If you watched the 8 pm eastern show of the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News tonight you saw O’Reilly give about 3 minutes of his show to 9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett.
I have a couple of problems with O’Reilly’s bit tonight. One being that I feel that people like O’Reilly justify conspiracy nuts like Barrett simply by giving them air time. The other problem has to do with the way O’Reilly ended the piece.
Here is his statement to Barrett about why O’Reilly had Barrett on his show
The reason you’re on, and it’s the last time you’ll be on, is so that people can get a look at you and see what is in the classroom at the University of Wisconsin.
O’Reilly finishes the bit with the implication that Barrett’s whole course was about 9/11 and that courses like Barrett’s are an everyday thing at the University of Wisconsin.
The problem is that those implications are just not true.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison hired Barrett to teach one course for one semester. In other words he was an associate lecturer. Upon learning about Barrett’s 9/11 conspiracy views, the provost of the university did a very careful review of Barrett’s syllabus and plans for the course he was going to teach (Introduction to Islam).
Provost Patrick Farrell determined that Barrett would spend only a week of the semester long course discussing the war on terror and 9/11. Farrell accepted Barrett’s explanation that the discussion would represent a variety of viewpoints and that students could challenge Barrett’s beliefs.
Farrell also sent a letter to Barrett regarding Barrett’s views and his relationship with the University of Wisconsin back in July. That letter can be found at the UW-Madison website and the editor’s note to that letter states:
Provost Patrick Farrell sent the following letter to part-time lecturer Kevin Barrett on July 20. The letter is the subject of an Aug. 3 Associated Press article. The intent of Farrell’s letter was to reinforce that, in his interviews with media, Barrett make it clear that his personal views are in no way associated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Farrell also needed to be certain that Barrett’s private “911 truth” movement not interfere with — and be clearly separated from — his professional responsibilities as an instructor, which begins this fall.
It is clear that Barrett was not to use his association with the university to promote his conspiracy theories. If theories like Barrett’s were an everyday occurrence in classrooms at UW-Madison, Provost Farrell would not have gone to so much effort to investigate Barrett’s class.
By leaving with the implication that Barrett still taught at UW-Madison, O’Reilly also contradicts his own statement just a moment before when he pointed out that Barrett was no longer teaching at UW-Madison. O’Reilly also said that the university told him that Barrett would not be rehired.
O’Reilly often plays too loose with what he states and implications he makes while on his show. He should try to be more careful if he wants to maintain any creditability.