Why I Am Boycotting Bill O'Reilly

[Martin]

"Therefore let him who thinks he stand take heed that he does not fall" -1Cor 10:12

When I left class on Tuesday night I had no idea that my view of one of America's top tv commentators was about to change. However, it did. As I rode down the highway I turned my XM Radio to Fox News to hear the O'Reilly Factor as I normally do. However what I heard on this night stunned me. In fact I assumed I must be misunderstanding what O'Reilly was saying. Was this man actually claiming that Shawn Hornbeck liked being a hostage? And for what reason? According to O'Reilly it was because he did not want to go to school. I rode in stunned silence. How in the world could someone believe, much less say on national tv, such a thing? Why would a child enjoy being kept from his/parents, abused, and threatend for four years?

Then I heard that O'Reilly went on Greta Van Susteren's show and said the same thing. The following is a transcript of that interview...Prepare to be sick.

Bill O'Reilly: You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it, I never bought it, I don't think It happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don't think it happened here...

Greta van Susteren: Woah, Can I just say something?

O'Reilly: Yeah go ahead and jump in.

Greta van Susteren: First of all we don't know all the facts, Don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome --

O'Reilly: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned -- and this is why I don't believe in Stockholm -- this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He's got these piercing this is a troubled kid in my opinion --

Greta van Susteren: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer... let's not forget he is a kid.... He may be 15 now...

O'Reilly: No, I am not buying this if you're 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You're riding your bike around, you got friends -- the kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you're 11 --

Greta van Susteren: Bill it seems bizarre to me, I agree it seems bizarre. Why not run, why not yell, why not scream? But the thing I keep going back to is, what was Patti Hearst's story...

O'Reilly: I didn't buy that Patti Hearst story for a second.

Greta van Susteren: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and like wise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity -- nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run...?

O'Reilly: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.

Greta van Susteren: Some kids like school --

O'Reilly: Well I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances...

Disturbed yet? I was, and I still am. This has bothered me even more after watching Oprah's interview with Hornbeck and his parents. It was very clear that this boy missed his family and it was very clear that this boy has been badly abused both physically and mentally. Bill O'Reilly has crossed a very serious line here. When he actually suggests that a victim of a serious crime "liked" it, he has gone too far. I don't care if it is this Hornbeck kid, the Ownby kid, an old lady who is victim of a purse snatcher, a woman who is raped, or a store clerk who is killed for $40.00. Bill O'Reilly has stepped over the line. For this reason I, and I know others on the internet, are now boycotting Bill O'Reilly. I will not watch nor listen to his radio show again. He has lost a regular viewer/listener. I encourage all people of good conscience to join me. We need to send a message to this man that such stunts will not be tolerated.

These two acts by O'Reilly, on his show and on Van Susteren's show, have undone all the good O'Reilly has done trying to get predators off the streets. The above statements are signs of pride and gross insensitivity.

For example. O'Reilly, without any evidence, stated:
"Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website"

That is a lie. Shawn Hornbeck stated that he put those messages on his parents website hoping that they would figure out who he was. He was, in a way, reaching out to them. O'Reilly had no right to say anything he did since he had no proof to back it up. What a sick man!

Victims of crime need to be believed not told they were enjoying it!

 

[Martin]

On tonight's "Talking Points" that I viewed, right after writing the above post, O'Reilly took a less aggressive tone. He said that Hornbeck was a victim and that he should be helped (agreed). However he did not apologize for his earlier statements and still "implied" that something was not right about Hornbeck's account. O'Reilly also said that it was the "far left" who are vilifying him. Well, guess what, I am not far left. I am, according to many, far right and I am shocked and sickened by what O'Reilly has said. He can't take it back, and he refuses to say "I'm sorry, I made a bad mistake". Until he does his show will be a "No Watch Zone" in my house and car.

 

[777]

Sounds like Bill O'Reilly shot his mouth off again. I've never really liked his show that much, except those letters to him that he reads at the end of the show. And his closing line:

The spin stops here. We're looking out for you.

gets on my last nerve. Even in a friendly interview, he constantly interrupts and then blurts just anything out. It's fine with me if he doesn't believe in the Stockholm Syndrome, as seems to be the case, his judgement has been questionable for me ever since I saw THAT tape on the internet.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Wow, you need to boycott abc, ncb, and cbs news as well because all these stations have questioned why this boy was there so long. Orielly has said nothing different than most everyone else he just does it is a stronger way. There are alot of things that can be labeled "over the line" but this is far from that.

 

[Alcott]

Why I Am Boycotting Bill O'Reilly

If I was interested (and I ain't) I would tell you to tell me why.

 

[hillclimber1]

O'Reilly doesn't speak for me and never has. I listened to him about a week, a long time ago and that was enough.

 

[snrsvdbygrc]

Personally I like O'Reilly. I am glad the context of what he said was put on here as well. Being a news commentator he is allowed to state his opinion, it is his job and you don't have to agree with everything he says. I may not agree with him on this or many other things, but as far as news commentators go, he really does seem, in my opinion, the most fair, by allowing other side (usually the left in most circumstances) to state their view as well, where other shows, rarely let the other side speak in their defense.

My personal view of this case is the boy was likely brainwashed as soon as he was kidnapped, but it could have been a million things, maybe his home life before was horrible...we just don't know, I am sure someone will have the book rights shortly and we can all read with our jaws dropped open...as for me I am personally just not that interested in the case either way. The guy kidnapped and should be hung, period!

By the way, not sure if this is a reading type of crowd, but I think everyone should Culture Warrior by O'Reilly, great book, very quick read and he is right on the money and not affraid to be honest and say what is happening in this country.

 

[Lagardo]

But I thought real, no-nonsense journalism grew out of Inside Edition! :BangHead:

 

[Martin]

Wow, you need to boycott abc, ncb, and cbs news as well because all these stations have questioned why this boy was there so long.

==There is nothing wrong with that. I think everyone who has followed this story with any level of interest has wondered that. However most of us believe, with good reason, that the boy was brainwashed, threatened, terrified, and doing whatever he had to do to survive. O'Reilly however had the nerve to say that this young man may have stated, in part, because he liked it. Just guessing about the type of horrors this young man endured for four long years makes O'Reilly's statement look silly and abominable.

Orielly has said nothing different than most everyone else he just does it is a stronger way. There are alot of things that can be labeled "over the line" but this is far from that.

==Yes, this is far beyond that line. To suggest that a kidnap victim liked his/her situation and that is why they stayed not only conflicts with the evidence it is also an insult to everyone who has been a victim of violent crime. It is like saying a woman stayed with her abusive husband because she liked being beat.

 

[Martin]

My personal view of this case is the boy was likely brainwashed as soon as he was kidnapped, but it could have been a million things, maybe his home life before was horrible...we just don't know,

==As far as I have read we have no reason to believe his home life had anything to do with anything. It seems that he believed that his best chance for survival was waiting for someone to help him. I think he thought it was too risky for him to openly reach out. I do believe he may also have been brainwashed to some degree and probably threatened (one article said at gun point on a regular basis). I also think he was abused.

I am sure someone will have the book rights shortly and we can all read with our jaws dropped open...as for me I am personally just not that interested in the case either way. The guy kidnapped and should be hung, period!

==Personally I think hanging is too merciful for this man. However I doubt I will buy any book that may be published about this case. These type cases hold my attention only for a short time. I am a modern microwave American after all.

By the way, not sure if this is a reading type of crowd, but I think everyone should Culture Warrior by O'Reilly, great book, very quick read and he is right on the money and not affraid to be honest and say what is happening in this country.

==Personally I think when O'Reilly said "The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted...I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances" he destroyed any good he had done with Culture Warrior. How can someone be a Culture Warrior if one honestly believes a child enjoys captivity, mental, and physical abuse more than school and family. O'Reilly's "logic" is sick and twisted. Also I think, based on the interview I saw yesterday, the media (etc) may have over-hyped what freedoms this boy had.

 

[snrsvdbygrc]

It is like saying a woman stayed with her abusive husband because she liked being beat.

As bad and as odd as it sounds there are women who have been raped only to marry their rapist. Again, we just do not know all of the facts in this case yet. If you want to quit watching O'Reilly then that is great, it is your prerogative; however, to be so emotionally outraged at this before knowing the facts is, I believe, premature. What will your reaction be if Shawn writes a book saying his life was better there than his home life? I am not saying it was at all...but these are questions yet to be answered in this case. I think Bill's statement was also premature.

 

[Martin]

As bad and as odd as it sounds there are women who have been raped only to marry their rapist. Again, we just do not know all of the facts in this case yet.

==I think we do know enough to know that O'Reilly's thesis was wrong.

If you want to quit watching O'Reilly then that is great, it is your prerogative; however, to be so emotionally outraged at this before knowing the facts is, I believe, premature.

==Well I doubt any of us will ever know all the facts. After all the media will probably have forgotten this story within two weeks. My problem with OReilly is that he made that kind of statement with zero proof backing him up. The victim should always be given the benefit of the doubt and there are real psychological reasons why young victims may do the things these boys did. O'Reilly can ignore that till the cows fly, and no doubt he will, but that does not change the facts.

What will your reaction be if Shawn writes a book saying his life was better there than his home life? I am not saying it was at all...but these are questions yet to be answered in this case. I think Bill's statement was also premature.

==Then I will say that O'Reilly was right and I was wrong. However I think, based on that interview I watched and the reports I have read, that is not likely to happen. Really I hope that he does not write a book. I hope that we all forget who he is and that he can get his life back on track and move past these events. As for the theory that he was happier with his kidnapper, well I can't accept that. That boy seemed to be over-joyed at being home. I also don't believe that being physically and mentally abused is ever fun or better.

 

[saturneptune]

Really, the matter between this teenager and criminal is none of our business. It is for the authorities to investigate, bring the adult to justice, and seek help for the victim. This has no place being part of the national media frenzy. It gets back to the same point as other threads, who cares what Bill OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Oberman, Chris Matthews or Hollywood stars think about any issue. Really, why should anyone care?

 

[Martin]

Really, the matter between this teenager and criminal is none of our business. It is for the authorities to investigate, bring the adult to justice, and seek help for the victim. This has no place being part of the national media frenzy. It gets back to the same point as other threads, who cares what Bill OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Oberman, Chris Matthews or Hollywood stars think about any issue. Really, why should anyone care?

==In a very strong way I fully agree. However it is part of the media frenzy so it is an issue. OReilly speaks to a large audience each night and what he says matters. Whether it should or not.

 

[TomVols]

I don't watch O'Reilley so I don't know the context of his comments. I will say that I've seen some psychological research that debunks some of the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing. It's not beyond the pale of reasonable discourse to question its validity. I'm not saying I think it isn't real. I'm saying that there seems to be enough evidence/research to say that it's a likely theory but not scientific fact or a moral certainty.

 

[Martin]

I don't watch O'Reilley so I don't know the context of his comments. I will say that I've seen some psychological research that debunks some of the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing. It's not beyond the pale of reasonable discourse to question its validity. I'm not saying I think it isn't real. I'm saying that there seems to be enough evidence/research to say that it's a likely theory but not scientific fact or a moral certainty.

==I have no problem with any person questioning the "Stockholm Syndrome". That seems like a good debate that those who are qualified should engage in. What I took such extreme exception to is the following statement made by OReilly,

"when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances"

There is the beef I have with OReilly. To imply or to just suggest that this "CHILD" liked anything about the last four years is, in no uncertain terms, sick. You know I can't imagine what that child has suffered for the past four years, I don't even want to. So I must not try to figure out his actions during those four years. I have never been in that situation, and neither has Mr OReilly, so I have nothing to judge his behavior by. I assume he did whatever he had to do to get by. If that was sleeping, listening to loud music, playing video games, or whatever else. I imagine he did what he did to get by and I will never be critical of him for that. As for why he did not try to escape? Well I think it was clear from that interview that he "did" try to get attention by posting on his parents website and we don't know how many other little things he may have done trying to reach out. Why did he not tell the police or a friends parent (etc) who he was? I have no idea. However I have to imagine that he probably was unsure who he could trust. It is also likely, according to stories I read, that he was under constant threat (maybe his family as well). We don't know what this kid faced, and we probably don't want to know (truth be known). So I am not going to be critical of anything he did (playing video games, making friends in the community, going along with his captor, etc) because I assume he did what he had to do to get by. Let's keep in mind that he was eleven when this horror started. This is a abused, scared, tramatized child. Let's keep that in mind. Maybe now he can move on to a normal life.

Look I got really angry at OReilly this week, I don't regret doing so, and I will not watch/listen to his show ever again. However now I really would like to move away OReilly and on to other issues. I don't want to give OReilly anymore of my attention. Honestly I think my attention would be better spent watching the grass grow than worrying about Bill OReilly.

 

[av1611jim]

I think I agree with O'Reilly in a certain sense. An 11,12, 13, 14, 15 yr old kid is going to LIKE not being in school, playing video games all day, and generally having no responsibilities.

Rare is the kid who LIKES responsibilities and goes out of his way to get them. And that is what this kid would have had to do after a while with this creep. He did NOT try calling the police. He was allowed to ride his bike around (I understood), why not go to a neighbor and call 911?

Why not? Because he is an adolescent who can get away with no school, play games all day, sleep in, no responsibilities.

I do not think O'Reilly is sick at all. He is just being realistic and assessing the situation in its context with today's youth and the tendency of adolescents to want to "do their own thing". It appears this kids was allowed to have it his own way and he would have had to make a determined and definite effort to call the cops but he did not.

I am not saying the kid deserved it, all I am saying is the kid did nothing to help himself. If you have ever known any 11-15 yr old kids like I have you will realize that if an 11-15 yr old kid decides he doesn't like something he will rebel like the dickens against it. Why did he not????

 

[Scarlett O.]

I am not saying the kid deserved it, all I am saying is the kid did nothing to help himself. If you have ever known any 11-15 yr old kids like I have you will realize that if an 11-15 yr old kid decides he doesn't like something he will rebel like the dickens against it. Why did he not????

Why did he not tell?

Jim, yours is an attitude that is not uncommon. People who haven't been in this child's shoes or who have not been around adults in similiar situations have no clue.

<edited - LE>

People who harm children do so much more damage that just the physical.

Perhaps this boy was ashamed to the point of becoming mute, frightened that this man would find him no matter where he went, frightened that this man would harm his family, or deeply brainwashed.

I promise you that this boy was not enjoying his 4-year vacation from school and family.

I watched the interview with boy and Oprah. Something happened to that boy. What, I don't know. But I could tell.

So many children and women appear on the surface to be functioning normally. But if you could see inside, they are terrified and don't always think straight enough to cry out for help.

I am what I like to call "recovered". I don't feel like a victim anymore. I only hope, if this boy did undergo something terrible, that he will someday come to that place too.

 

[El_Guero]

Martin

You pay XM radio for the trash it broadcasts . . . and thereby encourage more of the same.

You get what you pay for.

:BangHead:

 

[El_Guero]

Regardless of OReilly's position, Stockholm syndrome does explain the attachment of a victim to an abuser. However, claiming that this child suffered in this manner without any support is just as dangerous as claiming that the child did not suffer.

MHO.