Unfortunately, I couldn't get the dratted audio to come over my computer - but, before I go and get my tech-savvy step-sonish creature to figure it out, perhaps it would be good for you to define what you mean when you say that O'Reilly is a "nasty bully".

Examples of same?

Why? I mean, what's the point? If you've never seen him yell at someone, call them names, or cut them off without giving them a fair chance make their point, what am I going to tell you?

I don't consider it a debatable point that he's sometimes a bully and, like most bullies, is sometimes highly defensive. And no, my view of that is not based on whethere I agree with what he's saying or not, in fact, sometimes I'm mortified that he's taking a position I agree with solely because he is such a jackass about it.

I like how he defines spin. And he spins, by his own definition, less than most talk show hosts do. But he does spin, does twist facts, and goes ballistic when someone catches him doing it.

I listened to the interview, Dean, and I think I have to disagree with you, my friend. To me it seemed like the whole interview was about having Bill O'Reilly explain himself when some other person "found" him lying or spinning or whatever else. The interview was suppose to be about his new book. Not, "Lookie here someone says they caught you lying! What do you have to say for yourself?"

If I were Bill O'Reilly, I'd be annoyed too. And you can bet the interviewer gave Moore a cakewalk interview. I used to listen to NPR fairly regularly but since the beginning of the war with Iraq and the months leading up to it... it's been one leftist agenda after another. Heck, I could only get mildly "fair and balanced" reporting from NPR when it aired BBC News.

But before Bill O'Reilly, our standard for a "hard-hitting interview" on cable was Larry King! For this alone he deserves our gratitude . . :-)

Kevin's right. Terry Gross is a skilled interviewer, but is also tremendously biased and dishonest.

When she admitted her bias, he should have pulled that thread and destroyed the sweater:

"Why are you more adversarial with me than you were with you were with Al Franken?"

"Do you agree that your failure to challenge his contentions as forcefully as you challenge mine reflects bias and dishonesty on your part?"

"Now that we agree your leftist bias interferes with your listeners' opportunity to hear both sides of any given story, what do you plan to do about it in future interviews?"

"Will you commit here and now to scheduling a follow-up interview within three months, during which we can publicly discuss your progress?"

I agree with the assessment that O'Reilly can be a bullying jackass at times. Terri Gross on the other hand usually seems charming, intelligent and often conducts very engaging interviews. It took a nasty O'Reilly however to get to her mousy little admission that she did in fact give him a far more hostile and negative interview than she did Al Franken. So there you have it -the interview process at npr is deliberately unfair and we'd have never known it if not for O'Reilly. On O'Reilly's show he'd tell you up front that he didn't like the person before he dished out a negative interview. I'll take that anyday.

Can't stand him either, Dean. The only real danger O'Reilly poses, however, is the potential pinched nerves, scratches, or broken bones caused by the lunge for the remote control when he comes on the air.

I had to explain him to my daughter once. Being the perceptive little bugger that she is, she asked, "umm, Mom, is he a liberal or a conservative?"

I responded, "Neither. He's a populist."

Then we got to explain what that meant.

His arguments are never based on anything other than what O'Reilly FEELS. There is never a Constitutional basis for his opinions--never the long view, etc. As a former public school teacher (although he taught for only a couple years) he's thoroughly wedded to ideas which involve other people having the right to tell people what to do.

He says what he thinks his viewers FEEL or what is popular, and never challenges them to accept what is RIGHT.

O'Reilly is a bit of a conundrum to me. I have many friends who watch his show, most love the guy and others love to hate him. I've been in both camps - I greatly respect his crusade against the child molesters of NAMBLA, and his junkyard dog determination in holding charities responsible for how they use funds donated to them (something that came into focus after 9/11); and yet I cringe when he gives an interview. Does he even prep for these things? It's all invective and volume. The no spin zone should be re-named the "no one but O'Reilly spins zone". The man is basically an upscale version of michael savage, minus the intelligent arguement.

O'Reilly is a bully, with a pulpit. But he showed Terry Gross was a passive aggressive twit, with just as much of an agenda.

I never listen to O'Reilly, because when I've surfed by his show he just bothers me. I listen to Terry all the time, she is the best interviewer out there - better than, but in the same vein as Larry King. She usually is very good at getting the Interview subject to display themselves on the radio. In my opinion, she had O'Reilly on with the intent to shade how O'Reilly came across, with the intent to bring him down a peg or two.

Unlike any other interview I've heard from her, Terry was armed with text to injure the public perception of the subject, not to allow the interviewed to explain his work or persona. The result was a hostile cross-examination, the first I've really heard from her. Terry took on O'Reilly in order to brow beat him with Al Franken's book - O'Reilly made her "sound" like an ass, and a dishonest one.

I've listened to her weekend repeat of the interview, and she goes out of her way to explain the last zinger she intended to ask O'Reilly. She did not, IMHO, understand that she was confirming just what O'Reilly stated when he hung up. Unfortunately, she either does not see her own dishonesty, or worse, like many on the left, she views her dishonesty as honorable in the battle with the "right."

Terry underestimated O'Reilly, he is the expert at the ambush interview, and she could not trip him up with in his own game.

It is astonishing how Terry Gross' interview backfires on her as much as on O'Reilly.

I never cared much either way about O'Reilly although for awhile I was amused at his interview style with guests who often got away with spin and avoidance in other interviews. But his grossly inappropriate and irresponsible attacks on defense attorneys in his crusade against molestors was the last straw for me.

Dean,

Oh, I see....

I've only watched O'Reilly a few times as I dislike the format of a few minute interview in which no one can really develope their ideas before the commercial....BUT...

From what I've watched, the only people O'Reilly denigrates and treats badly are people who (a) wont answer the actual question posed or (b) are clearly liars. Its ok to be rude to such cretins.

You know who one of O'Reilly's biggest heroes is?

Bobby Kennedy.

I'm just saying.

O'Reilly is a boy. Tim Russert is an adult. This is an adult swim.

Tim the Soldier

Tim, concur, Russert is the premier interviewer.

I heard most of the Gross interview and will dissent slightly. Agreed that she didn't allow him to discuss his book, but O'Reilly has made such an issue of his supposed honesty and consistency that I think she was trying to at least get him to look at it.

O'Reilly may be a populist, but he is certainly a bully. He cut the mike of a guy who lost his father in the WTC bombing and shouted at him as well.

"From what I've watched, the only people O'Reilly denigrates and treats badly are people who (a) wont answer the actual question posed or (b) are clearly liars. Its ok to be rude to such cretins."

Then you've never seen him interview anyone with an intelligent take on the War on (Some) Drugs (e.g., Jacob Sullum).

As Mrs. du Toit says, O'Reilly is a populist, and has no discernable principles other than what he subjectively perceives is "good for the folks."

Streak, Gross was not trying to get O'Reilly to look at anything, she was there to skewer him. She took Franken's book as gospel, and set the whole interview as a point by point prosecution. O'Reilly handled the cross-examination, and got his prosecutor to admit to being biased. In a courtroom, if O'Reilly was on trial for perjury, Gross just lost the jury. The only person convinced that Gross showed O'Reilly to be untruthful, is someone who went into the "courtroom" with that opinion.

Gross was preaching to the choir, she did not beleive that she needed anything other than Franken's book to skewer O'Reilly. Instead O'Reilly proved her bias, and had an answer to every attack she made on his veracity. When Russert wants to take someone down, he does his research and does not rely on a hack like Franken. The interview proved only one thing, Terry Gross had no respect for O'Reilly to begin with, and her disregard back-fired on her, as she did not have a single independent fact other than Franken's book.

So which blow-hard do you believe, Franken or O'Reilly?

(Actually, I thought Franken's interview with Gross was funny in the same sophmoric way a prank phone call is funny, but I did not buy a single "fact" he posited.)

I just listened to the Salam Pax interview, and didn't intend to listen to the O'Reilly interview. Honestly, I think the guy's a bit over-the-top, and I rarely (er -- almost never) watch his show. I did for a few weeks, before September 11th, and a few times after.

He knows what he's doing when he interviews people. He may approach his guests from a populist political persuasion, but I've never seen an interviewer who obviously knew his material - and his interviewees - so well. He seems even meaner than he is because the usual platitudes don't fly.

That doesn't mean I agree with him. I think he's wrong about half the time; and right the other half, but for the wrong reasons. Still, I've read one of his books, and couldn't find any egregious example of hatchet-wielding or axe-grinding. In his book, the populism is of a kind rarely on display; his message seemed to be that average Americans are good enough and smart enough to succeed in life, if they work hard and don't buy into victimhood.

Ms. Gross is not that sort of populist; in fact, her interviews generally rub me the wrong way when they don't actually have me grinding my teeth in frustration, wishing there was an IRS form for itemizing tax expenditures, just so I could specify that neither she nor her station get a dime (or a millionth of penny, or whatever) from me. An interview with two participants, when I'm a fan of neither, and significantly bothered by the puerile ideological mannerisms of one in particular?

Puh-lease.

But having read the above descriptions, I find myself, much against my original intention, preparing to click Mr. Esmay's link. Does Ms. Gross adhere to Al Franken's talking points? Does Mr. O'Reilly come across as the jackass - excuse me, "lying liar" - Mr. Franken's title implies? I don't have to like the guy to know that he's not the golem that anti-Fox News Channel apparatchiks describe in their diatribes.

But now I have to listen to the interview just to see what all the fuss is about. (Geez, you people are terrible for my productivity. Mr. Esmay especially, for bringing this whole thing to my attention.)

I can only take O'Reilly in small doses. He is at his best in his adamant and accurate opposition to NAMBLA, ACLU, and Jesse Jackson. But he is unbelievably thin-skinned when someone criticizes him. Hey, Bill, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. I thought he completely overreacted in the NPR interview. The interviewer did keep pushing him, but she was never rude, distorting, or unfair as some interviewers can be (eg. O'Reilly for one).

I'm glad to see most people here seem to agree with my sentiment but there are a few things I'd like to address.

Mrs. du Toit, you're flatly wrong particularly on the "There is never a Constitutional basis for his opinions" part. You noted that he did teach for awhile. He was a history teacher. As he stated in his interview, he's also got a copy of every letter sent between (I think these are the two) Jefferson and Madison. He knows what the Constitution says and indeed its spirit. He is also keenly aware of the intentions of its framers.

And who are you to say of O'Reilly, "He says what he thinks his viewers FEEL or what is popular, and never challenges them to accept what is RIGHT"? Do you have some secret insight into what is really right? That's a neat little double standard you got going on. Seems to fit you well.

Streak: You stated, "He cut the mike of a guy who lost his father in the WTC bombing and shouted at him as well." If this is the interview I believe it is, O'Reilly already addressed it. The guy was a nut. He was attacking the Bush Sr. Administration in addition to the current Administration and was making crazy accusations. O'Reilly cut him off. Look it up.

People may have their problems with Bill O'Reilly but I've NEVER seen an interviewer so quick and willing to correct himself when he is proven to be wrong. He doesn't fight about it once it's shown to be true. While it may be hard to get him to that point, and I think it's understandable if only because of that Gross interview, he will go there. He also holds himself to a very high standard and, as other have noted, knows what he is talking about and is very clear on the positions of others. He expects the same level of knowledge and excelence from others and with good reason. I suppose those who knock him because he's "rude" or a "bully" just aren't up to the challenge.

Steve,

No, Brian Lamb is the best interviewer....

I tried listening last night, after my comment, above. I got exactly one minute into the program, while Ms. Gross was still performing her introduction, and had to stop it.

At 0:16, during her introduction, Ms. Gross observes:

"O'Reilly was one of the subjects satirized in Franken's book, and in our interview with Franken." Oh, boy.

I actually found my sympathy for him increasing in the closing minutes of the program. O'Reilly called her on what she was about to do, and then she went ahead and did it anyway. The effect of reading the People magazine excerpt at the tail end of her interview makes her look like the victim, but the preceding 39 minutes put the reality of the situation on display. It's the same type of character assassination that O'Reilly spent the first ten minutes describing to Gross, who kept doing it anyway.

oooh...Brian Lamb IS good. Still, Tim Russert asks the more difficult questions. I'd put George Stephanaphalous a close third.

Tim the Soldier

I still disagree with those who are goind after Gross in this interview and defending O'Reilly. I have watched his show too, and find him dismissive to a fault. If he doesn't like someone at the beginning of an interview, he rarely gives them any room. He is better than Hannity, but his rude habit of cutting people's mikes is obnoxious.

Look, part of the reason that Franken went after him and why I think Gross went after him was that he claims to be "fair and balanced" while refusing to recognize his own biases. I don't disagree with everything he says, but his arrogance is palpable as is his self-righteousness. If he is rude to his guests, then how can he get mad when someone interviews him tough?

Personally, I don't trust Russert. He has been incredibly soft with many politicians and often refuses to actually challenge their talking points. For my money, Brian Lamb is best.

Bill O'Reilly: Wants everyone to like him. Or at the least, BE LIKE him. Why else would he complain (a) because the NYT wouldn't interview his book and (b) when Gross DID interview him she skewered him? Feh. Can't have it both ways, Bill. And his stunning misrepresentation of the NYT review of Franken's book? What a crybaby. Oh...and self-absorbed! Talk about someone who takes himself WAY too seriously.

As for Terry Gross: It's her show, guys. Seems to me she can conduct whatever interview she wants. O'Reilly complains that they're not talking about his book? Tough shit. It happens all the time, to everyone of every possible political persuasion. That's the risk you take to flog your book.

Streak: rudeness and dishonesty are two completely unrelated things.

Streak and Ara: if NPR didn't make nauseatingly clear during every one of their pledge drives and most days in their commercials that they consider themselves the Bearers of Truth, it wouldn't much matter how dishonest Terry Gross is.

So long as she continues the bias and deception she's openly admitted to, and so long as my tax dollars help to fund that deception, then she is negligent in her self-appointed duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers who fund her salary. I couldn't care less how objective O'Reilly is. I don't even get cable.

NPR isn't government radio. The public radio stations buy it (with your donations), but government radio it ain't. Semantics, but an important difference.

The name is confusing--which, I suspect, is intentional.

Just thought I'd clear that one up.

Let me clear it back to where it was. 50% of the support for Public Radio is from individuals, with the balance coming from corporations, trust, and--yes--the Federal Government. There was a huge effort by the Gingrich Congress to eliminate all government funding for NPR, along with the National Endowment for the Arts. That effort failed.

So long as any portion of my tax dollars are used to support NPR--and they are--they have a duty to me to support their nominal and repetitively-stated goal of objectivity in reporting.

After hearing the O’Reilly interview the other day I had to go and give Terry another listen and so I checked out her interview of Aaron McGruder, a black syndicated cartoonist and the creator of the boondocks cartoon strip. The interview begins with McGruder, making some valid and intelligent points about his dissatisfaction with rap / hip hop culture in general and Terry just sort of allowing him to explain himself with very little interruption. No problem. Then McGruder seems to place blame for the black gangsta culture on white Hollywood films like “Scarface” and “Casino” and Terry offers very slight resistance to McGruder’s claim only adding that some of the earlier black made films had violence and crime in them too. No questions about why this gangsta thing is so specific to black culture or why other people who see these movies and even listen to rap music don’t seem to get involved in the criminal activity the way the black community does. She just gives him a nod the whole way through.

Terry shows her true skunk stripes about two thirds of the way through the interview when McGruder claims that the Sept 11th attacks were the fault of the federal government and then proudly talks about how his comic strip jokes that Bush is like Hitler except that Hitler was democratically elected and that Ronald Reagan is a terrorist because he helped fund Osama in the 1980s. Terry apparently felt that this warranted no response, no further questions on the subject and no challenge. All she said was “didn’t you think you should tone it down a little because so many people had died?”

It is obvious that Terry approached the O’Reilly interview as an adversarial one and this interview as a friendly one. This was basically an unchallenged speaking engagement for Aaron McGruder. Terry should have told us that up front