I believe Lessig was trying to illustrate this point. O’Reilly took this statement and interpreted it as far to the left as he could, then offered HIS interpretatiion as GLICK’s interpretation. It is in this way that O’Reilly overstepped the prudence of an ‘analyst’. The Lonewacko is correct, however, in beginning his statement with an admission that his statement to follow was an interpretation. “That certainly sounds to me”. Had O’Reilly said that, he would be in the clear.

  • Foxtrot

    “…the ad poses an equivalence between the terrorist of 9/11 and the US.”
    “In the interview Mr. Glick does make clear that he hold[s] George H. W. Bush responsible for the murder of his father” — Thomas

    The ad offers the 9/11 attacks and the US foreign activity in proximity to make some point of similarity. The point is not stated and is unclear. The meaning behind the statement as commented on by Glick himself in the interview “it’s actually a material equivalence” is telling. What is the material, the substance, that makes up terrorist activity? Death. What is the material, the substance, of the US activity in the nations mentioned? Death. That is sufficient equivalence to merrit the statement in the ad. One has no basis to project that there was any more equivalence intended by the statement. To voice such a projection without explicitly stating it as oppinion is invalid, and that is what O’Reilly is guilty of.

    In the interview, Glick makes it clear that he believes the actions of Bush senior and the legacy inherited by Bush junior are relavent to the debate about Iraq. He never had a chance to fully illustrate why he kept bringing up Bush. The real reason could very well have been that the terrorist attack of 9/11 was partially due to our foreign policy, one which has often consisted of violence, one which directly effected Afghanistan during Bush’s service in the CIA, and one that is currently offending a large majority of Middle Easterners, some happily signing up with the terrorist opposition as a result. I don’t think it is unreasonable to add Bush I and II to the debate. O’Reilly’s reaction, one of immediate dismissal is more telling, in my opinion.

    Had Glick had a chance to finish his explanation, perhaps he would have said that engaging in a cycle of violence is a waste of resources. Perhaps he would have commented on how as a victim of 9/11 he was crushed that the government chose to divert attention to Iraq with Osama still at large. Who knows? Now some that signed the ad may have had different ideas, some may have been conspiracy theorists that thought the Bush family planned and implemented 9/11 via their ties to the rebels utilized in Afghanistan. There is no evidence that this was true of Glick.

  • Foxtrot

    In regards to the post “by Mike on Jul 25 04 at 10:30 AM”…
    It is good of you to point out how passionate points of view can often get in the way of rational thought. It is unfortunate that much of your post contained such passionate misconceptions.
    First of all, I would suggest that you diversify your news intake. If you don’t listen to someone just because they don’t agree with you, you are doing yourself a disservice. I personally use news.google.com to reference multiple news sources (even the Washington Post, owned by News Corp, which owns Fox and O’Reilly) because I like to see what lots of people are saying, get the big picture.
    O’Reilly stated something as fact. There are a list of things that he claimed were said by Glick and by the Ad. “Technically you may [be] could say Glick said nothing of the sort…” Which is why you cannot claim the opposite as fact. Obviously you see that O’Reilly’s statements were interpretations. So he was in the wrong by caliming them as fact. But when Lessig positions himself counter to O’Reilly’s statements, that doesn’t mean he’s trying to claim that Glick had all the right, altruistic intentions. That would be “left-leaning” spin. He’s saying that no such specific intentions can be offered as fact. He’s saying that the conclusions O’Reilly offered were not valid, they required a leap. That leap was the assumption that Glick was as far to the left as possible given his statements. To say this is not spin. It is counter spin. Lessig is not spinning what was said in the Ad or by Glick, he is saying that O’Reilly’s conclusions could not be reached, that O’Reilly was adding spin. Your anti-spin arguments work more effectively if you turn them on O’Reilly in the first place. You are attempting to do to Lessig what Lessig has done to O’Reilly and I’m sorry but it doesn’t work that way.

  • Foxtrot

    Thanks to rone for pointing out Thomas’s slip better than I was about to.

  • Foxtrot

    “That, imo, is the problem with most liberals – they believe that their opinion is fact.” – Jackson
    That, IMO, is the problem with most PEOPLE. Observe the rediculousness of this situation. Glick states an oppinion (in the ad). O’Reilly interprets that oppinion to mean more than is says and states his oppinion as fact. Lessig states that O’Reilly was incorrect in jumping to those conclusions. Which of the 3 interpreted someone else’s words and stated their own oppinion on those words as fact? The only one definately guilty of that is O’Reilly. It appears even a few of the O’Reilly fans are agreeing with that. Lessig’s statements countered O’Reilly’s statements. Lessig says O’Reilly cannot jump to those conclusions. Lessig offers no conclusions of his own as to the meaning of Glick’s Ad, only that O’Reilly was wrong to offer his own conclusions as fact. So, we can clear this all up with a couple questions for Lessig.
    Mr. Lessig, would you say that the conclusions offered by O’Reilly were sound conclusions based on the content of the Ad and of Glick’s verbal statements?
    Mr. Lessig, could you prove that Glick does not think the US is a terrorist nation nor that George H W Bush killed his father based on the content of the Ad and of Glick’s verbal statements?

  • Foxtrot

    “Glick was being very rude to O�Reilly” – Fenris
    I disagree. When O’Reilly has a man who lost his father in 9/11 and signs an antiwar ad on his show, whose views are we interested in hearing? What is the typical dynamic of an interview for that matter? Whose answers are we trying to hear? I wanted to know what Glick was trying to express. I think we all wish we had a better idea. That’s what we’re all arguing about here, right? So why don’t we know? Who was interrupting who? They were both stepping all over each other in conversation. They were both guilty. But who was being irresponsible there? As an interviewer, O’Reilly was being a terrible host. We don’t know what Glick was thinking because he never had a chance to say. He never had a chance to say because O’Reilly wanted to interject his own thoughts on the matter. “Glick�s conclusions were textbook groupthink anyway. It�s not like he had some revelation to tell Bill.” Well, but he’s the guest. He’s the only one of the two who won’t be on the show next time. We know O’Reilly’s views because IT’S HIS SHOW. He’s there every week. We know he supports the war. We know that. We know his opinions on Bush. So why must he interrupt his guest to say it? Did Bill have some revelation to tell Glick? To tell US? What was it? No one’s asking that, because no one cares. Everybody knows what O’Reilly thinks because O’Reilly makes sure you hear it. Glick however lost his chance to clearly convey his message to us via the Factor because of the behavior of the host. Because O’Reilly prevented him. We might have known exactly why Glick signed the Ad if he’d had the chance to say. Shame on Bill O’Reilly for denying us that answer.

  • Anonymous

    I just caught `Outfoxed’ in Australia, and it was quite the eye-opener. Jeremy sure has some courage.

  • Anonymous

    Think Bill O’reilly is bad? Check this out — John Kochensparger is personal friends of Virginia Senator George Allen, National Republican Senate Campaign Director Jay Timmons, Virginia Governor apparent and current Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, Congressman Eric Cantor.
    He was the Republican candidate for sheriff in Alexandria, VA He likes to rub elbows with all these Republicans who know the following about him YET CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING:

    He gave a woman an STD; she contracted cance as a result. He had (at the very least) an internet correspondence relationship with an underage minor girl. Did he go further? His wife threatens legal action against anyone who tries to find out. He likes to wear women’s lingerie

    He is a party in a lawsuits in the Distric of Columbia Superior Court. The girl’s mother settled out of court to protect her daughter The man is an asshole. Can we humiliate him and his Republican cronies?

  • http://dfdsf mary

    Listen, you can attack Bush, O’reilly, or any other republican all you want, but lemme ask you something….are you really helping America? All anti bush activists should be ashamed of thereselves call the military terrorists its disgusting. Liberals should get their act together before critizing a man who wanted to fight terroism. So think before you talk


  • http://www.InfinitumX2.com Tom Wilson

    To bad GWB has the same IQ that a Organ Grinder and his Monkey has. GWB is not a “BAD” guy just a VERY Ignorant one. He’s the last guy on this Planet that should be running OUR Country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Since you support him I must assume you are JUST AS IGNORANT AS HE! TOO BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @#$&*%$

    I just love watching “the loons” get absolutely unglued with Mr. O’Reilly’s remarks.

  • resul the bushkilla – still the same bushkilla

    @ this blogger/user – why you kill my comments???? this is my opinion about the 911 inside job – by the 3rd time, once again: ……..bush is wanted for high treason……..

    here is my e-mail adress, take it, and say bush, how he can get me; if he had cojones, then lets fight, me vs. him (bush), all day, everytime…..i never knewed to fear, i dont scared of anybody; my respect is only for the one and only mighty ALLAH (r.a.), the creator of everything…..

    tötet bush und alle republikaner weltweit, tötet zionisten und alle, die für bush und seine lügen sind, tötet rupert murdoch, tötet alle fox news moderatoren, tötet alle, die den weltfrieden gefährden…..

    …..leute, lasst uns alle zusammenkommen, und weltweit, reiche (u.s.) republikaner ausfindig machen und eliminieren…..es gibt für sowas keine sünde von gott, denn wenn diese schweine tot sind, ist alles friedlich….

    ….lasst uns alle zionisten suchen und töten; ich rede hier zwar offen, dadrauf scheiss ich; denn wer will mir das verbieten; wenn ich einen einzigen wunsch habe, dann ist es diesert – ich will george w. bush herausfordern, ins sparing mit mir zu gehen, und sportlich und fair zu boxen…..ich würde ihm sein nasenbein in sein mickriges gehirn rammen; bei meiner ehre, ich würde es tun; aber bush ist ein schisser, der hurensohn ist eine ausgeburt der hölle…..seine mutter, sein vater, seine frau und seine kinder sollen alle sterben, getötet werden……..

    …..scheiss auf diesen blogg und tötet bill o’reilly, alle fox news leute, alle republikaner weltweit, tötet rupert murdoch, diesen teufelsbastard aus den tiefsten tiefen der hölle……

    ….ich bin seit 1 jahr eine “geheime” organisation zu gründen, um meine/unsere ziele zu erfüllen; ich bin mir sicher, dass in einigen wenigen jahren die welt wieder uns, den ehrlichen leuten gehört, bzw. wir, die ehrlichen menschen werden als einzig der welt gehören, der rest muss eliminiert werden…..bald haben wir genug kraft gegen diese teufel……

    …..an alle reichen islamischen länder (auch gute und ehrliche christliche länder) – haltet alle zusammen, hört auf für amerikaner und juden die hunde an der leine zu spielen…..der ganze öl-reichtum der erde gehört uns moslems, keinem feind, keinem amerikaner, keinem zionisten/juden, keinem rep. und keinem fed., ich bin türke, aber ich scheisse auf türkei, solange sie der nato angehört…….hört auf die westlichen spione und terroristen zu unterstützen, ihr dummen moslems……entweder seid ihr gegen das böse, oder ihr seid das böse, es gibt kein dazwischen – nimmt eure plätze jetzt schonmal ein……….macht alles, um diese schweine zu stürzen; tötet sie, lasst sie töten, verschleppt sie, foltert sie, erpresst sie (der wahrheit willen), zersetzt ihre leichen in säurebädern, lasst keinen entkommen…..

    ….ich freue mich auf zusammenarbeit….bitte meldet euch unter meiner e-mail adresse für kontakt:

    [email protected]

    und nebenbei, warum streicht ihr nutten meine comments, habt ihr alle angst vor den bastarden wie bush, oder seid ihr bewusst auf der seite der lügen, auf der seite der korruption, auf der seite der mörder und terroristen???!!!???……..

    …..mfg….an alle ehrlichen menschen weltweit, an alle moslems und an alle christen, entscheidet euch für das richtige……kämpft gegen alle, euch hassenden, verräterischen menschen…….selam kardeslerime……gruss an meine brüder und schwestern welweit….haltet alle zusammen……

    …..by resul…..

  • http://raspberryketonesource.org/ raspberry ketone supplement reviews

    Having read this I thought it was rather enlightening.
    I appreciate you finding the time and energy to put this information together.

    I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and leaving comments.
    But so what, it was still worthwhile!

  • http://Iloveitwheneverpeoplecometogetherandsharethoughts.Greatsite,continuethegoodwork! sixpack shortcuts review honest

    Is there an update to this?

  • http://Iloveitwheneverpeoplecometogetherandsharethoughts.Greatsite,continuethegoodwork! sixpack shortcuts review honest

    Thnaks alot


    y. cdThe story is told by a group of paramedics at a convention in New
    Orleans; it is about the force used to keep them (and others) from
    leaving. giam can an toan sau khi sinh | giảm béo an toàn sau sinh | phuong phap giam can an toan | giai phap giam can an toan | giam can an toan khoa hoc | lam sao giam can an toan | giam can sau sinh |


    an extraordidddnary collection of stories from New Orleans. Most
    extraordinary among the lot was the clear picture it gave of the work by
    some bit of government down tắm trắng an toàn hiệu quả tphcm | tam trang an toan hieu qua nhanh nhat | tam trang an toan hieu qua nhat | tam trang an toan va hieu qua | tam trang an toan ma hieu qua | tam trang an toan gia re |