Segment on The O'Reilly Factor

[naked buff]

I watched The O'Reilly factor this evening, and was surprised to see a segment about nudism and the movement's reaching out to younger members. He interviewed Steve Vickers, from AANR I believe, and O'Reilly's demeanor was supercilious and insulting. O'Reilly really did not want to be fair or to let the nudist representative make his point. All of the questions were mocking. Why did O'Reilly continually refer to nudists as "naked people" instead of as "nudists" or "naturists"? Steve Vickers, when asked, began to explain the appeal of nudism as a way to go back to the simpler, more wholesome times reminiscent of Norman Rockwell's depictions of skinny-dipping. O'Reilly immediately argued that such a return is possible without needing social nudism. That's not true. People who live in cities and suburbs can never find that. There is no more "old swimming hole," and anyone who swam naked in one without owning it, fencing it off, and getting government permits first, is subject to conviction for indecent exposure. And families that have privacy around their own swimming pools aren't going to practice nudity when our society has everyone believing that nudity is ridiculous or perverse for so many reasons. People at this point must be feeling intimidated by the mockery the very idea of nudism brings up in the media. I could write for hours criticizing The O'Reilly Factor for an interview that lasted only a few minutes, but twice now in the last year I've seen cable news and editorial programs mock nudists from the very first, because they start from the premise that no one should want to practice social nudity and no one has any reason to find it enjoyable.

[naked buff]

I watched The O'Reilly factor this evening, and was surprised to see a segment about nudism and the movement's reaching out to younger members. He interviewed Steve Vickers, from AANR I believe, and O'Reilly's demeanor was supercilious and insulting. O'Reilly really did not want to be fair or to let the nudist representative make his point. All of the questions were mocking. Why did O'Reilly continually refer to nudists as "naked people" instead of as "nudists" or "naturists"? Steve Vickers, when asked, began to explain the appeal of nudism as a way to go back to the simpler, more wholesome times reminiscent of Norman Rockwell's depictions of skinny-dipping. O'Reilly immediately argued that such a return is possible without needing social nudism. That's not true. People who live in cities and suburbs can never find that. There is no more "old swimming hole," and anyone who swam naked in one without owning it, fencing it off, and getting government permits first, is subject to conviction for indecent exposure. And families that have privacy around their own swimming pools aren't going to practice nudity when our society has everyone believing that nudity is ridiculous or perverse for so many reasons. People at this point must be feeling intimidated by the mockery the very idea of nudism brings up in the media. I could write for hours criticizing The O'Reilly Factor for an interview that lasted only a few minutes, but twice now in the last year I've seen cable news and editorial programs mock nudists from the very first, because they start from the premise that no one should want to practice social nudity and no one has any reason to find it enjoyable.

[tinhfwv]

I also saw this segment. Yes, O'Reilly did treat the subject in a light hearted way. But it was my perception that, like a lot of textiles, the subject made him a little nervous and it's human nature to cope with nervousness by resorting to humor. With all due respect to Mr. Vickers, I thought maybe AANR should have sent a more polished and prepared spokesperson. When O'Reilly asked him what he liked about nude recreation, he seemed to struggle with his explanation, and it came off as a little awkward (Norman Rockwell??). That's one answer that should have rolled off his tongue.

[simonsebs]

This isn't the first time that Mr. O'Reilly has been discussed on this board.

Link to other topic on Bill O'Reilly

He, like many others, just doesn't understand what we're all about. That just because we don't like to wear clothes all the time, that there is something wrong with us. At any point during the interview did he say something about nudity being harmful to children? That seems to be the fall-back question of Bill and people of his ilk.

I stopped watching O'Reilly Factor awhile ago, for many reasons. Now I get all my news from The Daily Show and Colbert Report.

[brainyguy9999]

I just saw the interview. I was surprised, but not by O'Reilly. He was his usual arrogant self. I was surprised that Steve looked like a deer caught in headlights. When asked what nudism was to him, he began rambling about relaxing. There was so much dead air that O'Reilly was forced to jump in and fill the silence. And, of course he filled it with snipes and rude comments.

I'll give Steve the benefit of doubt. Maybe he was just overwhelmed knowing that he was on international TV (yes, people outside of the US watch FoxNews).

I'm very glad that he is willing to stand up and be a young spokesperson for nudism. I applaud him for that. But I also want to criticize the older nudists who sent him in there unprepared to rattle off a 15 second synopsis of what nudism is all about.

I hope that AANR and others in organized nudism watch this "interview" over and over again and commit to preparing our spokespeople just like corporate or political spokespeople are prepared -- by grilling them over and over again in mock interviews until they can answer without thought basic questions like "what is nudism to you?" or "Isn't nudism just about sex/exhibitionism/voyeurism?"

Again, I want to thank Steve for getting out there as a spokesperson for all of us that are hiding behind our computer screens. But I also want to challenge the organizations to better prepare him for battle when he goes out to fight our battles for us.

Stay nude!!

bg

[naked buff]

That is a very good point, that spokesmen for social nudism should be prepared and polished, but it remains true that they receive unfair treatment in the media. I can remember in the 1970's, when the topic was no longer taboo for television, and the daytime talk shows such as Donahue gave all kinds of social phenomena a fair hearing, that nudism at least got some objectivity. A person was not mocked or put on the defensive for having the guts to announce to America that he was a card-carrying nudist or naturist. The reporters and interviewers would also be more intellectual than today, and they tended to muse rhetorically about the clothes-compulsion of textile society (though not in the wording I have just employed). Now, at least with anchors like O'Reilly and Fox's Shep Smith, even the word "nudist" can't be uttered with a straight face, it seems. As far as many television newsmen are concerned, we are wrong from the very start. Even people who claim to have been abducted by aliens receive more deference for their beliefs than any of us would. And, to top it all off, I bet the mere announcement of the segment, as well as the ample video shot within nudist resorts, helped the program's ratings.
If anoyone out there reading this is interested in nudism, but hasn't taken the next step or is unsure of why a normal person could try it and like it, think about the following. Swimming naked has been a joy to just about anyone who has been able to try it in a safe environment. It was the only way to swim for most of human history, by the way. The body is not obscene, there's no reason to be ashamed to be seen while skinny-dipping. Why only practice this, as the customary images portray it, as something only either for an unmixed group of the same age or for a prelude to a romantic tryst between a man and a woman? Why not enjoy this wholesome activity in the company of others who do so in the same spirit? And, if the shame has come off in the water, why not be comfortable nude walking around the pool or lake or beach? Why not enjoy the feeling of freedom in the open air when the weather permits? When does a person's body stop looking innocent? Should we consider the body to be obscene as soon as it exhibits secondary sex characteristics?

[gordon williams]

segment on ORiley now.

[nudemedix]

I can't stand Bill O' Riley. He is an arrogant *** to put it bluntly. IF he has a topic on there that deep inside he doesnt understand or much less agree with, he will make that person or subject look stupid or ridicule them to any extent possible. He enjoys making himself look some kind of good at others expense, when in actuality he is make homeself look like a typical conservative ***.

[Finally in Florida]

O'Reilly interview

You can watch the interview at this link.

It could have been worse. No, he did not talk about nudism being harmful to children. The only point he even made was that he didn't understand it. It's a shame that Steve didn't make any mention of the Young Ambassadors Program or the meeting next month. The way they announced the story sounded like it would be the focus.

[Corky]

Great job Steve!! You faced Bill head on. That is brave!

[nudeM]

Like him or not, at least he, O'Reilly, has managed to put nudism in his reporting again. True, his little snied remarks were there, but he did allow his guest to answer some point blank questions. I believe that Steve looked a little 'unprepared' by the way he answered some of the questions, but overall, he did pretty good.

[Sacramento Jesse]

Knowing O'Reilly's typical approach, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to go. Good job, Steve, and hopefully this gets more of us younger people involved. Only one thing that disappointed me was O'Reilly didn't give an website where more information could be found at.

[Naturist Zoar]

Excellent presentation, Steve.
I'm sure your mind was racing as you tried to capture the joy of naturism.

[Croydon]

I too saw the segment on Bill O'Riely. I was flipping through the channel and came across the segment.

Although, I commend Steve for his effort, I have to say that his interview with Bill was not good. I was a bit embarassed watching it. It was as someone previously stated like watching a deer caught in headlights.

It should have been of no surprise to AANR the way O'Riely would conduct the interview. Bill was going to be rude, harsh and will give you little chance to talk.

The best spokesperson would have been someone who is articulate (not saying Steve isn't), one who can think and respond on their toes, and one who can convey a point effectively for everyone to understand. Public speaking is a hard task and not everyone can do it well. Anyone can be a representative of a cause but few can be a great spokesperson. Again, not saying Steve isn't.

This interview reminded me of another interview AANR did with Fox News. This was around the time of the Foley and nudist summer camp fiasco. An AANR representative appeared on the interview and it was a mess. While the interviewer asked questions and a debate began, the AANR rep hardly said a word. At any moment to speak, all he could utter were few words, "uh, um..." It was such an embarassment that I had to change channel. I was also upset because a opportunity to educate the world about this was ruined. Even if we were able to change the mind of 3 or 4 people, that is success.

Perhaps AANR needs to work a little more on developing the public speaking skills of it's reps.

[WNYjoe17]

I agree that AANR should do a better job of preparing people.
There is a class that AANR offers that addresses all of the issues previously mentioned. They train for 2 days with several approaches. From easy/open interview to adversarial. This interview is a classic example of how NOT to do so.

I think it is great the Steve comes from a family of generations of nudists. I am sure he was overwhelmed by a lot of factors: international show, lights, camera, production crew, etc.
I commend AANR for trying to help the image. I commend Steve for stepping up to the plate. I do think however, they fell short on several grounds.

Bill O'Rielly is condescending. He is very far to the right. With the group who think nudism is morally wrong. And the only reason to have chosen this show is because maybe they could help guide some of the conservative parents, teachers, etc into a more accepting attitude. In reality, AANR should not have expected this show to be the show that would bring members.
One of the key things in the AANR class is that you can opt NOT to do a certain interview. Not sure who contacted whom, but I am a little surprised that they made what appears to be an intentional decison to persue this show.

In short, this turned into a (subtle) mockery instead of an opportunity for helping the cause.

Joe