Slashdot Mirror


Mark Pesce: Open Source Television

alexburnsdisinfo writes "Mark Pesce has given a riveting talk to Australia's Smart Internet CRC on Open Source Television. Rights for reuse granted under the Creative Commons Attribution License." (The talk is here transcribed as text, and it's good reading.)

2 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. My first and Last time with Bill O'reilly by flyingace · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Here is the article. Its almost slashdotted.

    My First (and Last) Time With Bill O'Reilly
    by David Cole

    Print this article
    E-mail this article
    Write to the editors
    Take Action Now!
    I t started innocuously enough. On Monday, June 21, a producer from Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor called to ask me to appear as a guest that evening to comment on a front-page story in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration had overstated the value of intelligence gained at Guantánamo and the dangers posed by the men detained there. I'm generally not a fan of shout-television, and I had declined several prior invitations to appear on O'Reilly's show, but this time I said yes. Little did I know it would not only be my first time, but also my last.

    I sat in the Washington studio as the taping of the show began in New York with a rant from Bill O'Reilly. He claimed that "the Factor" had established the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and then played a clip from Thomas Kean, head of the Senate's 9/11 Commission, in which Kean said, "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."

    ADVERTISEMENT
    I was impressed. O'Reilly, who had announced his show as the "No Spin Zone," was actually playing a balanced soundbite, one that accurately reported the commission's findings both that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11, and that there was some evidence of contacts (if no "collaborative relationship") between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Maybe all those nasty things Al Franken had said about O'Reilly weren't true after all.

    But suddenly O'Reilly interrupted, plainly angry, and said, "We can't use that.... We need to redo the whole thing." Three minutes of silence later, the show began again, with O'Reilly re-recording the introduction verbatim. Except this time, when he got to the part about Kean, he played no tape, and simply paraphrased Kean as confirming that "definitely there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda." The part about no link to 9/11 was left on the cutting-room floor.

    Now it was my turn. O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guantánamo detainees were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions holding the detainees at Guantánamo."

    I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed to be low-level and had provided little valuable intelligence.

    That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not dangerous. I replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk television.

    But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."

    Apparently O'Reilly does not like being called "the pot." He exploded, repeatedly called me an "S.O.B." and assured me that he would cut my accusation from the interview when the show aired. He also said I would "never ever" be on his show again. At this point, I wasn't sure whether to take that as a threat or a promise.

    Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired l

    1. Re:My first and Last time with Bill O'reilly by replicant108 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Partial Transcript: The O'Reilly Factor 2-4-03

      O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

      JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

      O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

      GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

      O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

      GLICK: As an individual.

      O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

      GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

      O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

      GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

      O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

      GLICK: ... escalating...

      O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

      GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

      O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

      GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

      O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

      GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

      O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

      GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

      O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

      GLICK: What I'm saying is...

      O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

      GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

      O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

      GLICK: Maybe...

      O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

      GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

      O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

      GLICK: Well, OK.

      O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

      GLICK: But you do care because you...