A day after O’Reilly Factor host Bill O’Reilly called for a boycott of Pepsi over their hiring of Ludacris for an ad spot, the soft drink company buckled late Wednesday and fired Ludacris. Bill was gloating about how 3,000 Factor viewers responded to the report, mostly in favor. If you want to respond to Bill O’Reilly on this heavy handed hypocritical move (read what he’s whining about and then here you have ‘Celebrity Boxing’ and ‘Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire’ on FOX… WTF?), email him at email@example.com. For a transcript to what Bill had to say, read on.
Bill: Hi, I’m bill o’reilly. Thanks for watching ight. 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 — bill: 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 bought larn posedaked, then marriedn 89-year-old rich
guy and got a ton of money when he died.That is the woman’s sume. Shld
be ashamed because the e thousands ooter talented american woth could do
a den program. Likewise, fox sports e best dorts show is a very entertainprasm
I’ve been O. Now they’ hir former dallas cowboy michael irving. He was
constantly plagued with drugs and scandal with his career ands nothing
to the practice. He is there because he’s notorious. How about monica lewinsky?
She’s been paid hundreds of thousa 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 tos 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 lewd chris as a spokesperson. He likes to rap about getting
intoxicated, soughting 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 knoW.
>> Right. Bill: And you disagreedith 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.
>> Let me llll 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, well t young adults, already
agree with, someone they listen to and, whether you like it or not, that
is a factoR. Bill: You’re saying —
>> They made the decision purely on the fact that this guy is popular.
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.
>> 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
>> 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 a 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.
>> 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.
>> Let’s go back to the original decision. This iring of decision that
is even you pointed out last night n 1989, pepsi made another decision
to pull madonna off a commercial because she offended so many people. Bill:
>> They’re already presence tiesed to some of the public outcries over
their thingS. But they did research, I’m certain they did an enormous amount
of audience resrch 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 g 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 done 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. A murdering thuG. You
put a coke in his hand and he is going to make all the keimers buy it.
>> That is an outrageous comparison. Bill: No. No. Here is the point.
Ludacris isn’t paul pot.
>> No. But ludacris is an artist who is — bill: In your opinion, he
is an artist.
>> His an artist. Bill: In my opinion, he is a thug.
>> Millions of record buyer’s opioions, he’s a artist. Bill: That’s
fine. We respect their opinion.
>> It is not your job — bill: Hold it.
>> 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 begning, again, they’re reverseD.
Anybody with a big cue, all ri 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 vlence, number two, narcotics selling and all
the other thing, he’s not as bad as paul pots if you put a pepsi can in
>> 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.
>> It shows whether people really believe that this guy is a negative
influence in their liveS. That’s what cue ratings do show. Most of those
ratings do — bill: Look. That research isn’t targetted at 9-year-olds,
which is what my problem iS. If it were just adults the, i don’t care.
Look, a guy like ludacris is corrupting 9-year-olds with no
guidncE. Th is whe is doing.
>> Here’s the point parental gired answer resily in america has been
badly deteriorate 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 — wait a minute. I only have a minute. It is pepsi-cola’s fault,
again, they reversed and we respect that, for rewarding monetarily —
>> They’re not rewarding. Bill: Yes, they are. They paid that guy big
money for rewarding disgraceful conduct K. Their responsibility.
>> No, they’re not. Bill: I’ll give you the last word.
>> The last word is this. The responsibility for america’s morms 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 decision.
>> I do, too. Bill: We congratulate you, “the factor” viewers for making