Why I Am Boycotting Bill O'Reilly

"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.

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!

 

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.

 

==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.

==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.

 

==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.

==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.

==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.

 

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

==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.

==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.

 

==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.

 

==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.