Menu
Home

ABC Uses Sexual Reference in Commercial Aimed at Kids

This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," February 25, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET!

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Culture Warrior" segment tonight, a viewer warning: We have a commercial that features a double entendre, sexual reference. The ad, which ran on ABC, was designed to appeal to children. Click off now if you're not ready to see this tape. Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happy Valentine's Day's, daddy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America hearts the laughter, and critics heart the funny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happy Valentine's Day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone has got a heart on for ABC comedy Wednesday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: All right. If you didn't get it, I'm glad. Here now, Fox News analysts Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson.

All right, Carlson, Charlie Brown. I don't know whether you noticed in the commercial, but when they did that double entendre, Charlie's eyebrows went…

GRETCHEN CARLSON, CO-HOST, "FOX & FRIENDS": As well mine did.

O'REILLY: And Snoopy fell off the dog house.

CARLSON: What happened to Woodstock? But here's the bottom line. This is pushing the envelope just a little too far.

O'REILLY: Was there an envelope involved in this?

CARLSON: It's just pushing the envelope a little too far, OK. We all understand as adults what the joke is here. But why cannot — why can we just not write jokes anymore that are funny without sexual innuendo? I just don't get it. They used to. They used to in the olden days.

O'REILLY: Look, I don't really care what the ad people do on the networks, but when I saw Charlie Brown, and I'm not kidding here, I was like, you know, why would you even want to do that? It's clever, I guess, if you're writing for Hustler, but why do you want to do that on ABC?

CARLSON: Because they're doing...

O'REILLY: A family network.

CARLSON: ...everything in their power to get the attention. That's the way TV works.

O'REILLY: But they wouldn't — but that wouldn't get anybody's attention in a positive way, would it, Hoover?

MARGARET HOOVER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I cannot disagree with both of you more on this. I think you are totally overblowing this.

O'REILLY: Yes?

HOOVER: Much ado about nothing.

O'REILLY: You didn't see Charlie's eyebrows go up?

HOOVER: You know what? I didn't. But that means you watched it twice. I didn't.

O'REILLY: So you thought this was fine?

HOOVER: I thought this was much ado about nothing. And by the way, in "Much Ado About Nothing," there are far more lewd references to sexual behavior.

O'REILLY: Is Charlie Brown in "Much Ado About Nothing"? I don't think he is. That's a Shakespeare play, right?

HOOVER: Good, you know your Shakespeare. And guess what? Nobody was arguing that Shakespeare was causing the downfall of Western civilization.

O'REILLY: Yes, and the groundlings were arguing that.

HOOVER: You know what?

O'REILLY: Do you know who the groundlings were?

HOOVER: They were the people who were arguing with Shakespeare.

O'REILLY: No, do you know who the groundlings were?

HOOVER: I don't know the groundlings.

O'REILLY: The groundlings were the people who paid the least amount to see Shakespeare and stood. Not seated.

HOOVER: For four hours and watched it. And guess what?

O'REILLY: Don't give me any Shakespeare stuff.

CARLSON: Here's what I think the reference is. You and I are parents, OK? And no offense, Margaret.

HOOVER: That's OK. I don't have kids.

O'REILLY: This is kind of offensive. You're attacking her.

CARLSON: No, I'm not. As a matter of fact...

O'REILLY: I will if you don't.

CARLSON: OK. That's your job. But what I'm saying is that, as a parent, I think I have a different perspective on this.

O'REILLY: But the kids wouldn't get this.

CARLSON: Exactly. And that's what I thought today. My 6-year-old who was in the office with me today when I originally put this up on the computer screen with the sound pretty low, I figured he wouldn't get it anyway.

O'REILLY: I'm not offended. Nothing offends me.

CARLSON: But she might when she's 8. That's the problem.

O'REILLY: Nothing offends me. I'm not offended. I just think it's unnecessary, and it's kind of beneath ABC to pedal that stuff.

All right. Now, I hate to do this to you, ladies and gentlemen. I really do. But PETA is back, all right? PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And we want animals to be treated ethically. So they take the Tiger Woods situation, and they run a poster ad that says: "Too much sex can be a bad thing." And this is about spaying and neutering cats, all right? Off Tiger and that's what — OK. We don't need to see this again. But here is an interesting thing. They took it down because somebody threatened to sue.

HOOVER: Actually, they never ran it. They never ran it.

O'REILLY: Well, OK. They didn't put it up but there's some legal stuff going on here. We're not quite sure what it is. But what do you think of that?

CARLSON: My guess is it's Tiger Woods' lawyer saying...

O'REILLY: Yes, I'm talking Woods in litigation right now.

HOOVER: I don't need you guys — but look, I wish our political parties were this creative in their advertising.

O'REILLY: It is creative.

HOOVER: I think it's creative. And here we are talking about it. They didn't even have to run the ad, and we're talking about it.

O'REILLY: OK, let me ask you this. Is — the message is cruel to Tiger Woods and his family. Is that worth the message of spaying and neutering cats?

HOOVER: Yes. Why not? You should spay and neuter your cat. Absolutely. Everybody should do that.

CARLSON: Absolutely not.

HOOVER: Who cares? It's funny. This is funny.

O'REILLY: Another disagreement.

CARLSON: Absolutely not.

O'REILLY: Let Carlson go.

CARLSON: You know what? Tiger Woods, what he did, we've all discussed that. But PETA should not be able to take advantage of that in yet another ad where they try and go after a celebrity for national immediate attention. They knew darn well that this thing was going to have to be taken down or not see the light of day.

O'REILLY: Why would it have to be taken down?

CARLSON: Because that — that is one of the biggest slams that I have ever seen.

O'REILLY: It doesn't matter. He's a public figure. You can slam public figures in America all day long.

CARLSON: It is so over the top. They were going to put it up in his own personal community.

O'REILLY: Legally, Woods would lose the case. But I'll give it to the "Is It Legal?" ladies next week. The legal, he wouldn't have a chance. But I think that people now might be saying, "Look, enough is enough."

CARLSON: Exactly.

O'REILLY: I know they're saying enough is enough with the Tiger Woods stuff. You know that, right?

CARLSON: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: It's enough, OK?

HOOVER: PETA is creative. They don't — I mean, they have a lot of ways. They don't have a ton of money. They can't buy million-dollar Super Bowl ads. They use creative techniques to get celebrities.

O'REILLY: Brilliant at getting on programs like this and having this kind of a discussion. But you say the message is worth this?

HOOVER: It's hysterical.

O'REILLY: And you say the message is not worth this?

CARLSON: I don't think it's worth it. They did the same thing to Michelle Obama without her permission. They had to take it down. Last week at the dog show, of all places, they put out protesters. They did this to Larry Byrd, which we discussed last week.

O'REILLY: Right.

CARLSON: They are brilliant at getting celebrities out there and, you know, using them. I just don't think in this case — I really think it crossed the line.

O'REILLY: All right, ladies. Thanks very much. We appreciate it.

Content and Programming Copyright 2010 Fox News Network, Inc. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.