The No-Spin Zone: Confrontations with the Powerful and Famous in America
O’Reilly, Bill. 2001. The No-Spin Zone: Confrontations with the Powerful and Famous in America. Broadway.
Rating:
1
Summary:
far from ‘objective’
The book is advertised as discussions the author, Bill O’Reilly, had with people on his show, The O’Reilly Factor. The topics are far-ranging and the guests with whom he addresses the topics are supposed to be the experts. In fact, the discussions between the author and his guests make up less than 5% of the book. The bulk of the book is O’Reilly explaining why he is right and why his guests are wrong.
The topics addressed in the book range from pedophilia to child care to the death penalty and include guests ranging from Dr. Laura Schlesinger to Susan Sarandon to George W. Bush.
Review:
Despite the claim that this book is going to be objective and all sides to every argument, it does no such thing. In fact, it is a far cry from objectivity. As noted above, the bulk of the book is O’Reilly presenting one-sided (and often erroneous) evidence for why he is right and his opponents are wrong.
For instance, the very first chapter in the book discusses sexual deviance. O’Reilly sets up the debate he has with a lawyer from the ACLU who is defending NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) by using poor/non-existent data. Strangely, O’Reilly admits that there isn’t any good data on sexual abuse rates prior to 1990, but despite this fact, he insists on going ahead with his argument, which is basically that sexual abuse and other forms of sexual deviance have been increasing since the 1960s (the behaviors he includes in the deviance category are not specified) There are at least three problems with O’Reilly’s argument. First, as O’Reilly noted, accurate data was not collected on sexual abuse and sexual deviance prior to 1990, so he can’t make an argument for an increase. Second, sexual abuse wasn’t even really defined as sexual abuse until the women’s movement of the 1970s raised awareness about rape, spousal abuse, and sexual harassment. Finally, in light of the two previous points, in all likelihood sexual abuse existed prior to the 1960s. In fact, it was probably happening almost as often prior to the 1960s as it was after the 1960s, but it just wasn’t being reported. In short, O’Reilly doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. Just because sexual deviance has been receiving increasing attention in the media (TV shows and films) doesn’t mean sexual deviance is on the rise. What it would indicate, if anything, is a growing awareness of its existence, and a growing awareness is the first step toward curbing or treating the problem. Sexual deviance is not something new under the sun; in all likelihood it has accompanied Homo sapiens since they became a distinct species (and likely predates that distinction).
Despite the highly subjective and one-sided format of the book, O’Reilly claims he doesn’t intend to convince anyone (yeah right!) but instead just wants to present the discussions. He repeats one point about the discussions over and over: he wants you to decide who wins in his debates. Considering this is his claimed intent, let me give my impressions on some of the debates.
On the debate about NAMBLA, O’Reilly gives the impression that members of NAMBLA are guilty until proven innocent, rather than the way it is specified in U.S. law. Dismissing any and all arguments for the freedom to think as one wants, O’Reilly pre-determines that NAMBLA members are criminals – regardless of whether they’ve acted on their beliefs – and therefore wants them thrown into jail (or worse). He doesn’t believe they deserve lawyers or a trial. The lawyer representing the ACLU argued that they deserve representation because United Statesians cherish the right to THINK what you want in the U.S. If they act on their thoughts/beliefs, that’s another story, but they should be protected in their right to think what they want to think. Additionally, it presents O’Reilly as advocating a society like that depicted in the novel 1984, where even one’s thoughts are regulated. This is a clear loss for O’Reilly.
O’Reilly’s views on sex education are actually based on a logical fallacy, and he presents his argument only half-heartedly. O’Reilly claims that driver’s ed. leads to driving and therefore sex ed. leads to sex. While the analogy about educating someone about driving and sex can actually be informative, O’Reilly limits the analogy to pre-determined outcomes, making it inaccurate. If you do away with the limitations, what you get is actually a useful analogy. A more comprehensive examination of this analogy presents the following comparisons: Driver’s ed. can lead to driving and sex ed. can lead to sex. Additionally, driver’s ed. leads to education about driving just like sex ed. leads to information about sex. But what is missing from O’Reilly’s limited analogy is the fact that somebody can take a driver’s ed. course and not drive a car. They can also take the course and drive it poorly or even drive it and die. This is also true with sex ed. Sex education does not lead to sex, though it can. It can also lead people to not engage in sex, or do it poorly, or even die. In both cases, the intent of the course is to try to educate the individual about the activity (sex and driving) and by so doing, prevent them from doing it poorly and, as a result, dying. By saying that driver’s ed. leads to driving he is forcing the analogy into a corner and then trying to argue that sex ed. should be forced into the same corner. This is no basis to argue against sex education.
But in addition to using poor logic in his attempt to argue against sex education, O’Reilly takes a hypocritical stance. He says that it doesn’t work to simply allow kids/parents to opt out of sex ed. because they will learn about it from their friends that were in the class. However, if you paid close attention to an earlier segment in the chapter, you’d remember that O’Reilly learned about sex in exactly this way – from his friends. In fact, he says that he found his talk with his father about sex particularly awkward because he already knew about it. Is O’Reilly saying that what was good for the gander (him) isn’t good for the geese (his kids)? Does he really think that his kids won’t know anything about sex by the time he gets around to talking to them about it? Once again, O’Reilly’s logic is seriously flawed.
While at this point it’s apparent O’Reilly’s argument against sex education in schools is worthless, O’Reilly doesn’t give up. If he’s anything, he’s determined… to convince people he’s a fool. O’Reilly finally admits he wants kids to know the consequences of sex (poverty, STDs, etc.). I agree with him on this point. But, and get ready for this because it defies all reason, he doesn’t want kids to know how to avoid the consequences of sex. He doesn’t want kids to be taught to use condoms or engage in alternative sexual behaviors (oral or manual stimulation). All he wants kids to learn in school is that sex can lead to poverty, STDs, etc. This is nothing short of a ‘Bush Administration’ fear tactic; tell them only enough to make them afraid, very, very afraid. Don’t tell them what they really need to know in order to avoid the actual consequences: use protection and limit your sexual partners to trusted individuals; boy that was hard! Admittedly I belong to the camp of people that believe education is worthwhile. This camp argues that if you educate people, most will make good choices. Inversely, if you don’t adequately educate them, they may be afraid of the consequences but they won’t know how to avoid the consequences even though they don’t want to face them. O’Reilly’s arguments against sex education fail on every front.
O’Reilly loses several more arguments (the one on sex education was against Jocelyn Elders), but he does actually make a few decent points in some of his debates. For instance, he debates the utility of rap music with Puff Daddy. I have to admit that I’m not a fan of rap music. In fact, I have a hard time using ‘rap’ in the same sentence as ‘music,’ as I don’t think it really is music. O’Reilly tries to paint Puff Daddy as advocating violence, chauvinism, and crime. While I can understand O’Reilly’s point, I think Puff Daddy did a pretty decent job of defending himself – even though I’d just as soon see rap disappear. So, while I almost agree with O’Reilly on this one, he didn’t really undermine Puff Daddy’s argument.
But even though O’Reilly and I agree that rap is just short of worthless noise, I think it’s important to point out that O’Reilly contradicts himself on this point as well. He says he wants parents to talk to kids about things like rap and sex, but then he says he will not let his kids listen to rap or watch shows that have sex scenes. I can understand restricting children’s exposure to such things to a certain degree, but O’Reilly is adamant that none of that ‘stuff’ will be in his house. Once again, I have a different perspective. I believe the better approach would be to let your children engage with these things (e.g., listening to rap, talking about sex, etc.) in a safe environment – where their parents are not breathing down their necks. Once kids realize you are going to be objective about these things, you can then discuss them and reason out whether they should continue to listen/view them, etc. Simply shielding children from these things is not going to prepare them for when they are eventually exposed to them. Protecting your children from things you dislike is actually counter-productive; it makes them vulnerable for when they inevitably have to confront these things. Without support, children will make the wrong decisions. Once again, O’Reilly is wrong.
I have two additional points about the book before I wrap up this review. First, O’Reilly loves to attack people in absentee. He goes on and on about Jesse Jackson and how it was his news staff that broke the story about Jackson paying off his mistress. He does eventually present an excerpt from a debate between himself and a Jackson supporter, but he never debates Jackson personally. While I agree that what Jesse Jackson does to some big businesses is nothing short of extortion, it isn’t particularly honorable to attack people without providing them an opportunity to defend themselves. Not surprisingly, O’Reilly primarily attacks liberals and democrats (Bill and Hillary Clinton are second only to Jesse Jackson as the focus of O’Reilly’s smear).
That O’Reilly focuses almost exclusively on attacking liberals is my final major point. While O’Reilly does debate with a couple of conservatives in the book (Dr. Laura and George W. Bush), when it comes to politics, O’Reilly gives conservatives a free ride. He attacks Bush on his advocacy of the death penalty, claiming that it isn’t Christ-like. Come on! That’s the worst thing he can think of to say to George W. Bush, the author of the biggest budget deficit in history? That O’Reilly lets conservatives slide as much as he does should be the biggest clue that O’Reilly isn’t really objective. He won’t relent with liberals; but with conservatives, he’ll ask them some mild question about a menial issue then move on. If O’Reilly were as tough with conservatives as he is with liberals, I might consider watching his show. But until he can prove that, forget it! He’s just one more member of the Republican smear machine.
The book concludes with a bizarre little pop-psychology pep-talk. O’Reilly claims that everything is ‘wonderful’ in the ‘zone’ and that everyone can have their own ‘zone’ where life is peachy. Interestingly, O’Reilly also discourages his acolytes from talking with people that might disagree with them, claiming that they won’t get anywhere and that they are better off leaving the debating with liberals to him. Of course he doesn’t take this point to its logical conclusion: his incessant attacking of liberals is designed to do one thing – convince people to be conservatives/Republicans. But would you expect anything less from O’Reilly? What’s more, he admits he’s an absolutist, which is a great position if you’re a religious fundamentalist that can only see the world in terms of good and evil. But for thinking, engaged adults, the shades of grey in the modern world are so obvious that to overlook them actually requires intentional deception.
How anyone can believe O’Reilly is objective is beyond me. I have to admit I was impressed with his wittiness and poise on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a visit I saw just after reading this book. I’m not sure what happened to change his demeanor from the standoffish Republican spinmeister on his show, but he was admittedly impressive. If only he could have mustered some of that wit, charm, and reason for this book, I might actually recommend it. As it stands, ‘The No Spin Zone’ should be re-labeled ‘The Spin-Only Zone.’ O’Reilly didn’t convince me of anything but the fact that he favors Republicans and can’t muster enough evidence for his arguments to fill a condom (oops! did I say the ‘c’ word?).