The dictionary defines the word 'context' as such:
noun
- the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.
- the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
Whenever O'Reilly ( or anyone on the 'right' or 'left' ) has to attempt to find a way to defend their remarks, one of the easiest ( and potentially worst ) ways to distance yourself from not only your remarks, but the eventual criticism, boycotts, loss of advertising dollars, or ( in the case of Don Imus ) potential loss of employment is to simply state that you were 'taken out of context'.
More below the fold ---------
So, what was the 'context' of O'Reilly's statements?
One method that should be pointed out as common-place for Bill, is that when he finds himself in a situation such as this, he either attempts to rearrange the context, argue that people are 'taking him out of context', or simply ignore it all together.
The second method is to move the audience away from the issue all together by accussing an outside party of attempting to 'smear' him. ( ie Media Matters, MSNBC, and now CNN ).
But, let's look at this situation from the textbook definition of 'context'.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect
To quote O'Reilly:
Now, how do we get to this point? Black people in this country understand that they've had a very, very tough go of it, and some of them can get past that, and some of them cannot. I don't think there's a black American who hasn't had a personal insult that they've had to deal with because of the color of their skin. I don't think there's one in the country. So you've got to accept that as being the truth. People deal with that stuff in a variety of ways. Some get bitter. Some say, [unintelligible] "You call me that, I'm gonna be more successful." OK, it depends on the personality.
So it's there. It's there, and I think it's getting better.
That inocuous statement preceeds one of the portions of O'Reilly's radio-show where his ignorance of African Americans takes shape:
I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out: "Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it."
And, here's what followed that gem of a quote:
You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he's made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia's, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.
Now, let's step back and take a look at this.
The first portion of the conversation was Bill waxing philisophically on how 'attitude' and 'personality' can have a positive or negative effect on African-Americans given their specific situations and how they choose to handle them.
Nothing wrong there. But what is interesting, is that O'Reilly then claims that 'blacks Americans' are 'starting to think for themselves'. So, here's the first question, taking the preceeding elements into context. Up until now, why hasn't the African-American community been thinking for itself? You don't cite specific examples of people, so who exactly are you referring too? You obviously see Al Sharpton as a person that is harming the African-American community, so it doesn't make much sense to me that you would be having a casual lunch with him. But, that's another thing all together.
What 'followed' Bill's verbal mistep was an entirely new subject. It had nothing to do with how an individual struggles with creating a successful lifestyle, it was an anecdote about a dinner you had with one of the two men you claim are harming the 'black'community.
That's when O'Reilly drops the proverbial bomb:
And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference. There's no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment -- people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you're gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin.
Putting this cluster-f**k of a statement into 'context' isn't that difficult either.
Bill is remembering a lunch-date with Al Shaprton. That's it. That's the context.
What is interesting to note, is the way that Bill ( even live on the air ) is attempting ( albeit poorly ) to spin his way out of a comment that he seemed to already know was a REALLY REALLY bad choice of words.
From the first 'pause' in the third sentence, Bill is already starting to find a linguistic 'back-door' from which to escape what he had just said. Unfortunately, the 'back-door' only lead to a series of words that were strung together which didn't make much sense to me.
There may be a cultural entertainment -- people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you're gonna have that.
Even reading it now, you can almost feel the nervousness building up inside him as he tries to scurry away from the fact that he was so amazed that African Americans that patronize and run a restaurant are good people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, there's definition number two:
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
So, what are the 'facts'. Well, there's really very little true 'facts' here. But, let's take an inventory, shall we.
1 - African-Americans can / have struggled
2 - Bill had dinner with Al Sharpton.
3 - Harlem is a real place
4 - Al Sharpton is a real person
That's it. The 'facts' within the four paragraphs of transcript that has gotten O'Reilly into this mess.
So, when you put these facts together with a narrator like Bill O'Reilly who has been known to get things wrong when speaking about African-Americans, the context is all there for anyone to see.
Bill may not consider himself a 'racist', but he obviously has probelems with realizing that not everyone in the African-American community is 'Twista', 'Ludacris', and 'Snoop Dogg'.
In summation, the 'context' argument serves no purpose but to confuse people that don't seem to understand what the word 'context' means. And Bill O'Reilly seems to be one of those people.