Re: >Subject: Bill O'Reilly MUST be a Who fan

[PellegrinoLand@xxxxxxx]

Let's hope not:

 <A HREF="http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/oh_really.html";>Click here: The "Oh
Really?" Factor: Bill O'Reilly Spins Facts and
Statistics</A>

<A HREF="http://www.fair.org/extra/index.html";>Extra!</A>, May/June 2002

The "Oh Really?" Factor
Bill O'Reilly spins facts and statistics

By <A HREF="http://www.fair.org/extra/writers/hart.html";>Peter Hart</A>

If itbs spin to back up your arguments with bogus facts and statistics, and
to dismiss numbers that donbt fit in with your preconceptions, then Bill
Ob
Reillybs <A HREF="http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/newscorp-fox.html";>Fox
News Channel</A> show isnbt, as he repeatedly claims, a "no-spin
zone"-- itbs Spin City.

During an interview with National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy
(ObReilly Factor, 2/5/02), ObReilly claimed that "58 percent of single-mom
homes are on welfare." When Gandy questioned that figure, ObReilly held
firm:
"You canbt say no, Miss Gandy. Thatbs the stat. You canbt just dismiss
it. .
. . Itbs 58 percent. Thatbs what it is from the federal government."

But by the next broadcast (2/6/02), ObReilly was revising his accounting:
"At
this point, we have this from Washington, and itbs bad. 52 percent of
families receiving public assistance are headed by a single mother, 52
percent." Not only is that a different number, itbs the reverse of the
statistic he offered the previous night-- not the percentage of households
headed by single mothers that receive welfare, but the percentage of families
receiving public assistance headed by single mothers. Thatbs a distinction
that ObReilly did not attempt to clarify; he seemed unapologetic about
emphatically putting forward an inaccurate statistic the night before.

The following night (2/7/02), ObReilly came up with more solid figures, but
they bore no resemblance to his original numbers: About 14 percent of single
mothers receive federal welfare benefits, he now said-- less than one-fourth
of his earlier claim. (He suggested that food stamps ought to be considered a
kind of welfare, but that only gets him to 33 percent-- still 25 percentage
points short.) ObReilly explained that "itbs really hard to get a stat to
say how many single moms percentage-wise get government assistance," though
he
bd found it easy enough to pull one out of the air just three nights
earlier.


Suspect certainty

Therebs a valuable lesson here for Factor watchers: When ObReilly is most
certain, you should be most skeptical. On another show (2/26/01), ObReilly
explained to Florida state senator Kendrick Meek that, thanks to Gov. Jeb
Bush
bs "One Florida" program, 37 percent of students at Florida universities
were
black: "Thirty-seven percent. Thatbs much higher than the population, the
black population, of Florida.

Bush is doing a good job for you guys and youbre vilifying him." When Meek
challenged those numbers, ObReilly insisted they were "dead on." Dead wrong
is more like it: Total minority enrollment for the freshman class entering in
2000 was 37 percent (Florida Times-Union, 8/30/00)-- black enrollment was
about 18 percent.

Sometimes a guest who sticks to his or her guns can keep ObReillybs
audience
from being misinformed. When the host claimed (5/8/01) that the United States
"give[s] far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else. .
. . Nobody else even comes close to us," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for
Policy Studies was thankfully on hand to explain that U.S. contributions per
capita were lower than those of any member of the European Union. "Thatbs
not
true," ObReilly inaccurately responded. Actually, according to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2000 the U.S. gave
only 0.1 percent of its Gross National Income as official development aid--
less than Italy, the least generous EU nation. Denmark gave 10 times as much
on a per capita basis. Even in real terms, Japan in 2000 gave away a third
more aid, even though its economy was less than half as large.

ObReilly rewrote diplomatic history during an interview with James Zogby of
the Arab American Institute (4/2/02). After Zogby argued that Israeli
settlements were an obstacle to peace between Israel and Palestine, ObReilly
countered that during the Camp David negotiations in July 2000, the offer
made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak "would have given 90 percent of
those settlements back"-- an idea he credited to "what every single American
expert who has seen that says." In fact, ObReilly got the proportion of
settlements Barak was prepared to give up almost backwards: He promised
Israelis that any deal with the Palestinians would involve "80 percent of the
settlers in settlement blocks under our sovereignty" (Jerusalem Post,
9/13/00). When Zogby pointed out ObReillybs error, the host said he would
welcome any former diplomats who could prove him wrong: "Ibll put them on
tomorrow," he said-- but didnbt.

ObReilly frequently refuses to believe his guests-- even when they cite a
source. When one Factor interviewee remarked (3/1/02) that "60 percent of all
people will live in poverty for one year of their life," ObReilly shot back:
"Not in the United States. . . . No, thatbs bogus. I mean, thatbs a
socialist stat. You can believe it if you want to, but itbs not true." When
the guest explained that the number comes from research at Cornell
University, ObReilly shot back: "Well, what more do I have to say?"-- as if
any information coming from an Ivy League institution had to be wrong.

ObReilly can be quite fond of a statistic, however, when he thinks it makes
a
point for him. "Herebs the statistic that tells me American society and the
system we have in place works for both blacks and whites," he told the
NAACPb
s Walter Fields (5/15/01). "Eighty percent, all right, 80 percent of what
whites earn, blacks earn if they stay together in a committed relationship,
whether itbs marriage or living together. So if a black man and woman are
married and stay together, they earn 80 percent of what white couples earn.
And the reason it isnbt 100 percent is because more blacks live in the south
where the salaries are lower. That tells me that the American system, the
capitalistic system works and is fair. Where itbs broken downball right,
you
may disagree with that, but that stat is rock solid."

That stat-- which ObReilly has brought up on at least three further
occasions
(3/25/02, 3/27/02, 4/3/02)-- is actually out of date; the latest census
figures (Current Population Reports, 1999) show that black married couples
make 87 percent of what white married couples do. But ObReillybs idea that
blacks overall are poorer because they have chosen not to marry doesnbt hold
water; black single mothers make only 65 percent of what white single mothers
do, even though they have the same family structure. And the notion that
living in the South explains blacksb lower incomes is a fantasy; blacks in
the South, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, actually make more money than
blacks in the Northeast.

Even when ObReilly has a source, hebs prone to distorting numbers. ABCbs
John Stossel came on The ObReilly Factor (1/26/01) to claim that $40,000 in
government money is spent annually on anti-poverty programs for each poor
family. The stat appears to derive from the Heritage Foundationbs Robert
Rector, who deceptively includes expensive programs that go to non-poor
families-- like Pell grants, reduced-price school lunches and Medicare-- in
his tally. A few days later (1/29/01), ObReilly was garbling the already
misleading figure: "Webre paying $40,000 per person who [is] on government
assistance now"--quadruple the amount of spending Stossel was claiming.

"This is personal"

ObReillybs got something against National Public Radio-- namely, theybre
not
interested in him. "This is personal, this is absolutely personal," he said
on his January 7 show. "Ibve had two number-one best sellers. . . . Not one
NPR invitation." Hebs not one to take an offense lying down, so he lets them
have it, attacking the networkbs "left-wing point of view" (3/6/02): "Ibve
never heard a right-wing person on NPR anywhere," he charges (1/7/02). "You
never hear a pro-life person on NPR. You never hear an anti-global warming
person on NPR. They donbt get on there."

Conservatives, of course, appear regularly on NPR, both in commentary (e.g.,
Weekly Standardbs David Brooks, Heritage Foundationbs Joe Loconte) and as
sources in news stories. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
who as a global warming skeptic represents a tiny fraction of the scientific
debate, was on NPR three times last year; the network quoted Douglas Johnson
of the National Right to Life Committee 11 times in 2001.

Youbd think ObReilly would at least get right what people say about him.
"Every time you write about me, you put a little pejorative adjective in
front of my name," he remarked to a gathering of TV writers (St. Paul Pioneer
Press, 1/28/02). "In the Boston Globe the other day, it was bthe
conservative
hatchet man.b" He also complained on his show (1/14/02) about "the Boston
Globe calling me a conservative hatchet man." In fact, what the Globe
actually called ObReilly (12/7/01) was "an attack dog on Foxbs The
ObReilly
Factor." Perhaps what they should have called him is "unreliable."

Sidebar:

Terror and Ecstasy

On February 4, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance questioned whether
casual drug users were really funding terrorism, as ObReilly seems to argue.
When Nadelmann pointed out that marijuana and Ecstasy were not involved in
Afghanistan, ObReilly responded, "Well, Ecstasy is," adding that "most comes
from Holland."

To Nadelmannbs retort-- "and are the Dutch involved in terrorism?"-- Ob
Reilly said, "No, but itbs not run by the Dutch, itbs run by Middle
Eastern
guys." When Nadelmann expressed incredulity, ObReilly challenged him to a
$100 wager, which the drug reform advocate accepted.

Later in the show, Nadelmann again asserted that the casual use of drugs like
marijuana and Ecstasy has "no link to the terrorists." "Youbre wrong about
the Ecstasy," ObReilly insisted. "Youbll send me the check, and Ibll be
very
happy. . . . Itbs controlled by Middle Eastern people out of Holland,
thatbs
where it comes in here from."

The following night (2/5/02), ObReilly gloated that he had won the bet: "OK,
herebs what the Office of the National Drug Control Policy says, and we
quote, bDrug Enforcement Agency reporting demonstrates the involvement of
Israeli criminal organizations in Ecstasy smuggling. Some of these
individuals are of Russian and Georgian descent and have Middle Eastern
ties.b
"

ObReilly seized on this mention of "Middle Eastern ties" to claim that
federal drug officials backed up his claims. But the statement made no
mention of Afghanistan or terrorism, the aspects of ObReillybs claim that
Nadelmann had most taken issue with. Is ObReilly really claiming that
Ecstasy
users are supporting terrorism by giving money to Israeli mobsters? More
likely hebs just demonstrating once again that hebll clutch at any straw
to
avoid admitting that hebs wrong. --P.H.