With Enemies Like O'Reilly, We're Doing Just Fine

I once wrote -- in what must surely have been an unconscious appropriation of someone else's great thoughts -- that you judge a journalist by the enemies they make.

Using that yardstick, the St. Petersburg Times joined the big leagues following Fox News Channel gasbag Bill O'Reilly's decision to place us in second place on his Nixonian media enemies list.

Though his web site doesn't explain how we earned this distinction, anyone who has watched his show for more than two days knows O'Reilly has a serious jones for the Tampa bay area in general and the St. Pete Times in particular.

He hates us for our coverage of Sami Al-Arian. He hates us for our coverage of accused child killer John Couey. He hates us for our coverage of Hillsborough County's struggle to deal with religious holidays in its vacation schedule (why a national talk show host with 3 million viewers nightly cares about that, remains a mystery). He's denounced me as a "a dishonest, racially motivated correspondent writing for perhaps the worst newspaper in the country.")

Indeed, O'Reilly has featured segments mentioning the Tampa Bay area 20 times in the past six months -- a level of obsession with Florida goings on that is just plain creepy from a guy based in New York City with no apparent ties to this area.

O'Reilly needs enemies. And every conservative yahoo with a microphone rails about the New York Times.

He says we "traffic in defamation" and "false information spread by far left websites." I say we keep saying things he doesn't want to hear, on subjects he doesn't want to talk about.

Sounds like the classic definition of good journalism to me.

Comments

[Lorrie]

Hey Eric--The annual Thanksgiving political throw-down at grandma's kicked off this year when my Uncle Paul(R) leaned across the table and said: "Boy, honey, Bill O'Reilly sure has a problem with that newspaper you write for!" And I said, "Yeah, Uncle Paul, isn't that a huge badge of honor for us?" It went downhill at rapid speed from there. God, I love the holidays.Lorrie :)

[Anonymous]

Yep indeedy, mo-in-law started a similar thing, but she was more roundabout ... "I hear some people have a real problem with your paper being so liberal," she says."Oh, only those dumb enough to follow that gasbag O'Reilly on that silly Fox News channel," I replied ..end of discussion.:-)

[Anonymous]

I think all of you would have more of a case if O'Reilly were wrong. But, as is usually the case, he is absolutely on the money with his opinion of your liberal rag.

[Chase Squires]

Thanks for your input, Mrs. O'Reilly!

[Eric Deggans]

Politics and family dinners --always a deadly combination.If you want my take on why people think newspapers such as the St. Pete Times are so liberal, you can refer to one of my earliest blog postings on the subject. But basically, O'Reilly needs an enemy. And because we've dared to criticize him and think differently than he does on what has become a central topic for him -- the Sami Al-Arian case -- he's chosen us and a few others as his whipping boys.I just tell O'Reilly fans to actually do what he's always telling them to do -- think for themselves -- and avoid falling for his knuckleheaded hype. If they do that, we can usually at least agree to disagree...

[Mr. Cinnamon Pretzel]

Brother Deggans,Maybe Bill is being a little over-the-top on his criticism of the Times, he probably hasn't enjoyed the Christmas feast at the Traymore.But if his exposure to the Times has been limited to reading Troxler and Blumner, can we honestly argue his point?At least you only have one agenda; nothing is sacred to those two.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't agree with O'Reilly more. Its about time someone took you liberal weenies to task. I can always predict your take on political subjects.The only pleasure I get from taking your paper is, two crossword puzzles. Jack

[Marc]

Hi Eric,I recently changed my subscription from the Tribune to the Times, exactly for this reason! Keep up the good work, and wear that closed-minded pea brains award of distinction with pride! Marc

[Anonymous]

Bill O'Reilly is way too full of himself, and, thus, his entire perspective of the world is distorted. We are so very fortunate to have one of the last great independent newspapers in the country right here in our own backyard. The St. Petersburg Times is the best newspaper in Florida. Eric, keep up the good work!

[Tony Norman]

Hey Evil D. I love this blog. I envy you your enemies and I'm honored to be among your friends. Instead of calling you "Evil D" I'm going to start calling you "Eric R. Murrow" for standing up to the McCartheys of our time. Naw, I'm gonna stick with Evil D. Eric R. Murrow sounds too sanctimonious.Tony

[Eric Deggans]

Thnks so much for your support, guys. And for those who don't like the Times, I would only say that what bothers me the most about the O'Reillys of the world is that they refuse to have a measured, thoughtful realistic debate -- because that doesn't produce ratings.If we can disagree in a civil, respectful way, we can both learn from each other. But demonizing and creating "enemies lists" -- well, that's just combative, counterproductive nonsense.I'm going to try harder, in my own little corner of cyberspace, to set a higher standard.

[Anonymous]

Hey Eric, maybe if your newspaper was more than just a shameless shill for the extremist left and did not long for the days of good ol' Walter Cronkite (you know, lying like hell about the USA for your own personal agenda), which FYI are long gone and will never be back, then thoughtful people such as myself would not have such negative opinions of you and the Times. Your "reporting" routinely ignores facts and superimposes your own hard-core, liberal agenda, which is why you and your paper are raked over the coals. Try being honest about the stories you cover and things might change :)John

[Anonymous]

You forgot about how the St. Pete Times (along with other media) would publish Cindy Sheehan tirades against Bush but not her comments about supporting the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere and blaming Jews,... Your selective reporting has turned off many. I find I can read the paper very fast ignoring most of the editorial sections and the slanted news articles. One big reason Fox News has a larger viewership.

[Anonymous]

Eric, I'm a transplant from the Philadelphia area. I thought I would miss the Inquirer. I don't miss it at all, because the Times is a superior paper. I don't consider the paper "liberal" at all, it's open minded and fair in reporting. What these right wing-nuts want is everyone to agree with them on every issue. Well, they're wrong about Bush, taxes, the war, abortion, religion, and whatever else they have. Lay off folks, I'd be embarrassed to say I support Bush. Remember, Kerry only lost by two percent. That doesn't justify you Bushies still driving with your "W" stickers on your SUV's one year after the election. 48.2% voted AGAINST Bush, after his last year with Katrina and Iraq, his #'s are down, way down. It's safe to say that most of the population wishes Bush were not president, and a hell of a lot of people, myself included, simply despise him. Them right wingers just don't get it.You go Eric, and the Times, you are measured by your enemies: intolerant loud mouth blowhards. Glad to say I'm a daily reader.Ray Dunedin

[Eric Deggans]

Just so you know the deal with Cindy Sheehan:On 9/7/05 we ran a John Leo column noting Cindy Sheehan's controversial comments about terrorists. We also ran a Susan Estrish column on 8/24 which accused Sheehan of anti-Semetic statements (a charge I felt was unwaarranted, linking anti-Israel charges to anti-Semitism) and a Charles Krauthammer column on 9/30 criticizing her.We may not have had a homegrown columnist excoriating her words, but we have given plenty of space to writers who have taken issue with Sheehan's statements and public positions -- especially considering that most of our Cindy Sheehan coverage has come from stories circulated on the newswires.

[Anonymous]

Be careful you left-wingers. Bill carries some serious influence and we who disagree with the opinions that you publish and disguise as news may be pushed over the edge. Again, why do I buy the Times? Section A - straight to the trash; City & State - read with a grain of salt; Business - read Wall Street Journal reprints; Sports - keep up with the Bucs, Lightning & Rays; Floridian - why is this section printed?; Taste - straight to the trash; Perspective - straight to the trash; Classifieds - straight to the trash. So, I find the value only in the sports, marginal local and reprint business information along with the insert advertisements. And that value is diminishing.Go ahead - push me a little more with pro-terrorist, pro-socialist and anti-American dribble.Tony

[Anonymous]

I agree with O'Reilly, but I wouldn't go so far as to call you guys names. I understand that you honestly think you're doing good work, but when it comes down to it you're at odds with at least 75% of the public on the issues you mention. For crying out loud, a Times reporter coached al Arian on how to handle the Tribune and media in general. It's beyond improper with maybe even a pinky toe in treason. How many stories did you do on that? What's worse is that you have no voice to represent "the other public" in your paper. You would never marginalize a race, gender, or sexual orientation like you do an ideology.Some Times writers, Blumner especially, drip with hate in their columns. I don't want that to be the tone of my community.O'Reilly is going all out trying to get every state to pass Megan's law. He's given millions to charity, most recently Habitat for Humanity. He might be brash and I might not always agree with him, but I would side with him over the Times any day. As a media critic, you should know that "3 million viewers nightly" isn't even close to the number of people O'Reilly reaches on average. Ultimately circulation will determine if the people buy what the Times is selling, but with all due respect I won't be one of them.

[hot wax]

This blog was languishing until you hit the sweet spot: Bill O. See the power he holds over you?

[Eric Deggans]

Lots of good comments.Let me humbly suggest to the guy who says he only reads the sports section, that there's probably more in the Times that he reads and perhaps isn't immediately aware of. I find it hard to believe you would pay 35 cents each day to read sports stories you could get for free on the internet.I'm not sure how the other poster came up with the figure that we're at odds with 75 percent of the public. We are the largest circulation daily newspaper in Florida, so if our coverage was that objectionable, I doubt so many people would be reading us. I can tell you that the 3 million figure for O'Reilly's daily viewership came straight from the ratings company Nielsen Media Research -- over the last two weeks his show has averaged about 3.1 million viewers nightly.I also find it interesting that you find Robin's columns dripping with hate, while O'Reilly is the one who calls people pinheads on air and often tells them to shut up. Might I suggest that you have more problems with what Robin says than how she says it?Finally, I fully agree that many people weren't leaving comments on the blog on recent subjects, but our internal figures have showed the blog readership anywhere from the third most-read Times blog to the 6th or 7th most-read. So I think we have a lot of lurkers....

[Anonymous]

I am amazed that so many of the blog posts are from people lambasting the St. Pete Times. If they hate it so much, why are they reading it?!?! I was especially amused by the person who throws most of the paper in the trash. Are the recipes in the Taste section and the book reviews in the Perspective section too "left-wing" for him? I'm also amazed (though I probably shouldn't be) at all those people who think that disagreeing with their way of thinking is un-American. Just the opposite. Our country was founded on the principles of freedom of speech, among other freedoms -- that's what makes this country so great. We have the freedom to disagree with each other and still be proud Americans. Maybe we should start blaming our educational system for doing such a poor job educating students on what it REALLY means to be an American! Meanwhile, the vitriol of some of the posters here is really kind of scary. It's disappointing to realize that so many people do not understand the importance of honest debate.

[Ken]

O'Reilly is right on one account, and that is that the editorial page has a distinct leftward tilt. That's not unusual, considering rhat the Times occasionally identifies those on its editorial board, and their political pursuasion. The last one I remember, showed the board was composed of a dozen democrats and two independents. Not a republican in the bunch. On the other hand, the Times has been pretty good about keeping politics and agendas out of the hard news. The comics is another story. I would hope that those in charge would realize the wisdom of presenting diverse opinions, even on the funny pages, and start running the conservative strip "Mallard Fillmore" to offset or counter the liberalism of "Doonesbury" and "The Boondocks."

[Mr. Cinnamon Pretzel]

To the Amazed Poster,The Times is why we don't have freedom of speech in this country. When historians look back at why America failed they will blame the Times. How many papers can claim to have started 3 race riots over the last 10 years?

[Eric Deggans]

Regarding the politics of the editorial board -- its true that the board is mostly centrist liberals, a couple indepedents and one strong progressive.But the way most editorial boards work -- by consensus, often, by fiat, sometimes -- I find it hard to believe a conservative would be very comfortable. they would constantly be outnumbered and constantly be on the losing side of arguments.I don't know why conservatives criticize the times editorial board for its positions, but say nothing about the extremely conservative slant of newpapers such as the Tampa Tribune and The Florida Times-Union. Fact is, most newspaper editorial boards lean one way or another; its not a particular crime, just because the Times is more liberal than conservative.

[Anonymous]

So even though there are twice as many self defined conservatives than there are liberals in this country, you don't have a single one to represent us editorially at the Times. That speaks volumes and that's why O'Reilly and much of your readership can't stand the paper. The fact that you think the Tampa Tribune and Florida Times-Union are conservative speaks volumes to where you stand personally. When I said you were at odds with 75% of the public, I'm talking about the 90% who call themselves Christians and the number of people who think you're dead wrong on Couey and al Arian.Whether the Times being "more liberal than conservative" is a crime or not is debatable. Aiding and abetting terrorists isn't an upstanding civic duty. I notice you didn't point out any links to stories the Times has done on your reporter who coached al Arian. The Times hides their warts and points to the good they think they've done. In that respect you're no different than the Bush Administration. You even torture conservatives on a daily basis. (That's Franken-style sarcasm/satire by the way.)

[Anonymous]

"I find it hard to believe a conservative would be very comfortable. they would constantly be outnumbered and constantly be on the losing side of arguments."I once worked for someone who said the same thing as a defense against hiring minorities. I think you're both cut from the same cloth.

[Eric Deggans]

Christian conservatives are 90 percent of the population, but also a persucted minority? Sounds like you guys want it both ways.Voting data suggests the country is pretty evenly split between conservatives and centrists/liberals. And I would be horrified to see what your definition of a conservative newspaper is, if it doesn't include a paper which has endorsed a Republican for president in every election before 2004 since the 1950s...

[Anonymous]

I wasn't aware you needed to be a minority group to be persecuted.

[Anonymous]

I suppose if you group centrists with liberals and compare them to conservatives they would be even.

[Anonymous]

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444"How would you describe your own political philosophy – conservative, moderate, or liberal?"Conservative 34%Liberal 18%The Times really does a bang up job speaking for 18% of the public.

[neolib housewife]

Hello Eric,Congratulations to The St. Petersburg Times on getting on the Bill O'Reilly enemies list. Can you tell me how I might get on this list? I would consider it an honor to make that list. Every time I find myself thinking that Bill O'Reilly might make sense on some subject (for example he does encourage energy conservation)-- I just cast my mind back to his run-in with a loofah. And then I reflect on his superior, sanctimonious bashing of those who threaten him in some way. Like The St. Petersburg Times. I read the paper daily. You all do a great job. I especially like the local coverage. I read it all, though. And it is usually all good. Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous]

There you have it. The neolib thinks you're doing a great job.

[Eric Deggans]

I gotta say guys, this liberal vs conservative backbiting is getting tiresome. While I do think journalists often focus on social justice as a part oftheir work, I don't think they are nearly as liberally biased as O'Reilly and conservatives posting on this board believe.Yes, we do have a center-liberal editorial board, but most newspaper editorials boards have a general political viewpoint. And some conservatives only seem to argue when that viewpoint is different from theirs.I also think what some conservatives would consider "fair and balanced" (to steal a phrase) would tilt far more toward their political viewpoint than any current leftist leaning.It seems the poll numbers cited earlier indicated that nearly half of Americans are neither liberal nor conservative. So why exclude half the audience by reducing our public discussion to such simplistic, misleading labels?

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I have no problem with debate. I think Eric has hit the nail on the head when he mentions reasonable debate.What is so disturbing is the number of people that cannot be reasonable while disagreeing with another person.I identify myself as a conservative (a fiscal conservative anyways) and often find myself in disagreement with the Times Editorial pages.But I don't see them as "Traitors" or "Weenies" or any other such nonsense.Referring to someone as a traitor or unamerican simply because you disagree with them goes against every good principle this nation was founded upon.I also find it disturbing that the vast majority of these nasty, vitriolic statements are coming from supposedely Christian conservatives.

[Ken]

Eric said:I find it hard to believe a conservative would be very comfortable. they would constantly be outnumbered and constantly be on the losing side of arguments. Eric:Has anyone on the efitorial board bothered to ask a conservative to contribute his/her thoughts to the board?With all due respect, your comment is, in my opinion, condescending and elitist, and posted without the appropriate amount of thought beforehand. That being said, I'll note that there have been times when I have felt ill, out of sorts, or just been in a nasty mood, and posted things to boards, that in hindsight, should have been more carefully considered before hitting the "Enter" key.I think the biggest problem conservatives have with the Times, is that they perceive they have no voice there; that they are ignored and put down. As for me, yes, I am conservative, but I also happen to think that Bush was (and still is) a weasel, who did not deserve re-election. Unfortunately, the alternative, John Kerry, was worse. (I'd've voted for Lieberman in a heartbeat.)My discontent with Bush is based on the treatment of veterans and military retirees on his watch. But he does not stand alone. Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson, have all shortchanged the vets and military retirees.Now there's an idea for a future column! Talk to the vets at Bay Pines, and the folks who put out the Veterans' Post monthly newspaper. You'll get an earfull about politicians. Ken

[Eric Deggans]

I'm sorry if you viewed my comment about the editorial board as insensitive. But it is the reality of the situation.The editorial board is the expression of the newspaper's opinion, as guided by the publisher and the editor of editorials. They also pay a fair amount of attention to past positions.I'm sure a conservative on our editorial board would provide many interesting conversations and lots of good feedback. But I'm not sure they would be able to affect the larger opinions much.I have heard other readers make the case for a conservative op-ed columnist at the Times, and that is something which makes more sense to me. Such a writer would have freedom to write what they like, without seeing their vision filtered through the board.If it is any consolation, many hardcore liberals also feel the Times editorial board is hostile to their interests.

[Anonymous]

As a former editorial writer, I'm sadly familiar with people who haven't got a whisper of a clue about how an editorial board works.Mr. Deggans is right. Putting a hard-line conservative on a moderate-liberal board would be an exercise in frustration for everyone. Editorials aren't signed because they are the official opinion of the newspaper, and that voice must be consistent and strong. The SPT editorial page is the most influential in the state because it speaks with strength, conviction and consistency.The inflated claims made by conserative attackers (The Times caused race riots! The Times ignores facts! There are twice as many conservatives as liberals! No, three times as many!) defy reality.I guess they're taking their lead from O'Reilly's blowhard tactics...

[Anonymous]

I gotta say guys, this liberal vs conservative backbiting is getting tiresome.I say we keep saying things you don't want to hear, on subjects you don't want to talk about.Sounds like the classic definition of good citizen journalism to me.

[Anonymous]

Referring to someone as a traitor or unamerican simply because you disagree with them goes against every good principle this nation was founded upon.You don't have to agree with me all the time, but I'd appreciate it if my local newspaper wouldn't coach jihadists and act as their PR rep, telling them how to handle the media and get better press. I'd prefer that my newspaper not pick any sides in coverage, but if you have to, try not to side with the terrorists.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

>"I'd prefer that my newspaper not pick any sides in coverage, but if you have to, try not to side with the terrorists." An accusation of a crime does not make a person guilty of that crime. That is up to a jury to decide.We have a presumption of innocence in this country that possibly goes beyond your depth of understanding.If Al Arian is ever convicted of the crime he is accused, then you can lump him in with terrorists.Until then, you are engaging in potentially libelous behaviour.

[Ken]

Eric said:I have heard other readers make the case for a conservative op-ed columnist at the Times, and that is something which makes more sense to me. Such a writer would have freedom to write what they like, without seeing their vision filtered through the board.Eric: Having taken some time and considered your words above, I think that would be a proper compromise. The Times does publish nationally syndicated conservative voices, but I believe that having someone local, commenting on local issues and politics, would be a huge benefit, and would go far toward giving area conservatives a more favorable perception of the Times. Ken

[Mr. Cinnamon Pretzel]

The Times endorsed the Drew Street Canal. A canal that would divide Pinellas County between the North and the South. What a shame.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

And now it appears that the hard right's claims of the Times supporting terrorist are unfounded as Al Arian is found not guilty on the majority of the charges from the government.This is important of course not because anyone gives a rat's behind about the Times' affiliations (besides small picture Floridian's), but rather because the Federal Government put all it's power and resources behind this case. This was THE vindication, THE purpose of the Patriot Act according to John Ashcroft.Small government conservative types like myself are celebrating across the country.Small minded republican types are eating crow.

[Eric Deggans]

One of the things which has irked some conservatives about the Times' various opinions on the Al-Arian case, is our insistence that he get a fair trial and that any prosecution be based on solid evidence.I have always felt that Patriot Act prosecutions and secret evidence cases are the government's way of cutting corners on prosecuting cases for which they just don't have much solid evidence. Perhaps this will serve as a reminder that government prosecutors don't need more police powers to pursue weak cases...they need to stick to established methods to build stronger cases.

[Anonymous]

It only reminds me that the St. Pete Times did a heck of a job acting as his media advisor. You just aren't going to address that one, are you?

[Anonymous]

Been reading the dialog on O'Reilly/LIB vs Conservative stuff.Wanted to put in my two cents. Eric, used to enjoy your TV critiques, wish you would have stayed there and I wouldn't have to see you lose what credibility you had. Now I see that you are just another tunnel vision lefty, seeing and agreeing with everything the NY times puts out and parroting(yes I said parroting)it like it is fact when most of it is opinion camoflauged to look like fact.Yes I am a conservative and yes, we have our problems and no, we don't claim to be perfect as you guys accuse us of doing.We have problems but we don't own the media in this country as you do and we don't have "journalists" to cover our butts when we make mistakes. You lefties covered Clinton's rear and sang his praises while he ignored the terrorists, then when Bush was forced to deal with them you have trashed everything he has said or done and continue to do so, at the expense of American lives!Liberals can try to redefine patriotism as undermining our countries military all they want but we aint buying it, we are not that stupid!For 40 years or so liberals have infiltrated and taken over the media and crammed your ridiculous ideas down our throats, with very little input from the right side of the debate.You who claim to represent free speech do all in your power to silence conservative opinion in every situation and then squeal like pigs when someone like O'Reilly gives you a taste of your own medicine.Question Eric,why is it liberals do their best to turn the general public away from listening or watching people like O'Reilly,Limbaugh,Fox news etc? If they are way out of the mainstream as libs claim, I would think you would want people to hear them so as to give your arguments more weight.Answer, because you know full well that you are a small minority of people even after decades of bombarding the American public with your nonsensical views from a massively one sided news media!Don't you guys ever catch on?With your almost total control of most media,the public school system,colleges,Hollywood, TV shows,newspapers etc.you still have a hard time getting Libs elected.What do Liberal politicians do when stumping at election time?Talk about conservative issues, try to sound more conservative so as to avoid the lefty label, then when elected,go on with the lib stuff.You guys have no ideas that make any sense to anyone but you,but you are so arrogant you cannot see that.With every day that goes by the liberal agenda is being exposed more for what it is(socialism in a pretty wrapper)and is closer to extinction and I will be glad when it is laid to rest so we can continue the United States as it should be.Eric, thank you for letting me voice my opinion, would love to hear yours.

[anger manageent]

I agree that Eric's lost his way after an unsuccessful stint on the Times editorial board. He's being set up for failure, I think, although he has abundant talent, just not in this arena. If you're listening, Eric: casting yourself as the political enforcer for NABJs agenda has made you an angry, scary man.

[Eric Deggans]

Sorry to disagree, but I think I've continued the same sort of writing on race, culture, politics and media that I've always been doing. And I like a lot of what I've done, even if you don't.Regarding allegations we acted as Al-Arian's press agent: I'm assuming you're referring to former reporter Jim Harper's conversations with Al-Arian captured on tape and aired by O'Reilly.While Jim did appear to be overly sympathetic, I can tell you that I have often told potential sources how to complain to my newspaper and others if they feel they have been wronged in coverage. It's not as if such options are a secret -- every newspaper encourages people to write letters to editor if they feel coverage has been substandard.It is not unheard of for a reporter to tell a potential source "If you feel my competition has covered you badly, you should write a letter to the editor." It is also not unheard of for a reporter to feel they will provide better, fairer coverage than a competitor and to tell potential sources that. That is the sum and substance of what Jim Harper did. It did make him look too sympathetic to Al-Arian, but those actions are not as overtly biased as O'Reilly would have you believe (I would love to hear what his bookers tell people to get them to do his show).I'm not going to spend a lot of blogspace answering the long message about my liberal views point by point. What I will say is that I have a fairly simple bedrock ethic which guides all my larger political views.Government should be fair.Government should help people when they can't help themselves.Institutional racism and classism remain our country's worst problems.Public hypocrisy should be exposed and criticized.I oppose people like Bill O'Reilly because his stances are hypocritical. He pretends to be an ally of the working man, while supporting a political party which wants to dismantle every social safety net which protectsd this group.George Bush works similar rhetoric. He talks of being a man of the people and someone who is down to earth. But he seeks to concentrate political and economic power in the hands of the wealthy. While also reducing their tax burden and allowing them to transfer more of their wealth to their heirs without interference.I believe such political goals, if achieved, will only worsen the gulf between haves and have nots in this society and foster a system where the middle and working classes have little or no protection or power aghainst the will of the elites.Don't be fooled by cardboard crusades against TV violence and liberal media bias. What these guys want to do is turn you against the very institutions which can inform you and give you political power against their manipulations: a free press and a progressive political party.OK, I guess I have used a lot of blogspace to defend myself. But these are my core beliefs and they have always guided my work as a opinion columnist and critic. Sorry if you think they degrade my work; I believe they enhance it.

[Anonymous]

...he seeks to concentrate political and economic power in the hands of the wealthy... allowing them to transfer more of their wealth to their heirs without interference. I believe such political goals, if achieved, will only worsen the gulf between haves and have nots in this society... You are a communist, pure and simple. Why should the government be able to come take the belongings of my family just because one of us dies? What sick twisted logic do you use to reason that a "have not" deserves our property? Wake up. You're in the wrong St. Petersburg, in the wrong century. What these guys want to do is turn you against the very institutions which can inform you and give you political power against their manipulations: a free press and a progressive political party.So you're coming out right here and admitting you're pushing for a "progressive political party"?This is amazing. Let us know when the Times calls for an exit plan for Bosnia, Mr. Hypocrite.

[Eric Deggans]

Am I crazy, or does accusations of being a Communist just feel so 1950s? Get with the program, dude. at least accuse me of being liberal. Or a Michael Moore-style liberal.I do think its sad when people equate any sort of wealth taxation as a Communist idea. Shows how far we've come from the country which sought to avoid creating a perpetual ruling class kept in power by the accident of birth rather than achievement.

[Ramon V. Martinez]

After reading your article (sent by a friend), I now know why O'Reilly dislikes you and your newspaper.You are a minor league outfit, trying to outdo the big leaguers...It is sad and yes, the newspaper is a sorry mess... and I do not like O'Reilley because of his pomposity and know it all attitude, but guess what? I watch him because it is true... FoxNews is fair and balanced... you are not.

[Anonymous]

Eric,Has the readership of your paper declined like the rest of the liberal slanting papers across the country? You can spin all you want about how you and your paper represent the center, but you can't back that up with a single fact. Isn't that type of thing the exact thing you accuse Oreilly of?O'Reilly is fighting tooth and nail for kids - he is absolutely a bully for them. I respect him a lot for that, what has your paper done for the kids? Oh wait, I know, you have helped Couey's coconspirators remain free. Your paper should be ashamed of the positions they have taken.It is time for change - and O'Reilly's numbers keep going up, while yours go down.Another point I'd like to make...Notice that only liberals agree with your positions? And you still claim to be fair and balanced? The general public must be very stupid to believe you - at least you hope they are.

[Jeff H]

"Nixonian"???Hey, he's just another "gasbag" journalist--kind of like you--not the President.Get over yourself, pompous ass.

[Anonymous]

Typical Liberal...When encountered with facts....personally attack the messenger.Your comments sadly show your lack of class and integrity.

[Anonymous]

Here is a new question...Eric, what have you done to better society with you influence?I can name several things that O'Reilly has done....I would love to see you answer.Thanks

[Hegemon]

I'd have to agree with O'Reily (a rarity) and say the St Pete Times is definitely America's worst paper outside of the NYT. But at least you guys finally sent your resident racist, Bill Maxwell, out to pasture, now to do away with the rest of the editorial hacks.

[Anonymous]

Eric is a typical left-winger. Freedom of speech (for the left), all views (of the left) should be discussed, no censorship (of the left). Defind Hillary for using plantation, criticize Newt. Defend Ted for belonging to the The Owl, criticize Alito. Defend Nagin for making racist comments, criticize Robinson. Criticize Bush for NSA wiretapping, overlook Clinton. Go after Delay for campaign contributions, overlook Gore and the Dems. Bush won - get over it.