The Sins of Omission
by D.A. Blyler

A gentleman's nod goes to Ted Koppel and ABC for putting faces on the cold statistics of those American men and women who lost their lives in Iraq. The special "Nightline" last week should have been a time to honor the dead, while quietly reflecting on the war in Iraq, the impetus and repercussions of which we have yet to fully understand. Sadly, a stench of partisanship swirled around the event. And, as is so frequently the case these days, the stink was fanned far and wide by Fox News and its star host Bill O'Reilly.

On last Friday's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor," O'Reilly castigated Koppel for not appearing on his program to justify himself, impugning the respected journalist for choosing to defend himself on a "far left" radio program — the implication of course being that Koppel's show was politically motivated. O'Reilly then went on to interview Mark Hyman, vice president of communications for the Sinclair Broadcast Co., whose eight ABC affiliates were banned from airing Koppel's program. Hyman in turn questioned Koppel's political motives and journalistic ethics.

What O'Reilly failed to mention was that Koppel not only appeared on a left-leaning radio show, but that he also appeared on the far-right radio program hosted by Fox veteran Sean Hannity. On that show Koppel stated in no uncertain terms that Sinclair's accusations were lies. Yet O'Reilly led viewers to believe that Koppel left the statements unchallenged — for reasons that only can be viewed as child-like retribution for not coming on his TV show.

Such sins of omission are what O'Reilly repeatedly uses on his program to spin arguments in his favor. And at last I felt compelled to call him on it. After all, he often challenges his critics to prove that he spins. I penned Bill a letter (not as errant an exercise as one might think, as he reads letters on his show nightly), which detailed his misrepresentation of Koppel and asked to him to explain why he failed to mention that Koppel appeared on Hannity's program and why he failed to challenge statements after Koppel had publicly dismissed them as lies. And, I added, why he spun the facts to imply that partisanship was involved. If I was mistaken in my analysis, I asked him to explain where I was going wrong.

Monday's installment of "The Factor" came and went without a reading of my letter. Realistically, it was no surprise. O'Reilly never reads letters that actually catch him in a sinister omission, thus exposing his rhetorical techniques. Instead, he reads only critical letters that accuse him of bad behavior sans supporting facts. This permits him to chastise the letter writers for not substantiating their accusations and slag them off as "pinheads," while making it appear that the viewer's comments were groundless. Monday was no different. He read a typically vague and rudderless letter from a woman who, without explanation, accused him of implying that politics played a part in Koppel's program. O'Reilly then conveniently replied that on his show they don't "imply" but "say."

Say it you do Bill, but only by halves, and the American public is lesser for it.