Forsythe, Tom. Interview with Bill O'Reilly. The O'Reilly Factor. 28 Aug. 2001. FOX News.
This O’Reilly Factor interview took place shortly after the original ruling, in August of 2001. What’s interesting about this is that the merits of the case never really come up, and instead of debating whether it’s a copyright violation, O’Reilly wants to debate whether or not it’s art. Also he says he won’t take sides, O’Reilly implies very obviously that he sympathizes with Mattel, and, like the ignorant philistine that he is, doesn’t even listen to the Forsythe’s statement of purpose or reflect on what the artist was trying to achieve. Instead, he says he wouldn’t pay a nickel for these works and finds it interesting that the “US judge put your freedom of expression above the Mattel Toy Company’s right of intellectual property.” O’Reilly is really stuck on the cost of the work, which is not very expensive in actuality. “What a great country,” O’Reilly says facetiously, “where you can charge $400 bucks for that.” He refuses to acknowledge the specifics of the pictures (which appliances are used and why) and what kind different items can symbolically convey. This interview is a good example of how Mattel would like viewers to react to the pictures. They claim that the works are unsuccessful and that people don’t get them. What’s really clear is that people who make no effort to understand cultural commentary shouldn’t be left to decide what is and isn’t fair use, because if one of the measures of fair use is whether or not the work is parodic and/or critical the significance is completely lost on them.