TRIBE AND RACE: O’Reilly disagrees with Oprah!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2013

Part 3—Or at least, that’s how it seemed: “In some cases,” is disrespect aimed at President Obama “because he’s African-American?”

Presumably, yes! It’s hard to know who would doubt such a claim. But how widespread is that type of disrespect?

That’s where the rub comes in.

It’s hard to measure the amount of disrespect which comes from that source. In the absence of any such knowledge, we liberals do sometimes tend to start making shit up.

We can’t tell you that Winfrey did that. At the start of Saturday’s column, Charles Blow offered part of her recent reply to a question on this topic:

BLOW (11/16/13): Disrespect, Race and Obama

In an interview with the BBC this week, Oprah Winfrey said of President Obama: “There is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs, in some cases, and maybe even many cases, because he’s African-American.”

With that remark, Winfrey touched on an issue that many Americans have wrestled with: To what extent does this president’s race animate those loyal to him and those opposed? Is race a primary motivator or a subordinate, more elusive one, tainting motivations but not driving them?

That highlighted statement is so imprecise that it’s barely a statement at all. (See yesterday’s post.) But that statement has now launched a thousand pseudo-discussions.

Consider the imprecise, subjective reaction offered by Bill O’Reilly.

O’Reilly began Monday night’s program with a “talking points memo” concerning Winfrey’s comments. He started by playing a fuller version of her exchange with the BBC (for text, see below).

“Now let's analyze Oprah's take,” Mr. O said. He started with praise for Winfrey:

O’REILLY (11/18/13): Now let's analyze Oprah's take. I have known her for decades—not well, but we've spoken on occasion. As I have written, I admire Oprah Winfrey. She rose up from very humble circumstances to become perhaps the most powerful woman in the world. And she did that—she did that on pure talent.

She also looks out for the kids. I have been on her program talking about protecting children. In my opinion, she is a good person.

Personally, we approve of that kind of talk. People who get their information from Salon, MSNBC and/or Media Matters may not know that O’Reilly often says things like that.

From there, O’Reilly went on to challenge Winfrey’s imprecise claims, making several unprovable claims in the process.

Please understand—O’Reilly never disagreed with Winfrey’s imprecise statements. In fact, to the extent that Winfrey made any definable statements, O’Reilly seconded them, offering mega-dittos.

Along the way, he praised Obama in certain ways too. But he seconded Winfrey’s statements:

O’REILLY: We all know that some Americans do despise Barack Obama because of his skin color. There will always be bigots. But the number is insignificant. And I submit that Oprah Winfrey and others who play the race card can't back up their statements with any facts.

The lunatic fringe will hate, no matter what. But legitimate criticism of Barack Obama is not race-centric. It is based on policy. The President wants to change America. He wants to impose a big government income redistribution situation. Many Americans like me believe that will weaken the country.

I have nothing personal against President Obama. In fact, he has joined with me to help thousands of wounded veterans. He has been great on that issue. But this nanny state play is causing tremendous economic problems. And that's where my criticism comes down.

It’s true. Legitimate criticism of Obama isn’t “race-centric.” But in this part of his memo, O’Reilly agreed with Winfrey’s basic statement. He agreed that “some” Americans disrespect Obama on the basis of race.

In fact, O’Reilly used stronger language than Winfrey did. He said some Americans despise Obama. He also said we all know this.

(For ourselves, we don’t know that. But that’s neither here nor there.)

How odd! As you can see, O’Reilly seems to agree with everything Winfrey definably said. And yet, in the bulk of his memo, he accused Winfrey of “playing the race card.” He seemed to think that he and Winfrey were basically in disagreement.

The pseudo-discussion began when O’Reilly began to assume what Winfrey must have meant by her imprecise statement. We can’t say he’s wrong in what he assumed. But we can’t say he’s right either.

The fuller passage below is where the disagreement began. Please note:

O’Reilly will go on to criticize Winfrey for making claims she “can’t back up with any facts” (see above). Given her lack of precision, it isn’t clear that Winfrey did that. But in this rebuttal, O’Reilly clearly does:

O’REILLY: Now let's analyze Oprah's take. I have known her for decades, not well, but we've spoken on occasion. As I have written, I admire Oprah Winfrey. She rose up from very humble circumstances to become perhaps the most powerful woman in the world. And she did that—she did that on pure talent.

She also looks out for the kids. I have been on her program talking about protecting children. In my opinion, she is a good person.

But Oprah definitely has a blind spot when it comes to politics. She, along with some others, uses a racial prism when analyzing public policy. There is no question that President Bush was attacked far more viciously than President Obama has been. But Miss Winfrey has not acknowledged that as far as I know. Both men had controversies—Bush the Iraq war, Obama healthcare.

So, is there an anti-WASP sentiment in America, President Bush being a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant? I would like to put that question to Oprah Winfrey but she has declined to appear on this program.

Her statement is even more erroneous when you examine recent history. This week we are marking the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination. He was hated and vilified by some because he was a Roman Catholic. Again the irrational hatred directed toward Kennedy, far greater than what Barack Obama has experienced.

So what Oprah Winfrey is doing is making an excuse for President Obama using race. And many other committed left-wing people who truly revere the president are doing the same thing.

Is Winfrey “making an excuse for Obama using race?” Maybe! Without question, some people who support Obama do things which resemble that practice.

But O’Reilly makes several highly questionable claims as he rejects what he thinks Winfrey said. To wit:

Was President Bush “attacked far more viciously than President Obama has been?” O’Reilly says there’s “no question” that he was. It’s hard to imagine what “facts” could “back up” that highly subjective judgment.

(In our view, it’s possible that Bush was attacked more viciously. We’d say the attacks on Obama have often been vastly more crazy.)

Second, was “the irrational hatred directed toward Kennedy far greater than what Obama has experienced?” Again, O’Reilly doesn’t seem to realize that this is a highly subjective claim, one which almost surely can't be established by “facts.” And by the way, most important of all:

Suppose O’Reilly’s claim is true. Suppose Kennedy did have to deal with a larger amount of irrational hatred. In what way would that make Winfrey’s claims “erroneous?”

It wouldn’t make her claims untrue at all! Winfrey never stated a view about the hatred aimed at Kennedy. In the literal sense, she merely said that Obama is disrespected “in many cases” because he’s African-American.

That imprecise statement is surely true. Plainly, O’Reilly agrees with it. But that statement has nothing to do with Kennedy. It stands or falls on its own.

In this presentation by Mr. O, you see the classic modern pseudo-journalistic pseudo-discussion. This type of pseudo-discussion virtually defines our broken and floundering discourse.

It isn’t clear that Winfrey and O’Reilly disagree on any facts, although in the end they quite possibly would. But somehow, out of literal agreement, a great dispute blew up!

O’Reilly agrees that Obama is disrespected by some on the basis of race. On a purely literal basis, that’s all Winfrey said. But by the time O’Reilly was done, it seemed we had sharp disagreement.

Tribal punditry works that way. Here’s how his memo ended:

O’REILLY: Finally, it is irresponsible of Oprah Winfrey, a woman of influence in this country, to say what she said to the BBC. The record shows that Mr. Obama is simply a president who is being criticized for some of his policies. And as the man himself would say: period.

And that's the Memo.

Now for the Top Story tonight. Reaction! Joining us from Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University law professor Charles Ogletree, who is a friend to the president.

So where am I going wrong here, professor?

To O’Reilly’s credit, he brought Ogletree on for a full segment. The discussion was civil throughout, if murky and almost completely worthless.

On balance, we’d fault Ogletree for that more than O’Reilly. Ay any rate, the segment ended like this:

O’REILLY: All right, good debate, professor. We really appreciate you taking time to come on tonight.

OGLETREE: And come to Harvard, come to Harvard, Bill.

O’REILLY: I think they're ashamed of me up there.

OGLETREE: Invitation on its way.

O’REILLY: I'm an embarrassment to them. All right, we'll see you soon.

OGLETREE: No, not at all.

O’REILLY: Thank you. Next on the rundown, Juan and Mary Katharine on reaction to Oprah Winfrey and Zimmerman getting arrested in Florida.

Please come to Boston! At any rate, here’s a dirty little secret: at this point, you get more diversity of viewpoint on O’Reilly’s show than you do on MSNBC programs.

That said, this was a classic pseudo-discussion of the approved modern type. First, Winfrey made highly imprecise claims which, in fairness, did seem to suggest a possible sweeping viewpoint.

In response, O’Reilly seemed to assume that Winfrey was assigning racial motives so broadly that she was even indicting him. He proceeded to argue against this assumed claim, which hadn’t literally been made.

Winfrey’s claims about Obama were highly imprecise. In rebuttal, O’Reilly made claims about Kennedy and Bush which were completely subjective. Beyond that, these claims didn’t address what Winfrey literally said.

So it goes as our broken discourse proceeds along jangled tribal lines. This pseudo-dispute followed Blow’s recent column in the Time.

Blow was highly tribal too. He dragged Rush Limbaugh in.

Tomorrow: Playing the Rush Limbaugh card

The fuller exchange: Here is the fuller exchange involving Winfrey, as played on O’Reilly’s program:

BBC INTERVIEWER: Has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment that Obama, and the challenges he's faced, and some of the reporting he's received, is because he is an African-American?

WINFREY: Has it ever crossed my mind? It's crossed my mind probably as many times as it's crossed your mind. Probably it's crossed my mind more times than it's crossed your mind. Just the level of disrespect when the senator yelled out, “You're a liar.” Do you remember that?

Yes. I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs and that occurs in some cases, and maybe even many cases, because he's African-American.

Maybe that happens in “many” cases! Winfrey’s statements were so imprecise that, in fairness, they only have meaning on the level of assumed insinuation.

O’Reilly assumed he heard an insinuation; he proceeded to define and dispute what he thought hew had heard. We aren’t saying he was wrong in what he thought he heard Winfrey saying. It just isn’t clear what Winfrey would have said about the extent of the race-based disrespect if her thoroughly worthless British interviewer had pushed her just a bit harder.

By the way: Joe Wilson, who yelled “You lie,” isn’t a senator. Everybody makes mistakes, of course. That said, how carefully has Winfrey considered her beliefs on this most crucial of topics? Especially on such a central topic, widely-respected people—and Winfrey is clearly that—should consider their statements with care.

We assume Winfrey’s a good person too. On balance, most people are.