My Appearance on the O'Reilly Factor

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

My Appearance on the O'Reilly Factor

Friday, 19 March 2010 07:39

Being a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s show was an exciting and at times surreal experience. The interview itself was awkward, for I never saw O’Reilly himself; I sat in a studio in California, heard O’Reilly through an earpiece, and spoke to a camera lens. Maybe the set up contributed to the choppy nature of the interview. But, as the many commentators on my Facebook page pointed out, interrupting guests is part of O’Reilly’s style and he has trouble being anything other than confrontational. I’m not a regular watcher of Fox, but I had seen enough to be prepared.

While I was asked to provide some context for Hanks’ statements, O’Reilly had his own agenda which involved a similar form of simplification, so the format wasn’t conducive to examining something as complex as our involvement in World War II. In my podcast lecture course, “Introduction to U.S. History,” I decided that World War II needed a whole week and three full lectures; check those out if you’re interested in learning more about the war in the Pacific, Europe, and on the home front. These lectures also cover the history of Japanese internment camps in the United States, which are certainly relevant to any complete discussion of race and WWII.

Ultimately, while appearing on the O’Reilly show was exciting (especially the many opinionated emails I received!), it was not particularly satisfying. In the end, being on the show reinforced my belief in the Jeffersonian values of the University of Virginia. In today’s media saturated world, colleges and universities are one of the few places we are encouraged to listen as well as speak, to take our time reaching conclusions, and to incorporate complexity into our view of the world. I hope this larger outlook is something all of my students remember, long after they have forgotten the details of my lectures.

Comments (10)

|2010-03-19 08:31:49 Tristan Band - Couldn't have said it any better myself

People like O'Reilly really get on my nerves; they have this manichean, black-&-white view of things. America is always the 'good guy' fightin' the 'bad guys'. As for the idea of us being attacked for no reason? I think the years of meddling in the affairs of the Middle East would prove otherwise. Speaking of the Japanese internments, this little tidbit really demonstrates the chasm between conservatism and libertarianism: when other newspapers were looking the other way, R.C. Hoiles's newspapers were actively condemning the internments.

The Jeffersonian values of university; appreciating complexity and listening to other views. That would be wonderful. A Jeffersonian foreign policy also sounds nice.

|2010-03-19 09:13:10 rob - Great response Jennifer!

Obviously, O'Reilly was pushing hard for a response that would give credence to his particular view. You stayed on course with the point Jennifer and I appreciated that. My father in law was with the 4th Marines and wounded on Iwo Jima. If indeed racism played a part in the pschy of the American soldier, it was the result of a common human tendency of war. But as Jennifer said, it was not the prime reason that our Government had in determining to initiate war with Japan. It was a "geo-political" goal. Thanks

|2010-03-19 09:40:55 Beverly Robbins - Bev

I admired your appearance on O'Reilly. I know he's a tough interviewer, but he often plays the Devil's Advocate to get both sides of the picture out there. You did a great job of putting out your points, wish it could have been a longer interview.

|2010-03-19 12:42:00 Ralph Litton - Nice job!

I wish he would have let you speak more on the subject, but I thought you did a terrific job!

Also, I really enjoyed your U.S. history podcasts. Excellent work!

Best Regards,

Ralph Litton

|2010-03-21 15:17:43 Paul D. Stewart - You Hung in there tough

O'Reilly's style is to get the guest either agree with him or convince people that the guest is stupid (even if the point is about the existance of gravity). You hung in there tough and tried to keep the discussion intelligence. Over the heads of folks who watch O'Reilly.

|2010-03-21 15:38:05 KPO'M

I saw you on O'Reilly and thought you did fine. You appeared to be looking away, but that's probably for the reasons you cite. I've been listening to Fox lately because of the whole health care debate, but you are basically right about O'Reilly. He's fairly pompous and usually cuts off guests and tries to take over the conversation. Of nightly the Fox hosts, Greta van Susteren is the most balanced. I'd put O'Reilly over Hannity because O'Reilly at least attempts to present both sides of the issue fairly. I actually sense that O'Reilly's views aren't that different from yours. However, he clearly wanted to make this about Tom Hanks so that's how he led the interview.

|2010-04-03 05:54:35 Patrick Manley - O'Reilly Interview

I thought you did very well. O'Reilly is a smart man, very direct and to the point. It was clear he respected your opinions. Yes, he often cuts off guests, but typically when the conversation gets too wordy or off topic. I expect you to be a future guest.

|2010-04-14 11:25:22 David Landau - NPR

I enjoyed the NPR Interview, but I'm Not so sure that "Selfishness" was justified and was stereotyped by a caller as a "package deal." Rand purely defined her words clearly (see Richard Mitchell) and from my take she meant selfishness as of or relating to one's self interest - just that simple.

|2010-05-22 04:04:33 Jeremy Wepener - Fox interview

Hilarious. Poor old Tom Hanks doesn't realise that from a Fox News perspective he's so far left that he's dropped off the richter scale. O'Reilly's dubious interview style is along the lines of "the United States exists to spread freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the world, and my question to you Professor Burns is...what makes this hate filled commie tick?".

|2010-06-30 16:13:14 David Alexander, Toluca Lake - Post WWII vs. Islamic Terror

The main difference with post-WWII Germany and Japan, versus current Islamic terrorist groups is that Germans and Japanese were loyal to a human being, Adolf Hilter and the Emperor.

Once Hitler committed suicide, all but a few of the most loyal Nazis gave up and renounced their party, and once the Emperor asked the Japanese to surrender, they followed his command with loyalty. The Germans and Japanese could move on and begin to rebuild.

Islamic terrorists are not loyal to a human being that can be killed, removed from power or subdued. They are fighting for a deity, Allah. Who cannot be removed or killed.

Which means an ENDLESS stream of adherents can be encouraged to join a movement. The leader they follow will NEVER ask them to surrender or back down. He cant, he is not a human being.

WWII Germany and Japan are not similar to Islamic terrorist groups, and it is a mistake to to find a post-war reconstruction correlation between them.

Its the one thing Bush, Cheney,...