Rating: 
Summary: A fun read
Review: Okay, I admit it - I enjoy Bill O'Reilly. I watch the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News and listen to the Radio Factor. With that said, I think this is a book that fans of O'Reilly will enjoy. Interesting, quick hitting stories that are O'Reilly's trademark. In this book he confronts George W. Bush, Susan Sarandon, Rev. Sharpton, and even the Clintons. Some of the stories are takes right from the Factor. A bit of criticism - I would have preferred a bit more depth. O'Reilly continued to do in the written form what he does on the air - short and pithy. With a book, he could have provided much more opinion and fact than he can during his shows. Even so, a fun read.
Rating: 
Summary: O'Reilly opines with his superb pithiness
Review: Bill O'Reilly has elevated himself as the preeminent host on television - and unlike Jennings, Rather, & Brokaw - without compromising his ideals and beliefs along the way. The No Spin Zone contains the characteristic cynical, pompous, conceited, and no-holds barred style synonomous only with O'Reilly. It is this relentless and unforgiving interview style that makes the show, and this book, utterly and undeniably intelligent and entertaining. In this short, yet substantive read, O'Reilly takes on the leftist media(Dan Rather), the Hollywood elite(Susan Sarandon throws down her mike and abruptly exits The Factor), as well as the political establishment(the fraudulent Jesse Jackson). If you're a big Factor fan like moi, you can't go wrong with this book. To make a great omelette, you gotta break a few eggs along the way. Break 'em O'Reilly.
Rating: 
Summary: Propeller Zone!!
Review: I'm not sure how O'Reilly got to be the King of "No Spin". Anyone who has the time (like me) can do a little research on the internet or your local library to see that a lot of the statistics he quotes on his shows are absolutely incorrect. I though "No Spin" meant not adding your own twist to anything. I am either naive or very stupid but I think the way he conducts his shows and the way he's written this book can hardly be called unbiased or objective!
Rating:
Summary: O'Reilly has never met a half truth he didn't like
Review: Bill O'Reilly is only popular because there is an audience out there that thinks their government cares about them and would do them no harm, that our biggest problem is that the Ten Commandments aren't posted in schools, and that if only the good ole GOP were allowed to run the government, by God we wouldn't have all of these problems (I borrowing from Trent Lott here). Enough of my ranting, this book is the same as the show, in fact there are no new points here. O' Reilly's list of lies and half truths are too numerous to name here. Save your money, buy a good book like Age of Reason by Thomas Paine or the grand daddy of them all Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Rating:
Summary: Save your money
Review: Someone needs to tell O'Reilly that the O'Reilly's were immigrants, as were nearly all of our ancestors. And like most of todays immigrants ours arrived broke, dirty, and not speaking English. As with his show the book is bias and factless. I'd like to see him interview someone like author Clint Borgen on the issue of immigration. He'd be eating his own words. I recommend any book but this.
Rating: 
Summary: Redundant for "Factor fans"
Review: If you're already a regular watcher of the "O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News, there isn't much new material offered in this book. Most of it is a rehash of material that's already been featured on his television show. If you watch the show...save your money. If you don't already watch the show, you might find it amusing.
Rating: 
Summary: Is it a real book....
Review: ...if you can read the whole thing in about 2 hours? If you frequently watch the show you'll have already seen the people which are profiled in the chapters. Bill does offer some insight, but nothing really new. Overall, this book is just something slapped together in order to make it under the tree.
Rating:
Summary: O'Reilly and FOX just look for ratings
Review: O'Reilly is not the objective reporter that he thinks he is and his book is more evidence of this. The grammar and format are well written but his overall argument style is transparent to those who know how influence, sales and persuasion operate. On TV, O'Reilly first listens to his guests, making him appear as if he is open minded. What he is doing is similar to a salesman finding out what the customer's wants, needs and values are. Next he asks his the guests professional opinions on subject at hand, making O'Reilly seem interested and as if he is perusing the truth. But he always follows up with battering, looking for holes in the opinion of the professional only eventually to insert his own, or FOX's, perspective. By asking leading or ill-structured questions he is really setting up for a latter attack. This approach makes O'Reilly appear as if he is stopping the spin. Unfortunately there are always problems with every theory. What he is in fact doing is arguing with his guests on null hypotheses, which cannot be proven, inserting his own perspective which is often not fully formed, yet admittedly a well structured argument, into the minds of those who would not see the difference. Each night he goes on the air and makes his guests look bad by doing the above mentioned. Also, because the public is more familiar with him and when two people are arguing about something third parties are more prone to side with who they are more familiar with, in this case O'Reilly, this helps ratings. As an example of his style, in a discussion O'Reilly eventually outright dismissed what a professional said, which was based in research not opinion, and he concluded that children should be handled the way he (O'Reilly) said. But the was a debate about child rearing and O'Reilly had a child psychologist on his program. One of the first things that O'Reilly asked when the conversation became heated was "Dr. X, do you have a child yourself?" It was obvious what he was looking for but lets for argument sake say the psychologist did not have a child. That would not make any bit of a difference! Does the heart surgeon need to have had a heart transplant to know what he is talking about? Does the oncologists need to have cancer to be an authority on cancer? Just because many of our military personnel have not seen actual combat would they not go in and do well for themselves because of their training. I think the answer is obvious. What O'Reilly was looking for was the psychologist to say 'no I don't have children' so O'Reilly could have jumped on what was being said as if the psychologist has no real or authority or competence on the subject. He would probably argue that is not what he was getting at, but if the moment presented its self he would have exploited it. Sorry to tell you Mr. O'Reilly but the people you invite on your show are the experts, not you. You are a master persuader and a dam good salesman. Your guests may be weak in their arguing skills and not have the answer to every angle, but no one does. And for anyone to lead the public away from the experts educated information is deceitful and akin of mind control. But for Mr. O'Reilly to offer a null hypothesis or something the sounds logical but is not always based in the facts... this is not objective reporting but subjective. FOX likes O'Reilly because he brings in ratings. He brings in ratings because he has developed a following that are not aware of the way he persuades them. The method can be seen in salesmen in the Sears TV and stereo department. Seeing people argue and go back and fourth on TV is what is called sensationalism, this is exciting and appealing to viewers and this is what gets their ratings, not objective reporting. With the help of repeated viewing establishing familiarity, O'Reilly establishes the trust of his viewers while ripping apart his guests every night leaving O'Reilly looking as if the bull was halted. He attacks his guests, pins them in corner with questions that don't always have researched based answers and then concludes that his perspective on the topic at hand is the correct one. Anyone who knows anything about good news reporting sees through this façade and knows it is not professional news reporting and he is plain rude to his guests. Anyone who knows anything about bias, influence, sales and mind control, and FOX knows that O'Reilly is there for their ratings. Much of the news industry laughs at O'Reilly and FOX. O'Reilly is nearly self-righteous and loves to make his perspective known probably masking some deep-seated feeling of not being held to what he thinks he is really worth. If he could run more than just his show the way he sees fit, I think he would and evidence of this is the way he has said he has said in a heated argument with a guest 'hey! this is my show and I'll do...' When will FOX stop worrying about their ratings and just be truly fair and balanced. When will O'Reilly listen to what many educated people are saying and take a good 'honest and truthful'look at himself.
Rating:
Summary: A funny fraud...
Review: Personally, I've found his pompous demeanor to be amusing -- many tv personalities have their schtick and that is his. What gets tiring is how he tries to paint himself as an objective, independent thinker who is not affiliated with any party. It becomes insulting to the active reader -- in this case, I would rather read William Buckley or James Carville as at least they don't try to deny their bias. He even dedicates a chapter or more of the book trying to "prove" to the reader how non-biased he is. Apparently, he feels that his fans will read anything. There are a number of inconsistencies in the book. Though he claims to be a seeker of truth, he dismisses criticism of the Bush tax cut as liberal propaganda. (Perhaps he should read "Fuzzy Math" or any bit of analysis on the subject before shooting his mouth off?) He refers to Clinton as a "brazen liar", but doesn't bring into question Bush's dishonesty about his military service, tax cut proposal, etc. It's especially concerning because he talks about being against the death penalty, but he never mentions Bush's claim that he was "proud" that Texas made executing the retarded illegal even though: 1) Bush stopped the law from getting passed; 2) Bush executed at least 7 retarded people while Governor of Texas. This dishonesty he has with the reader (denying his right-wing bias) ends up weakening the book because I keep on wondering how truthful he is in his chapters on Jesse Jackson, Dan Rather, Hillary Clinton and others. Those chapters could have been illuminating if I was able to find O'Reilly credible. It is unfortunate because if O'Reilly was honest, he could be a good author and journalist.
Rating:
Summary: Let the Truth Set You Free
Review: Finally someone can tell the truth. After eight years of the Caligula....Clinton administration it is good to hear some truth. I respected the fact that all sides...conservative and liberal were treated with the same vision of truth. A good dose of the truth is just what the Media needs. I have become a big FOX viewer.
|
