Ben Armbruster at ThinkProgress pointed this out:
Fox News and O’Reilly may not “break stories” that directly “hurt anybody,” but they certainly haven’t made great efforts to take targets off anyone’s back either. In fact, O’Reilly producer Jesse Waters regularly stalks and ambushes anyone O’Reilly and his goons disagree with (like TP’s own Amanda Terkel), even if it means following them home and confronting them in places such as their garages.
Fair enough, but I think the more revealing angle of O'Reilly's statement is that he admitted that his network doesn't hold journalism in very high regard. O'Reilly said the following (emphasis mine):
And I think you raise a very interesting point in what you said. And you said — I’m glad you mentioned me because that got attention And then people to think about this. We don’t break stories that are going to interfere with President Obama or President Bush or whoever’s in office if we feel that the story is going to hurt anybody, our military, our policymakers. We’ll hold it back. Okay? We’re not The New York Times. We’re not trying to do that.
I would be interested to hear what O'Reilly means by this. What is meant by the word "interfere" when O'Reilly says that he doesn't break stories that are going to interfere with policymakers, the President, or the military? Would breaking a story like that of Pat Tillman "interfere" with the goals of the military? Would bringing on dissenting voices about war "interfere" with the goals of President Bush and President Obama? Would exposing an affair like that of Mark Sanford, "interfere" with his career or "hurt" him personally?
Sounds like O'Reilly is looking out for everyone but the "folks".