I have to disagree with Lessig on the idea that the ad does not equate US military actions with terrorist acts – in the 1st column it certainly does create a parallel between 9/11 and US attacks in Vietnam, Baghdad etc. I think the intention to say that recent US political/military actions have similar qualities to those of terrorists or repressionary regimes is quite clear.

However I also have to disagree with jt – we don’t have to acknowledge that the conduct of the Glick interview and the way O’Reilly has subsequently portrayed it is a matter of perception – O’Reilly was unforgivably personally offensive and threatening to a man who remained calm the whole time, he deliberately misinterpreted Glick’s statements and position (primarily making him out to be anti-American when he had not said that) and has subsequently mischaracterised the nature of the exchange. There is very very little room for perception.

Lastly I do feel Glenn has well summed up the answers to O’Reilly’s points. Your summation of those points and Glenn’s answers show why O’Reilly and similar entertainers get taken seriously – as they can make assertions that sound very reasonable, but either don’t contain enough information or connect two ideas (the Times having alot of front page stories on a topic and the Times being politically biased) that need an awful lot more analysis to really connect.

Now I’m going to look up what “INDUCE” is.

1. We don’t know what proof he sent. I’ve seen the counter to this when Al Franken has systematically taken apart O’Reilly’s claim of Franken lying. The whole Peabody Award thing is a weird exercise on O’Reilly’s part, for instance, and he continues to claim that he never said things that you can watch him say on the tape. We’d need to see O’Reilly proof (in a blog? that would be great!) to counter it, and know whether Maslin was right to not correct her review.

2. I can’t find the citation, but Rich didn’t call it a bribe. He noted the financial connection between Gibson paying O’Reilly millions of dollars for the rights to a book, and then O’Reilly promoted Gibson’s film without disclosing that relationship. Those are all facts. O’Reilly is calling it a bribe. Rich was calling it an undisclosed financial connection that any media organization should disclose when attempting to portray news.

3. I don’t have the resources to confirm whether the Times ran this many stories or if other papers with other characterized political bents did more or less. We haven’t seen the bottom of this story yet, so expect more when the rape videos actually finally leak out.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the guest might have a hard time answering questions if they are told to “shut up”.

But everyone here should be smart enough to find his main points, because they’re labeled. Below is my outline of the transcript.

Thesis: ‘The Times’ uses its news pages to promote a liberal editorial position and uses its columnists to smear high profile people with whom the paper disagrees.

Supporting point 1: book reviewer Janet Maslin gave glowing tribute to Stewart Smalley’s defamation. When I mailed Maslin proof the man was lying, proof, she ignored the evidence completely.

Supporting point 2: Frank Rich accused me of taking bribes from Mel Gibson over “The Passion” controversy. Rich couldn’t produce any evidence of that. And on the same subject, “The Times” had to issue a printed retraction when one of their reporters wrote that Gibson “deployed” me.

Supporting point 3: “The Times” has run 46 front-page stories about the Abu Ghraib scandal, far more than any major American paper and is using the issue to directly hammer the Bush administration.

We also have to acknowledge that the whole “Glick” interview is a matter of interpretation. I happen to think they were both equally at fault, Glick for prodding O’Reilly, and O’Reilly for responding predictably. However, his points above sound pretty reasoned.

Can someone (jt? kd?) please tell me (in quotes) O’Reilly’s points?

Thank you.

Speaking of relevant Net stuff in the news, can I try shameless self-promotion of my Nitke v. Ashcroft report, given that just a few days ago there was an EFF Deep Links article mentioning it? – Will Obscenity Ruling Break Online Anonymity?

As far as the rest, O’Reilly and Glick have issues with each other. That much is clear. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, and Outfoxed itself IS propaganda, not an exploration of anything approaching real truth.

Every day I come here, Lessig, I have to remind myself that you’re really not THAT far out there, that you do have important work with Creative Commons, the EFF, and IP law.

As for your other political views, well, let’s face it – all I see is yet another partisan hack going at it. And that’s sad.