Then the judges made the awfulness even worse.
Stunning all fair-minded people, they ruled that the Snyder family actually had to pay the Westboro loons more than $16,000 in court costs. At first I thought the judges had been compelled to do that by law after overturning a judgment. But no, it was a discretionary decision. On the Factor, attorney and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly sided with the judges, explaining that it is “customary” for the loser of an appeal to pay the winner. Megyn further explained that Al Snyder was late in objecting to the judge’s ruling (Snyder’s attorney denies that), so you can’t blame the judges.
I can’t blame the judges? Of course I can. They made the wrong call on appeal and rubbed the Snyder family’s faces in it. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment! The interruption of the funeral was an extreme case of blatant wrongdoing. It’s not some run-of-the-mill civil beef. A man’s son is killed, and vile people mock his death at the funeral? And judges who have the power to punish that action do not? And then actually reward the evildoers? Where are we…in North Korea?
Megyn Kelly thinks I’m a Pinhead because I don’t consider legal precedent, and she’s right, I don’t. The three federal judges did not have to charge the Snyder family court costs. But they did. I don’t give a damm about three robes hiding behind law journals. They did the wrong thing, morally. They could have legally set aside the court cost issue, but they did not.
Reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the court’s action, to borrow some of the most stupid words I’ve ever heard from a judge. And I do disagree.
There comes a time when American judges should simply do the conscionable thing. Our justice system was designed to right wrongs, but Pinheads who often see themselves as guardians of the legal gate pervert that intent.
Still believing in the American system, the Snyder family is taking the case to the Supreme Court, where I am hopeful reason and justice will prevail. There is no question that Phelps and his thugs wanted to hurt the Snyders and all other military families. If the judges don’t get that, they should resign. There is a right and a wrong here, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals embraced the wrong.
By the way, I offered to pay the Snyder’s court costs should the system come knocking on their door. I simply will not let this injustice stand without some kind of response.
And there’s one final note that I want to send directly to Judges King, Shedd, and Duncan. When told the Snyder family did not have enough cash to pay the court costs, Westboro’s evil pastor, Fred Phelps, told the press that the family could cover the expense out of Matthew Snyder’s federal death benefits. How does that sit with you, federal judges?
HUME-AND-KINDNESS HATERS
Sometimes the debate over whether a person is a Pinhead or a Patriot gets complicated, and such was the case after my Fox News colleague Brit Hume delivered some advice to the scandal-ridden golfer Tiger Woods.
The Hume-Woods confrontation began when Brit, speaking on FNC in his capacity as an analyst, said this about the golfer.
Brit Hume: He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
Well, you would have thought Mr. Hume had recommended devil worship to Mr. Woods rather than forgiving introspection. The Far Left press went wild, branding Hume a religious fanatic who was trying to impose his belief system not only on Tiger Woods but on everybody. MSNBC and the Washington Post led the gnashing of teeth.
In response the conservative Washington Times editorialized:
If there were any doubt that much of the media is hostile to traditional Christianity, that doubt has been drowned in the wake of a vicious verbal assault on FNC’s Brit Hume after comments he made about Tiger Woods. The histrionic fulminations against Hume for his inoffensive expression of faith expose an ugly strain of anti-religious bigotry that is spreading inside this country’s liberal establishment.
On the Factor, I interviewed Hume, who denied he was proselytizing and said he was simply giving Tiger Woods advice that he believed might help him.
I know Brit Hume and believe him. He meant no harm, and certainly his advice falls under the definition of legitimate commentary. Yes, Brit is a committed Christian, but so what? He correctly stated that in Buddhism there is no emphasis on redemption, because there is no concept of “sin.” He also clearly explained the Christian tenet of forgiveness and the relief that concept might bring a person caught up in indiscretions. Finally, Tiger Woods is free to take or leave any advice offered, so what’s the big deal?
Despite my stated logic, some good people disagreed with Brit, placing him in the Pinhead category. I received thousands of e-mails on the subject.
Nancy, who lives in Connecticut, wrote, “Religion is such a deeply personal issue that I feel making a discussion topic of someone’s belief system is wrong. If Mr. Hume wanted to reach out to Tiger Woods, he should have done so privately.”
William from Alaska put forth this: “I was shocked by Brit Hume’s tirade. His favoring Christianity over Buddhism is unconscionable. Mr. Hume has proven himself a bigot.”
Gary, who resides in New York City, also was disenchanted: “Fox News Channel is no place for that kind of ‘advice’ from a respected newsman. Wrong place, wrong subject, wrong time. I think you should have nailed him on that, Bill.”
But why, Gary? Brit was doing exactly what he gets paid to do, give his opinion. In this case, the analysis was theologically based, but again, why the angst? Tiger Woods had major trouble in his life. The discussion was about how the man might mitigate that trouble. Brit Hume simply gave him an option.
So in my opinion, Brit was not, in that case, a Pinhead. I do understand, however, how some folks might think that he denigrated Buddhism, certainly a legitimate religion. My analysis is that Brit simply stated one big difference between Christianity and Buddhism and how the former might help Mr. Woods in the forgiveness realm. Brit was putting forth his theory and opinion, which he is certainly entitled to do.
Brit Hume isn’t the only Fox News person who folks are cheering for and against!
Corbis Corporation
Photographed by Shepard Sherbell
The critics of Brit Hume fall into two basic categories: those who believe he overstepped the analysis line and bashed Buddhism, and those who think he has no right even to mention a Christian solution to a complicated problem.
The Buddhism critics have a legitimate point of discussion, so they are Patriots for speaking their minds. The Christian objection smacks of censorship and bias, so those who embrace it are Pinheads.
As for Brit Hume, he took the heat, articulated his case, and didn’t back down. He also bears no malice toward those who criticized him. So he’s a Patriot.
It comes down to this: it is always Patriotic to stick up for your core beliefs, as Brit Hume did. But some of his critics, who were sincere in their dissent toward what he said, were also sticking up for their beliefs. So even though disagreement was in the air, so was Patriotism on both sides.
But those who hammered Hume in personal ways, trying to brand him as a fanatic or worse, are obviously Pinheads. Thanks to Brit Hume and Tiger Woods, a central theme of this book has now been stated: Pinheads try to harm people with whom they disagree; they want to punish and demean them.
Patriots, on the other hand, respect robust debate and have the courage to state their beliefs without rancor. Think about people you know in your life, and think about yourself.
Where do you stand?
CHAPTER 7
It’s All About Me
O’Reilly, I love you, man. But shut up once in a while.
—Yankee Stadium spectator
MANY AMERICANS THINK that I, your humble correspondent, am one of the biggest Pinheads in the country. When there is no malice behind t
he thought, I am amused by the description. When there is malice, I have to wonder, Why do some folks want to stick pins in my head as if I’m some wild voodoo houngan trying to scare gullible folks into giving him money?
After fourteen years of anchoring the Factor, I am used to the slings and arrows. They whiz in nearly every day. Thank God for my pal Glenn Beck. Since he arrived at Fox News, he’s taken some of the heat off me. But still, there is no question that I remain one of the most controversial men in the country. Again, why?
THE CONFIDENCE FACTOR
The answer lies partly in a trait that President Obama and I have in common. We both deliver our messages with confidence. I can’t tell you how many letters I’ve received calling me arrogant after I’ve stated a strong opinion on something. For what action, I ask, am I deemed arrogant? The answer usually comes down to style, not substance. Because I state my case with certainty, some believe I am supercilious, a person who thinks he knows more than anyone else. Occasionally President Obama comes off that way as well, does he not?
So am I a Pinhead for exuding confidence while analyzing the news? Here’s a shocker: I don’t think so. I base my opinions on solid research and deliver my Talking Points memo with the authority of experience and knowledge. If I stumbled around looking unsure and hesitant, if I based my opinions on what I thought an ideological audience wanted to hear, could I honestly run a no-spin zone? No, I could not. I’d have to work for NBC News.
One of the reasons that President Bush lost the locker room midway through his second term was that he seemed tentative on vital subjects like Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. The President did not seem to have control of the situations, and voters quickly picked up on that. For Mr. Bush, verbal presentations were not easy. Obviously, he is not a glib man. So he often came across as shaky when an authoritative posture was needed in order to sow confidence.
Back in the mid-1990s, I was studying at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (just that makes me arrogant in the eyes of some). Seeking a class that I might be able to use in real life, I signed up for a course on persuasion. The professor was a Pinhead, but in a good way. He was a guy who mostly lived in his own mind, constantly mulling over ideas and theories. But he was a brilliant thinker.
The professor taught me that to truly persuade another person who is opposed to your ideas, you not only have to make stronger arguments, you also have to be able to convince your skeptical opponent that you are in command of the situation. To be persuaded, a person has to submit. And most Americans are not submissive types. But we can be won over if we believe a person is sincere and has ideas that can better our own personal situations.
Does the name Barack Obama ring a bell? Isn’t that what he did in the presidential campaign? He persuaded 53 percent of the voters to pull the lever on his behalf. And he did it almost entirely on personal charisma, because he had no real record to run on.
But back to me (how arrogant is that phrase?). I differ from the President because I do not seek approval. I state my case and let the chips fall. I want you to think about what we on the Factor are putting out there, but I don’t expect agreement. I mean, I’m happy when that happens, but it is not mandatory. In fact, I respect people like Megyn Kelly who energetically disagree with me on some issues now and then. That’s fun for me.
So I am not getting the arrogant deal. Am I overbearing? Sometimes. Obnoxious? Of course. Impatient with Pinheads who won’t answer direct questions? All day long.
Look, I took a chance with this Factor no-spin concept. In fact, it was a huge gamble. I could have made millions simply reading the news and interviewing people with standard questions like: “Tell me more.” But how boring is that?
As an American who tries to be Patriotic, I was sick of TV news phonies who were afraid to say anything controversial. “Thanks so much,” the media Pinheads wail. “Great to see you!” Yeech.
So I decided to do something about it and designed the Factor in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in between my Harvard classes. The concept was simple because, as you may know, I am a simple man. I set up some rules to define an original TV news/analysis program. Please read them and decide whether I’m a Pinhead or Patriot.
TAKING THE PATRIOT CHALLENGE
Rule One: Tell the truth, always.
Rule Two: Insist on the question being answered. If necessary re-ask it a number of times, and always tell the viewer why you are repeating yourself. In other words, if the guest decides to dance, step on his or her toes.
Rule Three: Interrupt. This is the most controversial rule of all. President Obama often filibusters his way through interviews. His answers are so lengthy you could have a pizza delivered in that time. In that way, he controls the conversation, avoiding follow-up questions and debate. You may have noticed that never happens in the no-spin zone. I simply cut people off if they wander or repeat themselves. Is that obnoxious? Of course it is. Do I get nasty mail when I do that? Of course I do. But it has to be done if I don’t want to waste your time. And I don’t.
Rule Four: Admit you’re wrong when you are actually wrong, and cede a point when your guest makes a valid argument. That’s the right thing to do and makes the debate much more interesting. I had a girlfriend once who told me that I wasn’t Mr. Right, I’m Mr. Always Right. Not good. Sometimes my being wrong ignites a TV program because it takes the presentation in unexpected directions. Nobody’s right all the time. So when the facts overwhelm you, admit it.
Rule Five: Don’t be a phony, be genuine on the air. Now, this rule presents problems for some TV news people because they are nasty people in real life, and misanthropy rarely works out for a TV anchor. Years ago, the late Charles Kuralt was an unpleasant guy to me and other young CBS News reporters, but the public thought he was a great guy. Kuralt was a total phony on the air and made millions doing it. But his airtime was limited. His tightly edited reports were only a few minutes long and were sometimes spaced a week apart.
If you’re on the air every day and are disingenuous, the folks will most likely pick it up. There are exceptions, though. Walter Cronkite was a difficult person, but he still came across as a trusted on-air uncle each night.
Having worked in the business for a while, I was tired of TV charlatans and resolved to be my real self on the air for better or for worse. With my personality, that was an enormous risk, but one many of you clearly appreciated.
THE POWER OF BLUNT COMMENTARY
My Fox News colleagues tell me that folks often ask them, “What is O’Reilly really like?” The underlying question is, of course: Is he a Pinhead or what?
Well, to help answer that question, I must admit that some people have considered me a Pinhead since my earliest days in the bassinet. I was definitely considered a Pinhead in some precincts of Chaminade High School on Long Island, and the same was true in college. As an illustration, please allow me to share my first major journalistic controversy with you because, as we know, sharing is the mark of a Patriot.
The year was 1971. The Vietnam War controversy was raging all across the country. It was the hottest issue on nearly every American college campus. The school I was attending, Marist College, located in the garden spot of Poughkeepsie, New York, was basically a working-class place gone wild. When I first showed up as a freshman in the fall of 1967, an excessive quantity of beer was the mind-altering substance of choice. But in the winter of ’71, drugs had flooded the campus, and then it became “power to the people” time.
I didn’t buy it.
I had returned to Marist as a senior after spending my junior year abroad at the University of London. There I saw the antiwar movement trash Berkeley Square (home of the American embassy) and basically cause unnecessary mayhem and destruction in the name of “peace.”
I was skeptical of the antiwar zealots because most of the guys I knew who were involved with intense protest were hopheads, stoners, unwashed zombies. Remember, I was a football, baseball, and ice hockey player. My comfort zone was sporting act
ivity, not bongs and acid.
But I wasn’t a moron. I knew some of the Levittown guys who had been drafted and sent to Vietnam. When they came back home, many of them were very different people, affected with a myriad of emotional problems. And they all said the same thing: it was brutally chaotic over there.
Disturbed by the condition of my neighborhood pals, I listened closely to both sides of the Vietnam debate and tried to educate myself as to what was really going on. Did America want to kill babies on purpose, as the Yippie Abbie Hoffman was screaming? Was the United States the second coming of the Third Reich? I had a hard time accepting the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) chant: “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”
Not that I had any use for President Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t. But my country was under assault from all directions, and my instinct was that much of it was unfair. History, I believe, has proved me right. After the United States left Southeast Asia, far worse things occurred than had during the war. The rampaging Communists murdered millions of innocent people. Years later, I assigned Factor producer Jesse Watters to confront Jane Fonda, a major Pinhead and communist sympathizer, with the actions of the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese. Typically, Ms. Fonda said that the Killing Fields of Cambodia never would have happened had America not started all the trouble in the first place. No way Jane was gonna assign any moral blame to her guys. She’ll go to her grave blaming America for just about everything. If you are still in doubt about what a Pinhead really is, take Jane out to dinner.
Pinheads and Patriots Page 10