August 29 2002
In this week's issue

*Bill O'Reilly Shuts Ludacris Down 
*O'Reilly Transcript-'Why I Shut The Thug Rapper Down'
*Talking Points: Bill O'Reilly is a Pompous, Hypocritical Idiot by Davey D

The FNV Newsletter c 2002
Send comments to
peep the websites


Pepsi is pulling TV commercials featuring Atlanta rapper Ludacris,
after receiving numerous complaints about his lyrics.  The decision to
pull the ads came a day after "The O'Reilly Factor" host Bill O'Reilly
called Pepsi "immoral" for using Ludacris to promote the soft drink.
"If it were just adults, I don't care," O'Reilly said.  "A guy like
Ludacris is corrupting 9-year-olds with no guidance."  Def Jam had no

courtesy of Allhiphop.com

Bill O'Reilly Transcript:
Why He Shut Down Ludacris
Transcribed by Chuck of Allhiphop.com

Hi, I'm bill o'reilly.  Thanks for watching tonight.  A mountain of
mail piled up overnight about the pepsi-cola-ludacris controversy.
There was a stunning development today, I can't believe this.  It's
the subject of this evening's "talking points" memo.

Last night, we hammered pepsi for hiring thug rapper ludacris from
doing a program.  He has degrading conduct towards women.  Apparently
thousands of you let pepsi know ludacris was unacceptable and today
they canceled him.  In a statement issued a short time ago, pepsi says

Well, we applaud pepsi's decision.  But there's a bigger story here
and that is a growing trend in america to rewards disgraceful conduct.
Examples.  While on vacation last week, I got a look at this anna
nicole smith show on the e cable channel and i have to say she is a
complete embarrassment.  She's mindless, self-absorbed, has nothing to
say and looks bad saying it.  Why does she have her own tv show?

E hired her because she is notorious.  She...  posed naked, then
married an 89-year-old rich guy and got a ton of money when he died.
That is the woman's resume.  She should be ashamed because there are
thousands of talented americans who could do a program.

Likewise, fox sports 'best darn sports show' is a very
entertaining...Now they hire former dallas cowboy michael irving.  He
was constantly plagued with drugs and scandal with his career...  He
is there because he's notorious.  How about monica lewinsky?  She's
been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a variety of loons
because she had sex with bill clinton.  The point is that some
americans are apparently fine with rewarding abysmal behavior.  Eminem
gets a grammy.  Mike tyson gets a boxing license.  But as "the factor"
viewers proved last night, other americans will not stand for this
anymore, thus pepsi was forced to sack ludacris and it is you that
made that happen.

"Talking points" says let's continue using that kind of power.
Americans should let the merchants of bad taste know that hiring
corrupt and incompetence is not acceptable.  Let the companies know
how you feel.  Capitalism swings both ways.  Sorry about that
ludacriS.  And that's the memo.

Bill: In "the factor" follow-up segment tonight, more than 3,000
e-mails poured in overnight to "the factor," most condemning
pepsi-cola's decision to hire rap thug ludacris as a spokesperson.  He
likes to rap about getting intoxicated, fighting people, degrading
women and selling narcotics.  The man is a real sweetheart.  Because
of pressure by "the factor" viewers, pepsi-cola late today
capitulated.  Ludacris has been fired.  With us now is noted
communications expert jackson bane from washington, d.C.  We booked
you, mr.  Bane, before this -- this just happened moments ago, as you

Jackson bane: Right.

Bill: And you disagreed with my thesis that it was irresponsible of
pepsi-cola, a company that's made trillions of dollars in the united
states to hire a man to pitch their product who is, in my opinion,
subverting the values of the united states.  So, go ahead.

JB: Let me tell you why.  I disagreed because pepsi-cola's decision to
hire ludacris was not based on whether they thought his lyrics and his
music were offensive or immoral, which, in fact, as you point out
rightly so, they're offensive to me.  But that's not the issue.  Pepsi
was looking to communicate its product, and that's all they're trying
to communicate, to a target audience group.  The vehicle that that
message was going to ride in on was something that the kids and, young
adults, already agree with, someone they listen to and, whether you
like it or not, that is a factoR.

Bill: You're saying --

JB: They made the decision purely on the fact that this guy is

Bill: Fine.  We know that.  You're saying that pepsi-cola doesn't have
any social responsibility to the united states of america and I'm
saying that's flat out wrong.

JB: No.  It may be wrong, but it is the way of corporate america and
it has been since the beginning.

Bill: Then why did they cave? Why did they cave, then?

JB: Because they do have something -- one other factor that is
important, that's called the trust factor.  And their brand pepsi is
really built on a conversation of trust between the company and the
customer.  If their customers respond like they did after your
broadcast last night on "the factor," as they did with 3,000 e-mails,
they're going to pay attention to that.  That is a clear indication
that much of their target audience group is saying, wait a minute,
this is not right.  You guys need to rethink your decision.

Bill: All right.  Not only do they need rethink ludacris, all of
corporate america, in my opinion, needs to rethink their
responsibility to their country.

JB: True.

Bill: We're look at enron, worldcom, all these scandals and now we're
looking at companies like pepsi-cola and, by the way, we applaud
pepsi-cola for admitting their mistake so quickly, turning it around
and saying, no, we not going to -- we do have a responsibility.

JB: Let's go back to the original decision.  This hiring of decision
that is even you pointed out last night in 1989, pepsi made another
decision to pull madonna off a commercial because she offended so many

Bill: Right.

JB: They're already......  to some of the public outcries over their
things.  But they did research, I'm certain they did an enormous
amount of audience research in every demographic group and every
ethnic group buying ludacris' records.  That research clearly said
this was a vehicle, a guy who was popular, enough with these guys to
carry the message of a soft drink.

Bill: I'm going to give you the best example i can give anybody, ok?
And I gave this example on the radio to the pepsi spokesman.  I don't
care about rating or research in corporate america.  It doesn't matter
to me.  You can go to cambodia, all right, in the 1970's and you want
to sell pepsi-cola?  Who is the guy that has the biggest cue?  Paul
pot{?  spelling} .  A murdering thug.  You put a coke in his hand and
he is going to make all the keimers buy it.

JB: That is an outrageous comparison.

Bill: No. No. Here is the point. Ludacris isn't paul pot.

JB: No. But ludacris is an artist who is --

bill: In your opinion, he is an artist.

JB: He is an artist.

Bill: In my opinion, he is a thug.

JB: Millions of record buyer's opinions, he's a artist.

Bill: That's fine. We respect their opinion.

JB: It is not your job --

Bill: Hold it.

JB: It is not your job to tell people what art is and that's --

Bill: I'm not telling anybody.  I'm giving you my opinion that says he
is not an artist, he's a thug and I'm entitled to it.  I'll tell you,
this by your rationalization of pepsi's conduct in the begining,
again, they're reversed...  Anybody with a big 'Q' [rating] ,is fair
game to sell a product.  You can't draw a line in the sand and say
ludacris, because he is a subversive guy that, number one, advocates
violence, number two, narcotics selling and all the other things, he's
not as bad as paul pots if you put a pepsi can in his hand.

JB:If you look at the research, most of their research that they did
showed that people did not take his lyrics seriously, that the target
audience --

Bill: That research doesn't show that.  Research never shows that.
You show me that research.

JB: It shows whether people really believe that this guy is a negative
influence in their lives.  That's what 'Q' ratings do show.  Most of
those ratings do --

Bill: Look.  That research isn't targeted at 9-year-olds, which is
what my problem is.  If it were just adults then, i don't care.  Look,
a guy like ludacris is corrupting 9-year-olds with no guidance.  This
is what he is doing.

JB: Here's the point parental guidance in america has been badly
deteriorated in this country and it is not pepsi-cola's fault.  It is
the fault of parents who won't talk to their kids, who won't raise
their children in an active way and that's not pepsi's --

Bill: Fine. It is pepsi-cola's fault --

JB: wait a minute.

Bill: I only have a minute.  It is pepsi-cola's fault, again, they
reversed and we respect that, for rewarding monetarily --

JB: They're not rewarding.

Bill: Yes, they are.  They paid that guy big money for disgraceful
conduct.  That's their responsibility.

JB: No, they're not.

Bill: I'll give you the last word.

JB: The last word is this.  The responsibility for america's norms are
in the hands of america's parents.  Pepsi-cola is a mirror of society
that they're trying to sell.  And that's what they did.

Bill: Thank you very much.  Once again, congratulate pepsi for its


Talking Points:
by - Davey D of daveyd.com

I peeped this thing with Bill O'Reilly and I had a few 'Talking
Points' of my own which I will share in a quick minute.  However, I
have to get a few things off my chest...  When I first got wind of
this, it was a few hours after I got a phone call from Chicago about a
tape being played of Ja Rule verbally heating up on DMX.  The war of
words between those two has all but dominated the Hip Hop grapevine.
This latest skirmish comes a week after Snoop directed some choice
words at Xzibit and Suge Knight.  The week prior to that there was
some other beef..  Too many beefs and not enough time to keep up.  To
be honest I really don't care to keep up.

The real beef is with outside 'factors' that are now weighing in and
chin 'checking us left, right and left again...

For example, while we had the Ja Rule vs.  DMX beef in full effect,
NORE was having his concert shut down by Atlantic City officials who
feared that he would attract a gang element to the venue.  None of our
beefing rap stars got on Hot 97 and put the sheriff who made that
decision on blast.  No one dropped stinging lyrics on a mix tape that
would let the Atlantic City officials know what's up.  Yet in a 24
hour period we can quickly turn around and pen smoldering lyrics and
put it out a song to respond to someone's insensitive remarks on the
radio.  We seen searing responses to beefs from everyone from Jay-Z to
KRS-One to Nelly down to Angie Martinez...The list goes on...

Closer to home, I've sat back and watch cats complain, complain,
complain and complain about how they can't get put on the
bill at Summer Jam and numerous other concerts.  I hear them complain
about how the local radio station don't play their material.  Yet not
one venomous barb gets directed at the Mountainview Police department
who won't let them perform while they and other police agencies
maintain dossiers on all these local groups and their associates.  Not
since Too Short, has any rapper stepped up and put the local stations
[KMEL/KYLD] on blast for ignoring their music and shining them on..

I use these two examples to make a larger point.  For all the
countless songs about how we are macking, pimpin' and running things..
when it comes down to it we're getting run on...We're getting played.
That's a hard thing to admit, but it's true.  The irony to this is
that I am likely to catch more heat for penning these words then the
identifiable, bigger then life, outside forces that caused the drama
in the first place.

This thing with Ludacris being shut down by Bill O'Reilly is just a
continuation of the on going attacks and convenient blame being placed
on the Hip Hop community.  The thing that makes O'Reilly's situation
troublesome is the fact that he's on TV and radio every night and can
rally up the troops to shut things down...  And he's doing it in such
a way that will take money and potential advancement away from you and
me while he and his company continue to profit off what you create..
I will explain what I mean by that in a minute....  I wonder if the DJ
and radio station that gleefully downloaded excerpts of Ja Rule's
tirade and played them on the air yesterday in Chicago will play
excerpts of O'Reilly's talking points where he pretty bluntly states
his intentions to regulate on folks.

It's time for us to 'focus'...

Now, on to the cheap shot taken by the morally esteemed, obnoxious Bill
O'Reilly.  Where does one begin?  On paper what he states seems to
make perfect sense.  What well meaning person wants to say; 'Yes..  I
want a guy who has unsavory lyrical content to advertise my 'wholesome
all American product?'.  Very few of us would say 'yes' especially
corporations after being called out in such a public way by O'Reilly.

While O'Reilly makes his claim that he is outraged by the 'immoral
decision of Pepsi and even more outraged by Ludacris for being a 'thug
rapper', he convenient disconnects himself from the media machinery
that gives rise to what he is complaining about...

One doesn't hear O'Reilly putting out the rally cry to his 'Factor
listeners' to hold accountable his own parent company Fox TV which is not
 exactly the cleanest litter in the bunch.  For example, I woke up
this morning and watched the morning news 'Good Day LA' and heard one
of the anchors Dorothy Lucey use the word 'Tits'.  It wasn't the first
time those anchors have made such references.  I've heard words like
'fart', 'boobs', 'ding-a-ling' and other colorful words for body
functions and body parts.  These raunchy Fox News anchors have
billboards telling me to tune in and their commercial comes on TV all the
time..So in a sense they are spokespeople for Fox-The parent company
of the 'O'Reilly Factor'.  Yet I hear no cry from O'Reilly to boycott
or shut them down.

The week before Dorothy Lucey's 'Tits' remarks, one of the anchors was
pulling tissue out of her bra while the other one was going on and on
about how her breasts are real.  She cupped her breasts while making
these statement.  This is all going on during the 8'clock hour of the
FOX 11 morning Newscast in LA.  This is the same Fox news show that
Mr. O'Reilly has been on when he was promoting his book and his radio
show...Funny how he never made no mention about 'immoral behavior' back
then...  He didn't complain when they used his upcoming appearance as
an advertising draw.  Perhaps some of us started watching this news
show after we saw ads saying he would be on?

I mean come on now, theoretically speaking, if I had a 9 year old
daughter I would be more inclined to tell her to watch the Morning
News and learn some current events.  She would leave the Ludacris
album where he raps about 'How many 'Ho's he has in different area
codes' only to hear an intelligent well dressed anchor who talks about
her kids all the time, use the words 'tits'.  The 9 year old would
watch while the other anchor fondles her breast and the older male
anchors laughs away...Maybe it's me...  But it seems like watching TV
news anchors get down and dirty like a rapper/artist would be
confusing to a 9 year old.  After all, we all know rappers and artists
can be vulgar at times, but we're always told to respect journalist
and news reporters...

Since we haven't seen O'Reilly go on a bombastical tirade advocating the
removal of his oversexed Fox News anchors, I can only draw one
conclusion...  Ludacris should've used the words 'tits' and not the
word 'Ho' in his songs and Bill O'Reilly would've never made a big
stink about his Pepsi endorsement deal...

Question for O'Reilly: 'Hos' or 'Tits' Mr O'Reilly which do we chose?
Which is more outrageous and morally reprehensible

Note to Ludacris.. choose your words more carefully....

Now I use today's situation as one example to make a larger point...
Before 'clowning' Ludacris, O'Reilly should clean up his own back yard..
And I think everyone reading this will agree Fox has more than
enough cleaning to do.  Fox TV is home to such stellar shows like
'Celebrity Boxing', 'Marry a Millionaire', 'Ricky Lake' and 'Geraldo'
who took the 'moral high road' and penned a book bragging about all
his sexual encounters.  You don't see O'Reilly up in arms about

Perhaps we can encourage O'Reilly to rile up his viewers to shut down
the hit TV show 'American Idol'.  We can all agree that there is way
too much violence in our society.  We try to tell 9 year olds to play
nice and not use violence as a way to solve problems.  We encourage
them to be respectful and have high moral standards.This is what
O'Reilly wants...So where was the shock and outrage when one of the
judges-Randy Jackson, stood up and was ready to 'throw down' against
fellow judge Simon who is often rude and crude?

I'm thinking to myself this is a family show.  Yet we have adults
-grown men ready to fight.  The interesting facet to note is that
Ludacris says in his 'EXPLICIT' labeled album he likes to knock people
upside the head.  Fox's 'American Idol' pretends to be a wholesome
family show where the judges will say hurtful things to one another
and even get ready to knock each other upside the head.  These are the
same Fox judges who are on all sorts of TV shows representing Fox.
What happens if Pepsi or some other company offers Simon an
endorsement deal, will O'Reilly take the moral high ground and knock
him out of a job?

The point I'm making is that the behavior exuded by grown ups on a
show like 'American Idol' may be the first step in little Johnny and
Little Suzy having their moral innocence shattered.  It may lead 
them to seek out something a bit more harder-like Ludacris.

Now if it sounds like I'm reaching, I am-the same way O'Reilly was.
We can go down the slippery slope.  Ludacris to my knowledge has no
criminal record.  I don't think he's done what he raps about.  It's his
persona.  We can take it or leave it.  What if Pepsi got the ruthless
mob boss Tony Soprano which is played by the Emmy Award winning actor
James Galdofini to pitch the soft drink?  Would O'Reilly be
complaining?  Why hasn't O'Reilly gone off and made a stink about the
actor who played the role of Big Pussy one of Tony Soprano's henchmen,
pitching for the New York based store-The Wiz?  When we see these fine
actors we tend to identify them with their immoral ruthless
characters.  For example, how many people know the real name of the
actor who plays Big Pussy?  When I see him in the Wiz commercials I
see the Soprano Mob associate who got killed, not the actor.  So is
The Wiz guilty of using an immoral spokesperson?

As I'm writing this article...  I just saw a commercial with former
Indiana basketball coach Bobby Knight.  It was for Glad Trash bags.  Mr
Knight is shown throwing dishes up against the wall.  More people know
Mr Knight than Ludacris.  Where's the Bill O'Reilly outrage.  Why doesn't
he get Fox to pull the plug on those Bobby Knight Glad Bag
commercials?  Isn't Knight being rewarded for bad behavior?  Isn't
Glad being irresponsible?

Before we move to my next point, it sure would've been nice if
O'Reilly used his influence and moral convictions to get 'positive
shows' like 'Roc 'and 'Living Single' back on Fox TV.  Folks may recall
all those letters we wrote to try and keep those TV shows on the air.
People felt they were positive.  They didn't have any Ludacris type
characters.  I recall collecting more then a 1000 letters at my radio
station alone.  But despite all those thousands of letters with people
'begging' to keep those shows on Fox-the company that owns Bill 'O
Reilly's 'The Factor' said 'No' and kept it moving.

Yes, it would be great if Bill O'Reilly read off some harsh 'Talking
Points' when his parent company Fox cancelled shows like 'Roc' and
'Living Single' while simultaneously keeping 'uplifting, positive
shows of high moral standards [I'm being sarcastic] like 'The
Simpsons', 'Married w/ Children' and 'King of the Hill'.These cartoons
are huge attractions to the average 9 year old.  Trust me Bart Simpson
has more influence than Ludacris.

Picking on Ludacris is easy.  Getting people to express outrage at his
lyrical content wasn't too hard.  What would've been a bit more
challenging and more effective was for O'Reilly to go after the media
outlets that play Ludacris type songs day in and day out.  He should've
asked the Presidents of Clear Channel, Emmis or Infinity broadcasting
why they allow their radio stations to play all these 'immoral songs'
that have questionable lyrics.  O'Reilly's arguments would've been
impressive if he asked Fox to pull their advertisements from the
corporations that own any of the radio stations that play artist like

Put your money where your mouth is.  It's easy to lay
blame.  It's a lot harder when you have to make the sacrifice.  Should
we not be outraged that Mays Lowry who owns Clear Channel which owns
over 1200 stations and has concert venues throughout the country play
and showcase Ludacris?  Some of the stations don't even beep out the
word 'Ho'..  Where's the 'Factor' boycott against him and his company?
It's nowhere to be seen..Isn't the person, company or institution
that presents material to the public supposed to be responsible i.e
Pepsi?  Didn't O'Reilly say this?  Are any of the stations he's on
guilty of playing Ludacris on any of their outlets?  Why not jam up
the owners of the radio stations?  Or does Bill O'Reilly only pick on
people who can't come back?

Ludacris isn't on the air as an announcer everyday.  He can't speak to
the public day in and day out and rally up the troops that think Bill
O'Reilly is a pompous idiot and a bully who only pretended to take the
'moral high ground'.  What he did was a cheap ratings trick.  He got
his name in the paper and made it look like he was actually doing
something for the kids?

We noticed that O'Reilly stayed away from Britney Spears and Bob Dole.
Britney Spears is Pepsi biggest draw, yet she's a woman who is underage
that admits to smoking and drinking.  She was living with her former
boyfriend Justin Timberlake in a huge house when both were unmarried.
She wore skimpy outfits, did a strip tease dance on MTV and had a
former Senate Leader Bob Dole leering at her in a Pepsi commercial.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear or see any O'Reilly Factor
boycott to get rid of Bob Dole and the 'immoral' Britney Spears.
Spears of course, has far more influence on the average 9 year old than
Ludacris would ever have.  I didn't hear or see any any O'Reilly
outrage when some of those Pepsi commercials ran on the stations owned
by Fox- O'Reilly's parent company.

 Fox had no problems running those immoral Pepsi
commercials.  They had no problem adding some of that 'immoral' money to
their coffeurs.  Doesn't the money from commercial help pay for
O'Reilly?  Did he give back his portion of the take or did he simply
pocket it and then point fingers at Ludacris?  It seems to me O'Reilly
has been quiet on that tip.  We won't even talk about his personal
finances.  I wonder if he's checked all his 401 K investments to make
sure that he has none of his moral money mixed in with companies that
use immoral behavior to make their profits..

Yes, Ludacris has some harsh words.  Perhaps this should be a wake up
call to him.  I agree bad behavior should not be rewarded...  So while
Ludacris is sitting at home without a Pepsi deal, I'm wondering why a
guy like O'Reilly who is rude, interrupts people, and tries to clown
folks is still on the air?  I wanna know when he will look in the
mirror and realize being a bully and pretending to help
children is just as immoral as Ludacris cursing in his songs.

EMAIL Pepsi:webmaster@pepsi.com 
tell them to Keep Ludacris!

Written by Davey D


The FNV Newsletter c 2002
Send comments to
peep the websites


[home] [articles] [davey d boards] [what is hip hop? ]
[politics] [record reviews] [photos] [links] [media]

this site is produced by Davey D in association with eLine Productions

Please note.. This site looks and operates best in
Internet Explorer
i.e. You will not see scrolling text and other features in Netscape!