Culture Warrior (8 page)

David Letterman's sensibilities definitely lie on the left, but he'll skewer anyone. However, he does on occasion promote dishonest radicals like Al Franken and relishes denigrating traditionalists. I enjoy jousting with Dave, and in what is now a broadcast legend, I appeared with Letterman on January 3, 2006. As soon as he introduced me, we began sparring. First, it was over the Christmas controversy (more on that later). Dave said I made the entire thing up. I told him he was misguided and provided three quick examples of Christmas under siege. But when radical antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan's name came up, things really got heated:

         

O'Reilly: “The soldiers and Marines are noble. They're not terrorists, and when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents freedom fighters, we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history, and we should all take it very seriously and be careful with what we say.”

         

Letterman: “Well, and you should be careful with what you say also. How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?”

         

O'Reilly: “Because I believe she's run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.”

         

Letterman: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?”

         

O'Reilly: “No, I have not.”

         

Letterman: “Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?”

         

O'Reilly: “I'm not speaking for her. Let me ask you this question. This is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. But when she says to the public, that the insurgents and terrorists are freedom fighters, how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who also lost loved ones, by these people blowing the hell out of them, feel? What about their feelings, sir?”

         

The conversation continued in this contentious vein and exploded into this final confrontation:

         

Letterman: “I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.”

         

O'Reilly: “No way a terrorist who blows up women and children…”

         

Letterman: “Do you have children?”

         

O'Reilly: “Yes, I do. I have a son the same age as yours. And there's no way a terrorist who blows up women and children is gonna be called a freedom fighter on my program.”

         

David Letterman then went on to say that 60 percent of what I say is “crap.” But then he admitted he does not watch
The Factor.
The next day, millions of people were talking about the shoot-out. Everyone, it seemed, had a different take.

And that was great because, finally, the culture war was vividly displayed on late-night TV. I hope you got to see the interview; it was an important moment on the culture battlefield. By the way, in yet another example of how the “elite” media handles itself, CNN and NBC News ran stories about my dustup with Dave. In their presentations, they aired his most provocative statements to me but cut out my retorts back to him. Nice.

Some of my friends thought I should be mad at Letterman for insulting me on the air. But I wasn't. I don't care what he thinks of me. He's entitled to his opinion, and I have confronted folks on my program in a similar manner, although I am always familiar with what they have done. I enjoyed the debate and told Dave so. But if you saw that display, you can no longer have any doubts that David Letterman is a passionate advocate for the left. I won't say he's an officer in the S-P corps, because I'm not sure of that. But he is certainly not part of the traditionalist cadre.

That Letterman debate could never have happened on Jay Leno's program, because Leno is pretty much in it for laughs and is rarely confrontational. His famous line “Politics is show business for ugly people” is hardly partisan. I like going on his program, because he's not trying to make you look like an ass. He wants a few chuckles and appreciates the fact that I play along and set him up to mock me. Here's an example that aired on
The Tonight Show
just before the Iraq war started. He began by suggesting that if I interviewed Saddam Hussein, an opportunity might open up:

         

Leno: “Would you kill Saddam Hussein? Here's a pen. You open it and blow everything up.”

         

O'Reilly: “You mean I have to go, too?”

         

Leno: “There's got to be something in it for us.” (Big laugh, and I have to admit the timing was great.)

         

Although mostly harmless entertainment, the cumulative effect of the late-night programs does have a political message: Liberals are smart and conservatives are dense. Johnny Carson, who was much more of a traditionalist than any TV host working today with the exception of Regis Philbin, ran a fairly evenhanded ideological ship. But, let's face it, the S-Ps have a huge advantage late night (and even on the daytime shows) in getting their message out.

         

Now let's take a closer look at the cable news networks.

CNN:
This network, which has never had a traditionalist anchorperson with the possible exception of business guy Lou Dobbs, tilts way left. Again, it is not on an S-P jihad, since parent company Time Warner is not on board with extremism, but the prevailing wisdom at CNN is the Ted Turner liberal, politically correct template. That stance has, by the way, hurt the network badly in the marketplace, causing traditionalist viewers to flee to Fox News.

Remember, the polls say that traditional Americans outnumber progressives about two to one. And, from what I can determine, there is absolutely nothing going on at CNN that would appeal to traditional Americans. This is another venue where secular-progressives are given an easy time—and they take full advantage of it.

MSNBC:
The audience for this news network is so low it doesn't matter what they do. For the record, there are a few traditional people on the air there, like Monica Crowley and Joe Scarborough. But this outfit is not a factor in the culture war or anything else. Quite simply, it is one of the largest failures in broadcast history and, generally, an awful place in almost every way.

So add it up and you can see that the dominating influence in TV news, on the chat shows, and in print is S-P by a big margin. This is the great hope of the secular-progressive forces: that they can use the media to further their cause and diminish their traditional opposition under the guise of news coverage and entertainment. The positive media spin the S-Ps get does, indeed, influence some Americans, especially young people who may not have a strong frame of reference. Of course, Hollywood also trumpets the S-P agenda. So traditionalists are really up against it in the media—with two huge exceptions: talk radio and Fox News, which we will analyze forthwith.

And, as you read the following pages, please keep this in mind: Even though there is no question the S-Ps hold a huge media lead over the traditional forces, the brutal attacks on the traditional media are unrelenting and unprecedented. The vitriol hurled at so-called conservative media people by others in the press is almost comical. The next time you see the adjective “conservative” put in front of my name or someone else's, simply ask this question: When was the last time you saw the adjective “liberal” used to describe a journalist or pundit? Good question, right? Here's another good question: The S-P philosophy frequently touts “openness.” They want all voices to be heard, they love freedom of speech. The ACLU is the freedom-of-speech poster group, is it not?

But the truth is far, far different from the S-P rhetoric.

I'm going to give the “last word” in this chapter to ABC newsman John Stossel, a libertarian and an honest guy. Stossel is basically a fearless investigative reporter, and after publishing a book that debunked some liberal myths, like the baloney that massive educational spending means a better educational environment, he learned something very interesting about the left-wing media in the USA. Says Stossel in his book
Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity:

         

When I wrote my last book,
Give Me a Break,
I assumed the high poobahs of the leftist media would be eager to debate my ideas, if only to demonstrate how foolish my argument was, or to discredit the reporting of their misguided colleague who “had gone over to the dark side,” as one TV writer put it.

I was wrong.

The conservatives were eager to have me; I got to discuss my ideas with dozens of radio talk show hosts and the stars of the Fox Newschannel. They made
Give Me a Break
a best seller. But the liberal media—CNN, NPR, and
The New York Times—
basically held their noses and ignored me. Where was the “open discussion” the liberals always praise?

         

Where indeed? John Stossel learned what I have been saying for years: Secular-progressives drive on a one-way street all the time. If you don't agree with them totally, you are the enemy. You are to be shunned or attacked, depending on your influence and effectiveness.

“Open Society,” my petunia.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced irrational violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned.

—PATRICK HENRY

On October 7, 1996, the Fox Newschannel went on the air with about 15 million potential cable-subscribing viewers out of a U.S. population of about 300 million. At the time, the prevailing (and smug) wisdom in broadcast circles was that FNC would die a gory death, much like the CBS cable channel Eye on America. CNN patriarch Ted Turner was quoted as saying that his network would “squash Fox News like a bug.”

That squishing sound you hear is Turner's prediction underfoot.

Ted's prognostication turned out to haunt him, as Fox News now reaches more than 80 million American homes and consistently hammers CNN in the ratings. The reason is simple: FNC is far more interesting to watch and allows traditional points of view to be heard, something CNN rarely does. Even on big breaking news stories like hurricanes and terror bombings, when no point of view is necessary, Fox News dominates.

There is no question that FNC has a far more traditional feel than any other TV news network in America. Analysts like Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, David Asman, and John Gibson generally approach issues from the conservative side, but there are also balancing voices on the left, like Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, Greta van Susteren, and Juan Williams.

And then there's me. While I am, perhaps, the strongest traditionalist voice on the FNC team, my perspective does not translate into conservative ideology. As anyone who watches
The Factor
knows, we scrutinize all the powerful all the time—no matter where their politics lie. For example, I have scorched the Bush administration for its failure to secure the borders, its apathy toward alternative energy and other environmental concerns, its mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq, and many other issues. As everyone in the nation's capital knows, there is no political cheerleading on
The Factor…
period. We are watchdogs, not lapdogs.

As for the liberal side, I defended John Kerry in the Swift Boat controversy, sided with the Florida judge in the Terri Schiavo mess, and told the hard right they had it wrong about Dan Rather: He did not intentionally put on a bogus story about President Bush's military record (see Chapter 2). As I stated, he simply did not apply good journalistic discipline to that story and paid an enormous price for his mistake.

Fact is, I could give you scores of examples of how
The Factor
is an independent broadcast, but why bother? Facts and truth never satisfy the secular-progressives. They want to kill us because we are very effective in unmasking their strategies and exposing their dangerous agenda. You see, our huge success means, among other things, no more “under the radar” for S-P actions. They know that we're watching every move they make. I'm the spy satellite they desperately want to shoot down.

The Factor—
along with FNC in general—also gives the Bush administration a fair hearing, and that also sends the S-Ps into spasms of anger. If you don't hate the President, you are an enemy of the S-P movement. It is that simple.

Ask yourself this question: What would the United States be like without Fox News? Have we not changed the landscape of America? Since nearly every other TV news operation leans left or is passively neutral, who would give traditionalists a break if FNC were not on the scene? The answer is: No one. Traditionalists would be essentially shut out of national television exposure. The S-Ps would totally rule, as they did before 1996.

That is what drives the far left crazy about Fox News (almost a pun, but not quite). It stands between them and total domination on TV—at least in the news arena. Also, FNC's audience and influence are huge. So the S-Ps have used all their power to try to destroy Fox News.

In one disgusting case, frantic Hollywood liberals actually financed an anti-FNC propaganda film that was played all over the world. Left-wing outfits like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Company couldn't get enough of the Fox News slasher flick. Actually, because of its over-the-top dishonesty, the movie was somewhat funny in a demented way. Joseph Goebbels would have loved it.

Of course, the S-P propagandists conveniently fail to mention that just as many liberal voices are heard on FNC as conservative voices. FNC says it is fair and balanced, and while the hard left rejects that description, millions of nonideological Americans believe it, which is why Fox News wins the cable news wars every single night.

At the same time, as I will explain, we've learned to be wary of certain types of guests. In the first few years of
The Factor,
I put nearly all the S-P's I could find on the air. But we had one bad experience after another. Some of these loons would participate in an interview and then accuse me in the print press of abusing them off camera when the interview was over. Some of them filibustered on the air, making a give-and-take conversation impossible. A few of them ran to left-wing journalists and smear Web sites, telling outright lies about what
Factor
producers had said to them in the pre-air interviews. (It is standard practice for a producer to interview a guest off the air to get a feeling about the guest's verbal energy, articulation level, and sense of passion. This prep avoids putting people on the air who might not speak well or are too nervous to focus on their points.)

It took me a while, but I wised up: The S-P fanatics were not in it for an intelligent discourse, they were in it to injure the broadcast. It is hard to imagine a more loathsome group. So now I use only responsible liberals like Lanny Davis, Mary Anne Marsh, and former senator Bob Kerrey, to name just a few. These are honest, articulate voices and make
The Factor
a much better broadcast.

Newsweek
columnist Jonathan Alter is a good example of what the S-P fanatics continue to do whenever they can. A committed secularist who hates President Bush, Alter wrote a column where he stated that Bush
knew
he had committed a crime by allowing the National Security Agency to listen to some phone calls without a warrant. You read that right: Alter flat-out stated that Bush
knew
his NSA order was illegal but gave it anyway. The journalist did not explain how he
knew
that—and I wanted to know just
how
Alter
knew,
because presidential decision making is usually kept top secret. Can Jonathan Alter read minds? Enquiring minds want to know.

So I invited Alter on
The Radio Factor
to explain his column. As soon as the interview began, he started to filibuster, refusing to stop talking and failing to answer direct questions about his assertions. This behavior was a contrived ploy on his part (yes, I can read minds, especially minds as predictable as the one Alter possesses). In the end, while he was gasping for air, I forced Alter to admit he had no idea what President Bush was actually thinking. It was Alter's unstated
opinion
that Bush
knew
he broke the law. Oh.

Not only is it virtually impossible to have a reasonable conversation with an S-P fanatic (or any fanatic, for that matter), it is also boring, because they will never cede a point, no matter how persuasive the evidence. So I'm now siding with George Lakoff and echoing his message to the far-left zombies: Don't go on Fox News. Just say no all the time. Avoid that theater of the culture war. If you are incapable of having a give-and-take chat, unable to cede valid points, stay off
The Factor
and FNC completely. Go on MSNBC instead.

The emergence of Fox News as a force in America has set back the S-P movement years and cost them a ton of money. Even though George Soros, Peter Lewis, and others continue to pump cash into the Internet sewer in order to demonize Fox News and other effective opponents, it is money down the drain. Only secular nuts take those sites seriously; most Americans avoid them entirely. Fox News is on daily display all over the world 24/7, and that power blunts the S-P jihad big-time.

The only other media force arrayed in formation against the S-Ps is talk radio. But here politics rather than the culture war is the main attraction. Hard-right talk is very profitable in America, but generally it concentrates on demonizing Democrats and propping up Republicans. This kind of chatter-clutter is soothing harmony to the conservative choir but doesn't really get into the fabric of the S-P war plan. While it's true that most Republican politicians reject secular-progressive thought, many Democrats do as well. As previously mentioned, we have to keep definitions and distinctions clear in the traditionalist armed forces.

In short, talk radio is not much of a threat to the S-Ps, because that movement is not concentrating on the ballot box right now. Instead, they are making their inroads through the courts and by brainwashing young, idealistic, and easily led Americans into believing that the secular vision is the way, the truth, and the light. The S-Ps lose virtually every ballot measure they propose (again, they even lost gay marriage in Oregon and California, big S-P states). No, for the purpose of the overall war, it is the judges and America's youth that the S-Ps plot to capture.

So right-wing talk radio doesn't have much effect on the deeper agenda of the secular-progressive movement. Some yakkers like Laura Ingraham have their number (as a former Supreme Court law clerk, she's seen the S-P guerrilla warfare firsthand), but most conservative radio people tend to bloviate about how good Bush is and how bad Hillary is, that kind of thing. Again, it's choir time. What the S-Ps fear the most is exposure, not endless ideological debate. They will lose the war if Americans figure out what they're up to. Talk radio usually does not provide that exposure, which is too bad.

The big positive on conservative talk radio is that it will latch on to the more outrageous aspects of the S-P jihad, like trying to knock the word “God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the insidious attacks on Christmas. Because conservative talkers do blast obvious S-P excess, that movement does look for ways to hurt right-wing radio people, as Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett have found out. The larger Mr. Limbaugh's audience got, the more S-P criticism he received, some of it brutal. The glee the S-P press demonstrated about Mr. Limbaugh's drug saga was downright sadistic, in my opinion.

As for Bennett, in the summer of 2005, he got slaughtered for his metaphorical remarks on crime and abortion in black communities. His words were ripped out of context by a left-wing smear site and fed to mainstream journalists sympathetic to the S-Ps. The defamation pipeline swamped Bennett; George Soros and his pals had put another notch on their secular belts.

So adding it up, the traditional forces break down like this: Most regular Americans do not want drastic change in the country and therefore lean toward the traditional. A few of them actively oppose the secularists, but the mass of Americans are not yet enlisted in the culture war; they are a sleeping giant that, if awakened, could easily defeat the S-P opposition.

In the media, Fox News consistently provides valuable intelligence information in the culture war, and sometimes I'll step up and initiate an all-out battle (we'll discuss some of those in upcoming chapters). All in all, conservative talk radio can be mobilized in certain campaigns but, generally speaking, is preoccupied with partisan, elective politics, not the wider struggle between traditionalism and secularism.

As for the moneymen who support the right wing in America, these people are few but are worth mentioning in the culture struggle. Liberal think tanks have identified nine ultrawealthy American families that, the left believes, have poured more than half a billion dollars into conservative causes since 1985.

Led by contributions from Pittsburgh businessman Richard Mellon Scaife, the right-wing money goes into conservative foundations and think tanks, and to groups that support issues like lower taxes, more restrictions on abortion, traditional marriage, and the Second Amendment (gun ownership). Next to Scaife, the Coors family in Colorado is the highest-profile conservative donor, but all of these families prefer to operate privately. There is no public bomb-thrower in the conservative donor community like George Soros.

It is hard to calibrate the influence of the conservative money. Certainly, it has helped elect Republicans and made it easier to combat referendums such as the ones on gay marriage. But, based on my investigation, it seems most of the right-wing cash is directed toward elective politics, as I've mentioned. Richard Mellon Scaife, for example, funded the notorious “Arkansas Project,” which caused huge headaches for President Clinton. The Project was designed to dig up dirt on Mr. Clinton and feed it to the media. Much of the elite media rejected the information, but when it reached Matt Drudge and conservative guys like that, it quickly became public.

For traditionalists fighting the culture war, the far-right money actually damages the battle plan. The left can point to a variety of smear campaigns like the Arkansas Project and the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry to justify their own attack machines. “If the right can do it, why can't we?” they wail. And there is some truth to that. But, again, the amount of smear exposure the far right is able to deliver pales against the defamation the far left can deliver because of elite media sympathies.