Bill O'Reilly vs. San Francisco
 

<b>Talk host's towering rant: S.F. not worth saving</b>

By Joe Garofoli / San Francisco Chronicle

Conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly is ready to scratch San Francisco off the map of the United States. Gone. Coit Tower? Terrorists can blow it up, and the rest of the country shouldn't care.

The Fox News talk-show host and one-man conservative media juggernaut has concluded that the United States and San Francisco just don't go together anymore. Voting to oppose military recruitment in public schools and to ban handgun ownership, as San Franciscans did Tuesday, means the city should be cut off from federal dollars. And then some.

"You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds,' " O'Reilly said Tuesday on his radio show as San Franciscans were approving the two measures. Perhaps, he didn't realize that he'd be speaking mostly to foreign tourists and suburbanites if he were standing in Union Square.

"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on. "And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

San Franciscans might be offended by this invitation, or perhaps even threatened, if more of them visited Coit Tower.

On a cool gray Thursday afternoon, the San Francisco landmark was filled, as usual, with tourists from Ohio, Texas and other states where TV's "The O'Reilly Factor" and its syndicated radio companion, "The Radio Factor," pull better ratings than in San Francisco.

When visitors were told of O'Reilly's remarks, several had the same question: "Why would he say that?"

The few locals found at the tower had another: "Who's Bill O'Reilly again?"

Those familiar with O'Reilly tried to put the comment in context.

"The man is a sensationalist fool," said Paul Hickey, a 76-year-old visiting from Texas.

"He's irritating," said his wife, Judy Hickey, 67.

Others interpreted the remark as O'Reilly's trademark brand of hyperbole. His mastery of this form of entertainment has made him a best-selling author and top-rated talk-show host.

"I just think he's blowing wind," said Jim Adelman, 64, visiting from Ohio.

Reaction came swiftly from City Hall, which has taken other arrows in the aftermath of Tuesday's election. Thursday on KNEW-AM -- O'Reilly's Bay Area radio home -- conservative talk-show host Jeff Katz ripped handgun-measure supporters on San Francisco's "Board of Stupidadvisors."

Board of, uh, Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, whose district includes Coit Tower, suggested that O'Reilly should get his head examined.

"It sounds like he's on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,'' Peskin said.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said, "I've never been impressed with what he's had to say, and I'm not impressed now. Consider the source. Remember, this is the guy who wanted me arrested after (San Francisco sanctioned same-sex marriages last year). He never let his opinion get in the way of the facts."

Imagine if O'Reilly had read the plaque on the front of Coit Tower, which describes its benefactor and namesake, Lillie Hitchcock Coit, as a woman "who smoked cigars and often dressed as a man to gamble in North Beach saloons."

Then again, Coit Tower fans should not feel special about being singled out. This isn't the first time O'Reilly has discussed the destruction of a famous building on the air with an aural twinkle in his eye.

In September, a couple of weeks after Hurricane Katrina damaged the Gulf Coast, O'Reilly used the natural disaster to poke fun at one of his favorite targets, the United Nations.

"Bush addressed the U.N., says he wants to be steadfast in battling terrorism," O'Reilly said on his radio show. "I'm sure all the U.N. people fell asleep. They don't really care about anything over there at all. I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else. Just flooded them out. And I wouldn't have rescued them."

After United Nations Foundation President Timothy Wirth asked O'Reilly to apologize, the talk-show host replied with an on-the-air primer on the radio biz:

"Well, apparently Tim Wirth has never listened to talk radio," O'Reilly said. "So I will speak very slowly to him. It was a jest, sir. We exaggerate on the radio.

"Wise up."

Efforts to reach O'Reilly through Fox News on Thursday were unsuccessful.

At least one liberal media watchdog group was offended by O'Reilly's Coit Tower remark. Media Matters for America President David Brock said, "He's encouraging terrorist attacks. It's over the top."

But isn't O'Reilly allowed the same type of latitude that liberals have said other entertainers should be afforded?

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, comedian Bill Maher was criticized by White House officials for saying, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." Maher apologized, and his public hushing by the White House made him a favorite of Bush-bashers.

"Yes, there are people saying things like that, like Bill Maher and 'The Daily Show,' but if you look at O'Reilly, his show is presented as a 'no spin zone,' " Brock said. "People take it seriously."

Those people include Brock's group, which records every minute of O'Reilly's programs. Is that one of those entry-level jobs where you pay your dues?

"No," Brock said, "but maybe it should be."

O’Reilly responds:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/12/oreilly-responds/

I like San Francisco :D Work is quiet and my wife is studying for med school exams so I was going to pack up my bike and go ride around the city for a few weeks (I can stay with friends for free). But then work arrived. Oh well.

I have nothing more to add. Other than that O'Reilly is an anus, and I'd gladly tell him that to his face (rare, for me).

I was just at Coit tower Thursday night. What a beautiful city. F*ck Riley!

I lived in the Fillmore District for six months while I was finishing up my junior year at Tamalpais High in Mill Valley.

If a cup of strong coffee didn't wake you up, then high winds on the Golden Gate Bridge always did the trick!

San Francisco is the world's best city. Hands down.

As for Bill O'Reilly, well, I don't think anything needs to be said ....

Lived on Russian Hill for two years when I was young, single, and carefree.

O'Reilly is a mouthy jack@ss. That problem can be solved by ignoring him.

I like Bill O'Reilly.
his tounge in cheek jokes aside, truth is SF is a wacko leftist paradise.

I don't care much for O'Reilly....but he is right.

Arizona Bay

I lived in Sacramento for a year and went down to Frisco several times. While I would agree that it is a beautiful city, I would certainly NOT think it is the world's "best" city. The simple matter that anyone, even a 5 year old child can pick up any number of free "newspapers" on the street (they are just open in bins for you to take) that advertise gay prostitutes, S&M stores, etc makes me wonder about the moral fabric of that city. Modern day Sodom.

if we had to label a modern day sodom. i bet it wouldnt even be in this country. vegas if it had to be.

oR is an idiot. dumb to speak that way, about any city. san francisco is a fantastic city. the tourist industry speaks for itself. but feel free, all you religious closed minded freaks, bad mouth away! :D

Yeah, Vegas would probably be it, but with Frisco a close second...that is NOT to say I agree with O'Reilly...

hmmn been to Amsterdam lately :) same same... except its all legal there. Their model in some respects is superior to ours IMO.

agreed his childsh rmarks were out of place. I think it represents not just a frustration with the lack of morality and the contradiction of gun control but more with the wacko leftist policies that make a great physical location into the weirdest place in the USA to live. At least in Vegas you know it's a costume..in that obscenely gay city you know its real !

Just for clarity, I wasn't saying that SF was the most Godless place on the face of the earth, just refuting the claim it was the Best City in the world...

Bill's an ass no doubt but he's also not off the mark on this one.

He's guilty more of sensationalizm here than anything else.

If SF won't allow recruiters in highschools then they will forfiet some federal dollars, I think it relates to some of the programs offered on highschools like Jr. ROTC and such as those are sponsored by the fed.

It's likley that SF folks will be glad the ROTCs are gone; it's really their loss, their kid's loss and their communities loss. The will not benefit from this in any single way. They would get more mileage out of protesting the recruiters when they are on campus or at least exposing the fact that the military is a great place to get life experience but you could also die very violently.

The gun thing is just a stunt, I would be very suprised if there was anyone foolish enough to think it would pass the constitution.

Every major city has one of these publications. South, North, East and West. And if you were an American you'd feel pleased that they exist, whether or not you purchase the services advertised therein. But if you were a fundamentalist Muslim, you'd be uncomfortable with that level of freedom.

San Francisco has regularly, over a long period of time, been voted and considered the World's Favorite City. And for good reason. It's almost a mirror image of Seattle.

And just for clarity, I was not calling you a Muslim Fundamentalist. Just illustrating an interesting pot-calling-the-kettle-black thing at this pivotal point in history, and what that says about the future direction of our nation and its freedoms. Sometimes it looks like the terrorists and the conservative Christians have the same goal in mind for my country.

Supe,

With all due respect, I don't think that newspapers that can be picked up by a child on the street advertising God knows what complete with pornographic pictures is a freedom that should be celebrated. At what point is it not a fantastic thing to you? How about Las Vegas where there are countless people lining the streets handing out flyers for prostitutes. Is that a great freedom as well? Should be expose our children to everything under the sun so they can feel how "free" they are? How about a little common decency and the idea that I should be FREE to raise my kids and take them to a major US city without the fear that they will see she-male porno? Am I free to do that or should I just stay away from Frisco altogether?

Also, for the record, I personally saw these newspapers in Frisco while I was in high school...they made the rounds of the school bus on the way back from our field trip. Not sure if they still exist now or not.

Lefties, please respond to this statement, true or false:

By banning military recruiting in high schools (where most military recruits come from), San Francisco is telling the US that it doesn't want US military protection, or that it wants recruits from other states to protect them instead.

How ****** arrogant is that!?!?!

Reilly's a sensationalistic attention hound, and I don't care for him or his style. But that doesn't mean his point isn't right. If SF doesn't want military protection, I say pull out all defense installations there and let Al Queda have their way.

Yep they still exist and again, they exist in every major city. In Seattle, it is called The Stranger, and while I don't see full-on graphic nudity, there is a section of photo ads for prostitutes and other services for sexual wierdos. And there is a "personals" section. And the articles are all over the map, with virtually no hold barred. And the rag is FREE.

No, I'm not comfortable with children looking at it, at least not my children, when they are young. I don't use the services advertised therein either, but I'm glad there can be such a thing. It's a freedom thing. And those who would censure others in my country are going to lose the argument anyway. Any five year-old can gain access to highly explicit material on the Internet.

I'd agree with you that keeping these materials out of the hands of little ones is an important issue, and I can't get comfortable with the thought that they have this access, but some of the alternatives are unacceptable restrictions in freedom of expression. My approach as a parent is to restrict. But my approach as a citizen is to not censure.