
The No Spin Zone
By
THE NO SPIN ZONE. Copyright © 2001 by 
Broadway Books titles may be purchased for business or promotional use or for special sales. For information, please write to: Special Markets Department, Random House, Inc., 1540 Broadway, 
BROADWAY BOOKS and its logo, a letter B bisected on the diagonal, are trademarks of Broadway Books, a division of Random House, Inc.
Visit our website at www.broadwaybooks.com Printed in the 
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The no spin zone: confrontations with the rich and powerful in 
1. United States-Politics and government-2001- 2. United States-Politics and government-1993-2001. 3. United States-Social conditions-1980- 4. PoliticiansUnited States-Interviews. 5. Celebrities-United States-Interviews. 6. O'Reilly, Bill-Political and social views. I. Title.
E902.074 2001b 973.92-dc21
ISBN 0-7679-0848-1
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
2001043031
FOR MAUREEN, FOREVER
"For the haughty men
have risen up against me,
the ruthless seek my life."
-PSALM 54:3
"A man flattened by an opponent
can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity
stays down for good."
 -
contents
Opening 
CHAPTER ONE "You Kidding Me?"
CHAPTER TWO 
CHAPTER THREE "Why? Because We Like You!"
CHAPTER FOUR The Sound of Four-Letter Music
CHAPTER FIVE The 
CHAPTER SEVEN You Can Call Me Al
CHAPTER NINE The Bill Is Past Due
CHAPTER TEN Bush-Wacked
CHAPTER ELEVEN Your Money and Your Life
CHAPTER TWELVE I Want to Take You Higher
CHAPTER FOURTEEN It Would Take a Village
CHAPTER SIXTEEN Caution: You Are About to Enter a No Spin Zone
Afterword by 
Acknowledgments 191
Opening 
This is it ... we're on live in the No Spin Zone. It's a nightmare place for charlatans and deceivers. But it's a great place for you and everybody else who believes in truth, common sense, and decency.
In the No Spin Zone you can watch those charlatans stammer and the spinners slip out in shame. See, this is a place I've set up over my years of TV interviewing with a special set of purposes: In the No Spin Zone rationalizations are scorned, lies are rejected, and equivocations are mocked. It's a place where quite a few smirks have turned to frowns.
 To anybody who uses power and fame to exploit the less powerful, the Zone is a very dangerous place. On the other side, the Zone is comforting to those who live life with a sense of fairness, for it is a place where truth is sought without regret. When 
 Is the No Spin Zone needed? Well, here's how bad things have gotten in 
 What caused this deplorable state of affairs? Number one, "cowardly parenting." Number two, "corrupt national leadership." As the tree is bent, so it will grow. And today kids can look all around at so many bent adults that they can hardly guess what it means to be straight. People basking in the spotlight-and I don't mean just politicians-are forever presenting terrible examples to the children of 
 Public misbehavior by the famous is a powerful teaching tool. For example, any wide-awake youngster knows that you can make a handsome living in 
 Certain immoral acts can be chalked up to "gaining experience." Ever heard of any famous person's "youthful indiscretions"? "Experiments" with illegal drugs? Someone caught driving under the influence is, in my No Spin Zone, a criminal. But with a highly paid lawyer's spin, there is no crime, there is only a "chemical dependence." Even the slowest of children pick up these "lessons" very quickly. (By the way, it is hard to argue with 
Criminals don't commit crimes; they "make mistakes." And often it is society's fault that those "mistakes" even happened in the first place. At the end of the day, every child has learned the Lesson of Spin: Almost every wrong action can be stripped of consequences, along with the need for feelings of guilt and remorse.
 It all ends nicely. The wrongdoer walks and maybe even prospers from his problems (
But this is wrong.
 "Where there is no vision, the people perish," wrote 
\*
Who quoted Solomon's words in his acceptance of the nomination of his party as presidential candidate in 1992? Hint: It wasn't 
 How ironic it is that 
The president himself set a terrific example by lying outright to the nation on national television. None of this, of course, was lost on the kids who, according to a variety of surveys, are lying like crazy and have now embraced oral sex with, you might say, presidential abandon.
We live, finally, in a just world, so maybe that's why the results were so close and why about half of those eligible to vote didn't even show up. I'm not spinning for them-they let their country down-but the exit polls showed that less than 20 percent of Americans were enthusiastic about their vote. Most of us voted for the lesser of two spinners.
\*
The kinds of things I've mentioned are not trivial to me. They have driven me to disgust and near despair in recent years. That is exactly why I created the No Spin Zone on my TV program The O'Reilly Factor.
 The Zone is open to anyone. I mean that. We invite all newsmakers to come and chat with us. If you don't see certain people there who are hot in the news, that's probably because they refuse to enter the Zone of No Spin. 
Celebrities from other worlds, especially actors and actresses, shy away from the Zone too. As you probably know, practically any magazine "interview" you read has been carefully controlled by the star's publicist. Editors and writers agree to avoid touchy issues; otherwise they could lose access to other celebrities handled by the same publicist. When you see a famous person walk into the No Spin Zone, no such bargain has been struck. There are never preconditions for an interview.
Some who don't like the Zone spin it as a place where rude questions are asked. That is nonsense. All I ask is for powerful people to respond honestly to the questions, and if they can't, explain why. The Fifth Amendment is alive in the Zone, but if you take it, be prepared to explain why you are taking it.
 The children of 
 The antidote to this is some no spin news about people who reject bad behavior. 
A no spin parent. We need millions more of them.
\*
In hopes of kicking the living daylights out of the spin that has become part of our national dialogue, I've brought together sixteen turbocharged chapters about the most intense issues of the day. We'll discuss problems like teen sex, inappropriate gay activism, the exploitation of working Americans, and raunchy entertainment. I have chosen topics that I believe are extremely relevant to our daily lives.
In each chapter you hear two sides: mine and the opinion of someone who's deeply involved with the issue we are talking about. These debates are taken from interviews I've conducted during my twenty-seven years in broadcast journalism. The interviews are only edited to leave out the uhs, duhs, uh-ohs, and are-you-kidding-mes, many of which are mine. Printing all the equivocation verbatim would drive you nuts-so I just get to the "pith" of the interview, as is my wont.
In each of these chapters you are the final judge of who has the strongest argument. Because it's my book, I get to set things up with commentary, and that may be a bit unfair, but hey, it is my book.
These pages do not try to persuade you to believe a certain way. I am trying to set forth some insights, some solutions, and some perspective on the most vexing problems of the day. You'll let me know if I succeed.
Each chapter stands alone. You may find yourself browsing back and forth, depending on what subject or personality catches your eye on a particular day. Also, I've chosen some interviews that are like verbal boxing matches. Who jabs with the stronger argument? Who gets knocked down verbally? You be the judge.
 Will 
So settle in and don't be squeamish. You are keeping the score at all times. There is usually a loser in the No Spin Zone and sometimes it's me. But sympathy is not in play. We are chasing down the truth here and that is a hard game. Enjoy the book.
"You Kidding Me?"
ISSUE 1: Sexual deviants who prey on children
THE OPPONENT: 
O'REILLY: This doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
ABRAMS: But of course it does.
O'REILLY: No, this has to do with aiding and abetting, promoting a crime on a website.
\*
If you are thirty-five or older, chances are good that your childhood in 
 Otherwise I was on my own in the great outdoors. My parents seemingly had no fear that I would be harmed by sinister outside forces marauding around my 
With my dopey friends, whom you might have met in my last book, The O'Reilly Factor, I made the most of the deep woods three blocks from my house. We climbed thirty feet up into the thick leafy branches to build rickety tree houses. We tunneled underground like moles. We threw rocks at each other. We rolled around in the dirt completely unsupervised by annoying adults.
It never occurred to us that some older guy in an overcoat might drive up and try to hurt us. Yes, my father once said something about never taking a ride with a stranger. But he didn't say why, didn't make an issue out of it, and didn't seem concerned that his eldest son might be taken hostage at some point.
How times have changed. And that's the terrifying subject of this chapter's debate with a distinguished First Amendment lawyer and public figure, who I believe is absolutely wrong in putting the rights of special (read perverted) interests ahead of the safety of American children.
 Parents today are rightfully worried about their children being abducted or abused, even in their own neighborhoods. But why is that? Are there more child molesters in the 
 Statistically, it is impossible to know. Officials at the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services say they do not have accurate statistics for child abuse and abduction before 1990. According to the federal government, more than 100,000 American kids were sexually molested in 1998, or one and a half children per one thousand. In 1999 nearly 32,000 kids were kidnapped-most by relatives. 
Some believe that widespread, often-hysterical TV coverage has possibly encouraged deviant behavior toward children. Because of television news, crimes against children have been magnified greatly. The heartbreak of any child damaged by an adult is spread from coast to coast immediately and the experts start prattling, some of them sympathetic to the "disease" or "condition" of the victimizer. No one can say for sure, but the notoriety of the crimes may attract pedophiles who are risk takers. We are obviously not talking about rational people here.
But there is also something else in play in this country that is much subtler: the gradual contagion of nonjudgmental acceptance. The result of this contagion is that behavior that would have been roundly condemned forty years ago is now "understood" or in some cases even accepted.
Two college-student parents killed their newborn baby and left his body in a trash can outside a cheap motel. The pair received hundreds of calls of sympathy and support. After all, it was "understandable" that they panicked. In the end, a judge sentenced them to less than three years in prison.
 In 
 Throughout the country drug-addicted babies are routinely returned to the mothers who have already damaged them physically and perhaps limited their learning potential for life. But remember: The mother has a disease. Can society deprive the mother of raising her own children? Well, I damn well would. But I seem to be in the minority these days, as my "understanding" threshold does not reflect the society in which we live. In all the examples I've cited, the child's life is devalued in favor of the adult's "situation." How did this happen in 
Here's my answer, which is the lead-in to our first encounter in the No Spin Zone: The welfare of a child means less today because of the promotion and acceptance of certain so-called special
interests. The most notorious example-and I am not making this F up-is an organization based in the 
 Oh yeah? What about the fact that NAMBLA was involved in F funding an orphanage in 
 It gets much, much worse. A NAMBLA member recently raped and murdered a young boy in 
Both men were eventually arrested, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Prosecutors at the trial produced as critical evidence a diary kept by Jaynes. In it he flat out stated that he became obsessed with having sex with young boys after he joined NAMBLA. How did the organization allegedly poison him with its ideas? According to the diary, Jaynes received NAMBLA literature in the mail and visited the group's website on computers at the Boston Public Library. Clearly, these NAMBLA people wanted to get their message out. According to lawyers familiar with the website, it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught.
The amazing truth is that the American Civil Liberties Union is spending membership dues defending the lawsuit. In a statement it said, "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger our important First Amendment rights."
Baloney! I respect the ACLU's goal of protecting the rights of all Americans. At their best, this group is courageous in defending legitimate expressions of opinion, some of which, like the Nazi marches, are pretty vile. But NAMBLA is a different matter because the freedom to harm children is not built into our Constitution.
 Attorney 
O'REILLY: This doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
ABRAMS: But of course it does.
O'REILLY: No, this has to do with aiding and abetting, promoting a crime on a website.
ABRAMS: If that's what they do, then the family will win the case. But until they show that, there should be somebody brave enough-and the ACLU is-to show up.
O'REILLY: I think you're dead wrong because what the ACLU is doing is allowing an organization to corrupt children. In doing so the ACLU becomes part of the crime if it wins and allows NAMBLA to get away with it.
ABRAMS: So they shouldn't have a lawyer, right?
O'REILLY: They shouldn't have the ACLU.
ABRAMS: Throw them in jail.
O'REILLY: I'd put them in jail in a heartbeat.
ABRAMS: I know you would.
O'REILLY: Each lawyer has a responsibility to choose the case that promotes justice.
ABRAMS: These people need the ACLU.
Sure they need it, because they are a criminal enterprise that exists for only one reason: to encourage statutory rape. The ACLU's representation is free, and NAMBLA is staying alive because of it. When the ACLU chooses which cases to take, it has a responsibility to the people who are paying dues to it. The thing is, no decent human being should be helping NAMBLA, and I know many ACLU members who are absolutely mortified that this organization has stained itself with this case.
 It should be obvious that I am a big free speech supporter. The Factor would have been shut down a long time ago if the First Amendment wasn't sacred. But we need a clear-thinking ACLU to protect our freedom of expression, not some radical organization that is lost in a fog of self-righteousness. I asked 
 And what about the authorities? Why isn't the Justice Department prosecuting NAMBLA? If the 
"One thing [NAMBLA] didn't say was go out and Kill anybody," Abrams said to me. "One thing it didn't say was go out and rape anybody."
But as any good citizen knows, it's not what you don't say that counts, it's what you do say. If the ACLU cannot acknowledge that it is a crime to conspire to have sex with children-a hurtful and brutal act physically, emotionally, and morally-then the American Civil Liberties Union does not deserve our respect or our support.
ISSUE 2: Sex ed in your child's classroom
THE OPPONENT: 
O'REILLY: But you know how kids are. As soon as masturbation is brought up, they'll run out
and tell their friends ...
ELDERS: Poor children whom nobody has ever taught anything-are we to just throw them away? I think not.
\*
It's not just the shameless perverts we need to worry about. Our children can also be assaulted by well-meaning public officials, teachers, and other adults in responsible positions. And these intrusions on the young are far more powerful than the lurid crimes that grab headlines because they are often very personal and delivered to the child one-on-one by influential adults.
Take the supposedly enlightened movement toward sex education. Right now, in many of the nation's public schools, there are sex education classes that get right to the heart of the matter. You get the what, you get the how. You get the birth control. You sometimes get nonverbal approval and, in rare cases, outright encouragement to engage in sexual activity. Driver's ed leads to driving a car, right? Sex ed has to be handled with the proper touch (pardon the pun) or, well, you get the idea.
 I taught high school in 
Sex ed for me was "the talk" my father gave me when I turned thirteen. It was awkward for both of us, as the Irish aren't exactly known for their Dr. Ruth-like candor in these matters. "The talk" was also somewhat unnecessary. I already knew the basics from seminars with my friends, using Playboy magazines as text. And my father's words were highly theoretical because the reality was, I had about as much chance of landing the great white whale as I did of having sex. Teenage girls want to date smooth guys. I was a barbarian. But I gave my father points for trying.
As a young teacher I was more relaxed speaking about sex than my father ever was, but I was careful. Students have a way of misquoting any provocative comments, and that can lead to big trouble in a Catholic high school. Some of my students as young as fifteen were having sex and almost everyone in the school knew about it. I encouraged the use of contraceptives for any American who did not want to become a parent. I spoke of this in a general sense, illuminating the lesson with specifics about poverty, divorce, and child deprivation. Most of the kids got the message. Some didn't. It is always that way.
Predictably, the school administration did not like my kind of direct approach. They were determined to control the sexuality of the students by threatening them with various punishments for risque behavior. This of course was insane. The more you just say no, the more enticing certain kinds of behavior become. The issue came to a boil over football, of all things.
 In 
A faculty meeting was called to discuss the menacing problem. One of the teachers asked what proper attire for football games actually was. Anyone? Anyone? Your humble correspondent rose to the occasion.
"Okay, proper attire for a football game," I said earnestly, "begins with shoulder pads, a helmet, knee and thigh pads, and spiked shoes, but never high heels."
A few of the male teachers actually laughed out loud but were silenced by the principal's stern glare. Most of the female teachers were aghast that I could be taking this desperate situation so lightly. But that's me-Bill Lite.
Anyway, the meeting was ridiculous and went on for hours. I headed for the men's room after about thirty minutes and never came back. The last thing I heard was somebody suggesting that navels be covered or something like that.
The next day I took my own kind of action. I told my coed classes that young women who dress provocatively are usually seeking attention and would not be taken seriously by boys. How you dress, I suggested, shows the world what you think of yourself. So if a girl dresses like a tart or a boy like a bum, well ...
Word got around campus fast. After that, only the hard-core kids continued to show up at games looking like Baywatch extras. They looked woefully out of place next to the students who got the message and dressed appropriately.
\*
Teenagers can be persuaded to act responsibly if they are engaged in a relevant way. You don't have to set yourself up as the sex police; just talk sense. But right now in our nation's public schools, sense is on the run.
 From 1993 to 1994 
 An avowed and outspoken liberal, 
A charming woman with an easy, engaging smile, she entered the No Spin Zone with enthusiasm. I happen to disagree with her, but I couldn't help liking her.
O'REILLY: You must have known you were going to get in trouble over the masturbation remarks.
ELDERS: Why?
O'REILLY: Come on. This is 
ELDERS: Ninety percent of men and 70 percent of women masturbate, and the rest lie.
O'REILLY: Parents don't want it taught in school.
ELDERS: Nobody has to teach anybody. God taught us how to do it. But we should stop lying to children telling them hair will grow on their hands or they'll go blind or they'll go crazy.
O'REILLY: Why can't parents take care of that?
ELDERS: If all children had parents like you who would educate their children, talk about the drug issue, talk about teen pregnancy, talk about sexuality issues, we wouldn't have the problems.
O'REILLY: But, Doctor, surely you understand that some parents don't want a teacher, an outsider, talking to their children about such personal issues, and surely they have the right to demand that that not be done.
ELDERS: You're absolutely right. All they have to do is say that they don't want their children in that class.
O'REILLY: But you know how kids are. As soon as masturbation is brought up, they'll run out and tell their friends. So that really doesn't work.
ELDERS: Poor children whom nobody has ever taught anything-are we to just throw them away? I think not.
She's right on target that lack of information, of all kinds, hinders poor children in this country. But masturbation, in my opinion, was the wrong battlefield for making that point. Schools have no business teaching sexual technique of any kind, no matter what the well-meaning intention.
 I can't believe that one parent in a thousand, or ten thousand, wants some teacher explaining how sex is accomplished. There are simply too many different attitudes about sex. If 
You get the picture. The individual's attitudes on this highly private, highly personal subject are always going to have an effect on the discussion. Not many of us would want our kids learning history from a dedicated communist or evolutionary science from someone who believes only in Adam and Eve. As a parent I don't want a teacher's sexual outlook passed along to my child.
 But the repercussions of irresponsible sex? That's what must be taught. The links between irresponsible sex and poverty, divorce, violence, and disease should be drummed into every American kid from age ten onward. I mean pedal to the metal. And that's where 
Here's the headline and the endgame regarding sex ed. Kids need a healthy dose of reality. Have a baby out of wedlock and there's a good chance you will be poor the rest of your life. Have unprotected sex-you could die. If you don't believe me, take a walk down any ghetto street. Visit any local hospice.
Sure, public schools can perform a valuable service by dispensing birth control-when a counselor agrees. You're never going to convince everybody to wait. But parents have rights too. And on the issue of sexual instruction, their rights have to be respected by Joycelyn Elders and everybody else. Government does not have the right to intrude into the fabric of the family. Learning sexual technique in high school is not going to get you into college and may get you on the welfare rolls. Give the kids and their parents a break, okay? Our schools should be G-rated institutions, at least in the classroom. Leave sex where it belongs-on television.
\*
While we're speaking of parenting, you might want to hear about 
 I had to ask 
"No," she said frankly. "What I got really angry about was how we as a society and I as his mother didn't know enough to intervene effectively."
 The goal of the Zone is not always to reach agreement, but to listen and consider-in other words, to think. And not to give in to, in 
"Why? Because We Like 'You!"
ISSUE 3: Violence and sleaze in our living rooms
THE OPPONENT: 
ALLEN: The problem with TV, which comes into our homes, is that seven-and eight-year-old children are now seeing a hell of a lot of real vulgarity, and I haven't been able to hear anybody tell me that's good for the children or for the country.
O'REILLY: Do you think watching these programs makes kids want to have sex?
ALLEN: No. Mother Nature makes them want to have sex.
\*
If you were a kid in the late 1950s, there's a good chance your thinking was shaped by two television programs, The Mickey Mouse Club and Howdy Doody. If you had asked me back then what I thought of these shows, I would have mocked them. Little wise guy that I was, I smirked at the sight of a bunch of kids wearing large rodent ears and grinning themselves into road maps of wrinkles. That, if you have to be told, was Mickey's gang, the Mouseketeers.
As for the hokey puppet show, I was annoyed enough to talk back to the black-and-white TV "Hey, kids, what time is it?" some guy named Buffalo Bob yelled. A studio audience packed with kids screamed back, "Howdy Doody time!" This gave me such a headache, I can't tell you. And my reply to Buffalo Bob's time line was, "It's time for you to leave, buckskin man," or words to that effect. The whole thing enthralled my sister but put me in a foul mood. I can still hear Sis singing, "M-I-C-see you real soon-K-E-Y-why? Because we like you!" I was outraged! However, you will notice that more than forty years after first hearing these
lines, I still remember them.
That's the power of the tube.
 My little sister and most of the calmer kids in my 
 Anyway, if you could gather all the kids in the 
 The late 
 Allen and the actress 
 On a windy but warm day this legendary entertainer sat down across from me on our 
O'REILLY: 
ALLEN: No, my word-mincer broke. The main thing is, all of that is legit. It's all documented.
O'REILLY: When I was a kid, I watched The Untouchables and Combat. It didn't make me violent.
ALLEN: There's a difference between the problem of sexual vulgarity and violence. You are never going to be able to totally get rid of violence. First of all, it's a part of the world and you can't do a show about World War II or the Mafia and not have blood and guns and foul language, because that's part of reality, and I don't object to that. I don't want six-year-old people to see it, but I don't object to it. But the problem with television, which comes into our homes, is that seven-and eight-year-old children are now seeing a hell of a lot of real vulgarity, and I haven't been able to hear anybody tell me that's good for the children or for the country.
O'REILLY: Do you think that watching these programs will make kids want to have sex?
ALLEN: No. Mother Nature makes them want to have sex. The argument is that when sexual material is dealt with on television and nobody has to worry about birth control or sexual disease, then the implication is, "Hey, it's all kind of cute and hip and let's do it even though I've never met you before."
O'REILLY: So you believe kids are impressionable enough to pick up a message like "They're having fun at Beverly Hills High. I should have fun at my school"?
ALLEN: Yeah, I believe that. There's a lot of documentation. This is not just some theory of mine. I am by no means a saint. But the sleaze and vulgarity on TV disgust even an old roue like me. It's part of the whole dumbing down, the coarsening. The question is, what kinds of parents are the kids today going to make? I think the answer is, not too good.
O'REILLY: Why?
ALLEN: Well, imagine an ideal father. Would you like it if he men came home with a couple of broads on each arm? You see that image on TV.
O'REILLY: Are you referring to 
ALLEN: That's another matter. But really, if people don't know we have a problem here, then we are in worse shape than l thought.
 But 
Parents, that's your cue again. The TV set is an inanimate object that requires electricity and perhaps cable fees in order to beam stuff into your house. Meaning: You control it, not the other way around. No parent has to wait for the V chip or another kind of high-tech blockade. Just monitor what your kids see.
And when something objectionable gets through your safety net, a smart parent can actually turn a disgusting piece of television into a life lesson. Engage your child in conversation about a questionable activity. Sex in sitcoms, misleading advertising, vulgar language can all be made into interesting discussions (note the word "discussions," and go easy on the lectures). Your kids need to learn how TV entertainment and advertising work so they will not be prone to accepting mindless propaganda.
Of course, irresponsible and lazy parents will not provide a buffer between the media madness and their kids. Those kids will suffer. That is life in a free society.
 At another point in our conversation, 
\*
Can we bring back Howdy Doody? Sure, about the time 
 How did Bob make that happen? Maybe it was because he wanted to help kids rather than exploit them for cash, and the kids could sense that. Buffalo Bob was a no spin kind of guy. I did the last interview with him before he died at his home in 
O'REILLY: My father used to come home from work looking like a rumpled version of 
O'REILLY: Yeah, but you didn't need a look. No kid wanted to be yelled at by Buffalo Bob. Even I didn't want that. Do you see any difference between the children of the 1950s and today? 
O'REILLY: So even though children have computers and ninety channels of television, they're still laughing at the same dopey stuff?
O'REILLY: So that was the secret to your success. You actually liked the kids.
He was right. Little kids laugh at the same stuff they always laughed at, and they instinctively know who the bad guys are. But in today's media-swamped society, that instinct goes south with age, and today children grow up too fast. By age eight or nine they're used to seeing and hearing things that would have been out of place in an army barracks thirty years ago. Do you even know
about these things? Do you ever listen to the lyrics blasting upstairs or on the car radio? Or are you just grateful when they use earphones and seem to be boppin' happily in the backseat?
If you don't already know about the messages Puff Daddy and Eminem shout out from their pedestals atop the rap world, well, listen up.
The Sound of Four-Letter -Music
ISSUE 4: Sex and violence in your kid's headphones
THE OPPONENT: Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs, rap star
COMBS: ... We had to sing our problems away and we had to sing to help get things better. And right now that's the way a rap song may feel to an inner-city kid who has to deal with being trapped in a bad situation.
O'REILLY: But do you go too far with the cop-killing lyrics and the bitch stuff?
\*
Even if you wouldn't be caught dead listening to rap music, it is hard to avoid this guy Puff Daddy. He is in the newspaper nearly every week. Dating 
 At age thirty-two Sean Combs is a multimillionaire rap singer and producer who parties with people like 
 In 1996 Combs was convicted of criminal mischief for threatening a photographer in 
Just a few months later, Combs was back in court, this time charged with gun possession and bribery in connection with the nightclub shootings of two bystanders. After a trial where one of the shooting victims flat out identified Combs as pointing a pistol at her, he was acquitted. But then you probably knew that.
I call the guy "Puff the Magic Raggin" and feel it is a shame that his decadent lifestyle is being played out in front of millions of his young fans. And I believe it is safe to say that a good portion of those fans do not have an emotional support system in place which can put Combs's irresponsible actions into perspective. The babes, the bucks, the busts, and the acquittals look kind of glamorous from behind deprived eyes. Self-indulgence is the message received. Discipline, the most important ingredient in achieving lasting success, is not a part of the Puff Daddy world.
 Now, there's nothing strange about kids going nuts over new music and young performers who drive parents up the wall. 
So don't tell me a pop star isn't a huge influence on kids. I mean, to this day there are adult Americans who think of Elvis daily. Who still idolize him. And a few in Vegas who have turned into him.
 When the Beatles arrived from 
This time the neighborhood was awash in bowl haircuts. A few guys even began calling each other "bloke." Many of my friends got together and formed bands. I am proud to say that even early on I was a contrarian, and Beatlemania did not affect me. I was a Beach Boys kind of guy.
 But it was not until the late sixties that the influence of rock people really kicked in with a behavior-altering intensity. Everybody under the age of thirty in the Age of Aquarius knew that people like 
Drugs and rock went together like Ozzie and Harriet. Songs celebrating drug use dominated the charts. In my neighborhood at least six of my friends became heavily addicted. When the Jefferson Airplane sang about "feeding your head," it sounded seductive. Why not groove along to their music and get wasted when it looked like so much fun? Well, it wasn't long before the fun ended in two funerals. Two of my guys lost their lives because of drug abuse. At least five others lost their innocence and were never the same even after rehab. The "groove" they found didn't pay off in gold records; it paid off in continuing guilt and inner pain.
 Fast-forward to the present ... Some kids out there are watching every move Puffy Combs makes, and this should be troubling to anyone who cares about the question 
I'm a Goodfella kinda lady,
Stash 380's and Mercedes, Puffy hold me down baby!
Only female in my crew, and I kick s---- like a nigga do,
with a trigga too, f--- you.
In case you're wondering, that's what passes for creativity in the world of Sean Combs and is typical of the stuff he puts out. With those lyrics and further dollar signs on his mind, Sean "Puff
Daddy" Combs visited the No Spin Zone to promote an album. To many in show business, this was scarcely believable. Puff Daddy and O'Reilly? But he showed up, all 5'7" of him strutting into the studio. He was decked out in a white T-shirt, khaki short pants, and sneakers. Followed by an entourage of ten, he checked the lights, the set, the crew. Obviously, he was used to being in control.
Finally, he was ready to go and he sat across from your humble correspondent with a look of bored detachment. He didn't stay bored for long.
O'REILLY: People are under the impression that rap music and this rap world is a violent gangster-ridden corrupt enterprise.
COMBS: That's definitely a wrong impression. We live in a world where you definitely have bad apples at times, but bad apples can't spoil the whole bunch. That's not a fair label to put on rap. There's problems but there's problems in all parts of the world. Hip-hop and rap is part of the world.
O'REILLY: There is a synergy between you and some giant companies, the establishment corporations that put out your product. Here you guys are renegades, talking about the street and the inner city, and the guys in the suits are making bundles of dough off you guys.
COMBS: I have a joint venture situation. And also I'm sitting there with them with a suit on, and I'm telling them what I want. They don't tell me what to do. It's a partnership.
O'REILLY: You're making them a lot of money.
COMBS: Excuse me. They don't look at me like I'm a renegade rapper or anything like that. They look at me as a businessman. I'm somebody that has intelligence, that went to college. They look at me as the same human being you are. I mean you may be looking at me as a renegade rapper, but I'm looking at you as a human being. We don't look at each other the same. O'REILLY: Is rap good for the young people of 
COMBS: Rap music is our modern-day Negro spiritual like it's a music that was first started and was prominent in the cities for young black 
O'REILLY: But do you go too far with the cop-killing lyrics and the bitch stuff?
COMBS: Anything in life can be taken too far. You know sometimes the news is taken too far. Music is no different. Everybody has to be accountable or responsible for their own actions and that's what I try to do. The rap world is not bad. It's not a negative situation. The rap world has created a lot of jobs for inner-city youths. It's been an outlet and a source of power-economic power for us to start and do our things.
Negro spirituals were songs of longing for freedom; in an odd, circuitous way, I grant Combs his point that inner-city lyrics can speak to the problems of poor children in a society that might seem to have no place for them. But does a thirteen-year-old really get that sociopolitical message from a rapper who rants about whores and guns and bitches and booze?
 The stark truth about the inner city is that the children born there have the odds stacked against them from day one of their lives. You don't have to be a bleeding-heart liberal to see that. Remember when 
 For anyone, the road to success in 
Puff Daddy, as he argues, may be welcomed in the boardrooms of the big entertainment corporations-as long as he holds on to his avid following. But other young people with no command of the English language and chips on their tattooed shoulders have little chance.
Combs could lead by example; his lyrics could speak to the drive that has made him successful. Instead, he paints a gross picture completely lacking in perspective. Somewhere over the 
\*
If you are not disgusted by now, hold on. There is something far more insidious on the rap scene than Sean Combs, who may even be over the hill. Grammy Award winner Eminem is a nasty piece of work whose recordings have sold in the tens of millions.
 Born 
The bible of rock music, Rolling Stone magazine, says that Eminem is a champion of the "white underclass." Rubbish. Like the black rappers he imitates, the guy is exploiting angry kids who listen to him. If they're disenfranchised, he encourages their rage, not their liberation. Will he let loose his millions to pay bail when someone acts out the violence and antisocial acts he encourages? Will he pay the rent of fans who don't have the social skills to hold a decent job? Will he fund shelters for battered women?
Doubt it.
 By the way, you might be interested to know that the tattoo ol' Eminem sports on his skinny arm celebrates the drug Vicodin, a narcotic that is currently the rage in 
But, like, come on, man. You are missing what Eminem is saying. Take a look at the "artistry."
Girl and Boy groups, all you do is annoy me.
So I have been sent here to destroy you.
And there's a million of us, just like me
Who just don't give a f---- like me.
That's the cleanest excerpt I could find that made any sense.
 Because 
ALAN LIGHT: I like Eminem. I don't like everything that he says. I think some of it's repellent. But I think he's clearly talented.
O'REILLY: In what way talented?
LIGHT: He can rhyme words. He can tell stories. He can write fiction.
O' REILLY: All right. I know I'm an old fogy so you've got to tell me this. Anybody can rhyme words. I can do that all day long. What stories is he telling that are worth hearing?
LIGHT: Well, they are often ugly stories or violent stories, but so are the stories of 
O'REILLY: I hear his demographic is twenty-three and younger.
LIGHT: That's probably safe. He's a pop star to teenagers.
O'REILLY: Here's my problem. He's appealing to people ages twelve to twenty-three and he's telling them I hate my mother, I hate my wife-she's a "ho." He's telling them he hates gays and he's thinking about killing people.
LIGHT: He says things that are objectionable, there's no question. But there is a genre, there is an audience that understands the language he is speaking.
O'REILLY: But why is the entertainment industry lionizing him if he's picking on minority groups and putting them in a hateful category?
LIGHT: Because there is talent there. There is a visceral thrill that people get from things that are deliberately there to shock.
O'REILLY: I'm not going to discuss talent, because talent is in the eye of the beholder. But I will tell you that throughout history some of the worst people on earth have been talented people, and I don't think that just because you're talented you should be applauded.
LIGHT: He's not being rewarded for being a good person. He's being rewarded for his artistry and for the writing on the records he makes. Millions of people have bought them, and the question is not what he is saying; the question is why it is touching such a chord.
O'REILLY: Well, let me just tell you, 
 The Eminem thing somewhat parallels the NAMBLA situation that we talked about in chapter one. Forty years ago Eminem could not have existed as an entertainer in 
about terrorizing homosexuals at knifepoint and brutally raping women would have been rejected in the entertainment marketplace and he himself would have been an outcast.
But I'm not for censoring him (because, as I've said, I don't want anyone censoring me). However, I can condemn Eminem and encourage others to do the same. Don't let your kids buy his records. Period.
 As we'll see in upcoming chapters, 
Right now the last thing the record companies are worried about is a national rebellion on the part of concerned parents. Where are the concerned parents anyway? Seven million kids bought Eminem's last CD. Do the parents think it isn't that bad?
It is.
Eminem's success has taught everybody that a hater can acquire wealth and fame. Nice lesson. The Stones sang about it in the classic song, "Sympathy for the Devil." Eminem can play the lead in the movie.
 The last word on this is that Elvis has indeed left the building and taken all shreds of decency with him. Eminem is subversive, destructive, and damaging to the ignorant minds that take him seriously. We have given him a safe harbor in 
The 
ISSUE 5: Tough talk on moms, kids, and work
THE OPPONENT: 
O'REILLY: So you believe you can't be a good parent and work at the same time?
\*
You surely know about 
 And 
They're both on the outs with 
The National Organization for Women is absolutely furious at Dr. Laura for expressing her views, even though NOW's leadership have their mouths wide open on dozens of social issues. Her book Parenthood by Proxy: Don't Have Them If You Won't Raise Them was not exactly popular among NOW members. But it made the best-seller lists nonetheless.
 When you get so many people so angry, you might be doing something right, or you might be a loon. To find out which, I invited 
But none of us lead perfect lives, and I believe Dr. Laura is sincere and brave enough to state her case and take the heat-especially about child rearing.
O'REILLY: When I was growing up, my parents believed in "spare the rod, spoil the child." It was a punitive household and there was immediate punishment for any misbehavior. Most of the kids in my neighborhood were raised the same way. My theory is that many baby boomers are now overcompensating with their own kids and being too lenient. What do you think?
O'REILLY: So you believe you can't be a good parent and work at the same time?
O'REILLY: Isn't there a middle ground here where you can hire a nanny for a few hours a day?
O'REILLY: You're right. Many people are taking your words very personally and they don't like you.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but some people have intense schedules; they have no choice.
O'REILLY: Come on, Doctor, I need my female producers here for eight hours. They can't be home and carry this job.
O'REILLY: I disagree with you. That is too tough. I think a responsible caregiver can supervise the child for a few hours a day without harm.
O'REILLY: No, I just disagree with you on this one.
 Look at today's reality in 
 Of course 
 A trusted nanny or baby-sitter is far more expensive but can help children immensely, and here is where I disagree with the absolutist approach taken by 
 Neither 
Needless to say, stay-at-home mothers should be admired, because this is a noble endeavor. But I also know plenty of stay-at-home moms who are neurotic messes, and I know a lot of working mothers who are far more effective caregivers to their children. Like most everything else in life, child raising is not a black or white deal.
 Whatever the situation, the most important factor is the force of personality a parent brings to the home. That trumps any outside influence on a child. Call me controlling if you want, but I can guarantee you that the artistry of Eminem will not be heard in my house. And I do not feel guilty about employing a baby-sitter. I control my environment and make sure my child is secure and loved. That's all any parent can do. Life is tough and people have to work in order to provide security for their children. 
And one more thing: Lose the guilt about being overly "strict." Your kid is your responsibility, and if you think that Eminem and Puff Daddy and violent video games and professional wrestling and promiscuous TV programs do not reflect your view of life, then impose a No Fly Zone on this kind of entertainment. Hey, Junior, this kind of garbage just "doesn't fly" in this house. The No Fly Zone is first cousin to the No Spin Zone and like No Spin requires a well-thought-out explanation so the young ones don't think you have entered your Napoleon phase. But once the explanation is given, the No Fly Zone should be rigorously enforced and all the whining in the world shouldn't change that.
 Finally, I do agree with 
Fair enough, Doctor. That's what the No Spin Zone is all about.
Suddenly Susan
ISSUE 6: Sticking it to the cops
THE OPPONENT: 
SARANDON: If you were a black person living in the city, you would experience the police in a completely different way.
O'REILLY: Well, maybe I would. But if I were a black person living in the city, I would know that the murder rate has fallen from 1,946 to 667, and most of those murders were in my neighborhood. I'd be pretty damned appreciative of that.
SARANDON: This is what a white person says when he's talking about civil liberties being taken away from someone who's not you.
\*
Outspoken and feisty, 
 For years I had been trying to convince 
 To my surprise Susan suddenly changed her mind and entered hell-uh, the No Spin Zone. Why? Well, she was hot about the 
 A couple of days after the killing, 
In fact, the Internal Affairs Division was actively investigating the Diallo tragedy, and subsequently indictments were brought against the four officers, all members of a Street Crimes Unit. These units were controversial because their mandate was to remove guns from the street. These plainclothes officers would often "pat down" people they suspected of carrying guns, and Ms. Sarandon and others considered this a violation of a person's constitutional rights. Despite the controversy, the technique was effective: Tens of thousands of guns were confiscated and violent crime fell significantly in the areas where Street Crimes Units were operating.
 After a lengthy trial, all four officers involved in the Diallo shooting were acquitted by a mixed-race jury. The jury believed the defense's claim that when one officer accidentally tripped while approaching 
But Sarandon and her crew, also not present, were having none of that acquittal stuff. Energized by her convictions, she entered the No Spin Zone and sat across from me ready to do rhetorical battle. She is a true believer.
O'REILLY: By most accounts, aggressive police work in 
SARANDON: Well, first of all, that's a leading question because what happened was that there was an incident during which forty-four shots were fired and there was no indictment. Now, the way this country works is when something goes wrong you're supposed to examine it. So what I got arrested for was asking for some kind of action. I wasn't demonizing the police. If you don't ask that certain people be held responsible, you're inferring that all the police can do this kind of thing and get away with it. And the Street Crimes Unit was out of control.
O'REILLY: The mistake I think you're making is that there was an ongoing investigation and the system had to wait for the evidence to be presented to the grand jury. That's how the justice system works.
SARANDON: You have to admit there have been some things that have gone wrong.
O'REILLY: Sure, I do. And in any police force the size of 
SARANDON: And you think it takes months to get that kind of investigation when a white person is killed? I don't think that's true.
O'REILLY: I don't look at things in black and white terms.
SARANDON: Well, you don't have to, because you're white. If you were a black person living in the city, you would experience the police in a completely different way.
O'REILLY: Well, maybe I would. But if I were a black person living in the city, I would know that the murder rate has fallen from 1,946 to 667, and most of those murders were in my neighborhood. I'd be pretty damned appreciative of that.
SARANDON: This is what a white person says when he's talking about civil liberties being taken away from someone who's not you. I mean, it depends on what price you pay to have your neighborhood safe. And when you have everybody being picked up because of the color of their skin, it's not right.
O'REILLY: I would have been marching with you and I would have been on your side if the grand jury had not issued indictments. But you guys jumped the gun, demonized the police, and turned it into a racial issue. Do you think those four cops wanted to go out that night and kill a black guy? Is that what you think?
 SARANDON: I think that those guys were so stressed by a quota system to try to bring people in that they were set up in a way which was not fair to them as well as not fair to 
O'REILLY: Certainly there was stress involved. There always is in high-crime neighborhoods. But the NYPD has been very effective in fighting crime and their duty is to protect us. SARANDON: At what cost?
O'REILLY: I don't see the cost you see. I don't see black neighborhoods terrorized.
SARANDON: Well, you should go to a black neighborhood.
O'REILLY: I have many, many times. 
 After that lively discussion 
 Even though she thinks I'm a philistine, I like 
 But having covered hundreds of ghetto stories and reported on police departments all across 
 What 
 Why isn't 
 Members of the left in 
You Can Call Me Al
ISSUE7: Boycotting for dollars
THE OPPONENT: 
O'REILLY: Look at how many African Americans get entry-level jobs at Burger King. You're hurting all those people.
SHARPTON: Why should we be happy getting entry-level jobs?
O'REILLY: Because sixteen-year-olds need them.
\*
On the night of 
The prevailing sentiment was that blacks were not wanted in 
 To make matters worse that night in 1986, the three young black men had exchanged insults with some 
 Subsequently, six of the attackers were convicted. But in the intervening months emotions ran high throughout 
 The 
 As an ABC News correspondent at the time, I was assigned to cover perhaps the most intense demonstration, a march through 
 Dressed in a polyester tracksuit with a heavy gold medallion hanging from his neck, Sharpton led the march looking more like a backup singer for 
I suspected that the national media, which had not so far been taking Sharpton seriously, were making a mistake. This man had an agenda and was very much in control of the coverage of the situation. Previously, he'd been caught on audiotape ranting about "homos" and "white devils." His public rhetoric had often been crude and racially charged.
 But on this day he was staying cleverly "on message." He made himself available for all interviewers and argued that the death of 
Sharpton's setup worked. Angry white bigots screamed racial insults and the reverend absorbed them silently. He looked heroic to many in the black community and to some whites as well. Sharpton had arrived and I was there to see it.
 Fast-forward to the year 2000. 
 Moreover, taking his cue from 
 It is a mistake to not take 
Here's how this particular shakedown game works: Jackson or Sharpton or some other operative will approach a business and threaten some public action like a demonstration or a boycott unless a certain demand is met. For example, the business will be "encouraged" to hire "consultants" who will offer "suggestions" for hiring minority contractors and employees. Are you surprised to hear that the "consultants" are often friends of the reverendsfriends who donate large sums of money to their enterprises? Are you surprised that many of the minority contractors hired are also close to the reverends? I didn't think so.
 This lucrative game, still thriving today, has been very profitable. 
 But in the year 2000 1 was more interested in 
 To his credit, 
Naturally, Sharpton knew the Zone was not going to be "Al friendly," but he took the fire, readily made eye contact throughout the interview, and seemed to relish the intellectual joust. Was he right to threaten Burger King? You decide ...
O'REILLY: Let me read you something from the New Republic magazine. "Last month, 
SHARPTON: My response is that in 
O'REILLY: Did 
SHARPTON: Well, we talked after I got his letter, but I think The New Republic is just trying to pit him against me.
O'REILLY: Is it true that Burger King has been backing Rainbow/PUSH with an estimated $500,000?
SHARPTON: Burger King and the PUSH organization had a situation they worked out many years ago and it has caused millions of dollars to go into the black community.
O'REILLY: Do you think Burger King bought 
SHARPTON: No. Absolutely, I don't. They should have given 5 million bucks for what they're doing in the community and what Burger King has taken out of the community. If all they gave was $500,000, we should have a national boycott against them just for that.
O'REILLY: Wait a minute. Burger King doesn't owe you guys anything at all.
SHARPTON: Then we shouldn't consume there. That's all. It's go where the people respect you. O'REILLY: You don't have to boycott. Just advertise your disenchantment.
SHARPTON: What you call advertising, I call boycotting.
O'REILLY: Look at how many African Americans get entry-level jobs at Burger King. You're hurting all those people.
SHARPTON: Why should we be happy getting entry-level jobs?
O'REILLY: Because sixteen-year-olds need them.
SHARPTON: But they also need promotions and we need to have public relations firms that can do service contracts. There are lots of things we need.
O'REILLY: Apparently, 
SHARPTON: No, Burger King is a problem. If you're going to take millions of dollars out of a community, the community ought to say, "We will shop with those that respect us best."
 So there it is. Both 
 Some call it racial hustling, others say it is necessary for minorities to get their fair share. I believe 
 Americans of all colors would listen more seriously to 
O'REILLY: Where are you and 
SHARPTON: First, we must deal with the fact that the educational policy in terms of everything from classroom size to teacher performance needs to be dealt with.
O'REILLY: Fine. Why aren't you guys on the streets?
SHARPTON: 
O'REILLY: You're dodging the question.
SHARPTON: No. You're dodging the question.
O'REILLY: Whenever there's a black-white controversy you guys Preside are there. You are not there on this issue. You are not visible and you have not mobilized.
SHARPTON: I think that is not true. We have spent a lot of time on educational issues.
O'REILLY: That shocking statistic about black fourth graders has been out for three weeks. No visible protest by you.
SHARPTON: I was in 
O'REILLY: Come on. Sixty-three percent of black fourth graders can't read.
SHARPTON: I challenge you, O'Reilly, to come out of the studio and demonstrate with me. What is so strange is that the great O'Reilly is not saying, "
O'REILLY: The way I see it-and I could be wrong-is that you guys will run out and polarize, but when it comes to really important issues like this, you disappear.
SHARPTON: Tell 
O'REILLY: And when you do, Reverend, we'll be right there covering it.
 When the interview ended and the camera was off, 
Jesse's World
ISSUE 8: Show us the money
THE OPPONENTS: 
SHELDON COHEN (former IRS commissioner): If the IRS were properly funded and was auditing the returns it ought to audit, which it's not, it would look at this [
O'REILLY: I'll tell you, 
\*
On 
"What you are asking me now is investigative journalism," he said. "And I don't mind because we are going to pass any test you all set up. Our books will stand the test. What we do, how we do it-we can agree or disagree, but we can handle investigative journalism."
 But then 
Yep, the guy doesn't like me. Worse, he's called me "a rightwing extremist" bent on destroying all the good work he's accomplished in his more than three decades on the national civil rights scene. From conversations and confrontations with his defenders, I gather that he's convinced I'm on some sort of jihad against him and everything for which he stands.
Back in 1999 my staff and I kept hearing that the reverend might be using tax-exempt funds to pay off personal obligations. If true, that was one heck of a story, and we're in the news business,
right? To find out the truth, I assigned producer Heath Kern to look into the situation.
 The obvious place to start was the tax returns of 
Not a good answer to aggressive journalists.
 For more than a year we pressured the authorities in 
 It all began with the neatly typed word "None." That was the word on the line where 
 The truth is, 
 By the way, 
 We also learned that in addition to paying 
Jackson himself is paid $120,000 a year by his tax-exempt organizations and racked up an incredible $614,000 in travel expenses in the year 2000 (we are still waiting to see the itemization) out of $1.3 million in travel for the entire staff. Evidently, the Democratic Party reimbursed him $450,000 for traveling-a very questionable transaction in light of his tax-exempt status, which requires that all activities be nonpartisan.
 To be fair, the reverend long ago admitted that he has taken no vow of poverty. A millionaire, he puts his annual gross pay north of $400,000. He owns three homes, often travels first-class, and mostly stays in the best hotels. According to Chicago SunTimes columnist 
\*
As 
• In 1979 government auditors questioned $1.7 million that Operation PUSH spent in grants from the Carter administration. 
• In another case, Department of Education auditors contended that PUSH had failed to account for $1.2 million in grants. The feds, you will be happy to hear, disbursed no more monies to 
• The Federal Election Commission (FEC) had problems with money flowing to 
 These are just the highlights ... yet the IRS apparently remains satisfied that 
But now there is some pressure. A complaint has been filed with the IRS by the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative group, in regard to the Citizenship Education Fund's activities. Another complaint has been filed with the FEC by the American Conservative Union, which is disturbed by the reimbursement of Jackson's travel expenses by the Democratic Party.
Still, the IRS is silent. Is it timidity? Well, nobody in that buttoned-up organization would venture into the No Spin Zone, but former IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohen did accept my invitation to visit the Zone. It is safe to say he will remember the experience.
COHEN: I suspect the IRS will take a look [at 
O'REILLY: You suspect it would? You would think it would! This Citizenship Education Fund raised $12 million in two years and $47,000 goes to education. Is that not a red flag for the IRS?
COHEN: I don't know what they spent the rest of the money for.
O'REILLY: Let me read you some other parts of the CEF return. $1,307,393 on consultants? Isn't that a lot of money for consultants?
COHEN: You and I both suspect that's not proper, but on the face of it, that doesn't mean it's not proper. So, for example, suppose those consultants were studying the early childhood education for poor kids. If the studies are pursuant to the educational goals of the foundation, that would be all right ...
O'REILLY: More than a million to consultants and the return doesn't say who the consultants are.
COHEN: The consultants could or could not be proper-no tax return shows the detail.
O'REILLY: When I fill out my tax return and list charitable donations, I have to name the charities and how much I gave them. Are you telling me that 
COHEN: I am saying that a tax-exempt organization has to supply very little detail. They are not required to do it.
O'REILLY: So what you are saying is that he [Jackson] doesn't have to tell us who the consultants are that were paid more than a million tax-exempt dollars. But if the IRS goes in and asks, then he has to tell.
COHEN: Exactly right.
O'REILLY: But at this point the IRS isn't asking despite all these expenditures that don't look right.
COHEN : If the IRS were properly funded and was auditing the returns it ought to audit, which it's not, it would look at this [
O'REILLY: I'll tell you, 
COHEN: Believe me, the people at the IRS care.
O'REILLY: I don't believe it for a second, 
 I was tough on 
 The consultant deal is of key importance in the 
 Allegedly, in other words, it's quid pro quo all over the place, and it has reportedly been going on for quite some time. In May 1988 The New Republic, hardly part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, ran an article entitled "Jesse's Business: A Shakedown Racket?" The answer in the article is somewhat mixed, but one quote stands out. Conservative African American publisher 
 For years even the largest, most powerful companies that have dealt with 
 Most such companies erect a wall of "no comment" around their dealings with 
 For example, 
 Now, millions of Americans have grown up with the 
O'REILLY: Some people saw a heavyset black woman wearing a bandana and thought it was stereotypical. Did they have a point? ROESER: No, they didn't, because 
O'REILLY: All right. 
ROESER: That's correct. 
O'REILLY: Walk me through it.
ROESER: Well, 
O'REILLY: Blacks make up about 13 percent of the American population. Did Quaker Oats have 13 percent black employment?
ROESER: It was lower.
O'REILLY: So 
ROESER: Well, he did have a point. But we were on the way toward that goal.
O'REILLY: So you took his point.
ROESER: The point, Bill, is that we had no objection to meeting with 
O'REILLY: What did you guys do?
ROESER: Well, what we did say is that we would not sign a covenant. He wanted to sign a covenant with us. We gave him some money, but it wasn't a large amount. Some of it went to black community organizations, some to his suppliers. We made certain concessions to him. All of them under threat.
O'REILLY: So 
ROESER: No, he didn't beat us, because we didn't sign the covenant. We paid him a lot of money in terms of suppliers but he wanted us to dump the 
 The list of companies that 
1. Texaco. To stroke 
2. Anheuser-Busch. Even though leaders of the black community in the giant beer company's headquarters town, 
3. AT&T Through 
 There are plenty more, with companies like 
 And powerful politicians are also not above making deals with the 
 After the deal was sealed and the money flow assured, 
 The most important question is, why did Operation PUSH fail to sign up more families for this program? There's no question that thousands of 
 Because of the KidCare fiasco, the mistress payment situation, and a variety of other unanswered questions, 
 His primary defender has been attorney 
MYERS: First of all, I think that any organization that uses public funds, Bill, is a legitimate target for an investigation. We don't have a problem with it. Our records have been very public. The problem comes in when the investigation takes a turn where there are obvious biases and where there are things that question the integrity of the investigator.
O'REILLY: (laughs) I guess that's my integrity. I would like to point out that it took us more than a year to get the Citizenship Education Fund tax returns-the ones where the mistress's salary wasn't listed. You weren't forthcoming in the beginning.
MYERS: We weren't forthcoming because we didn't feel that your investigation and the things that you were requiring and that you had been saying on this program lent itself to wanting to cooperate with somebody who obviously held a bias---
O'REILLY: And what bias do I have?
MYERS: Let me say this, Bill. We reviewed your request and I don't have a problem in opening the books, but I do have a problem when people have what I consider to be an insincere desire---
O'REILLY: Let's spell it out, Counselor. Here I am. What's my bias? What am I trying to do?
MYERS: Let me be very straight. For the last year and a half you have used this program and the national forum you have to not only trash 
O'REILLY: Wait a minute, Counselor. That's a pretty provocative charge. Can you give me one example of what I've said that's trashed any good deed that you've done?
MYERS: I could probably be here for the next five years.
O'REILLY: Just one example, Counselor.
MYERS : You come on TV and you bring on four or five anti-Jackson commentators before we have a chance to make our presentation to the public.
O'REILLY: Not true. We've had just as many pro 
MYERS: You've attacked 
O'REILLY: How?
MYERS: Through your show, your commentary, the language you've used---
O'REILLY: Just give me one example.
MYERS: Just take the tax situation. There has been nothing illegal about how we've filed our IRS claims.
O'REILLY: That's not personal. That's business.
MYERS: Let me give you something concrete. You put two individuals on your program-not only did they trash us, they trashed us with bias and you were leading them on.
O'REILLY: I don't know what you're talking about, Counselor. But I will tell you this. It took us a year and a half to get Citizenship Education Fund records for '98, '99. When we got them, there was nobody listed making more than $50,000 a year when 
MYERS: Let me respond to that. 
O'REILLY: A mistake.
MYERS: We realized a mistake had been made.
O'REILLY: All right, Counselor. In an organization that has what, a dozen employees? A mistake of that magnitude was made for two years running. I'll be like the Ghostbusters-I'm ready to believe you.
MYERS: No, no, no, Bill, that's a misstatement. She wasn't the only person who was making more than $50,000. We had at least five people.
O'REILLY: That just compounds the mistake five times!
MYERS: The fact is we did not violate any law.
O'REILLY: I'm not saying what you did was illegal. But I am saying that we have questions 
MYERS: Bill, I wouldn't abuse you like that. I understand your challenge, but I won't take you up on it.
 Take me up on it? Why should he, if his boss has both the IRS and the state of 
 Myers didn't exactly play the race card, but he came close. What bias do I have against 
 Except for the connection to tax-exempt funds, I don't care about his mistress or his private life. I have a baby around the age of 
But he is not entitled to use my money to further his personal and political agenda. He is not entitled to use tax-exempt funds to pay women to keep quiet about personal issues that involve him. He's also not entitled to use tax-exempt funds to support any efforts to extort money from companies and divert contracts and franchises to his friends and family.
 Did 
 Nor has the elite media ventured anywhere near this potential land mine. It's been the Factor and the 
 I know why and so do you, but let's hear it from someone who's been at the center of the action. 
 Attractive and soft-spoken, 
What does that mean exactly? Here it comes.
O'REILLY: Why won't you see an investigation of 
COBB: For years the media was afraid.
O'REILLY: Why are they afraid?
COBB: They are afraid to do any close investigating because they don't want to be called racist.
O'REILLY: That took a lot of guts to say, 
 Later, 
 What happens next? What more will come out about 
 As of this writing, the story is getting murkier. There is a kind of media civil war going on. In the middle of all his controversies, 
 And you haven't forgotten the reverend's charitable defense of the womanizing 
 But I am confident that if 
 Well, they didn't stand the test of the No Spin Zone. But neither do many other things. And included among them is the legacy of 
This Bill Is Past Due
ISSUE 9: The legacy of 
THE OPPONENT: 
CARVILLE: I told somebody-I said defending 
\*
There is no question in my mind that the presidency of 
 Early on, there were the ladies from Dolly Kyle Browning to Gennifer Flowers to 
 Because of this wealth of exposes, spinners began talking about "
 Toward the end of his tenure, when the worst seemed to be over for 
 The pardons may have proved what some eyewitnesses had privately reported during 
the scenes he could be morose and incredibly arrogant. Addicted to constant polling, he had seen his public support remain historically strong, even as the talking heads in 
 Perhaps I made a mistake during my ongoing analysis of 
 I don't consider myself a 
 My doubt was short-lived and would never appear again when it came to 
 But millions of Americans were not appalled and some were even angry with people like me who came down hard on 
 The Lewinsky episode was particularly fascinating because it introduced an intriguing cultural fault line in 1990s 
 The chief pettifogger and Energizer Bunny for the pro-Clinton forces was political strategist 
 After playing a significant role in 
 Naturally, I desperately wanted to get Carville into the No Spin Zone. But he wouldn't play. He told the press that I had insulted his wife, Republican pundit 
 That is, until 
 I had never met the fifty-seven-year-old Carville, who is busy these days giving speeches, advising overseas office seekers, and watching his two young kids (wife 
Our public debate was also civil but much more intense. Al though we kidded around backstage, once we were introduced to the crowd (evenly divided between Clintonites and anti-Clintonites), things got lively fast. Panetta did not waste any time getting to the heart of the matter.
PANETTA: Give me your summary of the 
O'REILLY: Well, I think Americans are deeply divided about him. Personally, he's very likable and I admire the fact that he came from nothing and rose up to become the most powerful man in the world. But I think he is a corrupt individual. My reporting over the past six years indicates one after another after another example of walking the ethical line. He spent a tremendous amount of time doing things other than the people's business. I think he's a tragic guy.
CARVILLE: He's a good friend of mine, and he obviously made some mistakes. He paid for it and he'll have to pay in history. But I'll tell you this: We spent more money investigating 
O'REILLY: I'd like to rebut that. One of the reasons we spent so much money investigating 
CARVILLE: 
O'REILLY: In the thirties there was a guy named 
CARVILLE: I rest my case.
 So ended round one about 
PANETTA: What will 
CARVILLE: I don't know. I always wind up talking about him. I told somebody-I said defending 
O'REILLY: Can I say just one thing? Really, this whole event has been worth it to hear 
That line brought down the house, but Carville was undeterred. He dusted himself off and got back up off the canvas, ever the true believer.
CARVILLE: I think I can say without fear of hesitation, equivocation, or reservation that 
O'REILLY: James is right about that; 
CARVILLE: If you're running for president, you have spinners. Yeah, you do. I'll tell you exactly the advice I give. It's okay to have an opinion on everything. It's just not okay to render said opinion. There's some glory to the unspoken thought. We spend most of our time telling them what they can't say.
PANETTA: That's how you screw these guys up.
O'REILLY: Carville is a nice guy. I never met him before tonight. I used to think he was the devil, now I just think he's a demon. He's working himself up.
CARVILLE: Thanks for the compliment.
O'REILLY: You're welcome. But why do these guys need you? Why don't they just speak from the heart? We should have politicians that say what they believe, how they want to help, and how
they will solve problems. That's what 
 The 
 That kind of approach, of course, would put the 
 At another point in the debate I said, "Call me naive, but I think most politicians want to get into public service for the right reasons, but then it goes haywire with the money and the advisers and the spinners and the calculators ... Then it gets to a point where our leaders don't know what they think. If they think at all." (Ironically, 
 You can tell that I enjoyed skirmishing with the king of spin, 
 But if the ex-president won't step into the No Spin Zone, he should answer in some forum somewhere for his extremely questionable conduct while in office. It's a mistake, and an insult, for him to continue eluding questions that trouble so many of his former constituents. 
 As 
 And speaking of 
Bush-Wacked
ISSUE 10: Capital punishment
THE OPPONENT: 
BUSH: I can't justify the death penalty in terms of the New Testament. I'm going to justify it in terms of the law, and in terms of saving people's lives. I believe that the death penalty when administered surely, swiftly, and justly saves people's lives. I believe it sends a chilling signal that if you kill somebody in my state in the commission of a crime, there's going to be a consequence and you're not going to like it.
O'REILLY: So you might disagree with Jesus on this one? I don't believe he would be embracing the death penalty if he were here today. But I could be wrong.
\*
My all-time favorite so far: When a journalist wrote that Bush suffers from dyslexia, the candidate retorted, "That lady who wrote that I had dyslexia? I never even interviewed her."
 My first meeting with 
 Bush's advisers knew that The O'Reilly Factor draws a huge penal audience in 
pumped. (By the way, the Gore people continued to avoid the Factor, as they would throughout the entire campaign.)
 Although I had never met 
 "Bill, nice to finally meet you," said 
I was shocked. How the hell did this guy know who I was? (At the time, not all that many people knew who he was.) His unexpected greeting was disarming. It threw me off my game (I was very young), and Carter waltzed through the interview.
The way to do that swiftly in a TV interview is to ask a question the interviewee is not expecting, one that requires him or her to think, not recite. Very few journalists these days use this technique because it can upset the subject of the interview. But this is a great technique for getting genuine responses. Viewers get so many canned answers because the interviewees know what the reporters are going to ask. Many reporters are lazy and afraid and fall back on the predictable.
 Of course (he says self-servingly) the No Spin Zone rejects predictability entirely and lives to ask questions that require actual thought, a word anathema to most politicians in this age of spin. Therefore, after warming up 
O'REILLY: So far in this campaign what stands out in my mind regarding you is the "Jesus Christ political philosopher" remark in one of the 
has influenced me, thanks to 
O'REILLY: So you might disagree with Jesus on this one? I don't believe he would be embracing the death penalty if he were here today. But I could be wrong.
 That opening salvo forced candidate Bush to depart from his well-rehearsed script. From then on, the interview picked up speed. One of the highlights was this exchange over the conduct of 
O'REILLY: Talking about corruption, 
O'REILLY: Why wouldn't you investigate 
O'REILLY: All right, let's put it this way: What kind of job do you think 
O'REILLY: So you'd look into it?
 As I write, no one in the Bush administration has moved to investigate the former attorney general. She is happily retired in 
As for the death penalty, with all due respect to the president, you don't have to put words into Jesus' mouth to infer what he might have thought on the subject. Most theologians believe he considered all life sacred and, thus, would most likely oppose the death penalty. Also, since he was a victim of it, he may have a rooting interest in seeing it abolished. In the interest of fairness some other very learned spiritual people disagree with me, although the pope concurs.
 For the record, 100 people were executed during Bush's six year tenure as governor of 
 I am against the death penalty because I feel it is too lenient a punishment. For example, 
 I've got a better idea. A punishment more appropriate-and much more terrifying-for McVeigh and others who commit crimes against humanity (this includes murder, rape, and large-quantity hard-drug dealing) would be to sentence them to life in prison in a federal penitentiary in 
 There's another advantage, and we have to be honest about it. Mistakes can be made in criminal prosecutions for a variety of very human reasons. You've seen the reports about DNA or other evidence that has exonerated convicts, even some convicted of murder. It is going to happen because no system is perfect. By not executing prisoners a mistake like that can be rectified, as the convicts remain alive. (One interesting footnote: Fifty-three percent of Americans in a national poll believe there should be an execution moratorium. That poll was taken in 2001 after some law students at 
 As you just read, 
Why is this? Well, what many Americans fail to understand is that there are criminals who do not care whether they live or die. Their blighted lives mean little to them, and they are willing to risk death to achieve whatever criminal gratification they want. But are they willing to risk tremendous suffering over decades? Think about it. Ongoing hard labor in a remote location with zero amenities (this means no cable) is a horrifying prospect. Video tapes of that kind of capital punishment could be shown in every public high school in the country. You want deterrence? That's deterrence!
Okay, I think I hear the wringing of hands. (How alert am I?) Am I suggesting a gulag? You bet I am. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? Only if you believe that killers and rapists and drug kingpins have a right to live in surroundings where their friends and relatives can visit and the commissary is stocked with cigarettes and candy.
I don't believe vicious criminals should have any comforts beyond the exception of reading materials and perhaps a radio. But there are plenty of Americans who are downright sympathetic to those who commit capital crimes. Some even see poor criminals as
victims.
 At age fifty-one 
O'REILLY: I am against the death penalty but for a different reason than you are, 
JAGGER: I'm against the death penalty in all cases because it is unfairly applied. The people who are receiving it are poor in disproportionate numbers.
O'REILLY: Statistics show that violent crimes are committed more by minorities than whites, proportionally speaking. For example, blacks make up 13 percent of the population but commit 30 percent of the violent crime. So of course you're going to have inequities in sentencing.
JAGGER: Let's talk about appropriate legal representation. Is it because minorities who are poorer than whites get worse legal representation?
O'REILLY: You know that's true. Because if you are getting something from the government for free, it is not going to be as good as when you pay for your own lawyer. They are not going to give you 
JAGGER: The fact is that the poor are getting the death penalty because they have worse lawyers, not because they commit worse crimes. How many people who were innocent were executed?
O'REILLY: 
JAGGER: It is believed that twenty-three people were executed that were innocent.
O'REILLY: Believed, not proved.
JAGGER: I believe we must do better research like in Illinois, where they were able to prove that thirteen people who were on death row were innocent and wrongly convicted.
O'REILLY: No, 
JAGGER: The application of the death penalty is unfair, racist, and biased.
O'REILLY: So what would you do with people who murder?
JAGGER: Give them life in prison without parole.
O'REILLY: But is it enough to have them sit there watching cable TV, lifting weights, and having sex with their cellmates? I mean, that doesn't sound like a big punishment to me. Would you favor my system of banishment and hard labor?
JAGGER : I never thought about it.
 So as you've seen, the unlikely duo of 
 Studies show that executions do not deter capital crimes, and the reality of 
 Both 
 And now that we have covered death with 
Your Money and Your Life
ISSUE 11: Taxes in 
THE OPPONENTS: 
O'REILLY: What about the Department of Education? It doesn't know where $450 million is. The GAO-you guys-pinpointed the missing money. Tell me about it.
O'REILLY: And you don't know where that money went, do you?
\*
 You know that I am not easily shocked. I've reported on the ground in active war zones from 
 I have interviewed people who are pure evil. People like baby killer 
 But I am constantly amazed that millions of Americans do not see the shell game the 
 In the last years of the 
During that same period of time, the General Accounting Office estimates that more than $100 billion was erroneously sent to Medicare recipients.
 Of course it is we the taxpayers who fund all this waste. As of January 2001, when 
I don't get it. Have you looked at your paycheck lately? Or have you just given up?
Or do you agree with the editorial writers at the New York Times and other well-heeled
publications and the Clintonite Democrats that tax cuts only benefit the rich? That's how the spin
went down: massive tax cuts for the wealthy, not much for the poor and for the blue-collar workers. Never mind that most poor Americans cannot receive a federal income tax cut for the simple reason that they do not pay any federal income tax because of the earned income tax credit. And never mind that the lowest tax bracket dropped the most (five percentage points). The antitax propaganda worked.
 Perhaps we're just numb and don't recognize that 
Let's be clear: If our tax dollars were being used effectively to solve social problems, to alleviate suffering and provide protection for American families, I'd shut up. If we all share in strengthening the nation by contributing monies that are honestly and fairly used, then we all benefit.
 But that's not what's happening. Government waste is staggering. Incompetence, apathy, and fraud permeate D.C. like humidity in the summer. Your hard-earned money is being thrown into the incinerator and nobody in power seems to care. I am going to prove this once and for all in the next few pages-so call up 
Let's take it step by step. According to the Tax Foundation, the average American working person works three hours out of eight each day in order to pay his or her federal taxes. Bottom line for the typical American worker: Forty percent of your pay is being torn out of your wallet by various forms of government. Forty percent! Talk about an outrage.
 In big cities like 
Not to bore you with statistics, but the government hits you for an average of 43 cents on every gallon of gasoline you buy. Each toll telephone call is taxed at 3 percent. Want to heat your house? The feds will nail you for 25 cents a gallon for heating oil. And don't think you can drink to forget your tax woes-the government takes a 58 percent duty on bottles of hard liquor.
 The list goes on and on and on. Yet if you drive around 
 And don't forget the Pentagon. The Osprey helicopter project has cost Americans more than $40 billion since 1982 and the bird is still not ready for prime time. The Osprey takes off and lands vertically and can fly like an airplane, but it has one rather large problem. It doesn't always fly right. Twice the Osprey has crashed and twenty-three marines have been killed in those incidents. Now some marine commanders refuse to let their troops fly in the Osprey because they believe it is unsafe at any angle. But do we hear outrage from any elected official in 
 And then there are the government programs that simply don't work. The Great Society programs created by 
The massive entitlement spending did benefit some Americans along the way, but welfare was a disaster. One result: the creation of a semipermanent underclass that views government subsidies as their "right."
 Because government bureaucrats refused to supervise welfare payments adequately, hundreds of billions of tax dollars went down the drain. To this day, the busiest time of the month for liquor stores and street dope dealers is the day the welfare checks arrive. Did 
 And then there's the sinkhole called the Department of Education. Title One programs were set up with the noble goal of improving education for 
So the question is, who is keeping score? Who is watching our tax dollars, and who is making sure that federally funded programs actually work? Ready? Nobody is. With trillions in annual spending, there is no government agency that actually watches the money!
That's right. Congress allocates the money, but there is no separate government department to oversee its use. The General Accounting Office is called in only when there is a suspicion of fraud.
This means that people who receive federal money do not have to account for it unless asked. You have trillions of federal dollars floating around basically unsupervised by anyone other than the Congresspeople who allotted the money in the first place in order to fund their campaign promises and pet projects. Do you think they want you to know that their spending is fraught with waste and fraud? The answer is no.
When things get totally out of control (like the Department of Education), the GAO swings into action. But again that agency does not routinely audit federal expenditures. So by the time the (AO gets on the case, the money is already gone. And the heavy odds are it is not going to be recovered.
 So one more time. What we have here in 
 It is your money that is being flushed down the john, and the process is never-ending. The withholding in your paycheck is one giant river of currency that flows unimpeded to 
That's what's going on and no honest person can deny it. Few politicians care about watching your tax dollars-they care about spending them. That's because most federal and state expenditures are designed to get votes. Why do you think the teachers' unions love the Democrats? Why do you think Boeing loves the Republicans? The left diverts tax dollars toward vivid visions of entitlements dancing in voters' heads; the right buys support by advocating increased spending for the military (hello, missile shield) and corporate welfare.
But the big-dollar promises are paid courtesy of the guy paving over a pothole on your local highway. And the lady grinding out memos for a demanding boss. Without access to the weekly paychecks of the vast working class, our "public servants" might actually have to pick up a shovel or learn some office skills themselves.
Shameful and dishonest, tragic and appalling-the waste of our hard-earned tax dollars is the single most scandalous part of American politics. But if we can believe the polls, few Americans care about the tax issue because it is complicated and boring and is spun to death by an avalanche of contradictory or confusing statistics and gross distortions.
In other words, this is serious grist for the No Spin Zone and its head honcho (me). I am deeply offended by the callous disregard politicians have for our money. So the Zone invited the head of the GAO to entertain the thought of a discussion.
 Here's what I said on my television program before introducing 
 If that sounds confusing, it is, especially when we try to get cc specific information, like how much did 
 I then brought out 
O'REILLY: Can you blame me for being confused about the General Accounting Office, 
O'REILLY: We have been trying for more than a year to find out how much money 
around on that trip-was about $2.3 million.
O'REILLY: But you have no idea about the cost of the entire trip to the taxpayer?
O'REILLY: What? What? Wait a minute! What do you mean it's not available? That's my money Hillary was spreading around over there!
O'REILLY: Besides that, 
O'REILLY: That's not right, 
O'REILLY: And you don't know where that money went, do you?
O'REILLY: All right, let's go on to 
O'REILLY: I understand that, but here's the deal. We have massive taxation in this country. Forty cents out of every dollar a worker earns is taken by the system. I just gave you three examples-and I could give you thirty more-of money that is unaccounted for. Again, I'm not blaming you, Mr. Walker, but don't tell me that the American public should not know how much Hillary Clinton is spending, shouldn't know where a billion dollars to Haiti went, and shouldn't know about gross waste in various departments, because we should.
O'REILLY: You know, 
 In my opinion, 
Of course the politicians know the system is corrupt and chaotic, but to them this is a good thing. It is far easier to reward supporters with spending projects that are basically unsupervised. Campaigning for office is really about promising things. The more unsupervised money there is, the more promises that can be fulfilled and the more fun that can be had by the lucky "in" crowd.
 The Clintons, all-time champions of making promises, took advantage of the tax money situation to an extent never before seen in 
 But here is what I was able to ascertain with the help of GAO reports and analysis by the National Taxpayers Union. In the eight years they spent in the White House, Mr. and 
 And what did 
 Unfortunately, the 
Once again, this is not about compassion or helping Americans who need help. Most of us support that noble goal. But without financial accountability and rigid supervision, compassionate programs hurt more Americans (working-class taxpayers) than they help (financially strapped citizens). Talk is cheap. Giant entitlement programs like free health insurance and prescription drugs are incredibly expensive. But those who champion massive entitlements feel very comfortable on the high moral ground.
 Take, for example, former 
 Still, 
But the former governor resisted, even though his son Chris was a correspondent for the Fox News Channel that carries The O'Reilly Factor. Finally, when I happened to see the elder Cuomo in 
O'REILLY: I want a tax cut.
CUOMO: I'm sure you want it.
O'REILLY: Let's help the working guy. Let's do away with the payroll tax [for Social Security] and give everybody who works an immediate 12 percent raise.
CUOMO: I have a deal for you. We should say to 
O'REILLY: I would say that 
CUOMO: No, no, you're wrong. But, Bill, I know this [my opinion of taxes] is good for your popularity ratings. What is the space program? What is the defense budget? These are redistributions of wealth.
O'REILLY: Wait a minute. That's not redistribution.
CUOMO: Of course it is. You took my wealth and you redistributed it to purposes I didn't want. O'REILLY: You didn't want a defense budget?
CUOMO: Not the size of it. Not the waste that it is. Not this missile defense shield.
O'REILLY: I agree with you on the waste, but not on the redistribution.
CUOMO: No, it is redistribution when I take money from you and spend it on something else.
O'REILLY: No, give it to somebody else, not spend it on something. For thirty years you guys in the Democratic Party have been driving entitlements for the poor, and the poverty rate hasn't changed. One more question. I'm for a national sales tax in place of the payroll tax. Would you favor that?
CUOMO: Not instead of a progressive tax which would take you who makes millions of dollars-you deserve it-and say, now you only want to pay the same tax as me and I'm homeless?
O'REILLY: Come on, Governor. I will buy far more and pay far more in taxes for doing so.
CUOMO: That's nice if you're rich. It's not nice if you are middle class or poor. And that's why we don't have it, because there are more working-class people than O'Reillys.
O'REILLY: Governor, I'm still carrying the load by buying an expensive car and home. I'm paying far more in taxes than someone who's living modestly.
CUOMO: Of course. If you can afford the big car, you don't care. But what about people who can't afford things?
O'REILLY: Going to a national sales tax just gave them a 12 percent raise as the payroll tax is abolished. I'll give you the last word.
CUOMO: The truth is that you can make the weaker part of this country much stronger without making the stronger part weaker St by giving people better education, better health care, better protection at their work site, and paying more attention to the middle class and poor. People see that.
What a wrap-up! Concise, effective, right on the dot for people who support his point of view. The governor is still a master of rhetoric-but I firmly believe that he is wrong.
He and many other liberal Americans love so-called progressive taxation; in other words, they want to take money from the wealthy and give it to Americans who "need" it more. As I stated, my national sales tax plan would pay for sharply focused entitlements to the less fortunate by taxing people on what they spend rather than on what they earn. If you work hard, then you'd have far more control over your take-home pay. And poor Americans would keep every dime they make because the earned income tax credit means they already pay no federal income tax; in addition, my plan would eliminate the payroll tax everybody is paying now.
 But that is not enough for 
During the depression of the 1930s, this philosophy was embraced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said, "Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few, and they have done little to prevent an unjust concentration of wealth and economic power."
 But no system is perfect and the 
 If I believed "progressive" taxation led to lessening of social problems, I would be 
Welfare has failed. Public housing is a shambles. Public education is a mess. The poverty rate remains unchanged. And yet the big government beat goes on.
 In 1766 
I Want to Take You Higher
ISSUE 12: 
THE OPPONENTS: 
DEMME: [This drug dealer] had come from a family where he had seen his father work his entire life harder than he should have, with nothing to show for it. And he didn't have any good role models around to show him what a good day's pay would earn and how to earn a proper living. You have to understand these guys.
O'REILLY: My father worked hard his whole life and he didn't have a lot to show for it.
DEMME: Well, mine did too.
O'REILLY: And we don't sell drugs, do we?
\*
The 
So what's the deal?
Well, the truth is that the powers-that-be simply do not have he courage to take the difficult and controversial steps necessary o control the lucrative narcotics business. Big business always Tightens politicians and this is very big business.
Here's a glimpse of how big:
• There are in excess of 10 million "heavy drug users" in the 
• Approximately 70 percent of street crime is drug related.
• Approximately 70 percent of all child abuse is committed by substance abusers (this includes those who abuse alcohol).
• There are more than 1 million DUI arrests annually in the 
 With statistics like that, even someone high on ecstasy or crank could figure it out: Intoxication is a horrendous problem in 
Now for a dose of reality. No government is ever going to stop all its citizens from intoxicating themselves. Ever. There have always been and will always be substance abusers. We must start there.
As far as I'm concerned, if the abuser keeps it inside, I don't care. You want to stay stoned all day long, fine-as long as you don't hurt your children (although just that scenario hurts them) or ask me to chip in for your welfare check. Get stoned-but stay off the streets.
But if you intrude on my freedom while intoxicated, then I have a big problem with you, and the government has a responsibility to side with me. I want to be protected from you. I don't want you in my face or around my family. And I have a right under equal protection of the law to demand that. I don't want you providing a terrible example for my children. I don't want you using my tax money to get high. And I don't want you behind the wheel of any vehicle.
Unfortunately, the government at this point is not taking my rights seriously. The authorities are allowing drug markets to exist, and some of them are right out in the open. Those are usually in the poor neighborhoods, and that is a subtle form of racism if there ever was one. And rather than treat the minority of dopeheads who actually want to quit the habit, law enforcement often allows drug offenders to leave custody without any requirement for follow-up drug testing.
 And that's just the beginning of our government's irresponsible and socially dangerous behavior. The feds simply will not properly patrol the border with 
 There are three basic strategies needed to control 
 I have discussed the coerced drug-rehabilitation strategy in detail in my book The O'Reilly Factor. Rather than repeat myself, I'll just explain that the basic idea is to empower authorities to keep drug-involved criminals off the streets for months and sometimes years in therapeutic drug prisons. The aim is to change their behavior drastically. They would be provided with psychological help as well as life-skill training. Upon release from the facility, the person would be drug-tested every few days. Anyone who tests dirty goes back inside. This program has impressively reduced recidivism in 
 My second strategy would cut the drug flow across the southern border in half within months. Using high-tech surveillance gear, our military could interdict not only drugs but also other types of contraband and stem the flow of illegal immigrants at the same time. Remember, the military's mandate is "to protect the borders" of our country. 
My third strategy is based upon one simple fact: Drug dealers are scum. So far as they're concerned, I've got the same question I asked in chapter one about the NAMBLA degenerates: Where's the outrage? Where is public opinion? Why are these people not shunned for being the corrupters they are? Like the ACLU on NAMBLA, we are accepting the unacceptable if a person selling narcotics does not anger us. Back in the 1960s my father told me that anyone who dealt dope was a parasite, a person beneath contempt. I always remembered that. How many children are being told that today, especially in the ghetto neighborhoods? What do kids think when they encounter the sleazy dealer?
 This story may provide a sad clue: As a correspondent for ABC News in 1988, I did a story about drug trafficking in 
No one stepped forward and said, "Man, these pushers are ruining the weakest among us, including children. They sell poison. They are parasites."
Until Americans of every stripe step up and say just that-and demand that the police sweep drug dealers off the streets-the dope war will not be won. Until public pressure forces our apathetic and frightened politicians to get really tough on those who sell narcotics, Americans will continue to die with needles in their arms, prostitute themselves, infect each other with the AIDS virus, and steal anything they can. How much heartache has to pass through the nation before society reacts? Are you going to wait until it's your child with the drug problem?
As for the media, their delayed reaction and their lack of responsibility have been, generally speaking, disgraceful. If the stars aren't flaunting their own personal drug use (Eminem, Cheech and Chong), they are participating in projects that glorify drugs and alcohol (and cigarettes for that matter). Movies have made brilliant use of charismatic stars and flashy cinematography to make the drug world look lucrative and normal. Business as usual, babes ahoy.
 One such project is the movie Blow, starring 
Before the system finally caught up with Jung, he smuggled drugs for more than twenty years, supplying thousands of tons of cocaine to millions of Americans. He accumulated millions of dollars that he spent on himself. Women threw themselves at him. The Jung party was constant and unrelenting and the movie documents all of it.
 What the film does not address is that many people became hooked from using Jung's stuff. How many people died or became crack whores or gave birth to addicted children because 
 The director of Blow, 
O'REILLY: I think dealing hard drugs like cocaine is a crime against humanity. And I would give guys like 
DEMME: I mean, look, 
O'REILLY: He's selling drugs for what-twenty-five years?
DEMME: Since 1968 probably.
O'REILLY: He makes millions, right? He gets to hang around with ladies like 
DEMME: I think the crime he was busted for didn't merit twenty in years. He's not a murderer. George had come from a family where he had seen his father work his entire life harder than he should have, with nothing to show for it. And he didn't have any good role models around to show him what a good day's pay would earn and how to earn a proper living. You have to understand these guys.
O'REILLY: My father worked hard his whole life and he didn't have a lot to show for it.
DEMME: Well, mine did too.
O'REILLY: And we don't sell drugs, do we?
DEMME: He wasn't selling it. He was bringing it into this country.
O'REILLY: That's selling it, 
DEMME: So he should equal a murderer?
O'REILLY: He's worse than a murderer. This guy deals for twenty-five years in weight cocaine. Untold thousands of people use this drug and some of them destroy their lives. DEMME: No one forced them to use it. That's their own fault. The person who snorts it is responsible.
O'REILLY: If nobody sold drugs, 
DEMME: Bill, you're naive. Putting people in jail for life is not going to stop drug dealing. It won't stop the problem. You're in denial as much as the rest of the country is about our drug problem. The problem isn't with the people who are selling it-it's that there's no rehab, man.
\*
Short of mass murder, the American media almost never condemn any antisocial activity, because there is always an excuse for the behavior. 
 But the powers-that-be, the people who are supposed to counter the 
My interview with him came shortly after he became the director of White House Drug Policy in 1996. At that time the No Spin Zone was not widely known, and the general was not pleased he had walked into an ambush ...
O'REILLY: Do you have any plan at all to turn this drug thing around?
MCCAFFREY: We have a national strategy in front of the American people. It's systemic. It says, "Let's stay engaged for ten years and let's work on drug prevention and drug treatment." O'REILLY: Well, that strategy hasn't worked in the past. I mean, we had "just say no" with 
MCCAFFREY: The real problem is that American youngsters are doing drugs again. Since 1990 we've seen a steady erosion in their commitment to disapprove drug use.
O'REILLY: Let me stop you there. I disagree with you. Seventy percent of all street crime is caused by drug-involved people. Seventy percent of all child abuse is caused by substance abusers. Most of the AIDS cases right now are being spread by intravenous drug users. These are grim stats.
MCCAFFREY: It is clear that drug use is a grim specter. It costs 
O' R E I L LY: But you can't stop drugs from coming into the 
MCCAFFREY: I agree.
O'REILLY: So what are you going to do?
MCCAFFREY: You have to treat the root cause. At the end of the day you understand that a holistic approach is likely to be helpful.
 With all due respect to the general, he was clueless. And five years later I think that is fully apparent. The 
 Will 
 Realistically, I don't believe he will do it. The strategy is too controversial, as my viewers remind me every time I bring the subject up on the Factor. Also, there is not enough voter support, as many people simply don't understand the seriousness of the border situation. Finally, the action could tee off some Mexican Americans as well as the Mexican government, causing all kinds of panicked headlines for 
 So don't look for any bold solutions in the drug fight anytime soon. Only a leader fully committed to taking risks could dent the drug traffic, and we don't have that kind of leader in this country right now. Tomorrow, 
 Not too many Americans remember, but two years ago the House of Representatives did pass a resolution that would have put the military on the border, only to see the bill die in the Senate. And one of the senators who remains opposed to the military strategy is 
 This is somewhat puzzling to me. 
 And 
 I can't agree with 
 I loved that blurb. But when I faced 
O'REILLY: Do you favor, Senator, putting troops on the 
MCCAIN: I do not favor using troops because they're not trained for it. They don't have the qualifications necessary. I strongly favor us using all the technical equipment our military has, including satellites and aircraft. But our military is not trained to do the groundwork.
O'REILLY: Wait a minute, Senator. Our military is guarding the border of 
MCCAIN: Our military is guarding against invasion. Our Border Patrol is the agency that can deal with this. We also have to do a lot more drug enforcement.
O'REILLY: But that hasn't worked. For twenty years it hasn't worked.
MCCAIN: The long-term answer is a healthy Mexican economy. Many of us are very encouraged by the election of 
O' REILLY: I'm not going to let you off the hook, Senator. You say that the armed forces are not trained to patrol the border, and my contention is that the men and women in the armed forces are intelligent enough to take on this assignment. It's you guys in 
MCCAIN: We are a multicultural state and we're very proud of our heritage. We want to do everything possible to enforce our borders. That's our obligation to do that.
O'REILLY: Senator, 
MCCAIN: Well, Bill, there are many Hispanic citizens of the state of 
O'REILLY: So what are you going to do, then? Do you have anything new on the table to stop the drugs and the aliens?
MCCAIN: Yes, we have. We have dramatically increased funding for the border. We'll continue to use military hardware but, again, the real solution to the problem is a healthy Mexican economy. We're the only nation in the world with an advanced economy that has a nation on its border that has the economy the Mexicans do, and all of this is complicated by the flow of drugs as well. Finally, I believe 
O'REILLY: Senator, always a pleasure to debate with you.
 Do you agree with 
 So once again we have the customary 
 What explains this nonsense? The clue comes in 
 This particular interview with 
 I don't believe such catastrophes would occur if the 
 I stand with 
1. The 
2. It was his experience that the mere presence of the 
3. He would put the military on the border, regain control and deploy their numbers in strength from 
Sometimes it makes sense to listen to the experts.
 But I don't hear many other media voices demanding action on this problem or many of the other complicated situations we as Americans are facing. During eight years of Clintonism, the elite media, most notably the network TV news divisions, have been very wary of making any waves. They rarely investigated governmental wrongdoing, until a scandal got so big they were forced to pay attention. And 
 But why? I won't try to tell you. I'll leave that to CBS anchorman 
Rather Telling
ISSUE 13: The failure of network TV news to investigate the powerful
THE OPPONENT: 
O'REILLY: My contention is this: that the powerful in this country protect each other. So let me ask you flat out: Do you think 
RATHER: Yes, I think he's an honest man.
O'REILLY: Even when he lied to the nation and to 
RATHER: Who among us has not lied about something?
O' R E I L LY: Well, I haven't lied to anyone's face on national television.
\*
Wow. We'll continue with that infamous Zone moment in a couple of pages, but first a little background.
 We go back, 
 In 1981 I was promoted from reporter for WCBS-TV, the CBS network's flagship station in 
 That sounded like the right fit to me. I was already known in the TV industry as a take-no-prisoners reporter. I had recently won an Emmy for investigating corruption in the 
Saner people who knew my brash personality suspected otherwise. Some veteran newspeople warned me not to take the CBS job because, as they politely expressed it, I was not a "team player." And that was true. I was and still am a journalistic gunslinger. I look the story in the eye and shoot it down. I don't need four other people telling me what I am looking at.
Although I was too simple to realize it at the time, that kind of attitude would make many CBS News veterans dislike me right off the bat. More than a few would take absolute delight in seeing me fail. Some older people who liked me knew this, but I shrugged off their advice, only seeing the glamour of reporting for the nation's premier television news operation. I should have heeded the warnings, but as usual I swaggered in there thinking I was going to conquer the situation.
 Let me elaborate a bit further on this "team player" business, since it is currently in vogue, especially in the corporate world of TV news. Good journalism is best done by a person who is honest, accurate, and observant. From the beginning of my career in 
Perhaps I'm conceited (I know you're shocked), but that's the way I feel about it. Why hire me to report unless you trust my reporting? I proved myself early on by rising quickly through the ranks and winning a bunch of reporting awards. In my twenty seven years as a journalist I have never had to retract a story and I have never lost a lawsuit. I simply don't believe in reporting by "committee."
But CBS News did. The culture there dictated that new young correspondents were to do what they were told to do, say what they were told to say. And that was that: Just shut up and do it. Do you sense a collision coming between the corporation and your humble correspondent? It didn't take long.
\*
A few weeks after taking the CBS job I was flown to 
 It took us a full day to drive to Morazan from 
 After about eight hours on the "road" we rolled into the small town of 
We were wrong. It turned out that they were Salvadoran soldiers who had fallen asleep on guard duty the night before. The captain in charge of the garrison cheerfully told me that he would have shot the men except they were under age sixteen. But the next time they did not fulfill the assignment, he would shoot them pronto. Nobody doubted his word.
When I told the captain that my assignment was to check the story out, he rolled his eyes, smiled, and said, "Vaya con Dios" (Go with God).
God was good, and after traversing the worst road I have ever seen, we arrived in Meanguera without incident a few hours later. The place was leveled to the ground and fires were still smoldering. But even though the carnage was obviously recent, we saw no one live or dead. There was absolutely nobody around who could tell us what happened. I quickly did a stand-up amid the rubble and we got the hell out of there.
As we were making our way back to the safety of the fort, a group of heavily armed men suddenly appeared in the road ahead of us and waved for us to stop. This is one of the worst things that can happen in any out-of-control war zone. Slowly, and I mean slowly, we got out of the van with our hands up. The leader of the group, a teenager, had a bullet belt crisscrossing his chest. All the teens were wearing bandanas. Who the hell were these guys?
 After eyeing us for about two minutes, the leader stepped forward and identified himself as a sergeant in the Salvadoran Army. It turned out that he and his boys were government soldiers on a reconnaissance patrol. I quickly mentioned the captain's name and that we had been up to Meanguera. They all had a big laugh over that, saying we had cojones. Within a few minutes we were back on the wretched but welcomed road to 
 The next day I filed my report. I explained that while a scorched-earth policy was clearly in effect in remote villages-the evidence was right there on tape-it was impossible to say just who was doing the scorching. Could be the muchachos, could be the government. The ninety-second package contained great video and a fairly impressive "on the scene in a very bad place" stand-up by yours truly. I was looking forward to seeing 
 It never happened. When I called 
\*
In 1982 the 
I was beginning to see a pattern. More than a little teed off, I made my way finally to the Buenos Aires Sheraton Hotel, where CBS News had set up offices. I got straight to the point with the bureau chief: Why had I been stranded at the airport? He crisply replied that he had more important things to worry about, and one more thing-he had no idea I was even coming! (He also had no idea who I was-me being new and all.)
 Things continued downhill. What happened to me in 
Nope. In perhaps the most stunning thing that has ever happened to me, all the videotape was taken away from me and given to a big-name correspondent who was also slotted into CBS Evening News to report the lead story. That man never even left the hotel to see the story. Yet the CBS producers made him the star. In the parlance of network news, I had gotten "big-footed." To say I was angry is the understatement of the millennium.
 I got the hell out of 
 Fine. I returned to CBS headquarters on 
 The next day I began investigating what happened to my missing report from 
 After questioning the system in a very public and assertive way, I became a "dead man walking" at CBS News. Few people would even talk with me. Coincidentally, TV Guide was putting together a story on me and two other young reporters as "Future Superstars of Broadcast Journalism." The magazine had been impressed by the swiftness of my ascent from local news to the network level. CBS, of course, was less than thrilled with this development and downright anxious that I might tell all about the "big-footing" situation in 
 Before CBS and I parted company, I had one final inning with 
 To my surprise, CBS News okayed the story and off I went to 
In a nutshell the locals were very concerned that their kids were seeing stuff they should not be seeing, while the gays basically said, "Hey, look, we're entitled to vacation too. We can't help it if some people get crazy. The authorities should deal with them and leave the rest of us alone."
From my perspective, both sides had good points and were equally represented in my script. It was a terrific television story with fantastic video, and no other network had it. Once again I looked forward to being introduced by 
 By this time I had had enough. I never got a straight answer as to why the story didn't run, but I knew the situation was hopeless. Years later a high-ranking CBS News guy told me the 
 A month later I left CBS to take an anchor/reporter job in 
 That surprised me. Rather was on the broadcast circuit promoting a book, but a few weeks earlier I had conducted a fairly intense Zone interview with the chief of 60 Minutes, 
 So here comes 
O'REILLY: Why didn't you do any investigative reporting on campaign finance or 
RATHER: I think your definition of investigative reporting would pretty closely match mine-that is, not run-of-the-mill.
O'REILLY: Right, investigative reporting breaks news.
RATHER: I don't know whether we broke news or not. But it seems to me that on those things like campaign finance and 
RATHER: I think I can. I think that when the-I'm drawing a blank on the man's name, the 
O'REILLY: That would be Riady, the Indonesian guy who was funneling money to the Democrats from the Chinese military.
RATHER: Yes. 
O'REILLY: Okay, but when you interviewed 
RATHER: Fair enough. Listen, if you consider that fair criticism, I have no argument with it. Look, I'm not a perfect interviewer.
O'REILLY: But it seems to me that with 
O'REILLY: Well, where did you guys break any stories? We were the ones who had 
RATHER: Well, I don't know the answer to that question. I compliment you if you had them first. Tip of the Stetson to you. But this much I want clearly understood. We don't do it perfectly, we do it as well as we can do it. I accept your criticism. But what is not true is that there's an inner bias with us that goes easy on the 
O'REILLY: I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the networks and even the News Corporation [Fox]-they are the establishment now. Journalists are supposed to be outside the establishment, keeping an eye on it. My theory is, that is not happening, that there isn't serious investigative reporting going on at the network level, because the corporations have to do business with the powerful and they don't want to make enemies. We went through eight years of 
RATHER: Well, there are two points here. I think the criticism that we weren't tough enough on 
O'REILLY: I believe there's an exclusionary bias rather than an ideological one.
RATHER: Well, I appreciate that. Now, the bigger point, which is as these companies get bigger that there's less investigative reporting. You're absolutely accurate about that, you're absolutely correct about that. It is by and large two things. One, money gets cut way back. I'm not the vice president in charge of excuses, but there are fewer resources today to do investigative reporting than there have ever been and
O'REILLY: Let me stop you. I got nine people working for me. How many you got?
RATHER: Probably got ten.
O'REILLY: No, you've got a couple of hundred. We nailed 
RATHER: If you're that far out front, what is there left for us to do? We don't do it perfectly, Bill. But we do a lot of investigative reporting. We have to make choices. Having said that, I will admit there is a kind of self-censorship that frequently goes on in big companies including News Corp. I do not exclude myself from that criticism.
O'REILLY: Do you really censor things, because I never do.
RATHER: I don't think that's true, Bill.
O'REILLY: If a story passes my desk and it's important to the American people, I do the story and I don't care who's involved.
RATHER: I don't believe that.
O'REILLY: Well, in the past five years I've taken on the biggest sacred cows in the country and I can prove it.
RATHER: I think that you do fresh reporting, aggressive reporting. Now, on 
O'REILLY: You didn't do anything.
RATHER: I don't think we want to get bogged down in the small bramble bushes. The larger part of the forest is the self-censorship issue. It has to do with ratings. There are no excuses. What happens is, the pressure gets on to deliver an even bigger audience, and the belief begins to run strong that you can do it without the hard-nosed investigative stuff.
O'REILLY: Yes, but we have. We're killing the competition. My contention is this: that the powerful in this country protect each other. So let me ask you flat out: Do you think 
RATHER: Yes, I think he's an honest man.
O'REILLY: Even when he lied to the nation and to 
RATHER: Who among us has not lied about something?
O'REILLY: Well, I haven't lied to anyone's face on national television. And I don't think you have either. Have you?
RATHER: I hope I never have.
O'REILLY: So how can you say 
RATHER: Well, because I think he is. I think at core, he's an honest person. I know you have a different view. I know you think it rather astonishing anybody would say he's honest. But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.
O'REILLY: Really?
RATHER: I do.
O'REILLY: See, I want honest government across the board. When I see a president lying under oath, I see a guy undermining the justice system of this country.
RATHER: It's hard to be honest across the board.
O'REILLY: Let's take a look at some other stories. What about the 
RATHER: 
O'REILLY: It was a rape charge.
RATHER: But basically her allegations.
O'REILLY: Well, 
RATHER: Yes. But what you basically had was the Republicans trying to bring down 
O'REILLY: What about when you're the subject of reporting? Do you think the press treated you fairly about the Democratic fundraiser you spoke at for your daughter?
RATHER: Yes, I was treated fairly. It was a dumb mistake, the worst kind of mistake. I am capable of being dumb as a sack full of hammers and this was one of those times.
O'REILLY: That really fed into the frenzy that 
RATHER: Unfortunately, that's true.
Aside from an interview with Michael Kinsley, in which I told the Slate editor and liberal commentator to his face (and proved it) that he had attacked my honesty in a cowardly fashion, the Rather appearance sparked more news coverage and editorial comment than any other in the No Spin Zone. The whole country was talking about it.
 The moment that really ignited interest was Rather's contention that an honest person will "lie about any number of things." Quite a few Americans didn't want to hear that kind of thinking from a journalist, especially in defense of the polarizing 
Another scribe noted in the National Review that Rather's remarks proved that "you can be a network news grandee and bring out your moral relativism for all to see, unblushing and unashamed, when you have been cocooned among our agnostic elites for so long you think their attitudes are unremarkable."
 The same writer likened the byplay between your humble correspondent and 
statesman played by 
 Anyway, when my assistant buzzed me the day after the Rather interview and announced that 
 Life is like that: You never know what will come around. I have never disliked 
 Do you hear that, 
It would take a village to drag
Hillary into the No Spin Zone
ISSUE 14: Dodging the tough interviews
THE OPPONENT: 
Who's afraid of the No Spin Zone? It's a question people always ask. I've already mentioned a couple of persistent no-shows. 
 And I firmly believe the cowards are the long-term losers. Call me a conceited dreamer, but I believe 
 But 
 NBC newsman 
 Not that I didn't try. My staff called her office nearly every day, and hysterical laughter could often be heard through the phone. Hillary enter O'Reilly's No Spin Zone? Yeah, and in the next segment 
 Meanwhile, 
Sometimes she worked too hard. Speaking to a "gay pride" event, she suggested, according to The New Republic, that participants should show up as their "favorite issue." I quote: "Now, for some people, that may be prescription drugs. You know, for others it can be sensible gun safety measures, or choice, or the environment. I wouldn't mind seeing a number of trees going to the polls on November 7!"
What?
 Many Americans know that I have badgered Hillary to enter the Zone. Sometimes badgering works, but not with her. So I had no choice but to call her out. Shortly before the historical November 2000 election, I wrote a public "memo" to 
"Well, just four more weeks until voting day, Hillary, and you've cracked the 50 percent voter approval rating. You lead 
"Especially since you have given the media your middle finger for the past sixteen months. Your press conferences are tightly controlled, and face-to-face interviews with you are almost impossible. Your Praetorian Guard of Secret Service agents makes it impossible for the media to get near you, and your highly paid advisers reject almost every print and television request for a sit-down.
 "In the past this would have gotten a big Bronx cheer from 
 "As we all know, Americans do either love you or hate you, and right now you are getting sugar from the majority of New Yorkers. Again, that's a bit strange because you haven't really done anything in the public arena and New Yorkers demand performance on the field and success in the clutch. Your two major issues are education and health care. They are nice issues, Hil, but they are a bear to deal with, as you know. You oversaw the educational programs in 
 "And then there was the health care ordeal. Bill put you in charge of his health revolution and, please forgive me for saying this, Hillary, you turned it into a catastrophe. I know, I know, you learned a lot in the process. But people in 
 "But as 
 "In the debate with 
 "
 "
 "So I'm liking your chances, Hil. If New Yorkers are for you at this point after watching you for the past sixteen months, then, hey, you've got it. Very cleverly you campaigned on the taxpayer's dime, used the White House for quid pro quo campaign contributions, and somehow convinced the media to give you a free ride. Brilliantly done, 
"The Senate will be just great. You'll vote straight Democratic on every issue, serve on a few committees, and maybe sponsor some expensive legislation. And the big prize might be only four years away. It's a great life, Hillary, and you're just getting going. Please say hello from me to Bill if you ever see him, and if you ever need a house sitter in Chappaqua, you know I am available.
 "Your pal, 
 Sadly, I never received a reply from 
Rejected, I have to take my consolation in fantasies. Each night while lying in bed I visualize the interview. At last we are together in the Zone. Her pantsuit is peach, her hair perfect, and she's backed by five Secret Service guys with weapons at the ready. I smile. I speak softly. I ask the following questions:
O'REILLY: Madam Senator, while your husband was governor of Arkansas, you made big money in the commodities market, turning a $1,000 investment into something close to $100,000. According to the Journal of Economics and Statistics, the odds of that happening are 250 million to 1! So, uh, how did it happen? [I feign some nervousness here.]
HILLARY:
O'REILLY: In the Whitewater fiasco your billing records disappeared from the computer system of your employer the Rose law firm. Then two years later they mysteriously turned up inside the White House living quarters with your fingerprints on them. How did that happen?
HILLARY:
O'REILLY: Would you like a glass of water, 
HILLARY:
O'REILLY: A Mars bar, 
HILLARY:
O'REILLY: Another White House counsel, 
HILLARY:
O'REILLY: To continue, it is estimated that you used millions of taxpayer dollars to campaign in 
HILLARY: (standing up quickly and snapping) You can shoot him now, boys ...
The pistols are aimed, and I then wake up in a cold sweat.
I have this dream over and over again. But the worst part is, I have at least ten more questions ready when the firing begins.
 Of all the people in the 
 I wish she would. We could put it on pay-per-view. 
No Spin Viewers
ISSUE 15: Not liking O'Reilly
THE OPPONENTS: Regular folks
ABD1: O'Reilly, I don't like the way you disrupt your guests. Please get some help from 
O'REILLY: I doubt it, Abdi. But then again, you never know. By the way, do you think Hillary and 
MICHELE: O'Reilly, I quit watching the Factor because I find you so egotistical. So now my mother calls me every evening to tell me what I missed. I don't know which is worse.
O'REILLY: Michele, Michele, Michele ... listen to your mom. She obviously knows what's best.
\*
Some weeks, more than 25,000 letters arrive in the Zone. They come from people all over the world sounding off about everything you can think of. And one of the most popular topics is ... me.
How could such a shy guy generate so much, uh, feeling? I can't figure it out.
The feeling comes in all shades. We get plenty of good, complimentary mail, and I try to answer as much of it as I can. The negative stuff is separated into a special pile. Because of time constraints, I selectively respond to both friendly and unfriendly fire on my television program. But in this chapter I want to deal directly with some of the unfavorable letters. Here's why: Many of the pans are full of no spin. The Zone likes that.
 The negative mail divides neatly into two camps. Those who don't approve of my positions on issues, and those who simply don't approve of me in my entirety. Let's begin with a correspondent from 
Don joins legions of people all over the world who see me as "rude." But I can explain. The No Spin Zone shuts down people who don't directly answer the questions or purposely distort the facts. In order to impose the Zone rules, I have to interrupt when a guest begins to meander or, well, lie.
There are three reasons for this. First, I don't want to waste your time. Far too many TV interviewers allow their guests to blather on about nothing. Second, facts are facts-I have them in hand, and if the guest denies those facts, verbal confrontation immediately ensues. Finally, television is now run by computers. I have only so much time for each interview before the commercial break automatically appears on your screen. The machines have taken over. I have to interrupt to stay on time. It breaks my heart.
I'm spinning. It doesn't break my heart. I want people to GET TO THE POINT. I want them to be pithy. I want them to tell you the truth or what they think is the truth. I don't want bloviating, equivocating, or weaseling of any kind. Chatus interruptus is sometimes desperately needed on television.
So, Don is right. Sometimes I am rude, but I don't mean it to be offensive. It's just the rules of the game. The Zone rules.
 James from 
 The clue in this letter is the mention of Cronkite. Chances are the writer is a senior citizen who enjoyed of Walter's calm demeanor as he read the day's headlines each night on CBS Evening News. In 
What I do is completely different. I analyze the news. I am the op-ed page of television.
Many viewers don't understand this concept because it is brand-new in prime time. The Factor is not a hard news broadcast. It is opinion and analysis. But when I give an opinion, the word "commentary" usually appears on your TV screen. We try to guide our viewers through the No Spin Zone because we realize that we are different. Some people can handle it, some people cannot.
 And some people like Celia from 
 Celia is correct. I am proud of the Zone, and I don't believe we are disrespectful to anyone. We are direct. I fully realize that some nonconfrontational viewers (PBS watchers?) find this offensive. But most of our guests and viewers return. Only a very few interview subjects, like 
Journalism is supposed to be tough. The truth is not easily exposed when propagandists are paid huge sums of money to spin lies and deceit. Celia is watching this all unfold and some of it is unsettling to her. That's okay-unsettling can be good.
 And then there's 
 This is another very common theme in the negative mailbox. And I have to admit that I am not a humble guy. But that's not my fault, as all of my ancestors were conceited louts. I need your sympathy, 
 But here's some no-spin on 
parts of this country it is considered extremely ill-mannered to voice a dissenting opinion. You'll ruin Thanksgiving dinner. You'll start a fight in the bar. You'll offend somebody. Dating 
 Your mother probably told you-mine told me-that you should never talk about religion or politics. And what am I doing every night? Making a career out of talking about religion and politics and everything else on the planet. For that, I take a massive amount of heat from people like Norm. Fair enough. But like 
 Behind the refrigerator in that kitchen is often somebody like Barbara from 
Nooooo. Nothing personal, Barb. And if you think I'm unattractive on the tube, you should see me without makeup. Dogs howl. Bats fly in the daylight. Blowfish giggle.
 Abdi, who lives in 
 I doubt it, Abdi. But then again, you never know. However, I'm not sure my ego could take instruction from Larry. And Michele from 
Michele, Michele, Michele. Listen to your mom. She knows what's best for you even if you don't. And I am saying that in all humility.
 Gina lives in 
I don't know, Gina, I just don't know. As for the "screaming," it is called "passionate discussion." Just because a voice is raised doesn't mean there's "screaming." I like to see emotion in a person. I am tired of zombies doing the news. ARE YOU HEARING ME, GINA? Whoops. Sorry, Gina. I bet you never thought a book would yell at you.
 And then there are the ideologues, the viewers on both the left and the right who absolutely go nuts when you criticize their "guys." Thousands of letters poured into the Zone after we exposed 
 That teed Curtis from 
 Ah, the old race card. It is alive and well in 
 And how about the Clintonistas? Wooo. They don't like your humble correspondent. I designated Brian in 
 What can I say, Brian? 
 And of course there is thunder from the right. Tammy from 
Tammy, it is your right to believe in the Bible and live according to it. It is not your right to impose that belief on anyone else. I happen to believe that all Americans have a right to make a living and have a lifestyle free from religious judgment. As long as gays or any other group do not intrude on you, they should be left alone. Let God sort the private stuff out. He is smart enough to do it right.
There's something very peculiar about the negative letters, by the way. As you can see from the above sampling, I get it from both sides-and each side is firmly convinced that I'm the enemy. How does that happen?
 Richard from 
 Not so fast, Richard. Alan in 
 Is it really, Alan? Here's the no spin truth: I am an independent. I vote for the most honest and most effective problem-solver in the running. The politician I've most admired in my lifetime is 
Okay, test me ... go through my beliefs and come up with the appropriate ism.
• I believe that the federal government wastes a huge amount of the people's money and that most politicians buy votes with entitlement promises.
• I believe that global warming is real.
• I believe that the green movement has hurt 
• I don't believe in the death penalty.
• I would not outlaw abortion, but I would restrict it and encourage Americans to see this ghastly procedure as a human rights issue.
• I believe in stringent control of hard drugs, but I would decriminalize marijuana use.
• I would "suggest" that the automakers develop cars and trucks that would be far more fuel-efficient than they are today. (If they don't, the government ought to slap a huge tax on them.)
• I would order the Department of Energy to strictly monitor any kind of energy price collusion or gouging-and impose massive fines on any company found guilty of these crimes.
• I would have the federal government negotiate discounted drug prices with pharmaceutical companies so that there could be an affordable Medicare drug benefit. These manufacturers should be pressured to be "generous" in their pricing and rewarded with tax incentives for complying.
• I believe 
• I would eliminate the payroll tax and institute a national sales tax to cover Social Security and Medicare. The sales tax would slide depending on need. Those Americans who saved would be rewarded. The poorest would have more cash in their pockets.
• I support setting up federal prison work camps on federal land in 
• I believe our government should place the 
• In conjunction with strict border enforcement, the 
 government would cooperate. 
Okay, so what do these beliefs make me? To what party or ideology do I belong? Tell me-I'd like to know.
 Maybe Tony who lives in 
 Millions of Americans like Tony get it. They know exactly what's going on in the No Spin Zone. They see that we provide solutions to problems, not just vacant looks and general criticisms. They know that rank partisanship and irresponsible governance appall us. That's why the Zone has become a power in 
 The intelligentsia hates that. They loathe the fact that the No Spin Zone has taken root. Magazines like 
 My biography offers obvious proof to the contrary? Talk about delusional. The writer has no idea what the social or economic climate was in 
 But the popular media are starting to come around. It took a while and we weathered some withering criticism, but in June 2001 I appeared on the cover of TV Guide, causing weeping and the gnashing of teeth in many quarters. The headline of the article read, "
 Not quite. The truth is, I'm still an outsider in television and in the corridors of power no matter what anyone says. I am not and never will be a member of "the club." It is the regular folks who have made the No Spin Zone and me successful. Folks like Randy from 
You're welcome, Randy. Thanks for appreciating the Zone.
Caution: You are about to
Enter a No Spin Zone
ISSUE 16: You and your own personal Zone
THE OPPONENT: The world we live in
This final chapter is between you and me. Man to woman. Man to man. Man to kid. The question in play is a most important one: Should you establish your own personal No Spin Zone?
And don't react too quickly ... The answer is not as obvious as you might think.
 It's a question that only you can answer. To do so, let's imitate 
Pro: A personal No Spin Zone will save you time, money, and frustration. It will allow you to make value judgments based upon hard facts and evidence. And-provided that you keep an open mind and examine all available credible data-you'll be comfortable with your conclusions on most matters.
Here's the key that unlocks the Zone: the ability to be rigorous with yourself in always challenging your initial thoughts and conclusions. The Zone is no place for zealots, lemmings, or weak-minded followers. It is a state of mind that demands the discipline of clear thinking and the flexibility to change that thinking should the evidence dictate. Summing up, the No Spin Zone is not an easy place to be.
Why? Because it's far easier to let others form your opinions. You then don't have to exercise your brain cells and the crowd will readily accept you. Politicians, commentators, and others vying to fill your head space are eager to supply you with particular points of view. And increasingly, many Americans are buying into viewpoints that crush independent thinking. Why think when media talking heads and newspaper columnists will do that for you? After all, aren't these people "experts"?
 Well, no, they are not. At least most of them aren't. There are no experts when it comes to making personal decisions. That's your own private domain. Sure, nobody is right all the time and you won't be either. We are all occasionally defeated on the field of logic. But take your shot at forming your own personal philosophy. It's actually fun and satisfying to develop a code of behavior and a clear thinking pattern. Don't let pinheads, even smart pinheads, do your thinking for you. 
 Con: The biggest negative about establishing a personal No Spin Zone is that it will alienate some people you may not want to alienate. Here's the best warning I can give you: Don't be like me! You don't have to confront the spinners head-on, as I do. It's my job to be a pain in the butt or a loudmouth boor (I put that in for the readers in 
But why bother? I'm talking about a lot of concentrated, continuing work. And even with that you are going to butt heads with people, no matter how diplomatic you are. It's sad but true: Many Americans resent any kind of intellectual challenge. Question some dopey statement they've made, and their response will likely be a personal attack on you.
But here's some no spin magic potion. Avoid those people. That's part of setting up a personal No Spin Zone: avoiding cretins whom you cannot possibly win over. Very few people have actual power over you; you can safely ignore those who don't. Smile at them and wave as you walk away. There are more than 6 billion persons on the planet. You can afford to lose the hopeless and the misguided.
So how about it? Pro or con? Of course I am the gatekeeper of the No Spin Zone and its biggest fan. There are huge upsides in setting up your own personal Zone. You will become more aware, exercising your God-given talents of perception and reasoning. You will begin to pay closer attention to the world around you. That leads to an improved ability to seize opportunities and avoid costly mistakes. You are far more likely to reject foolish, dangerous people who can betray your trust and dampen your spirit. You will take no individuals or issues for granted because you will be constantly making decisions based upon facts and life experience. In sum you will be more alive, and this will add tremendous power to your life.
Most of my acquaintances tell consistent tales of woe. They are always being taken advantage of or bamboozled. They feel victimized all the time. I'm sure you know people like this. But after you set up a personal No Spin Zone, you will learn not to tolerate victimizers or charlatans or liars or manipulators. First off, you can just refuse to associate with them. And if that doesn't work and they are still having an impact on your life, call them out verbally. Do this only when it is absolutely necessary, but you have a perfect right to be fool free.
If solicitors call my home, for example, I tell them within ten seconds that I do not do business on the phone-they can send me something if they like. Then I hang up. Rude? No. The call is intrusive and rude.
Another example is that I have instituted the two-call rule in my personal Zone. If I call a person twice and don't receive a call back, that relationship is over. I leave a short message saying that I will not be calling again. If it's a business matter, I turn the thing over to my attorney (an old friend I trust). If I absolutely have to reach someone for business, I call his or her secretary and set up a phone appointment. I ask for an exact time when I can talk to the person. If the secretary is unwilling to do that, I know that the business arrangement, whatever it is, will not work.
Other Zone commandments: If I've made a restaurant reservation, I expect it to be honored within fifteen minutes. Same with a doctor's appointment. The physician's time is valuable but so is mine and so is yours. Being on time and honoring your word are signs of respect. I want to deal only with people who are respectful of others, even in a casual setting such as a restaurant. Be aware of how others are treating you and question that treatment if you feel it isn't square. That's all part of a no spin life.
Now, you don't have to be as rigid as I am in my Zone, and you can come up with your own set of rules. But believe me, nobody wastes my time. And no one cons me. I have a good broker, lawyer, taxman, and great friends, many of whom I have known for most of my life. I brook no lies, no deceit, no insincerity. I am almost the same off the air as I am on the air. Is that frightening or what?
But the Zone has worked for me. I have a good life. I am not a victim or a victimizer. I have never owed anybody any money and I fulfill my obligations. I have two basic reasons for trying to lead a no spin life: My time and my honor are valuable to me. Very valuable.
Hey, I probably don't have to convince you-I already know you're a Zone-friendly person. How do I know that? Because you've stuck with me and my ideas to the end of this book. I hope you have enjoyed the journey through these pages, and I am honored that you have taken the time to consider what I have to say.
I can guarantee you that life in The No Spin Zone is never boring, usually fun, and always challenging. While millions of others are indeed spinning their wheels, those in the Zone are forging ahead, making progress in their lives without getting dizzy and disoriented.
That's because we're on solid ground. That's the true beauty of the No Spin Zone: It most often leaves you feeling clear and content at the end of the day. You have time for the important things like family and friends. The Zone is a code, a lifestyle, a complete no-frills thought process.
Believe me when I tell you I believe what I'm saying, and am in the Zone for the long run. In fact, even longer ... because I've set aside these words to be engraved on my tombstone:
"HE'LL NEVER SPIN IN HIS GRAVE."
Afterword
Here's how I discovered 
 It was winter '98. I was home in 
 I was outraged by 
 I knew bupkes about O'Reilly. I was news-channel challenged and Internet-ignorant and media demagnetized. O'Reilly was a giddy non sequitur. 
hibernation with my book and nightly viewings of The O'Reilly Factor.
 O'Reilly french-fried and fricasseed 
I stayed with The Factor post-Clinton. I developed a thesis about O'Reilly. I made him as the A-prototype fifty-year-old American male at century's end. He's running on equal parts patriotism and skepticism. He's got Faith and Reason tenuously reconciled. He grew up at great cost and thus deplores bad behavior. He lives in a lunatic TV world that forces him to gorge on every last crumb of the current and always fluctuating American cultural scene and turn it into high-rated narrative-a burden of transient minutiae that no sane person should bear. He's a truth guy spinning his wheels then-culling, sifting, analyzing, reacting. It's the pure definition of TV insanity-but he's spun himself out of the crowd.
O'Reilly confronted this lunacy. He wrote a mega-best-selling memoir/rant called The O'Reilly Factor and followed it up with the book you've just read. It's better than the Factor book. It's the TV show synthesized and refined.
It's got the O'Reilly bombast, wit, and persuasive argument sans commercial interruptions, O'Reilly's interruptions, and the dud guests who occasionally limp or charge into the No Spin Zone and stink the place up with specious rhetoric. It's free of timed segment strictures and the need to stay hotly topical to goose the Nielsen stats. It's got O'Reilly well matched across the issue spectrum, good Factor exchanges recounted verbatim, and O'Reilly with the first and last words-expanding and encapsulating the dialogue unrestricted by TV demands. The book displays the range of his moral concerns and commitment to Reason. The book displays his grandstanding egomania-which will sell beaucoup copies to folks who watch The Factor to boo him. The book pinpoints the fatuous nature of liberal-conservative discourse-as O'Reilly jumps around the ideological map, rags the Right and lops the Left. The book shows us how much our society is ruled by blindly followed and reflexive political classification, and holds up the tyrannical and crooked to scrutiny and scorn.
You get the guy on TV on the page. It's not quite O'Reilly Unchained-he still says "bull" instead of the more persuasive and declarative "bullshit"-but it's O'Reilly more fully dimensionalized. And it's a primer on why you tune in to watch him.
 He wants the best for you-but he doesn't need to know you or need you to love him. His middle-brow cultural tastes play well in 
 Here's more on the Two Bills. Post-Clinton 
 I told some folks at a 
No, he's not. Yes, he is.
No, he does not think that Bad Bill and Monica was all about consensual sex. No, he doesn't want hard drugs legalized. Yes, he knows that we need to drastically upgrade our environmental restraints. Yes, he considers the death penalty an operational nightmare and would like to see it abolished.
 Dinner-table chat resumed. No one asked me to justify my stand on 
Spin this:
 The No Spin Zone already exsists in your head. It's the clump of brain cells and developed native intelligence that allows you to detect lies and make precise value judgments. There's a collective No Spin Zone at work in 
\*
The material No Spin Zone is a series of sound-stage sets. The Factor broadcasts chiefly out of the Fox News Channel in 
 It's an incongruous setting for verbal battle and 
Until this book.
You've read it. Buy another copy and give it to a friend. Lighten Big Bill's tax load.
 He broils for the Truth. It drives his work ethic. He wants to be 
Acknowledgments
All books are collaborative efforts because ideas and emotions do not occur in a vacuum. The following good people are all charter members of the No Spin Zone and helped me a lot: CHARLES FLOWERS, 

