There is no question that Bill O’Reilly and “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News  are wildly popular. His 8 p.m. show is the top-rated cable news program, averaging 2,650,000 million households per night in April 2009.

O’Reilly’s viewers are much more than just fans-they are followers. There is a difference. Fan casually listen. They are entertained in the moment. They go about their business.  Followers are focused. They listen intently. They process information and their reactions to the issues. They may take action based on those emotional reactions.  A follower may also be a fan but a fan is not necessarily a follower. Bill O’Reilly has a lot of followers. He is often able to inspire their legions to action on whatever  issue he chooses to support or to vilify.  The actions of his followers can range to from flooding switchboards and email in-boxes with everything from god bless you to thank you to F**K YOU!

I  admittedly do not know Bill O’Reilly. I have never met him.  I however am a first-hand witness to his power to quickly engage the masses to action on a particular issue.  I was not even involved with the issue in question. Yet his words had a direct effect on me, my family my ability to do my job and my fear for my personal safety.

In 2007, the movie “Redacted” was released.  It was a production of HDNet Films which in which my brother Mark Cuban has a major interest.  Bill took great interest in the movie, claiming that it was  inflammatory and would certainly incite violence against American troops In Iraq.  He called for a boycott of the movie.  He excoriated Mark for being involved with it. He labeled Mark  with the much dreaded “Pinhead” stating:

“there is no question the film will incite anti-American hatred around the world”

Bill was right and wrong.  There was anti-American hatred. The hatred however was right here at home.  The hated Americans were Mark, myself, our family and Dallas Mavericks employees.  Almost all of whom had nothing to do with the film. That was the only anti-American hatred that was incited and it was not incited by the movie.  It was incited by Bill’s inflammatory rhetoric  Did it translate into violence?  Thank god it did not.  It did however cause me to fear for my safety.(I had absolutely nothing to do with the film).  It caused my email box and my voice-mail  to fill with the most vile of hate messages

I also could no longer answer the phones as part of my job as the Executive Director of  The Fallen Patriot Fund.  A  fund founded by the Mark Cuban Foundation.  A fund that to date has given out over 4 million dollars to injured soldiers and the families of soldiers killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom.  For a period of about two weeks, about every other time I answered the phone I was greeted with hate filled, obscenity laced tirades over the movie.  There were threats as well.

Ironically, American wounded soldiers in need as well as families of KIA soldiers counting on timely grants from the Fallen Patriot Fund to make ends meet were the ultimate victims of O”Reilly’s Redacted rant.

You think Bill cared?  I doubt he even thought about it before or after Mark pointed out the dangerous effect of Bill’s words.  Soldiers experiencing delays in obtaining needed funds and our family safety were simply the collateral risk he stepped  over without looking down and undoubtedly laughed about  about with his producers and buds.  Here is a quote from Mark’s take on the situation:

“In response to Mr OReilly’s comments that “he is going to be my worst nightmare”. Well you have succeeded Mr OReilly. The people who take you literally took it upon themselves to call my businesses with bomb threats, threaten employees, myself and others with physical harm and wish every manor of death , injury and illness on us all. They also managed to fill up the telephone lines of the Fallen Patriot Fund so that we couldn’t conduct business, and maybe its coincidence, but the fund’s website went offline for the first time ever yesterday.”

Now we have  late term abortion doctor George Tiller shot dead.    O’Reilly never hid is contempt for  Dr. Tiller.  He was a vocal opponent of the late term abortions Tiller performed. Bill  repeatedly said on air that Tiller  had “blood on his hands.” He stated that Tiller was operating a “death mill“  He  labeled him “Tiller The Baby Killer” .

Strong words?  Certainly.   A call to action by his followers?  Not explicitly.  One would hope that O’Reilly would not make such statements  hoping the harm would befall the good doctor who was ultimately shot dead.

What is the point of this?

It is not that I think Bill O’Reilly bears some legal or moral responsibility for the death of Dr. Tiller.  I do not believe he does.

It is also not that I agree or disagree with his opinions of  Redacted. I frankly have never seen the movie. I probably never will.  Not my cup of tea.  There is however part of me that wonders if Bill  still optimistically hoping that American or coalition troops will stumble upon a safe house or terrorist training facility in Iraq  stocked with boot-leg copies of Redacted before we are completely out so he can give a “told you so” shout out to Mark and give him another “pinhead” award.

My point is that anyone who thinks Bill O’Reilly can not work his followers into a tornado frenzy capable of spitting out violent acts is naive in the extreme. My point is that anyone who truly believes that Bill O”Reilly does not know this and is not aware of this with every word he spouts is worse than naive, they are just plain stupid. That just as dangerous as Bill’s words.

The last point is that it ultimately goes back to what I have been saying time and time again in the context of the Facebook Holocaust Denial controversy. Along with the power to put out an unrestricted message to the media masses comes the responsibility to be socially conscious of the effect of that message.

In the end, I admit there a big difference between the Redacted and Tiller example.  The difference is that no one put a bullet in me or anyone in my family.  I guess the right nut-case follower did not take Bill seriously enough.

Bill O’Reilly’s Mark Cuban Redacted Rant

Bill Oreilly Says Dr. George Tiller Operating A “Death Mill”

What images are stored on your child’s cell phone?  It may be more than you think.  It may be a lot “less” than you think. It could impact your child’s life in the worst imaginable way.

Phillip Alpert, found out the hard way.  He got pissed at his  16 year old former girlfriend.  He took out his anger  by e-mailing naked photos  of her  to more than 70 people, including her parents, grandparents and teachers. She had taken the photos voluntarily.  Alpert, then 18, was charged with transmitting child pornography. He plead “nolo contendere” to the charges.  Today Alpert is serving five years of probation for the crime. He is also registered as a sex offender.  He must stay registered until he is 43 years old.  He recently appeared on Fox News and blamed his attorney for not making clear to him what his  plea would mean with regards to being required to register as a sex offender.  What Phillip does not say in the interview that if he tried the case the jury probably would have had no choice but to convict.  This may have resulted in mandatory prison time.

If you do not think this can happen head on down to Georgia and speak with Genarlow Wilson.  In his case teen sex at a party turned into a statutory rape conviction with a sex offender tag and mandatory 10 year prison sentence.  He was 17 and the girl was 15.  His conviction was eventually overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court but not before he spent two years of  the 10 behind bars.  A young life changed forever after what was really nothing more than poor teen judgment.  Genarlow also faced a similar choice. He was offered a much lighter sentence but would have still had to register as a sex offender. A conviction meant a mandatory 10 year sentence.  He chose to try the case.  He lost in the short term but is now free of the sex offender tag and moving on with his life.

Alpert is not an isolated case.” Sexting” is becoming the  “mainstream norm”  It has apparently lost all context among teens as to what it really means to “hit send. It has become so ingrained within the “play zone”  between generations Y and Z  that an almost complete disconnect has evolved between act of hitting send  and content being transmitted and stored on the other end when it comes to our cell phones.  In the teen mind  if it is transmitted by cell phone it “isn’t real” and not covered by any definition of moral responsibility or man made law much the same way a dollar bill in Las Vegas loses all context when converted into a gaming chip.  Much the same way two consenting teens hook up for a quickie at a high school house party.  Judgment that is flawed as a pure matter of age becomes even more so with consequences never envisioned until an indictment is handed down and a jury says guilty.

You may cry foul and exclaim that the images were not obscene. You may argue that  this was not the intent of child pornography laws. You may go on Bill O”Reilly and rant that the laws your child is being prosecuted under laws meant to deter pedophiles and perverts  and instead are being used “in loco parentis” when punishment for such indiscretions should be left to the parents.  You may very well be doing all these things as the process takes on a life of its own.  You may be doing these things as  your child is indicted,  convicted and his/her appeal winds its way slowly through the justice system while he serves his mandatory minimum sentence  at the nearest state or federal penitentiary with real perverts and child molesters or at some “gladiator” juvenile facility.

Moral of story?  Have the talk…

©2009 Brian Cuban

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

The email exchange between Mark Cuban and SEC attorney Jeffrey Norris has given renewed attention to the 9-11 conspiracy film “Loose Change“   While he goes off on some bizarre tangents, the gist of the email exchange beginning in March 2007 was Norris accusing Mark of being “unpatriotic” in that Cuban’s Magnolia Pictures was considering picking up the film for distribution. (They ultimately chose not to distribute the film)    What is “Loose Change”?

Loose Change is a video that examines the attacks of September 11.  There are now several revised versions presented in documentary form.  All three versions can be found all over YouTube.  The basic premise of the 3 versions is that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and conducted within the United States Government.  In trying to make that point, the film focuses on anomalies and discrepancies in film footage, interviews etc etc.

What was Mark’s involvement with Loose Change?  Mark has a stake in a media distribution company called Magnolia Pictures. In early 2007 it was publicized that Magnolia was considering obtaining the distribution rights for Loose Change. That is when the media backlash began.  I am not going to try to summarize Mark’s reasoning in considering distribution or in deciding not to. There is content with regards to his views and public sentiment all over the internet.   Here is an interview with Bill “O’Reilly who made the basically the same accusations against Mark with regards to the movie Redacted

Where do I stand?  I have never seen Loose Change.  I have no desire to.  To me the entire premise is ludicrous. How can I pass judgment on a movie I have never seen?  How many people reading this passed judgment on “Redacted” and Mark Cuban based on Bill O”Reilly’s “Talking Points” but never saw the movie. That is how consumer movie viewing decisions are made. They are made by word of mouth.  Enough said there.  Unless people are agreeing to rob a bank or get rid of someone’s spouse for the insurance money, I am skeptical in the extreme of conspiracy theories.  While I am not saying they never happens re Watergate, I believe that in general, government conspiracies theories are coping tools for those looking for explanations of all that is wrong with the human condition.  When all worldly logical explanations fail, blame the government.   I have also never seen Redacted.  I found the plot of U.S. soldiers raping and pillaging in Iraq distasteful while the conflict was ongoing.  I certainly did not feel that way when I watched Brian Depalma’s similar and much more successful movie, Casualties Of War.  Casualties, starring Michael J. Fox,  dramatized the true story of a group of American soldiers kidnapping and raping a Vietnamese girl while on patrol. Why didn’t we all scream about that? (Some Vietnam Vets may have)  I believe it is because when our only context for an event is historical, it breeds indifference, not emotion.

I support any artist’s right to make such films. I supports any distributor’s right to distribute such films without limitation unless it would violate the law to do so(child pornography).  I support my right and your right to be offended, boycott and encourage others to boycott content we disagree with.  I support the First Amendment.  My views can best be characterized by the following exchange I had with one of my Facebook friends.   I have redacted his name to protect his privacy.

Brian’s Facbook Friend is disgusted by the SEC’s ridiculous waste of time and money trying to unjustly get Mark Cuban. I don’t agree with Mark’s 9-11 movie, but this is power abuse. 10:15am

- 9 Comments

Brian Cuban at 10:16am November 22
It was not Mark’s 9-11 movie, Magnolia was simply considering distributing it. He had nothing to do with its production… )

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 12:26pm November 22
Brian, I dont agree with the distribution of that absolute “bull—-” movie. No one in America should agree to the distribution of that trash. I still however agree with alot of Mark’s positions on various matters and admire his drive. The Movie distribution thing is a HUGE MISTAKE though. That does not change my total defense on Mark on this SEC deal. He is not guilty of Insider Trading and will be vindicated in my estimation.

Brian Cuban at 12:51pm November 22
I am right there with you on your right to voice your disapproval, boycott and encourage others to disapprove and boycott film, books, art and all media content that you disagree with or find personally offensive. I am right there with Mark, other distributors, and artists of all disciplines to create and distribute content without fear of censorship. Content that may be unpopular or even offensive to segments of the public. I love this country! )

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:07pm November 22
Brian, I love this country too. However, the film in question rose to the level of of absolute untruth. Distribution of a film denying the holocaust would be an example of another item that content should not be distributed by any reputable firm. Distributing content that is designed to promote an absolutely untrue portrayal of events does not merit distribution from a credible source. There are definitely limits to what a credible firm should distribute if they want to have any kind of reputation of respect. Otherwise, the firm will be a joke and bring discredit to the firm and decision makers connected to the firm which in this case is Mark. I lend great latitude to distributors and artists to creative concepts. This however is not an issue of creative, unpopular or simply offensive. It is PROPAGANDA (TOTAL LIES) meant to confuse very simple facts. Sometimes mistakes are made, this one is a huge mistake for any reputable firm to distribute this production

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:10pm November 22
Brian, with that said I totally defend Mark on the SEC charges. Additionally you guys have done a great job promoting Dallas, advocating rationale business practices and challenging the community in many ways that I salute. I am with you guys 100 percent on your fight for transparency in publicly traded companies and the energy Mark puts into everything he does. On this one movie distribution we will have to agree to disagree on though.

Brian Cuban at 1:19pm November 22
My response is so what. People have the right in this country to make and distribute crappy films, propaganda, confuse facts, distort facts etc  as long to do so does not violate applicable laws. We as consumers can choose not to see crappy propaganda films that are untrue. I doubt a film trying to legitimize holocaust denial would get distribution but if it did, I would not see it, I might even show up with a sign boycotting it. I however would not stomp on the Constitution by arguing they did not have a right to make it or get distribution for it. Holocaust denial as offensive as I find it, is not illegal in this country. And there are limits on what can be distributed. Those limits are outlined in Supreme Court cases such as child pornography.  Ironically it’s people wanting to censor and stomp on the 1st amendment that give these films more attention than they would otherwise get.

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:25pm November 22
Brian, right to distribution is not my point. My point is legitimate reputation. If a firm wants to earn reputation, then judgment has to be demonstrated. That is my only point.

Brian Cuban at 1:29pm November 22
I agree-that’s a business decision. It may be why Magnolia decided not to distribute it. You can see you hit one of my “hot buttons” Its not about Mark or the movie, I have never even seen Loose Change or Redacted. why? Because I found Redacted offensive and the premise of Loose Change was just plain stupid.

Brian’s Facebook Friend at 1:31pm November 22
That is good to hear then. Good judgment dictated rejection.

If you want to limit the First Amendment, start filing lawsuits to stop distribution of every movie that offends your your sensibilities. You have that right.  See how far that gets you.  Just ask the attorneys for  Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt. They will set you straight.  If you want to argue for suppression of free speech you can also give  Jeffrey Norris a call.  Just know you will get  an earful on any other topic you don’t care about.

LOOSE CHANGE

1. Don’t you cringe whenever you hear a politician or celebrity say “I was taken out of context”. It is a phrase that is the public relations kiss of death.

Whenever you hear it, you don’t even have to know what the statement was. You automatically know it was something that made the person look like a complete idiot, bigot, pervert or just plain asshole…

It is the second desperation line of defense right after complete denial. It is a statement of public relations or political survival. In its simplistic form, it is a person trying to do his or her best spin to recover from looking like a complete moron. This got me thinking about my favorite “taken out of context” claims by celebrities and political candidates. Here are some of my favorites.

1. ” I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman”

How can this not be tops on anyones list. Former President Bill Clinton’s first stated that he was taken out of context then lobbied for a new definition of sexual relations to be added to Miriam-Webster. I saw a recent photo of Monica Lewinsky the other day. The context just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

2. “Knappy Headed Hoes”

Am I the only one who had never heard of Don Imus before he was “taken out of context” with his(video) “knappy headed hoes” remark? Until this story broke, I had never heard the phrase before so I had no context to take his statement of out context. We are all still waiting for Don to give us context where such a statement would not be derogatory and insulting to whoever it was said… I wont hold my breath… In any event, someone who looks like a “knappy headed Frankenstein” shouldn’t be throwing stones.

3. ‘I remember landing under sniper fire”

When CBS news first broke that the closest sniper to Hillary was probably in Serbia, Hillary first stated that she was “taken out of context”. She went to a “misspeak” and settled on “fatigue induced delirium” Based on her presidential campaign to date, I think she may have in fact taken a stray sniper shot to the brain…. She has been “out of context” ever since…

Speaking of Hillary how we can not include her stating she was “taken out of context’ when she claimed she was related to Sir Edmund Hillary.

4. Who out there has seen the video Tom Cruise made for the Church Of Scientology? Regardless of your views on Scientology you would have to admit that Tom’s behavior and statement’s on the tape run the gamut of simply strange, to outright bizarre to full fledged “Martian status”. In Tom’s most recent Oprah love fest’ he stated that the video was made specifically for the church of Scientology and has been….. yes you guessed it…. “taken out of context” Tom does not enlighten us with exactly what context we should be putting it in… I guess the only way to have context is to be a member of the Church of Scientology. That leaves 99 9/10 of the world with no context at alI. I have watched the video and even with the “Scientology” context I have come to the conclusion that even if not all “Men Are From Mars” I am very suspicious about Tom’s origins…..

5. “We should take him out”

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez should be glad evangelist Pat Robertson is not running the CIA. In 2005 when speaking about the Chavez regime he stated that our special forces should (video) “take him out.” When confronted with the fact that it is not a good idea for a public figure to publicly call for the assassination of a sitting head of state, especially one that sends us a lot of oil, Robertson stated that “he was taken out of context” He went on to state:

“I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him”

Its ok Pat. No context needed….. I agree with you. Lets “take him out”……

Fox’s Bill O’reilly Says His Stereotypes “taken out of context”

I am no fan of Bill O’Reilly so it always gives me pleasure to be able to point out his pinhead true “colors”

During a(video) 35-minute discussion about race relations on his syndicated “Radio Factor,” O’Reilly repeatedly spoke of “demeaning” portrayals of African Americans, particularly in hip-hop videos. To illustrate his contention that such images provide a false impression of black culture, he recalled having dinner with the Reverend Al Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a famous soul-food restaurant in Harlem:

“I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City,” he said. “It was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks [and has a] primarily black patronship. It was the same. And that’s really what this society is really all about now here in the U.S.A. There’s no difference.”

Bill must have been expecting to see American Gangster’s Frank Lucas selling “blue magic heroin” out of his wheelchair in the restaurant.

Ok Bill, what context should we put it in? I listened to the entire interview and I still think you are a racially insensitive idiot. That is my context….

The list could go on and on. These things happen in politics by the thousands…. These are just some of my favorites. What are some of your favorite “taken out of context” statements?