I thought, in genereal, the interview was not soft and lovie-dovie, nor was it a smear campaign by any means. In general, Oreilly was given every opportunity to state his impression of events, and was only challenged when he said absurd things (like a review of Michael Moors book by the NYT that called MMs book a 'bumper sticker' was a favorable review).

His ballistics at the end is something I see common in todays media- defense by hyperbolic reaction- turn every critical examination of yourself into a persecution issue.

Oreilly was tolerable until the end, when he was being called for his own personal attacks while writing a book about the evilness of personal attacks. Sorry- fair criticism that he should be asked to respond to, not the smear he claims.

Amusing. Amusing that this man is the voice of reason for the right, along with Rush.

Davin L.