Or, more to the point, I might have cited chapter and verse from the article in question: how Massing and CJR documented instances of radio yahoos calling the president a Marxist, a radical, a revolutionary, a communist, a thug, a mobster, a racist, an agent of voter fraud, a black-power advocate, a madrasah graduate, an anti-Semite who wants to “gas the Jews,” a Muslim whose true loyalties are outside the U.S, an associate of terrorists, a “little bitch”— even the anti-Christ. Massing suggested that this bordered on being un-American, and I agree. If Dan had mentioned he might be coming to Teaneck, I might have carried a handy underlined copy of the piece.
But hey, it is what it is. My wife and children find it hilarious, in a supportive way. The woman who cuts my hair says she wishes she had been able to do something prior to my TV experience. Personally, even uncut, I think my hair compares well with O’Reilly’s. It seemed to be not a really big deal, all in all. By noon the day of the interview I had received three e-mails from strangers about the segment. I wished two of them good luck with their anger-management courses, and with the more reasonable third, I will try for a dialogue worthy of our new bipartisan era.
You can watch portions of the video here.

Has the CJR ever published a media criticism piece from someone who's written for The Weekly Standard?
#1 Posted by Matt J. Duffy, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 07:41 AM
The next issue of CJR will include an essay by Thomas Mallon, who has written for The Weekly Standard on various occasions. It will also include a piece by Ross Douthat, coauthor of the recent Grand New Party, which David Brooks calls the "best single road map of where the [Republican] party should and is likely to head." I doubt that either of these gentlemen would be willing to contribute to a bomb-throwing organ of the hard Left.
#2 Posted by James Marcus, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 09:24 AM
Hitler, books on how to assassinate "W", idiot, fascist, imperialist, bigot, right wing Christian ideologue, "theocracist" (if that is a word but you understand), moron and lots and lots of f-bombs (too many to count). Abject hatred. On PostSecret.com someone claimed depression because they no longer had W to blame everything on any longer.
No I did not vote for Obama. No I don't listen to talk radio now. Yes i believe in the freedom of speech. Few in the media complained when "W" was derided and diminished. Many, many shows did an amazing job attacking him with no subtlety attempted. If any side has the freedom to use such words, any side has that freedom. Frankly, I would prefer that all stick to the facts and give up the image attacks based upon truth-less, emotionally charged words, but I am not naive.
I will give Obama's position the respect it deserves and him the chance to succeed. What I see, as a conservative economist, I do not like. Oh well. Our founding father hired editors and created newspapers to spew lies to get elected and promote agendas, like wars (Cuba-American, etc.). Wonder if that mess was ever cleaned up?
#3 Posted by Joseph Badger, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 09:54 AM
He’s not my president appeared on bumper stickers shortly after President Bush won his 2nd term. Now that President Obama has taken office, those same people who spouted vial epitaphs are now screaming if you question President Obama or make a comment, not to the liking of the left wing media, your labeled bias or racist?
If you did not like President Bush, ok, but to deny anyone the right to disagree with President Obama is hypocritical or labeling someone a racist for disagreeing is a vial attempt to censure free speech. Where was Mr. Massing’s outrage when the extreme left wing media did this to President Bush or was he afraid of biting the hands that feed him?
I saw the clip on O’Reilly and thought it looked like the Ayers and Khalidi interviews. We see men who will say anything but when the spot light is turn on them they run and hide, then scream ‘how dare you question me?’ If you don’t have time for questions, why print a piece that you knew would cause controversy? Or do you think that only progressive liberal journalists have the right to free speech?
#4 Posted by Cho Dan, Kingston, NY, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 10:53 AM
Thanks, James. Those authors certainly indicate ideological diversity. I think that's all that's important -- everyone's got an agenda, we should just make sure all sides get a fair airing.
#5 Posted by Matt J. Duffy, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 01:59 PM
For the life of me I do not understand why it is sacrosanct that the press remain unbiased. No one can be unbiased, we are all products of our upbringing, education, social status, etc. For there to be this aura of empirical Satori possessed by everyone with a journalism degree is the height of arrogance and ultimately hypocrisy.
Why doesn't everyone just agree what is already known that the Times, BBS, NPR, Time, Newsweek and all the usual suspects are left leaning and Fox and talk radio are right leaning?
This would put an end to the charades and the "Fair and Balanced" slogans.
#6 Posted by steven sadowski, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 02:09 PM
I had to stop the clip at the intro, right after O'Reilly holds his nose while pronouncing the name of The Nation. Watching stuff like this is like looking into a black hole of reason. We have him to thank for the polluted minds like Cho Dan here, who I'm sure believes Rashid Khalidi is an extreme left-wing terrorist thanks to O'Reilly's invention of reality. After all, he has an Arab name, what more evidence do you need?
#7 Posted by Evan Woodward, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 02:20 PM
Evan, here's a little "evidence," in the form of a Khalidi quote to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in 2002:
"Killing civilians is a war crime. It's a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They're civilians, they're unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance."
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740
#8 Posted by Clay Waters, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 04:37 PM
I agree with Mike Hoyt's argument. My question is unrelated to his argument. Mr. Hoyt, why the use of "prior to" since Evan Jenkins, in a piece for the Language Corner, chastised writers that "'prior to' is very close to non-English"?
#9 Posted by RICHARD, CJR on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 04:39 PM
Without delving into an endless debate about the I-P conflict, I have to ask what exactly is so extreme about the statement you quote? Aside from the fact that Khalidi disputed the context. Quel surprise that the fair minds at Campus Watch didn't give him a hearing.
Here we have the problem with O'Reilly, and the rest of the discourse on televised news: all opinions and realities he cannot address, such as those of a respected and valuable Middle East scholar, are relegated outside the circle of reasonable debate. In this case in particular, this is done with the added brush of subtle racism. It was convenient for McCain, struggling in his campaign, to have some big bad Arab to trot out to scare up votes, and its just as convenient for the "vial" Cho Dan now.
#10 Posted by Evan Woodward, CJR on Thu 5 Feb 2009 at 10:05 AM
Ms. Woodward, I accept you will not watch O’Reilly but you don’t mention what media outlet pollutes you mind so I’m not going to make rash comments; I’ll leave that up to you. Khalidi’s resume states he worked for the PNS (news service in Beiruit) and directly with the PLO from 1970-82. The same PLO, which Yasser Arafat commanded! The same PLO that blew up a dozen airliners; bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut killing 285 and was implicated when a Mac flight went down killing 283 American soldiers off New Foundland. Khalidi was politically active with the PLO like Ayers was politically active with the Weatherman Underground. Others might say that Osama bin Laden was politically active in the bombings of the World Trade Centers on 9-11. Birds of a feather, Ms. Woodward, flock together. I never needed Mr. O’Reilly to tell me these things; I lived through them, witnessing the horror and death and not from behind a PC or television set.
#11 Posted by Cho Dan, Kingston, NY, CJR on Thu 5 Feb 2009 at 12:41 PM
Some may say you're inventing facts out of whole cloth. Khalidi's "resume" mentions no activity with the PLO. This is an untruth attributable to a Thomas Friedman column from 1982, widely debunked since then. But, despite this, somehow you have come to believe it as gospel, all of your own accord. It couldn't be because Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and David Horowitz repeated it ad nauseam for a few weeks last year, could it? No, it couldn't be.
#12 Posted by Evan Woodward, CJR on Thu 5 Feb 2009 at 01:46 PM
The best part is O'Reilly immediately segues from the CJR segment to this--and these are his very first words after the "ambush Mike on the bus" stunt:
"As we've stated, somebody is going to get hurt physically by these vicious paparazzi unless new laws are put into place to protect the privacy of Americans."
And then footage of Miley Cyrus getting rushed by TV cameras.
#13 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 5 Feb 2009 at 02:22 PM
"Posted by Cho Dan, Kingston, NY on Wed 4 Feb 2009 at 10:53 AM
He’s not my president appeared on bumper stickers shortly after President Bush won his 2nd term. Now that President Obama has taken office, those same people who spouted vial epitaphs are now screaming if you question President Obama or make a comment, not to the liking of the left wing media, your labeled bias or racist?"
I'm not.
#14 Posted by Bugged, CJR on Thu 5 Feb 2009 at 04:51 PM
I like Barack and voted for him, but I've about had it with this one-way "bi-partisan" ethic. Why don't you just remind everyone that the bullying pig O'Reilly is a one-handed phone harasser of female employees and Fox News is nothing less that a journalistic brothel, and be done with it.
#15 Posted by Jeff O, CJR on Fri 6 Feb 2009 at 04:57 PM
Just saw The Daily Show "reporting" of this incident.
I hope you saw it too, you did fine!
Many commentators on this thread seem to have missed the point that regardless of what one thinks of the article and its author, Bill O'Reilly's tactics are despicable.
All he had to do was ask the question by email if he really wanted an answer.
#16 Posted by Murray Abraham, CJR on Thu 12 Feb 2009 at 11:21 AM