Bill O’Reilly Versus the Truth
19 May 2007 12:10 am by Taylor Marsh
Bill O'Reilly Versus the Truth
Expert guest post by author Roy Chowthi
 |
| “Bill O’Reilly Versus The Truth, Confronting The Propaganda Of Bill O’Reilly And The Scam Of The ‘No-Spin’ Zone”, by Roy Chowthi. |
Hello, my name is Roy Chowthi, and I’m the author of the brand new book
on Bill O’Reilly titled “Bill
O’Reilly Versus The Truth, Confronting The Propaganda Of Bill O’Reilly
And The Scam Of The ‘No-Spin’ Zone”. In recent years
I’ve been particularly moved to write this book about Bill O’Reilly
because I came to the conclusion that he is one of the most dishonest and deceitful
persons I have ever known in my lifetime. There are two dimensions to his dishonesty
that I focused my analysis on: the first is his bogus claim to be non-partisan,
fair, and independent (the notion that he has a “no-spin” zone is
absolutely laughable), and the second is the way he twists everything to support
his right-wing ideological point of view without regard for truth and facts.
One of the things I do in the book is I expose the tactics and the instruments
O’Reilly uses to present his propaganda as “facts”. I identify
eight instruments or devices he frequently utilizes to twist his lies into what
he calls the “truth”. If one can grasp the underlying psychology
surrounding these techniques, one will easily be able to debunk the lies and
propaganda that O’Reilly engages in on a routine basis. For example, one
of the techniques he constantly uses to deceive his viewers into accepting his
point of view is what I call Omission. With this tactic, he deliberately omits
information that does not support his argument, or leaves out facts that disprove
his case. This may seem like a simple and straightforward idea, but yet it is
one of the most powerful tools O’Reilly employs on a daily basis to get
his propaganda across. This tactic is particularly effective because most of
the time O’Reilly’s viewers don’t have all of the facts, and
they tend to take what O’Reilly says and run with it. And to make matters
worse, the mainstream media seems to be asleep and just lets O’Reilly
get away with it without challenging him.
 |
| Buy the book. |
One of the themes he has persistently hammered home to his viewers is the falsehood
that the ACLU is an anti-religious organization. He claims that the ACLU wants
to remove religion from American society. In his own words, “The American
Civil Liberties Union, along with legal secularists like Supreme Court justices
Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, are using the Constitution to bludgeon
any form of public spirituality.” To back up his argument he would rehash
the court cases that the ACLU has been involved with pertaining to the Separation
Of Church And State. But what he completely omits is the fact that the ACLU
has also repeatedly fought for freedom of religion in America. You wouldn’t
believe it, but I myself at one time believed O’Reilly’s propaganda
that the ACLU was anti-religious. It was only what I started doing my research
for this book that I found out that the ACLU has been involved with many court
cases fighting for the personal religious freedom of ordinary Americans. In
my book I cite ten cases that the ACLU has been involved with whereby they fought
consistently to protect individual’s religious rights.
One of these cases involved the issue of whether a church should be allowed
to conduct baptisms in a public park, and you will probably be stunned when
you find out what the ACLU’s position is on this. Here is the relevant
section from Chapter Five of my book:
“On Sunday May 23, 2004 Rev. Todd Pyle of the Cornerstone Baptist Church
had planned to conduct a series of baptism in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford
County, but was advised by Brian Robinson, the Park Manager, that religious
activities are not allowed in the park. The ACLU of Virginia immediately informed
Rev. Pyle that he had a constitutional right to conduct baptisms in the park
and threatened to challenge in federal court the Park Authority’s ban
on religious activities. The Federicksburg–Stafford Park Authority which
controlled access to the public park backed off and announced that it would
issue written policies making it clear that religious groups have the same right
to use the park as all other groups. Here is what Kent Willis, Executive Director
ACLU of Virginia said about the matter: ‘The rules are really very simple,
Government officials merely need to make sure that religious activities have
the same rights as any other activities in a public park. If swimming is allowed,
then baptism must be allowed. If groups can gather for sports or cultural activities,
then groups can gather for religious ceremonies.’”
So, is this the same ACLU that O’Reilly says is anti-religious? When
you read the other nine cases, and the rest of the book, you will understand
why I say that this guy is the most dishonest person I’ve ever known.
TM NOTE: Roy placed a BlodAd with me a few weeks ago. This post is independent of his advertising. I invited Roy to post because I think his book is important to support. I'm thrilled he's giving this blogging stuff a try.
