Bill O'Reilly Is to Journalism What the WWE Is to Fighting

[deleted-05292014 331]

The AtlanticNavigation Search

HomeMore in PoliticsNext ArticleBill O'Reilly Is to Journalism What the WWE Is to Fighting

CONOR FRIEDERSDORFFEB 3 2014, 6:29 AM ET

Reuters

Every so often, President Obama grants a one-on-one television interview to a broadcast journalist, and I sit at home cursing the interviewer for going easy on him. Remember the laughable questions Steve Kroft asked last winter? Well this year, Bill O'Reilly was the one lobbing softballs. The Fox News host scored a one-on-one interview that aired during the Super Bowl pre-game show. I fervently hoped he would use the opportunity to press for useful information. Few broadcasters are as intent on signaling to others that they're tough.

Instead he conducted a faux-tough interview made up of questions that were virtually guaranteed to elicit nothing of value. "I want to get some things on the record," he began, implying that he would ask something that hasn't previously been answered on the record. "So let's begin with health care," he continued. "October 1st it rolls out. Immediately, there are problems with the computers. When did you know that there were going to be problems with those computers?"

First of all, Obama answered that months ago in a nationally broadcast press conference. That he would tell the same banal story was virtually guaranteed. Second, who cares when he knew? The catastrophic launch can never be re-done. At this point, the fix is more important. Obama is never running again for reelection. But there are lots of consequential decisions that he'll make as president, on health care and any number of other vital issues. So why focus on when Obama knew that Healthcare.gov had problems? (Because conservatives "know" he lied.)

The next question was a bit better.

"Why didn't you fire Sebelius, the secretary in charge of this. Because I mean she had to know, after all those years and all that money, that it wasn't going to work?" O'Reilly said. "I'm sure that the intent is noble, but I'm a taxpayer. And I'm paying Kathleen Sebelius' salary and she screwed up. And you're not holding her accountable." More to the point, Obama doesn't seem to have held anyone accountable. I'd have preferred something like, "Did you hold people in leadership positions accountable for this failure? Tell me: who specifically was held accountable and how?" And how about, "What have you done to make sure that the next time the government has to undertake an IT project it won't be a disaster?"

At least those questions both have implications for the future.

But O'Reilly focuses on Sebelius. And when Obama says "I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable," he doesn't ask for any examples!

He just points about that Sebelius is still there.

That wasn't the only time O'Reilly focused on the wrong thing. "Was it the biggest mistake of your presidency to tell the nation over and over, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?" O'Reilly asked. What a strange way to broach that subject. Obama has apologized for his broken pledge. It is a fair matter for inquiry. But why put the emphasis on where Obama ranks it among his mistakes? Who cares where he ranks it (as if he'd ever give a frank ranking)? A policy angle could've worked. "Would you consider amending the law in way x to make good on your promise?" Or O'Reilly could've raised the issue of Obama's credibility. "Why should Americans who didn't get to keep their health insurance believe you when you say that you're not spying on their phone calls?"

Instead he asked a question that was obviously going to be evaded, and that wouldn't have told us much of importance even if Obama had answered it directly. "Sure, Bill, that probably was my biggest mistake." "No, Bill, I've made bigger mistakes."

Who cares what he thinks?

Next up: Benghazi! There are questions a tough interviewer could ask Obama on that subject. Like, "You engaged in a war in Libya without Congressional permission, and later, CIA employees died there. Are the two related? Why does America have boots on the ground in Libya? What's our vital interest?" Here's what O'Reilly asked:

All right.

Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general? Security in Africa. He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack. Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you. Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack? Because I just want to get this on the record... did he tell you it was a terror attack? It's more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration off a videotape but your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it's a terror attack... as an American...

I'm just confused.

What response could this possibly elicit other than the banal official line that Obama repeated? Said O'Reilly, "Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn't want that out." Even if that were true, is Obama really going to appear in a one-on-one with O'Reilly and say, "Well, Bill, I knew it was a terror attack from the beginning but I tried to pretend otherwise for a couple of days because I thought I could get away with itit was a naked political calculation designed to hide my core softness on terrorism."

Come on.

Next O'Reilly used an already debunked data point to essentially ask if the White House ordered a Cleveland IRS office to harass conservatives. If he had any solid evidence for that proposition, it would've been a fine question. Since he had none, it was guaranteed to elicit the same denial we've all heard a dozen times before.

But conservatives just "know" there's something there.

If there was any doubt that the interview questions were chosen to highlight right-wing hobbyhorses, O'Reilly concludes with this one from a viewer: "Mr. President, why do you feel it's necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?" Again, in what world is this ever going to elicit an answer worth hearing? Any number of regular Fox viewers doubtless believe that, were Obama being truthful, he'd answer, "Well, my Kenyan anti-colonial ideology and affinity for both Marx and the Muslim Brotherhood were actually on my mind when I let slip my true plans for fixing this deeply immoral, racist country, but Saul Alinsky warned me not to talk about them."

Even that subset of Fox viewers knows there's no chance of any answer that would satisfy them. But having their pet theory alluded to still gives them a serotonin boost. And that's what O'Reilly was doing in this interview. He was pandering to the part of America that lives within the Fox News bubble, and believes, all evidence to the contrary, that the liberal media never asks the president about Benghazi or the health care web site or the IRS office in Cleveland.

O'Reilly covers well-trod ground less sure-footedly than many who've gone before him, trots out a few right-wing theories that even he won't put his name behind, and produces an interview that serves his interests andObama's interests just fine, but shortchanges everyone who has an interest in more information. Among hard core conservatives, O'Reilly gets to appear as if he has meaningfully probed scandals that would bring down the president if only the truth were known. To everyone else, Obama gets to appear as if those challenging his leadership are nothing but a bunch of uninformed conspiracy theorists.

Little wonder that both men agreed to the interview.

Meanwhile, those who want Obama to face tough questions saw an opportunity squandered, and were bored to tears by stuff we've already heard. For example, the "fundamentally transform" question predictably elicited this yawn-inducing boilerplate:

OBAMA: I think that what we have to do is make sure that here in America, if you work hard, you can get ahead. Bill, you and I benefitted from this incredible country of ours, in part, because there were good jobs out there that paid a good wage, because you had public schools that functioned well, that we could get scholarships if we didn't come from a wealthy family, in order to go to college.

O'REILLY: Right.

OBAMA: That, you know, if you worked hard, not only did you have a good job, but you also had decent benefits, decent health care and for a lot of folks, we don't have that. We've got to make sure that we're doing everything we can to expand the middle class.The Fox News approach to journalism doesn't just drive liberals crazy. It's also bad for all who want Obama to be held accountable. It makes conservative opposition to him dumber, less informed and less effective than it would otherwise be, because O'Reilly's whole schtick is based on contrivance more than substance.

Or as Marc Ambinder put it:

If you want to see a broadcast journalist who is much tougher in his questioning of Obama, and elicits much more interesting answers, take a look at Jake Tapper's recent effort. I'd prefer an even more adversarial treatment, but Tapper does so much better than his broadcaster colleagues typically do that he's earned nothing but praise. O'Reilly's audience won't believe that a CNN interviewer asks tougher questions.

But it's true.

74 | Join the Conversation

Next Article

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

Advertisement

Whatever Is Coming. You In?

Whatever Is Coming. You In?

PROMOTED BY BUD LIGHT

Around The Web (sponsored)

10 Myths and Facts About Getting PregnantActivebeat.com

The End of Windows XP: What You Need to KnowWork Intelligent.ly

8 Job Offers You Should Run Away FromSalary.com

Steps to get out of debt in 2014Better Money Habits

by Taboola

More at the Atlantic

Bruno Mars's Solid-'Meh' Halftime Show

Bruno Mars's Solid-'Meh' Halftime Show

SPENCER KORNHABERFEB 3 2014, 1:27 AM ET

Girls Gets Aggressive

Girls Gets Aggressive

THE "GIRLS" ROUNDTABLEFEB 1 2014, 11:01 PM ET

The Greatest Actor of His Generation

The Greatest Actor of His Generation

DEREK THOMPSONFEB 2 2014, 4:12 PM ET

Elsewhere on the webSponsored Links

7 Things a Woman Should Never Do for a Man ... (All Women Stalk) 8 Celeb Faces Destroyed By Drugs (Celebrity Gossip Answers) 13 Symptoms that Could Mean You're Bipolar (ActiveBeat) If Were At the End of Email, Whats Next? (Work Intelligently)

Join the DiscussionAfter you comment, click Post. If youre not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

Copyright © 2014 Atlantic Monthly Group

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

The problem here is, Obama can't do anything without scrutiny. If Congress doesn't act, it's his fault. If he acts in lieu of Congress, it's still his fault.

[lostinblue 1,989]

pre-screened questions .... This sums it up .......choreographed answers.

[GandD 5,966]

pre-screened questions .... This sums it up .......choreographed answers.

Probably. O'Reilly could have opted out.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Any coincidence that Obama's interview came on the same night that a team from the liberal utopia of Seattle won the Superbowl? Hmmmmmm??? Scandal!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

O'Reilly is the real life Ron Burgundy. He is a terrible interviewer. It's not so much about asking questions as shouting and bullying people into submission. From what I remember, he would ask a question and not let the respondent answer. It was very one sided

[deleted-05292014 331]

Very few credible conservative journalist, Will Allen comes to mind. Bill'O is a joke the President should have never gave him an interview.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didn't see his interview with Obama, however I don't imagine it was very controversial. Or that anything interesting was said.

I used to watch the O'Reilly factor on occasion when I lived in the US. Mainly for comedy value, since it was amazing to me that anyone like that could be considered a decent journalist.

Having some experience of journalism myself, some of the things he does are a definite no no for a reputable journalist.

[Ban Hammer 13,599]

maybe he took it easy on obama because he didn't want to get audited.

[deleted-05292014 331]

maybe he took it easy on obama because he didn't want to get audited.

Lol. Or maybe he was shocked he could have an intelligent conversation with a Black man without him yelling MFer where's my ice tea.

(if anyone recalls his comments about eating in a Harlem restaurant)