Sunsara Taylor vs Bill O'Reilly

One of my all time favorites. It's not Dawkins, but Sunsara Taylor, the head of "World Can't Wait" [Sunsara's blog].

I award this one squarely to Bill O'Reilly [wikipedia entry].

O'Reilly actually has two guests on, Taylor and Ron Luce [wikipedia entry], the head of "Battlecry USA". O'Reilly ostensibly acts as the moderator between the two. However, he expertly uses his position to slant the debate to Ron Luce, whom he obviously favors.

There is a saying: "If you want to make money from gambling, own the table." In the same way, the way to significantly influence public opinion is not to get on TV, but to own the TV station. Since O'Reilly is able to determine the terms of debate, he is able to make it a walk home for Luce.

His Holiness Kavicandra Swami wrote recently about Battlecry and their agenda. In this clip we get to hear what Battlecry are all about, and Luce even manages to get his website into the conversation.

Luce is clearly an expert in dealing with the media. He remains smiling and positive throughout the exchange. People will remember this. They may not remember what he said, but they will be left with a favorable impression of a smiling, upbeat, and positive person. For the same reason it is important for devotees to always smile on harinam. People may not understand what the heck is going on, "but it sure looks like they're having fun, so it can't be bad".

Luce also continually restates his position. He has a number of points that he wants to get across, and he just keeps making them. O'Reilly is easy on him and doesn't really ask him any hard questions. Taylor, on the other hand, gets the "slanted table" treatment from O'Reilly.

Rather than allowing her to speak on the basis of her platform, O'Reilly puts her on the defensive by questioning the tone of her dialog: "Why the name calling?"

Taylor has allowed herself to be put into a corner. At a strategic level, unfortunately, her position is defined as being "anti-Battlecry". This immediately adds more authority and weight to Battlecry's message. It got her onto television, but not on her terms. O'Reilly then turns the focus of the debate to the form of her dialog, rather than the substance.

In this way he appears to be neutral, but by defining the terms of the debate he is able to "put Gajendra in the water" (a reference to this pastime in the Srimad Bhagavatam that means put her onto an unfavorable battlefield).

Taylor could have escaped from this killing zone by simply saying: "Yes, I admit that we lowered the tone of the debate, and I apologize for that..." and then gone on to continually restate her points. She could have said that "people used those words because they are very upset, for the following reasons..."

This would have had the effect of neutralizing O'Reilly's positioning, which he uses throughout the debate to corner Taylor. Of course, Taylor might lose some of her internal support by doing this. The troops who used those slogans, perhaps even contributed to by Taylor, would feel that they had been betrayed.

She might have tried the weaker option of: "I acknowledge that...", and then gone on to state her position.

Instead, Taylor is made out to be a petulant, childish personality unable to come to an adult level of dialog. O'Reilly frames her message as naive, emotive, and irrational.

This is an important point for moderators and maintainers of meta-frameworks. You can cut people down without disagreeing with their message, by attacking the appropriateness of their dialog. As an example, the GBC could have undercut Caitanya das' blog by pointing out that a 20-something year old brahmacari has no credibility to speak about women's issues, and that such speech is inappropriate for that ashram.

They could have hammered on this point to the extent that it isolated him, without having to "take a side" in the issues that are under discussion.

This would have had the flow-on effect of deprecating his arguments, just as O'Reilly puts Taylor's position down the gurgler, but it would have been done in an overtly "clean-handed" way. It's overtly about "raising the tone of the dialog", and enforcing proper behaviour in ashrams. You can't demand proper behaviour in the grhasta ashram (which women belong to in all phases of life, according to Srila Prabhupada) while simultaneously displaying improper behaviour in the brahmacari ashram. Pointing out this inherent contradiction should have been enough. Reward rational presentation, punish bad behaviour.

O'Reilly maintains a metaframework that accommodates diversity of opinion and the right to expression. At the same time he clearly takes Taylor out and promotes Luce. There is a valuable lesson for moderators everywhere in this exchange.

Key Points:

• Keep smiling - no matter what
• Know what your main points are, continually restate them
• Do not define your position in opposition to the other guy's, but have a coherent platform that you promote
• Cast a positive vision and a positive spin
• If the moderator corners you, slip out. Acknowledge his point (you don't have to agree with it), then restate your position yet again
• If you get inextricably caught in the kill zone make like Gajendra and remember the lotus feet of the Lord
• If you are moderating, slant the table without getting involved in either side - "put Gajendra in the water" and then let them have a "fair fight"
• If you are moderating, keep the tone of the conversation high - it's actually a valid aspect of the role, and one that O'Reilly discharges well