If you really want to get a feel for what “The O’Reilly Factor” is all about, you really just have to watch the last few seconds of any episode. It is in these last few seconds, every night of the week, when Bill O’Reilly looks into the camera, tells his viewers that “We’re looking out for YOU,” and then flashes a big smile. It’s the phoniest moment on all of television. And that’s saying something. Take a look- O’Reilly’s smile in this moment is completely forced and artificial to the point of being strangely creepy. The smile is a lie. He is not a happy, jovial man but, rather, an angry and vicious one. Equally dishonest in this moment is the idea that Bill O’Reilly is looking out for YOU. O’Reilly fancies himself a straight-talker but in reality he’s a used car salesman of Clintonian proportions. His approach on The Factor is much more closely aligned with the role of lawyer than journalist. Journalists are seekers of truth. O’Reilly, in contrast, thinks he already knows the truth. He starts every show with a firmly set agenda and his purpose is to convince as many viewers as possible- the TV-land jury- to embrace his conservative view. Guests on his show are not sources of information, they are witnesses being cross-examined by O’Reilly for the purpose of proving a pre-conceived point. A quick look at just a few prominent issues of the day demonstrates the skill and dishonesty of the O’Reilly approach.

ISSUE #1: The “Left Wing Media:” Since the days of Spiro Agnew’s reference to the news media as “nattering nabobs of negativism,” the conservative movement has been obsessed with the idea of an elite liberal media that systematically persecutes conservative issues and candidates. This assumption has gained considerable momentum in the modern day and, indeed, Ailes and FOX News make little secret of the fact that their network was conceived as a “fair and balanced” response to the liberal elite. Certainly, an honest argument can be made that major newspapers and television news departments have tilted to the left at times. In the hands of propagandists such as Ailes and O’Reilly, however, the concept of the liberal elite media becomes something more: an inoculation against any form of criticism whatsoever. If the media is dominated by a liberal elite conspiracy, the logic goes, then there is no need to respond seriously to outside criticism. Like various conservative politicians, O’Reilly and FOX News use the idea of the liberal elite media as a propaganda tool, an excuse to avoid responding to legitimate inquiries and criticisms from credible sources. The very purpose of the media in a democratic society is to take a critical approach towards those in power. Those in power have traditionally sought to resist such prodding. By trumpeting the myth of the liberal elite media conspiracy, O’Reilly provides rhetorical protection not only for himself, but for the Bush Administration and all politicians of the right as well. The intention, and all too often the effect, is to discredit any form of skeptical media inquiry that originates from anything other than a conservative source.

ISSUE #2: Campaign Finance Reform: The O’Reilly/Ailes double standard often reaches absurd proportions in “The Factor’s” discussions of campaign finance reform. O’Reilly has the remarkable ability to conduct a complete segment about campaign finance-related corruption in which the sole buzzwords are Clinton, Gore, Reno, BuddhistTemple, Riady, etc. Watching such a discussion is truly mystifying. It’s like a video-SAT question: What’s missing from this paragraph? Answer: DeLay, Hastert, McConnell, Bush, Enron, and just about every other lobbyist, politician, and corporate hack, Republican or Democrat, within a 50-mile radius of Washington D.C. Campaign finance reform is, of course, a systemic issue that touches Republicans and Democrats equally. When O’Reilly and Ailes address the issue in terms of the individual moral failings of specific politicians of the left, they exhibit a form of selective myopia that makes for wonderful propaganda.

ISSUE #3: Education: In O’Reilly’s reporting of the education crisis in America, the anchor creates another lie, this time based on a ridiculously simplistic “analysis” of a complex social problem. O’Reilly claims to be outraged by the fact that 60% of poor black fourth graders cannot read. Perhaps he really is. So whose fault is it? It’s the fault of the left, of course. In a compelling example of strangely twisted logic, O’Reilly offers the following analysis of the education issue: Bill Clinton and the federal government failed miserably. They wasted billions of dollars on public education and, still, our schools are not working. Based on this, O’Reilly asserts that it is foolish for democrats to ask for a larger investment in education. Although he is not clear on what the answer to the problem is, O’Reilly is sure of one thing: Our schools suck and he doesn’t want any more of his tax money spent on them!

Once again, Ailes and O’Reilly have achieved the desired propaganda effect through their application of selective myopia. In blaming the education problem on the left, O’Reilly conveniently ignores a few minor details such as the fact that education funding is primarily a state issue, and, most of all, the socioeconomic injustice surrounding school funding. Not once has O’Reilly mentioned the fact that schools are funded largely on the basis of property taxes. The wealthier the neighborhood, the more funding for the school. One way or another, the obvious reason why poor black kids can’t read is because their schools are provided with less funding and resources than schools in wealthier areas. O’Reilly complains about the billions spent on education, but are billions being spent in poor neighborhoods? Although O’Reilly is actually a former teacher, has he checked out a school in the inner city recently? If so, could he possibly walk away with the idea that such schools are getting too much money? The very notion is absurd. Check the facts, it’s a simple equation- more money equals better resources, better teachers, better schools. This is why public schools in middle and upper-class white suburbs are categorically better than schools in poor minority populated inner-city regions. For O’Reilly and Ailes to use the education crisis to make their case for less government spending truly reveals the degree to which they are willing and able to callously part from the truth in the interests of making a point. It also might provide some indication as to the depths of their cynicism.

ISSUE #4: Bush Administration: O’Reilly’s coverage of the Bush administration further typifies the subtle brilliance of Ailes’ propaganda. One word that O’Reilly uses frequently in reference to Bush is “honesty.” Whereas he habitually questions the sincerity and motivations of Democratic pols, O’Reilly conveniently refuses the peek behind whatever superficial veneer that Bush is presenting to public. When it comes to the Democrats, O’Reilly takes it upon himself to say, “this is what they’re really up to.” Most recently, for example, O’Reilly has highlighted a new venture spearheaded by billionaire lefty George Soros which, according to O’Reilly, is setting out to “smear” John McCain in the upcoming general election. This may or may not be the case. The problem, however, is that O’Reilly never provided such behind-the-scenes coverage of the conservative movement to destroy Bill Clinton. Nor, for that matter, has he ever looked into the machinations of the “Swift Boat Veterans” group designed to smear Kerry in 2004. In fact, a leading funder of this group was recently appointed to a cushy ambassadorial position by Bush. Hmmm. So it seems that maybe there are some nefarious smear campaigns emanating from the right as well. However, the O’Reilly Factor will not report on this. Only when liberals conspire in this way will it be exposed on the airways of FOX News. This is the epitome of unfair reporting. Once again, the lies, corruption and hypocrisy are present in equal measures on the left and right. They are by-products of the American political system, not of one particular side. Yet, to be a watcher of the O’Reilly Factor is to be misled into the false idea that the left is prone to dishonest maneuvering while the right is generally populated by a bunch of swell, honest fellas.

For pro-Bush propagandists such as O’Reilly and Ailes, the real secret to covering the Bush Administration is not covering the Bush Administration, not with any sort of critical eye at least. Ailes understands better than anyone that Bush’s handlers are working night and day to sculpt a public image, to generate photo ops and spew carefully tailored rhetoric that Bush will inevitably deliver like a fourth-grader reading a book report in class that his sister wrote for him. Good propaganda seeks to amplify the public image and, at all costs, avoid contradicting it. On “The Factor,” you’ll rarely see an attempt to penetrate whatever image, idea, or explanation is being projected to the world. As O’Reilly tells it, Bush is basically a nice, honest guy who believes in less intrusive government. O’Reilly demonstrates no inclination to shed the same critical light on the Bush presidency that he shines on liberal icons such as Janet Reno, Jesse Jackson, and, of course, the Clintons. And he won’t. While FOX News may criticize Bush’s political maneuvering, his handling of the war (how can you not?) or his ability to “sell his ideas” to the American people, they won’t criticize Bush’s sincerity or honesty. This, of course, would threaten the bottom-line of post-Clinton conservative propaganda: Democrats dishonest and immoral/Republicans honest and moral.

Based on “The Factor’s” coverage of Bush, as well as its treatment of the other issues highlighted above, it is apparent that Ailes and O’Reilly are hardly dedicated to providing “fair and balanced” journalism. O’Reilly’s show is not about truth, it’s about propaganda. And it’s about power. O’Reilly knows that the media has the power to shape public opinion, and he gets off on it. One of the watershed moments in the history of “The Factor” came when O’Reilly greeted Al Gore’s former campaign manager with the following: “Did you know that Al Gore would have won the election if he had come on The Factor? We have many viewers in Florida, and if had come on here and taken the hard questions and acquitted himself well, I believe he would have won the election.” Note that O’Reilly was not speculating that Gore might have won if he came on the show, he was telling Gore’s campaign manager that he absolutely would have. Thus, the entire fate of the 2000 presidential campaign, the most powerful office in the free-world, all came down to an interview, or lack thereof, with Bill O’Reilly? And he calls the so-called liberal elite media “condescending?” Can you say meg-a-lo-maniac? Good, because Bill O’Reilly is a dangerous guy. Or at least he would like to be. Hiding behind his self-constructed persona as a “man of the people,” Bill O’Reilly is really an angry man with an agenda and a belief that he’s powerful enough to sell it and you’re stupid enough to buy it.