O'Reilly out of control

By Mark Crispin Miller for Take Back The Media

Here is the transcript (slightly doctored, we are told) of Bill O'Reilly's infamous televised attack on Jeremy Glick, which occurred on 2/4/03 on "The O'Reilly Factor." It's followed by the pertinent press release from Not In Our Name (NION).

I think it's time to speak out loud and clear against such thuggery. Especially since, just days before he shut Glick down, O'Reilly had had the gall to charge Michael Stinson, of takebackthemedia.com, with attempting to deprive Rush Limbaugh of his First Amendment rights. (Stinson has been organizing the campaign to get advertisers to stop sponsoring Limbaugh's hateful show.)

An outcry being in order here, for the sake of both democracy and peace, we ought perhaps to think about a like drive against Bill O'Reilly. Let's put it to GOP, to Roger Ailes, to O'Reilly's advertisers: _Do_ they believe in freedom of speech? And do they prize civility in public discourse? Good questions, well worth asking.O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your
father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate...

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country...

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

Not In Our Name (NION)
www.notinourname.net
NION Media Office

2-6-03: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fox News’ Bill O'Reilly Threatens Physical Assault On and Ejects a 9/11
Family Member From His Show

On February 4th, during a live interview on the Fox News program "The O'Reilly Factor," media personality Bill O'Reilly verbally attacked Jeremy M. Glick, a signer of the Not In Our Name "Statement of Conscience" whose father was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Bill O'Reilly has referred to the signers of the Statement as "anti-American" and has said they should be "held accountable" for the expression of their dissenting opinion. After cutting short the interview Bill O'Reilly threatened Mr. Glick, a professor at Rutgers University and teacher in the state prisons system, with physical violence.

The following day, Bill O'Reilly continued his attacks on Mr. Glick by falsely claiming that Mr. Glick "was out of control and spewing hatred." The transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor" itself shows that these statements are wrong. What Mr. Glick said was "Why would I want to further brutalize and punish the people of Afghanistan…” “The people of Afghanistan … didn’t kill my father,” and the CIA “…that trained a hundred thousand Mujahedeen” bore some responsibility. Mr. Glick remained calm, focused and dignified throughout the entire show. The video shows it was Bill O'Reilly that lost his composure. After the interview he told Mr. Glick to "Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f**king pieces!"

Mr. Glick was invited to the Fox News show after the January 27th appearance of Miles Solay, a NION Project spokesperson. Solay's interview was prompted by that day’s publication in the New York Times of the Statement of Conscience, which has been signed by over 50,000 Americans, including Howard Zinn, Susan Sarandon, Edward Asner, Martin Sheen and Cornel West, to name a few noteworthy signers. The Statement, which Le Monde called the "sacred text of the anti-war movement," has been published in over 40 journals and newspapers across the US, and 7 countries internationally.

On the 1/27 show, Bill O'Reilly challenged Mr. Solay that "Nobody signed this from September 11th." Mr. Solay pointed out that Jeremy M. Glick, among others who had suffered family loss on 9/11, had signed the Statement. Mr. Glick accepted an invitation to the show to explain why he had signed a document that reads in part: “We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do.” During the interview Mr. Glick endured verbal barrages like, "I don't really care what you think,” “…so you keep you mouth shut,” and "Shut up. Shut up. Shut up."

Bill O'Reilly's “literal ’cutting’ of Mr. Glick’s speech is consistent with the current administration's "watch what you say’ policy of intimidation," says an organizer with the Not In Our Name Project (NION). The NION Project, an effort that shares the politics of the Statement of Conscience is organizing mass resistance against the government’s global war campaign, attacks on civil liberties, and detentions and roundups of immigrants. The group has turned out hundreds of thousands of people around the world since October 6, 2002 to protest and take the "Pledge of Resistance," which includes: “We pledge alliance with those who have come under attack for
voicing opposition to the war..." NION plans to actively participate in the worldwide protests against the war on February 15th, in New York City.

Despite his recent statements such as "I like a robust debate" and "dissent is good," Bill O'Reilly's verbal attacks and abrupt ending of the program by cutting off Mr. Glick's microphone demonstrated otherwise. Several members of the show’s staff apologized to Mr. Glick, and expressed concern for his personal safety, stating that there might be a “situation” if he and the host were to meet face to face. A NION organizer stated, "We stand with Mr. Glick in fighting the encroaching climate of hostility toward people who oppose 'a war that will last a generation'. This is an example of a
political attempt to terrorize dissent."

# # #

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE "NOT IN OUR NAME" STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE

February 6, 2003

Government Newspaper Yanks Anti-War Ad

Stars and Stripes Accepts, Then Rejects "Not In Our Name" statement(New York) Stars and Stripes, the Department of Defense’s official newspaper for servicemen and women overseas, pulled the Not In Our Name statement of conscience from their Wednesday edition at the last minute.

The statement was to have run as a full-page paid ad on February 5.

The Not In Our Name statement, signed by over 50,000 people including artists, public intellectuals, and local elected public officials, has already appeared in over 45 newspapers across the United States. The statement and a list of its signers is available at www.nion.us.

Stars and Stripes advertising executive Michael Hiesener said that “we feel it would be inappropriate for us to profit from the publication of both pro and con war messages.” Hiesener conceded, however, that Stars and Stripes has run "support the troops" ads in the past.

Clark Kissinger, coordinator of the Not In Our Name statement, said “Servicemen and women overseas have a right to know that public support for a war on Iraq is both thin and eroding. They also have a right to hear the content of the criticism of the administration’s policy.”

Kissinger said that Stars and Stripes had earlier received and approved the content of the ad. The paper sent an invoice for the ad to the statement office and accepted their check for $4,250 to pay for the ad.

Melvin L. Wulf, attorney for the statement group, wrote to Stars and Stripes demanding that they honor their contract. "Having accepted the offer by NION to place the advertisement in Stars and Stripes, your refusal to publish the ad is as plain a breach of contract as one could imagine."

Wulf added that "The Department of Defense ought not try to insulate our troops from that knowledge; indeed, it is important to our basic democratic principles that the wide and growing opposition to the war be circulated as broadly as possible."

The pulling of the critical ad follows on the heels of First Lady Laura Bush "postponing" a literary symposium at the White House when she got word that anti-war poems might be read.

The Not In Our Name statement describes the current atmosphere as one in which "the government has brought down a pall of repression over society." It cites the remark by White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer that people to "watch what they say."

--30--