Confronting the Presidents: A Review of Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard's New Book

I started reading Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard's new 400+ page book on Friday.  I finished it last night -- Monday night.  That should give you an idea of how important and captivating Confronting the Presidents is. 

It is subtitled "No Spin Assessments from Washington to Biden".  But that obscures what the book actually is: assessments of US Presidents from Washington to Obama, co-written by O'Reilly and Dugard, followed by assessments of Trump and Biden written by O'Reilly, and assessments of Trump and Biden written by Dugard.  I'll explain near the end of this review why I think that distinction is crucial.

First, let me begin by saying I was on the O'Reilly's Fox show, The Factor, several times over 20 years ago (here's the video of my first appearance in January 2004), and four times on O'Reilly's No Spin News podcast several years ago.  We have strongly different political opinions, but I very much enjoyed our conversations.  O'Reilly has written numerous best-selling books, and O'Reilly and Dugard have a best-selling series (the "Killing" series about assassinations, attempted assassinations, killings of terrorists, etc), which I haven't read, but based on the writing in Confronting the Presidents, I expect that I eventually will, or at least read some of the books.

That writing is crisp, informative, and even exciting.   In part because most of it is in the present tense -- "At the start of Jefferson's second term, he is sixty-one years old.  He is no longer the young idealist...."  And in part because it has so many facts, big and little, that I didn't know and, after reading them in Confronting the Presidents, I think I should have known.  Like Theodore Roosevelt planning to run for a third term as president in 1919, before he died, and LBJ having a decades-long affair with Alice Glass, which Lady Bird knew about, and only ended when Alice left him because she was so furious about the Vietnam War.

We learn what each president ate for breakfast (right, I find that interesting), what kind of exercise they preferred, and how they died.  There's lots of humor in the book, but cradled in an underlying gravity and mortality.   And this is not because of what happened to Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and JFK, and almost happened to several others, but because as the authors make clear, the job of president, given the power to make one's dreams come true, is almost guaranteed not to be fulfilled, meaning your dreams will end up broken, their only chance being some future president may pick one up and carry it to victory in some more hospitable time.

Another salient point of history which I already knew as a media historian, and Confronting the Presidents makes abundantly clear, is that the intense polarization in our current world, (wrongly often blamed on social media, I would say), actually has been in the United States of America from the very beginning.  Editors of newspapers were prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Act that John Adams signed into law, and O'Reilly and Dugard tell us that Alexander Hamilton wrote that Adams was "a mere old woman and unfit for president".

As a professor and lifelong student of communication and media studies, I was also glad to see that Confronting the Presidents notes that First Lady "Carrie" Harrison brought electricity to the White House but she and her husband Benjamin (1889-1893) were afraid of being electrocuted, radio began to have a big influence on politics in the 1920s, and of course TV took center stage in the 1960s.  (See my continually updated McLuhan in an Age of Social Media for how and when television gave way to the social media president.)

***

But this powerhouse book, brimming with fascinating, useful, and important information, concludes its confrontation of presidents with Barack Obama.   An "Afterword" briefly gives O'Reilly's and Dugard's assessments of Trump and Biden independently.  The reason for this change in format isn't given, but it must be because Trump's presidency may not be finished (he's currently running for a second term), and at the time the book was written, neither was Biden's (he had not yet withdrawn from the current election).

I'm making such a big deal about this because O'Reilly's assessments of Trump and Biden are the first in the book I strongly disagree with.  No mention is made of Trump's treatment of COVID, and the attack on the Capitol he instigated on January 6, 2021 is barely mentioned, as a political mistake, not the fundamental attack on our democracy that it was.  Even more incredibly, O'Reilly ranks Biden as the second worst president in American history (after James Buchanan).  

As I said at the beginning of this review, O'Reilly and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum.  But I was nonetheless taken aback by what he said about Biden and didn't say about Trump because I found his joint assessments with Dugard about other progressive presidents like Obama and Clinton, and conservatives like Nixon, to be right on key.  

Obviously, Dugard was a moderating factor, and he had plenty to say in his own assessment of Trump about January 6, 2021 (because of this, he ranks Trump the worst president, one below Herbert Hoover).  Dugard also had some praise for Biden, and went so far as to say he hopes Biden wins in 2024 (the book was completed, again, before Biden withdrew from the race).

So what you'll get from Confronting the Presidents is a fair and balanced -- to use that Fox cliche -- assessment of every American President prior to Trump.  Then, for Trump and Biden, separate assessments from each author, which taken together accurately reflect the current polarization of this country.

I'm not sure what I would have suggested to the two authors prior to publication about how to conclude this book.  Maybe conclude with Obama with no Afterword.  Or maybe struggle to find some common ground as the authors did for every other president.  But I can say I recommend this book to anyone who'd like to have a handy, accessible guide to the people who have been at the top of our noble, imperfect experiment with democracy.

Paul Levinson Talks about Welcome Up on Bear Tone Podcast

Among the many people and media in music and science fiction I talk about in this podcast, recorded the day I finished recording Welcome Up: Songs of Space and Time in Old Bear Studios in Batavia, NY in November, 2018: Alan Freed, Murray the K, Stu Nitekman, The New Outlook, Ellie Greenwich, Herb Abramson, Twice Upon A Rhyme, Boris Midney, Nikita Khrushchev, Paul McCartney, Robert Christgau, The Village Voice, Tina Vozick, Record Collectors Magazine, Big Pink Records, Anthony Nyland, Chris Hoisington, Phil D'Amato, "The Chronology Protection Case", David Hartwell, Borrowed Tides, Peter Brown Called, Steve Padin, Vincent van Gogh, Jeremy Thompson, Electric Lady Studios, Egypt Station, Bill O'Reilly

The Loudest Voice 1.4: "We Create the News"

Another powerful episode of The Loudest Voice tonight - 1.4 - in which Roger Ailes lays bare the basis of fake news: "we create the news'.  I should say, the basis of real fake news - that is, news that is fake.  We need to make this distinction because Trump now daily bashes our legitimate news media as fake news - which would be fake fake news -  a tactic that comes right out of Hitler's denunciation of the press in 1930s Germany as the Lügenpresse (the lying press).  When you're trying to replace democracy with a totalitarian regime, it's wise to discredit and get rid of the people who can call you out on that and let the rest of the country know - the press.  (See my short book, Fake News in Real Context, for more.)

Speaking of Trump, we also hear on The Loudest Voice tonight that it was Aisles and Fox who gave the Trump the idea that Obama was not really born in America.  I have no idea if Trump got that paranoid right-wing notion from Fox or not.  And here it might be a good idea to mention, as I always do, that there's a big difference between documentaries and docu-dramas.   Even documentaries are not necessarily entirely truthful - they may leave out important facts.  But docu-dramas go even further - they actually make conversations up, conflate events, etc, to tell a more effective narrative.  (The excellent docu-drama Chernobyl, which I reviewed here in May-June, did a lot of that.)

The Loudest Voice certainly focuses only on selected Fox News luminaries - selected for whatever reason.   Tonight we saw a lot of attention to Glenn Beck.  A few weeks ago, it was Sean Hannity.  Both of these Fox News hosts are portrayed in detail by actors.  In contrast, Bill O'Reilly, who had Fox New's leading show for years, is mentioned as such, and shown (the real O'Reilly) briefly on the The Loudest Voice, but no actor portrays him and we see nothing of his back story.  Why not?

I guess all of this adds up to taking The Loudest Voice with a grain of salt, as we should with any docu-drama.  It tells a crucially important story, and is therefore worth watching, even if something less than the complete truth and only the truth shows up on our screens.

See also:  The Loudest Voice 1.1: Fox Launch ... The Loudest Voice 1.2: September 11 and After ... The Loudest Voice 1.3: Prelude to Trump


 

The Loudest Voice 1.1: Fox Launch

The Loudest Voice just launched on Showtime tonight, with an episode about the launch of Fox News.  Or, more specifically, about how Roger Ailes (stunningly portrayed by Russell Crowe) launched Fox News, and with just about everyone else on the screen (the screen of The Loudest Voice) kicking and screaming.  That includes owner Rupert Murdock, and just about everyone else in Ailes's orbit.

First, a few words from me about Fox News.  Although I've strongly disagreed from the outset with its politics, I've admired their green rooms (I've been a guest on O'Reilly, etc), and, more importantly, the savvy they've shown in how to present a news opinion show.  It wasn't the least bit surprising to me when they jumped to first place in cable news, leaving CNN and MSNBC in the dust.  This state continued until Trump and his awful Presidency drove up viewership of both Fox competitors, especially MSNBC.

But I digress.  I was never on the inside of Fox News.  I knew Fox News just as a viewer and as an occasional guest on one of its prime time shows.  So I have no idea how truthful or not this story of Ailes and the begetting of Fox News is.  But it certainly conforms to what I do know.

Not only did the green rooms have a great assortment of bagels, juices, and teas, but the corridors were buzzing with an energy I never saw when I was a guest on CNN or MSNBC.  You could tell when you got a peek at the control rooms that the people who worked on Fox knew they were part of a revolution in news presentation, and loved it.

Of course, as we'll see in weeks ahead, not everyone at Fox continued to love it or had reason to love it.   But that's a different part of the story, and there's no denying that Fox utterly dominated cable news in the first decades of its existence, in an age right between the hegemony of network television and the rise of social media.   The Loudest Voice offers a crucial and compelling picture of just how this came to be.

====

FYI, here's a list of my television appearances.

And here's an example of me and O'Reilly:

Bill O'Reilly Hit Piece on Fordham University

Did you see the classic, textbook piece of propaganda Bill O'Reilly did about Fordham University last night?   Here's a link if you missed it.  O'Reilly starts off saying Fordham "banned" Ann Coulter from a speaking engagement on the campus, then he explains what in fact happened (she wasn't banned), and wraps up with Jesse Watters in front of Fordham with a slapdash compilation of video interviews with students taken out of context to make them look bad and have Fox's viewers get a laugh at their expense.

Here are the facts of the Ann Coulter matter:  Fordham University's Republican Club, a student group, invited her to speak.  Fr. Joseph McShane, President of Fordham University, wrote the Club and university community a strong letter criticizing the invitation of Coulter to Fordham.   The Republican Club considered the points made in the letter and decided to rescind its invitation.

Note that the University President has no direct power over students, not even indirect power.  The president doesn't grade students, or evaluate their progress towards graduation.  The first is done by professors, and the second by professors and deans.  One dean in particular - the Dean of Students - could have banned Coulter from campus, or refused to allow the proposed student event - but that did not happen.   The students decided not to invite her.

No one's First Amendment rights were violated.  No government official prevented Coulter from speaking.   Fr. McShane's expression of opinion not only violated no one's rights, but was morally justified.   Presidents of universities should speak out about issues affecting the university.  And, in fact, he was right to be concerned about Ann Coulter.  She has called Barack Obama a "retard," John Edwards a "faggot," and characterized our immigration policy as designed to reduce the percentage of white people in the American population.   The First Amendment protects her right to say and write such things without government interference.   It does not give her the right to say that in a university community, which strives to teach tolerance and respect for diversity.   One could argue that Fordham University would have indeed been justified in banning Coulter, or any purveyor of epithets and racist reasoning.  And, yet, Fordham showed tolerance by not banning Coulter.

Why then did O'Reilly characterize the Coulter affair as a banning?   Because, like all clever propagandists, he knows that big lies stick, even after the purveyor of the lie quietly explains what actually happened.   O'Reilly last night explained that Coulter wasn't actually banned, because he wants to be on record as presenting the facts when he's called on lying about Coulter being banned.  Like all propagandists, he wants both the benefit of his lie and protection from its consequences.

As for the Watters piece, we've seen this technique over and over again on Fox: ambush people on the street, ask them questions, call upon them to give details, and then splice it all together to show how uniformed they are.   But the young woman who said Coulter was a racist was right (she also happens to be one of my students).   She couldn't cite an example on the spot, but she was right nonetheless.   Don't believe me?  Look up Coulter's article on Wikipedia.  Even Watters could have done that, had he been interested in the truth.

The facts in this case have been out there for a month, regarding Coulter's invitation to Fordham, and longer regarding her abusive language.  But Fox and O'Reilly are not interested in truth or even facts.  Poorly researched and reasoned - O'Reilly at one point wrongly says that a public university would have gotten into big trouble had it banned Coulter (not true) - O'Reilly's segments have devolved from being pointed, politically abrasive presentations, which are valuable in our body politic, to sad examples of how to bungle and mispresent a story for a quick round of ignorant applause.

Why CNN and Fox Wrongly Reported the Supreme Court Health Care Ruling

The initially incorrect reporting by Fox and CNN of the US Supreme Court health care ruling yesterday will go down in history and long be cited in journalism courses along with Dewey beating Truman in 1948 according to the infamous Chicago Tribune banner headline and other examples of premature breaking news.  It was the most enjoyable part of the ruling other than the ruling itself.

But why did this happen?  The superficial answer, true enough, is that neither Fox nor CNN read far enough in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion to see he was upholding the mandate in the Affordable Health Care law as a tax, after rejecting its constitutionality under the commerce clause.

But there are deeper reasons.

CNN has fallen to a weak third place in the 24/7 all-news cable line-up.  It attracts not only the lowest number of viewers but likely staff and interns at all levels who would rather be someplace else.  Marshall McLuhan observed this sinking ship phenomenon in media when major newspapers began going on strike in the 1960s - they were going on strike, temporarily shutting down, McLuhan noted, as prelude to their permanent shut down, because fewer people were reading them, anyway.  Lack of audience and lack of production acumen feed one another in a vicious, downward, mutually destructive cycle. McLuhan not only saw the decline of newspapers in response to the screens of television, but accurately foresaw their decline in response to 21st century social media, which are now also challenging cable.

CNN is not about to shut down, but it is already in this cycle of decline, and needs to take special care not to feed it.

Fox, still in first place in cable news land, made the miscall for a very different reason.   Fox, despite its "fair and balanced" moniker, has long seen and reported the world through right-wing glasses.   Its top talent - Shep Smith, Bret Baier, and even Bill O'Reilly - can and do have independent views.  But its staff at all levels wears ideological blinders.  Fox not only misread the Supreme Court decision by stopping too soon in its reading, but likely did that because that's what the Fox people who did the reading wanted it to say.   They read as much as they needed to confirm their hopes.  Seeing support for one's views can be a powerful source of distortion when encountering new material.

I suppose the same could be said for MSNBC, which didn't want to see the ruling strike down Obamacare and reported the ruling correctly.   On the other hand, Pete Williams, who brought the opinion to MSNBC air, is one of the sharpest legal reporters in the business.  Given the decline of CNN and the ideology of Fox, it is unlikely he'd be anywhere other than reporting for MSNBC.

Looking Forward to Olbermann's Return to Countdown on Al Gore's Current TV

Great interview with Keith Olbermann posted in Rolling Stone a few days ago.

As I've written here often over the years, I was no constant fan of Olbermann on MSNBC.  I often found him abrasive, over the top, even trivial (for example, in his critique of 24 as Bush-driven, and in his incessant lampooning of Bill O'Reilly).  But I also found him refreshing, surprising, original, and, at his best, a most needed passionate voice for the progressive point of view.   As he says in the Rolling Stone interview, Olbermann was responsible for putting MSNBC on the map as the progressive counterpoint to Fox's conservativism.

I was therefore not happy when Olbermann was suddenly shown the door at MSNBC earlier this year, by the same or equivalent tone-deaf corporate execs he had dragged kicking and screaming into relevance and eloquence.   And I'm therefore eagerly awaiting Olbermann's return to Countdown on Al Gore's Current TV on June 20.

As Olbermann makes clear in the interview, he does not see Countdown on Current as a graceful swan song - even though Current TV now has at best no more than 10% of any cable all-news audience - but rather as a no holds-barred challenge to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.   Olbermann's new Countdown will be on at the same time as the old one - 8pm Eastern - which means he'll not only be competing against Bill O'Reilly on Fox, and but against his incisive, keenly rational replacement on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell.

In many ways, I like O'Donnell more than Olbermann, in particular O'Donnell's targeted logic and real political experience, in place of Olbermann's passionate showmanship.   But if only to punish slow-witted MSNBC for its treatment of Olbermann, and, more, because I think the progressive view can be well served by another powerful voice on another station (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly still outnumber the progressives on the air), I will be watching and rooting for Olbermann to shake up television, once again, as hold forth from the station run by the man who at very least won the popular vote for President in 2000, and has himself carved out a unique place for himself in our history.

Fine Interview of Obama by O'Reilly

I said - actually Tweeted - this yesterday, about Bill O'Reilly's brief interview of Barack Obama before the Superbowl:  Obama did very well.  He came off as informed and articulate.  He gave clear answers to O'Reilly's tough questions.

I would say exactly the same about the longer segment of the interview just aired on The Factor.  Obama provided reasoned and astute answers to O'Reilly's series of questions ranging from Afghanistan and Iraq to why Obama hasn't been doing more about the economy. Obama's answer on the economy was instructive - the President cited some of the many things he's in fact been doing.

Of special significance to anyone who enjoys media analysis - which would include me - was Obama's response to O'Reilly's question about what the President thinks of Fox News.   Obama allowed that although he (correctly) saw Fox as a news operation that disagreed with his policies, Fox was nonetheless a legitimate news station.

Unsurprisingly, the interview has received fire from both sides.  O'Reilly read an email from a conservative who wondered by O'Reilly would interview such a "loser".  O'Reilly's response, with a smile - because Obama's the most powerful person in the world - was graceful and of course well-taken.  Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell was busy denouncing O'Reilly and the interview over on MSNBC, aggrieved at the number of times O'Reilly interrupted the President.  I had no trouble at all following the conversation.

Indeed, I think all of the interview's critics, from right and left, were busy watching the scripts in their own heads than the interview on the screen.   Kudos to both President Obama and Bill O'Reilly for bringing us an engaging presentation of the President's policies.

Olbermann vs. Koppel: I Mostly Agree with Olbermann

So, we were just treated to one of Olbermann's "Special Comments".  It was advertised as about Ted Koppel, which indeed it was.  I consider Koppel one of the greats of TV news people - successor with his Nightline (which I watched raptly for more than 25 years) to Murrow and Cronkite.   I was prepared to say in this blog post, well, I came to Olbermann's defense over MSNBC's inane suspension of him last week, but now I'm back to disliking his tone and even the content of many of his "Special Comments".  Except - I think Olbermann is mostly right in what he just said about Koppel.

Ted Koppel's op-ed in the Washington Post - Olbermann, O'Reilly, and the death of real news - is what, understandably, attracted Olbermann's attention and ire.   You all know the points that Koppel makes - that Fox and MSNBC are conservative and progressive equivalents,  presenting opinions not news, and their success has destroyed "objective" i. e., "real" news.

I agree completely with Koppel on the first point - the style and partisan equivalence of Fox and MSNBC - and that's in fact the one big point Olbermann made with which I flatly disagree.  I don't know why Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and others on MSNBC insist that they are more factual and less partisan than Fox.  Maddow made this same point to John Stewart, in her superb interview with him last week. 

But otherwise - neither Fox nor MSNBC are newsless.  Indeed, the news reporting of Bret Baier and Shep Smith on Fox is every bit  the factual equivalent of actual news that is reported on MSNBC throughout the day and night.   On that point, then, Koppel is point blank wrong, and Olbermann is wrong in saying that MSNBC has more respect for facts than does Fox.

Were this where Olbermann vs. Koppel ended, I might give the match to Koppel - right where Olbermann was wrong on the first point (Fox and MSNBC are indeed equivalent), then both wrong on second (Koppel that neither Fox and MSNBC present facts, Olbermann that Fox does not but MSNNC does).

But Olbermann showed his mettle and rose to the occasion with as lucid an analysis as ever I've seen about the myth of objectivity in news.  It was never true and therefore, of course, is not today.

I often make the point to my classes that when The New York Times says "all the news that fit to print" - who are they kidding?  What we're really getting is all the news that the Times deems fit to print - i.e., selects for us to read.  And the same for Walter Cronkite, "and that's the way it was".  Not really.   A more truthful tag line might have been "and that's what the editors here at CBS thought you should think it was".  This is called gate keeping, and it's one of the things the Internet, and what I call new new media, have reduced and in some cases eliminated.

Olbermann correctly cited the finest moments of Murrow and Cronkite as not being objective, but partisan - as when Murrow called out Joe McCarthy and Cronkite spoke out against the Vietnam War.   The fact is that the public is best served not just by blind reporting of the facts, but by strong opinions and keen analyses right along with the facts.  That's what op-eds in newspapers - such as Koppel's about the death of news - are all about.  That, as Olbermann correctly noted, is what Koppel and the news media did not do during the build-up to the Iraq War, when all that was reported was the "fact" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Olbermann's  point - that the pursuit of the illusion of objectivity in journalism may hurt the democracy that journalism serves - may just be the important point Olbermann ever made.  It's certainly not made clearly or often enough.

Bill O'Reilly, Saddam Hussein, and Ben Reynolds in Lie to Me 2.6

An outstanding episode 2.6 of Lie to Me last Monday evening. Among my favorite parts -

. Reynolds (Mekhi Phifer) has an expression of stubborn defiance about something he may have done wrong - cut to shots of Bill O'Reilly and Saddam Hussein. Priceless!

. Lightman's loyalty to his "family" - his co-workers - including FBI Special Agent Ben Reynolds. To prove his commitment to Reynolds, whose career and even freedom is in jeopardy due to Reynolds' actions when undercover, Lightman destroys FBI evidence right in front of Reynolds. Now Lightman is almost as vulnerable as Reynolds in this mess.

. The looks exchanged between Foster and Lightman, when Lightman talks about someone shagging her boss (thanks to my wife for noticing this). A slight smile from Foster, a big smile from Lightman, another smile from Foster, Lightman's still smiling. The carefully orchestrated facial expressions of the major characters in Lie to Me is one of its best features. On the other hand, who knows, maybe Tim Roth ad libbed that big smile.

All in all, a top-notch FBI-oriented episode. The FBI is having something of its own new golden age in what I've been calling the new golden age of television. Bones, FlashForward, Fringe, Numb3rs, with Reynolds a major player on Lie to Me, and there's likely more FBI in shows I haven't yet seen.

On Lie to Me, Reynolds is one of the ways show-runner Shawn Ryan (The Shield and The Unit) is infusing grit and punch into the series. Should be some good times ahead.

And here's me versus O'Reilly from a few years ago ... what would Lightman say?



See also my review of Lie to Me


8-min podcast review of Lie to Me

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

Joan Walsh, Bill O'Reilly, and Keith Olbermann about The Media and The Assassination of George Tiller

I wanted to say a few words about the media and the murder of Dr. George Tiller - in particular, Salon editor Joan Walsh's heated discussion with Bill O'Reilly on his show last week, and Keith Olbermann's denunciation of O'Reilly as being complicit in Tiller's murder because O'Reilly repeatedly attacked Tiller as a "baby killer" for his performance of late-term abortions.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me mention that I consider Joan Walsh a friend, and one of the heroes of the new media age (my forthcoming New New Media book has a blurb on the back from Joan). At the same time, I have been on O'Reilly's television and radio shows a bunch of times - and the last time, on his radio show, was even told to "shut up" - but I enjoy the rough and tumble discussions I have had with him, and like to think they make a contribution to the public discourse. I have never been on Keith Olbermann's show, though he did quote me several years ago about who might best succeed Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News (I mentioned Chris Matthews, Paula Zahn, and Shepard Smith - Olbermann left out Smith when he quoted me).

So bearing all of that in mind, here is how I see what happened with Joan Walsh, Bill O'Reilly, and Keith Olbermann regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

1. Joan was right to want to go on O'Reilly's show with the goal of cooling down some of the heated rhetoric. Calling people "killers" in an already volatile situation - as O'Reilly had been doing for years about George Tiller - does little to help reach a rational conclusion or course of action.

2. But, just to be clear, Olbermann's view that O'Reilly was an accomplice to Tiller's murder, and bears some direct responsibility for it, is not supported by what we know about how media influence our actions. Olbermann repeatedly cited advertising, and the big dollars that are spent on it, as proof that what we see on TV can guide our behavior. But advertising works because it appeals to already existing human needs. An ad for McDonalds can get us to buy a hamburger because we already are hungry. And if McDonald's wasn't around, we'd sooner or later get something else to eat. These needs are profound and deep-seated, as psychologist Abraham Maslow realized more than 50 years ago. Tiller's assassin, who had a record of violence and mental instability, clearly had a need to act violently which predated O'Reilly's condemnations of Tiller. O'Reilly's words may or may not have been a trigger - but, sooner or later, someone else's words would have had the same consequence. But what then can we do to prevent madmen from acting on their needs?

3. Joan Walsh was also right to bring up the question of gun control, and O'Reilly missed a valuable opportunity to bring this into central focus. Because, a gun in the hand of a madman is what killed George Tiller. The question that everyone who was horrified by Tiller's murder (O'Reilly has condemned Tiller's assassination) should be asking is: how does someone with a record of violence and mental illness get in possession of a gun? At very least, our laws on gun control don't seem to be working. At worst, what if there was an organized group that put the gun in the assassin's hand?

4. Seeking to use concern about violence committed by guns as analogy, Joan asked O'Reilly if it would be right to denounce stores that sell guns as having blood on their hands. O'Reilly found the analogy not relevant, but seized the language and threw it back at Joan, saying she had blood on her hands. And this is precisely why such rhetoric, coming from O'Reilly or anyone else, does no good. O'Reilly started by using it about Tiller. Joan Walsh tried to show its inappropriateness by asking if it made sense to use it about gun dealers. O'Reilly responds by using it against Joan Walsh - not someone who either performed an abortion or sold a gun, but who was only defending George Tiller.

Still and all, I think Joan Walsh's confrontation will Bill O'Reilly was valuable to watch, and contributed to the public dialogue. At least O'Reilly - unlike Olbermann - has people on his show with whom he vehemently disagrees. Sure, the nine minutes that Joan had on O'Reilly did little to cool the rhetoric. But in the end, they allowed two people passionately committed to their views to exchange them in public view.

Olbermann At It Again About 24

Keith Olbermann's at it again. He just called 24 a "neo-con soft porn series". Did he see the first four hours of the new season, on the air last night and Sunday? Apparently not. Has he seen any season or even one complete episode of 24? I doubt it.

Olbermann's main grievance about the show, tonight, is that his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly on Fox, "defended torture" by showing a clip of 24. I didn't see that O'Reilly segment. I don't share O'Reilly's defense of torture - certainly not the Bush administration's routine use of it, and the holding of prisoners in limbo in Guantanamo.

But what does any of that have to with 24, in which torture is not glorified, but always opposed by at least one major character, and applied by Jack Bauer only when a nuclear device or other weapon of mass destruction is about to go off?

At least O'Reilly has the courage to put opposing opinions on his show. Rachel Maddow, who follows Olbermann on MSNBC, and is my favorite anchor-commentator, and always tries to interview people whose opinions differ from hers.

But not Olbermann. His guests serve as a supportive Greek chorus for his rants, which, unlike the fictional torture on 24, are a real kind of torture for the intellect on television.

---

Here are my reviews of 24, Season 7: Hours 1 and 2 ... Hours 3 and 4

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman Cites Asimov's Foundation Series as Inspiration

A great moment on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer tonight, when new Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman was asked by Lehrer what inspired him to become an economist. Krugman replied it was reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation series as a teenager, and seeing how social scientists saved galactic civilization.

That's the second reason I'm really happy that Krugman won the Nobel Prize - and even more important than the first, which was that Krugman is on the honor roll of guests insulted by Bill O'Reilly.

The Foundation series is much more important. Written as a series of short stories for Astounding Magazine in 1940s (later and presently Analog Magazine), expanded and published as the Foundation trilogy in the 1950s, this has easily been my favorite reading of all time - since the days I first read it at age 12, and ever since. I list the Foundation trilogy among my favorites on Facebook, MySpace, and all the online places I hang my hat and can list my favorite books (actually, I rarely wear a hat). I included Asimov among the four thinkers who most influenced my work in my 1997 The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution - mostly because of the Foundation trilogy. It also inspired me to think and write science fiction.

And its story is: The galactic civilization looks good on the outside, but is already crumbling within. Hari Seldon develops "psychohistory," a way of mathematically mapping all trends in human behavior, and using the equations to predict the future. He sets up two Foundations, at opposite sides of the galaxy, to further refine and take advantage of psychohistory to shorten the galactical dark ages. Of course-

No, I won't tell you any more, in case you haven't read it. Suffice to say, I've read it at least three times. Asimov and others wrote sequels, and some of those novels were excellent. But none as riveting as the Foundation trilogy.

Congratulations Paul Krugman - on winning the Nobel Prize, and on your great taste in science fiction...

---

See also, for a little deeper reading, my The Invigoration of a Philosophic Issue in Science Fiction: How Pierre-Simon Laplace’s Demon Finds a Stage in the Foundation and Dune Trilogies.  It was first published as a  Google "knol" but was reprinted here after the knol system was shut down. It does have spoilers.

I've Seen the Future - Make Sure This Doesn't Happen to You

As some of you may know, I write time travel stories, I also write about time travel, and review my favorite time travel movies and television shows right here on Infinite Regress.

I also have a secret, invisible portal in my office, which I rarely talk about, for obvious reasons. But last night, after teaching an evening class, I went two weeks into the future...

I've returned from the future with this horrifying video from November 7, 2008 ... we all have the power of free will ... it need not turn out this way ... make sure this doesn't happen to you... More details here ...

Olbermann and Matthews No Longer Anchoring Special MSNBC Election Coverage: Pros and Cons

It's being reported all over that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer be anchoring special election coverage on MSNBC. In terms of what's ahead in this political season, this means we won't see them anchoring election night or debate coverage. They will both continue in their Countdown and Hardball shows.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I've criticized Olbermann's tirades on everything from 24 to Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly. Matthews is not as extreme, but he had problems talking about Hillary Clinton, too - and I noticed that as an Obama supporter. In the Democratic and Republican convention coverage, Olbermann dissed Joe Scarborough on the air, and Matthews and Pat Buchanan went at it tooth and nail.

The last two incidents get at why I feel more than one way about MSNBC's change of anchors. I agree politically with everything Olbermann said to Scarborough, and everything Matthews said to Buchanan. Further, a leftist tilt at MSNBC balances the rightest tilt at Fox News, which is certainly not "balanced" on its own.

In the end, I guess MSNBC did the right thing, though. There is a distinction between an anchor and a commentator, one which Fox News respects by not putting its commentators - such O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes - in the anchor chair. Our politics is indeed better served when we can get some semblance of objectivity in our anchors and let the commentators have at it.

But if this signals a retreat by MSNBC from the Democratic leanings of its commentators, I'll be sure to complain loudly about that, too.

Obama Does Fine on O'Reilly Foreign Relations Interview; How Would Palin Have Done?

Barack Obama did fine in the short piece of his interview by Bill O'Reilly which was aired on Fox News tonight. This piece had to do with foreign relations. O'Reilly gave Obama credit for being against the Iraq war in the first place, but asked why Obama couldn't admit that he was wrong in opposing the surge, which has worked. Obama explained that the surge indeed has worked militarily, but the Iraqis have still not picked up their political and economic part of the bargain - the U.S. is still spending billions of dollars there. Obama also explained why not taking any option off of the table with Iran, but not tipping his hand as a Presidential candidate, was the best course of action with Iran.

It struck me, watching this interview, that Joe Biden would have also done well in this interview. For that matter, although I disagree with his militarism, John McCain would certainly have been knowledgeable on these issues, too.

But what about Sarah Palin? How would she have done in this interview with Bill O'Reilly about crucial, life-and-death issues for the United States?

That may be the most important lesson of this interview.




And click here for one of my own several enjoyable guest appearances on O'Reilly...

See also: How Can McCain Protect America with Totally Inexperienced VP? ... Pat Buchanan Shows His True Colors to Chris Matthews ... A DA (Not) and a Democrat (Not) Address the Republican Convention

And Coverage of Democratic Convention:

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Four: Obama Deliver's New Kind of Speech: Calls McCain on "Temperament" ... Al Gore: The Two Lines of History Converge

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Three: America Moves Up - Obama Nominated! ... Biden Hits McCain on Everything from Afghanistan to Amtrak

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Two: Patrick Buchanan on MSNBC: Hillary Will Campaign Hard for Obama, But Won't Shed Tears If He Loses ... Hillary Speaks Powerfully at Democratic Convention, in a Scene for the Ages

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day One: Olbermann to Scarborough on MSNBC: "Jesus, Joe, Get a Shovel!" ... Ted Kennedy at 2008 Democratic Convention: JFK Would Be Smiling ... Michelle Obama's Speech: Bringing Home America

Suggestion for New Snorg Tee from Paterson NJ Councilman "We're Tired of Seeing Your Behind"

Not your behind, necessarily, unless you wear saggy pants, below the buttocks, in Paterson, New Jersey. If you do, Councilman Anthony Davis apparently has had his eye on you - or, at least, your backside - and is sick and tired of seeing it. So much so, that he's pushing for fines for indecent exposure for anyone parading around with such low cuts.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is actually showing a complete, naked rear. It's big baggy underwear, with maybe a little of the top of the bottom line.

But to tell you the truth, I'm not really the best person to testify about this, because, the few times that someone wearing such an outfit has crossed my path, I didn't particular look. So maybe because I'm not particularly interested in seeing those behinds, and therefore haven't seen all that many for all that long, I'm not tired of seeing them.

Councilman Davis presumably was, and is, and that's his business. But not the Paterson City Council's, not any government's, which isn't and shouldn't be in the business of telling us how to dress.

I won't go so far to say this is a bonafide First Amendment issue, but, hey, clothing is a kind of communication, I talk about modes of dress when I teach nonverbal communication, so maybe I wouldn't be that much of a smart ass if I said it was...

All right, the puns are endless. "We're tired of seeing your behind" has to be one of the funniest lines that has come down the pike since O'Reilly's "We'll do it LIVE!" If there's not a Snorg tee-shirt out with "We're tired of seeing your behind" in the next week, I'd be amazed.

But Councilman Davis really needs to get back to doing the people's business ... and stop cracking down on the people's business line...

MSNBC Had Best Coverage of the Primary Campaigns

This is not a statistical analysis, but the impressions of one viewer - me - who happens to be a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University in New York City, and author of a whole bunch of books about the media.

I'm thinking MSNBC had far and away the best coverage of the primary campaigns - far better than its CNN and Fox competition.

Here's why:

1. Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and Tim Russert commenting on the nights when the votes are counted: No other cable station or network has that kind of fire power - the current network news anchor (Williams), the previous network news anchor (Brokaw), and, just for good measure the host of Meet the Press (Russert). CNN and Fox have no parent network such as NBC to draw upon.

2. The coverage of MSNBC during the day is top-notch, even extraordinary. Andrea Mitchell interviews movers and shakers whenever she is on, which is often. (Her interview with Manhattan Congressman Charlie Rangel yesterday broke new ground in what was happening with Hillary Clinton, to give just one example.) Meanwhile, Nora O'Donnell and David Shuster, who also have shows on MSNBC during the day, are first-class political reporters. At best, CNN and Fox's day people may be as good as Contessa Brewer and Monica Novotny on MSNBC - but usually not.

3. Chuck Todd is outstanding as a political and statistical analyst on MSNBC. CNN makes a good showing with John King at the magic board, and Bill Schneider's political analysis - call that a draw, maybe. Frank Luntz on Fox is a distant third.

4. The prime-time lineups are about the most equal. Larry King on CNN is in a (good) class by himself. Britt Hume and Bill O'Reilly on Fox are certainly powerful commentators, and Hannity & Colmes are ok. (I'm not taking political positions here, just assessing power on television.) But Chris Matthews on MSNBC is right up there, too. And Keith Olbermann right after Matthews is an imposing presence, too. And for politics, David Gregory and Dan Abrams on MSNBC are a lot better than Greta Van Susteren on Fox, and, for my money, better than Anderson Cooper on CNN, one of its stars.

5. All three cable operations get good guests for regular political commentary. David Gergen on CNN is probably the best - adviser to umpteen Presidents - but Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC hold their own, and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove on Fox News are nothing to sneeze at.

All in all: MSNBC is well ahead in two of the five categories above, and close to equal and sometimes better on the other three.

Prediction: If MSNBC keeps this up during the ensuing General Election campaign, it will be the #1 cable news network.

Advice: MSNBC has wisely moved its "Doc Block" to the midnight hour. I'd recommend removing it completely.

The Decline and Fall of Keith Olbermann (At Least, in my Estimation)

I first realized there was something off with Keith Olbermann when he attacked 24 and Jack Bauer as agents of the Bush administration last year.

I know, that's a minor thing, but that's the point. Why go after a television show when there is so much else you can lambaste when it comes to Bush administration policy?

I admit to having mostly enjoyed a lot of Olbermann's other ticks and gimmicks, including his relentless attacks on Bill O'Reilly. They may not have been completely fair, but media personality wars are irresistible to students of the genre.

In the past few months, though, Olbermann has branched out to the other targets. He histrionically announced his support of Barack Obama and disappointment in Hillary Clinton. Now, I support Barack Obama, too, and have found fault in Hillary Clinton's campaign (such as its "logic" that votes for Hillary in Michigan, where hers was the only name on the ballot, should count), but to hold up Hillary Clinton and her campaign as some kind of devil in democratic politics is just ridiculous.

And Olbermann's gotten worse. Bill O'Reilly's two-part interview with Hillary Clinton, as I mentioned here the other day, was a fine job on both Hillary and O'Reilly's parts. O'Reilly asked tough questions, but was courteous and engaging throughout. Clinton responded with substance and style. All and all, one of the best political interviews I've seen this season.

But Olbermann, almost taking it as a personal insult that Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be interviewed by O'Reilly (after a much weaker interview - because of Olbermann's questions - on Countdown several weeks ago), has been doing nothing but denouncing Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly the past two nights.

Enough is a enough. Intolerance in the media is just as bad if it comes from the left as from the right. I think I'll stay on my computer and skip Olbermann from now on, and wait until Abrams comes on 9pm.

Hillary Does Fine on O'Reilly

Kudos to Hillary Clinton for doing a fine job in her interview on Fox News by Bill O'Reilly. And kudos for Bill O'Reilly for having Hillary on his show.

That's right. I'm a Barack Obama supporter, and no great friend of Fox News or Bill O'Reilly - on whose TV show I've appeared three times* - but I think it's good for our democratic process for people running for President to appear and talk and be interviewed on television as much as possible.

Fox News has millions of viewers. O'Reilly's Factor is its leading show. Cutting this out of the process was a disservice to both the candidates (who have done this, until now) and the American people.

Hillary Clinton offered poise, humor, and tough facts in her responses to O'Reilly. It was a great interview. I'm looking forward to the second part of the interview tomorrow.

Barack Obama was wise to initiate Democratic contender appearances on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this past Sunday.

Both candidates would be wise to continue this. It is only counterproductive to cede Fox News to the Republicans.

=======================

*YouTube clip of my first appearance on O'Reilly several years ago