text: From the very first moments of his cable-news-dominating show, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly sets a standard for himself: “Caution. You are about to enter the no-spin zone,” he warns his audience. That is: On “The O’Reilly Factor,” straight, hard facts roll up into obvious conclusions shepherded by the tall and dominant host.
  
  This no-nonsense self-identification, though, doesn’t end with the beginning. Throughout his programs, O’Reilly sells himself as among the few who’ll play it straight “with the folks,” who doesn’t hew to ideological positions that might just cloud his status as a fact broker and who’s tough on everyone, as he enjoys reminding his loyal viewers. He signs off like this: “Please remember, the spin stops here because we’re looking out for you.” No other television journalist, of course, would ever cop to running a show where spin is countenanced. Or promoted. Yet in keeping with Fox News’s genius for branding — “Fair and Balanced” belongs in some kind of hall of fame — O’Reilly has plowed a singular path as truth-teller. It’s that very status that oftentimes drives memorable segments on “The O’Reilly Factor”; when the host feels that a guest is sidestepping an issue, O’Reilly dispenses with the mercy. In a 2008 interview with then-Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Finance Committee, O’Reilly seized upon the cratering of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and blamed the lawmaker for the problems:
  
  O’REILLY: Oh, none of this was your fault! Oh, no. People lost millions of dollars. It wasn’t your fault. Come on, you coward! Say the truth.
  
  FRANK: What do you mean coward?
  
  O’REILLY: You’re a coward. You blame everybody else. You’re a coward.
  
  FRANK: Bill, here’s the problem with going on your show. You start ranting. And the only way to respond is almost to look as boorish as you. But here’s the facts. I specifically said in the quote you just played that I didn’t think it was a good investment. I wasn’t telling anybody to buy stock. I said it wasn’t a good investment. Secondly, I wasn’t presiding idly over this. I was trying to get the regulations adopted.
  
  FRANK: We got them adopted in May.
  
  O’REILLY: Bottom line is you’re there two years. Bottom line is stock drops 90 percent.
  
  The King of Cable News called upon Frank to step down from his committee chairmanship, an unsurprising move for anyone familiar with the O’Reilly oeuvre. Calling for the heads of people who screw up is a mainstay of O’Reilly’s standing as a force for accountability. Herewith a chart that breaks down some highlights of O’Reilly’s time as chief of the personnel guillotine:
  
  The foregoing raises a question as O’Reilly slogs through bad publicity following a Mother Jones story alleging that he exaggerated his coverage of global conflicts: Do we judge him by our standards or his own? The “O’Reilly Factor” mantra — “[So and So] must go!” — attests to the brilliance of its host as an entertaining broadcaster. By choosing both unworthy and worthy officials for his resignation calls, he keeps viewers interested. Plus, there’s a simplicity in calling for people’s heads — a simplicity that runs counter to the mealy-mouthed and pointedly evenhanded analysis you’ll find in other places.
  
  It’s also a simplicity that did not swamp O’Reilly’s coverage of the recent Brian Williams scandal. After reports surfaced that Williams had embellished stories about his coverage of the Iraq war and other dicey moments, O’Reilly said, “I’ve known Williams a long time. I’m not friends with him. I don’t particularly like his style — it’s not my style. But he’s not a bad man. He’s never done anything I’ve seen underhanded, personally.” In an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, O’Reilly again tacked away from his judgmental ways: “Anybody who is enjoying the destruction of this man — you got to look at yourself. And there’s a lot of people… happy his career is going down the drain. That disturbs me.” Even though O’Reilly went soft on Williams, he did use the anchor’s embellishments as the jumping-off point for an attack on the media: “All Americans who love their country should think about what has happened to Brian Williams, should think about other news agencies that are distorting the facts. We should all open that proverbial network window and yell out we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore,” said O’Reilly on his Feb. 11 program. Mother Jones cited that segment in seeking to establish O’Reilly’s alleged hypocrisy vis-a-vis his own statements about covering the Falkland Islands war. Those statements post some problems for O’Reilly. As Mother Jones documented, O’Reilly claimed to have reported in “war zone” and “combat” situations in Argentina, even though he never set foot on the islands where hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom were actually taking place. Though the host concedes that he didn’t report from the Falklands, he contends that he encountered combat on the streets of Buenos Aires, where angry citizens ended up in violent clashes with security forces following the British war victory. Whereas O’Reilly wrote that “many were killed” in these protests, accounts of the violence in June 1982 don’t corroborate such a contention. That’s a stubborn factual discrepancy that can be wished away only in a high-spin zone. Nothing would be quite as delicious as watching O’Reilly defend his recollection against O’Reilly in an episode of “The O’Reilly Factor.” Surely the Erik Wemple Blog, Mediaite, Politico and many other outlets would write about the proceedings.
  
  Erik Wemple writes the Erik Wemple blog, where he reports and opines on media organizations of all sorts.
summary: By our standards or by his own?