Thanks for the backrub, eh?

When I get a sec, I'll post some of the hate mail I received after my little chat with Bill O'Reilly last night on Fox News. I figure that I must have done really well to provoke that kind of reaction from some viewers. (And to those of my countrymen and women who wrote to demounce me, I have to ask, why do you hate Canada?)

Anyway, if you would like to see this, and don't subscribe to Fox, the wonderful folks at Crooks and Liars have posted the video, with some very kind words. I especially like the headline:

Bill O'Reilly schooled by a Canadian

While you're at Crooks and Liars, stay a while. There's a lot of fun stuff there.

Finally, to Mr. O'Reilly, here's that ''research" you might be looking for:

While commercial broadcasters often use the word as if it were a category one could observe directly, public broadcasters are forced by their very mandate to justify their use of the word - the BBC at one point claimed it would label no one a "terrorist" as they considered it a political term. Throughout the IRA crises, the BBC steadfastly referred to "the IRA", "Republican forces" or to "militants". They avoided the term "terrorist" and even "extremist".

Once again, as we like to say in Canada, merci -- that's French -- for the memories.

Comments

[smacky]

Oh Antonia! You really are my hero! I can't believe you went on there with that whackjob. That man is nuts. I have the Outfoxed Dvd and watching him scream at that guy whose father died in the WTC was hair-raising. After watching that, you just have to know the man is cacked. Awesome jab with the IRA reference. The whole thing was like watching a ballet.

[Mark Bourrie]

You done good.
I love the way he lies, then changes the subject before you can respond. For instance, no one called the Americans "terrorists" during the revolutionary war. "Terrorist" is a new label, replacing that 19th century catch-all "anarchist". I think "terrorism" can be used as a description of a mode of conflict, if the subjects of the attacks are unknown to the attackers, and if the purpose of the attack is to heighten public fear and to generate a public backlash against a government policy. If there's a bombing, it should be called a bombing, but if it's ID'd as part of a strategy of terror bombing, that should be reported, too.
Terror bombings are nothing new. In fact, they were more common 100 years ago than they are now, in Europe and the U.S.. But I'll only write about that if someone pays me to.

[entozoa]

You. Are. My. Hero.
Take that, Bill O'Reilly!

[Robert McClelland]

This is the first time I've actually seen Bill O'Reilly's show and I see why people don't like him. He's a troll. He's nothing more than a usenet/blog troll who has been given a spot on a television network.

Anyway, good rebuttals to his empty right whinging nonsense. The stuff about the BBC and the IRA wiped his whole argument out. It's too bad though, that it all probably just whistled between his and his viewers ears.

As for the hate mail, enjoy it. It's always good to crush your enemies and hear the lamentations of their women.

[MoDuv]

Congrats to Mme Zerba,

I watched the O'Reilly-Zerbesias mexcan standoff and thought Mme Zerba more than held her own but that O'Reilly was quite effective in zeroing in on gLib moral relativism at the Corps.

Mme Zerb had a good crack at defending the standard issue reportorial-narrational "objectivity" MO; O'Reilly counter-punched with a broadside at the feckless Tony Berman, having noted Lew Grade's prior exemplary, humiliating stand down on the same semantic petard at the Beeb...O'Reilly then pointed out that Bernman was the boss at the Corps. and reporters had to obey his dicta or be shown the door--a point Mme Zerb did not bother to contest.

Anywhoo, I hope my old schoolchum, T-Star publisher Mike Goldbloom has taken note of his starbloggeuse's overnight sensational debut(20+ yrs in the making) as Canada's best all-round blogger and top media maven--I hope she is being remunerated at a level commensurate with her newly established Olympian (Parnassian?)status.

Mme Zerb has a set an unmatched, rigorous, posting pace which puts most of the competition to shame and has now opened up a Secretariat-style accomplishment gap between herself and her closet canblog contender(s).

Also, The Zerb blog is now truly interactive with her readers...all that remains is some cosmetic/layout enhancements and a full blog & media-links directory will which help drive daily traffic to the zerb site and then also direct same vsitors to other sites, a vital cog in the blog traffic-numbers growth game.

What's truly distinguished about the Zerb blog as of now, however, is that it manages to be quite parochially/regionally Canadian in cracater and purview and yet is starting to gain a global perch in reach and interest value.

...Once the T-Star and other legacy-media management types begin to understand the global branding game better as the inexorable, internet-driven, Darwinian winnowing process proceeds with traditional ,local and print & legacy media brands, they will begin to appreciate more home-grown talent that can hold its own against the emergent major media-brand marquee players!

When Canadian blogs and media mavens finally get around to trying to bid effectively for N.A. traffic numbers, my wager is that Mme Z will be able to win an audience share that outshines her Canuck contemporaries.

Bravo Mme Zerba! ...and hearty congrats on a plucky, gracious, dignified appearance on a show where gLibs are usually fodder for whingeing, howling dismemberment.

[Jason]

I don't know how you can go on a show like that without getting upset. The guy just threw unsubstantiated attacks without any argument or support and wouldn't give you a chance to respond.

[Rod]

Wow, did he ever go easy on you. You must have used some kind of liberal lefty ju-ju on him.

I love it when O'Reilly tells his guests where they're wrong.

And am I mistaken, or did he repeatedly confuse CBC and BBC?

R

[Renman!]

Antonia,

Hats off to you, girl! Next, I'd like you to lay a smackdown on David Frum's candy ass!

[Jason Hickman]

AZ: "... And to those of my countrymen and women who wrote to demounce me, I have to ask, why do you hate Canada?"

Ah, the "L'etat, c'est moi" defence ...

[Adam]

What I admire about Zerbisias's performance is the way that she ignored O'Reilly's insults and accusations. No defensiveness, no counter-attacks, she simply brushed them aside as irrelevant. As well, rather than try and backtrack when he conveniently changed subjects, she simply made more good points on his new topic.

A smart and difficult strategy. Well done.

[Jiminy C.]

Madame Z - you made it look too easy!
Of course, you have had a lot of practice rebutting 'tards like O'Reilly on sites closer to home, right?
BTW - I don't know whether O'Reilly has an alibi, but the Shepherds Bush London Tube station (one of those attacked this morning) is the stop for the BBC TV Centre (I know because I used to commute through there when I lived "over 'ome"!)

[Robert G.]

Ms. Z,

I'm a bit unclear about this: were you just baiting dingbat O'Reilly or is that a definition of terrorism that you're actually sticking to?

[nps]

O'Reilly is a clasical example of Americans who would have difficulty with a Grade 10 history exam...

[MWW]

Hey... I don't think you can claim victory over Blowhard O'Reilley unless he starts shouting "SHUT UP!" at you and turns your microphone off, threatens to beat you up and storms off the set. :)

Still... looks like you cleaned his clock pretty damn good Zerb! Good on ya girlfriend!

[Mike]

O'Reilly is an embarrassment, and I say that as a staunch righty.

I expected the segment would run longer (and that you'd be bitchier. Funny how our preconceived perceptions of people are usually way off).

You more than held your own against this clown. FOX needs to yank him off the air.

[Antonia Z]

For Robert G...

Absolutely, I would stick to that definition: the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and/or religious aims.
Listen, there must be hundreds of definitions, depending on the definers' politics and perspectives.
I could probably do a thesis on the subject. Perhaps people already have done just that.
What I find intriguing is how those who advocate using the word more frequently tend not to define it all.
So I was quite taken aback when O'Reilly agreed with me. It helped me considerably during the exchange.

[Robert G.]

Hang on--I can't look at the video at the moment, I'm going by the C&L transcript. It said simply "acts of violence against civilians." Is that accurate?

I don't believe that the definition of "terrorist/terrorism" is really as controversial as all that. I mean, I've read UN Conventions where it's spelled out pretty explicitly (although I believe the UN hasn't officially adopted a definition).

Look, no news agency worth a pinch of the proverbial likes to feel like it's buying an Administration's press releases, particularly on issues like this, but if you're going to use alternatives/euphemisms, espeically ones that are far less precise, you'd better have a damn good reason for doing so. "Not doing what the Americans want us to" is not it. Use journalistic standards, not political ones.

I have heard it argued that well, everyone knows what it's about, they can apply their own values to the news stories, readers aren't idiots, etc. This doesn't wash. Isn't this rather odd logic? We don't have to use the word because 99% of the readership will assume it? In that case, why use terms like murderer, paedophile, etc? The press should just report their acts and be done with it, since we readers are so good at the analysis thing.

[Paul]

A key element missing from your "definition" is whether or not it is being carried out by a recognisable military (or quasi-military body, such as uniformed police) under the orders of a recognised government.

Calling out the riot squad to quell a violent protest does NOT constitute terrorism, although your definition would claim otherwise. The IRA, on the other hand, were not a recognisable army, nor were Sinn Fein a recognised government.

It may have been convenient for anyone to agree rather than waste the whole time correcting it, but that doesn't make it correct.

[Mark Bourrie]

Anyone who wants to know how the O'Reillys of the world operate should look at transcripts of the 1944-45 Berlin "People's Court" hearings presided over by judge Roland Freisler. The behaviour and logical constructs of Freisler were very similar to O'Reilly's, including: the shutting off of microphones; the yelling of (the German equivalent of) "shut up!"; attempts to humiliate people; the tossing in of red herrings, faulty history and bad logic; vicious condemnations; hectoring of people; gross mislabelling of people's ideas; hysteria, etc. Count James von Moltke's reasoned, rational description of his hours before Freisler (in a last letter to his wife before he was hanged on piano wire) read very much like Antonia's of her time on O'Reilly.
(Fortunately, a well-aimed bomb dimantled both the People's Court and the judge himself on Feb. 3, 1945, the day after von Moltke was hanged for his conscientious objections to the Nazi regime).

[Paul]

And for anyone who is interested in doing a bit of research themselves, here are a couple links: one where the BBC refers to the IRA as terrorists, another (from a week ago) where Mr. O'Reilly discusses the BBC's reluctance (not refusal) to label the IRA (and more specifically the July 7 terrorists) as such.

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk/3652981.stm
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007214&docId=l:295098571&start=14

[Scoop]

Just watched the vid on crooksandliars...
Just how many times did O'Reilly 'um' and 'er' during that first little interchange?
Madame Z, it was a beautiful thing. Good job...

[Shallowest Purple]

I hate you.

You make me feel ashamed of myself.

[Ghost of a flea]

Heaven knows there are plenty of us in the Canadian blogosphere who have taken issue with your arguments (and more particularly some of your sources) but I hope you know we love you just the same.

[alexander o'neill]

I'd like to know when exactly Bill O'Reilly was in Nicaragua during the 1980s, he did say "I was there."

[Pat Anderson]

This was my first time seeing O'R in action... I've read transcripts in "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them" but this was the first time I've seen his arrogance in action.
I'm impressed that you were able to maintain your cool, and made your points. Congratulations! He looked like such a jerk.