Oprah hosted O'Reilly to discuss molestation without raising his remark that child had "fun" with his captor
On the February 21 edition of her nationally syndicated talk show, Oprah Winfrey hosted Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly during a discussion about child molestation but failed to question O'Reilly about his suggestion that Shawn Hornbeck -- the young boy who was abducted at age 11, held for four years and then found by police in Missouri -- may have willingly remained with his captor because he was having "a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents."
Winfrey did note that O'Reilly had speculated about why Hornbeck did not flee, but did not explain to her viewers the extent and full content of O'Reilly's comments. During his February 21 appearance, O'Reilly told Winfrey that Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome "is the key to the [Michael] Devlin case and the Shawn Hornbeck situation" and that the assertion by the "idiot media people" that Hornbeck suffered from Stockholm Syndrome is "a bunch of crap." Winfrey then asked: "Is that why you asked the question, 'Why [didn't?] he run?' " -- to which O'Reilly replied: "Right, right. Because people have to know how bad this is."
As Media Matters for America documented, on the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asserted that "there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances" and that "[t]he situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents." On the January 16, 17, and 22 editions of his program, O'Reilly defended those statements and vowed to "apologize" if he was "wrong," as Media Matters also noted.
Additionally, as Media Matters documented, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children replaced O'Reilly as keynote speaker at a fundraising event, a detail that Winfrey ignored during her discussion with O'Reilly. As Keith Olbermann reported on the February 9 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children did not provide a reason for its decision to replace O'Reilly but issued the following statement:
In response to the numerous e-mails and inquiries we have received, we are providing the following update regarding the Collier County, Florida branch fundraising dinner scheduled for March 9, 2007 in Naples, Florida. Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor, will not be a speaker at the dinner. The dinner will be held as scheduled. John Walsh, host of America's Most Wanted, will be the keynote speaker.
From the February 21 edition of The Oprah Winfrey Show:
WINFREY: Why do you think this country has not risen up with a united voice against this issue?
O'REILLY: Because it -- nobody wants to think about it. It's too grisly. Do you know what Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome is, Oprah?
WINFREY: No.
O'REILLY: All right. This is so horrifying and this is the key to the Devlin case and the Shawn Hornbeck situation. It is so horrifying what these pedophiles do to these kids. You heard from Todd --
WINFREY: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- and I bet you Todd just told you 10-15 percent of what happened to him.
WINFREY: If that.
O'REILLY: OK. Right. OK. This Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome is basically a torture where these pedophiles -- and they learn this technique -- torture young girls and boys, little girls and boys, where they get them to a state where they are so confused they don't know what they're doing. OK. It's like -- and -- it's like if you were in a torture chamber in, you know --
WINFREY: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- some kind of horror movie, all right, and then, when they break the kid down and the kid doesn't know what he's doing then they do what they want with the kid.
Now, America doesn't want to confront this. It's not Stockholm Syndrome. Remember, in the Devlin case, all these idiot media people run up, "Oh, Stockholm Syndrome, like Patty Hearst." What a bunch of crap. I'm sorry I had to use that word, but it is just garbage, all right. This is way beyond that. This is torture -- systematic torture.
WINFREY: Is that why you asked the question: "Why [didn't?] he run?" You asked --
O'REILLY: Right, right. Because people have to know how bad this is, all right. This is taking a human being, a little child, and in the worst possible way, torturing that child over months to break the child down and the child doesn't know what they're doing.
WINFREY: Yeah, Todd's here nodding, Bill, because he knows what you're talking about.
O'REILLY: Now, there's two ways to fight this, all right. Number one: with the law, which we just talked about. Anybody doing this kind of stuff, it's life in prison. Period. That's it. And the second thing is for parents to understand that you have to educate.
I thought this was crazy. O'really of all people.
For crying out loud ... Is MMFA aware of the tons of laudable work Bill O'Reilly has done on behalf of vulnerable children over the years? Is MMFA's hatred of O'Reilly this blind?
O'Reilly has spent much of his recent career trying to defend innocent children by shining the light on instances in which victimized children have not been protected. He's shined the light on judges who give light sentences for child rape, the need for Jessica's law, the chicanery of NAMBLA, incompetent child protective services (in Jeb Bush's Florida, for example), lenient sentencing laws ... the list goes on ... By the way, the profits from his web site go to various charities, many of which are committed to helping kids. He's probably given several thousands of dollars.
IMHO, MMFA loses respect with posts like this. If this is "conservative misinformation," then I guess there really isn't much to it.
My 2 cents. Thank you.
Only among those not bright enough to overcome the simplicity of one segement of the conservative mindset. That things can only be one way or another. If someone does something good that means they can never do ANYTHING wrong. Sure its dumb, but its a main segment of the dumber conservatives worldview. I dont care if he personally saved children from Nazi gas chambers with his bare hands. That doesnt mean he gets to be as cruel and insensative as he was to Hornbeck and not be called on it. Since it happened in such a public way anyone touting him as a child abuse advocate should address the idiocy, cruelty and insensativaty of his recent statements to a victim of child abuse. DUH.
You missed the point here. No one enjoys being kidnapped...no one. What O'Reilly should do is what his enabler haven't done is to tell him to apologize and shut up. Yes I have applaud him for being champion for children's rights. When you make a statement without no apology or remorse then crediablity is all but shot.
I watched this Oprah Episode
And I applaud her and O'Reilly, he has explained his remarks for me regarding the Hornbeck issue. He is doing alot for the cause of "Jessica's Law' as is Oprah, who was abused as a child. They should be praised for helping kids, not condemed for a political partisan childish feud between Olbermann and O'reilly. I noticed Olbermann named Oprah and BO on his Worst Person list last night. If Olbermann wants to help kids, why doesnt he start discussing Jessicas Law? Enough is enough.
Thank you Oprah for your help with kids.
"I actually hope I'm wrong about Shawn Hornbeck. I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long." -Senor Dumb Ass
This man does get a pass from me on this comment.
I've never seen anything so unfair in my life!!!
O'Reilly dedicates the last 5 years to getting Jessica's Law across the Country.
He then makes a reasonable comment about a specific situation w/ a boy who had ample opportunity to escape, never had to go to school, played videogames all day, and never tried to leave.
He simply realized like many people did, there was something that the boy like about the situation.
Then Obleloser in an attempt to get ratings ignores everything that O'Reilly has done for kids based on that one comment. Terrible.
He then makes a reasonable comment about a specific situation w/ a boy who had ample opportunity to escape, never had to go to school, played videogames all day, and never tried to leave.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Reasonable comment"? BO is not an psychological expert in this issue. If he is ignorant about his whole isue and making such a comment, what is so reasonable about it. Did you read news at all - especially the how Hornbek was abused? Or, do you get everything from O'Reilly Factor? BO's comment was a cruel. He is ignorant. There is nothing "reasonable" about being ignorant.
Reasonable comment? YOU are as disgusting as O'weasel. Blaming the victim of a horrendous molestation. Turn your gutter mind in for a new model. There is NOTHING reasonable about such a crue. insensative and soul less accusation. Turn in your humanity card, you no longer qualify as having the basic decency necessary to call yourself a human being.
FINALLY ! SOMEONE ELSE THAT THINKS AS I DO .. I COULDNT BELIEVE IT WHEN I HEARD BILL ACUTALLY VOICE WHAT I WAS THINKING .... WHY DOES EVERYONE FEEL THAT SHAWBECK WAS "BRAINWASHED" OR HAS A "SYNDROME " .. COULDNT IT BE THAT HE LIKED LIVING THERE WITH DEVLIN "BETTER" THEN LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS ? WHY NOT LOOK INTO THE BACKGROUND OF HIS PARENTS AT THAT TIME AND SEE IF THERE WASNT SOME "OTHER" REASON THAT HORNBECK DIDNT "WANT" OR "TRY" TO LEAVE { ESCAPE} ?
So you are glad to have found someone that agrees with you that the VICTIM of four years of horrendous sexual abuse brought it on himself and enjoyed it? When you lie down with dogs you get fleas. All you did was find another dog to lie down with.
Why did you type your post to look like a ransom note?
An explanation and an apology are two very different things.
Talking about something, and actually advocating something are two very different things. Oprah and BO Advocate Jessicas Law and helping child abuse victims. Oprah was a victim, she does not have an issue with O'Reilly, neither did the man on Oprahs show. They are the experts not us or Olbermann.
I am not arguing O'Reilly's legacy as a child-victim advocate. This 'expert' of yours pretended to be a psychologist on TV and blame Hornbeck for what happened to him. If the T-Warrior was the advocate he's purported to be, he would have apologized to the victim.
I did not say O'Reilly was the expert, I said Oprah and the man who was abused were the experts. They do not have a problem with O'Reilly and he is an advocate of Jessica's Law and helping children.
In my opinion BillO doesn't give a rip about children. He uses "Jessica's Law" and all his grandstanding about child molesters as another club to beat on "activist liberal judges" and "S-Ps." I think equating liberals with pedophiles gives his core audience a delightful little thrill.
But again, that's just my opinion.
And you have a right to that opinion. But if it saves one child from abuse , is that so bad?
And if Bill's rant encouraged even just one sexual predator that he could be 'good' for a kid after kidnapping him? Please tell us how you will deal with that equally unprovable conjecture?
Now your being silly.
Oh I see, you base your whole argument on pure speculation yet when speculation just as valid as yours (none) is presented in opposition you toss around insults.
What is my speculation?
You say that "if this helps one child." The VERY REASONABLE QUESTION to that is, what if O'Reilly's words justify in the mind of even one abuser that what he is doing is right... then what?
But you'll rudely dismiss this question as you have others as "silly."
doris = tommy
mefirst= unable to type correctly
Doris, Actually mefirst is our love child - or so he wishes.
He must be , he seems obsessed with you and I. We should have taken better care of our "love child".
"We should have taken better care of our 'love child'."
-----
Poor kid. Raised by trolls.
AMERICANMUTT: "you base your whole argument on pure speculation"
Yet your previous comment was complete speculation also! (AMERICANMUTT: "if Bill's rant encouraged even just one sexual predator that he could be 'good' for a kid after kidnapping him ...")
D'oh!
Yeah, you got that, congratulations. Now what is it about the fact THAT WAS THE POINT arent you understanding? HE made a point based on NOTHING but conjecture to make the point that it is just as useless as Doris's point for the same reason. Try to keep up.
I think Shoes are on the wrong feet.
Well, Doris, we'll never know whether anything O'Reilly does saves anybody from anything. My opinion is that Jessica's Law won't stop child molesters from molesting any more than the death penalty stops murderers from murdering.
The point is, when Billo turns his pro-child advocacy into yet another partisan issue (which Oprah doesn't appear to do), it makes me doubt the sincerity of his purported motives. I think it's just another way for him to bully people.
Rusty, you have a good point. I am still glad Oprah brings this topic up for discussion.
Doris, here's one of the problems that has been pointed out by proffessionals on this subject. If we're to believe that criminals consider their sentancing when commiting a crime, then Jessica's law could lead to the childs murder--after all, they will get the same sentance either way, (in their disturbed mind) therefore, if the child is dead, he/she will not be able to testify against the perp. The fact is--when committing a crime, very few criminals consider how long they'll be behind bars. They believe they will not get caught.
The point isn't so much that Jessica's law will stop child molestation, but the increased sentence will keep the scum off the streets longer so they can't destroy more children's lives.
except of course the 13-14-15 year olds we sentence as 'adults' who are then raped (possibly again) and then a few years later tossed back on the street better trained to hurt people and with no hope anywhere.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe 13 year olds can be charged as adults in rape cases. Even if they can be, that is not the issue under Jessica's law.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1264/is_n5_v25/ai_15763402
adding to the above, i do not see all that much difference between 13 and 14 years old.
This is a discussion on the topic, that is all I see. Can you show me a case where a 13 year old has been tried and convicted as an adult of child molestation or child rape and sentenced accordingly?
see above
You didn't expect him to actually read the whole article, did you?
I read the entire article, and you still have not answered my question of the challenge posed. Unless you can, the article is irrelevant.
Rusty,
"I think equating liberals with pedophiles ..."
Strawman argument!
I doubt BOR has ever equated liberals with pedophiles, as in:
If you are a liberal, you are a pedophile.
What Bill stresses is the liberal tendency to focus on the perpetrator and his/her plight, as in "Can he/she be rehabiltated?" versus focusing on the victim.
I originally assumed incorrectly that the kidnapper somehow held the kid captive physically for 4 years. It was soon revealed that he had gone on dates and visited a police station on his own.
There is a thought process among certain people that there must be a sum to one in all situations. That is, if you question in the slightest way the behavior of a victim, you are diminishing the responsibility of the perp. I disagree. To solve a recurring problem like this, the perps should be prosecuted following the law, but we also should look at victim behavior: What can be done to enable victims like this boy and others like him to get the whatever it takes to counter the physical and emotional power of his attacker.
"What Bill stresses is the liberal tendency to focus on the perpetrator and his/her plight, as in "Can he/she be rehabiltated?" versus focusing on the victim."
Propaganda.
MissouriShowMe
"liberal tendency to focus on the perpetrator and his/her plight,.."
Thats just BS to begin with. Add to that, this conservative attitude (and if you watch a lot of news programs involving highly emotional crimes, like child molestation, you will see this) of "kill them all!"
When a researcher (or expert) says, "well this molester was in fact a product of a broken home...etc." he/she is not saying that we should feel sorry for the molester. In fact what is being stated is that perhaps this is the reason this person did what they did. "Experts" in these fields interview and analyze the lives of the criminals involved with the hope that one day we can prevent others from comminting the same crimes.
But than you have conservatives screaming, that the people investigating the criminal is in fact trying to make "everyone feel sorry for that person" (as you can see here on this thread).
I have a theory that it has to do with the average difference in education levels between the two political parties/mind-sets. For example: those trying to find the root cause of the crime are on the whole, highly educated individuals (and usualy more liberal). Those on the other side, screaming loudly, show very little evidence of a formal education (admittely this could be due to the nature of the crime and the highly charged emotional state it causes).
So in response anyone who does not automatically start the conversation with a loud, "kill him!!" is judged to be in support of the criminnal and the crime.
Well Doris- this is your lucky day- I am an 'expert' on child abuse and molestation.
You are blinded somehow and think this is a feud between Olbermann and O'Reiley?
Please.
O'Reiley said in no uncertain terms right after Shawn was rescued- that basically Shawn "liked" being held captive by a psychopath who was brutally assaulting him.
He mocked the "Stockholm Syndrome" and showed zero compassion for a 11 year old boy who was abducted from his family.
And he deserves a nation forum on the Oprah show in support of "Jessica's Law"?
The thing is Doris- just like woman don't "ask for it" when they are raped.
Children don't "ask for It" when they are raped and held captive either. and.. adults can use all kinds of ways to control kids to keep them vulnerable and compliant. Most involve coercion with threats and acts of violence. (which I would qualify a child rape as for starters)
When you look at the charges on Shawn's abductor- you realize that monster was up to all kinds of dastardly deeds.
It makes me very very angry that some fool like O'Reilley with a national audience would say the things he did about Shawn.
That was Keith's Olbermann's point. And it's a good one. He actually should have been fired from Fox. His presence on the Oprah show just added insult to the very real injury he inflicted on Shawn.
O'Reilley does things for his own personal gain- it's been part of his act to get all inflamed on child abuse issues, but his bottom line is ratings.
Congressman Mark Foley supported "Jessica's law" too while he was seducing young pages in Congress.
He and O"reilley are both two disgusting excused for men- they manipulate the system for their own sick needs. They exploit the vulernable and appear to get "off" on it.. How coud you possibly defend him?
Oprah Winfrey I believe has been and is genuinely interested in children's welfare. She made a huge mistake by having O'Reilley on her show as any kind of spokesperson.
It hard to believe that she didn't know of his callous harmful and damaging remarks, and that if she did know she would have him on her show.
Shame on Oprah.
What's potentially shameful is an "expert" on child abuse and molestation letting their personal hatred of a media personality, no matter who they are, get in the way of supporting a law that will keep child molesters off the streets and away from children. You are not doing that, are you?
even more shameful is your desire to distract and accuse others of things not in evidence. Where in his post did he talk about 'Jessica's Law'? For that matter prove that that particular piece of legislation will protect every child.
If you mean getting O"Riley off the streets- I'd be all for it. At least off the air waves. Yes, I am completely disgusted by his statements suggesting a child would like the kind of horror that Shawn lived through.
And if you EVER had contact with children who have been raped, molested, exploited, abducted, manipulated, and used by adults, then I think you would join me in my disgust.
Many adults including Oreilly have used positions of power to exploit children.
Jessica's Law will go forward on its own merit.
I do think O'Reilye has some mental healt issues- and I do think his Platform on working on behalf of children serves his own puprses.
There are unfortunatly a few like him.
Mark Foley comes to mind.
MONSTERMASH: I do think O'Reilye has some mental healt issues-
Wheeew... thanks for saying that. I thought maybe I was the only one who'd noticed that. ;>)
What's potentially shameful is an "expert" on child abuse and molestation letting their personal hatred of a media personality, no matter who they are, get in the way of supporting a law that will keep child molesters off the streets and away from children. You are not doing that, are you?
Being upset that Bill O was given a forum on child abuse after he said the child "was having fun" = being against child molestation laws????????
Typical right-wing spin.
Once again your take is so simplistic. Even some child advocacy and sexual assualt victims groups oppose Jessicas law. Also some conservative groups and Republicans.
http://www.calcasapublicpolicy.org/CALCASA_Prop83.pdf
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA022207.02O.Chapa.523aecc.html
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/events.html
The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute recommends a "No" vote on California Ballot Proposition 83 -- Jessica's Law.
I know its the rightwing way to portray everything as black and white, either you agree with me or you support child molestation but we have been over this before. This isnt that cut and dried and you know it. When are you going to stop framing everything as a strawman or a false dichotomy? Why must you be so disengenuous over and over again?
get in the way of supporting a law that will keep child molesters off the streets and away from children.
+++++++++++++++++++++
I too want child molesters off the street. And, yes those sexual harasser too - those who harass colleague for phone sex. Why allowing them to settle lawsuit? Just because they have million dollars in bank account, which allow them to settle out of court? Why not put them in jail too.
Remember this Oprah relationship came on the heels of O'Reilly bitching that there were no tradtionalist on her show. So by the end of the day Oprah caved and this what she is getting.
"They should be praised for helping kids, not condemed for a political partisan childish feud between Olbermann and O'reilly."
Sorry, this has nothing to do with the feud between O'Reilly and Olbermann. It has everything to do with Bill making boneheaded comments.
How can you openly wonder whether the kid "having fun," then become compassionate all of a sudden and say "This is so horrifying"?
Hypocrisy at its finest. But then again, you'd expect nothing else from Bill O.
My problem is this...
First, all praise for Jesica's Law, helping abused kids, etc. etc....
The problem I have though is that I have seen Bill O'Reilly enough to formulate a well-grounded opinion that he is basically a bullshiet artist... he pretends to know more, to be smarter, than he actually is. What bothers me when he starts talking about psychological factors in abused or kidnapped children I always wonder how much is scientifically derived, if any, and how much he's making up as he goes along. He probably believes what he says, though... I'll give him that. But much of what he is delivered to sound as though his opinion is an expert opinion, but it sounds to me like it's not... it just sounds like another verse of his usual pop philosophy bullshiet. It makes me wonder how much scholarly effort he has made to learn from real experts... psychiatrists, hostage negotiators, and other professionals who deal with these issues on a regular professional basis. I'm not talking about just interviewing some of these people from time to time on his show either... I mean, has Bill O'Reilly taken time from his busy schedule of daily shows, personal appearances and book writing to actually study the subject matter on a scholarly level?
Take Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth, for example. Regardless what you think of Al Gore personally or about whether global warming and its effects are soundly backed by current science, Gore obviously has done his homework. In fact, Gore says he became interested in the subject as far back as college and that in the 1970s he was pushing for Congressional action on global warming. Gore is not a scientist but he has obviously studied the issue extensively on a scientific basis, understands it, and he appears to be comfortably conversant on many aspects of global warming from a scientific standpoint. I don't get that same impression from Bill O'Reilly when he's talking about child psychology and other related points pertaining to child abuse and such. Again, his talk about matters that one would assume require some professional expertise strikes me as just more of the pop psychology he enjoys dispensing on his show and in his books... like all of his "culture warrior" and "secular progressive" pop psychology nonsense.
So.. hats off to Bill O'Reilly if he's giving a lot of money to a good cause. But if I really want to learn about the psychological impact of abuse on children I'll find professional explanations from expert sources or listen to someone who at least appears to have done a considerable amount of scholarly research into the subject matter.
Bill's basic dilema is that he can't one moment wear the hat of an obnoxious right wing hit man who uses questionable facts, faulty logic and bullying tactics to attack and call people names... and then suddenly be taken seriously when he switches gears and tries to sound like an expert on matterss of psychology and such... particularly when so much of his other, regular schtick contains so much non-scientific pop psychology. Sorry, I ain't buying...
But I do sincerely hope he donates lots of money to this cause as well as other deserving charitable organizations. Good for him, if he does...
Can you explain how he explained his remarks on Shawn Hornbeck to me? All he's done is try and deny he said it. But you know what, this is 2007 and there's a thing called film that you tape on and you can actually go back and watch what Bill said. Watch my video of Bill explaining his remarks on Hornbeck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6j3CeDqx74
Hahah so now Oprah is a right wing propaganda enabler. At least BillO is taking on an issue that could potentially help people. What have you done lately for child safety Brock? Will Olbermann name Oprah Worst Person in the World?
He allready did yesterday. I have major problems with attacking someone like Oprah, she is trying to help kids, and O'Reilly talks about it every night.
First, the two of them were given the "bronze" for worst person in the world.
Second, it's not "attacking" Oprah to point out that she didn't question O'Reilly on a controversy his own big pie hole stirred up.
Third, The Mouth should apologize and retract his ugly comments about that kidnapped, molested boy. Period.
Bronze whatever, its childish.
Oprah was a victim of Child abuse, so why is Olberman calling a victim of child abuse a bronze worst person in the world? Does he not have respect for victims of Child abuse?
When Olbermann starts doing segments on Jessicas Law then he should talk.
Uh, grow a clue. Olbermann did not give Oprah the bronze for worst person in the world because she was a victim of child abuse.
He did it because she gave O'Reilly a platform to try and puff himself up on this issue without apologizing for some seriously ugly words. Why aren't YOU upset that this guy is trying to bolster his own rep by carrying water for an issue he is so clearly uninformed on? Why aren't you writing letters to O'Reilly to apologize for saying that a victim of kidnap and abuse was enjoying it? Given the way you keep going on about Jessica's Law, you should be out front demanding he apologize.
(And I gave you a pass on the previous post where you referred to someone as an "expert." Please say you didn't mean O'Reilly is an expert. I assumed you meant there was another panelist. And while I don't know of Oprah's credentials other than your word that she was herself a victim of child abuse, that alone does not make her an expert either. Though because I have a ton of respect for Oprah, I have to believe she was biting her tongue not to question O'Reilly about his idiotic comments.)
Finally, the "worst person award" isn't childish. It's an ingenious, publicity getting device for drawing attention to some people for the ugly things said or done on a given day.
First O"reilly was not an expert , to my knowledge he was never abused. The man on the show was abused that is who I was refering to.
Second, his remarks on Hornbeck were wrong , but his work on this issue needs to be applauded. My feeling is no one on here even cares about childrens rights. At least he discusses it and has been for a year. O'Reilly should not be the issue of this topic, it should be helping children.
O'Reilly's an expert not because he was abused, but because he's an abuser. Having him comment on issues of sexual abuse is like having Mark Fuhrman on to discuss race. Did everyone forget about this: [link to www.thesmokinggun.com]
O'Reilly has proved himself to be totally wrong headed about this issue if he truly believes that a CHILD preferred to be kidnapped and abused.
Second, I have to reiterate, being a victim of child abuse does not make you an expert on the subject. And it doesn't make you above reproach. (That's not to say that Oprah and her other guest haven't done other things to make themselves experts.)
Being abused does not automatically make you an expert on child abuse.
I played football in high school and college. Doesn't make me an expert on football.
And my feeling is that doing something good on Monday doesnt give you a chit that you can cash in for a pass on being a cruel insensative moron on Wednesday. We are not obliged to preface criticism, well founded and self evidently valid criticism, for the kind of cruel and insensative remarks made by O'Reilly by first listing all the good things he has done since he was a kid. THAT is a logical fallacy, they are irrelevant to THIS issue. He said what he said, he deserves the criticism he got because his remarks EARNED them. I support the NAACP, I give them money, does that mean I can cash in the GOOD I have done for the African American community by making racist slurs? Does that mean if I do then anyone calling me on it must also qualify the criticism by pointing out the support I HAVE given? The point you keep trying to make is ludicrous on the face of it. O'Reilly DOESNT GET A PASS.
You are getting to be as bad as tommy. YOU dont get to decide what the issue is. IF you think the issue should be what YOU want it to be start your own website. MMFA doesnt do EVERYTHING. This is a site for conservative media misinformation, there are plenty of child advocacy sites. If I went to one of THOSE and demanded THEY take on conservative media misinformation about Jessicas law they would be inscenced and rightfully so. No organization can do everything so they specialize. No one cares if YOU think MMFA should do what YOU think they should do, its just not going to happen. MMFA does what THEY do. They do it well. They will continue to do it. YOU are not going to decide for them they should take on the issues YOU think they should take on.
Oprah gave a platform to someone who chose to play psychologist and blame the victim on national television at a time when little was known about the case, and, to my knowledge, he subsequently did not apologize for it.
Oprah? Now MMFA is picking on Oprah???
I'm speechless...no make that typeless ;-)
O'Reilly says something hateful, hurtful, and ignorant. He doesn't apologize.
Now he goes on a popular show to talk about what a great guy he is with regards to the issue he made idiot remarks about. The host of that program, Oprah, gives him a free ride to do so.
It's not picking on her to point this out. O'Reilly himself brought up the issue and even the specific incident. She should have asked, and if she cared about the cause, should have demanded an apology. I mean, look at the flak she gave the guy who wrote a phony bio. This is at least as important as that.
Even more importantly, Oprah isn't a small little defenseless being who needs to be protected from being "picked on."
That is true , she will not say antyhing regarding Olbermanns smear toward her she has too much class, but she can handle anything. This is a women who was abused as a child . She is a great women.
Please be explaining why this is a smear? Or why you keep referring to Olbermann in a topic that isn't about him?
SHE SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION. She didn't. That FACT is being pointed out. Where's the so-called "smear?"
Frankly, at this point, YOU have something to apologize for attacking MMFA and/or Olbermann for "smearing" when no such thing has happened.
Olbermann is mentioned in the thread story. Otherwise I would not have brought him up.
Olbermann's bronze award is not mentioned in the story.
Olbermann has merely pointed out the facts, yet you refuse to look at that and prefer to say he is smearing. THAT is smearing.
I have looked at the facts. You are putting words into my mouth. You also refuse to have an open mind on the subject of child abuse. In your eyes a FOX News ego driven blowhard has no right to be on the Oprah show to discuss this important topic. That is wrong.
Ihave looked at the facts.
What facts are you talking about that we're not considering here?
You are putting words into my mouth.
Such as? "Smear" perhaps? That's your word.
You also refuse to have an open mind on the subject of child abuse.
Like Bill O'Reilly? That perhaps for some kidnap abuse victims, it's fun and preferable to being with their "old family?" What is it I'm not being open minded about? I seem to feel more strongly about it than you. I don't want advocates for stronger laws against child abuse undermining them with highly public comments that reduce the abuser's culpability for their crimes. Why do you?
In your eyes a FOX News ego driven blowhard has no right to be on the Oprah show to discuss this important topic.
Talk about putting words in another's mouth. Where did I say that? If he hadn't have said what he did, implying that a boy enjoyed his captivity and abuse, he could have become a regular commentator on Oprah about child abuse. I don't understand why YOU, someone who proclaims herself so concerned with this issue, aren't the one screaming for an apology from this man for his ugly words. It baffles the mind.
Because I could care less about Bill O'Reilly. He was not the subject of Oprahs show, abused Children was. If her show was about Stupid FOX News hosts then I would agree with you.
"Because I could care less about Bill O'Reilly. He was not the subject of Oprahs show"
-----
He's the subject of this thread, though. Why do you think that the victim in the kidnapping case was at fault for being kidnapped? You give O'Reilly a pass for saying that, you must agree with him. Please explain, and do not hesitate to be clear, lucid and coherent in your defense of BO'R.
Also you mentioned Olbermanns bronze first not me. I was responding to a question from the Col.
you still have not provided the 'facts' you supposedly looked into...
What "facts" would those be that I am looking into?
It is not my job to read you your own posts back to you. if you have no interest in what you write, why do you bother? I will be kind and direct you to the previous page, read and you will come across it.
Doris- you are talking in circles.. O'reiley is a CREEP.
I just wrote a response to one of your first posts where you defend O'Reiley.
What he said about Shawn is indefensible.
I don't know way you can't get that.
Oprah screwed up having him on her show.
Don't know way you don't get that either. Especially if you do care about child abduction, abuse, and molestation.
O'Reiley mocked Shawn's nightmare experience we all pray no child would ever have to endure. Mock him? Implied "he liked It"
Your ok with that?
And you don't need to be an expert on child abuse to understand what a low life O'reiley is for ever ever suggesting the things he did about Shawn on a national TV show.
But yeah, I am an expert.
And here's my expert opinion- O"reilly is "dirt bag".
Shouldn't be breathing the same air as Oprah.
You'd be wise to realize that FACT.
Because she LOVES Oprah, and WILL NOT hear any criticism of her. It's the Oprah Mafia, the Zealots Who Serve She, Oprah. There's LOTS of them out there in the wide world.
That's the issue here- criticism of Saint Oprah is NOT ALLOWED, ever.
Since Saint Oprah had Billo on the show, he's OK. End of story, no discussion or critical thinking allowed.
Thus, this huge contradiction is ignored. It's not about logic. It's about EMOTION.
I have not attacked MMFA at all, its a good topic that needs to be discussed, why should I apologize?
How about because you miss a very simple concept. Horbeck is not all abused children. Hornbeck was cruelly insulted and smeared by O'Reilly, Hornbeck deserves an appology which O'falafel has never coughed up. Nothing Ofullofhimself has done for OTHER children mitigates the harm done to Hornbeck nor eases his pain from such a vicious cruel attack by Billbonehead. Yet YOU want to give BO a pass and seem to care NOTHING about the wrong done and pain inflicted on Hornbeck.
Please show me where I have said that Shawn Hornbeck does not deserve an apology? I have been supporting Oprah , not BO. Oprah owes no one an explanation for why she did not confront him.
So then O'Reilly DOES owe Hornbeck an appology for the VERY public slander of the kid, but while touting O as an expert Oprah had no obligation to ask him to explain himself? I dont really get the logic there.
I do not believe Oprah ever said BO was an expert.
So he was there as an interested bystander? In that case he STILL needs to expain his cruel and insensative remarks. They are relevant no matter HOW he was presented if he is speaking on the issue. She brought HIM on to speak about it, this was VERY public.
Marv,
I'm fairly clueless about what is normally discussed or by whom on Oprah's program. From what little I know, she does Book Clubs and soft interviews. Isn't she more entertainment than hard news or opinion?
BTW my post was meant to be more tongue & cheek than serious--Oprah is revered as a beloved television icon and I was joking that this site was picking on her.
She's got a lot of influence -- and rightly so in my opinion. When other programs of her sort were turning to the Morton Downey / Jerry Springer version of "talk" she turned a 180 and created an industry that talks to women with respect. (At least, it seems so anyway -- the book club being a great example. But I don't watch her show or network either.)
Given that, I think she had an obligation to ask O'Reilly about what he said. There are a LOT of people who think as he does -- that this boy, because he was tattoo'ed and whatever, enjoyed his kidnapping and abuse. To even presume such a thing is beyond ugly. And it certainly shows a particularly warped understanding of such crimes, don't you think?
She had an opportunity to put that kind of ugly thought on display, and to stomp it down in the manner it deserved to be, and she let it go. Heck, she could have simply NOT let O'Reilly on her highly rated program unless he promised to address his comments and apologize.
She did neither, and I think she let down her audience.
I do not think she had any obligation to ask BO, the show was about Abused Children and O'Reilly as the highest rated who spends many segments on the issue. Oprah is not stupid, she wants to help children. Turning her show into an "Attack O'Reilly" segment would do the cause enormous harm. Frankly I am amazed at how people feel about Oprah.
What are you amazed at? That I think she has earned a ton of respect? That she has a lot of influence?
Do you actually read any of the other words in these posts other than "Oprah?" There are other ones.
You still haven't explained why you're giving a pass to O'Reilly. Oprah should have had O'Reilly on in person so she could have slapped his face.
I explain that in another post, Oprah is not O'Reilly she does not need to have a 15 minute interview "Attacking O"Reilly" she is trying to help children.
Then she shouldn't have had someone on her program who thinks that some children like being kidnapped and abused.
Then she is a horrible person, a pathetic creature and her show should be never allowed on the air again. Because she dared to talk about Child Abuse and take the high road with Bill O'Reilly.
Then... you agree?
You know, when you stomp your feet and launch into hyperbole, your point sorta gets lost.
How easy is this to understand? Its not about WHO its about WHAT? Anyone is capable of furthering conservative misinformation even committed liberals. It happens, when it does they get called on it.
Maybe someone like O'Reilly who makes a habit of "bending reality" to suit his opinions and whatever agenda he has (which I think has more to do with making a paycheck than anything else) might not be the best person to consult with regards to issues of child safety etc.
For him to have said on his show about Shawn Hornbeck "liking" being in captivity (to paraphrase) doesn't sit well with a lot of people and I can understand why some would have heartburn about O'Reilly being on Oprah discussing this.
Then again is anyone really expecting any "hard hitting" inquiry and reporting from Oprah??
I would have liked to see Billo jump on Oprah's couch and declare his undying love for Katie Holmes.
Oprah sure raked James Frey over the coals for partially ficitonalizing his memoir, so she could certainly give the same concern to an issue that actually matters.
Picking on Oprah? This is a childish fued between Olbermann and O'Reilly?
Yeah, I guess expecting Bill to apologize for his disgraceful comments is quite childish. I guess anyone who calls him out on his redoubtable ass-covering evidenced by his comments on Oprah is childish, too.
Give me a break.
Next Oprah will be having Tim Hardaway on to promote gay rights.
OUCH!
Now that is a slander toward Oprah. When you are a victim of child abuse maybe then you can attack her?
Doris, my comments do not qualify as "slander." LOL.
And secondly, my comment was made to say that Oprah needs to better pick the people she chooses to champion righteous causes (Oprah: "Bill O'Reilly made hideous comments about a kidnap victim. What better person to have discuss this on my show and open people's eyes to such a horrible problem."). LOL.
Thirdly, as others before me have said, Oprah's being a victim of abuse has NOTHING to do w/ why she's being criticized.
Ah but Doris wants that to be the subject, she thinks she has a trump card. the only problem is it does not have anything to do with the subject of the article so she is desperate to shift the subject. Kind of sad really.
Niiiice. =)
Someone posted a while back about BOR and Fox spearheading this issue. I disagreed at the time and still disagree. I do think the credit goes to Oprah who took a whole year of shows to highlight children and a variety of issues they face. She pays a reward when a viewer turns in someone like Devlin and really has been very upfront with her own abuse. She has covered this topic many times and has a wider range of influence then BOR. I do think she puts her money to better use then sending soldiers her books for inspiration.
Having said that- I am deeply dissappointed in Oprah for having BOR on her show. He decides Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome is a better intrepretation then Stockholm Syndrome? It has to be what HE thinks is the cause to be valid? He thinks sexual abuse is fun and gets to be on her show showing his indignation? My stomach turns. I am only thankful it is the first day of Lent and now I have something to give up for the next 40 days.
Unbelievable! O'Reilly does a complete turnaround here: From blaming the child, he now goes Oprah and talks about how horrible this was. Remember, this only happened AFTER he was severely criticized for his dismissive attitude toward this boy. And then posters like "ColRoy" and Doris suggest that we should praise O'Reilly rather than criticize him. It never ceases to amaze me how the right-wing pundits can manipulate their listeners.
I am not a right wing pundit as you say. I am a strong Oprah supporter, and I respect the work BO has done on child rights and abuse. I can look at an issue without the partisan hate, something that is lacking on here.
This is not partisan hate as far as I am concerned. I don't really care what side of the fence he shills for. He is still reprehensible on all counts. 40 days and I will be free.
I like Oprah and thinks she does Tremendous work for many people. That being said she should bnot have given bill a pass on this, especially since she is a very powerful and sincere child advocate. I do not quetion her generosity, she puts her money where her mouth is. I think o'Reilly is covering his ass and a jerk.
If Oprahs work helps save one kid, I think it is worth having BO on the show.
And if it gives more abusers the thought that what they're doing is right? That they'll be helping and loving their victims? Then what?
Well Doris I understand your passion for protecting child abuse victims and I find it commendable. The only thing is that you keep saying the same thing when people are asking you a viable question regarding Mr O'Rielly's previous statements. What do you say about Mr. O'Rielly's previous comments about Shawn Hornbeck and how Oprah did not question O'Reilly about them. Do you not believe that he said those things or something?
If you go back I was outraged at OReillys statement. He however is not the issue of Oprahs show. He also spends time discussing "Jessicas law" and other children issues. If its phony fine, but he still discusses it and it reaches a large audience.
Then you agree he shouldn't have been on the program. There must be other people equally concerned and more knowledgeable about the subject that a "stupid Fox Host" (I think that's how you referred to him.)
Please stop dismissing valid posts and reasonable questions with comments that presume incorrectly that they are the product of "partisan hate." You're out of line when you do so.
Sounds like she's hitting a nerve.
Sounds like she is trying to deflect a valid point by saying that he can't look past his "partisan hate".
Doris everyone gets that your heart is in the right place. Why didn't Opera have on another more qualified guest is my question. You have to ask yourself why was it so important to have on BOR given his history on this recent child abduction case and his own sexual deviance against woman in the work place.
I’m sorry, but using your own logic in some of your previous posts you could argue that Oprah is being insensitive toward woman that have suffered sexual harassment in the work place by having him on as a guest regardless of the topic in question.I have my suspicions that Oprah had Bill on her show because she has been criticized by him that her show had too many liberal guests. Plus I would gather she got some positive feedback from viewers when Bill made his first appearance. Since child abuse was a topic Bill discusses on his program, she decided to bring him on again. I am surprise that Oprah ignored the controversy surrounding Bill with Hornbeck and allowed him on her show but I am not surprised she did not confront him. She did not want to be another Rosie and be demonized by the Right Wing. It was a lose-lose situation for both if she did. In term of an apology from Bill---I think Bill dug himself in a hole and his pride (or arrogance) will not allow him admit he was wrong. Sort of like his view of Iraq. Sometime it is tough being a demagogue.
Doris, do you think the Center for Missing and Exploited Children was using partisan hate when they gave Bill the heave-ho from their banquet?
I'm sure that a lot of right wingers were outraged by Bill's comments as well. Nothing partisan about this one, Doris.
No, the Center had a right to do that. Oprah feels having O'Reilly on helps the cause. They are two different subjects. The Center wants to stay out of the debate they did the correct thing in making John Walsh the speaker.
No it is NOT lacking here what is lacking in your posts is any small degree of logic. By your standards IF I am a cop and have worked to enforce the law then I can be given a pass for ROBBING A BANK. Look up the word RELEVANCE. Maybe at long last you will understand what is being said here is NOT motivated by partisan hate but by LOGICAL and VALID criticism of Billy O's outrageous behavior and Oprah SHOULD have called him on it. Not mentioning it at all is giving him the same pass YOU seem desperate to give him for some mysterious reason
O'Reilly deserves no pass , but it was not Oprahs responsibility to confront him that issue.
So then by THIS logic. If a talk show host brings on someone he claims is a geography expert they are under no obligation to ask him about his recent statements about the Earth being FLAT
Oh and you NOW say O'Reilly doesnt deserve a pass but didnt you post THIS:
He is doing alot for the cause of "Jessica's Law' as is Oprah, who was abused as a child. They should be praised for helping kids, not condemed for a political partisan childish feud between Olbermann and O'reilly.
How is that NOT defending O'Reilly? How is it NOT giving him a pass?
If your position (and all the others posting) is so obviously correct, then why not drop it? That's what most sensible people do in that kind ofsituation. Maybe you protest too much.
Um... because people care about the issue? How about posting something on topic rather than about how people are discussing the topic?
The scum sucking child molester could ealy ave tortured the boy metaly so much, the kid found to enjoy the game of cat and mouse. So the guy molests him, them feeds him ice cream. The guy moilests him, then buys him a train. The payoff for the kid is better than the abuse. It happens. Big O's comment is rude, but not far from the truth.
He doesn't owe an apology? You give him a pass for being a jackass moron? What if was your kid? What if it was you?
When I was 7, I lived in South America. My parents got my brother and I a Male babysitter about 18 years of age. Dads friends son. Seemed nice enough. He molested us, and it was horrible. He silenced me by threating the world was going to come to a end, over, and over, and over, and over. I never told my parents. It was 28 years later I did. Personaly, if you sak me, I think DEATH by Hanging is a appropriate sentance.
that was horrible...but you say your molestor used terror on you not bribes. So you agree Bill was totally out of line to characterize the child like that since neither you, nor Bill nor Doris here ever met the child in question yet you are all very comfortable assigning motives to him that you have absolutly no basis to comment on?
But the molester could bribe the kid into enjoying the outcome. The kid may not like being molested, but the final payoff is worth it. Therefore, the kid may have enjoyed the stay overall. That is how I am seeing it. If that is what he meant, i understand. If he was being a ass, he owes a apology
coulda woulda shoulda are not the basis for anything except politics and comedy. Do you have anything concrete to suggest the boy was a willing partner in his kidnapping and multiple rapes?
Evil
I'm sorry that you had to go through that experience. You’re in my thoughts little conservative brother... I hope you've been able to recover from the situation and it hasn't caused you too much grief in life!
I think your story demonstrates how horrible and convoluted situations like that can be... From what I've read the perpetrators are often known or in a situation where they can abuse trust. I can only imagine what must be going through a young kids mind when they’re forced into a situation that many adults would have a difficult time dealing with.
I just wish people like BOR would stick to the facts and campaign for the cause. Sensationalizing the issue is irresponsible and can be extremely harmful to the individual in question.I am sorry to hear that.
Now what if Bill O said to you:
Hey, maybe you didn't tell your parents because you actually liked it. You maybe enjoyed this game of cat and mouse. So the guy molests you, then feeds you ice cream. The guy moilests you, then buys you a train. The payoff for you was better than the abuse. It happens.
How would you respond to o'reilly?
If it was true? What could I say but, "Please parents, educate your children".
In this instance who is to decide if its true and should BO even bring it up if there is no evidence to support his claim?
What if it's not true?
The he owes a apology to the kid and family.
My outrage at BO (in this instance) is that he is too pigheaded and arrogant to even acknowledge a mistep on his part. he was flat out wrong to say what he did.
Think of it this way. Take the kid out of it, does it sound so bad? Sounds to me like more of a awarness issue. Not to many people would think a kid could enjoy his captivity unless someone mentions it. Bad for him, he used the kid as a example. I took it more as the slime ball gave the kid something so good, he enjoyed the payoff more than the crime. Negating the evil done to him, so it is overall enjoyable. Bill said it crappy, for sure. But that is how I see it.
My god, how could a grown adult say a kid would enjoy it. You have NO idea what the kid might have felt, I do. No innocent kid would ever enjoy the grips of such a filthy human being.
To imply Bill would feel different, IMO shows the dislike (Hate?) people have for him fon this forum.
EVIL- your logic is warped and perverted.
No child "enjoys" being molested and ripped away form their family.
This is not worthy of any kind of argument.
O'Reiley is scum for suggesting such a thing.
Have you read the charges against Shawn's psychopath abductor?
They were not playing.
The kind of power and control exerted in that kind of situation is beyond most people's comprehension.
He was eleven when he was abducted!
Do you think 11 year old have the social and emotional maturity and where with all to deal with such horror? Not to mention just the difference in size.
You claim you were abused and silenced by threats.
Would you have liked this horrible experience of degradation broadcast over national TV with the suggestion you liked it- maybe even asked for it.
There is no logic and no defense of O'Reiley's remarks.
He should have been fired. He exploited a the traumatic experience of a young boy for his own ratings.
He's beyond callous.
And you are not making sense trying to justify his statements in any way.
At this point your not making any sense. I cannot read Bill's mind, so I mus default to his actual words. An I won't take the "kid" out of the equation, isn't the hole point of this that it was a kid. Why are you so dead set on defending O'Reily with some whacked version of logic.
What he said was horrible and he should be called on it.
Good, that is step one now, WHAT evidence did Bill have that it WAS true and without such evidence how was it not light years out of line to suggest it? Or does Bills evidence come from his amazing mind reading powers?
Hey Solon, have a great weekend. I am off to the Virgin Islands for 10 days. Gonna do my best not to log on. You all know I need a vacation. LOLOLOLOL...
;0)
Have fun
BO probably demanded that he not be asked about those foolish statements he made. Oprah, who does not like to be very confrontational, went along with it.
In my opinon BO is only using this issue to try to fake a reputation. He let that statement slip out by accident to disclose his true feeling on the subject. And no, he did not explain why he said those things other then try to cover it up.
I suspect that's what happened as well. I'm sorry that she went along with the deal, if that's the case. I'm sure there are a lot of people, far more reputable, that she could have given the time to.
do you to psychics have any evidence to back up your "theory"?
Do you see the words "probably" and "suspect" up there? Do you have a grasp on the English language? Do you see anyone stating anything as fact?
No, you don't. Nice try, troll.
it doesnt matter, you still believe it to be true simply because you want it to be. another baseless assertion by an mmfa cronie
Now who is making baseless assertions?
Yes Roy, because offering an opinion and/or belief of a situation is so much worse than say....pretending to be a military officer and offering your opinion as such.
So how far have you gotten in Metal Gear? Hows the Brig? How many Col. are in the Navy?
I don't see this topic as an attack on Oprah, but rather as a "wink wink" example of O'Reilly controlling what can be discussed before he does an interview.
You gotta believe his comments were "off the table" before he agreed to come on.
You have a point but that should not be the issue , I will say it again.
If Oprahs work helps save one kid, I think it is worth having BO on the show.
And if Bill's comments encourage several molestors that they could be 'good' for a kid they snatch? What then Doris? Since it is impossible to measure if this episode of the Oprah show did or did not help anyone how can you deal with the logical obverse?
The one kid argument can be applied to so many situations. "If blowing up a few hundred thousand Iraqis saves one American life, it's worth it."
Hey Doris,
If BO feels this strongly about predators then why didn't he give Shawn the benefit of the doubt? Remember he also sexually harrassed women for a long time. I think that makes him a bit of a predator. Also your logic is very confusing. BO is a stand up guy because he is an advocate for abused children? Did you know that Hitler loved children? What does that make him?
I do not know why BO did not give Shawn the benefit of the doubt. That would be a good question for him to answer in another forun. Oprah was not discussing that , and she was trying to use O'Reillys influence for her fight against abuse.
Seems to me that it would be important to have at least cleared the issue up before giving someone with such a warped view of child abuse and kidnapping a platform from which to spew his nonsense. Anything less was irresponsible of Oprah.
I have had to register to get in on this issue. I have read Russell, I believe the ladies name is,and can't for the life of me understand why she is so blind to what everyone is talking about.
O'Reilly as has been mentioned so many times by other posters is NOT in a position to speak about molested children. Apart from his out of court settlement in the Makris case the fact that he uttered the disgusting things he said and suggested about a child that was kidnapped at eleven and finally rescued at 14 or 15 is abhorrent.
Russell, you are zeroing in on the fact that O'Reilly is bringing up the issue of child molestation but you fail to see that he suggested that the kid actually enjoyed his captivity.
This is not as you suggested in a post a political vendetta. It is however an issue that Lowes, and an organization for missing and exploited children felt strongly enoungh to cancel him as a speaker.
You need to watch him more closely and not be so easily duped by his sanctimonious image he is now portraying.
The Stockholm Syndrome which he denounced and now when it suits him the same syndrome( discovered this week evidently by him) but with a different name applicable to minors or children is respectable because it suits his damage control.
Why Oprah had this man on is beyond me. I was directed to her forum yesterday to see what was said. Overwhelmingly, the response has been negative about having O'Reilly on. At the time I was there already 700 people had posted and I would safely say 3/4 were appalled. I am waiting on Oprah to answer to this criticism as we all see that what O'Reilly says and does are different.
Akin to me swishing down a fifth of whiskey while preaching the twelve step program.
Russell, you are zeroing in on the fact that O'Reilly is bringing up the issue of child molestation but you fail to see that he suggested that the kid actually enjoyed his captivity.
So you do not feel this could EVER happen? He easly could have been brainwashed into enjoying it overall.
Well, Bill-oh has further gone on to dismiss the idea of the "Stockholme Syndrome" -- which is almost exactly what this describes. Sure, the kid might over time be brainwashed into thinking this is the best recourse for him, to stay with his attacker.
But that's not what O'Reilly was saying. He was saying that the kid COULD HAVE ESCAPED BUT DIDN'T because he actually preferred it with his kidnapper. He referred to the child's family as the child's "old parents" as though the kidnapper had become his "new parent."
O'Reilly BLAMED the child. That's different that understanding the mind of a kidnap/absue victim.
Do you think it could EVER happen that Martians make children out of white mice and maybe Hornbeck isnt a child at ALL? See I have every bit as much evidence of THAT hypothesis as Obigmouth had for his. There can NEVER be a justification for such cruel insensativity based on isnt there a weird hypothetical that MIGHT make it true? That is logically irrelevant. DID HE HAVE EVIDENCE FOR HIS OUTRAGEOUS COMMENT? No therefore it was flat out, cruel. Its really that simple
"Martians make children out of white mice and maybe Hornbeck isnt a child at ALL"
-----
I've read that on the Internets, so it must be true.
BarryJohnJames- well said- worth the time it took you to register! Come back again. Not sure if you'll get through to Doris and a couple of others like her.
O'Reiley is a joke as a spokesperson for missing and exploited children. Only I'm not laughing. It's a cruel joke- that he exploited Shawn's abduction for some cheap and ugly remarks- that could only damage and harm a child that lived through torture.
I will be contacting the "Oprah" show as well.
Wow i think i see what is going on here. im sure we all remember Coulter's "doctrine of infallibility" theory well here it is in reverse.
think about it we have Billo claiming to be on the side of childhood victims and Doris out there telling us that we can criticize him because of his supposed "work" on child hood abuse.
Its perfect, billo finds a cause that everyone supports, thus giving him licence to spew, lie and denigrate with impunity all because he "works" to prevent childhood abuse
Yeah, noticed that as well. It is, of course, a bogus "doctrine." If your argument is solid, then it doesn't matter whois making it, or who it is directed at.
O'Reilly can be criticized, I feel he helps the cause more than hurts. But he has done alot in his career to be criticized. My point is Oprah did not owe anyone a" Bash O'Reilly" fest.
Its the equivelent of bringing someone on who is being touted as an expert on Anti Semetism and not asking him about his recent holocaust denial.
"My point is Oprah did not owe anyone a 'Bash O'Reilly' fest."
-----
Sorry, Doris. Holding O'Reilly accountable for his execrable comments is in no way "bashing" him. If he doesn't want to be personally accountable for his actions (something he routinely accuses liberals of doing), then perhaps he shouldn't have uttered his stupid and insensitive comments in the first place.
You sound exactly like O'Reilly when he mentions sites like MMFA. They report precisely what he says, and then he acts all hurt and complains about being "bashed."
If you can't be responsible for what you say, don't say it.
Bill O said on 1/15: "there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances" and that "[t]he situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents."
Now, suddenly he is an expert on CSAAS (of which one of their central tenets is):
"The juvenile’s necessary coping behavior/survival techniques contradict adult expectations and beliefs (i.e., do not correspond with how a “normal” adult victim would react in similar circumstances)"
Kinda makes your head spin, huh?
is there even any evidence that billo actually does real advocacy work?
does he have a foundation to assist victims and families with legal costs?
does he have a scholarship fund for abused children?
does he fund the any of the various advocacy groups?
has he testified before congress for legislation?
has he funded any scientifically based quantitative studies on abuse and victimology?
has he done anything other than "talk" about it and get paid for "speaking" on the topic?
and most notably, being a "t-warrior" he sure has been silent on the priest abuse phenomenon
When did child abuse become such a big issue? Right-wingers love to run with it because they work primarily with exploiting human emotion. Nobody wants to have their child harmed, so they freak out.
It's funny when a sexual predator is warning us about the dangers of sexual predators. Perhaps it was OK for Bill-O because they were both adults.
"Wont' somebody pleeeeease think about the children!"
I am thinking that I wouldn't want my children in the same room with Bill O'Reilly.
Yes everyone is jealous of O'Reilly's enormous basic cable ratings and keen understanding of the Shawn Hornbeck case.
o'reilly screams about torture on these kids... what did he say about torture in AbuGhrab or on Guantanamo?
Nice job comparing innocent children to terrorists you moron.
You should write O'Reilly and explain the concept of "innocent children."
I knew it! Oprah is part of the vast right wing conspiracy!!! And to think she almost fooled me for all these years...
"And to think she almost fooled me for all these years..."
-----
For some reason, I think fooling you isn't a difficult task.
How typical of you to ignore the substance raised in the post ETRWN. I guess that would be my tactic as well if my brain were mush.
Define "substance" and then relate it to your sarcastic, dismissive post.
O'Reilly, Winfrey, NBC's Chris Hanson have one thing in common.
They all use child abuse to get ratings.
Are reports of child abuse increasing / decreasing in the US? Can something be done about it?
Who cares?! Let's fire up our indignation for a media feeding frenzy!
Jesus, pathetic. Oprah is such a frikkin' loser.
In attacking Shawn Hornbeck, Bill O’Reilly gave power to the pedophilesBy Mary MacElveenFebruary 22, 2007 In watching Oprah Winfrey question Bill O’Reilly I was startled as she interviewed him since she left out some salient points. It begs the question, why didn’t Oprah Winfrey question O’Reilly of his recent statements of Shawn Hornbeck in which he said, “You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it, I never bought it, I don't think it happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don't think it happened here.”?
While he says in this one interview that the torture these pedophiles put children through as being far worse than Stockholm syndrome, that is what he should have addressed on his show instead of ripping into the victim. This is what Oprah Winfrey should have questioned him on and not elevated his status as being the one as being the protector of our children.
To read the rest of this editorial, please go to this link:http://www.marymacelveen.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/22/2756761.html
HAS ANYONE CONCIDERED THAT MAYBE SHAWNS HOMELIFE AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED KIDNAPPING WAS WORSE THEN BEING WITH DEVLIN ? AT LEAST ACCORDING TO A 11 YR OLD BOY ?... WAY DO ALL THESE EXPERTS AND PEOPLE IN GENERAL " ASSUME " THAT SINCE HE DIDNT SEEMINGLY "WANT" TO ESCAPE DEVLIN, THAT THERE HAS TO BE A MEDICAL REASON OR A SYNDROME OF SOMEKIND ... I THINK ITS NOT THAT COMPLICATED AND VERY SIMPLE .. HE [ HORNBECK ] LIKED LIVING WITH DEVLIN AND PUT UP WITH HIS ODDITIES BECAUSE HE FELT THAT EVEN WITH ALL THAT, IT WAS STILL BETTER THEN LIVING AT HOME ...
I WAS A CHILD IN THE 50'S AND 60'S, WHO LIVED WITH A VERY DERANGED AND ABUSIVE MOTHER .. SHE TORMENTED, BEAT AND TERRORIZED ME EVERY CHANCE SHE COULD .. AND THREATENED ME WORSE THINGS IF I SHOULD EVER TELL ANYONE .. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THIS, I RAN AWAY AS EARLY AS 6 YRS OLD AND I DID TELL PEOPLE WHAT WAS HAPPENING .. BUT IN THOSE DAYS, THERE WASNT A PLACE FOR KIDS TO GO FOR PROTECTION .. NO "CPS" OR ANYTHING I WAS AWARE OF ... SO IF I WERE TO RUN INTO A MIKE DEVLIN OR ANYONE ELSE THAT SEEMED CARE AT THAT TIME IN MY LIFE ., THEN I WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED HIM / HER ANYWHERE AND NOT LOOKED BACK ... THANKS , REBECCA
LL- if what you say is true for your own personal experience- I think you should get some help for that- if you haven't already.
Your suggestion that Shawn Hornbeck wanted to be abducted and stayed with a man who was raping him, terrorizing him, and gawd knows what else.. is not only wrong. It's dangerous thinking.
There is so much research to discount your "theory" I don't know where to begin...
In fact most kids even in the face of horrible abuse would choose to stay with their families.
I guess its been awhile since you were 11- since. you mentioned you grew up in the 50's and 60's. An 11 year old child would not be able to deal with the kind of horror SH was forced to live with.
He did what he had to do to survive.
He's going to need lots and lots of therapy and support for the rest of his life.
His family appeared quite loving and protective, and the lengths they went through to find him after he was abducted suggest to me that you are very far off base.
But even implying such a think is so dangerous because unfortunately there are very sick and twisted pedophile psychopaths that use the very line you are saying now to kids' "you like it- no one will believe you didn't"
Many of these kids after they are brutally raped and molested are brutally murdered.
If O'reiley truly cared about the plight of children who have been abducted and brutalized in such a manner- he would have taken the time to do the research.
John Walsh has been a public spolesperson and advocate for years and years on this topic since his own son was abducted and murdered- Polly Klass's dad as well as many others.
So please stop even suggesting this dangerous "reasoning". There is no reason at all to it- it's a tool psychos use.
Wow, bold font AND all caps. You must know what you are talking about.
Your post looks like it was cut out letter by letter from magazines so it couldn't be traced.
I'm sick and tired of all the ignorant right-wing apologists and their simple-minded excuses for everything.
O'Reilly doesn't care about kids. It is clear from years of watching him that the only thing O'Reilly cares about is himself and inflating his own ego. He uses this "Jessica's Law" crap to sell his books, charge huge speaking fees and get ratings for his show. What has he personally given up to help the kids? Anything? Has he donated his time for free or done any volunteer work? No. Everything he does is intended to inflate his ego and his wallet and his viewing audience.
Look at the facts. If O'Reilly was actually an advocate for missing and exploited children, would the first thing out of his mouth be "I think the kid liked the situation he was in?" No. And if you think that is something a true-believer would say then ask yourself a simple question. If you were an advocate for helpnig people with aids would you accuse someone of being hapy they had aids? If you were an advocate for women's rights would you ever think to accuse women of enjoying abuse? If you were a proponant for racial equality would it ever cross your mind that maybe slaves liked being slaves? If you are a proponant for the environemnt would you say global warming is good or that we could use a few less trees around?
THE ANSWER IS NO. There are no excuses, rationalisations or willfull ignorance. The fact that O'Reilly said what he said shows that when some kid is abused for years and is finally freed...his first thought was "he probably liked being abused." And the fact that he didn't let facts get in the way of his judgement, or the full story to be released before shooting his mouth off exposes the lack of courage in his convictions.
It is despicable. Yes, he has pushed this Jessica's law. Big deal. He has profited nicely off the deal and gained himself some nice rating and CLEARLY a loyal, brainwashed following.
But the simple fact remains that O'Reilly let his true self slip out. The self-absorbes, power hungy, sexual harassment, bully come through. And Oprah putting O'Reilly on her show, not only tells millions of viewers (looking for feel-good pseudo spirituality) that they should lvoe O'Reilly, but it also encourages her millions of viewers to watch his show and buy his books. Oprah is encouraging not just Bill O'Reilly's position on Jessica's law, but his hateful bullying and divisive rhetoric. She is telling her audience it is okay to use your TV show to lie for pesonal and political gain or to smear and attack the people you disagree with. She is saynig it's okay to get your angry, hatefilled viewers to send death threats and incite violence against the people they disagree with.
Oprah can't have it both ways. She can't promote a peaceful, spiritual, self-enlightment life and then prop up the likes of O'eilly.
AMEN! Let Oprah know what you think- she realy screwed up with giving BO any kind of crediability!
Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome = War on Christmas Redux
another comment taken out of context by media matters. this site just had a hard time either hearing or acknowledging reality. i watched the segment of oreilly about hornback and never did he say this kid had "fun". its completely taken out of context and thats a fact yet media matters takes this as fact. so wonder why younger generations will be the dumbest generation. truth and and educated mind doesnt matter anymore and sites like this that claim to be doing good are the main strain on society. i love this site for pure entertainment.
"another comment taken out of context by media matters."
-----
Please put into context the idea that the victim enjoyed his captivity so that it isn't one of the most stupid things ever said by anyone.
so [sic] wonder why younger generations will be the dumbest generation. [sic]
Well, if they get their news and have their opinions in part or whole formed by O'Reilly, yep, the "younger generations" will be the "dumbest generation." But it's clear there's stiff competition for that title.
"never did he say this kid had 'fun.'"
On the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asserted that "there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances" and that "[t]he situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents."
You're splitting hairs. O'Reilly didn't say the child had fun, but he presumed he had fun. The context makes it clear what O'Reilly is saying.
Rosencrantz, you just hit a home run. Thanks for your insightful and BS bashing post. But as you can see, there are still people on here that can not and will not see the truth right in front of their lying eyes. I did write to Oprah this morning telling her of my disgust for having this discredited fool on her otherwise good show. It showed a major lack of judgement on her part. Since she got a new producer a few years ago, her programs haven't been up to par. She is a philanthropist and does great things. That doesn't absolve her of this lack of judgement.
And her central point in the first part of the show was "why don't these kids run away"!!!! And she doesn't bring this up to O'Reilly? We deserve better from Oprah because she has already shown she is better. She set the bar high herself and didn't reach this bar on this show.
I emailed Oprah Winfrey's Show and told them that I was surprised that Bill O'Reilly appeared on her show after his opinion of Sean having more fun with his captor than at home with his parents. I added that I was disappointed that she did not question him about this opinion that he stated on several different dates on his FOX show. He was also critical of the child's parents allowing him to appear on Oprah's show.
I saw him repeat this position at least three times. It certainly was not taken out of context. His context was clearly expressed.
I hate BO but I don't think it's terrible that he stands up for children, even though what he said was stupid, about not believing in Stokholm Syndrome. But his motivation for saying that is probably politically motivated. Stokholm is most famously connected to the Patti Hearst case and Hearst (in his opinion, i think) was a low, vile, anti-war hippie who should have been charged with treason, so he can't buy into Stokholm b/c it might let people he politically disagrees with off the hook sometime in the future.
On another note, I'm not crazy about this Jessica's Law thing. Yes we have nutty judges who give probation, but mandatory sentencing takes any mitigating or extenuating circumstances out of the picture and creates a black and white, which suits someone like O'Reilly just fine. Judges are elected for a reason, to uphold the law and make judgments in the best interest of the people who come before him in court. Also, is O'Reilly prepared to deal with the unintended consequences of a Federal Jessica's Law? ie: now children, after they've been raped and molested, will be killed because the predator figures he's going away for life anyway, so why not kill the child and increase his chances of not getting caught.
Let's not forget that BOR was guessing with the best of them that day Hornbeck was rescued, and he based his opinion that the kid might have liked his situation not only because he didn't run, but also because he had piercings.
Greta VanS said: some kids like school, Bill, and BOR answered: well I don't think this kid did. Alright, he's got the piercings."
He's just an idiot..he makes judgments about people based on their appearance and then gets angry when not enough people around him, b/c of the SP influence make those same judgments.
O'Reilly and Oprah sitting in a tree k i s s i n g. Watch my video of O'Reilly spinning on Oprah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6j3CeDqx74