Bill O'Reilly said ... what?
On Feb. 19, Bill O'Reilly was hosting a call-in debate on The Radio Factor, a nationally syndicated talk-radio show heard by more than 3 million Americans every week. The topic of discussion was Michelle Obama's recent admission that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."
Someone named Maryanne phoned in to say that the prospective first lady was an "angry ... militant woman." O'Reilly had already said he wanted to verify everything in a "fair and balanced and methodical way."
So he said this:
"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's hard facts, evidence, that shows this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that's legit. We'll track it down."
This is one of the more offensive things I've heard anybody say on national talk radio. But we should ask: What does this rather bumbling statement mean?
Does it mean that O'Reilly would only lynch Mrs. Obama if he knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she thinks America is less than perfect? The answer is clearly no: O'Reilly was using the phrase "lynching party" figuratively. But does that make it permissible?
O'Reilly's defenders believe the "metaphor defense" exonerates him. They argue that if "lynching party" is just a figure of speech, then the comment is innocent.
At The Huffington Post, a reader posted the comment: "I don't think that O'Reilly or anyone else should have to apologize for using ['lynching party'] or any other colloquialism." At City-data.com, another commentator wrote, "The word 'lynching' was said in a colloquial fashion and wasn't meant to bespeak of anything having to do with race."
It's true, "lynchings" weren't always race-related. The original use refers to violent vigilante justice on the American frontier, often against white loyalists.
It was only during the Jim Crow era that "lynching parties" acquired its present imagery: angry, white mobs asserting their supremacy over people of color. In the century following the Civil War, at least 5 thousand people were publicly tortured, burned and hanged for the color of their skin.
Someone named Maryanne phoned in to say that the prospective first lady was an "angry ... militant woman." O'Reilly had already said he wanted to verify everything in a "fair and balanced and methodical way."
So he said this:
"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's hard facts, evidence, that shows this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that's legit. We'll track it down."
This is one of the more offensive things I've heard anybody say on national talk radio. But we should ask: What does this rather bumbling statement mean?
Does it mean that O'Reilly would only lynch Mrs. Obama if he knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she thinks America is less than perfect? The answer is clearly no: O'Reilly was using the phrase "lynching party" figuratively. But does that make it permissible?
O'Reilly's defenders believe the "metaphor defense" exonerates him. They argue that if "lynching party" is just a figure of speech, then the comment is innocent.
At The Huffington Post, a reader posted the comment: "I don't think that O'Reilly or anyone else should have to apologize for using ['lynching party'] or any other colloquialism." At City-data.com, another commentator wrote, "The word 'lynching' was said in a colloquial fashion and wasn't meant to bespeak of anything having to do with race."
It's true, "lynchings" weren't always race-related. The original use refers to violent vigilante justice on the American frontier, often against white loyalists.
It was only during the Jim Crow era that "lynching parties" acquired its present imagery: angry, white mobs asserting their supremacy over people of color. In the century following the Civil War, at least 5 thousand people were publicly tortured, burned and hanged for the color of their skin.
Be the first to comment on this story