Dear Mr. Dvorkin,

I am writing to call for your immediate resignation as Ombudsman for National Public Radio. Your 10/15 statement "Gross vs. O'Reilly: Culture Clash on NPR" makes it clear to me that you have failed miserably to serve the best interests of NPR, the journalists who work for NPR, NPR's national community of listeners, and pretty much everybody else.

By way of explanation, let me draw attention to a few passages in your recent statement.

On October 9, Terry Gross, longtime host of NPR's Fresh Air aired her interview with populist political talk show host Bill O'Reilly. The e-mails and phone calls of outrage are still arriving.

First of all, I'd be interested to know your working definition of "populist." More importantly, you should know by now that the vast majority of those "e-mails and phone calls of outrage" are coming (I confidently presume) not from NPR listeners, or from NPR supporters or contributors, but from the right-wing community of hate-based activists who are well-prepared to bombard any liberal "soft target" that sparks their ire with just such barrages of indignance. Your job as ombudsman should not be to assuage these people or to treat their fury as though it has merit in the marketplace of public opinion.

As Gross mentioned in the interview, Bill O'Reilly was invited on Fresh Air in part because of his new book. She began by asking O'Reilly to respond to accusations made against him in a book by Al Franken, the politically liberal comedian. Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, is devoted in part to going after O'Reilly's credibility and his conservative opinions. In his book and on Fresh Air , Franken accuses O'Reilly of mistakes, distortions and outright lies.

Gross interviewed Franken two weeks previously on her program.

For some listeners, the interview with O'Reilly was a continuation of Franken's anti-conservative and anti-O'Reilly attacks.

Now, what does, or should, the phrase "Franken's anti-conservative and anti-O'Reilly attacks" mean? Are they hypothetically equivalent to O'Reilly's "anti-liberal and anti-Franken" attacks? Is it just a matter of two opposing sides, each with their own "opinions," attacking one another? Does it make a difference if the substance of O'Reilly's attacks is his (justified or not) rage toward Franken, and the substance of Franken's "attacks" consists in pointing out ACTUAL LIES that O'Reilly has told? Have you bothered to take issue with A SINGLE FACT, anywhere, in Franken's work? If Franken--and Terri Gross, in defending Franken--says that O'Reilly has lied, doesn't it matter to you whether or not O'Reilly HAS IN FACT LIED? Or is the whole issue of fact irrelevant in the context of mutually opposing sets of "attacks"?

Then you include this "letter" from a listener:

NPR, you're not going to like this, but I have to say that O'Reilly... was correct: throughout the first 50 minutes of the interview, Terry Gross was clearly focused on discussing the popular left-wing (mis)perception of O'Reilly, misguided though it is, and not substantively dealing with his new book. I thought her interview was extremely biased and prejudicial. I was very disappointed with her transparently obvious agenda -- she's usually much more capable.

What--to you, to Terri Gross, or to any NPR listener--could it POSSIBLY MEAN that "Terry Gross was clearly focused on discussing the popular left-wing (mis)perception of O'Reilly"? Should she have been "focused" instead on discussing the "popular right-wing (correct) perception" of O'Reilly? But why would that be HER job, HER responsibility? What would such a discussion possibly consist of?

In my opinion, Terry Gross did a very tough interview. It was quite unlike many interviews on NPR where the tone is civil but often unchallenging of the guest.

Right--she did a "tough" interview because O'Reilly is a "tough" guest, and there is no other possible way to engage him. Normally the tone of her interviews is "civil but often unchallenging" precisely because she is interviewing people whose ideas and opinions inherently require a scene of mutually civil and exploratory (rather than challenging) discourse. But O'Reilly is not civil--and the only "ideas" he has to discuss are not "ideas" but rather rhetorical vectors of attack and opposition; there is no way to situate such a discussion in the normal mode of open, friendly conversation.

Danny Miller is the executive producer of Fresh Air . I asked him if he thought the critics have a point:

Terry was tough on O'Reilly, not unfair. And I think O'Reilly drove the interview directly towards the conclusion he was hoping for. He was looking to butt heads. He's obviously still really steamed that the case against Franken was thrown out of court -- and came to our interview with the expressed goal of demonstrating his belief that NPR has a liberal bias, and that Fresh Air (like Franken) was out to defame him. On his own show he said: "I'll go on this program [Fresh Air] just to show you what they do, to expose what they do. Cause I knew what was going to happen... " It's pretty difficult to for an interviewer to maintain a high level of rapport with someone who wants to prove that you're out to get them.

O'Reilly is one of the most controversial and powerful broadcasters in the country -- Terry asked him about how he uses that power to pursue issues, and settle scores with his critics. Terry wouldn't have been doing her job if she didn't address that (which is why she brought up the Janet Maslin and People magazine pieces). And O'Reilly is smart enough to know it.

Danny Miller has it exactly right; he's said it better than I have.

Even so, I agree with the listeners who complained about the tone of the interview: Her questions were pointed from the beginning. She went after O'Reilly using critical quotes from the Franken book and a New York Times book review. That put O'Reilly at his most prickly and defensive mode, and Gross was never able to get him back into the interview in an effective way. This was surprising because Terry Gross is, in my opinion, one of the best interviewers anywhere in American journalism.

Your self-contradiction here is utterly baffling. Given that O'Reilly CAME TO THE INTERVIEW prepared to be defamed and victimized and put "on the defensive" in hostile "enemy" "liberal" territory--in other words prepared for rhetorical combat rather than "civil" interview--why was it not perfectly appropriate that Gross's questions be "pointed"? Is it Gross's job, as a professional interviewer, to coddle and assuage the "prickly and defensive mode" of guest who comes on her show ready for combat? Is it her job to "disarm" a guest who knows no other mode of discourse than rhetorical combat?

Although O'Reilly frequently resorts to bluster and bullying on his own show, he seemed unable to take her tough questions. He became angrier as the interview went along. But by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop.

A "pro-Franken partisan"? You have GOT to be kidding! You really don't mean "neutral" here--you mean "neutered." Is Gross a computer? Is she a smiling cardboard cutout like the ones we see every day on the cable news networks? Or is she rather A HUMAN BEING with opinions, values, thoughts, feelings? Should Gross suppress and neuter her humanity for the sake of O'Reilly's comfort? Should Gross also face up to the fact that her status as "pro-art," "pro-literature," "pro-music," "pro-intelligence," or "pro-humanity" hinders her ability to be a "neutral and curious journalist"?

By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.

Please, Mr. Dvorkin. Gross doesn't need to "carry Al Franken's water," and you know it. Franken can carry his own water. And the interview was PRECISELY about O'Reilly's "ideas" and "attitudes"--he was expressing them, manifesting them, displaying them throughout the whole interview, and that's exactly the point. O'Reilly expresses his "ideas" and "attitudes" via hostility, contrarity, self-aggrandizement, intimidation, defensiveness, and paranoia--just as Franken expresses HIS "ideas" and "attitudes" via humor, wit, mockery, satire, and cheerfulness. A Franken interview is going to be different, and go differently, no matter if it's Gross interviewing him or any "conservative" interviewer, because it's HIM sitting in the chair. In this case, it was O'Reilly sitting in the chair, and the tone and mode of the interview was determined by HIM and HIS PRESENCE, not by Gross' "pointed" or "partisan" questions. If Franken and O'Reilly are the combatants, and Terri Gross is in the middle, OF COURSE she is going to "side" with the combatant who fights with fun-poking and mischievous, good-natured mockery, rather than the combatant who not only fights with fear, bitterness, and sanctimonious bull-headedness, but more importantly WILL DENY THAT HE'S EVEN FIGHTING.

Let's get something straight: Bill O'Reilly has publicly lied--not in "opinion," but in fact. Al Franken has written about some of those lies, and that has enraged O'Reilly. Now, in an interview with O'Reilly--an interview construed as a counterpart to the Franken interview--when Gross brings up those lies, and O'Reilly DENIES them, and LIES RIGHT BACK IN HER FACE, what is she supposed to do? What greater insult could a guest commit--no matter who is conducting the interview--than to LIE IN THE INTERVIEWER'S FACE AND DENY THAT HE'S DOING SO? Again: are you, Mr. Dvorkin, challenging ANY SUBSTANTIVE FACT in a question about lying that either Franken or Gross has put to O'Reilly? If not, why not? Should we rebuke Gross for being a "pro-truth" partisan? A maliciously "anti-lie" liberal?

Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction, O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote anyway.

And for every listener out there who is concerned with CONTENT, with SUBSTANCE, rather than the pure scoring of for-and-against points, damn good thing she did. Even if O'Reilly is too much of a baby and a coward to stay, listen, and respond in turn, there is a little thing called THE AUDIENCE to consider. Remember that the interview isn't being conducted for the benefit or O'Reilly, or Gross, but FOR THE AUDIENCE. So why should Gross allow herself to be rudely silenced by a hateful, degrading guest, when she has something to say that the audience wants and deserves to hear?

You don't even take into account the fact that in the moments before O'Reilly walked out, he was bullying Gross with an aggressiveness I've never heard before or since on any interview. I thought Gross was about to cry, and in her situation I probably would have. Put in that situation, she should just SHUT UP out of respect for the departed, hit-and-run O'Reilly? Mr. Dvorkin, do you have ANY RESPECT AT ALL for Terri Gross--not just as a journalist and NPR employee, but as a PERSON?

I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias.

This is a truly disgusting claim--either inexcusably ignorant or willfully disingenuous. You know, Mr. Dvorkin, that those "cultural wars" are ongoing--they will continue and likely intensify whether you or anybody else likes it or not. Every time Bill O'Reilly bullies a guest in the studio of his program, the "cultural wars" are being fought. Every time Terri Gross interviews a novelist, or a classical composer, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or Al Franken, or Bill O'Reilly, the "cultural wars" are being fought. Gross's interview of O'Reilly didn't "illustrate" that--it WAS that. And in this war, I--and I believe the vast majority of NPR listeners--am on Gross's side. Call me a "pro-intelligence" "partisan."

As for the "belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias," I am appalled and ashamed that the NPR Ombudsman would give credence to such a phony, misleading, and meaningless canard.

It left the impression that there was something not quite right about the reasons behind this program: Bill O'Reilly often loves to use NPR as his own personal political pinata; and NPR keeps helping him by inviting him to appear.

Well, on that note, Mr. Dvorkin, I'm going to conclude by agreeing with you in full. No phony, bad-faith notion of "fairness" or "even-handedness" should dictate that an aggressive, infantile, solipsistic, monomaniacally paranoid asshole like O'Reilly be granted an interview BY ANYONE, much less NPR. But he (for his purposes) agreed to come, and Gross (for her purposes) agreed to have him. So why criticize her for having the guts to deal with him the best way she knew how?

Sincerely,

Blicero

speakingcorpse writes:

Dear Mr. Dvorkin,

Bill O'Reilly is a bastard. He is also a hugely important cultural
phenomenon. He may be the harbinger of the imminent arrival of that
form of entertainment that is so effective that it kills all those who
are exposed to it. I hate O'Reilly, but watching him does make me
suicidal. So maybe his work will finally prove to be fun for me in the
end.

What's the point of your piece? I can't see it. You say Gross was
"baiting" O'Reilly uncharacteristically. Probably true, if you mean
that the interview took on an adversarial tone. But as you also seem to
acknowledge, obliquely, O'Reilly is a big asshole, so: ask him any sort
of question about what it is he's doing and he'll say you're "baiting"
him. This is what evil doers always do: Republicans steal the
election, you ask them about it, they accuse you of being partisan.
Communists invade an Eastern European country, and you call their action
invasion rather than liberation, and they accuse of you being
ideologues. Terrorists kill civilians, you complain about it, and they
accuse you of backsliding and oppression.

The point is: evil doers often don't acknowledge to themselves, and
certainly not to others, what it is they are doing. So would-be
participants in civil discourse have a difficult choice. They can go
along with the terms the evil doers use, and thereby leave the lie
intact and actually take on some responsibility for its perpetration.
Or would-be civil speakers can simply try to treat the evil doer as a
human being, responsible for his or her actions. This latter course is
often very difficult, as the evil doer will have much invested in
denying his own humanity. (Ask George Bush about his earlier life or
the deaths he's caused, and he's enraged. Why? Because the very notion
of individual responsibility is an affront to someone who believes his
life is Christ's--that he has no life of his own at all.)

So Terry took the gutsy tack and actually tried to talk to Bill O'Reilly
about his words and actions, rather than demeaning him and herself by
pretending he is something other than what he is. (This kind of
demeaning is the current coin in mainstream media, I know. How can you
guys say Bush is looting the government without fucking yourselves
royally? You can't. So instead you have to say he's doing something
else, or that the matter is up for debate. So truth, and your news
operation, is debased. I don't blame you, really. NPR has to survive.
It has toaccommodatee. "Living in truth," as Vaclav Havel called it,
often has consequences that negate life.)

Anyway, so Gross was brave, and you call her on it. You're right. She
probably made her show less respectable to the powers that be. She
probably cost NPR a few bucks. As you finally imply, another course of
action altogether would have been simplest and best: she shouldn't have
had that asshole on her show in the first place.

But the fact remains: O'Reilly is out there, calling for NPR's
dismantling, demanding you call him a "populist," etc. Let me remind
you that fascism is populism, the most effective of its historical
forms. It lives off the resentment felt by the (white) poor, who are
disgusted with their upper-middle class rivals and at the same time
unable to imagine any real form of distributive justice and
power-sharing. Better than bourgeois liberalism is populist fascism, in
which the poor get at least the pleasure of identifying with the boot
that protects them as it exterminates effete middle class intellectuals
along with the lowest of the low:

Society is saved just as often as the circle of its rulers contracts,
as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every
demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary
liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most insipid
democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an 'attempt on society' and
stigmatised as 'socialism.' And finally the high priests of 'religion
and order' themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods,
hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison-vans,
thrown into dungeons or sent into exile...their law torn to pieces in
the name of religion, of property, of family, order. Bourgeois fanatics
for order are shot down on their balconies...in the name of property, of
family, religion, and order. (Marx)

Sooner or later the shit is going to hit the fan. And then being civil
to O'Reilly, or ignoring him, won't be an option. You'll either suck
his boot or take the risk of speaking the truth and calling him a piece
of shit.

Sincerely, speakingcorpse

Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR Ombudsman, can be contacted at 202-513-3245 or by email at ombudsman@npr.org .